Elon Musk secretly fathered twins with top Neuralink executive last year

midian182

Posts: 8,023   +88
Staff member
What just happened? Newly discovered court documents have revealed that Elon Musk had twins with a top executive at his AI startup Neuralink last year, bringing the number of known children fathered by the world's richest man to nine.

The documents, seen by Insider, show that Musk, 51, and Shivon Zilis, 36, filed a petition in April to change the twins' names in order to "have their father's last name and contain their mother's last name as part of their middle name."

Zilis reportedly gave birth in Austin, Texas, in November 2021, weeks before Musk and singer Claire Boucher, better known as Grimes, had their second child via a surrogate. It means Musk has nine children with three different women—he shares five with ex-wife Justine Wil.

The CEO has long been a proponent of increasing the global birth rate, warning that it has been below minimum sustainable levels in the US for around 50 years, which could cause civilization to crumble. "I mean, I'm doing my part haha," he recently tweeted.

Markham, Ontario-born Zilis' LinkedIn page lists her as director of operations and special projects at Neuralink, having previously worked at IBM and venture-capital fund Bloomberg Beta. She is also a board member at artificial-research firm OpenAI, which Musk co-founded, and was on Forbes' 30 Under 30 list in the venture-capital category in 2015. Zilis has also been floated as one of the people Musk could appoint to run Twitter after his acquisition, assuming it ever completes.

Earlier this year, one of Musk's children petitioned to change their name and receive a new birth certificate, stating that "I no longer live with or wish to be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form."

Neither Musk nor Zilis has commented on the story.

Permalink to story.

 

George Keech

Posts: 214   +375
I thought increased population is also bad. I think the issue is its buggered either way, either more people means more resources needed etc more space. or less people mean an ageing population that require more care.

The way he says it make it found like France after WW1 - which was basically we need more people to go to war with.
 

NicktheWVAHick

Posts: 386   +699
That’s only $25bn per child…barely enough to survive on in the year 2032. They should all pitch-in and get him a vasectomy for Fathers Day or they’ll be nothing left in a couple of years.
 

Uncle Al

Posts: 8,930   +7,895
This makes me sad. No one's perfect but I've never met anyone who goes through more personal pain to fight for an inspiring future for humanity - and has done so tirelessly for decades.

Seriously? Name some verifiable examples and not just YOUR opinion. I have yet to see him do anything for the benefit of others but plenty of things for his own personal benefit ..... I'm waiting ....
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,640   +1,642
I thought increased population is also bad.
The reverse is true.. More people means more scientists, more engineers, more artists and authors. More progress in any and all fronts. Just as a dynamic, powerful cpu requires billions of transistors, modern society requires billions of people to work effectively.

As one small example, consider that there are rare diseases in the world that literally have only 1 or 2 people studying them. If the world population was a third its current size, there would be no one whatsoever doing so.
 

terzaerian

Posts: 1,372   +1,971
The reverse is true.. More people means more scientists, more engineers, more artists and authors. More progress in any and all fronts. Just as a dynamic, powerful cpu requires billions of transistors, modern society requires billions of people to work effectively.

As one small example, consider that there are rare diseases in the world that literally have only 1 or 2 people studying them. If the world population was a third its current size, there would be no one whatsoever doing so.
This may have as much to do with market forces as population. Generally if Big Pharma doesn't smell money in treating a disease, they ignore it.
 

George Keech

Posts: 214   +375
The reverse is true.. More people means more scientists, more engineers, more artists and authors. More progress in any and all fronts. Just as a dynamic, powerful cpu requires billions of transistors, modern society requires billions of people to work effectively.

As one small example, consider that there are rare diseases in the world that literally have only 1 or 2 people studying them. If the world population was a third its current size, there would be no one whatsoever doing so.
But that Implies that living standard increase in a linear fashion its a fact people from poorer backgrounds are less likely to succeed in school etc.

I think its a balancing act all in all, I understand what you are saying and do agree but think progress in a direction is not always needed at speed - yes it can be good but is not required. society worked for many year with no CPU's arguably if they stayed at the same level as 10 years ago the world would not collapse there would be less development but would not lead to the end of the world etc. I am actually more and more of the mind that smartphones and social media specifically are actually harmful in a way we don't fully understand yet and people might look back in the future in the same way we look back at people who had asbestos roofs or lead face paint.
 

sickb0y

Posts: 22   +23
Who cares? as long as he is being a father to them and providing for them let him have an entire 53 NFL roster of kids :cool:
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,827   +6,803
But that Implies that living standard increase in a linear fashion its a fact people from poorer backgrounds are less likely to succeed in school etc.

I think its a balancing act all in all, I understand what you are saying and do agree but think progress in a direction is not always needed at speed - yes it can be good but is not required. society worked for many year with no CPU's arguably if they stayed at the same level as 10 years ago the world would not collapse there would be less development but would not lead to the end of the world etc. I am actually more and more of the mind that smartphones and social media specifically are actually harmful in a way we don't fully understand yet and people might look back in the future in the same way we look back at people who had asbestos roofs or lead face paint.
Smart phones and social media foster addictions. Anything that fosters an addiction only amplifies humanities ills. IMO, it basically shows that society does not offer true fulfillment to its members especially when its members need to have things like smart phones and post drivel on social media sites. Fulfillment, as seen by society in general, comes from something outside of one's self. IMO, fulfillment can only be found from within.

People hold out Musk as and worship him as a savoir of society. As I see it, everyone has the power to save themselves; Musk worship is yet another addiction like smart phones and social media.
 

Neatfeatguy

Posts: 880   +1,519
No one actually cares.

There are loads of Hispanic people at my work and they have multiple mistresses and kids with all of them. I think most of the mistresses know that their "man" has other women on the side, too.

Where are the stories about these folks having all sorts of kids with women here in the US and back home in Mexico and even in other states, such as Texas (states that boarder Mexico since they have family/friends in them)?

Oh, yeah, these people aren't important because they don't have the bankroll like Elon does.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,640   +1,642
This may have as much to do with market forces as population. Generally if Big Pharma doesn't smell money in treating a disease, they ignore it.
Companies exist to make money, sure. But even here population plays into it. If you have a rare 1-in-a million disease, then in a world with 100 million people, there's only 100 such cases, and little impetus to treat you. But in a world with 10 billion people, there's ten thousand cases, and real money to be had by developing a cure.
 

hwertz

Posts: 146   +81
So, there's not enough affordable housing for the people who already exist, the days of inexpensive fossil fuels (and so cheap heat, electricity, and travel for an increasing population) are done for, and for that matter there's unaffordably high college prices (... which suggests there's not enough supply for the current demand), but the US is becoming dangerously underpopulated? Musk sure gets some odd ideas in his head.
 

PEnnn

Posts: 806   +943
In other non-technical news (about which nobody with a brain gives a rodent's orifice)........Musk and his latest spawn!!
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,640   +1,642
So, there's not enough affordable housing for the people who already exist, the days of inexpensive fossil fuels [are] done for...but the US is becoming dangerously underpopulated? Musk sure gets some odd ideas in his head.
Probably because he's spent more time thinking about these issues than have you. 60 years ago, China was a nation of agrarian peasants, living mostly in hand-built huts. Since then, they've doubled their population, yet vastly improved their standards of living as well. The same is true for India, and many other nations.

The US social "safety-net" requires that the population demographic pyramid never "invert". Without many more young workers than old retirees, the entire system collapses. That is, in technical terms, a "bad thing". Interestingly enough, China was forced to abandon their "one child" policy for just this very reason.

As for fossil fuels, in 1965, the world had only 30 years left of fossil fuel reserves, and in 1975 I was taught in school that the planet would be "entirely out" of oil by the year 2000. Yet despite huge increases in consumption, our oil reserves today are larger than they were then. And still growing. All the way back in the 1920s, President Calvin Coolidge convened an emergency counsel over fears the US would exhaust its oil supplies within a decade's time. There's something in human nature that makes people gravitate to doom-and-gloom predictions, despite all evidence.
 

psycros

Posts: 4,245   +6,058
Probably because he's spent more time thinking about these issues than have you. 60 years ago, China was a nation of agrarian peasants, living mostly in hand-built huts. Since then, they've doubled their population, yet vastly improved their standards of living as well. The same is true for India, and many other nations.

The US social "safety-net" requires that the population demographic pyramid never "invert". Without many more young workers than old retirees, the entire system collapses. That is, in technical terms, a "bad thing". Interestingly enough, China was forced to abandon their "one child" policy for just this very reason.

As for fossil fuels, in 1965, the world had only 30 years left of fossil fuel reserves, and in 1975 I was taught in school that the planet would be "entirely out" of oil by the year 2000. Yet despite huge increases in consumption, our oil reserves today are larger than they were then. And still growing. All the way back in the 1920s, President Calvin Coolidge convened an emergency counsel over fears the US would exhaust its oil supplies within a decade's time. There's something in human nature that makes people gravitate to doom-and-gloom predictions, despite all evidence.

The real problem isn't the lack of population but an excess of the wrong kind. The only segments of western society that are growing are the dependent classes. The workers and taxpayers are getting "fur babies" instead of having children, because they need to have two new cars, the latest gadgets and eat out every night. I don't care what kind of education you have - anyone who is objective about the future can't possibly think this ends well.