When you see these types of responses, do you interpret them as:

1. Supreme conviction in their mission?

2. A defensive reaction to valid pressure?

3. Something else (comment below)?

We will have achieved ASI when human intelligence is no longer a constraint on any scientific or economic activity, marking a level of superiority over humans in all sectors, even if just barely.

Then there's ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence), which is even harder to define. It represents AI systems that supersede all humans in all domains. One definition that resonates with me is:

Soon we will have AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). It can be defined as AI with human-level general intelligence, capable of understanding, learning, and applying its talents across diverse tasks just like a human can.

The question is, how long can narrative defy fundamentals for $TSLA? Sooner or later all companies tend to eventually demand reality. Is a correction inevitable once this hype cycle finally breaks? What do you think - Where does $TSLA go from here?

This dynamic has to paralyze the Tesla board. Admit Musk is damaging the brand/operations? Or stay silent & risk long-term decay to avoid crashing the stock short-term if he's removed?

So what's the real value supporting this 'Musk Premium'? Is $TSLA's valuation dangerously over-reliant on just one man's image? Strip that away, and what fundamental support is left for the current stock price?

Seeing a clear split now: $TSLA investors are betting on a future AI powerhouse vs. actual car buyers potentially turned off by Musk's constant controversial actions. Can the company actually thrive if its core market sours?

Yet $TSLA stock jumped after that disastrous Q1 report? The market basically ignored awful fundamentals, buying pure hopium on Musk's pivot & renewed robotaxi promises. Seems completely detached from reality, frankly.

Let's be real: Musk's political role via DOGE clearly hurt the Tesla brand. Q1 results confirmed the damage with both collapsing sales & profits. Cause and effect seems pretty clear here, ignoring it is willful blindness.

Though I don't agree with everything Vance said, I urge you all to think for yourselves, stay open, but remain critical. While Europe’s strict regulations may significantly slow us down in the AI race and GDP growth, I value living in a place where personal data is truly respected.

Is the U.S. chip production push for tech dominance worth potentially shifting the strategic landscape in Asia? This subtle recalibration could have unforeseen consequences for global stability in a region already marked by complex political relationships.

Believing this myth ignores the fundamental economic incentives driving the widescale AI adoption. Businesses invest in AI precisely to increase efficiency and reduce costs, and in many sectors, this directly translates to replacing human labor with cheaper, more scalable AI systems.

The claim that AI will create more jobs than it replaces is a comforting myth, and clinging to it is a dangerous form of wishful thinking that prevents us from proactively addressing the very real challenges that this technological advancement will bring.

While smart policies are crucial for ensuring a smooth transition into this new era of tech, it only works if AI is regulated all over the globe, not just in some countries, as they will just fall behind. But expecting and trusting everyone to jump on the regulation train is damn near impossible.

While the speech champions U.S. AI leadership and deregulation, I’m troubled by its dismissal of regulation. AI is the single greatest double-edged sword. It holds the key to our most pressing issues yet also poses the most serious existential threat.