Unlike many mastodons, I have never read anything Elon Musk has produced. I had a friend who was a fan of Joe Rogan podcasts, when Joe Rogan was less objectionably pigeon-holed and heard a little bit of that. Elon musk does own the bird place, and I am reading and appreciate their message passing stream deep learning research, though this has a back seat to my own personal-scale hopfield nets at the moment. Elon came to own the bird research. That's my excuse for not knowing if Lonny is more evil than I appreciate here. I hope he's not. But I think we can agree even his attempts to save face have lacked grace, mildly. As I am not a primary source here, I leave off criticising, but the good news for Elon Musk personally is that I've got solutions he can execute that are even on brand for him. Elon Musk is associated with the Paypal move of giving out $10 coupons to get people to sign up for accounts until Paypal was popular enough that ebay would acquire it (ugh, financial maneuvering). Right now we are listening to the swan song of large-data-purchase language model chatbots by Microsoft and copycats, based on the former public research of now-Microsoft OpenAI, owned by Peter Thiele, who is a slightly different person to Elon Musk. Despite my extremely positive community experiences with seasonal fruit picking, my final thesis is that low wage employment is in primacy a tool to keep massive numbers of people exhaustingly busy not doing anything threatening to the encumbent capital in our capitalist society. This is a hypothesis itself- but read on, these topics coincide and Elon Musk could be the one to change the world. Given that there's money in spades (ignoring that less than 1% of people has the money) and not enough work now and in general, there is a new and previously impossible strategy which Elon Musk has previously endorsed but not realised yet. One of Elon's ideas is supporting humans fusing with technology, rather than just buying a paid subscription to it as a web service. So we can do two important things that are out of vogue: (1) People have software, including code, on personal devices they carry, that is run wholly on devices they carry, with data they carry. (2) All people need a small fundamental income, such that they could choose to act of their own volition rather than do consuming corporate busy-work to pay off rent seekers and eat food. There's nothing normative here: Simply this new choice will be open, which it is not currently. Well, there's so much good news in technology with rampant single board computers that aren't locked into being dumbed-down smartphones and one day affordable repairable laptops that (1) has already happened for many of us, and if (2) is fulfilled, is more open to more of us. What Lonny can do is (2). Since governments are the glove part of the hand-in-glove of corporate greed, it seems unlikely governments will support freedom from rentseeking and hand-to-landord's-mouth wageslavery. Instead Elon Musk can pay people ("hire them" if you will) taking absolutely no obligations from the hire-ee (Elon Musk won't claim to own their thoughts, actions and future actions, despite paying them). But what's the return to own on this? Which brings us back to (1). Simply parking a chatbot fuelled by megacorporate data purchasing budgets and cheap electricity in the front of an Answer Website Business or other Web Searcher has been a giant business success. The nature of these desirable results is that, like a skilled StackOverflow sewer expert, this experienced spelunker can produce somewhat desirable expert results in fields they are not an expert in. Optimised non-linear access to its input knowledge is broadly what deep learning is and does. These expensive, secret-data-set trained chatbots accelerate users by this power. The way this power has been used is a techno-bio-phase-space swing and a miss, ironically by its prohibitively expensive nature, which Microsoft has announced is a dead end. Microsoft (and alike) have purchased and groomed the world's surveillance capitalism such that their chatbot can be spelunked to produce sometimes operable expert answers (albeit not great ones (think security coding examples) - but from a capitalist viewpoint they might be called good). By good, I mean people's productivity is at a much accelerated velocity than it otherwise would be except that everyone is signing up to one (okay, a few equivalent) helper chatbots. We have a population of high-velocity, accelerated users of the small number of different deep learning trained chatbots. I am about to argue that since everyone is being accelerated in the same, small number of dimensions, the world-changer is that increasing (2) feeds back to (1). Instead of corporate employees being accelerated in a small number of subscription helper chatbot dimensions, accelerate everyone in their own intrinsic dimension. A lower power acceleration by orders of magnitude, but the accelerations are in- different dimensions! I know you have been reading this (dear Elon) waiting for me to mention big O complexity. Let's say the small number of competing corporate helper bot dimensions is roughly 1 dimension, even if it's really 10, or 100. Given that we're travelling a small ("small") distance along just one dimension - I say small because improvement has run out, and different people broooadly get similar results - there is a polynomial approximation that is very accurate to the phase space volume gained by a corporation of employees' velocities having received acceleration in one direction. Anyway I'm hamfistedly trying to argue that the subscription-chatbot improvement goes as ~ O(n^k). However, adding dimensions increases complexity (good, in this case) ~ O(exp n). What this big O stuff means is that for high enough n, 1-dimensional corporate subscription helper bot land ~ O(n^k), k a big corporate constant, is always overtaken by everyone-accelerating-on-their-own-dimension ~ O(exp n). Achievable n is ~ 10000000000, which is pretty big. The volume of the phase space x vs dx, dx accelerated is titanic compared to x vs dx, dx just accelerated in one way for everyone (a small number of corporate dimensions). <- need to develop this theory but I've got a good feeling about it. The difference in volume of the population phase space in an accelerated individual-dimensional world rather than the volume of the population phase space in an accelerated just-a-few-corporate-dimensional world - well it grows as O ( exp n - m ^ k ), n is large and sm0l, m is corpo & currently big, k is largeish, n is how many people Lonny personally liberates from wageslavery, k is how much money Microsoft has vs the free world.* What does this titanic difference in volume mean? Well my side's going to win anyway as n new cyberians grows, I just wrote this phost to invite my hypothetical good-universe Elon Musk to the best laundromat. * n + m ?= 10000000000 ** So by the nature of exp(n) a tiny number of people acting freely - on the order of 25 - would overwhelm the Microsofts of this world. This is unobserved, so I think there's a coefficient relating to how much of one Microsoft each person is. Anyway, the auspices are good.