A Short History of Billionaires Picking Fights with the Human Body
Every tech era has its signature delusion: the moment when a very smart person with a very large bank account decides that biology is merely a suggestion.
Sergey Brin had Google Glass. Mark Zuckerberg had the VR helmet. Elon Musk has Mars.
Different gadgets, same mistake.
When Visionaries Forget Humans Have Necks, Eyes, and Social Norms
Google Glass failed not because the technology didn’t work, but because humans did. People didn’t like being stared at by walking surveillance cameras. Turns out, society has unspoken rules like “don’t film me while I’m eating a burrito.” Glass wearers learned this the hard way—usually through social exile or light public ridicule.
Then came Zuckerberg’s helmet: a plastic crown promising a virtual universe, delivered with the subtlety of a scuba mask at a dinner party. Wearing it felt less like entering the metaverse and more like volunteering for a mild hostage situation. Neck strain, eye fatigue, isolation—basic human anatomy raised its hand and said, “Excuse me, this is a terrible idea.”
Both products shared a fatal flaw: They assumed humans would adapt to machines, rather than machines adapting to humans.
Enter Mars.
Mars: The Ultimate Disrespect to Human Biology
If Google Glass annoyed society and VR helmets annoyed spines, Mars outright declares war on the human body.
Let’s review the Mars job description:
Gravity: ~38% of Earth’s (Your bones: “We’re out.”)
Atmosphere: Basically decorative
Radiation: Free, unlimited, and lethal
Commute: 6–9 months in a flying closet
Return policy: Unclear, possibly fictional
The human body evolved for Earth. We are not modular furniture. Our organs, muscles, vestibular systems, immune responses, and mental health are all calibrated to one very specific blue rock.
Mars asks us to live permanently in low gravity, inside sealed cans, eating processed food, with no trees, no oceans, and no room to stretch. That’s not pioneering. That’s extreme indoor living.
Claustrophobia for months. Isolation for years. Solar radiation gently rewriting your DNA like an overenthusiastic editor. Even Earth’s deepest oceans—dark, pressurized, terrifying—are more hospitable to human life than Mars.
At least underwater, gravity still works.
Mars isn’t a colony plan. It’s a stress test for how much discomfort humans will tolerate in the name of billionaire aesthetics.
Robots: Yes. Humans: Absolutely Not.
Mars makes sense—for robots.
Robots don’t need gravity. Robots don’t get lonely. Robots don’t care if the sunset looks like a dusty Instagram filter.
Send machines. Build factories. Mine rocks. Study geology. Do science. That’s sensible.
But selling Mars as humanity’s backup plan is like suggesting we all move into server racks because the rent is cheaper.
It’s not courage. It’s a misunderstanding of what keeps humans sane.
The Real Space Economy Is Boring—and That’s Why It Works
Now here’s the twist ending the hype merchants hate:
Space is enormously valuable—just not in the sci-fi cosplay way.
Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is where the real revolution lives.
Global broadband
Earth observation and climate monitoring
Precision agriculture
Disaster prediction
Navigation, logistics, and timing systems
Manufacturing in microgravity
Space-based solar power (eventually)
LEO doesn’t require humans to abandon gravity, sunlight, or psychology. It enhances life on Earth, instead of trying to escape it.
This is the difference between:
“Let’s fix the planet using space” and
“Let’s abandon the planet because it’s inconvenient.”
One is engineering. The other is escapism with rockets.
The Pattern Is Clear
Google Glass failed because it ignored social biology. VR helmets stumbled because they ignored physical biology. Mars colonization fantasies persist because they ignore all biology at once.
The future doesn’t belong to people who shout “humans will adapt.” It belongs to those who whisper, “humans matter.”
Build tools that fit faces. Build systems that respect bodies. Use space to improve Earth, not audition for exile.
Mars will still be there—cold, red, and unimpressed.
Just like the humans who took off the helmet, removed the Glass, and asked a very reasonable question:
Yes, it is all about ethics. But techies get to stop acting like they are the first people in history to be bringing up these questions. Theologians. Talk to the theologians.
1/ Every tech era has its signature delusion: a billionaire deciding human biology is optional. Sergey Brin had Google Glass. Mark Zuckerberg had the VR helmet. Elon Musk has Mars. Same mistake. Bigger rockets. ๐งต๐๐
3/ Then came Zuckerberg’s VR helmet. A device that promised a digital universe but delivered neck pain, eye strain, and the vibe of a polite hostage situation. Turns out humans like faces. And peripheral vision. ๐งต๐๐
6/ Mars isn’t pioneering. It’s extreme indoor living, with a 9-month commute and no return policy. Even Earth’s deep oceans are more hospitable to humans. Gravity still works there. ๐งต๐๐@Starlink@StarlinkStatus@Neuralink@NeuralinkAI@boringcompany
8/ The real space revolution is boring—and that’s why it works: Low Earth Orbit. Satellites, broadband, climate monitoring, navigation, manufacturing. Space improving life on Earth, not auditioning for exile. ๐งต๐๐ @LoopLV@xAI@xAIresearch@GrokAI@X@XEng@XPlatform
10/ The future doesn’t belong to “humans will adapt.” It belongs to “humans matter.” Build tech for bodies. Use space to fix Earth. And maybe… take the helmet off. ๐๐ง ๐งต๐๐@TeslaOwnersPDX @Tesla_Hub @AI_at_xAI @xAIupdates
The passage predicts a near-future cascade of technological abundance:
Within ten years, humanoid robots will automate the construction of countless solar farms and battery packs, driving energy costs down by roughly 90%.
Cheaper energy will make desalination dramatically more affordable, reducing the cost of fresh water by 90%.
With abundant, cheap water and robotic labor, food production will also fall in cost by about 90%.
The result: humanity’s basic needs—energy, water, and food—will be virtually free.
The new global challenge won’t be scarcity but surplus leisure: people having far too much free time.
The Abundance Paradox: Can Robots Really Make Everything 90% Cheaper?
The idea is seductive: humanoid robots building endless solar farms, cheap energy driving cheap water, and abundant water yielding cheap food. A utopian chain reaction that ends with humanity’s basic needs virtually free—and our biggest problem being too much leisure. But can this vision realistically unfold across the world in the next decade? Let’s look at it from multiple angles.
1. Technological Feasibility: Not So Fast
Yes, robotics and renewable energy are advancing rapidly. Tesla’s Optimus bots or Agility Robotics’ Digit hint at scalable humanoid automation. Solar and battery costs have already dropped over 80% since 2010. However, scaling from “cheaper” to “near-free” energy is a leap. Manufacturing, logistics, maintenance, and raw material constraints remain. The rare minerals for batteries, for example, are concentrated in politically unstable regions. Even if robots build solar farms, they can’t automate geopolitics.
Moreover, humanoid robots are still in prototype stages. They can assemble or carry parts in controlled environments, but self-deploying fleets building entire energy grids autonomously—within ten years—would require a quantum leap in both AI autonomy and materials science.
2. Energy Economics: The 90% Fallacy
Even with massive automation, energy prices are not purely technological—they’re political, infrastructural, and financial. Taxes, transmission costs, land use, and storage inefficiencies keep prices above zero. Solar power’s intermittency means batteries or grid upgrades are essential, and these still require rare materials and complex logistics. So while we might see another 50–70% drop, 90% globally within a decade seems improbable.
3. Geographic and Political Limits
A key flaw in techno-utopian thinking is assuming that innovation spreads evenly. The world’s poorest regions often lack the infrastructure, governance, and stability to absorb advanced technology quickly. Africa and South Asia might benefit later, but large-scale solar robotization requires grid integration, land rights, and capital—all political hurdles. Meanwhile, conflict zones or authoritarian states might use such tech for control rather than abundance.
Even within developed countries, inequality in access persists. Who owns the robots and solar fields? If private corporations do, cheap energy won’t necessarily translate into cheap consumer prices—it may simply increase profit margins.
4. Water and Food: Physical Realities
Desalination is indeed energy-intensive, and cheap power could make it viable for more regions. Yet, desalination also produces brine waste harmful to marine ecosystems. Food production depends not just on energy and water but soil health, biodiversity, and distribution systems. Robots might help grow food cheaply, but equitable access to that food is a social, not technological, problem.
Moreover, agriculture is deeply cultural and local. Automation can supplement, but not fully replace, small-scale farming in regions where labor is abundant and technology adoption is slow.
5. Social Implications: The Leisure Dilemma
Even if abundance arrives, who benefits? Automation without redistribution can widen inequality—leading to idle billionaires and unemployed masses, not universal leisure. The “too much free time” problem assumes everyone has access to the gains of automation. In reality, societies without strong welfare systems or universal basic income could face mass displacement and unrest.
Furthermore, purpose and identity are tied to work in most cultures. A sudden shift to a leisure society would demand a moral and psychological revolution—rethinking education, income, and meaning itself.
6. Environmental and Ethical Constraints
Infinite solar farms and robots sound green, but their material footprint isn’t trivial. Solar panels, batteries, and robot components require mining, refining, and disposal. Without circular manufacturing systems, abundance could simply shift the burden from fossil fuels to mineral exploitation.
Ethically, the rise of self-replicating robots and AI-managed infrastructure raises governance questions: Who programs the bots? Who decides where they build, and for whom? Unchecked automation could lead to digital feudalism rather than liberation.
7. A More Realistic Path
Rather than 90% cost drops across all sectors, we might see selective abundance: localized breakthroughs where conditions align—like solar-rich regions achieving near-free energy, or automated farms revolutionizing deserts. But for global transformation, it’ll take decades, not ten years.
The best outcome would blend technology with policy:
Governments ensuring equitable energy access.
Ethical AI frameworks for autonomous infrastructure.
Education systems preparing people for post-labor societies.
Conclusion: From Utopia to Transition
The vision of robot-built abundance is inspiring—and partially inevitable—but unevenly distributed. Energy, water, and food may become dramatically cheaper, yet social, political, and environmental realities will shape how that abundance is shared.
The true challenge won’t just be “too much free time.” It will be how humanity chooses to use its newfound freedom—to build deeper meaning, fairer societies, and a sustainable planet rather than replicating inequality at scale.
Physical Motion and AI Regulation: A Matter of Urgency, Not Futurism
You don’t need a license to ride a bicycle. It’s light, relatively slow, and poses minimal danger to others. But to drive a car? You need a license, insurance, and you must obey traffic laws. If you want to fly a plane, the barriers are even higher. And only a select few are cleared to operate spacecraft.
This layered model of physical motion—from bike to car to airplane to rocket—is a useful metaphor for artificial intelligence regulation.
AI today spans a similar spectrum. Some applications are light and low-risk, like using AI to organize your inbox or improve grammar. But as we move up the chain—autonomous vehicles, predictive policing, LLMs capable of influencing elections, or general-purpose models that can replicate, deceive, or act independently—the potential for harm increases dramatically.
We’re entering an era where AI mishaps or misuse could be as catastrophic as nuclear weapons. The threat is not theoretical. It's already here. We’ve seen how pre-ChatGPT social media platforms like Facebook facilitated massive political polarization, disinformation, and even violence. That was before AI could convincingly mimic a human. Now, AI can do more than just shape discourse—it can impersonate, manipulate, and potentially act autonomously.
The idea that we can "figure it out later" is a dangerous illusion. The pace of AI development is outstripping our institutional capacity to respond.
That’s why AI regulation must be tiered and robust, just like the licensing and oversight regimes for transportation. Open-source experimentation? Maybe like riding a bike—broadly permitted with minimal oversight. Mid-level applications with real-world consequences? More like cars—licensed, insured, and regulated. Foundation models and autonomous agents with capabilities akin to nation-state power or influence? These are the rockets. And we need to treat them with that level of seriousness.
But regulation can’t work in isolation. A single nation cannot set guardrails for a technology that crosses borders and evolves daily. Just as nuclear nonproliferation required global coordination, AI safety demands a global consensus. The U.S. and China—despite rivalry—must find common ground on AI safety standards, because failure to do so risks not only accidents but deliberate misuse that could spiral out of control. The United Nations, or a new AI-specific body, may be needed to monitor, enforce, and evolve these standards.
The leading AI companies of the world, along with the leading robotics firms, must not wait for governments to catch up. They should initiate a shared, transparent AI safety framework—one that includes open auditing, incident reporting, and collaborative model alignment. Competitive advantage must not come at the cost of existential risk.
AI is not a gadget. It is a force—one that, if unmanaged, could destabilize economies, democracies, and the human condition itself.
The urgency isn’t theoretical or decades away. The emergency is now. And we need the moral imagination, political will, and technical cooperation to meet it—before the speed of innovation outruns our collective capacity to steer.
1/ You don’t need a license to ride a bike. But to drive a car? You need a license, insurance, and must follow rules. To fly a plane? Much harder. A rocket? Only a rare few. Bikes, cars, planes, rockets. A perfect metaphor for AI regulation. ๐งต @CodeByPoonam@OpenAI
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) June 16, 2025
Physical Motion and AI Regulation: A Matter of Urgency, Not Futurism https://t.co/qlekqiim7f
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) June 16, 2025
Is Tesla Really a $25 Trillion Company Because of Optimus? A Deep Dive into Elon's Claim
Elon Musk recently claimed that Optimus, Tesla’s humanoid robot project, could push the company’s valuation to $25 trillion—more than half the current S&P 500's combined market cap. That’s not just bold; it's possibly the most ambitious valuation claim in corporate history.
But is it believable? Let’s dissect the claim from multiple angles: technological feasibility, market size, competition, timeline, and Tesla’s real odds of dominance.
1. What Elon Means: A Singular AI-Powered Labor Force
Elon’s argument hinges on a few premises:
General-purpose humanoid robots will replace or augment human labor across industries.
Tesla will mass-produce millions (or billions) of Optimus units, essentially turning labor into a software problem.
Optimus will use Tesla’s vertically integrated AI stack (same as FSD), batteries, hardware, and Dojo training.
The result? Tesla captures the lion’s share of the global labor economy, an economy worth tens of trillions of dollars annually.
If Optimus works and becomes dominant, Tesla becomes the biggest company on Earth—potentially bigger than Apple, Microsoft, and Saudi Aramco combined.
2. What Elon Might Be Missing: Market Realities & Competitive Forces
Even if humanoids become as ubiquitous as smartphones or PCs, assuming Tesla will produce all or even most of them is unrealistic. Here’s why:
a. The Rise of Competitors
Many companies—big and small—are already building their own humanoids or robotic solutions:
Boston Dynamics (Hyundai): Decades of experience and deep robotics IP.
Figure AI: VC darling with OpenAI partnership.
Agility Robotics: Backed by Amazon; targeting warehouse and logistics.
Sanctuary AI: Canada-based; focused on general-purpose labor.
1X Technologies (Norway): Backed by OpenAI, has humanoids in the field.
Apptronik: Partnered with NASA, already in advanced prototyping.
And then there’s China, which sees humanoids as a national strategic priority. Players like UBTech, Fourier Intelligence, and Xiaomi are moving fast.
Expect India, Japan, South Korea, Europe, and countless startups (including stealth-mode ones) to jump in.
This is like assuming IBM would own all of personal computing in the 1980s.
3. The Big Unknown: New Entrants and the Startup Tsunami
The humanoid robotics revolution is not just hardware. It’s AI, cloud, edge computing, energy, and systems integration. This creates a huge opportunity for new players:
Just as Apple disrupted IBM, new entrants with novel models—robots-as-a-service (RaaS), open-source humanoids, or local manufacturing—could eat Tesla’s lunch.
Think of what Android did to iPhone's early lead in global smartphone penetration.
A small startup today could become the future "AWS of robots," providing the intelligence layer.
4. Is the $25 Trillion Valuation Believable?
Let’s crunch the fantasy:
Global GDP is ~$110 trillion.
Labor accounts for ~60% of that: ~$66 trillion.
Even capturing 10% of global labor = $6.6 trillion in annual value.
If Tesla takes half that and gets a 5x revenue multiple, you’re at ~$16 trillion. Stretch that further with software margins, network effects, and platform monetization—and $25T becomes plausible, but not probable.
The real question is not whether the value exists—but whether Tesla will monopolize it.
5. Timelines Matter
Elon’s timeline is always... Elon time. For context:
In 2019, he said 1 million Robotaxis by 2020. Still waiting.
FSD is still not full autonomy.
Optimus demos are impressive but far from plug-and-play laborers.
Tesla may be first mover, but fast followers often dominate once the market is proven.
6. Platform vs. Product
Tesla’s strategy is classic vertical integration. But long-term, the market might favor platforms over closed ecosystems.
Just like:
Android beat iOS in volume.
Windows beat Mac in enterprise.
AWS beat all in cloud.
An open robotics OS, shared protocols, and customizable hardware might win global scale, not a walled Tesla garden.
Conclusion: A Billion Robots, But Not All Wearing the Tesla Logo
Elon Musk’s $25 trillion Tesla dream via Optimus is not impossible, but it is highly improbable—especially if it rests on near-total market domination. More likely, Tesla will be one of a handful of super-players in the humanoid robot race.
The real winners will be:
Those who nail scalability + cost efficiency.
Those who can integrate AI + hardware + labor services.
Those who create ecosystems, not just products.
Optimus might make Tesla a multi-trillion-dollar company. But the humanoid future will be a crowded playing field, not a one-company parade.
Tesla might be the IBM. But somewhere out there, a robotic Apple or Android is already being built.
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) May 17, 2025
Humanoids Are the iPhone of AGI: Why the Metaphor Makes Sense (and Where It Breaks Down)
When someone says “Humanoids are the iPhone of AGI,” they’re drawing a bold and provocative analogy—one that captures both the promise and the potential pitfalls of where artificial general intelligence (AGI) may be headed. Like all metaphors, it’s imperfect. But it’s also illuminating. Let’s break it down.
The iPhone Revolution: A Precedent
Before the iPhone, we had mobile phones. Some were smart-ish, with limited apps, clunky browsers, and clumsy interfaces. Then in 2007, Apple introduced a sleek, powerful device that redefined an entire category. The iPhone wasn’t just a phone—it was a platform, an ecosystem, and a cultural touchstone. It compressed dozens of tools into one object: camera, GPS, computer, music player, payment system, and more. And it gave birth to the app economy, changing how billions of people live, work, and connect.
Now consider humanoid robots.
The Humanoid Revolution: A Coming Shift
We already have narrow AI—GPTs, Codex, DALL·E, etc. These are powerful, but still task-specific. They can reason, generate, assist, and analyze—but only within certain bounds. AGI, by contrast, implies general intelligence: the ability to learn anything a human can, adapt to new environments, and reason across domains.
Humanoids may be the hardware form factor that unlocks AGI for the physical world, just as the iPhone unlocked the full potential of mobile computing. Like the iPhone, humanoids unify many capabilities:
Perception (sight, sound, touch)
Mobility and dexterity
Cognitive processing
Natural interaction with humans
General-purpose utility across industries
A humanoid can walk into a hospital, kitchen, warehouse, or battlefield—and adapt. That’s not unlike how you can take your iPhone from a boardroom to a ski slope, and it still performs.
Why the Metaphor Works
Platform for Developers
Just like the iPhone needed apps to reach its full potential, humanoids will rely on a robust ecosystem of software—AGI models, APIs, tools for learning and memory—to become truly useful.
Consumer Readiness
The iPhone was the first “smart” device that everyday people wanted, not just needed. If humanoids cross the uncanny valley and deliver real utility in a sleek, reliable form, they could be the first AGI product that consumers and businesses embrace at scale.
Ecosystem Effects
The iPhone didn’t just change phones—it changed industries: music, taxis, dating, gaming, banking. Humanoids, once integrated, could have similar disruptive effects across labor, caregiving, education, logistics, and more.
Symbol of Status and Capability
Early iPhones were luxury tech. Similarly, early humanoids may signal cutting-edge sophistication. Countries and companies that deploy them could be seen as AI-first leaders.
Where the Metaphor Breaks Down
Cost and Complexity
The iPhone, despite its innovation, is relatively simple compared to a humanoid robot. Manufacturing, maintenance, and mobility in the real world are exponentially harder. A dropped iPhone cracks its screen; a fallen humanoid could destroy thousands in servos and sensors.
Form Factor Universality
The smartphone was the ideal form for mobile computing. Humanoids are one possible form factor for AGI—useful in human environments, yes, but not necessarily optimal in all cases. Wheels, drones, or disembodied voice agents may outperform humanoids in many domains.
Latency of Adoption
iPhones scaled fast because the infrastructure was ready: the internet, app stores, developers. Humanoids may face regulatory hurdles, social resistance, and infrastructure mismatch. Human-shaped machines walking down the street are a bigger societal leap than touchscreen phones.
Emotional and Ethical Baggage
People didn’t project emotions or moral status onto their phones. With humanoids, especially intelligent ones, questions of consciousness, labor rights, and machine ethics will complicate adoption in a way the iPhone never had to contend with.
Final Thoughts
The metaphor “humanoids are the iPhone of AGI” is powerful because it evokes a future where intelligence isn’t locked in servers or screens—but walks, talks, and collaborates with us in the real world. It implies accessibility, elegance, and disruptive scale.
But unlike the iPhone, humanoids will need to overcome higher technical hurdles, deeper ethical debates, and greater public skepticism. If they succeed, they won’t just change the way we interact with technology—they’ll redefine what it means to be human in an AI-powered world.
The iPhone was a revolution in your pocket. The humanoid could be the revolution in your living room, classroom, hospital, or job site.
The question is not if they arrive—but when, how, and who controls them.
A glimmer of good news: “K2-18b may in fact harbor a tremendous supply of dimethyl sulfide in its atmosphere, thousands of times higher than the level found on Earth. This would suggest that its Hycean seas are brimming with life.” https://t.co/Zk6Et8t3Tr via @nytimes
Igniting the Real Robot Revolution Requires Closing the “Data Gap” | GTC 25 2025 | NVIDIA On-Demand https://t.co/0Q4rP3Axdo You don't need video. You just need to work in the physics. No?
Another brilliant post on robot manipulation from my PhD advisor Matt “Yoda” Mason @mastertoadster : an ode to mechanical compliance and grasping a chess piece. As the Red Queen said, “I could have done it in a much more complicated way”…. https://t.co/rDAQnKIcbW
Where the rubber hits the road: this elasticity error could give the administration cover to adjust their numbers. Using elasticity to justify elasticity. https://t.co/IkXFIXKSZy
Researchgate sent me a fake paper called "The AI Health Revolution: Personalizing Care through Intelligent Case-based Reasoning" which claims to be by me and Yann LeCun. More than one third of the citations are to Shefiu Yusuf which may mean nothing.
General @TinyDhillon Saab: I am a journalist, not a soldier. It is important to know the views of the Pakistan establishment, however deplorable those views be. My job is to listen and yes, expose Pakistani army state perfidy. And I do believe my Indian guest Vivek Katju did…
