we've got to have a counterpoint here, because this seems like we could be -- this is -- this is no good. so, openai was actually started and it was meant to be open source. i named it openai after it should be renamed super closed source for maximum profit ai because this is what it actually is. i mean, fate loves irony. i mean, in fact, a friend of mine has this -- says the way to predict outcomes is the most ironic outcome. like octam's razor. the most ironic outcome is the most likely. that's what's happened with ai. it's gone from an open source foundation to suddenly it's like

a $19 billion for profit corporation with closed source. so i don't know how you go from here to there. but it seems like a -- i don't know how you get -- i don't know. is this legal? is this legal? >> so as you saw sam altman get ousted by someone you know who was a friend of yours. >> yes. >> you brought him there. your relationship with larry page effectively over you recruiting him. >> that's right. larry refused to be friends with me after i recruited elia. >> here's elia saying something is very wrong. >> i think we should be concerned about this because i think elia has a strong moral compass. he really sweats it over questions of what is night. and if elia felt strongly enough to want to, you know, fire sam, well, i think the world should know what was that reason. >> have you talked to him?

>> i reached out, but he doesn't want to talk to anyone. >> have you talked to other people behind the scenes as this was all happened? >> i talk to a lot of people. nobody -- i have not found anyone who knows why. have you? >> i think we are all still trying to find out. >> i mean, look, one of two things is -- either it was a serious thing and we should know what it is, or it was not a serious thing and then the board should resign. >> what do you think of sam altman? >> i have mixed feelings about sam. i do -- you know, the ring of power, you know, can corrupt. he's in the ring of power. so, you know, i don't know.

i think -- i want to know why elia felt so strongly to fire sam. this sounds like a serious thing. i don't think it was trivial. and i'm quite concerned that there is some, you know, dangerous element of ai. >> that they've discovered? >> yes. >> you think they discovered something? >> that would be my guess. >> where are you with your own ai efforts relative to where you think openai is, where you think google is? >> well, i mean, on the ai front i'm in somewhat of a quandary here because i think ai would be something that would change the world in a significant way since i was in college 30 years ago. but the reason i didn't go ai right from the get-go is i was uncertain about which -- which

edge of the double edged sword could be sharper. the good edge or the bad edge. so i held off on doing anything in ai. could have completed our company, kind of openai kind of is that because i was just uncertain if you make this magic genie what will happen. you know, whereas i think full and sustainable energy technology is much more of a single edged sword, that is single edged good. like multiplanetary, i think single edged good. you know, starlink mostly single edged good. giving people connectivity i think is very much a good thing. starlink was instrumental, by the way, in halting the russian advance. the ukrainians said so.

so, you know, i think there is -- with ai, you've got the magic genie problem. you may think you want a magic genie, but once a genie is out of the bottle, it is hard to say what happens. >> how far are we away from that genie being out of the bottle, do you think? >> well, the genie is certainly poking its head out. >> the agi, the artificial general intelligence, given what you now are working on yourself and you know how easy or hard it is to train, to create the inferences, to create the weights, i hope i'm not getting too far in the weeds of how this works, but those are the basics behind the software end of this. >> it's funny. all these weights are different numbers in a separated file.

found that funny. but that's kind of literally what it is. so i think it's coming pretty fast, you know. >> is that -- i mean, you have -- you have famously admitted to overstating how quickly things will happen, but how quickly do you think this will happen? >> they say smarter than the smartest human at anything? >> yep. >> it may not be quite smarter than all humans, machine or augmented humans because we could build machines and stuff. it's a higher bar. but it can write as good a novel as j.k. rowling or discover new technology, i'd say we're less than three years from that point. >> let me ask you a question about x ai and what you are

doing because there is an interesting thing that's different, i think, about what you have relative to some of the others. you have data. you have information. you have all of the stuff that everybody in here has put on the platform to sort through. and i don't know if everybody realized that initially. what is the value of that? >> yeah. i think it is very important. you could say data is probably more valuable than gold. >> but then maybe you have actually -- maybe you have more -- maybe you have the gold in x in a different way, in a way, again, that i don't know if the public appreciates what that means. >> yes. x is the -- might be the single best host of data. i mean, it is -- there are more,

you know, people, links to -- people click on more links than anything on earth. actually, there are more links to x than anything. there is public information. you can google it. so it is -- it is where you would find what is happening right now on earth at any given point in time. the whole openai drama played out, in fact, on the x platform. so it is one of the -- it's not -- you know, google certainly has a massive amount of data, so does microsoft. so it's not like -- but it is one of the best sources of data. >> can i ask you an interesting ip issue, which is something i can say as somebody who is in the krcreative business or journalistic business or care about copyright. one of the things on training on

this data is these things are not being trained on people's copyrighted information historically. that's been the concept. >> yeah, that's a huge lie. >> say it again. >> this ai is all trained on copyrighted data obviously. >> so you think it is a lie when open ai says that this is not -- none of these guys say they're training on copyrighted data. >> that's a lie. >> straight up? >> it's a straight up lie. 100%. obviously it's been trained on copyrighted data. >> which is all of the people who have been uploading -- >> all of the people who have been uploading articles, the best quotes from different articles, videos to x, all of that can be trained on. and it is interesting because people put all of that there, and those quotes have been historically been considered fair use. >> yeah. >> and individually on a fair use basis, you say, okay, that

makes sense. but now there are people who do threads. and by the way, there may be multiple people who have done an article that has a thousand words. technically all thousand words could have made it on to x somehow. and effectively now you have this remarkable repository. and i wonder what you -- how you think about that again and how you think the creative community and those who were the original ip owners should think about that. >> i don't know, except to say that by the time these lawsuits are decided, we'll have a digital guide. we'll have a digital guide at that point. these lawsuits won't be decided before in a time frame that is relevant. >> is that a good thing or a bad thing? >> i think we live -- you know, there is that -- i don't know if it is actually a real thing or not, but we live in interesting times because, apparently, not a

good thing. but personally, i would prefer to live in interesting times. and we live in the most interesting of times. i think -- and for a while i was really getting demotivated and losing sleep over sort of the threat of ai danger. and then i finally became fatalistic about it and said, well, even if i knew annihilation was certain, would i choose to be alive at that time or not? and i said i probably would choose to be alive at that time because it is the most interesting thing. even if there was nothing i could do about it. so then, basically, sort of a fatalistic resignation helped me sleep at night because i was having trouble sleeping at night because of the ai data. now, what to do about it? i mean, i have been the biggest or the one banging the drum the hardest, by far the longest, or

at least one of the longest, for ai danger and these regulatory things that are happening, the single biggest reason they're happening is because of me. >> we talked to the vice president this afternoon. she said she wants to regulate it. people have been trying to regulate social immediaty for years and have done nothing effectively. >> well, there is regulation around anything which is a danger to the public. so like cars are heavily regulated. communications are heavily regulated. rockets and aircraft are heavily regulated. the general thing about regulation is when something is a danger to the public that there needs to be some government oversight. so i think, in my view, ai is more dangerous than nuclear bombs, and we regulate nuclear bombs. you can't just make a nuclear bomb in your backyard. i think we should have some kind of regulation with ai.

now, this tends to cause the ai accelerations to get up in arms because they think ai is sort of heaven, basically. >> but you typically don't like regulation. you have pushed back on regulators for the most part in the world of tesla. so many instances where we read articles about you pushing back on the regulators. i'm so curious why in these instances now you own one of these businesses. >> as i said a moment ago, take what is viewed in media as being the whole picture. there are literally hundreds of -- like, not an exaggeration. there are probably a hundred million regulations that my companies comply with. and there are probably five that we don't. and if we disagree with some of those regulations, it is because we think the regulation that is meant to do good doesn't

actually do good. it is not defying regulations for the sake of defying regulations. >> but the fact there are laws and rules, whether the idea you are making a decision that the law and the rule shouldn't be the law and the rule. >> no, i'm saying you are fundamentally mistaken. it should be obvious that you are mistaken. my company is, one word is heavily regulated. we would not be able to put cars on the road if we did not comply with this regulation. you could fill up this stage with literally, you know, six foot high -- the regulations that you have to comply with to make a car. >> right. >> you could have a room full of phonebooks. that's how big the regulations are. and if you don't comply with all of those, you can't sell the car. if you don't comply with the regulations for rockets or starlink, they shut us down. so, in fact, i am incredibly compliant with regulations.

once in a while there will be something i disagree with. the reason i disagree with it is because i think the regulation in that particular case, in that rare case does not serve the public good. therefore, i think it is my obligation to object to a regulation that is meant to serve public good but doesn't. that's the only time i object. not because i seek to object. in fact, i'm incredibly rule following. >> let me ask you a separate question. social media related question. we have been talking about tiktok today ahead of the election. >> tiktok is -- >> what do you think of tiktok? do you think it is a national security threat? >> i don't use tiktok. >> say that again. you don't? >> i don't personally use it. but for people that -- for teenagers and people in their 20s, they seem almost reli religiously addicted to tiktok. some people will watch tiktok for like two hours a day.

i stopped using tiktok when i felt the ai programmed my mind, and it made me uncomfortable, so i stopped using it. and in terms of anti-semitic content, tiktok is rife with that. it has the most viral anti-semitic by far. >> do you think the chinese government is using it to manipulate the minds of americans? >> no. >> is that something you think we should worry about? different states are trying to ban it. >> i don't think this is some chinese government plot. but it is -- the tiktok algorithm is entirely ai powered, so it is really just trying to find the most viral thing possible. it's what is going to keep you glued to the screen, and that's

it. now, the -- on sheer numbers, there are on the order of two billion muslims in the world. and i think, you know, much smaller number of jewish people. 20 million, something. there is a magnitude fewer. so if you just look at content production just on a sheer numbers basis, it is going to be overwhelmingly anti-semitic just on numbers. >> let me ask you a political question. and i have been trying to square this one in my head for a long time. >> yeah. >> in the last two or three years, you have moved decidedly to the right, i think. >> have i? >> well, we can discuss this. i think you have been espousing and promoting a number of -- of republican candidates and others. you have been very frustrated with the biden administration over, i think, unions and

feeling like they did not respect whatyou have created. >> well, i mean, without any -- doing nothing to provoke the biden administration, they held an electric vehicle summit at the white house and specifically refused to let tesla attend within the first six months of the administration. we inquired. we were like, we literally make more electric cars than everyone else combined. why are we not allowed? why are now only letting ford, gm, chrysler and specifically disallowing us at the white house? we had done nothing to provoke them. biden went on to add insult to injury and publicly said that gm was leading the electric car revolution. this was in the same quarter that tesla made 300,000 electric cars and gm made 26. does that seem fair to you? >> but tell me this then. it doesn't seem fair. >> right. >> and i have asked repeatedly -- you have probably seen --

>> i had a great relationship with obama. so this is not a -- if it wasn't for obama, i'd sit in line for six hours to shake obama's hand. okay. >> let me ask on a personal lev. i could see it in your face. this hurt you personally. >> and it hurt the company, too. and it was the insult to -- you know, tesla has 140,000 employees. okay? half of them are in the united states. tesla created more manufacturing jobs than everyone else combined. >> so let me ask this, then. you have devoted at least the last close to 20 years of your life, if not more, to the climate, climate change, to trying to get tesla off the ground, in part to improve climate. you talked about that. >> yeah. a real right wing motivator. god, far right, if anything. >> i understand that. >> go ahead. it's reverse psychology next level. >> well, no.

so here's then the question, which is how do you square the support that you have given. i believe you were at a fundraiser for vija who says that climate -- climate issue is a hoax, right? >> i disagree with him on that. >> but i would think that would be such a singular issue for you -- i would think the climate issue would be such a singular issue for you that it would disqualify anybody who didn't take that issue seriously. >> well, i haven't endorsed anyone for president. i mean, i wanted to hear what he had to say because i think some of his things are -- the sort of things he says are pretty solid. you know, he's concerned about government overreach, about government controlled information. i mean, the degree to which old twitter was basically a soft puppet of the government. it was ridiculous. so it seems to me that there is

a very severe violation of the first amendment in terms of how much control the government had over old twitter. so, you know, there is a reason for the first amendment. the reason for the first amendment for freedom of speech is because everybody came from a place where there was not freedom of speech. and they're like, you know what, we got to make sure that that's constitutional because where they came from, if they said something, they would be put in prison or they would be, you know, something bad would happen to them. so -- and freedom of speech, you have to say when is it relevant? it's only relevant when someone you don't like can say something you don't like. or it has no meaning. and as soon as you sort of -- you know, throw in the towel and concede to censorship, it is

only a matter of time before someone censors you. that is why we have the first amendment. >> could you see yourself voting for president biden if it is a biden-trump election, for example? >> i think i would not vote for biden. >> you would vote for trump? >> i wouldn't say i would vote for trump. but, i mean, this is definitely a difficult choice here. >> would you vote for nikki haley? nikki haley wants all social media names to be exposed, as you know. >> no, i think that's outrageous. yeah, no. i'm not going to vote for some p p pro-censureship mandate. you have to think there is a lot of wisdom in these amendments of

the constitution. a lot of the things that we take for granted here in the united states that don't even exist in canada. there is not enough constitutional rights to freedom of speech in canada. so, you know, and there is no miranda rights in canada if you think you have the right to remain silent. you don't, actually, in canada. but, you know, so like if you just got -- the freedom of speech is incredibly important, even when people -- and like i say, it is actually especially important. in fact, it is only relevant when people you don't like can say things you don't like. >> and do you think right now -- >> otherwise they're meaningless. >> do you think the republican candidates or the democrats are more inclined -- i mean, this is where you go, i assume, to woke and anti-woke and the mind virus

issue that you talked about. which party do you think is more pro freedom of speech. given all the things you see. we also see desantis, you know, preventing people from reading certain things. maybe you think that's correct. >> i know. look, we actually are in an odd situation here where on balance the democrats appear to be more pro censureship than the republicans. it used to be left position was freedom of speech. you know, i believe at one point the aclu even defended the right of someone to claim they are a nazi or something like that. you know? so there really were -- like the left was freedom of speech is fundamental. and, i mean, my -- at least the perception, perhaps it isn't

accurate, is that the pro-censureship is more on the left than on the right. we certainly get more complaints from the left than the right. let me put it that way. but my aspiration for the x platform is that it is the best source of truth or the least inaccurate source of truth. and while, you know, i don't know if you believe me or not, but i think honesty is the best policy. and i think that the truth will win every time. you know, we've got this great system, and it is getting better called community notes, which is fan tatastic at correcting falsehoods or adding contacts. we make a point of not removing anything, but only adding context. now, that context could include this is completely false, and here's why. and no one is immune to this. i'm not immune to it. advertisers are not immune to

it. in fact, we've had community notes, which has caused us some loss of advertising -- speaking of losing advertising revenue. we have a community note if this false advertising, the community note will say this is false and here is why. and there is one specific example that is public knowledge, so i'll mention it which is at one point uber had this ad which said earn like a boss. and it was community noted if by boss you mean $12.47 an hour, this could cause at least a temporary suspension of advertising from uber. >> i want to ask you a question that might make everybody in the room comfortable or uncomfortable. "the new york times" company and new york times newspaper, it appears over the summer to be throttled. >> what did? >> "the new york times." >> well, we do require that -- that everyone has to buy a

subscription. we don't make exceptions for anyone. if i want "the new york times," i have to pay for a subscription. they don't give me a free subscription. so i'm not going to give them a free subscription. >> but were you throttling "the new york times" relative to other news organizations, relative to everybody else? was it specific to the times? >> they didn't buy a subscription. it only costs like $1,000 a month. so if they only do that, then they're back in the saddle. >> but you are saying that it was throttled? >> i'm saying -- >> was there a conversation you had with somebody can you're saying, look, i'm unhappy with the times. they should either be buying a subscription or i don't like their content or whatever. >> any organization that refuses to buy a subscription is not going to be recommended. >> but then what does that say about free speech? what does that say about

amplifying? >> it costs a little bit. >> but that's an interesting -- >> it is like in south park where they say freedom isn't free. it costs $1 or $5 or something. low cost freedom. >> i have a couple more questions for you. >> freedom ain't cheap. >> to launch. >> yeah. >> it's going to be a big launch. i wanted to ask you more broadly about the car business and what you see actually happening and specifically the government put in place lots of policies, as you know, to try to encourage more evs. one of the things that's happened uniquely is you have now a lot of car companies saying, actually, this is too ambitious for us. these plans are too ambitious. i don't know if you saw yesterday the letter to the white house saying this has gone

too far. you are going too far. >> ev? >> it was a, this is going too fast, too far and that there is not enough demand. underneath all of this is this idea that maybe there is not enough demand for evs, that the american public has not bought into -- they bought into it with your company, but they haven't brought into it broadly enough. >> if you make a compelling car, people will buy it. no question about it. electric car sales in china are gigantic. that's by far the biggest category. >> right. >> and i think that would be the case. you know, i mean, it is worth noting, okay, so probably the best reputation of that is that the tesla model y will be the best-selling car of any kind on earth this year. of any kind, gasoline or otherwise. >> is there another car company that you think is doing a good job with evs? >> i mean, i think the chinese car companies are extremely competitive.

by far our toughest competition is in china. so, i mean, there is a lot of people who -- out there that think the top chain car companies will be tesla followed by chinese car companies. china is super good at manufacturing and the work they do is incredible. so, you know, like if we consider different leagues of competitiveness at tesla, we consider the chinese to be the most competitive. by the way, we do very well in china because our china team is the best. >> how worried are you that the unionization effort that just took place -- i shouldn't say effort, but the new wages and the like at gm and ford are -- that they're coming for you. they are coming for you. what is that going to mean to you and your business? >> well, i mean, i think it is

generally not good to have an adversarial relationship between people in line -- one group at the company and another group. in fact, i -- i disagree with the idea of unions for the reason that it is different than people may expect, which is i just don't like anything which creates a lords and pe sants sort of thing. i think the unions try to create negativity in a company and try to create a lords and peasants situation. there are many people at tesla that have gone from working on the line to senior management. there is no lords and peasants. everyone eats at the same table. at gm, there is a special elevator only for senior executives. we have no such thing at tesla. you know, and the thing is i actually know the people on the line. i worked the line.

i staffed the factory, and i worked beside them. so i'm no stranger to them. and then, actually, there are many times where i said, can't we just hold a union vote? but apparently a company isn't allowed to hold a union vote. the unions can't do it. i said, let's just have them hold a vote and see what happens. the actual problem is the opposite. it is not that people are trapped at tesla building cars, but the challenge is how do we retain great people to do the hard work of building cars when they have like six other opportunities that they can do that are easier. that's the actual difficulty, is that moving cars is hard work, and there are much easier jobs. and i just want to say that i'm incredibly appreciative of those who build cars, and they know

it. so there is -- i don't know. maybe there will be -- if tesla gets it it is because we deserve it and we failed in some way. but we certainly try hard to ensure the prosperity of everyone. we give everyone stock options. we have made many people who are just working the line who didn't even what stocks were, we made them millionaires. >> we're going to run out of time. final couple quick questions. when do you have the time to tweet or to post? i actually think about it all the time. >> i tgo to the bathroom sometimes. >> i use it all the time. >> okay. >> meaning, if we were to open up our phones and look at the screen time, what does yours look like? >> well, about every three hours, i make a trip to the lavatory. >> and that's the only time you do this? seems like you are on there a

lot. >> no. i mean, there will be like brief moments between meetings. i mean, it's not -- obviously, i have like 17 jobs. you know, i think it's work at this point. >> but i'm thinking just in terms of your mind share. by the way, there is a lot of people who should be working who are on this app. >> technically twitter or x is work. it is work. so there is that. but, no, i mean, i think i'm on -- well, i guess usually probably i'm on for longer than i think i am. >> is that five hours a day, four hours a day? >> the screen time of number of hours per week, that's a scary number. it's probably, i don't know, it's a little over an hour a day or something like that.

>> just an hour a day? if we really looked at this together. do you have your phone with you? >> yeah. >> do you want to look? >> okay. >> okay, here we go. you ready? screen time. hit general. >> sometimes it is a scary number. >> i know. that's why i thought -- >> i just got a new phone, so i think this is not accurate because it's one minute. pretty sure it's more than that. okay. over the week, i look at. >> yeah, go to the week. >> oh, okay. it's still wrong. it's a little more than four minutes. i just got a new phone, so this is not accurate. >> new phone. >> i should ask, by the way, because i mentioned tim cook. do you feel like you will have

to have a battle with him eventually? is that the next fight, over the app store? >> oh, you mean like app store? >> no, no, no. the app store. do you want to make a phone. sam altman is thinking of making a phone. >> i don't think there is a real need to make a phone. i mean, if there is an essential need to make a phone, i will make a phone. but i have a lot of fish to fry. i mean, i do think there is a fundamental challenge that phone makers have at that point because you have got basically a flat rectangle. you know, how do you make that better? >> so you want to do that? what does that look like in elon's head? >> that's literally -- yeah, it's a good phrase. in the head. a neuro link. >> there you go. we need that before it's over. >> you know, the best interface would be a neural interface directly to your brain.

>> how far away from that are you and how excited or scared do you seem to be? we read headlines about monkeys who died, you know. what should we think about that? >> actually, the usda inspector who came by the facilities literally said in her entire career she has never seen a better animal care facility. we are the nicest to animals that you could possibly be, even to the rats and mice, even though they did the plague and everything. so it is -- it is like monkey paradise. so the thing is there were some total monkeys -- this is actually several years ago, where the monkeys were about to die. we were like, okay, we have an experimental device.

now, the monkey died. it didn't die because of the neural link. it died because it had terminal cancer or something like that. unless they're hiding something from me, it has never caused the death of a monkey. we have had monkeys with nuerlal link implants for two or three years, and they're doing great. we have even replaced the neural link twice. we're getting ready to do the first implants hopefully in a few months. the only implementations that are unequivocally good, i think it's a single edged sword because the first will be to enable people who have lost the brain-body connection to be able to operate a computer or phone faster than someone who has hands that work. so you can imagine if steven

hawking could communicate faster than someone who had full body functionality, how incredible that would be. well, that's what this device should do. we should have proof of that in a human, hopefully in a few months. it already works in monkeys. it works quite well with monkeys that can play video games just using -- just by thinking. so the next application after the sort of -- those dealing witquadrapalegis cs is in addition. they had no possibility of having some correction. that would be the next thing for it, a direct user interface. then you could be like jody la

forge from star trek. you could see in any frequency if you want. you could see in radar, if you want. >> two final questions and then we will end this conversation, which i think has taken everybody inside the mind of elon musk today. >> not as well as neural link would. >> i asked this question of pete buttigieg. it is something you retweeted, so i wanted to ask you the same question. there is a big question about autonomous vehicles and the safety of them. but there is also a question about when will it be politically palatable in this country for people to die in cars that are controlled by computers, which is to say we have 35,000, 40,000 deaths every year in this country. if you could bring that number

down to 10,000, 5,000, that might be a great thing. but do we think that the country will accept the idea that 5,000 people, that your family might have perished in a vehicle as a result not of a human making a mistake but of a computer? >> yes. well, first of all, humans are terrible drivers. so people text and drive. they drink and drive. they get into arguments. they, you know -- they do all sorts of things in cars that they should not do. so it's actually remarkable there are not more deaths than there are. what we'll find in computer driving is probably a reduction in the number of deaths. now, the u.s. has actually far fewer deaths per capita than the rest of the world. if you go worldwide, i think

there is something close to a million deaths per year due to automotive accidents. so i think computer driving will probably drop that by 90% or more. it won't be perfect, it will be ten times better. >> do you think the public will accept that? do you think the government will accept that? >> in large numbers, it will be so obviously true that it really cannot be denied. >> and what do you think? i know we talked about the time line before, and i know people have criticized you for putting out time lines that may not have come true just yet, but what do you think it is? and by the way, do you ever say to yourself, oh, i shouldn't have said that? >> sure, of course. wait, i shouldn't have said that. so, yeah, i -- i mean, i'm optimistic about -- i think i'm

naturally optimistic about time scales. if i wasn't naturally optimistic, i wouldn't be doing what i'm doing. i wouldn't set up an electrical car company if i didn't have a pathological optimism, naturally. as you pointed out, many people said it would fail. actually, i agh him and said, yes, it probably will fail. and they're like, okay. but i thought spacex and tesla had less than a 10% chance when we started them. so, yeah, anyway, the self-driving thing, it's -- i have been optimistic about it. we certainly made a lot of progress. if anybody has tried the very -- has been using the self-driving better, the progress every year has been substantial. it's really now at the point where in most places, it will take you from one place to another with no interventions. and the data is unequivocal

that -- that supervised full self-driving is somewhat around four times safer or maybe more than just human driving by themselves. so i can certainly see it coming. >> do you think it is another five or ten years? >> no, no, no. definitely not. definitely not. >> do you feel like investors have invested in something that hasn't happened yet? is that fair to them? that's the other question people have about that. >> well, i mean, i think that they're all, with rare exception, thought it wasn't happening. so they're investing despite thinking -- they're very clear that they don't think it's real. they're not saying, oh, just believe everything elon says hook, line and sinker. the thing is that it wouldn't be a fair criticism of me to say that i'm late, but i always deliver in the end.

>> let me ask you a final question. it was november 11th, and you took to twitter and you wrote only two words. you said amplify empathy. >> right. >> i was taken aback by that, given all the things that are going on in the world. do you remember what you were thinking? >> well, i think it's quite literally -- >> i understand it. but what was going on? why did you write that? >> well, i was -- i was encouraging people to apply empathy, literally. i tend to be quite literally. >> but was it something that happened that you had seen that you said to yourself, i want to say that? >> i think i was talking to some friends. everyone agreed that we should try to amplify empathy. and so i wrote down amplify emp empathy. >> if you wanted an unvarnished look inside the mind of elon musk, i think you just saw it. >> sometimes it's pretty simple,

you know. >> elon musk, thank you very, very much for the conversation. >> thank you. >> thank you very, very much. thank you. thank you so much. here. take that with you for a second. >> that was elon musk in a wide-ranging interview. we'll get full reaction on "last call" and tomorrow morning on squawk box. thanks for watching. "mad money" with jim cramer starts right now. my mission is simple. to make you money. i'm here to level the playing field for all investors. there's always a bull market somewhere, and i promise to help you find it. "mad money" starts now. hey, i'm cramer. welcome to "mad money." welcome to cramerica. other people want to make friends. i'm just trying to save you money. my job isn't just to entertain but to educate and teach you. call me at 1-800-743-cnbc. or tweet me @jim cramer.

maybe this market is going to the dogs in a good way. this morning, a company called rover, which calls themselves the world's largest online marketplace for pet care going to take over a bid for $2.3 billion, a 61% premium. huge move on a seemingly sedate day. nasdaq dipped 1.6%. so what does this matter? does it matter to the point where i'm leading off my show with it? because companies like rover have been rolling over and playing dead for two years now. this company became public through the end of this ridiculous spat phase. its highest of $3 in a few months after the fed cleared more from inflation. so many others have been bouncing around their lows, wiping out your portfolio. gradually improving its own profitability. while doubling its revenue growth. but like smaller cap digital plays that you may own, nobody

care. hey, we got apple. we got amazon. we got meta, tesla. who cares about rover? there is a simple answer. you know who cares? the people who made a fortune on rover today. and thanks to this takeover bid, they made a billing. buy it, online dog walking service. i'm not kidding. for too long there has been two markets here, right? there is the market that did nothing. and then there was that handful of tech stocks that generated all of the s&p 500 returns. small cap stocks were poison, a bone yard picked over and worth nothing to anyone. but with interest rates peaking a month ago and a growing sense that the federal reserve may be done tightening as inflation comes down, let's accept it. we have a whole new bull market. that's right. see, there is something that's exciting, worth being excited about down here. down here! i mean, come on.

who's cared for so long? i want to shout it from the rafters so you know about it. that's right. suddenly big companies want to snap up smaller companies. suddenly companies want to do something that brings their stock back up. suddenly people are watching the stocks like they're watching cheap stocks like rover. hey, we got active investors. we have started pushing companies. they did it to krcrown castle. now they're back and they're doing it to phillips 66. the stocks are going higher and they're not done. they're going higher still because both their companies are poorly managed versus their peers and because their dividend yields are suddenly enticing again because bond yields have come down. thank you, elliot. you can tell there is more enthusiasm for this market. swab has started to roar. remember that thing? once a liability, doing fine now. rates going down. swab is the destination of retail investors looking for the

nook and cranny stocks, the hidden gems, the ones that could have gigantic percentage gains like this one. these people are important to our show. welcome back. charlie munger, one of the greatest investors of our time. many of you who heard his wisdom, by the way, who has a terrific special tomorrow at 8:00 about this man. i'm sure you want to made the kind of money he made in individual stocks. this show in the cnbc nvtsing club are places to learn how to manage your own money, along with the investments that charlie liked who lacked the time and inclination to pitch stocks. that's not you. that's not you or you shouldn't be watching. you should feel good because this is a market where your homework matters. it doesn't need to hang on every word from elon musk, even though i did because our colleague brought him on in a rare and raw moment. you don't have to hang on every

moment or message from nvidia because you know i named my dog after nvidia. it is not hostage to iphone 15 sales either because we're far less reliant -- no, we're far less hostage to the magnificent 7. of course, bigger stocks have been ignored. gm announced a $10 billion buyback. why not? stock sales at four times earnings. that's arguably the cheapest stock. interest rates are going higher and loans getting more expensive. they wouldn't announce that buyback. but they don't. do you know what my favorite dead area is? my favorite area left for dead, train wreck, out the window, retail. ever since gap -- ever since gap reported an okay quarter so stocks dropped 50%, i have been blown away by how little it takes to move these retail stocks higher and how much money

you can make in them. the fact that old navy's 1% store sales could spur such a huge game is crazy. crazy good. hey, look what happened to footlocker. same store sales down a percent. but wall street was looking for down 10%. and the rest of the quarter was better than feared numbers. so the stock jumped 16%. i repeat 16%. oh, i like apple. own it, don't trade it. as i told members of the cnbc investing club, this is mary dillon's company now and dillon traded ulta beauty to rover. once it's right, the stock started roaring. i bet many bear analysts will have to upgrade tomorrow and go bullish in response to what happened today. i'm not saying that investors move on from magnificent seven. they had a pretty terrible

outing today. salesforce and snowflake reported some of the best quarters i have seen in ages. we will have them on tonight. i bet you will be blown away by their comments. travel trust followers know i think salesforce is incredible. but it smashed my expectations we have to crow about at tomorrow's morning club meeting. some stocks have gone too far. humana and cigna, i think this is a terrible idea. can these two manage care companies leave the room? she will fight this deal with everything she has, arguing that the consumer will be hurt. you will hurt by two health care insurance giants getting together. and you know what? she'll be right. i will be happy to have you on to shoot down what i hope is an ill-advised trial balloon. consider that an invitation.

somebody got disciplined, starting making money and caught a takeover bid from a high-quality buyer, ringing in a change, a monumental change to a group. when rates were higher, rover was the ridiculous and fanciful era like hundreds and hundreds of other stocks. but with rates going down, it is a takeover target. it has everything you need to know about this semiglorious stock market. >> caller: jim, i love your show. >> thank you. >> caller: i am over weight in bristol myers squib. i bought most of it because they were so good to my brother who has multiple myeloma for years. it has gone so far below my basis. should i hold for long-term or take losses to rebalance? >> first, kate, thank you for your considered words. but i have to tell you this. we don't care where stocks have

been. we care where they're going. in my take, bristol myers is going absolutely nowhere, unlike eli lilly, which i think can go much higher still. all right. when rates were higher, rover was the fanciful era with rates going lower. it is a beautiful takeover target. maybe this market is going the way of the dogs. and it is a good way. on "mad money" tonight, we have been big fans of crowd strike. i am learning more about the strength this quarter. and i'm getting a read of the state of the cloud. and back and bigger than ever in fashion in the wall street show. this was the quarter that i have been waiting for. you will not want to miss my post-earnings exclusive. so stay with cramer. don't miss a second of "mad money." follow @jimcramer.

or tweet cramer. send jim an e-mail or give us a call at 1-800-743-cnbc. miss something? head to mad money seeks cities of success. om dinosaur, colorad. start an easy to build, powerful website for free with a partner that always puts you first. start for free at godaddy.com - i got the cabin for three days. it's gonna be sweet! with a partner twhat? i'm 12 hours short.. - have a fun weekend. - ♪ unnecessary action hero! unnecessary. ♪ - was that necessary? - no. neither is a blown weekend. with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you can fix problems before they become problems. - hmm! get paycom and make the unnecessary, unnecessary. - see you down the line.

♪ look at the stock of crowd strike go. the cloud native cybersecurity firm reported a nag sif innocent quarter and its stock shot up. we live in a world where publicly traded companies need to disclose data breaches within four days. so it is no wonder crowd strike had record new and accelerating in recurring revenue, big piece of data there. record operating profitability. on top of that, management raised their forecast nicely. you don't bet on it because these guys never miss.

don't take it from me. let's take it from the co-founder, president and ceo of crowd strike. welcome back to "mad money". >> great to be here, jim. >> george, this was a quarter of tremendous records. i want to ask you in this quarter records, which is the one you think is most important for us to >> well, i think when you look at it it's a record. we oak celebrated to 13% year over year growth and that's with a macro headwind as weave talked about, as many have talked about over the last year so kudos to the team for executing really well and i think it really demonstrates the power of the single platform that we built at crowdstrike designed to help companies stop breaches and save time and money >> you spent a lot of time on your conference call. talk about consolidation. people no longer want different vendorses. they want one that they trust, and it seems like yours, according when i was reading about the mercedes amgs, they can install yours over a