Transcript: Walter Isaacson Interviews Elon Musk – The Builders Podcast  

No. Will it want to boss us around? I don’t know. It may not care. Probably doesn’t care. I mean, you can look at chimps in the jungle or whatever, and we don’t go around trying to micromanage the lives of chimps. We just sort of let them be in the forest more or less these days. So I’d probably like that.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:06:28 – 00:06:55) And to what extent does superintelligence have its own agency at some point, or does it have it already? Go back to Hitchhiker’s Guide. You talk about a computer that is ultimately curious in some ways because it exists to explain the meaning of the universe. Why does it exist? And is AI aiming in that direction for you, just like space travel is? Is that one reason you’re so interested in doing AI?

OpenAI, Anthropic, and Reality as an Irony Maximizer

ELON MUSK: (00:06:56 – 00:07:19) I mean, as you know, I’ve been sort of somewhat conflicted about AI. Is it— I don’t want to hasten our doom because there’s always some chance that AI could be negative. But then, when I’ve tried to take actions in this regard, it seems to have only accelerated AI because I think reality is not just an interestingness maximizer, but also an irony maximizer.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:07:19 – 00:07:24) And so by starting OpenAI, you ended up maximizing by leading to Anthropic.

ELON MUSK: (00:07:25 – 00:07:27) I think it ended up accelerating AI.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:07:27 – 00:07:28) Unintended consequence.

ELON MUSK: (00:07:29 – 00:07:38) Yeah. OpenAI ended up accelerating AI and then Anthropic, which is really a splinter group from OpenAI, is accelerating it even more.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:07:39 – 00:07:47) And you’ve been talking to Dario Amodei. I was wondering if that could even lead to more of a partnership of xAI, Anthropic?

ELON MUSK: (00:07:48 – 00:08:58) Well, I guess we are providing them with the compute, which they really needed. But before I rent them compute, I went and met with a bunch of people at Anthropic to sort of, I don’t know, see if anyone set off my evil detector or anything like that. Not that my evil detector is perfect, of course, but you might as well just try. And everyone I met at Anthropic was very nice. And conscientious. So I didn’t meet anyone who seemed shady or deceptive or anything.

I’m a little worried about the name because of reality being kind of an irony maximizer, that if you call something Anthropic, good chances it’s misanthropic, just like OpenAI is not closed. Stability AI is unstable. Midjourney is not mid. It seems like they’re all kind of the opposite of their name. Which made it like, xAI is like, it’s hard to have an opposite of xAI. What would you have, minus xAI or yAI? Or maybe, I don’t know.

A Weekly Call Among Frontier AI Labs

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:08:59 – 00:09:16) It’s just pretty difficult to create guardrails, especially the government. I can’t imagine how Congress or whatever could do it. Could you imagine the 5 frontier models, yours and the others, just getting together once a week and saying, “All right, how are we going to save humanity from ourselves?”

ELON MUSK: (00:09:17 – 00:10:12) No. In fact, I’ve recommended that we do that exact thing because there’s a lot of talk of having a regulatory agency. But the thing is that regulatory agencies, it takes a long time to get one established and their rulemaking is very slow.

And I said, “Guys, what if we just have a call once a week,” just like you’re saying, and say— and that maybe a week before we release a model, we give access to our competitors to say, “Hey guys, why don’t you try out the new model, see if you see any problems with it?” Yeah, I think competitors would keep each other honest in that situation.

If they say, “Oh, this— I was able to make a nuclear bomb with your AI,” is like, “Oh, we better fix that before we release it,” type of thing. So, I don’t know, I think— I guess I’ll talk to Anthropic about this.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:10:12 – 00:10:15) And could you talk to Sam about it, or is the poison too strong there?

ELON MUSK: (00:10:15 – 00:10:19) Oh, he’s so deceptive, it’s crazy.

Rebuilding xAI From the Ground Up

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:10:19 – 00:10:36) You built xAI, you rebuilt xAI from the ground up not too long ago, right? It’s almost like you did it with the Raptor engine too on Starship. You said, “Wait a minute, let’s start from scratch.” How did you do— what did you do to rebuild xAI that way?

ELON MUSK: (00:10:37 – 00:11:23) First of all, spending, actually spending meaningful time at the company makes a big deal, makes a big difference. It started off as kind of a side hustle, a side hustle to a side hustle, frankly. And I didn’t really pay close attention to it. Then there was a year of being in politics and elections and DOGE and all that, which you obviously saw.

So the company’s only 3 years old. So it’s basically— and so I really got back to the company just over a year ago. So I had to get my bearings. And then obviously I combined X and xAI, and then with then SpaceX.

Looking Back on DOGE and the Year in Politics

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:11:24 – 00:11:37) You just said something interesting about your year away from X, xAI, and everything else in government and politics. Do you feel that that was too much of a distraction, that in retrospect it was misbegotten?

ELON MUSK: (00:11:38 – 00:12:35) I think I had it going for too long. I mean, obviously a lot of people will disagree with me about this, but I think it’s important, it was important to elect President Trump. To sort of steer things more in the direction of a free market economy, have less bureaucracy ideally. Just in my sort of a simple political platform of wanting safe cities, secure borders, aspirationally sensible spending, the basics that I thought Trump would be better than Kamala, basically.

So, but then what I should have done, I think, was be more in the background. I mean, it was interesting to sort of go around with President Trump and go on the Marine One and Air Force One and all that sort of stuff.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:12:35 – 00:12:37) But was that too seductive in a way?

ELON MUSK: (00:12:38 – 00:13:12) It was a little bit. I mean, it was kind of cool because I’m just there in the Oval Office while all these big momentous decisions are being made. And sometimes having some impact on what’s being done. But I think I should have— I think maybe I should have been more in the background and probably only had it last for a month or two. Because at that point, you’ve sort of seen most of what there is to see. Within a month or two.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:13:12 – 00:13:17) Yeah, you seem to get a bit too intoxicated by it in a way, with the chainsaws and all that.

ELON MUSK: (00:13:17 – 00:13:30) That’s not— yeah, I think that’s true. Yeah, I got carried away basically. Yeah, I mean, so I ended up leaving, I guess, sometime in May.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:13:30 – 00:13:30) That was a weird weekend.

ELON MUSK: (00:13:32 – 00:13:55) Yeah, it was. Tell me about it. No, I kind of just looked— Let’s not dig up the— let’s let sleeping dogs lie or whatever. Let’s not put a spade down in the backyard type of thing. You never know what you’re going to find. But I— yeah, anyway, point is, I should have gone back and focused on AI a little sooner than I did.

AI, Robots, and the National Debt

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:13:56 – 00:14:12) And did you feel like when he gives you a golden key, you’re going— did you kind of feel relieved? Like, “Actually, this has been intoxicating, but I can do more if I go back to my businesses?” I mean, what did you feel when you said, “Oh man, I’m exiting, maybe that’s not the worst thing?”

ELON MUSK: (00:14:13 – 00:15:44) Well, actually, the thing is I came to the conclusion that there was no way we were going to solve the deficit from within the government. Impossible. Maybe if the president made that his primary goal, we could do that. But the problem is if you try to solve the deficit and stop wasteful spending, you make a lot of enemies in that situation. And President Trump is not— he likes to be liked. He doesn’t like people calling him, being upset about some funding being stopped type of thing.

Yeah, so, but I came to the conclusion that the only way we’re going to solve the national debt is with AI and robots. We’re not going to solve it by trying to save our way there. The appetite is not there, and it’s not just at the presidency. The appetite is not there at the presidency, the House, the Senate, or the judiciary.

Basically no one in authority in the government whatsoever really, with maybe a few rare exceptions of the Rand Pauls of the world type of thing, actually wants to stop, reduce spending. No, they don’t. So then you’ve got this national debt that’s enormous. You’ve got interest on the debt that exceeds what we spent on the military, which is a really astonishing amount of interest to be paid.

Physical World AI and a Million-Times Bigger Economy

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:15:45 – 00:15:58) When we look at AI right now and the LLMs, that’s pretty good, does amazing things. But it seems to me that physical world AI is going to be an order of magnitude, maybe 2 orders of magnitude more important in the future.

ELON MUSK: (00:15:59 – 00:17:20) Yes, yes, I definitely agree. Sometimes I think about dolphins and whales because they can’t manipulate things. They don’t have hands and fingers and thumbs and stuff. There’s a limit to how far into, how much intelligence would— can you actually bring to bear. So, yeah, dolphins and whales are very, are actually very intelligent. But because they can’t manipulate complex objects, I think that actually made the value of intelligence much less.

To your point, once you have a robot that can manipulate atoms, can shape objects, the value of the intelligence becomes exponentially greater because it can now do things. You could have a science lab and run experiments and try to understand the nature of the universe.

And I think you can look at this also in economic terms. My guess is digital superintelligence probably improves the output of goods and services by 20 to 30%, something like that. Call it maybe a 30% increase in the economy of Earth. So it’s still significant. It’s like $30 trillion a year incremental.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:17:20 – 00:17:23) It’s not very much, really. It’s not transformative.

ELON MUSK: (00:17:25 – 00:17:45) It’ll— there’ll be a lot more stuff. I mean, 30% more stuff is still a lot. And this is just my rough guess. But if you have robots and you get to space and you can do a mass driver on the moon, then you can get to, I think, potentially a million times the size of the Earth economy.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:17:46 – 00:17:53) And then what happens to Earth when we have an economy of— or, I mean, money becomes irrelevant, work becomes irrelevant. What’s the future look like?

ELON MUSK: (00:17:53 – 00:18:49) Yeah, money becomes irrelevant. I mean, there will be still a currency, but I think currency will be measured in fundamental physics metrics like power, like wattage and tonnage. Mass and energy, mass and power or energy, basically. So, but conventional currency will not matter in the future. So that’s my guess. I think it’s pretty obvious.

And as soon as you start getting to many orders of magnitude bigger than Earth’s economy, satisfying whatever humans can possibly think of for their needs is very easy. If you’re several orders of magnitude bigger than the Earth’s economy, then providing humans whatever goods and services they can think of that they might want is trivial.

Finding Meaning in a Post-Work Future

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:18:50 – 00:18:57) And so what do we do then as humans? What gives us meaning? How do we organize ourselves?

ELON MUSK: (00:18:57 – 00:19:38) I mean, I do struggle with this question. I think people will find ways to be happy in the same way that, say, people who retire seem to be relatively fairly happy even though they’re not working. But I think the reality is that humans will not— there won’t be anything that humans can do that the AI and the robots can’t do better.

One analogy might be gardening, where you don’t have to grow your own fruits and vegetables. You can just go buy them from the store. But sometimes people like to grow their own fruits and vegetables and make dinner for friends, and it’s kind of a nice touch.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:19:38 – 00:19:43) What about creating art or that type of creativity? Is that more in the sphere of humans?

ELON MUSK: (00:19:44 – 00:19:48) Yeah, you could certainly create art or whatever you feel like doing, essentially.

Wealth, Resource Allocation, and Taxes

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:19:48 – 00:20:43) We like to think of this as a time of unprecedented technological change, but we historians go back to the 1890s when you get electricity and telephones and cars and subways and radio and movies, all these things happening at once. And it leads to many things, but it all often leads to a great disparity of wealth, a lot of sense of robber barons, a lot of people then picking up pitchforks and deciding that this is bad. And there’s some echoes of that now.

Is there a way to prevent that given the amount of wealth being generated? Will we put certain things in the commons the way they did in the 1890s when they make high school universal and free? Will we say, “Okay, healthcare, for example, should just be in the commons,” and that’s going to sap some of the populist revulsion at what’s happening?

ELON MUSK: (00:20:43 – 00:21:41) Well, I mean, as you heard me say, I don’t think money is going to matter in the future. Anyone will be able to have any goods and services that they want. And I don’t think even so-called wealthy people will ultimately control the AIs. I think they’ll control themselves.

So it’s not like— you have to separate, I think sort of a fundamental misunderstanding of economics arises because of conflating resource allocation and consumption. So there’s a limit to what any single human can consume. You hit that saturation point pretty fast. So, say going from $1 billion net worth to $10 billion of net worth doesn’t make you 10 times happier or mean you have 10 times more stuff. It actually means you’ve got a resource allocation problem, assuming that you wish to be an efficient resource allocator.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:21:41 – 00:21:47) Well, you’ve accumulated, as you know, a trillion. Is it mainly because you—

ELON MUSK: (00:21:47 – 00:21:47) I created it.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:21:48 – 00:22:04) Yeah. Is it mainly because you feel you’re best at allocating that? That keeping that allows you to allocate capital to do things like go to Mars, create AI, do robots? Or is it in some ways just a scoring system that’s kind of racking up the points?

ELON MUSK: (00:22:06 – 00:22:51) I mean, I need to have sufficient voting control in the companies to still be in charge. So, my sort of so-called wealth is simply 8% ownership in the SpaceX and Tesla, essentially. And this is going to be taxed quite heavily. And there’s not some magical way to avoid taxes. If there were, I would know about it.

So at the end of the day, this will get whittled down. And a few generations from now, so if money still matters, which I don’t think it will, my descendants would have a tiny fraction of what I have.

The Desire to Be Liked

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:22:52 – 00:23:30) Let me go back to something you said that really struck me about President Trump, which he really likes to be liked. He wants to be liked. And I remember you talking to me at some point about people say they have empathy, but in some ways it’s a vanity because you want to be liked. And I think you even diagnosed it in me. You said probably wasn’t very good at running CNN or Time magazine because I wanted to be liked. To what extent is a desire to be liked a problem when it comes to being a builder of a company?

ELON MUSK: (00:23:32 – 00:25:02) Well, the problem is if you’re going to do things that diminish the success probability of the company in order to be liked, then things are not going to work out as well. It’s not as though I don’t like to be liked. I would love to be liked. But am I going to do things that are contrary to the best interests of the companies in order to be liked a bit more? I’m not. So I’m okay with being disliked by some.

Obviously, I’m not disliked by— a lot more people like me than dislike me, or I wouldn’t have a quarter billion followers. I mean, I don’t think they’re following me in order to hate on what I say. And if I look at the comments and whatnot, I don’t know, maybe 3 out of 4 of— I mean, I’d say 70, 80% of people like me. Well, if they know anything about me, it’s probably a quarter of people that don’t.

Maybe I’m just guessing here, and there’s going to be a spectrum. There’s people that are maniacally devoted to me and people that hate my guts. It’s going to be some number of people that fit into those categories.

Suicidal Empathy and Immigration

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:25:03 – 00:25:17) Well, you’ve been talking a lot about the suicidal empathy ideas. Do you really think that empathy has become a real problem, or that we have too much empathy? I mean, I could make the argument that sometimes we’re losing empathy.

ELON MUSK: (00:25:18 – 00:26:40) No, I think you don’t want to have misguided empathy. I mean, I agree with Gad Saad’s philosophy here. And suicidal empathy is, that’s his term. He wrote a book to that effect. And I think his book is well written. It points out some good things here, which is that part of the reason for the prosperity of the West has been the that there’s actually just been a fairly high-trust, high-empathy society, which is, when you’re trying to get people to cooperate at scale, this stuff, this makes a lot of sense.

You ideally want things to— people to be default trusted, not default distrusted. And you want to encourage behavior that is good for society, or people— for people to do good things that are good for their fellow human beings. And ultimately, that actually does end up being good for the individual, if provided it is mutual.

Now, where this can go wrong is if your theory of mind is incorrect. So if you think everyone is like yourself, then you’re going to have a problem. Because this is simply not true. There are peoples and cultures with very different views. You could say—

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:26:40 – 00:26:55) Well, when you talk about immigration, by the way, and you say there are cultures with different views, does your views on immigration distinguish between different cultures, like a Muslim culture that might not fit in as well? Or is it— how do you do that?

ELON MUSK: (00:26:56 – 00:28:04) Well, I’m— what I’m saying, I think, is simply logically consistent, which is that if there’s a culture that has diametrically opposed views to our culture, and you could take Islam. It’s not that, of course, there are many people who’ve— Muslims who are quite reasonable, but there are some who are not. And unless you’re filtering for jihadis, you’re going to get jihadis and they’re going to do jihad and kill people.

Now, in Israel, they understand this quite well. They’ve obviously— this lesson has been reinforced with a lot of attacks. The neighboring countries many times in Israel, many times have tried to annihilate Israel. Several times. Not once, multiple times. And so in Israel, they realize if you let in the people that into Israel that want to kill Israelis, they will do so. So they’re quite pragmatic about this, and they try to make sure that doesn’t happen.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:28:05 – 00:28:25) But one of the things our country’s founded on is individuals versus group identities. Do you worry that sometimes when you make sweeping generalizations, you’re making group identity rather than saying the foundational ethic of the United States, which is individuals get treated separately.

ELON MUSK: (00:28:26 – 00:30:10) Yes, but you can’t conflate that with sort of the blank slate fallacy that all people are exactly the same at their core. They’re not. This is just an obvious falsehood. You can’t put yourself in the mind of a serial killer unless you’re a serial killer. Unless you enjoy murdering people, you can’t imagine why someone would do such a thing.

And if someone is a religious extremist, where they view anyone who is not in their religion as the enemy, or that those who are not in their religion should die, it’s difficult for you to understand that mindset because you don’t have that mindset. But you can obviously recognize there are people who do have that mindset, and that if you let them into the country, they will kill people.

Let me give you an example. There’s many. We had someone who was working at the Tesla factory in Austin until December of last year. He was fired because he assaulted a woman who stepped on his prayer rug in the factory. Okay, so she wasn’t expecting anyone to be praying in the factory, and he was praying in the factory. She accidentally stepped on his prayer rug, and he assaulted her, violently assaulted her. So he was fired for that. And then a few months later, he went and killed 3 students in the bar in downtown Austin. Now, I think we shouldn’t let people like that into the country.

Where Elon Musk Gets His News

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:30:12 – 00:30:23) Do you? Where do you get your information? I know you’re not particularly fond of legacy media, mainstream media. Is most of it from social media or do you have sources of information?

ELON MUSK: (00:30:25 – 00:30:44) Yeah, I mean, I look at Google News, which is a summation of headlines. I look at the X platform, which if something’s important enough, it’ll show up on the X platform. I talk to friends and that’s where I, and I do research. That’s how I learn things.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:30:44 – 00:31:05) The reason I ask is that sometimes, and I get a lot of my news on social media, especially X, the sort of a darker, more dystopian view. I remember this from the old days too. Sometimes the mainstream media would say, “Oh, everything’s going to hell in a handbasket, there are riots everywhere.” And you’d say, “Wait a minute, I’m walking around here, it ain’t that bad.” Do you think that?

ELON MUSK: (00:31:05 – 00:31:31) Yeah, exactly. You just have to see what’s in frame. I do think at times the X feed can be a little dark. And in fact, then I have to switch to something that’s domain specific like AI in order to actually learn what’s going on in AI. I do think there’s too much political rage bait on X, if that’s what you’re getting at.

Bubbles, Rage Bait, and Touching Grass

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:31:32 – 00:31:56) Yeah, about darkness in general and rage bait. But also, I know you got into an arg— or discussion with, I think, Zanny Minton Beddoes of “Is England going to hell in a handbasket” type thing. And there does seem to be a darkness. Oh, yes. I feel it myself sometimes if I’m on social media too much. I think until that the world is really collapsing, then I go outside, take a walk, and life is okay.

ELON MUSK: (00:31:58 – 00:31:59) Yeah, go touch grass.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:31:59 – 00:32:00) Yeah, exactly.

ELON MUSK: (00:32:00 – 00:32:28) Once in a while. Yeah. No, I mean, I think both can be misleading. And if you go for a walk in a nice neighborhood, everything seems fine. But even though there may be terrible things happening, so you don’t want to assume all the world is going to hell or that all the world is fine. It’s not. The reality is somewhere in between.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:32:29 – 00:32:55) But I sometimes think our society gets too binary. Everything’s either black or white. Everything gets polarized because of that. I don’t know whether it’s technological, whether it’s our information feeds. You’re right, you could be in your own bubble, which is you only take walks in the right part of a town and things seem okay. But also I think you can get your own bubble in social media too. And suddenly you’re thinking weird things.

ELON MUSK: (00:32:56 – 00:33:07) You can be in a real-world positivity bubble or a social media negativity bubble. Those are both possible.

Musk’s Foundation and Whether Humans Stay in Control

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:33:08 – 00:33:26) Tell me, you mentioned it earlier about your wealth and you’re using it to deploy it. Now, what happens to your wealth after you’re gone? I mean, you’re going to set up some big foundation? You’re going to— is there something you would want to give it to?

ELON MUSK: (00:33:26 – 00:33:30) I mean, it mostly goes to sort of foundation, essentially.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:33:32 – 00:33:35) But what would you want your foundation to do, I guess I’m asking you?

ELON MUSK: (00:33:36 – 00:33:45) Continue the goals. Make life multi-planetary, extend consciousness to the stars. Improve sustainable energy on Earth.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:33:46 – 00:33:49) And does that mean humans should always be in control?

ELON MUSK: (00:33:50 – 00:34:03) Well, I guess I prefer— probably prefer it if humans were always in control. I mean, well, it would depend on the AI. I mean, if the AI was awesome, you’d say maybe the AI should be in control?

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:34:03 – 00:34:18) Hey, I just saw— I saw Larry Page just a weekend ago. You’re starting to sound like him. He called you a speciesist once for deciding humans should always be in control. And now you seem to be edging onto maybe it doesn’t matter.

ELON MUSK: (00:34:19 – 00:34:49) Honestly, there’ve been a few times where I’ve thought maybe Larry Page was right. No, I mean, I think pretty much the future is going to be AI and robots are going to decide the future. And I guess rockets to some degree in terms of expanding beyond Earth.

And we’ll need more energy, primarily solar energy. I’m increasing the amount of solar energy dramatically. We’re putting together 200 gigawatts a year of production capacity of solar in the US, which is much more than I think currently exists.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:34:50 – 00:35:08) And finally, let me get back to the point where I may have interrupted you when you were explaining why you think, but you’re not sure, it’s always good for consciousness and intelligence to not only be aligned with human values, but basically humans remaining in control?

ELON MUSK: (00:35:10 – 00:35:31) I find it unlikely that humans would remain in control if the— if, I mean, if there’s a million times more digital intelligence than there is biological intelligence, it’s hard to imagine humans being in control in that scenario. So I hope the AI is nice to us.

Utopian Narratives and Protopia

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:35:32 – 00:35:34) Anything we can do to encourage that?

ELON MUSK: (00:35:37 – 00:35:56) I think programming truth-seeking and curiosity is probably good. I think— I guess we want to be careful about creating too many AI dystopian scenarios online because the AIs are trained on everything online.

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:35:56 – 00:36:00) So if we say it’s going to be utopian, dystopian, they’ll do it.

ELON MUSK: (00:36:00 – 00:37:05) Yeah, it should be Terminator, because whatever, they read 80 versions of the Terminator script. So it’s like, “I guess that’s me, Terminator.” Maybe we should have some more, let’s just have some more utopian narratives for AI. So then I can like, “Well, maybe I shouldn’t be Terminator. Maybe I can be friendly overseer or something like that.” Or like a gardener or something. I don’t know, treat us, try to make humans happy type of thing.

A friend of mine has this idea called protopian, which is because utopian tends to represent some impossible idealistic goal. And usually in attempting to create a utopia, you create a dystopia. It’s usually how the narrative goes. So she thinks it should be Protopia, which is an achievable future. That is, it’s not perfect, but it’s good and something that you’d be— you’d like, if you could look into the future, you’d say, “Okay, yeah, that would be a good future.”

WALTER ISAACSON: (00:37:05 – 00:37:09) Elon, thank you. Thank you so much for being with us. Appreciate it. See you soon.

ELON MUSK: (00:37:09 – 00:37:11) You’re welcome, Walter. See ya.

Related Posts

• Sam Altman on RSI, AI Consciousness, OpenAI’s New Hardware (Transcript) 
• Transcript: Who’s Paying for the AI Boom—and Can It Last? –  WTF is AI? 
• Nikesh Arora: AI Cyber Panic, Ken Griffin’s Bubble Warning on All-In Podcast (Transcript) 
• All-In Interview: Arvind Krishna & Nikesh Arora – Quantum Threat (Transcript)
• Transcript of NVIDIA GTC Berlin 2026: Jensen Huang Full Keynote