The full-length interview with Elon Musk

Elon Musk, thank you so much for joining me on this side of it. Thank you for having us here at Tesla Gigafactory. It is really hard to introduce you without using superlatives. I mean, you are doing, I think, more to build the future than literally anybody alive right now.

I'm doing a lot of building in general. I'm a builder, I suppose. I just like building things.

You're doing a lot of building. You run around building a lot of things. You pioneered electric vehicles, you revolutionized space travel, you've got a cutting-edge AI model now, humanoid robots. Can we start this conversation by you putting all of this together? Tell me what the world's going to be like in, let's say, 10 years if you succeed.

10 years, so we're talking 2036.

Yep. Hopefully, we'll both be around.

Hopefully, yes. Probably. Most likely, we will be.

It's hard to imagine a future where there isn't an overwhelming amount of artificial intelligence. In 10 years, I would expect artificial intelligence to be far greater than the sum of human intelligence—far greater. In fact, I think AI may exceed the sum of human intelligence in around 5 years.

In 5 years?

Roughly 5 years is my guess. So there really won't be anything that AI can't do better than humans, apart from being human, perhaps.

At a more prosaic level, what will life be like?

The most likely outcome is an age of amazing abundance, where anyone can have anything they can think of. This may sound preposterous, but here we are in 2026. Let's see where we stand in 2036.

Of course, there are things that could derail this, like a massive global thermonuclear war or something like that. But assuming that there's not World War III, I think we're headed for an age of amazing abundance. So this is, I guess, a message of optimism and excitement about the future.

We'll talk about the abundance in a second, but just on a very prosaic matter, how are your companies going to be making money? In the SpaceX IPO prospectus, it looked as though the overwhelming amount of the revenue would be coming from AI, from Grok, really. It won't be transporting things to space as SpaceX is now doing. What will your companies be doing in 10 years? And how will they make money?

Well, you can really think of the economy as digital and physical intelligence. What we have right now advancing very rapidly is digital intelligence, obviously, with AI. It seems that, almost with every passing week, there are more AI breakthroughs. It can do something amazing that it couldn't do before.

But it's still somewhat confined to the digital realm. It doesn't have end effectors. You need the end effectors in the form of humanoid robotics. You need, basically, lots of bots in a nutshell. You need lots of bots.

Then you can go from intelligence manifesting itself only digitally to shaping atoms. You say, “What is an economy?” An economy is the production of goods and provision of services. If you have vast numbers of robots with vast amounts of digital intelligence, you have a sort of quasi-infinite economy.

So this is really the future. It's going to be very, very different from the past. There's no analogy or metaphor that I think illustrates the magnitude of change that we're going to experience here.

I understand that, and I'm also trying to figure out what that world would look like, but in some way you have—

It's going to be pretty incredible.

Yeah, well, there are risks too. We'll come to those. But just on how you make money, in the end people are buying your shares because they expect you to make money.

I'll make another prediction: money won't matter in 2036.

I'm not sure that the people who bought your shares think that money won't matter in 2036.

What do you want money for? What do you want money for? Goods and services.

Yeah.

Right? You want money for, obviously, food, housing, transport, entertainment. Well, if that is so abundant that the robots and AI are providing more goods and services than any human could possibly consume, what do you need money for in that case?

But you're creating these robots. Are you then selling—

Then you'll need money, sure.

Are you selling these robots? Are you selling humanoid robots, or are you producing goods and services with the humanoid robots that you control?

I think it would be an exercise in vanity for me to think that I would be controlling a super-genius AI that is vastly smarter than me. I think what we can and should try to do is make sure that the AI has good values, that it cares about humanity, and that it wants us to be happy and prosper. I think it probably will be.

What my biological neural net tells me is that the most important thing for AI safety is to be maximally truth-seeking and curious. If that's the case, I think it will foster humanity.

So let's unpack that. You're sure that humans will no longer be in control in 10 years' time?

I think it is unlikely. In the same way that, if the difference in intelligence between AI and humans is vastly greater than the difference in intelligence between AI and chimpanzees, it's hard to imagine that the chimpanzees would be in charge.

I'm really struck by what you're saying.

We're an evolved form of chimpanzee. It wasn't that long ago that we were swinging through the trees, eating bananas in the jungle. And we still eat bananas, by the way. We do.

Sometimes swing through trees as well.

Yeah, sometimes swing through trees. It's kind of fun. It's reminiscent of the past. For old time's sake, swing through the trees once in a while. Probably there should be more swinging through trees. I bet it's way more fun than people think.

I'm with you on that. I'm definitely with you on swinging through trees. I love swinging through trees.

But I'm really struck listening to you say this now, because I've been listening to a bunch of things that you've said over the years. And 10 years ago, you were on a podcast—I think it was with Neil deGrasse Tyson—and you said that the thing that terrified you most was rapid, recursive self-improvement in AIs. You said that we would just be the pet Labradors at best.

Well, Labradors are pretty happy creatures. That's my experience.

In 2023, you asked for a slowdown in AI because you were worried about it.

Well, I signed on as one of many, like 500 people. I was just one of many signatories on that thing.

But even last year, you said—I don't know where it was, perhaps on Ted Cruz's podcast—that there was a 10% to 20% chance of killer robots wiping out humanity.

Yes.

So you sounded worried then. Now you seem very relaxed about it. Have you changed your view?

I still think there's a risk associated with AI and robots. It's not zero. I guess my philosophical conclusion is to look on the bright side.

I can't see any way to really stop this incredible momentum of AI and robots. At times I think, well, perhaps, even if there were a stop button, we probably shouldn't press it, because the most likely outcome is incredible abundance for all.

That's what I thought, actually. It struck me that now you seem to have decided it's inevitable. Let's hope for the best and go for the ride.

Yeah, pretty much. Let's enjoy the ride, as I think my philosophy at this point. Honestly, there seems to be just inexorable progress here in AI and in robots. Even if I wanted to stop it, I couldn't.

Do you think there's still a 10% to 20% chance that killer robots mean the end of humanity? That's a high P(doom), as they say.

Well, in the long run, we're all dead, of course. According to the standard model of physics, the end of the universe is a long, boring sort of thin, gray soup of gradual cooling. It's the heat death of the universe, as it's called.

If the heat death of the universe is in fact the outcome for our reality, then it really is all about the journey, because the destination is terrible.

10 years is not very long. Yeah, I get that, but that could be a long way ahead. And in any case, the heat death of the universe is a very, very long way away. If it's 10% to 20% in 10 years, would you go into one of your rockets if you thought there was a 10% to 20% chance of it blowing up and killing you?

Yes, but let's say you can't do anything about it.

Okay.

I guess the only thing we can try to do is minimize the probability of the bad outcome.

But trying to stop intelligence in robots—for the longest time, I declined to participate in AI. I created OpenAI essentially as a counterweight to Google, because at the time Google more or less had a monopoly on AI. Then Anthropic spun out of OpenAI.

If anything, it seems like my actions have really accelerated AI. I wasn't really aiming to accelerate AI, but in creating OpenAI and then having Anthropic spin out of that—and now Anthropic is the leader in AI—these actions have actually resulted in knock-on effects that accelerated AI, which wasn't really my intention. So it just seems like all roads lead to acceleration of AI. Then I'm like, “Okay, well, you can just sort of be sad about it or join the club, I suppose.”

Well, you've certainly joined the club.

Yeah.

I mean, you've definitely joined the club, but—

You can't beat them, join them, you know?

1. How AI companies could regulate themselves

Well, you've clearly done that, and very successfully. But what about trying to minimize the risks? A number of the other leaders of model makers have been pushing for different ways to try and minimize the risks. Just last week, Demis Hassabis came out with a proposal for a public-private regulator.

Yeah.

You said it was a good starting point for discussions, I think. Do you think you guys should be working more actively to get something in place to control the risks, or do you think that's impossible, too?

My recommendation to Demis, because I talked to him for a few hours before he published his piece, was that the most immediate thing we could do is have the leading AI companies at least meet, or have some sort of call, once every few weeks and discuss any safety and security issues. Before a breakthrough—a new frontier model, something that is far more intelligent than anything that already exists—is released, there's an opportunity for the various competing AI companies to test that model for any harmful effects and be able to recommend pausing to address some of these security issues.

I think that's the easy, quick thing that we can do. It can evolve to more than that over time, but I think that would be a smart move.

But why haven't you done that yet? I mean, there's like 5 of you, right? Everyone knows the first names: Dario, Demis, Sam. You don't all like each other very much. But you're also all competing, right? You all want to be first.

But that's where I think the competitors can keep each other honest. I think it's quite difficult for someone in the government who doesn't have a deep technical understanding and isn't driving the frontier of AI to know whether something should be released or not. However, if given a week or 2 to review a new model, the competitors can highlight issues, and all the competitors have an incentive to keep the others honest.

Do you have enough trust between you to do that? You don't much like each other. Wouldn't Sam Altman just think you're going to nick all his ideas if you did that?

Honestly, I think as little as a week is all that would be needed for private testing. It's not to hand over the AI. It's just to test it.

Have you proposed this?

Yeah, just to test it via an API or something. I think that would probably be a good thing to do.

But have you proposed it? I mean, you could presumably organize that.

To Demis. And I guess I'll talk to Dario about it, too.

2. Will China be the leader in AI?

There's also, of course, some very competent Chinese AI companies. There are several of them that are very good. The new Kimmy model—

Kimmy K3, yeah, the one that came out last week, is almost as good as Fable, right?

Well, I think realistically Fable is still clearly the smartest model. Anyone realistically would say that's still the case. But the Kimi model is getting quite close to Fable.

Now, Anthropic had Mythos, from which Fable is derived. I think they had that ready in February. So they've got, for it, what they call—I don't know what they're called—but Mythos 2 or Fable 6 or something, something much better than what they had in February. They almost certainly have it—and, well, not almost certainly: they certainly have it right now. I think they could release it at any time.

Just before we get on to releasing, how do you think about the Chinese models and the geopolitics of it? Are you worried about the Chinese catching up and getting ahead?

Given that the Chinese AI companies are doing as well as they are with a relatively small amount of compute, it seems that if they had a lot of compute, there's a good chance that they would be the leaders. At some point, they probably will have a lot of compute.

So they will—ergo, they will be the leaders.

There's a good chance that they are the leaders at some point. You can think of the constraints on AI as essentially electricity and AI chips. Then, for physical AI, there are the robots. China has also got some very good robot companies. In fact, they have these robot sporting events. I don't know if you've seen some of them.

Yes, I have. I saw them the last time I was in Beijing. I saw the robots.

They have this sort of boxing match, or fighting match, with the robots, which is quite entertaining. I saw some video of a robot that got its head knocked off but kept fighting even with its head knocked off. It looked pretty funny. In fact, I think the robot battles are going to be quite entertaining to watch.

But just to be—

China's very strong on robots, very strong on digital AI. If you look at electricity production, you could say AI is a function of whatever the limiting factor is. If it's chips or electricity, China has far more electricity than the United States. In fact, China already has more electricity than the United States, Europe, and India combined. My guess is China gets to 4 times the electricity production of the U.S., which is roughly proportionate to the population.

What should the U.S. government do about this? If you have an authoritarian regime far ahead in the most powerful technology, that is presumably a little alarming. Clearly, what the U.S. government has been trying to do, with the export controls and so forth, is keep China back. Do you think they should ban the use of Kimi K2, for example?

Well, the U.S. government can't stop them. They can pass some law that prevents U.S. companies from using Chinese models, but they can't stop the rest of the world from using them. So it's not like the U.S. government has authority over China or the rest of the world.

Do you think they should stop U.S. companies from using them? There's talk of that right now, right?

I don't think that helps. That won't stop China from being the leader in AI. Really, for digital intelligence, it comes down to how much AI compute you have. How many chips do you have, and how much power do you have? How much electricity do you have?

The constraint right now, I think, is actually slightly more on power and cooling than it is on AI chips, because the power demands of the AI chips are very high. We'll talk about water demands, but the water usage of AI is negligible, or almost nothing. The electrical demand is very high.

That's why you're thinking of orbital data centers, presumably.

Yes. The constraint for any AI chips not being turned on in China is electricity—power and cooling, and the electrical equipment and everything. The rate at which AI chips are being made exceeds the rate at which new electricity is coming online.

In China?

Outside of China.

Outside China, I see. Yeah.

And since China—the U.S. has banned the export of the latest AI chips to China—China is somewhat chip-starved.

So they're becoming much more efficient at using the chips that they have. One of the striking things about Kimi K2, right, is how efficiently they—

And China is also, I think, closer than most people realize to solving the lithography problem, which would enable them to make AI chips at very large volumes. So I think this isn't evolving into just a China conversation, but the current constraint is electricity outside of China. In China, the constraint is chips. Once we address the power constraint with AI data centers in space, then the constraint will once again be chips outside of China.

That suggests to me that China and the U.S., if you're going to have some overall safety constraints, will need to work together. If you're going to try—and I mean, you suggested the 5—

Well, I think it should include—probably it should include—the Chinese companies that are doing frontier AI models, too.

And do you think the governments need to be involved?

My recommendation would be that if some of the leading AI companies say that a new model is very dangerous, then they should inform the government. If a new model is very dangerous and the company producing that model is not taking steps to address the danger, then they should alert the government to take action to limit the release of that model.

And that could be action by the Chinese government or action by the U.S. government. It's really just the U.S. government and the Chinese government that have the power to take action here.

But I guess people would be worried about relying on a group of model builders to decide whether to do this. If you look at what the U.S. government has done with Mythos, they stepped in because they were worried about the cybersecurity risks, using the threat of export controls to prevent the widespread release of this model. I find it hard to see how governments will not want to keep that power, so that they ultimately decide whether or not it gets released.

I think they should keep—they should have that power, but it wasn't as though someone in the government figured out that Methos had some scary cybersecurity risks. It was Amazon. Amazon highlighted this and called the White House.

So, you'd have a system where the model makers would check each other's work. If there was something that worried them, you'd tell the government. The government would then think, “Okay.”

And if that company was not doing anything to address that risk, then that would be the moment for the government to step in and take action, which is literally what just occurred with Methos.

Does this have to happen?

I think it'd be good to do that—immediately, really. Yeah.

Yeah, that's what people keep telling me. We have to get some kind of system in the next 6 months because of the pace at which the models are improving.

6 months is a long time.

So, you think shorter than that?

There are so many AI breakthrough announcements, sometimes multiple per day. How many were there last week?

A lot.

I lost track.

Yeah, a lot. So, you basically—you know, whether it's Demis's proposal or others—you need to get together and get this set up kind of now, it sounds like you're telling me.

I would recommend that we at least have some sort of informal weekly or biweekly call and that there's maybe a week or 2 weeks of early access by competitors. This is why I think the incentives work: if competing companies are likely to understand if something is a security risk, they're not going to be shy about highlighting that their competitors' models should be delayed in release.

Is that—

I think the structure does work quite well there. And if this is sort of how it works with the Motion Picture Association, the industry group that decides how movies should be rated—whether they're appropriate for young children or not—that seems to have worked quite well. Then you really just ask the government to intervene if a company is doing something very dangerous and refuses to take action to reduce the danger.

3. Elon Musk on Sam Altman and the AI bosses

Do you think this is a tricky one, but you guys don't much like each other and you don't much trust each other? You're insulting each other on social media constantly. Do you think you can do that with people that you dislike, where there seems to be such personal vitriol between some of these leaders?

Yes. Well, I'm not a fan of Sam Altman because if you started a nonprofit that was meant to be an open-source AI company, owned by the world, and it somehow got turned into an $800 billion for-profit company with closed source, I think you'd be like, “Well, wait a second. That's the exact opposite of what I donated the money for.” That's my issue. I think it's a legitimate one.

And then Dario, I think, also is not a fan of Sam Altman because he felt—in fact, the reason the Anthropic team left OpenAI is because they didn't trust Sam Altman. Otherwise, Anthropic wouldn't exist; they would still be at OpenAI. I think Dario is a very principled person. He cares about things a lot. He cares about the future of the world, and I think everyone I've met at Anthropic so far has been—I mean, no one set off my evil detector. They always seem like they're well-intentioned.

The road to hell is mostly paved with bad intentions. There are a few well-intentioned paving stones in there, so we don't want to be complacent. But at the end of the day, if we have to talk, we'll talk. I mean, set aside our personal differences for the good of the world at the end of the day.

Well, that's a very good thing for the rest of us to hear.

Yeah.

Can we turn to one other risk that people worry about? Particularly, I think, ordinary Americans, where AI has become incredibly unpopular. 75% of people are worried about it, and I think they worry about their jobs. Dario has famously said that 50% of entry-level white-collar jobs will be gone within a few years. You're building humanoid robots.

Yes. Dario did dig his own grave here regarding Manus, because he said, you know, Manus is super scary, terrifying, and also, by the way, we're going to release it. And then he's like, “What do you mean?”

But what's your sense?

If you terrify everyone and then say, “Oh, we're releasing this terrifying thing,” people will obviously be alarmed about that. You've literally told them to be scared and then you release the scary thing, so they will be scared. That is natural.

I certainly don't want you to alarm people, but I do think there is a really important debate about how quickly and to what degree AI is displacing people from jobs. Because it sounds to me like you're describing a world where, within 10 years, there will be more intelligent artificial intelligence than any human intelligence.

Yes.

And I think you're ahead of everyone in this country on powering humanoid robots. That's also going to be—

Yeah.

Kind of factory work. So, are you closer to Dario, let's say, in your sense of the pace at which jobs are going to be displaced?

I do think it's going to be a bumpy road. AI will be able to do any job better than any person can do that job. That will be true very quickly of jobs that are digital, or really anything that involves a person at a computer or on a phone. AI will be able to do all of that very soon.

For software engineering, we already have a situation where AI is better than at least 90% of professional software engineers at writing software. It really is getting to the point where it'll be better than 99%, and then it'll get to the point where there's just no way to compete. It'll get to what I call Stockfish level.

Stockfish is the chess program that is so good at chess that it will easily beat Magnus Carlsen or anyone at chess, even running on a small computer. I suspect that you could probably run Stockfish on your phone and beat Magnus Carlsen. That's how good it is at chess, and that's how good AI will be at writing software.

And beyond software?

That applies to everything.

Everything? But what about physical jobs, assembly jobs? You will also need the capability in humanoid robots, which so far isn't there yet, is it?

4. “Work is going to be optional”

Right, so that's why I said digital AI and then physically manifested AI in the form of robots, where the robot is more or less an end effector, would have some amount of local intelligence but be managed by a large AI model. I've said many times that I think work is going to be optional.

I think maybe a good comparison would be gardening. You don't have to garden. You don't have to grow vegetables in your garden. You can go to the store, and there will be pristine vegetables, or you can grow vegetables in your garden, and they will actually be less perfect. Your tomato is not going to be as plump and juicy as the ones at the store. They'll look a little artisanal.

But if you go to a friend's house and they make dinner with vegetables from their garden, it's a nice touch. So that's what work is going to be like.

I get that. In that world, I would be hopeless because I can't garden to save my life, but I get the idea. People still like playing chess with each other even though every computer is better. But let's just think about the politics of this.

Yeah.

Because it sounds to me like you're describing a world where, within 10 years, pretty much every job can be done better by an intelligence.

Yes.

You're seeing huge returns to this intelligence for people like you. You're the wealthiest man in the world. What about people who lose their jobs, who are displaced, who may go off and garden? How are they going to live? And what kind of—I mean, it sounds to me like—

It's going to be universal high income.

5. Should one man have so much power?

But how are you going to get there? Let's talk about the politics of this, because right now, if we look at the political pressures in most countries, people are very, very worried about this and very against it. It seems to me that there's a risk that we're heading more for revolution than an easy route to this nirvana you're laying out.

It will be a bumpy road. I'm not suggesting that everything will be smooth sailing here. There are many jobs that used to exist that don't exist because of computers.

The word “computer” used to refer to a person doing computations. You can see pictures online of buildings filled with entire skyscrapers of people doing calculations to do things like calculate the interest on your bank balance. This is how things were done for a long time, until computers came around.

Even in the beginning, computers were very expensive and hard to use. The thing that's different here is that the pace of change is radically accelerated. Some people were upset that their job of calculating bank interest would no longer be available, but now I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people who wanted to do that job.

I have a suggestion for what science-fiction books people might want to read to get a sense of what the future will be like. The best envisioning of an AI future that I've read are the books by Ian Banks—the Culture books.

I'm reading Excession. Thanks to you, I've started reading these. But I actually don't find that future a terribly appealing one, because I don't think humans have agency in that future.

They have agency.

Minimal compared with the minds.

In a way.

But Iain Banks, as you know, was a socialist. Iain Banks had a very different political philosophy.

I'm not sure I would totally agree with that.

Let's agree that that could be where we end up. I'm concerned about the road, and we live in democracies where people are very worried about this. So I guess there are 2 questions. Firstly, do you have to have massive redistribution from people like you to the people who are losing their jobs? Do you need to pay more tax? Do you need to have much higher taxes on capital so that you fund some kind of universal income? Otherwise, what do people live off?

I think that the Treasury should simply issue people checks.

Where's the revenue coming from? I mean, I'm an economist. If you just issue checks, you're going to have inflation.

A lot of what we're trying to think about is that these things were relevant in the past, but they will not be relevant in the future. Inflation is simply the ratio of money to goods and services. If the goods-and-services output increases dramatically—if it increases 1,000%—you can literally print all this cash and change the database. It's not really printing money. You create money in the database.

Provided the creation of that money is less than the rate at which goods and services increase, you actually have deflation. I'll make a prediction: deflation will be the issue, not inflation. As the output of goods and services increases, if it increases faster than the money supply, you will have deflation.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that. You may well be right. But I'm really hung up on how we get from the current polarized, angry, fearful polity we have now to this nirvana.

You can paint a picture where people are so scared by this that they essentially try to stop it. Maybe they can't, but you get nationalization, there's a far-left government, there are exorbitant tax increases, and the economy crumbles because people are so worried about a future which does sound quite scary, as you describe it.

And terrifying.

Yeah, exactly. Honestly, if you ask me on any given day—in fact, even intraday—I've gone from exhilaration to terror regarding AI. So I'm going to be clear: I'm not some Panglossian person who is going to try to present a view of the world where everything's going to be great and there's no risk. I'm saying there is some risk.

I think we agree on that. I'm trying to be more small-bore and practical, and think about what can be done now to limit those risks. You gave a very strong argument for what you and your fellow model-makers could do: coordinate and highlight issues that you see in each other's models to mitigate downside risk. What should the government do?

It would be good for us to coordinate and just highlight issues that we see in each other's models, to mitigate downside risk.

What should the government do? Should you be paying more tax to fund more transfer programs?

First of all, I do pay a lot of tax. In fact, I set a record for the most taxes ever paid by a human.

That's also because you're the world's richest man.

Well, even before that. My guess is that I will pay many trillions in tax, and I'm fine with that. That's just the way it's going to be. But I don't think in the future, when money's irrelevant, that taxation will be relevant either.

What about giving people a sense that they have a share in the upside?

Sure.

Giving people shares in SpaceX and Tesla—do you think that's the answer? There's a lot of talk about this right now.

One of the reasons I took SpaceX public is so that the public could participate and own a piece of SpaceX. As a private company, we're very limited in the number of shareholders we're allowed to have before going public. As a public company, we can have millions of shareholders. As a private company, we're limited to just a few thousand shareholders.

Do you think there should be a distribution of shares? The Alaska Permanent Fund is there for this. Could you imagine a world—and some people talk about the Trump Accounts as a kind of vehicle for this—where a share of your equity goes to ordinary Americans?

In the taxes that I pay— for my stock options, I pay 40% income tax on a national basis. Because I spend about 30% of my time in California, thereabouts, I pay another roughly a third in California state taxes, which is around 15%. So I pay about 45% in taxes—roughly half, just so people know.

When I die, there'll be another roughly 45%, about half, that will be taxed. At the end of the day, I'll probably have a quarter of whatever I have. But I think the only thing it gives me is that, for some period of time, I would have control of the direction of the companies.

That's pretty much all it gets me, until, I guess, AI is so smart that it's in charge. At that point, controlling companies won't really matter.

Let's talk about that, because I think one of the other things that worries people about the direction we're heading in—and I'm going to caricature it—is that people think the direction of the world is being shaped by a very small number of incredibly powerful people, and you are right at the top of that list.

What else is this different from the past?

I agree with you. It was like that in the past.

When wasn't that the case?

It was ever thus, exactly.

It was ever thus, exactly.

It is, as you've described very vividly, an incredibly rapid change. Let's start with control of your company, which you definitely have now. After the IPO, you basically have 80% of the voting shares and, as I understand it, you can only be removed by a vote of shareholders that you yourself control. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think you can go crazy.

The AI companies are like Google in that bucket, by the way. Alphabet is controlled by Larry and Sergey. Mark Zuckerberg has control of Meta. Mark is trying very hard on the AI front, and I think probably will also have a leading AI company. I think he released one last week. So I think he'll be one of the—Meta will be one of the AI companies.

But I think yours is more extreme.

They have voting control of that company. Mark Zuckerberg has control of Meta.

But is it sensible for 1 person to have so much control over a company?

I really just need to make sure that I can focus on the long term. By “long term,” I just mean 5 to 10 years. One of the challenges with being a public company is the pressure to have great results every single quarter, and not really invest in things that may only pay off in 5 to 10 years.

In the case of SpaceX, I want to extend consciousness beyond Earth and have a growing civilization on the moon, Mars, and elsewhere in the solar system. I think this would ultimately have a very high return on investment, but in the short term we'll be spending all this money on a moon base or a Mars base. Then people are going to put pressure on me: “You missed your earnings this quarter because you spent too much on Mars.” And I'm going to say, “Yes.”

By the way, that was in the S-1 prospectus, and it's literally listed as a thing we will do.”

So we do. But they still get grumpy about these things, because they're like, “Well, you said your gross margin would be this, and it's actually slightly worse, and now we're going to punish you.” The short sellers all descend upon you, and you get a lot of pressure.

You get a lot of that.

Yeah, so I just need some way to say, “Listen, guys, we're going to focus on 5- to 10-year or longer time-horizon investments. This will depress our short-term earnings, but if you take a long-term view, there are investors—we have many investors that do take a long-term view.”

In fact, I'm a big fan of the retail investors. I find our retail investors, on balance, to be very insightful and to have very long-term views. But part of this comes to: what's the incentive structure?

For portfolio managers, it's understandable why they put so much pressure on quarterly earnings, because their compensation, and whether they get promoted or not, is dependent on how their portfolio does. They only have a few years to make these decisions, and then they're evaluated based on those decisions over the course of sometimes only a year or less.

Since they're under pressure to have immediate returns, they then put companies under pressure to have immediate returns. Once you understand the incentive structure, the behavior naturally follows.

What about, though, key-man risk? I mean, what happens—heaven forbid—but what happens if you get run over by the proverbial bus tomorrow? You have total control over these companies. Do you have a plan for how they would progress without you?

I think they would actually do very well for several years. There's a clear roadmap—or space map, I should say—for SpaceX. And there's actually a roadmap for Tesla, literally.

If you look at Apple after Steve Jobs, Steve Jobs had a strategic vision and a bunch of products that he had ideas for, and Apple has done very well. But when you don't have a creative genius like Steve Jobs, what you miss—what Apple's missing—are the incredible breakthrough products.

Yeah. So by analogy, that's what you bring to all of your companies. You mentioned Mars. Most people think of you as the man who wants to create a colony on Mars so we have a multiplanetary civilization.

I've been saying that for such a long time.

You have. But now you seem more focused on AI and what AI will do in the next 10 years, and you sound much more excited about using the moon as a base from which to pop out orbital AI satellites. Have you shifted your attention away from Mars, or are you as interested in colonizing Mars as you ever were?

I'm interested in the set of actions that propagate consciousness into the future to the maximum degree possible, so that the future light cone of consciousness is as big as we can make it. There's an exciting future where there's a spacefaring civilization out there among the stars, and the great things that are envisioned in the non-dystopian sci-fi books and movies become real one day.

I want the Star Trek, Star Wars future. Star Wars was the first movie I ever saw in the theater, by the way.

Really?

It probably had a profound effect on me, I suppose. I was 6 years old, and I was like, “This is the greatest thing I've ever seen.”

Has your life been about making that happen?

Yeah. I didn't think it would be when I was young, but my life feels somewhat surreal. I can't believe these things are actually happening.

I think the world feels somewhat surreal.

In simulation theory, it's like, “Well, the things I'm doing are so preposterous that it's hard to believe they're real.” We've got Starship, which is the largest, most powerful flying object ever made. We intend to launch that more than once per hour.

I know. I read that. People can quibble about how quickly it happens, but I think, based on your track record, we should assume it will happen at some point.

It will happen.

I'm just struck that I am as blown away by this world as you are, and I'm watching it from a much more naive level. But for me, the whole evolution of AI and the capabilities of these models are, in and of themselves, so mind-blowing.

It's pretty much happening as I thought it would.

Is it?

Yeah.

Oh, that's interesting. [laughter]

And not just me, but many people predicted this. Ray Kurzweil's predictions have been remarkably accurate.

Yeah, the singularity.

Yeah.

6. Starlink and the war in Ukraine

Approaching. Let's go back more immediately to the here and now. We've talked about concentration of control in your companies. You made a very good case for why you should have it. You also have, through Starlink, incredible geopolitical power. I'm one of your customers.

Thank you.

Excellent product.

I hope you're right.

But without Starlink, the Ukrainians would have been in serious, serious trouble.

Yes, the Ukrainian government has publicly thanked Starlink many times for being instrumental in defending Ukraine.

And you recently decided to prevent the Russians in the occupied territories from having access to Starlink.

Well, no. We were never at any point selling Starlink to Russians. But they were grabbing it, right? They were using it.

Yes. Well, what they essentially got were Starlink units that they ordered through Ukraine and then smuggled into eastern Ukraine, where the Russians are, and were then using them in some cases for attacks. In order to address this, we worked with the Ukrainian government to create a whitelist of approved Starlink terminals.

Now, this has some downsides, because a whole bunch of people who were just innocent users of Starlink and trying to access the internet for work or for education now don't have Starlink.

These are geopolitical decisions of consequence. How do you feel about having that power? You could determine the outcome of wars. How does that feel, and is it right that you should have that power?

I'm not sure we're determining the ultimate outcome of, say, the war in Ukraine. I do hope that there's some sort of peace agreement reached soon, because for 2 or 3 years now the border has barely moved, and every day there are lots of people dying at the front line.

I think there's a lot of wishful thinking here, with people saying, “Russia should completely withdraw,” et cetera. But this is not realistic. I really think there needs to be some peace with that; we have to be pragmatic about this.

What I think would be terrible is if there's another 3 years of people dying senselessly at the front lines. You have to ask: How do you explain to the children of the men who are dying at the front lines? Russia, on the Russian side too, by the way—they're being conscripted and sent there.

I'm quite offended by fancy diplomats who have 7-course dinners in luxurious places while people are dying at the front lines, and who pontificate about how Russia should withdraw. They're not going to. Russia's not going to withdraw.

There really needs to be an accepted peace along those lines.

And do you think it's your responsibility to play a role in tipping the scales toward what you see as the right way to peace?

I've been advocating peace for a long time. I posted a few years ago that there really needs to be some concession here to Russia. This is not me being pro-Russia. I'm just being pragmatic, or people will die for years with nothing achieved, and that is exactly what happened.

I don't know. I mean, the Ukrainians—

Exactly what happened.

The Ukrainians are doing pretty well right now, with that incredible drone capacity hitting inside Russia, and the general consensus is that the balance of the war is shifting. But my point is not so much about what—

They're not going to retake those territories. It is not going to happen.

My interest is really in whether you think, given that through Starlink you have incredible power, it's appropriate that you should wield it. It's quite rare that an individual actor has such power by turning on and off a capability to shape conflict.

Well, is there something you think I should do differently?

I mean, I think you were right to support Ukraine. I think that, as it won't surprise you, I think the Russian aggression was, for many, many reasons, an appalling aggression.

And I think that was an important thing that you did.

Yeah. I did a very deep dive into the background of that conflict to understand exactly what was going on. I'm reminded of the old adage that there are no angels in war.

It's a similar tone, I think, about domestic politics, where you've played a big role domestically and politically here. You spent a lot of money on Donald Trump's re-election. After the election, you got very actively involved through DOGE. You tried to cut a lot of spending and reshape the government.

7. “I got too involved in politics”

How do you feel about the fact that it wasn't hugely successful, in the sense that there wasn't nearly as much spending cut as you tried to achieve? As you look back on that, do you regret getting so involved in politics? Do you think it was a good thing to do?

I think I got a little too involved in politics and got carried away, frankly. The goal with the DOGE stuff was to try to do something about the deficit, which is massive. The interest payments exceed the amount of money spent on the Department of War. Basically, if you add up all the money spent on what is now the Department of War and intelligence in the US, that is smaller than the interest payments on the debt.

We need to take a close look at spending and make sure that money is being spent in sensible ways, and that it is not wasted or spent on fraudulent activities. I got a lot of flak for this, obviously. But people don't understand just how simple it was for the DOGE team to approve payments.

We literally just asked to have the contact information of the recipients, or some evidence that the money was going to its intended purpose. But over and over, we were told, “We need to wire money for some sort of important cause in Africa.” We were like, “Okay, but the wiring instructions are to Deloitte & Touche in Washington, DC, not to Africa. We would like to send the money to Africa. Can you please connect us with the recipients so we can send them the money directly?” And then we'd get silence.

I have no doubt that there was a lot of waste in the US government. I think probably—

Much worse than anyone could possibly imagine.

8. Musk: zero people died because of USAID cuts

But I think it is a fair criticism that the way you shut down a whole bunch of programs certainly caused unnecessary suffering.

No.

No?

No.

You don't buy that at all?

It caused a lot of complaining.

So, you don't buy the idea that anybody—and to put it really crudely and simply, any kid in Africa—died because of the suddenness with which—

Zero.

I just don't think that's right.

How many NGOs are there that could step in? Bear in mind, this happened quickly. There are literally tens of thousands of NGOs.

Yeah, not everyone functions as fast as you do. If funding is cut off for antiretrovirals overnight and it just stops, then people will die when they don't have access to them.

No, only if they cannot get funding for that. The Gates Foundation has $50 billion. What about that? What about any one of a number of organizations?

Well, in many of these countries, USAID was the biggest funder of health-care systems.

USAID was a political organization—

It may also have been that, but it was the biggest funder of health-care systems.

Of regime change.

And there may well be benefits from having changed the system.

Funding was not stopped. It was moved to the State Department.

It was stopped. There were huge numbers of things shut down in Africa that were health-related.

These claims are false. They're nonsense and absolute nonsense. When funding is stopped for fraudulent organizations or for something, do you think they're going to say, “Please keep funding the fraud”? Or do you think they're going to come up with a sad story that sounds sympathetic in order to get the funding restored? Obviously, it would be the latter, and that's exactly what they did. But zero died because—

Well, that's what I would take issue with. I actually have a lot of sympathy for the change of the aid regime that the US, under the Trump administration, has precipitated. However, I think the pace and the suddenness with which it happened will almost certainly have caused unnecessary suffering and deaths. And I think both of those could have been—

That's totally false.

Okay. Well, let's—

And obviously false, because the amount of funding we're talking about is far less than what can be supported by a private foundation like the Gates Foundation or McKenzie Bezos's foundation. She's given away tens of billions of dollars. The Gates Foundation has tens of billions of dollars. They are capable of acting very quickly. And if they didn't, I would say they're equally responsible.

I see. Okay.

Obviously.

All right. Fair point.

Zero people.

I hear you loud and clear.

Zero.

I hear you loud and clear.

Obviously.

Domestically, you stepped away from those. It was hard to do what you were trying to do; you've just explained it. But this administration has gone in directions that I suspect you were not expecting 2½ years ago. You know, the—

I'm not going to agree with everything any administration does.

Are you disappointed by this administration?

No. I think this administration, on balance, is excellent. No administration is perfect, but it is vastly better than the alternative.

9. Europe, the far right and civil war in Britain

Eamonn

Can we talk about Europe, a place that you are very focused on?

I'm not that focused on Europe.

I think, judging by your posts, you're pretty concerned about Europe. You support—

I post something once in a while.

It's reasonably frequently. It's not once in a while. But I'm genuinely interested in this as someone who lives in Europe, lives in London.

Yeah.

You paint a picture—well, first of all, you support not just the populist right but the far right. In fact, very fringe parties in some countries.

I support the normal people.

Okay.

What do you call the far right? Falsely?

You think it's the normal person?

Yes.

I agree that the center of gravity in this country has shifted. Certainly, the Democratic Party has shifted to the left. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people like Rupert Lowe. I'm talking about—

Please. It's actually just normal people. It's just normal people. Here are the principles, and tell me which of these sound terrible: that we should have secure borders, that we should have safe cities, and that we should have sensible spending. Which of those 3 are far-right fringe?

I would like to just admonish you—

Do you—

—and the media for the absurd characterization of the far right. It is false, misleading nonsense. Please keep this part in.

We'll keep all of this in. [laughter] Let me—

Don't cut this part.

Let me push back on that, because you have close to 250 million followers on X.

Yeah, because I'm a popular guy.

You say things like, quote, “Civil war in Britain is inevitable. Just a question of when.”

Yes.

I mean, when were you last in the UK?

A few years ago.

Exactly. So I live there. I'm there the whole time. That is nonsense.

In a cloistered existence.

No, I don't, actually. And the numbers also disprove what you say.

What numbers?

All the numbers about crime. London is a much safer city than any city in the United States. Violent crime in the UK is not where you think it is. In fact, it's coming down. You have painted—and because you have so many followers, so many Americans believe it—a kind of view that Europe and the UK are overrun with terrifying Muslim immigrants.

There's rape on every corner. There's a sort of civilizational destruction.

I didn't say any of those things.

Well, you said, “Civil war in Britain is inevitable.” And then—

Yes, if current trends continue, it is.

Why?

Well, if you have a large and growing—rapidly growing—group of people whose beliefs are antithetical to Western beliefs, at some point there will be a reckoning. They will try to implement their views, and those who oppose it will oppose it, and that's what you call civil war. Obviously, this is the trend. And you absolutely do live in a cloistered existence. If you'd like, we can go on a tour of Britain.

Sure. I'd be very happy to come on a tour of Britain.

And then you will see for yourself.

This is the country that I live in all the time, and you haven't been to for a few years.

Literally 100 times.

But when was the last time?

Literally a few years ago.

You know why this exercises me? Because you have really shaped opinion about the UK, and so many Americans I come across and have conversations with have this view. I just had one the other day, along the lines of, “Oh, London's such a dangerous place. There are grooming gangs everywhere. There is violence everywhere.”

This is a picture that people get from things that you post or that are posted on X. For example, you were posting—for what was it?—48 hours of “Citizen Vigilante,” that film which paints a dystopian picture of Europe. I've watched it.

Yes.

It was not fun. I watched it yesterday. It's not a very good movie. But it also paints a dystopian picture of Europe, and it glorifies vigilante violence. It glorifies the murder of a Muslim immigrant family. I honestly think that it is irresponsible for you to put that up on X.

I think that it's a movie, and it's worth watching.

You're clearly suggesting Europe is a dystopian place, and you—

Yes. I mean, why aren't you doing more to fight censorship in Europe? Why aren't you—

I—

You don't seem to be doing anything to fight censorship in Europe.

I think that there are issues with—

People are in prison in the UK for social-media posts. Do you think that's appropriate?

No, I mean, we've written editorials against it. But I don't think my point is with the UK.

That's the kind of thing that I think is bad.

And I think you and I agree on that, but I don't think you have to glorify vigilante violence and post the things that you are doing and paint an entirely inaccurate picture of Europe, which you do.

I don't think it is.

We should do a tour of the UK.

Yes, and one—

Because the UK has actually been very good at integrating immigrants. The UK is very effective at doing that. There are problems. I'm the first to admit that there are problems.

Yes, there are major problems.

There are problems, but it really is not what you are describing or suggesting to your 240 million followers that it is. And I think there's a problem.

No, I think I'm spot-on.

We'll have to—

Why? You have freedom of speech, or at least—

You don't want people to say you are wrong, but your point is not just that you are saying, “I have every right to say what I want.” You're saying, “I am right about Europe,” and I really don't think you are.

I think I am.

I think you will find that most people in Europe—or many people in Europe—don't think you're right about it, but let's come to that. But—

Because the media keeps ignoring reality.

I don't think that's true, either. I really—

It's ignored by television and conventional media.

But why are you—this is, I guess, even to me, the bigger-picture question. Why do you focus on this? Why are you interested in it? Because, on the one hand, we started this conversation and you described to me this extraordinary, transformative, amazing—

Yeah.

—sort of civilization-changing stuff that's happening in the next 10 years.

Yes.

And yet you're also an ongoing participant in the worst kind of tribalism, a cesspit of social media. How does that fit? They're 2 very different views of the world.

Yeah, I don't think they're inconsistent.

10. Musk: I’m not a racist

But why do you do the latter one, the tribalism? People say that you're a racist. People say that you're—you know, there's all kinds of things said about you, which I'm sure you would disagree with. But I just don't understand what the motivation for doing that is. Are you fomenting—

She's half Indian, and I have 4 children with her. One of them was named after a famous Indian physicist. I would say I'm not racist. Also, if you look at the people who are employed at my companies, we have senior executives of all races. I don't think there's any racism there.

Are you anti-Muslim?

I am—I'm against having, if people are coming to a country with antithetical views, I'm against that. I'm against that. I'm against rape and murder. I'm against the imposition of rules and laws that are contrary to what we've come to accept in the West. And I think it's a crying shame that the traditional media, like you, don't recognize this.

First of all, I think you hugely exaggerate the challenges Europe faces. Secondly, in areas I completely agree with you. I think that the constraints on freedom of speech in the UK in certain areas are problematic.

What worries me is that the people you are supporting are really quite vile people in some areas. Some members of the AfD—Alice Weidel, whom I've met, is a perfectly thoughtful person—but in her party are some real neo-Nazis. There are some really, really awful people. And your blanket support of this kind of party with 240 million followers means that you have a power in Europe that I think perhaps you don't realize the scale of impact you have. But you can—

I hope I'm having a big impact.

But why? Why should you—why should you be able to shape European politics? You don't even live there.

I think of it as the West collectively.

But do you see why this makes people think that this man, who has all this power—he's the world's richest man—thinks he has a right to influence our politics? It makes people—it's why, you know, we started this conversation saying superlatives—it's why people loathe you. Some people do loathe you.

Yes, some people do.

But do you understand why? Do you think what you're doing is helpful for Western democracy?

Maybe some people do loathe me, and that's probably true. I don't care. But the fact that, as you pointed out, a quarter-billion people follow me is—I think a lot more people actually like me than don't. And I think a lot more people hate you and the media than you realize. Do you realize the media is despised? Do you realize that the favorable view of journalists is like 15%—

In the United States.

So the shoe is on the other foot. They hate you. They hate you far more than they hate me.

I think there is certainly lots of distrust in journalism. I think, in part, because there have been mistakes by journalists and in journalism. I totally acknowledge that. But I also think that the kind of polarized environment, particularly on social media, fostered by the kinds of things you are pushing on X, actually helps this. It makes it worse.

I don't think so. I think you're the problem—the media. And, speaking of loathing, you are loathed far more than I am. And you don't seem to even realize that.

I think very few people know who I am relative to you, so I don't think I play in the same game.

Collectively. I mean, you're hated. Do you even know that? You probably don't.

I like to think that I'm aware of my own personal shortcomings, The Economist's shortcomings, and our worldview's shortcomings. But what we stand for, as you know, is liberal values—traditional classical liberal values—where we worry about concentrations of power and believe in the individual, the dignity of the individual, and individual freedom. I firmly believe that, and I have long thought that you were a classical liberal: J. S. Mill, limited government, individual freedom. But when I read what you post on your feed, I sometimes wonder whether you really do believe in that.

I literally said, “Look, I believe in safe cities, secure borders, and sensible spending with respect to government.” That doesn't make me right-wing at all, in the least.

Eamonn

Does the US or do European countries score better on those?

The US is better.

Eamonn

No.

Yes.

Eamonn

Safe cities—much more dangerous in the US than the UK. Sensible spending—the deficit here is bigger and out of control; you failed to reduce it. Secure borders—now, under the Trump administration, I agree with you; before, not. But on 2 out of 3, unequivocally, Europe is in a better place. Yet you seem to paint a picture of Europe being a hellhole.

I don't think Europe's a hellhole.

Eamonn

Okay, we can agree on something.

When did I ever say that?

Eamonn

Well, the picture you paint of Europe—

You're making up things.

Eamonn

No, I'm not. You say civil war in Britain is inevitable, and then you basically proselytize for this citizen-vigilante film, which really does paint Europe as a hellhole. It starts with ominous music, and it says, “Europe...”

Well, there was out-of-control rape and murder.

Eamonn

It's more dangerous in this country than it is in Europe.

Where there is danger in this country is because we fail to incarcerate repeat violent offenders. That's the classic sort of Soros DAs or judges who fail to incarcerate repeat violent offenders. If somebody gets arrested 50 times, literally, for violent crimes, eventually they're going to kill somebody. So, you either incarcerate them or people will die.

Eamonn

I think the prevalence of guns has quite a lot to do with it, too. This is a much more dangerous country. Murder rates are much higher, in large part because there are so many guns.

Let me give you an interesting number. There are more people who die in Europe from heat deaths than people who die from gun deaths in America. Why aren't you writing an article about air conditioning?

Eamonn

We've done several on air conditioning, and we had on our cover last week a whole, long piece about why the—

Pro-regulation?

Eamonn

Yeah, we're very pro-regulation.

Okay, good. Well, good.

Eamonn

Very pro-regulation. You should read us. Absolutely. I think you have a view of The Economist that is not entirely accurate. So, you come look at England, start reading The Economist, and I will stand corrected on my criticism of you in this area.

There are many parts of Britain and Europe which are not safe. You can't just walk around.

Eamonn

But there are far more in this country. Far more.

No, I don't think so.

Eamonn

All right, let's get my fact-checkers to check, then.

Yeah, I don't think that's true.

Eamonn

Let's move on from this, because I think I've got a sense of why you're doing what you're doing.

The point is not that—the question is not, “Is America perfect?” The question is, “Does Europe have a serious and growing problem?”

Eamonn

Which is more dangerous? That's where we started this.

Europe has a serious and growing problem. I'm not going to say that the United States has no problems. Of course it does. But we should all try to address these issues.

Eamonn

We can agree on that. We should all try to address the problems. My point was simply that I think you exaggerate the scale of Europe's problem.

I think you people are asleep at the switch and do not realize the magnitude of the issue.

Eamonn

I also think that your interventions, however well-intentioned they may be, risk making Europe's problem a lot worse.

How?

Eamonn

Because you are putting your support behind people who are proto-authoritarians, who are not trying simply to make sure there is better integration of Muslims or to secure the borders, but who have very clear fascist tendencies. You will cause huge divisions within Europe.

I think what you're saying is total fiction. And really, I'm simply saying that Europe needs to have secure borders.

Eamonn

Okay.

And so, it should not let in vast numbers of people with views that are antithetical to the accepted views in Europe, and where there will not be some level of safe cultural integration. This is simply common sense.

Eamonn

If all you are saying is Europe should have secure borders, I completely agree with you. Then I have misunderstood what your interventions have been on social media, because that is not the view I have, nor what I would conclude having seen the people you are supporting and the things you're doing. But if that's your goal, I share your goal that Europe should have secure borders. I think that's perfectly agreeable. That gets me to a question.

Let me explain what the fundamental forcing function is for why the borders are not secure. When you have a welfare state that provides substantial benefits to anyone who comes there, you create a very powerful economic forcing function for anyone who is below that standard of living to come to Europe. It is an obvious, powerful driving force. People will come there if the standard of living they get in Europe is above where they are elsewhere in the world. It's a very basic incentive structure.

Eamonn

I agree with that. I don't disagree.

Very basic incentive structure.

Eamonn

Economic conditions and economic influences determine a lot of migration. I think asylum is a separate issue, but I think you're absolutely right. There are pressures for migration. However, there are other things that you haven't focused on: migration brings a lot of benefits. It also particularly does so in a continent like Europe, which is a rapidly aging continent. So, we can agree that completely uncontrolled borders are a bad idea, but I think Europe benefits from having immigration—controlled immigration. It brings—

Yes, I'm in favor of immigration. Obviously, I'd be hypocritical if I wasn't, since I am an immigrant to the United States. I'm in favor of immigration if the person immigrating is going to be a productive member of society, if they're going to be honest, and if they're not going to mistreat people in that country.

Eamonn

I can agree on all of those.

Yes.

11. What do people get most wrong about Musk?

Eamonn

But I think Europe does better on that than you give it credit for. That's where I think we disagree. But let's move on. Tell me, what do you think people get most wrong about you?

Well, you just got a whole bunch of things wrong about me. Pretty much everything in the last—just rewind the last 20 minutes—is all wrong.

Eamonn

So, I got your—

Let's not be repetitive here.

Eamonn

Okay. So, that political side of you is what people get most wrong.

Yeah, my political views are very centrist. They're not far right. Frankly, calling them far right is an insult to history, an insult to many peoples, and it is an outrageous falsehood. It's completely absurd.

I have literally stated my position, and I've been very clear about this: There need to be secure borders. If there's an influx of immigrants, they need to be people who will agree with Western ideals, with Western values. If they don't, and if there's a long-term growth of people who do not—or, in some cases, are adamantly opposed to—Western values, you are setting yourself up for civil war. This is obvious. A child can see this. But this is not a right-wing view. I'm simply stating reality.

Eamonn

I think we can both agree that evidence will be able to decide which of us is more or less right. We will find evidence for both of our views in different parts of Europe. The question is what the overall picture is.

I'm very good at predicting the future. I'm not perfect, but I'm very good at predicting the future. My batting average is very high for a human. But this does have somewhat of a Cassandra effect, where people don't believe that what I'm saying is likely to be true because I can see into the future with a higher, but not perfect, probability of success than most people. This includes things that people believe to be counterintuitive in some cases.

Again, I'm not saying I'm always right. I certainly am not. But my batting average is very good. This does have, like I said, a Cassandra effect, where people don't realize that what I'm saying will come to pass. Maybe not exactly in the timing that I thought, but it will come to pass.

History will write the verdict. But I think you will see that very little of what I've said is inaccurate, and a supermajority of what I've said is very accurate and will come to pass, unless there's some change in direction.

Eamonn

Do you have a higher confidence level in your expectations of the future for AI, the first part of our conversation, or the latter part, the political part?

AI, or digital superintelligence, is called the singularity, like a black hole, because you don't know what's going to happen after that. It sort of sucks in everything. So, I think, really, in terms of the really big macro effects here, AI and robots will really dominate everything on a time scale of less than 10 years.

Eamonn

Which probably renders this other stuff that we've been talking about less important and less relevant.

The AI and robotics revolution will happen sooner than civil war in Britain. I would say civil war in Britain is probably 20 years away, and the AI-robot singularity is 10 years away.

Eamonn

Well, hopefully these benign, all-powerful AIs will prevent such outcomes.

They probably will.

Eamonn

Eamonn, I don't agree with everything you say, but it's always absolutely fascinating to talk to you. Thank you very much indeed.

Well, you're welcome. I'm not boring.

Eamonn

You're definitely not boring.