- Elon Musk has been concerned about the risks of AI for a decade and believes that safety measures should be taken.
- He acknowledges the potential positive effects of AI but also warns about the risks and the need to mitigate them.
- Musk believes that government regulation is necessary when public safety is at risk and compares it to having referees in sports games.
- He emphasizes the need for an independent body to ensure AI safety and praises the development of the Safety Institute.
- Musk acknowledges the fast pace of AI development and believes that even having insight and highlighting concerns to the public can be powerful.
- He mentions the leading centers for AI development in the San Francisco Bay Area and London and believes that alignment on safety between the US, UK, and China would be beneficial.
- Musk supports China's participation in AI safety and believes that their involvement is essential for meaningful discussions and progress in the field.

- The speaker emphasizes the importance of all participants being engaged and signing the same communique for effective resolution.
- The discussion revolves around the open source question in AI and the potential risks and benefits.
- The speaker acknowledges that open source algorithms may lag behind closed source ones but expresses a bias towards open source for transparency.
- They discuss the challenges of understanding AI algorithms, which are probabilistic and not easily readable like traditional programming.
- The impact of AI on jobs and labor markets is discussed, with the speaker stating that AI will eventually be capable of doing all jobs.
- The speaker recommends reading books by Banks for a vision of a utopian future with AI.
- The discussion concludes with the question of finding meaning and purpose in life when work is no longer necessary.

- The speaker discusses how humans find fulfillment in competing against other humans, even when machines are faster and stronger.
- The potential benefits of AI in education, such as personalized tutoring, are highlighted.
- The idea of AI companionship is explored, where an AI with memory and knowledge of a person's interactions could become a great friend.
- The concept of community notes is explained as a way to add context and transparency to information, reducing bias and promoting consensus-driven truth.
- The speaker believes that the UK has the potential to be a breeding ground for unicorn companies, but cultural elements need to change to support small companies and celebrate entrepreneurship.
- The UK government is working on improving access to capital for startups and attracting talent.
- The importance of education, particularly in math, is emphasized.
- Over half of the fastest-growing companies in the UK have non-British founders.

- Over half of the fastest-growing companies in the UK have non-British founders, indicating the need for an open environment for entrepreneurial talent.
- The visa regime in the UK makes it easy for talented individuals to come and start businesses.
- Creating a culture that embraces failure and risk-taking is a challenge, but important for fostering innovation.
- The UK has a relatively low rate of capital gains tax and has improved its tax treatment of stock options to support high-risk, high-reward ventures.
- AI can have practical applications in everyday life, such as improving government services and providing personalized education.
- The development of robots and AI should not create a strategic disadvantage for any country, as many technologies can be considered robots and various countries are already involved in their development.

- The speaker expresses concern about safety with humanoid robots, as they can chase and follow people anywhere.
- They suggest implementing a hardwired local cutoff that cannot be updated from the internet to ensure safety.
- The discussion moves to the topic of AI and ML scale-up and the increase in phishing attacks using sophisticated language patterns.
- The speaker acknowledges the challenge of trusting AI that can pass human capture tests better and faster than humans.
- They propose charging a small fee to increase the cost of creating AI-powered bots and prevent their proliferation.
- The need to mitigate risks and build trust in AI technology is emphasized, and the importance of investing in research and safety measures is highlighted.
- The issue of misinformation and fake profiles on social media is discussed, and the idea of digitally signing media to indicate authenticity is suggested.
- The upcoming elections and the potential impact of AI-generated misinformation are mentioned, emphasizing the need to address these issues for the integrity of democracy.

- The speaker believes that AI fashion will become a real thing and could be beneficial overall.
- They think that AI could lead to more equal access to goods, services, and education, resulting in more human happiness.
- The speaker ends on an optimistic note, expressing confidence in creating a better future.
- The government's role is to ensure the safe development of AI.
- The speaker thanks the audience and encourages viewers to watch related videos.

Elon Musk is concerned about the risks of AI and believes safety measures should be taken. He supports government regulation and the development of an independent body for AI safety. Musk emphasizes the importance of aligning on safety between the US, UK, and China. He discusses the potential benefits of AI in education and companionship. The speaker also highlights the need for transparency in AI algorithms and the challenges of understanding them. The impact of AI on jobs and labor markets is discussed, as well as the potential for AI in improving government services. The speaker acknowledges the need to mitigate risks, build trust, and invest in research and safety measures for AI technology. They also address the issue of misinformation and fake profiles on social media. The speaker expresses optimism about the future and the role of the government in ensuring safe AI development.

Elon Musk interview, recorded on November 2nd, 2023 conducted by the UK prime minister Rishi Sunak. Source: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1720188083780370481

See my TSLA valuation & access EXCLUSIVE content on my PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=31566559

Exclusive Patreon videos, mostly about Tesla stock:

Video series on my relatively detailed thoughts about Tesla going up vs down in the next 1 - 9 months (coming)
-Is Tesla stock going back to $100 per share? (21 mins long,recorded on Sep 16)

How to get rich (or richer) as fast as possible

Biggest mistake Tesla stock investors make

How much I think it is fair to pay per Tesla share each year between 2023 - 2033 (15 minutes)

My Tesla stock base case & valuation model walkthrough 

Q & A (coming)

Big thanks to all of my new Patreon supporters!

---

Tesla stock news.

[never financial advice]
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MattPocius

This is not financial advice and my videos are for entertainment purposes only. Investing is risky.  

---

BEWARE OF SCAMS! I will never ask you to text me, I have NOTHING to sell. Scammers use my profile picture for their YouTube accounts and then ask you to text them (for example on WhatsApp). There are too many of them to delete all of them immediately, so be careful! Also don't fall for the scams from the fake comments talking about making money following some traders.

All-in Tesla stock,
Matt

This is the full Elon Musk interview that was just recorded with the UK Prime Minister.

As a Tesla stock investor, I greatly enjoyed it.

Bill Gates said, there is no 1 in our time who has done more to push the bounds of science innovation than you.

Yeah, well, That's a nice thing to have anyone say about you.

But oddly enough, when it comes to AI, actually, for around a decade, you've almost been doing the opposite and saying, hang on.

We need to think about what we're doing and what we're pushing here.

And actually, maybe we shouldn't be pushing as fast or as hard as we are.

What was it that caused you to think about it that way and why do we need to be worried?

Yeah, I've been somewhat of a Cassandra for quite a while where people would, I would tell people, like, we should really be concerned about AI.

And they'd be like, what are you talking about?

Like, I've never really had any experience with AI.

But since I was immersed in technology, I have been immersed in technology for a long time, I could see it coming.

So, But I think this year was, there have been a number of breakthroughs.

I mean, you know, the point at which someone can see a dynamically created video of themselves, you know, like, somebody could make a video of you saying anything in real time, or me.

And so there's sort of the deep fake videos, which are really incredibly good, in fact, sometimes more convincing than real ones.

And then obviously, things like chat GPT were quite remarkable.

Now I saw GPT-1, GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-4, the whole sort of lead up to that.

So it was easy for me to kind of see where it's going.

If you just sort of extrapolate the points on a curve and assume that trend will continue, then we will have profound artificial intelligence and obviously at a level that far exceeds human intelligence.

But I'm glad to see at this point that people are taking safety seriously.

And I'd like to say thank you for holding this AI safety conference.

I think actually it will go down in history as being very important.

And I do think overall that the potential is there for artificial intelligence, AI, to have most likely a positive effect and to create a future of abundance where there is no scarcity of goods and services.

But it is somewhat of the magic genie problem, where if you have a magic genie that can grant all the wishes, usually those stories don't end well.

Be careful what you wish for, including wishes.

So you talked a little bit about the summit, and thank you for being engaged in it, which has been great, and people enjoyed having you there.

Now, 1 of the things that we achieved today in the meetings between the companies and the leaders was an agreement that externally, ideally governments, should be doing safety testing of models before they're released.

I think this is something that you've spoken about a little bit.

It was something we worked really hard on because my job in government is to say hang on there is a potential risk here, not a definite risk, but a potential risk of something that could be bad.

My job is to protect the country And we can only do that if we develop the capability we need in our safety institute and then go in and make sure we can test the models before they are released.

Delighted that that happened today, but what's your view on what we should be doing?

Again, we don't know, But what are the types of things governments like ours should be doing to manage and mitigate against those risks?

Well, I generally think that it is good for government to play a role when the public safety is at risk.

So really for the vast majority of software, the public safety is not at risk.

If the app crashes on your phone or your laptop, it's not a massive catastrophe.

But when you're talking about digital superintelligence, I think, which does pose a risk to the public, then there is a role for government to play to safeguard the interests of the public.

And this is of course true in many fields, aviation, cars.

I deal with regulators throughout the world because of Starlink being communications, rockets being aerospace, and cars being vehicle transport.

So I'm very familiar with dealing with regulators.

And I actually agree with the vast majority of regulations.

There's a few that I disagree with from time to time, but 0.1% probably, or less than 1% of regulations I disagree with.

So, and there is some concern from people in Silicon Valley who never dealt with regulators before and they think that this is gonna just crush innovation and slow them down and be annoying.

We've learned over the years that having a referee is a good thing.

And if you look at any sports game, there's always a referee.

And nobody's suggesting, I think, to have a sports game without 1.

And I think that's the right way to think about this, is for government to be a referee to make sure the sportsmanlike conduct and that the public safety is addressed, that we care about the public safety.

Because I think there might be, at times, too much optimism about technology.

And I say that as a technologist, so I ought to know.

And on balance, I think that AI will be a force for good, most likely, But the probability of it going bad is not 0%.

So we just need to mitigate the downside potential.

And then how, you talk about referee, and that's what we're trying to do.

I mean, you know, and we talked about this, and Demis and I discussed this a long time ago.

We're like literally facing right at him.

And actually, Demis, to his credit, and the credit of people in the industry, did say that to us.

Demis said it's not right that Demis and his colleagues are marking their own homework.

And that's why we've developed the Safety Institute here.

Do you think governments can develop the expertise?

1 of the things we need to do is say, hang on, Demis, Sam, all the others have got a lot of very smart people doing this.

Governments need to quickly tool up capability-wise, personnel-wise, which is what we're doing.

I mean, do you think it is possible for governments to do that fast enough, given how quickly the technology is developing?

Or what do we need to do to make sure we do do it quick enough?

No, I think it's a great point you're making.

The pace of AI is faster than any technology I've seen in history by far.

And it seems to be growing in capability by at least fivefold, perhaps tenfold per year.

It'll certainly grow by an order of magnitude next year.

So, And government isn't used to moving at that speed.

But I think even if there are not firm regulations, even if there isn't an enforcement capability, simply having insight and being able to highlight concerns to the public will be very powerful.

So even if that's all that's accomplished, I think that will be very, very good.

Yeah, well, hopefully we can do better than that.

No, but that's how fashion we were talking before.

You're someone who spent their life in technology, living Moore's Law, and what was interesting over the last couple of days talking to everyone who's doing the development of this, and I think you concur with this, is just the pace of advancement here is unlike anything all of you have seen in your careers in technology.

Because you've got these kind of compounding effects from the hardware and the data and the personnel.

I mean, the 2, currently the 2 leading centers for AI development are the San Francisco Bay Area and the sort of London area.

And there are many other places where it's being done, but those are the 2 leading areas.

So I think if the United States and the UK and China are sort of aligned on safety, that's all going to be a good thing.

That's where the leadership is generally.

So I took a decision to invite China to summit over the last couple of days.

If China is not on board with AI safety, it's somewhat of a moot situation.

The single biggest objection that I get to any kind of AI regulation or sort of safety controls are well, China's not gonna do it, and therefore they will just jump into the lead and exceed us all.

But actually China is willing to participate in AI safety, and thank you for inviting them, And I think we should thank China for attending.

When I was in China earlier this year, my main subject of discussion with the leadership in China was AI safety and saying that this is really something that they should care about.

And having them here, I think, was essential, really.

If they're not participants, it's pointless.

I think they were engaged yesterday in the discussions and actually ended up signing the same communique that everyone else did, which is a good start, right?

And as I said, we need everyone to approach this in a similar way if we're going to have a realistic chance of resolving it.

I was gonna tell you, you talked about innovation earlier and regulation being annoying.

There was a good debate today we had about open source.

And I think you've kind of been a proponent of algorithmic transparency and making some of the X algorithms public.

And we actually, we were talking about Jeffrey Hinton on the way in.

He's particularly, he's been very concerned about open source models being used by bad actors.

You've got a group of people who say they are critical to innovation happening in that distributed way.

Look, there's probably no perfect answer, and there is a tricky balance.

What are your thoughts on how we should approach this open source question?

Or where should we be targeting whatever regulatory or monitoring that we're going to do?

Well, the open source algorithms and data tend to lag the closed source by 6 to 12 months.

But given the rate of improvement, there's actually therefore quite a big difference between the closed source and the open.

If things are improving by a factor of, let's say, 5 or more, then being a year behind is you're 5 times worse.

And that might be actually an okay situation.

But it certainly will get to the point where you've got open source AI that can do, that will start to approach human level intelligence or perhaps exceed it.

I think it's somewhat inevitable that there will be some amount of open source.

And I guess I would have a slight bias towards open source, because at least you can see what's going on.

Whereas closed source, you don't know what's going on.

Now, it should be said with AI that even if it's open source, do you actually know what's going on?

Because if you've got a gigantic data file and billions of data points or weights and parameters, you can't just read it and see what it's going to do.

It's a gigantic file of inscrutable numbers.

You can run a bunch of tests to see what it's going to do.

But it's probabilistic as opposed to deterministic.

It's not like traditional programming, where you've got very discrete logic, and the outcome is very predictable.

And you can read each line and see what each line's going to do.

A neural net is just a whole bunch of probabilities.

It sort of ends up being a giant comma-separated value file.

It's like, our digital god is a CSV file?

Now, that point you've just made is 1 that we have been talking about a lot because, again, conversations with people who are developing their technology make the point that you've just made.

It is not like normal software where there's predictability about inputs improving, leading to this particular output improving.

And as the models iterate and improve, we don't quite know what's going to come out the other end.

I think Demis would agree with that, which is why I think there is this bias that we need to get in there while the training runs are being done, before the models are released to understand what is this new iteration brought about in terms of capability, which it sounds like you would agree with.

You've talked a lot about human consciousness, human agency, which actually might strike people as strange, given that you are known for being such a brilliant innovator and technologist, but it's quite heartfelt when I hear you talk about it and the importance of maintaining that agency in technology and preserving human consciousness.

Now, that kind of links to the thing I was going to ask, is when I do interviews or talk to people out and about in this job about AI, the thing that comes up most actually is probably not so much the stuff we've been talking about, but jobs.

have a job or my kids are not going to have a job.

Now my answer as a policymaker, as a leader, is actually AI is already creating jobs and you can see that in the companies that are starting.

Also, the way it's being used is a little bit more as a co-pilot necessarily versus replacing the person.

There's still human agency, but it's helping you do your job better, which is a good thing.

And as we've seen with technological revolutions in the past, clearly there's change in the labor market, the amount of jobs.

I was quoting an MIT study today that they did a couple of years ago, something like 60% of the jobs at that moment didn't exist 40 years ago, so hard to predict.

And my job is to create an incredible education system, whether it's at school, whether it's retraining people at any point in their career, because ultimately if we've got a skilled population, then we ought to keep up with the pace of change and have a good life.

And what would your observation be on AI and the impact on labor markets and people's jobs, and how they should feel about that as they think about this.

Well I think we are seeing the most disruptive force in history here.

We have for the first time, we will have for the first time something that is smarter than the smartest human.

And that, I mean, it's hard to say exactly what that moment is, but there will come a point where no job is needed.

You can have a job if you want to have a job for sort of personal satisfaction, but the AI will be able to do everything.

So I don't know if that makes people comfortable or uncomfortable.

You know, that's why I say if you wish for a magic genie, that gives you any wishes you want.

You don't have those 3 limits, 3 wish limits.

1 of the challenges in the future will be how do we find meaning in life?

If you have a magic genie that can do everything you want.

I do think we, it's hard, when there's new technology, it tends to have, usually follow an S curve.

In this case, we're gonna be on the exponential portion of the S curve for a long time.

So In some sense, it'll be somewhat of a leveler, or an equalizer, because really, I think everyone will have access to this magic genie.

It'll be the best tutor you could, and the most patient tutor, so they'll obey.

And there will be no shortage of goods and services.

I think I'd recommend people read in banks.

The banks' culture books are probably the best envisioning, in fact, not probably, they're definitely by far the best envisioning of an AI future.

So that'll give you a sense of what is a, I guess, a fairly utopian or pro-utopian future with AI.

Which is good from a, as you said, it's a universal high income, which is a nice phrase, and it's good from a materialistic sense, age of abundance, actually, that it kind of then leads to the question that you posed, right?

I'm somebody who believes work gives you meaning.

I think a lot about that as, you know, I think work is a good thing, it gives people purpose in their lives, and if you then remove a large chunk of that, what does that mean, and where do you get that?

Where do you get that drive, that motivation, that purpose?

I mean, you were talking about it, you work a lot of hours.

No, as I was mentioning when we were talking earlier.

I have to somewhat engage in deliberate suspension of disbelief Because I'm putting so much blood sweat and tears into a work project and burning the you know 3 a.m..

We call Demis and tell him to hurry up, and then you can have a holiday, right?

Yeah, no, it's a tricky thing, because part of our job is to make sure that we can navigate to that very, I think, largely positive place that you were describing.

And help people through it between now and then.

Because these things bring a lot about a change in the labor market, as we've seen.

I think it probably is generally a good thing.

Because There are a lot of jobs that are uncomfortable or dangerous or sort of tedious.

And the computer will have no problem doing that.

So it's fun to cook food, but it's not that fun to wash the dishes.

But the computer is perfectly happy to wash dishes.

I guess there is, we still have sports where humans compete in the Olympics, and obviously a machine can go faster than any human, but we still have humans race against each other.

And have these sports competitions against each other where even though the machines are better, we're still, I guess, competing to see who can be the best human at something.

So I guess that's perhaps a good example of how even when machines are faster and are stronger than us, we still find a way.

We still enjoy competing against other humans, or at least see who's the best human.

And we've been talking a lot about managing the risks.

Before we move on and finish on AI, let's just talk a little bit about the opportunities.

You're engaged in lots of different companies, neurologically an obvious 1, which is doing some exciting stuff.

You touched on the thing that I'm probably most excited about, which is in education.

And I think many people will have seen Sal Khan's video from earlier this year's TED Talk about, as you talked about, it's like a personal tutor.

Yeah, personal tutor, an amazing personal tutor.

And we know the difference in learning, having that personalized tutor is incredible compared to classroom learning.

you can have every child have a personal tutor, specifically for them, that then just evolves with them over time, that could be extraordinary.

And so that, for me, I look at it, I think, gosh, that is within reach at this point, and that's 1 of the benefits I'm most excited about.

When you look at the landscape of things that you see as possible, what is it that you are particularly excited about?

I think certainly AI tutors are gonna be amazing, perhaps already are.

I think there's also perhaps companionship, which may seem odd, because how can the computer really be your friend?

But if you have an AI that has memory and remembers all of your interactions and has read everything, you can actually give it permission to read everything you've ever done.

So it really will know you better than anyone, perhaps even yourself.

And where you can talk to it every day, and those conversations build upon each other.

As long as that friend can stay your friend and not get turned off or something.

But I think that will actually be a real thing.

And 1 of my sons sort of has some learning disabilities and has trouble making friends actually and I was like well, you know, he, an AI friend would actually be great for him.

I mean, we're already seeing it, actually, as we deliver psychotherapy anyway, now doing far more digitally and by telephone to people.

And you can see a world in which actually, you know, AI can provide that social benefit to people.

Just a quick question on X, and then we should open it up to everybody.

You made a change, well, you made many changes.

1 of the changes, which goes into the space that we have to operate in, and this balance between free speech and moderation we grapple with as politicians.

You were grappling with your version of that.

And you moved away from a manual human way of doing it, the moderation to the community notes.

And I think it was an interesting change, right?

It would be good to know what was the reasoning behind that and why do you think that is a better way to do that?

Part of the problem is if you empower people as censors, then there's going to be some amount of bias they have.

And then whoever appoints the censors is effectively in control of information.

So then the idea behind community notes is, well, how do we have a consensus-driven...

See all Matt Pocius on Tesla Stock & Money transcripts on Youtube

UK Prime Minister Interviews Elon Musk