Elon Musk at Ron Baron's Baron Capital Conference, Nov 14, 2025

We're privileged to have Elon Musk join us virtually, and there couldn't be anyone more appropriate to speak to today when a theme of our conference is changing lives. There's no one who's changed our lives more than Elon, especially changed our lives financially, but changed everyone else's lives, and

that really feels like it's just beginning. Without him, there'd be no electric vehicles, there's no FASD. Has anyone ever thought of this full -service self -driving five or ten years ago? Has anyone ever thought about that?

So we flyable rockets, no one has been able to do that before.

Congratulations to Jeff Bezos for accomplishing it yesterday, first time. We've already

done, what, 5 ,000 flights, and we have 9 ,000 satellites, I think it is, on the way to 15 ,000. So, and the people who did that for him, did it for Jeff, are people who used to work at, for, for SpaceX, but couldn't go fast enough for Elon, so now they went over

to Bezos. So there would be no Starlink,

to Bezos. So there would be no Starlink, no, no Optimus. In fact, one of the first questions I wanted to ask, is I was telling my assistant about Optimus before, and how the plan is to go from a million production next year, to 10 million the following year, to 100

million, to a billion. And what she asked me was, well so, where's the room for them on the sidewalks? Are you going to build something, is that the idea that we have behind Boring Company, to go underground for the robots, to walk around, or fly above? Where's the room for them? Well, actually,

actually, you, you can, you can fit, um, all of humanity, um, on the floor, in the city.

That's how small the humans are. And, and Optimus, uh, doesn't mind being packed densely. So, it's always helpful to think how, how much room do people take? And,

and, and this is why I think, just having it in the back of your mind, that all 8 billion people, on earth, can fit, on one floor, in the city of New York.

So, play, and, another way of getting it, is, is if you're flying across the country, and your goal is, to drop a water balloon, on someone who will blow you. You will fail. Because it's empty. We, we

used to do that when we were in 8th grade. We got them though.

Um, yeah. So, so Caitlin, don't worry, there's enough room. Um, so, one of the things I think about, when you talk about Optimus, is that there's so many functions that it can perform. What's going to be left for humans? Is there a job that humans going to have, other than just living in, uh, you know, this, this

great, uh, abundance that, that you're going to create? What, what's going to happen?

Well, I think there is this, this question of, um, oh, how do you drive meaningful life, if the robots can do everything?

But, we see lots of examples, where even though, machines can do much better, humans still enjoy, uh, like athletics, for example. Um, or, let's take a, a mental sport, like chess. Uh, the,

computers are so good, that your phone, not even connected to the internet, can beat Magnus Calls, easily. But, yet, chess is at all -time highs in popularity. So,

really, machines being better at us than us at some people, doesn't mean we can drive that connection when we're doing it. By,

by the way, guys, the connection isn't that good with the phone. Is there some way we can do something else? A bit echoing. We're not,

the connection isn't that good, I think. It keeps cutting in and out. Can I,

what if I talk on this? Okay. you do that, you do that, and I'll do this. Um,

so, so, the function, the function, the function, the, the, the functions that you see these robots doing is what? Yeah. What are they gonna do?

And why is that, how are we gonna have a billion of them when we have eight billion people? Well, look, look, it's gonna take us a minute to make a billion robots. So, you know, there are a lot of various people. Um, but,

but I think we will, um, there will ultimately be billions, billions, of human robots. A

way to think of it is, uh, who on earth are not one, their own personal R2D2, C -3PO.

Like, pretty much everyone wants, you know, C -3PO, but even better.

Um, like a personal helper buddy robot, it would be great.

Uh, you could teach your kids, take your back for a walk, get the groceries, you know, chat, you know, protect, you know, protect you when needed. Great.

Um, and then how many robots would there be in industry providing products and services? Probably three or four to one relative to humans, which, which suggests that total number of robots will be somewhere around, maybe as high as 40 billion dollars, 40, 40 billion, maybe 3, 30 billion

robots. It's a lot. So, so, uh, the Japanese company I think is Kukov,

robots. It's a lot. So, so, uh, the Japanese company I think is Kukov, those robots that are used in manufacturing are 50 ,000, 100 ,000, 150 ,000, and you're describing a robot as $20 ,000. Do we have to have a million a year to do that, or 10 million a year to get to $20

,000, and is that something that's going to be affordable for people? Are they going to be rented? Are they going to be purchased? Corporations, are we going to get some kind of carried interest once they buy them from us? How is this going to work? Or don't we have the model yet? Well, my

to work? Or don't we have the model yet? Well, my

rough guess is that the cost of goods sold, they're labor and materials for Optimus, after we reach a million units of steady state production. So I call it a year after reaching a million units a year, because it takes a lot of effort to improve the cost.

But at that point, I would expect the labor and materials to be $20 ,000 to $30 ,000 in current year dollars. I think that's a pretty safe estimate. When you're improving costs, so with cars, your idea is that everything we

safe estimate. When you're improving costs, so with cars, your idea is that everything we buy from other people to use in our cars, we know exactly how much it costs. And therefore, we can tell someone how much we're going to pay for what

costs. And therefore, we can tell someone how much we're going to pay for what we're buying from them. And if it doesn't, if they're making too much, then we make that stuff ourselves. Is that the same kind of idea we have in this robot, where we're going to, it should be much simpler to make than a car?

Or am I wrong? Who's the hand? is extremely complex.

There are 50 actuators in the hand, with the hand and forearm. Actuator is the motor? Yeah, actuator is the motor, gearbox, and power electronics.

and forearm. Actuator is the motor? Yeah, actuator is the motor, gearbox, and power electronics.

So that's 100 per robot. Really,

a lot of actuators and sensors. Am I getting that right? Approximately.

So there's a lot of complexity. Why is that important? Why is it important that we have such a complex hand? So in order to do dexterous tasks, you have to have a hand with the sensitivity, precision, and degrees of freedom of a

human hand. Because, you know, something that

human hand. Because, you know, something that we find easy to do, like pick up a screwdriver or turn a wrench, or even say thread a needle or play the guitar, actually require a lot of dexterity.

And one of the reasons we think we achieve sustainable abundance, which is sort of the new revised version of the company's goal, because it was accelerate sustainable energy, which as you mentioned, we've done that. Our new

goal is sustainable abundance. So that's abundance for all, but in a way that is sustainable, that does not destroy any of the natural wilderness. How do we decide who gets what? Somebody wants to buy my house, they

wilderness. How do we decide who gets what? Somebody wants to buy my house, they can just come in and start living there? Well, I'm not sure why. I mean, you do have a nice house.

why. I mean, you do have a nice house.

I can certainly see the appeal. But the

robots will be able to make anyone a house. And, you know, as long as you don't just on it being in a particular location, you can have robots will be able to build you a castle if you want. So the reason for hand dexterity is you want to be able to do, like, surgery and precision medical

actions. And so imagine a world where

actions. And so imagine a world where everyone has access to the best surgeons, literally everyone.

And optimists will have the level of precision that is frankly superhuman and will be able to do medical procedures, very sophisticated medical procedures, any medical procedure, perhaps things that really humans can't even do because they're too difficult. And

that will be available to anyone. People often talk about eliminating poverty and providing great medical care, but they never actually have a solution.

And money doesn't solve it because there are only so many, there's a very limited number of great doctors and surgeons. They don't grow on trees, but now they will get built in factories. So I sent you a year or two ago an article about a young man who was in an interview in Barron's and he was 33 at the time and he'd become a portfolio manager.

And he lost his legs to a Paralympic performer and he lost his legs to man -eating bacteria. And he said, is there anything we can do to get him out of the wheelchair? And you said, yes, there is. In three or four years we can give him an optimist body and then

is. In three or four years we can give him an optimist body and then we can use, you know, transistors in his head and his brain to let him function as a normal person. And dance and sing and walk and run. Have we been able to make progress in that area?

run. Have we been able to make progress in that area?

Yes. So that's the consequence of two of my companies. One is being Neuralink and the other being Tesla. So Neuralink is also making good progress. Now has, I think, over 10 patients with Neuralink implants.

And these people who didn't have the ability to move their arms or legs in some cases were completely locked in, like Stephen Hawking. And they can now communicate, I think, as quickly or almost as quickly as we're communicating right now, which is very cool. And that's going to continue to accelerate.

So what we can do is use a Neuralink implant that is taking signals from the motor cortex brain and also receiving signals from this somatosensory cortex.

And then give someone who's lost their legs, Optimus legs.

And so you'd be, I mean, we're really getting like the $6 million man here, I mean, from back in the day. I don't know if you watched that show, but I watched it. Yeah, I thought it was pretty fun. Yeah. And

we can actually give someone superhuman cyborg capabilities, like the $6 million man, but less than $6 million. Even in this day and age. I mean, $6 million back then was a fortune. These days it's like nothing. But for much less than that. I mean, like for something that would be reasonable and affordable, you know, it

that. I mean, like for something that would be reasonable and affordable, you know, it might be, well, like $60 ,000 type of thing.

And you can take the signals from Neuralink in the mind that would be transmitting to the legs and transmit those to the attached Optimus robot legs. And

you would actually be able to run faster than a human.

Just like $6 million man. Your Neuralink sounds really exciting. It sounds unbelievably exciting. Let's switch to XAI. So three years ago

exciting. Let's switch to XAI. So three years ago you were here and you had either just purchased or about to purchase, you know, Twitter, which you've renamed X. And you were widely criticized for that. Yes, I was. Right? In fact, you even mentioned here on

stage that you didn't want to have anyone else be angry at you because you had enough people trying to kill you already. Yeah, totally. So you were buying X and it was $42 billion, I think. And you were in the process of raising money. And I called you up and you hadn't called me to solicit me. And I called you up and I said, I would like to invest

solicit me. And I called you up and I said, I would like to invest with you $100 million in this. And it was $60 million for one of our funds and $40 million for me. And you said, really? I

said, yeah. You said, really? And I said, yeah. And you told me that you thought I would make a double. And I said, well, I hope so. But to me, it felt like you made us $8 billion in Tesla and

so. But to me, it felt like you made us $8 billion in Tesla and it would be not very appropriate if I didn't support this new venture that you were doing. So we invested. And then the day that we paid the money,

were doing. So we invested. And then the day that we paid the money, we marked it down 70%. Oh, man. This is how I know you're a true friend, Aron. Because this is a, you know, I do regard you as a true and trusted friend.

And, you know, the test of friendship.

I got more to the story. It's a better ending. The

test of friendship is who supports you when the chips are down and the cans are tough and everyone's against you. That's a real friend and that's you, Aron. Thank

you. So we did invest that $100, marked down to $30. And then about a year later, we started getting phone calls from hedge funds who always seem to know things we're not supposed to know.

Yeah. How do they do that? Right. And they started saying, I'd like to buy your stock for what you paid for it. And I said, I think I'd rather wait and stay in, which I did. And then change the name to X and change the configuration of business. And then from

that, you bought Twitter and it came together in a social network along with this. And all of a sudden, we have a business that has incredible data. Did

this. And all of a sudden, we have a business that has incredible data. Did

you buy this for the data that no one knew about, but the data with 600 million people talking with each other? So physical data that no one else has.

And then you started Grock, which is based on our data. And everyone else doesn't have that. They got digital stuff. And then when they have Grock, then we need

have that. They got digital stuff. And then when they have Grock, then we need more data centers and you're building those. And in a space of a very short time, less than months, you built a data center, which is four times as large as anyone else on the planet. 25 ,000

what other people had in CPUs and we built it in GPUs, 100 ,000 more powerful. And then, you know, now we have, now we're going to go to hundreds of that. But the bottom line is the investment that we made, we put up more money and we have a total of

$350 million invested over the past two or three years. And now it's worth $700 million. So everything you touch is like

million. So everything you touch is like that. It's the most unbelievable thing I've ever seen. So everyone is invested in

that. It's the most unbelievable thing I've ever seen. So everyone is invested in technology and we are investing in the technology person, the best engineer on the planet. So thank you very much. So the vision is, the question is, did you

planet. So thank you very much. So the vision is, the question is, did you buy X, did you buy Twitter because of the data? Is that, did you have all this in your head before you did it? Not really, no. I just bought Twitter because I thought it was having a negative effect on civilization.

And just sort of pushing ideas that were anti -civilization.

You know, it's sort of, it's been sort of captured by the far left. You know, it's fair to say the radical left. I mean, they wouldn't regard themselves as such, but it was captured by, you know, political beliefs are those of, you know, deeply San Francisco and

Berkeley, which is about as deep as you get in America.

So that matter wasn't a good forum for debate, because they suspended many people on the right, including the president, as you may recall, a sitting president, which is really unprecedented for precedent.

So, I think we need to have a public square where there's true freedom of speech. And freedom of speech is, freedom

speech. And freedom of speech is, freedom of speech is the bedrock of democracy. If there's not freedom of speech, people cannot make an informed vote. And if you can't make an informed vote, you don't have a

real democracy. So that's the purpose of acquiring Twitter was to try to

real democracy. So that's the purpose of acquiring Twitter was to try to bring it more to the center. There have been no left wing voices have been banned or anything like that, or suppressed.

But what we're trying to do is give equal weight to all parts of the country, so that they can be a public town square where people can exchange ideas, and hopefully not resumed violence. And

I think that's fundamental to, I think it's one of the, like I said, free speech is the bedrock of democracy. It's why

it's the First Amendment. Because people came from countries where if they could be killed or imprisoned for what they said. And in fact, this is happening all around the world as we speak, even in places like Britain.

So that's, anyway, I did it because I felt like the civilizational risk had to be addressed. I mean, if America is not strong, then what do businesses matter? America

is the central pillar that holds up a Western civilization. And if that pillar falls, everything falls. So you were one of the

everything falls. So you were one of the founders, the two founders, of ChatGBT and OpenAI. And you had a

and OpenAI. And you had a disagreement, and it was founded as a charity. And it was your idea that you wanted to make sure that, you know, freedom of speech and all the things that you deem important for good lives on our planet were followed, safety.

And the other founder, what he tried to do and did, was accomplished, is that he got control, even though it was your money. And he got control, and you, and he said, Elon, I'd like you to stay. And you said, I want to go. I don't want to be a part of this. And, and, and he offered you some ownership. And you said, I don't want it. And so here,

you walk away from an ownership of ChatGBT. So you're

obviously not doing all this stuff for money. I mean, you are. But I mean, it's, that's not. But I mean, if you, if you were only about money, you would have never left something that's worth $500 billion by itself.

And so here, you're forming this new entity, Grok, to accomplish what you wanted ChatGBT to accomplish. But you think that we have an advantage in this because of the data, because of the compute, because of what? And what are you going to do with this ultimately? So you talk about

what? And what are you going to do with this ultimately? So you talk about connecting physical worlds and digital. What does that mean? Yeah, well,

just going back to opening up for a second. The reason I founded OpenAI was because I was concerned based on my conversations with Larry Page, who used to be a close friend of mine, that he was not sufficiently concerned about the dangers of AI. This really came to a head

when at my birthday party, he, in front of a large group of people, called me a species for favoring humanity over computers. I found that troubling.

computers. I found that troubling.

I was like, Larry, what side are you on? Sounds like you're on the side of the computers. But you really need to be on team humanity here, you know?

So after that, I was like, okay, this is it. We've got to have some counterbalance to Google. Because Larry doesn't seem to care if humans make it or not. So I thought, what's the opposite of Google? It would be an open source nonprofit. And that's where the word open in OpenAI comes from. It

means open source. And I provided, I provided all the money, beginning, like one of the series ABC rounds, and recruited the key people like Ilya Sutskaya, and taught them everything I know.

And, you know, I actually even got them to deal with Microsoft. I

got Sutskaya to donate some time from Azure. And

for all that, I did not seek any financial reward whatsoever.

And the reason I actually turned down the offer for shares is because, I mean, I felt like, what do you, shares and what? Like, nonprofits aren't supposed to have shares. At least last time I checked. You know, nonprofits are not

shares. At least last time I checked. You know, nonprofits are not supposed to be a vehicle for self -enrichment. So that's why I turned down the offer of shares, because it didn't seem morally or legally defensible.

So then with XAI, and we are starting late with XAI. You know, we're only, I don't know, two and a half years old,

with XAI. You know, we're only, I don't know, two and a half years old, basically. And we're starting from behind.

basically. And we're starting from behind.

You know, we are somewhat of an underdog. But, you know, pretty good with technology.

So, I don't want to pat myself on the back here, but I'm pretty good with technology. And we are advancing

with technology. And we are advancing faster than any other man. Yeah. So, I think, for technology ventures, the winner ultimately is the one that is able to move the fastest.

So, we think that, so we're optimizing for the best technology. And we're

doing something different than others, others in a digital world. And we're physical to digital with movement, and visual. And other people can't match that. And also we have the real -time data. What does that mean?

Why should we do better than everyone else? Why are we going to win? Or

why are we going to at least be different than everyone else, so we have a really strong business? Well, first of all, I think, in terms of being a strong business, actually, I'm not too worried about that, because even a small player that is successful in AI will be worth a lot, because they will contribute so much in productivity to

the economy. So, it's actually pretty easy to

the economy. So, it's actually pretty easy to achieve a, not pretty easy, but I mean, it's not, there will be many companies that are worth sustainably several hundred billion dollars, sustainably. So, then several questions of, like, well, how do

sustainably. So, then several questions of, like, well, how do we achieve the lead? That comes down to three things. Are you able to attract the best

three things. Are you able to attract the best talent? Are you able to bring the most amount of

talent? Are you able to bring the most amount of AI hardware online? Can you bring GPUs online faster than anyone else? And we've already demonstrated that we can do that. But Jensen himself said that he was blown away by how fast XAI built

the Colossus Data Center. Jensen said there's only one human on the planet who could have done that. That's you. Yes, he did say that.

It's very, very, very kind of, I'm very, very, very, I mean, I - It's made us think about, are you really human? I keep telling people I'm an alien, but nobody believes me. I mean, when I got my green card, it said alien registration card. So, I mean, you know, I have proof from the government.

registration card. So, I mean, you know, I have proof from the government.

So, I think it's have to get registered.

So, let's say I've got some, like, relatively rare skills these days in America, in terms of getting hardware built. If you look at the biggest successes

built. If you look at the biggest successes in manufacturing in America since World War II, by far, are Tesla and SpaceX. Yeah.

So, to stay on grok for another minute. So,

the idea of connecting physical and digital is that that's different than digital, digital, figuring out who wants to buy what. We're doing something entirely different. Is that fair? I wouldn't say we're doing something entirely different. We're doing

different. Is that fair? I wouldn't say we're doing something entirely different. We're doing

some things that are the same, some things that are different.

I'm just saying, like, the elements that define success for an AI company are going to be, one, the talent, two, the hardware. How much AI hardware can you bring to bear? That's actually a very big deal. And we've shown that

to bear? That's actually a very big deal. And we've shown that we're the best at doing that at XAI. And then, third, unique access to data.

And for that, we've got the X system, formerly the Twitter system, which is, by far, the best source of real -time data in the world. So, those are some pretty significant assets. And I think we're going to come up with some very innovative ideas. But I have more ideas in my head than

I know what to do with, frankly. So, I think we'll make some moves that are not on the chessboard, that people don't anticipate. Some creative moves. And, like I said,

anticipate. Some creative moves. And, like I said, and I should point out, Grok right now, actually, Grok is still the smartest AI. To the best of my knowledge, I recommend turning it out. Grok 4 Heavy is where we spawn several

agents. They work in parallel, and they compare their output, like a study group, and

agents. They work in parallel, and they compare their output, like a study group, and give you the final conclusion. And it keeps getting better. And now we've begun training on Grok 5. I think, will be the smartest AI in the world by a significant margin. On every metric, without

exception. I might be wrong, but I think that

exception. I might be wrong, but I think that will be the case. And that will be in Q1 sometime. Grok 5. Yes.

And Grok 5 is the first time where I thought, well, we have a non -zero chance of achieving artificial general intelligence. Not

that it's a high chance. I calculate like 10%. That's what my biological neural net comes up with. Which still means 90 % chance that we don't, to be clear.

But I've never thought that before. And so for the first time, I think, like, well, this really could be general intelligence. At least a small chance.

Grok 5 will really be something special. And it'll be both extremely intelligent and extremely fast.

So one of the things that we're doing that I think is interesting is Grokopedia.

Which we're going to rename down the road to be Encyclopedia Galactica.

In honor of Isaac Asimov and Douglas Adams, who both mentioned that in the books. And

the idea behind Encyclopedia Galactica is to create an open source repository of all knowledge. Like a distillation of all knowledge. And open source meaning anyone can access it. Anyone can use it.

And if other people want to train on it, they can do so. And then

we want to create copies of this. And distribute these copies throughout Earth. And even put them on the Moon and Mars and out of deep space.

Earth. And even put them on the Moon and Mars and out of deep space.

As, in a way, sort of a modern day Library of Alexandria. You know, it was the great tragedy that the Library of Alexandria burnt down. Or was burnt down.

And so in order to preserve this knowledge, I think we want to literally etch it in stone. And sort of stone like my microphone.

And distribute it widely. So in the worst case scenario, future civilization can see what we learned. And we pick things up from there. So is there a major breakthrough that you can describe that allows us to do this with Grok 5?

Is it just speed? Is it more compute? And therefore, we have more analysis. More,

you know, information we can train on. What is the breakthrough that allows us to have this 10 % chance for AGI? Is there a breakthrough?

Or is it just speed and access to data? Not just, but.

So there's a couple of things. It will be the largest model to the best of our knowledge. So this is a 6 trillion parameter model.

Whereas Grok 3 and 4 are based on a 3 trillion parameter model.

Moreover, the 6 trillion parameters will have a much higher intelligence density per gigabyte than Grok 4.

I think this is an important metric to think about intelligence per gigabyte and intelligence per trillion operations. And we've learned a lot.

So the quality of the data that we're training on with Grok 5 is missionaire.

It's also inherently multimodal, so it's text, pictures, video audio.

It's going to be much better at tool use and, in fact, creating tools to be more effective at answering questions and understanding the world. Its vision will be extremely good. But it'll

be able to understand real -time video, which is, I think, a really fundamentally important thing. Only other AIs can understand real -time video. And I think

important thing. Only other AIs can understand real -time video. And I think if you can't do that, which humans can obviously do, you really can't achieve AGI. By the way, every one of these advances.

There's some special source items that I can't talk about in a public forum, obviously.

You can't give away, you know, all the secrets here and just between us.

But we have a few other special things that are in the works for Grok 5. So it's

really going to feel sentient.

So, but there is no, when we're Grok 5 and you're talking about the advances, there is no limit. So when we're Grok 5 is better than Grok 4, which is better than Grok 3. So it keeps going. So once we get to sentient levels, we go two sentient, five sentient, ten sentient, a million sentient.

The sentient will grow. I mean, what's really mind -blowing is how far can the sentient grow? To

your point, how far does it go? I think it goes immensely far, almost incomprehensibly far. And that

almost does go incomprehensibly far.

So the, like we see a path to putting 100 gigawatts per year of solar powered AI satellite into orbit. And

having this be actually the lowest cost way to power and operate AI at a very large scale.

For reference, the United States consumes roughly 460 gigawatts in average per year. Because the average power load in the U .S.

is 460 gigawatts. The whole country. All electricity of all sources in the U .S.,

yes. And you're talking about 100 being added. Well, roughly a quarter of the U .S. electricity output.

.S. electricity output.

We have a plan mapped out to do that. It gets crazy.

So, so there's a, what, a trillion planets like Earth in the world, in the solar system, whatever you call it.

A trillion. And in that trillion, so Big Bang was 14 billion years ago, 13 and a half billion years ago. And planet, our planet's only 4 billion years old. So, there must be other planets that are like ours with all the minerals, oxygen, hydrogen, silicon, carbon.

So, life here has been extinguished four times. And presumably, you feel that other places, other civilizations, other planets, then we'll get off of this, exist. And are they planets where the

exist. And are they planets where the beings there are part human or part carbon and part metal?

Well, I think we'd like to find out. I'd like to find out. I mean,

my philosophy is one of curiosity. I just want to know what's, you know, what's going on in this universe. Is the standard physics correct about the beginning of the universe? Is heat death the end of the universe? Are

there other alien civilizations? Can we talk to them? And what questions should we be asking about reality that we don't know to ask? So, that's my motivation, is to expand consciousness to better understand the universe.

So, let's go to, away from the universe, back to Tesla again. And so, you said that... Yeah. Back on the ground here. Back on the ground. And

said that... Yeah. Back on the ground here. Back on the ground. And

so, you said that our expertise is in making things better, faster, cheaper than other people. And when I started investing in Tesla, when we started investing in Tesla, you were telling us that it's the machine that makes the machine that's most important. The machine that makes... So, you went into machine learning, machine technology

then, which is 15 years ago. And so, and now, the average car, I think, is 50 minutes, or 50 seconds, 40 seconds, 60 seconds. And we're now 35 seconds.

Every 35 seconds, the car rolls off. And then you say that we're going to get down to 10 seconds. And you said it's a possibility we can go to five. I... Five seconds, every car is rolling off a line.

five. I... Five seconds, every car is rolling off a line.

How does that happen? I certainly see a path to achieving a roughly 5 ,000 millisecond time or five seconds.

Which is only, that's only really walking speed. That's like sort of a fast walk.

One meter per second is a fast walk. The car is less than five meters long. So, five seconds cycle time, the cars will be exiting the line at

long. So, five seconds cycle time, the cars will be exiting the line at walking speed. You can run away from them. It's not going to be like they're

walking speed. You can run away from them. It's not going to be like they're coming out like bullets or something. So, but as a rough rule of thumb, there's, you know, 10 ,000 minutes in a week. If you

run a 24 -7 operation and you get, you know, let's say 10 cars per minute, you've got 100 ,000 cars a week. So, so, but the question is how come we're able to do this? Do other people just not care? Or they think

that, gee, if I do something, if I have this idea and we try to implement it and it doesn't work, then I'm not going to get promoted or I can get fired or I'll get blamed. And if it works, then I'm going to have to do a lot of extra work that I wouldn't know how to do if it didn't work. So, why don't other people have, you know,

a mindset of making things better? The Chinese, they've been great at copying us.

And in some instances, probably even done better than us after they've copied for the first time. But how, how come do you think that other

first time. But how, how come do you think that other people haven't been able to make the advances we have? And even the guy from Ford just recently said, gee, those people in China wouldn't give us compliments. But he

said the people and the Chinese have copied us. And those people in China are doing great, which is really compliments us because the reason they're doing great is because of us. So why don't other people do this? Why doesn't he do that?

of us. So why don't other people do this? Why doesn't he do that?

Most companies are incrementalists. You know, the management team wants to do, I don't know, 5%, maybe 10 % better than last year, as opposed to take big risks that could fail.

Obviously, I don't have a problem with taking big risks. Yeah,

I'd say. And I like to use the tools of physics to analyze things. And, you know, when I was in the factory one night, I was looking at the factory and I was like, you know, this could be much more efficient, it could be much

faster. The, you know, just trying to

faster. The, you know, just trying to rough math, trying to calculate the volumetric efficiency of the factory to divide the factory into cubic meters and say, how many cubic meters are doing something useful? And surprisingly, the volumetric density is not

useful? And surprisingly, the volumetric density is not very good. And then the speed of the cars and the

very good. And then the speed of the cars and the parts moving is quite slow. Generally limited by the speed which people can say, attach brake lights or a seat or something like that.

So if you densify the factory and improve the volumetric efficiency, which is helpful for production efficiency because things have less distance to move. Just like, just like a chip, you densify the circuits in the chip and make it more efficient. You have to think of a lot of

factories that like chip. How do you make your chip faster? Well, you bring circuits closer together, make them smaller, and you increase the clock speed. So Robin told me that you told her once that I think of myself as a bit. And if

I'm a bit, how would I like to travel? Does that make sense? Yes. A

bit or an atom. If it's the software or if I'm on a chip, I say, what's the journey of the bit? What am I doing? And if this journey doesn't make sense, I need to fix it. And if the journey of the atom in the factory doesn't make sense, I need to fix it. So when you say you're working on weekends, I spend all my Sundays working on a chip. What does

that mean? What do you do? It's Saturdays, but sometimes Sundays, actually.

The recent weekends have been Sundays, too. Yeah, just

the AI5 chip, which is going to be a great chip.

You know, all of Tesla hinges on that chip. That's the chip that goes going to our next generation of self -driving cars. And it's also essential for the Optimus robot. So that chip program was in bad shape.

It wasn't closing because it's quite an ambitious chip design. And it

really wasn't on a path to success. And then we also had the Dojo program, which was doing, it was also doing okay, but not on a path to be competitive with NVIDIA. So I collapsed the two programs into just one program, which is to get everyone focused on AI5 chip, which is essential. Continue to

use NVIDIA for training, but we need the AI5 inference chip, which is a very powerful chip, but it's also a very low power chip. But it

doesn't use a lot of power. So its performance per watt is extremely good.

You think, you know, it's probably going to be at least two to three times better than NVIDIA in performance per watt at the inference level in the car and the robot. And, you know, I don't know, 10 % of the cost of an NVIDIA chip, something like that. So these are very important

numbers to achieve. And I had to get the chip program back on track, so put an immense amount of time into it. And at this point, I have the entire physical design of the chip

into it. And at this point, I have the entire physical design of the chip laid out in memory. I can visualize the whole thing. But when you're talking about chip manufacturing, you say we might have to build some kind of a giant fab.

Presumably we would have a partner with TSMC or with Samsung. We wouldn't do this by ourselves. And those guys have been doing this for, we would do it by

by ourselves. And those guys have been doing this for, we would do it by ourselves? And these are things that cost 20 billion, 30, 40

ourselves? And these are things that cost 20 billion, 30, 40 billion dollars. And where do the people come from to do this? How could we

billion dollars. And where do the people come from to do this? How could we not have partners? Is your thought to have a partner? To do it by ourselves?

It'll last for me 10 years. There's not going to be enough chips in the world to accomplish what we're trying to do. Yeah, first of all, I have immense respect for TSMC and Samsung. And we've worked with both TSMC and Samsung.

At Tesla and at SpaceX. So TSMC and Samsung are great companies. And we want them to make our chip as quickly as they can. And scale up to as high as possible volume that they are comfortable doing.

But it doesn't appear to be fast enough.

And, you know, when I ask how long will it take to start to finish to get a new chip fab built, they tell me five years to get to volume production. I'm like, five years to me is an opportunity. I, you know, my,

volume production. I'm like, five years to me is an opportunity. I, you know, my, my, my timelines. To me too, by the way. One year, two year. And at

year three, scale, it rails to infinity. So, so I can't even see past three years. So then I'm like, damn, okay, this is,

three years. So then I'm like, damn, okay, this is, this is not going to be fast enough.

So, you know, if they, if they change their minds and say, yeah, they're going to go faster and they're going to, they want to provide us with, you know, 100, 200 billion AI chips a year, in the timeframe that we need them, that's great. But how could they not, when they know that we're demand and we

that's great. But how could they not, when they know that we're demand and we are going to use the product and our own product, how could they not want to be our supplier? Or how could they not want to be partners with us?

I don't understand. Well, they are partners.

We're using both TSMC. I mean, to really expand capacity tremendously. Why don't they do that? From their standpoint, they are. Because we'll be using

that? From their standpoint, they are. Because we'll be using TSMC Taiwan, TSMC, Arizona, Korea, Samsung, and the Texas back, Samsung.

So the four fabs. And,

you know, from their standpoint, they're moving like lightning.

I'm just saying that, nonetheless, it would be a limiting factor for us.

They're going as fast as they can. From their standpoint, it's middle to the middle.

They've just never had someone without sense of, a company without sense of urgency.

So, that's the matter. It

might just be that the only way to get to scale, at the rate that we want to get to scale, is to build up a real big fab.

And, or be limited in output of optimized and self -driving cars by the .

Obviously, you're not going to do that. Those are two choices. And, to go to FSD. We don't have too much more time. But, FSD. Full serve, full self -driving.

FSD. We don't have too much more time. But, FSD. Full serve, full self -driving.

The, you know, we're making these tremendous breakthroughs, it seems. And, you said recently that you didn't want to expand capacity for making cars until you were convinced that that was the case. Yes. You

are now convinced that's the case. Yes. And, again, here, we're making these exponential leaps in making these cars. And, you said that a very large percentage of people who have actually paid for full self -driving don't use it and have never tried it before. Yes. It's pretty well. Yeah. How, Yeah. How are we doing?

it before. Yes. It's pretty well. Yeah. How, Yeah. How are we doing?

You want to try it? It's amazing. Yeah. So, we're now kind of insisting, with customers, for safety reasons, that we demonstrate full self -driving. Because the numbers are unequivocal, at scale, that, with, now, we're over 10 billion miles driven,

that it's four times safer on full self -driving than not. So, it's actually a big improvement

not. So, it's actually a big improvement in safety. And so, at this point, we're just insisting that we at least

in safety. And so, at this point, we're just insisting that we at least demonstrate self -driving to customers, so they know how to use it and turn it on for safety reasons. So, full self -driving drives just like a person.

Yeah. As opposed to having to code, to look for every circumstance that would happen, and you had a, you know, this, is a fire truck in front of us, with a bicycle attached to it, or someone walking his dog, while he's driving along. They have to identify everything with a code. What AI does, what we do,

along. They have to identify everything with a code. What AI does, what we do, is we're, as I understand it, is to make sure that, it's just like us.

Is that fair? Yes.

The key to achieving full self -driving, unsupervised full self -driving, much safer than a human, is improving the AI software in the car. We're

confident that the AI hardware, that's the chip that we designed, currently made by Samsung, is capable of achieving a safety level unsupervised, meaning if you're asleep in the car, at least two to three times that of the average driver. maybe more.

And then with AI5, we think, you know, achieve probably a 10x, improvement in safety. So these, are really big deals. I mean, I think it's like,

in safety. So these, are really big deals. I mean, I think it's like, one of the, very profound things that I'm saying here. And I really encourage people to go out there and try, you know, Tesla self -driving and, see for yourself. It's, you can just go to any Tesla store, they'll show it to

for yourself. It's, you can just go to any Tesla store, they'll show it to you, know. It's, not secret. See everyone here, you're benefiting, if you

you, know. It's, not secret. See everyone here, you're benefiting, if you try this and then buy it. But once you try it, you're going to buy it. Yeah. You should try it.

it. Yeah. You should try it.

And, so, I want to close on, what I mentioned this morning, on CNBC, was that, you're not doing this, uh, so you can get enough money to buy a beach house. You, you're doing, this, even mine.

Yeah, that's true. But, you're doing this, because, you know, uh, Larry Page was right. You're, a species that you think humans should survive. Yes, I'm, unabashedly pro

should survive. Yes, I'm, unabashedly pro human. I mean, so you're, spending,

human. I mean, so you're, spending, this is actually, whether you're worth another trillion dollars or 400 billion, it doesn't really matter. What are you going to do with all this money at the end? What's,

matter. What are you going to do with all this money at the end? What's,

your plan? Well, how do you want people to think about you? Well, you know, mostly I need to have enough sort of ownership of the companies to be able to continue to direct their activities. Um, but it's from a personal consumption standpoint.

Um, I, don't actually own any vacation homes. Um, and I just, I'm sort of, you know, medium sized house in Austin. Um,

so, and, actually I should say a tiny house at Starbase. I've seen that house.

It's tiny. Yeah. Actually people, like friends of mine have come to visit and they, thought I was kidding. I'm like, no, it's real. Um, I bought $8 ,000, but I, I've done a lot with the place. Artificial turf in front, little white picket fence. Um, yeah. So, um,

but, like, I said, with, AI and robotics, there will be, uh, a, abundance world. So, it's, people actually, in fact, in,

abundance world. So, it's, people actually, in fact, in, a benign scenario, there's going to be interesting threshold that, AI passes, AI and robotics pass, where it's run out of things to do for humans.

Literally, it's, completely, uh, satiated all human wants. Um, and then, I guess we'll have to start thinking about what to

human wants. Um, and then, I guess we'll have to start thinking about what to do for itself, or I don't know. Um, but I, you know, overall, I want to sit, take the set of actions that expand consciousness into the future, so that the scope and scale of consciousness grows tremendously,

and that we explore other star systems, like in Star Trek, go places, nobody's ever gone before, and find out if there are existing alien civilizations, or maybe there's a long dead alien civilization, and we can, look through their ruins, try to understand what, they were like. Um, and just generally,

understand the universe. Where are you now, right now? I mean,

I'm in, uh, Silicon Valley. Thank you very much for today.

Thank you for everything you've done for me, for our shareholders, and for humanity.

Thank you, Ron. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. What's next, guys?