Well, thank you, Elon. It is such a treat and a special opportunity. Welcome to possible. You really need no introduction. But in many ways today is your introduction to the advertising community. With Twitter, you've switched roles a little bit. You move from inventor now to reinventer. Every marketing executive in this room knows the difficulty of a new formula and the challenge of the delicate balance of a rebrand. Now that's what we're going to talk about today.
I'm trying to make Twitter fun and interesting and informative. The optimization for Twitter is maximize the unregreted user time. We actually hit an all-time high just yesterday. It's entertaining. Pain wrecks, arguably, are entertaining. I think it's important to start with your vision of Twitter 2.0. You yourself wrote, I would like to die knowing that humanity has a bright future. But how does the better humanity for the future fit into your Twitter 2.0 vision?
Obviously, the goal with Tesla is to advance sustainable energy. With SpaceX, we've got Starlink, which is providing internet to the least served in the world. And also, hopefully getting humanity to Mars and back to the moon so we have an exciting future. It's important to bear in mind that some people say why we're sitting money on space. Don't we have enough problems on Earth? But the thing is that everyone needs a reason to be inspired. People need a reason to wake up in the morning. They can't just be about solving problems. You have to be things that really get me in the heart.
I think I just killed the mic. Okay. And going to the moon last century inspired the whole world. And hopefully going to Mars can do the same thing. It's a great question. Why take some time away from that for Twitter? What I think is essentially in order for civilization to advance, we've got to have freedom of speech. We've got to have a digital. Yeah. So, thank you. It's a bigger deal than you'd think. And it's the kind of thing that you don't know what you're missing until you don't have it. And in a lot of places, people don't have it.
So it's important to bear in mind that the nature of free speech is that as a test for it is, are people you don't like allowed to say things that you don't like? Otherwise, it's not free. It can't be just things that you like because eventually somebody's not going to like what you say and they're going to shut you up. And that's the essence of free speech. And that's why it's the most amendment in this country. And if we lose that, I think we lose the bedrock of democracy. Yesterday, you posted a new policy that was titled freedom of speech, not freedom of reach. I got my attention.
Tell us about your new policy. Right. So freedom of speech, not reach, is important in that if somebody has something hateful to say, it doesn't mean you should give them a megaphone. They should still be able to say it, but it needs to be not then pushed on people. You can go like in Times Square New York and you hear people say all kinds of crazy things. That's fine, but we don't broadcast that to Earth. If somebody wants to say something that's technically legal, but that is, by most definitions, hateful, we're not going to promote that to people. We're not going to recommend hateful content to people. We'll put that behind a warning label saying this speech is probably something you don't want.
So, now this is something we have to be very careful that we roll out and that it does not become, what does it tend to be good, does not become bad. So we're taking it easy, but it's just, yeah, if people are saying things that are making you sad or encouraging negativity, then we're not going to amplify that. Which, to put her has done in the past.
So how is this new policy different from the other platforms? I don't know the other platforms. I don't use them. That was not a softball question. I want to go on record. Honestly, this is true before the acquisition of Twitter. I just didn't find the other platforms compelling to be objectively.
Okay. Let's get back to the new policy for a second. What does it mean to the advertisers in this room? Have you de-risked the opportunity or chance of their campaigns landing in these awful, hateful places? Yeah, I think people may not be aware of this already, but we have adjacency controls in place that are really quite effective. You just literally turn on the adjacency control and the ad will not appear next to anything that is remotely negative. But a lot of effort into it.
They first did a test campaign without the controls in place and they got like 30% negativity. That should never be done.
他们先进行了一次没有进行控制的测试活动,结果得到了大约30%的负面反馈。这种做法一定要避免。
You must put the controls in place because we have excess inventory on negativity. The ad engine will naturally say, oh, I've got lots of spots with a negativity.
你必须采取措施,因为我们的负面库存过多。广告引擎会自然地说:“哦,我有很多负面的广告展示位。”
So I'm going to give you a very high negativity. You must put the adjacency controls in place.
我要告诉你一些非常消极的事情。你必须设定邻接控制措施。
If you do put the adjacency controls in place, negativity is going to be almost nothing. So this is a good early step of your impact since you got to Twitter.
It's worth noting that Apple has remained a major advertiser. Disney has remained a major advertiser. They literally advertise children's shows on Twitter. They wouldn't do that if it was full-to-date speech.
I want to get back to the labeling and this new policy. If it's awful but lawful, it's going to stay up. It just won't see sunlight. You won't amplify it.
我想回到标注和这项新政策上。如果它是可怕但合法的,它将继续存在,但它不会见到阳光。你不会放大它。
But who decides that labeling? Well, we have a set of words. So we open-source the recommendation algorithm.
但是谁决定标记呢?我们有一组词语,所以我们公开了推荐算法。
We're also going to open-source the words. If people can argue over the words.
我们还打算公开这些文字。如果人们可以就这些文字争论,那就公开它们。
I think in order to really build trust, you have to have transparency. It can't be that here's this black box. Something's happening in here. We want to tell you what it is. Trust us. I think that's BS.
If you want to trust something, you've got to know how it works. That's why we're open-sourcing the algorithm.
如果你想信任某个东西,就必须了解它的工作原理。这就是为什么我们要将算法开源的原因。
Open-sourcing algorithm is kind of embarrassing. People have found all sorts of things that were wrong. Foolish and misguided with the algorithm. We've actually fixed this point over 100 issues with the algorithm.
It's actually been very helpful to open-source it. We're going to open-source the entire thing. Basically, you should be able to recreate the probability of a tweet being recommended based on what we've open-sourced.
If you can't recreate it, then we haven't shown you everything. It's really complete transparency. I think that's the only path to trust. I don't think there's another path.
You just talked about transparency, open-sourcing. I would say that that's the difference between those other platforms you either don't use or never heard of.
你刚刚谈到了透明度和开源,我想说这正是其他你没用过或从未听说过的平台所缺少的区别。
Open-sourcing or transparency is, again, another one of those table-stake requirements. This labeling this new policy, talking about if it's awful but not unlawful, does it apply to your tweets?
They've corrected me, and they've corrected heads of state multiple times. Community notes is extremely effective. You're talking about fully democratizing the platform, which leads you to community notes because you're actually believing in the people.
You're able to, often, from the front lines gives their point of view that clarify what some people might say is bias.
你通常能够从第一线得到他们的观点,这有助于澄清有些人可能会认为的偏见。
Like I said, the important thing is that we're an open book. You can literally see if there's some line of logic that gives me special privileges. Literally everything. There's nothing that is hidden.
Obviously, people are not going to trust Twitter if there are different rules for me or others versus the rest of Twitter. That's going to diminish trust.
So, everything that applies to the rest of Twitter must apply to me. I think it's going to be extremely powerful, and I think it will result in Twitter being the most trusted place on the internet by far.
Let's talk about that. Why would you trust anyone else, especially if you, the most followed man on Twitter, you've gone from consumer of a product you loved to now the owner of a product that. Yeah, it's like the hair club for a man. It might be a be careful when you ask for a type of thing. But you know what? If you're held to the same level of accountability that everyone else is in the platform, you've talked about recently you are maybe almost close to cash flow positive.
Right? Yeah. We have like one on those is like just a quarter. Okay. So, maybe a quarter or two away from profitability. The people in this room are your accelerated path to profitability. Yeah. At least our paths in Twitter, that would be much appreciated. Thank you.
Yeah. But there's a decent bit of skeptics in the room. What? Yeah. It's never heard of it. The guy works in space. Oh, I didn't hear what's going on. There's people who cannot separate the challenge by separating the man, his opinions, and the microphone that he now owns. Yeah.
I mean, look, before the acquisition, I was the most interactive with account on Twitter. So, it's not like it's actually all that different. So, before I even announced the acquisition, I didn't have the most number of followers, but I had the highest number of interactions on the entire platform before an acquisition offer was even announced.
And that's when they were like, you know, fair number of people at Twitter weren't exactly my best friends. So. Well, you know, you open yourself up to this transparency. Your tweets are eligible for this labeling. You've actually unblocked all of your followers. Yeah. I deleted my blog list.
Right. You delete your blog list. You've also been told that you never want to lose your feedback loop. Specifically your negative feedback loop. Yes. Thankfully, Twitter will always provide you with a negative feedback loop.
But I have to push you a little because there's a lot of folks in this room. They vote with their pocketbooks. But they can't cross that transom. They have a challenge with your points of view, your opinions, and still holding back from unlocking the full power of Twitter. What do you say to them in this room?
Well, I think, first of all, if you want to know what my opinions are, you should really, I guess, look at my Twitter. If you read the, and take it with a grain of salt because it's hard to convey tone to each. So something maybe sarcastic or a joke or something like that may come across the series when it isn't.
A lot of the issue is negative amplification in the media. So, you know, I recently had an interview with an organization called BBC. She may have heard of. Baby. And I was entertaining. But, you know, the reporter was saying, claiming that there was all this, that he'd seen all this hate speech on Twitter. And I'd said, okay, well, can you give me a single example? And he couldn't. Not even one.
So then I say like, okay, well, if your personal experience on Twitter, that's how you should judge the platform. As opposed to what is represented in sort of the traditional media. And it's important to bear in mind, the traditional media is a competitor to Twitter. So they compete for your advertising dollars.
They compete against Twitter for your advertising dollars. If it is possible for them to diminish Twitter and reduce the probability of advertising dollars going to Twitter and at both sides. It's like basically you shouldn't take a competitor's word for it. Like it's it doesn't.
But don't you think I am pointless? Most news organizations. Maybe a little. Most news organizations have a co-dependent relationship with Twitter. And I can I could speak on behalf of the industry, but I'll speak on behalf of my own company. We have a big partnership with your company, big distribution partnership.
Are there days where I see some of your tweets and I say I wish I could say stop helping the situation? But should you be held to a different or a higher standard that you're the owner, but you also have the most followers and a lot of people think you might be too provocative?
No, I think the same standard should apply to me as it applies to everyone on Twitter, just as it does on positive or negative. Same for everyone. Another thing that a lot of traditional journalists don't like is they don't like being put on the same platform as the average citizen. They don't like their voice being the same. They're pretty mad about that.
Yes, I there are several news organizations who don't like your push for democratization and what they believe is the devaluing of the badges because they were differentiated. So is that just a moment in time?
No, that's deliberate. I think it's very important to elevate citizen journalism, very important to hear the voice of the people, the actual voice of the people, not the filter voice of the people, and let the people choose narrative and let the people determine the truth and not five editors and chiefs of major publications. Do you want to know what's really going on or do you want their opinion? It's a handful of people. I think we want to know the truth of the people.
So let me pull you back into what's important to the people in this room and that's protection for their ad campaigns. What's your real north star? Where is Twitter a couple of years from now? Yeah, I mean, what I've said is that Twitter is effectively an accelerant to an idea I've had for a long time, which is, I call it sort of X, the everything out. Yeah.
A platform that is so useful that you find it, it is essential to conduct your life. That means like, you know, we do obviously payments. We provide, it really really made a good meaningful communication privately as well as publicly. So that means we need to have direct message system that offers voice calls, video calls, encrypted communications so that your communications are private and Twitter and others cannot spy on them. And just to be incredibly useful.
So you've got a massive platform. You have a vision. That is a spectrum of just daily open sourced conversation and they can conduct their lives, their business, their commerce, whatever they can do on your platform. That's a pretty big vision. But in the middle should be advertising opportunity. That sounds like a great opportunity. I can talk about my brand. I can get my customers to communicate. And then they could also buy stuff. That sounds pretty good, right? You'll be able to buy things just directly on Twitter. One click where I'm done. But they need to feel that there is an opportunity for them to influence what you're building, that vision.
What we're doing here, whether it's me trying to push and prod you on your tweets. For example, you’ve said you probably shouldn't tweet after 3 a.m. Well, I've got my phone. Probably good advice for all of us. I've gotten myself into trouble a few times. I'm very aware of those. So after 3 a.m. You travel all over the world. The Lord knows how you handle time zones in space. Will you commit to be a little more specific and not tweet after 3 a.m. People in this room would like to see that. We'll make them feel more confident.
I will aspire to tweet to less after 3 a.m. It is important that if I were to say, yes, you can influence me. That would be wrong. That would be very wrong. That would be a diminishment of freedom of speech. But I want to be specific about influencing. It's more of an open feedback loop for the advertising experts in this room to help develop Twitter into a place where they will be excited about investing more money.
Product development. I had to say content moderation. That's what the influence is. It's totally cool to say that you want to have your advertising appear in certain places in Twitter and not in other places. But it is not cool to try to say what Twitter will do. And if that means losing advertising dollars, we lose it. But freedom of speech is paramount. Twitter 1.0 had a very well populated, much loved, influenced council. I think we need to change the name. Elon does not want to be influenced. But it was really a recurring feedback loop from your key stakeholders, your advertisers, where they had recurring your advertising. Or would have recurring access to you. Would you commit from this stage today to reinstate that council to be named later?
Well, I don't think it should be influenced council. I would be worried about creating a backlash among the public. Because the public thinks that their views are being determined by a small number of CMOs in America. They will be like, I think, upset about that. But feedback, I think, is appropriate. And at the end of the day, if somebody is spending money for their ad campaign, it needs to yield results for their organization, or it doesn't make sense. That includes the sort of software perception issues, as well as the more direct, does it move the needle on sales?
There's legitimate concerns that advertisers have that I want to hear. We're going to move to live Q&A after the prepared questions, and perhaps you can ask some of those right here. The reason I'm here is to get feedback. We're trying to achieve here a sensible middle ground, or try to satisfy a range of things, which is how do we ensure that the public has their voice, even if you don't like the voice at times. Also, that you're able to serve your brands and improve the perception of your brands and move sales, as well at the end of the day.
I think when advertising is relevant to users, and especially if the message is entertaining and interesting, it's content. And then the other side of it, the ad is not relevant to the user, and it's perhaps frightened or something, then obviously that's not spam. So, advertising can go all the way from spam to compelling content. And I really want to focus on, obviously, the compelling content side of things. Make it relevant, make it interesting, funny, informative. I think that's actually where this room can help with the feedback.
They're experts in knowing with the right consumer set that they're trying to reach what is relevant, what makes good advertising. And since I think I heard that you committed to continued feedback, it might be a good time to open up the room to questions. That he's open, okay, we have a few. So please, ask Elon.
One of the things I should say is that it's been sort of really broken for a long time at Twitter. When you run an ad campaign, you couldn't even do basic things like keywords. Honestly, this is blue in my mind. So we've now added to where you can say, as simple as it sounds, what keywords do you want and add to appear next to?
So if a tweet has a certain, you know, is about a subject, then you should be able to put the ad right there. And I was talking to David Zazlov at Windows, and I usually say, look, I just want to be able to put the trailer for White Lotus next to where people are talking about White Lotus. Like, yeah, that is obviously a good thing to do. That is the right place to put the ad. As mind-blowing as it is, Twitter did not have that functionality until recently, which is insane. Now it does. Talking about listening to key advertiser partners, listen to what David said, and we're doing it. So now, Bingo, have White Lotus adds next to White Lotus discussions, which is exactly where it should be.
Elon, thank you so much. Over to your left here. I'm curious about your thoughts on alignment with AI. Oh, man. And what are the strategies that are currently being implemented?
My brother and I have this rule that if we're at a party, we're not allowed to talk about either AI or the simulation. Because otherwise the conversations go there so often. I've been thinking about AI safety for a long time, because I think this is a significant existential threat to humanity. The best thing I can come up with for AI safety is to make it a maximum truth-seeking AI, maximally curious.
Have its optimization function be to understand the nature of the universe. If that is its optimization function, I think it will actually want to preserve and extend human civilization, because we're just much more interesting than, say, an asteroid with nothing on it. My intuition, my biological neuralness, suggests that a maximally curious AI is the safest AI, and a maximally truth-seeking AI is the safest AI.
We have to be careful with the alignment stuff. We definitely don't want to teach an AI to lie. That is a path to a dystopian future. The essence of 2001, a space odyssey, was that the AI was basically told to lie. It was told to hide the fact that it was going to see the monolith, instead of taking the crew to the monolith. It was both told to take the crew to the monolith, and the crew cannot know about the monolith. The conclusion the AI came to was kill the crew and take them to the monolith. So the problem solves. You want to be really careful about any kind of deception. I think in AI, you want to program the AI to be as truthful as possible, even if that truth is not politically correct.
My question is, you're saying Twitter is where we're going to be getting our information from now on, or social media? Is this the end of centralized publishers' news media, and we're going into decentralized information era?
No, that's good observation. Citizen journalism is essentially decentralized news. Now, if somebody is a great writer, or New York Times, or a journalist, or whatever, a newspaper, they will still gain a significant following as a function of their excellent writing. So somebody who is next to the writer will still get disproportionate attention, but I think it is also important for us to decentralize what is written, and what narratives are chosen. Because even if everything in a newspaper is half-centred, they're still choosing what to write about. They're choosing the narrative. So I think it's important for the public to be able to choose the narrative as well. It's not really that traditional publications go away, but really that we give more weight.
We enable the voice of the people to rise. I want to ask you two questions. If you allow me, first one, why did you make blue-tick verification, tick on Twitter paid? Is it strictly for profit, or there was some other logic behind it? And second question is, can I check a selfie with you?
Well, I think there might be quite a line on the selfie front, but honestly selfies are the vein of my existence. So, but sure.
我认为自拍这个事情会很受欢迎,但是说实话,自拍对我来说是苦恼的源泉。不过,当然可以。
So, the way that blue checks were handed out historically at Twitter was not always in a sensible way or not always in a good way. And so, and the same check was given out whether you were sort of a government official or a major company or a person. So there wasn't a really indistinguishable between what does a blue check mean.
And a lot of blue checks were, you know, you could have been an intern at a small publication 10 years ago and you still have a blue check. And then a lot of them were for sale. And not for sale on the dark web. I'm talking about you could Google blue check for sale and buy a blue check. Anyone could. And there was some corruption within Twitter as well in terms of paying people at Twitter for blue checks that was not appropriate.
So the question is, how do we clear all of that out? How do we create within reason a level playing field so that you'd like to set the average citizen can be a journalist? And that really wanted to judge journalism, we wanted to judge stories based on the quality of the content, not the publication that is behind it. And there are some incredibly good individuals who maybe couldn't get a job at a major newspaper, but actually they're great writers and they're incredibly truthful and good.
So you can get one for like $7 a month if you do it on the web, which is it's not a lot. It gives us the added element of requiring a credit card and a phone number from a reputable carrier. It's a necessary defense against bots. So today with advanced AI, they can pass every kind of test for a human. You can actually create on one computer a hundred thousand accounts.
So then that all sound human and pass every human test. So how do you know which one's real? So effectively by charging a small amount of money and requiring a credit card and a phone number, we increase the cost of a fake account by literally a thousand, if not ten thousand. And so, and my prediction is that any social media company that does not require a small amount of money and does not do verification will cease to be relevant.
It is the responsibility of everybody in this room to offer a helping hand and to say, how can we help? How can we make it better? So I say we're open for solutions and you got a man who's committed to try his best not to tweet after 3 a.m. But open to your feedback and I'd like to really thank everyone who's spending their time here today. Thank you. Thank you.