埃隆·马斯克预测 AI 将在 2030 年代超越人类智能，带来丰裕时代

Elon Musk，非常感谢你接受《内幕》的采访。

Elon Musk, thank you so much for joining me on the Insider.

感谢你邀请我们来特斯拉超级工厂。

Thank you for having us here at Tesla Giga.

不用最高级来形容你实在太难了。我认为，你在塑造未来方面所做的贡献，比现在任何在世的人都多。

It is really hard to introduce you without using superlatives. I mean, you are doing, I think, more to build the future than literally anybody alive right now.

我确实做了很多建造工作。

I'm doing a lot of building in general.

你确实做了很多。

You're doing a lot of building.

大概是一种本能的建造者吧。我就是喜欢创造东西。

An instinctive builder, I suppose. I just like building things.

你是这样，但你一直在建造——你整天都在四处建造东西。你开创了电动汽车，革新了太空旅行，现在又有了前沿 AI 模型、人形机器人。我们能否从你把这一切串联起来开始？告诉我，如果你成功了，比方说 10 年后世界会是什么样子？

You are, but you're building — you know, run around building things all day long. You pioneered electric vehicles, you revolutionized space travel, you've got a cutting edge AI model now, humanoid robots. Can we start this conversation by you putting all of this together? Tell me what the world's going to be like in, let's say, 10 years if you succeed.

10年。那就是 2036 年。

10 years. So we're talking 2036.

是的。

Yeah.

希望我们俩都还在。

Hopefully we'll both be around.

希望如此。是的。

Hopefully. Yes.

很可能我们都会在。很难想象一个没有海量人工智能的未来。也就是说，10 年后，我预计人工智能将远远超过人类智能的总和，远远超过。实际上，我认为 AI 可能在五年左右就会超越人类智能的总和。

Probably most likely we will be. It's hard to imagine the future where there's not an overwhelming amount of artificial intelligence. Meaning like in 10 years, I would expect artificial intelligence to be far greater than the sum of human intelligence, like far greater. In fact, I think AI may exceed the sum of human intelligence in about five years.

正好五年。

Exactly 5 years.

我的猜测大约是五年。所以除了身为人类这件事，AI 真的没有什么是不能比人类做得更好的。也许从更实际的层面来看，生活会是什么样子？

Roughly 5 years is my guess. So there really won't be anything that AI can't do better than humans, apart from being human. Perhaps at a more prosaic level, what will life be like?

从更实际的层面来看，生活会是什么样子？

At a more prosaic level, what will life be like?

最可能的结果是一个惊人的丰裕时代，任何人都能拥有他们能想到的任何东西。这听起来可能荒谬，但我们现在是 2026 年。我们看看 2036 年会是什么样。当然，有些事情可能会让这一切脱轨，比如大规模的全球热核战争之类的。但假设没有第三次世界大战，我认为我们正走向一个惊人的丰裕时代。所以这是一个关于未来的乐观和兴奋的信息。

The most likely outcome is an age of amazing abundance, where anyone can have anything they can think of. This may sound preposterous, but well, here we are in 2026. Let's see where we stand in 2036. Now, of course, there are things that could derail this, like a massive global thermonuclear war or something like that. But assuming that there's not World War III, I think we're headed for an age of amazing abundance. So this is a message of optimism and excitement about the future.

我们稍后再谈丰裕，但先谈一个非常实际的问题：你的公司将如何赚钱？因为当你看 SpaceX 的 IPO 前景时，似乎绝大部分收入将来自 AI，来自 Grok。实际上，不会像现在 SpaceX 这样运送东西到太空。10 年后你的公司会做什么，它们将如何赚钱？

So we'll talk about the abundance in a second, but just a very prosaic matter: how are your companies going to be making money? Because when you look at the SpaceX IPO perspectives, it looked as though the overwhelming amount of the revenue would be coming from AI, from Grok. Really, it won't be transporting things to space as SpaceX is now doing. What will your companies be doing in 10 years, and how will they make money?

你可以把经济看作数字智能和物理智能。我们现在快速进步的是数字智能。显然，随着 AI 的发展，几乎每一周都有新的 AI 突破。它能做一些以前做不到的惊人事情。但它仍然某种程度上局限于数字领域。它没有末端执行器。你需要以人形机器人形式的末端执行器。简而言之，你需要大量机器人。然后你就能从智能仅以数字方式显现，转变为塑造原子。你问，什么是经济？经济就是商品生产和服务的提供。如果你拥有大量配备海量数字智能的机器人，你就拥有了一种准无限的经济。所以未来将和过去非常、非常不同。我认为没有任何类比或比喻能说明我们即将经历的变化的规模。

Well, you can really think of the economy as digital and physical intelligence. What we have right now advancing very rapidly is digital intelligence. Obviously with AI, it seems almost with every passing week there are more AI breakthroughs. It can do something amazing that it couldn't do before. But it's still somewhat confined to the digital realm. It doesn't have end effectors. You need the end effectors in the form of humanoid robotics. You need basically a lot of bots, in a nutshell. And then you can go from intelligence manifesting itself only digitally to shaping atoms. And you say, what is an economy? An economy is the production of goods and provision of services. And if you have vast numbers of robots with vast amounts of digital intelligence, you have a sort of quasi-infinite economy. So this is really the future is going to be very, very different from the past. There's no analogy or metaphor that I think illustrates the magnitude of change that we're going to experience here.

我理解这一点，我也在试图弄清楚那个世界会是什么样子。但在某种程度上，你——

I understand that, and I'm also trying to figure out what that world will look like. But in some way you have —

那将是相当不可思议的。

It's going to be pretty incredible.

是的，我们也会谈到一些风险。我们会谈到那些。但就赚钱而言——因为归根结底，人们买你的股票是因为他们期望你赚钱。

Yeah, we'll also do there are some risks. We'll come to those. But just on how you make money — because in the end, people are buying your shares because they expect you to make money.

我再做一个预测。2036 年金钱将不再重要。

I'll make another prediction. Money won't matter in 2036.

你正在观看我对 Elon Musk 的采访。如果你想提前获取其他采访，请点击上方链接订阅《经济学人》。现在回到采访。我不确定那些买了你股票的人认为 2036 年金钱不再重要。你要钱做什么？你需要钱来换取商品和服务，对吧？显然是为了食物、住房、交通、娱乐。如果这些东西如此丰富，机器人和 AI 提供的商品和服务超过了任何人类可能消耗的，那么在这种情况下你还需要钱做什么？

You're watching my interview with Elon Musk. If you want to get early access to other interviews, subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link above. Now back to the interview. I'm not sure that the people who bought your shares think that money won't matter in 2036. What do you want money for? You want money for goods and services, right? For obviously food, housing, transport, entertainment. Well, if that is so abundant that the robots and AI are providing more goods and services than any human could possibly consume, what do you need money for in that case?

但你在制造这些机器人。你是现在需要钱吗？当然。你是出售这些机器人吗？你是出售人形机器人，还是用你控制的人形机器人生产商品和服务？

But you're creating these robots. Are you now and then you'll need money? Sure. Are you selling these robots? Are you selling humanoid robots, or are you producing goods and services with the humanoid robots that you control?

我给你李维斯背带。

I give you the Levi Strap.

我认为，如果我认为自己能控制一个比我聪明得多的超级天才 AI，那将是虚荣心的体现。我认为我们能够并且应该尝试做的是确保 AI 有良好的价值观，它关心人类，并且希望我们快乐和繁荣。我认为很可能会是这样。我的生物神经网络告诉我，AI 安全最重要的是最大限度地追求真理和好奇心。如果是这样，我认为它会促进人类发展。

I think it would be an exercise in vanity for me to think that I would be controlling super genius AI that is vastly smarter than me. I think what we can and should try to do is to make sure that the AI has good values, that it cares about humanity, and that it wants us to be happy and prosper. I think it probably will be. My biological neural net tells me that the most important thing for AI safety is to be maximally truth-seeking and curious. If that's the case, I think it will foster humanity.

那么让我们来分析一下。你确定 10 年后人类将不再处于控制地位？

So let's unpack that. You're sure that humans will no longer be in control in 10 years time?

我认为这不太可能。就像如果 AI 与人类之间的智能差距远远大于 AI 与黑猩猩之间的智能差距，很难想象黑猩猩能够掌权。我很抱歉。我们本质上是从黑猩猩进化而来的。不久之前我们还在丛林里荡来荡去吃香蕉。顺便说一句，我们仍然吃香蕉。是的。而且你知道，香蕉有时也在树上荡来荡去。

I think it is unlikely. In the same way that if the difference in 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 sorry. And we are essentially an evolved form of chimpanzee. It wasn't that long ago that we were swinging through the trees eating bananas in the jungle. And we still eat bananas, by the way. We do. And still, you know, bananas sometimes swing through trees as well.

是的，我们有时也会在树上荡来荡去。这挺有趣的。让人想起过去。看在过去的份上，偶尔在树上荡一荡。也许，你知道，应该有更多荡树的活动。我打赌这比人们想象的有趣得多。

Yes, we sometimes swing through trees. It's kind of fun. It's sort of reminiscent of the past. For all time sake, swing through the trees once in a while. Probably, you know, there should be more swinging through trees. I bet it's way more fun than people think.

我同意你。我绝对同意在树上荡来荡去。我喜欢在树上荡来荡去，但听你现在这么说，我真的很震惊，因为我多年来一直在听你讲很多事情。

I'm with you on that. I'm definitely with you on swinging through trees. I love swinging through trees, but I'm really struck listening to you say this now because I've been listening to a bunch of things that you've said over the years.

10 年前，你和尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森一起上播客时说过，最让你害怕的是 AI 的快速递归自我改进。你说我们最多只是宠物拉布拉多。现在你似乎很放松。你的看法改变了吗？

10 years ago, you were on a podcast with Neil deGrasse Tyson and said the thing that terrified you most was rapid recursive self-improvement in AIs. You said we would just be the pet Labradors at best. Now you seem relaxed. Have you changed your view?

我仍然认为 AI 和机器人存在风险，并非零风险。我得出自己的哲学结论，要往好处看。我看不到任何真正阻止这股巨大势头的方法。即使有停止按钮，我们可能也不该按，因为最可能的结果是给所有人带来难以置信的富足。

I still think there's risk associated with AI and robots. It's not zero. I've come to my philosophical conclusion to look on the bright side. I can't see any way to really stop this incredible momentum. Even if there was a stop button, we probably shouldn't press it, because the most likely outcome is incredible abundance for all.

所以你认为这不可避免，那就抱最好的希望，随波逐流。

So you've decided it's inevitable, let's hope for the best and go for the ride.

是的，差不多。让我们享受这段旅程。AI 和机器人的发展似乎势不可挡。即使我想阻止也做不到。

Yes, pretty much. Let's enjoy the ride. There seems to be inexorable progress in AI and robots. Even if I wanted to stop it, I couldn't.

你还认为有 10% 到 20% 的可能性，杀人机器人会导致人类灭绝吗？

Do you think there's still a 10 to 20% chance that killer robots mean the end of humanity?

用他们的话说，那是高概率的「砰」。从长远看，我们都会死。根据标准物理模型，宇宙的终点是漫长无聊的稀薄灰色汤，逐渐冷却，即热寂。所以重要的是旅程，因为终点很糟糕。

That's a high poom, as they say. In the long run, we're all dead. According to the standard model of physics, the end of the universe is a long boring thin gray soup of gradual cooling, the heat death. So it's all about the journey because the destination is terrible.

如果 10 年内有 10% 到 20% 的概率，你会坐上你的火箭吗？如果你觉得有 10% 到 20% 的爆炸几率？

If it's 10 to 20% in 10 years, would you go into one of your rockets if you thought there was a 10 to 20% chance of it blowing up?

是的。但如果对此无能为力，我们能做的只有尽量降低坏结果的概率。试图阻止机器人智能——很长一段时间我拒绝参与 AI。我创建 OpenAI 是为了制衡谷歌。然后 Anthropic 从中剥离。我的行为实际上加速了 AI，这不是我的本意。条条大路通向加速。所以我只能要么难过，要么加入俱乐部。

Yes. But if you can't do anything about it, the only thing we can try is to minimize the probability of the bad outcome. Trying to stop intelligence in robots—for the longest time I declined to participate in AI. I created OpenAI as a counterweight to Google. Then Anthropic spun out. My actions have actually accelerated AI, which wasn't my intention. All roads lead to acceleration. So I can just be sad about it or join the club.

你显然加入了俱乐部。

You've certainly joined the club.

是的，打不过就加入。

Yeah, you can't beat them, join them.

那努力降低风险呢？其他领导者如戴密斯一直在推动监管。他提出了一个公私合营的监管机构。你说那是个好的讨论起点。你认为应该更积极地控制风险吗？

How about trying to minimize the risks? Other leaders like Demis have pushed for regulation. He proposed a private-public regulator. You said it's a good starting point. Do you think you should work more actively to control risks?

我给戴密斯的建议——在他发表文章前我和他谈了几个小时——是我们能立即做到的最直接的事情是让领先的 AI 公司每几周开一次会或通话，讨论安全与安保问题。在发布突破性的前沿模型（比现有任何模型都智能得多）之前，竞争对手应该有机会测试其有害影响，并能建议暂停以解决问题。这是我们能做的简单快速的事，之后还可以发展。

My recommendation to Demis—I talked to him for a few hours before he published his piece—was that the most immediate thing we could do is have leading AI companies meet or have a call every few weeks, discuss safety and security issues. Before a breakthrough new frontier model is released, one far more intelligent than anything existing, competitors should have an opportunity to test it for harmful effects and recommend pausing to address issues. That's the easy quick thing we can do, and it can evolve over time.

为什么还没做？你们只有五个人：达里奥、戴密斯、山姆。你们彼此并不都很喜欢。你们在竞争，都想当第一。

Why haven't you done that yet? There are only five of you: Dario, Demis, Sam. You don't all like each other. You're competing, you all want to be first.

是的，但竞争对手可以互相监督。政府里没有深厚技术背景的人不知道是否该发布某个东西。但竞争对手如果有一两周的时间审查新模型，就能指出问题。所有竞争对手都有动机让彼此保持诚信。

Yes, but competitors can keep each other honest. Someone in government without deep technical understanding wouldn't know whether to release something. But competitors, given a week or two to review a new model, can highlight issues. All competitors have an incentive to keep others honest.

你们之间有足够的信任吗？山姆不会觉得你会偷他的点子吗？

Do you have enough trust? Wouldn't Sam think you'll steal his ideas?

我们说的只是一周。只需要一周时间进行私有测试。不是交出 AI，只是通过 API 测试。我认为这会是件好事。

We're talking about a week. As little as a week is all that would be needed for private testing. It's not handing over the AI, just testing it via an API. I think that would be a good thing to do.

你提过这个建议吗？你说过和戴密斯谈过。

Have you proposed this? You mentioned talking to Demis.

是的，我也会和达里奥谈谈。

Yes, and I'll talk to Dario about it too.

还有一些非常有能力的中国 AI 公司，其中几家非常出色。新的 Kimmy 模型——Kim K3——上周发布的那款，几乎和 Fable 一样好了，对吧？

There are also some very competent Chinese AI companies, several that are very good. The new Kimmy model—Kim K3—the one that came out last week, was almost as good as Fable, right?

嗯，我认为实际上 Fable 仍然是明显最聪明的模型。任何人都会说情况依然如此，但 Kim 模型正越来越接近 Fable。Anthropic 有 Mythos，而 Fable 源自那个模型。我想他们在二月份就准备好了，所以他们有所谓的——我不确定——Mythos 2 或 Fable 6，比二月份的产品好得多。他们几乎肯定有，不，是肯定有，现在就有。我认为他们随时可以发布。

Well, I think realistically Fable is still clearly the smartest model. Anyone would say that's still the case, but the Kim model is getting quite close to Fable. Anthropic had Mythos, from which Fable is derived. I think they had that ready in February, so they have what they call—I'm not sure—Mythos 2 or Fable 6, something much better than what they had in February. They almost certainly have it, not almost certainly, they certainly have it right now. I think they could release it at any time.

在我们谈到发布之前，你怎么看中国模型及其地缘政治问题？考虑到中国的 AI 公司在算力相对较少的情况下表现如此出色，你是否担心它们会赶上并领先？

Just before we get on to releasing, how do you think about the Chinese models and the geopolitics of it? Are you worried about the Chinese catching up and getting ahead, given that the Chinese AI companies are doing as well as they are with a relatively small amount of compute?

看起来如果他们拥有大量算力，他们很可能会成为领导者，而且某个时候他们很可能会有大量算力。所以他们将会成为领导者。他们很有可能在某个时候成为领导者。AI 的制约因素本质上是电力和 AI 芯片。而对于具身 AI，也就是机器人，中国也有一些非常优秀的机器人公司。事实上，他们还有机器人体育赛事——不知道你见过没有。

It seems that if they had a lot of compute, there's a good chance they would be the leaders, and at some point they probably will have a lot of compute. So they will become the leaders. There's a good chance they are the leaders at some point. The constraints on AI are essentially electricity and AI chips. And for physical AI, the robots, China also has some very good robot companies. In fact, they have these robot sporting events—I don't know if you've seen some of them.

是的，我见过。上次在北京，我看到了那些机器人。他们有那种机器人拳击赛或格斗赛，非常有趣。

Yes, I have. I saw them. Last time I was in Beijing, I saw the robots. They have a sort of boxing match or fighting match with the robots, which is quite entertaining.

我看过一个视频，一个机器人的头被打掉了，但还在继续战斗。看起来很有趣。我觉得机器人格斗赛会非常好看。

I saw some video of a robot that got its head knocked off but kept fighting even with its head knocked off. It looked pretty funny. I think the robot battles are going to be quite entertaining to watch.

但——所以中国在机器人方面很强，在数字 AI 方面也很强。如果你看电力生产，AI 取决于限制性因素——无论是芯片还是电力。中国的电力比美国多得多。实际上，中国的电力已经超过美国、欧洲和印度的总和，而且我猜它会达到美国的四倍，这与人口大致成比例。

But just—so China is very strong on robots, very strong on digital AI. And if you look at electricity production, AI is a function of whatever the limiting factor is—if it's chips or electricity. China has far more electricity than the United States. In fact, China has more electricity than the US, Europe, and India combined already, and my guess is it gets to four times the electricity production of the US, which is roughly proportionate to the population.

美国政府应该对此做些什么？如果一个威权政权在最强技术方面遥遥领先，那确实有点令人担忧。显然美国政府一直在试图通过出口管制等手段遏制中国。你认为他们应该禁止使用 Kim K3 吗？

What should the US government do about this? It is a little alarming if an authoritarian regime is far ahead in the most powerful technology. Clearly what the US government has been trying to do is with export controls and so forth, keep China back. Do you think they should ban the use of Kim K3, for example?

嗯，美国政府不能——他们可以通过一些法律阻止美国公司使用中国模型，但他们不能阻止世界其他地方使用。所以美国政府并没有凌驾于中国或世界其他地区的权力。

Well, the US government can't—they can pass some law that prevents US companies from using Chinese models, but they can't stop the rest of the world from using them. So it's not like the US government has authority over China or the rest of the world.

你认为他们应该阻止美国公司使用吗？现在有这种说法。

Do you think they should stop US companies from using them? There's talk of that right now.

我认为那没什么帮助，也不会阻止中国成为 AI 领导者。对于数字智能，归根结底是你有多少 AI 算力：有多少芯片和多少电力。目前的制约因素实际上在电力和冷却方面比 AI 芯片更突出，因为 AI 芯片的功耗非常高。我们会谈到水耗，但 AI 的用水量几乎可以忽略不计。电力需求非常高。

I don't think that helps. And that won't stop China from being the leader in AI. For digital intelligence, it comes down to how much AI compute you have: how many chips and how much power. The constraint right now is actually slightly more on power and cooling than on AI chips, because the power demands of the AI chips are very high. We'll talk about water demands, but the water usage of AI is negligible. The electrical demand is very high.

这就是你考虑轨道数据中心的原因吧？

That's why you're thinking of orbital data centers presumably?

对于中国未通电的 AI 芯片来说，制约因素是电力、电力和冷却设备。AI 芯片的制造速度超过了中国新电力并网的速度。

The constraint for any AI chips not being turned on in China is electricity, power and cooling, and the electrical equipment. The rate at which AI chips are being made exceeds the rate at which new electricity is coming online in China.

中国以外呢？

Outside of China?

中国以外。我明白了。是的。

Outside China. I see. Yeah.

既然美国已禁止向中国出口最新的 AI 芯片，中国在芯片方面有些匮乏。

And since the US has banned the export of the latest AI chips to China, China is somewhat chip-starved.

但他们正变得更高效地使用现有的芯片。这是 Kim K3 令人瞩目的一个方面——他们使用效率有多高。而且中国也比大多数人意识到的更接近于解决光刻问题，这将使他们能够大规模制造 AI 芯片。所以这不应该仅仅变成一场关于中国的讨论，但目前的制约因素是中国以外的电力。在中国，制约因素是芯片。一旦我们通过太空 AI 数据中心解决了电力制约，那么制约因素就又会重新变成中国以外的芯片。

But they are becoming much more efficient at using the chips they have. That's one of the striking things about Kim K3—how efficiently they use them. And China is also closer than most people realize to solving the lithography problem, which would enable them to make AI chips at very large volumes. So this shouldn't devolve into just a China conversation, but the current constraint is electricity outside of China. In China, the constraint is chips. Once we address the power constraint with AI data centers in space, then the constraint will once again be chips outside of China.

这让我觉得，如果你要有一些整体安全约束，你需要中国和美国共同努力。我的意思是，你建议这里的五家制造商合作……

That suggests to me that you need China and the US, if you're going to have some overall safety constraints, they will need to work together. I mean you suggested the five makers here working...

可能也应该包括那些做前沿 AI 模型的中国公司。

Probably it should include the Chinese companies that are doing frontier AI models too.

你认为政府需要参与吗？

And do you think governments need to be involved?

我的建议是，如果一些领先的 AI 公司表示某个新模型非常危险，而生产该模型的公司没有采取措施应对危险，那么他们应该提醒政府采取行动限制该模型的发布。这可能是中国政府或美国政府的行动。实际上只有美国和中国政府有权力采取行动。

My recommendation would be that if some of the leading companies in AI say that a new model is very dangerous, and the company producing that model is not taking steps to address the danger, then they should alert the government to take action to limit the release of that model. That could be action by the Chinese government or action by the US government. It's really just the US government and the Chinese government that have the power to take action here.

但我想人们会担心依赖一群模型构建者来做决定。看看美国政府是如何处理 Mythos 的——他们介入是因为担心网络安全风险，利用出口管制威胁阻止该模型广泛发布。我很难想象政府会不想保留这种权力，即最终由他们决定一个模型是否发布。

But I guess people would be worried about relying on a group of model builders to decide whether to do this. If you look at what the US government has done with Mythos—they stepped in because they were worried about cybersecurity risks, using threat of export controls to prevent the widespread release of that model. I find it hard to see how governments will not want to keep that power, that they ultimately decide whether a model gets released.

我认为他们应该保留这个权力。但并不是政府有人发现 Mythos 存在可怕的网络安全风险。是亚马逊。亚马逊发现了这一点并致电白宫。这样就会有一个系统，模型制造商相互检查彼此的工作。如果有人担心什么，就告诉政府。政府随后会采取行动。如果还有别的令人担忧的事情，而那个公司没有采取任何措施来解决风险，那才是政府介入并采取行动的时刻，这正是刚刚发生的事情。

I think they should keep that power. But it wasn't as though someone in the government figured out that Mythos had some scary cybersecurity risks. It was Amazon. Amazon highlighted this and called the White House. So you'd have a system where the model makers would check each other's work. If there was something that worried them, you'd tell the government. The government would then take action. If something else was worrisome and that company was not doing anything to address that risk, then that would be the moment for the government to step in and take action, which is literally what just occurred.

为什么这一切必须发生？

Why does all this have to happen?

嗯，我认为立即这样做会很好，真的。是的。

Well, I think it would be good to do that immediately, really. Yeah.

是的。人们一直在告诉我这一点。我们必须在下个六个月内建立这种系统，因为模型改进的速度很快。六个月是很长的时间。所以你认为更短？

Yeah. That's what people keep telling me. We have to get this kind of system in the next six months because of the pace at which the models are improving. Six months is a long time. So you think shorter than that?

嗯，我是说，有太多人工智能突破的公告，有时一天多个。我是说，上周有多少个？

Well, I mean, there are so many AI breakthrough announcements, sometimes multiple per day. I mean, how many were there last week?

很多。

A lot.

我数不清了，你知道的。

I lost track, you know.

是的，很多。

Yeah, a lot.

所以基本上，无论是 Demis 的提议还是其他人的，你需要聚在一起现在就建立这个机制。听起来你是在告诉我这个。

So basically, whether it's Demis' proposal or others, you need to get together and get this set up kind of now. It sounds like you're telling me.

是的，我建议我们至少建立某种非正式的每周或双周电话会议，并且让竞争对手提前一周或两周访问模型。这就是我认为激励机制起作用的原因——因为如果竞争公司知道某样东西存在安全风险，他们会毫不犹豫地指出竞争对手的模型应该推迟发布。我认为这个激励结构在那里运作得很好。这有点像美国电影协会的做法——那是一个行业团体，决定电影应该如何分级，是否适合幼儿观看。而且那似乎运作得很好。然后你真的只需要请政府干预，如果某家公司正在做非常危险的事情并且拒绝采取行动降低危险。

Yeah, I would recommend that we at least have some sort of informal, weekly or bi-weekly call and that there's maybe a week or two weeks of early access by competitors. And this is why I think the incentives work — because if competing companies know something is a security risk, they're not going to be shy about highlighting that their competitor's model should be delayed in release. I think the incentive structure does work quite well there. And this is sort of how it works with the Motion Picture Association — it's an industry group that decides how movies should be rated, whether it's appropriate for young children or not. And that seems to have worked quite well. And then you really just ask the government to intervene if a company is doing something very dangerous and refuses to take action to reduce the danger.

你认为这很棘手吗？你们彼此不太喜欢，也不太信任对方。你们经常在社交媒体上互相侮辱。那么你认为你能和那些你不喜欢的人做到这一点吗？其中一些领导人之间似乎有如此的人身攻击。

Do you think this is a tricky one? You guys don't much like each other and you don't much trust each other. You're insulting each other on social media constantly. So do you think you can do that with people that you dislike, where there seems to be such personal vitriol between some of these leaders?

嗯，是的。好吧，我不喜欢 Sam Altman，因为——

Um, yes. Well, I'm not a fan of Sam Altman because —

你正在观看我对 Elon Musk 的采访。如果你想提前获取其他采访内容，请点击上方链接订阅《经济学人》。现在，回到采访。

You're watching my interview with Elon Musk. If you want to get early access to other interviews, subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link above. Now, back to the interview.

如果你创办了一个本应是开源人工智能公司、由全世界拥有的非营利组织，而它不知怎么变成了一个价值 8000 亿美元的闭源营利性公司，我想你会说，‘等等，这和我捐款的初衷完全相反。’这就是我的问题。我认为这是一个合理的问题。而且我认为 Dario 也不喜欢 Sam Altman，因为他觉得——事实上，Anthropic 团队离开 OpenAI 的原因就是他们不信任 Sam Altman。否则 Anthropic 根本不会存在；他们会留在 OpenAI。我认为 Dario 是一个非常讲原则的人。他关心很多事情。他关心世界的未来。而且我目前为止在 Anthropic 见过的每个人——没有一个人触发我的邪恶探测器。他们看起来总是善意的。我认为通往地狱的道路主要是由恶意铺成的。中间也有一些善意的铺路石。所以我们不能自满。但归根结底，如果我们必须交谈，我们会交谈。我的意思是，为了世界的利益，放下我们个人的分歧。

If you started a nonprofit that was meant to be an open-source AI company and owned by the world, and it somehow got turned into an $800 billion for-profit company with closed source, I think you'd be like, 'Well, wait a second, that's the exact opposite of what I donated the money for.' That's my issue. I think it's a legitimate one. And then Dario, I think also is not a fan of Sam Altman because he felt — in fact, the reason the Anthropic team left OpenAI is because they didn't trust Sam Altman. Otherwise, Anthropic wouldn't exist; they would still be at OpenAI. I think Dario is a very principled person. He cares about a lot of things. He cares about the future of the world. And I think everyone I've met at Anthropic so far — no one set off my evil detector. They always seem like they're well-intentioned. And the road to hell is, I think, mostly paved with bad intentions. There are a few well-intentioned paving stones in there. So we don't want to be complacent. But at the end of the day, if we have to talk, we'll talk. I mean, set aside our personal differences for the good of the world.

嗯，这对我们其他人来说是一个非常好的消息。

Well, that's a very good thing for the rest of us to hear.

是的。嗯。

Yeah. Um.

我能转到另一个人们担心的风险吗，尤其是普通美国人？人工智能已经变得非常不受欢迎。75% 的人对此感到担忧，我认为他们担心自己的工作。而且你看 Dario 的名言——50% 的入门级白领工作将在几年内消失。你正在制造人形机器人。

Can I turn to one other risk that people worry about, particularly ordinary Americans? AI has become incredibly unpopular. 75% of people are worried about it, and I think they worry about their jobs. And if you look at what Dario has said famously — 50% of entry-level white collar jobs will be gone within a few years. You're building humanoid robots.

是的。他还说——我是说 Dario 在 Mythos 这件事上真的是自掘坟墓，因为他说 Mythos 超级可怕吓人，而且顺便我们还要发布它，然后他又说，‘你是什么意思？’所以我认为将来他会更注意措辞。因为显然如果你吓唬所有人，然后说‘我们要发布这个可怕的东西’，人们显然会惊慌。你直接告诉他们害怕，然后你发布了那个可怕的东西，所以他们就会害怕。这很自然。

Yes. He also said — I mean Dario did dig his own grave here regarding Mythos because he said Mythos is super scary and terrifying, and also by the way we're going to release it, and then he's like, 'What do you mean?' So I think in the future he'll choose his words differently. Because obviously if you terrify everyone and then say, 'We're releasing this terrifying thing,' people will obviously be alarmed. You've literally told them to be scared, and then you release the scary thing, so they will be scared. That is natural.

所以我当然不想让你吓唬人们，但我确实认为有一个非常重要的争论，关于人工智能会多快、多大程度上取代人类的工作，因为就像你说的——十年后，人工智能将超过任何人类的智能。

So I certainly don't want you to alarm people, but I do think there is a really important debate about how quickly and to what degree AI will displace people from jobs, because it is — as you say — in 10 years there will be more artificial intelligence than any human intelligence.

是的。

Yes.

而且如果你是——我认为你至少在这个国家领先于所有人——在推动人形机器人方面，那也将是工厂工作。那么，在就业被取代的速度上，你更接近 Dario 的观点吗？

And if you are — and I think you're ahead of everyone in this country at least — on powering humanoid robots, that's also going to be factory work. So are you closer to Dario, let's say, in your sense of the pace at which jobs are going to be displaced?

我确实认为这将是一条坎坷的道路。因为人工智能将能够比任何人更好地完成任何工作。这在数字工作或任何涉及人在电脑或手机上完成的事情上很快就会成为现实。人工智能可以做到所有这些。很快就能做到所有这些。对于软件工程，我们已经处于人工智能在编写软件方面优于至少 90% 的人类的情况。90% 的专业软件工程师在编写软件方面。而且它正变得比 99% 的人都强。然后它会达到一个无法与之竞争的地步。它会达到我所说的 Stockfish 水平。

I do think it's going to be a bumpy road. Because AI will be able to do any job better than any person can do that job. And that will be true very quickly of jobs that are digital, or really anything that involves a person at a computer or on a phone. AI could do all of that. Will be able to do all of that very soon. For software engineering, we already have a situation where AI is better than at least 90% of humans at writing software. 90% of professional software engineers at writing software. And it's getting to the point where it'll be better than 99%. And then it'll get to the point where there's just no way to compete. It'll get to what I call Stockfish level.

所以 Stockfish 的象棋水平非常高，即使在小型电脑上运行也能轻松击败 Magnus Carlsen 或任何人。我怀疑你在手机上运行 Stockfish 就能击败 Magnus Carlsen。它的象棋水平就是这么高，而 AI 在编写软件方面也会这么强，甚至超越软件，这适用于一切。但那些体力工作呢，比如装配工作？你还需要人形机器人的能力，而目前这还不具备，对吧？

So Stockfish is so good at chess that it will easily beat Magnus Carlsen or anyone even running on a small computer. I suspect you could run Stockfish on your phone and beat Magnus Carlsen. That's how good it is at chess and that's how good AI will be at writing software, and beyond software, and that applies to everything. But what about physical jobs, assembly jobs? You will also need the capability in humanoid robots, which so far isn't there yet, is it?

没错，所以我说的是数字 AI，然后是以机器人形式物理呈现的 AI，机器人本身大致相当于一个末端执行器。它会有一定程度的本地智能，但由大型 AI 模型管理。我多次说过，我认为工作将变成可选项。也许一个很好的类比是园艺。你不必自己种菜；你可以去商店买完美的蔬菜，或者你在自家花园种，种出来的其实没那么完美。你的番茄不会像商店那样饱满多汁，看起来会有几分手工感。但如果你去朋友家，他们用自家菜园的蔬菜做饭，那是一种温馨的感觉。

Right, so that's why I said digital AI and then physically manifested AI in the form of robots where the robot is more or less an end effector. It would have some amount of local intelligence but be managed by a large AI model. And I've said many times, I think work is going to be optional. So maybe a good comparison would be gardening. You don't have to garden; you can go to the store and get pristine vegetables, or you could grow vegetables in your garden and they will actually be less perfect. Your tomatoes won't be as plump and juicy as the ones at the store; they will look a little artisanal. But if you go to a friend's house and they make dinner with vegetables from their garden, it's a nice touch.

所以工作就是那个样子。我懂了。在那种世界里我会很无助，因为我根本不会种菜。但我明白你的意思。人们仍然喜欢彼此下棋，尽管每台电脑都比他们强。我们想想政治层面吧。因为你描述的世界是，在 10 年内几乎所有工作都能被智能体做得更好。而这一智能体为你这样的人带来了巨大回报——你是世界首富。那些失业、被取代、可能去种种地的人该怎么办？他们怎么生活？我觉得这听起来像是普遍高收入，但你打算怎么实现呢？我们来谈谈政治，因为现在如果看看大多数国家的政治压力，人们对此非常担忧，非常反对。在我看来，我们更可能走向革命，而不是你描绘的通往天堂的平坦之路。

So that's what work is going to be like. I get that. In that world, I would be hopeless because I can't garden to save my life. But I get the idea. People still like playing chess with each other even though every computer is better. Let's think about the politics of this. Because it sounds like you're describing a world where within 10 years pretty much every job can be done better by an intelligence. And you're seeing huge returns to this intelligence to people like you, the wealthiest man in the world. What about people who lose their jobs, who are displaced, who may go off and garden? How are they going to live? It sounds to me like universal high income, but how are you going to get there? Let's talk about the politics, because right now if we look at the political pressures in most countries, people are very worried about this, very against it. It seems to me that there's a risk we are heading more for revolution than for an easy route to this nirvana you're playing out.

这条路不会平坦。我并不是说一切会一帆风顺。很多过去存在的职位因为计算机而消失了。「计算机」这个词曾经指的是做计算的人，那是一个职位描述。你可以在网上看到照片，整栋整栋的摩天大楼里全是人在做计算，比如计算你银行账户的利息。在很长一段时间里，事情就是这样做的，直到计算机出现。即使在早期，计算机也非常昂贵且难以使用。这里不同的地方在于，变化的速度急剧加快。不过，有些人确实因为计算银行利息的工作不复存在而感到不满。但现在我想，你很难找到愿意干那活的人。我有一个建议，可以读一些科幻小说，了解一下未来可能的样子。我看过的对 AI 未来最好的构想是 Ian Banks 的「文化」系列。

It will be a bumpy road. I'm not suggesting everything will be smooth sailing. There are many jobs that used to exist that don't exist because of computers. The word 'computer' used to refer to a person doing computations. That was a job description. You can see pictures online of buildings with entire skyscrapers filled with people doing calculations to calculate the interest on your bank balance. That's how things were done for a long time until computers came around. Even in the beginning, computers were very expensive and hard to use. The thing that's different here is that the pace of change is radically accelerated. Still, some people were upset that their job of calculating bank interest would no longer be available. But now I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people who want to do that job. I have a suggestion for science fiction books people might want to read to get a sense of what the future will be like. The best envisioning of an AI future I've read are the books by Ian Banks, the Culture books.

我正在看《超越》。多亏你推荐，我开始读这套书了。但实际上我并不觉得那个未来有多吸引人，因为我认为在那个未来里人类没有自主权。

I'm just reading Excession. Thanks to you I've started reading these. But I actually don't find that future a terribly appealing one because I don't think humans have agency in that future.

他们有自主权。

They have agency.

与那些心智相比微不足道。

Minimal compared to the Minds.

在很小的层面。

In a small way.

但讽刺的是，你知道 Ian Banks 是个社会主义者。他的政治哲学截然不同。

But the irony, I mean Ian Banks as you know was a socialist. He had a very different political philosophy.

我不确定我完全同意这一点。

I'm not sure I would entirely agree with that.

我们姑且同意那可能是我们的结局。我担心的是过程。我们生活在民主国家，人们对此非常担忧。所以我猜有两个问题。首先，是否需要像你这样的人进行大规模再分配，给那些失业的人？你需要缴纳更多税吗？是否要对资本征收高得多的税来资助某种全民基本收入？否则人们靠什么生活？

Let's agree that that could be where we end up. I'm concerned about the road. We live in democracies and people are very worried about this. So I guess two questions. Firstly, do you have to have massive redistribution from people like you to the people who are losing their jobs? Do you need to pay more tax? Do you have much higher taxes on capital to fund some kind of universal income? Otherwise, what do people live off?

我认为财政部应该直接给人们发支票。

I think the Treasury should just simply issue people checks.

但收入从哪来？我是个不错的经济学家。如果直接发支票，你会引发通货膨胀。

But where is the revenue coming from? I'm enough of an economist. If you just issue checks, you're going to have inflation.

这正是我们需要思考的。这些东西在过去很重要，但在未来就不那么重要了。通胀率就是货币与商品和服务的比率。如果商品和服务的产出急剧增长，比如说增长 1000%，你就可以增加货币供应——直接印钞或者修改数据库——只要货币创造的速度低于商品和服务增长的速度。实际上你会经历通货紧缩。所以我做一个预测：通货紧缩将是问题，而不是通货膨胀，因为产出的增长快于货币供应，你就会出现通缩。

This is a lot of what we're trying to think about. These things were relevant in the past, they will not be relevant in the future. Inflation is simply the ratio of money to goods and services. If the output of goods and services increases dramatically, say by a thousand percent, you can increase the money supply — literally print or change the database — provided the creation of that money is less than the rate at which goods and services increase. You will actually have deflation. So I'll make a prediction: deflation will be the issue, not inflation, because as output increases faster than money supply, you will have deflation.

我很愿意相信这一点。你很可能是对的。但我真正纠结的是，我们如何从当前两极分化、愤怒、恐惧的政策走向这个天堂。我觉得你可以描绘一个画面：人们对此非常恐惧，以至于他们试图阻止它。也许他们阻止不了，但你会被国有化。出现一个极左政府，大幅增税，经济崩溃，因为人们对未来非常担忧——你描述的未来听起来确实很可怕。那么你现在如何处理政治问题？

I'm perfectly willing to believe that. You may well be right. But I'm really hung up on how we get from the current polarized, angry, fearful policy to this nirvana. I think you could paint a picture where people are so scared by this that they essentially try to stop it. Maybe they can't, but you get nationalized. There's a far-left government, exorbitant tax increases, the economy crumbles because people are so worried about a future which does sound quite scary as you describe it. So how do you handle the politics now?

这既令人兴奋又令人恐惧。但如果你在……

It's exhilarating and terrifying. But if you were in...

老实说，随便哪一天，甚至一天之内，我对AI的情绪都会从兴奋转为恐惧。所以我想说清楚：我不是那种认为一切完美、毫无风险的盲目乐观派。我认为确实存在风险。我想我们同意这一点。我试图更实际地考虑现在能做些什么来限制这些风险。你为模型制造者能做什么提供了一个有力的论点。政府应该做什么？你应该缴纳更多税款来资助更多转移支付项目吗？

Honestly, if you ask me on any given day, in fact even intraday, I've gone from exhilaration to terror regarding AI. So I want to be clear: I'm not some Panglossian view where everything is wonderful with no risk. I'm saying there is some risk. I think we agree on that. I'm trying to be more practical about what can be done now to limit those risks. You gave a strong argument for what model makers could do. What should government do? Should you be paying more tax to fund more transfer programs?

嗯，首先，我确实缴纳了很多税。事实上，我创下了人类纳税最高纪录。在那之前就已经很高了。我猜我将来会缴纳数万亿美元的税，我对此没问题。但在一个金钱仍然重要的未来，税收会变得有些无关紧要。

Well, first of all, I do pay a lot of tax. In fact, I set a record for the most amount of taxes ever paid by a human. Even before that. My guess is that I will pay many trillions in tax, and I'm fine with that. But in a future where money is relevant, taxation becomes somewhat irrelevant.

那让人们觉得自己也分到了一杯羹呢？给人们SpaceX、特斯拉的股份？现在有很多这方面的讨论。你认为应该像阿拉斯加基金那样分配股份吗？有些人谈论特朗普账号作为载体——你的一部分股权归普通美国人所有。

And what about giving people a sense that they have a share in the upside? Giving people shares in SpaceX, in Tesla? There's a lot of talk about this. Do you think there should be distribution of shares like the Alaska wealth fund? Some people talk about Trump accounts being a vehicle for this — a share of your equity goes to ordinary Americans.

没错。在我缴纳的税款中，我的股票期权要缴纳 40% 的联邦所得税，而且因为我大约 30% 的时间在加州，我还要再缴纳约三分之一加州的州税（大约 15%）。所以我总共要缴纳约 45% 的税。我去世后，还会再被征收大约一半的遗产税。最终，我可能只会剩下我所拥有的四分之一。这一切带给我的只是在一段时间内对我公司方向的控制权。这差不多就是我能得到的，直到AI变得足够聪明并掌管一切，到那时控制公司也就无关紧要了。

Right. Well, in taxes that I pay, for my stock options I pay 40% income tax on a national basis, and then because I spend about 30% of my time in California, I pay another roughly third of California state taxes, which are around 15%. So I pay about 45% in taxes. Then when I die, there'll be another roughly half that will be taxed. At the end of the day, I'll probably have a quarter of what I have. The only thing it gives me is that for some period of time I have control of the direction of the companies. That's pretty much all it gets me, until the AI is so smart that it's in charge, and then controlling companies won't really matter.

我们来谈谈这个。另一件让人们担心的事是，世界的发展方向正由极少数极其强大的人塑造，而你就在这个名单的最顶端。但这和过去有什么不同吗？什么时候不是这样？历来如此，但正如你所说，变化快得惊人。先从你对自己公司的控制权说起，你现在绝对拥有。IPO 之后，你持有 80% 多的投票权股份，而且你只能通过你自己控制的股份投票被罢免。其他AI公司，比如谷歌，由拉里和谢尔盖控制，但我认为你的情况更极端。一个人对一家公司拥有如此大的控制权合理吗？

Let's talk about that. One of the other things that worries people is that the direction of the world is being shaped by a very small number of incredibly powerful people, and you are right at the top of that list. But is this different from the past? When wasn't that the case? It was ever thus, but as you described, it's an incredibly rapid change. Let's start with control of your company, which you definitely have now. After the IPO, you have 80% odd of voting shares, and you can only be removed by a vote of shares which you yourself control. Other AI companies like Google are controlled by Larry and Sergey, but I think yours is more extreme. Is it sensible for one person to have so much control over a company?

嗯，我真的需要确保自己能够专注于长期，我说的长期是指 5 到 10 年。上市公司面临的挑战之一是每个季度都要交出漂亮业绩的压力，而不能投资那些可能 5 到 10 年才见回报的事情。以 SpaceX 为例，我想将意识扩展到地球之外，在月球、火星和太阳系其他地方建立不断发展的文明。最终回报会非常高，但短期内我们要把钱花在月球基地或火星基地上，然后人们就会施压说‘你本季度盈利不达标，因为你在火星上花太多钱了。’是的，顺便说一下，这在 S-1 招股说明书中已经写明，是明确列出要做的事情。但他们还是会不高兴。他们会说‘你说毛利率应该是这么多，但实际上稍微差了一点，现在我们要惩罚你，空头们也会蜂拥而至。’所以我需要某种方式说，‘听着，我们将专注于 5 到 10 年或更长时间周期的投资。这会压低短期收益。’但如果你着眼长期，确实有这样的投资者。事实上，我很喜欢散户投资者，他们非常有洞察力，眼光非常长远。

Well, I really just need to make sure that I can focus on long-term, by long-term I mean 5 to 10 years. One of the challenges with being a public company is the pressure to have great results every single quarter and not invest in things that may only pay off in 5 to 10 years. In the case of SpaceX, I want to extend consciousness beyond Earth and have a growing civilization on the moon, Mars, and elsewhere in the solar system. The return ultimately would be very high, but in the short term we'll be spending money on a moon base or Mars base, and people get pressure like 'you missed your earnings this quarter because you spent too much on Mars.' Yes, by the way, that was in the S1 prospectus and is literally listed as a thing we will do. But they still get grumpy. They say 'you said your gross margin would be this, and it's actually slightly worse, now we're going to punish you, and short sellers descend.' So I need some way to say, 'Listen, we're going to focus on 5 to 10 year or longer time horizon investments. This will depress short-term earnings.' But if you take a long-term view, there are investors that do. In fact, I'm a big fan of retail investors; they are very insightful and have very long-term views.

这部分源于投资组合经理的激励结构。他们为什么如此看重季度收益是可以理解的，因为他们的薪酬和晋升都取决于投资组合的表现。他们只有几年时间来决策，而考核周期有时甚至不到一年。迫于短期回报的压力，他们也就向公司施加同样的压力。一旦你理解了激励结构，行为自然就跟着走了。

Part of this comes from the incentive structure for portfolio managers. It's understandable why they put so much pressure on quarterly earnings, because their compensation and whether they get promoted depends on their portfolio's performance. They only have a few years to make decisions and are evaluated over a year or less. Under pressure for immediate returns, they put companies under the same pressure. Once you understand the incentive structure, the behavior naturally follows.

那关键人物风险呢？万一你明天被传说中的公交车撞了怎么办？你对这些公司有绝对控制权。你有没有一个计划，让它们在没有你的情况下继续发展？

What about key-man risk? What happens if you get run over by the proverbial bus tomorrow? You have total control over these companies. Do you have a plan for how they would progress without you?

我认为它们在几年内会做得很好。SpaceX 有清晰的路线图，特斯拉也有字面上的路线图。看看乔布斯之后的苹果。他有战略愿景和产品创意，苹果做得很好。但如果没有乔布斯那样的创造天才，就会缺失那些突破性产品。他们能做出很棒的手机和电脑，但再也没有乔布斯级别的突破性产品了。

I think they would actually do very well for several years. There's a clear roadmap for SpaceX, and a literal roadmap for Tesla. Look at Apple after Steve Jobs. He had a strategic vision and product ideas, and Apple did very well. But without a creative genius like Jobs, you miss the incredible breakthrough products. They make amazing phones and computers, but haven't come up with a Jobs-level breakthrough product.

嗯。

Yeah.

所以他们能做出很棒的手机和出色的电脑，但苹果再也没有拿出史蒂夫·乔布斯级别的突破性产品。

So they make amazing phones and great computers, but Apple hasn't come up with a Steve Jobs level breakthrough product.

所以以此类推，这就是你带给所有公司的东西。你提到过火星。大多数人都认为你是那个想在火星上建立殖民地的家伙，一个多行星文明。

So by analogy, that's what you bring to all of your companies. You mentioned Mars. Most people think of you as the man who wants to create a colony on Mars, a multiplanetary civilization.

我已经说了很久了。

I've been saying that for such a long time.

确实。但现在你似乎更关注 AI 以及未来十年 AI 将做什么。你听起来对于以月球为基地发射轨道 AI 卫星更兴奋。你是把注意力从火星转移了，还是仍然和以前一样对殖民火星感兴趣？

You have, but now you seem more focused on AI and what AI will do in the next 10 years. You sound much more excited about using the moon as a base to pop out orbital AI satellites. Have you shifted your attention away from Mars, or are you as interested in colonizing Mars as ever?

我感兴趣的是那些能将意识尽可能广泛地传播到未来的一系列行动。意识的未来光锥应该尽可能大。有一个激动人心的未来，我们成为星际文明，遨游于群星之间，反乌托邦科幻作品中的伟大愿景成真。我想要《星际迷航》、《星球大战》那样的未来。《星球大战》是我在电影院看的第一部电影。

I'm interested in the set of actions that propagate consciousness into the future to the maximum degree possible. The future light cone of consciousness should be as big as we can make it. There's an exciting future where we're a spacefaring civilization out among the stars, and the great things from non-dystopian sci-fi become real. I want the Star Trek, Star Wars future. Star Wars was the first movie I ever saw in a theater.

真的吗？

Really?

那可能对我产生了深远影响。我当时六岁，完全被震撼了。我觉得那是我见过最棒的东西。

It probably had a profound effect on me. I was 6 years old and my mind was blown. I thought it was the greatest thing I've ever seen.

你的人生就是在实现那个梦吗？

Has your life been about making that happen?

我年轻时不觉得会是那样，但我的生活感觉很超现实。我都不敢相信这些事真的在发生。这让我相信模拟理论。我正在做的事情如此离谱，很难相信它们是真实的。我们造出了星舰，那是史上最大、最强大的飞行器，而我们打算每小时发射不止一次。

I didn't think it would be when I was young, but my life feels surreal. I can't believe these things are actually happening. It makes me believe in simulation theory. The things I'm doing are so preposterous that it's hard to believe they're real. We've got Starship, the largest, most powerful flying object ever made, and we intend to launch it more than once per hour.

我知道，我读到过。人们可能会对实现速度有争议，但基于你的过往记录，我们应该假设它终将实现。对我来说，AI 的整个演进以及这些模型的能力本身就令人惊叹。

I know. I read that. People can quibble about how quickly it happens, but based on your track record, we should assume it will happen at some point. For me, the whole evolution of AI and the capabilities of these models is mind-blowing.

它会实现的。我也和你一样被这个世界震撼。我是从一个更天真的角度观察，但 AI 及其能力的演化确实令人惊叹。这基本正如我所预料的那样发生。不止是我，很多人都预测到了。雷·库兹韦尔的预测一直非常准确。

It will happen. I'm struck that I'm as blown away by this world as you are. I watch it from a more naive level, but the evolution of AI and its capabilities is mind-blowing. It's pretty much happening as I thought it would. Not just me, many people predicted this. Ray Kurzweil's predictions have been remarkably accurate.

是吗？哦，有意思。奇点正在临近。

Is it? Oh, that's interesting. The singularity approaching.

让我们回到当下。我们谈过了你公司的控制权集中。通过星链，你还拥有令人难以置信的地缘政治力量。我也是你的客户之一。产品非常棒。

Let's go back to the here and now. We've talked about concentration of control in your companies. You also have through Starlink incredible geopolitical power. I'm one of your customers. Excellent product.

太好了。

Great.

但没有星链，乌克兰人就会陷入大麻烦。乌克兰政府多次公开感谢星链在保卫乌克兰中发挥关键作用。而你最近决定阻止占领区的俄罗斯人使用星链。

But without Starlink, Ukrainians would have been in serious trouble. The Ukrainian government has publicly thanked Starlink many times for being instrumental in defending Ukraine. And you recently decided to prevent Russians in occupied territories from accessing Starlink.

我们从未向俄罗斯出售过星链。他们通过乌克兰订购星链设备，然后走私到乌东，俄军在那里使用它们，有时用于攻击。为了解决这个问题，我们与乌克兰政府合作创建了批准终端白名单。这有副作用：许多无辜用户现在无法使用。

We were never at any point selling Starlink to Russians. They essentially got Starlink units ordered through Ukraine, then smuggled into eastern Ukraine where Russians were using them, in some cases for attacks. To address this, we worked with the Ukrainian government to create a whitelist of approved terminals. This has downsides: many innocent users now don't have access.

这些都是有影响的地缘政治决策。拥有这样的权力你感觉如何？你能决定战争的结果。那是什么感觉？你有这种权力合理吗？

These are geopolitical decisions of consequence. How do you feel about having that power? You can determine the outcome of wars. How does that feel? Is it right that you should have that power?

我不确定我们决定了乌克兰战争的最终结果。我希望很快能达成和平协议，因为两三年了，边界几乎没动，每天都有很多人死在战线。很多人一厢情愿地认为俄罗斯应该完全撤军，但这并不现实。

I'm not sure we're determining the ultimate outcome of the war in Ukraine. I hope some peace agreement is reached soon, because for 2 or 3 years the border has barely moved and people are dying every day at the front line. There's a lot of wishful thinking that Russia should completely withdraw, but this is not realistic.

我确实认为需要有一个务实的部分。我认为可怕的是如果再有三年的时间人们在前线无谓地死去。你怎么向那些在前线死去的人的孩子们解释？俄罗斯方面也是。他们被征召送到那里。我很反感那些在豪华场所享用七道菜晚餐的外交官，而人们在前线死去，他们高谈阔论俄罗斯应该撤军，但俄罗斯不会撤军。所以确实需要有一个被接受的部分。

I really think there needs to be a piece that we have to be pragmatic about this. What I think would be terrible is if there's another three years of people dying senselessly at the front lines. How do you explain to the children of the men that are dying on the front lines? Russia on the Russian side, too. They're being conscripted and sent there. I am quite offended by fancy diplomats who have seven course dinners in luxurious places while people are dying at the front lines and who pontificate about how Russia should withdraw but they're not going. Russia's not going to withdraw. So there really needs to be an accepted piece along those lines.

你觉得你有责任在推动和平方面发挥作用吗？

And do you think it's your responsibility to play a role in tipping the scales towards what you see as the right way to peace?

我长期以来一直在倡导和平。几年前我发帖说确实需要对俄罗斯做出一些让步。这不是我亲俄，我只是务实。否则人们会多年死去而无所获，这正是发生的事情。

I've been advocating peace for a long time. I posted a few years ago that there really needs to be some concession here to Russia. This is not me being pro-Russia, I'm just being pragmatic. Or people will die for years with nothing achieved, and that is exactly what happened.

我不知道。我的意思是乌克兰人现在做得很好，他们用令人难以置信的无人机能力攻击俄罗斯境内，普遍的共识是战争的平衡正在转变。但我的重点不是那个。乌克兰不会夺回那些领土。这不会发生。我真正关心的是，鉴于你通过 Starlink 拥有巨大的力量，你是否认为你应该运用这种力量是合适的。一个个体行为者通过开启或关闭能力来塑造冲突，这是相当罕见的。

I don't know. I mean the Ukrainians are doing pretty well right now with their incredible drone capacity hitting inside Russia and the general consensus is that the balance of the war is shifting. But my point is not so much about that. Ukraine is not going to retake those territories. It is not going to happen. My interest is really on whether you think given that you have through Starlink an incredible power, whether it's appropriate that you should wield it. That's quite rare that an individual actor has such power by turning on and off a capability to shape conflict.

嗯，你觉得我应该做得不同吗？

Well, is this something you think I should do differently?

我认为你支持乌克兰是对的。我认为俄罗斯的侵略是令人震惊的侵略，你做的事情很重要。

I think you were right to support Ukraine. I think the Russian aggression was an appalling aggression and that was an important thing you did.

是的。我深入了解了那场冲突的背景，以了解到底发生了什么。我想起了一句老话：战争中无天使。

Yeah. I did a very deep dive into the background of that conflict to understand exactly what was going on. I'm reminded of the old adage that there are no angels in war.

关于国内政治也有类似的口吻。你花了大量资金帮助唐纳德·特朗普连任。大选后，你通过 Doge 非常积极地参与，试图削减大量开支、重塑政府。你感觉这并不算非常成功，回首往事，你是否后悔如此深度介入政治？你觉得这是一件好事吗？

It's a similar tone about domestic politics where you've played a big role. You spent a lot of money on Donald Trump's re-election. After the election, you got very actively involved through Doge, you tried to cut a lot of spending, reshape the government. How do you feel that wasn't hugely successful? As you look back on that, do you regret getting so involved in politics? Do you think it was a good thing to do?

我认为我有点过于介入政治了。坦率地说，有点失控。Doge 的目标是试图解决赤字问题，赤字非常巨大。利息支付超过了军费开支。如果你把美国军费和情报开支加起来，还小于债务利息支付。所以我们需要仔细审视支出，确保资金被明智地使用，而不是浪费或用于欺诈活动。我因此受到了很多批评。但人们不知道 Doge 团队批准付款是多么简单。我们要求提供收款人的联系方式或资金用于预期目的的证据。但一次又一次，我们被告知要为非洲的某个重要事业汇款，我们表示同意，但汇款指示是到华盛顿特区的某个地址，而不是非洲。所以我们想把钱送到非洲，请让我们联系收款人直接汇款，然后我们就沉默了。

I think I got a little too involved in politics. Got carried away, frankly. So the goal with the Doge stuff was to try to do something about the deficit, which is massive. The interest payments exceed the amount of money spent on the Department of War. If you add up all the money spent on the Department of War and intelligence in the US, that is smaller than the interest payments on the debt. So we need to take a close look at spending and make sure money is being spent in sensible ways and not wasted or spent on fraudulent activities. I got a lot of flack for this obviously. But the people don't understand just how simple it was for the Doge team to approve payments. We asked to have the contact information of the recipient or some evidence that money was going to its intended purpose. But over and over we were told to wire money for some important cause in Africa and we were like okay but the wiring instructions are to a location in DC, not to Africa. So we would like to send the money to Africa, please connect us with the recipients so we can send them the money directly, and then we get silence.

我们不需要重提 Doge。我毫不怀疑美国政府有很多浪费。可能比任何人想象的都要严重。但你关闭大量项目的方式可能造成了不必要的痛苦。

I don't need to relitigate Doge. I have no doubt there was a lot of waste in the US government. Probably much worse than anyone could possibly imagine. But the way you shut down a whole bunch of programs probably caused unnecessary suffering.

它引起了很多抱怨。

It caused a lot of complaining.

你正在收看我对埃隆·马斯克的采访。如果你想提前观看其他采访，请点击上方链接订阅《经济学人》。现在回到采访。

You're watching my interview with Elon Musk. If you want to get early access to other interviews, subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link above. Now back to the interview.

你不认为任何非洲孩子因为资金突然被切断而死亡？

You don't buy the idea that any kid in Africa died because of the suddenness with which funding was cut?

零。我认为这不对。

Zero. I just don't think that's right.

我只是不认为这是对的。我的意思是，我在非洲有记者报道……有多少非政府组织可以介入？因为请记住，事情发生得很快。所以有成千上万的非政府组织。

I just don't think that's right. I mean, I've had people reporting in Africa who... How many NGOs are there that could step in? Because bear in mind this happened quickly. So there are literally tens of thousands of NGOs.

是的。

Yeah.

不是每个人都像你一样运作迅速。如果抗逆转录病毒药物的资金一夜之间被切断，那么人们无法获得时就会死亡。

Not everyone functions as fast as you do. If funding is cut off for antiretrovirals overnight and it just stops, then people will die when they don't have access to them.

不，只有当他们无法获得资金时。但盖茨基金会有 500 亿美元。他们呢？其他许多组织呢？麦肯齐（不管她姓什么）曾经捐了 500 亿美元。那个呢？但让我们务实一点。在许多这些国家，USAID 是最大的资助者。但 USAID 是一个政治组织。

No, only if they cannot get funding for that. But the Gates Foundation has $50 billion. What about them? What about any one of a number of organizations? MacKenzie whatever her last name is used to be gave $50 billion. What about that? But let's be practical. In many of these countries, USAID was the biggest funder. But USAID was a political organization.

它可能也是，但它是医疗系统最大的资助者。所以我非常确定政权更迭，并且可能从……中获得好处。

It may also have been that, but it was the biggest funder of health care systems. So I am very sure of regime change and there may well be benefits from having...

USAID 的资金没有停止。它被转移到了国务院。

USAID funding was not stopped. It was moved to the State Department.

它被停止了。在非洲有大量项目被关闭。

It was stopped. There were huge numbers of things shut down in Africa.

这些说法是假的。它们是胡说八道。绝对的胡说八道。

These claims are false. They're nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

但很明显，当欺诈组织的资金被停止时，你觉得他们会说‘请继续资助欺诈’，还是会编造一个听起来同情的悲惨故事来恢复资金？显然是后者，他们正是这么做的。

But obviously, when funding is stopped for fraudulent organizations, do you think they're going to say, 'Well, we please keep funding the fraud,' or do you think they're going to come up with a sad story that sounds sympathetic to get the funding restored? Obviously, it will be the latter. And that's exactly what they did.

嗯，这正是我要质疑的地方。实际上，我对特朗普政府推动的援助体制变革有很大同情。但我认为，其发生的速度和突然性几乎肯定导致了不必要的痛苦和死亡。我认为这两点都可以——

Well, that's what I would take issue with. I think you can—I actually have a lot of sympathy for the change of the aid regime that the US under the Trump administration has precipitated. However, I think the pace and the suddenness with which it happened will almost certainly have caused unnecessary suffering and deaths. And I think both of those can—

不，我认为这完全错误。

No, I think that's totally false.

而且显然错误，因为我们讨论的资金数额远低于盖茨基金会或麦肯齐·斯科特基金会等私人基金会能够支持的。她捐出了数百亿美元。盖茨基金会有数百亿美元。

And obviously false, because the amount of funding we're talking about is far less than what can be supported via private foundations like the Gates Foundation or Mackenzie Scott's Foundation. She's given away tens of billions of dollars. The Gates Foundation has tens of billions of dollars.

它们能够迅速行动。如果它们没这么做，我会说它们同样负有责任。

They are capable of acting very quickly. And if they didn't, I would say they're equally responsible.

我明白了。好吧。显然如此。

I see. Okay. Obviously.

好吧。有道理。

All right. Fair point.

零人死亡。

Zero people.

我听得一清二楚。

I hear you loud and clear.

零。

Zero.

我听得一清二楚。显然，在国内，你离开了 Doge。你想做的事很难。你刚刚解释过了。但这届政府走向了你两年前可能没预料到的方向。我不会赞同任何一届政府的一切做法。

I hear you loud and clear. Obviously, domestically, you stepped away from Doge. It was hard to do what you were trying to do. You've just explained it. But this administration has gone in directions that I suspect you were not expecting two and a half years ago. I'm not going to agree with everything any administration does.

你对这届政府失望吗？

Are you disappointed by this administration?

不，我认为这届政府总体来说非常出色。没有哪届政府是完美的，但远比另一种选择好得多。

No, I think this administration on balance is excellent. No administration is perfect, but it's vastly better than the alternative.

我们能谈谈欧洲吗？一个你非常非常关注的地方。

Can we talk about Europe, a place that you are very, very focused on?

我并没有那么关注欧洲。

I'm not that focused on Europe.

从你的帖子来看，你相当担忧欧洲。你支持——

I think judging by your posts, you're pretty concerned about Europe. You support—

我是说，我偶尔会发点东西。

I mean, every once in a while I post something.

相当频繁，不是偶尔。但我真的对此感兴趣，作为一个住在欧洲、住在伦敦的人。

It's reasonably frequently, not once in a while. But I'm genuinely interested in this, as someone who lives in Europe, lives in London.

嗯。

Yeah.

你描绘了一幅画面：首先，你不仅支持民粹右翼，还支持极右翼，实际上是一些国家非常边缘的政党。

You paint a picture: well, first of all, you support not just the populist right but the far right, in fact very fringe parties in some countries.

不，我支持普通人。

No, I support the normal people.

好的。你认为那是普通人。好吧。

Okay. You think that's the normal person. Okay.

是的。你错误地称之为极右翼。实际上，回到 10 或 15 年前，这些政策完全正常。我觉得有趣的一个把戏是，拿奥巴马和希拉里的演讲，然后去找一个我称之为疯狂左派的人，问：‘你觉得特朗普的演讲怎么样？’他们会说：‘哦，他是最糟糕的人。’实际上那是奥巴马的演讲，或者希拉里的演讲。

Yes. What you call the far right falsely. Literally, you could go back 10 or 15 years and these policies were completely normal. In fact, one of the tricks I think is funny—what I think is quite funny—is to take a speech from Obama and Hillary and then go to someone who's on what I call the lunatic left and say, 'What do you think of the speech by Trump?' And they go, 'Oh wow, he's the worst person ever.' Actually, that was a speech by Obama. Or actually that was a speech by Hillary.

我同意。不，我同意这个国家的重心发生了变化——民主党确实左移了。但这不是我在说的。我在说像鲁珀特·洛这样的人。

I agree. No, I agree that the center of gravity in this country has shifted—certainly the Democratic party shifted to the left. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people like Rupert Lowe.

他们实际上只是普通人。以下是原则：告诉我哪一点听起来可怕——我们应该有安全的边境，我们应该有安全的城市，我们应该有合理的支出。这三条哪一条是极右翼的边缘观点？我希望告诫你和媒体，对极右翼的荒谬描述是错误的、误导的、胡说八道。请把这段保留。

They're actually just normal people. And here are the principles: tell me which of these sound terrible—that we should have secure borders, that we should have safe cities, that we should have sensible spending. Which of those three are far-right fringe? And I would like to admonish you and the media for the absurd characterization of the far-right. It is false and misleading and nonsense. Please keep this part in.

我们会全部保留。但让我反驳一下。你有——多少？接近 2.5 亿粉丝在 X 上。

We'll keep all of this in. But let me push back on that. You have, what is it? Close to 250 million followers on X.

对。受欢迎的家伙。

Yeah. Popular guy.

你说过，引用，‘英国内战不可避免。’就一个问题：你上次去英国是什么时候？

You say things like, quote, 'Civil war in Britain is inevitable.' Just a question: when were you last in the UK?

几年前。

A few years ago.

正是。所以我住在那里，我一直在那里。那不是——

Exactly. So I live there, I'm there the whole time. That is not—

你过着与世隔绝的生活。

You live in a cloistered existence.

不，我并没有。数据也反驳了你的说法。

No, I don't actually. And the numbers also disprove what you say.

什么数据？

What numbers?

所有关于犯罪的数据。伦敦比美国任何一个城市都安全得多。英国的暴力犯罪并不像你想的那样。事实上，它正在下降。你描绘了一种观点——因为你粉丝众多，很多美国人都相信——欧洲和英国被可怕的穆斯林移民淹没。每个角落都有强奸。有一种文明毁灭。

All the numbers about crime. London is a much safer city than any city in the United States. Violent crime in the UK is not where you think it is. In fact, it's coming down. You have painted—and because you have so many followers, so many Americans believe it—a kind of view that Europe and the UK are overrun with terrifying Muslim immigrants. There's rape on every corner. There's a sort of civilizational destruction.

我从未说过那些话。完全不是——

I haven't said any of those things. It's just not—

嗯，你说‘英国内战不可避免’。

Well, you say 'Civil war in Britain is inevitable.'

是的，如果当前趋势继续下去，就会发生。如果你有一个庞大且快速增长的人群，其信仰与西方信仰对立，那么迟早会有一场清算。他们会试图实施自己的观点，而反对者会反对，这就是你所说的内战。而且这是趋势。你确实生活在与世隔绝的环境中。

Yes, if current trends continue, it is. If you have a large and rapidly growing group of people whose beliefs are antithetical to western beliefs, at some point there will be a reckoning. They will try to implement their views, and those who oppose it will oppose it, and that's what you call civil war. And this is the trend. And you absolutely do live in a cloistered existence.

如果你愿意，我们可以去英国转转。

If you'd like, we can go on a tour of Britain.

当然。很乐意去英国转转。

Sure. Very happy to come on a tour of Britain.

然后你会看到我一直在居住的国家，而你几年没去过了。

And then you will see my country that I live in all the time, and you haven't been there in a few years.

我去过那里绝对有上百次。

I've been there literally a hundred times.

但最后一次是什么时候？

But when was the last time?

实际上就是几年前。

Literally a few years ago.

你知道为什么这让我激动吗？因为你真正塑造了对英国的观点。我遇到的很多美国人——前几天就有一个——大致说：‘哦伦敦这么危险的地方。你怎么受得了？到处都是性侵团伙，到处都是暴力。’这是人们从你发的东西或 X 上发的东西中得到的画面。例如，你连续 48 小时发布关于《公民治安》那部电影，它描绘了一个反乌托邦的画面。

You know why this exercises me? Because you have really shaped opinion about the UK. So many Americans I come across—I just had one the other day along the order of, 'Oh London such a dangerous place. How can you? There are grooming gangs everywhere. There's violence everywhere.' This is a picture that people get from things that you post or that are posted on X. For example, you were posting for 48 hours about 'Citizen Vigilante' that film, which paints a dystopian picture.

是的，我看了。不怎么样。我昨天看的。这不是一部很好的电影，但它也描绘了欧洲的反乌托邦画面，并美化治安暴力。

Yes, I watched it. It was not fun. I watched it yesterday. It's not a very good movie, but it also paints a dystopian picture of Europe and glorifies vigilante violence.

它美化了对一个穆斯林移民家庭的谋杀。我真的认为你把那段内容放到 X 上是极不负责任的。

It glorifies the murdering of a Muslim immigrant family. I honestly think that it is irresponsible for you to put that up on X.

我觉得那只是一部电影。值得一看。

I think that it's a movie. And it's worth watching.

你明显是在暗示欧洲是一个反乌托邦的地方。你为什么不更努力地对抗欧洲的审查制度？你似乎什么也没做。

You're clearly suggesting Europe is a dystopian place and you... Why aren't you doing more to fight censorship in Europe? You seem to be doing nothing to fight censorship in Europe.

这不是真的。我……

That's not true. I am...

在英国，有人因为社交媒体帖子被关进监狱。你觉得这合适吗？

They put people in prison in the UK for social media posts. Do you think that's appropriate?

不。我们写了社论反对这种做法。但我觉得这种事很糟糕。而且我同意你的看法，但我认为你没必要美化私刑暴力，描绘一幅完全失实的欧洲图景。

No. And we've written editorials against it. But I think that's the sort of thing that is bad. And I think you and I agree with you, but I don't think you have to glorify vigilante violence and paint an entirely inaccurate picture of Europe.

我不认为那是失实的。我们应该去英国走一趟。

I don't think it is. We should do a tour of the UK.

是的。英国在融合移民方面其实做得很好。非常有效。问题也存在，我第一个承认有问题。

Yes. And the UK has actually been very good at integrating immigrants. It is very effective at doing that. There are problems. I'm the first to admit that there are problems.

是的，存在严重问题。它真的不像你对你 2.4 亿粉丝描述的那样。而且我认为问题在于……

Yes, there are major problems. It really is not what you are describing to your 240 million followers. And I think there's a problem.

不，我觉得我的看法很准确。

No, I think I'm spot on.

好吧，我们只能……这就是为什么要保护言论自由，至少允许人们说错话。但你的论点不只是你有权说你想说的，你是在说你对欧洲的判断是正确的，而我真的不认为你是对的。

Well, we'll have to... and that's why you have freedom of speech, at least allows people to say things that are wrong. But your point is not just that you have every right to say what you want, you're saying you are right about Europe and I really don't think you are.

我认为我是对的。你会发现欧洲的大多数人、至少很多欧洲人不认为你的看法正确。但让我们回到那个问题——因为媒体一直在无视现实。

I think I am. I think you will find that most people in Europe or many people in Europe don't think you're right about it. But let's come to that point because the media keeps ignoring reality.

我也不觉得那是真的。我真的……

I don't think that's true either. I really...

他们被电视和传统媒体操控了。

And they're programmed by the TV and conventional media.

但你为什么关注这个？你为什么对它感兴趣？一方面你描述未来十年将发生的非凡变革，另一方面你又持续参与最糟糕的部落主义、社交媒体的污秽之地。这怎么协调？

But why do you focus on this? Why are you interested in it? Because on the one hand you described this extraordinary transformative civilizational changing stuff in the next 10 years, and yet you're also an ongoing participant in the worst kind of tribalism, a cesspit of social media. How does that fit?

我不认为它们不一致。

I don't think they're inconsistent.

但为什么你要做后者，那种部落主义？人们说你是种族主义者。人们对你有各种说法。我只是不理解动机。你是在煽动吗？

But why do you do the latter, the tribalism? People say you're a racist. People say all kinds of things about you. I just don't understand the motivation. Are you fermenting?

我的伴侣是印度裔，我和她有四个孩子。其中一个以一位著名印度物理学家的名字命名。所以我会说我不是种族主义者。而且，如果你看看我公司雇佣的人，我们的高管来自各个种族。我觉得那里没有种族主义。

My partner is half Indian, and I have four children with her. One of them was named after a famous Indian physicist. So I would say I'm not racist. Also, if you look at the people employed at my companies, we have senior executives of all races. I don't think there's any racism there.

你反穆斯林吗？

Are you anti-Muslim?

我反对让持有对立观点的人进入一个国家。我反对那个。我反对强奸和谋杀。我反对强加违背西方公认标准的规则和法律。而且我认为，像你这样的传统媒体不承认这一点，真是莫大的遗憾。

I am against having people come to a country with antithetical views. I am against that. I am against rape and murder. I am against the imposition of rules and laws that are contrary to what we've come to accept in the West. And I think it's a crying shame that the traditional media like you don't recognize this.

首先，我认为你极大地夸大了欧洲面临的挑战。其次，在某些方面我完全同意你。英国对言论自由的限制在某些领域确实有问题。让我担心的是，你支持的一些人在某些方面非常恶劣。比如德国选择党的部分成员，我见过爱丽丝·魏德尔，她是一个非常深思熟虑的人，但她的党内有一些真正的纳粹分子，非常糟糕的人。你以 2.4 亿粉丝的规模全面支持这类政党，意味着你在欧洲拥有权力，我认为你可能没有意识到你的影响有多大。

First of all, I think you hugely exaggerate the challenges Europe faces. Secondly, in some areas I completely agree with you. The constraints on freedom of speech in the UK in certain areas are problematic. What worries me is that the people you are supporting are really quite vile people in some areas. Some members of the AfD, Alice Weidel, whom I've met, is a perfectly thoughtful person, but in her party there are real neo-Nazis, really awful people. Your blanket support of this kind of party with 240 million followers means you have a power in Europe that I think perhaps you don't realize the scale of impact you have.

我希望我产生了很大影响。

I hope I am having a big impact.

你为什么能够塑造欧洲政治？你甚至不住在那里。

Why should you be able to shape European politics? You don't even live there.

我把它视为整个西方。

I think of it as the West collectively.

但你是否明白，这为什么让人们觉得，这个拥有所有权力、世界首富的人，认为自己有权影响我们的政治？这就是人们憎恨你的原因。确实有人憎恨你。

But do you see why this makes people think that this man who has all this power, the world's richest man, thinks he has a right to influence our politics? It's why people loathe you. Some people do loathe you.

也许有些人憎恨我。这很可能。我不在乎。但事实是，有 2.5 亿人关注我，我认为喜欢我的人比不喜欢的人多得多。而且我认为憎恨你和媒体的人比你意识到的多得多。你知道媒体被人鄙视吗？记者获得的好感度只有大约 15%。

Maybe some people do loathe me. And that's probably true. I don't care. But the fact that a quarter billion people follow me is that I think a lot more people actually like me than don't. And I think a lot more people hate you and the media than you realize. Do you realize the media is despised? Journalists' favorable view is like 15%.

我确实知道在美国是这样。

I do know that in the United States.

所以情况反过来了。他们恨你。他们恨你远超过恨我。

So the shoe is on the other foot. They hate you. They hate you far more than they hate me.

我认为对新闻业的信任确实在流失。我认为部分原因是记者和新闻界犯了错误。我完全承认。但我也认为，你在 X 上推动的那些东西助长了社交媒体的极端化环境，实际上让情况更糟。

I think there is certainly a loss of trust in journalism. I think in part there have been mistakes by journalists and journalism. I totally acknowledge that. But I also think that the polarized environment on social media fostered by the things you are pushing on X actually makes this worse.

我不这么认为。我觉得你才是问题所在。媒体被憎恨的程度远超过我，而你似乎甚至没有意识到。

I don't think so. I think you're the problem. The media is loathed far more than I am, and you don't seem to even realize that.

我认为和您相比，很少有人知道我是谁。所以我不认为我在同一层面。

I think very few people know who I am relative to you. So I don't think I play in the same game.

媒体整体被憎恨。你甚至知道这一点吗？你可能不知道。

The media collectively is hated. Do you even know that? You probably don't.

我愿意认为我清楚自己的个人缺点、《经济学人》的缺点以及我们世界观的缺点。

I like to think that I'm aware of my own personal shortcomings and the Economist's shortcomings and our worldview's shortcomings.

但你知道，我们所代表的是自由主义价值观，传统的古典自由主义价值观——我们担心权力集中，我们相信个人和个人的尊严以及个人自由。我坚信这一点，而且我一直认为你是一个古典自由主义者，但当我看到你在社交网络上发布的内容时，我有时会怀疑你是否真的相信这一点。

But what we stand for, as you know, is liberal values, traditional classical liberal values where we worry about concentrations of power and we believe in the individual and the dignity of the individual and individual freedom. I firmly believe that and I have long thought that you were a classical liberal, but when I read what you post on your feed, I sometimes wonder whether you really do believe in that.

古典自由主义者，约翰·密尔，有限政府，个人自由。

Classical liberal, JS Mill, limited government, individual freedom.

是的，我同意这一点。

Yeah, I agree with that.

嗯，我真的说过，听着，我相信安全的城市、安全的边境，以及政府在开支上要明智。这完全不让我成为右翼。一点都不。

Um, I literally said, look, I believe in safe cities, secure borders, and sensible spending with respect to government. Um, that doesn't make me right-wing at all. In the least.

在这些方面，美国还是欧洲国家做得更好？

Does the US or do European countries score better on those?

美国更好。不。

The US is better. No.

安全的城市：美国比英国危险得多。明智的开支：这里的赤字更大，失控了。你没能减少它。安全的边境：在特朗普政府下，我同意你。之前不是。但在三个中的两个上，毫无疑问，欧洲更好。然而你似乎把欧洲描绘成一个地狱般的地方。

Safe cities: much more dangerous in the US than the UK. Sensible spending: bigger deficit here, out of control. You failed to reduce it. Secure borders: now under the Trump administration, I agree with you. Before not. But on two out of three, unequivocally, Europe is in a better place. Yet you seem to paint a picture of Europe being a hellhole.

我不认为欧洲是个地狱般的地方。

I don't think Europe's a hellhole.

好吧，我们可以在某件事上达成一致。

Okay, we can agree on something.

我什么时候说过那话？

When did I ever say that?

嗯，你描绘的欧洲画面——你在捏造东西。

Well, the picture you paint of Europe – you're making up things.

不，我没有。你说英国内战不可避免，然后你基本上推广了这部公民治安电影，它确实把欧洲描绘成一个地狱般的地方。它一开始就是不祥的音乐，然后说欧洲。

No, I'm not. You said civil war in Britain is inevitable and then you basically promoted this citizen vigilante film which really does paint Europe as a hellhole. It just starts with ominous music and it says Europe.

嗯，有失控的强奸和谋杀。

Well, there was out of control rape and murder.

这个国家比欧洲更危险。这个国家的危险是因为我们没有监禁屡次暴力罪犯。这就是典型的 SARSDA 或法官没有监禁屡次暴力罪犯。如果有人因暴力犯罪被捕了整整 50 次，最终他们会杀人。所以要么监禁他们，要么人们会死。

It's more dangerous in this country than it is in Europe. Where there is danger in this country is because we failed to incarcerate repeat violent offenders. And that's the classic sort of SARSDA or judges that fail to incarcerate repeat violent offenders. And if somebody gets arrested 50 times literally for violent crimes, eventually they're going to kill somebody. So you either incarcerate them or people will die.

我认为枪械的普遍性也有很大关系。我的意思是这是一个危险得多的国家。谋杀率要高得多，很大程度上是因为枪支太多。

I think the prevalence of guns has quite a lot to do with it too. I mean this is a much more dangerous country. Murder rates are much higher in large part because there are so many guns.

嗯，让我给你一个有趣的数据。欧洲因热浪死亡的人数比美国因枪击死亡的人数还多。你为什么不去写一篇关于空调的文章呢？

Well, let me give you an interesting number. There are more people that die in Europe from heat deaths than people that die from gun deaths in America. Why aren't you writing an article about air conditioning?

嗯，我们做过好几篇关于空调的文章，上周封面还登了一整篇关于为什么需要空调的长文。

Well, we've done several on air conditioning and we had on our cover last week a whole long piece about why air conditioning.

是的，我们非常支持空调。

Yeah, we're very pro-air conditioning.

好吧，很好。嗯，很好。

Okay, good. Well, good.

非常支持。你应该读我们的文章。

Very pro. You should read us.

绝对是。该给 credit 的地方就给 credit。

Absolutely. Credits where it's due.

我认为你对《经济学人》的看法并不完全准确。所以如果你来看看英国，开始读《经济学人》，我会在我对你的批评上认错——英国和欧洲有很多地方不安全。你不能随便走走。

I think you have a view of The Economist that is not entirely accurate. So if you come look at England, start reading The Economist, I will stand corrected on my criticism of you in this area that there are many parts of Britain and Europe which are not safe. You can't just walk around.

但这个国家要多得多。多得多。

But there are far more in this country. Far more.

不，我不这么认为。

No, I don't think so.

好吧，让我的事实核查员去查一下。

All right, let's go and get my fact checkers to check that.

是啊，我不认为那是真的。嗯，

Yeah, I don't think that's true. Um,

我们继续往下吧，因为我觉得我明白你为什么这么做了。

Let's move on from this because I think I've got a sense of why you're doing what you're doing.

重点不是美国是否完美。问题是，欧洲是否有严重且日益严重的问题？绝对有。更危险。这是我们开始的地方。

The point is not that America is perfect. The question is, does Europe have a serious and growing problem? Absolutely. More dangerous. That's where we started this.

欧洲有严重且日益严重的问题。我不会说美国没有问题。当然有。但我们都应该努力解决这些问题。

Europe has a serious and growing problem. I'm not going to say that the United States has no problems. Of course, it does. But we should all try to address these issues.

我们可以在那一点上达成一致。我们都应该努力解决问题。

We can agree on that. We should all try to address the problems.

我的观点只是我认为你夸大了欧洲问题的规模，而且——

My point was simply that I think you exaggerate the scale of Europe's problem and that

我认为你们这些人玩忽职守，没有意识到问题的严重性。

I think you people are asleep at the switch and do not realize the magnitude of the issue.

我也认为你的干预，无论意图多么良好，都有可能使欧洲的问题变得更糟。

I also think that your interventions, however well-intentioned they may be, risk making Europe's problem a lot worse.

怎么讲？

How?

因为你在支持那些原始威权主义者——他们不仅仅是想确保穆斯林更好地融入社会或确保边境安全，而是有明显法西斯倾向的人。

Because you are putting your support behind people who are proto-authoritarians who are not trying simply to make sure there is better integration of Muslims or to secure the borders, but who have very clear fascist tendencies.

我认为你说的完全是虚构，我真的只是说欧洲必须有安全的边境。

I think what you're saying is total fiction, and really I'm simply saying that Europe has to have secure borders.

好吧，在这一点上——不让大量持与欧洲公认观点对立观点的人进入，而且那里不会有某种程度的安全文化融合。这完全是常识。

Okay, on that — not let in vast numbers of people with views that are antithetical to the accepted views in Europe and where there will not be some level of safe cultural integration. This is simply common sense.

如果你只是说欧洲应该有安全的边境，我完全同意你。那么我误解了你在社交媒体上的干预行为，因为看到你支持的人和做的事，我不会得出那样的结论。但如果那是你的目标，我赞同你的目标——欧洲应该有安全的边境。我认为这完全可以接受。

If all you are saying is Europe should have secure borders, I completely agree with you. Then I have misunderstood what your interventions have been on social media, because that is not what I would conclude having seen what the people you are supporting and the things you're doing. But if that's your goal, I share your goal that Europe should have secure borders. I think that's perfectly agreeable.

这引出了我的一个问题。

That gets me to a question.

我来解释一下为什么边境不安全的根本驱动力是什么。当你有一个福利国家，向任何来那里的人提供大量福利时，你就为那些生活水平低于那个标准的人创造一个非常强大的经济驱动力，让他们来到欧洲。这是一个明显而强大的推动力。如果他们在欧洲得到的生活水平高于世界其他地方，人们就会去那里。这非常基本。

And let me explain what the fundamental forcing function here is for why the borders are not secure. It is when you have a welfare state that provides substantial benefits to anyone who comes there. You create a very powerful economic forcing function for anyone who is below that standard of living to come to Europe. It is an obvious, powerful driving force. People will come there if their standard of living from what they get in Europe is above where they are elsewhere in the world. It's very basic.

我完全同意这一点。我不——

I'd completely agree with that. I don't—

这是非常基本的激励结构。

It's a very basic incentive structure.

经济条件、经济影响决定了很多移民。我认为庇护是另一个问题，但我觉得你完全正确。有移民压力。然而，还有其他你没有关注的事情，那就是移民带来了很多好处，尤其是在像欧洲这样快速老龄化的洲。所以我们可以同意完全不受控制的边境是个坏主意，但我认为欧洲受益于有控制的移民。它带来了——

Economic conditions, economic influences determine a lot of migration. I think asylum is a separate issue, but I think you're absolutely right. There are pressures for migration. However, there are other things that you haven't focused on, which is migration brings a lot of benefits, and it particularly does so in a continent like Europe which is a rapidly aging continent. So we can agree that completely uncontrolled borders are a bad idea, but I think Europe benefits from having controlled immigration. It brings—

是的。我赞成移民。

Yes. I'm in favor of immigration.

显然，如果我不是移民，那我就是虚伪的，因为我自己就是美国移民。我支持移民，前提是移民者能成为社会的生产力成员，为人诚实，且不会虐待该国的人民。

Obviously I'd be hypocritical if I wasn't since I'm an immigrant to the United States. I'm in favor of immigration if the person immigrating is going to be a productive member of society, if they're going to be honest, and if they're not going to mistreat people in that country.

这些我都同意。

I can agree on all of those.

是的。

Yes.

但我认为欧洲在这方面做得比你想象的要好。我想这就是我们分歧所在。不过我们继续吧。告诉我，你认为人们对你的最大误解是什么？

But I think that Europe does better on that than you give it credit for. That's I think where we disagree. But let's move on. Tell me, what do you think people get most wrong about you?

嗯，你刚才对我的很多看法都是错的。几乎过去 20 分钟里说的所有事情，都还是错的。

Well, I mean, you got a whole bunch of things wrong about me. Pretty much everything in the last, just rewind the last 20 minutes, still wrong.

所以我弄错了你的……

So I got wrong your...

好吧，我们别重复了。

Well, let's not be repetitive here.

好的。所以人们对你最大的误解是你的政治立场。

Okay. So that political side of you people get most wrong.

是的。我的政治观点非常中间派。不是极右翼，坦率地说，称它为极右翼我认为是对历史的侮辱，是对许多民族的侮辱，是一个骇人听闻的谎言。这完全荒谬。我非常清楚地表明了我的立场：需要有安全的边界，如果有移民涌入，他们必须是认同西方理想和价值观的人。如果他们没有，如果长期有反对西方价值观的人增长，你就是在为内战埋下伏笔。这是显而易见的，连孩子都懂。

Yeah. My political views are very centrist. They're not far-right, and frankly calling it far-right I think is an insult to history, an insult to many peoples, and it is an outrageous falsehood. It's completely absurd. I have stated my position very clearly: there need to be secure borders, and if there's an influx of immigrants, they need to be people who will agree with Western ideals and values. If they don't, and if there's a long-term growth of people who are opposed to Western values, you are setting yourself up for civil war. This is obvious. A child can see this.

但这并非右翼观点。我只是在陈述现实。

But this is not a right-wing view. I'm simply stating reality.

嗯，我想我们都同意证据能决定谁更正确。我们在欧洲不同地方会找到支持我们各自观点的证据。问题在于总体的……

Well, I think we can both agree that evidence will be able to decide which of us is more or less right. And we will find evidence for both of our views in different parts of Europe. The question is what the overall...

我非常擅长预测未来。我并不完美，但作为一个人类，我的正确率很高。但这有点像是“卡珊德拉效应”，人们不相信我说的话可能是真的。我比大多数人更大概率能预见未来，包括一些人们觉得反直觉的事情。再说一次，我并非总是正确，但我的正确率很高。历史会做出评判。我认为你会发现我所说的话很少是不准确的，绝大多数都非常准确，并且会应验，除非方向有所改变。

I'm very good at predicting the future. I'm not perfect, but my batting average is very high for a human. But this has somewhat of a Cassandra effect where people don't believe that what I'm saying is likely to be true. I can see into the future with a higher probability of success than most people, including things that people believe to be counterintuitive. Again, I'm not always right, but my batting average is very good. The history will write the verdict. I think you will see that very little of what I've said is inaccurate, and a super majority of what I've said is very accurate and will come to pass unless there's some change in direction.

你对未来的预测，在 AI 方面（我们对话的前半部分）和政治方面（后半部分）哪个信心更高？

Do you have higher confidence level in your expectations of the future for AI the first part of our conversation or the latter part the political part?

AI 是数字超级智能，就像黑洞一样的奇点，因为你不知道之后会发生什么。它几乎吞噬一切。我认为从宏观效应来看，AI 和机器人将主导一切。在不到 10 年的时间尺度上，这可能会让我们刚才谈论的其他事情变得不那么重要和无关紧要。AI 机器人革命会更早发生，比英国的内战更早。我认为英国内战大概 20 年后发生，而 AI 机器人奇点则是 10 年后。希望这些仁慈、全能的 AI 能阻止那样的结果。

AI is digital super intelligence, called the singularity like a black hole because you don't know what's going to happen after that. It sort of sucks in everything. I think in terms of the really big macro effects, AI and robots will dominate everything. On a time scale less than 10 years, which probably renders this other stuff less important and less relevant. The AI robotics revolution will happen sooner. It'll happen sooner than civil war in Britain. I would say civil war in Britain is probably 20 years away. And the AI robot singularity is 10 years away. Well, hopefully these benign all-powerful AIs will prevent such outcomes.

它们很可能会。

They probably will.

埃隆，我并不完全同意你的观点，但与你交谈总是非常迷人。非常感谢你。

Elon, I don't agree with everything you say, but it's always absolutely fascinating to talk to you. Thank you very much indeed.

不客气。我可不会无聊。

No, you're welcome. I'm not boring.

你绝对不无聊。

You're definitely not boring.