See All Articles

Inside Elon Musk’s Mind: AI Abundance, Geopolitical Power, and the Unraveling of Political Norms

In an extraordinary conversation at Tesla’s Giga factory, the world’s richest man laid out a future where AI makes money meaningless, work optional, and government budgets irrelevant—all while defending his growing influence over wars, domestic policy, and the politics of Europe.

Elon Musk does not do boring. Over the course of a wide-ranging interview in early 2026, he swung from the exhilaration of building a post-scarcity civilisation to the terror of a civilisation-ending AI, from the casual exercise of geopolitical power via Starlink to a raw defence of his incendiary interventions in British and European politics. Throughout, he projected a confidence that borders on prophecy, matched only by his conviction that his critics are simply wrong—and that history will vindicate him.

This was not a man in retreat. It was a man who believes the future is hurtling toward us faster than we can regulate or even comprehend, and that any attempt to slam on the brakes is both futile and unwise. Yet the same conversation revealed profound contradictions: a self-described centrist who champions parties widely condemned as far-right, a libertarian-inclined engineer who insists that governments will have to step in if AI models turn dangerous, and a man who claims not to care about being loathed while carefully cultivating an online following of a quarter of a billion people.

The Inevitable Singularity and the End of Money

Musk has never been shy about long-range predictions, but his timeline for artificial general intelligence has accelerated dramatically. “I expect artificial intelligence to be far greater than the sum of human intelligence in around five years,” he said. By 2036, he envisions an “age of amazing abundance” where “anyone can have anything they can think of.” The mechanism? Digital intelligence paired with physical end-effectors—humanoid robots. “You need lots of bots,” he said, and with them, “you can go from intelligence manifesting itself only digitally to shaping atoms.” In such a world, the economy would become “quasi-infinite.”

Then came the logical, almost casual, upending of capitalism itself: “I’ll make another prediction. Money won’t matter in 2036.” When pressed on how his companies—SpaceX, Tesla, xAI—will generate revenue when currency becomes irrelevant, he waved off the question. “What do you want money for? You want money for goods and services… If that is so abundant that the robots and AI are providing more goods and services than any human could possibly consume, what do you need money for in that case?”

It’s a seductive techno-utopian vision, but it raises immediate questions about power and control. Who owns the robots? Who directs the AI? Musk acknowledges that his own influence will be fleeting: “It would be an exercise in vanity for me to think that I would be controlling supergenius AI that is vastly smarter than me.” Instead, we must ensure the AI “has good values, that it cares about humanity.” And that, he argued, depends on building systems that are “maximally truth-seeking and curious.”

Yet he was untroubled by the possibility—likely, in his view—that humans will no longer be in charge. “If the difference in intelligence between AI and humans is vastly greater than the difference in intelligence between humans and chimpanzees, it’s hard to imagine that the chimpanzees would be in charge.” It was, he noted, with a wry smile, “not that long ago that we’re swinging through the trees, eating bananas in the jungle.”

From AI Safety Cassandra to Accelerationist Optimist

For years, Musk was among the loudest Cassandras of the AI age. He famously told Neil deGrasse Tyson that rapid recursive self-improvement in AIs terrified him, and later said on a podcast with Senator Ted Cruz that there was a 10–20% chance of killer robots wiping out humanity. In 2023, he signed an open letter calling for a pause on giant AI experiments. So what changed?

“I’ve come to my sort of philosophical conclusion to look on the bright side,” he said. “I can’t see any way to really stop this incredible momentum of AI and robots.” He now thinks that even if a stop button existed, we probably shouldn’t press it, because the most likely outcome is “incredible abundance for all.” The infamous probability of doom—P(doom)—hasn’t vanished: “I still think there’s risk associated with AI and robots. It’s not zero.” But fatalism has set in. “Let’s enjoy the ride,” he said.

That philosophical shift mirrors his own trajectory in the AI race. He helped found OpenAI as a counterweight to Google’s monopoly, only to watch it morph into a for-profit juggernaut closed to outside scrutiny. Anthropic then spun out of OpenAI because its founders didn’t trust Sam Altman. “It seems like my actions have really accelerated AI,” Musk admitted. “All roads lead to acceleration of AI. So then I’m like, okay, well, you can just sort of be sad about it or join the club.” He has emphatically joined.

When pressed on how to mitigate the risks, Musk offered a surprisingly pragmatic—and overdue—proposal: the handful of leading AI companies should hold informal weekly or bi-weekly calls, and give one another early access to new frontier models for a week or two to test for harmful effects. “Competitors have an incentive to keep each other honest,” he argued, comparing it to the Motion Picture Association’s ratings board. If a company ignored identified dangers, the other firms should alert the government—either the US or Chinese government, since those are the only entities with real power to act. He acknowledged that such coordination should include Chinese AI firms, which are “very good,” singling out the Kimi K3 model as “getting quite close” to the best Western models.

This was not a call for a global regulatory superstructure. It was a lean, industry-led mechanism that relies heavily on corporate self-interest. The question remains whether men who openly loathe one another—Musk versus Sam Altman, Dario Amodei’s public misgivings—can really trust each other enough to share early access to their most valuable secrets. “Set aside our personal differences for the good of the world,” Musk said, a sentiment as noble as it is uncharacteristic in the annals of Silicon Valley feuds.

The Gatekeeper of Geopolitics: Starlink, Ukraine, and the Power of One

No interview with Elon Musk can dodge the geopolitical elephant in the room. Through Starlink, his satellite internet constellation, Musk has wielded a power that no private citizen in history has possessed: the ability to shape the communications infrastructure of a war zone. Ukrainian officials have publicly thanked Starlink for being “instrumental” in their defence. Musk recently worked with Kyiv to create a whitelist of approved terminals in order to prevent Russian forces from using smuggled Starlink units in occupied territories—a move that also cut off some innocent civilian users.

Does it trouble him that a single individual can make such consequential decisions? Musk downplayed it, arguing that the borderlines in Ukraine have barely moved in two to three years and that the war has become a senseless grind. “I really think there needs to be some sort of peace agreement reached soon,” he said, insisting that Russia will not withdraw from occupied territories and that Ukraine cannot retake them. “What I think would be terrible is if there’s another three years of people dying senselessly at the front lines.”

He revealed that he had advocated for concessions to Russia years ago, a stance for which he has been branded pro-Kremlin—unfairly, he believes. “I’m not being pro-Russia, I’m just being pragmatic.” The comment exposed a thinker who sees geopolitics through a coldly utilitarian lens: minimise immediate suffering, accept territorial realities, and ignore the moral and legal dimensions of aggression. Yet even as he called for pragmatism, he offered no clear mechanism for getting there, only the implied suggestion that his own behind-the-scenes advocacy matters.

The deeper discomfort is structural: should any one person have a kill switch—however justified—over a nation’s wartime connectivity? Musk deflected. “Well, is there something you think I should do differently?” It was a question more than an answer, and it hung in the air unresolved.

Musk’s War on the Administrative State: Doge and the ‘Zero Deaths’ Claim

After Donald Trump’s re-election, Musk plunged into domestic politics with a vigour that surprised even his allies. Through his unofficial “Department of Government Efficiency” (Doge), he attempted to slash federal spending, targeting what he described as rampant waste and fraud. The effort, he conceded, was partly a failure: not nearly as much was cut as he intended. Yet he expressed no regret—only frustration that the incentives of portfolio managers and short-term quarterly pressures stymie long-term thinking.

When confronted with the most serious charge—that the abrupt cessation of USAID-funded programmes, especially health interventions in Africa, caused unnecessary deaths—Musk’s response was categorical. “Zero. I just don’t think that’s right.” He argued that wealthy private foundations like the Gates Foundation and MacKenzie Scott’s philanthropy could easily fill the gap, and that the “sad stories” that emerged afterwards were fabricated by beneficiaries trying to preserve fraudulent funding streams. “USAID funding was not stopped. It was moved to the State Department,” he said, insisting that claims of its health-related impact are “false. They’re nonsense. Absolute nonsense.”

It was an extraordinary denial, one that will be contested by aid agencies, journalists, and recipients on the ground. The interviewer, editor-in-chief of The Economist, pushed back firmly, noting that her own reporters had witnessed the consequences. Musk was unmoved, even invoking a kind of moral equivalence: if the Gates Foundation failed to step in, “they’re equally responsible.” The absolutism of “zero” deaths will be one of the most debated legacies of his Doge experiment.

Europe Through the Musk Lens: Civil War, Far-Right, and the “Normal” People

Perhaps the most combustible segment of the interview concerned Musk’s political interventions in Europe. He has enthusiastically endorsed parties and figures on the continent’s populist right—some with unmistakable neo-fascist roots—while painting a portrait of a Europe overrun by migrants, teetering on the brink of civilisational collapse. His key claims: that Britain is heading for an inevitable civil war, that European cities are unsafe, and that anyone opposing secure borders and sensible spending is part of a “lunatic left” or a dishonest media cabal.

“When you say civil war in Britain is inevitable, and then … you’ve posted Citizen Vigilante … which paints a dystopian picture of Europe and glorifies vigilante violence … do you think that is responsible?” he was asked. Musk refused to back down. “I don’t think it is. We should do a tour of the UK. And one of Brussels, too.” He insisted that he has “been there literally a hundred times” but hadn’t visited in a few years, and accused the interviewer of living “a cloistered existence.”

His meta-narrative is that the Western centre-left has drifted so far that yesterday’s centrists are now labelled far-right. “Go back 10 or 15 years, and these policies were completely normal,” he said, listing his three supposedly uncontroversial principles: secure borders, safe cities, sensible spending. “Which of those three are far-right fringe?”

The answer, of course, is that the principles alone are not the problem; it is the company they keep and the implications they carry. When Musk amplifies a film that glorifies the murder of a Muslim immigrant family or lends his quarter-billion-strong platform to the Alternative for Germany, a party with prominent Holocaust-minimising figures, the distinction between securing borders and enabling extremism collapses. He brushed off the criticism: “I think what you’re saying is total fiction.”

At the heart of the dispute lies a clashing of data sets and lived experiences. The interviewer pointed out that violent crime in the UK is falling, that London is safer than most American cities, and that the UK has, by many measures, integrated immigrants well. Musk replied with the confidence of a man who believes his gut instinct trumps statistical evidence. “My batting average is very good,” he said. “People don’t realise that what I’m saying will come to pass.”

In one revealing moment, he even fixed a timeline: the AI robotics singularity will arrive in less than 10 years; civil war in Britain, in his view, is about 20 years off. “Hopefully, these benign, all-powerful AIs will prevent such outcomes,” he added, half-joking. It was a remarkable concession that his own political prognostications might be rendered moot by the technology he is accelerating.

The Contradictions of a Tech Oligarch’s Politics

Throughout the conversation, Musk juggled identities that refuse to be reconciled. He is a self-proclaimed free-speech absolutist who has acquiesced to government requests to block Starlink terminals in specific war zones. He is a designer of the future who spends enormous energy fighting culture-war battles on X, often with a level of vitriol that undermines his own calls for pragmatic dialogue. He decries the deficit yet his Grand Old Party has done little to tame it. He claims classical liberal credentials while backing political movements that are hostile to press freedom and minority rights.

The interviewer pressed: “Why do you focus on this? … On the one hand, you described this extraordinary, transformative, civilisation-changing stuff that’s happening in the next 10 years. But you’re also an ongoing participant in the worst kind of tribalism cesspit of social media.” Musk’s response was to deflect onto the media itself. “Maybe some people do loathe me, … I don’t care. … The media collectively … you’re hated far more than I am, and you don’t seem to even realize that.”

It was a classic Musk pivot: when confronted with a contradiction, attack the questioner’s legitimacy. Yet his point about distrust in journalism is not baseless. Trust in media has indeed plummeted. But his solution—to inundate the public square with his own unfiltered pronouncements, to elevate the far right as the voice of “normal people,” and to dismiss valid criticism as merely the mewling of a despised elite—does not solve the trust problem. It widens the chasm.

The conversation ended on a note of strained collegiality. “Elon, … it’s always absolutely fascinating to talk to you. … You’re definitely not boring.” The compliment was sincere but double-edged. Not boring, yes, but also profoundly unsettling to anyone who values democratic accountability, institutional guardrails, and the careful use of immense power.

---

Facts

• Elon Musk estimates that artificial intelligence will surpass the sum of human intelligence within about five years and that within 10 years (by 2036) it will be “far greater.”
• He predicts that in a future of “quasi-infinite” goods and services provided by AI and humanoid robots, money will become irrelevant.
• Musk previously described a 10–20% chance of AI wiping out humanity but now says he has adopted a more optimistic, fatalistic outlook: “let’s enjoy the ride.”
• He co-founded OpenAI and was a signatory to the 2023 “pause” letter, yet acknowledges his actions ultimately accelerated AI development.
• Musk proposed that leading AI companies, including Chinese firms, should have informal weekly calls and grant competitors a one- to two-week testing window before frontier model releases.
• Through Starlink, Musk has directly shaped internet access in the Ukraine war, including working with the Ukrainian government to whitelist terminals to block Russian use.
• He believes no ceasefire in Ukraine is realistic without territorial concessions to Russia and claims he advocated such concessions years ago.
• Musk asserted that “zero” people died as a result of the abrupt funding freezes under the Doge programme, arguing private philanthropy could fill any gaps.
• He maintains that his political views are centrist—secure borders, safe cities, sensible spending—and that calling the parties he supports “far-right” is an “absurd” falsehood.
• Musk believes Britain is on a trajectory toward civil war within roughly 20 years unless immigration patterns change.
• He claims his predictive batting average is “very good” and that “very little of what I’ve said is inaccurate.”

Criticisms

• Musk’s claim that money will not matter in 2036 obscures who will control the robots and AI that render money obsolete. Without clear mechanisms for ownership and redistribution, the abundance he predicts could become an extreme concentration of wealth and power.
• By retreating from his once-forceful AI safety warnings into a posture of fatalistic optimism, Musk avoids grappling with his own responsibility as a leading actor in accelerating the very risks he identified.
• His proposal for industry self-regulation relies on goodwill among fierce competitors he personally disparages; a handful of CEOs with deep personal animus are unlikely to replace independent, expert-led oversight.
• Musk’s hands-on involvement in the Ukraine conflict via Starlink demonstrates a staggering concentration of unaccountable geopolitical power in a single individual. Being able to freeze or enable connectivity in a war zone without transparent, democratic oversight is inherently dangerous, no matter how well-intentioned.
• He advocates a pragmatic peace that rewards Russian aggression by accepting territorial gains, yet he provides no framework for ensuring such a peace would not simply invite further invasions elsewhere.
• The dogmatic insistence that “zero” people died from Doge cuts flies in the face of reporting from respectable news organisations, aid workers, and affected communities. It trivialises documented suffering and shifts blame to philanthropists who were given no warning or coordination.
• Musk’s characterisation of European immigration as an existential threat that makes civil war “inevitable” wildly exaggerates the data and ignores complex social realities. Violent crime in the UK is falling; integration is higher than in many American cities; and the far-right parties he amplifies often traffic in racism and authoritarianism, not merely border security.
• By continuously elevating and endorsing parties with neo-fascist tendencies while claiming merely to support “normal people,” Musk lends his immense legitimacy to movements that undermine the very liberal democratic values he claims to cherish.
• His dismissal of legitimate journalistic scrutiny as “fake” or “nonsense” — while simultaneously using his own platform to disseminate dystopian propaganda films — corrodes the public sphere and deepens polarisation.
• Musk’s admission that he “got a little too involved in politics” suggests a lack of awareness of the long-term institutional damage done by his short-term forays, as well as a willingness to treat governance as a personal experiment.