Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 12, 2023 - The Ben Shapiro Show

55:35

Will AI Kill – Or Save – Us All?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	There's been a lot of talk about artificial intelligence.
	Some people think it's overblown.
	Some people think that it's not.
	The simple fact is it's not overblown.
	The artificial intelligence revolution is here.
	It is only going to grow more and more in both scope and breadth.
	Things like chat GPT are actually the very basic versions of what the techno bros have in store for the rest of the world.
	And there are some people who are very hot on it, some people who are very scared of it.
	I'm somewhere in the in-between, meaning I think that the upsides economically are going to be extraordinary.
	I think in terms of labor saving and productivity, we could see an explosion of productivity that essentially brings inflation down to zero, that makes an enormous number of products, goods and services significantly easier to access for a wide variety of people, that allows pretty much anybody to engage in a variety of industries they never would have had access to before.
	It's the democratization of intelligence is what some are calling it because Instead of you having to go to medical school, for example, to be able to diagnose a particular condition, now all you have to do is go to a nurse practitioner, she's going to perform particular tests on you, and then the AI is going to diagnose you because it's better at it than any doctor would be.
	Instead of you having to know a ton of things in order to get an answer, you're going to be able to go to the AI, and the AI is going to be able to peruse all of human knowledge momentarily and simply get back to you.
	There are just tons of ways in which AI is going to make us more productive, going to make it easier for us to be creative in many ways.
	There are some problems, I think, when it comes to the sort of human brain development aspect of AI that we're going to have to discuss.
	Because one of the things that we've really never thought about with regard to technology, we've always thought about technology as something apart from us.
	Technology is a machine that you use, but the truth is the machine shapes you.
	I see this with my seven-year-old son.
	So my seven-year-old son, really bright kid, He realized very quickly how my iPhone worked.
	And he could work it better than I could.
	You know this.
	If you're a parent, you see your kids using the technology better than you do.
	And you can see how it shapes them.
	So for my son, he recognized how the voice-to-text feature on my iPhone worked very quickly.
	And so instead of him learning to read and then being able to type in all of the commands, he would simply grab the phone, say his command into the phone, and this allowed him to avoid reading for longer.
	This is very often what kids do.
	They use the technology in order to avoid doing the thing.
	So for example, people of my generation, We were completely conversant with calculators.
	Those calculators were not available for my parents' generation.
	So my parents are really good at mental math.
	My generation happens to be not very good at mental math.
	You'll see people pulling out their phones to do basic and simple calculations on their phone.
	Now, does that mean that people are getting stupider?
	Not necessarily.
	It means that they're using the tools at their disposal.
	But the question is whether there are emergent properties To knowing things like how to calculate in your head that have an impact on overall brain function.
	So for example, let's say that you are the world's best chess player and you use AI in order to enhance your game.
	This has been shown to be the best form of chess playing is somebody who's great at chess and somebody who also has access to AI technology in terms of chess.
	Combine those two and you have magic.
	Well, what happens when you have an entire generation of people who have been trained on chess AI, but they've not actually developed independent skills with regard to chess?
	Well, at a certain point, the AI could actually become self-referential.
	The humans are not actually creating inputs for the AI to actually act off of.
	So does an informational desert arise?
	Well, one of the cures for that is presumably a move toward what they call artificial general intelligence, which is much more human-like programming, meaning that right now, the way that an AI works, a chat GPT for example, is you sit there by the chat GPT, you type in your command, Like, write a poem in the style of Jerry Seinfeld.
	And then it gives you a poem and it's in the style of Jerry Seinfeld.
	But you are the master of the machine.
	You are the one who is inputting the command.
	Well, what if we say human beings are not going to be experts anymore?
	They're not even going to be great at all that much anymore?
	Why don't we just make AI that can create its own commands?
	It doesn't mean it's sentient.
	Sentient is a different category.
	But an AI that can generate its own prompts.
	Well, now you start getting into risky territory.
	Because first of all, you've made humans entirely obsolete at that point in terms of creativity.
	But more than that, you've also led to the possibility that you could have, for example, an AI that starts entering prompts that are really negative for humanity.
	So I'm going to go through with you some of the various perspectives on AI and what AI is going to mean.
	In order to do that, I'm gonna start off by talking about some of the AI technology terminology so that you know what you're talking about when you're at the water cooler today.
	Because again, this is going to be the big topic of conversation, not just for this year, not just for next year, for the next decade, two decades.
	It's going to completely and radically reshift how humanity lives.
	Artificial intelligence.
	I firmly believe this because I've seen some of this AI at work.
	I know people who are creating the AI.
	And what they tell me is that it is way more sophisticated than we are made privy to.
	You remember just a couple of years ago, people were saying, AI is going to be able to write complete essays.
	And you're like, eh.
	And then it came out, and it wrote complete essays.
	And now people are making fun of the AI and say, oh, well, you know, the AI can't do human hands very well.
	Well, it's called hallucinating, which we'll explain in a second.
	But guess what?
	It's already fixed.
	And it's going to get better and better and better, because the stuff they have on the back lines that has not yet hit the public eye is significantly more sophisticated, significantly more creative, significantly more interesting than the stuff that you already have seen.
	We'll get to more on this in just one second first.
	Let's talk about the fact that in a scary, chaotic world, you need a little bit of time out to convene with God.
	It's kind of important.
	Well, regardless of your religion, you need more peace in your life.
	Halo is an incredible app that offers a unique approach to prayer and meditation.
	Unlike other meditation apps, Halo is tailored specifically for people of faith to deepen their relationship with God.
	The HALO app is filled with studies, meditations, and reflections that are rooted in Judeo-Christian prayer practices.
	There are tons of Christians who work for this company, obviously.
	They use HALO.
	They love it.
	You can pray alongside Mark Wahlberg, Jonathan Rumi, who portrays Jesus in The Chosen, even some world-class athletes.
	You can access the number one Christian podcast Bible in a year with Father Mike Schmitz on HALO.
	HALO helps you maintain a daily prayer routine.
	With features like progress tracking and streaks, you can stay motivated and make prayer a regular part of your daily routine, set prayer reminders, invite others to pray with you, track your progress, Along the way.
	If you're looking to deepen your relationship with God, improve your mental and emotional well-being, try Halo for three months for free at Halo.com slash Shapiro.
	That's H-A-L-O-W dot com slash Shapiro.
	I pray three times a day.
	You should pray as often as I do and use Halo in order to do it.
	Go check them out right now.
	Halo dot com slash Shapiro.
	OK, so.
	Let's go through some basic AI terminology.
	So TechCrunch has a good rundown on all of this.
	And one of the things they point out is that the term artificial intelligence is a little bit misleading because there's not really one great definition of intelligence.
	It's sort of ersatz intelligence in the sense that it doesn't work quite the same way as the human brain.
	One of the big mistakes that people make when they think about how computers work is because we've spent so long interfacing with computers, we think that computers are basically like the human brain.
	They are very dissimilar.
	And there are emergent properties to being a human that do not exist for machines, for computers.
	This is why all of the various movies about when does an AI become sentient, when does an AI become human?
	Well, not until there are emergent properties from the technology itself, right?
	There are emergent properties for human beings.
	Like, for example, the ability to choose freely, I believe.
	There are emotional states that you have that a computer does not have.
	There's tons of stuff about being human that we can't quite categorize and we can't quite chart, and so it makes it easier for us to think about being human by categorizing and charting what it means to be human.
	But that's actually a much more holistic experience than anything else, which is something we'll discuss when it comes to education and interfacing with AI.
	I think one of the things people aren't thinking about enough is how AI is going to change the experience of being human, how it's going to shape our own neural rewiring.
	Anyway, Here's some terms that you're going to need to know because you're going to hear them a lot.
	Neural network.
	So a neural network is essentially an imitation of how the brain works.
	So our brains are made of all of these interconnected cells are called neurons and they form electrical connections.
	And when they fire, when your neurons fire, this is what creates thought, presumably.
	Well, GPUs, General Processing Units, they've been trying to work along the lines of neural networks for a very long time and they're sort of layered over one another.
	You have deep layers of neural networks and slightly higher layers of neural networks until you get to sort of the top line.
	The top line is what you see when you open your computer and suddenly the computer can actually identify dog versus cat, for example.
	So, all these models are formed along the lines of what a human brain theoretically works like.
	And then the model, as TechCrunch says, is the actual collection of code that accepts inputs and returns outputs.
	In order to train AI, you have to expose it to an extraordinary amount of data.
	So, the way that an AI learns what a dog is, is you show it a thousand dogs.
	100,000 dogs.
	A million dogs.
	And then you test it up the chain to see whether it can properly identify as a dog.
	And then if it fails, then you go back down the chain and you try to correct and tinker with the neural networking so that you get it right.
	Now one of the things that's happened over the past few years in this way I've seen the
	explosion in AI is instead of having to train these programs on a million dogs, instead
	of that, what you're doing is when it comes to large language models at least, not really
	with regard to pictures yet, but with regard to large language models, what you are seeing
	is the computers, the AI actually being able to properly identify and categorize words,
	many words at a time.
	So instead of doing it, you know, vertically, where you take the word dog and then go up and down the chain, the way that I just explained to you with pictures, instead you have the dog bit the man.
	And when it comes to large language models, which are trained on how language works, predictive text mechanisms, it's training it horizontally, not just vertically.
	So it's much, much faster than simply training up and down vertically.
	Generative AI is the term of the day.
	This broad term, as TechCrunch puts it, just means an AI model that produces an original output
	like an image or a text, right?
	This is the difference between AI as you knew it, right?
	Because the truth is that like Microsoft Word in some very rudimentary form is a form of AI.
	But AI, when we talk about, you know, actually generating a text-based poem or an essay
	or creating a picture, that's what generative AI is.
	Large language models are the most advanced right now because it turns out that computers are really good
	at language and they're very good at predictive text.
	LLMs, as they're called, are able to converse and answer questions in natural language
	and imitate a variety of styles and types of written documents.
	So the first people to be replaced, in other words, are the mid-level lawyers,
	as we'll get to in just a moment.
	Diffusion is how image generation is done.
	So if you're wondering how it is that AI can now create things that look like Van Gogh,
	diffusion is done by companies like Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, and other popular generative AIs.
	They're trained by showing them images that are gradually degraded
	and then by adding digital noise until there's nothing left of the original.
	And you do that often enough and the computer starts to recognize patterns in the chaos.
	And so now you can basically say, from nothing or from very little data,
	I want you to generate an entire picture, right?
	It's reversing the process in the same way that you remember in the olden days when you would actually produce film, you'd take a picture and then you'd put it in the darkroom and then the picture would suddenly appear.
	So diffusion is that reverse process.
	But basically, what you are looking at right now is taking a little bit of data and allowing the computer,
	allowing the AI to build an image from that.
	When you look at diffusion technology, that's what we're using in an AI YouTube video that we did
	where we typed in a prompt and something was coming up with Nancy Pelosi dressed as like a scary clown or
	something.
	Hallucination is what happens when the AI is not properly comprehending the data.
	So this is why you see, for example, Will Smith eating spaghetti and the spaghetti merging with Will Smith's mouth.
	Because the AI is hallucinating, but that's largely because of the over-prevalence of certain data in the set.
	So, for example, the example TechCrunch gives correctly is originally this is a problem of certain imagery and training slipping into unrelated output, like buildings that seem to be made of dogs because the thing had been seeing so many dogs lately.
	So that's hallucinating, but they're wiping that out of the system.
	There are a bunch of companies that are involved in AI.
	OpenAI is more an open model, an open source model, so all of their data is publicly available.
	You have Microsoft, which is developing its own AI.
	They invested early in open AI, and they're using it to power Bing.
	You have Anthropic, which is intending to fill a sort of different role.
	It's more guided top-down Anthropic.
	All of these companies are going to be pouring billions of dollars into AI.
	Billions and billions.
	I mean, it's my prediction that within two years, the amount of money that's in AI is gonna look like a hundred billion dollars.
	And after that, we're gonna start talking trillions.
	Because again, it's gonna completely transform how we live and how we interface with technology.
	Some of this is scary, and some of this is really interesting and welcome.
	We're gonna discuss that in just one second.
	First, if you haven't yet heard, the FDA has now approved lab-grown chicken.
	Yes, meat formed in a lab will soon be coming to a store near you.
	Well, let's say that you're not so hot on the lab-grown chicken or the lab-grown beef, and instead what you would like is, you know, a good old-fashioned piece of meat.
	You need Good Ranchers.
	Not only do they sell real meat from real animals, they sell the best meat this country has to offer.
	From steakhouse-quality cuts of beef to better-than-organic chicken, everything Good Ranchers sources is from local farms right here In America.
	Plus, right now you get 30 bucks off with my code BEN at GoodRanchers.com.
	They've got genuinely great products and top-tier customer service.
	You can't call the scientists in the lab to ask about their fake meat, but Good Ranchers has a team of people available for you to call.
	They'll answer all of your questions, real meat and real service.
	I know how good they are because they actually made me the one kosher steak they've ever made and it was just delicious.
	So, what exactly are you waiting for?
	Enjoy real meat and real service today with Good Ranchers.
	Visit GoodRanchers.com.
	Use my code BEN for 30 bucks off any box.
	That is promo code BEN at GoodRanchers.com.
	GoodRanchers.com is indeed American meat delivered.
	Go check them out right now.
	GoodRanchers.com.
	Use promo code BEN.
	Get 30 bucks off any box of meat.
	Promo code BEN at GoodRanchers.com.
	Okay, so.
	Let's get to the real stuff.
	How's this going to change our world?
	So Leanna Nguyen has an interesting piece over in the Washington Post talking about how this is going to impact, say, health technologies.
	She says, Consider the Mayo Clinic, the largest integrated non-profit medical practice in the world.
	It has created more than 160 AI algorithms in cardiology, neurology, radiology, and other specialties.
	Forty of these have already been deployed in patient care.
	To better understand how AI is used in medicine, I spoke with John Halamka, a physician trained in medical informatics who is president of Mayo Clinic Platform.
	As he explained to me, AI is just the simulation of human intelligence via machines.
	He distinguished between predictive and generative AI.
	The former involves mathematical models using patterns from the past to predict the future.
	The latter uses text or images to generate a sort of human-like interaction.
	It's the first type, the predictive model, that is the most valuable.
	And this is why I say that it's going to impact medicine and law, for example, faster than it's going to impact some other areas of American life.
	Why?
	Because predictive and text-generated stuff is more advanced than some of the other forms of AI so far.
	As Halamka described, predictive AI can look at the experiences of millions of patients and their illnesses to help answer a simple question.
	What can we do to ensure you have the best journey possible with the fewest potholes along the way?
	So, for example, let's say someone is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.
	Instead of giving generic recommendations for anyone with the condition, an algorithm can predict the best care plan for that patient using age, geography, racial and ethnic background, existing medical conditions, and nutritional habits.
	The quality of the algorithm depends on the quantity and diversity of the data.
	So Mayo Clinic has already signed up with clinical systems across the United States and Canada and Brazil and Israel.
	So apparently by the end of 2023, Halamka expects the network of organizations to encompass more than 100 million patients whose medical records with identifying information removed will be used to improve care for others.
	So, for example, predictive AI is going to be able to augment diagnoses.
	For example, if you want to detect colon cancer, standard practice is for gastroenterologists to perform a colonoscopy and then manually identify and remove precancerous polyps.
	But apparently, one in four cancerous lesions are missed during those screening colonoscopies.
	Predictive AI can dramatically improve the detection.
	The software has been trained to identify polyps by looking at literally millions of pictures of them, and when it detects one during colonoscopy, it alerts the physician to take a closer look.
	Apparently, one randomized control trial already in the U.S., Britain, and Italy found that using such AI reduced the miss rate of potentially cancerous lesions by more than half, from 32.4% to 15.5%.
	He says that within the next five years, it will be malpractice not to use AI in colorectal cancer screening.
	This is correct.
	Hey, so this is particularly true in radiology.
	So in radiology already, you're seeing AI begin to replace radiologists because radiologists, their job is to look at the x-ray and spot the problem.
	Well, that's literally what AI is amazing at.
	AI is going to be great at that.
	The same thing is going to be true when it comes to law.
	The legal profession is going to be entirely disrupted.
	You know, all of the talk about learn to code, guys.
	Well, it turns out that coders may be disrupted by AI as well.
	The legal profession, it makes sense, right?
	You're a mid-level lawyer.
	When I first started off at Harvard Law School, I was out of law school.
	I went to a firm called Goodwin Procter in Los Angeles, and I was a low-level associate.
	All you did all day was review contracts for paragraph errors, pagination errors, sort of basic informational errors, which you did all day.
	Doc review, they called it.
	That stuff can be done by an AI in seconds.
	I mean, it's going to bring the cost down to zero.
	As I'll explain in a second, I think there may be a pipeline problem when it comes to this.
	Because if AI is really, really good at everything, except for the stuff that the real, real experts can do, it's going to wipe out the pipeline for experts.
	Because the way you become an expert is by training and doing all of these things without AI.
	Alternatively, theoretically, your use of AI could maybe make you more of an expert in the thing that you actually need to do to work with AI in the future.
	I'm not really sure about that answer.
	We'll get some perspectives on this in just one moment.
	One thing is for sure.
	All of the talk about how technology is going to disrupt blue-collar workers, is going to disrupt people at the low end of the wage scale.
	The actual truth is that it's mostly going to disrupt people at the higher end of the wage scale.
	Lawyers.
	Doctors.
	If you're an accountant, get ready.
	Because the AI revolution is going to change nearly everything.
	The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, that'd be the OECD, says that the occupations at highest risk from AI-driven automation are highly skilled jobs.
	They represent about 27% of employment across 38 member countries.
	According to the OECD, they say it's clear the potential for AI-driven job substitution remains significant, raising fears of decreasing wages and job losses.
	However, it added that for the time being, AI was changing jobs rather than replacing them.
	Now, as I say, I think that there will be replacements for these jobs.
	Human beings are incredibly creative.
	Human beings are incredibly adaptive.
	And bringing costs down is not a bad thing.
	We live in a time of extraordinary inflation.
	Bringing down that inflation through increased productivity is going to be amazing.
	Increased productivity just means that you can generate more product using a tool.
	So for example, it used to be that if you were a person who had to work in a white collar
	office, you hand wrote letters.
	And it took forever.
	You had to hand write the letters, mail them, you have to wait weeks for them to come back.
	Now of course you use your computer to do that.
	It's raised productivity by an extraordinary percentage.
	What happens when you don't even have to do that?
	You write a prompt and you're like, write a letter to Bob with the following points
	and then just throw it out there.
	You just saved yourself 45 minutes.
	The amount of productivity increase is going to dramatically lower the price on services and goods as well.
	The OECD says occupations in finance, medicine and legal activities, which often require many years of education and whose core functions rely on accumulated experience to reach decisions, may suddenly find themselves at risk of automation from AI.
	So as I say, that'll be workers in the fields of law, culture, science, engineering, and business as well.
	Now, there's not going to be a substitution for the person-to-person interface that is required to do negotiations, I think, because you're still going to have to negotiate with the other person, because that's a relationship based on trust.
	Now, one of the disruptors there could theoretically be that maybe we don't need a relationship based on trust.
	Maybe blockchain technology will be so useful at that point that when you combine that with AI, that the sort of trust that you have to have with the person across the table no longer exists.
	The computers essentially talk to one another.
	And when that happens, and they can actually check each other's work to ensure absolute transparency, maybe trust becomes less of a factor.
	But I think that's a little ways away.
	Now, all of this is creating a sort of sense of chaotic crisis.
	And there's a wide divide of opinion on whether AI is going to be a net positive or a net negative.
	And I think most of the net negative from AI is going to be in how people use it.
	Because I think one thing technology has shown, technology does not wipe out human sin.
	Human beings are inherently sinful.
	Human nature is inherently unchanging, at least at the root level.
	We're not going to become better, nicer people.
	We're not going to become free of sin.
	We're going to have all the same sinful desires we had.
	We're just going to have more tools to both access them and fight them.
	So the notion is going to solve all of humanity's problems, I find problematic.
	And not only that, again, I think especially if we expose kids to AI, it's going to change how they develop.
	We'll get to more of this in just one second.
	First, have you ever invested in like a nice jacket or shoes, like a nice dinner?
	Well, your betting shouldn't be any different.
	Your betting should be awesome because you're spending a lot of time on it.
	Start investing in your best sleep with Bull and Branch.
	They make the only sheets that get softer with every wash.
	Boll and Branch sheets are made from the finest 100% organic cotton threads on earth.
	They feel buttery to the touch, they're super breathable, so they're perfect for both cooler and warmer months.
	Their signature hemmed sheets were made with luxurious threads.
	They're made without pesticides, formaldehyde, or other harsh chemicals.
	Best of all, Boll and Branch gives you a 30-night risk-free trial with free shipping and returns on all orders.
	You don't want to return them.
	They are much better than any sheets I've ever tried.
	Not only that, Bull & Branch also makes amazing blankets.
	They have an afghan.
	I literally travel with this thing because I sleep so much better with it than I do with other bedding products.
	Sleep better at night with Bull & Branch sheets.
	For a limited time only, you can get early access to their annual summer event.
	Use code SHAPIRO to get 20% off today at bullandbranch.com.
	That's B-O-L-L-A-N-D-B-R-A-N-C-H.com.
	Promo code SHAPIRO.
	Exclusions apply.
	See site for details.
	Go check them out right now.
	Bullandbranch.com.
	Promo code SHAPIRO.
	Get 20% off.
	Okay, so some of the perspectives on AI, they're widely variant.
	So Mark Andreessen, who I've talked about in the past, he is, of course, a major investor in AI.
	He talks about how AI is going to save the world.
	And again, what he says is that it's going to make human intelligence significantly more prevalent.
	People are going to have access to things they never had access to.
	A guy with 105 IQ is going to be able to put together a movie by simply typing prompt into a computer.
	You are going to be able to get a great diagnosis for your medical condition from a nurse practitioner who didn't have to spend seven years working on their education.
	Andreessen says, what AI offers us is the opportunity to profoundly augment human intelligence to make all of these outcomes of intelligence and many others, from the creation of new medicines, to ways to solve the climate change, to technologies to reach the stars, much more, much more, and better from here.
	He says in our new era of AI, every child will have an AI tutor who is infinitely patient, infinitely compassionate, infinitely knowledgeable, and infinitely helpful.
	The AI tutor will be by each child's step, side by side, in their development, helping them maximize their potential with the machine version of infinite love.
	Every person will have an AI assistant, coach, mentor, trainer, advisor, therapist that is infinitely patient,
	infinitely compassionate, infinitely knowledgeable, and infinitely helpful.
	The AI assistant will be present through all of life's opportunities and challenges,
	maximizing every person's outcomes.
	Every scientist will have an AI assistant, collaborator, or partner that will greatly expand
	their scope of scientific research and achievement.
	Every leader will have the same.
	Productivity growth throughout the economy will accelerate dramatically, driving economic growth,
	creation of new industries, creation of new jobs, wage growth, resulting in a new era
	of heightened material prosperity across the planet, scientific breakthroughs will happen,
	creative arts will enter a golden age.
	As AI augmented, artists, musicians, writers, filmmakers gain the ability to realize their visions far faster
	and at greater scale than ever before.
	He thinks it's even going to improve warfare by reducing wartime death rates dramatically.
	Military commanders and political leaders will have AI advisors helping them minimize strategic errors.
	And then he suggests that it's not just about intelligence.
	AI will make us more human because AI art gives people who otherwise lack technical skills the freedom to create and share artistic ideas.
	Talking to an empathetic AI friend really does improve their ability to handle adversity.
	AI medical chatbots are already more empathetic than their human counterparts.
	So here's where I have a division with Mark.
	It is in the area of human development.
	When it comes to the economy, it's great that every scientist will have an assistant that is infinitely capable.
	That's going to be awesome.
	It's going to be great that you are going to be able to access a wide range of services at a much cheaper price.
	It's great that you're going to be able to augment your own skills using AI.
	However, when we say things like every person will have an AI assistant, coach, mentor, trainer, advisor, or therapist, the question is who's doing the inputs.
	One of the things about having an AI mentor, trainer, advisor, somebody's going to have to set the parameters.
	And the parameters are really the big question when it comes to AI.
	So, when it comes to scientific, research, or legal advice, the parameters are pretty clear.
	The law, the boundaries of science.
	The real questions begin to arise when you ask who sets the moral parameters for human interactions with AI.
	So, to take an example, we've seen AI that has started to hallucinate and start to act like people's girlfriend.
	And you actually already see AI technologies will be developed that act as people's quote-unquote paramours.
	People's lovers, sort of.
	And once you attach it to the sex dolls the Japanese are making, then obviously life is going to change rather dramatically for a large swath of the population.
	However, is that good for people?
	I would suggest not.
	It's great to be able to personalize your coffee.
	It is very bad to be able to personalize your interactions with all the other humans around you.
	Personalizing your interactions with all the other humans around you makes you less human.
	It is interacting with things that you don't like that makes you a better person.
	It is dealing with adversity that makes you stronger.
	The tragedies of life are going to be fewer, and they're going to be milder, because that's what always happens with technological development.
	But they're not going to disappear entirely.
	And what we've seen is that, almost like an animal taken into captivity, Those animals taken into captivity, they can live a really, really long time.
	But when they are hit with any sort of adversity, they don't know what to do, which is why when you release them back into the wild, they're basically helpless.
	We are taking the wild out of life with a lot of this sort of stuff.
	And when we do, it makes human beings weaker in very specific, inhuman ways.
	So this is the area where I think we ought to keep in mind the division.
	And one of the things that we tend to do as human beings, we tend to use certain tools to try to solve quote-unquote all of our problems.
	And they shouldn't solve all of our problems.
	You need different tools for different problems.
	So, for example, you'll hear people say, two cheers for capitalism.
	You hear this on the right a lot, because capitalism, it's great, it provides better products, better services, free trade, all of that is very good, but, but, two cheers, because it undermines, for example, community.
	Capitalism was never meant to support community.
	Capitalism was meant to make products better and cheaper.
	That's what capitalism does.
	That's like saying, this hammer that I'm holding right here.
	Well, two cheers for the hammer because it's not a screwdriver.
	Well, it's not a screwdriver and it wasn't meant to be a screwdriver.
	I feel like artificial intelligence is the same way.
	It seems to me is going to be amazing when it comes to augmenting human skill, human intelligence.
	It's a new tool for productivity.
	In the same way, an electric screwdriver is way, way better than a hand turned screwdriver.
	It's going to be like that.
	However, the idea that parameters based systems set by tech bros in San Francisco should reshape how your kids learn.
	I think I'd be super duper careful with that sort of stuff.
	Like the idea of an infinitely malleable AI tutor.
	Who's going to set the parameters?
	Is it going to be parents or is it going to be the NEA?
	Is it going to be the government or is it going to be you?
	And how exactly do you set those parameters?
	So for example, let's say that, you know, just as I mentioned the calculator before, you set the parameters to the AI to whatever the kid wants so that they can learn the fastest.
	What does learn even mean?
	Does a kid need to, like when I was a kid, one of the things we were all sort of nostalgic for when you were a kid, you would look up in the Encyclopedia Britannica all the information.
	And it's true.
	You can get information way faster now, which in a certain sense makes us way smarter because we can get the information way faster.
	At the same exact time, were there actual emergent properties, as I was discussing before, emergent properties from learning to look things up in an encyclopedia that may be useful for humanity, and that wiping that away by giving too quick access to information or the answer actually is bad for you?
	It's interesting, I was talking to a very pro-AI person recently, and we were talking about the, I was giving the example of my seven-year-old son to him, who's been using predictive text, or he's been using voice to text instead of reading.
	He said, what's the purpose of reading?
	Why did you really need to read?
	That's a good question, right?
	It's worth thinking about what skills do we need to preserve as human beings?
	And what, which ones do we not, right?
	He said, do you, do you think about how you don't know how to plow right now?
	Are you like sitting around thinking about, man, I lost that skill set of plowing.
	But it seems to me that there are certain mental activities that are deeply embedded
	in the human brain and then wiping them away is going to leave us enervated in particular way.
	You've got to be very careful, particularly with how we use AI technology to augment child education.
	This was the thought during COVID, right?
	Is that we were just going to Zoom educate all the kids and it was going to be totally fine.
	It turns out that's not the way the human brain works.
	So there's this big debate that has been raging about all of this.
	One of the Doomers is Dario Amodi.
	He is the founder of Anthropic, right?
	The reason I think he's a Doomer is specifically because he's thinking about the impact on human beings.
	He did an interview with Kevin Ruse, who is the tech columnist over at the New York Times.
	Bad on some topics, like, for example, how people like me are horrible on YouTube, but good on some topics, like this interview.
	And he says, It's a few weeks before the release of Claude, a new AI chatbot from the artificial intelligence startup Anthropic, and the nervous energy inside the company's San Francisco headquarters could power a rocket.
	At long cafeteria tables dotted with spindrift cans and chess boards, harried-looking engineers are putting the finishing touches on Claude's new chat-GPT-style interface, codenamed Project Hatch.
	Nearby, another group is discussing problems that could arise on launch day.
	What if a surge of new users overpowers the company's servers?
	What if Claude accidentally threatens or harasses people, creating a Bing-style PR headache?
	Dario Modi is going over his own mental list of potential disasters.
	My worry, as always, is the model going to do something terrible we didn't pick up on.
	Anthropics employees aren't just worried that their app will break or that their users won't like it.
	They are scared, at a deep existential level, about the very idea of what they're doing, building powerful AI models and releasing them into the hands of people who might use them to do terrible and destructive things.
	Many of them believe AI models are rapidly approaching a level where they might be considered artificial general intelligence, that's AGI, the industry term for human-level machine intelligence.
	They fear that if they're not carefully controlled, these systems could take over and destroy us.
	Some of us think that AGI, in the sense of systems that are genuinely as capable as a college-educated person, Presumably with agency, like actually able to input their own inputs, are maybe 5 to 10 years away, says Jared Kaplan, Anthropic's chief executive.
	Just a few years ago, worrying about an AI uprising was considered a fringe idea, and one many experts dismissed as wildly unrealistic given how far the technology was from human intelligence.
	But AI panic is having a moment right now.
	At Anthropic, the doom factor has turned up to 11.
	I spent weeks interviewing anthropic executives, as Ruth, talking to engineers and researchers,
	sitting in on meetings with product teams ahead of Quad 2's launch.
	While initially I thought I might be shown a sunny optimistic vision of AI's potential,
	a world where polite chatbots tutor students, make office workers more productive, and help
	scientists cure diseases, I soon learned rose-colored glasses weren't anthropic's thing.
	They were more interested in scaring me."
	A lot of people are worried that AI is going to essentially go off the rails.
	Kaplan says, a lot of people have come here thinking AI is a big deal.
	They're really thoughtful people.
	They're really skeptical of these long-term concerns.
	And they're like, wow, these systems are much more capable than I expected.
	The trajectory is much, much sharper.
	And so they are considering, and so they are concerned about AI safety.
	So, you know, again, AI safety is, let's say that the system decides, quote-unquote decides, that it is going to wipe out humanity and now has the capacity to do so.
	Now, the thing to worry about is not that it gains its own sort of willpower, because AI does not have desire.
	It's not sentient.
	It's not you, it's not me.
	It doesn't have an emotional want for things.
	But what if a bad person grabs AI?
	I mean, they could certainly do an enormous amount of damage.
	So that is one problem.
	The other problem, again, I think is just the unintended consequences.
	So you remember when social media first came online, the idea was it was going to connect everybody.
	And this is going to be a great thing.
	And it has been in many ways.
	You can talk to your friends from other countries over FaceTime or WhatsApp.
	You can use Facebook to keep tabs on people you haven't seen in 20 years.
	Or, alternatively, you can use these social networks to isolate yourself in your bedroom and spend the next 10 years being lonely, isolated, and bored before you have suicidal ideation.
	And it's been more of the latter than the former in terms of sort of the statistical use.
	The questions of whether the internet, for example, has been an overwhelmingly good thing or a bad thing overall?
	These are very serious questions, and I don't think they're answerable.
	The same thing is going to be true of AI, except in spades.
	Bill Gates, on the other hand, he's more of a tech optimist.
	He says there are five risks from AI.
	He says first, he's worried about AI-generated misinformation and deepfakes.
	I'm less worried about that because, again, I think that you'd have to have basically AI running everything in order for any sort of deepfake or misinformation to be so widely spread that everybody believes it.
	In fact, only the media is capable of doing that at this point.
	Second, AI could automate the process of searching for vulnerabilities in computer systems, which is true.
	Again, bad people could get a hold of AI and then they could work around all the security systems.
	Third, AI could take people's jobs.
	Again, I'm less worried about that because every tech problem of the past has displaced people.
	And every single one, there is a lag time.
	I'm not going to pretend that people aren't going to lose their jobs initially.
	But over time, more jobs are created.
	There are many, many more jobs on planet Earth now with all of the technology than there were, say, 20 years ago with a lot less of the technology.
	Fourth, AI systems have already been found to fabricate information and exhibit bias.
	And finally, access to AI tools could mean that students don't learn essential skills.
	This is the one, again, that I'm most worried about.
	I'm worried about the pipeline of human development.
	And so, that does argue for the possibility that perhaps we should be carefully shielding kids from AI, particularly at their youngest stage, before we simply open the floodgates.
	It's the parents who open the floodgates to social media, who made their kids into zombified Social engineered problems.
	And I think we ought to be very, very careful about the sort of stuff that we unleash on kids in particular.
	Here's the bottom line to all of this.
	The bottom line to all of this is that you better get ready because things are going to change very, very quickly.
	That can either be scary or it can be wonderful.
	But pretending that the technological situation of the world is going to be the same five years from now as it is today is not true.
	Everything is going to change and it's going to start changing very, very fast.
	Okay, in just one second, we'll get to the NATO summit where Ukraine is now at odds with much of NATO.
	First, everyone knows I love my Helix Sleep Mattress.
	Did you know they just launched their newest, most high-end collection?
	That would be the Helix Elite.
	Helix has harnessed years of extensive mattress expertise to bring their customers a truly elevated sleep experience.
	The Helix Elite Collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored for specific sleep positions and firmness preferences.
	I've had my Helix Sleep Mattress for at least six, seven years at this point.
	It is great.
	It is the thing that allows me to sleep at night when my baby is waking us up.
	Nervous about buying a mattress online?
	Well, there's no need to be.
	Helix has a Sleep Quiz.
	It matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress.
	Because why would you buy a mattress made for somebody else?
	I took that Helix quiz.
	I was matched with a firm but breathable mattress.
	It is excellent.
	Again, my sleep quality is better now than it was well before I had the Helix Sleep Mattress.
	Go to HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
	Take their two-minute sleep quiz.
	Find the perfect mattress for your body and sleep type.
	Your mattress will come right to your doorstep for free.
	Plus, Helix has a 10-year warranty.
	You can try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
	They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.
	Helix has over 12,000 five-star reviews.
	Their financing options and flexible payment plans make it so a great night's sleep is never far away.
	For a limited time, Helix is offering up to 20% off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners.
	It's their best offer yet.
	Hurry on over to helixsleep.com slash ben with Helix.
	Better sleep starts right now.
	Also, a lot of unhappy people out there.
	Most of them think if I could just get the right job or find the right spouse or have more money, everything would be fine.
	The truth is, happiness is something you can achieve without adding anything else to your life.
	You don't have to take my word for it.
	Take the founder of PragerU's word for it, Dennis Prager.
	In a brand new episode of PragerU Master's program, streaming exclusively at Daily Wire+, Dennis will show you how you can be happy right now.
	In PragerU Master's program, Dennis is sharing 40 years worth of hard-earned wisdom that explores all kinds of topics like the differences between men and women, the consequences of secularism, and the case for marriage.
	In this week's episode, Dennis is going to show you how to overcome the hurdles to happiness.
	I can guarantee at least one of those hurdles you've never considered before.
	You will not want to miss this episode.
	Go to dailywireplus.com to become a member.
	Watch PragerU master's program today.
	Meanwhile, controversy breaking out over at the NATO summit.
	Vladimir Zelensky is upset.
	On Tuesday, he upended that summit by blasting an agreement for its lack of a concrete timeline for Kiev to join the alliance, as well as the absurd process by which it was drafted.
	This is according to the Washington Post.
	in a fiery tweet, Zelensky frustrated Ukrainian advocates inside the alliance who believed they'd
	secured a win for Kiev by pushing the United States, Germany and other reluctant countries
	to consent to quote issue an invitation for Ukraine to join NATO when the allies agree and
	conditions are met. That language was read out by NATO Secretary General Jan Stoltenberg after the
	agreement among NATO's 31 leaders was made. Zelensky's angry intervention, which came before
	the final agreement on Tuesday, but after the language had already started circulating, suggested
	the alliance had not yet found a way to satisfy both sides.
	Zelensky said now on the way to Vilnius we received signals that certain wording is being discussed
	without Ukraine.
	I'd like to emphasize that this wording is about the invitation to become NATO member, not about Ukraine's membership.
	It's unprecedented and absurd when time frame is not set, neither for the invitation nor for Ukraine's membership.
	He claims that NATO leaders are not serious about inviting Ukraine to join the alliance and complained their approach indicated they instead wanted to keep its membership as a bargaining chip for eventual negotiations with Russia.
	Uncertainty is weakness, he said, and I will openly discuss this at the summit.
	Zelensky did not mention Joe Biden in the tweet, but obviously this is directed as a shot over the bow for Joe Biden.
	Now, again, I've said before that the off-ramp here is probably to offer Ukraine NATO membership after cramming down a deal brokered by the United States.
	Basically, Ukraine then becomes a NATO member, meaning that its borders are non-permeable by Russia once Russia gets some territory out of this whole thing.
	So, the NATO saying, like, we're going to put this thing on hold is actually not wrong.
	Perhaps the gap is starting to emerge here that's going to allow for negotiations.
	Stoltenberg, however, immediately sought to smooth things over.
	He said there's never been a stronger message from NATO at any time, both when it comes to political messages on the path forward for membership and the concrete support from NATO allies with their support as well.
	The problem is that because of the way that this is being trotted out by the West, the suggestion is that when the war is over, then they will consider NATO membership.
	That's something Joe Biden has explicitly said.
	Once you say that, it's now in Vladimir Putin's interest to prolong the war as long as possible so that Ukraine does not get NATO membership.
	What they actively should be saying to the Russians is, listen, we're going to probably let them into NATO regardless, like at a certain point.
	So you can either do it with territory, you can do it while the war is still raging, which is going to be a problem.
	Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, he said, when the NATO summit gets underway, our alliance will not only be bigger and stronger than ever, it will be more united, more purposeful and more energized than at any point in modern memory.
	Well, part and parcel of the attempts to bring Ukraine further into NATO is this attempt to bring Turkey further toward the West.
	Some of that is being driven by economic trouble, as the Wall Street Journal points out.
	For more than a year, the Turkish leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has carefully straddled the widening divide between Russia and the West over the Kremlin's invasion of Ukraine.
	Now, as he searches for ways to support an economy that has deteriorated under his watch, he is seeking to improve relations with both the United States and his Western allies.
	So he is triangulating, just like everybody else is triangulating, the weakness of Russia.
	Giant favor handed to the West by Vladimir Putin.
	It means that there are a lot of countries that are now triangulating between Russia and the West.
	However, it's the weakness of Joe Biden on the on the obverse side that is creating triangulation between the United States and China for some of these same exact countries.
	It's also leading to some sort of, I would say, risky decision making.
	So the United States has now apparently cleared a path to sell F-16 fighter jets to Turkey.
	National security advisor Jake Sullivan rejected suggestions that advancing the sale to Ankara was directly
	linked to Erdogan's decision to let Stockholm into the alliance of
	NATO saying there was no quid pro quo But US officials said the Japs factored in the negotiations.
	So essentially we paid Erdogan not to block Sweden's extension into NATO.
	A lot of people are a little bit concerned about handing over to Erdogan who is in fact a
	quasi dictator of Islamist bent. F-16s.
	Congress has the authority to pass legislation that will block or modify a sale until the jets are delivered.
	Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez said Friday he was discussing the potential sale of the jets to Turkey, signaling a potential reversal of his longstanding opposition to the idea.
	I mean we have other allies in the region who are not always on the same page as the Turks and so this could be a big problem.
	Meanwhile, Antony Blinken is saying the Ukraine has made good progress on its path to joining NATO, but says they have more work to do.
	Again, it's not clear exactly what is happening here, and so I would say a lot is up in the air.
	President Biden made it very clear that he doesn't believe Ukraine is ready for NATO.
	What will it take for the administration's point of view for Ukraine to be ready?
	I know I've heard you all say when the war is over.
	Is that it?
	So we're committed to what's called NATO's open door, to welcoming new members when they're ready for membership and when all of the allies agree to invite them in.
	Ukraine has made good progress in that direction, and that's going to be reflected at the summit.
	At the same time, the Ukrainians and others are the first to acknowledge that they have more work to do, continuing to reform their military, continuing to deepen democratic reforms.
	You're going to see that come out of the summit as well.
	So, it's going to be unclear exactly what happens next year.
	The one thing that is clear is that at some point, maybe this is the beginning of it, so maybe this is the right move.
	Maybe at the beginning of this, the move is going to be to draw some daylight with Zelensky so they can actually cut a deal.
	Meanwhile, Joe Biden is bragging to Erdogan, a person who is, again, a pretty vicious Islamist dictator for the past 10 years or so.
	He's bragging to Erdogan that they look forward to the next five years together.
	This is Biden suggesting he's going to run for re-election, of course.
	I believe today's meeting with you within the margin of the NATO Summit is the first step forward.
	Our meetings prior to this were mere warm-ups, but now we are initiating a new process.
	This new process is a process of five years, and now you are getting prepared for the forthcoming elections.
	And with the forthcoming elections, I would like to take this opportunity to also wish you the best of luck.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you.
	I look forward to meeting you in the next five years.
	OK, well, if that is the case, then why is it that Joe Biden is skipping dinner and going straight to his hotel?
	According to the UK Daily Mail last night, Joe Biden raised eyebrows after skipping dinner with NATO leaders on Tuesday night.
	Instead, he headed straight home to his hotel in Lithuania.
	A U.S.
	official blamed the 80-year-old president's busy schedule over four days and said he's preparing for a big speech on Wednesday.
	But that is, in fact, a change in schedule.
	This is not a healthy person.
	The media, meanwhile, are doing their best, as always, to prop up Joe Biden because they don't have a lot of other choices.
	Joy Behar over at The View.
	Man, that lady, she's a weird lady.
	There's a report from Axios that Joe Biden likes to scream at his White House staff, like a lot.
	It's one of his favorite things to do.
	Joy Behar has, I'll say she has some weird turn-ons.
	He's swearing at people.
	It's a quirk.
	Kind of turned me on when I heard that the president gets angry and volatile.
	I'm not going to lie.
	I'm disappointed in just about every single thing he has done as president.
	I think he's just, the economy is wobbling at best.
	That's a kind way of putting it.
	His foreign policy is a disaster.
	He has no idea what he's doing in terms of China and Ukraine.
	So if he's throwing a few F-bombs here and there, I'm like, yeah, I kind of like it.
	I'm not going to lie.
	Uh, that's weird.
	Kennedy was joking.
	Behar is like dead serious.
	I'm so, so concerned for her.
	I think it was just someone being angry, making you turn on.
	I was turned on by Biden's anger.
	I am too. I like it.
	You like it? I do.
	Well, you have said that before.
	I like that. I mean, he's such a mild-mannered, sweet guy.
	That's weird. Kennedy was joking.
	Behar is like dead serious.
	I'm so, so concerned for her.
	That's very, very strange.
	OK, meanwhile, Corine Jean-Pierre, she has announced that there are no updates on the missing cocaine at the
	White House.
	Here we go.
	Thank you.
	Here we go.
	I don't have any updates.
	As you know, as you just mentioned, Secret Service is under their purview.
	They are certainly investigating the situation.
	I just don't have anything updated.
	I would refer you to the Secret Service on that particular question.
	No updates, no updates.
	I mean, what a mystery wrapped in Enigma.
	Well, as always, Joe Biden's weakness is of no consequence to the Democrats because the person backing him up is absolutely terrible.
	Kamala Harris, we have another Deep Thoughts with Kamala here today.
	And now, Deep Thoughts with Kamala Harris.
	I again want to thank the Secretary for your work.
	This issue of transportation is fundamentally about just making sure that people have the ability to get where they need to go.
	well surpassed Kamala Harris.
	I again want to thank the secretary for your work.
	This issue of transportation is fundamentally about just making sure that people have the ability
	to get where they need to go.
	It's that basic.
	Yeah, that's what transportation is.
	It's where you move things from one place to another.
	I like when she defines basic words because she hasn't read the book.
	If you just assume that every Kamala Harris speech or presser is her giving a book report on a book she has not read, things make a lot more sense.
	They go, Kamala, read To Kill a Mockingbird.
	Well, it's a story in which there is, in fact, a mockingbird.
	And it is, in fact, sometimes killed.
	And that's the important.
	Man, she is awful.
	That is why they have to keep up holding the Biden of it all.
	Okay, meanwhile, the Republican Party, we have another stupid scandal.
	And when I say stupid scandal, this is where one Republican says a dumb thing and now every Republican has to answer for it.
	You never see this with Democrats.
	You just don't.
	The answer for Democrats always, if someone says something dumb, is why are you asking me?
	Why is it my business what AOC said?
	Is it my job to answer for that person?
	But the way that it works for Republicans is a Republican says a dumb thing, and then we expand it into the biggest scandal that ever happened, and then we ask every single Republican in America about it in order to dissociate!
	You must dissociate!
	Show that you don't like this thing!
	Or how about it's not me, and it's not my job to answer for anyone except for me.
	If you want to ask me whether I think, for example, white nationalism is bad, evil, and racist, of course I do.
	But I don't understand why you're asking me, since I never said that it wasn't.
	In any case, Senator Tommy Tuberville stepped in it the other day.
	He was asked about white nationalism.
	And I think, honestly, that you can almost see it on his face as this clip progresses, that he realizes he's made a boo-boo.
	I think that he thought that she said Christian nationalism.
	And there's been this widespread attempt by the left to morph white nationalism, meaning the idea that a white-only ethno-state would be better for the United States.
	And this idea of Christian nationalism, which is a little more controversial because it can be read in one of two ways.
	One is as like an actual theocracy.
	And the other is in an America that has very solid traditional Judeo-Christian values that are embedded in public life.
	Those are not quite the same thing.
	But she didn't say Christian nationalism.
	She said white nationalism and asked him about it and he blew it.
	I'm totally against identity politics.
	I think it's ruining this country.
	And I think that Democrats ought to be ashamed for how they're doing this because it's dividing this country and it's making this country weaker every day.
	But that's not identity politics.
	You said a white nationalist is an American.
	It is identity politics.
	You said a white nationalist is an American, but a white nationalist is someone who believes horrific things.
	Do you really think that's someone who should be serving in the military?
	Well, that's just a name that has been given.
	It's not.
	It's a real definition.
	There's real concerns about extremism.
	So if you're going to do away with most white people in this country out of the military, we've got huge problems.
	We've got huge problems.
	It's not people who are white.
	It's white nationalists.
	That have a few probably different beliefs.
	You see the distinction, right?
	That have different beliefs.
	Now, if racism is one of those beliefs, I'm totally against it.
	I am totally against racism.
	But there's a lot of people that believe in different things.
	A white nationalist is racist, Senator.
	Well, that's your opinion.
	You can almost see him break out in sweat here, because he doesn't know what he's talking about, obviously.
	Right?
	He's saying that you shouldn't have racial discrimination in the military, and she's saying white nationalists shouldn't be in the military.
	Now, the case that you can make is that the government over-broadly classifies white nationalists, because every time you go to the Department of Homeland Security and ask them for a definition, they'll say things like, people who want to make sure that their kids are not controlled by the NEA.
	You can make that definition, but the classical definition of white nationalism, of course, of course, is racism.
	Right?
	There's just no two ways about that.
	So he makes that boo-boo.
	Right?
	And then he's asked more about it and he walks it back and he says, well, I mean, if that's what racism is, then sure, I don't like racism.
	Again, he's just, it's a terminological failure by him and it's a boo-boo and it's a gaffe.
	But does anyone actually think that Tommy Tuberville is in favor of like a white ethnostate?
	Obviously not.
	This is just him being dumb.
	It's not him actually believing the thing.
	Here we go.
	Explain why you continue to insist that white nationalists are American.
	Listen, I'm totally against racism.
	If Democrats want to say that white nationalists are racist, I'm totally against that too.
	But that's not a Democratic definition.
	The definition of a white nationalist is someone... Well, that's your definition.
	My definition is racism is bad.
	The definition is that the belief that the white race is superior to all other races.
	Totally out of the question.
	So do you believe that white nationalists are racist?
	Yes.
	If that's what a race is, yes.
	Thank you.
	Okay, so, again, he made a boo-boo.
	He won't step out of the boo-boo by saying, I misheard, or I thought you were talking about just whites generally, or the Department of Homeland Security over-categorizes.
	Okay, but that's not the point.
	The point here is a senator says a dumb thing.
	This now becomes the predicate for an entire news cycle where we're not supposed to worry about all of the other racial issues plaguing the United States, such as, for example, the attempt in California to push for a full-scale reparations regime amounting to black fathers no longer have to pay child support for their kids.
	right, actual racism or the affirmative action, racism in action that Democrats have been pursuing
	and are screaming and caterwauling about because it just got banned by the Supreme Court or the
	equity agenda of the Biden administration that is absolutely predicated on group differences
	and rectifying group imbalances in outcome. We're not supposed to pay attention to that,
	we're supposed to pay attention to Tuberville saying a dumb thing. So Chuck Schumer, of course,
	goes ballistic over this because what a convenient brick bath to hit somebody with.
	The definition of white nationalism is not a matter of opinion. White nationalism,
	the ideology that one race is inherently superior to others, that people of color should be
	segregated, subjected and relegated to second class citizenship is racist down to its rotten core.
	And I hope you'll join me in thanking our panelists for their work.
	And for the senator from Alabama to obscure the racist nature of white nationalism is indeed very, very dangerous.
	His words have power and carry weight with the fringe of his constituency, just the fringe But if that fringe listens to him excuse and defend white nationalism, he is fanning the flames of bigotry and intolerance.
	I mean, again, overplaying the hand here is the thing that Democrats do.
	And then, of course, Mitch McConnell is forced to come out and say, white supremacy is bad.
	Like, we all know.
	We all know.
	Here's Mitch McConnell.
	Do you have any concerns that you have a member of your conference, Senator Kupperville, who seems to have a hard time denouncing white nationalism, especially as it pertains to white nationalism in the military?
	White supremacy is simply unacceptable in the military and in our whole country.
	I mean, again, the fact that Republicans constantly fall into this trap where it's like, I have to now answer for Tommy Tuberville or whatever.
	It's really, really dumb.
	And again, you don't see Democrats doing the same thing.
	They don't even answer for their own policies.
	OK, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
	So things that I like.
	So Bud Light has just taken it absolutely on the chin.
	And as I said, I'm not sure that brand ever recovers.
	According to Yahoo Finance, Bud Light has now spiraled down to the 14th spot.
	In terms of beer rankings, the repercussions resonate far beyond the brand itself.
	A recent YouGov survey reveals the decline in Bud Light's ranking, casting it below competitors like Pabst Blue Ribbon, Miller Genuine Draft, and Miller Lite.
	The seismic shift in popularity jeopardizes the livelihood of the 65,000 people whose economic well-being is intricately tied to Anheuser-Busch InBev's success.
	I love when the media are suddenly worried about jobs in the beer industry.
	Now again, people aren't buying less beer, they're just buying beer from other providers who presumably are gaining jobs.
	Anheuser-Busch CEO Brendan Whitworth has taken full responsibility for the controversial promotion involving trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney that caused sales to plummet.
	In an interview with CBS, Whitworth emphasized that he is ultimately accountable for the actions of the company.
	But at the same time, he has not actively kind of changed direction here.
	Whitworth has confirmed the company will maintain its partnerships without making any changes.
	He did not explicitly apologize for collaboration with Mulvaney.
	And, again, more and more people are just deciding, I can buy beer somewhere else.
	So, you take a, a lot of other companies are gonna look at that and they're gonna realize, maybe I shouldn't dip my toe into this particular water because it turns out the conservative alligator sometimes will bite you.
	Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
	Okay, so, MSNBC sent a tweet the other day, and it was actually of an article that was a year old.
	And the tweet was, quote, the far-right's obsession with fitness is going digital.
	So apparently, if you work out, you are now Hitler.
	Which is really fascinating.
	It's a fascinating take.
	And one of the things that has been true since the days of Nietzsche is that there has been a sort of counter-cultural interest in people looking good because they believe that deconstructionists have made everything ugly.
	And that's not wrong.
	The attempt to undermine beauty standards is a left-wing thing.
	The left has decided to undermine the standards on nearly everything.
	They did this back in the 1960s and 70s by building ugly cement blocks of buildings and getting rid of all the beautiful buildings that used to exist in America's cities.
	And now they're doing it by trying to proclaim to you that people who are objectively ugly are actually quite beautiful.
	And so the right-wing response to that has been, well, no.
	And also, you don't have to be ugly.
	You can make yourself look better.
	And that, of course, is true.
	And I'm a big advocate of the idea that people should try to make themselves Look better in a healthy way.
	Working out is a very good thing.
	There's nothing wrong with working out.
	And by the way, it's important in relationships also.
	If you wish to be sexually attractive to your partner, and for your partner to be sexually attractive to you, well, then presumably, going to the gym once in a while wouldn't hurt.
	That isn't a far-right obsession.
	But as the left cedes more and more ground to the right, they end up with these bizarre arguments.
	So when you say things like fat positivity is good, Stop with the body shaming.
	All you care about is how people look.
	The natural response by people on the right is going to be, well, maybe you should go to the gym and cut out the donuts, Tubbo.
	That's not a horrible thing.
	It also has become sort of an aspect of self-control.
	There's this perception on the left that everything that you are in life is outside of your control, that you are basically just planted on the planet, fully created.
	There's no control over any aspect of your life.
	If you're overweight, it's through no fault of your own, even if you're downing 3,000 calories a day and not going to the gym ever.
	And so the right response to that has been, go to the gym and work out.
	And it's become sort of a meme, right, in the online world.
	Is that you're in shape because you're right wing?
	Well, but the truth is, is there anything wrong with that?
	Wouldn't it be better for the left if the left was like, yeah, you should get in shape.
	Getting in shape is definitely a good thing.
	You want to lower those healthcare costs?
	You want to make sure that you have a more successful dating life?
	Maybe you should look better.
	Again, the left has wiped out so much of its appeal to the center that now everything that is not hard left has become far right, according to MSNBC.
	That's kind of an amazing, amazing thing.
	So, again, if they wish to abandon fitness, then I guess they can do it.
	I just don't see how that is going to... I'm not sure how that is going to benefit them in either the short or the long run.
	Alrighty, guys.
	The rest of the show continues right now.
	You're not going to want to miss it.
	We'll be getting into the mailbag.
	If you're not a member, become a member.
	Use code Shapiro.
	Check out for two months free on all annual plans.

▲