Let's get started. You know, we wanted to try something new this week. Every week, I get a little upset. Things perturb me, and when it does, I just yell and scream, 'Disgust.' And so, I bought the domain name Disgust.com for no reason other than my own amusement. But you know what? I'm not alone in my absolute disgust at what's going on in the world. So this week we're going to bring out a new feature here on the All-In podcast: Disgraciad Corner.
He was the best guy around. What about the people he murdered? What murder? You can act like a man. He's just kidding. You insulted him a little bit. Snacks and I want the snacks. What's wrong with you? Your hair was in the toilet water. Disgusting. I got to suffocate you, you little. It's a disgrace. Disgraciad. Disgraciad. This is fantastic. This is our new feature. Chamath, you look like you're ready to go. Why don't you tell everybody who gets your Disgraciad this week?
Wait, we all had to come with a Disgraciad. You really missed a memo. All right, fine. Enough. I got one. I got one. Okay. All right. Just calm down. My Disgraciad Corner goes to Jason Calcanis. Oh, here we go. Come on, man. You can't. And Pete Buttigieg, where in the first 30 seconds of the interview they compared virtue signaling points about how each one worked at various moments at Amnesty International. Absolutely. Literally affecting zero change, making no progress in the world, but collecting a badge that they used to hold over other people. We wrote a lot of letters. We wrote a lot of letters, which is good. That means it's like a good one, because behind the scenes Jason and Pete Buttigieg: Disgraciad.
Great. I'm glad that I get the first one, and you can imagine what's coming next week for you. I saw the Sydney Sweeney dress today trending on social. It's too much. What? It's too much. What is it? I didn't even know what this is. You didn't see it? Nick, picture. Okay. Bring it up. It's a little floppy. How is this disgusting? What are you talking about? It's disgraceful. A little bit of, look at this. Oh my god. Too much elegant. Too much. In my day, Sachs, a little cleavage maybe, perhaps in the 90s or 2000s. Some side view. This is too much.
Very high brow subject, madam. We were discussing our own politics and the Sydney Sweeney dress. I don't know who's trending on.
Hi dad. Hi dad. Put away the phone.
We open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with what's going on with the algorithm. I'm getting Sydney Sweeney's dress all day. And last week, Sax, well, maybe you should stop favoring it. 15 times. And then Sax, poor Sachs got invited to SluckCon for two weeks straight on the algorithm. No, I say the algorithm has become, if you demonstrate, Sax will even tell if that's a joke or a real thing. It's a real thing in San Francisco. It's all too real. It's actually real. Yeah, for real. But I've noticed, if you demonstrate interest in anything on X now, if you click on it, god forbid you like something, man, the algorithm is on it, it will give you more of that. It will give you a lot more. Yes. Yes. So, we did have an issue. We still have somewhat of an issue where there was an important bug that was figured out that was solved over the weekend which caused in-network posts to not be shown. So you basically, if you followed someone, you wouldn't see their posts. Got it. It's obviously a big bug, major bug. Then the algorithm was not probably taking into account if you just dwelt on something. But if you interacted with it, it would go hog wild. So if you, as David said, if you were to favorite, reply, or engage with it in some way, it is going to get you a torrent of that same thing. Oh, Sachs. So maybe you, what was your interaction? Did you bookmark Slack on? I think you bookmarked it. Here's what I thought was good about it though: all of a sudden, if you happen to switch Sydney Sweeney's boobs. Yeah, that, okay. But what I thought was good about it was that you would see who else had a take on the same subject matter, and that actually has been a useful part of it. Yeah. So you do get more of a 360 view on whatever it is that you've shown interest in. Yeah. Yeah. It just, it was giving you, if you take a, you'd have like it was just going too far. Obviously it was overcorrecting. It had too much gain on it, just turned up the gain way too high on any interaction, you would then get a torrent of that. It's like, oh you had a taste of it, we're going to give you three helpings. We're going to force you, we're going to give you the food funnel.
And that's all being done, I assume, with Grok now. So it's not like the old hardcoded algorithm, or is it using Grok?
Well, what's happening is that we're gradually deleting the legacy Twitter heuristics. Now, the problem is that as you delete these heuristics, it turns out the one heuristic, the one bug was covering for the other bug. And so, when you delete one side of the bug, it's like that meme with the internet where there's this very complicated machine and there's a tiny little wooden stick that's keeping it going, which was I guess AWS East or whatever had something like that. When somebody pulled out the little stick, what's this?
I think it'd be good if it showed half of Earth. You know, it would be great if it showed like one person you follow and then it blended the old style, which was just reverse chronological of your friends, the original version, with this new version. So you get a little bit of both.
Well, you can still have the following tab. Yeah. Now, something we're going to be adding is the ability to have a curated following tab because the problem is if you follow some people and they're maybe a little more prolific than others, that makes the following tab hard to use. So we're going to add an option where you can have the following tab be curated. So Grok will say what are the most interesting things posted by your friends and then we'll show you that in the following tab. It will also show everything, but having that option will make the following tab much more useful. So it'll be a curated list of people you follow, ideally the most interesting stuff that they've said, which is kind of what you would want to look at. And then we've mostly fixed the bug which would give you way too much of something if you interacted with a particular subject matter. And then the really big change is where Grok literally reads everything that's posted to the platform. There are about 100 million posts per day. So it's 100 million pieces of content per day. And I think that's actually just maybe just in English. I think it goes beyond that if it's outside of English. So Grok is going to start off reading what Grok thinks are the top 10 million of the 100 million, and we'll actually read them, understand them, categorize them, and match them to users. This is not a job humans could ever do. And then once that is scaling reasonably well, we'll add the entire 100 million a day. So it's literally going to read through 100 million things and show you the things that it thinks out of 100 million posts per day, what are the most interesting posts to you.
How much of Colossus will that take? Like, is it tens of thousands of servers to do that every day?
Yeah, my guess is it's probably on the order of 50K H100, something like that. Wow. And that will replace search. So you'll be able to actually search on Twitter and find things with plain language. We'll have semantic search where you can just ask a question and it will show you all content, whether that is text, pictures, or video that matches your search query semantically.
How's it been three years in? This is a three-year anniversary. Is this three years? Yeah. Yeah. Remember it was Halloween. Halloween's back. Halloween's back. But the weekend you took over was Halloween. We had a good time. Yeah. Wow. Yeah. Three years. Where will things be three years from now? What's the takeaway? Three years later, you obviously don't regret buying it. It's saved free speech. That was good. Seemed to have turned that whole thing around and that was a big part of your mission. But then you added it to xAI which makes it incredibly valuable as a data source. So when you look back on it, the reason you bought it was to stop the crazy woke mind virus and make truth exist in the world again. Great. Mission accomplished. And now it has this great future.
Yeah, we've got community notes. You can also ask Grok about anything you see on the platform. You just press the Grok icon on any X post and we'll analyze it for you and research it as much as you want. So you can basically, by tapping the Grok icon, assess whether that post is the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth, or whether there's something supplemental or needs to be explained. So I think we've made a lot of progress towards freedom of speech and people being able to tell whether something is false or not, you know, propaganda. The recent update to Grok is actually very good at piercing through propaganda. And then we used that latest version of Grok to create Grokipedia, which I think is much more neutral and more accurate than Wikipedia, but actually has a lot more information than a Wikipedia page.
Did you seed it with Wikipedia? Actually, take a step back. How did you guys do this?
Well, we used AI, but meaning like totally unsupervised, just a complete training run on its own, totally synthetic data, no seeded set, nothing. It was only just recently possible for us to do this. So we finished training on a maximally truth-seeking version of Grok that is good at cogent analysis. So breaking down any given argument into its axiomatic elements, assessing whether those axioms are likely to be true, not contradictory, and that the conclusion most likely follows from those axioms. So we just trained Grok on a lot of critical thinking. So it just got really good at critical thinking, which was quite hard. And then we took that version of Grok and said, okay, cycle through the million most popular articles in Wikipedia and add, modify, and delete. So that means research the rest of the internet, whatever is publicly available, and correct the Wikipedia articles, fix mistakes, but also add a lot more context. So sometimes the nature of the propaganda is that facts are stated that are technically true but do not properly represent a picture of the individual or event.
This is critical because when you have a bio as you do, actually we all do on Wikipedia over time, it's just the people you fired or you beat in business or have an axe to grind. So it just slowly becomes the place where everybody who hates you puts their information. And I looked at mine. It was so much more representative and it was five times longer, six times longer. And what it gave weight to was much more accurate. Much more accurate. And this opportunity was sitting here for a long time. And it's just great that you got to it because they don't update my page, you know, twice a month, and then who is the secret cabal? There's 50 people who are anonymous who decide what gets put on it. It was a much better, much more updated page in version one.
Yes, this is version 0.1 as we put it, as we show at the top. So I do think actually by the time we get to version 1.0, it'll be 10 times better. But even at this early stage, as you just mentioned, it's not just that it's correcting errors, but it is creating a more accurate, realistic, and fleshed-out description of people and events. And subject matters, like you can look at articles on physics in Grokipedia that are much better than Wikipedia by far.
This is what I was going to ask you: do you think that you can take this corpus of pages now and get Google to deboost Wikipedia or boost Grokedia in traditional search? Because a lot of people still find this and they believe that it's authoritative because it comes up number one, right? So how do we flip Google?
Yeah, so it really can. If people share a lot of Grokedia, if it is used elsewhere, like if people cite it on their websites or post about it on social media, or when they do a search and Grokedia shows up, they click on it, it will naturally rise in Google's rankings. I did text Sundar because even sort of a day after launch, if you typed in Wikipedia, Google would just say 'Did you mean Wikipedia?' and it wouldn't bring up Grokedia at all. Yeah. It's true. So now, how's the usage been? Have you seen good growth since it launched? Yeah, it went super viral. So we're seeing it all over the place. And I think we'll see it used more and more as people refer to it, and people will judge for themselves. When you read a Grokedia article about a subject or a person that you know a lot about and you see, wow, this is way better than Wikipedia, it's more comprehensive, it's way more accurate, it's neutral instead of biased, then you're going to forward those links around and say this is actually the better source. Grokedia will succeed very well because it is fundamentally a superior product to Wikipedia. It is a better source of information, and we haven't even added images and video yet. So we're going to add a lot of video, using Grok Imagine to create videos. So if you're trying to explain something, Grok Imagine can take the text from Grokedia and then generate an explanatory video. So if you're trying to understand anything from how to tie a bow tie to how certain chemical reactions work, or really anything, dietary things, medical things, you can just go and see the video of how it works.
When you have this version that's maximally truth-seeking as a model, do you think that there needs to be a better eval or a benchmark that people can point to that shows how off of the truth things are? So that if you're going to start a training run with Common Crawl or if you're going to use Reddit, is it important to be able to say, 'Hey, hold on a second, this eval just sucks, you guys suck on this eval, this is crappy data'?
Yeah, I guess I'm not... I think there are a lot of evals out there. I have complete confidence that Grok is going to succeed because Wikipedia is actually not a very good product. The information is sparse, wrong, and out of date. And it doesn't have many images, there's basically no video. So if you have something which is accurate, comprehensive, has videos, and moreover you can ask if there's any part of it that you're curious about, you can just highlight it and ask Grok right there. If you're trying to learn something, it's just great. It's not going to be a little bit better than Wikipedia, it's going to be a hundred times better.
Elon, do you think you'll see like good uniform usage? Like if you look back on the last three years since you bought Twitter, there were a lot of people after you bought Twitter that said, 'I'm leaving Twitter. Elon's bought it. I'm going to go to this other wherever the hell they went.' And there's all these new... But Blue Sky falling is my favorite. I guess my question is, as you destroy the woke mind virus control of the system and as you bring truth to the system, whether through Grokedia or through X, do people just look for confirmation bias and they actually don't accept the truth? Like, do you think people are actually going to see the truth and change?
Yeah. But I mean, is that like you thought Sydney Sweeney's boobs were great? Let me see mine. Looking good. Yeah, solid week there. Put a little something, a little sheer, you know. I think we just got flagged on YouTube again. Yeah, we did. That was definitely going to give us a censorship moment. Grade A moves. No, but do people change their mind? I mean, if there's actually... I should take, there's no such thing as a grade A move. It's off the rails already.
David, you were trying to ask a serious question. Go ahead.
Well, I just want to know if people change their mind. Like, can you actually change people's minds by putting the truth in front of them, or do people just ignore the truth because they feel like they're in some sort of camp and they want the confirmation bias and they want to stay in a camp and be tribal about everything?
It is remarkable how much people believe things simply because it is the belief of their in-group, whatever their political or ideological tribe is. There are some pretty hilarious videos of a guy going around, is like a racist Nazi or whatever, and he was trying to show them the videos of the thing that they are talking about, where he is in fact condemning the Nazis in the strongest possible terms and condemning racism in the strongest possible terms, and they literally don't even want to watch it. So yeah, people, at least some people, would prefer to stick to whatever their ideological views are, whatever the political tribal views are, no matter what. The evidence could be staring them in the face and they're just going to be a flat-earther. There is no evidence that you can show to a flat-earther to convince them the world is round because everything is just a lie.
I think the ability to hit at Grok in a reply and ask it a question in the thread has really become a truth-seeking missile on the platform. So when I put up metrics or something like that, I reply to myself and I say, 'Grok, is the information I just shared correct? And can you find any better information? And please tell me if my argument is correct or if I'm wrong.' And then it goes through and then it DMs Sachs and then Sax gets in my replies and tries to correct me. No, but it does a really good job of that, and that combined with community notes, now you've got two swings at bat. The community's consensus view and then Grok coming in. I think it would be really interesting if Grok on really powerful threads did its own version of community notes and had it sitting there ahead of time. You know, you could look at a thread and it just had next to it, or maybe on the specific statistic, you could click on it and it would show you, 'Ah, here's where that statistic is from.'
I mean, essentially every post on X, unless it's like advertising or something, has the Grok symbol on it. And you just tap that symbol and you're one tap away from a Grok analysis. Literally, you're just one tap. And we don't want to clutter the interface with providing an explanation, but if you go on X right now, it's one tap to get Grok's analysis, and Grok will research the X post and give you an accurate answer. And you can even ask it to do further research and further due diligence, and you can go as far down the rabbit hole as you want. But I do think this is consistent with we want X to be the best source of truth on the planet by far. And I think it is, where you hear any and all points of view, but where those points of view are corrected by human editors with community notes. The essence of community notes is that people who historically disagree agree that this community note was correct. And all of the community notes code is open source and the data is open source. So you can recreate any community note from scratch independently. By and large, it's worked very well.
I think we originally had the idea to have you back on the pod because it was a three-year anniversary of the Twitter acquisition. So I just wanted to kind of reminisce a little bit. I remember, where's that sink? Where's that sink? Well, Elon was staying at my house. We had talked the week before and he told me the deal was going to close. And so, I was like, 'Hey, do you need a place to stay?' And he took me up on it. And the day before he went to the Twitter office, there was a request made to my staff: 'Do you happen to have an extra sink?' And they did not, but they were able to locate one at a nearby hardware store. And I think they paid extra to get it out of the window or something.
Well, I think the store was confused because my security team was asking for any kind of sink, and normally people wouldn't ask for any kind of sink because you need a sink that fits in your bathroom or connects to a certain kind of plumbing. So they're like trying to ask, 'Well, what kind of faucets do you want?' And I said, 'No, no, I just wanted a sink.' I think it's a mental person going to the store. The store was confused that we just wanted a sink and didn't care what the sink connected to. They were almost not letting us buy the sink because they thought maybe we'd buy the wrong sink. It's just rare that somebody wants a sink for meme purposes.
One of my favorite memories was Elon said, 'Hey, swing by, check it out.' I said, 'Okay, I'll come by.' And I drive up there and I'm looking where to park the car and I realize there's just parking spaces around the entire building. And I'm like, 'Okay, this can't be legal parking.' But I park and it's legal parking. You're in downtown SF, so you might get your window broken, but we get in there and the place is empty.
Yeah. It was seriously empty except for the cafeteria. There were two Twitter headquarters buildings. One of the buildings was completely and utterly empty. And the other building had like 5% occupancy. And the 5% occupier, we all go get something to eat and we realize there's more people working in the cafeteria than at Twitter. There were more people making the food than eating the food in this giant, really nice cafeteria. This is where we discovered that the actual price of the lunch was $400. The original price was $20, but it had 5% occupancy, so it was 20 times higher and they still kept making the same amount pretty much. So effectively lunch was $400. And that was a great meeting. And then we had the initial meetings, trying to figure out what the heck's going on, in the building with literally no one in it. And we tried drawing on the whiteboard and the markers had gone dry. Nobody had used the whiteboard markers in like two years. So sad. None of the markers worked. So this is totally bizarre. But it was totally clean because the cleaning crew had come in and done their job and cleaned an already clean place for I don't know, two or three years straight. This is more crazy than any sort of Mike Judge movie or Silicon Valley or anything like that. And then I remember going into the men's bathroom and there's a table with hygiene menstrual hygiene products. Yep. Refreshed every week. Tampons, like a fresh box of tampons. And we're like, but there's literally no one in this building. They hadn't turned off the send fresh tampons to the men's bathroom in the empty building. So every week they would put a fresh box of tampons in an empty building for years. This happened for years. And it must have been very confusing to the people that were being asked to do this because they're like, 'Okay, I'll throw them away.' Well, I guess they're paying us, so we'll just put tampons. Seriously, have to consider the string of possibilities necessary in order for anyone to possibly use that tampon in the men's bathroom at the unoccupied second building of Twitter headquarters. Because you'd have to be a burglar who is a trans man burglar who's unwilling to use the woman's bathroom that also has tampons. Statistically, there's no one in the building. So you've broken into the building and at that moment you have a period. Yes. And you're on your period. I mean, you're more likely to be struck by a meteor than need that tampon.
Well, I remember it was shortly after that you discovered an entire room at the office that was filled with 'Stay Woke' t-shirts. Do you remember this? An entire pile of merch.
Yes. #StayWoke. Stay Woke. And also a big sort of buttons, like those magnetic buttons that you put on your shirt that said 'I am an engineer.' I'm like, 'Look, if you're an engineer, you don't need a button.' Who's the button for? Who are you telling that to? You can just ship code. We would know. We can check your GitHub. But yeah, they're like scarves, hoodies, all kinds of merch that said hashtag Stay Woke. When you found that, I was like, 'My god, man. The barbarians are fully within the gates now. The barbarians have smashed through the gates and are looting the merch.' Yes, you are rummaging through their holy relics and defiling them.
I mean, but when you think about it, David, the amount of waste that we saw there during those first 30 days, just to be serious about it for a second, this was a publicly traded company. So if you think about the financial duty of those individuals, there was a list of SaaS software we went through and none of it was being used. Some of it had never been installed and they had been paying for it for two years. They've been paying for a SaaS product for two years. And the one that blew my mind the most that we canceled was they were paying a certain amount of money per desk to have desking software in an office where nobody came to work. So they were paying for nobody. There were millions of dollars here being paid for analysis of pedestrian software that uses cameras to analyze the pedestrian traffic to figure out where you can alleviate pedestrian traffic jams in an empty building.
Right. That's like 11 out of 10 on a Dilbert scale.
Yeah. It was pretty, shout out Scott Adams. You've gone off scale on your Dilbert level at that point. Let's talk about the free speech aspect for a second because I think that is the most important legacy of the Twitter acquisition and I think people have short memories and they forget how bad things were three years ago. First of all, you had figures as diverse as President Trump, Jordan Peterson, Jay Bhattacharya, Andrew Tate. They were all banned from Twitter. And I remember when you opened up the Twitter jails and reinstated their accounts, kind of freed all the bad boys of free speech. The best deal. Yes. So you basically gave all the bad boys of free speech their accounts back. But second, beyond just the bannings, there was the shadow banning. And Twitter had claimed for years that they were not shadow banning. This was a paranoid conservative conspiracy theory.
Yeah. There was a very aggressive shadow banning by what was called the Trust and Safety group, which of course naturally would be the one that is doing the nefarious shadow banning. And I just think we shouldn't have a group called Trust and Safety. I mean, this is an Orwellian name if there ever was one. 'Hi, I'm from the Trust Department. Oh really? We want to talk to you about your tweets. Can we see your DMs?' Say that you're from the Trust Department. It's literally the Ministry of Truth right there.
Executives had maintained for years that they were not engaged in this practice, including under oath. And on the heels of you opening that up and exposing that, because by the way, it wasn't just the fact they were doing it. They created an elaborate set of tools to do this. They had checkbox set of tools to deboost accounts.
Yes. And you know, subsequently we found out that other social networking properties have done this as well, but you were really exposed. This is still being done at the other social media companies, including Google by the way. So, for search results, if you simply push a result pretty far down the page or the second page of results, the joke used to be, or still is, 'Where do you hide a dead body? The second page of Google search results,' because nobody ever goes to the second page. You could hide a dead body there and nobody would find it. And it's not like you've made them go away, you've just put them on page two.
Yes. So shadow banning I think was number two. So first was banning, second was shadow banning. I think third to me was government collusion, government interference. So you released the Twitter Files. Nothing like that had ever been done before where you just let investigative reporters go through Twitter's emails unfettered.
I was not looking over their shoulder at all. They just had direct access to everything. And they found that there was extensive collusion between the FBI and the Twitter Trust and Safety group where it turns out the FBI had 80 agents submitting takedown requests and they were very involved in the banning, the shadow banning, the censorship, which I don't think we ever had definitive evidence of before. That was pretty extraordinary. And the US House of Representatives had hearings on the matter. And a lot of this was unearthed. It's public record. So a lot of people, some people on the left still think this is made up. I'm like, this is literally the Twitter Files. These are the files at Twitter. We're literally just talking about the emails that were sent internally that confirm this. This is what's on the Slack channels. And this is what is shown in the Twitter database as where people have made either suspensions or shadow bans.
Has the government come and asked you to take stuff down since, or they just have to, the policy is, 'Hey, listen, you got to file a warrant, you got to come correct,' as opposed to just putting pressure on executives?
Yeah, our policy at this point is to follow the law. So now the laws are obviously different in different countries. So sometimes I get criticized for why don't I push free speech in XYZ country that doesn't have free speech laws. I'm like, because that's not the law there. And if we don't obey the law, we'll simply be blocked in that country. So the policy is really just to adhere to the laws in any given country. It is up to us to agree or disagree with those laws, and if the people of that country want laws to be different, then they should ask their leaders to change the laws. But as soon as you start going beyond the law, now you're putting your thumb on the scale. So I think that's the right policy, just adhere to the laws within any given country. Now sometimes we get in a bit of a bind, like we had with Brazil, where this judge in Brazil was asking us to break the law in Brazil and ban accounts contrary to the law of Brazil. And we're sort of stuck. We're like, wait a second, we're reading the law and it says this is not allowed to happen, and also giving us a gag order. So we're not allowed to say it's happening. And we have to break the law, and the judge is telling us to break the law. The law is breaking the law. That's where things get very difficult. And we were actually banned in Brazil for a while because of that.
I just want to make one final point on the free speech issue and then we can move on. I think people forget that the censorship wasn't just about, there was a growing number of categories of thought and opinion that were being outlawed. The quote 'content moderation,' which is another Orwellian euphemism for censorship, was being applied to categories like gender and even climate change. The definition of hate speech was constantly growing. Yes. And more and more people were being banned or shadow banned, and there were more and more things that you couldn't say. This trend of censorship was growing. It was galloping, and it would have continued if it wasn't, I think, for the fact that you decided to buy Twitter and opened it up. And it was only on the heels of that that the other social networks were willing to be a little bit chastened in their policies and start to push back more.
Yeah, that's right. Once Twitter broke ranks, the others had to, it became very obvious what the others were doing, and so they had to mitigate their censorship substantially because of what Twitter did. And I mean, perhaps to give them some credit, they also felt that they had the air cover to be more inclined towards free speech. They still do a lot of shadow banning and whatnot at the other social media companies, but it's much less than it used to be.
Elon, what have you seen in terms of governments creating new laws? So we've seen a lot of this crackdown in the UK on what's being called hateful speech on social media and folks getting arrested and actually going to prison over it. And it seems like when there's more freedom, the side that is threatened by that comes out and creates their own counter, right? There's a reaction to that. And there seems to be a reaction. Are you seeing more of these laws around the world in response to your opening up free speech through Twitter and those changes and what they're enabling, that the governments and the parties that control those governments aren't aligned and they're stepping in and saying, 'Let's create new ways of maintaining our control through law'?
Yeah, there has been an overall global movement to suppress free speech under the guise of suppressing hate speech. But the problem with that is that your freedom of speech only matters if people are allowed to say things that you don't like or even things that you hate. Because if you're allowed to suppress speech that you don't like, then you don't have freedom of speech, and it's only a matter of time before things switch around and the shoe is on the other foot and they will suppress you. So suppress, lest you be suppressed. But there is a very strong movement to codify speech suppression into the law throughout the world, including the Western world, in Europe, Australia, the UK, and Germany are very aggressive in this regard. And my understanding is that in the UK, there's something like two or three thousand people in prison for social media posts. And in fact, there are so many people in prison for social media posts, and many of these things are like, you can't believe that someone would actually be put in prison for this. They have in a lot of cases released people who have committed violent crimes in order to imprison people who have simply made posts on social media, which is deeply wrong. And it underscores why the founders of this country made the First Amendment the First Amendment. It was freedom of speech. Why did they do that? Because in the places that they came from, there wasn't freedom of speech and you could be imprisoned or killed for saying things.
Can I ask you a question just to maybe move to a different topic? If you came and did this next week, we will be past the Tesla board vote. We talked about it last week and we talked about how crazy ISS and Glass Lewis is, and we used this one insane example where Ira Ehrenpreis didn't get the recommendation from ISS and Glass Lewis because he didn't meet the gender requirements, but then Kathleen also doesn't make sense. Can you... So the board vote is on the African-American woman. Yeah. Yeah. True. They recommended against her but then also recommended against our enterprise on the grounds she was insufficiently diverse. So I'm like, these things don't make any sense.
Because of ISS and Glass Lewis, you know, declined to ISS and Glass Lewis fire me effectively, or the activists at those firms fire me, even though I've done everything right. Yeah, that's my concern. And then I cannot ensure the safety of the robots.
If you don't get that vote, if it doesn't go your way, it looks like it's going to. Would you leave? I mean, is that even in the cards? I heard the board was very concerned about that.
Let's just say I'm not going to build a robot army if I can be easily kicked out by activist investors. No way.
Makes sense. Who is capable of running the four or five major product lines at Tesla? I mean, this is the madness of it. It's a very complex business. People don't understand what's under the hood there. It's not just a car company. You got batteries, you got trucks, you got the self-driving group. This is a very complex business that you've built over decades now. It's not a very simple thing to run. I don't think there's an Elon equivalent out there who can just jump into the cockpit. By the way, if we take a full turn around the corporate governance corner, also this week, what was interesting about the OpenAI restructuring was I read the letter and your lawsuit was excluded from the allowances of the California attorney general basically saying this thing can go through, which means that your lawsuit is still out there, right? And I think it's going to go to a jury trial. Yes. So that corporate governance thing is still very much in question. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Yes. I believe that will go to a jury trial in February or March, and then we'll see what the results are. But there's a mountain of evidence that shows that OpenAI was created as an open source nonprofit. It's literally the exact description in the incorporation documents. In fact, the incorporation documents explicitly say that no officer or founding member will benefit financially from OpenAI, and they've completely violated that. You can use the Wayback Machine and look at the website of OpenAI, again open source nonprofit, the whole way until it looked like, wow, there's a lot of money to be gained here, and then suddenly it starts changing. They try to change the definition of OpenAI to mean open to everyone instead of open source, even though it always meant open source. I came up with the name, so that's how I know.
