What does AI mean for my job? Is it going to mean that I don't have a job or my kids are not going to have a job? I think we are seeing the most disruptive（ 制造混乱的） force in history here. We will have the first time something that is smarter than the smartest human. There will come a point where no job is needed. You can have a job if you wanted to have a job for personal satisfaction, but the AI will be able to do everything.

  We want to have universal basic income, we'll have universal high income. Good evening everybody, welcome. Elon, thanks for being here. Thank you for having me. Yeah, we feel very approached, we're excited to have you. Right, so I'm going to start with some questions and then we're going to open it up.

  Let me get straight into it. So Bill Gates said, "There is no one in our time who has done more to push the bounds of science innovation than you." Well, that's kind of good to say. Well, that's it. It's a nice thing to have anyone say about you, nice coming from Bill Gates, but oddly enough when it comes to AI, actually for around a decade, you've almost been doing the opposite and saying, "Hang on, you need to think about what we're doing and what we're pushing here and what do we do to make（使） this safe and maybe we shouldn't be pushing as fast or as hard as we are." I mean, you've been doing it for a decade.

  What was it that caused you to think about it that way and why do we need to be worried? Yeah, I've been somewhat of a Cassandra for quite a while where people would, I tell people like, "We should really be concerned about AI." They'd be like, "What are you talking about?" Like, they've never really had any experience with AI. But since I was immersed in technology, I have been immersed in technology for a long time, I could see it coming. But I think this year there have been a number of breakthroughs（ 突破）, the point at which someone can see a dynamically created video of themselves, so you can make a video of you saying anything in real time, or me. So the sort of the deep-paked videos, which are really incredibly good, in fact, sometimes more convincing than real ones, and deep real.

  And then obviously things like chat GPT were quite remarkable. Now I saw GPT-1, GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-4, you know, the whole sort of lead up to that. So it was easy for me to kind of see where it's going. If you just sort of extrapolate the points on a curve, and I see that trend will continue, and we will have profound（深厚的） artificial intelligence. And obviously at a level that far exceeds human intelligence. So I'm glad to see at this point that people are taking safety seriously.

  And I'd like to say thank you for holding this AI safety conference. I think actually it will go down in history as being very important. I think it's really quite profound. And I do think overall that the potential is there for artificial intelligence, AI, to have most likely a positive effect, and to create a future of abundance（丰富）, where there is no scarcity（不足） of goods and services. But it is somewhat of the magic genie problem, where if you have a magic genie that can grant all the wishes. Usually those stories don't end well.

  Be careful what you wish for, including wishes. So you talked a little bit about the summit（最高点） and thank you for being engaged in it, which has been great. And people enjoyed having you there, while I was spending this dialogue. One of the things that we achieved today in the meetings between the companies and the leaders was an agreement that externally（外部地）, ideally governments should be doing safety testing of models before they're released. I think this is something that you've spoken about a little bit. It was something we worked（使工作） really hard on, because my job in government is to say, hang on, there is a potential risk here, not a definite risk, but a potential risk of something that could be bad.

  My job is to protect the country. And we can only do that if we develop the capability（才能） we need in our safety institute and then go in and make（使） sure we can test the models before they are released. I'm delighted that that happened today, but what's your view on what we should be doing? You've talked about potential risk, again, we don't know, but what are the types of things governments like us should be doing to manage and mitigate（减轻） against those risks? Well I generally think that it is good for government to play a role when the public safety is at risk. So really, for the vast majority of software, the public safety is not at risk.

  I mean if the app crashes on your phone or your laptop, it's not a massive catastrophe. But when you're talking about digital superintelligence, I think, which does pose a risk to the public, then there is a role for government to play to safeguard the interests of the public. And this is, of course, true in many fields, aviation, cars. I deal with regulators（ 调整者） throughout the world because of installing, being communications, rockets, being aerospace（航空宇宙） and cars, being vehicle transport. So I'm very familiar with dealing with regulators and I actually agree with the vast majority of regulations. There's a few that I disagree with from time to time, but 0.1% probably, or less than 1% of regulations I disagree with.

  So there is some concern from people in Silicon（[化学] 硅） Valley who have never dealt with regulators（ 调整者） before and they think that this is going to just crush（压碎） innovation and slow them down and be annoying. And it will be annoying. It's true. They're not wrong about that. But I think there's, we've learned over the years that having a referee is a good thing. And if you look at any sports game, there's always a referee.

  And nobody's suggesting, I think, to have a sports game without one. And I think that's the right way to think about this is for government to be a referee, to make sure there's sportsman-like conduct and that the public safety is addressed, that we care about the public safety, because I think there might be, at times, too much optimism（乐观） about technology. And I say that as a technologist, I mean, so I ought to know. And like I said, on balance, I think that the AI will be a forceful（强有力的） good, most likely. But the probability of it going bad is not zero percent. So we just need to mitigate the downside potential.

  And then how, you talk about referee, and that's what we're trying to do. You demonstrate that. Yeah, well, there we go. I mean, you know, and we talked about this in demos and I discussed this a long time ago. I'm literally facing right at it. Actually, you know, demos（演示） to his credit and the credit of people in the industry did say that to us.

  You know, demos say it's not right that demos and his colleagues are marking their own homework, right? There needs to be someone independent. And that's why we've developed the safety institute here. I mean, do you think governments can develop the expertise? One of the things we need to do is they hang on, you know, demos, Sam or the others have got a lot of very smart people doing this. Governments need to quickly tool up capability-wise, personnel（人事部门）-wise, which is what we're doing.

  I mean, do you think it is possible for governments to do that fast enough, given（做） how quickly the technology is developing, or what do we need to do to make sure we do do it quick enough? No, I think it's a great point you're making. The pace of AI is faster than any technology I've seen in history by far. And it seems to be growing in capability by at least five-fold, perhaps 10-fold per year. It'll certainly grow by an order of magnitude（大小） next year. So, and government isn't used to moving at that speed.

  But I think even if there are not firm regulations, even if there isn't an enforcement capability, simply having insight and being able to highlight concerns to the public will be very powerful. So even if that's all that's accomplished, I think that will be very, very good. Okay. Well, hopefully we can do better than that. Hopefully, yeah. Yeah.

  And we were talking before, it was striking, you know, you're someone who spent their life in technology, they're living Moore's Law, and what was interesting over the last couple of days talking to everyone who's doing the development of this, and I think you concur（同意） with this, is if just the pace of advancement here is unlike anything all of you have seen in your careers in technology, is that fair because you've got these kind of compounding effects from the hardware（五金器具） and the data（资料） and the personnel（人事部门）? Yeah. I mean, the two, currently the two leading centers for AI development are the San Francisco Bay（湾） Area and the sort of London Area, and there are many other places where it's being done, but those are the two leading areas. So I think if, you know, if the United States and the UK and China（瓷器） are sort of aligned（使结盟） on safety, that's all going to be a good thing because that's really, that's where the leadership is generally.