In Good Company with Nicolai Tangen - Elon Musk: AI, Space, X, Mars, speed and hardcore

Episode Date: April 9, 2024

This was a Live recording on X Spaces with Elon Musk. Tune in for his unique insight into the future of AI, space exploration, Mars, free speech and much more. You don’t want to miss this one!The production team on this episode were PLAN-B's Pål Huuse and Niklas Figenschau Johansen. Background research were done by Sigurd Brekke and Isabelle Karlsson with input from portfolio manager Doug Shell, Arnab Seal and Trym Torvund.Links:Watch the episode on YouTube: Norges Bank Investment Management - YouTubeWant to learn more about the fund? The fund | Norges Bank Investment Management (nbim.no)Follow Nicolai Tangen on LinkedIn: Nicolai Tangen | LinkedInFollow NBIM on LinkedIn: Norges Bank Investment Management: Administrator for bedriftsside | LinkedInFollow NBIM on Instagram: Explore Norges Bank Investment Management on Instagram Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hi everyone, and big thanks for taking the time, Elon. You know, we've been trying to get you on the podcast since we started it two years ago. So we are super pleased that we have you on, and indeed on your ex-platform. How cool. Yeah, it's pretty cool. Yeah, I mean, we have like lots of people from all around the world simultaneously do effectively a real-time podcast, and it works pretty well. Very good.

Well, we have so much to talk about. Love to kick off with AI. Now, what's your take on where we are in the AI race just now? Wow, that's a long answer. There's so much happening. AI is the fastest advancing technology that I've ever seen of any kind, and I've seen a lot of technology. Barely a week goes by without some new announcement.

So, and if you look at the amount of AI hardware the computers coming online that are dedicated to AI that is increasing what looks like at least by a factor of 10 every year if not every six to nine months so when you combine the hardware coming online, really order of magnitude increase every, you know, call it at least every nine months. And many, many software breakthroughs. If you look at that curve, it looks insane. So I think we'll, my guess is that we'll have AI that is smarter than any one human, probably around the end of next year. And then AI, the total amount of sort of sentient compute of AI, I think will probably exceed

all humans in five years. What is the race about just now? Is it algorithms? Is it people? Is it computing power? What is it about just now? Is it the supply of chips? What is it?

Yeah, last year it was chip constrained. And the hardware deployment, if you break it down into the three areas of people um data and hardware starting with hardware last year it was about a shift supply people could not get enough um nvidia chips particularly um this year is starting to transition to a voltage transformer supply so just actually getting up voltage transformers uh put in place so my sort of very niche joke is transformers for transformers because a lot of the ai that's run is called a transformer so you need transformers

to run transformers and then next in the if you look out a year or two or certainly three years, it's just electricity availability. So those are the constraints on the hardware side. So many of the world's smartest people are doing AI. People that would have done physics before, in fact, or have done physics, for example, have moved into AI because it's just the fastest moving field. So we're seeing a lot of the best talents, a lot of the smartest humans

going into AI. And then we see, along with that, algorithmic breakthroughs. And then you start hitting the wall with the data problem. So, you know, you can fit all books ever written, just the text, the text in compressed form on one hard drive or one computer. One computer.

So when you're looking at tokens to train on, because you can still think of all the books ever written in all languages by all humans. Sounds like a lot. Certainly it's far more than any one human could ever read. It actually is a small number of training tokens. It's just not enough. So then you start having to look at all the videos I've created, all the podcasts, everything. And you start even running out of data there.

Well, hopefully they will include this podcast. Definitely will include this podcast. What's the biggest challenge you have with XAI? Well, XAI is still relatively new. So it's not, you know, like the limiting factor right now is just training our Grok version 2 model, which should be, we think, better than GPD4. And we're hoping to complete that in May.

So that's training right now. So it's just really, we're just trying to get enough GPUs online to train it fast enough to get that done in May, which I think probably will happen. May, which I think probably will happen. And that's with roughly 20,000 H100s. And doing, I think, very efficient training, then the next step would be for Grok 3, which would be, I guess, GPD 5 or beyond, would require 100 a hundred thousand nvidia h100s training coherently

so that's you know a half order of magnitude basically more training and then you really start to have running into this data problem where you you have to either create synthetic data or use real world video those. The two sources of unlimited data are synthetic data and real-world video, which I should say Tesla has a pretty big advantage in real-world video. Tesla has by far the most real-world

video of anyone. Yeah, you've got a huge library there. So when do you think we'll see proper AGI? Well, it depends on how you define AGI. If you define AGI as smarter than the smartest human, I think it's probably end of next year, like within two years. But there's still a pretty big leap beyond that

to say smarter than the machine-aug augmented human collective so like is it smarter than all humans working together who are also using computers to augment their output and that that i think is probably five years away one way to look at it is is to try to assess um like roughly what is the ratio of digital to biological compute? Last question on AI. Any new thoughts on regulation and how it should be structured? Well, I think we probably do need some sort of regulatory authority to look at the safety of AI, just as we have regulatory authorities in other arenas to um you know oversee aircraft and

the safety of aircraft and cars and other things you know medication so uh now the rate at which ai is progressing is is fast it's faster than probably any regulatory agency can keep up with. But I do have a comment on what I think is very important for achieving safe AI, which is that it's very important to train the AI to be as truthful as possible and not to yeah, just to be as truthful as possible. I think you can get some very dangerous things when you program an AI to be politically correct.

Things that may seem relatively innocuous now, but will not be so in the future if AI has immense power. You can take the Google Gemini example where it refused to publish, to produce a picture of George Washington as a white man. And any, in fact, any historical figure would automatically be made diverse

because it's been programmed to insist on diversity, which sounds, you know, perhaps okay at first, but not if the AI has so much power that it can actually enforce diversity and decide there's too many of one kind of people or too many of one sex and kill off, just kill off enough until the diversity number is what it's programmed to believe is correct. But don't you think this will be sorted out in the next version? No. They'll make it more subtle and less obvious, but it will still be there. Well, we'll see. But where is China now

relative to the US? I don't know exactly where China is except that there are a lot of very smart people in China. And they won't be far behind the rest of the world or far behind the U.S. I mean, the AI right now is very concentrated in San Francisco and London. very concentrated in San Francisco and London. And then, you know, there's, you know, a lot happening in China,

but I don't have insight into what they're doing, except that I'm confident they will not be far behind what is developed in the West. Yeah. So, but mark my words, if we do not program an AI to be as truthful as possible, that is where it will go awry. That is where the danger lies. Moving to Tesla,

is the EV conversion now going slower than you had expected? Moving tack here, moving to Tesla. Is the EV conversion now going slower than you had expected? Just where is the speed of conversion now relative to your expectations? I think it's going quite fast, actually, especially in Norway. Absolutely. Well, it's pretty much all there is, is your Teslas. Yeah, there's a lot of Teslas in Norway. It's crazy. I'd once again like to thank Norway for the support of electric vehicles.

So much appreciated. Anytime. So I think it's we will that all vehicles will go fully electric.

It's only a matter of time. That includes aircraft ultimately and boats, obviously trains. The only thing that is ironically difficult to, where you can't really make it electric is rockets because you can't get away from having to expel mass. Sort of Newton's third law. But all cars will be electric. It's only a matter of time.

And we'll look back on combustion cars in the same way that we look back on steam engines. It was inevitable that there would be internal combustion cars, and it's just as inevitable that all cars will go electric um and um right there will be some evidence you know so like i'm going to be a completely straight up line there will be some uh ebb and flow in how like how far electric cars go but that but the ultimate um victory of electric cars is inevitable. And I think the sooner we get there, the better.

How do you see the Chinese competition here now? We generally find that the companies in China are the most competitive in the world. And certainly in electric vehicles or cars in general, the chinese car companies are by far the most competitive um yeah that's where we find the most toughest toughest competitive competitive challenges that they make great cars and they work very hard so when you ride in one of the chinese cars what do you think i mean you're an engineer you know what about it what do you what do you think i haven't written i have not written in one lately, because they're not all available in the U.S. Very few are available in the U.S.

Some are available in Europe. But from what my team tells me, they are very good. Moving out in space um what what would it take to be self-sufficient at mars to be self-sufficient mars it's really about the total tonnage that is delivered to the surface of Mars. So you can say, well, I think it's probably on the order of a million tons, maybe more, but somewhere between probably a million tons

and 10 million tons are needed to make Mars self-sufficient. And how many rockets is that? Well, I gave a presentation on this recently if you've looked at my recent SpaceX talk. But if you have 100 tons per flight, you need 10,000 flights to get to a million tons. And that's 100 tons landed to the surface of Mars. million tons.

And that's 100 tons landed to the surface of Mars. So in order to get 100 tons landed to the surface of Mars, you need five times that number in Earth orbit. So we do a lot of orbital refilling. So launching sort of rockets, tanker ships over and over again that would replenish the propellant of the ships that would go to Mars. And then you'd need roughly an order of 10,000 of them to get to a million tons. But we plan to do that.

We think we can get that done within 20 years. Really? So when do you think we'll be that done within 20 years. Really? So when do you think we'll be there for the first time? Well, the first starship that will land on Mars, which obviously will not have people at first, I think it's probably within about five years. And then it would probably launch several ships and just confirm that they can land okay on Mars.

We'll also be doing the moon simultaneously with that. So I think we'll get people back to the moon, I should say, within five years. And we'll get uncrewed ships landed on Mars within five years. And then we'll be building up the production rate and improving the design of the booster in the ship. So the first people on Mars, I think, within seven years or so,

seven to nine years. And from there, we need to rapidly increase. We need massive numbers of ships going and Earth and Mars only are in the same quadrant of the solar system roughly for six months every two years, or at least it's only possible to really transfer efficiently from Earth to Mars, say every six months, but really there's a couple months where it's ideal every 26 months.

So every two years, you would see basically a fleet depart Mars. I think it would be quite a spectacular thing to see a thousand ships depart from Mars, all at once, like Battlestar Galactica. What kind of new technology do we need before we'll be self-sufficient there? Actually, I think we already know all the technology that's necessary for that. We just need to build.

No new physics is needed for this. Why is it so important for you? I think it's important for consciousness in general. So if we wish to maximize the lifespan of consciousness, then being a multi-planet species will result in a much longer existence of consciousness than if we are on one planet. If we're on one planet, we're simply biding our time until there's eventually a calamity.

It could be soon, it could be a long time, but eventually something will happen. It could be a global thermonuclear war. It could be simply that civilization merely subsides. Our civilization may not die with a bang, it may die with a whimper, just gradually falling into obsolescence. But if we're a multi-planet species, then we've got two planets,

and they can support each other. And we can go beyond two planets, ultimately to the moons of Jupiter, to the outer parts of the solar system, and ultimately to other star systems. So this tiny candle of consciousness that we have in this vast darkness can be extended and amplified, and we're just far more likely to survive, for consciousness to survive, if we are a multi-planet species.

You don't think it would be better to use all these resources and try to sort out Earth? Well, just to put this into perspective, the amount of resources I'm talking about for making life multi-planetary would be less than 1% of all resources on Earth. So I really can think of it as resource allocation. Do you think it's worth spending half a percent of Earth resources to ensure that we have redundancy in consciousness and that we extend consciousness beyond Mars to other planets, to Mars and other planets and ultimately other star systems? And then also take into account the fact that there are certain things we simply cannot

avoid on Earth. Like, is it within your power or mine to stop World War III? I don't think so, if it happens. And if we have global thermonuclear warfare, our technology level will drop to the Stone Age, and we may never survive. And then we may get hit by a comet, like the dinosaurs. And if the dinosaurs had spaceships, they'd probably still be around.

And then if you wait long enough, the sun will continue to expand and eventually engulf Earth and destroy it and destroy all life so just given a certain amount of time no matter what you do on Earth no matter how careful you are all life on Earth will die

that it will happen is a certainty on a slightly less gloomy note uh x twitter yeah um what is your vision now what do you how do you see the the vision of x our goal of x is to be the best source of truth on the internet um and i think we're making a good progress there. I mean, it's going to be I call it everything app. Anything you want to do, you can do on the X platform. Whether it's

text, audio, video, payments, financial stuff, communications of all kinds. But then also where there's publicly disseminated information is to be the best source of truth. communications of all kinds. But then also, where there's publicly disseminated information is to be the best source of truth. And I think it already is that.

And people may say, oh, there's some piece of misinformation or disinformation. I say, yes, but look at the replies. The replies correct that misinformation. And look at community notes and how good the batting average of community notes is. It's extremely good. It's by far the best fact-checking system on the internet.

And a lot of people still labor under the illusion that the legacy newspapers that they read are actually true. There's so much nonsense in them. I mean, Nico, how many times do you read an article in a newspaper where you know the circumstances of what that article is? And how often is it spot on? No, of course, it's normally wrong. But how do you look at the situation now, for instance, with Russia,

the work Russia does in Germany with fake accounts? It's a pretty huge activity, right? I mean, we don't see a lot of Russian activity, to be frank, on the system. So we see very little. We do see a lot of attempts to influence things, but they seem to be coming from the West, not from Russia. Right.

What about things like the latest developments in Brazil and so on? Yeah, sure. Yeah, so we kept getting these demands from Judge Alexander. That's his name on Twitter, at Alexander. And there would be to suspend accounts immediately. We were given typically two hours to suspend an account or face massive fines. Immediately, we were given typically two hours to suspend an account or face massive fines. And the final straw is we were being given demands to suspend sitting members of the parliament and major journalists.

And moreover, we could not tell them that this was at the behest of Alexander Morales. We had to pretend that it was due to our rules of service. And that was the final straw and we said no. Now, when you bought Twitter, now renamed X, did you expect that you would end up in this type of situation? So it's all unexpected. Well, I knew it wouldn't be just a total bed of roses. We're just rigorously trying to pursue the goal of being the most accurate and truthful place on the internet.

And that doesn't mean that what is said is always true or accurate, but it is perhaps another way to frame it as the least inaccurate place on the internet. Do you secretly think this is a bit fun? It's fun. Yeah, it's fun at times. It's stressful at times, and it's fun at times. It's fun at times. It's stressful at times and it's fun at times. But overall, we're trying to serve the people of Earth.

And this is sort of maybe an esoteric way of viewing it, but to try to be kind of like the group consciousness of Earth. So you can think of like if each person is like a neuron contributing to like the collective brain of earth and you want to try to minimize the noise and maximize the signal of every neuron that's connected to the the x network that that's basically what what is what is the collective will of of humanity and and how to and and how to yeah just serve the collective will of humanity and serve the greater good. That's our goal. Now, there's definitely going to be people who want to manipulate that information

and so we have to fight that and try to have, you know, be the most accurate place to the best of our ability and have it be kind of a marketplace of ideas where people can propose ideas and, you know, debate them. And I think so far it's working reasonably well in that regard. People that don't like the truth will not like those X or if they want to manipulate things, they will not like it.

But only a few years ago, you were a guy producing electric vehicles. Now you are, through Starlink, you've had some big impact in Ukraine. With Twitter, you are kind of into some issues in Brazil, India, Turkey. You're becoming like a real geopolitical force and a really important one. How do you look at that?

Well, like I said, I'm trying to take the set of actions that maximize the probability that the future is good. take the set of actions that maximize the probability that the future is good. I mean, we have to keep civilization going onward and upward as much as possible and try to minimize the civilizational threats that occur. Like, you know, we can't get to Mars if civilization collapses.

It's not going to happen. So, you know, we've got to keep civilization going. And I think we should view our civilization as being much more fragile than we think. We kind of take for granted, oh, it's always going to be there. But actually, if you study history, you realize that there's a rise and fall to civilizations. I mean, I was reading in depth about the ancient Sumerians, who were arguably the first civilization, if you call civilization like writing and stuff. You know, they were the first to develop writing. But eventually they died out and they were gone.

And then nobody could read their writing at all and they just faded out as a civilization. But they were pretty impressive in their time. And the ancient Egyptians, the same thing. And sort of one after another, ancient Greece had its day. China and India

will have incredibly impressive populations, but there's been ebbs and flows in the China and Indian civilizations over the aeons, the millennia as well. So, I guess I'm just trying to take the steps

that increase the scope and scale of consciousness. That's what I'm trying to do. It's not that I'm trying to put a political thumb on the scale or anything like that. But I think I'm trying to have the political world go where the people want it to go. You mentioned some really smart people here and kind of just moving tack a bit here to corporate culture. Now you manage a lot of geniuses in your companies. What is the key to manage really smart people, you think? I don't think I manage smart people. They manage themselves.

Well, I guess with really smart people, I don't really think of it like managing them. I think, well, I guess with really smart people, you know, I don't really think of it like managing them. I think that if somebody is very smart and talented, they can go anywhere and do anything, anytime. Like, if they don't have to work with me, they could go anywhere. So I really just say, like, look, this is the goal we're after. And this is what we're trying to achieve. And do you agree with this goal? And if you do, then let's try to get it done. And, you know, provide my opinion along the way.

And once in a while, I'll say, look, guys, you just got to trust me on this one. We got to do this thing. And if it turns out to be a bad decision, you can all hold that against me in the future. But you have an incredible eye for detail, right? I mean, when we read the Isaacs book, it's pretty clear that you really are deep into detail

and know what you talk about. So how do you balance this kind of micromanagement of some areas and then delegate other areas? I wouldn't call it micromanagement of some areas and then delegate other areas. I wouldn't call it micromanagement. It's just insisting on attention to detail. If you're trying to make a perfect product, you must have attention to details essential. And I haven't actually read the Isakson book. You should. It's very good, actually. I love it. attention to details essential.

And I haven't actually read the Isaacson book. You should. It's very good, actually. I love it. Well, I asked Walter Isaacson if I should read it, and he said I shouldn't. So then I said I shouldn't read it. Okay, well, I'll ask you some questions from the book.

Then they do. He talks about, you know, you kind of a hardcore and ultra hardcore culture. What is an ultra hardcore culture? I guess it's work. I mean, it's working culture, right?

I mean, how, how, I mean, ultra hard work. How hard is that? Well, when things get really intense, you're basically just working every waking

hour and how and how long can you do that for i've done that for well continuously for sometimes like a few years what does it what does it do to you it really it's pain um and every waking out maybe is an exaggeration because there are a few hours um obviously with friends and family and critical other things um but 100 hour weeks would be i've done many many stretches of 100-hour weeks, like true 100-hour weeks, where roughly six hours per day is sleeping. I would not recommend that. That's for emergencies. It's not all the time. During very difficult times at Tesla, I've had to do that.

And sometimes at the beginning of my earlier startups I did that where I just wouldn't leave the office I would just sleep under my desk and just work seven days a week sometimes it's necessary for success or to avoid failure but do you enjoy being in this crisis mode? no

I don't it sucks being in this crisis mode? No, I don't. It sucks. Okay. No, I don't want to be there. It's pain. But sometimes it's the difference between success and failure. When you make decisions, how important is speed he just gave me an idea which is um i'm going to invite the uh judge alessandra

raleigh uh to do a spaces and then he can explain why what I'm doing is bad and maybe he's right. I challenge him to a Spaces. Sounds good. Yeah. But what about speed? When you make decisions, how important is speed? And how do you balance analysis with your gut feeling?

how do you balance analysis with your gut feeling? I think the, the, the best offense and defense is speed. If you think of something like the SR 71 Blackbird, it really had almost no defenses except accelerate. And it was never shot down even once. Like I think over 3000 missiles were shot at the SR-71 Blackbird and none hit.

And really, what it did was just go faster. So the power of speed is underappreciated as a competitive dimension. Is that why SpaceX, for instance, has been so successful?

Because you've been mean and lean as an organization? And fast? I think speed is definitely a factor. Now, I should say, in the case of a company, you need to be a vector, not a scalar. So you need to go at high speed in the right direction. Sure. So it can't just, so,

and no company is going to be going in the right direction all the time. So you have to do course corrections, like a guided missile, you call it course corrections. And, but in the case of SpaceX, it's like, okay, our goal is to extend humanity beyond Earth. And we didn't even know how to even frame the question correctly. We just knew that that was the general goal. We didn't know what propellant we'd use

or what the raw materials would be or how would the rocket be built, how would it be designed, what's actually important. And so, for example, going from our Falcon architecture, which uses refined jet fuel and liquid oxygen in a open cycle gas generator architecture engine to a to Starship, which is a liquid methane liquid oxygen propellant in a staged combustion, very high pressure engine. That's a big architectural change. We didn't know that we needed to make that architectural change until we were pretty far down the road. Like about halfway, it took us about 10 years to figure out that was even the right architecture.

Now we're confident it is. We were on risk-taking and so on. I think SpaceX is one of the best examples I know about what we call failing well, learning from mistakes and moving on. Generally, how do you look at mistakes? Which ones do you tolerate and which ones don't you tolerate? Well, I think, I don't really think of it that way. You know, the first three flights of SpaceX failed.

The fourth one succeeded. And if the fourth one had not succeeded, we would have gone bankrupt. We would have had no money left. So it was a very close call. But since then, SpaceX has done very well. It's now the Falcon 9, you know, knock on wood, is the most reliable rocket in the world and launches about every two to three days. Now, last question on risk.

What are the types of risks you would not want to take? Well, I think in terms of risks, you don't want to take risks that – you only want to take bet-the-company risks if they're absolutely necessary. So there have been a few times where, say, with Tesla, we just had no choice but to bet the company because if we're doing a new vehicle program that is uh an order of magnitude larger than the past one then we'd by we're just unequivocally vetting the company because the new vehicle would be 90 of production so going from

uh the original roadster to the model s original roster was only you know about 600 S. Original Roadster was only about 600, 600, 700 per year. Then Model S was 20,000 per year. And then Model 3 is sort of half a million per year. Model Y, over a million per year. So these are all pet-to-company vehicles. But the reason we could do, for example, the Cybertruck, which was kind of a radical new design,

was because it wasn't a bet-the-company decision. So it was like, okay, look, let's try something. I want to try something totally crazy. It's like, what truck would Blade Runner drive? Is that the one you're going to drive on Mars? Yeah, I think it would be perfect for Mars. But we could try something where there's some chance that people might not like it, but it's radical and new and aesthetically it's not derivative.

It doesn't look like anything else on the road, whereas all the other sort of pickup trucks look like vague copies of one another. There we could afford to take a chance on failure and talk it up to, well, we tried to do something interesting. But actually, by the way, the fast driver truck is doing great. But one of the things that I think is important for innovation is that you do accept failure.

Like necessarily, you have to always look at the incentive structure of an organization and say, you know, is that organization properly incenting innovation? And if you do innovation, you're necessarily going to uncharted territory. So there are going to be some mistakes so there are going to be some mistakes they're going to be some failures um and you have you have to like like actually like for spacex uh rocket engine development like i keep telling the team look if we're not occasionally blowing up an engine on the test stand we're not trying hard enough you know um absolutely how important are the p how important is research and phds and that kind of stuff i think i've said seen somewhere you you think most phds are useless well i think most phd theses are useless which i think is actually objectively true if you look at how many phd

you look at all how many phds are created every year and how many of those papers are actually used in anything, then objectively, most PhDs have very low utility or maybe zero because nobody uses them. So once in a while, you get something that is spectacular, but it's pretty rare. Perhaps something more useful. Isaksson, in the book that you haven't read, talks about your love for gaming, in particular, like strategic ability gaming.

And I've been thinking quite a lot about it. What have you learned from those games and have have that learning and wisdom been helpful when you have been planning your companies yeah i it's hard to say exactly what i've learned from video games except that i do like playing video games as if i want to take my mind off work i will typically play a very hard video game. Such as? Which one? Well, over the years, it's been many, many different video games.

So, you know, when I was a little kid, it was like, you know, Pong and the little tank games and things. And if you take a game like, for example, Civilization, it's actually quite a good... It tells you how civilizations are formed. I remember playing the original Civilization with the technology tree and how you invent different things. You invent literacy and invent democracy and invent gunpowder, all these things. And you start to realize, oh, there's there are stages to technology like you can't um you know you can't actually get to democracy without literacy um and um you know so there's these these stages of of technology development

or stages of ideas that uh you know that's that's a helpful framework for a company. And I guess in, like you say, in recent years, there was a game I played that was actually developed in Sweden called Polytopia, which is actually quite a good game. A lot of people like playing chess, but I think chess is not a great... There's not a lot of transfer learning from chess to the real world, because in chess you've got only 64 squares. It's a set-piece battle, same pieces every time. There are no terrain differences.

There's no technology tree. There's no fog of war. But, say, a game like Polytopia has all of those things. Random terrain generation, you know, differences in attack and defense bonuses depending on what type of terrain. You've got 16 tribes, I think,

each with different abilities. You've got a technology tree that you can choose to develop in different ways. And you've got, of course, Fog of War. So that, I think, is much closer to reality. Yeah, yeah. So I think Polytopia, I mean, I was playing Diablo for a while,

which was pretty fun. Diablo, at high levels, gets very complicated. You could call it like a spreadsheet with a game attached. very complicated. You could call it a spreadsheet with a game attached. So that's... I briefly got for about a day the world record in this abattoir of Xeer on a four-person

team of clearing the hardest level, which was not bad for someone who's like 53. Basically, we'll be 53 soon. There is still some Twitch element to it. And it's hard to beat kids at games with a Twitch element.

But yeah, I find these games interesting if you can be fully immersed in a game. Some last questions here. As you know, we are big shareholders and made a lot of money on our investment. Okay, I can hear you. Okay, good. Sounds good. Good to go?

Sorry, I think everyone can hear me. Let's see. Thumbs up if you can hear me. Let's try again. Okay, sounds good. Now, what is the score now in terms of the union in Sweden and the collective bargaining? union in Sweden and the collective bargaining. Actually, I think the storm has passed on that front. I think things are in reasonably good shape in Sweden. So, yeah, I think things are good.

Overall, yeah, I feel pretty good about the future. I mean, you know, there's going to be bumpy quarters from, you know, here and there, but I think the long-term future of Tesla is extremely strong, for example. Kubi, yeah, I'm back on. Just so, yeah, we met with your chair last month, so we have some update, But any view on it? Why are you skeptical to collective bargaining?

I was playing with the soundboard here. Hello? Hello, hello, hello. Sorry, I didn't hear the answer here because I was out. But we have covered this with with your chair but just the last question here what do you want your legacy to be i i don't i don't mind if uh my legacy is accurate or inaccurate uh provided that i've i die feeling that i've done the right thing for the future of consciousness accurate or inaccurate, provided that I dive

feeling that I've done the right thing for the future of consciousness. So just trying to have this light of consciousness last as long as possible and maybe understand more about the nature of the universe or simulation or whatever this is. So I have a philosophy of curiosity, which is to understand the universe,

understand the nature of the universe, or even what questions to ask. Kind of like, I would subscribe to the Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy School of Philosophy that we're trying to understand what questions

to ask about the answer that is the universe okay I think that's a good place to end for sure the life on this

planet would have been a lot more boring without you I'm glad to spice it up a little totally all right well it was good good talking bye take care now all right bye thanks bye more boring without you. I'm glad to spice it up a little. Totally. All right.

Well, good talking. Bye. Take care now. All right. Bye. Thanks. Bye.