The future, according to a recent conversation between Elon Musk, John Collison, and Dwarkesh Patel, isn’t about addressing present-day societal concerns, but about solving increasingly complex technical challenges – and potentially, ensuring the survival of machines even if humanity falters. The discussion, framed as a casual interview over Guinness, revealed a worldview sharply focused on technological advancement, often at the expense of immediate human needs or ethical considerations.
Musk, known for his ambitious projects at Tesla and SpaceX, outlined continued progress on the Optimus humanoid robot. According to reports from , the Gen 3 version is nearing completion, with Musk predicting a price tag of around $20,000 per unit at a production scale of one million annually. A key component, the AI chip, is estimated to cost between $5,000 and $6,000, highlighting the engineering hurdles involved. Musk boldly claims Optimus, if successful, “will be the biggest product in history,” a sentiment echoed in reports detailing Tesla’s all-in approach to in-house development, eschewing external supply chains.
Beyond robotics, Musk detailed advancements in Tesla’s AI capabilities. The upcoming AI5 chip is projected to be up to 40 times faster than its predecessor, AI4, with significant improvements in compute, memory, and bandwidth. Even AI4, Musk stated, will enable “serious autonomy” in Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) suite, with vehicles expected to feel “almost sentient” by year’s end. This focus on AI extends to synthetic data, which Musk believes is now essential for further AI development, having exhausted the “cumulative sum of human knowledge” in training data last year.
However, the conversation, as reported, wasn’t solely focused on technological breakthroughs. A recurring theme was a disconnect between the concerns of this group of billionaires and those of the broader population. The discussion began with data centers in space, a topic that quickly revealed a prioritization of future infrastructure over present-day problems. This pattern continued when the conversation turned to the impact of AI, with the focus landing on labor displacement within their own companies rather than the wider societal implications.
The interview also touched upon Musk’s past involvement with DOGE, his Department of Government Efficiency. He described the effort as “somewhat successful,” while repeating the debunked claim of 20 million dead Americans remaining on social security rolls – a claim that received limited pushback during the conversation. This highlights a willingness to perpetuate unsubstantiated claims, even in a setting ostensibly dedicated to rational discussion.
Perhaps most striking was Musk’s perspective on the long-term future of humanity and AI. He expressed a belief that humans will ultimately lose control of AI, and appears to have shifted his focus from spreading humanity to the stars to spreading humanity’s machines. When asked about the fate of humans in this scenario, he referenced chimpanzee sanctuaries, suggesting a future where humans might be relegated to a protected, but ultimately secondary, status. His statement, “I’m very pro-human,” felt, according to the reporting, oddly chilling in this context.
The conversation also revealed a shared tendency to view progress as an inevitable, technologically driven process, devoid of ideological considerations. This perspective was evident in their limited engagement with issues of social justice, political polarization, or ethical concerns surrounding Musk’s own platform, X (formerly Twitter). The lack of critical inquiry into Musk’s amplification of controversial content, or his connections to figures like Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, suggests a prioritization of technological advancement over broader societal responsibilities.
Collison and Patel’s relative silence on these issues is noteworthy. While Collison has demonstrated an interest in influencing policy, the interview suggests a comfort level with aligning themselves with a vision largely shaped by technological imperatives. The question remains whether they will continue to prioritize collaboration with other billionaires or seek broader engagement with diverse perspectives.
The interview, offered a glimpse into a worldview where technological solutions are paramount, and where the concerns of ordinary people often take a backseat. It’s a perspective that, while undeniably influential, raises critical questions about the direction of innovation and the priorities of those shaping the future.
