Elon Musk | All-In Summit 2024

Elon Musk's journey as CEO of Twitter has been turbulent, impacting Tesla's stock and drawing multiple government investigations, yet his relentless drive continues to defy critics and push boundaries.

After buying Twitter for $44 billion, Elon Musk's time as CEO has been a whirlwind. Shares of Musk's other major company, Tesla, have plummeted more than 30% since he took over Twitter. As is often the case, his next move is unclear. Some even go as far as to say that he's demonstrating some erratic behavior.

Elon Musk's cooperation and relationships with other countries is worthy of being looked at. The Biden Administration has just announced its second investigation into Elon Musk in less than a week, focusing on both Tesla and SpaceX. Despite these challenges, there is a product roadmap that they are on, and whether Elon is in the building or not is not going to impact the plan that they have.

People said he'd never get the rocket into space—he did that. People said the Roadster would never get delivered—he did that. People said he'd never get a hundred of them done—he's got 200 done. As an entrepreneur, you can't listen to the noise and you certainly can't listen to losers who have never accomplished anything with their life and are obsessing about you.

Elon Musk is a visionary like I've never seen. How on Earth would you bet against him? Elon seems to be on track to be not only the world's richest man but the world's first trillionaire. Over the last 10 or 15 years, he has faced an incredible amount of challenges that he's overcome. He has probably had to deal with stuff that most of us would have broken under, and he just fought through it. The guy just basically bended all the haters until he crushed their souls, and I just think that that's incredible.

In the world of entrepreneurship, Elon Musk is considered the greatest entrepreneur of this generation. Nearly every VC I speak with and every CEO is looking to Elon's behavior and saying that's a model for how you can challenge your team to achieve the impossible in an impossibly difficult environment. You can see those grid fins on your left-hand screen rotating and turning to guide the booster, and there's that landing. What an incredible achievement.

Elon Musk has been at war for freedom of speech for two years now. The price of freedom of speech is not cheap; it's like $44 billion, give or take a billion. There is a weird movement to quell free speech around the world, and this is something we should be very concerned about. The First Amendment was a high priority because people came from countries where if you spoke freely, you would be imprisoned or killed. They were like, "Well, we would like to not have that here," because that was terrible.

Actually, there are a lot of places in the world right now where if you're critical of the government, you get imprisoned or killed. We'd like to not have that. Are you concerned? I suspect this is a receptive audience to that message. We always thought that the West was the exception to that. We knew there were authoritarian places around the world, but we thought that in the West, we'd have freedom of speech. However, we've seen what seems like a global movement against it. In Britain, you've got teenagers being put in prison for memes opposing the government.

=> 00:05:44

Speaking freely shouldn't land you in prison or worse.

In many countries, if you speak freely, you risk imprisonment or even death. This is a reality in many parts of the world where being critical of the government can lead to severe consequences. People in these regions would like to avoid such oppressive conditions. There is a concern that this kind of repression might spread, even to the West, which has traditionally been seen as an exception. In Britain, for instance, teenagers have been imprisoned for memes and for merely liking Facebook posts. People have faced actual prison sentences for obscure comments on social media.

In France, there have been similar instances, and in Brazil, the situation is particularly concerning. In Brazil, there is a judge nicknamed "Voldemort" who seems to have a significant impact. The issue in Brazil is that companies like Excorp feel they are being asked to do things that violate Brazilian law. As an American company, Excorp cannot impose American laws and values on other countries. However, if a country's laws are a certain way and the company is asked to break them and remain silent, this is problematic.

Elon Musk has been portrayed as a demanding billionaire who imposes outrageous demands on other countries. However, the concern is more about ensuring that actions taken by the company can be justified and are honorable. Excorp is in discussions with Brazilian judicial authorities to clarify the situation. If the company is being asked to break Brazilian law, this should not sit well with the Brazilian judiciary. If there is a misunderstanding, they seek to understand it.

There is also a personal concern for Elon Musk's safety. Friends worry that he might be arrested in one of these countries, which is a very real threat. There have been articles calling for Musk to be imprisoned for allowing people to express themselves on his platform. The logic behind this is unclear, but it seems to stem from a fear of public dialogue undermining false premises being pushed on the world.

=> 00:10:20

If they fear open dialogue, it's because they know the truth can dismantle their false narratives.

The Guardian is calling for my imprisonment, but I question what exactly they are protecting. Are they the guardian of authoritarianism or censorship? The premise here is that I bought an online forum, a communication platform, and I'm allowing people to use it to express themselves, and therefore, I should be jailed. I don't understand the logic here.

What do you think they are actually afraid of at this point? What's the motivation here? If someone is pushing a false premise on the world and that premise can be undermined with public dialogue, they will oppose public dialogue because they want that false premise to prevail. If they don't like the truth, they want to suppress it. What we're trying to do with X Corp—distinguishing it from my son, who is also called X—is to adhere to the laws in each country. If something is illegal in the United States, Europe, Brazil, or wherever, we will take it down or suspend the account. We are not there to make the laws, but if speech is not illegal, then what are we doing? Injecting ourselves as a censor leads to a bad place. If people in a country want the laws to be different, they should change the laws. Otherwise, we will obey the law in each jurisdiction.

We are not trying to flout the law; we are trying to adhere to it. If the laws change, we will change. If the laws don't change, we won't. It's very straightforward. If someone thinks we are not adhering to the law, they can file a lawsuit. In some European countries, promoting Nazi propaganda is illegal. If someone posts that, we take it down. Sometimes, it's obviously illegal, and we don't need a lawsuit to see that. If someone is stealing, we don't need to check the law to know it's illegal.

We had JD Vance here this morning, and he did a great job. There's an image on X of me, Bobby, Trump, and JD as the Avengers, and another meme where I'm in front of a desk labeled Department of Governmental Efficiency. I made that using the Grock image generator and posted it. How do you achieve efficiency? With great difficulty. It's been a long time since there was a serious effort to reduce the size of government and remove absurd regulations. The last serious effort was by Reagan in the early 80s. If we don't reduce regulations and the size of government, we end up with laws accumulating every year until everything is illegal. This is why we can't get major infrastructure projects done in the United States, like the absurd California high-speed rail project, which has spent $7 billion and has a 1,600-foot segment that doesn't actually have rail.

=> 00:14:41

Overregulation is stifling progress and wasting taxpayer money—time to cut the red tape!

Since there was a serious effort to reduce the size of government and remove absurd regulations, the last time there was a really concerted effort on that front was during Reagan's administration in the early 80s. We are now 40 years away from a serious effort to remove regulations that don't serve the greater good and reduce the size of government. If we don't do that, regulations and laws will accumulate every year until eventually everything becomes illegal. This is why we can't get major infrastructure projects done in the United States. For instance, the absurdity of the California high-speed rail project is evident. They have spent $7 billion and have a 1,600-foot segment that doesn't actually have rail in it. Your tax dollars at work—what are we doing? That's an expensive 1,600 feet of concrete.

I realize sometimes I'm perhaps a little optimistic with schedules, but I wouldn't be doing the things I'm doing if I wasn't an optimist. At the current trend, California High-Speed Rail might finish sometime next century, maybe probably not. By that time, we'll have teleportation or AI doing everything. The United States and many countries, arguably worse in the EU, are like Gulliver tied down by a million little strings. Any one given regulation is not that bad, but you've got a million of them, and eventually, you just can't get anything done. This is a massive tax on the consumer and the people, although they don't realize it because it comes in the form of irrational regulations.

A recent example of this insanity is when SpaceX was fined by the EPA $140,000 for allegedly dumping portable water on the ground—drinking water. This occurred at Starbase, which is in a tropical thunderstorm region where water falls from the sky all the time. There was no actual harm done; it was just water used to cool the launch pad during liftoff. The EPA agreed there was zero harm done but still fined us because we didn't have a permit. We didn't know a permit was needed for fresh water being on the ground in a place where fresh water falls from the sky all the time, next to the ocean. Sometimes it rains so much the roads are flooded. How does this make any sense?

The EPA then refused to process any more of our applications for Starship launches unless we paid the $140,000 fine. They essentially ransomed us, so we paid it. This kind of regulation is no good; at this rate, we're never going to get to Mars. We are acting against our own self-interest. We need to make trade-offs, like a little bit of noise for massive progress or even fun. When did we stop being able to make those trade-offs?

The difference between California and Texas is stark. In Texas, we were able to build the Gigafactory quickly. From the time we got the plot of land to the opening party, it seemed like less than two years. From construction to completion, it was 14 months. China was even faster at 11 months. In contrast, California's regulatory environment would make such rapid progress impossible. To give you a sense of scale, the Gigafactory in China is three times the size of the Pentagon, which was the biggest building in America.

=> 00:18:51

Speed and efficiency in building can revolutionize progress, but bureaucracy often holds us back.

In the discussion, the conversation begins with the notion of making trade-offs for massive progress or even fun, questioning when society stopped being able to make those trade-offs. The comparison between California and Texas is highlighted, particularly in the context of building the Gigafactory. In Texas, the construction from start to completion took only 14 months, whereas in China, it was even faster at 11 months. In contrast, the regulatory approvals alone in California would have taken two years.

The conversation then shifts to the topic of regulation. The speaker suggests that sensible regulation and reduction in the size of government should be approached by being very public about it. The public should have a say in which rules to keep, and if a rule turns out to be bad, it can simply be reinstated. The issue is that there is no process for getting rid of outdated or unnecessary rules, described as a lack of garbage collection for rules.

The discussion moves to the speaker's experience at Twitter, where they implemented zero-based budgeting and quickly got costs under control. Despite predictions that the site would fail, 50 more features were added. The media was almost rooting for Twitter's failure, with journalists leaving and saying their goodbyes, expecting the site to melt down.

The conversation then touches on the idea of applying similar principles to government departments, such as the Department of Education. The speaker suggests that even a small reduction of 2-3% per year in these organizations could have a significant impact. They mention the potential for a once-in-a-lifetime deregulation and reduction in the size of government if certain political conditions are met.

Finally, the discussion addresses the financial state of the United States, noting that the country is going bankrupt quickly. The defense department budget is a trillion dollars a year, and interest payments on the national debt have just exceeded this amount. The conversation ends with a warning about the growing national debt, which future generations will have to pay.

=> 00:22:57

America is going bankrupt fast, and our debt is skyrocketing with no end in sight.

America is also going bankrupt extremely quickly, and nobody seems to be addressing this issue. Everyone seems to be ignoring the problem, but they are all metaphorically grabbing the silverware before the ship sinks. The defense department budget is a very big budget, totaling a trillion dollars a year. Interest payments on the national debt have just exceeded the defense department budget, reaching over a trillion dollars a year and rising. We are adding a trillion dollars to our debt every three months, and soon it will be every two months, then every month. Eventually, the only thing we will be able to pay is the interest. This situation is akin to a person who has racked up too much credit card debt, and it does not have a good ending. We have to reduce spending.

One counterargument from many politicians is that if we reduce spending too quickly, it will lead to significant contraction, job loss, and recession. Currently, if you add up federal, state, and local government spending, it is between 40 and 50% of GDP. Nearly half of our economy is supported by government spending, and nearly half of people in the United States are dependent directly or indirectly on government checks, either through contractors that the government pays or because they are employed by a government entity. The challenge is how quickly we can reduce spending without causing significant economic contraction and job loss.

Elon Musk argues that it is a false dichotomy to suggest that no government spending will happen. The real question is whether the spending is at the right level. He highlights that any given person, if they are working in a less efficient organization versus a more efficient one, will have a reduced net output of goods and services. He provides clear examples of this with East Germany and West Germany, and North Korea and South Korea. In North Korea, people are starving, while South Korea is thriving with a much higher standard of living. Similarly, in East Germany, the only car available was a Trabant, which was extremely unsafe and had a 20-year waitlist. In contrast, West Germany had BMW, Porsche, Audi, and Mercedes, illustrating a vastly higher standard of living.

These examples show that the same people under different systems can have vastly different outcomes. West Germany, which had a mix of government and private enterprise, had a significantly higher standard of living compared to East Germany, which had 100% government control. This demonstrates that a system with a balanced level of government involvement can lead to a much higher quality of life.

=> 00:27:15

The best system is the one where people are trying to get in, not out.

The discussion begins with an interesting example comparing East and West Germany. The speaker highlights that despite West Germany being quite socialist, it was still significantly better off than East Germany, which was 100% government-controlled. This resulted in a 5 to 10 times higher standard of living in West Germany. The speaker emphasizes that the better system is the one that doesn't need to build a wall to keep people in, as was the case with East Berlin, where people were trying to flee to the West. This is a clear indicator of which system is superior.

The conversation then shifts to the topic of government spending and job creation. The speaker suggests that if government spending were cut in half, jobs would be created quickly enough to compensate for the reduction. They propose a reasonable off-ramp where affected individuals would have a year or two to find jobs in the private sector, which they believe they will find. This transition would place them in a different operating system, much like how East Germany's living standards rose dramatically after being incorporated into West Germany.

When asked about the potential for reducing the size of the government, the speaker humorously expresses concern about personal safety, referencing the phrase "go postal." They suggest that a gradual reduction of government employees over four years would be more palatable. The speaker believes that eliminating unnecessary regulations and shifting people from the government sector to the private sector would lead to immense prosperity and a golden age for the country.

The discussion then moves to the topic of space exploration. The speaker mentions an exciting launch that may happen tonight, the Polaris Dawn Mission, which is a private mission funded by Jared Isaacman. This mission will include the first commercial spacewalk and will reach the highest altitude since Apollo, marking the furthest distance from Earth that anyone has gone. The speaker expresses hope for the mission's success, emphasizing the importance of astronaut safety.

=> 00:31:25

Tonight might mark the first private commercial spacewalk, reaching the highest altitude since Apollo.

Tonight, weather permitting, I plan to leave here and head to Cape Canaveral for the PL Store Mission, a private mission funded by Derek Isman. Derek is an awesome guy, and this mission will mark the first private commercial spacewalk. It will also be at the highest altitude since Apollo, making it the furthest from Earth that anyone has gone. Assuming the mission is successful, which I certainly hope it will be—no pressure—the next milestone will be the next flight of Starship.

Starship is ready to fly, but we are waiting for regulatory approval. It really shouldn't be possible to build a giant rocket faster than the paperwork can move from one desk to another. Have you ever seen the movie Zootopia? There's a sloth in it for the approval process, and it feels like that sometimes. Funny enough, I went to the DMV about a year after Zootopia came out to renew my license, and the guy there had the sloth from Zootopia in his cubicle. He was actually quite swift, which was a nice surprise.

People often think the government is more competent than it is. I'm not saying there aren't competent people in the government; they are just operating within an inefficient system. Once moved to a more efficient system, their output can be dramatically greater, as seen when East Germany was reintegrated with West Germany. The same people became vastly more prosperous under a half-capitalist system. For many, their most direct experience with the government is the DMV, and it's important to remember that the government is essentially the DMV at scale.

Returning to the topic of Starship, we recently announced that Starship will go to Mars in two years, with a crewed mission in four years. Based on our current progress, we have been able to successfully reach orbit twice and achieve soft landings of the booster and the ship in water, despite the ship having half its fins cooked off. You can see the video on the X platform; it's quite exciting. We believe we will be able to launch reliably, repeatedly, and quickly.

The fundamental breakthrough needed for life to become multiplanetary is a rapidly reusable, reliable rocket. With Starship, success is one of the possible outcomes with full reusability. For any given project, you have to determine if success is within the set of possible outcomes. With Starship, full reusability is not only possible but is being proven with each launch. I am confident it will succeed; it's simply a matter of time.

=> 00:36:11

Starship is proving that full reusability in rockets is not just a dream but an achievable reality, inspiring us to look forward to a future among the stars.

With Starship, success is one of the possible outcomes with full reusability. For any given project, you have to consider if success is within the set of possible outcomes. This concept, while seemingly obvious, is often overlooked in many projects. Starship not only has full reusability within its set of possible outcomes, but it is also being proven with each launch. I am confident it will succeed; it's simply a matter of time. If we can improve the speed of regulation, we could move a lot faster, which would be very helpful.

Reducing regulation and speeding up approvals—without compromising safety—could allow us to become a spacefaring civilization and a multi-planet species. This would enable us to be out there among the stars in the future. It's incredibly important to have things that inspire us and make us look forward to the future. For example, kids should be excited about the possibility of becoming astronauts on Mars or even going beyond the solar system. We could make Star Trek's Starfleet Academy a reality. Such an inspiring future is essential because life can't just be about solving one miserable problem after another; there must be things to look forward to as well.

When asked if moving to a different jurisdiction could help us move faster, it's important to note that rocket technology is considered advanced weapons technology. This means we can't just go and do it in another country. If we don't advance, other countries might, even though they are currently far behind us. There is a national security justification here; we don't want this technology stolen by other countries, especially those with less red tape. Interestingly, no one is trying to steal it because it's considered too crazy.

Regarding Boeing and their Starliner, they were able to get it up but not complete it. Boeing does a lot of business with the government, which affects their efficiency. They are almost like an extension of the government due to their heavy reliance on government revenue. In contrast, most of SpaceX's revenue is commercial. Boeing's previous leadership, particularly the COO with a degree in accounting who never visited the factory, lacked the necessary understanding of how airplanes and spacecraft work. If you are in charge of a company that makes airplanes fly and spacecraft go to orbit, you need to understand the technology, not just the business aspects.

In summary, Starship's full reusability and potential for success, the need for regulatory improvements, and the importance of inspiring future generations are crucial for advancing space exploration. Additionally, the comparison between SpaceX's commercial focus and Boeing's government dependency highlights different approaches to achieving these goals.

=> 00:40:34

If you're leading a tech company, you need to understand the tech—it's basic.

Up until recently, the company had a CEO who never visited the factory and had a degree in accounting. This individual did not understand how airplanes flew, which is problematic for a company that makes airplanes and spacecraft. If you are in charge of such a company, you need to know how they work; it can't be a total mystery. For example, if someone is running Coca-Cola or Pepsi and is great at marketing, that's fine because it's not a technology-dependent business. Similarly, if someone is running a financial consulting firm and has a degree in accounting, that makes sense. However, if you're the Cavalry Captain, you should know how to ride a horse. It's disconcerting if the Cavalry Captain falls off the horse or gets on backwards.

Shifting gears to AI, Peter mentioned earlier that so far, the only company to really make money off AI is NVIDIA with their chips. The question arises: where will the big applications of AI be? Will it enable self-driving, robots, or transform industries? It is still early to determine the big business impact. The spending on AI currently runs ahead of the revenue, but the rate of improvement of AI is faster than any technology seen before. For example, the Turing test used to be a significant benchmark, but now even a basic open-source LLM running on a Raspberry Pi could beat it.

The good future of AI is one of immense prosperity, leading to an age of abundance with no shortage of goods and services. Everyone can have whatever they want, except for things we artificially define to be scarce, like special artwork. With AI plus robotics, the cost of goods and services will trend towards zero, making them accessible to everyone. This optimistic future is probably 80% likely, leaving a 20% probability of negative outcomes.

The 20% probability of negative outcomes includes potential challenges in finding meaning in a world where AI can do everything better than humans. This could lead to a crisis of meaning, although many retired individuals seem to enjoy their lives. The bigger challenge might be how to find meaning when computers can outperform humans in every task. To achieve the positive future, we need autonomous cars and general-purpose humanoid robots. Once we have these, there will be no actual limit to the size of the economy, which is the average productivity per person times the number of people. With humanoid robots operating intelligently, the economy could grow indefinitely, constrained only by the mass of Earth.

=> 00:45:18

The future economy has no limits with humanoid robots and autonomous vehicles.

To achieve a limitless economy, several key factors are necessary. Autonomous cars and general-purpose humanoid robots are essential components. Once these technologies are in place, the potential for economic growth becomes boundless. The economy, fundamentally, is the average productivity per person multiplied by the number of people. With humanoid robots, which can operate intelligently and without a real limit on their number, there is no meaningful cap to economic expansion. The only conceivable limit would be the physical mass of Earth itself.

Recently, a significant milestone was reached with the activation of Colossus, the largest private compute cluster of GPUs, making it the most powerful supercomputer of any kind. This development underscores the economic value generated by AI, which has predominantly benefited Nvidia. However, alternatives are emerging, such as Tesla's Dojo, which is specifically designed for handling large images and video. The Tesla problem differs from the general LLM problem due to the nature of the intelligence required. Tesla's AI must manage a vast amount of context, with gigabytes of data from multiple high-definition cameras, necessitating compression of this data into relevant pixels over time and space.

Tesla's AI inference computer, designed in-house, is superior to any commercially available alternatives. This system, operating on a few hundred watts, showcases Tesla's exceptional design capabilities. The Tesla AI chip design team has even developed a custom transport control layer over Ethernet, highlighting their innovative approach.

Looking forward, Tesla's Dojo system, currently in its first iteration, is expected to evolve significantly. Dojo 2 is anticipated to be available in volume towards the end of next year, potentially comparable to existing high-end training systems. There is potential for Dojo to be offered as a service, although its true capabilities might not be fully realized until the third iteration, likely around 2026. This iterative process is typical, as it usually takes three major versions for a technology to achieve excellence.

=> 00:49:47

Humanoid robots will outnumber humans, becoming indispensable companions and workers in the next decade.

Dojo one and Dojo 2 are significant milestones in our technological advancements. Dojo 2 is expected to be in volume towards the end of next year and will be comparable to a B200 type training system. There is potential for Dojo to be used as a service. While there is improved confidence in Dojo, the true measure of its effectiveness will likely be seen in version three. Typically, it takes three major iterations for a technology to become excellent, and we will only have the second major iteration next year. The third iteration might come around late 2026.

Regarding the Optimus project, it is currently undergoing light testing inside the factory and is proving to be useful. When considering the build of materials and scaling production to the level of the Model 3, the cost of Optimus could range between $20,000 to $40,000. However, anything made in sufficient volume will asymptotically approach the cost of its materials. Some costs are constrained by intellectual property and patent royalties, but the actual marginal cost of the chips is very low. Optimus, being a humanoid robot, is much smaller and lighter than a car, so in high volume, the labor and materials cost could be around $10,000.

Achieving this will require at least three major production versions of Optimus and scaling production to a million units per year. This is a decade-long journey, but at scale volume with three major iterations, the cost could be less than a small car, around $20,000. People are likely to become very attached to their humanoid robots, similar to how characters like R2D2 and C3PO from Star Wars are beloved.

Major iterations of Optimus are expected to take less than two years each, so reaching a million units per year could take around five to six years. At that price point, almost everyone on Earth could afford one. In 30 years, the number of robots on the planet could vastly exceed the number of humans, as everyone would want a robot buddy. These robots could perform various tasks such as walking the dog, mowing the lawn, watching the kids, and even teaching them. Additionally, robots could be sent to Mars to help colonize the planet, making it a robot planet with numerous rovers and helicopters already there.

The opportunity presented by useful humanoid robots is the single biggest opportunity ever. The ratio of humanoid robots to humans could be at least 2 to 1, possibly 3 to 1, as everyone will want one, and there will be many robots performing various tasks.

=> 00:54:12

Humanoid robots will outnumber humans because everyone will want one, and they'll be essential in making goods and services.

Humanoid robots have a vast range of potential applications. They could mow the lawn, watch your kids, or even teach them. Moreover, these robots could be sent to Mars to aid in its colonization. Mars is already a robot planet, populated by various robots like rovers and helicopters. The useful humanoid robot opportunity is arguably the single biggest opportunity ever. Considering the potential ratio of humanoid robots to humans, it could be at least 2 to 1, possibly 3 to 1, as everyone will want one. Additionally, many robots will work behind the scenes, creating goods and services.

Humans are essentially generalized robots made of meat, and designing Optimus has provided insights into why humans are shaped the way they are. For instance, humans have five fingers, with the little finger being smaller than the index finger, and opposable thumbs. The major muscles that operate the hand are located in the forearm, and the fingers are primarily operated by tendons. The current version of the Optimus hand has actuators in the hand with only 11 degrees of freedom, limiting its capabilities compared to a human hand, which has roughly 25 degrees of freedom.

The Next Generation Optimus hand has actuators moved to the forearm, similar to a human hand, and operates the fingers through cables. This version has 22 degrees of freedom, which is sufficient to perform almost any task a human can do. There is also potential for collaboration between X and Tesla to provide services, possibly integrating Grock to give the robot a personality and the ability to process voice, video, and images.

Reflecting on a lighter note, there was a memorable week when I participated in Saturday Night Live (SNL), which was both chaotic and hilarious. Initially, the experience was nerve-wracking as nothing seemed funny on the first day. However, the funniest skits were often the ones that didn't make it to air. One of the lingering questions about SNL is whether it is truly live or if there is a delay for potential issues like wardrobe malfunctions. There was a humorous attempt to test this theory, which added to the overall comedic experience of that week.

=> 00:58:37

We pitched a wild idea to prove if SNL is really live by having Elon pull out a baby rooster on air, but it got shut down.

We have here a discussion about a pitch for a sketch on Saturday Night Live. The conversation begins with a question about which idea they regret most not getting on air. The idea in question was described as a little spicy and funny. The main question everyone has been wondering is whether Saturday Night Live is actually live or if there is a delay in case of a wardrobe malfunction or something similar. They devised a way to test this by not informing the producers and throwing the script on the ground to find out if the show is truly live.

The pitch involved a bold and humorous test where the speaker would take out his [__] to prove the show’s live nature. The idea was to pitch this on Zoom, with Jason and Mike, who are considered quite funny. Jason is likened to Cartman from South Park, while Mike is also noted for his humor. They approached the pitch with enthusiasm, not realizing that actors are usually just told what to do. The pitch was met with silence, leading to confusion about whether their microphones were on. Mike eventually broke the silence by saying "crickets," indicating the lack of laughter.

The pitch continued with Elon explaining the punchline, involving a baby rooster as a comedic prop. Kate McKennon was to come out and comment on the size of the [], leading to a humorous exchange about stroking the []. The idea was deemed inappropriate for Mother's Day, considering the audience. Despite the pitch not making it on air, they did manage to get Doge mentioned on the show. Elon often went off-script, adding his own lines.

Another idea involved a Doge sketch inspired by The Godfather. Elon wanted to be the Doge Father, complete with a tuxedo and dramatic music. However, legal and liability issues prevented this from happening. Elon joked about buying NBC to get the sketch approved, leading to confusion and humor among the cast.

The conversation concludes with a reflection on the fun and joy experienced during that week, despite the challenges in Elon’s life. They express a desire to see Elon back on SNL for more moments of laughter and enjoyment. The discussion ends with applause and laughter, celebrating the shared experiences and the potential for future appearances.