Transcription
A lot of people, increasingly over the past years, have been worried that AI might take over in some fashion. Some people think it's going to happen but aren't necessarily worried about it. Elon Musk sure sounds like one of those people. Take a look.
>> If the difference in the intelligence between AI and humans is vastly greater than the difference in intelligence between AI and chimpanzees, it's hard to imagine that the chimpanzees would be in charge. >>
I'm really struck by this. >> essentially um an evolved form of chimpanzee. So, it wasn't that long ago that we were swinging through the trees, eating bananas, um in the jungle. And we still eat bananas. >>
I think we should make him put him in charge of our economy. I think I think he should be in charge of literally everything. And your grandparents retirement should hinge on whether he makes good on his promises or whatever. Like he I wish that people who interview Elon Musk would consider, when he says a thing, just pause and think, what if literally any other person said those exact words? How much respect would I put on that? What would I assume about the intelligence of the person saying it? Don't just assume, oh, he's Elon Musk, there's probably something going on there. Actually, like weigh the argument that he's making. He sounds like the dumbest stoner you've ever like wanted to move away from at a party. And that is every interview with Elon Musk. And so, yeah, uh okay, so there's a gap in intelligence between humans and chimpanzees. He said it wrong, but that's what he meant. And the gap between us and AI is even bigger. Fundamental issue with that is is that AI is just a blended-up version of our intellectual and creative products that can then be regurgitated back to us. I have yet to see anything world-changing that it has come up with that we couldn't because all it is is the things we've come up with. But he still believes, no, we're going to flip a switch at some point and it's going to be, you know, it's going to be Kang the Conqueror level intelligence or something like that. Which I think that he's wrong, but that the issue is that as long as he's got some people who believe that that is the truth, he can get them I think to, I don't know, maybe like back off of regulation or back off the social safety net because he then will roll out a line that has become very common for him which is that with something like this, Musk was asked how his companies would make money in this version of the future and he insisted that money won't matter in 2036. That's the sort of thing that should bother an investor, I think. When you're asked how is your company going to be profitable and you say, "Oh, money won't be a thing." Again, annoying stoner, but anyway, he claimed that everyone would have a high income from doing nothing and that people might still perform some kind of labor as a hobby much in the same way that people might grow their own tomatoes in a home garden.
Okay. I want to return to that in a little bit, but first here's a little bit more of Musk. >> I think the the the Treasury should just simply issue people checks. Well, you're >> But where's the revenue coming from? I mean, I'm enough of an economist if you just issue checks you're going to have inflation. >> It it it don't This is like a lot of what we're trying to think about is you know, these things were relevant in the past. They will not be relevant in the future. So, like inflation is simply the ratio of money to the to to goods and services. So, if the goods and services output increases dramatically, if it increases, you know, 1,000% you can increase the you can literally print or in this case change the database, it's not not really print money, it's you create money in the in the database. Um provided the creation of that money uh is less than the rate at which goods and services increase, um you you'll actually have deflation. So, I'll make a prediction, which is that deflation will be the issue, not inflation. The because because as the >>
Okay. So, I I have general thoughts about that, but first, on his predictions, just bear in mind he's the guy that said there would be true full self-driving for Tesla and robo-taxis by 20 16, 10 years ago. SpaceX will launch colonists to Mars by 2025. He promised mass affordable Tesla to produce mass affordable Teslas in 2006. They have yet to put out like a low-cost Tesla. Uh that the hyperloop would would go between New York City and Boston. It turned out since then that the only reason he ever published that paper was because he wanted to destroy uh high-speed rail in California. Uh he said that he'd be shocked if Tesla wasn't producing 100,000 Optimus robots per month by 2031. He said that they would be mass-produced later this year. And the Cybertruck was going to cost $40,000. And like a month into the pandemic, he said that the cases would be zero a few months later. And prediction after prediction after prediction that isn't true. And we shouldn't even get down on him like forgetting the predictions wrong. He's not that bright. He just isn't. Yes, we could just give people a bunch of money if productivity went up by a thousand percent in this insane hypothetical. Can you point to productivity in actual production of goods like food and the things that people need to survive as a result of AI or robotics? 2%? 5% right now. You haven't demonstrated that all he can ever sell is massive overinflated hype with the assumption that by the time we get to the timeline of his predictions, we'll have forgotten that he made the predictions and we'll instead be distracted by the fact that he's made even crazier predictions for always three or four or five years in the future. And the point of saying that we're all we don't need to save, we don't need to invest in anything, we'll just be given fortunes by the rich and powerful, is that if you just assume that, then maybe you won't demand anything now. That's what he's banking on. That's my theory. Obviously, I have, you know, a little bit of rage towards him and the easy the way that these interviewers, Brett, never push him. They are so damn deferential because they want to get future interviews with him. I find it to be infuriating.
What do you think? >> What he said made sense. Like, it is, if productivity goes up and the money supply stays the same, in classical economics, you have a deflation issue, right? But, the point I think we're all making is we're not in Adam Smith's wet dream. We're not in the, you know, Nash equilibrium supply-demand curve world. It only works that way if there aren't like four people who own the entire economy who look around the table and go, "What if we don't lower prices? What if we're the only freaking game in town and people have to buy from us?" And that's played out. The pandemic is a perfect example of this. The supply chain restricted supply. Prices went up. Great. After the pandemic was over, the prices didn't come down commensurate as expected given the way the rest of the economy was behaving because of stuff we know. They just didn't lower the prices. They knew they were the only game in town. And the idea Elon Musk's entire structure that he segues to, they use this as a justification for, is just a money laundering scheme. What anyone who watched Office Space knows when they look up the definition of money laundering in the dictionary is hiding the source of money money by channeling it through an intermediary. >> Mhm. >> It don't Elon Musk is like just give people checks and for people that sounds awesome. But if four people own the economy, then those people will set prices so that everyone has to spend all of that money because that's literally how the price system works in uh you know that kind of a monopolistic economy, right? Or in oligarchical oligopolistic economy, right? Um So, in that scenario the money goes to the people, but it's going to end up in Elon Musk's pockets. And how do I know that kind of stuff happens? Because he's a trillionaire. Because it's already borked, it's already effed to the point where there is these guys with a trillion dollars and most people are at the end of their rope or the end their pockets are empty because those dudes all have the money. The only way to fix it is sure, give people checks, but from his pocketbook. Give us his money. Or find some other way. I could go on about AI and what it would take, but like AI is a tool people can use to grow businesses. That is a fact, we can do that. You what you used to have to hire a coder for, it can code for you. You can get rid of a lot of things along the way that would cost money. However, in that scenario, similar to this scenario, there's always been tools you can use better than other people, but the ones who get rich are really the capitalists, are really the people who understand the financialization and the financial maneuverings that happen after you set up your business in order for them to suck money out of it and put it in their pockets. That's always going to be the case in AI, and that's what Elon Musk doesn't want you to think about or know about. >>
Yeah, and look, I don't I don't think his timeline makes any sense or whatever. It is not impossible that if AI was better than it is or seems like it's going to become and we had the robotics that you could not create a system that produces tons of stuff so people don't need to work as much. That is possible. Private companies are not going to do that. Why would they? Why would they do that? This would obviously have to be some sort of techno-socialism or something like that, which obviously Elon Musk would despise. None of it makes any sense.