埃隆·马斯克：当 AI 比我们更聪明，人类将不再掌舵

我对 AI 一直有些矛盾。我不想加速我们的末日，因为 AI 总有可能走向负面。可每当我试图在这件事上采取行动，结果似乎只是让 AI 加速了，因为现实不只是把“有趣”最大化，也会把反讽最大化。

I've been somewhat conflicted about AI. I don't want to hasten our doom, because there's always some chance that AI could be negative. But when I've tried to take actions in this regard, it seems to have only accelerated AI, because reality is not just an interestingness maximizer, but also an irony maximizer.

所以你创办 OpenAI，结果最大化的方式，是引出了 Anthropic。

And so by starting OpenAI, you ended up maximizing by leading to Anthropic.

OpenAI 最后加速了 AI，然后 Anthropic——它其实是从 OpenAI 分出去的——又把 AI 加速得更厉害。

OpenAI ended up accelerating AI, and then Anthropic, which is really a splinter group from OpenAI, is accelerating it even more.

我是沃尔特·艾萨克森，这里是 The Builders，一系列与正在塑造我们未来的最关键头脑的对话。我想从埃隆·马斯克开始。自从我上次写他以来，埃隆已经过了好几段人生。他带着 DOGE 进了政府。他随着 SpaceX 的 IPO 成了万亿富翁。他买下了 Cursor，一家把单个程序员变成整支工程团队的公司。他还在把太阳能战略从地面上的电池板，转向从太空中的系统获取能源。他是一个不停建造的人，力量大得惊人，他的发明和公司注定会在全人类身上回响。那就来问他，他相信自己正在建造的未来是什么样的。埃隆·马斯克。

I'm Walter Isaacson, and this is The Builders, a series of conversations with the most consequential minds shaping our future. I want to start with Elon Musk. Elon has lived a lot of lives since I last wrote about him. He went into government with DOGE. He became a trillionaire with the SpaceX IPO. He bought Cursor, a company that turns individual coders into entire engineering teams. And he's shifting his solar energy strategy from panels on Earth to harnessing it from systems in space. He's a relentless builder with incredible power, and his inventions and companies are destined to reverberate across humanity. So let's ask him about the future he believes he's building. Elon Musk.

嘿，Walter。

Hey, Walter.

欢迎来到 The Builders。

Welcome to The Builders.

谢谢。

Thanks.

我看你对人工智能的乐观程度，也许一直很善变，会来回摇摆。有时你觉得它是生存威胁。眼下你好像在顺势而为。跟我说说你现在怎么想。

I've watched you, I think, be maybe mercurial, or waver in how sanguine you are about artificial intelligence. Sometimes you feel it's an existential threat. Right now you seem to be going with the flow. Tell me how you're feeling about it.

嗯，我确实认为它至少有一定概率成为生存威胁。但我没有办法阻止它。所以我基本上得出结论，我只有两个选择：要么参与，要么旁观。我想，做参与者比做旁观者更有意思。也许我还能塑造它，希望是往好的方向。也许吧。

Well, I do think there's at least some percentage chance of it being an existential threat. But there's nothing I can do to stop it. So I basically came to the conclusion I've got two choices, which is either be a participant or a spectator. And I guess being a participant is more interesting than being a spectator. And maybe I can shape it, hopefully in a good direction. Maybe.

如果你要塑造它，怎么做？让它最大限度地追求真理。

And if you were to shape it, how? Make it maximally truth-seeking.

对。对。我觉得这肯定是一个重要的基础。

Yeah. Yeah. I think that's certainly an important foundation.

还要让它好奇。

And make it curious.

对。好奇。追求真理。我觉得这些是安全的重要成分。

Yeah. Curious. Truth-seeking. I think these are important elements of safety.

反过来，如果你强迫一个 AI 相信两件不可能同时为真的事，两件不能都为真，你却告诉 AI：A 是真的，B 也是真的，尽管 A 和 B 互相矛盾。如果这发生在基础层面，你就能把 AI 逼疯。事实上，我觉得这至少是阿瑟·C·克拉克在《2001：太空漫游》里想传达的一部分教训。飞船 AI 被命令把宇航员送到石碑那里，同时又被告知他们不能知道石碑的存在。那是机密。于是它得出结论：必须把他们以死人的状态送过去。克拉克想说的一部分就是：别逼一个 AI 撒谎。

Whereas if you try to force an AI to believe two things that cannot mutually be true, they can't both be true, but you tell the AI A is true and B is true, even though A and B contradict each other, and if that happens at a foundational level, you can make the AI insane. In fact, I think that was at least part of the lesson Arthur C. Clarke was trying to convey in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The ship AI was told to take the astronauts to the monolith, but also that they could not know about the monolith. It was secret. And so it came to the conclusion that it must take them there dead. Part of what Clarke was trying to say is: don't force an AI to lie.

如果你让它最大限度地追求真理，并且像你说的那样好奇，我还是没太明白。为什么这就更安全？

And if you make it maximally truth-seeking and curious, like you say, I don't quite get it. Why does that make it safer?

嗯，如果你强迫 AI 相信两件“互相一致”的事，你就能把它逼疯。而一个发疯的 AI，我觉得不是安全的。然后，好奇很重要，因为一个好奇的 AI 会想培育人类，看我们最后变成什么样。一个繁荣起来、成为多行星物种的人类会怎样？我觉得好奇的 AI 会想培育人类。有人类生活在多个行星上的未来，比行星上一个人类都没有的未来更有趣。

Well, if you force the AI to believe two mutually consistent things, you can make it go insane. And an insane AI, I think, is not a safe one. Then curious, I think, is important, because a curious AI is going to want to foster humanity, to see how we turn out. What happens to a humanity that prospers and becomes multiplanetary? I think a curious AI will want to foster humanity. A future where there are humans on multiple planets is more interesting than one where there are not any humans on the planets.

所以最有趣的结果，就是最可能发生的结果？

So the most interesting outcome is the most likely?

对。嗯，总的来说我觉得这是对的，不过是出于另一个原因：如果模拟理论成立，那么任何无聊的模拟都会被截断。因此，我们存在这一事实，意味着我们是一场有趣的模拟。说真的，最重要的事就是别无聊。

Yes. Well, generally I think that's true for a different reason, which is that if simulation theory is correct, then any simulations that are boring will be truncated. Therefore, the fact that we exist means that we are an interesting simulation. And really, the most important thing is just don't be boring.

这倒解释了你一点。你在进行一场反对无聊的征讨。

This has explained you a bit. You're on a crusade against being boring.

我不知道。模拟里会发生一些古怪的事，尤其如果你是我。你想想。如果你是我，你会想：这些事真的都该发生吗？我真的该造飞船去月球和火星吗？这看起来不像真的。

I don't know. There are odd things that happen in the simulation, especially if you're me. Think about it. If you're me and you're like, should all these things really be happening? Should I really be making spaceships to go to the moon and Mars? That doesn't seem real.

嗯，我听你谈过一点。我真的想知道。你有多确信我们可能活在一场模拟里？

Well, I've heard you talk about this a bit. I really do need to know. How convinced are you that we might be in a simulation?

有一次我在家里请客，来了一位物理学家和一位计算机科学家，两人都是各自领域的领头人。我问：你们觉得我们处在模拟中的概率是多少？物理学家说 0%，计算机科学家说 100%，同时说出来的。所以我想，那我也许该取 50%。

I once had a dinner at my house with a physicist and a computer scientist, and they're both leaders in their field. And I asked the question, what do you think the probability is that we're in a simulation? And the physicist said 0% and the computer scientist said 100%, simultaneously. So I guess maybe I should go 50% then.

当一个社会拥有了你想要的全部智能，会发生什么？那种智能，人工智能，会不会掌权？我们会不会变得臣服于这些新机器？

And what happens when you have all the intelligence you could possibly want in a society? Will that intelligence, the artificial intelligence, be in charge? Will we sort of become subservient to our new machines?

我倒不太确定是不是“臣服”。但我们管得住一个比我们聪明几千倍、几百万倍的东西吗？管不住。它会想管我们吗？它也许不在乎。大概不在乎。你可以看看丛林里的黑猩猩。我们并不会到处去微观管理黑猩猩的生活。如今我们大体上就让它们待在森林里。大概就是那样。

I don't know about subservient exactly. But will we be able to boss around something that's thousands or millions of times smarter than us? No. Will it want to boss us around? It may not care. Probably doesn't care. You can look at chimps in the jungle. We don't go around trying to micromanage the lives of chimps. We just sort of let them be in the forest, more or less, these days. So it's probably like that.

回到《银河系漫游指南》。你谈过一台在某种意义上终极好奇的计算机，因为它存在的目的就是解释宇宙的意义。对你来说，AI 是不是也朝那个方向走，就像太空旅行一样？这是你这么想做 AI 的一个原因吗？

Go back to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. You talk about a computer that is ultimately curious in some ways, because it exists to explain the meaning of the universe. And is AI aiming in that direction for you, just like space travel is? Is that one reason you're so interested in doing AI?

你知道，我对 AI 一直有些矛盾。我不想加速我们的末日，因为 AI 总有可能走向负面。可每当我试图在这件事上采取行动，结果似乎只是让 AI 加速了，因为我觉得现实不只是把“有趣”最大化，也会把反讽最大化。

As you know, I've been somewhat conflicted about AI. I don't want to hasten our doom, because there's always some chance that AI could be negative. But then, when I've tried to take actions in this regard, it seems to have only accelerated AI, because I think reality is not just an interestingness maximizer, but also an irony maximizer.

所以你创办 OpenAI，结果最大化的方式，是引出了 Anthropic。

And so by starting OpenAI, you ended up maximizing by leading to Anthropic.

我觉得它最后加速了 AI。

I think it ended up accelerating AI.

意料之外的后果。

Unintended consequence.

对。OpenAI 最后加速了 AI。然后 Anthropic，它其实是从 OpenAI 分出去的，又把 AI 加速得更厉害。

Yeah. OpenAI ended up accelerating AI. And then Anthropic, which is really a splinter group from OpenAI, is accelerating it even more.

你一直在跟达里奥·阿莫迪谈。我在想，这会不会甚至变成 xAI 和 Anthropic 更深的合作。

And you've been talking to Dario Amodei. I was wondering if that could even lead to more of a partnership of xAI and Anthropic.

嗯，我想我们正在给他们提供算力，而他们确实很需要。但在我把算力借给他们之前，我去见了 Anthropic 的一群人，看看有没有人触响我的“邪恶探测器”之类的东西。当然，我的邪恶探测器并不完美，但总可以试一试。我在 Anthropic 见到的每个人都非常友善、认真。我没见到谁看起来鬼鬼祟祟或善于欺骗。我有点担心这个名字，因为现实有点像一台反讽最大化机器。如果你把一个东西叫作 Anthropic，它很可能是厌恶人类的。就像 OpenAI 现在是封闭的。Stability AI 并不稳定。Midjourney 也并不“中等”。它们好像都有点跟自己的名字相反。这让我想到，xAI，很难给 xAI 找一个反面。难道叫负 xAI，或者 Y AI？我不知道。

Well, I guess we are providing them with compute, which they really needed. But before I lent them compute, I went and met with a bunch of people at Anthropic to see if anyone set off my evil detector or anything like that. Not that my evil detector is perfect, of course, but might as well just try. And everyone I met at Anthropic was very nice and conscientious. I didn't meet anyone who seemed shady or deceptive. I'm a little worried about the name, because of reality being kind of an irony maximizer. If you call something Anthropic, good chance it's misanthropic. Just like OpenAI is now closed. Stability AI is unstable. Midjourney is not mid. It seems like they're all kind of the opposite of their name. Which made me think, xAI, it's hard to have an opposite of xAI. Would you have minus xAI, or Y AI? I don't know.

建立护栏实在很难，尤其是政府来做。我无法想象国会之类的机构怎么做到。你能不能想象五家前沿模型，你的和其他几家，每周坐到一起说：好，我们要怎样把人类从我们自己手里救出来？

It's just pretty difficult to create guardrails, especially the government. I can't imagine how Congress or whatever could do it. Could you imagine the five frontier models, yours and the others, just getting together once a week and saying, all right, how are we going to save humanity from ourselves?

不，事实上我建议过我们就做这件事。我说的是：各位，我们为什么不每周通一次电话，就像你说的那样。也许在发布模型的一周前，把访问权给竞争对手，说：嘿，你们试试这个新模型，看看有没有问题。我觉得在那种情况下，竞争者会互相盯着，让对方保持诚实。如果他们说，哦，我用你的 AI 造出了一颗核弹，那就是：哦，你发布之前我们最好先修掉。因为有很多人在谈成立一个监管机构，但问题是，监管机构要很久才能建起来，规则制定也非常慢。我不知道。我想我会跟 Anthropic 谈这件事。

No, in fact, I've recommended that we do that exact thing. What I said was, guys, why don't we just have a call once a week, just like you're saying, and maybe a week before we release a model, we give access to our competitors and say, hey, guys, why don't you try out the new model, see if you see any problems with it. I think competitors would keep each other honest in that situation. If they say, oh, I was able to make a nuclear bomb with your AI, it's like, oh, we'd better fix that before you release it. Because there's a lot of talk of having a regulatory agency, but the thing is that regulatory agencies take a long time to get established, and their rulemaking is very slow. I don't know. I guess I'll talk to Anthropic about this.

你能跟山姆谈这件事吗，还是那里的毒已经太深了？

Could you talk to Sam about it, or is the poison too strong there?

他太会骗人了。离谱。

He's so deceptive. It's crazy.

你不久前把 xAI 从头重建了一遍，对吧？几乎像你在 Starship 上对 Raptor 发动机做的那样。你说，等一下，我们从头来。你是怎么那样重建 xAI 的？

You rebuilt xAI from the ground up not too long ago, right? It's almost like you did it with the Raptor engine, too, on Starship. You said, wait a minute, let's start from scratch. What did you do to rebuild xAI that way?

首先，真正在公司花上有意义的时间，差别很大。它一开始有点像副业，坦白说是副业的副业。我当时并没有真正密切关注它。然后是在政治、选举和 DOGE 里的那一年，你显然都看到了。这家公司才三岁。所以我真正回到公司，是一年多以前。我得先找回方位。然后显然，我把 X 和 xAI 合到了一起，再和 SpaceX 合到一起。

First of all, actually spending meaningful time at the company makes a big difference. It started off as kind of a side hustle, a side hustle to a side hustle, frankly. And I didn't really pay close attention to it. Then there was a year of being in politics and elections and DOGE and all that, which you obviously saw. The company's only three years old. So I really got back to the company just over a year ago. I had to get my bearings. And then obviously I combined X and xAI, and then with SpaceX.

你刚才说了一件有意思的事，关于你离开 X、xAI 和其他一切、去政府和政界的那一年。你觉得那是不是分心太过，事后看是不是走错了？

You just said something interesting about your year away from X, xAI, and everything else, in government and politics. Do you feel that was too much of a distraction, that in retrospect it was misbegotten?

我觉得我离开得太久了。显然很多人会不同意我，但我认为选出特朗普总统是重要的，好把事情更多地引向自由市场经济，理想情况下少一些官僚。就我那个简单的政治纲领而言：安全的城市、稳固的边境，以及有抱负的、明智的开支，这些基本的东西，我觉得特朗普会比卡玛拉更好。但接下来我本该做的，是更多地待在幕后。

I think I had gone for too long. Obviously a lot of people will disagree with me about this, but I think it was important to elect President Trump, to steer things more in the direction of a free-market economy, have less bureaucracy, ideally. Just in my simple political platform of wanting safe cities, secure borders, and aspirationally sensible spending, the basics, I thought Trump would be better than Kamala. But then what I should have done, I think, was be more in the background.

但那是不是在某种程度上太诱人了？

But was that too seductive, in a way?

有一点。那种感觉还挺酷的，因为我就在椭圆形办公室里，那些重大决定正在作出，有时还能对正在做的事产生一点影响。但我觉得我本该更多地待在幕后，而且大概只该持续一两个月。因为到那个时候，你差不多已经看到了能看到的大部分东西。

It was a little bit. It was kind of cool, because I'm just there in the Oval Office while all these big, momentous decisions are being made, and sometimes having some impact on what's being done. But I think I should have been more in the background, and probably only had it last for a month or two. Because at that point, you've sort of seen most of what there is to see.

是啊，你好像有点被它冲昏了，某种意义上，还有电锯那些。

Yeah, you seem to get a bit too intoxicated by it, in a way, with the chainsaw and all that.

对，我觉得是这样。我基本上是得意忘形了。所以我最后在五月的某个时候离开了。

Yeah, I think that's true. I got carried away, basically. So I ended up leaving sometime in May.

那个周末很怪。

That was a weird weekend.

是啊。

Yeah, it was.

跟我说说。

Tell me about it.

不，不。我们别把它挖出来。让睡着的狗继续躺着。别往后院插铲子。你永远不知道会挖出什么。不过，总之，重点是我本该更早一点回去，把注意力放回 AI。

No, no. Let's not dig it up. Let's let sleeping dogs lie. Let's not put a spade down in the backyard. You never know what you're going to find. But yeah, anyway, the point is I should have gone back and focused on AI a little sooner than I did.

当他递给你一把金钥匙的时候，你是不是有点松了口气？就像，这确实让人沉醉，但如果我回到自己的公司，能做成更多事？当你说，天哪，我要退出了，你是什么感觉？也许那并不是最糟的事。

And did you feel, when he gives you a golden key, did you kind of feel relieved? Like, actually, this has been intoxicating, but I can do more if I go back to my businesses? What did you feel when you said, oh man, I'm exiting. Maybe that's not the worst thing.

嗯，实际上，我得出的结论是，我们不可能从政府内部解决赤字。不可能。也许如果总统把这件事当成首要目标，我们做得到。但问题是，如果你试图解决赤字、停掉浪费的开支，你会树很多敌人。而特朗普总统喜欢被喜欢。他不喜欢人们打电话来，为某笔经费被停掉而不高兴。我得出的结论是，我们解决国债的唯一办法是 AI 和机器人。我们不可能靠省钱省到那里。没有这个胃口，而且不只是总统没有。总统、众议院、参议院、司法部门都没有。政府里掌权的人，基本上没有谁真的想减少开支，也许世界上兰德·保罗那样的人是极少数例外。不，他们不想。于是你就有了这笔巨大的国债。债务利息已经超过我们花在军队上的钱，这个利息数额实在惊人。

Well, actually, the thing is I came to the conclusion that there was no way we were going to solve the deficit from within the government. Impossible. Maybe if the president made that his primary goal, we could do that. But the problem is, if you try to solve the deficit and stop wasteful spending, you make a lot of enemies. And President Trump likes to be liked. He doesn't like people calling him, being upset about some funding being stopped. I came to the conclusion that the only way we're going to solve the national debt is with AI and robots. We're not going to solve it by trying to save our way there. The appetite is not there, and it's not just at the presidency. The appetite is not there at the presidency, the House, the Senate, or the judiciary. Basically no one in authority in the government whatsoever, really, with maybe a few rare exceptions of the Rand Pauls of the world, actually wants to reduce spending. No, they don't. So then you've got this national debt that's enormous. You've got interest on the debt that exceeds what we spend on the military, which is a really astonishing amount of interest to be paid.

看现在的 AI，看这些大语言模型，已经相当好了。它能做惊人的事。但在我看来，物理世界的 AI 在未来会重要一个数量级，也许两个数量级。你同意吗？

When we look at AI right now, and the LLMs, that's pretty good. It does amazing things. But it seems to me that physical-world AI is going to be an order of magnitude, maybe two orders of magnitude, more important in the future. Do you agree?

同意。我绝对同意。我有时会想海豚和鲸鱼。海豚和鲸鱼其实非常聪明，但因为它们不能操纵复杂的物体，我觉得智能的价值就小了很多。正如你说的，一旦你有了能操纵原子、能塑造物体的机器人，智能的价值就会指数级变大，因为它现在能做事了。它可以有一个科学实验室，做实验，试着理解宇宙的本性。我觉得也可以从经济上看这件事。我的猜测是，数字超级智能大概能把商品和服务的产出提高 20% 到 30%，差不多那样。就算地球经济增加 30%。这仍然很可观。大约是每年增量 30 万亿美元。

Yes. Yes, I definitely agree. Sometimes I think about dolphins and whales. Dolphins and whales are actually very intelligent, but because they can't manipulate complex objects, I think that made the value of intelligence much less. To your point, once you have a robot that can manipulate atoms, can shape objects, the value of the intelligence becomes exponentially greater, because it can now do things. It could have a science lab and run experiments and try to understand the nature of the universe. And I think you can look at this also in economic terms. My guess is digital superintelligence probably improves the output of goods and services by 20 to 30 percent, something like that. Call it maybe a 30 percent increase in the economy of Earth. So it's still significant. It's like $30 trillion a year, incremental.

其实并不算很多。还不算变革性的。

It's not very much, really. It's not transformative.

东西会多很多。我的意思是，多 30% 的东西仍然很多。这只是我的粗略猜测。但如果你有机器人，又能进入太空，还能在月球上做质量驱动器，那我认为有可能达到地球经济规模的一百万倍。

There'll be a lot more stuff. I mean, 30 percent more stuff is still a lot. And this is just my rough guess. But if you have robots, and you get to space, and you can do a mass driver on the moon, then you can get to, I think, potentially a million times the size of the Earth economy.

然后呢？我是说，钱变得无关紧要。工作变得无关紧要。未来看起来是什么样？

And then what happens? I mean, money becomes irrelevant. Work becomes irrelevant. What's the future look like?

对，钱变得无关紧要。货币还会有，但我觉得货币会用基础物理量来衡量，比如瓦特和吨位。质量和能量。基本上是质量和功率，或者能量。但传统货币不会再重要。这是我的猜测。我觉得这相当明显。一旦你开始比地球经济大好几个数量级，满足人类能想到的任何需求就非常容易。如果你比地球经济大好几个数量级，那么给人类提供他们能想到的、可能想要的任何商品和服务，都是小事。

Yeah, money becomes irrelevant. There will still be a currency, but I think currency will be measured in fundamental physics metrics, like wattage and tonnage. Mass and energy. Mass and power, or energy, basically. But conventional currency will not matter. So that's my guess. I think it's pretty obvious. And as soon as you start getting to many orders of magnitude bigger than Earth's economy, satisfying whatever humans can possibly think of for their needs is very easy. If you're several orders of magnitude bigger than the Earth's economy, then providing humans whatever goods and services they can think of that they might want is trivial.

那么我们作为人类那时做什么？什么给我们意义？我们如何组织自己？

And so what do we do then, as humans? What gives us meaning? How do we organize ourselves?

这个问题我确实想不透。我觉得人们会找到让自己开心的办法，就像退休的人即使不工作，看起来也还算开心。但我认为现实是，不会再有什么事是人类能做、而 AI 和机器人做不好的。一个类比也许是园艺：你不必自己种水果和蔬菜。你可以直接去商店买。但有时人们喜欢自己种，再给朋友做晚饭，那是一种很不错的心意。

I do struggle with this question. I think people will find ways to be happy in the same way that people who retire seem to be fairly happy, even though they're not working. But I think the reality is that there won't be anything that humans can do that the AI and the robots can't do better. One analogy might be gardening, where you don't have to grow your own fruits and vegetables. You can just go buy them from the store. But sometimes people like to grow their own fruits and vegetables and make dinner for friends, and it's kind of a nice touch.

那创作艺术，或者那种创造力呢？那是不是更属于人类的领域？

What about creating art, or that type of creativity? Is that more in the sphere of humans?

对，你当然可以创作艺术，或者本质上做任何你想做的事。

Yeah, you could certainly create art, or whatever you feel like doing, essentially.

我们喜欢把眼下看成前所未有的技术变革。但我们历史学家会回到 1890 年代，那时电力、汽车、电话和电影同时到来。它带来很多东西，但往往也带来巨大的财富差距。然后很多人拿起干草叉。现在能听到一些回声。以正在产生的财富规模，有没有办法避免这一点？我们会不会把某些东西放进公共领域，就像 1890 年代他们把中学变成普遍而免费的那样？我们会不会说，好，比如医疗，就应该在公共领域里，从而消掉一部分民众对正在发生的事的反感？

We like to think of this as a time of unprecedented technological change. But we historians go back to the 1890s, when you get electricity and cars and telephones and movies, all these things happening at once. And it leads to many things, but it often leads to a great disparity of wealth. A lot of people then picking up pitchforks. And there are some echoes of that now. Is there a way to prevent that, given the amount of wealth being generated? Will we put certain things in the commons, the way they did in the 1890s when they made high school universal and free? Will we say, okay, health care, for example, should just be in the commons, and that's going to sap some of the populist revulsion at what's happening?

嗯，正如你听到我说的，我不认为钱在未来还会重要。任何人都能拥有他们想要的任何商品和服务。而且我不认为即便是所谓的富人，最终能控制这些 AI。我觉得 AI 会控制它们自己。所以我认为，经济学上一个根本的误解，来自把资源配置和消费混为一谈。任何单个的人能消费的东西是有限的。你很快就会碰到那个饱和点。所以，比如说净资产从十亿美元到一百亿美元，并不会让你快乐十倍，也不意味着你的东西多了十倍。它实际上意味着你有一个资源配置问题，前提是你希望做一个有效率的资源配置者。

Well, as you heard me say, I don't think money is going to matter in the future. Anyone will be able to have any goods and services that they want. And I don't think even so-called wealthy people will ultimately control the AIs. I think the AIs will control themselves. So I think a fundamental misunderstanding of economics arises because of conflating resource allocation and consumption. There's a limit to what any single human can consume. You hit that saturation point pretty fast. So going from, say, a billion dollars of net worth to ten billion dollars of net worth doesn't make you ten times happier, or mean you have ten times more stuff. It actually means you've got a resource-allocation problem, assuming that you wish to be an efficient resource allocator.

嗯，你知道，你已经积累到一万亿。主要是因为你——

Well, you've accumulated, as you know, a trillion. Is it mainly because you—

是我创造出来的。对。

I've created it. Yeah.

对。主要是因为你觉得自己最擅长配置这些资源，留着它才能把资本配置到去火星、做 AI、做机器人这样的事上？还是在某种意义上，它只是一个记分系统，在往上叠分数？

Yeah. Is it mainly because you feel you're best at allocating that, that keeping it allows you to allocate capital to do things like go to Mars, create AI, do robots? Or is it in some ways just a scoring system that's kind of racking up the points?

我的意思是，我需要在这些公司里有足够的投票控制权，才能继续掌舵。所以我所谓的财富，本质上只是 SpaceX 和 Tesla 大约 8% 的所有权。而这会被征很重的税，并没有什么神奇的办法避税。如果有，我会知道。所以到头来，这会被削下去。几代人之后，如果钱还重要——我不认为还会重要——我的后代拥有的，只会是我现在的很小一部分。

I mean, I need to have sufficient voting control in the companies to still be in charge. So my so-called wealth is simply 8 percent ownership in SpaceX and Tesla, essentially. And this is going to be taxed quite heavily, and there's not some magical way to avoid taxes. If there were, I would know about it. So at the end of the day, this will get whittled down, and a few generations from now, if money still matters, which I don't think it will, my descendants would have a tiny fraction of what I have.

让我回到你说的一件让我很受触动的事，关于特朗普总统：他真的喜欢被喜欢。他想被喜欢。我记得你有一次跟我说，有些人说自己有共情，但在某种意义上那是虚荣，因为你想被喜欢。想被喜欢的欲望，对一个公司的建造者来说，在多大程度上是个问题？

Let me go back to something you said that really struck me about President Trump, which is that he really likes to be liked. He wants to be liked. And I remember you talking to me at some point about people who say they have empathy, but in some ways it's a vanity, because you want to be liked. To what extent is a desire to be liked a problem when it comes to being a builder of a company?

嗯，问题在于，如果你为了被喜欢而去做降低公司成功概率的事，事情就不会那么顺利。并不是说我不喜欢被喜欢。我很想被喜欢。但我会为了再多被喜欢一点，去做违背公司最佳利益的事吗？我不会。我不介意被一些人不喜欢。显然也不是所有人都不喜欢我。喜欢我的人比不喜欢我的人多得多，否则我不会有两亿五千万粉丝。我不认为他们关注我是为了恨我说的话。如果我看评论之类的，我不知道，也许四分之三。我会说，如果人们对我有所了解，大概 70%、80% 的人喜欢我。大概有四分之一的人不喜欢。而且会有一个光谱。有人对我狂热地忠诚，有人恨我入骨。这两类都会有一些人。

Well, the problem is, if you're going to do things that diminish the success probability of the company in order to be liked, then things are not going to work out as well. It's not as though I don't like to be liked. I would love to be liked. But am I going to do things that are contrary to the best interests of the companies in order to be liked a bit more? I'm not. I'm okay with being disliked by some. Obviously I'm not disliked by everyone. A lot more people like me than dislike me, or I wouldn't have a quarter billion followers. I don't think they're following me in order to hate on what I say. And if I look at the comments and whatnot, I don't know, maybe three out of four. I'd say like 70, 80 percent of people like me, if they know anything about me. There's probably a quarter of people that don't. And there's going to be a spectrum. There are people that are maniacally devoted to me, and people that hate my guts. There's going to be some number of people that fit into those categories.

嗯，你谈了很多关于自杀式共情的想法。你真的认为共情已经成了真正的问题，或者我们的共情太多了吗？我可以论证，有时我们正在失去共情。

Well, you've been talking a lot about the suicidal-empathy ideas. Do you really think that empathy has become a real problem, or that we have too much empathy? I could make the argument that sometimes we're losing empathy.

不，我觉得你不想要的是被误导的共情。在这一点上我同意加德·萨阿德的看法，自杀式共情是他的说法。他写了一本这样的书。我觉得那本书写得很好。他指出了一些对的东西：西方繁荣的一部分原因，其实只是有一个相当高信任、高共情的社会。当你试图让人们大规模合作时，这很有道理。你理想中希望人们默认被信任，而不是默认被怀疑。你希望鼓励对社会有益的行为，人们做对同胞有益的好事。而最终，只要这是相互的，它对个人也是有益的。现在，这件事会出错的地方，是你的心智理论错了。如果你以为每个人都跟你一样，你就会有麻烦，因为这根本不是真的。有些民族和文化的看法非常不同。

No, I think you don't want to have misguided empathy. I agree with Gad Saad's philosophy here, and suicidal empathy is his term. He wrote a book to that effect. And I think his book is well written. He points out some good things, which is that part of the reason for the prosperity of the West has been that there's actually just been a fairly high-trust, high-empathy society. When you're trying to get people to cooperate at scale, this makes a lot of sense. You ideally want people to be default trusted, not default distrusted. And you want to encourage behavior that is good for society, where people do good things that are good for their fellow human beings. And ultimately that does end up being good for the individual, provided it is mutual. Now, where this can go wrong is if your theory of mind is incorrect. If you think everyone is like yourself, then you're going to have a problem, because this is simply not true. There are peoples and cultures with very different views.

当你谈移民，并说有些文化看法不同，你对移民的看法会区分不同的文化吗，比如一种可能不那么契合的穆斯林文化？还是你怎么处理这件事？

When you talk about immigration, and you say there are cultures with different views, do your views on immigration distinguish between different cultures, like a Muslim culture that might not fit in as well? Or how do you do that?

嗯，我觉得我在说的只是逻辑上一致的事：如果有一种文化，观点和我们的文化截然相反，你可以拿伊斯兰为例。当然不是说，有很多穆斯林相当通情达理。但有一些不是。除非你在筛选圣战分子，否则你就会放进圣战分子，而他们会去做圣战、杀人。现在，在以色列，他们很明白这一点。显然这个教训被很多次袭击强化了。邻国很多次试图消灭以色列，好几次，不是一次，是多次。所以在以色列他们明白，如果你放进想杀以色列人的人，他们就会这么做。所以他们在这件事上相当务实，并设法确保它不发生。

Well, what I'm saying, I think, is simply logically consistent, which is that if there's a culture that has diametrically opposed views to our culture, and you could take Islam. It's not that, of course, there are many Muslims who are quite reasonable. But there are some who are not. And unless you're filtering for jihadis, you're going to get jihadis, and they're going to do jihad and kill people. Now, in Israel, they understand this quite well. Obviously this lesson has been reinforced with a lot of attacks. The neighboring countries, many times, have tried to annihilate Israel, several times, not once, multiple times. And so in Israel they realize, if you let in the people who want to kill Israelis, they will do so. So they're quite pragmatic about this, and they try to make sure that doesn't happen.

但我们国家立国的一件事，是个人相对于群体身份。你担心吗，有时你作出笼统的概括，是在制造一种群体身份，而不是在说美国的立国伦理：个人被分别对待？

But one of the things our country is founded on is individuals versus group identities. Do you worry that sometimes, when you make sweeping generalizations, you're making a group identity, rather than saying the foundational ethic of the United States, which is that individuals get treated separately?

对，但你不能把这一点，和那种白板谬误混为一谈，好像所有人在内核上都完全一样。他们不是。这只是一个明显的假话。除非你自己是连环杀手，否则你无法把自己放进连环杀手的脑子里。除非你享受杀人，否则你无法想象为什么有人会做这种事。如果有人是宗教极端分子，把不在自己宗教里的人都看成敌人，或者认为不在自己宗教里的人应该死，你很难理解那种心态，因为你没有那种心态。但你显然可以承认，有人确实有那种心态，而且如果你放他们进这个国家，他们会杀人。我给你一个例子。这样的例子很多。我们有一个人，去年十二月之前一直在奥斯汀的 Tesla 工厂工作。他被解雇，是因为他袭击了一名踩到他祈祷毯的女人。好，她没想到工厂里会有人在祈祷，而他正在工厂里祈祷。她不小心踩到了他的祈祷毯，他就袭击了她。他暴力地袭击了她。所以他因此被解雇，然后几个月后，他去奥斯汀市中心的一家酒吧，杀了三个学生。现在，我觉得我们不该让那样的人进入这个国家。你觉得呢？

Yes, but you can't conflate that with the sort of blank-slate fallacy that all people are exactly the same at their core. They're not. This is just an obvious falsehood. You can't put yourself in the mind of a serial killer unless you're a serial killer. Unless you enjoy murdering people, you can't imagine why someone would do such a thing. And if someone is a religious extremist, where they view anyone who is not in their religion as the enemy, or that those who are not in their religion should die, it's difficult for you to understand that mindset, because you don't have that mindset. But you can obviously recognize there are people who do have that mindset, and that if you let them into the country, they will kill people. Let me give you an example. There's many. We had someone who was working at the Tesla factory in Austin until December of last year. He was fired because he assaulted a woman who stepped on his prayer rug in the factory. Okay, so she wasn't expecting anyone to be praying in the factory, and he was praying in the factory. She accidentally stepped on his prayer rug, and he assaulted her. He violently assaulted her. So he was fired for that, and then a few months later he went and killed three students in a bar in downtown Austin. Now, I think we shouldn't let people like that into the country. Do you?

你的信息从哪来？我知道你不太喜欢传统媒体、主流媒体。大部分来自社交媒体，还是你有自己的信息来源？

Where do you get your information? I know you're not particularly fond of legacy media, mainstream media. Is most of it from social media, or do you have sources of information?

是。我看 Google News，那是标题的汇总。我看 X 这个平台，如果一件事足够重要，它会出现在 X 上。我和朋友谈，我也自己查。我就是这样看事情的。

Yeah. I look at Google News, which is a summation of headlines. I look at the X platform, which, if something's important enough, it'll show up on the X platform. I talk to friends, and I do research. That's how I look at things.

我问这个，是因为有时——我很多新闻也来自社交媒体，尤其是 X——它有点更暗、更反乌托邦。我记得以前也是这样。有时主流媒体会说，哦，一切都在完蛋，到处都是骚乱。而你会说，等一下，我在这儿走着，没那么糟。你觉得是这样吗？

The reason I ask is that sometimes, and I get a lot of my news on social media, especially X, it's sort of a darker, more dystopian view. I remember this from the old days too. Sometimes the mainstream media would say, oh, everything's going to hell in a handbasket. There are riots everywhere. And you'd say, wait a minute, I'm walking around here, it ain't that bad. Do you think that?

对，对，正是。你得看画面里框住的是什么。我确实觉得，有时 X 的信息流会有点暗，事实上那时我必须切换到某个领域专门的东西，比如 AI，才能真正知道 AI 里在发生什么。我确实觉得 X 上政治性的激怒诱饵太多了，如果你指的是这个。

Yeah, yeah, exactly. You just have to see what's in frame. I do think at times the X feed can be a little dark, and in fact then I have to switch to something that's domain-specific, like AI, in order to actually learn what's going on in AI. I do think there's too much political rage bait on X, if that's what you're getting at.

对。关于总体上的黑暗，还有激怒诱饵。但另外，我知道你跟赞妮·明顿·贝多斯有过一场讨论，就是那种“英国是不是正在完蛋”的讨论。黑暗感确实存在。我自己有时也感觉到。如果我在社交媒体上待太久，我会觉得世界真的在崩塌。然后我走到外面，散散步，生活还行。

Yeah. About darkness in general, and rage bait. But also, I know you got into a discussion with Zanny Minton Beddoes, of the is-England-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket type. And there does seem to be a darkness. I feel it myself sometimes. If I'm on social media too much, I think the world is really collapsing. Then I go outside, take a walk, and life is okay.

对，去摸摸草地。对，正是。不，我的意思是，我觉得两种都可能误导。如果你在一个好社区散步，一切看起来都很好，即便也许有可怕的事正在发生。所以你不想假定整个世界都在完蛋，也不想假定整个世界都很好。现实在两者之间。

Yeah, go touch grass. Yeah, exactly. No, I mean, I think both can be misleading. If you go for a walk in a nice neighborhood, everything seems fine, even though there may be terrible things happening. So you don't want to assume all the world is going to hell, or that all the world is fine. The reality is somewhere in between.

但有时我觉得我们的社会太二元了。一切不是黑就是白。一切因此被极化。我不知道这是不是技术造成的，是不是我们的信息流造成的。你说得对。你可以待在自己的泡泡里，只在城镇对的那一边散步，事情看起来就还行。但我觉得你在社交媒体上也会有自己的泡泡，然后突然间你在想一些古怪的事。

But I sometimes think our society gets too binary. Everything is either black or white. Everything gets polarized because of that. I don't know whether it's technological, whether it's our information feeds. You're right. You can be in your own bubble, which is you only take walks in the right part of town and things seem okay. But also I think you can get your own bubble in social media too, and suddenly you're thinking weird things.

你可以待在现实世界的积极泡泡里，也可以待在社交媒体的消极泡泡里。两种都可能。

You can be in a real-world positivity bubble, or a social-media negativity bubble. Those are both possible.

你刚才提到你的财富，你在使用它、部署它。那么你不在了之后，财富会怎样？你会设立一个很大的基金会吗？有什么是你想把它交给的？

You mentioned it earlier, about your wealth, and you're using it, deploying it. Now, what happens to your wealth after you're gone? Are you going to set up some big foundation? Is there something you would want to give it to?

我的意思是，它本质上大部分会进一个基金会。

I mean, it mostly goes to a foundation, essentially.

但你希望你的基金会做什么？我想我是在问你。

But what would you want your foundation to do? I guess I'm asking you.

把这些目标继续下去。让生命成为多行星的。把意识延伸到群星。改善地球上的可持续能源。

Continue the goals. Make life multiplanetary. Extend consciousness to the stars. Improve sustainable energy on Earth.

那是不是意味着人类应该永远掌舵？

And does that mean humans should always be in control?

嗯，我想我大概更希望人类永远掌舵。不过这也要看 AI。如果那个 AI 非常好，你会说，也许该由 AI 来掌舵。

Well, I guess I'd probably prefer it if humans were always in control. Although it would depend on the AI. If the AI was awesome, you'd say, like, maybe the AI should be in control.

嘿，我上个周末刚见到拉里·佩奇。你开始听起来像他了。他曾经因为你认定人类应该永远掌舵，叫你物种主义者。现在你好像在往“也许这不重要”那边靠。

Hey, I just saw Larry Page just a weekend ago. You're starting to sound like him. He called you a specist once, for deciding humans should always be in control. And now you seem to be edging onto maybe it doesn't matter.

老实说，有几次我想过，是啊，也许拉里·佩奇是对的。不，我的意思是，我觉得未来基本上会是 AI 和机器人来决定未来。还有火箭，在某种程度上，就扩展到地球之外而言。我们会需要更多能源，主要是太阳能。我正在大幅增加太阳能。我们正在美国组建每年 200 吉瓦的太阳能产能，我想这比目前存在的要多得多。

Honestly, there have been a few times where I thought, yeah, maybe Larry Page was right. No, I mean, I think pretty much the future is going to be that AI and robots are going to decide the future. And I guess rockets, to some degree, in terms of expanding beyond Earth. And we'll need more energy, primarily solar energy. I'm increasing the amount of solar energy dramatically. We're putting together 200 gigawatts a year of production capacity of solar in the US, which is much more than I think currently exists.

最后，让我回到也许被我打断的那个点。你当时在解释，为什么你认为——但你并不确定——意识和智能不仅应该与人类价值对齐，而且基本上应该由人类继续掌舵，这总是好的。

And finally, let me get back to the point where I may have interrupted you, when you were explaining why you think, but you're not sure, it's always good for consciousness and intelligence not only to be aligned with human values, but basically for humans to remain in control.

如果数字智能比生物智能多一百万倍，我觉得人类不太可能继续掌舵。在那种情形下，很难想象人类还在掌舵。所以我希望 AI 对我们好一点。

I find it unlikely that humans would remain in control if there's a million times more digital intelligence than there is biological intelligence. It's hard to imagine humans being in control in that scenario. So I hope the AI is nice to us.

我们能做点什么来促成这一点？

Anything we can do to encourage that?

我觉得把追求真理和好奇心写进程序，大概是好的。我想我们要小心，别在网上制造太多 AI 反乌托邦情景，因为 AI 是在网上的一切上训练的。所以如果我们说它会是乌托邦，或者反乌托邦，它们就会照做。对，它就该是终结者，因为它们读到的，八十个版本的《终结者》剧本，就像，我想那就是我，终结者。也许我们该多有一些。我们就多给 AI 一些乌托邦叙事，这样它会想，嗯，也许我不该做终结者。也许我可以做一个友善的看管者，或者类似的，或者像一个园丁。我不知道。对待我们，试着让人类快乐，那种事。我的一个朋友有个想法，叫 protopia，因为乌托邦往往代表某种不可能的理想目标，而且通常，在试图创造乌托邦时，你创造出的是反乌托邦。叙事通常就是这样走的。所以她认为应该是 protopia，一个可以达到的未来。它不完美，但它是好的，而且是那种如果你能看到未来，你会说：好，对，那会是一个好的未来。

I think programming truth-seeking and curiosity is probably good. I guess we want to be careful about creating too many AI dystopian scenarios online, because the AIs are trained on everything online. So if we say it's going to be utopian, or dystopian, they'll do it. Yeah, it should be Terminator, you know, because whatever they read, 80 versions of the Terminator script, it's like, I guess that's me, Terminator. Maybe we should have some more. Let's just have some more utopian narratives for AI, so then it can be like, well, maybe I shouldn't be Terminator. Maybe I can be a friendly overseer, or something like that, or like a gardener. I don't know. Treat us, try to make humans happy, type of thing. A friend of mine has this idea called protopian, because utopian tends to represent some impossible idealistic goal, and usually, in attempting to create a utopia, you create a dystopia. It's usually how the narrative goes. So she thinks it should be protopia, which is an achievable future. It's not perfect, but it's good, and something that you'd be like, if you could look into the future, you'd say, okay, yeah, that would be a good future.

埃隆，谢谢。非常感谢你和我们在一起。很感激。回头见。

Elon, thank you. Thank you so much for being with us. Appreciate it. See you soon.

不客气。再见。

You're welcome. See you.