Elon Musk, who is set to co-head the newly formed Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE), has moderated his earlier pledge to cut the federal budget by $2 trillion. In a recent conversation with former Clinton pollster Mark Penn on X, Musk acknowledged that achieving even half that amount would be an “epic outcome.” This adjustment indicates a recognition of the practical challenges in achieving such dramatic fiscal goals, aligning more with expert critiques of his original proposal’s feasibility.
Bill Ford of Ford Motor Company provided insights into Trump’s understanding of the industry. After a lengthy conversation with Trump, Ford expressed optimism about the incoming administration’s grasp of the competitive landscape, particularly concerning the threat from heavily subsidized Chinese automakers. Ford emphasized that affordability, rather than just technological parity, will be crucial in competing with these rivals.
Moreover, Ford isn’t worried about Tesla, led by Musk, gaining an unfair advantage through its relationship with Trump. He believes that Ford will have a voice in policy discussions, suggesting a collaborative rather than competitive stance between American automakers in this new political climate.
Musk’s involvement in government efficiency suggests a push towards deregulation, potentially benefiting Tesla through the reduction of red tape, although this might conflict with Tesla’s financial interests in regulatory credits from other manufacturers.
The political landscape has also seen Musk extend his influence internationally. His critiques of European leaders and support for far-right movements in countries like Germany have stirred controversy, reflecting his significant sway in both domestic and international politics.
As we move into 2025, the interplay between Trump, Musk, and Ford will be pivotal in shaping the future of the American auto industry, balancing between innovation, economic policy, and international trade dynamics.
Article generated from corporate media reports.
]]>The first clear sign that something truly big may be happening was the historic comeback and victory of Donald Trump in last November’s election.
Eight weeks later the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation.
It now appears increasingly likely that in the coming weeks we will see the fall of ruling governments and coalitions in Austria, Germany, France, and Britain. Others, such as Romania, are likely to follow.
The globalist puppets and technocrats that run these western governments are losing their grip even as we speak. The pool of popular discontent filled to the brim by the self-serving actions of the globalist elite is boiling over. And now they are being roundly booted out by the populist movements across the world.
Here are some of the sufferings and depredations the global elites have inflicted upon the masses in recent years:
- Covid lockdowns
- Covid vaccine mandates
- Unfettered immigration
- Cronyism and government corruption
- Inflation
- Out-of-control government spending
- Falling real wages
- Endless warmongering
- Imposition of LGBT and transexual agendas
- Racism against native populations
- Widening wealth disparities
- Attacks on traditional western values and Christianity
- Political correctness
- Widespread censorship
- Demonization and cancellation of those seeking redress of rightful grievance
Up until now the global elitists have been largely successful in keeping the lid on popular discontent stemming from the above. This they managed by demonization and cancellation of objectors and by imposition of a highly efficient censorship regime by means of which they controlled mainstream discourse.
But now, largely through Elon Musk’s uncensored platform X, the pain and resentment of the masses are being brought into the open and aired in the public square.
As a result, the elites are being swept away by the resurgent populist movements that are becoming empowered and quickened by their access to free speech.
The panicked elites predictably blame Elon Musk for their loss of control.
“European leaders unite in sharp rebuke of Elon Musk,” reads a recent news headline. Further down we read:
“[H]highlighting growing tensions between European leadership and tech giant Elon Musk’s political activities, French President Emmanuel Macron has emerged as the latest prominent voice opposing the billionaire’s involvement in continental politics… The French leader’s stance comes amid a broader pushback from European officials, including the prime ministers of Norway and Britain.”
These leaders are not incorrect, just not in the way they think.
Because Musk has made certain political comments, they accuse him of meddling in elections. It is not his statements, however, that have accelerated a shift in the political dynamic. After all, Musk’s pronouncements are neither revolutionary nor particularly remarkable.
The things that Musk has said are simple truths, which is apparent to anyone with common sense. The problem was that those truths were not allowed to be brought up in public discourse under the strict censorship regime that the globalists have imposed on societies.
Because Musk’s widely popular X can reach large swathes of the world’s population, he was able to bring discussion of these forbidden truths back into the public square. And once enough people see the obvious truths articulated out in the open, they join in en masse and something powerful begins to stir.
The global populist revolution now underway has been accelerated by the whiff of free speech that Elon Musk allowed to blow through X rather than by his opinions per say.
The corrupt, fragile, and sclerotic regimes that globalists erected in Western nations – the regimes based on lies, corruption, and suppression of truth – are being brought down by freedom of expression.
As they scramble, the globalists are being exposed for who they truly are: undemocratic totalitarians whose rule rests on merciless across-the-board censorship. These people are the true heirs of the totalitarians of the past – such as communists and fascists – with whom they share a deeply-ingrained reflexive desire to silence opposing voices.
It is the pinnacle of paradox that these censoring totalitarians call those whom they censor and cancel the “enemies of democracy.” The truth is the exact opposite of what they claim. They cannot withstand the truth, which is why they suppress – in true totalitarian fashion – those whose views differ from their own.
Elon Musk may not be perfect, but the fact remains that he has done more for the cause of free speech and democracy than any other man today. This is why the failing censorious globalist totalitarians hate him so.
Needless to say, Elon Musk deserves to be applauded for his effort. After all, free speech is the foundational western value. Without free speech it is not possible to have real freedom or democracy.
On this we should all be able to agree.
About the Author
Vasko Kohlmayer (email) was born and grew up in former communist Czechoslovakia. You can follow his writings by subscribing to his Substack newsletter ’Notes from the Twilight Zone’. He is the author of The West in Crisis: Civilizations and Their Death Drives.
]]>“I can’t comment on that. They’ll raise the price,” Errol replied when asked by Times Radio about the unconfirmed report. When pressed again, the elder spilled the beans.
"Does your son want to buy Liverpool Football Club?"
"I can't comment on that. They'll raise the price."
Errol Musk confirms that his son, @ElonMusk, is interested in buying Premier League side Liverpool.@KaitBorsay pic.twitter.com/2xcRPH0b6k
— Times Radio (@TimesRadio) January 7, 2025
“Oh, yes. But that doesn’t mean he’s buying it,” he replied. “He would like to yes, obviously. Anybody would want to – so would I!” he said. “His grandmother was born in Liverpool, and we have relatives in Liverpool, and we were fortunate to know quite a lot of the Beatles because they grew up with some of my family. So, we are attached to Liverpool, you know.”
Liverpool is presently owned by Fenway Sports Group, an American sports investment firm that acquired the Merseyside club in 2010 for an estimated £300m. Since then, the Reds have thrived under their ownership, clinching both the Premier League and Champions League trophies.
Meanwhile, the $400 billion man has yet to comment on the matter.
Musk has previously spoken glowingly of his grandmother, describing nana Cora Amelia Robinson as an important part of his upbringing in South Africa. Cora was born in 1923 and passed away in 2011 at the age of 87 years old.
“My Nana was one of the poor working-class girls with no one to protect her who might have been abducted in present-day Britain,” Musk wrote on X of his grandmother. “She was very strict, but also kind and I could always count on her. She grew up very poor in England during the Great Depression only to be bombed in WW2,” he added.
My British grandmother, Cora Amelia Robinson, was an important part of my childhood. She was very strict, but also kind and I could always count on her.
She grew up very poor in England during the Great Depression only to be bombed in WW2. To earn money for food, she cleaned…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 7, 2025
According to Musk, his nana didn’t have it easy. “To earn money for food, she cleaned houses, leaving me with a lasting respect for those who do so,” he said.
Upon the death of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 2013, Musk paid tribute to the “Iron Lady,” referring to her as “tough but sensible and fair like my English Nana.”
]]>(Natural News)—Elon Musk, the tech mogul known for his ambitious ventures into space, electric vehicles and artificial intelligence, has now set his sights on the human brain. His company, Neuralink, recently made headlines by successfully implanting its first brain chip in a human patient. While Musk touts this as a groundbreaking leap toward telepathic communication and curing neurological disorders, the implications of such technology demand a closer, more cautious examination.
The concept of wiring the brain is not new. As Dr. Vernon Coleman pointed out in his 1977 book Paper Doctors, doctors have been experimenting with electronic brain stimulation for decades. By inserting electrodes into the brain, researchers have been able to induce pleasure, eradicate pain and even control behavior from a distance. These experiments, while fascinating, raise profound ethical questions about the limits of human intervention in our own biology.
Neuralink’s first patient, Noland Arbaugh, a quadriplegic, initially experienced promising results, controlling a computer cursor with his thoughts. However, the device’s effectiveness waned after a month due to the retraction of 85% of the implanted threads. Neuralink has since adjusted its approach, planning to implant the wires deeper into the brain in future trials. While this technical fix may improve functionality, it does little to address the broader concerns surrounding such invasive technology.
The idea of embedding devices in the brain to control behavior or enhance cognitive abilities is not without precedent. In the 1950s, Dr. Jose Delgado of Yale University demonstrated that animals – and even humans – could be controlled via implanted electrodes. His experiments, while groundbreaking, were met with skepticism and fear. The notion of humans being manipulated like “electronic toys” is a chilling reminder of the potential dangers of such technology.
Proponents of Neuralink argue that it could revolutionize medicine, offering hope to those with severe neurological disorders. Musk himself has claimed that the company’s first product, Telepathy, will allow users to control devices “just by thinking.” But at what cost? The long-term effects of brain implants remain unknown, and the potential for misuse is staggering.
Brain hacking
Imagine a world where governments or corporations could access and manipulate the thoughts of individuals. The dystopian implications are straight out of a science fiction novel, yet they are not far-fetched. In an era where privacy is already under siege, the idea of our innermost thoughts being vulnerable to external control is deeply unsettling.
Moreover, the ethical considerations of such technology cannot be ignored. Who decides who gets access to these implants? Will they be available only to the wealthy, creating a new class of “enhanced” humans? And what happens if the technology fails or is hacked? The risks are immense, and the potential for unintended consequences is high.
Recent research from the Institute of Science and Technology Austria (ISTA) has shed light on the complexities of the human brain, revealing that our neural connectivity is fundamentally different from that of rodents. This underscores the challenges of translating animal experiments to human applications. The human brain is not a machine to be tinkered with; it is the seat of our consciousness, our identity, and our humanity.
As conservatives, we must approach such technological advancements with a healthy dose of skepticism. While innovation is essential, it must be tempered by a respect for the sanctity of human life and the natural order. The brain is not just another frontier to be conquered; it is the essence of who we are.
Elon Musk’s Neuralink may represent the cutting edge of science, but it also raises profound questions about the future of humanity. Are we ready to embrace a world where our thoughts can be controlled by machines? Or are we opening Pandora’s box, unleashing forces we cannot control?
As we stand on the precipice of this brave new world, we must tread carefully. The promise of progress must not blind us to the potential perils. The human brain is a marvel of nature, and we must ensure that any intervention respects its complexity and sanctity. The stakes are too high to get this wrong.
Sources include:
]]>Rogan O’Handley, aka “DC Draino” on X, floated two scenarios about Livelsberger’s final moments:
Now that we know the Vegas suspect was found with a bullet in his head, I see 2 possible scenarios:
- He shot himself – he was planning to commit suicide & didn’t want to risk being burned alive
- He was shot by someone else & the Tesla was auto-pilot navigated to the Trump hotel
Now that we know the Vegas suspect was found with a bullet in his head, I see 2 possible scenarios:
1. He shot himself – he was planning to commit suicide & didn’t want to risk being burned alive
2. He was shot by someone else & the Tesla was auto-pilot navigated to the Trump… https://t.co/OqU5ecdy6e
— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) January 2, 2025
“A long fuse could’ve been lit, a timer could have been set, or the bomb could have been remotely detonated I wonder if anyone in the vicinity heard a gunshot That would help confirm where the car was when he was shot,” O’Handley wrote in another post.
A long fuse could’ve been lit, a timer could have been set, or the bomb could have been remotely detonated
I wonder if anyone in the vicinity heard a gunshot
That would help confirm where the car was when he was shot
— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) January 2, 2025
Tesla’s Elon Musk quickly dismissed the second scenario, stating, “Autopilot will not function unless it detects an attentive person in the driver’s seat.”
Autopilot will not function unless it detects an attentive person in the driver’s seat
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 3, 2025
Tesla vehicles have a cabin camera that monitors driver attentiveness and provides audible alerts when FSD is engaged. The camera is mounted above the rearview mirror.
“Like other Autopilot features, Full Self-Driving requires that the driver pay attention to the road, their surroundings, and other road users,” Tesla wrote on its website under the “Driver Attentiveness” section of FSD.
Tesla said, “The cabin camera does not require full visibility of the driver’s eyes in order to monitor attentiveness. The system is still active, for example, if the driver is wearing sunglasses.”
“If the cabin camera does not have clear visibility of the driver’s hand and arm locations, Full Self-Driving periodically displays a message reminding the driver to apply slight force to the steering wheel,” Tesla continued.
It noted, “If the driver repeatedly ignore prompts to apply slight force to the steering wheel or to pay attention, Full Self-Driving displays a series of escalating warnings and, if those warnings are ignored, disables for the rest of the drive and displays the following message.”
What’s apparent from Tesla’s description of how FSD works suggests any scenario with Livelsberger shot in the head well before the bombing would be extraordinarily hard to trick the camera.
X users should call on Musk to release the cockpit camera footage and any other recordings from the high-tech EV truck to disprove O’Handley’s second scenario. Additionally, footage from charging stations could provide valuable insights into what happened leading up to the bombing. We’re sure the FBI is already doing this…
]]>(Natural News)—Elon Musk, the billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has once again stirred controversy with his candid remarks about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In a recent post on X, Musk referred to Zelensky as the “all-time champ” of securing financial aid, a comment that has sparked debate amid President Biden’s latest $2.47 billion military aid package to Ukraine. Musk’s critique highlights growing concerns about the transparency and accountability of U.S. aid to Ukraine, as well as the Biden administration’s relentless push to send billions of dollars overseas in its final days in office.
Musk’s assertion that Zelensky is unparalleled in convincing the U.S. to open its coffers is not without merit. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Biden administration has approved billions of dollars in aid to Kiev, including military, economic, and humanitarian assistance. Zelensky’s impassioned appeals to Western leaders, coupled with his skillful use of media and diplomacy, have made him a central figure in rallying international support. However, critics like Musk argue that this generosity has come at the expense of American taxpayers, with little oversight into how these funds are being used.
The latest aid package, announced on December 30, includes $1.25 billion in weapons drawn from U.S. stockpiles under the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) and an additional $1.22 billion through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). The PDA package focuses on immediate battlefield needs, providing Ukraine with air defense missiles, artillery ammunition, and anti-tank weapons. Meanwhile, the USAI funds will be used to procure advanced systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and air-to-ground munitions from defense contractors.
This brings the total U.S. military aid to Ukraine under the Biden administration to over $66 billion, a staggering figure that has drawn bipartisan criticism. Utah Senator Mike Lee has called the aid “money laundering,” echoing concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in how these funds are allocated.
Biden’s last-minute push for Ukraine
The timing of this latest aid package has raised eyebrows, coming just weeks before President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office. The Biden administration has been scrambling to allocate remaining funds before its authority expires, with the USAI account now completely emptied. This raises questions about the administration’s priorities, especially as the U.S. national debt surpasses $36 trillion and domestic issues like inflation and border security remain unresolved.
Critics argue that Biden’s unwavering support for Ukraine has come at the expense of American interests. While the administration claims that aiding Ukraine is essential to counter Russian aggression, skeptics like Musk contend that the conflict cannot be resolved militarily and that a negotiated settlement is the only viable path to peace. Musk has long advocated for greater oversight of U.S. aid to Ukraine, urging Kiev to provide a detailed accounting of how these resources are being used.
Biden’s lack of accountability
Musk’s comments underscore a broader debate about the role of the U.S. in the Ukraine conflict. While supporting a sovereign nation’s right to defend itself is commendable, the sheer scale of American assistance demands greater scrutiny. The Biden administration’s decision to send billions in aid during its final days in office, without a clear strategy for ending the conflict, has only fueled skepticism.
As the U.S. continues to pour resources into Ukraine, it is imperative to ensure that these funds are being used effectively and that American interests are not being sidelined. Musk’s critique serves as a reminder that while Zelensky may indeed be a master at securing aid, the U.S. must prioritize accountability and fiscal responsibility in its foreign policy decisions.
Sources for this article include:
]]>In fact, this is all extremely healthy in a way that groupthinking leftists could never understand.
The so-called ‘civil war’ within Trump’s MAGA movement over H-1B visas isn’t really a war at all. It’s a testament to the process of political ideological debate where differing opinions are not just aired but are essential in shaping policy.
At the heart of this discussion are two sides: one advocating for an expansion of the H-1B visa program, supported by figures like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, and the other opposing it, concerned about the impact on American workers.
Elon Musk, a key player in this debate, has notably suggested changes to the visa program. He advocates for a system where companies pay more to hire foreign workers, ensuring that only exceptional talent benefits from the visa, thus protecting American jobs.
Interestingly, Donald Trump, who once criticized H-1B visas, has now shown support for reform, a move influenced by his own positive experiences with the program. This shift has not been without backlash, as many in his base feel this might prioritize business interests over the welfare of American workers.
However, this isn’t a sign of division but rather of a healthy political ecosystem. The debate exemplifies how politics should function – by bringing diverse viewpoints to the table, leading to a consensus or at least a compromise that serves America. That compromise seems to already be forming with Musk recommending raising minimum salaries and adding a yearly cost for companies to maintain H-1B, making it more expensive for them to hire foreign workers than American citizens. This theft of jobs from Americans has been the main sticking point for people like conservative commentator Steve Bannon.
Some on the left might see this internal conflict as a chance to exploit divisions, but what we’re witnessing is the opposite. It’s a process where through debate and discussion, a more coherent policy stance can emerge.
This internal dialogue within the MAGA movement shows that politics isn’t about maintaining a monolithic stance but about engaging in the messy, necessary work of governance through debate and eventual agreement. This ‘civil war’ over H-1B visas represents politics at its best – dynamic, contentious, but ultimately constructive.
]]>
(DCNF)—CNN’s Scott Jennings broke down Republicans’ arguments on Friday after a feud broke out online over the use of H-1B visas.
Department of Government Efficiency co-heads Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy came under fire this week after a debate over H-1B visas erupted on X. On “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” Jennings was asked about the feud highlighting a division on policy within Trump’s base and whether it could harm the unity within the party so far.
“Look, there’s always been a push and pull on this in the Republican Party. I think there’s a way to work this out and solve it,” Jennings said. “I think what a lot of people would say is, Elon Musk was making this point, if you take the top 1% or the top 0.1% of the most talented engineering people from other countries, that’s perfectly fine. H-1B visas for that, they’re unique, they have unique talent, unique innovative skills, fine.”
“If you’re using the H-1B program to abuse it, to recruit interns, accountants, other people that easily could be recruited from the United States of America, all because you just want to do it cheaper, that’s not fine,” Jennings added.
Jennings went on to say how there could be a way to “retain” top visa performers, but he called out Ramaswamy for his take as it had “rightfully” angered supporters.
“So I think what a lot of people in the party want to do is eliminate the fraud in this H-1B program, retain the top engineering talent, and there’s a way to do this,” Jennings said. “What Ramaswamy did yesterday was not a great communications exercise, and it did anger a lot of people in the president’s coalition, and I think rightfully so.”
The debate over H-1B visas, one of the largest visa categories in the country, began with their use in the tech industry by users on X. According to the Department of Labor, the visas allow employers to hire skilled foreign workers and authorize “the temporary employment of qualified individuals who are not otherwise authorized to work in the U.S.”
While Musk simply commented “correct” in response to an X user’s claim that a slowdown in skilled immigration would ultimately hinder American innovation, Ramaswamy elaborated, saying how American culture uplifts “mediocrity over excellence.”
“Our American culture has venerated mediocrity over excellence for way too long (at least since the 90s and likely longer). That doesn’t start in college, it starts YOUNG. A culture that celebrates the prom queen over the math Olympiad champ, or the jock over the valedictorian, will not produce the best engineers,” Ramaswamy wrote.
Since Musk’s involvement in Trump’s campaign, Democrats have begun to ramp up their criticisms of Musk and his role in Trump’s second administration, with Democratic lawmakers like Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut referring to the billionaire as “President Musk” after he called out Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson’s original 1,574-page continuing resolution (CR).
(Featured Image Media Credit: Screenshot/CNN/”The Lead with Jake Tapper”)
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
]]>In a post on X, Musk stated, “The ‘fixed pie’ fallacy is at the heart of much wrong-headed economic thinking. There is essentially infinite potential for job and company creation. Think of all the things that didn’t exist 20 or 30 years ago!”
His comments were in response to entrepreneur Joe Lonsdale’s mention of Sriram Krishnan, who has been tapped by President-elect Trump for a role in the upcoming administration. Krishnan had previously advocated for lifting the cap on green cards to unlock skilled immigration, a policy that aligns with Musk’s vision for expanding economic opportunities.
Musk’s perspective challenges the traditional economic theories which often emphasize scarcity and competition for existing resources rather than the creation of new opportunities. His argument suggests that innovation and entrepreneurship can break the mold of traditional economic constraints, fostering an environment where new jobs and businesses can be created without being limited by current market conditions.
This viewpoint was further highlighted when Musk discussed the need for merit-based immigration policies. Krishnan himself has supported skills-based criteria for green card allocation, emphasizing that the best talent should be attracted to the U.S. regardless of their country of origin. Musk’s support for such policies aligns with his belief in an economy where growth is not zero-sum but can be expansive, driven by human ingenuity and innovation.
Musk’s comments also resonate with his involvement in multiple industries where he has not only created jobs but also significantly transformed sectors like automotive, aerospace, and now social media through his various ventures like Tesla, SpaceX, and X. His approach underscores a belief in an economy where new sectors can emerge, offering new employment opportunities.
By challenging the notion of a static economic pie, Musk advocates for a dynamic economic model where growth is perpetually possible through technological advancement and entrepreneurial ventures. This perspective has sparked discussions among economists, policymakers, and the public on how to view economic development and job creation in a rapidly changing global landscape.
Article generated from corporate media reports.
From the Editor: The Double Slipper Slopes
On the surface, this infinitely inclusive rhetoric sounds appealing. It removes limits to the potential for prosperity and who wouldn’t want that?
Well, actually, a lot of people wouldn’t want it for many reasons and greed isn’t one of them. This sounds very close to embracing the notion of Modern Monetary Theory in which money is uncapped and therefore even more worthless than the fiat monetary system we have in place today. And while Musk does not openly promote and would likely never overtly embrace the destructive theory, it’s an inescapable conclusion if policies were to enable his vision.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that Musk is trying to bring about the destruction of our economy through Modern Monetary Theory any more than I would suggest that he’s calling for open borders with his idea of allowing uncapped “skilled” immigration, but both are inevitable if his ideas were to manifest in large scale.
There’s about a 90% chance that these particular ideas are simply fanciful whimsy with no attempts at practical application. Then again, there’s a small chance that he’s setting us up for the fall by being a covert shill for the Globalist Elite Cabal.
]]>In 2018, several other experts on artificial intelligence and technology said that we are approaching that singularity point, however, they disagreed on the timing. Musk’s prediction aligns fairly closely with previously mentioned timelines.
Singularity is the point in time when humans can create an artificial intelligence machine that is smarter. Ray Kurzweil, Google’s chief of engineering, says that the singularity will happen in 2045. Louis Rosenberg claims that we are actually closer than that and that the day will be arriving sometime in 2030. MIT’s Patrick Winston would have you believe that it will likely be a little closer to Kurzweil’s prediction, though he puts the date at 2040, specifically. –SHTFPlan
Back in 2018, Jürgen Schmidhuber, who is the Co-Founder and Chief Scientist at AI company NNAISENSE, the Director of the Swiss AI lab IDSIA, and heralded by some as the “father of artificial intelligence” is confident that the singularity “is just 30 years away. If the trend doesn’t break, and there will be rather cheap computational devices that have as many connections as your brain but are much faster,” he said. “There is no doubt in my mind that AIs are going to become super smart,” Schmidhuber says.
Musk, who is the Tesla and SpaceX CEO, and owner of X, formerly Twitter, made the prediction shortly after his AI company, xAI, officially launched its first image generation model, Aurora, earlier this month, according to a report by RT.
Aurora, an updated version of the first image generation model that xAI introduced in October, allows users to create photorealistic visuals. Compared to other AI models, Aurora has fewer restrictions and can accurately generate images at almost any prompt, including depictions of famous personalities and copyrighted characters.
“It is increasingly likely that AI will superset the intelligence of any single human by the end of 2025 and maybe all humans by 2027/2028,” Musk wrote on Monday, in a post on his social media platform X. According to him, the probability that AI will exceed the intelligence of all humans combined by 2030 “is ~100%.”
The computer scientist cited a common fear that the AI machines currently being trained “would lead to systems that turn against humans.”
]]>