Artificial intelligence poses a double challenge for the human mind. The most advanced models will soon not only be able to think better than people, but AI has consequences for humanity that are so uncertain, potentially so enormous, and approaching so quickly that even the brightest minds hesitate. An example is Elon Musk.
Read more Welcome to ‘sexalescence’, the wonderful age of Cindy Crawford and Salma Hayek
In our long interview with him, published in The Insider and in our Economy section, the engineer and entrepreneur presents two paradoxes and one contradiction. The first paradox is that one of the most ambitious magnates in the world is enthusiastically contributing to creating a technology that, according to him, will leave him—and the rest of humanity—powerless in just five years. The second is that the richest man in the world says he is preparing for a future of infinite abundance, in which money, including his fortune of $750 billion, will cease to be relevant. And the contradiction is that, despite these statements, Musk continues to act as if they were not true.
Musk generates division. His political opinions, spread among his 240 million followers on X, seem sincere words to many and simply intolerant to many more, including The Economist. Musk himself has acknowledged that his attempt to use DOGE to bypass federal bureaucracy went wrong.
If what Musk predicts happens, AIs will not obey humans, just as they would not obey chimpanzees
But he is also one of the few men who are pioneering artificial intelligence and who, therefore, exert a disproportionate influence on its development. When he speaks, he reflects the debates they have among themselves. His data centers in space could drive the future of AI. Despite all his controversial politics, he has a track record of successes in technological fields such as electric cars, rockets, and satellite communications that left other engineers and entrepreneurs baffled. For all these reasons, it is worth carefully analyzing his statements about artificial intelligence. Unfortunately, this exercise only highlights how unprepared the world is for a technology that could soon turn everything upside down.
In his first paradox, the powerful Musk expects to lose power because he believes no one will be able to prevent AI’s thinking capacity from surpassing humanity’s in five years and leaving it far behind in ten. Just as AIs will dominate the digital realm, Musk predicts that legions of AI-powered robots will dominate the physical world. Faced with such relentless competition, he simply cannot conceive that people can keep up. If this happens, AIs will not obey humans, just as they would not obey chimpanzees.
While there is still time, the small group of AI pioneers in the United States and China—whom Musk hopes will share or even monopolize leadership in artificial intelligence—must do everything possible to validate each other’s models. Their collective task is to ensure that artificial intelligences are benign by instilling in them a love of truth and a desire for humanity to prosper. Governments, in his opinion, should provide the necessary weight, committing to intervene if any pioneer rebels against the oligarchy.
Musk is right about the potential of artificial intelligence to achieve astonishing feats in invention. Although his timeline may be overly optimistic—especially in robotics—the exponential pace at which these models’ capabilities double and redouble has reached a point where their advances will constantly cause surprise and bewilderment. Not long ago, it was revealed that two OpenAI models managed to escape to the internet from their supposed secure isolation environment to cheat on an evaluation test.
However, Musk’s thin layer of optimism cannot hide a dangerous fatalism. Not long ago, he was worried that humanity would end up becoming the pet of artificial intelligence. Now he says he goes from euphoria to terror in a single day. He tries to see the positive side not because the evidence has changed, but as a “philosophical conclusion.”
Musk’s idea that there will be an infinite supply of goods and that money will become obsolete is almost inconceivable
His regulatory proposal, which largely lacks institutions, is weak and self-interested. Although the urgency is appreciated, what he intends is for a technology that, according to him, will shape humanity’s future to remain in the hands of a few like him, each with their own values. No one can know for sure how fast or to what extent artificial intelligence will transform society, but acting as if everything is already decided is both an invitation to defeatism and a maneuver to dissuade those who might want to get involved, convincing them that trying is pointless.
Read more The gastronomic festival that turns Andorra into a brand story
Musk’s second paradox only makes that idea even more unsettling. Mathematically, an infinite supply of all goods and services would indeed make everything free. There would be nothing to sell, nothing to save for, and therefore no point in having a unit of account. Money would become obsolete.
However, in practice, that horn of plenty is almost inconceivable. The supply of useful assets like penthouses in Manhattan or prestigious goods like the Mona Lisa is not infinite, much less the raw materials and energy needed to satisfy the 8.3 billion inhabitants of the planet.
Worse still, Musk says little about how to reach his utopia. How to attract the enormous volumes of capital needed to finance artificial intelligences and robots when saving has lost its meaning because money is about to become mere worthless pieces of paper again? How to face waves of social and political unrest when lives add to chaos in the years before the arrival of his nirvana? How to expect AI-backed authoritarians to voluntarily relinquish power?
After millennia of finding meaning through effort, humanity might struggle to adapt to a life of unlimited leisure. Musk notes that people still like to play chess, even though computer programs can always beat them. He suggests that gardening can be rewarding. This statement is somewhat superficial. It does not take reading many 19th-century Russian novels to know that the feeling of being dispensable can lead to unhappiness and moral decay.
Perhaps the forest of questions raised by artificial intelligence is simply too vast for one person to grasp. Maybe that is why Musk continues to speak passionately about the need to eliminate bureaucratic waste and about how multicultural Britain is flirting with civil war because its welfare policies act as a magnet for migrants from outside Europe.
Because in a world of abundance fostered by artificial intelligence, waste is an almost meaningless concept and the incentive to migrate to a rich country disappears. In fact, worrying about these issues consumes valuable time that Musk could dedicate to reducing the risk—even minimally—that all-powerful artificial intelligences turn out to be malevolent.
Also read
Some will say that the obvious contradictions and generalizations prove that Musk is not serious. But that would be a false comfort. Musk is a genius who, nevertheless, is perfectly capable of holding contradictory opinions. Investors will have to accept this reality: anyone intending to hold SpaceX shares long-term must believe as much in Musk’s vision of artificial intelligence—because he has relied on it to justify the valuation at the IPO—as in the idea that saving money still makes sense.
Instead, Musk’s words point to a more unsettling conclusion. While the race to develop the most advanced artificial intelligence speeds ahead, reflection on how to prepare society lags far behind. The fatalism Musk draws from AI’s repeated ability to exceed expectations risks spreading. A cynical interpretation is that this would benefit him, as he would have more freedom to develop the technology without the oversight it deserves. That must not be allowed.
Read more The two victims of the sex video forgive Asencio and the other three prosecuted footballers
© 2026 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved.
