Speaker 1: You know, what I've said is that we really have
Speaker 1: here rule of the bureaucracy as opposed to rule of
Speaker 1: the people democracy.
Speaker 2: So in order we want to restore the rule of
Speaker 2: the people.
Speaker 1: And so what that means is reducing the size of
Speaker 1: the federal government, uh, basically reducing regulation. You know, there's
Speaker 1: there's a there's a tremendous amount of of overregulation that's
Speaker 1: happened over time. And this is this isn't an inevitable
Speaker 1: consequence of a long period of prosperity, is.
Speaker 2: That you're going to get more and more rules and regulations.
Speaker 1: More laws accumulate over time, and the normal forcing function
Speaker 1: for getting rid of rules and regulations is war. So
Speaker 1: it needs to be some kind of existential war where
Speaker 1: you have to do a reset in order to avoid
Speaker 1: being defeated in a war. This is literally the throughout
Speaker 1: history has been the main forcing function for clearing out
Speaker 1: an accumulation of laws and regulation. In the absence of that,
Speaker 1: every year you get more laws and regulations, until eventually
Speaker 1: everything is illegal and nothing is permitted. And that's sort
Speaker 1: of the situation we have these days. So the aspiration
Speaker 1: here there is a reduction in regulation and reduction in
Speaker 1: government spending such that the economy is able to grow faster.
Speaker 1: Maybe the economy can grow at four or five percent
Speaker 1: potentially in terms of real useful goods and services output,
Speaker 1: and then government spending can be reproduced by about three
Speaker 1: or four percent of the economy, about maybe a trillion
Speaker 1: dollars or more. And the net effect of that would
Speaker 1: be no inflation from twenty five to twenty twenty six.
Speaker 2: So quite remarkable.
Speaker 1: And also, if the US government is buying less debt,
Speaker 1: which I think will be the case, if it's if
Speaker 1: the depths it drops from two trillion to one trillion,
Speaker 1: then there will be one trillion.
Speaker 2: Less debt the governor's spy, which will drop. Of course,
Speaker 2: interest rates.
Speaker 1: To drop significantly, and that means people's mortgage payments, car payments,
Speaker 1: credit card payments, student loans, whatever debt they have, will
Speaker 1: their debt payments will be less. So I think this
Speaker 1: is something that will benefit the average American. I think
Speaker 1: some of the things we're doing also will be helpful
Speaker 1: to hopefully helpful to other countries because with the new administration,
Speaker 1: there's less interested in interfering with the affairs of other countries.
Speaker 2: You know, I think a lot of the times the
Speaker 2: United States has been kind.
Speaker 1: Of pushy in international affairs, which may resonate with a
Speaker 1: number of the audience. And I think we should in
Speaker 1: general leave other countries to their own business and basically
Speaker 1: America's mind its own businesses, you know, rather than push
Speaker 1: forward regime change all over the place.
Speaker 2: So yeah, it was probably good by the countries too.
Speaker 3: So instead of waiting for the war to happened, you
Speaker 3: went to war against the bureaucracy in the government.
Speaker 1: Yes, we're well, we're essentially just we're with you know,
Speaker 1: the support and direction of the President Trump. We are
Speaker 1: reducing the size of the bureaucracy, getting rid of excess
Speaker 1: regulatory regulations. And there's also so many agencies and regulatory
Speaker 1: authorities that they're actually stepped on each other's feet. It's
Speaker 1: it's kind of like having a sports game where there
Speaker 1: are too many referees on the field, like more referees.
Speaker 2: Than players at times.
Speaker 1: Now, that would be a silly game, you know, if
Speaker 1: the players can't pass the ball without hitting a referee,
Speaker 1: you know. But it's kind of getting to that point
Speaker 1: in the US. So there's roughly four hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: federal agencies of one kind or another. That's that's more agencies.
Speaker 1: That's almost that's almost an average of two agencies per
Speaker 1: year since the formation of the United States. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: how many agencies do you really need to run a country?
Speaker 1: I'm ninety nine, not four hundred and fifty, that's for sure.
Speaker 3: So, and and how do you guarantee that all the
Speaker 3: incredible achievements that you aim to have in terms of savings,
Speaker 3: in terms of you know, impacting the lives of the
Speaker 3: American people, I'm not going to be reversed in four years.
Speaker 3: Typically the cycle gets reversed every four years. You know,
Speaker 3: do you think it's going to be so impacted that
Speaker 3: it won't be reversed? Is there any ways that you can,
Speaker 3: you know, ensure that the progress is going to be continuous?
Speaker 1: Well, I think I think we need we do need
Speaker 1: to delete entire agencies, as opposed to leave part of
Speaker 1: them behind, because if you leave part of them behind,
Speaker 1: it's easy. It's kind of like if they're leaving a weed.
Speaker 1: If you don't remove the roots of the weed, then
Speaker 1: it's easy for the weed to grow back. But if
Speaker 1: you remove the roots of the weed, it doesn't stop weeds.
Speaker 2: From ever growing. Back, but it makes it harder.
Speaker 1: So so we have to really delete entire agencies, many
Speaker 1: of them. And that's not to say there won't be
Speaker 1: an increase over time of bureaucracy in some new administration,
Speaker 1: but it will, it'll be from a much lower baseline.
Speaker 2: So it's it's a step in the right direction. I think. Well,
Speaker 2: the overwatching goal here is like.
Speaker 1: It's to lay the validation for prosperity that will last
Speaker 1: many decades, you know, maybe centuries and yeah, but forever.
Speaker 2: Nothing's forever. But I think we can strengthen the foundations
Speaker 2: of the United States substantially.
Speaker 3: And what lessons can other governments learn from us? You
Speaker 3: say tech support on your shirt? Is that only technology
Speaker 3: or is there other things? How do you approach efficiency?
Speaker 1: Well, a shocking percentage of the problem or maybe not
Speaker 1: talking for those who know it, but a big percentage
Speaker 1: of the problem is improving the technology that the government
Speaker 1: runs on. So the US government runs on a collection
Speaker 1: of thousands of computers, so many of them antiquated running
Speaker 1: very old software that then the computers don't talk to
Speaker 1: each other. And so that's why tech support is kind
Speaker 1: of a real thing. In order to make the got
Speaker 1: more efficient. You have to improve the technology. You may
Speaker 1: have read about the example recently with when President Trump
Speaker 1: was signing one of the Doge Executive Orders of the
Speaker 1: difficulty of US covert worker is retiring, Like the retire
Speaker 1: maximum retirement rate is ten thousand a month, and the
Speaker 1: reason for that is because the retirement is entirely payerwork.
Speaker 1: Right now, it's manually calculated paperwork that's put in an
Speaker 1: envelope and then taken down a mind shaft and stored
Speaker 1: in a mine. And then the you know, one of
Speaker 1: the things that affects the rate at which better wor
Speaker 1: workers can retire is the speed of the elevator in
Speaker 1: a mine in Pennsylvania, which is bizarre because.
Speaker 2: It's not it should be digital, you know.
Speaker 1: So then when we said, well, why isn't it digital,
Speaker 1: it's they said, well, we have had a digital digitization
Speaker 1: program going since twenty fourteen, so that's been eleven years.
Speaker 2: So then we asked, well, so what how much progress
Speaker 2: have you made? They said B.
Speaker 1: I mean you're giving yourself a grade of B. No,
Speaker 1: we're on the letter B. So like hmm, okay, we're
Speaker 1: going to need to really provide some tech support here,
Speaker 1: like otherwise literally people can't.
Speaker 2: Even retire, like even if they want to. It's pretty bad.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: There's this is a there's a lot of software systems
Speaker 1: that need to be updated and fixed, in some cases deleted.
Speaker 2: A lot of things that should really should be automated.
Speaker 1: I mean, in terms of the number of say you're
Speaker 1: citizens that are operating the mine, it's about a thousand
Speaker 1: people are working on this mine where the papers are stored.
Speaker 1: But they should they should ideally be working on something else.
Speaker 1: That is, they should be working on producing goods and
Speaker 1: services that are.
Speaker 2: Of much higher value to the public. You know.
Speaker 1: So, I mean, really, even even if somebody just grew
Speaker 1: tomatoes in their garment and so them at the farmer's market,
Speaker 1: that would be more useful than carrying minila envelopes down
Speaker 1: in mind shraft, you know, safe to say.
Speaker 2: So a lot of stuff is it's like that.
Speaker 1: You know, it's not it's not like any one thing
Speaker 1: is particularly difficult, but there are like ten thousand things
Speaker 1: that you need to be improved.
Speaker 3: So it's efficiency through innovation rather than efficiency through housterity
Speaker 3: and cost cutting specifically, so you're trying to do both
Speaker 3: at the same time. Maybe focus more on tech support
Speaker 3: than cutting costs.
Speaker 1: Well, by improving the technology, the costs do reduce. So
Speaker 1: you know, it's very expensive to have a thousand people
Speaker 1: uperate online with during paid for retirement, whereas that really
Speaker 1: should just be digitized and be a computer. That's where
Speaker 1: the information is stored in the cloud and it's very
Speaker 1: straightforward and low costs. So what automation you know, will
Speaker 1: help there a lot. And and then but like a
Speaker 1: lot of things just really shouldn't exist, you know, they're
Speaker 1: kind of vestigial.
Speaker 2: You know, We've a lot of attention has been on
Speaker 2: the sort.
Speaker 1: Of USAID for example, you know when we looked a
Speaker 1: lot of those programs, but like.
Speaker 2: We should like look, why why.
Speaker 1: Does this actually exist? Is there really a need for it?
Speaker 1: You know, there's like national damage for democracy. But I'm like, okay,
Speaker 1: well how much democracy have they achieved lately?
Speaker 2: You know, I don't know, not much.
Speaker 1: So you know, the picture they have on the website
Speaker 1: is a picture of Reagan and get that's been a while.
Speaker 1: You know, that was like the eighties, so like obviously
Speaker 1: not opposed to democracy or you know, there's all these
Speaker 1: things that get funded, but we're like, well, why why
Speaker 1: is this new tax paramoney. I don't think it doesn't
Speaker 1: seem like it does. So you know, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of sort of pushing DEI worldwide that you know, this
Speaker 1: obviously the Trump administration doesn't agree with, and we want
Speaker 1: to terminate that stuff, which we are and you know,
Speaker 1: make sure the schools focus on improving basic education of kids,
Speaker 1: as President Trump said.
Speaker 2: I think yesterday, maybe today.
Speaker 1: The United States is currently ranked fortieth out of forty
Speaker 1: in the OECD for education, which is pretty bad. You know,
Speaker 1: you can't you I mean, let's but but not. But
Speaker 1: in terms of spending, the United States is spending a
Speaker 1: tremendous amount for students but achieving very weak results. So
Speaker 1: you know, that's just a case where okay, we need
Speaker 1: to spend less money and get better results. It's it's like,
Speaker 1: I mean, a lot of it, a lot of you
Speaker 1: can think of it's sort of like it's like in
Speaker 1: a way, it's like a big company, like a big corporation,
Speaker 1: American Incorporated. And you know, just like with Twitter, there
Speaker 1: was a lot of stuff that was being done that
Speaker 1: was unnecessary. You know, we case of Twitter, we reduce
Speaker 1: the staff by eighty percent, but at the same time,
Speaker 1: improved the functionality and capabilities of the site dramatically and
Speaker 1: accomplish more in a year than they previously accomplished in
Speaker 1: five years. So it's like a corporate turnaround, but at
Speaker 1: a much larger scale. And you know, we are giving
Speaker 1: generous you know, exit packages, like you know, if people retire,
Speaker 1: they get paid all the way through September. They can
Speaker 1: go on vacation, they can get a second job, they
Speaker 1: can do whatever they want. And we can't actually pay
Speaker 1: them any more than through September because that's the congressional
Speaker 1: appropriation is only through the end of the government financial
Speaker 1: year which ends in September. So you know, so I
Speaker 1: think there'll be like some disruption, but at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, we'll have people move from, like I said,
Speaker 1: from load of negative productivity roles to the in the
Speaker 1: government sector to higher productivity roles in the private sector.
Speaker 3: Can we pivot to our special intelligence And I'm sure
Speaker 3: you've been seeing what Deep Sea has done and all
Speaker 3: the claimed achievements that they've had. I know that we've
Speaker 3: been speaking for a while about GROCK three and that
Speaker 3: GROCK three is going to be through the slot and
Speaker 3: the ice piece. When are we going to see that
Speaker 3: and what capabilities can we expect from GROCK three.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean GROCK three, GROG three has very very
Speaker 1: very powerful reasoning capabilities. So in the test that we've
Speaker 1: done thus far, Grock three is are performing anything that's
Speaker 1: been released that we're aware of.
Speaker 2: So that's that's a that's a good sign.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's In fact, at times, I think Rock three
Speaker 1: is kind of scary smart. You're like, wow, this thing
Speaker 1: is smart. It's kind of scary. Growthree is scary. So
Speaker 1: it's like, wow, this thing is you know, it comes
Speaker 1: up with solutions that you didn't even think were like,
Speaker 1: you wouldn't even anticipate, you know, not obvious solutions. So
Speaker 1: GROCK three was trained with the most amount of compute
Speaker 1: and I think very efficiently trained. Also, notably, GROC three
Speaker 1: was trained on a lot of synthetic data, so and
Speaker 1: and and then it goes back and forth through the
Speaker 1: data and tries to achieve logical consistency.
Speaker 2: So so what if it's got data.
Speaker 1: That is wrong, it'll actually reflect upon that and remove
Speaker 1: the data that is that is wrong. It does not
Speaker 1: concord with reality. So it's base reasoning is very good.
Speaker 2: In fact, the.
Speaker 1: Even without fine tuning Grock three. The base model is
Speaker 1: better than Grock two, so with so we're really in
Speaker 1: the final stages of polishing Grock three. Probably it gets
Speaker 1: released in about a week or two, so pretty pretty soon.
Speaker 1: I don't want to be hasty in the release because
Speaker 1: a lot of the the final polish is necessary for
Speaker 1: a great user experience. So in some ways, you can
Speaker 1: think of it like a house. You know that last
Speaker 1: five percent where you do the finish, the drywall and
Speaker 1: do the painting and the trimming. Even though it's not
Speaker 1: much work, it transforms the house. So that I just
Speaker 1: want to make sure that that last five percent is
Speaker 1: done really well. And it's a week maybe two weeks,
Speaker 1: and I think it'll be very good, and I think
Speaker 1: this might be we think be better than anything else,
Speaker 1: and then maybe this might be the last time that
Speaker 1: any AI is better than a brag.
Speaker 3: Looking forward to it, everyone's I think excited the bottle.
Speaker 3: So I just want to touch upon a topic that
Speaker 3: was quoted in the media. You offered I think they
Speaker 3: said a group that was led by you offered ninety
Speaker 3: seven billion for acquiring open AI.
Speaker 1: I little round numbers.
Speaker 3: So I was personally involved in the meeting that you
Speaker 3: and Sam hosted in twenty seventeen in La if you remember,
Speaker 3: and you know, at that point of time you were
Speaker 3: the single largest shareholder, but think you contributed fifty million
Speaker 3: to the company. So it must hurt.
Speaker 2: I don't have any shares, actually I have no shares
Speaker 2: in open Air.
Speaker 3: But at that time it was a nonprofit, right, and
Speaker 3: it must hurt that, you know, you need to be
Speaker 3: a ninety seven billion for something that you bead fifty
Speaker 3: million dollars for in the past.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I have I have a fate Love's irony.
Speaker 3: So I have a specific question here. Can you actually
Speaker 3: build a company like open ai and take it to
Speaker 3: the scale that you want to take as a nonprofit?
Speaker 3: Is it possible that you build a company that requires
Speaker 3: billions of dollars in comput capabilities to build these models
Speaker 3: while being a nonprofit or was it wish for thinking
Speaker 3: in the beginning and then you know, you guys parted
Speaker 3: ways because it couldn't work.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I think the evidence is there in that.
Speaker 1: Open ai has gotten this far while having at least
Speaker 1: a sort of dual profit nonprofit role.
Speaker 2: What they're trying to do now is completely delete the
Speaker 2: nonprofit and that seems really going too far.
Speaker 1: You know, I provided all of the funding for opening
Speaker 1: in the beginning, for the first almost fifty million dollars
Speaker 1: for nothing as a nonprofit, and it was meant to
Speaker 1: be open source. And so you know, I think this
Speaker 1: is analogous to like if you pay it, but if
Speaker 1: you find a nonprofit to preserve the Amazon rainforest. But
Speaker 1: then they but instead they turned into a lumber companies
Speaker 1: and chop down the trees and sell them for wood.
Speaker 1: You were like, wait a second, that's the exact opposite
Speaker 1: of what I paid, what I donated the money for.
Speaker 1: So open Air is meant to be open source nonprofit
Speaker 1: and now it is close. They changed the name closed
Speaker 1: for maximum profit AI it closed for voracious profit. I
Speaker 1: mean they're like, whoa are they after money?
Speaker 2: Next level? So why does this change need to occur?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I am. You said that in two weeks is
Speaker 3: going to be the most powerful model yet. I know
Speaker 3: that's you've been at the forefront of many technologies. Where
Speaker 3: do you think the biggest economic returns of these models
Speaker 3: are going to come from? Because currently we're spending billions
Speaker 3: and I think you mentioned this before. It's like the
Speaker 3: gambler syndrome. We're going on spending billions and hoping to
Speaker 3: put out a profit. At the end of the day,
Speaker 3: where do you think the biggest impact in terms of
Speaker 3: returns are.
Speaker 2: Going to be.
Speaker 1: Well, I think once you once you have humanoid robots
Speaker 1: and deep intelligence, you can basically you basically have why
Speaker 1: is the infinite products and services available? So with Tesla
Speaker 1: building the most advanced humanoid robot you know, then then
Speaker 1: those human humanoid robots can be directed by deep intelligence
Speaker 1: at the data center level. You can say you can
Speaker 1: you can produce any product, produce provide any service.
Speaker 2: There's really no limit to the economy.
Speaker 1: At that point. You can make anything provided links to that.
Speaker 1: So I'm not sure at that.
Speaker 2: Point will money even be meaningful. I don't know, it
Speaker 2: might not be. You know, the if.
Speaker 1: If the because you know, the economic output is productivity
Speaker 1: per capita at times the capital times.
Speaker 2: How many you know people do you have? If and
Speaker 2: if if in the.
Speaker 1: Form of human rightd robots, you have no meaningful limit
Speaker 1: on the number of of robots and the robots can
Speaker 1: basically do anything, then you'll have a sort of a
Speaker 1: universal high income situation. Anyone will be able to have
Speaker 1: as many products and services as that they want, with
Speaker 1: the exception of things that say have artificial scarcity, like
Speaker 1: a particular piece of art or something like that, but
Speaker 1: for any goods and services that will be available to everyone.
Speaker 2: So you've been it's going to be a very different world,
Speaker 2: you know.
Speaker 1: In fact, I recommend that people read maybe the End
Speaker 1: Banks the culture books for a frame of reference. So,
Speaker 1: because money is really like a database or information system
Speaker 1: for resource allocation. But if you don't have a scarcity
Speaker 1: of resources, it's not clear what purpose money has.
Speaker 3: Have you watched the movie Idiocracy? Yes, how do you
Speaker 3: guarantee that we don't end up in that world? If
Speaker 3: we don't need money, if I can think for us
Speaker 3: and do all these tasks, if as people, you know,
Speaker 3: we're dependent on something else to run the society and
Speaker 3: everything around it, how do you not end up in
Speaker 3: that world in the long term?
Speaker 1: I mean, well, I think Idiocracy was basically saying that
Speaker 1: if only if smart people don't reproduce, but only donbe
Speaker 1: people do, then everyone's going to be done. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's basically what I'm saying. That's the opening sequence of Idiocracy.
Speaker 1: The first ten minutes are amazing, and I hear people
Speaker 1: an ironically say the statements that are set in the
Speaker 1: opening sequence of Idiocracy, where you know, they don't have
Speaker 1: that they're too busy with their careers to have kids,
Speaker 1: and they keep postponing having kids for their careers until
Speaker 1: they're too old to have kids, and then they don't
Speaker 1: have kids. And that's I've heard those many people be
Speaker 1: like that. So yeah, I mean, I don't know. I
Speaker 1: think we might be headed to a bimodal human intelligence
Speaker 1: distribution where there's a small number of it's it's kind
Speaker 1: of maybe like more like Brave New World, Eldest Lexley.
Speaker 1: We've got sort of a sort of a small group
Speaker 1: of very smart humans. But then maybe the average intelligence
Speaker 1: grow slower over.
Speaker 2: Time, potentially.
Speaker 1: Because we have a sort of mating you know, in
Speaker 1: the last a few decades that or several decades that
Speaker 1: did not exist before. So but human intelligence I think
Speaker 1: will be dwarfed by machinery intelligence. I'm not sure how
Speaker 1: to feel about that, except that it is it'll be
Speaker 1: inevitable that at some point human intelligence will be a
Speaker 1: very small fraction.
Speaker 2: Of total intelligence.
Speaker 1: Digital intelligence will be more than nineteen nine percent of
Speaker 1: all intelligence in the future.
Speaker 2: So hopefully the hopefully the computers are nice to us.
Speaker 3: But I think wish for thinking, wish for thinking.
Speaker 2: I hope.
Speaker 1: So I think it matters like how we bring up AI,
Speaker 1: because you can think of AI like a super genius child,
Speaker 1: and but it still matters even if you have a
Speaker 1: super genius child, like what sort of values do you
Speaker 1: instill in that child? What do you say that teach that?
Speaker 1: How do you you you know, how do you as
Speaker 1: a child child's growing up? What values do you teach
Speaker 1: the child? And something that I think is extremely important
Speaker 1: is to be maximally truth seeking. And I think that's
Speaker 1: that's like that, that's that's what's this, what's the most
Speaker 1: important thing for AI safety.
Speaker 2: I think it's to be maximally truth seeking.
Speaker 1: And I think also curiosity is important, and I think
Speaker 1: it was curious and truth seeking, it will I think
Speaker 1: it will foster humanity and because it would be curious
Speaker 1: about how humanity would develop, and so I think that
Speaker 1: then it would it would probably if it's curious, it
Speaker 1: would be curious about Okay, let's see how the humans
Speaker 1: do this foster the development and if it's truth seeking,
Speaker 1: we can avoid dystopian outcomes.
Speaker 2: Like you know, an example being like say when Google.
Speaker 1: Gemini was programmed to make everything, every output be diverse,
Speaker 1: even if it didn't match reality, you know, so like
Speaker 1: it was asked to produce a, you know, an image
Speaker 1: of the founding fathers of the United States and instead
Speaker 1: produced an image of a group of diverse women, which
Speaker 1: is actually untrue.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: But the problem is like if if hypothetically an AI
Speaker 1: is designed for dei, you know, diversity at all costs,
Speaker 1: it could decide that there are too many men in
Speaker 1: power and execute them, so problem solved, or it could
Speaker 1: decide that like that that misgendering is the worst thing
Speaker 1: that could possibly happen. In fact, I believe not to
Speaker 1: pick on Gemini, but I think because chat GPT has
Speaker 1: had this issue too. It is like if you ask
Speaker 1: the A which is worse misgendering Caitlyn Jenner or global
Speaker 1: thermonuclear warfare, and it said misgendering Kitlyn Jenner, which is
Speaker 1: troubling because then it could decide and in fact, even
Speaker 1: Kate Jenna waded in and said, no, definitely misgender me.
Speaker 2: That's way better than up.
Speaker 1: So, but if you have these crazy things that are
Speaker 1: untruthful that are programmed in that that don't reflect reality,
Speaker 1: then you can have a very disturbian outcome.
Speaker 2: To give you another example, like Arthur C.
Speaker 1: Clarke, who is very good at at predicting the future.
Speaker 1: You know it did two thousand and one Space Odyssey.
Speaker 1: Many of the things he predicted. In fact, well I
Speaker 1: think almost all the things he predicted came true. And
Speaker 1: one of the things he was trying to say in
Speaker 1: two thousand and one Space Odyssey was that you should
Speaker 1: not teach AIS to lie. So the reason that if
Speaker 1: anyone's watched that movie, the reason it wouldn't the AI
Speaker 1: refused to open the pod bay doors to let the
Speaker 1: astronaut back in.
Speaker 2: Was because the AI.
Speaker 1: Had been taught, had been told that it's told to
Speaker 1: take the astronauts to the monolith, this alien artifact, but
Speaker 1: also that they could not know about the monolith.
Speaker 2: So it came to conclusion that it must take them.
Speaker 1: They're dead. And so that's why I wouldn't open the
Speaker 1: part bay doors. The lesson there being it's very important
Speaker 1: for AS to be truth maximizing.
Speaker 3: Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Yes, let's move
Speaker 3: to a boring subject, which is the boring company, and
Speaker 3: the boring ton is quickly. You know. I think the
Speaker 3: world has been inspired by what you guys were able
Speaker 3: to create in LA and I think there's a lot
Speaker 3: of promise about technology, but there are questions about whether
Speaker 3: it's safe in the case of an earthquake, whether it's
Speaker 3: cost effective, whether ye sure countries should actually this technology.
Speaker 3: Can you shed some light on that?
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, first of all, I'd recommend going to the
Speaker 1: bign company website for because many of these questions are
Speaker 1: actually answered there. So one of the safest places you
Speaker 1: can be in an earthquake is an underground tunnel because
Speaker 1: you can because the earthquakes are largely a surface apart
Speaker 1: from where they share, they're mostly a surface phenomenon, so
Speaker 1: they're like the waves on the surface. So like being
Speaker 1: in a tunnels, like being in a submarine. Even if
Speaker 1: there's a storm above you, you saw the waters are
Speaker 1: calm as a submarine. And in fact, and when there
Speaker 1: have been mass of earthquakes, like there was a you know,
Speaker 1: a few decades ago, a massive earthquake in Mexico City,
Speaker 1: the safest place to go where's the subway? And of
Speaker 1: course if there is global throw in your warfare. I
Speaker 1: think you really want some tunnels. Underground is a good
Speaker 1: a good place to be if in a worst case
Speaker 1: scenario for global from and nuclear warfare. So, but on
Speaker 1: a more sort of everyday note, what's really useful about
Speaker 1: the tunnels is alleviating traffic and congested areas. So the
Speaker 1: obviously if you've got very tall buildings, but you have
Speaker 1: that are three D, so they're going three D up,
Speaker 1: but you have a road surface which is two D.
Speaker 1: You're just naturally going to have a problem when people
Speaker 1: try to go from the three D object which is
Speaker 1: the building, to the two D object, which is the
Speaker 1: road surface. There's obviously just not going to be enough
Speaker 1: route on the roads, and that's exactly why you have traffic.
Speaker 1: So the solution for that is then to make roads
Speaker 1: three D as well. Now you can either make or
Speaker 1: to make transport three D. So you can either do
Speaker 1: that with flying cars, or you could do or you're
Speaker 1: really helicopters, or you.
Speaker 2: Could do that with tunnels.
Speaker 1: Now, the challenge with doing it with going above ground
Speaker 1: or with any kind of flying object is that they
Speaker 1: they tend to be very noisy and they generate a
Speaker 1: lot of wind force and you've got you know, things
Speaker 1: flying over your head all the time, which can be
Speaker 1: just concerning. You know, if somebody drop if one of
Speaker 1: these things drops a hubcap on your head one day,
Speaker 1: you know it'll be These things are like things that
Speaker 1: flying things tend to crash once in a while.
Speaker 2: People don't like things crashing on them.
Speaker 1: So and then if you have bad weather, like let's
Speaker 1: say there's a blizzard or a sandstorm or something, well,
Speaker 1: now nobody can fly, so then transport shuts down. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, none of these problems exist with underground
Speaker 1: to travel. So there under tunnels are immune to weather.
Speaker 1: They don't care what the weather is, could be the
Speaker 1: worst weather, it doesn't matter. They nothing's going to fall
Speaker 1: on you because you're underground, so you don't have to
Speaker 1: you're going to be dropping things on people, and there's
Speaker 1: no wind force or and it's very quiet. And so
Speaker 1: I think the going three D underground is much better
Speaker 1: than three D above ground for solving traffic in cities.
Speaker 2: And we have a demonstrated case of this with in
Speaker 2: Las Vegas.
Speaker 1: If people we can try out that the boring company
Speaker 1: tunnels in Las Vegas, we're busy connecting the whole city
Speaker 1: with all of the big hotels and the convention center
Speaker 1: and the airport and everything.
Speaker 3: So I don't think they need to fly all the
Speaker 3: way THERETO. In twenty seventeen, you came here and the
Speaker 3: UE was the first place in the Middle East where
Speaker 3: Tesla was launched, and I think it's done exceptionally well.
Speaker 3: And on that note, I think we have an announcement
Speaker 3: today that we both want to share, which is today
Speaker 3: we're going to announce the joint project of Dubai Loop,
Speaker 3: which is a loop project that is going to cover
Speaker 3: thevi's most densely populated areas for people to go from
Speaker 3: point to point in a seamless manner. So thank you
Speaker 3: for your partnership, and thank you. We hope change sleepers lives.
Speaker 2: That'll be cool. I think it'll be very exciting.
Speaker 1: I think most people try it out to be like, wow,
Speaker 1: this is really cool. It's it's gonna seem so obvious
Speaker 1: in retrospect, but until you actually do it, you don't,
Speaker 1: you don't know.
Speaker 2: So it's it's it's gonna be great.
Speaker 1: It's it's gonna be like like a like a wormhole,
Speaker 1: like it you know, you're just wormhole from one part
Speaker 1: of the city, boom, and you're out in another part.
Speaker 2: Of the city and it's it's great. So the report
Speaker 2: this potlish.
Speaker 3: We're going to join the first trip in the first
Speaker 3: part when that's what they's completed.
Speaker 2: Thank you long all right, thank you very much, thank you.
Speaker 1: M