Qatar Economic Forum

Hey, this is David Papadopoulos, host of Elon, Inc. Uh we have for you this week um our interview in Cutter uh that our colleague Michelle Hussein did with Elon himself. Here is that interview in its entirety right now. And you should also know that our episode, our Elon Inc. episode this week is all about me and Max breaking down the interview and dissecting it, the highlights, the low lightss, etc. , etc. Enjoy. Hello everyone and Elon Musk.

Welcome to Qatar Economic Forum. How are you? Thank you for having me. I'm fine. How are you? Very well, thank you. And very pleased to have you with us. You know, among those here in the audience in DHA are some you will know, people who have backed you financially over the years. Since you last spoke here in 2022, a lot has changed in your life.

You're not only running multiple companies, you were doing that then, but now you also have a role in government. So, first of all, I hope you won't mind if from time to time I have to move you from one topic to another because we have a lot to cover in the time we have. That would be all right. Okay. Well, let's start then with exactly the fact that you now have this combination of being a CEO and having a role as a government adviser.

Tell me about your week. How does it work? What's the split of your time? Well, I travel a lot. So, I was in Silicon Valley yesterday morning. I was in LA yesterday evening. I'm in Austin right now. I'll be in DC tomorrow. I'll be there uh after having dinner with the president tomorrow night, I believe. Um and then uh whole bunch of cabinet secretary meetings and then uh back to Silon Valley on Thursday night.

But I mean the balance of your time is it is it well clearly it's a lot but is it still the case as you said a while ago that it's about one to two days a week on your government work. Yeah that's correct. And what does that mean for your corporate life? Because if we start with Tesla the company has suffered in recent months what you've called blowback.

So, what is your plan for turning that around, the declining sales picture, and by what stage do you think you're going to be able to turn it around? Oh, it's already turned around. Give me some evidence for that. I've just been looking at the sales figures for Europe in April, which show very significant declines in the big markets. Uh Europe is our weakest market. We're strong everywhere else.

Um so uh our sales are are doing doing well at this point. Um we don't anticipate any any meaningful sales shortfall and um the you know the obviously the stock market recognizes that since we're now back over a trillion dollars in market cap. So um clearly the market is aware of the situation. So it's it's already turned around. But sales still down compared to this time last year in Europe. In Europe. Okay.

And yes, but but that's that's true of of all manufacturers. There's no exceptions. Does that mean that you're not going to be able Does that mean European market is quite weak? Okay. But you would acknowledge, wouldn't you, that what you are facing, okay, let's just take it as Europe. What you are facing is a significant problem. This Tesla was an incredibly aspirational brand. People identified with it.

It saw it, they saw it being at the forefront of the climate crisis. And now people are driving around with stickers in their cars saying, "I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy." And there also people are buying buying it because uh Elon's crazy or however they may view it. Um so yes, we've lost some sales perhaps on the left, but we've gained them on the right.

uh the sales numbers at this point uh are strong and uh we we see no problem with demand. So what the and I mean you you can just look at the stock price the the the if you want the best inside information the um stock market uh analysts have that and um a stock wouldn't be uh trading near all-time highs if uh it was not if things weren't in good shape. They're fine. Don't worry about it. Okay.

I I was citing sales figures ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra rather than share price. Well, tell me then how committed you are to Tesla. Do you see yourself and are you committed to still being the chief executive of Tesla in 5 years time? Yes. No doubt about that at all. Well, no, I might die. Okay, short of that. I can't see you if I'm dead. So there's a slight mode.

Does does that mean that the value of your pay doesn't have any bearing on your decision? Um well that's not really a subject subject of discussion in this forum. Um the I think obviously there should be compensation for if there's if something incredible is done that compensation should match um the that something incredible was done.

Um but I I'm I'm confident that uh whatever the um whatever some activist posing as a judge in Delaware happens to do will not affect the future compensation. This is the judge who twice struck down the $56 billion pay package that was that was awarded to you. I think the value on the basis on the current value of stock options. Yeah. Not a judge. Not a judge. The activist who is cosplaying a judge in a Halloween costume. Okay.

That that's your characterization. Um I think the val on the current value of stock options. I think the actual justice according to the law on the current value of stock options I think the value of that pay package stands at about hundred billion dollars. Are you saying you are relaxed about the value of your future pay package?

Your decision to be committed to Tesla for the next 5 years as long as you are still with us on this planet is completely independent of pay. No, it's not independent. So pay is a relevant factor then to your commitment to Tesla. Um sufficient voting control such that um I cannot be ousted by activist investors is what matters to me. And I've said this publicly many times. Um but let's not have this whole thing be a discussion of my alleged pay.

It's not a money thing. It's a a reasonable control thing over the future of the company. Especially if we're building uh millions, potentially billions of humanoid robots. Um, I can't be sitting there u uh and wanting to get tossed out by um for political reasons by activists. That would be unacceptable. That's all that matters. No, let's move on. Okay. Well, just one question. Let's move on.

Well, one question before we move on to other companies, which is that I wonder if some of what you've has happened to Tesla in the last few months, did you take it personally? Yes. And did it make you regret any of or think twice about your political endeavors because it is I did I did what needed to be done. Uh the the violent antibody reaction um and I'm I'm not someone who's ever committed violence.

Um, and yet, uh, massive violence was committed against my companies. Massive violence was threatened against me. Who are these people? Why would they do that? How wrong can they be? They're on the wrong They're on the wrong side of history. And that's an evil thing to do. To go and damage some po innocent person's car to threaten to kill me. What's wrong with these people? have not harmed anyone. So, something needs to be done about them.

And a number of them are going to prison and they deserve it. And more will you're you're referring to the attacks on Tesla showrooms, but I think bullets into showrooms and burning down cars is unacceptable. Yeah. Those people will go to prison and the people that funded them and organized them will also go to prison. Don't worry.

But wouldn't you you wouldn't wouldn't but wouldn't wouldn't you acknowledge that some of the people who turned against Tesla in Europe were were upset at your politics and very few of them would have been violent in any way. They just objected to to what they saw you say or do politically. Well, it's certainly fine to object to political things, but it's not it's not fine to resort uh to violence and hanging someone in effigy and death threats.

Um that's obviously not okay. Um uh you know uh that's absurd. Um that is uh in no way justifiable at all in any way, shape or form. And and uh some of the the legacy media nonetheless have sought to justify it which is unconscionable. Shame on them. Let's talk about your other companies then and other business areas.

SpaceX, I saw that you said in a speech at the West Point uh Military Academy recently that the future of warfare is AI and drones and obviously defense is an increasingly booming sector with the state of the world at the moment. Do you see SpaceX moving into weaponized drones? [Laughter] you certainly ask interesting questions uh that are impossible to answer. Um so no SpaceX is uh it's it's the space launch leader. So SpaceX doesn't do drones.

Uh SpaceX builds rockets, satellites, and internet terminals. Um so but SpaceX has has a a very dominant position in space launch. So of of the mass launch to orbit this year, SpaceX will probably do 90%. Um, China will do the rema half half of the remaining amount, so 5% and the rest of the world, including the rest of the US, will do about 5%.

So SpaceX will do about 10 times as much as the rest of the world combined or 20 times as much as China, which is and China is doing actually a very impressive job. Um the reason for this is that we are putting into into orbit the largest satellite constellation the world has ever seen by far. Um so I think at this point about maybe approaching 80% of all active satellites in orbit are SpaceX.

Um and they're providing global high high bandwidth global connectivity uh throughout the world. In fact this connection is on a SpaceX connection.

So I think this is a very good thing um because it means that we can um provide lowcost high bandwidth internet to parts of the world that don't have it or it's very expensive and I think the single biggest thing you can do to lift people out of poverty and help them is giving them um an internet connection um because once you have the internet connection you can learn anything for free on the internet and you can also sell your goods and services to the global market um and um once you have knowledge um by the internet and the ability to engage in commerce um that this is going to greatly improve quality of life for people throughout the world and it has um and I just like to thank anyone in the audience who may have been helpful in you know um with

Starlink and and getting it to approved in their country and I think it's doing a lot of good and the countries that have approved it which is I think at this point 130 countries are very happy with Um I I I don't currently anticipate SpaceX getting into the weapons business.

That's certainly that's not an aspiration. We're frequent we're frequently asked uh to do to do weapons programs, but we have thus far declined. Do you envisage SpaceX or indeed Starlink as a separate entity publicly listing in the near future or at all? Um, it's possible that Starlink uh may go public at some point in the future and what would be the what would be the time frame? What kind of time frame you consider? I mean, no rush.

I'm no I'm in no rush to go public. um the the you know public is I guess a way to um you know potentially make more money but at the expense of a lot of public company overhead and inevitably um a whole bunch of lawsuits which are very annoying.

Um, so really something needs to be done about the shareholder shareholder derivative lawsuits uh in the US uh because it allows uh uh plaintiffs law firms who don't represent the shareholders to pretend that they represent the shareholders by getting a puppet plaintiff with a few shares uh to initiate a massive lawsuit against the company.

And the irony being that extreme irony uh that uh even if the class they purport to represent were to vote that they don't want the lawsuit, the lawsuit would still continue. So how can it be a an a class action representing a class if the class vote against it? And that's the bizarre situation we've got in the US. It needs it's a dire need of reform and as as anyone who's run a public company experienced this.

It's an absurd situation that needs to change. Well, do you think Donald Trump might change it? You've certainly got his ear. I imagine that you've put this to him. Is this something you're trying to change before any Starlink IPO? Well, it would it would need a law to be passed. Um the the trouble being that you need 60 Senator Senate votes and the Democrats um will vote against it.

Um the um the the the the plaintiff's bar is I believe the second largest contributor to the Democratic party. That's the that's the issue. At the state level, this can be solved. And and I should say Texas recently passed a law which um at this at least the state level made much more reasonable because you have to get at least one in 33 shareholders to agree that they are part of a class of shareholders 3%.

This is a this will be will be really help with privileged lawsuits. Okay. Um let's talk about AI which is in so many of your businesses and in all our worlds in different ways. It's one of the big changes the development of generative AI since you last spoke um to this forum three years ago. You're in this space of course um with Grock which almost everyone will know.

You co-founded Open AI and then left and you've obviously got a legal battle um with Open AI and Sam Orman. wonder if you could say something about the status of that because you were together in Saudi Arabia with the president last week um with Sam Orman together in the same place at the same time was in the in the neighborhood. Okay. So does does that mean you are pushing ahead with the lawsuit against open AI? Yes.

So, look, I came I came up with the name OpenAI as an open-source um and as a nonprofit and I funded AI OpenAI for the first roughly $50 million um and um it was intended to be a nonprofit uh open-source company and now it is they're trying to change that for their own financial benefit uh into a for-profit company that is closed source.

So, this would be like let's say you um you funded a a nonprofit to help preserve the Amazon rainforest, but instead of doing that, they became a lumber company, chopped down the forest, and sold the wood. You'd be like, "Wait a second, that's not what I funded." That's open AI. They've made some changes to their corporate structure though, haven't they, since in in recognition of what of what you've said.

And no, that's just what they told the media. Okay. Um part they have part they have partly walked back their plan to restructure the business. I guess that's made no difference to how you feel about it. So you determined to see them in court. Of course. Okay. Well that that's certainly going to be one to watch.

I also wanted to ask you about AI and regulation because when you were here last talking to John Mikkelthweight, you had some pretty strong words about the risk that AI poses and you said that you really felt what the US was missing was a federal AI regulator that you know something along the lines of the Food and Drug Administration or the Federal Aviation Administration.

Now you're clearly now in a zone where you're more you're more on the cutting regulation side than wanting new regulators. So has your view changed on the need for an AI regulator? Well, it's not that I don't think there should be regulators. Um you can think of regulators like referees on the on the field in sports.

Um there should be some number of referees, but that you shouldn't have so many referees that you can't kick the ball without hitting one. Um so um in many in most uh apps uh fields in the US the the regulatory burden has grown over time to the point where it's like having more referees than than players on the field. Um so um and this is a natural consequence of an extended period of prosperity. It's very important to uh appreciate this.

This has happened throughout history. When you have an extended period of prosperity with no existential war, there's no there's no um cleansing function for uh the for for unnecessary um laws and regulations.

So what happens is that every year more laws and more regulations are passed because you know legislators are going to legislate, regulators are going to regulate um and you will get the steady pile of more and more laws and regulations over time until everything is illegal. And let me give you an example of of a of a truly absurd situation. Um, under the Biden administration, SpaceX um, was sued for not hiring asylum seekers in the US.

Now, the problem is it's actually illegal for SpaceX under ITAR, international traffic and arms regulations to hire anyone who is not a permanent resident of the United States because the the premise being that they will take advanced rocket technology and return to their home country if they're not a permanent resident.

So, we're simultaneously uh in a situation where it is illegal to hire asylum seekers and is also uh illegal to hire asylum seekers and the Biden's Department of Justice chose to prosecute us despite both paths being illegal. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But my question was specifically about a regulator for AI, which you said 3 years ago was needed. And you said we need to be proactive on the regulation of AI rather than reactive.

Have you changed your mind on that? No, of course not. What what No, of course not. What I'm saying is that there should be some referees on the field, a few a few referees, but you shouldn't have a field jam-packed with referees uh such that you cannot kick a ball in any direction without hitting one.

So the the the the fields that have been around for a long time such as automotive um so aerospace uh you know uh the sort of food and drug industries are overregulated but the new fields like artificial intelligence are underregulated. In fact there is no regulator at So, so there should be one. Do you still think that? Yes.

I'm simply saying, which I think is just basic common sense, that you that you want to have at least you you want to have a few referees on the field. You don't want to have an army of referees. Um, but you want to have a few referees on on any given field in any given sport or even any given arena, industrial arena. Um, to ensure help that public safety um is taken care of.

Um, but you don't want to have so so there's a there's a there's a a proper number of referees. Like like I said, it's actually very easy to visualize this when compared to sports. If the if the whole field is packed with with referees, that would look absurd. Um, but if there were no referees at all, your game's not going to be as good. Okay. So, let's then talk about your new world, your your role advising government.

You are in this unique and unprecedented position of having billions of dollars worth of contracts with the federal government yourself mostly through SpaceX and also now an insidider's knowledge of it because of Doge. Can you see that there is a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest in broad terms just through that very fact?

Um I I don't think so actually there have been many advisers in uh throughout history and in the US government and others who have had economic interests. Um and I am simply an adviser. I don't have a formal power. Um and that's it. Uh the president can choose to uh accept my advice or not and that's that's how it goes.

Um if there's a single contract that uh you know any of my companies have received that people think is somehow not uh was was awarded improperly um it would immediately be front page news um to say the least um and and if if if I hadn't mentioned it certainly my competitors would. So if you're not seeing that um then clearly there's not a conflict of interest.

Um the uh yeah um there's another way though to look at it that for example you have many competitors whether it's companies like Boeing or companies who would like to do more of the kind of work you do for NASA, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab and because Doge is in every federal government department, you or people who work for Doge and and you are the driving force behind it have an insight into those companies affairs.

and those companies relationships with the federal government. No, all we do is we um review uh the organization to see if if the organization has uh departments that are no longer relevant. Um and and then are the contracts that that are being awarded good value for money? In fact, frankly, the bar is not particularly high. Is there any value for money in a contract? Um and if there's if there isn't then we make recommendations to the secretary.

The secretary can then choose to uh take those actions or not take those actions and that's it. And then any action that that that is as a function of Doge is posted to the Doge website um and to the Doge. gov or at at doge handle on the Xplatform. So it's it's complete trans transparency. Um and I have not seen any case where uh to the best of my knowledge there's even been an accusation of conflict.

Um because it is it's completely and utterly transparent. Um that's a and what about the international dimension now? Um let's think about Starlink. Starink is obviously a very very good internet service. It's sought after all over the world. It's critical to the front line in Ukraine.

It has also had more contracts coming its way and there is some evidence that companies are allowing access to it because they want to be close to the Trump administration and send the right signal. So Bloomberg broke news today that the South African government is working around the rules on black ownership in order to allow Starink and that is being done on the eve of the visit that President Ramaposa is going to make to the White House.

Do you recognize that as a conflict of interest? No, of course not. First of all, you should be questioning why is there why are there racist laws in South Africa? That's the first problem. That's what you should be attacking. Um it's improper for there be racist laws in South Africa. Um the whole whole idea with what Nelson Mandela, who was a great man, proposed was that all all races should be on an equal footing in South Africa.

That's the right thing to do, not to replace one set of racist laws with another set of racist laws, which is utterly wrong and improv. Um so the that's that's the deal that all races should be treated equally. Um and there should be no preference given to one or the other. Uh whereas there are now 140 laws in South Africa that give u a pre that basically um are give strong preference to to if if you're black South African and um not otherwise.

And so now I'm in this absurd situation where I was born in South Africa but cannot get a license to operate in Starlink because I'm not black. Well, it looks like that's about its looks like right to you. Looks like that's about to change. I just asked you a question. Please answer. Does that seem right to you? Well, those rules were designed to bring those rules were designed to bring about an era of more economic equality in South Africa.

And it looks like the government has found a way around those rules for you. I ask you a question. This is this is your interview. Everyone wants to hear from you. Ask your question. Yes or no? Yes or no? Not not for me to answer. I have got a question for you about uh about your government work though and the amount of savings. Why do you like racist laws? This is not for me to answer. Come on now. You wouldn't be trying to dodge a question.

You have to ask question. My question answer No, you answer mine. I think I think if you I'm sure you can have that conversation directly with the South African government if you want to. I want to ask you about the total I can't believe it. That's not good. I want to ask you about the total amount. I want to ask you about the total amount that you're planning to save through Doge's work.

Before the election, you said it was going to be at least$2 trillion. The number currently on Doge. gov is $170 billion. That's a big change. What happened to the two trillion? Well, would you expect it to happen immediately? Well, is it going to happen? Because DOA is supposed to run till next July. I mean your question is absurd in in its fundamental premise.

Um are you assuming that that on day you know within a few months there's an instant two trillion saved? No I'm not at all. I'm just asking is that still your aim then? Is it still your aim to get the amount of time? Have we not made good progress given the amount of time? That's exactly what I'm asking. So is it still your aim to go from 170 billion to two trillion?

Um the the ability of Doge to operate is a function of whether uh the government and this includes the Congress uh is willing to take our advice. Uh we are not the dictators of the government, we are the adviserss and so we can we can advise and the progress we've made thus far I think is incredible. Doge team has done incredible work.

Um but uh the magnitude of this the savings is proportionate to the support we get from Congress um and from the uh executive branch of the government in general. Um so we're not the dictators, we are the advisers. Um but thus far for advisers we've the George team to their credit um has made uh incredible progress.

You've talked about4 billion dollars a day being saved, but that that that won't get which is and I think everyone can agree that combating waste and inefficiency in government is a very good thing, but if you add that up, it's not going to get to two trillion over the lifetime of Doge. I'm sorry. The 4 billion the four billion a day if Doge is going to run till next July is not going to get you to2 trillion dollars.

But you still say it's your aim. So we'll take that as red. There's there's there's there's what doge I mean I feel you're somewhat trapped in the uh NPC dialogue tree of a traditional ver uh journalist. So it's difficult when I'm conversing with someone who's trapped in the dialogue tree of a conventional journalist because it's like talking to a computer. Um so uh Doge is an advisory group. We are doing the best we can um as an advisory group.

Uh the progress made thus far as an advisory group is excellent. Um I don't think any advisory group has done better in the history of advisory groups of the government. Um now uh we we we do not make the laws nor do we control the the judiciary nor do we control the executive branch. We are simply advisers. In that context we are doing very well.

Um beyond that we cannot uh do we cannot take action beyond that because we are not u some sort of imperial dictator of the government. There are three branches of government that uh that are to some degree opposed to that level of cost savings. Um but nonetheless uh let's let's let's not uh criticize whether there's uh 4 trillion um and instead look at the fact that 160 billion has been saved and more will be saved too.

And as I said I think everyone can agree that cutting waste and indeed fraud in any government and being responsible with taxpayers money is a very good thing. So yes, I can see I can see that you're proud of that work. Um I do want to ask you about um US aid and the comments that Bill Gates made the other day which and I know that you called him. Yeah, he's a huge I know you you've said that already.

I wondered also and I'm just who does who does Bill Gates think he is to make comments about the welfare of children given that he was he for a coin to Jeffrey Epste? Okay. Well, he's he's he's he said he regrets those and I trust that guy. He spent a lot he spent a lot of his own money on uh on philanthropy around the world over the years.

My question to you is, have you looked at the data to check if he might be right that the cuts to USAD might cost millions of lives? Uh yes. Um, I'd like him to show us any any evidence whatsoever that that is true. It's false. Um, the what what we found with USAD cuts, and by the way, they haven't all been cut. The the parts of USA ID that we found to be uh even slightly useful were transferred to the State Department.

They've not they've not been deleted. They've simply been transferred to the State Department. Um but many many times over with USAD and other organizations when we've when they've said oh well this is going to help you know uh children or it's going to help some um uh disease eradication or something like that.

Um and then when we ask for any evidence whatsoever um I say well please connect us with this group of children so we can talk to them and understand more about their issue. We get nothing.

We we don't they don't even try to prevent show come up with a with a with a show orphan meaning like it's sort of like well can we at least see a few kids like where where are they if they're in trouble we'd like to talk to them and talk to their caregivers and then we get something as a response because it's what we find is an enormous amount of of fraud and graft let me put this example very little of it actually gets to the kids if anything at Okay, let let me put this example to you because you grew up in South Africa so you'll know the impact of HIV AIDS well and this is why I asked about the data.

The US led on international efforts to combat HIV AIDS treatment prevention and there's an initiative called PEPAR which is credited with saving 26 million lives in the last 20 years. It was part of the foreign aid freeze. Then there was a limited waiver. ID services are disrupted and UN aid says if permanently discontinued there will be another 4 million AIDS related deaths by 2029.

So if you look at that example which is backed up by data in 2023 630,000 people died of AIDS related illnesses then perhaps Bill Gates's figures are not wrong. Millions of lives could be lost. Um I first of all the program the the the AIDS uh uh um medication uh program is continuing. So your fundamental premise is wrong. It is continuing. Now do you have another example? Not Elon. Not in its entirety. That is false. Not in its entirety.

the the program there's a limited waiver and UN aids have said that not all of the services that were previously funded by USA ID are continuing so that's that's why that's why I put that example to you okay well which ones aren't being funded I'll fix it right now for okay well actually they're all on the UN UN aids website so you'll be able to see them but mostly they are to do with mostly they are to do with prevention and for example the roll out of a drug um called Glenn Capavir which which was hailed as one of the biggest breakthroughs against AIDS for many years which came out last year.

So if you are perhaps I'm sure UNA you as would be delighted if you're able to look at that again. Yes. Well well if if if if in fact this is true which I doubt it is then we'll fix it. Okay fine. Um so finally political your political influence I wondered whether you have decided yet how much you're going to spend on uh the the upcoming midterms.

Is it you you spent a lot more money on the last US election than you envisaged when you were speaking here three years ago. Are you going to continue to to spend at that kind of level on future elections? Um I think um in terms of political spending um I'm going to do a lot less in the future. And why is that? I think I've done enough. Is it is it because of blowback? Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it.

I do not currently see a reason. Okay. What about political influence beyond the US? How often do you speak to President Putin? I don't speak to President Putin. You've never spoken to President Putin? Um I I was on a video call with him once about 5 years ago. That's the only thing I speak to President President Putin. Oh, you must I get it. Believe the legacy. I speak Actually, I've heard you I've heard you speak about it.

For example, in your West Point speech, you said, "Oh, I challenged President Putin to uh um to was it an arm wrestle?" And I know the Wall Street Journal has reported your uh reported conversations. If you're if you're saying they haven't happened other than once, I'll take that as red. If is is there a worst publication on the face of the earth than the Wall Street Journal? I wouldn't use that to to line up my cage for paratroppings.

Um that that that newspaper is the worst newspaper in the world. Um, and there's and if you know if there's one newspaper that should be pro- capitalist, it's the one with Wall Street in the name. U, but it isn't. So I I have the the very lowest opinion of the Wall Street Journal. AB absolute nonsense. And you clearly believe the tribe that you've written that you've read in those papers.

I read I read very widely and I'm putting these questions to you so that you have an opportunity to respond to them which you are and and for which we're all grateful to hear your responses. Okay, we are we are out of time. So you mentioned you mentioned me challenging I I did so on on the X platform. I challenged Vladimir Putin to single combat over the but I didn't talk to him. That was a post on the ex platform.

That's why that's why I asked you and you've and you've clarified and explained. Thank you. That's that's why I was asking whether you have had reported conversations and and you've said you haven't other than a video call. Okay. Typical legacy media lies. Okay. Listen, I actually thought I might give Grock the last word.

Um, because when I asked Grock what your hardest challenge is, it said, "The strain of managing multiple highstake ventures amid financial, regulatory, and public relations crisis." And I wondered whether you recognize that characterization and whether you do think that this is a pivotal year in your life. Well, every year has been somewhat pivotal and this one's no different.

Um so I mean in terms of interesting things that probably are accomplished this year uh the getting Starship uh to be fully reusable uh so that the that we we catch both the booster and the ship which would be the first fully reusable orbital rocket ever in history which is would be a profound breakthrough as the essential breakthrough necessarily to make life multilanetary and ultimately become a space fairing civilization. ation.

Um we've got Neurolink which is um now helped five uh patients uh res restore um capability um using the telepathy implant where they're able to control a computer simply by thinking. Um we'll be um doing our first um uh patient to restore blind uh to restore to restore sight with our blind sight uh implant which is either end of this year or early next.

Um in fact that might that first patient might be in UAE since we have a relationship with UAE and the Cleveland Clinic clinic there. Um the um I I think on the AI front we are close to what you might call AGI um or or or digital super intelligence. Um I think we'll see we are we are seeing an explosion in digital super intelligence here.

Um, and then we've got at Tesla the what we'll be launching unsupervised autonomy, basically self-driving cars with no one in them in Austin next month. So, it's it's a big year for sure. Um, many other things on the in the in the works, too. Okay. I'm I'm technologist first and foremost. Elon Musk, thank you very much for joining us here at Qatar Economic Forum. Thank you.