SPEAKER_00: Let's get started. You know, we wanted to try something new this week. Every week, you know, I get a little upset. Things perturb me, Sax. And when it does, I just yell and scream, Disgratia! And so I bought the domain name Disgratia.com for no reason other than my own amusement. But you know what? I'm not alone in my absolute disgust

SPEAKER_02: at what's going on in the world. So this week, we're going to bring out a new feature here on the All In Podcast, Disgratia Corner. Disgratia!

SPEAKER_05: He was the best guy around.

SPEAKER_07: What about the people he murdered? What murder? You can act like a man!

SPEAKER_10: What the hell do you do? He's just killed a little f***ing man. He insulted him a little bit.

SPEAKER_13: I'm snags and I want to spit! What's wrong with you? Your hair was in the toilet water. Disgusting.

SPEAKER_14: I'm going to suffocate you, you little f***ing disgrace.

SPEAKER_18: Disgratia! Disgratia! Disgratia!

SPEAKER_17: This is fantastic.

SPEAKER_18: This is our new feature. Chamath, you look like you're ready to go.

David Friedberg: Why don't you tell everybody who gets your Disgratia on this one? Wait, we all had to come with a Disgratia? You really?

SPEAKER_22: You missed the memo. All right, fine.

David Friedberg: Enough. I got one. I got one. Okay, all right. Just calm down. My Disgratia Corner goes to Jason Calacanis. Oh, here we go.

SPEAKER_27: Come on, man. You can't.

Chamath Palihapitiya: And Pete Buttigieg, 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 use to hold over other people. Disgratia!

SPEAKER_32: And we wrote a lot of letters.

SPEAKER_34: We wrote a lot of letters. Disgratia! Which is good. That means it's, like, a good one, because it's behind the scenes. Disgratia! Jason Calacanis and Pete Buttigieg. Disgratia! Great.

SPEAKER_01: I'm glad that I got the first one, and you can imagine what's coming next week for you. I saw the Sydney Sweeney dress today, trending on social.

SPEAKER_37: Disgratia!

SPEAKER_40: It's too much. What? It's too much. What is it? I didn't even know what this is. You didn't see it? Bring it up, Nick.

SPEAKER_42: Pull up a picture, okay? Bring it up. It's a little floppy.

SPEAKER_39: Quelle vestito et propo. How is this Disgratia? The dress is too much. It's disgraceful. A little bit of, like, look at this. Oh, my God.

SPEAKER_00: Too much. It's elegant. Too much. In my day, sacks, a little cleavage, maybe. Perhaps in the 90s or 2000s, some side view. This is too much. Hey, guys.

SPEAKER_46: Hey.

SPEAKER_53: Very highbrow subject meta. We were discussing the world politics and the Sydney Sweeney dress.

SPEAKER_59: I don't know who's trending on X. Hi, Dad.

SPEAKER_57: Hi, Dad. Put away the phone, Jason.

SPEAKER_61: Rain Man, David Sacks.

SPEAKER_64: Love you, guys. Nice to meet you.

SPEAKER_71: What's going on with the algorithm? I'm getting Sydney Sweeney's dress all day. And lastly, sacks.

SPEAKER_72: Well, maybe you should stop everything in.

SPEAKER_71: I can't get married in 15 times.

SPEAKER_75: And that poor sacks got invited to SlutCon for two weeks straight on the algorithm.

SPEAKER_76: No, I say the algorithm has become. If you demonstrate.

SPEAKER_75: Sacks will explain.

SPEAKER_53: You can't even tell if that's a joke or a real thing. It's a real thing in San Francisco. It's all too real.

SPEAKER_81: It's actually real. Wait. Yeah.

SPEAKER_83: SlutCon is real. For real? I've noticed. Yeah.

SPEAKER_84: 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.

SPEAKER_77: It will give you more of that. It will give you a lot more. Yes, yes. So we did have an issue.

SPEAKER_89: We still have somewhat of an issue where there was an important bug that was figured out that was sold over the weekend,

SPEAKER_91: which caused in-network posts to be not shown.

SPEAKER_89: 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, a major bug. Then the algorithm was not probably taking into account if you just dwelt on something.

SPEAKER_91: But if you interacted with it, it would go hog wild. So as David said, if you were to favorite, reply, or engage with it in some way, it is going to get you a torrent of that same thing.

SPEAKER_96: Oh, Zachs. So maybe you... Zachs, what was your interaction?

SPEAKER_98: Did you bookmark SlutCon? I think you bookmarked it. Here's what I thought was good about it, though, is all of a sudden...

SPEAKER_102: If you happen to sports with Sidney Sweeney's boobs, then you're going to get a lot more of it.

SPEAKER_83: Yeah. David, okay. But what I thought was good about it was that you would see who else had a take on the same subject matter.

David Sacks: And that actually has been a useful part of it.

SPEAKER_106: So you do get more of like a 360 view on whatever it is that you've shown interest in.

SPEAKER_108: Yeah. It just... It's like it was giving you...

SPEAKER_91: It was just going too far, obviously. It was overcorrecting. It had too much gain on... It just turned up the gain way too high on any interaction. You would then get a tarrent of that. It's like, oh, you had a taste of it?

SPEAKER_111: We're going to give you three helpings. We're going to give you the food funnel. And that's all being done...

SPEAKER_112: I assume it's all being done with Grok now. So it's not like the old hard-coded algorithm? Or is it using Grok?

SPEAKER_114: Well, what's happening is that we're gradually deleting the legacy Twitter heuristics.

SPEAKER_91: Now, the problem is that it's like as you delete these heuristics, it turns out the one heuristic... 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 meme with the internet where there's like this very complicated machine. And there's like a tiny little wooden stick that's something that's keeping it going, which was, I guess, AWS East or whatever had something like that.

SPEAKER_88: You know, when somebody pulled out the little stick. Oops.

SPEAKER_02: I think it would be good if it...

SPEAKER_88: Half of Earth, you know.

SPEAKER_02: 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.

SPEAKER_91: Well, you can still, you still have the plot. 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 you're, you know. So, you know, you follow someone and some people are much more, you know, say a lot more than others, that makes the following tab hard to use. So we're going to add an option where you can have the following tab be curated.

SPEAKER_121: So Grock will say, what are the most interesting things posted by your friends? And we'll show you that in the following tab.

SPEAKER_91: It will also be the option of everything. Um, but, uh, but I think having that option will make the following tab much more useful.

SPEAKER_121: 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 want to look at. Um, and then, uh, we've, 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, which we're actually, there's, there's about a hundred million posts per day. So it's a hundred 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 going to, we're going to start off reading the, uh, really what, what Grock thinks are the top 10 million of the hundred million. And, 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 a, this is not a job humans could ever do. Um, and, and, and then once that is scaling, we see, well, we'll, we'll add the entire a hundred million a day. Um, so it's literally going to read through a hundred million things and, and, and, and, and show you the things that it thinks out of a hundred million, uh, posts per day. What are the most interesting posts to you?

SPEAKER_125: How much of Colossus will that take? A lot of work. Yeah. That's like, is it tens of thousands of servers like to do that every day?

SPEAKER_130: Yeah. My, my guess is it's probably on the order of 50 K H 100, something like that.

SPEAKER_125: 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.

SPEAKER_121: 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.

Chamath Palihapitiya: How, um, how's it been three years in this is a, it was a three year anniversary, like a couple of days.

SPEAKER_136: This is three years. Yeah. Yeah. Remember it was Halloween. Yeah. Halloween's back.

SPEAKER_138: Halloween's back. But it was the, the weekend you took over was Halloween.

SPEAKER_143: Yeah.

SPEAKER_146: We had a good time. Yeah.

SPEAKER_144: Uh, yeah. Three years.

SPEAKER_148: Well, we'll things three years from now.

SPEAKER_144: Yeah.

SPEAKER_01: W w what's the takeaway? Three years later, you were, you, you're obviously don't regret buying it. It's save free speech. That was good. Seemed to have turned that holding around. And that was, I think a big part of your mission. Um, but then you added it to X AI, 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

SPEAKER_149: make truth exist in the world again, great mission accomplished. Uh, and now it has this great future. Yeah.

SPEAKER_151: We've got community notes. You can also ask any, any, anything you see on the platform.

SPEAKER_121: Um, you know, just, you just press the grok 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, uh, just by, by tapping the grok 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 you need to be explained. So I think it, I think it's actually, we've made a lot of progress towards, uh, yeah. Um, freedom of, of, of speech, um, and, uh, and, and, and people being able to tell whether something is false or not, you know, you know, propaganda, the recent update to grok is actually, I think, very good, um, at piercing through propaganda. Um, so, um, and then we, we, we, we used that latest version of grok to create grokopedia, um, which I think is, um, uh, much, uh, more, it's, it's, it's not just, I think

SPEAKER_135: more, um, neutral, um, that then, and, and more accurate than, than Wikipedia, but it actually has a lot more information than a Wikipedia page.

SPEAKER_153: Did you seed it with Wikipedia or actually take a step back? How did you guys, how did you do this?

Chamath Palihapitiya: Um, well, we used AI, uh, but meaning like totally unsupervised, just a complete training run on its own, totally synthetic data, no, no seeded set, nothing.

SPEAKER_89: Um, well, it w w it was only just, uh, recently possible for us to do this.

SPEAKER_121: Um, so we've, um, we, we, we finished training on a maximally true-seeking actually true-seeking, a, a, a version of grok that is good at cogent analysis, so breaking down, um, uh, any, any given argument into its axiomatic elements, um, assessing where those axioms are, um, not, you know, the, the basic test for cogency, the axioms are likely to be true. They're not, um, contradictory, uh, that, um, the conclusion naturally, the, the conclusion most likely follows from those axioms. Um, so, so we, we, we just trained grok on a lot of critical thinking. Um, so it just got really good at critical thinking, um, which was quite hard. And then we took that version of grok and said, okay, cycle through the, the, the million most, uh, popular, uh, articles in Wikipedia and, and add modifying to delete. So, um, that means, um, research the rest of the internet, um, whatever's publicly available, um, and correct, uh, what's, correct the Wikipedia article, some fixed 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

SPEAKER_135: stated that are, that are technically true, but are not represent, do not properly represent a picture of the individual or event.

SPEAKER_01: This is critical because when you have a bio, as you do actually all do on Wikipedia over time, it's just the people you fired or you, you beat in business or have an ax to grind. So it just slowly becomes like the place where everybody, you know, kind of who hates you then puts their information. 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 get, gets put on it.

SPEAKER_161: It was a much better, much more updated page in version one.

SPEAKER_121: Uh, yes, this is versions point one, as we put it, as we show at the top. So, um, I, I do think actually by the time we get to version one, 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 is creating a, a more accurate and realistic and fleshed out, uh, description of, of people and events, uh, and, and, and subject matters.

SPEAKER_135: Like you can look at articles on, on physics and Grokipedia, that they're much better than Wikipedia by far.

SPEAKER_164: This, what I was going to ask you is that, do you think that you can take this corpus of

Chamath Palihapitiya: pages now and get Google to D boost Wikipedia or boost Grokipedia 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?

SPEAKER_89: Um, yeah, so it really can, if, if people share a lot of, if, if, if, if, if

SPEAKER_121: Grokipedia, 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 Grokipedia shows up, if they click on Grokipedia, it will naturally, uh, uh, you know, rise in, in Google's, uh, you

SPEAKER_91: know, rankings, um, I did, I did send, I did text Sundar because, you know, even, even sort of a day after launch, if you typed in Grokipedia, Google would just say, did you mean

SPEAKER_166: Wikipedia?

SPEAKER_168: Wikipedia, yeah.

SPEAKER_166: And it wouldn't even bring Grokipedia up at all. Yeah, that's true. So, so now.

SPEAKER_170: How's the usage been? Have you seen good growth since it launched? Uh, yeah. Is it very early?

SPEAKER_121: It, it, it went super viral. Um, so we're, we're, you know, we're seeing, seeing it cited all over the place.

SPEAKER_91: Um, but, uh, yeah, it, it, it's, and I think we'll see it used more and more, um, as, as people refer to it and people will judge for themselves when, when you read a Grokipedia article about a subject or a person that you know a lot about and you see, wow, this is way better than, than Wikipedia. Um, it's, it's, it's more comprehensive. 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 that this is actually the better source. Like it's, it, Grokipedia will, will, will, will succeed, I think very well because it will, it is fundamentally a superior product to Wikipedia.

SPEAKER_177: It is, it is a better source of information. Um, and we haven't even added, uh, images and video yet.

SPEAKER_121: Um, so yeah, we're going to add, uh, a lot of video, um, so, uh, using Grok Imagine to create videos, um, and, uh, so if you're trying to explain something, um, Grok Imagine to take the text from Grokpedia 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, Grok, well, you can just go on and see the video of, of how

SPEAKER_179: it works. That is created by.

SPEAKER_164: Elon, when, when you have this version that's maximally truth seeking as a model, do you think

Chamath Palihapitiya: 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 me, is it important to be able to like,

SPEAKER_137: say, Hey, hold on a second, this eval just suck. Like you guys suck on this evil. Like, it's just, this is crappy data.

SPEAKER_181: Yeah.

SPEAKER_182: I, I, I guess I'm not, I think, I mean, there are a lot of evals out there.

SPEAKER_121: Um, I've complete confidence that Croc Wikipedia is going to succeed. Um, because Wikipedia is actually not a very good product. Yeah, 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, 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, and Grok and, and ask Grok right there. Um, like, if you're trying to learn something, it's just great. It's, it's, 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.

SPEAKER_187: Elon, do you think you'll see like good uniform usage?

SPEAKER_190: Like if you look back on the last three 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 news.

SPEAKER_193: And there's all these, and there's all these.

SPEAKER_194: You know, yeah, but blue sky is falling is my favorite.

SPEAKER_199: I guess my, my question is.

SPEAKER_190: 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 Grokipedia or through X, do people like, just look for confirmation bias and they

SPEAKER_193: 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? Yeah.

SPEAKER_203: But I mean, is that like, You thought Sydney Sweeney's boobs were great. I see mine.

SPEAKER_206: Looking good. Yeah. Solid, solid up there.

SPEAKER_207: A little share. Yeah. I think we just got flagged on YouTube.

SPEAKER_208: Yeah, we did. We, that, that was definitely going to give us a censorship moment.

SPEAKER_209: Um, yeah. Grade A moves.

SPEAKER_210: No, but, but like, like, but do people change their mind? I mean,

SPEAKER_211: I could take it. There's no such thing as grade A move.

SPEAKER_199: It's off the rails already.

SPEAKER_214: David, you were trying to ask a serious question. Go ahead.

SPEAKER_199: 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?

SPEAKER_190: 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 this side.

SPEAKER_216: They want the confirmation bias.

SPEAKER_190: They want the confirmation bias. And they want to stay in a camp and they want to be tribal about everything.

SPEAKER_218: Um, it, it is remarkable how much people believe things,

SPEAKER_121: simply because it is their, the, the belief of the, of their in-group, you know, whatever their sort of political, uh, or ideological tribe is. Um, so, um, 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.

SPEAKER_88: And, and then, and, and, and then there, and he was like trying to show them the videos of the thing that they are talking about, um, where he is in fact, uh, condemning the Nazis

SPEAKER_91: in strongest possible terms and condemning racism in the strongest possible terms. And they literally don't even want to watch the videos.

SPEAKER_220: So, so yeah, the people, or at least some people would, they would prefer,

SPEAKER_91: um, they, they, they will stick to whatever their, um, ideological views, or whatever that sort of political tribal views are, uh, no matter what, um, the, the, the, the evidence could be staring them in the face and they're just going to be a flat earther.

SPEAKER_121: You know, there's, there is no evidence that you could show to a flat earther to convince them the world's around because everything is just a lie. Uh, the world is flat type of thing.

SPEAKER_01: I think the, the ability to hit at Grok in a reply and ask it a question in the thread has really become like a truth seeking mission missile on the platform. So when I put up metrics or something like that, I reply to myself and I say, at Grok, 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

SPEAKER_02: it DM Saks and then Saks 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 Grok coming in. I think it'd be like really interesting if Grok 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 the thread and it just

SPEAKER_04: 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 statistics from. I mean, you can, I mean, pretty much every,

SPEAKER_121: I mean, essentially every post on X unless it's like advertising or something, um, has the Grok

SPEAKER_91: symbol on it. Yeah. And you just tap that symbol and you're one tap away from a Grok analysis, literally just one tap. And we don't want to clutter the interface with where it's providing an explanation, but I'm just saying, if you go on X right now, it's one tap to get, to get Grok's analysis and Grok will research the, the, the, the, the X post and give you an accurate answer. Um, and then you can even ask us to do further research and further due diligence and you, you can go as far down the rabbit hole as you want to, 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 best source of truth on the, on the planet by far. And I think

SPEAKER_121: 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. Hmm. So, 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.

David Sacks: 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 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 my, 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 locate one at a nearby hardware store. And I think they paid extra to

SPEAKER_91: get it out of the window or something. Well, I think the store was confused because, um, my security team was asking for, uh, any kind of sink and, and like, like normally people wouldn't

SPEAKER_241: ask for any kind of sink. You need a sink that puts in your bathroom or connects to a certain kind of plumbing. So they're like trying to ask, he's like, well, what kind of faucets do you want?

SPEAKER_88: That's no, no, I just want it. It's saying. Yeah. I think it's a mental person.

SPEAKER_241: I think the store was confused that we just wanted a sink and didn't, and didn't care what, what's the sink connected to just like, 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,

SPEAKER_248: it's just rare that somebody wants a sink for sake. For mean purposes.

SPEAKER_250: One of my favorite memories was Elon said, Hey, you know, swing by, check it out. And I said, okay, I'll come by. And I drive up there and I'm looking where to park the car. And I realized

SPEAKER_00: there's just parking spaces around the entire business building. And I'm like, okay, this can't be like legal parking, but I park and it's legal parking. Yeah. I mean, you're in downtown SF,

SPEAKER_253: so you might get your window broken. Yeah. I might not be there when I get back,

SPEAKER_00: but we get in there and the place is empty and then it, it was seriously empty, except the cafeteria.

SPEAKER_88: There was an entire, uh, there were two, the Twitter headquarters, there's two buildings. One of the buildings was completely and utterly empty. Um, and the other building, uh, had like

SPEAKER_00: 5% occupancy. And in the 5% occupancy, we go to the cafeteria, we all go get something to eat. And we realized there's more people working in the cafeteria than that Twitter.

SPEAKER_261: There, there, there, there, there were more people making the food than eating the food, uh, in this giant, really nice, really nice cafeteria. Um, the, you know, there's, this is

SPEAKER_91: where we discovered that the, the actual price of, of the lunch was $400. Um, uh, the, the original

SPEAKER_88: 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 for $400. Um, and it was a great meeting. Yes. And, and then, and then there was that, that,

SPEAKER_121: 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 this, because, you know, there's the two buildings, two Twitter, 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 we, and then we tried drawing on the whiteboard and the, and the, the markers had gone dry so that nobody had used the whiteboard

SPEAKER_88: markers in like two years. So none of the markers worked. So we were like, this is totally bizarre, but it was, but it was totally clean because the cleaning crew had come in and done their job and

SPEAKER_91: cleaned, cleaned, cleaned an already clean place for two, three years straight. Um, it was spotless. 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

SPEAKER_121: going into the men's bathroom and, and, and there's, there's, there's a table, um, with, uh, you know,

SPEAKER_262: um, uh, hygiene to menstrual hygiene products. Yeah. Um, refreshed every week tampons, like a fresh

SPEAKER_88: 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, hadn't turned off the send, send fresh tampons to the van's bathroom in the empty building had not been turned off. No. So, so every week they would put a fresh box of tampons

SPEAKER_282: in an empty building, um, for years, this happened for years. And it must be very confusing to the, the people that were being asked to do this because they're like,

SPEAKER_288: okay, I'll throw them away. Well, I remember when you, I guess they're paying us. So we'll just put

SPEAKER_241: tampons. So you just have to consider that the, the string of possibilities necessary in order for

SPEAKER_91: 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 trans man burglar, um,

SPEAKER_88: who's unwilling to use the woman's bathroom that also has tampons. So statistically broken into the building.

SPEAKER_295: And at that moment, you have a period.

SPEAKER_241: I mean, we are more likely to be struck by a, a meteor, um, then need that tampon. Okay.

David Sacks: Well, I remember it was, I think it was shortly after that you discovered an entire room. Yeah. At the office that was filled with stay woke t-shirts. Yeah. Do you remember this?

SPEAKER_306: An entire pile of merch. Yeah.

SPEAKER_88: Yes. Hashtag stay woke. Stay woke. And also a big sort of buttons, like those magnetic buttons that you put on your shirt.

SPEAKER_91: That said, uh, uh, I, I am an engineer. Um, I'm like, look, if you, if you're an engineer, you don't need a button.

SPEAKER_309: Like a big, who's the button for, who are you telling that to? You could just ship code. We would know. We could check your gift.

SPEAKER_91: But yeah, they're like scarves, um, hoodies, uh, all kinds of merch that said hashtags.

SPEAKER_239: They work.

SPEAKER_314: Yeah. A couple of music.

SPEAKER_239: When you found that, I was like, my God, man, the barbarians are fully within the gates now. The barbarians have smashed through the gates and are looting the merch. Yes. You are rummaging through their holy relics and defiling them.

SPEAKER_39: I mean, but when you think about it, David, the amount of waste that we saw there during those first

SPEAKER_00: 30 days, just to be serious about it for a second, this was a publicly traded company. Right. So if you think about the financial duty of those individuals, there was a list of SaaS 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 two years. They'd been paying for a SaaS 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 desk, sweeting software in an office where nobody came to work.

SPEAKER_321: So they were paying to route nobody.

SPEAKER_220: There was, there was millions of dollars a year being paid for, yes, but for, um, analysis of pedestrian, like software that use cameras to analyze the pedestrian traffic to figure out

SPEAKER_218: where you can alleviate pedestrian traffic jams, uh, in an empty building.

SPEAKER_323: Right.

SPEAKER_218: That's like 11 out of 10 on a Dolbert scale.

SPEAKER_326: Yeah. It was pretty shout out Scott Adams. You've gone off scale on, on your Dolbert level at that point.

David Sacks: Let's talk about the free speech aspect for a second. Cause 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 Bhattacharya, 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. Yeah, stole 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 shadow banning. This was a paranoid conservative conspiracy theorist.

SPEAKER_91: Yeah. There was a very aggressive shadow banning by what was called the trust and safety group, which of course, naturally would be the one that is doing the nefarious shadow banning. And I just, I think you shouldn't have a group called trust and safety. Um, I mean, this is an old name if you ever, if there ever was one, um, I'm from the trust

SPEAKER_334: department. Oh, really? I want to talk to you about your tweets. Okay.

SPEAKER_338: Can we see your DMs? Say that you're from the trust department. It's literally, that's the ministry of truth right there.

SPEAKER_336: Yeah.

David Sacks: The Twitter executives had made, 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.

SPEAKER_84: They created an elaborate set of tools to do this.

SPEAKER_345: They had check boxes in the app tools to, to, uh, uh, yes, to D boost, uh, accounts. Yes.

David Sacks: Yes. And, you know, subsequently we found out that other social networking properties have done this as well, but you were the first to expose it. This is still being done at the other social media companies, uh, Google, by the way, um,

SPEAKER_91: so, um, for, you know, um, I don't pick on Google cause they're all doing it, but, uh, for search results, uh, if you simply push a result, uh, 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 anything like, where do you hide it? 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. So you could, you could hide a dead body there and nobody would find it. And, and, and you still have, then it's not like you've, you haven't made them go away.

SPEAKER_352: You've, you've just, uh, put them on this one page too. Yes.

David Sacks: 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 had ever been done before where you just, you actually let investigative reporters go through Twitters, emails, unfettered tax groups.

SPEAKER_239: I didn't, I, I, I was not looking over their shoulder at all.

SPEAKER_53: They just had direct access to everything.

David Sacks: 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.

SPEAKER_106: That was pretty extraordinary.

SPEAKER_220: Yeah.

SPEAKER_88: 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 public record. So a lot of people, some, some people on the left still think this is like a made up.

SPEAKER_91: 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 vans.

SPEAKER_112: Has the government come and asked you to take stuff down since, or they just have to, your, the policy is, Hey, listen, you gotta file a warrant.

SPEAKER_361: You gotta, you gotta come correct as opposed to just putting pressure on executives.

SPEAKER_362: Uh, yeah, our, our, our policy at this point is to follow the law.

SPEAKER_91: So, um, so if, if, if now, uh, the, 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 X, Y, Z 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, the policy is really just, um, adhere to the laws in any given country. Um, uh, it is not up to us to agree or disagree with those laws.

SPEAKER_121: And if, if, uh, if, if the people of that country want laws to be different, then they should, you know, ask their leaders to change the laws.

SPEAKER_364: Yeah.

SPEAKER_121: Um, but, but anything that, but as soon as you start going beyond the law, now you're putting your thumb on the scale.

SPEAKER_91: Um, so, so the, yeah, that, that, 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,

SPEAKER_88: where, uh, you know, this, this, this judge in Brazil was asking us to, or telling us to break

SPEAKER_91: 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, 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.

David Sacks: That's 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 COVID. 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 shadow banned. 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 chastened in their policies and start to push back more.

SPEAKER_220: Yeah, that's right. Um, once Twitter broke ranks, uh, the others had to, um, it became very obvious what the others were

SPEAKER_88: doing, and so they had to mitigate, uh, their, their censorship substantially as because of what Twitter did.

SPEAKER_91: I mean, fast to give them some credit, they also felt that they had the air cover to, um, to, uh, be more inclined towards free speech.

SPEAKER_121: Um, they still do a lot of sort of, uh, you know, shadow banning and, and whatnot at the other social media companies, but it's, it's much less than it used to be.

SPEAKER_170: Yeah, Elon, what do you, what have you seen in terms of like governments creating new laws?

SPEAKER_190: 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

SPEAKER_193: stepping in and saying, let's create new ways of maintaining our control through law.

SPEAKER_118: Um, yeah, there, there is, there's been an overall global movement to suppress free

SPEAKER_121: speech, um, under the name of, in the, in the, under the guise of suppressing hate speech.

SPEAKER_88: Um, but then, uh, you know, it's the, the, the problem with, with that is that, um,

SPEAKER_121: your freedom of speech only matters. Um, if people are allowed to say things that you, 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,

SPEAKER_88: you know, you, you don't have freedom of speech 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.

SPEAKER_220: Um, but, but there, there, there is a, uh, a movement and I, there, or there had, there was a

SPEAKER_121: very strong movement to codify, uh, speech suppression into the law throughout, throughout the world and including the Western world.

SPEAKER_361: Um, you know, the Europe and Australia, UK and Germany, very, um, yeah, aggressive in this regard.

SPEAKER_91: Yes. And my understanding is that in the UK, uh, there's something like two or 3000 people, uh, in prison for social media posts. Um, and in fact that this, that there's so many people in, uh, 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 in prison for this. They, they, they have 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.

SPEAKER_121: Um, and, and, and, uh, underscores why the founders of this country made the first amendment, the first amendment was freedom of speech.

SPEAKER_91: Why did they do that?

SPEAKER_135: It's because in the places that they came from, there wasn't freedom of speech and you could be in prison or killed for, for saying things.

SPEAKER_164: 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.

SPEAKER_137: We talked about it last week and we talked about how crazy ISS and glass Lewis is. Right. We use this one insane example where like Ira, Aaron prize, didn't get the recommendation from

SPEAKER_216: ISS and glass Lewis because he didn't meet the gender requirements. But then Kathleen also didn't, it doesn't make sense.

SPEAKER_384: Can you, so the, the board vote is on the six.

SPEAKER_91: So there's an African-American woman. Yeah. Yeah. She, she, they recommended against her, but then also recommended against, uh, our enterprise, um, on, on the grounds, he was insufficiently diverse. So I'm like this, like these things don't make any sense.

SPEAKER_388: Yeah.

SPEAKER_91: 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, uh, most of them out, most of them outsource their decision, uh, to, uh, advisory firms and particularly, particularly glass Lewis and, uh, ISS, I call them corporate ISIS.

SPEAKER_121: Um, you know, so all they do is basically just, they're just terrorists.

SPEAKER_91: Um, so, um, so, and, and they had, they own no stock in any of these companies. Um, right. So I, I think that this, there's a fundamental breakdown of fiduciary 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 shareholder returns because people are counting on them. Like people, uh, you know, have, say, you know, sorry, has, have all their savings and say a 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, cause you know, we're, you know, we're far like that, you know, you know, you know where basically political activists go, they go where the, where the power is. Um, and so effectively, uh, Glass Lewis and ISS, uh, uh, controlled 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?

SPEAKER_121: ISS and Glass Lewis, and they do. So, um, so my concern for the future, um, cause there's the, the, you know, the Tesla, um, thing

SPEAKER_91: is, is, it's called sort of compensation, but really it's not about compensation. So I'm 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, uh, 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 I, I, I feel like 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 kinda, 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 firms fire me, um, even though I've done everything right. Yeah. That's my concern. Yeah. And then I, and then,

SPEAKER_394: then, then you've got, and then I, and then I cannot ensure this, the safety of the robots.

SPEAKER_396: If you don't get that vote, 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

SPEAKER_91: 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 activists, investors. Yeah. No way. No way. Yeah. Makes sense. Yeah. And who is

SPEAKER_01: capable of running the four or five major product lines at Tesla? I mean, this is 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, uh, you got trucks, you got the self-driving group, and this is a very complex built 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

SPEAKER_216: cockpit. By the way, if we take a full turn around corporate governance corner also this week,

Chamath Palihapitiya: what was interesting about the open AI 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

SPEAKER_121: any thoughts on that? Um, yes, I believe that we'll go to a jury trial in February, March. Um, and, and then we'll, we'll see what the, what the results are there. But, um, I, there's, there's like a mountain of evidence, um, that, that shows that opening AI was created as a, uh,

SPEAKER_91: 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 benefit financially from open AI and that they've completely violated that. And more of a, you can, that then you can just use the way back machine and look at the website of open AI. Again, open source, nonprofit, open source, nonprofit, the whole way until, you know, it looked, it looked like, wow, this is a, 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 opening AI to

SPEAKER_121: mean open to everyone instead of open source, even though it always meant open source. I came up with

SPEAKER_39: 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

SPEAKER_412: rightfully, uh, which 50 million for a startup would be half at least, but they must have made an

SPEAKER_112: overture towards you and said, Hey, can we just give you 10% of this thing and give us your blessing? Like you're obviously have a different goal here. Yeah. Yeah. Um, I mean, essentially,

SPEAKER_91: since I came up with the idea for the company named it, um, provided the A, B and C rounds of funding, uh, recruited the, uh, critical personnel, uh, I told them everything I know. Um, you know, if that had been a commercial corporation, I'd probably own half the company.

SPEAKER_121: So, um, but, and, 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

SPEAKER_394: world and open source nonprofit for the world. Do you think the right thing to do is to take

SPEAKER_35: those models and just open source them today? If you could affect that change, is that the right

SPEAKER_262: thing to do? Uh, yeah, I think, I think, uh, that, that, that is what the, what it was created to do.

SPEAKER_91: So it should, I mean, the, the best open source models right now, actually, ironically, because fate, fate 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 one is, or maybe it's better than second best. Uh, but like the, uh, the Grok 2.5, um, open source model is actually very good. Um, and I think we would probably be, 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 open AI 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

SPEAKER_177: running open, open eyes, open source models? Exactly. Yeah. Nobody. We've had a big debate about

SPEAKER_125: 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 you're building self-driving

SPEAKER_112: 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,

SPEAKER_01: 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,

SPEAKER_121: I call AI the supersonic tsunami. So, um, so not the most comforting description in the world. Um, but it's fast and big. If there was a tsunami, a giant wall of water moving faster than the speed

SPEAKER_130: of sound, that's AI. Um, when does it land? Yeah, exactly. Um, so now this is happening

SPEAKER_91: whether I wanted to or not, 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,

SPEAKER_177: because at the time Google was, uh, sort of essentially had unilateral power in AI that all, all the AI essentially. Um, and, um, and, uh, you know, Larry Page was not, um, you know, he, he, he, he was not taking as safety seriously. Um, uh,

SPEAKER_91: I don't know, Jason, I'm sure were you, were you there when he, he called me a speciest?

SPEAKER_412: 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,

SPEAKER_121: Larry, well, what you're like, we need to make sure that the AI doesn't destroy all the humans. And then he called me a speciest, um, like racist or something for being pro, uh, human intelligence

SPEAKER_91: 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 that Google had, uh, essentially

SPEAKER_112: a monopoly on AI. Yeah. They bought deep mind, which you were on the board of had an investment in Larry and Sergey had invested in as well. And it's really interesting about it because I told him

SPEAKER_303: about it. Uh, I, I showed him some stuff from deep, from deep mind. And, and I think that's how

SPEAKER_91: I found out, found out about it and, and, and acquired them actually. I gotta be careful what I say. Um, but, but the, 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.

SPEAKER_121: So, um, and called me a speciest, uh, who'll be pro human. Um, what do you do in those circumstances?

SPEAKER_91: Yeah. Build a competitor. Yes. Um, so opening, I was created essentially as the opposite, which is an open source nonprofit, the opposite of Google. Um, now, unfortunately it's, it's, it, it, it needs to change its name to close to a maximum profit AI. Yeah.

SPEAKER_446: For maximum profit to be clear. The most amount of profit you could possibly get.

SPEAKER_449: I mean, it is so, it is like, like I said, it's comical. And when you hear,

SPEAKER_241: there's an irony maximizing, 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,

SPEAKER_211: uh, not at nonprofit AI is it's super close source. It's tighter than Knox. Um, the, the, the, the, the AI is locked up tight in Fort Knox. Um, and, uh, and, and they are going for maximum profit. Like get the bourbon, the steak knife that, you know, you know, uh, yeah, I mean, you know, the, the, the, the, you know, like, like they,

SPEAKER_241: they're going for the buffet and they're just diving headfirst into the profit buffet. I mean, it's just, or at least aspiration, the revenue buffet, at least profit. We'll see.

SPEAKER_458: Um, we, uh, I mean, it's like, it's like, it's like ravenous wolves for revenue, ravenous

SPEAKER_412: revenue buffet. No, no, it's literally like super villain. It's like bond villain level flip.

SPEAKER_39: Like it went from being the United nations to being specter in like James Bond land. Yeah. When you hear him say, I'm going to, when, when Sam says it's going to like raise 1.4 trillion to build our data centers. Yeah, no, but I think he, I think he means it. Yeah. I mean, it's,

SPEAKER_250: I would say audacious, but I, I wouldn't want to. Yeah. Insult the word. Oh, actually,

Chamath Palihapitiya: actually, I have a, 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

SPEAKER_24: inference and you can string them all together. I think the math is like, it could actually be like

SPEAKER_91: a hundred gigawatts. Is that right? Did you do it? If, if ultimately there's a Tesla fleet, uh, that is, um, a hundred million vehicles, uh, which I think we probably will get to at some point a hundred 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 computer. Um, and they have built in, um, power and cooling, um, and connect to the wifi. That's the key. Yeah, exactly. Um, yeah,

SPEAKER_470: exactly. And, and, and, uh, you'd have a hundred gigawatts of inference computer.

SPEAKER_472: Elon, do you think that the architecture, like there was an attention free model that came out

SPEAKER_190: 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

SPEAKER_474: on where we're headed in terms of power, um, uh, per unit of computer per token of output?

SPEAKER_262: Well, we, we have a clear example of, uh, efficient power, efficient compute, which is the human brain.

SPEAKER_121: Um, so, um, our brains use about 20 Watts, um, of power, but, and all that only about 10 Watts

SPEAKER_91: 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've 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, a biological computer. Um, and that biological computer has like a 20 year, you know, boot sequence. Uh, but, but, 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 opportunity, 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 massive opportunity for improving the, uh, efficiency of AI compute. Um, it's cause 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 hundred megawatt, uh, or even, you know, a gigawatt, uh, uh, AI super computer at this point can't do everything that, uh, a human can do. Uh, it, it will be able to, uh, but it can't yet. Um, so, but, but, but, but we open, like I said, we've got this obvious case of, um, uh, human brains being very power efficient and achieving and, and building civilization with, with, with, uh, you know, with, with 10 Watts to compute. Um, and, and, and a, and a very slow and our, uh, 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, we're not communicating at a terabit. We're communicating more like 10 bits per second. Um, so, um, That should actually 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, we, we continue to see massive improvements in, in inference, computer efficiency. Um, so, um, yeah.

Chamath Palihapitiya: You think that there's a moment where you would justify stopping all the traditional cars and just going completely all in on CyberCab 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?

SPEAKER_88: I mean, all of the costs we make right now, um, are capable of being a robot taxi. So there's a

SPEAKER_91: little confusion of the terminology because, um, the, the, the, our cars look normal, you know, like model three or model Y looks, it's a good looking car, but it looks, looks normal. Um, but it has an advanced AI computer and advanced AI software and cameras, and we didn't want the cameras to stick out. So we, you know, so that we wouldn't want them to be ugly or stick out. So, so we, you know, if we put them, they're sort of an out of truce of locations, you know, the forward looking camera cameras are in front of the rear view mirror. Um, the side view mirrors are in the side repeaters. Oh, this is the side view cameras on the side repeaters. Um, the, 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

SPEAKER_121: 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 an autonomous world. Uh, and we saw production, uh, 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, uh, cyber cabs per year. Um, but, but it is important to emphasize that all of our cars are capable of

SPEAKER_434: being robotic taxis. The cyber cab is gorgeous. I told you I'd buy two of those.

SPEAKER_112: If you put a steering wheel in them and there is a big movement. 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 two, right? Like, isn't it like the perfect model two, in addition to being a cyber cab?

SPEAKER_262: Look, the reality is people may think they want to drive their car, but the reality is that they don't.

SPEAKER_91: Um, how many times have you been saying an Uber or Lyft 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 drive to my destination. How many times have you thought to yourself, thought that to yourself? No, no, it's quite the opposite. I have the model Y and I just got 14. I have Juniper and I have,

SPEAKER_499: I got the 14 one and I put it on Mad Max mode the last couple of days.

SPEAKER_503: That is a unique experience. I was like, wait a second. This thing is driving in a very unique

SPEAKER_506: fashion. Um, yeah. Yeah. It, it assumes you want to get to your destination in a hurry.

SPEAKER_507: Yeah. Um, I, I used to give cam drivers an extra 20 bucks to do that.

SPEAKER_508: Medical appointment or something. I don't know.

SPEAKER_499: 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. Cruise had a terrible accident. It 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. This is pretty high stakes. So you're being extremely cautious.

SPEAKER_91: The cars, 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

SPEAKER_515: would, would be headline news. Well, probably worldwide headline news.

SPEAKER_517: Especially if it's a Tesla, like Waymo, I think gets a bit of a pass. I think there's half the

SPEAKER_01: country or a number of people probably would, you know, go extra hard on you.

SPEAKER_220: Uh, yes. Uh, yeah, exactly. Um, yeah. Not everyone in the press is my friend.

SPEAKER_520: I hadn't noticed. Yeah.

SPEAKER_262: Yeah. Some of them are a little, uh, antagonistic. Yeah. So you can just, but people are pressuring you to go fast and I, I think is everybody's

SPEAKER_01: 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. So I applaud you for putting the safety monitor in doing the safety

SPEAKER_523: 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.

SPEAKER_91: Yes. And, and we do expect it to take, to not have any, um, sort of safety, uh,

SPEAKER_88: uh, occupant or, or there's not really a driver that just sits monitor safety, safety monitor, just sits, just sit, they just sit in the car and don't do anything. Um, safety dude. Yeah. Um,

SPEAKER_121: so, uh, but we do expect that, that the cause will be driving around without any, any safety monitor, um, if before the end of the year. So sometime in December in Austin. Yeah. I mean,

SPEAKER_112: 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.

SPEAKER_361: What do you, what did you learn in the first three or four months of the Austin experiment?

SPEAKER_220: Actually it's, it's gone pretty smoothly. Um, uh, a lot of, a lot of things that we're learning, um,

SPEAKER_91: are, uh, just how to manage a fleet, like, cause cause you've, you've got to write all the fleet management software, right? So, um, and you've, you've got to have write the ride hailing software. You've got to write, basically the, 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, 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'll, 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 like, I don't know, 500 or more in the greater Austin, Austin area. Um, and you know, if, if,

SPEAKER_121: if, um, you, you have to, you have to make sure the cars don't all, for example, go to the same supercharger, uh, that's fine. Right. Um, so, uh, or, or don't all go to the same intersection.

SPEAKER_91: Um, there's, there's, it's like, what did these cars do? And then like, sometimes there's a high demand and sometimes there's, there's low demand. What do you do during, during those times? Uh, do you have the car circled 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, a disabled parking space or something, but the, the writing's faded or the things faded. The car was like, oh, look, a parking space will jump right in there. It's like, get a ticket. You got to look carefully, make sure it's like, you know, it's not a, uh, an illegal parking space, uh, or, or,

SPEAKER_88: or it sees, it sees a space to park and it's like ridiculously tight, but it's like, I can get in there. Um, but with like, you know, three inches on either side type of computer, but, but nobody else would be able to get in the car if you do that. Um, so, um, you know, there's just like

SPEAKER_539: all these oddball corner cases, um, and, um, uh, and regulators, like regulators are all

SPEAKER_359: very, um, yeah, they're, they're, they have different levels of perspicuousness and regulations depending on the city, depending on the airport. I mean, it's just, you know, very different

SPEAKER_361: everywhere. That's going to just be a lot of blocking and tackling and it just takes time.

SPEAKER_220: Elon, let me ask you another. Like in order to take people to San Jose airport, like San Jose, you actually have to connect to

SPEAKER_91: San Jose airport servers. Um, and cause you have to pay a fee every time. Yep. So, 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, to 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 are all these like quirky things like that. The, the, the, the, like airports are somewhat of a racket. Um,

SPEAKER_88: uh, yeah. Um, so, so that's like, you know, we have to solve that thing, but it's kind of funny that the robot car is like calling the server, the airport server to, to, uh, you know, charge

SPEAKER_551: its credit card or whatever. It's like a send a fax. Yeah. We're going to be dropping off at this time,

SPEAKER_91: but it, it will seem to become extremely normal to see cars going around with no one in them.

SPEAKER_199: Yeah. Yeah. And just before, uh, we lose you, I want to like, ask if you saw that Bill Gates memo that he put out, a lot of people are talking about this memo. Like, you know, did, I guess like,

SPEAKER_210: say 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

SPEAKER_554: with Billy G? I mean, you know, great question. Great question. Yeah. Uh, you, you, you think

SPEAKER_218: that someone like Paul Gates who I clearly started to take, you know, started a technology company.

SPEAKER_121: That's one of the biggest companies in the world, Microsoft, um, being, uh, you, you think he'd be

SPEAKER_220: really quite, um, you know, strong in the sciences. Um, but actually my, at least direct conversations with him have, um, he is, he is not strong in the sciences. Like the kid that he didn't. Yeah.

SPEAKER_91: This is really sharp, surprising, you know, like 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, semi truck. 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 not gonna drive himself, but you can send, uh, a trusted person to drive the truck and verify that it can do the things that we say it's doing. And it's like, no, no, it doesn't work. It doesn't work. And I'm like,

SPEAKER_88: um, okay. I'm like kind of stuck there. Um, uh, then it's like, I was like, well, so it must be that,

SPEAKER_91: um, you disagree with the watt 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 watt hours per mile of the truck is too high 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, uh, 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.

SPEAKER_112: But yeah, he, he's now taking a 180 on climate. He's saying maybe this shouldn't be the top priority.

SPEAKER_583: Climate is gay. It's just, yeah. Why would he say climate is gay? That's wrong.

SPEAKER_585: It's totally retarded.

SPEAKER_586: Why would you say climate is gay and retarded? Come on.

SPEAKER_589: I, maybe he's got some data centers he's got to put up. Does he have to stand up a data center for

SPEAKER_596: for Sam Maltman or something? I don't know. What is Azure? I don't know. He changed his position. I can't figure out why.

SPEAKER_91: I mean, you know, I mean, the reality of the whole climate change thing is, is that the, um, you know, you've just had a sort of people who say it, it doesn't exist at all. And then people who say it, it's our super lamest and saying, you know, RAR is going to be underwater in five years. And obviously neither of those two positions are true. Um, the, you know, the, the, the reality is you can measure

SPEAKER_88: the, the carbon concentration, 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,

SPEAKER_121: and, uh, you know, and you can say, okay, well, look, the, the, the, the possible million of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing steadily at two to three per year. Um, at some point, if you, uh, continue to take, to take, uh, billions, eventually trillions of tons of carbon from deep underground and transfer it to the atmosphere and oceans. So you transfer it from deep underground into the surface cycle, you will change the chemical constituency of the atmosphere and oceans. Just that you're just literally, well, um, then you can only, then now you can say, argue to what degree and over what time scale. Um, and the reality is that in my opinion is that we've

SPEAKER_91: got at least 50 years, uh, before it's a serious issue. Um, I don't think we've got 500 years, uh, but, but we've probably got, you know, 50. Um, it's, it's not, it's not five years. Um, so if you're trying to get to the right order of magnitude of accuracy, um, I'd say the cons, the concern level for climate change is on the order of 50 years. It's definitely not five. And I think it probably isn't 500. Um, so, uh, so really the, the right course of action is actually just the reasonable course of action, which is to lean in the direction of sustainable energy. Um, and, uh, and lean in the direction of, of solar, um, and sort of a solar battery future and, and, and, and generally have the rules of the system, um, uh, lean in that direction. I don't think we need massive subsidies, but then we also shouldn't have massive subsidies for the oil and gas industry. Okay. So the oil and gas, gas industry has massive tax write-offs that they don't even think of as subsidies. Um, because these things have been in place for, in some cases, you know, 80 years. Um, but they're not there for other industries. So when you've got special tax conditions that are in one industry and not another industry, I call that a subsidy. Obviously it is, but they're taking it for granted for so long in oil and gas that they don't think of it as a subsidy. Um, so the

SPEAKER_121: right course of action, of course, is to remove, in my opinion, to remove subsidies from all industries.

SPEAKER_91: Um, but, but the, the, the political reality is that the oil and gas industry, um, it's very strong in the Republican party, but not in the Democratic party. So you, you will not see obviously even the tiniest subsidy being removed from the oil, gas, and coal industry. In fact, there were some that

SPEAKER_121: were added to the oil, gas, and coal industry, uh, in, in the, the, the sort of big bill. Um, and, uh, and there were a lot, a massive number of, of sustainable energy incentives that were removed.

SPEAKER_91: Some of which I agreed with, by the way, um, some of the incentives have gone too far. Um, but, um, anyway, the, the, the, the, the actual, I think the correct scientific conclusion in my opinion, um, and I, and I think we can back this up with, with solid reasoning. Yeah. Ask, ask rock, for example, uh, is, is that we should, um, we should lean in the direction of moving towards a sustainable energy future. Um, we, we will eventually run out of, uh, oil, gas, and coal to burn anyway, uh, because it's a, it's a finite, there's a finite amount of

SPEAKER_188: that stuff. Um, and we will eventually have to go to something that lasts a long time that is

SPEAKER_604: sustainable. But to your point about the irony of things, it seems to be the case that making

SPEAKER_190: energy with solar is cheaper than making energy with some of these carbon based sources today. And so the irony is it's already working. I mean, the market is moving in that direction and this notion that we need to kind of force everyone into a model of behavior. It's just naturally going to change because we've got better systems, you know, you and others have engineered better systems that make these alternatives cheaper and therefore they're winning. Like they're actually winning in

SPEAKER_609: the market, which is great. Uh, but they can't, they can't win if there are subsidies to support

SPEAKER_91: the old systems, obviously. Yeah. I mean, by the way, there are actually massive disincentives of for solar because the, because China, uh, China, uh, is, is a massive producer of solar panels. China does an incredible job of solar manufacturing, of solar panel manufacturing, really incredible. Um, they have one and like roughly one and a half terawatts of solar production

SPEAKER_121: right now. Um, and they're only using a terawatt per year, but by the way, that's a gigantic number. Um, the, the, uh, the average, uh, us power consumption is only half a terawatt.

SPEAKER_91: So just think about that for a second. China's, uh, China's solar panel out production max capacity is one and a half terawatts per year. Uh, us steady state power usage is half a terawatt. Now, you do have to, to reduce, you say to produce one and a half terawatts a year of solar, you need, you need to add that with batteries taking into account that the differences between night and day, the fact that the solar panel is not always, um, pointed, uh, directly at the sun,

SPEAKER_121: that kind of thing. So you can divide by five ish to say that, but, but that still means that

SPEAKER_91: China has the ability to produce solar panels that have a steady state output. That is roughly two thirds that of the entire use economy from all sources, which means that just with solar alone,

SPEAKER_613: China can, uh, in one, in 18 months, um, produce enough solar panels to power the entire, the United

SPEAKER_216: States, all the electricity, the United States. What do you think about near field solar, AKA nuclear?

SPEAKER_616: I'm in favor of, look, make, make energy from any, any way you, you, you want that, that doesn't,

SPEAKER_91: that doesn't like obviously, uh, harmful to the, to the environment. Um, generally people don't

SPEAKER_618: welcome a nuclear reactor in their backyard. Um, they're, they're, they're not like championing,

SPEAKER_211: put it here, put it under my bed, put it on my roof. If, if, if, if your next door neighbor said,

SPEAKER_91: hey, I'm selling my house and they're putting a reactor there, what would you, you, you know, the typical homeowner response would be negative. Um, it, very few people will embrace a nuclear

SPEAKER_88: reactor, um, adjacent to their house. Um, so, um, but nonetheless, uh, I, I do think nuclear is

SPEAKER_121: actually very safe. Um, the, it's, it's, there's a lot of scaremongering, sort of scaremongering and propaganda around, uh, fission, if you're assuming you're talking about fission, um, and,

SPEAKER_91: and, but fission is actually very safe. They obviously have this on, uh, you know, the Navy,

SPEAKER_88: US Navy has this on submarines and aircraft carriers and with, with people really walking right. I mean, a submarine is a pretty crowded place and they have a nuclear powered submarine. So, um, so, so I think, I think fission is fine as, as a, as a, as an option. Um, the, the regulatory environment is, makes it very difficult to actually get that done. Um, and then it is important to

SPEAKER_91: appreciate just the sheer magnitude of the power of the sun. So this is, here's some just important basic facts. Um, even Wikipedia has these facts, right? Um, you know, so you don't even have to, you don't have to use Rockpedia, but even Wikipedia has, yeah, even Wikipedia got it right. Yes. Yes. I'm saying what I'm saying, even Wikipedia has got these facts, right? Um, the, the sun is about, uh, 99.8% of the mass of the solar system. Uh, then, then Jupiter is about 0.1%. And then everything else is in the remaining 0.1%. And we are much less than 0.1%. Um, so, um, if you burnt all of the mass of the solar system, okay. Then the total energy produced by the sun would still round up to a hundred percent. Like if you just burnt earth, um, the whole planet and burnt Jupiter, which is very big and, and quite challenging to burn, uh, uh, you, you know, uh, Jupiter into thermonuclear active, um, it wouldn't matter the sun compared to the sun. The sun is 99.8% of the mass of the solar system and everything else is in the miscellaneous category. So, um, like basically, no matter what you do, total energy produced, um, in our solar system rounds up to 100% from the sun. You could even throw another Jupiter in there. Um, so we're going to snag a Jupiter from somewhere else. Um, and, uh, somehow teleport, you could teleport two more Jupiters, uh, into our solar system, burn them. And the sun would still round up to a hundred percent. You know, as long as you're at 99.6%, you're still rounding up to a hundred percent. Um, maybe that gives some perspective of why solar is really the thing that matters. And, and, and as soon as you start thinking about things in, at sort of a grander scale, like Kardashev scale to civilizations, it becomes very, very obvious. It's like, I'm not saying anything that's new, by the way, like, uh, anyone who studies physics has known this for, you know, very long time. Um, in fact, Kardashev, I think was a Russian physicist who came up with this idea, I think in the sixties. Um, just, just as a way to classify civilizations, um, where Kardashev scale one would be, uh, you've used your, your, you've harnessed most of the energy of, of the planet. Kardashev scale two, you, you've harnessed most of the energy of your sun. Kardashev three, you've harnessed most of the energy of galaxy. Um, now we're only about, I don't know, one percent, or a few, a few percent of Kardashev scale one right now, just optimistically. Um, so, um, but as soon as you go to Kardashev scale two, where you're talking about the power of the sun, then you're really just saying, um, everything is solar power and, and, and, and the rest is in the noise. Um, and, um, yeah, so like the, you know, like the, the sun produces about a billion times or call it well over a billion times more energy than everything on earth combined.

SPEAKER_396: It's crazy. It's mind blowing, right? Yeah. Yeah. Solar's the obvious solution to all this. And yeah,

SPEAKER_402: I mean, short term, you have to use some of these other sources, but hey, there it is an

SPEAKER_295: hour and a half star powered. Like maybe we've got a branding issue here. Yeah. Star power. Instead

SPEAKER_95: of solar powered, it's, it's starlight. Yeah. Starlight. It's the power of a, a blazing sun. Um,

SPEAKER_326: how much energy does an entire bar have? Yeah. Well, more than enough.

SPEAKER_91: All right. And also you really need to keep the power local. Um, so sometimes people, honestly, I've had these discussions so many times it's, it's, uh, where they say, well, would you beam the power back to earth? I'm like, do you want to melt earth? Because you would melt earth if you did that, um, we'd be vaporized in an instant. Uh, so you, you really need to keep the power local, um, you know, basically distributed power. And, and, and I, and I guess most of it we use for

SPEAKER_135: intelligence. Uh, so it's like, you know, the future is like a whole, a whole bunch of, um,

SPEAKER_472: solar powered AI satellites. But Elon, the only, the only thing that makes the star work is it just

SPEAKER_190: happens to have a lot of mass. So it has that gravity to ignite the fusion, to ignite the fusion reaction. Right. But like we could ignite the fusion reaction on earth now. I don't know, like if your view has changed, I think we talked about this a couple of years ago where you were pretty like, we don't know if, or when fusion becomes real here, but theoretically we could

SPEAKER_220: take like 10. No, I want to be clear. My opinion on, um, uh, so, um, yeah, I started physics in

SPEAKER_91: college. Um, at one point in high school, I was thinking about a career in physics. One of my sons actually does a career in physics. Uh, but my, the problem is I came to the conclusion is that I'd be waiting for a collider or, or a telescope. I don't have any enough to get that clear in physics, but I have a strong interest in the subject. Um, so, um, so, so, uh, my opinion on say, creating a fusion reactor on earth is I think this is actually not a hard problem. Um, actually, I mean, it's a little hard. I mean, it's, it's not like totally trivial, but if you just scale up a token mark, uh, the, the bigger you make it, the easier the problem gets. So you've got a surface

SPEAKER_487: volume ratio, uh, thing where, you know, you're trying to maintain a really hot core while having a wall that doesn't melt. So, uh, uh, that's a similar problem with rocket engines. You've got

SPEAKER_91: a super hot core in the rocket engine, but you don't want the, the walls, the chamber walls of the rocket engine to melt. So you have a temperature gradient, uh, where it's very hot in the middle, and, and, and gradually gets cold enough as you get to the, uh, perimeter. It gets, as you get to the, uh, you know, the, the chamber walls in the rocket engine where the, it doesn't melt, uh, because you've lowered the temperature, um, and you got a temperature gradient. So just, if you just scale up, uh, of, you know, the, the donut reactor, talk a mark, um, and, um, and, and, and improve your surface volume ratio, that becomes much easier. And you, you, you can absolutely, in my opinion, no, I, I think just anyone who looks at the math, uh, you can, you can make, uh, a, a, a reactor that is part, that generates more energy than it consumes. And the bigger you make it, the easier it is. And in the limit, you just have a giant gravitationally contained thermonuclear reactor, like the sun. So, uh, which requires no maintenance, and it's free. Um, so this is also why, why would we bother doing that on making a little itty bitty sun that's so microscopic you'd barely notice, um, on earth when we've got the giant free one in the sky?

SPEAKER_472: Yeah. But we, but we're, we only get a fraction of 1% of that energy on the planet earth. We have to

SPEAKER_190: go. Much less than 1%. Yeah. Right. So we've got to figure out how to wrap the sun. If we're gonna harness that energy, that's, that's our, our long term. If people want to have fun with reactors,

SPEAKER_91: you know, um, that's, that's fine. Have fun with reactors. Um, but it's not a serious endeavor compared to the sun. Um, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's sort of a, a fun science, it's a fun science project to make a thermonuclear reactor, but it's not, um, it's not, it's, it's just peanuts compared to the sun. And, and, and even the, the solar energy that does reach earth, um, is a gigawatt per square kilometer or roughly, you know, called two and a half gigawatts per square mile. Um, so that's a lot, you know, um, and the commercially available panels are around 25, almost 20, 26% efficiency. And maybe, you know, I mean, you can eat, and then you say like, if you pack it densely, you get an 80% packing density, you're going to, uh, which I think, you know, you've got a lot of places you could get an 80% packing density. You effectively have about, uh, you know, uh, 200 megawatts per square kilometer, uh, and, and, and, and you need to pair that with batteries. So you, so you have continuous power. Um, although our power usage drops considerably at night,

SPEAKER_537: so you need less batteries than you think. Um, and, uh, and, uh, and doesn't the, doesn't the

SPEAKER_470: question then become a rough way to like a very, maybe an easy number to remember is, is it a gigawatt hour per square kilometer per day is, is a roughly correct number. But then doesn't your technical

SPEAKER_190: challenge become the scalability of manufacturing of those systems? So, you know, accessing the raw materials and getting them out of the ground of planet earth to make them, to make enough of them, to get to that sort of scale on that volume that you're talking about. And as you kind of think about what it would take to get to that scale, like, do we have an ability to do that with what we have today? Like, can we pull that much material out of the ground?

SPEAKER_91: Yes. Solar panels are made of silicon, uh, which is sand essentially. Um, and, um,

SPEAKER_172: I guess more on the battery side, but. Oh, the battery side. Yeah. So the battery,

SPEAKER_91: the battery side, um, uh, you know, the, like iron phosphate lithium ion battery cells, this, you know, earth to throw out some like interesting factoids here. Um, if most people don't know, uh, if you said, um, uh, as measured by mass, what is the biggest element? What, what is, what is earth made of as measured by mass? Uh, actually it's, it's iron. Iron. Yeah. Iron. Yeah. We're, we're, I think 32% iron, 30% oxygen, and then everything else is in the remaining, remaining percentage. So, um, we're basically, uh, uh, a rusty ball bearing, um, is that's earth. Um, and, and with, with, you know, a lot of silicon at the surface in the form of sand, um, and the, the iron phosphate, so, so iron phosphate lithium ion cells, you've iron extremely common, most common element on earth, uh, even in the crust. Uh, and then, uh, phosphorus is also very common. Um, and, um, and then the, the anode is, is carbon, but also very common. And then lithium is also very common. So the, there's actually, you can, you can do the math. In fact, we did the math and published it, published math, but nobody looked at it. Uh, um, it's on the Tesla website, um, that, that shows that you can completely power earth with solar panels and batteries. Um, and,

SPEAKER_666: uh, there's no shortage of anything. All right. So on that note, yeah, go get to work, Elon, and just power the earth while you're getting implants, uh, into people's brains and, uh,

SPEAKER_402: satellites and other good, fun stuff. Good to see you, buddy. Yeah. Good to see you guys.

David Sacks: Yeah. Yeah. Thanks for doing this. You got the zoom link. Stop by anytime. Thank you for coming today and thank you for liberating free speech three years ago. So yeah, that was, that was a

SPEAKER_676: very important milestone. And I see all you guys are in just different, different places. I guess this is

SPEAKER_681: a very virtual situation. I'm at the ranch. Are you ever in the same room? Nope. We try not to be.

SPEAKER_683: Only when we do, only, only when we do that, that summit, but otherwise we avoid each other.

SPEAKER_118: Yeah. Yeah. Otherwise your summit is, is, is pretty fun. Yeah. We had a great time recounting, uh, SNL sketches that didn't, didn't make it. Oh God, there's just so many good ones.

SPEAKER_691: I mean, we didn't even get to the jeopardy ones. Yeah. Yeah. No, it was so offensive.

SPEAKER_320: Well, I think we skipped a few that would have, um, dramatically increased our probability of being killed. You can take this one out.

SPEAKER_696: Boys. I love you. I love you. I love you all. I'm going to poker.

SPEAKER_712: Later. Take care. All right. All right. Thanks a lot. Bye-bye. Love you.