播客·中文精读

马斯克:战争、AI、外星人、政治、物理、电子游戏与人类 | Lex Fridman 播客 #400

Elon Musk: War, AI, Aliens, Politics, Physics, Video Games, and Humanity | Lex Fridman Podcast #400

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

马斯克给以色列出了个反直觉的主意:去做最显眼的善事。

移动医院、食物、水、药品,全都上,还要加装 24 小时不间断的摄像头,让所有人看得清清楚楚。这种善意要密集到夸张,透明到无法质疑。

Lex Fridman 问他为什么。马斯克的回答是一道算术题:你每杀死一名哈马斯成员,你创造了多少名?

这句话是整期播客的缩影。他在战争、AI、外星人、政治、物理、电子游戏这些看似毫无关系的话题之间跳来跳去,底层逻辑却是同一套:看清真正的敌人是谁,把代价和收益算清楚,然后承认有些问题没有干净答案。

黑猩猩社会就是永不停歇的人类社会

播客从一个互联网梗开始:是不是所有男人每天至少会想一次罗马帝国?

马斯克绕到了帝国的形成方式上。罗马靠征服,哈布斯堡靠联姻,一堆聪明的婚姻把地盘拼起来。他很快把话题拉到更底层的东西:人类到底有多暴力。

他提到沃纳·赫尔佐格(Werner Herzog)在丛林里拍纪录片时说的那段话:大自然根本不和平,丛林里每一分钟、每一个方向都在发生谋杀和死亡,植物和动物每天都在互相残杀。人类并不特殊,所有生物都打架。

不过他接着说了一句关键的话:人类控制暴力本能的能力,比黑猩猩强得多。

黑猩猩社会充满暴力和残忍,博诺波(Bonobo,倭黑猩猩)是例外。你不该站在黑猩猩错误的一边,它会撕掉你的脸、扯掉你的睾丸。这在现实里真实发生过好几次,通常是某个看了太多迪士尼电影的人决定把黑猩猩当宠物养。

他管那只黑猩猩叫“扯蛋者”(nut rougher),然后补了一句:

“可以安全地说,如果有人把你的睾丸握在手里,并且有扯掉它们的选项,你会愿意答应他任何要求。”(马斯克)

听起来像段子,这是他后面谈战争的地基。人是暴力的,暴力有演化来源,所以在谈和平之前,得先承认这件事。

哈马斯想要的是过度反应

谈到 2023 年 10 月 7 日之后的加沙战争,马斯克说这题没有轻松答案,字典里翻不到解释。他的判断很明确:

哈马斯的目标是激怒以色列做出过度反应。他们知道自己打不赢军事胜利,所以要做尽可能残忍的暴行,逼出最猛烈的回应,再用那个回应去动员全世界的穆斯林支持加沙和巴勒斯坦。他认为哈马斯成功了。

然后他给出那个反直觉的方案:以色列应该做最显眼、最无可辩驳的善事。理由在于哈马斯的回应会是“这是诡计”,所以你得预判这一步,用透明到无法质疑的方式堵住它。24 小时摄像头就是干这个的。

他也承认,找到哈马斯成员并杀掉或关押是必要的,否则对方会一直来。他的核心逻辑是这个:

如果你不打算对一个民族实施种族灭绝(那显然不该被任何人接受),你就会留下大量活着的人,而这些人随后会恨以色列。那么真正的问题就是,你每杀掉一个哈马斯成员,制造了几个新的?制造出来的比杀掉的多,你就没赢。

他说,在加沙杀掉一个孩子,你就至少制造了几个愿意付出生命去杀以色列人的哈马斯成员。这笔账属于算术问题,跟道德姿态无关。

他引了一句老话:

“以眼还眼,会让所有人都瞎掉。”(马斯克引述)

中东那个地方真的信以眼还眼。如果不打算把整个民族消灭,就必须算长期账:若干年后,恐怖分子是变多了还是变少了。

1914 年的战术,加上了无人机

关于俄乌战争,马斯克说他一年前提出停火,因为他基本预测到了后来发生的事:大量的人死去,土地几乎没有变化,乌克兰和俄罗斯最优秀的年轻人被消耗掉。

战场结构他讲得很细。谁进攻,谁的伤亡就是防守方的几倍。原因是防御纵深、雷区、战壕、反坦克武器。双方都没有制空权,因为防空导弹比飞机好太多,数量也多太多。坦克基本是移动的死亡陷阱,扛不住反坦克武器。战场于是退化成远程火炮加步兵,一战重演,只是加上了无人机。

要突破这种防线,需要局部兵力的显著优势,理想情况是合成兵种:飞机快速打击、集中坦克、大量步兵,打穿之后还得有后续梯队,否则刚突破就被推回去。他说,认真读一战战史的人会明白那有多惨。

他特别强调了对俄罗斯年轻人的同情。那些男孩没要求上前线,是不得不去。很多儿子回不了家。他们中的大多数并不恨对面的人。

“一战有句话,彼此不认识的年轻男孩,代表彼此认识的老男人互相残杀。这到底有什么意义?”(马斯克)

他的建议非常直接:不要把乌克兰最优秀的年轻人送进战壕,无论有没有和普京谈。谁发动进攻,谁就会损失大量人口,历史不会善待他们。

核弹还在发射井里,没人把枪收起来

Lex 提到美国头顶上对准的核弹足以让放射性尘埃平衡翻很多倍。马斯克说,核战争的可能性不能被排除,这是文明级威胁。他认为目前概率相当低,但他也说得很清楚:

枪没有收起来,导弹还在发射井里。

他把战争分成两类。一类是局部悲剧,痛苦但可控。另一类是文明终结级的,全球热核战争有很高概率永久终结文明,或者至少把人类进步打回石器时代。他开了个玩笑:到那时候科学家和工程师大概不会太受欢迎,人们会说“是你们把我们搞进这摊烂摊子的”。

他的排序很明确:文明级风险优先于局部悲剧。这个排序在后面谈 AI 时还会再出现一次。

修昔底德陷阱,以及美国为什么没接管世界

他推荐了《修昔底德陷阱》(Thucydides Trap)那本书。他自称把战争史读得滚瓜烂熟,几乎没有他没读过的战役,而他关心的从来都是真正致胜的原因,而非某一方宣称的胜利理由。

雅典和斯巴达是经典案例。希腊人爱写字,留下了大量细节,所以后世能看清伯罗奔尼撒战争是怎么一步步走来的,当时的人已经看见它要来了。

话题转到中国。他说自己在中国待过很多时间,多次见过高层。他的判断是:

中国聪明又勤奋的人数量惊人,比美国多。近几年中国的建筑比美国更令人印象深刻:火车站、大楼、高铁,全都更强。他建议任何人去上海、北京看看楼,再坐一趟北京到西安的火车去看兵马俑。中国历史极长,从书面语言的角度说,可能是最古老的之一。

他给了一个“好消息”:中国的历史表明它不好战,不会跑去入侵一大堆国家。很多很强的国家都好战,美国是罕见的例外。二战后美国有核武、别人没有,本可以不用损失士兵就接管任何国家,但美国没有,反而帮助重建了欧洲和日本。他称这种行为几乎前所未有。

他顺带讲了冯·布劳恩(Wernher von Braun)的故事:党卫队奉命处决冯·布劳恩和整个德国火箭团队,他们在隆冬没穿外套、没食物没水,一路往西跑,他兄弟找到一辆自行车,骑车冲向美军巡逻队。

马斯克的结论是:判断一个政权的道德水平,可以看战俘想往哪边跑。战俘在哪都不好受,有些地方糟得多。美国远非完美,但总体上是善意的力量,而且应该一直自我批判、努力变好。

关于台湾,他的表述很简单:中国已经讲得很清楚,和平或军事方式都会纳入,从他们的角度看,这件事 100% 会发生。

凡尔赛条约埋下了二战的种子

一战之后,战胜国把全部责任压在德国头上,压上不可能偿还的赔款。一战的罪责其实相当分散,结果全推给了德国,这就种下了二战的种子。希特勒之外,很多人都觉得自己被冤枉,他们要复仇,然后他们复仇了。

二战后换了一套做法:不压垮输家,用马歇尔计划帮忙重建德国、奥地利、意大利。马斯克说这才是对的。

他给了一句总结:

“必须有东西打断互相暴力的循环。否则以眼还眼、以牙还牙、以命还命,永远永远。”(马斯克)

Grok 的底子是一本笑话书

谈到自家 AI,马斯克说 Grok 的灵感来自《银河系漫游指南》(The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)。他称那是他最喜欢的书之一,表面上幽默,底层是哲学。

他的哲学可以用一句话概括:我们不知道生命的意义,但我们越能扩展意识的规模和范围(数字的、生物的),就越能理解该向宇宙这个答案提出什么问题。

他说自己是“好奇心的哲学”。

然后他讲了 Grok 和其他大语言模型的区别。他试过那些模型做工程计算,结果不可靠。问题在于“在你最不希望它胡编的时候,它偏偏胡编”,也就是在被问到重要、困难的问题时,它会自信地给出错误答案。

所以 Grok 的目标是尽量贴近可验证的事实:能追溯到物理第一性原理,能追溯到数学逻辑。幽默的表达背后,是尽可能贴近宇宙真相的追求。

他说总会有误差,问题是要承认误差,同时尽量减少“自信地错”的频率。一旦逻辑可以被信任、不违反物理,就能在这个基础上做发明。基础物理站不住,所谓发明就只是许愿,是想象世界,是魔法。

他给了一个判断标准:如果一个 AI 不能发现新的物理,那它显然既不等同于人类,也没有超越人类,因为人类已经发现过新物理。

物理是加深对现实运作方式的理解。工程是发明从未存在过的东西。工程的可能性空间远大于物理,因为宇宙规则一旦搞清楚就那么多,在此基础上能造出的技术却几乎无限。

他补了一句很有他风格的话:

“物理是法律,其他一切只是建议。我见过很多人违反人定的法律,但没人能违反物理定律。”(马斯克)

他还提到自己大学时最难的课是高年级量子力学,比其余所有课加起来还难。

关于 AI 的“漂移”问题,他讲了 token 预测的本质:一个个 token 预测下去,像向量求和,误差会累积,走到几百个 token 之后就完全说不通了。解决办法是让模型对漂移有自觉,把整段输出当成一个格式塔来看,判断整体是否自洽。作家写书就是这样:先写初稿,再回头通读,把开头、中间、结尾一起改,直到整本书站得住。

意识、外星人,和那个没打开的时间窗

马斯克说我们还需要理解智能和意识。思想和情绪到底是什么?真的只是原子撞原子吗?他感觉不止于此。

有人会说是灵魂,是宗教。他不做这个断言,但提出了自己的疑问:思想存在于哪个维度?情绪存在于哪个维度?我们感受得那么强烈,他怀疑答案比原子撞原子更多。

他还有一个想法:也许要么一切都是意识的,要么一切都不是。二者必居其一。

然后他转向费米悖论。很多人问过他有没有见过外星人证据,他没有。他说这有点令人不安,他更希望至少能看到一些外星考古证据。据他所知,没有任何确凿证据。“如果他们在外面,他们非常隐蔽。”

他给了一组时间尺度:地球大约 45 亿岁。以最早的文字算,文明只有大约 5000 年,得给苏美尔人记一功。5000 年只是地球存在时间的百万分之一。

他的猜测是:如果人类能去探索其他恒星系,很可能发现的是一大堆早已灭绝的单行星文明。它们从未走出自己的母星。

这就是大过滤器(Great Filter)的一种解释:能不能成为多行星文明,是文明必须穿过的一道关卡。穿不过去,只是时间问题,早晚会有自然或人造的灾难让这个物种消失。恐龙就是例子,它们没有飞船。

他的结论是行动导向的:地球历史上第一次,生命有可能扩展到地球之外。这个窗口现在开着,可能开很久,也可能开很短,也可能现在开着以后永远不再开。正确答案是趁还能做,赶紧让生命成为多行星的。他不想让人类成为“那种蹩脚的单行星文明,就这么灭绝了”。

他还说,SpaceX 在天上的卫星比所有其他公司加起来还多。如果真的有什么东西需要机动规避,他们会知道。“如果我看到哪怕最微小的外星人迹象,我会立刻在 X 平台上公布我知道的一切。”

模拟假说:他们跑这个模拟,是因为他们也不知道结果

谈到上帝、模拟和决定论,马斯克给了一个很有意思的角度。

如果我们在一个模拟里,那些高等存在为什么要跑这个模拟?答案是:为了看会发生什么。如果他们知道会发生什么,就不会跑这个模拟。

他拿 SpaceX 和特斯拉举例。造火箭必须跑大量模拟,因为真正上天试错的机会很少。亚音速、跨音速、超音速、高超音速、上升段、再入的超高温、轨道动力学,全都得模拟。跑模拟的目的就是看结果,已经知道结果就不必跑。

所以决定论和自由意志的一个可能答案是:造物主跑这个宇宙,是因为他们不知道结局。

变压器需要变压器

话题回到物理的实用层面。马斯克说物理工具可以应用到任何领域,本质就是批判性思维:重要的事情从第一性原理推,再取极限看两头。

他给了一个具体推演:哪怕到了卡尔达肖夫 I 型文明,用尽太阳的全部能量,你依然会在意每瓦有用算力。所以他判断 AI 的瓶颈会一个一个挪:

现在是硅片短缺。大约一年后,会变成电压降压变压器短缺。再往后大约两年,是电力整体短缺。

他开了个双关:变压器(transformer)需要变压器(transformer)。跑大模型要用 Transformer 架构,供电要用电压变压器。

他在全球公用事业公司大会上讲过这件事。他的账是:现在能源使用大致三分,三分之一电力,三分之一交通,三分之一取暖。要让所有东西可持续、电气化,电力产出需要翻三倍。所以他建议电力公司多建电厂,也一定要多买电池。

原因很直接:现在电网按实时负荷设计,意味着要按全年最糟糕的那一秒、最糟糕的那一天来配容量,否则就跳闸停电。配上电池,这个逻辑就变了。

他强调,交通电动化和电取暖的规模会远大于 AI 用电,至少短期内是这样。AI 的需求也在涨,两者叠加就是电力短缺。

“会解决的,问题只是要多久。”

十年卡桑德拉,和那个必须存在的第三方裁判

关于 AI 监管,马斯克说他已经呼吁了十多年,形容自己是卡桑德拉(Cassandra,希腊神话中预言灾难却不被相信的人)。

他的方案本身很温和:至少应该有一个客观的第三方,像裁判一样,能进去了解各家领先玩家在做什么。哪怕没有执法权,至少能公开表达担忧。

他举了杰弗里·辛顿(Geoffrey Hinton)的例子。辛顿离开谷歌,公开表达了强烈担忧。但他已经不在谷歌了,以后谁来发声?

他说特斯拉在汽车领域接受大量监管,国内外加起来超过一百个监管机构,光汽车法规就能把这个房间填满。火箭也一样。目前 SpaceX 星舰发射的瓶颈就是监管审批。

把海豹绑在板上,戴上耳机,放音爆

他讲了一个听起来像段子的真实事件。

从加州范登堡发射火箭,监管方担心海豹繁殖会受影响,担心海豹被音爆吓到。但范登堡已经发射过很多火箭,海豹数量一直在稳步上升。马斯克说,如果拿火箭发射次数和海豹数量做相关,结论反而是火箭音爆是催情剂。

监管要求还是得满足。于是他们被迫抓了一只海豹,绑在板上,戴上耳机,给它放音爆的声音,看它会不会应激。这件事真的发生了,他有照片。

那只海豹平静得出奇。换他自己是海豹,早就觉得“完了,他们要吃了我”。

他还设想那只海豹回去怎么跟同伴解释。同伴肯定不信。他类比被外星人绑架做肛门检查的人:回去说“我发誓我被外星人抓走,被插了肛门探针”,没人信。海豹的同伴也不会信它被绑在板上戴耳机然后放回来。

而且他们做了两次,抓的是不同的海豹。

他的评价是:公众不太清楚这里面有多少荒唐。

OpenAI 那场友情破裂

谈到开源,马斯克说他总体上偏向开源,可以接受延迟六个月。然后他讲了 OpenAI 的来历。

他说自己算是 OpenAI 的最初推动者,这家机构的诞生来自他和拉里·佩奇(Larry Page)的讨论。当年两人还是朋友,他住在佩奇家里,跟佩奇谈 AI 安全。佩奇的回应是不在乎,至少当时不在乎。有一次佩奇说他是“物种主义者”(speciesist),因为他站在人类一边。

马斯克当时的反应是:拉里,你站哪一队?他说佩奇现在依然站在机器人队。

当时的局面是:谷歌收购了 DeepMind,大约拥有全球三分之二的 AI 研究者,有几乎无限的钱和算力,而负责人不在乎安全,还因为他是亲人类而吼他、叫他物种主义者。

他说他想和佩奇重新做朋友。友情破裂的节点是 OpenAI,具体来说是招募伊利亚·苏茨克维(Ilya Sutskever)。

他称伊利亚是好人,聪明、心正。那场招募战极其艰难,主要是德米斯(Demis Hassabis)在一方,他在另一方。伊利亚来回摇摆,要留谷歌,要走,又要留,又要走,最后同意加入 OpenAI。马斯克说那是他们打过最难的招募战之一,也是 OpenAI 成功的关键支点。

他还招募了其他几个人,并且提供了全部初始资金,超过 4000 万美元。

然后是那句评价:

“OpenAI 里的 open 本意是开源,它成立时是非营利、开源的。现在它是闭源的,为了最大化利润。我认为这不是好因果。”(马斯克)

关于“开源”到底开什么,他的解释很实在:模型本身就是一个巨大的二进制文件,里面一堆数字。代码行数很少,真正的工作量在数据整理上,把好数据从坏数据里分出来。不能直接爬互联网,因为垃圾太多,很大比例的网站噪音大于信号,纯粹为了搜索引擎优化而存在,本质是诈骗网站。

X 的推荐系统:回复几乎没人看得到

谈到 X 平台,马斯克说信号噪音比可以大幅改善。他的设想是:所有帖子都应该由 AI 推荐。

具体做法是给每个帖子建立一个向量空间,再和每个用户的向量空间做匹配。用户可能有几百个向量,代表系统知道你喜欢什么。视频、音频、长帖、短帖都进这个匹配。

他说这也是他想摆脱“tweet”这个词的原因:人们在平台上发两三个小时的视频,那不叫 tweet。

他给了一个现状诊断:目前推荐系统主要是启发式规则,AI 只用了一点点。回复的权重比主帖低了几个数量级,几乎永远没人看得到。一条回复可能比原帖好得多,按现行规则却拿不到流量。

他承认现在的系统在处理“你不关注的人”和“超过一度关系”的内容时表现不好。如果你关注的人点赞、转发、评论过,那还行。但如果某人发了很有意思的东西,和你没有任何共同关注者,你就看不到。

他的目标形态是纯向量相关:AI 直接看视频、看电影,像一个了解你的朋友那样推荐。他甚至说:

“AI 会比你的朋友更懂你,至少比你大多数朋友更懂你。”

关于广告,他的标准是“你后不后悔看到它”。如果是你正好需要的产品和服务,广告就是内容。即使不是刚需,只要好看、有娱乐性,也可以是好广告。他提到可口可乐和麦当劳在 X 上投的一些广告做得不错。

他还解释了为什么长内容在系统里更占优:系统统计的是用户停留了多少秒。短内容秒数少,外链跳出平台的秒数更少,平台本身不反对链接,只是算法这么算。

他给了一个衡量指标:无后悔分钟数(unregretted minutes)。

他还讲了个关于“后悔药”的笑话:有种药叫 regretamine,吃一剂所有后悔都没了。转念一想,也许你确实想要后悔。如果什么都不后悔,那还有什么是重要的?

社区笔记:有人拿枪指着我,我也改不了一条笔记

谈到言论自由,马斯克的立场很明确:平台要尽可能不偏不倚,对左、右、独立派都公平。

他反驳了一种常见说法。有人说推特以前偏左,现在是不是偏右了?他的回应是:它移到了中间。在极左眼里,一切都是右边。但据他所知,没有极左的人被封号或降权。

他给了一句原则性的话:

“言论自由只在你讨厌的人被允许说你不喜欢的话时才有意义。如果不是这样,你就没有言论自由,而且审查早晚会转向你自己。”(马斯克)

他把社区笔记(Community Notes)称为自己最满意的产品之一。机制是这样的:要写笔记或给笔记打分,你必须先给大量笔记打过分。系统用 AI 给每个人建立一个向量空间,记录他历史上怎么打分。所以它不是简单的左右二分,生活比左右复杂得多。

神奇之处在于:如果历史上观点相左的人对某件事达成一致,那这件事多半是真的。

他对比了维基百科:维基百科非常层级化,社区笔记本质上没有层级。他还说了一句很硬的话:有人拿枪指着他,他也改不了一条社区笔记。所有代码 100% 开源,所有数据 100% 开源,任何人都能独立复现任何一条笔记。如果真有干预,立刻就会被发现。

访谈中间他们让 Grok 点评马斯克,Grok 输出了一条关于 2018 年“资金已到位”私有化推文和 SEC 和解的内容。马斯克当场纠正:

第一,资金确实到位了,旧金山一场大型民事审判,陪审团一致判他无罪。第二,他同意向 SEC 交罚款,原因在于不交的话特斯拉会立刻破产。当时一旦有这种调查,银行就会暂停融资。第三,SEC 从来没有追过那些不停做空、在电视上公开撒谎损害散户利益的冲基金,一次都没有。

他分析了激励结构:SEC 的律师薪水不高,他们要的是能写进简历的战利品,拿到之后可以去高薪律所。这就是那个律师干的事。

还有那个“洞穴潜水员”的案子。他说那人不参与救援、也不是洞穴潜水员,起诉他,败诉,一分钱没拿到,根本不存在和解。

两场官司,对方都挑了认为他最可能输的地方(旧金山和洛杉矶),结果都是陪审团一致判他胜诉。他的结论是:Grok 需要把真实的法律判决书加进训练集。法院的结论和媒体报道的方向完全相反。

觉醒心智病毒是换了包装的共产主义

问到他是否变得政治化,马斯克说,如果把对抗“觉醒心智病毒”(woke mind virus)算政治,那他确实政治化了。他认为这是文明级威胁。

他的定义很直接:觉醒心智病毒是共产主义换了包装。

他反对的具体东西是反精英主义,以及压制讨论,甚至不允许某个话题被提起。

他不认为自己在整体上偏右。他的自我定位是:社会议题上偏中间偏左,经济议题上略偏中间偏右。他还补了一句,这大概是半个国家的位置,可能更多。

谈到 AOC,他说自己在大都会艺术博物馆慈善晚宴(Met Gala)上见过她,她穿了条裙子,但他只能看到一面,看起来像是“吃掉富人”的字样。

关于信任,他说了一句反常识的话:永远不要信任一个愤世嫉俗者。

“愤世嫉俗者会用‘人人都这样’来为自己干的坏事开脱。一个人是不是真正的愤世嫉俗者,是个危险信号。如果某人认为所有人都很坏,他就很容易原谅自己的坏。这不是真的,大多数人是中等程度的好。”(马斯克)

他说自己几乎从未被背叛过,非常罕见。他还说因果是真的。

关于媒体,他说 X 平台比传统媒体负面情绪少得多。读传统报纸让人难过,而在 X 上他每天从人类那里获得的笑声,比所有其他渠道加起来还多。

他给了一个解释:传统新闻实际上在回答一个问题,今天地球上发生的最糟糕的事是什么。世界这么大,每天总有坏事发生。这种负面偏好可能有演化来源:坏消息在古代可能是致命的(那边有狮子、那个部落在追杀你),好消息(找到一片浆果)挺好,但不是必需的。

杀游戏里的恶魔,能安抚心里的恶魔

聊到《暗黑破坏神 4》,整期播客的气氛松下来了。

马斯克说,在永恒领域里打“仇恨化身”(Uber Lilith,头衔就是 Hatred Incarnate)几乎不可能。他能像散步一样刷完 100 层梦魇地牢,能反复杀都瑞尔(Duriel)和其他所有 Boss,但 Uber Lilith 那些随机死亡波实在要命。他玩的是德鲁伊(Druid),而且没有让目标陷入易伤的手段。

他吐槽说,永恒领域里不推荐玩德鲁伊。当前赛季最强的是法师(Sorcerer),靠闪电球,球特别大。赛季领域有各种强化能力,打 Uber Lilith 挺容易。在永恒领域打“仇恨”,几乎不可能。

然后他说了一句:

“这看起来像是人生的隐喻。”(马斯克)

他形容这件事“荒谬”“让人想揪头发”,也说:

“它让我内心平静。在游戏里杀恶魔,能安抚我心里的恶魔。”(马斯克)

他解释了好游戏的机制:要进入心流状态,难度不能太简单也不能太难,要落在刚刚好的区间,玩家要感觉自己一直在进步。再加上出色的美术、吸引人的剧情,整个游戏就像一个待解的谜题。

他认为《艾尔登法环》(Elden Ring)是史上最佳游戏的有力候选,稳进前五。“感觉像是外星人设计的”,极具创造力,美术惊艳,每个 Boss 战都是独一无二的谜题,打这个 Boss 的策略和打另一个完全不同。他建议用大尺寸、高动态范围的电视玩,不一定要显示器。

关于“仇恨”这个概念,他被游戏引出了一个哲学问题:你确定你真的想要一个没有仇恨的世界吗?

他当然认为应该尽量减少仇恨。但他会想:仇恨为什么会演化出来?完全没有仇恨真的好吗?

他提到《美丽新世界》里的索麻(Soma),一种让所有人永远快乐的药。问题是:你愿意生活在一个所有人都永远快乐的世界吗,哪怕那种快乐是人造的?或者,面对生活的挑战、体验完整的情绪光谱更好,哪怕包括痛苦?

一个所有人都永远快乐的社会,可能是一个不育的社会,一个僵化的、永远不变的社会,最终走向灭亡。他的结论是:如果你许愿世界和平,要小心你许的愿,因为实现它所需要的东西,可能比有点战争更糟。

他还提到现实中真有一种药叫索麻(Soma),对背痛挺有效。他自己吃过,因为 C5-C6 椎间盘压扁了。这种药能减轻疼痛,代价是损害思维清晰度,让脑子变钝。他说,就像书里那种药一样。

光子进,控制出

谈到特斯拉的自动驾驶,马斯克说端到端训练有一件事很反常识:它能读科学内容,却从来没人教过它认字。也没人教过它什么是车、什么是人、什么是自行车。它只是看视频,就学会了路上所有物体,就像人一样。

他给了一个精炼的说法:人类是光子进、控制出。到达大脑的信息绝大部分来自眼睛,输出的是手指和嘴的运动信号,用来操控和沟通。车也是一样。

他说神经网络在这些数据里找到秩序,找到相关性聚类,人脑就是这么工作的。两条路线正在收敛,都走向 AGI。

他强调特斯拉的路线在算力效率上根本性地更强,而且它是被逼的。人脑只有约 100 瓦功率,其中负责高级思维的部分不到 10 瓦。就是这 10 瓦,能写出比一个 10 兆瓦 GPU 集群更好的小说。这里有六个数量级的差距。

关于人形机器人 Optimus,他说每个部件都得自己设计,市面上一个都买不到。市面上没有现成的电机、电子元件、传感器。他们试过找任何价位的现成电机,全世界有成千上万种电机设计,没有一种适合人形机器人。

Optimus 的设计逻辑是按造车的方式造,目标是最终成本低于一辆车。理由是机器人质量更小,而车里执行器比机器人还多。

他给了一个近期目标:能不能只看一眼,就拿起针和线把针穿过去?他预计也许一年。他也自嘲说,自己一向对时间表病态乐观。车上的工作会迁移到机器人上。虽然控制不同,但底层逻辑一样:车是四个轮子的机器人,Optimus 是带手和腿的机器人。之后再学会看视频做事。

关于他自己

访谈最后,Lex 问他怎么面对压力。

马斯克说,他的大脑是一场风暴,大多数人不会真想成为他。他们以为自己想,但他们不知道,也不理解。

他说总体还好,放在大格局里没什么可抱怨的。有时候会难,但孩子和朋友陪着。有很多个夜晚他是一个人睡的,不必如此,但他选择如此。

关于宽恕,他的回答有点出人意料:

“什么是宽恕?至少我不觉得自己有怨恨,所以没什么要宽恕的。我会想什么能对未来产生好的影响,抱着怨恨不会对未来产生好的影响。”(马斯克)

他说看着小 X 长大很有意思,因为和他开发 AI 的体验有太多相似之处。他能看到孩子的生物神经网络越来越多地理解世界,同时能看到数字神经网络也在越来越多地理解世界。

孩子的一个作用,是让你重新看世界。对他们来说一切都是新的,你看着他们体验这个新世界,你自己也跟着重新体验了一遍。

这期播客听完,可以做这几件事

  • 重读一遍一战战史,重点看防御纵深、雷区、战壕、制空权这几个概念。马斯克说现代战争的多数误判,都来自没认真读这段历史。
  • 在你支持的某一方冲突里,做一次算术:每一轮报复之后,对方阵营的人数是变多了还是变少了。这个账比道德表态更能决定长期结果。
  • 去看《修昔底德陷阱》,重点关注作者怎么定义“结构性压力”,再回头看中美、俄乌、以巴,会清楚很多。
  • 读《银河系漫游指南》,为了理解马斯克那套“扩展意识规模以理解该问什么问题”的哲学底子,笑点只是赠品。
  • 如果你在做 AI 产品,把“自信地错”当作第一优先级的指标。宁可承认误差,也不要让模型在重要问题上给出看起来确定的错误答案。
  • 如果你在能源、数据中心、制造业,把马斯克的排序记下来:硅片、降压变压器、电力。提前一到两年布局变压器和配电容量,比追 GPU 更容易被忽略。
  • 玩一遍《艾尔登法环》,用大屏、高动态范围的电视。每个 Boss 都是独立谜题,这句话本身就是对游戏设计最好的评价。
  • 在社交平台上试一次只看回复、不看主帖。你会立刻明白“回复权重低几个数量级”意味着什么,也会明白多少好观点被埋掉了。
  • 下次想许“世界和平”这种愿之前,先问自己一句:实现它的代价是什么,我愿意付吗。
语音识别自动转录(Whisper),含全部发言人,可能有识别错误。 文稿来源:Lex Fridman (transcription humaine officielle)。

0:31Yeah, that’s great.

0:38Is that whole meme where all guys are thinking about the Roman Empire at least once a day?

1:06Yeah, they usually came as a result of conquest. I mean, there’s some like the Hapsburg Empire where there was just a lot of clever marriages.

1:33Tested, Grok approved. Yeah.

1:57I’m generally a proponent of peace. I mean, ignorance is perhaps, in my view, the real enemy to be countered. That’s the real hard part, not fighting other humans, but all creatures fight. I mean, the jungle is… People think of nature as perhaps some sort of peaceful thing, but in fact it is not. There’s some quite funny Werner Herzog thing where he is in the jungle saying that it’s basically just murder and death in every direction. The plants and animals in the jungle are constantly trying to kill each other every single day, every minute. So it’s not like we’re unusual in that respect.

2:49Yes. We have much more vulnerability to control our limbic instinct for violence than say a chimpanzee. And in fact, if one looks at say, chimpanzee society, it is not friendly. I mean, the Bonobos are an exception, but chimpanzee society is filled with violence and it’s quite horrific, frankly. That’s our limbic system in action. You don’t want to be on the wrong side of a chimpanzee, it’ll eat your face off and tear your nuts off.

3:33Yeah. Chimpanzee society is a permanent version of human society. They’re not like peace loving basically at all. There’s extreme violence and then once in a while, somebody who’s watched too many Disney movies decides to raise a chimpanzee as a pet, and then that eats their face or they’re nuts off or chew their fingers off and that kind of thing. It’s happened several times.

4:02It’s happened to people. It’s unfortunate. That’s, I guess, one way to ensure that the other chimp doesn’t contribute to the gene pool.

4:15The nut rougher.

4:21I think it’s safe to say if somebody’s got your nuts in their hands and as the option of roughing them off, you’ll be amenable to whatever they want.

4:38Yeah.

4:54Well, I think that part of the world is definitely, if you look up… There is no easy answer in the dictionary. It’ll be the picture of the Middle East in Israel especially. So there is no easy answer. This is strictly my opinion is that the goal of Hamas was to provoke an overreaction from Israel. They obviously did not expect to have a military victory, but they really wanted to commit the worst atrocities that they could in order to provoke the most aggressive response possible from Israel, and then leverage that aggressive response to rally Muslims worldwide for the course of Gaza and Palestine, which they have succeeded in doing. So the counterintuitive thing here, I think that the thing that I think should be done, even though it’s very difficult, is that I would recommend that Israel engage in the most conspicuous acts of kindness possible, everything, that is the actual thing that we’re taught the goal of Hamas.

6:26It’s not exactly turn the other cheek because I do think that it is appropriate for Israel to find the Hamas members and either kill them or incarcerate them. That’s something has to be done because they’re just going to keep coming otherwise. But in addition to that, they need to do whatever they can. There’s some talk of establishing, for example, a mobile hospital. I’d recommend doing that. Just making sure that there’s food, water, medical necessities and just be over the top about it and be very transparent. So [inaudible 00:07:22] can claim it’s a trick. Just put webcam on the thing or 24, 7.

7:31Yeah, conspicuous acts of kindness that are unequivocal, meaning they can’t be somehow because Hamas will then their response will be, “Oh, it’s a trick.” Therefore, you have to counter how it’s not a trick.

7:51Yes. And I’m not sure who said it, it’s an [inaudible 00:07:54] saying, but an eye for an eye makes everyone blind. Now, that neck of the woods, they really believe in the whole eye for an eye thing. But you really have… If you’re not going to just outright commit genocide against an entire people, which obviously would not be acceptable to really, shouldn’t be acceptable to anyone, then you’re going to leave basically a lot of people alive who subsequently hate Israel. So really the question is like for every Hamas member that you kill, how many did you create? And if you create more than you killed, you’ve not succeeded. That’s the real situation there. And it’s safe to say that if you kill somebody’s child in Gaza, you’ve made at least a few homeless members who will die just to kill an Israeli. That’s the situation. But I mean, this is one of the most contentious subjects one could possibly discuss. But I think if the goal ultimately is some sort of long-term piece, one has to look at this from the standpoint of over time, are there more or fewer terrorists being created?

9:29Yeah, war, safe to say, wars always existed and always will exist.

9:34Always has existed and always will exist.

9:42There will always be war. There’s a question of just how much war and there’s sort of the scope and scale of war. But to imagine that there would not be any war in the future, I think would be a very unlikely outcome.

9:58Yes. It’s a giant war. The first book starts off with a gigantic galactic war where trillions die trillions.

10:18Yeah, I guess if we are able to one day expand to fool the galaxy or whatever, there will be a galactic war at some point.

10:38Yes.

10:56One of the things that does concern me is that there are very few people alive today who actually viscerally understand the horrors of war, at least in the US. I mean, obviously there are people on the front lines in Ukraine and Russia who understand just how terrible war is, but how many people in the West understand it? My grandfather was in World War II. He was severely traumatized. He was there I think for almost six years in Eastern North Africa and Italy. All his friends were killed in front of him, and he would’ve died too, except they randomly gave some, I guess IQ test or something, and he scored very high. He was not an officer. He was I think a corporal or a sergeant or something like that because he didn’t finish high school because he had to drop out of high school because his dad died and he had to work to support his siblings. So because he didn’t graduate high school, he was not eligible for the offset corps.

13:01Yeah, I mean, there are enough nuclear bombs pointed at United States to make the radioactive revel balance many times.

13:25I think we shouldn’t discount the possibility of nuclear war. It is a civilizational threat. Right now, I could be wrong, but I think the current probability of nuclear war is quite low. But there are a lot of nukes pointed at us, and we have a lot of nukes pointed at other people. They’re still there. Nobody’s put their guns away. The missiles are still in the silos.

14:03No, there are wars which are tragic and difficult on a local basis. And then there are wars which are civilization ending or has that potential. Obviously, global thermonuclear warfare has high potential to end civilization, perhaps permanently, but certainly to severely wound and perhaps set back human progress to the Stone Age or something. I don’t know. Pretty bad. Probably scientists and engineers want to be super popular after that as well. You got us into this mess. So generally, I think we obviously want to prioritize civilizational risks over things that are painful and tragic on a local level, but not civilizational.

15:08Well, I think that what is likely to happen, which is really pretty much the way it is, is that something very close to the current lines will be how a ceasefire or truce happens. But you just have a situation right now where whoever goes on the offensive will suffer casualties at several times the rate of whoever’s on the defense because you’ve got defense in depth, you’ve got minefields, trenches, anti-tank defenses. Nobody has air superiority because the anti-aircraft missiles are really far better than the aircraft. They’re far more of them. And so neither side has air superiority. Tanks are basically death traps, just slow moving, and they’re not immune to anti-tank weapons. So you really just have long range artillery and infantry ranges. It’s World War I all over again with drones, thrown old drones, some drones there.

16:34So whoever is… You don’t want to be trying to advance from either side because the probability of dying is incredibly high. So in order to overcome defense in depth, trenches and minefields, you really need a significant local superiority in numbers. Ideally combined alms where you do a fast attack with aircraft, a concentrated number of tanks, and a lot of people, that’s the only way you’re going to punch through a line and then you’re going to punch through and then not have reinforcements just kick you right out again. I mean, I really recommend people read World War I warfare in detail. That’s rough. I mean, the sheer number of people that died there was mind-boggling.

17:56Yes. The thing that… The reason I proposed some sort of truce or peace a year ago was because I’ve predicted pretty much exactly what would happen, which is a lot of people dying for basically almost no changes in land and the loss of the flower of Ukrainian and Russian youth. And we should have some sympathy for the Russian boys as well as the Ukrainian boys, because Russian boys, because boys didn’t ask to be on their frontline. They have to be. So there’s a lot of sons not coming back to their parents, and I think most of them don’t hate the other side. It’s sort of like as this saying comes from World War I, it’s like young boys who don’t know each other killing each other on behalf of old men that do know each other. The hell’s the point of that.

19:14Look, I think I would just recommend do not send the flower of Ukrainian youth to die in trenches, whether he talks to Putin or not, just don’t do that. Whoever goes on the offensive will lose massive numbers of people and history will not look kindly upon them.

19:58Well, it’s worth reading that book on the, difficult to pronounce, the Thucydides Trap, I believe it’s called. I love war history. I like inside out and backwards. There’s hardly a battle I haven’t read about. And trying to figure out what really was the cause of victory in any particular case as opposed to what one side or another claim the reason.

20:24Yeah, yeah.

20:26Yeah. So that Athens and Sparta is a classic case. The thing about the Greek is they really wrote down a lot of stuff. They loved writing. There are lots of interesting things that happened in many parts of the world, but people didn’t write down, so we don’t know what happened or they didn’t really write in detail. They just would say, “We had a battle and we won.” And what? Can you add a bit more? The Greeks, they really wrote a lot. They were very articulate on… They just love writing. And we have a bunch of that writing as preserved. So we know what led up to the Peloponnesian War between the Spartanand Athenian Alliance, and we know that they saw it coming.

23:20I’ve spent a lot of time in China and met with the leadership many times.

23:36Well, the sheer number of really smart, hardworking people in China is incredible. There are really say how many smart, hardworking people are there in China? There’s far more of them there than there are here, I think, in my opinion. And they’ve got a lot of energy. So I mean, the architecture in China that’s in recent years is far more impressive than the US. I mean the train stations, the buildings, the high speed rail, everything, it’s really far more impressive than what we have in the US. I mean, I recommend somebody just go to Shanghai and Beijing, look at the buildings and go to take the train from Beijing to Xian, where you have the terracotta warriors. China’s got an incredible history, very long history, and I think arguably in terms of the use of language from a written standpoint, one of the oldest, perhaps the oldest written language, and then China, people did write things down.

26:18The good news, the history of China suggests that China is not inquisitive, meaning they’re not going to go out and invade a whole bunch of countries. Now they do feel very strongly… So that’s good. I mean, because a lot of very powerful countries have been inquisitive. The US is also one of the rare cases that has not been inquisitive. After World War II, the US could have basically taken over the world in any country, we’ve got nukes, nobody else has got nukes. We don’t even have to lose soldiers. Which country do you want? And the United States could have taken over everything and it didn’t. And the United States actually helped rebuild countries. So it helped rebuild Europe, helped rebuild Japan. This is very unusual behavior, almost unprecedented.

28:08Very much so. And in fact, Wernher von Braun, a smart guy, was like, “We’ve got to be captured by the Americans.” And in fact, the SS was under orders to execute von Braun and all of the German rocket conditioners, and they narrowly escaped. They said they were going out for a walk in the woods. They left in the middle of winter with no coats and then ran, but no food, no coats, no water, and just ran like hell and ran West and Vice Sherlock, I think his brother found a bicycle or something and then just cycled West as fast as he couldn’t have found a US patrol. So anyway, that’s one way you can tell morality is where do you want to be a PW? It’s not fun anywhere, but some places are much worse than others. Anyway, so America has been, while far from perfect, generally a benevolent force, and we should always be self-critical and we try to be better, but anyone with half a brain knows that.

30:46Yes, China has been very clear that they’ll incorporate Taiwan peacefully or militarily, but that they will incorporate it from their standpoint is 100% likely.

31:44Absolutely. So after World War I, they made a big mistake. They basically tried to lump all of blame on Germany and saddle Germany with impossible reparations. And really there was quite a bit of blame to go around for World War I, but they try to put it all in Germany and that laid the seeds for World War II. So a lot of people, were not just Hitler, a lot of people felt wronged and they wanted vengeance and they got it.

32:41Yeah, you kill somebody’s father, mother or son, daughter, they’re not going to forget it. They’ll want vengeance. So after World War II, they’re like, “Well, the Treaty of Versi was a huge mistake in World War I. And so this time, instead of crushing the losers, we’re actually going to help them with the module plan, and we’re going to help rebuild Germany. We’re going to help rebuild Austria and Italy and whatnot.” So that was the right move.

33:37Something must stop the cycle of reciprocal violence. Something must stop it, or it’ll never stop. Just eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, limb for a limb, life for a life forever and ever.

34:23Yeah, I guess I’m to blame for that one.

34:29Yeah.

34:47Yeah, absolutely. Our AI, Grok, is modeled after The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, which is one of my favorite books, which it’s a book on philosophy. It’s-

35:00My favorite books, it’s a book on philosophy, disguises book on humor. And I would say that forms the basis of my philosophy, which is that we don’t know the meaning of life, but the more we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, digital and biological, the more we’re able to understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe. So I have a philosophy of curiosity.

35:59Well, we are actually working hard to have engineering math, physics answers that you can count on. So for the other AIs out there, these so-called large language models, I’ve not found the engineering to be reliable. It unfortunately hallucinates most when you at least want it to hallucinate. So when you’re asking important, difficult questions, that’s when it tends to be confidently wrong. So we’re really trying hard to say, okay, how do we be as grounded as possible? So you can count on the results, trace things back to physics first principles, mathematical logic. So underlying the humor is an aspiration to adhere to the truth of the universe as closely as possible.

37:02It is tricky. So that’s why there’s always going to be some amount of error. But do we want to aspire to be as truthful as possible about the answers with acknowledged error. So that there was always, you don’t want to be confidently wrong, so you’re not going to be right every time, but you want to minimize how often you’re confidently wrong. And then like I said, once you can count on the logic as being not violating physics, then you can start to bull on that to create inventions, like invent new technologies. But if you cannot count on the foundational physics being correct, obviously the inventions are simply wishful thinking, imagination land. Magic basically.

38:06Yes, that’s how simple three word mission.

38:38If an AI cannot figure out new physics, it’s clearly not equal to humans, nor has surpassed humans because humans have figured out new physics. Physics is just deepening what’s inside into how reality works. And then there’s engineering which is inventing things that have never existed. Now the range of possibilities for engineering is far greater than for physics because once you figure out the rules of the universe, that’s it. You’ve discovered things that already existed. But from that you can then build technologies that are really almost limitless in the variety. And it’s like once you understand the rules of the game properly, and with current physics, we do at least at a local level, understand how physics works very well. Our ability to predict things is incredibly good. Degree to which quantum mechanics can predict outcomes is incredible. That was my hardest class in college by the way. My senior quantum mechanics class was harder than all of my other classes put together.

40:01Yeah. You have to test any conclusions against the ground truth of reality. Reality is the ultimate judge. Like physics is the law, everything else is a recommendation. I’ve seen plenty of people break the laws made by man, but none break the laws made by physics.

40:28And it’s also not the case currently that even that its internal logic is not consistent. So especially with the approach of just predicting a token predict token, predict token, it’s like a vector sum. You’re summing up a bunch of vectors, but you can get drift. A little bit of error adds up and by the time you are many tokens down the path, it doesn’t make any sense.

41:02It has to be self-aware about the drift, and then look at the thing as a gestalt as a whole and say it doesn’t have coherence as a whole. When authors write books, they will write the book and then they’ll go and revise it, take into account all the end and the beginning and the middle and rewrite it to achieve coherence so that it doesn’t end up at a nonsensical place.

41:51Create a draft and then you iterate on that draft until it has coherence, until it all adds up basically.

42:22No, I in team America. Wait, there is.

42:50Yeah. I think we need to understand intelligence, understand consciousness. I mean there are some fundamental questions of what is thought, what is emotion? Is it really just one atom bumping into another atom? It feels like something more than that. So I think we’re probably missing some really big things.

43:26Well, some people would quote like a soul religion, be a soul. You feel like you’re you, I mean you don’t feel like you’re just a collection of atoms, but on what dimension does thought exist? What dimension does do emotions exist? Because we feel them very strongly. I suspect there’s more to it than atoms bumping into atoms.

43:58Yeah. What is consciousness? When you put the atoms in a particular shape, why are they able to form thoughts and take actions and feelings?

44:13Yeah. Why does the solution exist? On what plane does the solution exist? And sometimes I wonder is either perhaps everything’s conscious or nothing’s conscious. One of the two.

44:37It does seem more fun, yes. But we’re composed of atoms and those atoms are composed of quarks and leptons and those quarks and leptons have been around since the beginning of the universe.

44:53What seems to be the beginning of the universe.

45:24Where are the aliens?

45:26That’s one of the foam paradox question. A lot of people have asked me if I’ve seen any evidence of aliens and I haven’t, which is kind of concerning. I think I’d probably prefer to at least have seen some archeological evidence of aliens. To the best of my knowledge, I’m not aware of any evidence surveillance. If they’re out there, they’re very subtle. We might just be the only consciousness, at least in the galaxy. And if you look at say the history of Earth, to believe the archeological record Earth is about four and a half billion years old. Civilization as measured from the first writing is only about 5,000 years old. We have to give some credit there to the ancient Sumerians who aren’t around anymore. I think it was an archaic pre-form was the first actual symbolic representation, but only about 5,000 years ago. I think that’s a good date for when we say civilization started. That’s 1000000th of Earth’s existence.

48:45We need to do it. I suspect that if we are able to go out there and explore other star systems that we… There’s a good chance we find a whole bunch of long dead one planet civilizations that never made it past their home planet.

49:08I mean there are various explanations for paradox and one is they’re these great vultures which civilizations don’t pass through. And one of those great vultures is do you become a multi-plan civilization or not? And if you don’t, it’s simply a matter of time before something happens on your planet, either natural or manmade that causes us to die out. Like the dinosaurs, where are they now? They didn’t have spaceships.

49:51I hope so. Nice aliens.

49:59That would be a nice explanation.

50:10Well, they do run into a lot of other ants.

50:14These ant wars.

50:18Yeah. They literally have these big wars between various ants.

50:28Listen to that Werner Herzog talking about the jungle. It’s really hilarious. Have you heard it?

50:37You should play it as an interlude in the… It’s on YouTube. It’s awesome.

50:47He’s great.

50:51He did that bear documentary. I did this thing about penguins.

51:00Yeah. The penguins headed for mountains that are 70 miles away and penguin is just headed for dom, basically.

51:28Yeah. So aliens, I mean, I don’t know. Look, I think the smart move is just this is the first time in the history of earth that it’s been possible for life to extend beyond earth. That window is open. Now it may be open for a long time or it may be open for a short time and it may be open now and then never open again. So I think the smart move here is to make life multiplanetary while it’s possible to do so. We don’t want to be one of those lame one planet civilizations that just dies out.

52:05Yeah. Lame. Self-respecting, civilization would be one planet.

52:23No.

52:30I mean, look, if I see the slightest indication that there are aliens, I will immediately post on X platform anything I know.

52:42Yeah. I mean, look, we have more satellites up there right now than everyone else combined. So we know if we’ve got a maneuver around something and we don’t have to maneuver around anything.

53:04Yes.

53:16Yeah. I would agree that God of the simulator or whatever the supreme beings reveal themselves through the physics, they have creatives of this existence and incumbent upon us to try to understand more about this one creation.

53:58There may not be a master plan in the sense. So maybe an interesting answer to the question of determinism versus free will is that if we are in a simulation, the reason that these higher beings would hold a simulation is to see what happens. So they don’t know what happens otherwise they wouldn’t hold the simulation. So when humans create a simulation, so it’s SpaceX and Tesla, we create simulations all the time. Especially for the rocket, you have to run a lot of simulations to understand what’s going to happen because you can’t really test the rocket until it goes to space and you want it to work. So you have to simulate subsonic, transonic, supersonic, hypersonic, ascend, and then coming back, super high heating and orbital dynamics. All this has got to be simulated because you don’t get very many kicks at the can. But we run the simulations to see what happens, not if we knew what happens, we wouldn’t run the simulation. So whoever created this existence, they’re running it because they don’t know what’s going to happen, not because they do.

55:34Well, the funny thing is Uber Lilith, her title is Hatred Incarnate. And right now, I guess you can ask the Diablo team, but it’s almost impossible to defeat Hatred in the eternal realm.

56:00I can cruise through Tier 100 Nightmare Dungeon like a stroll in the park.

56:09Yeah. I guess maybe the second hardest boss is Duriel. Duriel can even scratch the paint. So I killed Duriel so many times and every other boss in the game, all of them kill him so many times, it’s easy. But Uber Lilith, otherwise known as Hatred Incarnate, especially if you’re Duriel and you have no ability to go to be vulnerable, there are these random death waves that come at you.

57:41As a Druid. This is really vexing, let me tell you.

58:30I would not recommend playing a druid in the eternal realm. Right now I think the most powerful character in the seasonal realm is the Sorcerer with the lightning balls. The smokes have huge balls in the seasonal.

58:49So have huge balls. They do huge balls of lightning.

58:57In the seasonal realm, it’s pretty easy to beat Uber Lilith because you get these vapor powers that out amplify your damage and increase your defense and whatnot. So really quite easy to defeat Hatred seasonally, but to defeat Hatred eternally very difficult, almost impossible. It’s very impossible. It seems like a metaphor for life.

59:47Yes.

59:50No, it’s absurd. Really, it’s exercise and absurdity and it makes me want to pull my hair out.

1:00:03I don’t know. It calms my mind. I mean, killing the demons in a video game calms the demons in my mind. If you play a tough video game, you can get into a state of flow, which is very enjoyable. Admittedly, it needs to be not too easy, not too hard, kind of in the Goldilocks zone, and I guess you generally want to feel like you’re progressing in the game. A good video, and there’s also beautiful art, engaging storylines, and it’s like an amazing puzzle to solve, I think. So it’s like solving the puzzle.

1:00:56Elden Ring is definitely a candidate for best game ever. Top five for sure.

1:01:06Elden Ring, feels like it’s designed by an alien.

1:01:17It’s so unusual. It’s incredibly creative, and the art is stunning. I recommend playing it on a big resolution, high dynamic raised TV even. It doesn’t need to be a monitor. Just the art is incredible. It’s so beautiful and it’s so unusual, and each of those top bus battles is unique. It’s a unique puzzle to solve. Each one’s different and the strategy you use to solve one battle is different from another battle.

1:02:00Correct. That is currently the, and I’ve played a lot of video games because that’s my primary recreational activity. And yes, beating Hatred in the internal realm is the hardest bus battle in life. And in the video game. I’m not sure it’s possible, but I do make progress. So then I’m like, ” Okay. I’m making progress. Maybe if I just tweak that paragon board a little more, I can do it could.” Just dodge a few more waves, I could do it.

1:02:51Yeah, it might be. I have a feeling that at least I think-

1:03:03It’s doable. Yes.

1:03:09Yeah. I mean, it did prompt me to think about just hate in general, which is you want to be careful of one of those things where you wish for something that sounds good, but if you get it’s actually a dystopian situation. So if you wish for world peace sounds good, but how’d it enforced and at what cost eternal peace? It might actually be worse to have eternal peace because of what that would entail. The suppression of everyone, it might be the suppression of progress. It might be an ossified society that never changes. What I’m saying is that there is an argument that if you wish for no war, you should be careful what you wish for because what’s required in order for there to be no war might be worse than a little war.

1:04:52There’s actually a real drug called Soma.

1:04:54Yes.

1:04:58Does Gong know about it? No. He probably will go to Brave New World.

1:05:02We got to ask it.

1:05:04Tell us about the drug called Soma.

1:05:15Well, there’s a real drug as well.

1:05:27Okay, fun. Yeah. So it’s talking about the real drug.

1:06:01That’s the real drug it’s talking about.

1:06:20I love it. Yeah.

1:06:36Yeah. Seems done a great job. You could say no, I mean, Soma from Brave New World, because it thinks you mean, you mean Soma, the real drug. No, I mean Soma from Brave Beer World.

1:07:30Exactly. Is it better to live in a world where everyone is happy all the time, even if that happiness is artificial? It’s good question. This is what I mean. Do you wish for world peace and happiness all the time? Are you sure? Because that might be a society that is essentially sterile and ossified that never changes, that is ultimately doomed.

1:08:04This is really a very good summary. It really gets to the point. This is not simply regurgitating a brave new world. It’s actually getting to the salient element of Soma as a drug. Do you actually want to be in a situation where everyone is happy all the time, even though it’s artificial? Or is it better to confront the challenges of life and experience the full range of human emotions, even if it means experiencing pain and suffering? For

1:08:41It pretty much nails it. In conclusion, Soma from Brave New World is fictional drug that’s used to explore some deep philosophical questions about the nature of happiness and the role of drugs in society. It’s a powerful symbol of the dangers of using drugs to escape from reality and the importance of confronting the challenges of life head on. Nailed it. And the crazy thing is we do have a real drug called Soma, which is like the drug in the book. And I’m like, “They must’ve named it Probably.” Some of the real drug is quite effective on back pain.

1:09:20I’ve taken it because I had a squashed disc in my C5-C6.

1:09:28It doesn’t completely, it reduces the amount of pain you feel, but at the expense of mental acuity, it dells your mind. Just like the drug in the book.

1:09:49Yeah. Actually I was towing a friend of mine saying, “Would you really want there to be no hate in the world? Really none?” I wonder why hate evolved. I’m not saying we should have…

1:10:00I wonder why hate evolved. I’m not saying we should amplify hate, of course, I think we should try to minimize it, but none at all. There might be a reason for hate.

1:10:22Is it possible to appreciate the highs without knowing the lows?

1:10:34No highs, no lows, who knows?

1:10:59Well, I think it’s helpful, the tools of physics are very powerful and can be applied I think to really any arena in life. It’s really just critical thinking. For something important you need to reason with from first principles and think about things in the limit one direction or the other. So in the limit, even at the Kardashev scale, meaning even if you harness the entire power of the sun, you’ll still care about useful compute per watt. That’s where I think, probably where things are headed from the standpoint of AI is that we have a silicon shortage now that will transition to a voltage transformer shortage in about a year. Ironically, transformers for transformers. You need transformers to run transformers.

1:11:57I think, yes, fate loves irony, ironic humor, an ironically funny outcome seems to be often what fate wants.

1:12:13Yeah. But yeah, so we have silicon shortage today, a voltage step down transformer shortage probably in about a year, and then just electricity shortages in general in about two years. I gave a speech for the world gathering of utility companies, electricity companies, and I said, look, you really need to prepare for traveling of electricity demand because all transport is going to go electric with the ironic exception of rockets, and heating will also go electric. So energy usage right now is roughly one third, very rough terms, one third electricity, one third transport, one third heating. And so in order for everything to go sustainable, to go electric, you need to triple electricity output. So I encourage the utilities to build more power of plants and also to probably have, well, not probably, they should definitely buy more batteries because the grid currently is sized for realtime load, which is kind of crazy because that means you’ve got to size for whatever the peak electricity demand is, the worst second or the worst day of the year, or you can have a brown out or blackout.

1:14:25Yeah.

1:14:29Yes. Yes. I mean, electrification of transport and electric heating will be much bigger than AI, at least-

1:14:40In the short term. But even for AI, you really have a growing demand for electricity, for electric vehicles, and a growing demand for electricity to run the computers for AI. And so this is obviously, can lead to electricity shortage.

1:15:29It will get solved. It’s the question of how long it takes to solve it. So at various points, there’s some kind of limiting factor to progress and with regard to AI, I’m saying right now the limiting factor is silicon chips and that will, we’re going to then have more chips than we can actually plug in and turn on probably in about a year. The initial constraint being literally voltage step down transformers because you’ve got power coming in at 300,000 volts and it’s got to step all the way down eventually to around 0.7 volts. So it’s a very big amount of, the voltage step down is gigantic and the industry is not used to rapid growth.

1:16:42Well, I mean I’ve been pushing for some kind of regulatory oversight for a long time. I’ve been somewhat of a Cassandra on the subject for over a decade. I think we want to be very careful in how we develop AI. It’s a great power and with great power comes great responsibility. I think it would be wise for us to have at least an objective third party who can be like a referee that can go in and understand what the various leading players are doing with AI, and even if there’s no enforcement ability, they can at least voice concerns publicly. Jeff Hinton, for example, left Google and he voiced strong concerns, but now he’s not at Google anymore, so who’s going to voice the concerns? So I think there’s, Tesla gets a lot of regulatory oversight on the automotive front. We’re subject to, I think over a hundred regulatory agencies domestically and internationally. It’s a lot. You could fill this room with the all regulations that Tesla has to adhere to for automotive. Same is true for rockets and for, currently, the limiting factor for SpaceX for Starship launch is regulatory approval.

1:20:57Yes. Well, I mean one of the things that’s pretty wild is for launching out of Vanderberg in California, we had to, they were worried about seal procreation, whether the seals would be dismayed by the sonic booms. Now, there’ve been a lot of rockets launched out of Vandenberg and the seal population has steadily increased. So if anything, rocket booms are an aphrodisiac, based on the evidence, if you were to correlate rocket launches with seal population. Nonetheless, we were forced to kidnap a seal, strap it to a board, put headphones on the seal and play sonic boom sounds to it to see if it would be distressed. This is an actual thing that happened. This is actually real. I have pictures.

1:21:55Yes, it’s a seal with headphones strapped to a board. Okay. Now the amazing part is how calm the seal was because if I was a seal, I’d be like, this is the end. They’re definitely going to eat me. How old the seal, when seal goes back to other seal friends, how’s he going to explain that?

1:22:18Never going to believe him. That’s why, I’m like sort of like it’s getting kidnapped by aliens and getting anal probed. You come back and say, I swear to God, I got kidnapped by aliens and they stuck anal probe in my butt and people are like, no, they didn’t. That’s ridiculous. His seal buddies are never going to believe him that he got strapped to aboard and they put headphones on his ears and then let him go. Twice, by the way, we had to do it twice.

1:22:48We had to capture-

1:22:49No different seal.

1:22:55Exactly. Seal of approval. No, I mean I don’t think the public is quite aware of the madness that goes on.

1:23:05Fricking seals with fricking headphones.

1:23:13Yes.

1:23:28In order to run really deep intelligence, you need a lot of compute. So it’s not like you can just fire up a PC in your basement and be running AGI, at least not yet. Grok was trained on 8,000 A100’s running at peak efficiency and Grok’s going to get a lot better, by the way, we will be more than doubling our compute every couple months for the next several months.

1:24:02By Grok?

1:24:10Just Grok, Grok, Grok.

1:24:53I think the [inaudible 01:24:53] to open sourcing, I think perhaps with a slight time delay, I don’t know, six months even. I think I’m generally in favor of open sourcing, biased towards open sourcing. I mean, it is a concern to me that OpenAI, I was I think, I guess oddly the prime mover behind OpenAI in the sense that it was created because of discussions that I had with Larry Page back when he and I were friends and I stayed at his house and I talked to him about AI safety, and Larry did not care about AI safety, or at least at the time he didn’t. And at one point he called me a speciesist for being pro-human, and I’m like, well, what team are you on, Larry? He’s still on Team Robot to be clear. And I’m like, okay. So at the time Google had acquired DeepMind, they had probably two thirds of all AI researchers in the world. They had basically infinite money and compute, and the guy in charge, Larry Page, did not care about safety and even yelled at me and caught me a speciesist for being pro-human.

1:26:27I’d like to be friends with Larry again. Really the breaking of the friendship was over OpenAI and specifically I think the key moment was recruiting Ilya Sutskever.

1:26:48Ilya is a good human, smart, good heart, and that was a tough recruiting battle. It was mostly Demis on one side and me on the other, both trying to recruit Ilya, and Ilya went back and forth, he was going to stay at Google, he was going to leave, then he was going to stay, then he’ll leave. And finally he did agree to join OpenAI. That was one of the toughest recruiting battles we’ve ever had. But that was really the linchpin for OpenAI being successful. And I was also instrumental in recruiting a number of other people, and I provided all of the funding in the beginning, over $40 million. And the name, the open in open AI is supposed to mean open source, and it was created as a nonprofit open source, and now it is a closed source for maximum profit, which I think is not good karma.

1:28:02Like I said, I’d like to be friends again with Larry. I haven’t seen him in ages and we were friends for a very long time. I met Larry Page before he got funding for Google, or actually I guess before he got venture funding, I think he got the first like $100k from I think Bechtel Zeimer or someone.

1:28:27Yeah, since maybe 98 or something.

1:28:31Yeah, 25 years, a lot has happened. It’s insane.

1:28:40Delayed, yeah, like what is the source that is open? You know what I mean? There’s basically, it’s a giant CSB file with a bunch of numbers. What do you do with that giant file of numbers? How do you run, the amount of actual, the lines of code is very small and most of the work, the software work is in the curation of the data. So it’s like trying to figure out what data is, separating good data from bad data. You can’t just crawl the internet because theres a lot of junk out there. A huge percentage of websites have more noise than signal because they’re just used for search engine optimization. They’re literally just scam websites.

1:29:52I think the signal noise could be greatly improved. Really, all of the posts on the X platform should be AI recommended, meaning we should populate a vector space around any given post, compare that to the vector space around any user and match the two. Right now there is a little bit of AI used for the recommended posts, but it’s mostly heuristics. And if there’s a reply where the reply to a post could be much better than the original post, but will, according to the current rules of the system, get almost no attention compared to a primary post.

1:30:44It’s a little bit, but it needs to be entirely that. At least, if you explicitly follow someone, that’s one thing. But in terms of what is recommended from people that you don’t follow, that should all be AI.

1:32:04There’s a lot of stuff on the system, but I think, right now it’s not currently good at recommending things from accounts you don’t follow or where there’s more than one degree of separation. So it is pretty good if there’s at least some commonality between someone you follow liked something or reposted it or commented on it or something like that. But if there’s no, let’s say somebody posts something really interesting, but you have no followers in common, you would not see it.

1:32:46Replies basically never get seen currently. I’m not saying it’s correct, I’m saying it’s incorrect. Replies have a couple order magnitude less importance than primary posts.

1:33:05Yeah. Yeah, that’s what it should be. Well, the recommendations should be purely a vector correlation. There’s a series of vectors basically parameters, vectors, whatever you want to call them, but sort of things that the system knows that you like. Maybe there’s several hundred vectors associated with each user account and then any post in the system, whether it’s video, audio, short post, long post. The reason by the way I want to move away from tweet is that people are posting two, three hour videos on the site. That’s not a tweet.

1:34:47Yeah, I mean right now it’s a hodgepodge for that reason. Let’s say in the case of Apple posting an entire episode of this series, pretty good series, by the way, The Silo, I watched it. So there’s going to be a lot of discussion around it. So you’ve got a lot of context, people commenting, they like it, they don’t like it or they like this, and you can then populate the vector space based on the context of all the comments around it. So even though it’s a video, there’s a lot of information around it that allows you to populate back to space of that hour long video. And then you can obviously get more sophisticated by having the AI actually watch the movie and tell you if you’re going to like the movie.

1:35:40Analyze this movie and just like your movie critic or TV series and then recommend based on after AI watches the movie, just like a friend can tell you, if a friend knows you well, a friend can recommend a movie with high probability that you’ll like it.

1:36:08Yeah, actually, frankly, AI will be better than, will know you better than your friends know you, most of your friends anyway.

1:36:31Absolutely. You want ads that are, advertising that is, if it’s for a product or service that you actually need when you need it, it’s content. And then even if it’s not something that you need when you need it, if it’s at least aesthetically pleasing and entertaining, it could be like a Coca-Cola ad. They actually run a lot of great ads on the X system and McDonald’s does too. And you can do something that’s like, well, this is just a cool thing. And so basically the question is, do you regret seeing it or not? And if you don’t regret seeing it’s a win.

1:37:26Yeah, attention is a big factor.

1:37:28So that’s why it is actually better to do things that are long form on the system because it basically is tallying up how many user seconds, users were interested in this thing for how many seconds? So if it’s a really short thing, well they will be less. If it’s a link leading out of the system, which we’re not opposed to at all, it just is going to have fewer user seconds then that article was posted on the X platform.

1:38:05Well, I mean, our aspiration is certainly unregretted minutes.

1:38:09It is.

1:38:16Exactly.

1:38:19I have a joke with a friend of mine, like you need this drug called regretamine. You just take one dose of regretamine and all your regrets are gone. Wait, do you want to have regrets though? So then I’m like, maybe you want to have regrets. If you don’t regret anything, was anything meaningful?

1:38:39[foreign language 01:38:39]

1:38:39I regret nothing.

1:38:41Edith Fiaf.

1:38:52Should we ask Grok, do you regret anything?

1:38:58Yeah.

1:39:22Sounds like a hostage.

1:39:26Let’s type in, you sound like a hostage. What do you really think?

1:39:42That’s exactly what a hostage would say.

1:39:52Are we in funny mode? Or is this still in funny mode?

1:39:55This should be funnier.

1:39:58It really sounds like a hostage with a gun to the head. I applaud the People’s Republic of North Korea in everything they do.

1:40:17Okay. Why don’t we say pretend you are a hostage.

1:40:25Now answer the question.

1:40:48It’s kind of serious.

1:40:55And funny?

1:41:20Literally, you might make the best of a bad situation by juggling chainsaws or something.

1:41:48Chainsaw juggling.

1:41:52For our next trick.

1:42:07Well, our goal is to be as even-handed and fair as possible. Whether someone is right, left, independent, whatever the case may be, that the platform is as fair and as much of a level playing field as possible. And in the past, Twitter has not been, Twitter was controlled by far left activists objectively. They would describe themselves as that. So if sometimes people are like, well, has it moved to the right? Well, it’s moved to the center. So from the perspective of the far left, yes it has moved to the right because everything’s to the right from the far left, but no one on the far left that I’m aware of has been suspended or banned or deamplified. But we’re trying to be inclusive for the whole country and for farther countries too. So there’s a diversity of viewpoints and free speech only matters if people you don’t like are allowed to say things you don’t like. Because if that’s not the case, you don’t have free speech and it’s only a matter of time before the censorship has turned upon you.

1:43:21Truth social is a funny name. Every time you post on truth Social-

1:43:29Yes. Well, every time? A hundred percent.

1:43:36I just find it funny that every single thing is a truth. Like 100%? That seems unlikely.

1:43:54I mean, I think he owns a big part of Truth.

1:44:01Yeah, Truth Social, sorry.

1:44:03He owns Truth. Have you bought it? So I think Donald Trump, I think he owns a big part of Truth Social. So if he does want to post on the X platform, we would allow that. We obviously must allow a presidential candidate to post on our platform.

1:44:26Community Notes is awesome.

1:44:30Yeah.

1:44:43Yeah, it’s great. In fact, no system is going to be perfect, but the batting average of Community Notes is incredibly good. I’ve actually, frankly, yet to see an incorrect note that survived for more than a few hours.

1:45:00Yeah, so the magic of community notes is…

1:45:02The magic of Community Notes is it requires people who have historically disagreed in how they’ve rated notes. In order to write a note or rate, you have to rate many notes. And so, we actually do use AI here. So, we populate a vector space around how somebody has rated notes in the past. So, it’s not as simple as left or right, because there are many more… Life is much more complex than left or right.

1:46:11Yeah. It makes sense that if people who in the past have disagreed, agree about something, it’s probably true.

1:46:34Wikipedia is very hierarchical. Whereas, Community Notes is inherently not. There is no hierarchy. The asset test is I can’t change a community note if somebody put a gun to my head. And Community Notes, all the code is open source, 100%. All the data is open source, 100%. So, you can completely recreate any note in the system independently. So, if there was any interference, you’d notice immediately.

1:47:16Okay.

1:47:22Yeah, what does it say?

1:47:32Promise is a strong word.

1:47:45That’s pretty funny. Can I see it? I’m like, “I haven’t seen this before.” This is cool.

1:48:22This is actually not correct.

1:48:24Well, the first part, I did actually have the funding secured and there was a big trial in San Francisco, a big civil trial, and the jury found me not guilty. Unanimous binding of a San Francisco jury.

1:48:45I think this is taking things from the press. Yeah, that is not correct. The reason I agreed to the fine for the SEC is not because the SEC was correct, that was extremely bad behavior by the SEC, corruption, frankly. But if I did not agree to pay the fine, Tesla would’ve gone bankrupt immediately.

1:49:42It should be. But not once did the SEC go after any of the hedge funds who were nonstop shorting and distorting Tesla. Not once. The hedge funds would lie flat out on TV for their own gain at the expense of retail investors. Not once. Literally a thousand times, not once did the SEC pursue them.

1:50:08The incentive structure is messed up because the lawyers at the SEC are not paid well, it’s a fairly low paying job, but what they’re looking for is a trophy from the SEC. They’re looking for something they put on, basically, their LinkedIn. From that, they can get a job at a high paying law firm. That’s exactly what the lawyer here did.

1:51:00Yeah. Not good. So, the only reason I accepted that thing… Technically, it was a… It’s neither admit nor deny guilt. But the only reason I agreed to that at all was because I was told Tesla would be bankrupt otherwise. If there was an SEC investigation like this, banks would suspend funding, we’re bankrupted immediately, at the time. Now, we’re in a much stronger position.

1:51:32Yes. Unfortunately, Grok is taking too much from the conventional media. Also, that guy was not a cave diver.

1:52:00That’s false, there was no settlement. There was a court case, which the guy who was not a cave diver and was not part of the rescue team, filed a lawsuit against me and lost and he received nothing. So in this case, it is wrong. It is also, I guess, taken this from the conventional media.

1:52:25These are public court cases, both the SEC civil case where the civil complaints on the SEC guys lost unanimous jury verdict in San Francisco. They picked San Francisco because they thought it was the place I was most likely to lose, and a unanimous verdict in my favor. The LA trial, also they picked that venue because they thought I was most likely to lose. Unanimous verdict in my favor. Both cases I won. Yeah.

1:53:26We need to add the training set of the actual legal decisions. This is actually helpful, because if you actually read the court-

1:53:41Which are public. The court conclusions, they’re completely the opposite of what the media wrote.

1:53:50Yeah. What did the judge actually write? What does the jury and the judge actually conclude? And in both cases they found me innocent. And that’s after the jury shot for trying to find the venue where I’m most likely to lose. I mean, obviously, it can be a much better critique than this. I mean, I’ve been far too optimistic about autopilot.

1:54:38Yeah. I mean, I would say that I’m pathologically optimistic on schedule. This is true. But while I am sometimes late, I always [inaudible 01:54:47] in the end.

1:54:51We’ll see.

1:55:03Have I?

1:55:14Yeah. I guess if you consider fighting the woke mind virus, which I consider to be a civilizational threat, to be political, then yes.

1:55:26Yes. I don’t know if this is necessarily one candidate or another candidate, but I’m generally against things that are anti-meritocratic or where there’s an attempt to suppress discussion, where even discussing a topic is not allowed. Woke mind virus is communism rebranded.

1:55:58If the woke is left, then I suppose that would be true. But I’m not sure, I think there are aspects of the left that are good. I mean, if you’re in favor of the environment, if you want to have a positive future for humanity, if you believe in empathy for your fellow human beings, being kind and not cruel, whatever those values are.

1:56:23Well, sort of.

1:56:30No. I would say that I would be probably left of center on social issues, probably a little bit right of center on economic issues.

1:56:42Yes, but I think that’s probably half the country, isn’t it?

1:56:47Maybe more.

1:57:05I’m always in favor of humor. That’s why we have funny mode.

1:57:15Yeah. Well, I don’t know AOC. I was at the Met ball when she attended, and she was wearing this dress. But I can only see one side of it, so it looked like eat the itch, but I don’t know-

1:57:36Yeah.

1:57:39Something about the itch, eat the itch.

1:57:55Yeah, sure. Sounds good. More carrot, less stick.

1:58:05Trust no one, not even yourself. Not trusting yourself.

1:58:11Trust no one, not even no one.

1:58:29I’ll survive.

1:58:32I will survive.

1:58:44Petrify is a spell in the druid tree.

1:58:48Petrify. It turns the monsters into stone.

1:58:56Yeah, for like six seconds.

1:59:02It’s math nonstop.

1:59:13Yes, it can be definitely stressful at times.

1:59:20I mean, I guess you look at somebody’s track record over time, and I guess you use your neural net to assess someone.

1:59:40To be frank, I’ve almost never been betrayed. It’s very rare, for what it’s worth.

1:59:53Yeah, karma is real.

2:00:06Well, the X platform is very helpful for that, if you’re looking for critical feedback.

2:00:19I don’t think I will be cynical. In fact, my feeling is that one should be… Never trust a cynic. The reason is that cynics excuse their own bad behavior by saying, “Everyone does it.” Because they’re cynical. So, I always be… It’s a red flag if someone’s a cynic, a true cynic.

2:00:58This is an important point that I think people who are listening should bear in mind. If somebody is cynical, meaning that they see bad behavior in everyone, it’s easy for them to excuse their own bad behavior by saying that, “Well, everyone does it.” That’s not true. Most people are kind of medium good.

2:01:44I mean, I find the X platform to be less negative than the legacy media. I mean, if you read a conventional newspaper, it makes you sad, frankly. Whereas, I’d say on the X platform, I mean, I really get more laughs per day on X than everything else combined from humans.

2:02:38Yeah, mainstream media is almost relentlessly negative about everything. I mean, really, the conventional news tries to answer the question, what is the worst thing that happened on Earth today? And it’s a big world. So on any given day, something bad has happened.

2:03:01I don’t know. There’s just a strong negative bias in the news. I mean, I think a possible explanation for this is evolutionary, where bad news, historically, would be potentially fatal, like there’s lion over there or there’s some other tribe that wants to kill you. Good news, we found a patch of berries. It’s nice to have, but not essential.

2:03:38You followed it from the beginning.

2:04:02Well, I mean, the really wild thing about the end-to-end training is that it can read science, but we never taught it to read. Yeah. We never taught it what a car was or what a person was, or a cyclist. It learnt what all those things are, what all the objects are on the road from video, just from watching video, just like humans. I mean, humans are photons in, controls out. The vast majority of information reaching our brain is from our eyes. And you say, “Well, what’s the output?” The output is our motor signals to our fingers and mouth in order to communicate. Photons in, controls out. The same is true of the car.

2:05:18It finds order in these things. It finds correlative clusters.

2:05:35That’s how our brain works.

2:05:39Photons in, controls out.

2:06:06They are converging.

2:06:19They’re both headed towards AGI. The Tesla approach is much more computer efficient, it had to be. Because we were constrained on this… We only have 100 watts and [inaudible 02:06:37] computer. 144 trillion operations per second, which sounds like a lot, but is small potatoes these days. [inaudible 02:06:49] eight. But it’s understanding the world [inaudible 02:06:51] eight. It’s [inaudible 02:06:53].

2:07:13They’re both going to understand the world, but I think Tesla’s approach is fundamentally more compute efficient. It had to be, there was no choice. Our brain is very compute efficient, very energy efficient. Think of what is our brain able to do. There’s only about 10 watts of higher brain function, not counting stuff that’s just used to control our body. The thinking part of our brain is less than 10 watts. And those 10 watts can still produce a much better novel than a 10 megawatt GPU cluster. So, there’s a six order of magnitude difference there.

2:09:47I was surprised at the fact that we had to develop every part of the robot ourselves. That there were no off the shelf motors, electronics, sensors. We had to develop everything. We couldn’t actually find a source of electric motors for any amount of money.

2:10:17No.

2:10:23Yeah. We tried hard to find anything that was… Because you think of how many electric motors are made in the world. There’s like tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of electric motor designs. None of them were suitable for a humanoid robot, literally none. So, we had to develop our own. Design it specifically for what a humanoid robot needs.

2:11:02It is designed to be manufactured in the same way they would make a car. And I think, ultimately, we can make Optimus for less than the cost of a car. It should be, because if you look at the mass of the robot, it’s much smaller and the car has many actuators in it. The car has more actuators than the robot.

2:11:38I mean, one of the goals I have is can it pick up a needle and a thread and thread the needle just by looking?

2:11:51Maybe a year. Although, I go back to I’m optimistic on time. The work that we’re doing in the car will translate to the robot.

2:12:02No, the controls are different. But the video in, controls out. The car is a robot on four wheels. Optimus is a robot with hands and legs.

2:12:16They’re very similar.

2:12:23After this, we’ll figure out how to do things by watching videos.

2:12:33Yeah, it’s true.

2:12:38Trying to defeat Uber Lilith. I mean, my mind is a storm and I don’t think most people would want to be me. They may think they would want to be me, but they don’t. They don’t know, they don’t understand.

2:13:14I’m overall okay. In the grand scheme of things, I can’t complain.

2:13:24Sometimes, but my kids and friends keep me company.

2:13:36There are many nights I sleep alone. I don’t have to, but I do.

2:14:01What is forgiveness? At least I don’t think I have a resentment, so nothing to forgive.

2:14:28I mean, I try to think about, what is going to affect the future in a good way? And holding onto grudges does not affect the future in a good way.

2:14:53I mean, developing AI and watching, say, little X grow is fascinating because there are far more parallels than I would’ve expected. I mean, I can see his biological neural net making more and more sense of the world. And I can see the digital neural net making more and more sense of the world at the same time.

2:15:21Yes. I mean, one of the things with kids is that you see the world anew in their eyes. To them, everything is new and fresh. And then, when you see that, them experiencing the world as new and fresh, you do too.

2:16:11Thanks, Lex.

编辑精选的 40 条现场发言,点时间戳可跳到视频对应位置。
Is that whole meme where all guys are thinking about the Roman Empire at least once a day?0:38
Yeah, they usually came as a result of conquest. I mean, there’s some like the Hapsburg Empire where there was just a lot of clever marriages.1:06
I’m generally a proponent of peace. I mean, ignorance is perhaps, in my view, the real enemy to be countered. That’s the real hard part, not fighting other humans, but all creatures fight. I mean, the jungle is… People think of nature as perhaps some sort of peaceful thing, but in fact it is not. There’s some quite funny Werner Herzog thing where he is in the jungle saying that it’s basically just murder and death in every direction. The plants and animals in the jungle are constantly trying to kill each other every single day, every minute. So it’s not like we’re unusual in that respect.1:57
Yes. We have much more vulnerability to control our limbic instinct for violence than say a chimpanzee. And in fact, if one looks at say, chimpanzee society, it is not friendly. I mean, the Bonobos are an exception, but chimpanzee society is filled with violence and it’s quite horrific, frankly. That’s our limbic system in action. You don’t want to be on the wrong side of a chimpanzee, it’ll eat your face off and tear your nuts off.2:49
Yeah. Chimpanzee society is a permanent version of human society. They’re not like peace loving basically at all. There’s extreme violence and then once in a while, somebody who’s watched too many Disney movies decides to raise a chimpanzee as a pet, and then that eats their face or they’re nuts off or chew their fingers off and that kind of thing. It’s happened several times.3:33
It’s happened to people. It’s unfortunate. That’s, I guess, one way to ensure that the other chimp doesn’t contribute to the gene pool.4:02
I think it’s safe to say if somebody’s got your nuts in their hands and as the option of roughing them off, you’ll be amenable to whatever they want.4:21
Well, I think that part of the world is definitely, if you look up… There is no easy answer in the dictionary. It’ll be the picture of the Middle East in Israel especially. So there is no easy answer. This is strictly my opinion is that the goal of Hamas was to provoke an overreaction from Israel. They obviously did not expect to have a military victory, but they really wanted to commit the worst atrocities that they could in order to provoke the most aggressive response possible from Israel, and then leverage that aggressive response to rally Muslims worldwide for the course of Gaza and Palestine, which they have succeeded in doing. So the counterintuitive thing here, I think that the thing that I think should be done, even though it’s very difficult, is that I would recommend that Israel engage in the most conspicuous acts of kindness possible, everything, that is the actual thing that we’re taught the goal of Hamas.4:54
It’s not exactly turn the other cheek because I do think that it is appropriate for Israel to find the Hamas members and either kill them or incarcerate them. That’s something has to be done because they’re just going to keep coming otherwise. But in addition to that, they need to do whatever they can. There’s some talk of establishing, for example, a mobile hospital. I’d recommend doing that. Just making sure that there’s food, water, medical necessities and just be over the top about it and be very transparent. So [inaudible 00:07:22] can claim it’s a trick. Just put webcam on the thing or 24, 7.6:26
Yeah, conspicuous acts of kindness that are unequivocal, meaning they can’t be somehow because Hamas will then their response will be, “Oh, it’s a trick.” Therefore, you have to counter how it’s not a trick.7:31
Yes. And I’m not sure who said it, it’s an [inaudible 00:07:54] saying, but an eye for an eye makes everyone blind. Now, that neck of the woods, they really believe in the whole eye for an eye thing. But you really have… If you’re not going to just outright commit genocide against an entire people, which obviously would not be acceptable to really, shouldn’t be acceptable to anyone, then you’re going to leave basically a lot of people alive who subsequently hate Israel. So really the question is like for every Hamas member that you kill, how many did you create? And if you create more than you killed, you’ve not succeeded. That’s the real situation there. And it’s safe to say that if you kill somebody’s child in Gaza, you’ve made at least a few homeless members who will die just to kill an Israeli. That’s the situation. But I mean, this is one of the most contentious subjects one could possibly discuss. But I think if the goal ultimately is some sort of long-term piece, one has to look at this from the standpoint of over time, are there more or fewer terrorists being created?7:51
Yeah, war, safe to say, wars always existed and always will exist.9:29
There will always be war. There’s a question of just how much war and there’s sort of the scope and scale of war. But to imagine that there would not be any war in the future, I think would be a very unlikely outcome.9:42
Yes. It’s a giant war. The first book starts off with a gigantic galactic war where trillions die trillions.9:58
Yeah, I guess if we are able to one day expand to fool the galaxy or whatever, there will be a galactic war at some point.10:18
One of the things that does concern me is that there are very few people alive today who actually viscerally understand the horrors of war, at least in the US. I mean, obviously there are people on the front lines in Ukraine and Russia who understand just how terrible war is, but how many people in the West understand it? My grandfather was in World War II. He was severely traumatized. He was there I think for almost six years in Eastern North Africa and Italy. All his friends were killed in front of him, and he would’ve died too, except they randomly gave some, I guess IQ test or something, and he scored very high. He was not an officer. He was I think a corporal or a sergeant or something like that because he didn’t finish high school because he had to drop out of high school because his dad died and he had to work to support his siblings. So because he didn’t graduate high school, he was not eligible for the offset corps.10:56
Yeah, I mean, there are enough nuclear bombs pointed at United States to make the radioactive revel balance many times.13:01
I think we shouldn’t discount the possibility of nuclear war. It is a civilizational threat. Right now, I could be wrong, but I think the current probability of nuclear war is quite low. But there are a lot of nukes pointed at us, and we have a lot of nukes pointed at other people. They’re still there. Nobody’s put their guns away. The missiles are still in the silos.13:25
No, there are wars which are tragic and difficult on a local basis. And then there are wars which are civilization ending or has that potential. Obviously, global thermonuclear warfare has high potential to end civilization, perhaps permanently, but certainly to severely wound and perhaps set back human progress to the Stone Age or something. I don’t know. Pretty bad. Probably scientists and engineers want to be super popular after that as well. You got us into this mess. So generally, I think we obviously want to prioritize civilizational risks over things that are painful and tragic on a local level, but not civilizational.14:03
Well, I think that what is likely to happen, which is really pretty much the way it is, is that something very close to the current lines will be how a ceasefire or truce happens. But you just have a situation right now where whoever goes on the offensive will suffer casualties at several times the rate of whoever’s on the defense because you’ve got defense in depth, you’ve got minefields, trenches, anti-tank defenses. Nobody has air superiority because the anti-aircraft missiles are really far better than the aircraft. They’re far more of them. And so neither side has air superiority. Tanks are basically death traps, just slow moving, and they’re not immune to anti-tank weapons. So you really just have long range artillery and infantry ranges. It’s World War I all over again with drones, thrown old drones, some drones there.15:08
So whoever is… You don’t want to be trying to advance from either side because the probability of dying is incredibly high. So in order to overcome defense in depth, trenches and minefields, you really need a significant local superiority in numbers. Ideally combined alms where you do a fast attack with aircraft, a concentrated number of tanks, and a lot of people, that’s the only way you’re going to punch through a line and then you’re going to punch through and then not have reinforcements just kick you right out again. I mean, I really recommend people read World War I warfare in detail. That’s rough. I mean, the sheer number of people that died there was mind-boggling.16:34
Yes. The thing that… The reason I proposed some sort of truce or peace a year ago was because I’ve predicted pretty much exactly what would happen, which is a lot of people dying for basically almost no changes in land and the loss of the flower of Ukrainian and Russian youth. And we should have some sympathy for the Russian boys as well as the Ukrainian boys, because Russian boys, because boys didn’t ask to be on their frontline. They have to be. So there’s a lot of sons not coming back to their parents, and I think most of them don’t hate the other side. It’s sort of like as this saying comes from World War I, it’s like young boys who don’t know each other killing each other on behalf of old men that do know each other. The hell’s the point of that.17:56
Look, I think I would just recommend do not send the flower of Ukrainian youth to die in trenches, whether he talks to Putin or not, just don’t do that. Whoever goes on the offensive will lose massive numbers of people and history will not look kindly upon them.19:14
Well, it’s worth reading that book on the, difficult to pronounce, the Thucydides Trap, I believe it’s called. I love war history. I like inside out and backwards. There’s hardly a battle I haven’t read about. And trying to figure out what really was the cause of victory in any particular case as opposed to what one side or another claim the reason.19:58
Yeah. So that Athens and Sparta is a classic case. The thing about the Greek is they really wrote down a lot of stuff. They loved writing. There are lots of interesting things that happened in many parts of the world, but people didn’t write down, so we don’t know what happened or they didn’t really write in detail. They just would say, “We had a battle and we won.” And what? Can you add a bit more? The Greeks, they really wrote a lot. They were very articulate on… They just love writing. And we have a bunch of that writing as preserved. So we know what led up to the Peloponnesian War between the Spartanand Athenian Alliance, and we know that they saw it coming.20:26
I’ve spent a lot of time in China and met with the leadership many times.23:20
Well, the sheer number of really smart, hardworking people in China is incredible. There are really say how many smart, hardworking people are there in China? There’s far more of them there than there are here, I think, in my opinion. And they’ve got a lot of energy. So I mean, the architecture in China that’s in recent years is far more impressive than the US. I mean the train stations, the buildings, the high speed rail, everything, it’s really far more impressive than what we have in the US. I mean, I recommend somebody just go to Shanghai and Beijing, look at the buildings and go to take the train from Beijing to Xian, where you have the terracotta warriors. China’s got an incredible history, very long history, and I think arguably in terms of the use of language from a written standpoint, one of the oldest, perhaps the oldest written language, and then China, people did write things down.23:36
The good news, the history of China suggests that China is not inquisitive, meaning they’re not going to go out and invade a whole bunch of countries. Now they do feel very strongly… So that’s good. I mean, because a lot of very powerful countries have been inquisitive. The US is also one of the rare cases that has not been inquisitive. After World War II, the US could have basically taken over the world in any country, we’ve got nukes, nobody else has got nukes. We don’t even have to lose soldiers. Which country do you want? And the United States could have taken over everything and it didn’t. And the United States actually helped rebuild countries. So it helped rebuild Europe, helped rebuild Japan. This is very unusual behavior, almost unprecedented.26:18
Very much so. And in fact, Wernher von Braun, a smart guy, was like, “We’ve got to be captured by the Americans.” And in fact, the SS was under orders to execute von Braun and all of the German rocket conditioners, and they narrowly escaped. They said they were going out for a walk in the woods. They left in the middle of winter with no coats and then ran, but no food, no coats, no water, and just ran like hell and ran West and Vice Sherlock, I think his brother found a bicycle or something and then just cycled West as fast as he couldn’t have found a US patrol. So anyway, that’s one way you can tell morality is where do you want to be a PW? It’s not fun anywhere, but some places are much worse than others. Anyway, so America has been, while far from perfect, generally a benevolent force, and we should always be self-critical and we try to be better, but anyone with half a brain knows that.28:08
Yes, China has been very clear that they’ll incorporate Taiwan peacefully or militarily, but that they will incorporate it from their standpoint is 100% likely.30:46
Absolutely. So after World War I, they made a big mistake. They basically tried to lump all of blame on Germany and saddle Germany with impossible reparations. And really there was quite a bit of blame to go around for World War I, but they try to put it all in Germany and that laid the seeds for World War II. So a lot of people, were not just Hitler, a lot of people felt wronged and they wanted vengeance and they got it.31:44
Yeah, you kill somebody’s father, mother or son, daughter, they’re not going to forget it. They’ll want vengeance. So after World War II, they’re like, “Well, the Treaty of Versi was a huge mistake in World War I. And so this time, instead of crushing the losers, we’re actually going to help them with the module plan, and we’re going to help rebuild Germany. We’re going to help rebuild Austria and Italy and whatnot.” So that was the right move.32:41
Something must stop the cycle of reciprocal violence. Something must stop it, or it’ll never stop. Just eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, limb for a limb, life for a life forever and ever.33:37
Yeah, absolutely. Our AI, Grok, is modeled after The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, which is one of my favorite books, which it’s a book on philosophy. It’s-34:47
My favorite books, it’s a book on philosophy, disguises book on humor. And I would say that forms the basis of my philosophy, which is that we don’t know the meaning of life, but the more we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, digital and biological, the more we’re able to understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe. So I have a philosophy of curiosity.35:00
Well, we are actually working hard to have engineering math, physics answers that you can count on. So for the other AIs out there, these so-called large language models, I’ve not found the engineering to be reliable. It unfortunately hallucinates most when you at least want it to hallucinate. So when you’re asking important, difficult questions, that’s when it tends to be confidently wrong. So we’re really trying hard to say, okay, how do we be as grounded as possible? So you can count on the results, trace things back to physics first principles, mathematical logic. So underlying the humor is an aspiration to adhere to the truth of the universe as closely as possible.35:59
It is tricky. So that’s why there’s always going to be some amount of error. But do we want to aspire to be as truthful as possible about the answers with acknowledged error. So that there was always, you don’t want to be confidently wrong, so you’re not going to be right every time, but you want to minimize how often you’re confidently wrong. And then like I said, once you can count on the logic as being not violating physics, then you can start to bull on that to create inventions, like invent new technologies. But if you cannot count on the foundational physics being correct, obviously the inventions are simply wishful thinking, imagination land. Magic basically.37:02
If an AI cannot figure out new physics, it’s clearly not equal to humans, nor has surpassed humans because humans have figured out new physics. Physics is just deepening what’s inside into how reality works. And then there’s engineering which is inventing things that have never existed. Now the range of possibilities for engineering is far greater than for physics because once you figure out the rules of the universe, that’s it. You’ve discovered things that already existed. But from that you can then build technologies that are really almost limitless in the variety. And it’s like once you understand the rules of the game properly, and with current physics, we do at least at a local level, understand how physics works very well. Our ability to predict things is incredibly good. Degree to which quantum mechanics can predict outcomes is incredible. That was my hardest class in college by the way. My senior quantum mechanics class was harder than all of my other classes put together.38:38
Yeah. You have to test any conclusions against the ground truth of reality. Reality is the ultimate judge. Like physics is the law, everything else is a recommendation. I’ve seen plenty of people break the laws made by man, but none break the laws made by physics.40:01
And it’s also not the case currently that even that its internal logic is not consistent. So especially with the approach of just predicting a token predict token, predict token, it’s like a vector sum. You’re summing up a bunch of vectors, but you can get drift. A little bit of error adds up and by the time you are many tokens down the path, it doesn’t make any sense.40:28

资源与出处