I will assume with your post that you see AI as something that might endanger humanity.

You were talking about S-curves, but then you completely ignored them, in the last 200 years life expectancy was increasing at a very good pace, just like an S-curve, it started slow, then it got its vertical take off, and eventually it started to slow down. This doesn't mean that it is the end game though, every S-curve works on top of a much bigger S-Curve, so just because you see this S-curve ending, it doesn't mean a new one isn't starting. And I will argue that just as we have a S-curve ending with the cure of almost all diseases, reaching the limit of our biological bodies, we have indeed one that is starting, as AI starts to solve aging, be it with genetic engineering, artificial organs or other methods.

​

I don't see AI/Robots as the next stage of evolution, but a tool humans will use to enhance themselves and evolve into a new kind of lifeform. Evolution doesn't occur in phases like we imagine, it is very incremental, some specie suffers a mutation an then another mutation and another and eventually it starts to become distinct from its ancestors, but that takes a lot of time and it is impossible to pin point when exactly did it got distinct enough to become a new specie. The same way, we just won't wake up some day and all of a sudden we have an AI that will end humanity. It will be very fast (compared to normal evolution), but it will have a somewhat incremental trajectory. Right now we have tools like Stable Diffusion, ChatGPT, in the next few years these kind of tools will increase substantially, but the keyword here is "tools". For the foreseeable future, these tools will be in complete control of human beings. So even if you believe AI will one day gain sentience, by then we will have an arsenal of AI tools at our disposal, from text and image, to law, engineering and medical, humans will greatly evolve from those. BCIs is the next step from smartphones, it will further increase the speed of communication and access to information with the help of these tools. With this I would argue that humanity is already in the beginning phase of its transformation, the start of a new S-curve.

And I will argue that humans will not create something they will have no control off. New AIs will always be at one button away of being switched off. Here the Alignment Problem comes into play, it is important to develop these AIs in a safe environment and I'm sure as soon as humans with the help of AI tools, realize that AIs are starting to develop dangerous tendencies, security will become much tighter.

To end I believe there will be indeed a new kind of specie, but it won't be AI/Robots, but an evolution of humans. Now, not every human will want to embrace these changes, some might indeed want to keep being fully human, rejecting BCIs, genetic engineering or other forms of new advancements we might have, you can see examples of this in the Anti-Vax movement, recently there has been a lot of hate for AI generated content as well, so in the future humanity might go 2 separate ways, it will be interesting times ahead for sure.

When i hear that argument i just picture millions of taxi and truck drivers blocking the roads all around the world in protests against self driving technology. Just 5% of all jobs would already be a complete shit show.

I'm not saying "Twitter is secretly going AI", but as a business perspective it makes sense to keep your moves secret from competitors. Also you don't really get much from revealing your plans as a private owned company, it would make more sense if it were public, but as a private company the only reason you would be showing your plans would be in an attempt to recruit talent.
You see it in Neuralink and Open AI, I would love to know more about GPT4, but this is what we get.

Nah, I didn't have anything in mind really, the closest thing I got was to make some kind of Tiktok/Twitter hybrid. I heard that he wanted to make it like WeChat, but honestly I didn't really looked much into how WeChat worked and I always thought it was some kind of Facebook/WhatsApp, but looking into it a bit more, I am starting to understand what he wants to do. It is in fact something we don't have here in the west, but given that WeChat is China only and given that we have all kind of currencies here in the West it will be kinda hard to implement something like that globally, at least the financial part of WeChat. But ok, at least I am starting to understand where this is going.

I am not sure if I understand your question, Google gives me the definition below:
Innovate: "make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products."

If you are asking how it is that Musk will innovate Twitter, that is what I would like to know, will he just try to optimize management?, maybe with AI?, automating staff?, reducing costs? Is that enough to recover his money? I don't think so, in my view, he would need to make Twitter better as a product to consumers and I just don't really know how he can achieve that in order to recover 40 Billion dollars.

In a recent interview, when talking about Twitter, he said this:
"In terms of what it could be, I think there is an enormous amount of potential, that will be very difficult to achieve, but I think possible and I think ultimately it could be one of the most valuable companies in the world"

Innovation is this untapped potential he believes Twitter has, that can make the company one of the most valuable companies in the world, I'm just curious to what is his vision for Twitter.

Twitter is bleeding money atm and as been in the last 2 years, Twitter's best year was 2019 with 1,4 Billion annual net profit, even if he could maintain that, it would take around 30 years before he can make his money back. If he is not expecting to make Twitter into something truly revolutionary, I don't know what is he thinking.

Yeah, but for 40 Billion? Is it really that worth making a Twitter competitor for that much money? In my mind, given what he did with his other companies he will try to innovate social media, I just don't really understand how that can possibly be worth 1/5 of his net worth.

>Also why would he keep that secret?

He owns all of Twitter now, what would he get from telling the world his plans for Twitter? It is not like needs to appease shareholders.

So the question remains, what did he see on Twitter that is worth spending 40 Billion dollars?

I mean, he has done some very questionable choices in the past, like The Boring Company hyperloops, but even that at least has a reasonable motive behind it, if you really squeeze your eyes, it kinda makes sense. Twitter though? Idk what is he seeing on Twitter that can possible be worth 40 Billion.

Usually he has a long term vision for the things he invests on. The best reason I have seen so far is that he wants to make Twitter, a Tiktok, but for text.