Let's get started. You know, we wanted

to try something new this week.

Every week, uh, you know, I get a little

upset. Things perturb me, Saxs, and, uh,

when it does, I just yell and scream,

"Disgat." And so, I bought the domain

name.com for no reason other than my own

amusement. But, you know what? I I'm not

alone in my absolute disgust at what's

going on in the world. So this week

we're going to bring out a new feature

here on the Allin podcast. Disgraciad

corner.

>> He was the best guy around. What about

the people he murdered? What murder?

>> You can act like a man.

>> He's just kiding. You insulted him a

little bit.

>> SNACKS AND I WANT THE SNACKS.

>> What's wrong with you?

>> Your hair was in the toilet water.

Disgusting. I got to suffocate you, you

little. It's a disgrace.

>> Disgraciad.

>> Disgraciad.

>> This is fantastic.

>> This is our new feature. Chimath, you

look like you're ready to go. Why don't

you tell you tell everybody who gets

your discretion this week?

>> Wait, we all had to come with a

discretion.

>> You really You missed a memo. All right,

fine. Enough.

>> I got one. I got one.

>> Okay. All right. Just calm down. My

discretziad corner goes to Jason

Calcanis. Oh,

>> here we go. Come on, man. You can't

>> and Pete Buddha Judge where they in the

first 30 seconds of the interview

compared virtue signaling points about

how each one worked at various moments

at Amnesty International.

>> Absolutely.

>> Literally affecting zero change, making

no progress in the world, but collecting

a badge that they used to hold over

other people. We

>> wrote a lot of letters. We wrote a lot

of letters,

>> which is good. That means it's like a

good one cuz behind the scenes Jason and

Pete Buddha Judge Disgraciad.

>> Great. I'm glad that I get the first one

and you you can imagine what's coming

next week for you.

>> I saw the Sydney Sweeney dress today

trending on social.

It's too much.

>> What?

>> It's too much.

>> What is it? I didn't I didn't even know

what this is.

>> You didn't see it. Nick picture. Okay.

>> Bring it up.

>> It's a little floppy.

>> How is this disgusting? What are you

talking about much? It's disgraceful. A

little bit of like look at this. Oh my

god. Too much elegant.

>> Too much. Uh in my day, Sachs, a little

uh cleavage maybe perhaps in the 90s or

2000s. Some side view. This is too much.

>> Very high brow subject, madam.

We

>> were discussing our own politics and the

Sydney Swedish press.

I don't know who's trending on.

>> Hi dad. HI DAD. PUT AWAY THE PHONE.

[Music]

>> Let your winners ride.

[Music]

>> We open sourced it to the fans and

they've just gone crazy with

>> what's going on with the algorithm. I'm

getting Sydney Sweeny's dress all day.

And last week Sax

>> Well, maybe you should stop favoring it.

>> 15 times. And then Sax, poor Sachs got

he got invited to SluckCon for two weeks

straight on the algorithm.

>> No, I say the algorithm has become if

you if you demonstrate

>> Sax will even tell if that's a joke or a

real thing.

>> It's a real thing in San Francisco.

>> It's all too real. It's actually real.

Yeah,

>> for real.

>> But I've noticed Yeah. If you if you

demonstrate interest in anything on X

now, if you click on it, god forbid you

like something,

>> man, the algorithm is on it, it will

give you more of that. It will give you

a lot more.

>> Yes. Yes. So, we we did have an issue.

Um

we still have somewhat of an issue where

um

there was there was an important bug

that was figured out that that was

solved over the weekend which caused um

in network posts to be uh not shown. Uh

so you basically if you followed someone

you wouldn't see them wouldn't see their

posts.

>> Got it.

>> It's obviously a big bug major bug. Um

then um

the uh the algorithm was not probably

taking into account um if you just uh

dwelt on something.

>> Um

>> uh but but but if you if you interacted

with it, it would it would go hog wild.

So if you as David said, if you if you

were to favorite, reply or engage with

it in some way,

>> it it is going to get you a torrent of

that same thing.

>> Oh, sachs. So maybe you

>> What was your interaction?

>> Did you bookmark Slack on? I think you

bookmarked it.

>> Here's what I thought was good about it

though is all of a sudden

>> if you happen to switch Sydney Sweeny's

boobs.

>> Yeah, that that Okay. But what I thought

was good about it was that you would see

who else had a take on the same subject

matter

>> and that actually has been a useful part

of it.

>> Yeah.

>> So you do you do get more of a you get

more of like a 360 view on whatever it

is that you shown interest in.

>> Yeah. Yeah. It it it just it's like it

was giving you if you you take a you'd

have like it was just going too far.

Obviously it was overcorrecting. uh it

had too much gain on um it just turned

up the gain way too high on any

interaction would would you would then

get a torrent of that. It's like it's

like oh you had a taste of it. We're

going to give you three helpings.

We're going to force you with we're

going to give you the food funnel

>> and and that's all being done I assume

it's all being done with Grock now. So

it's not like the old

>> hardcoded algorithm or is it using

Grock?

Well, what what's happening is that, you

know, we're gradually deleting the uh

legacy Twitter heristics. Now, the

problem is that it's like as you delete

these heristics, it turns out the one

heristic, the one bug was covering for

the other bug. And so, when you delete

one side of the bug, you know, it's like

that that meme with the internet that

where there's like this very complicated

machine and there's like a tiny little

wooden stick that's keeping it going,

which was I guess AWS East or whatever

had something like that. Um, you know,

when when when when somebody pulled out

the little stick that what's this?

>> I think it'd be good if it

>> half of Earth. You know,

>> it would be great if it showed like one

person you follow and then like it

blended the old style, which was just

reverse chronological of your friends,

the original version with this new

version. So, you get like a little bit

of both.

>> Well, you can still you still have the

everyone still has the following tab.

Yeah.

>> Now, something we're going to be adding

is the ability to have a curated

following tab because the problem is

like if you follow some people and

they're maybe a little more prolific

than your, you know,

>> Robert,

>> you know, you you follow someone and

some people are are much more, you know,

say a lot more than others. Um, that

that makes the following tab hard to

use. Um, so we're going to add a um an

option where you can have the following

tab be cured. So uh Grock will say what

are the most interesting things posted

by your friends and then we'll show you

that in the following tab. It will also

everything

um but uh but I think having that option

will make the following tab much more

useful. Um so it'll be a curated list of

people you follow um like ideally the

most interesting stuff that they've said

which is kind of what you you you would

want to look at. Um and then uh we we

we've mostly fixed the bug which would

um uh give you way too much of something

if you interacted with a particular

subject matter. Um and then the uh the

really big change which is where Grock

literally reads uh everything that's

posted to the platform. Um

uh we're actually there there's about

100 million posts per day. So it's 100

million pieces of content per day. Um,

and I think that's actually just maybe

just in English. I think it goes beyond

that if it's outside of English. Um, so,

uh, Grock is gonna we're gonna start off

reading the, uh, reading what what Grock

thinks are the top 10 million of the 100

million and and we'll actually read

them, uh, and understand them and, uh,

categorize them and match them to users.

It's like this is this is not a job

humans could ever do. Um and and and

then once that is scaling reasonably

well, we'll we'll add the entire 100

million a day. Um so it's literally

going to read through a 100 million

things and and and and show you the

things that it thinks out of 100 million

uh posts per day, what are the most

interesting posts to you?

>> How much of Colossus will that take like

>> Yeah, that's like is it tens of

thousands of servers like to do that

every day? Yeah, my my guess is it's

probably on the order of 50K H100,

something like that.

>> Wow. And that will replace search. So,

you'll be able to actually search on

Twitter and find things in like with a

with a plain language.

>> We'll have semantic search where you can

just ask a question um and it will show

you all content uh whether that is text,

pictures or video that matches your

search query semantically.

>> How um how's it been 3 years in? This is

a It was a three-year anniversary like a

couple years.

>> Is this three years?

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. Remember it was Halloween.

>> Yeah. Halloween's back.

>> Halloween's back. But it was the the

weekend you took over was Halloween.

>> We had a good time. Yeah.

>> Wow.

>> Yeah. Three years.

>> Where will things three years from now?

>> Yeah. What what's the takeaway? 3 years

later, you were you you obviously don't

regret buying it. It's saved free

speech. That was good. Seemed to have

turned that whole thing around and that

was I think a big part of your mission.

But then you added it to XAI which makes

it incredibly valuable as a data source.

So when you look back on it, the reason

you bought it to stop crazy woke mind

virus and make truth exist in the world

again. Great. Mission accomplished. Uh

>> and now it has this great future.

>> Yeah, we've got community notes. You can

also ask Grock about any any anything

you see on the platform. Um you know

just you just press the Grock icon on

any X post and we'll analyze analyze it

for you. Um and and research it as much

as you want. So you can you can

basically have just by by tapping the

Gro icon you can um assess the um

whether that that post is the truth the

whole truth or nothing but the truth or

whether there's something supplemental

or you need to be explained. So I think

it I think it's actually we made a lot

of progress towards uh yeah um freedom

of of speech um and uh and and and

people being able to tell whether

something is false or not false you know

propaganda. The recent update to Grock

is actually I think very good um at

piercing through propaganda. Um so um

and then we we we used that latest

version of Grock to create Groipedia

um which I think is um much uh more it's

it it's it's not just I think more um

neutral um than and more accurate than

than Wikipedia but actually has a lot

more information than a Wikipedia page.

>> Did you seed it with Wikipedia? Actually

take a step back. How did you guys how

did you do this?

Um well we used AI

>> but meaning like totally unsupervised

just complete training run on its own

totally synthetic data no no seated set

nothing.

>> Um well it was only just uh recently

possible for us to do this. Um so we've

um we we finished training on a

maximally true seeking

maximally true seeking a a version of

Grock that is good at cogent analysis.

So breaking down um uh any any given

argument into its aimatic elements um

assessing whether those aims are um not

you know the basic test for coency the

axioms are likely to be true. they're

not um contradictory. Uh that um the

conclusion naturally that the conclusion

most likely follows from those axioms.

Um so so we just trained Grock on a lot

of critical thinking. Um so it it just

got really good at critical thinking.

um which wasite quite hard and then we

took that version of Grock and said okay

cycle through the the million most uh

popular uh articles in Wikipedia and and

add modify and delete. So um that means

um research the rest of the internet um

whatever is publicly available um and

correct uh what correct the Wikipedia

articles and fix mistakes um but also

add a lot more context

um so sometimes really the the nature of

the propaganda is that um you know facts

are stated that that are technically

true but are not repres do not properly

represent a picture of the individual or

This is critical because when you have a

bio as you do, actually we all do on

Wikipedia

over time, it's just the people you

fired or you you beat in business or

have an axe to grind. So it just slowly

becomes like the place where everybody

you know kind of who hates you then puts

their information. And I looked at mine.

It was so much more representative and

it was five times longer, six times

longer. And the what it gave weight to

uh was much more accurate. Much more

accurate.

>> And this opportunity was sitting here I

think for a long time. Um and it's just

great that you got to it because

>> they they don't update my page but you

know I don't know twice a month with you

know and then who is the secret cobble?

There's 50 people who are anonymous who

decide what's gets put on it. it was a

much better much more updated page in

version one.

>> Uh yes, this is version 0.1 as we put it

as we show at the top. So um I do think

actually by the time we get to version 1

1.0 it'll be 10 times better. But even

at this early stage um as you as you

just mentioned it's it's not just that

it's correcting errors but um it it is

creating a a more accurate realistic and

fleshed out uh

>> description of of people and events.

you think and subject matters like you

can look at articles on on physics in

grapedia that they're much better than

Wikipedia by far.

>> This what I was going to ask you is like

do you think that you can take this

corpus of pages now and get Google to

deboost Wikipedia or boost Graedia

in traditional search because a lot of

people still find this and they believe

that it's authoritative because it comes

up number one,

>> right? So how do we how do we do that?

How do you flip Google? Um yeah, so it

really can if if people share a lot of

if if if Graopedia uh is used elsewhere

like if people cite it on their websites

uh or post about it on social media um

or when they do a search when Grapedia

shows up they click on Grapedia it will

naturally uh uh you know rise in in

Google's uh you know rankings. Um I did

I did send I did text Cindar because you

know even sort of a day after launch if

you typed in Wikipedia Google would just

say did you mean Wikipedia?

>> Wikipedia. Yeah.

>> And it wouldn't bring up at all.

>> Yeah. It's true.

>> So so now

>> how's the how's the usage been? Have you

seen good growth since it launched?

>> Uh yeah.

>> It went super viral. Um so

we're yeah we're seeing seeing it

started all over the place. Um but yeah,

it's and I think we'll see it used more

and more um people as as people refer to

it and people will judge for themselves

when you read a Graedia article about a

subject or a person that you know a lot

about and you see, wow, this is way

better than than Wikipedia. It's it's

it's more comprehensive. It's it's way

more accurate. Um it's not it's it's

neutral instead of biased. then you're

going to send you're going to forward

those links around um and say this is

actually the better source like it's it

graphed will will will succeed I think

very well because it it it is

fundamentally a superior product to

Wikipedia it is it is a better source of

information

>> um and we haven't even added images and

video yet

>> so we're

>> yeah we're going to add a lot of video

um So, uh, using Grom Imagine to create

videos. Um,

and, uh, so if you're trying to explain

something,

um, Grock imagine can take the text from

Grapedia and then generate a video, uh,

an explanatory video. So if you're

trying to understand anything from how

to tie a bow tie to you know how do

certain chemical reactions work or you

know um really anything um dietary

things medical things um we could uh

well you can just go and and see the

video of of how it works that is created

by

>> when when you have this version that's

maximally truth seeeking as a model do

you think that there needs to be a

better eval or a benchmark that people

can point to that shows how off of the

truth things are so that if you're going

to start a training run with common

crawl or if you're going to use Reddit

or if you're going to use is it

important to be able to like say hey

hold on a second this eval just suck

like you guys suck on this eval like

it's just this is crappy data.

Yeah, I I guess I'm not I think I mean

there are a lot of eval out there. Um

I've complete confidence that croced is

going to succeed. Um because Wikipedia

is actually not a very good product.

>> Yeah.

>> It it's it's it's the the information is

sparse

uh wrong and out of date. Um and if you

can go if you find if and and it doesn't

have you know there are very few images.

There's basically no video. Um so if you

have something which is um you know

accurate comprehensive

uh has videos uh where moreover you can

ask if there's any part of it that

you're curious about you can just

highlight it and gro and and ask Grock

right there. Um like if you're trying to

learn something it's just great. It's

it's it's not going to be a little bit

better than than Wikipedia. It's going

to be a hundred times better than

>> Elon. Do you think you'll see like good

uniform usage? Like if you look back on

the last 3 years since you bought

Twitter,

there was a lot of people after you

bought Twitter that said, "I'm leaving

Twitter. Elon's bought it. I'm going to

go to this other wherever the hell they

went and there's all these new

and there's all these and there's all

these

creature, you know."

>> Yeah. But blue sky falling is my

favorite. I guess my my question is as

you destroy the woke mind viral kind of

um control of the system and as you

bring truth to the system whether the

system is through graipedia or through X

do people like just look for

confirmation bias and they actually

don't accept the truth like what do you

like or do you think people are actually

going to see the truth and change and

change?

>> Yeah.

But I mean, is that like

>> you thought Sydney Sweeny's boobs were

great? Let me see mine.

>> Looking good. Yeah, solid solid week

there. Put a little something a little

sheer, you know.

>> I think we just got flagged on YouTube

again.

>> Yeah, we did. That that was definitely

going to give us a censorship moment.

>> Grade a moves.

>> Yeah. No, but but like like but but do

people change their mind? I mean,

>> if there's actually I should take

there's no such thing as grade A move.

>> Um

It's off the rails already.

>> David, you were trying to ask a serious

question. Go ahead.

>> Well, I just want to know if people

change their mind. Like, can you

actually change people's minds by

putting the truth in front of them or do

people just take, you know, they kind of

ignore the truth because they're they

feel like they're in some sort of camp

and they're like, I'm on.

>> They want the confirmation bias.

>> They want the confirmation bias and they

want to stay in a camp and they want to

be tribal about everything.

Um it is remarkable how much people

believe things simply because it is

their the the belief of the of their

inroup, you know, whatever their sort of

political uh or ideological tribe is.

Um, so, um, I mean there's some some

pretty hilarious videos of, you know,

um, you know, uh, there was like some

guy going around um, is like a racist

Nazi or whatever and and then and and

then and he was like trying to show them

the videos where of the thing that they

are talking about um, where he is in

fact uh, condemning the Nazis in

strongest possible terms and condemning

racism in the strongest possible terms

and they literally don't even want to

watch the

So, so yeah, people at least some people

would they would prefer um they will

stick to whatever their um ideological

views are, whatever the sort of

political tribal views are. Uh no matter

what. Um the the the evidence could be

staring them in the face and and they're

just going to be a flat-earther. You

know, there's there is no evidence that

you can show to a flat earther to con

convince them the world's round because

everything is just a lie. Uh the world

is flat type of thing.

>> I think the the ability to hit at Grock

in a reply and ask it a question in the

thread has really become like a truth

seeking missile on the platform. So when

I put up metrics or something like that,

I reply to myself and I say, "Echrock,

is the information I just shared

correct? And can you find any better

information? and please tell me if my

argument is correct or if I'm wrong. And

then it goes through and then it DMs

Sachs and then Sax gets in my replies

and tries to correct me. No, but it does

actually a really good job of like and

that combined with community notes. Now

you've got like two swings at bat. The

community's consensus view and then

Grock coming in. I think it would be

like really interesting if Grock on like

really powerful threads kind of did like

its own version of community notes and

had it sitting there ahead of time. you

know, like you could look at a thread

and it just had next to it, you know, or

maybe on like the specific statistic,

you could click on it and it would show

you like, ah, here's where that

statistic's from.

>> I mean, you can I mean, pretty much

every I mean, essentially every post on

X, unless it's like advertising or

something, um, has the Grock symbol on

it.

>> Yeah.

>> And you just tap that symbol and you're

one tap away from a Grock analysis.

Literally, you're just one tap. And we

don't want to clutter the interface with

where providing an explanation, but I'm

just saying if you go on X right now,

it's one tap to get the to get Grock's

analysis and Grock will research the the

the X post and give you an an accurate

answer. Um, and you can even ask us to

do further research and further due

diligence and you you can go as far down

the rabbit as you want as you want to

go. But I I do think like this is um you

know the consistent with we want X to be

the the best source of truth on the on

the planet by far. And I think it is um

and and where you hear uh you know any

and all points of view. Um but but where

those points of view are corrected by uh

human editors with community notes and

the the essence of community notes is

that uh people who historically disagree

agree that this community note was

correct.

So this um and and and all of the

community notes uh code is open source

and the data is open source. So you can

recreate any community note uh from

scratch as independently.

>> By and large it's worked very well.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> I think we originally had the idea to

have you back on the pod because it was

a three-year anniversary of the Twitter

acquisition. So

>> Okay.

>> I just wanted to kind of reminisce a

little bit

>> and I remember Yeah. I mean I remember

>> where's that sink?

>> Where's that sink? Well, yeah. So, Elon

was staying at my house. We had talked

the week before and he told me the deal

was going to close. And so, I was like,

"Hey, do you need a place to stay?" And

he took me up on it. And the day before

he went to the Twitter office, there was

a request made to to my staff. Do you

happen to have an extra sink? And they

did not, but they were able to uh

>> Who has an extra sink really?

>> But they were able to to locate one at a

nearby hardware store. And I think they

paid extra to get it out of the window

or something.

Well, I I think the store was confused

because um my security team was asking

for uh any kind of sink and and and like

like normally people wouldn't ask for

any kind of sink because you need a sink

that fits in your bathroom or connects

to a certain kind of plumbing. So

they're like trying to ask these like

well what kind of faucets do you want?

That's no no I just wanted a sink.

>> Yeah. I think it's a mental person going

the store was confused that we just

wanted a sink

>> and didn't and didn't care what what the

sink connected to.

>> That was that was just they were like

almost not letting us buy the sink

because because they they thought maybe

we'd buy the wrong sink, you know. Um

it's just rare that somebody wants a

sink for sake

>> for meme purposes. One of my favorite

memories was Elon said, "Hey, you know,

swing by, check it out." I said, "Okay,

I'll come by." And I drive up there and

I'm looking where to park the car and I

realize there's just parking spaces

around the entire bis building. And I'm

like, "Okay, this can't be like legal

parking." But I park and it's legal

parking.

>> Yeah.

>> You're in downtown SF, so you might get

your window broken, but

>> Yeah. I might not be there when I get

back. But we get in there and the place

is empty. And then

>> Yeah. Yeah. It it was seriously empty

except for the cafeteria.

>> There was an entire uh there were two

the TW headquarters was two buildings.

One of the buildings was completely and

utterly empty. Um and the other building

uh had like 5% occupancy

>> and the 5% occupier,

we all go get something to eat and we

realize there's more people working in

the cafeteria

>> than at Twitter.

There were more people making the food

than eating the food

in this giant caf giant really nice

really nice cafeteria.

Um the you know this this is where we

discovered that the the actual price of

of the lunch was $400. Um

>> uh the the original price was $20, but

it had five it went for it was at 5%

occupancy. So it was 20 times higher and

they still kept making the same amount

pretty much. So, and charging the same

amount. So, effectively lunch was four

$400.

Um, and

>> that was a great meeting.

>> Yes. And and then and then there was

that that that uh where we had the

initial meetings sort of the sort of

trying to figure out what the heck's

going on meetings in the in in these in

the because you know there's the two

buildings two Twitter buildings and one

the one with literally no one in it. Um

that's that's where we had the initial

meetings. Um and um and then and we

tried drawing on the whiteboard and the

and the the markers had had gone dry. So

that

nobody had used the the whiteboard

markers in like two years.

>> So sad.

>> None of the markers worked. So like this

is totally bizarre. But it was it was

totally clean because the the cleaning

crew had come in and done their job and

cleaned cleaned an already clean place

for I don't know two three years

straight. Um it was

I mean honestly this is this is this is

more crazy than any sort of Mike Judge

movie or or you know Silicon Valley or

anything like that. Um and and then we I

remember going into the men's bathroom

and and and there's there's there's a

table um with uh you know um uh

>> hygiene

>> menstrual hygiene products.

>> Yep.

>> Yeah. Um

>> refreshed every week.

>> Tampons like a fresh box of tampons. Um

and and we're like but but there's

literally no one in this building. Um,

so, uh, but no, no, they hadn't turned

off the send t send fresh tampons to the

man's bathroom in the empty building had

not been turned off.

>> No.

>> So, so every week they would put a fresh

box of tampons in an empty building um

for years. This happened for years. And

it must have been very confusing to the

people that were being asked to do this

because they're like,

>> "Okay, I'll throw them away." Well, I

remember when you But

>> I guess they're paying us. So, we'll

just put tampon. So, seriously, have to

consider the the the string of

possibilities necessary in order for

anyone to possibly use that tampon in

the men's bathroom uh at the unoccupied

second building of Twitter headquarters.

Um because you'd have to be a burglar um

who is a transman burglar um

who's unwilling to use the woman's

bathroom that also has tampons.

>> Statistically there's no one in the

building. So you've broken into the

building

and at that moment you have a period.

>> Yes. And you're on your period.

I mean, you're more likely to be struck

by a a meteor um than need that tampon.

Okay.

>> Well, I remember it was

>> I think it was shortly after that you

discovered an entire room

>> at the office that was filled with

Staywoke t-shirts.

>> Yeah.

>> Do you remember this?

>> An entire pile of merch.

>> Yeah.

>> Yes.

>> # staywoke.

>> Staywoke. and also a big sort of buttons

like those magnetic buttons that you put

on your shirt that said uh uh I I am an

engineer. Um, I'm like, "Look, if if

you're an engineer, you don't need a

button." Like a big

>> Who's the button for? Who you telling

that to? You can just ship code. We

would know. We can check your GitHub.

>> But yeah, they're like scarves, um,

hoodies, uh, all kinds of merch that

said hashtag stay.

>> Yeah. A couple music.

>> When you found that, I was like, my god,

man. The barbarians are fully within the

gates now. I mean

>> the barbarians have smashed through the

gates and are looting the merch.

>> Yes, you are rumaging through their holy

relics and defiling them.

>> I mean, but when you think about it,

David, the amount of waste that we saw

there during those first 30 days,

>> just to be serious about it for a

second, this was a publicly traded

company. So if you think about the

financial duty of those individuals,

there was a list of SAS software we went

through and none of it was being used.

Some of it had never been installed and

they had been paying for it for 2 years.

They've been paying for a SAS product

for two years. And the the the one that

blew my mind the most that we canceled

was they were paying a certain amount of

money per desk to have desking software

>> in an office where nobody came to work.

So they were paying

>> nobody.

>> There was there was millions of dollars

here being paid for for Yes. for um

analysis of pedestrian like software

that use cameras to analyze the

pedestrian traffic to figure out where

you can leave alleviate pedestrian

traffic jams uh in an empty building.

>> Right.

>> That's like 11 out of 10 on a Dilbert

scale.

>> Yeah. It was pretty shout out Scott

Adams. you've gone off scale on on your

doilbert level at that point.

>> Let's talk about the free speech aspect

for a second because I I think that is

the most important legacy of the Twitter

acquisition and I think people have

short memories and they forget how bad

things were three years ago.

>> First of all, you had figures as diverse

as President Trump, Jordan Peterson, Jay

Bacharia, Andrew Tate. They were all

banned from Twitter. And I remember when

you opened up the the Twitter jails and

reinstated their accounts, kind of, you

know, freed all the bad boys of free

speech.

>> The best deal.

>> Yes. So, you basically gave all the the

bad boys of free speech their their

accounts back. But second, beyond just

the the bannings, there was the shadow

bannings. And Twitter had claimed for

years that they were not shadowbanning.

This was a paranoid conservative

conspiracy theorist.

>> Yeah.

There was an a very aggressive shadow

banning by uh what was called the trust

and safety group which of course

naturally would be the one that is doing

the nefarious shadow banning. Um and I

just I just think we shouldn't have a

group called trust and safety. Um I mean

this is an orwellian name if you ever if

there ever was one. Um

>> hi I'm from the trust department. Oh

really? We want to talk to you about

your tweets.

>> Can we see your DMs?

>> Say that you're from the trust

department. It's literally that's the

Ministry of Truth right there.

>> Yeah.

>> Executives had they had maintained for

years that they were not engaged in this

practice including under oath. And on

the heels of you opening that up and

exposing that

>> because by the way it wasn't just the

fact they were doing it. They created an

elaborate set of tools to do this. They

had check box set of tools to to uh uh

Yes. to deboost uh accounts. Yes.

>> Yes. And you know subsequently we found

out that other social networking

properties have done this as well but

you were really exposed.

>> This is still being done at the other

social media companies

include Google by the way. Um, so, um,

for, you know, um, I don't pick on

Google cuz they're all doing it, but,

uh, for search results, uh, if you

simply push a result pretty far down the

page or, you know, the second page of

results like like you know the the joke

used to be or still is, I think, like

where do you hide a what's the best

place to hide a dead body? The second

page of Google search results because

nobody ever goes to the second page of

Google search results. They could you

could hide a dead body there and nobody

would find it. And and and you still

it's it's then then it's not like you've

you haven't made them go away. You've

you've just um put them on this one page

too.

>> Yes. So shadow banning I think was

number two. So first was banning, second

was shadow banning. I think third to me

was government collusion, government

interference. So you released the

Twitter files. Nothing like that ever

been done before where you just you

actually let investigative reporters

>> go through Twitter's emails

>> unfettered groups. I didn't I I I was

not looking over their shoulder at all.

I They just had direct access to

everything.

>> And they found that there was extensive

collusion between the FBI and the

Twitter trust and safety group where it

turns out the FBI had 80 agents

submitting takedown requests and they

were very involved in the banning, the

shadow banning, the censorship, which I

don't think we ever had definitive

evidence of that before. That was pretty

extraordinary.

>> Yeah. and and the the US House of

Representatives had hearings on the

matter. Um and and and a lot of this,

you know, was unearthed. It's it's

public record. So, a lot of people some

some people on the left still think this

is like made up. I'm like, this is just

literally these the Twitter files are

literally the files at Twitter. I mean,

we're literally just talking about the

these are the emails that were sent

internally that confirm this. This is

what's on the Slack channels. Um and and

this is what is shown in the in the on

the Twitter database as where people

have made um either uh suspensions or

shadow bounds.

>> Has the government come and asked you to

take stuff down since or they just have

to the policy is hey listen you got to

file a warrant you got to you got to

come correct as opposed to just putting

pressure on executives.

>> Uh yeah our our policy at this point is

to follow the law. So um so if if now

now uh the laws are obviously different

in different countries. So sometimes you

know I I get criticized for like why

don't I push free speech in XYZ country

that doesn't have free speech laws. I'm

like because that's not the law there.

Um and and if we don't obey the law

we'll simply be blocked in that country.

Um so uh the the policy is really just

um adhere to the laws in any given

country. um uh it is up to us to agree

or disagree with those laws and if if uh

if if a people of that country want laws

to be different then they should you

know ask their leaders to change the

laws.

>> Yeah.

>> But but anything that but as soon as you

start going beyond the law now you're

putting your thumb on the scale.

>> Um so so the yeah that I I think I think

that's the right policy is just adhere

to the laws within any given country. Um

now sometimes we get you know um in a

bit of a bind like we had got into with

Brazil where uh you know this this this

judge in Brazil was asking us to or or

telling us to break the law in Brazil um

and ban accounts contrary to the law of

Brazil. And now we're now we're sort of

somewhat stuck. We're like wait a second

we're reading the law and it says this

is not allowed to happen and also that

and giving us a gag order. So like we're

not allowed to we're not allowed to say

it's happening. Um and we have to break

the law and the judge is telling us to

break the law. The law is breaking the

law. That's where things get um very

difficult. Uh and we were actually

banned in Brazil for a while because of

that. I just want to make one final

point on the free speech issue and then

we can move on is just I think people

forget that the censorship wasn't just

about co there was a growing number of

categories of thought and opinion that

were being outlawed. The quote content

moderation which is another Orwellian

euphemism for censorship was being

applied to categories like gender and

even climate change. The definition of

hate speech was constantly growing.

>> Yes. and more and more people were being

banned or shadowbanned and there was

more and more things that you couldn't

say. This trend of censorship was

growing. It was galloping and it would

have continued if it wasn't, I think,

for the fact that you decided to buy

Twitter and opened it up. And it was

only on the heels of that that the other

social networks were willing to, I

think, be a little bit chasened in their

policies and start to push back more.

>> Yeah, that's right. um once Twitter

broke ranks uh the others had to um it

became very obvious what the others were

doing and so they had to mitigate uh

their censorship substantially as

because of what Twitter did. And I mean

perhaps to give them some credit they

also felt that they had the air cover to

um to uh be more inclined towards free

speech. um they still do a lot of sort

of uh you know shadow banning and and

whatnot at at the other social media

companies, but it's it's much less than

it used to be.

>> Yeah.

>> Elon, what do you what have you seen in

terms of like governments creating new

laws? So, we've seen a lot of this

crackdown in the UK on what's being

called hateful speech on social media

and folks getting arrested and actually

going to prison over it. And it seems

like when there's more freedom,

the side that is threatened by that

comes out and creates their own counter,

right? There's a reaction to that. And

there seems to be reaction. Are you

seeing more of these laws around the

world in response to your opening up

free speech through Twitter and um and

those changes and what they're enabling

that that the governments and the

parties that control those governments

aren't aligned and they're stepping in

and saying, "Let's create new ways of

maintaining our control through law.

Um yeah, there there is there's been an

overall global movement to suppress free

speech um under the name of in in the

under the guise of suppressing hate

speech. Um but then uh you know it's the

problem with with that is that um your

freedom of speech only matters um if

people are allowed to say things that

you that that you don't like or even

that things that you hate. Um because uh

if if you're allowed to suppress speech

that you don't like uh then um and you

know you you don't have freedom of

speech and and and it's only a matter of

time before things switch around and

then the shoes on the other foot and

they will suppress you.

So uh suppress not lest you be

suppressed.

Um but but there there there is a uh a

movement and I I there was a very strong

movement to codify

speech suppression into the law

throughout throughout the world and

including the western world um you know

the Europe and Australia

>> UK and Germany very um yeah aggressive

in this regard.

>> Yes. And and my understanding is that in

the UK uh there's something like two or

three thousand people uh in prison for

social media posts. Um, and in fact that

this there there's so many people in

that were in prison for social media

posts. Um, and and many of these things

are like you you can't believe that that

someone would actually be put put in

prison for this. They they've they have

in in a lot of cases released people who

have committed violent crimes in order

to to imprison people who have simply

made posts on social media which is

deeply wrong. Mhm.

>> Um and and and uh underscores why the

founders of this country made the first

amendment the first amendment was

freedom of speech. Why why did they do

that is because in the places that they

came from there wasn't freedom of speech

and you could be imprisoned or killed

for for saying things.

>> Can I ask you a question just to maybe

move to a different topic? If you came

and did this next week, we will be past

the Tesla board vote. We talked about it

last week and we talked about how crazy

ISS and Glass Lewis is and right

>> we use this one insane example where

like Ira Aaron Prize didn't get the

recommendation from ISS and Glass Lewis

because he didn't meet the gender

requirements but then Kathleen

>> also it doesn't make sense.

>> Can you So the the board vote is on the

>> African-American woman.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. True. she they recommended against

her but then also recommended against

our enterprise um on on the ground she

was insufficiently diverse. So I'm like

this like these things don't make any

sense.

>> Yeah. So I I do think we've got a

fundamental issue with corporate

governance um in publicly traded

companies where you've got about half of

the stock market uh is controlled by

passive index funds um and most of them

out most of them outsource their

decision uh to uh advisory firms and

particularly glass and uh ISS I call

them corporate ISIS um you know so all

they do is basically just they're just

terrorists Um so um so and and they have

they own no stock in any of these

companies. Um right

>> so I I think that this there's a

fundamental breakdown of producer

responsibility here uh where really um

you know any company that's managing um

uh

even though they're passively managing

you know index funds or whatever that

they do at the end of the day have a

fiduciary duty to uh vote uh you know

along the lines of what would maximize

the the shareholder returns because

people are counting on them like people

uh you know have say you know So has

have all their savings and say 401k or

something like that. Um and they're

they're counting on um the index funds

to vote uh do company votes in the

direction that would uh ensure that

their retirement savings uh do as well

as possible. But the problem is if that

is then outsourced to ISS and glass

Lewis which have been infiltrated by

far-left activists um because you know

you know where far you know you know you

know basically political activists go

they go where the where the power is.

>> Um and so effectively uh glass and ISS

uh uh control the vote of half the stock

market.

Now, now if you're a political activist,

you know what a great place would be to

go work

and glass doors. And they do.

So, um, so my concern for the future,

um, because this, you know, the Tesla,

um, thing is is it's called sort of

compensation, but really it's not about

compensation. It's not like I'm going to

go out and buy, you know, a yacht with

it or something. It's just that I I I do

I in order if I'm going to build up

Optimus and and you know have all these

robots out there, I need to make sure we

do not have a terminated scenario and I

and that I can make you know maximize

the safety of the robots. Um and and and

um but but I I I feel like I I need to

have something like a 25% vote. Um which

is enough of a vote to have a strong

influence uh but not so much of a vote

that I can't be fired if I go insane. Um

so it's it's kind of but but my concern

would be, you know, creating this army

of robots and then and then being fired

for political reasons um because of

because of ISS and Glass Lewis. uh uh

you know declined to ISIS and Glass

Lewis fire me effectively or or the the

activists at those bones fire me. Um

even though I've done everything right.

>> Yeah,

>> that's my concern.

>> And then I and then then you've got and

then I and then I cannot ensure this the

safety of the robots.

>> If you don't get that vote, if it

doesn't go your way, it looks like it's

going to, would you leave? I mean, is

that even in the cards? I heard they

were the board was very concerned about

that.

>> Uh,

let's just say I'm not going to build a

robot on me. Um, if I if I can be easily

kicked out by activist investors.

>> Yeah.

>> No way.

>> No way. Yeah. Makes sense. I mean, and

who is capable of running the four or

five major product lines at Tesla? I

mean, this is the the madness of it.

It's a very complex business. People

don't understand what's under the hood

there. It's not just a car company. You

got batteries, you got trucks, you got

the self-driving group, and this is a

very complex buil business that's you've

built over decades now. It's it's not a

very simple thing to run. I don't think

there's a Elon equivalent out there who

can just jump into the cockpit. By the

way, if we take a full turn around

corporate governance corner

also this week, what was interesting

about the OpenAI restructuring was I

read the letter and your lawsuit was

excluded

>> from the allowances of the California

attorney general basically saying this

thing can go through which means that

your lawsuit is still out there, right?

And I think it's going to go to a jury

trial.

>> Yes.

>> So there that corporate governance thing

is still very much in question. Do you

have any thoughts on that?

>> Um, yes. I believe that will go to a

jury trial in February or March. Um, and

and then we'll see what the what the

results are there. But um there's

there's an like a mountain of evidence

um that that shows that OpenAI was

created as a u an open source nonprofit.

It's it's literally that's the the exact

description in the incorporation

documents. Um and in fact the

incorporation documents explicitly say

that no officer uh or founding member

will be will will benefit financially

from open AI

>> and they've completely violated that and

more of you can then you can just use

the wayback machine and look at the the

website of OpenAI again open source

nonprofit open source nonprofit the

whole way until you know it it looked

like wow this is there's a lot of money

to be gained here and then suddenly it

starts changing

Um, and they try to change the

definition of open AI to mean open to

everyone instead of open source, even

though it always meant open source.

>> I came up with the name.

>> Yeah,

>> that's how I know.

So

uh if they open sourced it uh or they

gave you I mean you don't need the money

but if they gave you the percentage

ownership in it that you would be

rightfully uh which 50 million for a

startup would be half at least but they

must have made an overture toward you

and said hey can we just give you 10% of

this thing and give us your blessing

like you obviously have a different goal

here. Yeah.

>> Yeah. Um, I mean, essentially since I

came up with the idea for the company,

named it, um, provided the AB and C

rounds of funding, uh, recruited the,

uh, critical personnel, uh, and told

them everything I know. Um,

you know, if that had been a a

commercial corporation, I'd probably own

half the company.

So, um, but and and I I I could have

chosen to do that. that that I if I it

was totally at my discretion I could

have done that. Uh but I created it as a

nonprofit for the world, an open source

nonprofit for the world.

>> Do you think the right thing to do is to

take those models and just open source

them today? If you could affect that

change, is that the right thing to do?

>> Uh yeah, I think I think uh that that

that is what the what it was created to

do. So it should I mean the the best

open source models right now actually

ironically because fate fade seems to be

an irony maximizer

>> um uh the best open source models are

generally from China.

>> Yeah.

>> Like that's bizarre and and and and then

I think the second best are one is or

maybe it's better than second best. Uh

but like the u the gro 2.5 um open

source model is actually very good. Um,

and I think we'd probably be and and

we'll continue to open source our

models, but you know, but whereas like

try using any of the the the recent um

so-called the OpenAI open source models.

They're out they don't work. They

basically they open sourced a broken

non-working version of of their models

as a fig leaf.

I mean, do you know anyone who's running

open open eyes open source models?

Exactly.

>> Yeah. Nobody. We've had a big debate

about jobs here. Obviously, there's

going to be job displacement.

You and I have talked about it for

decades. Uh

what's your take on the pace of it?

Because obviously building self-driving

software, you're building Optimus.

>> Yeah.

>> And we're seeing Amazon take some steps

here where they're like, "Yeah, we're

probably not going to hire these

positions in the future." And you know,

maybe they're getting rid of people now

because they were bloated, but maybe

some of it's AI. You know, it's it's all

debatable. What do you think the

timeline is? And what do you think as a

society we're going to need to do to

mitigate it if it goes too fast?

>> Well, um,

you know, I call AI the supersonic

tsunami.

So, um, not the most comforting

description in the world. Um, but

>> fast and big.

>> There was a tsunami, a giant wall of

water moving faster than the speed of

sound. as AI.

Um,

>> when does it land?

>> Yeah, exactly. Um,

so and now this is happening whether I

wanted to or not. I I actually try to

slow down AI.

>> Um, and and then the the reason, you

know, I I uh the reason I wanted to

create Open AI was to serve as a

counterweight to Google because at the

time Google was uh sort of essentially

had unilateral power in AI. They had all

the all the AI essentially. Um and um

and uh you know Larry Page was not um

you know

he he was not taking safety seriously.

Um

uh I Jason Arere were you were you there

when he he called me a speciist?

>> Yes I was there. Yeah.

>> Okay. So

>> you were more concerned about the human

race than you were about the machines.

And uh yeah, you had a clear bias for

humanity.

>> Yes. Yes. I was exactly. I was like,

Larry, Larry, what like we need to make

sure that the AI doesn't destroy all the

humans. And then he called me a specist.

Um like racist or something for being

pro uh human intelligence instead of

machine intelligence. I'm like, well,

Larry, what side are you on? Um I mean,

you know, that's kind of a concern. and

and and then at the time the Google had

uh essentially a monopoly on AI.

>> Yeah. They bought DeepMind which you

were on the board of had an investment

in Larry and Sergey had invested in it

as well and it's really interesting.

>> Found out about it because I told him

about it. I I showed him some stuff from

Deep from Deep Mind and I think that's

how he found out found out about it and

and and acquired them actually. I got to

be careful what I say. Um, but but the

the the point is that it's like look,

Larry's not taking AI safety seriously

and and and and Google had essentially

all the AI and all the computers and all

the money. And I'm like, this is a

unipolar world where the guy in charge

is not taking things seriously. So, um,

and called me a speciist for being

prohuman. Um, what do you do in those

circumstances?

>> Yeah.

>> Build a competitor.

>> Yes. Um, so OpenAI was created

essentially as the opposite, which is an

open source nonprofit, the opposite of

Google. Um, now unfortunately it it it

needs to change its name to closed for

maximum profit AI.

>> Yeah.

>> Or maximum profit to be clear.

The most amount of the company the most

amount of profit you possibly get.

>> I mean it is so it is like like

>> it's comical when you hear when you hear

>> fate is an irony maximizer. You have to

say like what is the most the most

ironic outcome for a company that that

was created for to do open source non

nonprofit AI is it's super closed

source. It's tighter than Fort Knox. Um

the the AI open AI source code is locked

up tight in Fort Knox. Um and uh and

they are going for maximum profit like a

maximum like get the bourbon the steak

knife that you know

>> they're ready. Yeah. I mean the

the

you know like like they're going for the

buffet

and they're just diving head first into

the profit buffet. I mean it's or at

least aspiration the revenue buffet at

least profit. We'll see. Um

>> we are

>> I mean it's like it's like ravenous

wolves for revenue.

>> Ravenous

revenue buffet.

>> No, no, it's literally like

>> super villain. It's like Bond villain

level flip. Like it went from being the

United Nations to being Spectre in like

James Pondland.

>> When you hear him say, "I'm going to

when Sam says it's going to like raise

1.4 trillion to build up data centers."

>> Yeah. No, but I think he I think he

means it.

>> Yeah. I mean, it's I would say

audacious, but I I wouldn't want to

Yeah. insult the word. It

>> actually I have a question about this.

>> How is that possible? In the earnings

call, you said something that was insane

>> and then I think the math actually nets

up, but you said we could connect all

the Teslas and allow them in downtime to

actually offer up inference and you can

string them all together.

>> I think the math is like it could

actually be like a 100 gigawatt.

>> Is that right? Do you

>> if if ultimately there's a Tesla fleet

uh that is um uh 100 million vehicles uh

which I think we probably will get to at

some point 100 million vehicle fleet um

and uh they have you know mostly

state-of-the-art uh inference computers

in them uh that that each say are uh a

kilowatt of inference computed um and

they have built-in um power and cooling

um and you know connect to the Wi-Fi.

>> That's the key. Yeah, exactly.

>> Um yeah, exactly. and and and and uh

that you'd have 100 gaws of inference

compute.

>> Elon, do you think that the architecture

like there was an attentionfree model

that came out the last week? There's

been all of these papers, all of these

new models that have been shown to

reduce power per token of output by

many, many, many orders of magnitude.

Like not just an order of magnitude, but

like maybe three or four. like what's

your view and all the work you've been

doing on where we're headed in terms of

power um per unit of compute or per

token of output.

>> Well, we have a a clear example of

efficient power efficient compute which

is the human brain. Um so um our brains

use about 20 watts um of power but and

of that only about 10 watts is higher

brain function. Most of it's, you know,

half of it is just housekeeping

functions, you know, keeping your heart

going and breathing and that kind of

thing. Um, so, so you got maybe 10 watts

of uh higher brain function in a human.

Um, and we've managed to build

civilization with 10 watts of uh of a

biological computer. Um, and that

biological computer has like a 20 year,

you know, boot sequence. Uh, so pretty

but but but it's very power efficient.

So uh given that uh humans are capable

of inventing um you know general

relativity and quantum mechanics and uh

or discovering general like like

inventing aircraft, lasers, the internet

and discovering physics with with a 10

watt uh meat computer essentially um

uh then um there's clearly a a massive

opportunity for improving the uh

efficiency of AI compute.

Um it's because it's it's it's currently

many orders of magnitude away from that.

Um and and it's still the case that um a

a 100 megawatt

uh or even you know a gigawatt uh AI

supercomput at this point can't do

everything that a human can do. Uh it it

will be able to uh but it can't yet. Um

so but but we like said we've got this

obvious case of um human brains being

very power efficient and achieving and

and building civilization with with a

with a you know with with 10 watts of

compute um and and and and a very slow

and our our bandwidth is very low. So

that the the speed at which we

communicate information to each other is

extremely low. You know we're not

communicating at a terabyte. We're

communicating more at like 10 bits per

second. Um, so,

um, do you think that should naturally

lead you to the conclusion that there's

massive, uh, opportunity for being more

power efficient with with AI? And and at

Tesla and at XAI, we're both we we

continue to see massive improvements in

inference computer efficiency. Um, so

um, yeah. You think that there's a

moment where you would justify

stopping

all the traditional cars and just going

completely allin on cyber cab if you

felt like

the learning was good enough and that

the system was safe enough? Is is there

ever a moment like that or do you think

you'll always kind of dual track and

always do both?

>> I mean all of the cars we make right now

um are capable of being a robo taxi. So,

there's a little confusion of the

terminology because um the the our cars

look normal, you know, like the Model 3

or Model Y looks it's a good looking

car, but looks looks normal. Um but it

has an advanced AI computer, an advanced

AI software and cameras, and we didn't

want the cameras to stick out. So, we

you know, so that that we wouldn't want

them to be ugly or stick out. So, so,

you know, we put them they're sort of in

unobtrusive locations. You know, the

forward looking camera cameras are in

front of the rearview mirror. Um the

side view mirrors are in the side

repeaters. Oh, this the side view

cameras are on the side repeaters. Um

the the rear camera is you know just in

the you know above the license plate

actually typically where the rear view

camera is in a car. Um and um you know

and and and the the diagonal forward

ones are in the B-pillars. Like if you

look closely you can see all the cameras

but but you have to look closely. We

just didn't want them to be to stick out

like you know warts or something. Um but

but actually all the cars we make um are

hyper intelligent um and have the

cameras in the right places. They just

look normal. Um and um so so all of the

cars we make are capable of unsupervised

full autonomy. Um now we we have a

dedicated product which is the cyber cab

um which has no no steering wheel or

pedals um which are obviously vestigial

in a autonomous world u and we start

production of the cyber cab in Q2 next

year and we'll scale that up to to quite

high volume. I think ultimately we'll

make millions of cyber cabs per year. Um

but but but it is important to emphasize

that all of our cars are capable of

being robotic taxis. The Cyber Cab is

gorgeous. I told you I'd buy two of

those if you put a steering wheel in

them. And there is a big movement

online.

>> Putting a steering wheel.

>> People are begging for it. Why not? Why

not let us buy a couple? You know, you

know, just the first ones off the line

and drive them. I mean, it's they look

great. It's like the perfect model. You

always had a vision for a model 2,

right? Like, isn't it like the perfect

model 2 in addition to being a cyber

cab? Look, the reality is people may

think they want to drive their car, but

the reality is that they don't. Um, how

many times have you been, say, in an

Uber or Lift and and you said, "You know

what? I wish I could take over from the

driver

and and and I wish I could get off my

phone and and take over from the Uber

driver and uh and and drive to my

destination." How many times have you

thought to thought that to yourself?

>> No, it's quite the opposite.

>> Zero times. Okay.

>> I have the Model Y and I just got 14. I

have Juniper and I I got the 141 and I

put it on MadMax mode the last couple of

days. That is

>> MadMax

>> a unique experience.

>> I was like, "Wait a second. This thing

is driving in a very unique fashion." Um

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> It assumes you want to get to your

destination in a hurry.

>> Yeah. Um I I used to give drivers an

extra 20 bucks to do that

>> medical appointment or something. I

don't know.

>> Yeah. it, but it's it feels like it's

getting very close, but you have to be

very careful. You know, Uber had a

horrible accident with the safety

driver. Cruz had a terrible accident.

Wasn't their fault exactly, except, you

know, that somebody got hit and then it

they they hit the person a second time

and they got dragged.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> You know, this is pretty high stakes.

So, you're being extremely cautious. The

car is the car is actually extremely

capable right now,

>> but we are being extremely cautious and

we're being paranoid about it because to

your point um even one accident would

would be headline news. Well, probably

worldwide headline news,

>> especially if it's a Tesla like Whimo I

think gets a bit of a pass I think

there's half the country or a number of

people probably would you know go extra

hard on you.

>> Uh yes.

>> Uh yeah, exactly. Um,

>> yeah.

>> Not everyone in the press is my friend.

>> Hadn't noticed.

>> Yeah. Some of them are a little

antagonistic.

>> Yeah. So, you just But people are

pressuring you to go fast. And I I think

is everybody's got to just take their

time with this thing. It's obviously

going to happen. But I I just get very

nervous that the the pressure to put

these things on the road faster than

they're ready is just uh a little crazy.

I I applaud you for putting the safety

monitor in, doing the safety driver. No

shame in the safety driver game. It's so

much the right decision obviously, but

people are criticizing you for it. I

think it's dumb. It's the right thing to

do.

>> Yes. And and we do expect it to take to

not have any um sort of safety uh

occupant or or there's not really a

driver that just sits

>> monitor

>> safety safety monitor. Just sits he just

sit they just sit in the car and don't

do anything. um

>> safety dude.

>> Yeah. Um so uh but we do expect that

that the cars will be driving around

without any any safety monitor um before

the end of the year. So sometime in

December

>> in Austin. Yeah. I mean you got a number

of reps under your belt in Austin and it

feels like pretty well you guys have

done a great job figuring out where the

trouble spots are. Maybe you could talk

a little bit about what you learned in

the first I don't know it's been like

three or four months of this so far.

What what did you learn in the first

three or four months of the Austin

experiment?

>> Actually, it's it's gone pretty

smoothly. Um a lot a lot of things that

we're learning um are uh just how to

manage a fleet like because you've got

to write all the fleet management

software, right? So

>> yeah.

>> Um and you you've got to have write the

ride hailing software. You've got to

write basically the software that Uber

has. You've got to write that software.

It's just summoning a robot car instead

of a car with a driver. Um so so a lot

of the things we're doing we're we're

scaling up the number of cars um to say

say like what happens if you have a

thousand cars like so we you know we

think probably we'll have you know a

thousand cars or more um in the Bay Area

uh by the end of this year probably I

don't know 500 or more in the greater

Austin area um and you know if if if um

you know you have to you you have to

make sure the cars don't all for example

go go to the same supercharger

uh at the same time,

>> right? Um so uh or or don't all go to

the same intersection um

there's there's it's like what do these

cars do? And then like sometimes there's

high demand and sometimes there's

there's low demand. What do you do

during during those times? Uh do you

have the car circle the block? Do you

have a try to find a parking space? Um

the um and then you know sometimes the

like say it's a it's a you know disabled

parking space or something but the the

writing's faded or the things faded. The

car's like oh look a parking space will

jump right in there. It's like

>> yeah get a ticket.

>> You got to look carefully make sure it's

it's like you know it's not a an illegal

parking space or or or or it sees it

sees a space to park and it's like

ridiculously tight but it's I can get in

there. Um,

>> but with like, you know, three inches on

either side.

>> Bad computer.

>> But, but nobody else will be able to get

in the car if you do that. Um,

>> so um, you know, there's just like all

these oddwall corner cases. Um and um

uh

>> and regulators like regulators are all

very um yeah they're they have different

levels of pnikiness and regulations

depending on the city depending on the

airport. I mean it's just

>> you know very different everywhere.

That's going to just be a lot of

blocking and tackling and it just takes

time. Elon, let me ask you another

>> in order to take people to San Jose

airport like San Jose, you actually have

to connect to San Jose airport servers.

Um, and because you have to pay a fee

every time you off.

>> So So the car actually has to has to do

a remote call. The robot car has to do,

you know, remote procedure call to two

San Jose airport servers to to uh say

I'm dropping someone off at the airport

and charge me whatever five bucks. Um,

which is like there all these like

quirky things like that. The the the

like airports are somewhat of a racket.

Um,

>> uh, yeah.

>> Um, so so that's like, you know, we had

to solve that thing. But it's kind of

funny. The robot car is like calling the

server, the airport server to to uh, you

know, charge it credit card or whatever

someone

>> to extend a fax. Yeah, we're going to be

dropping off at this time. But but it it

will soon become extremely normal to see

cars going around with no one in them.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. Extreme

on just before uh we lose you, I want to

like ask if you saw the Bill Gates memo

that he put out. A lot of people are

talking about this memo

like you know did I guess Billy G is not

my love.

>> Oh man. Like did did did climate change

become woke? Did it become like woke?

And is it over being woke? Like you know

like what happened and what's what what

happened with Billy G? I mean

>> you know that's a lot. Great question.

Great question.

>> Yeah.

you know, you you'd think that someone

like Bill Gates who clearly started a

tech, you know, started a technology

company that's one of the biggest

companies in the world, Microsoft, um

being uh you you'd think he'd be really

quite um you know, strong in the

sciences. Um but actually my at least

direct conversations with him have um he

he's he is not strong in the sciences

like like

yeah this is really surprising you know

like he he came to visit me at the Tesla

Gigafactory in Austin and was telling me

that it's impossible to have a long

range uh semitr

um and I was like well but we literally

have them um And you can drive them and

Pepsi is literally using them right now.

And you can drive them yourself or send

someone. Obviously, Bill Gates can drive

it himself, but you can send a trusted

person to drive the the truck and verify

that it can do the things that we say

it's doing. And he's like, "No, no, it

doesn't work. It doesn't work." And I'm

like,

"Um, okay." I'm like kind of stuck

there.

Then it's like I was like, well, so it

must be that um you disagree with the W

hours per kilogram of the battery pack.

So that you're you must think that

perhaps we can't achieve the energy

density of the battery pack or that the

W hours per mile of the truck is too

high because and and that when you

combine those two numbers, the range is

low. And so which one of those numbers

do you think we have wrong? And what

numbers do you think are correct? and he

didn't know any of the numbers.

And I'm like, well, then doesn't it seem

that it's perhaps um you know uh

premature to conclude that a long-range

semi cannot work if you do not know the

energy density of the battery pack or

the energy efficiency of the of the

truck chassis.

>> But yeah, he he's now taken a 180 on

climate. He's saying maybe this

shouldn't be the top priority.

>> Climate is gay.

It's just the climate is gay. That's

wrong.

>> It's totally

>> Will Gay said the climate is gay and

Come on.

>> I maybe he's got some data he's got to

put up. Does he have to stand up a data

center for for Sam Alman or something? I

don't know. What is Azure?

>> I don't know.

>> He changed his position. I can't figure

out why.

I mean, you know, I mean, the the

reality of the whole climate change

thing is is that the um you know, you've

just had sort of people who say it it

doesn't exist at all and then people who

say it it's are super llamist and

saying, you know, RA is going to be

underwater in 5 years. And now obviously

neither of those two positions are true.

Um,

you know, the the reality is you can

measure the the carbon concentration in

the atmosphere. Again, you could just

literally buy a CO2 uh monitor from

Amazon. It's like 50 bucks. And um you

can measure it yourself. Um and uh you

know, and you can say, okay, well, look,

the the the the parts per million of CO2

in the atmosphere has been increasing

steadily at 2 to three per year. Um at

some point if you uh continue to take to

take uh billions eventually trillions of