This is exactly right. Source code is on the verge of becoming like assembly.
The next step is getting rid of “source code” entirely and just making an efficient binary directly with AI.
The next step is getting rid of “source code” entirely and just making an efficient binary directly with AI.
I might never look the source again. It was nearly a half century ago that I stopped looking at assembly because I trusted the compiler to get it right. This feels like that.
Aug 3, 2026 · 3:43 PM UTC
3,155
2,869
27,105
8,765,642
@elonmusk Treating everything as a black box, what could possibly go wrong?
18
13
1,481
64,696
@elonmusk Or perhaps an efficient intermediate representation that can be translated to any machine architecture.
52
10
579
39,825
@elonmusk This won’t happen yet because it is akin to the diffusion process
Uncontrollable and unmodifyable until output is generated
This is why AI generated art is considered slop. A human must in between the input, and final output in order to steer it effectively
Uncontrollable and unmodifyable until output is generated
This is why AI generated art is considered slop. A human must in between the input, and final output in order to steer it effectively
10
2
194
9,672
@elonmusk interesting thought, and in a sense it does seem kind of silly to generate source code only to compile it. But it is kind of nice to have a human be able to read the code to understand it when needed.
Perhaps the model can translate the raw machine code into pseudocode on demand if we ever want to understand what it’s doing
Perhaps the model can translate the raw machine code into pseudocode on demand if we ever want to understand what it’s doing
19
4
156
16,459
@elonmusk A compiler is a deterministic, formally verifiable function. An LLM is not. You're describing removing the one property that made trusting the compiler rational in the first place.
Skipping source for AI-generated binaries swaps a proof for a vibe.
Skipping source for AI-generated binaries swaps a proof for a vibe.
25
6
443
43,201
@elonmusk I have less confidence on this compared to colonising mars in the near future
1
1
128
4,640
@elonmusk >just making an efficient binary directly with AI
Elon, with all due respect, you cannot be serious.
Trusting a pure binary executable shat out by an LLM?
The very concept gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Elon, with all due respect, you cannot be serious.
Trusting a pure binary executable shat out by an LLM?
The very concept gives me the heebie-jeebies.
21
4
327
16,633
@elonmuske point of source code is that humans can inspect what a system is supposed to do before discovering, rather expensively, what the binary actually does.
Static analysis, fuzzing, symbolic execution and runtime testing are valuable, but they are complements to readable source, not substitutes for it. They help locate classes of failure. They do not magically reconstruct design intent, reveal every hidden assumption or explain why a particular branch exists.
Generating binaries directly with AI would remove one of the most important layers of accountability. You would lose readable logic, meaningful review, reproducible builds, intelligible diffs and a clear path from requirement to implementation.
The machine would produce an artefact. The humans would be left interrogating it through behaviour, disassembly and failure.
That is not progress from assembly to a higher-level language. It is a retreat from inspectable engineering to technological divination.
A compiler translates code whose meaning can be reviewed. An AI emitting opaque binaries asks us to trust output whose reasoning may never have existed coherently in the first place.
The vulnerabilities would not disappear.
Only the evidence of how they entered would.
Static analysis, fuzzing, symbolic execution and runtime testing are valuable, but they are complements to readable source, not substitutes for it. They help locate classes of failure. They do not magically reconstruct design intent, reveal every hidden assumption or explain why a particular branch exists.
Generating binaries directly with AI would remove one of the most important layers of accountability. You would lose readable logic, meaningful review, reproducible builds, intelligible diffs and a clear path from requirement to implementation.
The machine would produce an artefact. The humans would be left interrogating it through behaviour, disassembly and failure.
That is not progress from assembly to a higher-level language. It is a retreat from inspectable engineering to technological divination.
A compiler translates code whose meaning can be reviewed. An AI emitting opaque binaries asks us to trust output whose reasoning may never have existed coherently in the first place.
The vulnerabilities would not disappear.
Only the evidence of how they entered would.
6
11
65
2,593
@EdmilsomCarlos @elonmusk And what do we call a language with sufficient expressiveness and precision and repeatability able to build executable artifacts?
We call it a programming language.
1
7
73
13,349
@elonmusk efficient binary directly with AI is likely a security nightmare
3
2
39
1,040
@elonmuskeem like there is no longer a reason to write a new programming language, who would even try, and with what funding. Over the years of computer programming the languages have evolved to deliver platforms the devs could use to create better and better tools faster and with higher levels of abstraction. Time to put it into reverse.. but the question now becomes, is there enough training data to take our words and have the AI turn it into binaries? or will we have to manually build those bridges?
6
1
25
4,233
@elonmuskical evolution always panics the gatekeepers whose entire relevance relies on artificial complexity. Eliminating intermediate source code strips away decades of bloated middle-management and pretentious coders who treat basic syntax like a sacred rite. Elon pinpoints the ultimate trajectory of engineering: raw efficiency bypassing unnecessary friction. Leftist tech purists clinging to administrative control are simply watching their own total obsolescence.
0
1
15
1,180
@elonmusk Maybe for limited cases when you want to control register spill, otherwise it’s better to just target a high level intention and lets the lesser machine servators compile it into assembly.
0
1
8
1,615
@elonmusk out coding mainly in assembly then higher level languages like C. I even built my own C compiler and debugger. Sometimes even after that I'd write certain functions in assembly because they'd need optimization for memory usage or performance. That didn't last too long though and the compilers got so good that assembly was never necessary. I can see that the next evolution is about to take place.
I hope though that people, especially computer scientists, still take the time to become proficient in assembly. It is the best way to really understand how a computer actually works and it is fantastic for developing logic. It is somewhat like learning Latin, not terribly useful in everyday life but really valuable as a building block.
I hope though that people, especially computer scientists, still take the time to become proficient in assembly. It is the best way to really understand how a computer actually works and it is fantastic for developing logic. It is somewhat like learning Latin, not terribly useful in everyday life but really valuable as a building block.
0
0
10
1,016
@elonmusk … yes, and while we try making an efficient binary directly with AI we will end up inventing a new language whose source code someone will eventually need to read.
0
0
12
1,184
@elonmusk Programs are Input --> Output describing logic, such as policy etcetra. it is simple enough from there on.
x.com/OGALANGLEY/sta…
x.com/OGALANGLEY/sta…
Oh please
code has always been a way for us to describe systems and the logic that run them, we tell the computer it needs to do these so we get what we want, it's a translation layer.
It is more efficient to just think about systems & logic (architecture) & let a clanker handle the code implementation (grunt work).
0
0
4
4,334
@elonmusk This, together with mathematical proofs that the binary satisfies a high level spec is exactly what the Ethereum community is researching a lot these days.
0
0
5
1,241
@elonmusk I disagree with this. Imagine saying, "Let's build jet engines without designs/blueprints."
Do you see how that would lead to problems?
Do you see how that would lead to problems?
20
1
217
8,662
@elonmusk yeah, once coding is not done manually there is no need to use high level languages
1
0
8
1,420
@elonmusk 01110111 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100110 01100001 01110110 01101111 01110010 01101001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01110011 01101110 01100001 01100011 01101011 00100000 00111011 00101001
1
1
8
405
@elonmusk I’m a bit skeptical, but I’ve been skeptical and wrong too many times lately
0
0
4
285
Dear @elonmusk
Charlene DelFico @CDelFico is still suspended on X.
Her account was suspended April 30, 2025 and X has been receiving the Premium subscription payments for over a year, despite not having access to her account. She already went through the appeals process but her account is still suspended.
Can you please look in to this matter and reinstate her account?
Thanks,
Silk
0
0
4
3,345
@elonmusk Seems risky to have non-human readable AI communication layer. We're fortunate it's still primarily English.
0
0
1
101