大会演讲·中文精读

马斯克谈广告主、信任与头脑中的“风暴”|DealBook Summit 2023

Elon Musk on Advertisers, Trust and the “Wild Storm” in His Mind | DealBook Summit 2023

中文精读由 AI 基于原始视频与文稿改写,非官方翻译,可能存在偏差或错误;表述以原视频为准。说明

"去你妈的。"

2023年11月底,《纽约时报》DealBook峰会。马斯克坐在台上,主持人安德鲁·罗斯·索金(Andrew Ross Sorkin)问起广告主集体撤离的事。他的回答被剪成短视频传遍全网,完整版更长:如果谁想拿广告来敲诈我,拿钱来敲诈我,去你妈的。

他补了一句:"清楚了吗?希望清楚。嘿,鲍勃,如果你在观众席里。"

鲍勃是迪士尼CEO鲍勃·艾格(Bob Iger),就坐在台下。

同一场对话里,他做了件几乎相反的事。索金把11月15日那条被指反犹的帖子念出来,马斯克说,这可能是我在这个平台上做过最蠢的一条。我在X上大概有三万条帖子,它几乎肯定是最糟最蠢的那一条。他本不该回复那个人,本该写更长的篇幅把意思讲清楚,后来在回复里澄清过,那些澄清被媒体略过了。

他的原话是:"我等于把一把上了膛的枪,递给了那些恨我的人。"

他还说,为此我相当抱歉,那不是我的意图。

愿意为具体的错误认账,不愿意为别人给他定的罪名低头。这两句话出自同一个人,中间隔了不到半小时。想看明白这个人,得同时接受两句都是真的。

那块手链,和一场早就排好的行程

访谈中间他抬起手腕,给观众看一条手链。

"你知道这是什么吗?上面写着 bring them home,说的是那些人质。一位获释人质的父母把它塞到我手里。我说过,只要还有一个人质没回来,我就一直戴着。我一直戴着。"

他解释说,去以色列是早就定下的行程,跟那条帖子没关系,不是道歉之旅。

索金问他,你介意被恨吗?

我不介意被恨。想被人喜欢是一种真正的弱点,我没有这个弱点。当然我不会为了向谁证明什么去跳踢踏舞。(马斯克)

他顺手把"我为什么会出现在这儿"也说清楚了。他问索金:我的演讲费是多少?索金说没有。他说,我来这儿只因为你是朋友。我们认识十六年,我答应过你会来,所以我来了,没有别的原因。

这句话在划线。他可以为一件事道歉,但不会为了钱或者认可改变立场。

火箭的履历不需要你喜欢我

索金问的是信任。广告主不信任你,用户不信任你,你怎么回应?

马斯克把"信任"拆成了两层。

第一层是可验证的事实。如果你想把卫星可靠地送上轨道,SpaceX今年会承担全球入轨质量的80%。中国12%,世界其余部分加起来8%,这里面包括波音、洛克希德和所有其他玩家。你可以恨我入骨,可以完全不信我,这都不影响结果,火箭的履历自己会说话。

第二层是产品。特斯拉造最好的车。不管你恨我、喜欢我,还是对我毫无感觉,你想不想要最好的车?想要就买,不想要就不买。

他给了两个数字。特斯拉在美国卖出的电动车,是其他所有电动车厂商加起来的两倍。他说特斯拉对环境做的贡献超过其他公司加起来的总和,所以作为这家公司的负责人,他为环境做的事比地球上任何一个人都多。

这句话他说得很平,像在报一个算术结果。听的人可能不舒服,他要的就是这个效果:你不必喜欢我,你只需要看数字。

他还顺手提了Cybertruck。那会是今年地球上规模很大的一次产品发布,按他的说法,遥遥领先。

三万条里最蠢的一条

索金把原文念了出来,问他介不介意说说到底什么意思。

马斯克说,那条帖子在逻辑上要说的是:犹太人数千年来被迫害,人们因此对受迫害群体有一种天然的亲近感,这种亲近感促成了对各类"被迫害群体"组织的资助,其中包括激进的伊斯兰组织。西方每座大城市都出现过支持哈马斯的大规模游行,这件事应该让人刺耳。其中一些组织拿过犹裔社区显要人物的钱,出钱的人没料到会这样。

他的结论是:无条件地资助"受迫害群体"这个大类,其中有些群体恰恰希望你灭绝,这不明智。

"你资助一个组织,那个组织支持想让你死的哈马斯,也许你不该资助他们,对吧?"

然后他回到那条帖子上。

"我为那条帖子道歉,那很愚蠢。三万条里,它可能是字面意义上最糟糕、最蠢的一条。我尽我所能澄清了六遍。但我相信时间会证明,我远不是反犹,我的记录里全是相反的证据。"

他说他发过一条明确的帖子:我谴责一切形式的反犹主义。他还开了个玩笑,说如果你们能帮我找个同义词词典,你写好,我来发。

"有段时间他们以为我是犹太人,所以这事我也懂。"

广告主、法官和公众

回到那句脏话。索金问他是否明白广告主的顾虑。

马斯克的回答把因果关系摆得很直:这场广告抵制会杀死这家公司。全世界都会知道是这些广告主杀死了它,我们会把细节记录下来。

索金追问,那你是要打官司?

他说,法官是公众。双方各自陈述,看结果如何。如果公司因为广告抵制而失败,那就是因为广告抵制而失败,这就是让公司破产的原因,地球上每个人都会知道。

他提到特斯拉从来没投过广告,照样走到今天。在美国的电动车销量,是其他厂商加起来的两倍。

然后他说了那段后来被剪成短视频反复播放的话:我关心的是善的现实,不是善的感知。我看到到处都是关心自己看起来好、同时在做恶的人,去他们的。

头脑里那场"狂暴的风暴"

索金提到他以前的一个说法,说他脑子里住着"一群恶魔"。马斯克换了个比喻,说更像天气。

"我的大脑经常感觉像一场非常狂暴的风暴。我有一口想法的喷泉,想法比我能执行的要多得多。所以我不缺想法。创新不是问题,执行才是问题。"

他说他有一百万个想法。他有一份电动超音速垂直起降飞机的完整设计,放了十年,就是腾不出手来做。

索金问,这是天生的吗?

"某种程度是天生的,然后被艰难的童年放大了。我记得小时候,即使在开心的时刻,也能感觉到脑子里有一股力量在不停翻搅。"

后半句才是重点。这些力量大部分被引到了技术和造东西上。他说从结果看,产出相当有生产力。SpaceX、特斯拉、PayPal,还有他最早的互联网公司Zip2,那家公司拿了《纽约时报》母公司、赫斯特、奈特·里德的钱,他们给《纽约时报》网站写软件,帮几百家原本只有纸版的报纸上了网。

"那是九十年代,现在说起来我像个老爷爷。九十年代的互联网感觉像寒武纪之前,那时候地球上只有海绵。"

他说特斯拉其实是好几家公司装在一个壳里。超充网络如果单独拆出来,本身能进财富五百强。电芯自己做,功率电子和动力总成自己做,用了史上很大的压铸件,制造技术比那些干了一百年的公司还好。

"所以这些心魔,大部分被套上了生产的缰绳。这不代表它们不会偶尔失手。"

42,难的是把问题提对

索金问他的人生哲学。这一段密度很高。

马斯克说:如果一定要描述,我的哲学是好奇心的哲学。

十二三岁的时候他有过一次存在危机。人生的意义是什么?一切不都是无意义的吗?那为什么不干脆结束?为什么还要存在下去?

他去读宗教典籍,读哲学书。他说尤其德国哲学,读得他相当抑郁。"别在青少年时期读叔本华和尼采。"

后来他读了道格拉斯·亚当斯的《银河系漫游指南》。他说那是一本用幽默写成的哲学书。亚当斯想说的是,我们其实不知道该问什么问题。所以书里那台超级计算机算了几百万年,给出答案42,真正难的是搞清楚问题本身。

"这在物理学里也一样。当你能把问题正确地框出来,答案反而是容易的那部分。"

于是他的动机变成这样:我的生命有限,放在银河尺度上就是一闪。如果我们能扩大意识的规模和范围,我们就更有能力对"宇宙"这个答案提出正确的问题。也许能弄明白生命的意义,甚至找到该问的那个问题。我们从哪来?往哪去?外星人在哪?有没有外星人?有没有新物理?暗物质和暗能量摆在那儿,显然是真正的问题。

SpaceX的目的,是让生命以可持续的方式延伸到地球之外。这样人类至少能通过费米悖论里的一个大过滤器:不再是单行星文明。

他讲得很直白。如果你是单行星文明,你就是在等某一次灭绝事件,人造的或者自然的。早晚有一天那颗星球会出事,你就死了。多行星文明能活得久得多。多行星还是通往多恒星文明的天然台阶,是真正走出去的第一步。

他补了一句:这不只是防御性的动机。生命不能只是解决一个又一个悲惨的问题。你得有早上醒来觉得高兴的理由,得有人问你对未来兴奋什么、什么给你希望。如果你不确定,去问你的孩子。

物理是法律,其他都是建议

索金问了个尖锐的问题:你被证明对了这么多次,会不会因此变得听不进反对意见,明明错了也觉得自己对?

马斯克说:不会,我是对的。

然后他解释为什么。

"物理是无情的。我有个说法,物理是法律,其他一切只是建议。你可以违反任何人类制定的法律,但你试试违反物理定律。"

这个逻辑冷酷但有效。火箭飞行里有一千件事可能发生,只有一件能让它入轨。你错了还坚持错,火箭会炸,车会坏。这不是在讨论哪种冰淇淋口味最好。

说到贝索斯和蓝色起源。马斯克说,如果有个按钮能删掉蓝色起源,他不会按。他觉得贝索斯花钱造火箭是好事,还建议他多花点时间在上面,当然这由他自己决定。

他强调自己的公司没干过压制竞争的事,干的都是反过来的事。特斯拉把专利开源了,任何人都能免费用,他反问:你能举出另一家这么做的公司吗?我举不出来。SpaceX基本不申请专利,偶尔申请一个只是防专利流氓。特斯拉把超充网络开放给其他厂商,充电技术免费提供。

"我们可以砌一堵墙,但我们选择请他们进来。"

有人担心星链构成垄断。他的回答是:通信卫星不止我们一家,只是我们的卫星好得多。产品不好,用户会用脚投票。

关于监管,他给了一个具体算法。SpaceX、星链、特斯拉加起来受几百个监管机构管,业务分布在五十五个国家。几十年下来他和监管机构真正吵过的次数大约五次,而合规的法规大概有一千万条。媒体只列那五条,听起来像个狂徒。那一千万条呢?

他说自己反对某条法规只有一个理由:那条法规本来是为了公共利益,实际却没做到。这种情况下他有义务提出异议。

OpenAI:从开源基金会,到九百亿的封闭公司

OpenAI那一段,马斯克讲了将近十分钟。

他说这件事的走向让他不安。OpenAI创立的原因,是要给谷歌和DeepMind造一个平衡物。当时那两家掌握全球三分之二的AI人才,钱和算力基本无限,世界上没有第二个极。

他和拉里·佩奇(Larry Page)当年极亲密,会住在佩奇家里,聊AI安全聊到深夜。后来越聊越清楚:佩奇不在乎AI安全。

可能是他叫我"物种主义者"(speciest)那次让我彻底明白的。因为我站在人类这边。就跟种族主义者一样,只不过换成了物种。我当时想,等等,拉里,你站哪边?(马斯克)

他说,OpenAI就是这么来的,本意是开源,名字里的Open就是开源。

"结果现在是闭源的,超级闭源。应该改名叫超级闭源追求最大利润AI。这才是它实际的样子。"

他提到朋友乔纳的一条法则:最讽刺的结果最可能发生。OpenAI就是活例子。从一个五亿多美元的非营利基金会,变成一个估值九百亿的闭源营利公司。"我不知道你怎么从那边走到这边。我问,这合法吗?"

他还补了一刀:当年我把伊利亚招进OpenAI之后,拉里就不跟我做朋友了。

关于伊利亚·苏茨克维(Ilya Sutskever)为什么参与解雇Sam Altman,马斯克说他不知道原因,但他很在意。

"我认为伊利亚有很强的道德罗盘。他真的会为对错问题反复煎熬。如果伊利亚强烈到想解雇Sam,那世界应该知道原因是什么。"

他联系过伊利亚,对方不想跟任何人说话。他问过很多人,没人知道原因。

"要么是件严重的事,那我们该知道是什么。要么不是严重的事,那董事会应该辞职。"

他对Sam Altman的保留很明确:"我对Sam感情复杂。权力之戒会腐蚀人,而他手上戴着权力之戒。我确实担心他们造出了某种危险的东西。"

不到三年

索金问,你说AI会比最聪明的人类还聪明,什么时候?

马斯克先给了个限定。如果指在任何事情上都比最聪明的人聪明,门槛其实更高,因为人类可以用计算机增强自己。如果指的是能写出和J.K.罗琳一样好的小说,能发现新物理,能发明新技术,那他的判断是:

距离那个时点不到三年。

他说自己三十年前在大学时就认为AI会以重大方式改变世界。之所以没有一开始就去做AI,是因为他不确定双刃剑哪一边更锋利。

"造可持续能源技术,基本是单刃的好。让生命多行星化,单刃的好。星链给原本没有连接或者太贵的地方提供连接,非常是好事,它在阻止俄军推进中起了关键作用,乌克兰人自己说过。"

"但AI有灯神问题。你可能以为自己想要一个魔法灯神,但灯神出了瓶子之后,会发生什么很难讲。"

他说灯神已经把脑袋探出来了。那些模型权重放到文件里,本质上就是一堆用逗号隔开的数字。"我们的数字之神,就是一个CSV文件。我觉得这挺好笑,但字面上就是这样。"

数字之神会先于判决到来

索金问版权诉讼。马斯克说AI公司都在用受版权保护的数据训练,说没用是撒谎。

"这些AI全都是用受版权保护的数据训练的,显而易见。说不是,那是彻头彻尾的谎言。"

他说数据比黄金更有价值。X可能是很好的数据来源。人们点到X的链接比地球上任何地方都多,有时候大家觉得Facebook或Instagram更大,其实不是,这是公开信息,可以自己去查。地球上此刻正在发生什么,你会在那里找到。整个OpenAI的戏码,就是在X上直播的。

至于那些官司什么时候有结果,他的回答是:

"等这些官司判下来,我们已经有数字之神了。到时候去问数字之神吧。"

我宁愿活在最有意思的时代

索金引了那句"愿你生活在有趣的时代",说那其实是句诅咒。马斯克说他不在乎,他宁愿活在有趣的时代,而我们正活在很有意思的时代里。

他说有一段时间,他因为AI威胁真的睡不着,整个人被抽干。后来他变得宿命论了,问了自己一个问题:即使我知道毁灭是确定的,我会选择活在那个时刻吗?

"我说,我大概还是会选择活在那时,因为那是最有意思的事,哪怕我什么都做不了。这种宿命式的认命反而让我晚上睡得着了。"

他接着说,这些年他一直是敲这面鼓敲得响、时间又长的那个人之一,而现在各国开始管AI,最大的单一原因就是他。

他的逻辑是:任何对公众构成物理危险的东西都有监管。车受重度监管,通信受重度监管,火箭和飞机受重度监管。核弹受监管,你不能在后院造一颗核弹。在他看来,AI比核弹更危险。

"AI加速主义者会跳脚,因为他们觉得AI就是天堂。"

算法不讲政治,只讲病毒性

关于TikTok。马斯克说他不用,但他注意到十几岁、二十几岁的人几乎宗教式地沉迷,有人一天看两小时。

"我停用TikTok,是因为我感觉那个AI在探测我的大脑,让我不舒服。"

他说TikTok上的反犹内容泛滥,病毒性很强。他不认为这是中国政府的阴谋。他的解释是纯技术性的:TikTok的算法完全由AI驱动,它只是在找最容易病毒传播的东西,找最能把你黏在屏幕上的东西。

然后是数字:全世界大约有二十亿穆斯林,犹太人大概两千万,差了几个数量级。所以在内容生产上,按纯数量算,产出会压倒性地偏向反犹。

这个论证很冷,逻辑却清楚。算法不关心内容的政治方向,只关心传播效率。人群基数的差异一摆出来,算法会把差异放大。

白宫那场没请特斯拉的峰会

索金提到他和拜登政府的关系。

马斯克说,这届政府上任的头六个月,白宫办了一场电动车峰会,明确拒绝让特斯拉参加。他们去问:我们造的电动车比所有其他厂商加起来还多,为什么不能进?为什么只让福特、通用、克莱斯勒和UAW来,偏偏把我们排除在外?

"我们当时没做任何挑衅他们的事。然后拜登火上浇油,公开说通用在引领电动车革命。而同一个季度,特斯拉造了三十万辆电动车,通用造了两万六千辆。你觉得这公平吗?"

他补了一句:他和奥巴马关系很好,投票给奥巴马,为了跟奥巴马握手排了六个小时队。

关于"他是极右翼"的说法,他的回应是自嘲:"是啊,真正的右翼动机。天啊,极右,都不止。"

他说特斯拉有十四万员工,一半在美国,创造的制造业岗位比其他公司加起来都多。"这对公司是伤害,也是一种侮辱。"

不投拜登,也不等于投特朗普

他说他没有为任何总统候选人背书。他去听了维韦克·拉马斯瓦米(Vivek Ramaswamy)讲话,因为觉得其中一些观点很扎实,比如对政府越权的担忧,对政府控制信息的担忧。

"旧Twitter基本上是政府的提线木偶,这个程度荒谬到不行。政府当年对旧Twitter的控制程度,是对第一修正案的严重侵犯。现在不再是这样了。"

他讲了一段他对第一修正案的理解。之所以有言论自由,是因为来这个国家的人来自没有言论自由的地方,他们知道说错话会被关进监狱。言论自由只有在你不喜欢的人可以说你不喜欢的话时才成立,其他时候这个词没有意义。一旦你认了审查,早晚会有人来审查你。

然后他说:我不会投拜登。

"我不是说我会投特朗普,但这确实是个艰难的选择。"

他说他不会投一个支持审查的候选人。他还提到加拿大没有言论自由的宪法权利,也没有米兰达权利,在加拿大你没有保持沉默的权利。"我有一半加拿大血统,这话我说得。"

他的观察是,如今民主党反审查的力度不如共和党,而历史上是反过来的。左派曾经把言论自由当作根本,ACLU当年甚至为纳粹言论辩护过。他说自己的感受是,现在主张审查的更多在左边。X平台收到的投诉,也是左边更多。

社区笔记,和每月一千美元的订阅

他对X的定位是:全球城市广场,可信的真相来源,或者所有不准确的真相来源里最不糟糕的那个。

他说旧Twitter的问题像"给精神病院的每个人发一个扩音器"。但他也说,实际上仇恨内容被推广很罕见,比在时代广场听见有人喊疯话的概率低多了。他建议每个人自己去看信息流,问一句:你看到的有多少是仇恨的?过去一年是变多还是变少?他的判断是,今天的X比一年前好得多。

他还解释了一个用户经常困惑的现象:为什么算法专门给我推我讨厌的人?因为你和这个人互动很多。算法只会得出一个结论:你想和这个人多互动。

他推崇社区笔记(Community Notes)。X的做法是不删帖,只补充背景。补充的内容可能是"这完全是假的,原因是这样"。

"没人能免疫,我也不免疫,广告主也不免疫。事实上社区笔记给公司造成过广告收入损失。"

他举了个公开例子。Uber投过一条广告,文案是"像老板一样赚钱"(Earn like a boss)。社区笔记加了一句:"如果你说的老板是指每小时十二美元四十七美分。"结果Uber至少暂停了一段时间的投放。

关于《纽约时报》不买订阅,他的说法是:所有人都得买订阅,没有例外。我想要《纽约时报》,我也得付订阅费,他们没给我免费的,我也不会给他们免费的。

价格大概每月一千美元。买回来就回到马鞍上了。不买订阅的组织不会被推荐。

"言论自由不是完全免费的,得花一点点钱。"

最难打的对手在中国

关于电动车市场。马斯克说,只要车做得有说服力,人们就会买。中国的电动车销量巨大,是最大的品类。

他给了一个预测:Model Y会成为今年全球最畅销的车,任何类型,包括燃油车。

然后他说:中国车企的竞争力极强。我们最难对付的竞争就在中国。有不少人认为未来前十的车企是特斯拉加九家中国公司。他们可能没说错。中国制造能力超强,工作伦理也很惊人。在特斯拉内部,我们把竞争分成不同联赛,中国联赛是最激烈的。

"顺便说,我们在中国做得很好,因为我们的中国团队是中国最好的。"

关于中国市场占比,他给了个坐标。星链和SpaceX在中国没有任何业务。特斯拉在中国有四座整车工厂之一,中国约占四分之一的市场。所有其他车企在中国的比例也差不多。如果这对特斯拉是问题,那对每家车企都是问题。

他反对工会的理由

索金问工会。马斯克说他反对工会,理由可能跟别人想的不一样。

"我不喜欢任何制造领主与农民关系的东西。工会天然会在公司里制造对立,制造一种上下分野。"

他说特斯拉有很多人从产线做到高级管理层。没有领主和农民。所有人同一张桌子吃饭,同一个停车场停车。通用有只给高管用的专用电梯,特斯拉没有这种东西。

他说他认识产线上的人,因为他在产线上干过,走过产线,睡过工厂,跟他们并肩工作过。他还说过好几次:为什么不直接搞一次工会投票?但公司不被允许自己发起工会投票,得由别人来召集,工会又召集不了。他说那就投一次看看结果。

"真正的问题反过来了。人们不是被困在特斯拉造车,造车是苦活,外面有六个更轻松的活儿。我们的难题是怎么留住优秀的人来干这件难事。我非常感激那些造车的人,他们知道。"

"如果特斯拉被工会化了,那是因为我们活该,我们在某处失败了。"

他提到特斯拉给所有人股票期权,很多原本连股票是什么都不知道的产线工人,因此成了百万富翁。

一块黑色矩形,和跳过它的办法

索金问他会不会造手机。当时有传闻,因为苹果和X的矛盾。

马斯克说:没有真正必要造手机。如果出现本质性的需要,我会造,但我手上有太多鱼要煎。

他说手机厂商面临一个根本问题:手机就是一块黑色矩形,你怎么把它做得更好?

"最好的界面是直接连到大脑的神经接口。那就是Neuralink。"

关于Neuralink的动物实验争议,他说USDA的检查员来看过设施之后说,她整个职业生涯里没见过更好的动物护理条件。"我们对动物好到不能再好,连老鼠也是,虽然它们带来过瘟疫。那里简直是猴子天堂。"

他解释了被混淆的地方。有几次是猴子已经处于临终状态,患了绝症,团队才把实验装置装上去。猴子后来死了,但死于癌症,不是死于Neuralink。他说Neuralink从来没有导致猴子死亡,"除非他们瞒着我"。现在有猴子带着植入体生活了两三年,状态很好,有的已经换过两次装置。

他说几个月内会做首例人体植入。第一批应用是让失去脑与身体连接的人操作电脑或手机,速度比有手的人还快。霍金要是能比一个身体健全的人沟通得更快,那会是什么场面。

下一个应用是视觉。给失去双眼或者视神经失效的人做直接的视觉接口。到那时候你可以像《星际迷航》里的Geordi La Forge,能看到任何频段,想看雷达频段都行。

人类是糟糕的司机

关于自动驾驶。马斯克说人类是糟糕的司机。边发短信边开,喝了酒开,吵架的时候开,在车里干各种不该干的事。"所以现在的死亡数字不是更高,其实挺惊人的。"

他的估算:全球每年大概有一百万人死于交通事故。电脑驾驶能把这个数字降九成以上。"它不会完美,但会好十倍。"

他说现在监督式的全自动驾驶(FSD)已经比纯人类驾驶安全大约四倍。在大多数地方,它已经能把你从A点送到B点,中间不用接管。

索金问了那个很直接的问题:那些做空特斯拉的人,是不是都错了?

马斯克说,他们几乎无一例外都认为这事成不了,所以他们是在明知不成立的情况下投的钱。"说我来晚了是公正的批评,但我最后总会交付。"

关于"放大同理心"(amplify empathy)那条帖子,索金问他到底什么意思。他说:就是字面意思。我和几个朋友聊过,我们都同意应该试着放大同理心,所以我就写了放大同理心。

"有时候事情就是这么简单。"

这场对话能给普通人什么

马斯克在这个小时里说了很多互相打架的话,但有一条线是清楚的:他把世界分成"可验证的部分"和"靠叙事的部分",只在第一类上接受反驳。火箭的入轨质量、车的销量、员工的晋升路径、猴子活了几年,这些他愿意被人查。至于他是不是反犹、是不是极右、是不是垄断,他给出的回答一律是:你去看记录。

这套方法可以拿来用。下面几条是从这场访谈里能直接抠出来的行动建议。

  • 判断一个人或者一家公司,先找可验证的记录,别先看立场表态。火箭入轨占比、车卖了多少辆、专利有没有开源、超充有没有开放,这些都能查。查完再决定信不信他说的话。
  • 当"看起来好"和"做得好"冲突时,选后者。他的原话是关心善的现实而不是善的感知。这句话可以当成一个过滤器:你身边有多少人擅长表演正确,又有多少人在真正解决问题。
  • 用"物理是法律"的思路检验计划。一个方案里有一千件事可能出错,只有一条路能成。会爆炸的东西不会因为你自信就网开一面。把这个标准用到自己的项目上,看看哪些环节真的经不起错。
  • 怀疑推荐算法时,先看自己的互动习惯。你觉得算法给你推了讨厌的人,多半是你和这个人吵得太多。想改信息流,先改自己的点击。
  • 默认你公开写下的东西已经被拿去训练模型了。马斯克说这句话时没有任何犹豫,AI公司说没用就是撒谎。既然这样,把自己在网上的输出当成永久公开的资产来经营。
  • 区分愿景时间和工程时间。他说SpaceX和特斯拉当年成功概率不到百分之十,他自己当时也同意会失败。"我经常迟到,但最后总会交付"这句话里,前半句是诚实,后半句是他敢押注的原因。听他的时间表要打折,看他的产品进度不用打折。
  • 做内容或者做产品,别指望靠讨好换来信任。他的做法是把可被检验的部分做到无可辩驳,然后承认其余部分有人会永远讨厌你。这套打法的成本是得罪人,收益是不用每天猜别人想听什么。

最后回到那条手链。访谈快结束时他还戴着它,说只要还有人质没回来就一直戴。同一场对话里,他刚说完"去你妈的",也刚说完"我相当抱歉"。想看懂这个人,绕不开这两句为什么能同时成立。

语音识别自动转录,可能有识别错误,人名与数字请以视频为准。已按语句合并成段落,并去掉 um、uh 等口头填充词。 文稿来源:Rev.com (transcription humaine)。

1:05What? For now. Sure. Yeah, it’s a long time. Oldest kids were three.

2:14Yeah, that’s a bit like 2007. Roadster was a little bit 2008.

2:36It’s been boring, that’s for sure. Wait, actually, technically I do have a boring company.

3:08No idea what this Twitter thing is you keep talking about. I have a platform.

3:44Everything? How long have you got? Okay. I’m trying to change… When things were just 140 characters, it made sense to call them a tweet because a bunch of little bit chirping, but point in which you can put three-hour videos on, it’s a very long tweet.

4:13This is more descriptive I think. Well, the trip to Israel is independent of… It wasn’t some apology tour. I want to be clear. That was- Trip to Israel is independent of… It wasn’t in response to that at all. And I have no problem being hated by the way. Hate away. I think it’s a real weakness to want to be liked, a real weakness. I do not have that.

5:56Yes. I mean, I think I am, but I’m certainly not going to do some sort of tap dance to prove to people that I am. So as for trust, I mean I think we break that down in a few ways. If you want satellites sent to orbit reliably, SpaceX will do 80% of all mass to orbit this year. China will do 12%. The rest of the world will do eight. That includes Boeing, Lockheed, and everyone else. So the track record of the rocket is the best by far of anything. You could hate my guts. You could not trust me. It is irrelevant. The rocket track record speaks for itself. With respect to Tesla, we make the best cars. Whether you hate me, like me or indifferent, do you want the best car or do you not want the best car? So I will certainly not pander. And Jonathan, the only reason I’m here is because you are a friend. What was my speaking fee?

7:04Yeah, sorry. I’ve spoken. Yes. Listen, what I’m trying to illustrate is that sometimes I say the wrong thing.

7:30No. No. You should hear the sketches that SNL wouldn’t post, by the way. Those are really good.

7:47Where am I? I’m here because you’re a friend, not because I’m being payable because I need any validation or anything, is that we’ve been friends for 16 years and I promise you I’d be here and that’s why I’m here.

8:03Not for any other reason. Did you read the whole thing? The responses. I said more? Yeah, I said more than what you just read.

9:18Yeah. Well, first of all, I did clarify almost immediately what I meant. I would say that that was… If I could go back and say I should in retrospect not have replied to that particular person, and I should have written in greater length as to what I meant. I did subsequently clarify it in replies, but those clarifications were ignored by the media. And essentially I handed a loaded gun to those who hate me. And arguably to those who are antisemitic. For that, I’m quite sorry. That was not my intention. So I did post on my primary timeline to be absolutely clear that I’m not an antisemitic and that I, in fact, if anything am [inaudible 00:10:12], and the trip to Israel was planned before any of that happened. It was neither here nor there. Do you see this thing? Do you know what it is?

10:28It says bring them home. The hostages. It was given to me by the parents of one of the hostages. And I said I would wear it as long as there was a hostage story remaining. And I have.

11:09I hope they stop. Don’t advertise. No. If somebody’s going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself. Go fuck yourself. Is that clear? I hope it is. Hey, Bob, if you’re in the audience. That’s how I feel. Don’t advertise.

12:08GFY. Yes. No, no. Absolutely. So no, totally. So actually what this advertising boycott is going to do, it is going to kill the company.

12:35And the whole world will know that those advertisers killed the company and we’ll document it in great detail. Oh, yeah. They’re going to say- Tell to earth.

13:00That’s what they’re going to say. And let’s see how earth responds to that. We’ll both make our cases and we’ll see what the outcome is.

13:21I mean, if the company fails because of an advertised boycott, it will fail because of an advertised boycott, and that will be what bankrupted the company, and that’s what everybody on earth will know.

13:36They’ll be gone and it’ll be gone because of an advertised boycott.

13:50Tell it to the judge. The judge is the public. They already are. Let the chips fall where they may. Let the chips fall where they may. What approach?

14:44No. We focus on making the best products and Tesla has gotten to where it’s gotten with no advertising at all. Tesla currently sells twice as much in terms of electric vehicles, as rest of electric car makers in the United States combined. Tesla has done more to help the environment than all other companies combined. Would be fair to say that therefore as a leader of the company, I’ve done more for the environment than any single human on earth.

15:21How do I feel about that? I’m saying what I care about is the reality of goodness, not the perception of it. And what I see all over the place is people who care about looking good while doing evil, fuck them. Okay?

16:14Yes, it will be the biggest product launch of anything by far on earth this year.

16:46Of all the posts I’ve done on the platform, I think there might be 30,000 or something like that, right? Once in a while I’ll say something foolish and I have. And I would certainly put that comment that you’ve said the actual truth among perhaps one of the most foolish, if not the most foolish thing I’ve ever done on the platform. And I did do my best to clarify afterwards that I certainly do don’t mean anything antisemitic in that. The nature of the criticism was simply that the Jewish people have been persecuted for thousands of years. There is a natural affinity therefore for persecuted groups.

16:46This has led to the funding of organizations that essentially promote any persecuted group or any group with the perception of persecution. This includes radical Islamic groups. Everyone here has seen the massive demonstrations for Hamas in every major city in the west. That should be jarring. Well, a number of those organizations received funding from prominent people in the Jewish community. They didn’t expect that to happen. But if you generically without condition sort of fund… If you fund persecuted groups in general, some of those persecuted groups unfortunately want your annihilation.

16:46And what I meant by that, when I subsequently clarified is that it’s unwise to fund organizations that support groups that want your annihilation. Is this coming across clearly it at this point?

18:54I think logically this makes a lot of sense. Let’s say you fund a group and that group supports Hamas who wants you to die. Perhaps you should not fund them, right? Thank you.

19:44All of that. Yeah, all of that. I mean, look, I’m sorry for that tweet or post. It was foolish of me. Of the 30,000, it might be literally the worst and dumbest post that I’ve ever done. And I try to do my best to clarify six ways to Sunday. But at least I think over time it’ll be obvious that in fact, far from being antisemitic, I’m in fact [inaudible 00:20:14] and all the evidence in my track record would support that.

20:28The aspiration for X is to be the global town square. Now, if you were to walk down to let’s say Times Square, do you occasionally hear people saying crazy things?

20:51I mean, look, the joke I used to make about old Twitter was it was like giving everyone in the psych ward a megaphone. So I’m aware that things can get promoted that are negative beyond the sort of circle of somebody simply screaming crazy things in Times Square, which happens all the time. Actually, it’s pretty rare for something frankly that is hateful to be promoted. It’s not that it never happens, but it’s fairly rare. I mean, I would encourage people to look for those that use the system. When you look at the feed that you receive, how often is it hateful? And over time, has it gotten more or less hateful? I would say that if you look at the X platform today versus a year ago, I think it is actually much better. I mean, what is your personal experience?

21:56I’m just curious. You use this- This is actually a challenge in that sometimes people will say, why is it showing me posts from this person that I hate? And we’re like, well, did you interact a lot with this person that you hate? Well, yes. Well therefore thinks that you want to interact more with this person that you hate. That’s like a reasonable-

22:42If you kind of want to have an argument- Post. Listen, anyone can come up with a better word, that would be great. But the least bad word I can think of is post.

23:23For a while they thought I was Jewish, so I get it too. My name is Super George. I have said- Yeah, I said condemn… I literally posted, “I condemn antisemitism in all its forms.” That is a, I believe, literal post that I made. I mean, I’m like, listen, if I can get out the thesaurus, if you, and we could-

24:00You compose it, I’ll post it. Just because it came out of my mouth does not mean it’s true. [inaudible 00:24:19].

24:43Yes. Yeah. It as much as a weather metaphor makes sense. My mind often feels like a very wild storm. I have a fountain of ideas. I have more ideas than I could possibly execute, so I have no shortage of ideas. Innovation is not the problem. Execution is the problem. I’ve got a million ideas. I’ve got an entire design for an electric supersonic vertical takeoff jet, but if I just can’t do that as well. I’ve had that for 10 years. There’s a million things.

25:30No. No. We need a psychiatrist couch here or something. I think to some degree, I was born this way and then I was amplified by a difficult childhood, frankly. But I can remember even in happy moments when I was a kid, that it just feels like there’s just a rage of forces in my mind constantly. Now, this productively manifests itself in technology and building things for the most part. And I think on balance, the output has been very productive. I think the results, as we discussed earlier with SpaceX, Tesla, PayPal which is still going today, the first internet company that I started. In fact, the first internet company I started, Zipto, was funded by a New York Times Company, Hearst, Knight Ritter.

27:10And we wrote some of the software for the New York Times website and we helped bring online several hundred newspapers that previously were only in print. Now, this is in the ’90s, which at this point is like, I’m like a grandpa basically. The ’90s and internet feels like a pre-Cambrian era when there were only sponges. Anyway, I feel like a lot of productive things have been done. And you can also look at Tesla as being many companies in one. Like if the Tesla supercharging network were its own company, it would be a Fortune 500 company by itself, just the supercharging system. We also make the cells, we build the power electronics and the powertrain from scratch.

27:10We have the most innovative structural design, the largest castings ever used. We have the best manufacturing technology at Tesla, better manufacturing technology than companies that have been doing it for 100 years. So these demons of the mind are, for the most part, harnessed to productive ends.

28:36That doesn’t mean… Once in a while they go wrong. Prove to who.

29:14No. If I were to describe my philosophy, it is a philosophy of curiosity. I did have this existential crisis when I was around 12, about what’s the meaning of life? Isn’t it all pointless? Why not just commit suicide? Why exist? I read the religious texts. I read the philosophy books. That, especially the German philosophy books, made me quite depressed frankly. Want you not read Schopenhauer Nietzsche as a teenager. But then I read Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, which is a book on philosophy in the form of humor. And the point that Adamus was making there was that we don’t actually know what questions to ask. That’s why I said that, the answer is 42.

29:14Basically earth’s a giant computer and it came up with the answer 42. But then to actually figure out what the question is, that’s the actual hard part. And I think this is generally true also in physics. At the point at which you can properly frame the question, the answer is actually the easy part. So my motivation then was that, well, my life is finite, really a flash in the pan on a galactic timescale. But if we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, then we are better able to figure out what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe. And maybe we can find out the meaning of life or even what the right question to ask is. Where do we come from? Where are we going?

29:14Where are the aliens? Are there aliens? These questions, is there new physics to discover? Because there seems to be some real questions around dark matter and dark energy. So the purpose of SpaceX is to extend life beyond earth on a sustained basis, so that we can at least pass one of the Fermi Great Filters, which is that of being a single-planet civilization. If we are single-planet civilization, then we are simply waiting around for some extinction event, whether that is manmade or natural. But if you’re a single-planet civilization, eventually something will happen to that planet and you will die. If you’re a multi-planet civilization, you’ll live much longer.

29:14Also, multi-planet civilization, that’s the natural stepping stone to being a multi-stellar civilization and being out there among the stars. So now, this I think has two… This is not simply a defensive motivation, but it is also one where that gives meaning, man’s search for meaning.

32:40All right. Let me finish this philosophy point, even though it may seem rather esoteric, it may resonate with a few people. We must get past this Fermi Great Filter of being a single-planet civilization. And if we do that, we are more likely to understand the nature of the universe and what questions to ask. If you believe in the philosophy of curiosity, then I think you should support this ambition. Being a multi-planet species is more than simply life insurance for life collectively. That’s a defensive reason. But I think also that life has to be more than simply solving one sad problem after another. There have to be reasons for you wake up in the morning and you’re happy to be alive.

32:40There have to be reasons that you have to say, why are you excited about the future? What gives you hope? And if you aren’t sure, ask your kids. And I think the idea of us being a space-faring civilization and being out there among the stars is incredibly inspiring and exciting and something to look forward to. And there need to be such things in the world.

34:37Well, sometimes they’re right. Yes. Yes. Yes. I think what you trying to say is that, do I at this point think because I’ve been right so many times for others who said I’m wrong, that now I best believe I’m right when, in fact, I’m wrong?

35:37No, I’m right. So yeah, no, look, here’s the thing. Physics is unforgiving. Physics is unforgiving. I have these various little sayings that I’ve come up with, that physics is the law and everything else is a recommendation.

36:02In the sense that you can break any law made by humans, but try breaking a law made by physics. That’s much more difficult. So if you are wrong and persist in being wrong, the rockets will blow up and the cars will fail. So we’re not trying to figure out what flavor of ice cream is the best flavor of ice cream. There’s 1,000 things that can happen on a rocket flight, and only one of them gets the rocket to orbit. And so being wrong results in failure when dealing with physical objects.

37:09I hope he does. Yeah. Yeah. I actually agree with a lot of Jeff’s motivations. Let me put it this way, if there was a button I could press that would delete Blue Origin, I wouldn’t press it. So I think it’s good that he’s spending money on making rockets too. I’d suggest perhaps he spend more time on it, but it’s up to him. I should make a point here. So nothing any of my companies have done has been to stifle competition. In fact, we’ve done the opposite. So at Tesla, we have open sourced our patents. Anyone can use our patents for free. How many companies do you know who’ve done that? Can you name one? I can’t. At SpaceX, we don’t use patents. Once in a while we’ll file a patent just so some patent troll doesn’t cause trouble. But we’ve done nothing anti-competitive. We’ve done nothing to stop our competitors.

38:29I just want to clarify for the audience, because some companies have done anti-competitive things. I think the strange thing, the unusual thing about SpaceX and Tesla is that we’ve done things that have helped our competition. So at Tesla, we have made our supercharger system open access. We’ve made our charger technology available for free to the other manufacturers. No walled garden. We could have put a wall up, but instead we invited them in.

39:55I think it’s important for the audience to understand that the reason I have these powers is not because of some anti-competitive actions. It’s simply because we’ve executed very well. There are other satellites out there, you know? Right. Okay. They use our product if it’s better, then use somebody else’s product if their other product’s better.

40:39How is it a bad thing to make better products than other companies?

41:08What are you suggesting? Do you trust the government? Exactly. Like I said, we’re not the only company who has communication satellites. Our satellites are just much better than theirs. So it’s not like we have a monopoly, we just have the best product?

41:51I think at the end of the day, if we make bad products that people don’t want to use, then the users will vote with their resources and use something else.

42:08Certainly, my company’s overseen by regulators. Since SpaceX, Starlink, Tesla are overseen by cumulatively over 100 regulators, and actually more than that, a few hundred regulators because you’ve got, we’re in fifty-five countries. If you sum up all the times that I had an argument with regulators, of hundreds of regulators over decades, it can sound really terrible, except but they forgot to mention that there were 10 million regulations we complied with and only five that I disagreed with. But they list all the five and it sounds like, wow, this guy’s a real maverick. I’m like, yeah, but what about the 10 million we complied with?

43:16Well, it’s not SpaceX. The best that the X platform can do is adhere to the laws of any given country. Do you think there’s something more we could do than that?

44:05Well, first of all, Starlink and SpaceX do no business in China whatsoever. Tesla has one of four factories, four vehicle factories in China. And China is, I don’t know, a quarter of our market or something like that. So it’s a quarter of the market of one company. The same is true, by the way, of all the other car companies. They also have something on that order of a quarter of their sales in China. So if that’s a problem for Tesla, it’s a problem for every car company. I think one has to be careful about not conflating the various companies. Because I can only do things that are within the bounds of the law, I cannot do beyond that. My aspiration is to do as much good as possible and to be as productive as possible within the bounds of what is legal. More than that, I cannot do.

45:05Yeah. Jensen’s awesome. Yes. There’s a video of Jensen and me unpacking the first AI computer at OpenAI.

45:46Co-founded it, yeah. Well, the whole arc of OpenAI, frankly is a little troubling, because the reason for starting OpenAI was to create a counterweight to Google and DeepMind, which at the time had two-thirds of all AI talent and basically infinite money and compute. And there was no counterweight. It was a unipolar world. And Larry and Paige and I used to be very close friends, and I would stay at his house, and I would talk to Larry into the late hours of the night about AI safety. And it became apparent to me that Larry did not care about AI safety. I think perhaps the thing that gave it away was when he called me a speciest for being pro-humanity, as in a racist, but for species.

45:46So I’m like, “Wait a second, what side are you on, Larry?” And then I’m like, okay, listen, this guy’s calling me a speciest. He doesn’t care about AI safety. We’ve got to have some counterpoint here because this seems like we could be, this is no good. So OpenAI was actually started, and it was meant to be open source. I named it OpenAI after open source. It is in fact a closed source, super closed. It should be renamed super closed source for maximum profit AI. Because this is what it actually is. Fay loves irony. In fact, a friend of mine says, the way to predict outcomes is the most ironic outcome is the most… It’s like his Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is most likely.

45:46And my friend Jonah’s view is that the most ironic outcome is the most likely. And that’s what’s happened with OpenAI. It is gone from an open source foundation, a 5123, to suddenly it’s like a $90 billion for-profit corporation with closed source. So I don’t know how you go from here to there.

48:01I don’t know how you get … Is this legal? I’m like, “That’s legal?”

48:19That’s correct. Larry refused to be friends with me after I recruited Ilya. I think we should be concerned about this because I think Ilya actually has a strong moral compass. He really sweats it over questions of what is right. And if Ilya felt strongly enough to want to fire Sam, well, I think the world should know what was that reason.

48:54I’ve reached out, but he doesn’t want to talk to anyone. I’ve talked to a lot of people. I’ve not found anyone who knows why. Have you?

49:15One of two things is, either it was a serious thing and we should know what it is or it was not a serious thing and then the board should resign.

49:28I have mixed feelings about Sam. The ring of power can corrupt, and he has the ring of power. So I don’t know. I think I want to know why Ilya felt so strongly as to fire Sam. This sounds like a serious thing. I don’t think it was trivial. And I’m quite concerned that there’s some dangerous element of AI that they’ve created. Yes. That’d be my guess.

50:31On the AI front, I’m in somewhat of a quandary here because I’ve thought AI could be something that would change the world in a significant way since I was in college, 30 years ago. Now, the reason I didn’t go build AI right from the get-go was because I was uncertain about which edge of the double-edged sword would be sharper, the good edge or the bad edge.

50:31So I held off on doing anything on AI, could’ve created, I think, a leading AI company, and OpenAI actually is that, because I was just uncertain, if you make this magic genie, what will happen, whereas I think building sustainable energy technology is much more of a single-edged sword that is single-edged good, making life multi-planetary, I think single-edged good, installing mostly single-edged good, giving people better connectivity to people that don’t have connectivity or it’s too expensive, I think is very much a good thing. Sonic was instrumental, by the way, in halting the Russian advance, and the Ukrainians said so. So I think, with AI, you’ve got the magic genie problem.

50:31You may think you want a magic genie, but once that genie’s out of the bottle, it’s hard to say what happens.

52:15The genie is certainly poking its head out. It’s funny, all these weights, they’re just basically numbers in a common separated value file, and that’s our digital god, the CSP file. I found that funny, but that’s literally what it is. So I think it’s coming pretty fast.

53:16If you say smarter than the smartest human at anything? It may not be then quite smarter than all humans, well, machine-augmented humans, because people have got computers and stuff. There’s a higher bar, but you say it’s more than any … can write as good a novel as, say, JK Rowling, or discover new physics, or invent new technology, I would say that we’re less than three years from that point.

54:21Yeah. Data is very important. You could say data is probably more valuable than gold.

54:42Yes, X might be the single best source of data. People click on more links to X than anything else on earth. Sometimes people think Facebook or Instagram is a bigger thing, but actually, there are more links to X than anything. This is public information. You can Google it.

55:08So it is where you would find what is happening right now on earth at any given point in time. The whole OpenAI drama played out, in fact, on the X platform. Google certainly has a massive amount of data, so does Microsoft, but it is one of the best sources of data.

55:59Yeah, that’s a huge lie. These AIs are all trained on copyrighted data, obviously. That’s a lie. Yeah, straight up lie. 100%. Obviously, it’s been trained on copyrighted data. It’s one every minute here.

56:47Yeah. I don’t know, except to say that, by the time these lawsuits are decided, we’ll have digital God. So I’d ask digital God at that point. These lawsuits won’t be decided before, on a timeframe that is relevant.

57:41There’s that … I don’t know if it’s actually a real Chinese thing or not, but may you live an interesting time is apparently not a good thing, but personally, I would prefer to live in interesting times, and we live in the most interesting of times.

57:41For awhile there, I was really getting demotivated and losing sleep over the threat of AI danger, and then I finally became fatalistic about it and said, “Well, even if I knew annihilation was certain, would I choose to be alive at that time or not?” And I said, “I probably would choose to be alive at that time because it’s the most interesting thing, even if there’s nothing I could do about it.” So then basically, a fatalistic resignation helped me sleep at night because I was having trouble sleeping at night because of AI danger. Now, what to do about it?

57:41I’ve been the one banging the drum the hardest, by far the longest, or at least one of longest for AI danger, and these regulatory things that are happening, the single biggest reason they’re happening is because of me.

59:13Well, there’s regulation around anything which is a physical danger, a danger to the public. So cars are heavily regulated, communications are heavily regulated, rockets and aircraft are heavily regulated. The general philosophy about regulation is that, when something is a danger to the public, that there needs to be some government oversight. So I think, in my view, AI is more dangerous than nuclear bombs and we regulate nuclear bombs. You can’t just go make a nuclear bomb in your backyard. I think we should have some kind of regulation with AI. Now, this tends to cause the AI accelerationist to get up in arms because they think AI is heaven, basically.

1:00:19As I said a moment ago, one should not take what is viewed in the media as being the whole picture. There are literally hundreds, this is not an exaggeration, say, there are probably 100 million regulations that my companies comply with and there are probably five that we don’t. And if we disagree with some of those regulations, it’s because we think the regulation that is meant to do good doesn’t actually do good.

1:00:53It’s not defying regulations for the sake of defiance.

1:01:05No, I’m saying you’re fundamentally mistaken, and it should be obvious that you’re mistaken. My company’s automotive is heavily regulated. We would not be allowed to put cars on the road if we did not comply with this vast body of regulation. Now, you could fill up the stage with, literally six foot high, the regulations that you have to comply with to make a car. You could have a room full of phone books. That’s how big the regulations are. And if you don’t comply with all of those, you can’t sell the car. And if we don’t comply with all the regulations for rockets or for Starlink, they shut us down. So in fact, I am incredibly compliant with regulations.

1:01:05Now, once in awhile, there’ll be something that I disagree with. The reason I would disagree with it is because I think the regulation, in that particular case, in that rare case, does not serve the public good. And therefore, I think it is my obligation to object to a regulation that is meant to serve the public good, but doesn’t. That’s the only time I object, not because I seek to object. In fact, I’m incredibly rule-following.

1:02:21TikTok is- I don’t use TikTok. I don’t personally use it, but for teenagers and people in their 20s, they seem almost religiously addicted to TikTok. Some people will watch TikTok for two hours a day. I stopped using TikTok when I felt the AI probing my mind and it made me uncomfortable, so I stopped using it. And in terms of antisemitic content, TikTok is rife with that. It has the most viral antisemitic content by far.

1:03:26No. I don’t think this is some Chinese Government plot, but the TikTok algorithm is entirely AI-powered. So it is really just trying to find the most viral thing possible. It’s what is going to keep you glued to the screen. That’s it. Now, on sheer numbers, there are on the order of two billion Muslims in the world, and I think a much smaller number of Jewish people, 20 million, something, many orders of magnitude fewer. So if you just look at content production, just on sheer numbers basis, this is going to be overwhelmingly antisemitic, just on a numbers basis.

1:04:34Have I? Well, doing nothing to provoke the Biden Administration, they held an electric vehicle summit at the White House and specifically refused to let Tesla attend. This was in the first six months of the administration. And we inquired, we’re like, “We literally make more electric cars than everyone else combined. Why are we not allowed? Why are you only letting Ford, GM, Chrysler, and UAW, and you’re specifically disallowing us from the EV summit at the White House?” We had done nothing to provoke them. Then Biden went on to add insult to injury and publicly said that GM was leading the electric car revolution. This was in the same quarter that Tesla made 300,000 electric cars and GM made 26. Does that seem fair to you?

1:05:53And by the way, I had a great relationship with Obama. So this was not a- I voted for Obama. I stood in line for six hours to shake Obama’s hand. Okay?

1:06:11And it hurt the company, too, and it was an insult to … Tesla has 140,000 employees. Half of them are in the United States. Tesla has created more manufacturing jobs than everyone else combined.

1:06:40Yeah, a real right-wing motive. God, far right, if anything. It’s a reverse psychology, next level.

1:07:10Yeah, I disagree with him on that.

1:07:25Well, I haven’t endorsed anyone for president. I wanted to hear what Vivek had to say because I think that some of the things he says, I think, are pretty solid. He’s concerned about government overreach, about government control of information. The degree to which old Twitter was basically a sock puppet of the government was ridiculous. So it seems to me that there’s a very severe violation of the First Amendment in terms of how much control the government had over old Twitter, and it no longer does. So there’s a reason for the First Amendment.

1:07:25The reason for the First Amendment, for freedom of speech, is because the people that immigrated to this country came from places where there was not freedom of speech. And they were like, “You know what? We got to make sure that that’s constitutional,” because where they came from, if they said something, they’d be put in prison or something bad would happen to them. And freedom of speech, you have to say, when is it relevant? It’s only relevant when someone you don’t like can say something you don’t like or it has no meaning. And as soon as you throw in the towel and concede to censorship, it is only a matter of time before someone censors you. And that is why we have the First Amendment.

1:09:09I think I would not vote for Biden. I’m not saying I’d vote for Trump, but this is definitely a difficult choice here.

1:09:31No, I think that’s outrageous. I’m not going to vote for some pro-censorship candidate. Like I said, I think you have to consider that there’s a lot of wisdom in these amendments, I mean, the constitution, and a lot of things that we take for granted here in the United States that don’t even exist in Canada. There’s no constitutional right to freedom of speech in Canada and there’s no Miranda rights in Canada. People think you have the right to remain silent. You don’t, actually, in Canada. I’m half Canadian, I can say these things, I suppose. So the freedom of speech is incredibly important, even when people … And like I said, it’s actually especially important, in fact, it is only relevant, when people you don’t like can say things you don’t like. [inaudible 01:10:40] they’re meaningless.

1:11:10Look, we actually are in an odd situation here where, on balance, the Democrats appear to be more pro-censorship than the Republicans, and that used to be the opposite. It used to be left position was freedom of speech. I believe, at one point, the ACLU even defended the right of someone to claim that they were Nazi or something like that. So the left was freedom of speech is fundamental. My perception, perhaps it isn’t accurate, is that the pro-censorship is more on the left than the right.

1:12:00… We certainly get more complaints from the left than the right, let me put it that way. But my aspiration for the X platform is that it is the best source of truth, or the least inaccurate source of truth. And while I don’t know of you will believe me or not, but I think honesty is the best policy, and I think that the truth will win over time. And we’ve got this great system, and it’s getting better, called Community Notes, which is fantastic I think at correcting falsehoods, or adding context. In fact, we make a point of not removing anything, but only adding context. Now that context could include that this is completely false and here’s why. And no one is immune to this.

1:12:00I’m not immune to it. Advertisers are not immune to it. In fact, we’ve had Community Notes, which has caused us some loss in advertising. Speaking of loss in advertising revenue. If a community note… If there’s false advertising, the Community Note will say, “This is false and here is why.” There’s one specific example that is public knowledge, so I’ll mention it, which is at one point Uber had this ad which said, “Earn like a boss.” And it was community noted. “If by boss you mean $12 and forty-seven cents an hour.” This did cause at least a temporary suspension of advertising from Uber.

1:13:45What did? Well, we do require that everyone has to buy a subscription, and we don’t make exceptions for anyone. And I think if I want the New York Times, I have to pay for a subscription, and they don’t give me a free subscription. So I’m not going to give them a free subscription.

1:14:13They didn’t buy a subscription. By the way, it only cost like $1000 a month. So if they just do that, then they’re back in the saddle.

1:14:27No, I’m saying- Any organization that refuses to buy a subscription is not going to be recommended.

1:14:52Free speech is not exactly free, it costs a little bit. Yeah. It’s like in South Park where they say, “Freedom isn’t free, it costs a buck O’ five.” Or whatever. But it’s pretty cheap. Okay? Low cost freedom.

1:15:17Freedom- Yeah. This is EV? Well, I think if you make a compelling electric car, people will buy it. No question about it. I mean electric car sales in China are gigantic. That’s by far the biggest category, and I think that would be the case… I mean it’s worth noting, so probably the best reputation of that is that the Tesla model Y will be the best selling car of any kind on earth this year, of any kind, gasoline or otherwise.

1:16:49I think the Chinese car companies are extremely competitive. By far our toughest competition is in China. So I mean there’s a lot of people who are out there who think the top 10 car company’s is going to be Tesla followed by nine Chinese car companies. I think they might not be wrong. So China is super good at manufacturing, and the work ethic is incredible. So if we consider different leagues of competitiveness at Tesla, we consider the Chinese league to be the most competitive. And by the way, we do very well in China because our China team is the best in China.

1:17:50Well, I mean I think it’s generally not good to have an adversarial relationship between people on the line, one group at the company and another group. In fact, I disagree with the idea of unions, but perhaps for a reason that is different than people may expect, which is I just don’t like anything which creates kind of a lords and peasants sort of thing. And I think the unions naturally try to create negativity in a company, and create a sort of lords and peasants situation. There are many people at Tesla who have gone from working on the line to being in senior management. There is no lords and peasants. Everyone eats at the same table. Everyone parks in the same parking lot.

1:17:50At GM there’s a special elevator for only for senior executives. We have no such thing at Tesla. And the thing is that I actually know the people on the line, because I worked on the line and I walked the line and I slept in the factory and I worked beside them. So I’m no stranger to them. And there are actually many times where I’ve said, “Well, can’t we just hold a union vote?” But apparently a company is not allowed to hold a union vote, so it has to be somehow called for, but the unions can’t do it. So I said, “Well let’s just hold a vote and see what happens.” The actual problem is the opposite. It’s not that people are trapped at Tesla building cars.

1:17:50The challenge is, how do we retain great people to do the hard work of building cars when they have six other opportunities that they can do that are easier? That’s the actual difficulty, is that building cars is hard work and there are much easier jobs. And I just want to say that I’m incredibly appreciative of those who build cars, and they know it. So I don’t know, maybe we’ll be unionized. I say if Tesla gets unionized it will be because we deserve it and we failed in some way. But we certainly try hard to ensure the prosperity of everyone. We give everyone stock options.

1:17:50We’ve made many people who are just working the line who didn’t even know what stocks were, we’ve made the millionaires.

1:20:33well. I have to go to the bathroom sometimes. Well, about every three hours, I make a trip to the lavatory.

1:20:58No, I mean there’ll be brief moments between meetings. I mean obviously, I have 17 jobs and no, I guess technically it’s work at this point.

1:21:22Technically posting on Twitter or X is work. It does count as work. So there’s that. But no, I mean I think I’m on… Well I guess usually, probably I’m on for longer than I think I am.

1:21:40If you look at the screen time of a number of hours per week, sometimes that’s a scary number. It’s probably, I don’t know, it’s a little over an hour a day, or something like that.

1:21:56Yeah. Okay. Yeah, screen time. Sometimes this is a scary number though.

1:22:22I just got a new phone, so I think this is not accurate. It’s one minute. Pretty sure it’s more than that. Wait, it’s over the week. There we go.

1:22:35Okay, so it’s still wrong. It’s more than four minutes. I just got a new phone, so this is not accurate. It literally says four minutes. New phone. [inaudible 01:22:45]. The idea of making a phone… What do you mean like- The app store? I mean, I don’t think there’s a real need to make a phone. I mean, if there’s an essential need to make a phone, I’ll make a phone, but I’ve got a lot of fish to fry. So I mean I do think there’s a fundamental challenge that phone makers have at this point because you’ve got basically a black rectangle. How do you make that better?

1:23:36No, that’s literally… Yeah, good phrase, in the head. A neural link. The best interface would be a neural interface directly to your brain. So that would be a neural link.

1:24:03Yeah, actually this is… The USDA inspector who came by Neuralink facilities literally said in her entire career she has never seen a better animal care facility. We are the nicest to animals that you could possibly be, even to the rats and mice, even though they did the plague and everything. So it is like monkey paradise. So the thing that gets conflated is that there were some terminal monkeys, where, this is actually several years ago, where the monkeys were about to die and we’re like, okay, we’ve got an experimental device. It’s a kind of thing which you would only put on a monkey that’s about to die.

1:24:03And then now the monkey died, but it didn’t die because of the Neuralink, it died because it had a terminal case of cancer or something like that. Neuralink has never caused the death of a monkey, to the best… Unless they’re hiding something from me, it’s never caused death of a monkey. And in fact, we’ve now had monkeys with Neuralink implants for two, three years and they’re doing great. And we’ve even replaced the Neuralink twice and we’re getting ready to do the first implants, hopefully in a few months. The only implementations of Neuralink I think are unequivocally good.

1:24:03Speaking of the double-edged sword, I think these early implementations are single-edged sword, because the first implementations will be to enable people who have lost the brain-body connection to be able to operate a computer or a phone faster than someone who has hands that work. So you can imagine if Stephen Hawking could communicate faster than someone who had full-body functionality, how incredible that would be. Well, that’s what this device will do, and we should have proof of that in a human, hopefully in a few months. It already works in monkeys and works quite well with monkeys that can play video games just by thinking.

1:24:03So in the next application after dealing with tetraplegics and quadriplegics is going to be vision. Vision is the next thing. So it’s like if somebody has lost both eyes, or the optic nerve has failed, basically where they have no possibility of having some ocular correction. That would be the next thing for Neuralink, is a direct vision interface. And in fact, then you could be like Geordi La Forge from Star Trek. You could see in any frequency, actually you could see in radar if you want.

1:27:05Not as well as Neuralink will though. Yes. Well, first of all, humans are terrible drivers. So people text and drive, they drink and drive, they get into arguments, they do all sorts of things in cars that they should not do. So it’s actually remarkable that there are not more deaths than there are. What we’ll find with computer driving is, I think probably an order of magnitude reduction in deaths. And the US has actually far fewer deaths per capita than the rest of the world. If you go worldwide, I think there’s something close to a million deaths per year due to automotive accidents. So I think computer driving will probably drop that by 90% or more. It won’t be perfect, but it’ll be 10 times better.

1:29:13Well, in large numbers, it will simply be so obviously true that it really cannot be denied.

1:29:36Sure, of course. Wait, I shouldn’t have said that. So yeah, I’m optimistic about… I think I’m naturally optimistic about time scales, and if I was not naturally optimistic, I wouldn’t be doing the things that I’m doing. I mean, I certainly wouldn’t have sold a rocket company or electric car company if I didn’t have some sort of pathological optimism, frankly. So as you pointed out, many people said that it would fail. And in fact, actually I agreed with them. I said, “Yes, it probably will fail.” And they’re like, “Hmm, okay.” But I thought SpaceX and Tesla had less than a 10% chance of success when we started them. So yeah, anyway.

1:29:36But the self-driving thing is, I’ve been optimistic about it, but we’ve certainly made a lot of progress. If anybody has tried, has been using the sort of full self-driving beta, the progress every year has been substantial. It’s really now at the point where in most places it’ll take you from one place to another with no interventions. And the data is unequivocal that supervised full self-driving is somewhere around four times safer or maybe more, than just a human driving by themselves. So I can certainly see it coming. Actually, really-

1:31:14No, no, no, definitely not. Definitely not. Well, I mean I think they’ve all, with rare exception, thought it wasn’t happening. So they were investing, despite thinking, they’re very clear that they don’t think it’s real. So they’re not saying, “Oh, we just believe everything Elon says, hook, line, and sinker.” But the thing is that, I mean, it would be a fair criticism of me to say that I’m late, but I always deliver in the end.

1:32:03Right. Well, I think it’s quite literally- Well, I was encouraging people to amplify empathy, literally. I tend to be quite literal.

1:32:35I think I was talking to some friends, and we all agreed that we should try to amplify empathy. And so I wrote amplify empathy.

1:32:50Look, sometimes it’s pretty simple. All right. Thank you. [inaudible 01:33:04].

从现场发言里挑出的 9 句原话,附中文译文(AI 翻译,以英文原话为准)。点时间戳可跳到视频对应位置。

我认为想被人喜欢是一种真正的弱点,真正的弱点。我没有这个弱点。

I think it’s a real weakness to want to be liked, a real weakness. I do not have that.

▶ 5:10

如果你想让卫星可靠入轨,SpaceX今年将承担所有入轨质量的80%。中国将承担12%。世界其他地区将承担8%。

If you want satellites sent to orbit reliably, SpaceX will do 80% of all mass to orbit this year. China will do 12%. The rest of the world will do eight.

▶ 5:56

如果有人想用广告敲诈我,用钱敲诈我,去你妈的。

If somebody’s going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself.

▶ 11:18

创新不是问题。执行才是问题。

Innovation is not the problem. Execution is the problem.

▶ 24:43

当你能正确地把问题框定清楚时,答案其实是容易的部分。

At the point at which you can properly frame the question, the answer is actually the easy part.

▶ 29:14

我编过各种小格言,其中一句是:物理是法则,其他一切都是建议。

I have these various little sayings that I’ve come up with, that physics is the law and everything else is a recommendation.

▶ 35:37

你可能以为自己想要一个魔法精灵,但一旦这个精灵出了瓶子,就很难说会发生什么。

You may think you want a magic genie, but once that genie’s out of the bottle, it’s hard to say what happens.

▶ 50:31

AI比核弹更危险,而我们监管核弹。你不能就在自家后院造核弹。我认为我们应该对AI有某种监管。

AI is more dangerous than nuclear bombs and we regulate nuclear bombs. You can’t just go make a nuclear bomb in your backyard. I think we should have some kind of regulation with AI.

▶ 59:13

而一旦你认输、向审查让步,那么迟早会有人来审查你。这就是为什么我们有第一修正案。

And as soon as you throw in the towel and concede to censorship, it is only a matter of time before someone censors you. And that is why we have the First Amendment.

资源与出处