Elon Musk Talks Tesla, Politics and Putin Relationship (Full Interview)

Please welcome to the forum Elon Musk. For a conversation with Bloomberg's Michelle Hussein. Hello, everyone.

And Elon Musk, welcome to Qatar Economic Forum. How are you? Thank you for having me.

I'm fine. How are you? Very well, thank you.

And very pleased to have you with us. You know, among those here in the audience in Doha are some you will know people who have backed you financially over the years since you last spoke here in 2022. A lot has changed in your life.

You're not only running multiple companies, you were doing that then, but now you also have a role in government. So first of all, I hope you won't mind if from time to time I have to move you from one topic to another, because we have a lot to cover in the time we have. That will be all right.

Okay. Well, let's start then, with exactly the fact that you now have this combination of being a CEO and having a role as a government adviser. Tell me about your week.

How does it work? What's the split of your time? Well, I travel a lot, so I was in Silicon Valley yesterday morning.

I was in LA yesterday evening. I'm in Boston right now. I'll be in D.

C. tomorrow. I'll be there after having dinner with the president tomorrow night, I believe.

And then. Oversight of Cabinet secretary meetings and then back to Silicon Valley on Thursday night. But I mean, the balance of your time.

Is it is it. Well, clearly it's a lot. But is it still the case, as you said a while ago, that it's about 1 to 2 days a week on your government work?

Yeah, that's correct. And what does that mean for your corporate life? Because if we start with Tesla, the company has suffered in recent months what you've called blowback.

So what is your plan for turning that around, the declining sales picture? And by what stage do you think you're going to be able to turn it around? Now.

It's already turned around. Give me some evidence for that. I've just been looking at the sales figures for Europe in April, which showed very significant declines in the big markets.

Europe is our weakest markets. We're strong everywhere else. So our sales are doing doing well at this point.

Anticipate any any meaningful sales shortfall and. The you know, the obviously, the stock market recognizes that since we're now back over $1,000,000,000,000 in market cap. So clearly the market is aware of the situation.

So it's already turned around. But sales are still down compared to this time last year. In Europe.

In Europe. Okay. And guess what?

That's that's that's true of of all manufacturers. There's no exceptions. Does that mean that you're not going to be able.

Does that mean you're quite weak? Okay. But you would acknowledge, wouldn't you, that what you are facing?

Okay. Let's just take it as you are. What you are facing is a significant problem.

This Tesla was an incredibly aspirational brand. People identified with it, It saw it, they saw it. It being at the forefront of the climate crisis.

And now people are driving around with stickers in their cars saying, I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy. And there are also people who are by buying it because you know, as crazy or how they may view it. So, yes, we've lost some sales perhaps on the left, but we've gained them on the right.

The sales numbers at this point are strong and we see no problem with demand. So what I mean, you just look at the stock price. If you want the best insider information, the stock market analysts have that.

And a stock wouldn't be trading near all time highs if it was not If things weren't in good shape, they're fine. Don't worry about it. Okay.

I was citing sales figures for I'd rather than share price. Well, tell me then how committed you are to Tesla. Do you see yourself and are you committed to still being the chief executive of Tesla in five years time?

Yes, no doubt about that at all. Well, no, I di. Okay, Short of that, let me see if I'm dead.

So this slide does does that mean that the value of your pay doesn't have any bearing on your decision? Well, that's not really a subject of discussion in this forum. The.

I think obviously there should be a compensation for if something incredible is done, that competition should match it, that something incredible was done. But I'm confident that whatever the whatever some activist posing as a judge in Delaware happens to do, it will not affect the future competition. This is the judge who twice struck down the $56 billion pay package that was that was awarded to you.

I think the value on the basis on the current value of stock options. Yeah. Not a judge.

Not a judge. The activist who is cosplaying a judge in a Halloween costume. Okay.

That that's your characterization? I think the value of the current value of stock options, I think the actual justice according to the law, on the current value of stock options, I think the value of that pay package stands at about $100 billion. Are you saying you are relaxed about the value of your future pay package, your decision to be committed to Tesla for the next five years, as long as you are still with us on this planet is completely independent of pay.

No. It's not independent, so pay is a relevant factor then to your commitment to Tesla. A sufficient voting control such that I cannot be ousted by activist investors is what matters to me.

And I've said this publicly many times. But let's not have this whole thing be a discussion of my let's pay a sort of money thing. It's a reasonable control thing over the future of the company, especially for building millions, potentially billions of humanoid robots.

I can't be sitting there and wonder to get tossed out by for political reasons by activists. That would be unacceptable. That's all that matters.

Now let's move on. Okay. Well, just one question.

One well, one question before we move on to other companies, which is that I wonder if some of what you've has happened to Tesla in the last few months. Did you take it personally? Yes.

And did it make you regret any of or think twice about your political endeavors? Because it is. I did what needed to be done.

The. The violence antibody reaction. And I'm just I'm not someone who's ever committed violence.

And yet massive violence was committed against my companies. Massive violence was threatened against me. Who are these people?

Why would they do that? How wrong can they be? They're on the wrong side and the wrong side of history.

And that's an evil thing to do to go and damage some innocent person's car. To threaten to kill me. What's wrong with these people?

I've not harmed anyone. So. Something needs to be done about them.

And a number of them are going to prison and they deserve it. You're more well, you're referring to the attacks on Tesla's showrooms. But I think.

Yeah, but. Well, it's it's new showrooms and burning down cars. Unacceptable.

Yeah. Those people will go to prison, and the people that funded them and organized them will also go to prison. Don't worry.

But wouldn't you come in for who wouldn't? Wouldn't be. But wouldn't you acknowledge that some of the people who turned against Tesla in Europe were were upset at your politics and very few of them would have been violent in any way they just objected to to what they saw you say or do politically.

Well, it's certainly fine to object to political things, but it's not it's not fine to resort to violence and hanging someone in effigy and death threats. That's obviously not okay. You know, that's absurd.

That is in no way justifiable at all. In any way, shape or form. And some of the legacy media nonetheless have sought to justify it, which is unconscionable.

Shame on them. Okay, let's talk about your other companies then. Another business area, Space X.

I saw that you said in a speech at the West Point Military Academy recently that the future of warfare is AI and drones. And obviously defense is an increasingly booming sector with the state of the world at the moment. Do you see Space X moving into weaponized drones?

You certainly ask interesting questions that are impossible to answer. So Space X is it's the SpaceX launch leader. So SpaceX doesn't do drones.

SpaceX explodes rockets, satellites and Internet terminals. So Space X has has a a very dominant position in space launch of of the mass launch to orbit this year, Space X will probably do 90% change over the half path of the remaining about of 5%. And the rest of the world, including the rest of us, will do about 5%.

So Space X will do about ten times as much as the rest of world combined, or 20 times as much as China, which is and China is doing actually a very impressive job. The reason for this is that we are putting into orbit the largest satellite constellation that was ever seen by far. So I think at this point.

About approaching 80% of all active satellites in orbit are Space X, and they're providing global high bandwidth mobile connectivity throughout the world. In fact, this connection is on a SpaceX X connection. So this is a very good thing because it means that we can provide low cost, high bandwidth internet to parts of the world that don't have it or it's very expensive.

And I think the single biggest thing you can do to lift people out of poverty and help them is giving them an Internet connection. Because once you have the Internet connection, you can learn anything for free on the Internet and you can also sell your goods and services to the global market. And.

Once you have knowledge by the Internet and the ability to engage in commerce, that this is going to greatly improve quality of life for people throughout the world. And it has. And I don't think anyone in the audience who may have been helpful in, you know, with StarLink and getting it approved in the country.

And I think it's doing a lot of good in the countries that have approved it, which is, I think at this point, 230 countries are very happy with it. I don't currently anticipate SpaceX are going to be getting into the weapons business. That's certainly that's not an aspiration we're frequently or frequently asked to do to do weapons programs, but we have thus far declined.

Do you envisage Space X or indeed StarLink, as a separate entity publicly listing in the near future or at all? It's possible that Sterling may go public at some point in the future. And what would be the what would be the time frame?

What kind of time frame you consider? I'm in no rush. I'm in no rush to go public.

The public is, I guess, a way to. You have to make more money, but at the expense of a lot of public company overhead and inevitably how much lawsuits, which are very annoying. So it was really something needs to be done about the share of shareholder shareholder derivative lawsuits in the US because it allows plaintiffs law firms who don't represent the shareholders to pretend that they represent the shareholders by getting a public plaintiff with a few shares to initiate a massive lawsuit against the company.

And the irony being that extreme irony that even if the class they support to represent where to vote, that they don't want the lawsuit, the lawsuit will continue. So how can it be a class action representing a class if the class brought against it? And that's the bizarre situation we've got in the US.

At least it's a dire need of reform. And if anyone is running a public company experiences, it's an absurd situation in change. Well, do you think Donald Trump might change it?

You've certainly got his ear. I imagine that you've put this to him. Is this something you're trying to change before any StarLink IPO?

Well. It would need a law to be passed. But the trouble being that you need 60 Senate votes and the Democrats will vote against it.

The the the plaintiff's bar is, I believe, the second largest contributor to the Democratic Party. That's the that's the issue at the state level. This can be solved.

And I should say Texas recently passed a law which at the state level made. It's much more reasonable because you have to get at least one in 33 shareholders to agree that they are part of a class of shareholders. 3%.

This is doesn't really help with frivolous lawsuits. Okay. Um, let's talk about A.

I. , which is in so many of your businesses and in all our worlds in different ways. It's one of the big changes, the development of generative A.

I. . Since you last spoke to this forum three years ago, you're in the space, of course, with Grok, which almost everyone will know.

You co-founded Open AI and then left, and you've obviously got a legal battle with open AI and some more. But I wonder if you could say something about the status of that because you were together in Saudi Arabia with the President last week with Samuel, but in the same place at the same time was in the neighborhood. Does that mean you are pushing ahead with the lawsuit against open AI?

Yes, but. So I came up with the name Openai as an open source and as a non-profit, and I funded A. I.

. I have for the first roughly $50 million, and it was intended to be a non-profit open source company, and now it is trying to change that for their own financial benefit into a for profit company that is closed source. So this would be like, let's say you you funded a nonprofit to help preserve the Amazon rainforest.

But instead of doing that, they became a lumber company, chopped down the forest and sold the word. You'd be like, Wait a second, that's not what I funded. That's open air.

They've made some changes to their corporate structure, though, haven't they, since? And in recognition of what? Of what you've said and.

Now, that's just what they told the media. Okay. The part.

They have part. They have partly walked back their plan to restructure the business. I guess that's made no difference to how you feel about it.

So you determined to see them in court. Of course. Okay.

Well, that that's certainly going to be one to watch. I also wanted to ask you about AI and regulation, because when you were here last talking to John Micklethwait, you had some pretty strong words about the risk that AI poses. And you said that you really felt what the U.

S. was missing was a federal regulator, that, you know, something along the lines of the Food and Drg Administration or the Federal Aviation Administration. Now, you're clearly now in a zone where you're more you're more on the cutting regulation side than wanting new regulators.

So has your view changed on the need for an A. I. regulator?

Well, it's not that I don't think there should be regulators. You think of regulators like referees on the on the field. In sports, there should be some number of referees, but that you shouldn't have so many referees that you can't kick the ball without hitting one.

So in many and most of us fields in the U. S. , the regulatory burden has grown over time to the point where it's like having more referees than than players on the field.

So and this is a natural consequence of an extended period of prosperity. Very important to appreciate this. This has happened throughout history.

When you have an extended period of prosperity with no existential war, there's no there's no cleansing function for the unnecessary laws and regulations. So what happens is that every year more laws and more regulations are passed because. You know, legislators are going to legislate.

Regulators are going to regulate. And you'll get the steady pile of more and more laws and regulations over time until everything is illegal. And let me give you an example of a truly absurd situation.

Under the Biden administration, SpaceX was sued for not hiring asylum seekers in the U. S. .

Now, the problem is it's actually illegal for Space X under its international trafficking arms regulations to hire anyone who is not a permanent resident of the United States, because the premise being that they will take advanced rocket technology, then return to their home country if they're not a permanent resident. So we're simultaneously in a situation where it is illegal to hire similar services, and it is also illegal to hire asylum seekers. And Biden's Department of Justice chose to prosecute us.

Despite both parts being illegal. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But my question was specifically about a regulator for AI, which you said three years ago was needed, and you said we need to be proactive on the regulation of AI rather than reactive.

Have you changed your mind on that? No, of course not. No, of course not.

What I'm saying is that there should be some referees on the field, a few referees, but you shouldn't have a field jam packed with referees such that you could not kick a ball in any direction without hitting one. So the the fields that have been around for a long time, such as automotive, aerospace, you know, of the sort of food and drug industries are overregulated. But the new fields like artificial intelligence are under-regulated.

In fact, there is no regulator at all. So there should be. Do you still think that?

Yes. I'm simply saying, which I think is just basic common sense that you want to have. At least you want you want to have a few referees in the field.

You don't want have an army of referees, but you want to have a few referees on on any given field, in any given sport or any given arena industrial arena to ensure help that public safety is taken care of. But you don't have. So so there's a there's a there's a appropriate number of referees.

But like I said, it's actually very easy to visualize this when compared to sports. If the whole field is packed with referees, that would look absurd. But if there were no referees at all, your game is not going to be as good.

Okay. So let's then talk about your new world, your your role advising government. You are in this unique and unprecedented position of having billions of dollars worth of contracts with the federal government yourself, mostly through space.

And also now an insider's knowledge of it because of those. Can you see that there is a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest in broad terms, just through that very fact? Um.

I don't think so, actually. There have been many advisors in throughout history and the U. S.

government and others who have had economic interests. And I am simply an adviser. I don't have formal power and that's it.

A president can choose to accept my advice or not. And that's that's how it goes. If there's a single contract that any of my companies have received that people think is somehow not was was awarded improperly, it would immediately be front page news, to say the least.

And if if if I hadn't mentioned it, certainly my competitors would. So if you're not seeing that and clearly there's not a conflict of interest, the Yeah, there's another way, though, to look at it that, for example, you have many competitors, whether it's companies like Boeing or companies who would like to do more of the kind of work you do for NASA's Blue Origin Rocket Lab. And because Doege is in every federal government department, you or people who work for Doege and and you are the driving force behind it, have an insight into those companies affairs and those companies relationships with the federal government.

Now all we do is we review the organization to see if the organization has departments that are no longer relevant and and are the contracts that are being awarded good value for money. In fact, frankly, the bar is not particularly high. Is there any value for money in a contract?

And if there's if there isn't, then we make recommendations to the secretary. The secretary could choose to take those actions or not take those actions, and that's it. And then any action that that that is as a function of those is posted to the DOJ's website and to the stock of or at the handle on the platform.

So it's it's complete transfer transparency and I have not seen any case where to the best of my knowledge, that's even been an accusation of conflict because it is completely and utterly transparent. That's it. And what about the international dimension?

Now let's think about StarLink. StarLink is obviously a very, very good Internet service. It's sought after all over the world.

It's critical to the frontline in Ukraine. It has also had more contracts coming its way. And there is some evidence that companies are allowing access to it because they want to be close to the Trump administration and send the right signal.

So Bloomberg broke news today that the South African government is working around their rules on black ownership in order to allow StarLink in. And that is being done on the eve of the visit the president, Ramaphosa, is going to make to the White House. Do you recognise that as a conflict of interest?

No, of course not. First of all, you should be questioning why is that? Why the racist laws in South Africa?

That's the first problem. That's why you should be attacking. It's improper for there to be racist laws in South Africa.

The whole idea with what Nelson Mandela, who was a great man, proposed, was that all races should be on an equal footing in South Africa. That's the right thing to do. Not to replace one set of racist laws with another set of racist laws, which is utterly wrong and improper.

So the that's that's the deal that all races should be treated equally and there should be no preference given to one or the other, whereas there are now 140 laws in South Africa that give that basically give strong preference to two if you're if you're a black South African and not otherwise. And so now I'm in this absurd situation where I was born in South Africa but can't get a license to operate in stalling because I'm not black. Well, it looks like it looks looks like that, right?

Looks like that's about to change. I just asked you a question. Please answer.

Does that seem right to you? Well, those rules were designed to bring Those rules were designed to bring about an era of more economic equality in South Africa. And it looks like the government has found a way around those rules for you.

I see your question. This is this is your interview. Everyone wants to hear from you.

So. Question yes or no? Not for me.

No, not for me to answer. I have got a question for you about about your government works and the amount of savings. Why do you like this law?

This is not for me to answer. Come on. Now, you wouldn't be trying to dodge a question.

Do you have to? Question answered. No, no, you answer mine.

I say, I think if you. I'm sure you can have that conversation directly with the South African government if you want to. I want to ask you about the total.

I can't believe it. That's not good. I want to ask you about the total amount stolen.

I want to ask you about the total amount that you're planning to save through DOJ's work before the election. You said it was going to be at least 2 trillion. The number currently on DDoS dot gov is $170 billion.

That's a big change. What happened to the 2 trillion? What do you expect to happen immediately?

Well, is it going to happen because those are supposed to run til next July. I mean, your question is absurd in its fundamental premise. Are you assuming that that one day, you know, within a few months, some 2 trillion saved?

No, I'm not. All I'm just asking is that still your aim, though, is that we're aim to get out of time. Have we not made good progress?

Given the amount of time. That's exactly what I'm asking. So is it still your aim to go from 170 billion to 2 trillion?

Of the the ability of those to operate is a function of whether the government and this includes the Congress is willing to take our advice. We're not the dictators of the government. We are the advisers.

And so we can we can advise. And the progress we've made thus far I think is incredible. Those teams are incredible work.

But the magnitude of the savings is proportionate to the support we get from Congress and from the executive branch of the government in general. So. We're not the dictators.

We are the advisers. But thus far four advisors with the George team, to their credit, has made incredible progress. You've talked about $4 billion a day being saved.

But that that that won't get. Which is an and I think everyone can agree that combating waste and inefficiency in government is a very good thing. But if you add that up, it's not going to get to 2 trillion over the lifetime of those.

I'm sorry. The 4 billion. The 4 billion a day float is going to run till next July is not going to get you to $2 trillion.

But you still say it's your aim. So we'll take that as read. This.

This. This is what? I mean, I feel you're somewhat trapped in the NPC dialogue tree of a tradition of a journalist.

So it's difficult when I'm conversing with someone who is trapped in the value of a conventional journalist because it's like talking to a computer. So. DOJ's an advisory group.

We are doing the best we can as an advisory group. The progress made thus far as an advisory group is excellent. I don't think any advisory group has done better in the history of advisory groups for the government now.

But we are. We do not make the laws, nor do we control the judiciary, nor do we control the executive branch. We are simply advisors.

In that context, we are doing very well. Beyond that, we cannot do we can't take action beyond that because we are not sort of some sort of imperial dictator of the government. There are three branches of government that of that are to some degree opposed to that level of cost savings.

Nonetheless, let's let's let's not criticize whether there's 4 trillion and instead look at the fact that 60 billion has been saved and more will be saved, too. And as I said, I think everyone can agree that cutting waste and indeed fraud in any government and being responsible with taxpayers money is a very good thing. So, yes, I can see.

I can see that you're proud of that work. I do want to ask you about U. S.

aid and the comments that Bill Gates made the other day, which I know that you called him a liar. I know you've you've said that already. I was also.

And I'm just. What does this Bill Gates think he is to make comments about the welfare of children, given that he has frequented? Jeffrey Epstein.

Okay. Well. He's he's he said he regrets those.

And he's a guy who spent he spent a lot he spent a lot of his own money on. On philanthropy around the world over the years. My question to you is, have you looked at the data to check if he might be right that the cuts to USAID might cost millions of lives?

Yes, I'd like him to show us any any evidence whatsoever that that is true or it's false. The what we found with USADA cuts and by the way, they have an open cut of the parts of USAID that were found to be even slightly useful, were transferred to the State Department, said they've not been deleted, have simply been transferred to the State Department. But many, many times over with USAID and other organizations, when we when they said, oh, well, this is going to help, you know, children or it's going to help some disease eradication or something like that.

And then when we asked for any evidence whatsoever, I said, Well, please connect us with this group of children so we can talk to them and understand more about the issue. We get nothing. We don't bother even try to prevent shop raid.

We should come up with a with a show often meaning like this sort of like, well can we at least see a few kids? Like, where are they? If they're in trouble, we'd like to talk to them and talk to their caregivers.

And then we get the thing as a response, because it's what we find is an enormous amount of of fraud and graft. Okay. Let me put this example a little bit.

Actually gets to the kids, if anything at all. Okay. Let let me put this example to you, because you grew up in South Africa, so you will know the impact of HIV AIDS.

Well, and this is why I asked about the data the U. S. lead on international efforts to combat HIV, AIDS treatment, prevention.

And there's an initiative called Pitfall, which is credited with saving 26 million lives in the last 20 years. It was part of the foreign aid freeze. Then there was a limited waiver.

The services are disrupted and UNAIDS says if permanently discontinued, there will be another 4 million AIDS related deaths by 2029. So if you look at that example, which is backed up by data, in 2023, 630,000 people died of AIDS related illnesses. Then perhaps Bill Gates has figures are not wrong.

Millions of lives could be lost. First of all, the program, the the the AIDS medication program is continuing. So your fundamental premise is wrong.

It is continuing. Now, do you have another example? Not not it's not, you know, not in its entirety.

It false? Not in its entirety. The the program there's a limited waiver.

And UNAIDS have said that not all of the services that were previously funded by USAID are continuing. So that's that's why that's why I put that example to you. Okay.

Well, which ones aren't being funded? I'll fix it right now for. Okay.

Well, actually, they're all on the UN UNAIDS website, so you'll be able to see them. But mostly they are to do with. Mostly they are to do with prevention.

And for example, the rollout of a drug called Lend a Cup of Care, which was hailed as one of the biggest breakthroughs against AIDS for many years, which came out last year. So if you are perhaps I'm sure you and UNAIDS would be delighted if you're able to look at that again. Yes, but what if, if, if in fact this is true, which I doubt it is, then we'll fix it.

Okay, fine. And so. Finally political, your political influence.

I wondered whether you have decided yet how much you're going to spend on the the upcoming midterms. Is it you've you spent a lot more money on the last US election than you envisaged when you were speaking here three years ago? Are you going to continue to to spend at that kind of level on future elections?

I think. In terms of political spending, I'm going to do a lot less in the future. And why is that?

I think I've done enough. Is it? Is it because of blowback?

Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it. I do not currently see reason. What about political influence beyond the U.

S. ? How often do you speak to President Putin?

I don't speak for President Putin. You've never spoken to President Putin. I was on a video call.

It was him once about five years ago. That's the only thing I speak. The president.

President Putin. Oh, you must. I get it?

Because I believe the legacy. Actually, I've heard you I've heard you speak about it. For example, in your West Point speech, you said, oh, I challenge President Putin to a to was it an arm wrestle?

And I know The Wall Street Journal is reported your reported conversations, if you're if you're saying they haven't happened other than once, I'll take that as read. Is there a worst publication on the face of the earth than the Wall Street Journal? I wouldn't use that to line up my case for character.

Things that that that newspaper is the worst newspaper in the world. And there's you know, if there's one newspaper that should be pro-capitalist, it's the one with Wall Street in the name. But it isn't so.

I have a very lowest opinion of the Wall Street Journal of absolute nonsense. And you clearly believe the tripe that you've written, that you've read in those papers. I read.

I read very widely, and I'm putting these questions to you so that you have an opportunity to respond to them, which you are, and and for which we're all grateful to hear your responses. Okay. We are we are out of time.

So you mentioned you mentioned housing. I did so on on the X platform. I challenged Vladimir Putin over the.

I didn't talk to him. That was a post on the X platform. So that's why that's why I asked you and you've and you've clarified and explain.

Thank you. That's that's why I was asking whether you have had reported conversations and and you said there are half a dozen of his legacy media lies. Okay, listen, I actually thought I might give Grok the last word, because when I asked Grok what your hardest challenge is, it said the strain of managing multiple high stake ventures amid financial, regulatory and public relations crises.

And I wondered whether you recognize that characterization and whether you do think that this is a pivotal year in your life. However, he has been somewhat pivotal and this one is no different. Um, so I mean, in terms of interesting things that probably are accomplished this year, the.

But getting starship to. Be fully reusable so that the that we catch them both the booster and the ship, which will be the first fully reusable orbital rocket ever in history, which is would be a profound breakthrough as the essential breakthrough necessary to make life multi-planetary and ultimately become a spacefaring civilization. We've got Neuralink, which is now helped five patients restore capability using the telepathy implants where they're able to control a computer simply by thinking.

We'll be doing our first patient to restore plant, to restore start, to restore sight without blind side implants, which the end of this year, early next. In fact, that might that first patient might be in UAE since we have a relationship with UAE and the Cleveland Clinic clinic that the. I think what's running on the air front, we are close to what you might call AGI.

Or digital superintelligence. I think we'll see. We are seeing an explosion of digital superintelligence here.

And then we've got a Tesla. The what? We'll be launching unsupervised autonomy, basically self-driving cars with no one in them in Austin next month.

So it's it's a big year for sure. Many other things in the works, too. I'm a technologist, first and foremost.

Elon Musk, thank you very much for joining us here at Qatar Economic Forum. Thank you.