Nov 8, 2025 ยท 2025 #42. Read the transcript grouped by speaker, inspect word-level timecodes, and optionally turn subtitles on for direct video playback
Edit labels for this show, save them in this browser, or download a JSON override for the production folder.
Transcript Playback
Is China the New America?
Human Transcript
Timed transcript
Blocks are grouped by speaker for readability. Expand a block to inspect word-level timing.
Speaker 2
But AI and humanoid robots will actually eliminate poverty. And Tesla won't be the only one that makes them. I think Tesla will pioneer this, but there will be many other companies that make humanoid robots. But there is only basically one way to make everyone wealthy, and that is AI and robotics. Say, like, in the long term, where will things end up? Long term, I don't know what long term is. Maybe it's... 10, 20 years, something like that. For me, that's long-term. My prediction is that work will be optional.
My guess is, if you go out long enough, assuming there's a continued improvement in AI and robotics, which this seems likely, the money will stop being relevant in some point in the future. Hello, everybody.
It is Sunday, November the 22nd, 2025. A couple of days late with our regular tech roundup with my friend Keith Teer. That was the week. I've been in D.C., which explains why we're late, doing a series of events around my other show, How to Fix Democracy. The mood here is rather pessimistic, anti-tech, and, of course, everyone's obsessed with a certain Donald Trump, which I find rather boring. So I was enthused that Keith led this week with a positive... a positive newsletter around an old friend of mine, Peter Lydon, who's the publisher of The Great Progression, an excellent Substack newsletter. Lydon has a new book coming out in 2027 called The Great Progression about how tech can save the day or at least innovation. Keith, did you see my show a few months ago with Lydon? I watch all your shows, Andrew, avidly. And what is the big deal about Leiden's post this week on a new progressive era is emerging? Do you agree with him? Well,
he's really in the same part of the intellectual spectrum as the Abundance book that came out, which is to say that he's a believer that the innovation in tech, especially AI, will lead to an explosion of automation, which will lead to an explosion of wealth, which will lead to the possibility of progressive things happening. So he correlates tech with progress, which is quite rare these days. Weirdly enough, Elon Musk was interviewed on the stage at the Saudi US Investment Forum and made a similar statement. He smiled as he said it, that if AI fulfills its promise, currency will become irrelevant and everybody will be wealthy, which I think is roughly the same point.
I'm not sure. I mean, let's stay clear of Musk for the moment because half the things that come out of his mouth, I think, are entirely incoherent. Let's focus on Leiden, who's much more concrete and serious about this. I mean, we can come back to Musk later. But Leiden makes, and this is why I found your editorial strong, Keith, you talk about something called the policy gap. We all know that technology potentially can create abundance. You and I have talked about this endlessly. I'm a little more pessimistic than you, but I basically agree that the only way we're going to improve the world is through technology. What is the policy gap or what you mean in your editorial by the policy gap? And what does Leiden bring to that debate?
Well, you can help me a bit with lighting because I've only read this one piece and so please feel free to fill in my gaps. But the policy gap is the lack of an understanding that massive wealth produced by innovation, mainly automation, doesn't just automatically fuel the whole of society, that humans have to make decisions about what to do with our wealth. And if they don't, it will go to the owners of the means of production, as we say in our sociology classes. That is to say, it will stay with Meta and X and Microsoft and Oracle and OpenAI, but won't necessarily, as jobs shrink, won't necessarily rise raise up society's level of living that we can all expect. That requires policy. And currently there is no policy for that. In fact, the word socialism is the most often used word to describe even thinking about it. And I think socialism is an inappropriate word to describe what's needed. I think what's needed is capitalism for everyone.
Oh, that's nice. Maybe we'll have that as the title of our show this week. Maybe you should have that as the title of your newsletter, Keith, as well. What I like about Leiden is he is not just concrete, but historical. He suggests we've been through this before. He talks about the last progressive era, the late 19th century, the trust busters, and all the innovation of the period between 1895 and 1895.
You know, my view of history is probably a little bit different to his because I see history in Kondratiev curves is probably a good way to say it. Some people will be familiar with that. But I think a progressive era is always best to be understood in the context of the large trends that are happening in that era. And, you know, the 20th century was mainly about deglobalization to world wars. and the rise of america and i think in that meta history it's very hard to talk about progressive except you know you also got the british health service you also got uh you know the the new deal um and so his point is that and you made this
point earlier that in 1890 for example you had a tiny group of people owning the railroads and the mines and the printing presses and all the other features of the Industrial Revolution. And 40 years later, that ownership had been relatively democratized. Of course, it doesn't idealize Americans' history. There was still Jim Crow. There was still a great deal of inequality. We didn't have any kind of cornucopia. But something did change in the original progressive era. And It came through politics, it came through people like Teddy Roosevelt.
A rising tide raises all boats is the simplistic way of expressing it. And it's very rare for a tide that's going out to raise any boats. And so today, the big question is, is this the beginning of a rising tide? Or is it not? And if it is, we probably will see progressive era, as he argues, which means that there'll be more wealth produced and therefore more to go around and likely greater distribution of that to society. Not equality, not fairness. That requires policy. But there'll certainly be a rising tide.
As I said, I'm in D.C. I really struck with the anti-tech tone. I met with some people I went to grad school with, some of whom are quite prominent now in universities. They're complaining about AI. And they're sounding, the old elite at least, are sounding increasingly reactionary when it comes to tech. I know that you've often been making this point, but I was really struck with it this week.
Yeah. Well, it's almost personal, isn't it? Even your comments about Musk earlier, tell me that you've got a bit of it as well, because whatever you think about him, he is a fantastic innovator.
Yeah. But, you know, I think that anti-tech, is really a throwback unfortunately I actually know my history so I'm going to refer to things that may not be common knowledge but it's a throwback to anti-monopolist politics of the Stalin era where the left became anti-monopolist and state monopoly capitalism became the bogeyman for the left and this idea that capitalism produces big and big is bad is quite deep in the intellectual history of the left. And I think we're just seeing the modern form of that.
Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't disagree with that. Let's get to some of the points then of Leiden's essay, which you really rely on. There's obviously artificial intelligence, which goes without saying, but he talks about a basket of new technologies. He also talks about clean energy technology, climate change, nuclear energy technology, Do you agree with him?
Mostly. I'm not enough of a scientist to opine on climate change, so I'll avoid that one. It would be on the opinion. But all of the others, yes. And especially nuclear fusion, which is clearly super important. But even fission, as they've now shrunk,
fission power stations down to something that could power a single city and made them transportable and buildable at great scale. I think we're probably at the beginning of energy abundance that is both clean and close to free.
Well, this is where I don't understand what you mean by free. I mean, I know you're a big Musk lover, not literally, of course. But I actually don't think that if you're critical of Musk makes you critical of technology. I mean, Musk is just one entrepreneur many people object to for different kinds of reasons. When he talks about everything being free, how can energy be free? I mean, especially speaking in Saudi Arabia, we know that the Chinese are pioneering clean energy, but it's not free. They're investing billions, probably trillions of dollars in energy.
The minister from Saudi Arabia for innovation, basically. On the right is Jensen from Nvidia. And they want Elon to say something Very futuristic. They're egging him on. So he does. He says, look, if AI and robots can produce food, homes, clothing, pretty much at zero cost eventually, then by definition, money will become irrelevant because you won't need money. Wait, wait, wait. I'm not asking you to believe him. I'm describing to you what he said. Now, of course, the other two were aghast because their nightmare would be that money becomes irrelevant and energy becomes almost, well, in the case of Saudi Arabia, the energy could almost become free, as in zero cost of production for every incremental gigawatt. And the reason he's saying that was in the context of a discussion about putting nuclear power stations into space. which was a very tangible and practical thing that he thinks he's going to do. Why? Because, and not just nuclear power stations, he made the point that the power of the sun is unlimited in orbit because it doesn't have to go through the Earth's atmosphere. And the ability to put data centers into space feeding off the sun is very real and tangible. It was part of his whole abundance talk, and he was just extrapolating. It's just math. He just was making the point that as the cost of producing things tends towards zero, the price of things, other things being equal, should also tend towards zero. Therefore, money will become, will no longer be an arbiter of scarce goods because goods will not be scarce. So there is a logic.
It's not just... Well, but again, to me, it's just sort of,
Words and timings
It'snotjust...Well,butagain,tome,it'sjustsortof,
Speaker 3
childish fancy I mean how are buildings for you still need raw materials and even with energy I mean even if you're somehow creating energy off the sun you still have to pay for the satellites you still have to pay for the solar panels you still have to pay for the distribution so I just don't understand how this stuff is free
Well, it's a one-time investment for a forever payoff. So if you do depreciation analysis on an investment, typically you depreciate an asset over the life of its useful life. He's making the point that the useful life of energy could be infinite. as long as the science can support it. And of course, he's got a good track record of doing things in science that we all think are fantasy. So he wasn't just making up or trying to be controversial. He was actually saying something he believes could be true.
No, he made the point that physical constraints don't go away. So the fact that there's only one Earth, that there's only so much land, blah, blah, that doesn't change. What changes is the productivity of it and the price of that productivity.
He wasn't saying there'll be equality in some, you know, Stalinist sense. He was saying there'll be abundance. Therefore, everyone will effectively be wealthy by today's standards.
Yeah, I mean, to me, it's just childish fantasy, but maybe I'm wrong. You write about this in your editorial. You say that Musk suggests at least that work will be got rid of. I know that there was some other articles in this week's newsletter debating whether or not we want to get rid of work. I'm not convinced that actually if work was, I'm not convinced it could ever be got rid of, but if it was, I'm not sure it would even make people happy. What were the articles on work this week, Keith?
Well, there was a bunch of back and forth. Musk kicked it off because he said work will become optional. And he characterized work as being similar to a hobby, and he talked about growing plants in your backyard. Even though it's hard, people still do it because they love it. And therefore, people will still do things, but it will be optional. They won't need to do things to live. David Freiberg and Ro Khanna then had a big debate, also in this context. Ro Khanna, of course, is the Democrat. um who i think i'm right is saying he voted for the end of the no no he didn't want to vote for the end of the government showdown that's right last week shut down and david freyberg is on the all in podcast uh that you know they they had a similar debate really about uh technology is as progressive versus needing to be regulated and
You know, there isn't a spirit in Ro Khanna. I kind of thought I liked Ro Khanna, but as I listened to him on this topic, there's no spirit of adventure in his view of the future. It's all really about government limiting what... How should it work?
So, as I said, Leiden talks about state capacity and really radically reinventing government. If we don't, I mean, you acknowledge that there is a danger of all these new technologies being owned by a tiny group of companies. You lead your editorial this week about Gemini. The Google stock goes up and up and up every week. There's OpenAI. There's Microsoft. Tiny group of companies dominate not just the tech sector, but the entire American and global economy. What should happen, Keith?
Well, firstly, that should continue because the only rational way for humans to produce wealth is through massive efforts, funded massive efforts, and government is the least likely. So this idea of the state having capacity, I disagree with Leiden on. The state is your worst nightmare innovator. It just doesn't have the people or the mindset to innovate. So this idea of state capacity
And I'm quoting Leiden here, he said, we need strong state capacity, which means a decisive national government that can execute in an efficient and highly effective way. You disagree with that?
Well, I like his phrase, you know, 21st century government sitting on top of AI that can lead innovation. You know, If he went one step further and said the likelihood of that happening short of a revolution is zero. I mean, the Democrats certainly don't seem to.
OK, so you don't agree with that. So you don't agree that there should be something called state capacity. You acknowledge that a tiny handful of companies are dominating this economy and monopolizing products and resources. How are these resources going to be shared?
You know, if you ask me to answer that, it won't surprise you to know that none of us know the answer, but we all believe it has to happen. Why? Why should it happen?
Actually, I think it has happened consistently through history that wealth produced by advances in technique have led to everybody becoming wealthier, always.
who in his analysis... Only on one point, which is who should we look to? And he doesn't really answer this, by the way. He has phrases without actors. Who should we look to to carry out this transformation? People.
I don't want to speak on behalf of Peter, but he's not here, so I can. He makes it clear that what happened in... I mean, whether he's right or not is debatable, but he does make it very clear in the essay that what happened in the original progressive era... was you had a series of what at this time seemed radical political changes to rein in these dominant monopolists. I mean, that's his argument.
I think that's a simplification. What also happened is we had these amazing technologies that invented things. We had trade unions, we had political parties. I can't think of very many governments that for more than a very short period of time represented progress.
So you're rejecting anti-trust, anti-cartel initiatives of the 1890s through the First World War? You're saying they're irrelevant? No, I see them as minor tactical. Okay, so you think they're minor. So you're still not, you can't just say, well, it's just going to happen. How?
Well, the wealth bit is just going to happen. the wealth bit, where it gets distributed isn't just going to happen. So the wealth piece, humans are very good at improving human society and against popular opinion, I would say improving the earth. And that just happens because we're curious, we push, sometimes things get accelerated like they are now.
Could you give an example? I mean, a lot of people argue that Certainly in the beginning, the Industrial Revolution created massive suffering and inequality, and even now, still a great deal of poverty in the world. It wasn't more unequal than the feudal era that preceded it. That was even more unequal. Well, that's historically debatable. But you can't just say it's just going to happen like magic.
Well, you know, human beings and technique... do just happen. Why? Because we have innovators, scientists, entrepreneurs who stay awake all night trying to do things, and they're successful over and over and over again in history. We have got better and better and better. That just happens. That just happens. Even in bad societies, there is innovation. What doesn't happen is society flowering as a result.
Or the reallocation of resources i mean if if this revolution continues as it is how uh how is the wealth of these tiny groups of companies which you acknowledge well take one example
economy how are they going to be shared let's take one example let's say that the average ai and gemini certainly this week it's being claimed is already there becomes a world-class doctor and let's imagine every human being on earth can have a world-class doctor for free for free gemini is free well you know that massively changes self-awareness of your health well
free is because I mean, Google is a for-profit company, so it's not really for free. Either it's built around advertising or... It's free of the point of consumption.
And so a lot of debates about who should pay for healthcare actually disappear if healthcare is generally available for free. Now, treatment is a separate thing. Diagnosis is free. Treatment probably isn't. But even that, if you get robotic... The claim is this week that Optimus will be better than the world's best surgeon at any surgery. Now, if that's... Who owns Optimus? Optimus is going to cost about $30,000 initially going down over time. So everyone can own Optimus. And you can have something in your house that can be the world's best surgeon.
Well, it's going to start at $20,000, so clearly that's a journey, but there's no reason to believe that it won't decline massively as everything always does.
I honestly think that government is the enemy of that. I think it will try to regulate it, slow it down, build huge rule books that prevent things being done. I don't I don't think humans want governments to do that, but governments have evolved into bureaucracies. He makes that point, and he imagines that that- He makes that point.
Leiden is not a fan of traditional bureaucracies or 19th or even 20th century government he thinks that ai can reinvent government as well so he in a sense he's not in disagreement with you but he still has faith in the potential of technology to reform government you have no faith in that i think
i think i have an idea myself of what i'd like to see and then the question of whether what i'd like to see can happen is a totally separate question but what what i'd like to see is um
the power of direct democracy through technology could be delivered today. We could have an election next year even where all voting took place through smartphone with identity verification and the results could be in the minute the polls closed.
Although that kind of plebiscitary democracy some people would at least argue, lends itself to one kind of populism or another. It's not maybe the wisest of things. And certainly if we did have that, I'm guessing that the outcome of the election would not be to your taste. There could be all sorts of restrictions on technology. Well, it would be democratic.
Whether I'd like the results, again, separate question. But certainly if you don't have that, you have to make the argument that the masses can't be trusted. And now the minute you make the argument that masses can't be trusted, you are by definition preferring an elite, either a leftist elite that is considered worthy because of its intellect, or a populist elite from the right, which is angry and trying to... Yeah,
and I think that that's something that Leiden... is not shy about. He argues that there is a new, he talks about, I think, an A-list or an A-class of people on the left and the right who are innovating technology and rethinking this. I mean, I guess someone who comes to mind is somebody like Ezra Klein. So Leiden is not shy of the role of elites in all this. And some people would argue that the nature of the digital revolution has undermined elites. Well,
obviously it's incredibly, it's at least ademocratic and I would probably think anti-democratic to believe in an enlightened elite being the best people to rule. The will of the people still matters and you go back to Mill and you go back to the origins of democracy And there's still something to be said for everybody's opinion counting.
Okay, but coming back to this core issue, Keith, your argument then, because I want to understand what you're arguing, is you say basically just leave everything alone and we can trust, we might not quite trust Elon Musk, he's a rather odd character, but he's a brilliant entrepreneur and I agree with you on that, very innovative. remarkably prescient on lots of fronts, that we should trust guys like this and in the end everything's going to work out okay.
I'm not saying that would be elitist as well. I'm saying I think he makes... You're allowed to be elitist on this issue. So I'm saying I think he makes good points. I'm not saying he's the future leader that we should all bow down to. Okay, so what is the policy gap then? What do you need? Well, it's what we're talking about. The fact that we're struggling in this conversation is because there is no coherent body of opinion how to take a society that creates abundance to one that benefits everyone. There is no such body of thought
I think nationalization is known to fail because it relies on government. I think socialized is a better word. Socialized meaning everybody benefits. For example, socialized health, socialized education. meaning everybody has the same choices to make and has access to the same things um
ais a techno meritocracy so you're saying if everyone had the same access to gemini health or optimus surgery that's good enough for you but it doesn't make people equal because some people are much smarter or more involved with the tech well i i
don't You're using the word equal as if it means uniform. I don't think people will be uniform. I think people will have access to an unlimited amount of things and will be able to afford it either because it's free or cheap, increasingly so over time. And that will lead to humans focusing on new problems that they haven't got time to focus on today. You know, there'll be probably more writers, more thinkers, more filmmakers, more photographers, more gardeners. So it isn't if humans will ossify or they'll become uniform.
In fact, they'll become uniquely... Yeah, and I've had this argument a million times. It's been made for hundreds of years, but I still don't understand how we get there. You just seem to think it's like magic.
But you say, here's my frustration here. So you're saying there's a policy gap. You're acknowledging there's a problem. You're acknowledging that It's not just going to happen magically by people snapping their fingers or wanting a better world. But at the same time, you're writing off government. You're saying government is bureaucratic and it's anti-innovation. So what's a third way?
Well, look. I actually think the Trump government's a breath of fresh air because it wants to keep out of the way. So, you know, when when. when David Sachs goes to Trump and says, let's let AI be, and let's not allow the 50 states to become 50 regulators, and Trump says, yes, I agree, and says so at a conference this week, to me, that's good. That's government understanding that it isn't good playing the role of innovator. And when it has that regulator instinct, it believes it's acting on behalf of...
You're not answering my question. You're saying that you... I mean, surely you're not arguing that what you call the policy gap, the way to... fix that is somehow Donald Trump is a pioneer of it by basically just staying out of the market.
No, I'm not saying that. Well, part of what I'm saying is that government right now, I like the fact that it keeps its hands off. That said, the policy gap is begging for somebody to fill it. And if I filled it, if I wrote a manifesto It would be something along the lines of as long as currency remains important, let's give some to everybody and let them buy the things that abundance is creating, you know,
That involves some progressive thinker or group of thinkers coming together and saying, well, abundance is on the We need to rethink money. We need to rethink state give outs and all the rest of it.
There's no evidence of that. Well, I think Lydon would disagree. I think he would argue, and he actually talks about this in his essay, that there are groups of people both on the left and the right. He calls it, I think, an abundance agenda. which uh people are are rethinking all these issues great rethinking is a good
popular amongst other democrats well i think leiden is developing the manifesto and you in in in the great progression it's going to be the title yeah no it's why the
role i mean as you said you've you uh while you agree with some of his arguments you're against state capacity i just don't understand how you get to it without the state being involved i'm not
saying the state won't be involved i'm saying the state is is unlikely to provide a solution any of us are going to be happy with So what other institution is this? Well, look, the state, if you historicize it, means different things at different times. So I'm talking about the state as we know it today. Could Leiden conjure up in his imagination and then bring to life a state which is closer to Marx's idea of withering away because it becomes unnecessary? It's no longer a state. A withered-away state. Marx for sure felt that governments under abundance would wither away and just become bureaucracies serving the needs of the people. That sounds pretty good to me. Yeah, but it was wrong. It was certainly wrong in the 1800s.
I suspect you don't mean that question because obviously the missing ingredient is abundance. If you have abundance, obviously all the variables change.
So you really believe, again, I'm mystified. You believe in, I mean, I take your point on AI and a kind of intellectual abundance, a type of intellectual abundance. that doesn't mean that everything else is abundant doesn't mean we can't we started with this maybe we're repeating ourselves energy building materials food why are
they abundant well energy only becomes abundant if you can produce it um an unlimited amount of it close to zero cost which Clearly, solar from space is the latest discussion about whether that's possible. But I also think nuclear fusion is showing promise. I don't believe in it yet. So just to be clear.
But I think the right question is, what is a bottoms up transformation look like, not a top down transformation? And I think Peter seems to be focused on a top down transformation. I would want to fill in some blanks on what a bottoms-up transformation looks like.
Okay, well, I keep on asking the same question, Keith, because I'm not getting a clear response from you. Do you have any even abstract ideas of what this bottoms-up initiative would look like? Well,
But when you say requiring society, that means the state. I mean, someone has to make... Okay, so I take your point. So you have, I don't know, 50% of the population who are unemployed because of AI. They'd have to go to the state, wouldn't they?
If the state's prepared to say yes, I think that's very unlikely. I think the state is not going to be the progressive instrument of this change. I think it's going to be people power more than state power. Now, does that create a new state as Peter Lydon imagines it might? Possibly. And then the state can become an instrument of the people. And if it does, then it can do progressive things. But the state as we know it today is unlikely to do that.
And what about if the people go to the corporations? If Gemini, for example, is as ubiquitous and dominant as you said in terms of creating abundance, Could Google replace the state or Alphabet or OpenAI or Microsoft?
I hope not. That would be worse because they're self-serving. The essence of capitalism is organizations have to be selfish in order to succeed. I'm not judging them for that. I think it's part of capitalism. Individuals also have to be selfish, as in, I'm not prepared to be unemployed and in poverty. And out of that comes resolution. But for the resolution to happen... Out of that comes resolution.
Well, how did the French get rid of the monarchy and the feudal aristocracy? They had a revolution and chopped off the king's head. It came out of bottoms-up demand for change.
Which most people would argue wasn't a particularly effective or long-lasting solution to whatever the problems were with the French monarchies. Well, at least they don't have kings and lords anymore. So I take your point that there will be some sort of revolution of the 40% or 50% of people who were made unemployed by AI and then what? then we'll see.
I mean, you know, there has to be leaders. I'm probably not the leader of this. I'm the wrong generation. But there needs to be young leaders who want the amazing ability of humans to produce wealth and abundance, to benefit everybody, and to find vehicles through which that can happen.
So I always assumed, Keith, you were an optimist. In a way you are, but in a way... You're deeply pessimistic. You're suggesting that the only way we can get to what Peter Lydon calls the Great Progression is through popular revolution.
It doesn't necessarily have to be revolution as understood. Well, you used the example of the French Revolution, which is pretty revolutionary. We're in different times now. My memory of Marx is coming back, and Marx said the best place to have a revolution is America because it could be entirely peaceful due to America's wealth.
He was writing before the liberalization of Ganelov.
Words and timings
HewaswritingbeforetheliberalizationofGanelov.
Speaker 4
Yeah, but the idea that wealth creates the potential for transformation at the core of that point you made is correct. Wealth is a precondition for transformation. And once there is wealth, it can be shared. Before there is wealth, there's only a fight over scarce resources. And so from a human history point of view, we're at the cusp of a period where for the first time probably ever, we could produce a society where everybody benefits.
Yeah, I'm always a bit skeptical when someone says it. It's a very Silicon Valley phrase for the first time ever. Usually means people don't know much about it.
So he doesn't agree with either of us. But yeah, well, maybe we can come back to this. I mean, I'm... I'm encouraged with your optimism or sort of strange optimism, but I think you've got to make it a little more concrete. Give it a bit more thought, Keith. Maybe we can rethink this or re-examine it in future episodes. I mean, on the one hand, you're definitely in the Leiden camp. On the other hand, you disagree on the policy gap. You don't believe in...
what he calls state capacity, which is fair enough. But you've got to come up with something concrete, alternative, rather than just the violent revolution of 40% or 50% of the people. Not violent, but let's call it transformation. But what does that mean? I mean, when people in Silicon Valley, all your wealthy friends, they're not just going to give their wealth up.
Well, the reason I put Musk in this week is because he was implying he would. And by the way, Altman also implies he would with his WorldCoin project. So I don't think you should dismiss the idea that some of these technologies can see beyond their own pocket.
We shall see. Interesting conversation, Keith. Keep well. We'll go back to our regular Saturday show next week. More conversation about abundance, scarcity, and state capacity.
But AI and humanoid robots will actually eliminate poverty. And Tesla won't be the only one that makes them. I think Tesla will pioneer this, but there will be many other companies that make humanoid robots. But there is only basically one way to make everyone wealthy, and that is AI and robotics. Say, like, in the long term, where will things end up? Long term, I don't know what long term is. Maybe it's 10, 20 years, something like that. For me, that's long term. My prediction is that work will be optional.
So... We'll take that. My guess is if you go out long enough, assuming there's a continued improvement in AI and robotics, which seems likely, the money will stop being relevant at some point in the future. Currency becomes irrelevant.