All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
April 19, 2023 - The Charlie Kirk Show
35:20
Rage Against the Machines? with Joe Allen and Raheem Kassam
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Elon Musk's Human Verification Plan 00:14:56
Hey everybody, Tanner Charlie Kirk Show.
We talk artificial intelligence, very important, and also Trump 2024 with Raheem Kassam and Joe Allen.
Text this episode to your friends, give us a five-star review, email us freedom at charliekirk.com and get involved with TurningPointUSA.
That is tpusa.com, tpusa.com.
Email us your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com and get involved and support our show at charliekirk.com slash support.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by my friends, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage, 888, 888 1172 or Andrew and Todd.com.
Welcome back, everybody.
Everyone's talking about artificial intelligence, and Joe Allen has been trying to warn people for quite some time.
At least we're talking about it.
Joe, welcome back to the program.
Thank you very much, Charlie.
Is it a good idea to try to regulate it, have a government agency preemptively regulate it?
Is that a futile effort?
Your thoughts?
It's certainly futile in regard to, say, Russia or China or any other systems that may exist out there.
But, you know, actually, I'm going to add something else to this.
Right now, they've got the Commerce Department working on this, right?
They solicited the public opinion so people can email in or message their complaints or their worries or what they think that can be done.
But the fact that it's the Commerce Department, right as we see the Restrict Act moving through with a lot of really potentially damaging civil liberties violations, I think that's a real, real problem.
So as far as regulation goes, I mean, I would love to see some sort of cap put on the power of artificial intelligence.
And I'd love to see the implementation of data privacy and data ownership.
But even then, I really do think that it would only slow things down in America.
I think other countries would continue racing forward.
Yeah, so Elon was a little bit, he wasn't as clear as I would have liked.
He was a little opaque in his interview with Tucker.
So Tucker said, okay, be specific, what exactly could be done?
And Elon said, well, imagine a machine that could write very persuasively and know exactly how to communicate with the audience.
What did Elon mean by that?
He meant that a machine's going to run for political office or be able to communicate in massive channels in a way that is incredibly persuasive.
What did he mean by that?
So one of the AI doom scenarios is that an artificial superintelligence would come to the point that it would be indetectable to the normal human eye and that its goals would be either misaligned from human goals or its goals would include something that would be like on the level of kill all humans, right?
Or somewhere in between.
Now, what he meant is that right now we have all of these chatbots swarming the internet and filling the internet full of content.
And you have systems like Auto GPT, which are made to interact with the Internet.
If you had enough of those, or if you had a system that was influential enough, that was sophisticated enough, I think he said convincing or persuasive, and it was misaligned, and human beings didn't realize they were being manipulated, either really important and influential people being manipulated, or millions, billions of people being manipulated all at once.
And if it starts some sort of squabble, be they local or international, then that would be kind of the beginnings of an AI run amok and causing damage to human society.
If I could just add one thing to that, though, Charlie, the solution, the proposed solution, Elon Musk wants basically mandatory verification to prove that you're a human to be on Twitter.
That seems rational.
Why would that be bad?
It would kill anonymity, right?
So let's assume that Elon Musk is the cyborg savior that he's positioning himself as.
You're still at the mercy of Elon Musk in that system.
And Elon Musk now has, to some extent or another, your payment data and therefore your identity.
And I think that anonymity on the internet, especially in an age of mass political correctness, anonymity on the internet is necessary for certain truths to be voiced by very, very important people who would be basically canceled, so to speak, from their position should they tell the truth under their own names.
So that's interesting.
And I definitely see that.
At the same time, anonymity is an ever-evaporating and disappearing reality.
It's harder and harder, but it certainly is necessary and it should be protected speech.
So what are the other doom scenarios?
That's interesting.
I never heard it framed that way.
Can you just lay out like the best hits?
So, okay, that's one of them, a persuasive, you know, communication movement that is indecipherable from humans.
What are the other doom scenarios?
You know, in superintelligence, Nick Bostrom, Superintelligence is a 2014 book, very, very influential on Elon Musk and his way of thinking about this.
But in superintelligence, Nick Bostrom talks about an artificial intelligence system that is in control of or has access to some critical infrastructure.
And so it could be anything from a weapon system, right?
It could be nuclear weapons.
It could be dropping airplanes out of the sky, shutting off power grids, or it could be a system that's in charge of a biolab.
And so you've got biofoundries all over the place now.
And these are basically automated bio labs.
You've got robots that are doing most of the work in these labs to either do genome sequencing or active mutation for different sorts of kind of designer microbes.
And so if a system like that were to start creating pathogens and release them, then obviously that's the end of the world for at least some portion of us, not all of us.
Another thing that Nick Bostrom talks about too, though, is the possibility that a system would just simply manipulate human beings to do much the same thing.
And I would also add that, I mean, I think that let's just forget about runaway artificial general intelligence or some kind of super intelligent system.
Human beings have that power at their fingertips right now in high places.
And another fear is that as these technologies are democratized, the possibility of a terrorist getting a hold of a really, really advanced artificial intelligence system or some kind of a similar system to what is out there now and doing the same sorts of things.
And of course, now that you have machines that can code effectively, cyber attacks, mass cyber attacks become at least a much greater possibility.
So I can just see this happening now because the government is a bunch of power-hungry maniacs that we don't almost do anything effectively right now because our elites are awful.
They could use the anxiety about AI to actually create an even bigger government that would restrict our liberties and freedoms, and then we'd be even less freedom.
I mean, is the option, is the best option then to do nothing and create our own and just game out all the doom scenarios similar to kind of how we used to live when we used to think Russia was going to launch nuclear weapons at us.
I mean, is that now the prudent approach?
It's like, let's go create our own patriotic AI-based AI, if you will, in the AI arms race and do no regulation because at least we'd have a fighting shot.
I'm just trying to think rationally here.
And I think it's definitely a rational argument.
And I wish that I could make some sort of really coherent argument against it.
The only argument I have against it is that it's much more of a philosophical argument that as these technologies progress, human freedom and human dignity and certainly privacy will tend to recede.
And so these systems, as this AI arms race is ramping up, these systems are getting better and better.
So maybe you can trust Elon Musk with our fate, right?
He talks about, I love humanity.
I want to preserve humanity in the face of these evil artificial gods as I create a digital god myself.
But really, I think the question has to be asked: what sort of humanity is Elon Musk talking about?
And of course, a big part of his philosophical approach to how to deal with artificial intelligence is to link the brain directly to it.
But one other thing about this tension, that anxiety that you're talking about, that is definitely rippling through the population, it will be seized upon by people in government to secure more power.
So that's also a real problem.
And, you know, Nick Bostrom, the guy, the author of Superintelligence, he recommends a global government with mass wall-to-wall surveillance everywhere to stop technological progress outside of the hands of those that can be trusted, so to speak.
And there are a number of others who make that same argument in that camp, right?
Hugo DeGuerras, Ben Goertzel, they both made these arguments before.
And so Elon Musk has come out, said, global government is not what I want.
You ball Noah Harari has said the same.
I don't want global government.
And of course, Peter Thiel famously said that a global government would basically be the antichrist.
And that seems like what we're heading towards.
I have no, I am not confident anybody in our American and political elite even have a plan.
And I mean, it's just kind of all a lot of abstraction.
Like, well, maybe you could do this or do that.
That's really bad and not promising.
Are we the last humans?
That's a great question.
Joe Allen, so what do you I'm just reading some notes here.
You suggest that we're staring down the barrel of two different and divergent transhumanist futures.
What do you mean?
So I think that it's put really well by people like James Polos or Mary Harrington.
I can't recommend their writing enough.
Very, very intelligent.
And they are much more fatalistic about this in some ways than I or certainly Steve.
Steve Bannon comes out very strong on the point that we just got to stop this.
We have to, if not smash up the machines, halt their progress.
Polos and Harrington, I think, are more fatalistic.
And what they describe, really, in essence, is a situation in which we in the West have a choice between two types of worldly power.
The kind of borg that you see represented by people like Google or Facebook or Microsoft, the sort of corporate, politically correct Borg that is set up as a sort of police state over the rest of us, or an emperor model, which Musk represents.
He's much more of a Caesar Augustus type character.
And so it's really a choice, though, not between transhumanism or not transhumanism.
It's the style of transhumanism because the future that Musk foresees and is actively crafting with his billions is one in which we do create a godlike artificial general intelligence system that is smarter than human beings.
And you hope that it's benevolent towards human beings.
And humans connect their minds, or maybe he would even say their souls to the extent the brain is equated with the soul in the scientific realm.
You fuse your soul with that God through things like Neuralink.
You have servant robots everywhere that do all the work.
And you just assume that like human beings, and this is an example he used on Tucker, and a lot of transhumanists use this, that human beings would at least have the same kind, or just as human beings have the kindness and sentiment to keep chimpanzees and gorillas around, you hope you'll build a digital god that would have the same values and would keep us around.
Ben Goertzl describes it as though we would be squirrels in the park.
We would be squirrels in the park, and the digital gods would go on to develop themselves into something much grander.
Is that inevitable, though?
I mean, there's really no way to stop us from getting there, right?
I mean, someone is going to create something that is so advanced beyond humanity.
Or this is a theory that is less articulated, that there's the theory of technological plateau that you might get really good at word processing.
This is a theory that's gaining some steam right now, where there is no guarantee the parabola continues.
Can you articulate that?
Yeah, you know, one way to put it is that this technological increase we see right now is going to ultimately be an S curve.
So the singularity would be that this exponential increase just keeps going to an infinite degree, right?
Good for helping people write essays, parlor tricks, but yeah, keep going.
So, you know, an S curve, it just levels off at a certain point and then goes on.
Of course, you expect other S curves to emerge, but at least that's manageable.
And here's the way I see that.
I mean, that is something that is a hopeful note for those of us who don't want to see this technology go any further.
It's, of course, a hard limit for those who do.
And it's certainly possible.
There's no guarantees.
In the same way, we don't have flying cars and we don't have cold fusion that works well enough.
We won't have anything like artificial general intelligence.
I do think, though, that the never say never principle should at least hold for keeping the possibilities open for something like an AGI appearing.
It doesn't have to be like they describe it.
It just has to be powerful enough to give some worldly institution or power a leg up on its competitors.
And very few people are actually talking about it.
And so what do you think the next one year calendar, one minute remaining, will look like with artificial intelligence?
The Two Classes of Society 00:02:32
Without a doubt, you're going to see the rollout of these chatbots all across different institutions from education to corporations.
You're going to see more and more different areas of science advance because of the useful elements of these.
And what I think the biggest thing you're going to see is the fusion of human beings to artificial intelligence through mechanisms like these devices we're speaking on now.
Human AI relationships are forming as we speak.
And so you're going to get two classes of society that are starting to become self-conscious, those who want the technological revolution and those who don't.
It's coming very soon.
We have an email here from someone with a PhD.
You're going to have AI with PhD in data science, AI-driven, personalized propaganda that will control enough of the masses so the elites can achieve any policy at will.
That's very, that's that's very that's exactly what Elon and you are warning about.
All right, Joe, thank you so much.
Thank you very much, Charlie.
Look, you did the tough thing during the Chinese coronavirus.
You paid your people and pulled your business through the pandemic.
And now doing the tough thing could qualify you up to $26,000 per employee at covidtaxrelief.org.
Government funds are available to reward companies with two or more employees who stayed open during COVID.
This is not a loan, and you don't have to pay it back.
I know a lot of people that have benefited from this.
I think Congress appropriated way too much money.
This program is complicated, but nobody knows it better than the CPAs and tax experts at covidtaxrelief.org.
That is covidtaxrelief.org.
You pay nothing up front.
They do all the work and share a percentage of the cash they get you.
Businesses of all types, including nonprofits and churches, can qualify, including those who took PPP loans, even if you had an increase in sales.
You did the difficult thing for your employees during the virus.
Let covidtaxrelief.org help you get up to $26,000 per employee.
Visit covidtaxrelief.org.
That is covidtaxrelief.org, covidtaxrelief.org.
We're going to see the same way you saw a movement for organic food, grass-fed, fair trade, made in America.
You're going to see news items, newscasts, like, for example, five years from now, the Charlie Kirk Show, produced by humans, for humans, by humans.
I'm not kidding.
It's going to be a real thing because they already have AI newscasters.
They're going to have, I mean, not to mention the 40 to 50 million people that are going to lose their jobs in the next decade if this thing really ramps up.
Ron DeSantis Polling Strategies 00:08:31
Minimum.
And we've been playing around with AI edits of our videos.
It's just so much more efficient.
But I can guarantee you this: the host of this program will always be a human being, as inefficient as we are.
That'll be interesting to see.
Can the machine actually do commentary and make it interesting?
I bet they'll figure it out.
Joining us now is Raheem Kassam to talk 2024, amongst many other things.
And he has a new poll that he wants to discuss.
Pro-DeSantis poll conducted by Bush, Romney, Rove, Ryan.
Is that all?
And even Soros-linked operatives.
So, Raheem, tell us about the poll and tell us who's connected to the poll.
Yeah, well, thank you.
Thank you for having me.
I haven't quite outsourced the national pulse to AI just yet.
Yes, there you go.
I heard, I think, but I think this poll has probably been outsourced to AI, at least by the way it has been presented, by the way it has been repeated across a certain ecosphere on the right in the last 24, 48 hours.
You would think, I mean, it sounds very NPC.
And so, you know, when anything's sus, I think you and I probably do the same thing, right?
We think, well, if it sounds sus, probably is sus.
And you only need to sort of take one, two, three different research actions to prove a thesis out.
So yesterday morning, I wake up and I say to my team, I said, this poll seems sus to me.
Let's start looking into it within about, I don't know, what is the poll?
What were the results?
I'm sorry to interrupt.
Can you just make sure you outline that?
Yeah.
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
We'll do all of it.
So the backstory is, you know, I get up yesterday morning.
I think this poll is sus.
I send the thing out to the staff.
We go and we look through the stuff, which is Arizona, Pennsylvania, primarily 500 voters polled.
And the results show Ron DeSantis beating Joe Biden, but Donald Trump not beating Joe Biden.
And I go, yeah, I don't know that that's really a thing.
And I start to look for the crosstabs.
For the people that don't know what the crosstabs are, the cross-tabulations are the detail behind the polling.
It's the Excel spreadsheets, hundreds of pages they can go into sometimes that tell you, like, this person in this demographic said this.
This person who identifies as this said this.
This person's in this age range.
And they said that.
And there were no crosstabs released.
So the first red flag goes up.
All reputable polling companies release the cross-tabulations that underlie the polling arguments that they are making, but this one didn't.
And I said, who did this poll?
And it turns out, I'm not even making this up.
The name of the pollster is POS polling.
Okay.
There you go.
I was like, bit on the nose.
What does POS stand for?
Well, POS is public opinion strategies.
And public opinion strategies, I quickly found out, has been around since the early 90s.
They're based just down the road from Washington, D.C., in a little suburb called Alexandria in Virginia.
And then we started to look into the staff.
And all of the staff come from Romney campaign, Ryan campaign, Bush Jeb campaign, George Bush campaign, and their latest clients of this polling firm are American Crossroads, Karl Rove's organization.
Then you start to look into, okay, all right.
So we know this about them.
That's okay.
Those people exist.
I'm not denying they exist.
I'm not denying their right to run polling firms if they want to.
But then we start to look into, okay, well, who have they worked with?
Who have they worked for?
And you start to see pharmaceutical companies, Procter ⁇ Gamble, Pharma Lobby, American Medical Association, Bill Gates Foundation.
And I start to think, oh my goodness, we've hit the mother load with this.
And just before I think it can't get any worse, we find out that this POS polling has actually recently been submerged into this wider corporate apparatus in the last couple of years, a company called GP3.
And the head of GP3, the CEO of GP3, he is actually somebody who worked directly for Golden Telecom.
And Golden Telecom was owned by George Soros.
So it's interesting to me that at the same time we've seen, and by the way, there are so many more angles to this story.
Paul Ryan's brother and Paul Ryan himself now work for this company that is invested in this GP3.
And you start to see that there are layers upon layers upon layers of anti-Trump, like hardline, committed, ideological and financial anti-Trump interests at play here.
The funniest part about it, I suppose, to me is that even with all of that mentioned, they could only rig the poll to show that DeSantis was a couple of points ahead of Donald Trump.
You can't, you know, because you can't be too clever with these things.
Otherwise, people, you know, otherwise the whistles really blow on it, right?
But they could only push those numbers a tiny, tiny percentage point over the top of where Trump was.
I got to tell you, when it comes to these things, you know, I take the Christopher Hitchens view of polling.
It's broadly garbage nowadays.
Unless you're looking at somebody like Rasmussen, who I still inherently trust, it's broadly garbage.
But this stuff, this partisan stuff, I mean, this company's been slapped for its poor practices in the past as well.
But this partisan stuff, I think it's really bad to get in bed with these people.
And I think it says something about the people who are sharing this poll, knowing where it came from.
So how does it then play into the 2024 race, right?
It seems as if DeSantis has had a very difficult last six weeks and not as in good favor.
Are you seeing those same sort of macro trends right now?
Yes.
And I was saying to somebody earlier on Twitter, I was saying, look, I will report into this stuff because it's important for people to understand where the information is coming from.
This is not Raheem Kassam trying to destroy Ron DeSantis.
I actually quite like Ron DeSantis.
I quite like the old Ron DeSantis that we all quite liked.
And I remember a time in 2015 interviewing him on the radio and saying to him, Wow, you look like you could be president one day.
So this isn't anything like that.
This is the people that are sort of surrounding Ron DeSantis right now, using Ron DeSantis as their mechanism to get their ideology over the line.
And all of those people have the same thing in common.
They are frothing at the mouth, never Trumpers.
They have always been never Trumpers.
These aren't people who went off Trump.
I understand that some people did.
Whatever.
That's their problem.
They'll come to terms with it.
But these are people who, on the front page of National Review magazine, were the anti-Trump Brigade back then.
These are the people who ran the campaigns against him.
These are the people who smeared him shoulder to shoulder in lockstep with the Democrats while Trump was in office.
And now they're creating this sort of Praetorian guard around DeSantis.
But Ron DeSantis has to understand that that doesn't help him.
That hurts him.
You can coalesce as many billion-dollar globalist Republican donors as you want.
That is not going to take over from MAGA, right?
MAGA is in the veins.
It's in the blood.
It's in every breath that people take.
They believe it to their core.
This isn't something you can buy off.
It's not something that can be, you know, a check cannot be written.
No amount in a check can be written for most MAGA people to turn on that philosophy.
And that's what these donors believe.
They believe that if you throw enough money at it, if you throw enough fake polls at it, if you throw enough misdirection at it, then support for Trump will wane.
And who's going to benefit naturally?
You know, the only bigger candidate in the race so far.
Well, and I hear this a lot.
I mean, I was talking to a big donor recently.
He said, I don't know a single person who likes Donald Trump.
And my response is, well, there's a lot of them.
And that you might not know them, but they're a big part of the country.
In fact, they know you, right?
That's the point.
They know you.
They know that world.
They know your world.
They know, like, you talk to these people who don't know Trump supporters.
I would say, check your premises.
Check the people around you.
Who are you hanging out with?
Living in Orwellian Times 00:08:03
Who are you talking to?
What supermarkets, if any, are you even standing in line at?
You know, you cannot go through life listening to by the way, I'm not a Marxist, so there's nothing wrong with being a billionaire, right?
If you've earned it, especially if you do something good with it.
Yes.
It just doesn't work.
Yes.
You can't be a touch that way.
It would be nice, you know, to have that little reclusive lifestyle and whatever, but then fine.
Then you're not going to get politics.
You're not going to get public opinion.
And public opinion strategies in this instance doesn't get public opinion.
Raheem Kassam, great work.
Thank you so much.
Thank you for having me.
Email usfreedom at charliekirk.com.
We're getting a fair amount of emails here about artificial intelligence and the whole deal.
I want to just talk about an email.
I'm emailing back and forth with this PhD in data science and AI lead.
He sent his link to him.
He's legit, really, really serious guy here.
And I asked him, I said, what's the most important part of the artificial intelligence debate?
Like all this.
He said, listen, we have to limit centralized surveillance or strict act.
The AI power is to manipulate what only comes from data.
It is what feeds them.
This guy is the PhD in data science and an AI lead at his job at a very reputable place.
He said ring cameras, for example, should have a closed lid unless a motion detector is activated.
Cell phones need lids that hardware disconnect the microphone when closed.
And he goes on to what the worst case scenario is and all this.
And so that's interesting.
The data might be a way for us really taking our data seriously.
That's an interesting point, is that that's really the life force.
Otherwise, the AI is not as powerful as people might think it is.
Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, Mike Lindell with My Pillow is launching the My Pillow 2.0.
That's right, you heard me, MyPillow 2.0.
When Mike Lindell, great American patriot, invented My Pillow, had everything you could ever want in a pillow.
But now, 20 years later, he discovered a new technology that makes it even better.
The My Pillow 2.0 has a patented, adjustable fill on the original My Pillow, and now with a brand new fabric that is made with a temperature-regulating thread.
For exclusive listeners, the MyPillow 2.0 is buy one, get one free offer with promo code Kirk and get your best sleep ever.
MyPillow 2.0 temperature regulating technology is 100% made in America and comes with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
Go to mypillow.com and click on the Radio Listener Square to buy one and get one free offer.
Enter promo code Kirk or call 800-875-0425 to get your MyPillow 2.0 now.
That is mypillow.com.
Promo code Kirk.
Check it out.
Lots of emails on artificial intelligence.
People say, Charlie, you're forgetting the point.
The so-called AI tech emperor that could get in control is still in a machine or on the internet.
If things ever get bad, actual humans could go on and smash the hardware and disconnect the wires.
Humans would still maintain ultimate control in the physical realm.
You know, that would actually be a smart solution, right?
That would be a smart regulation if our leaders were in charge.
There should be a kill switch mandatory.
There needs to be a plug that could be pulled.
Again, if we actually lived in a sane country, which we don't, with leaders that actually cared about issues that matter, which we don't, wouldn't a kill switch be rational?
Is there a kill switch right now of the artificial intelligence at Google?
Is there a kill switch?
Besides just good old baseball bats and hand grenades.
There needs to be some sort of ability to check and balance.
And even the left that isn't taking this issue seriously deep down, they know this stuff is really bad.
Is this something we can agree on?
Probably not, because they don't believe in God.
Therefore, they're trying to create heaven.
You can't make this up.
We're going to get into the dialogue with the thug that runs the Department of Education.
Penguin, which is a publisher, has announced they're making major revisions to 1984.
Quote, the novel requires updating in line with progressive sensibilities, said a consultant, for anti-exclusionary minds, a group engaged by Penguin to moderate Orwell's critique of totalitarianism.
For those of you that have ever read 1984, the irony is rich here.
1984 will be memory hold itself.
Boy, that would have been powerful if Orwell would have written that.
He said, for this, one day will be memory hold two.
Oof.
Someone just emailed us.
We need to go buy original copies of books and keep them.
You better believe it.
They are going to become some of the most valuable things in society.
Original copies of physical books.
They're going to get rid of all of it.
Right here, literally, they're editing 1984.
They're heavily editing 1984.
It's too critical of totalitarianism.
You're trying to tell me we're not heading for a police surveillance state.
Why would Penguin need to update 1984?
Get people used to being spied on by each other.
Big Brother is fine.
Big brother is great.
You know, in 1984, it talks about artificially intelligence.
It's artificial intelligence, artificially intelligence-generated art.
Buy books and keep them.
Your kids will thank you because soon the new 1984 that will be published will be heavily edited.
Amazing.
What is a woman?
Very simple question.
Matt Walsh asked it in his fabulous film.
Cut 51, the height of the Department of Education, has asked a simple question: What is a woman?
Play Cut 51.
So, can you please tell me, or can you please define for me, what is a woman?
Our focus at the department is to provide equal access to students, including students who are LGBTQ access, free from discrimination.
What's the definition of a woman?
You haven't given me that.
You haven't answered my question.
I think that's almost secondary to the important role that I have as Secretary of Education.
What does HHS say the definition of a woman is?
I lead the Department of Education, and my job is to make sure that all students have access to public education, which includes co-curricular activities.
What is a woman?
It's secondary.
I can't tell you what a woman is.
These people can bust.
They get overheated when you ask them a very simple question: what is a woman?
Because they know that if they actually answered the question, it would either upset the trans lobby or upset one of their core constituencies.
They cannot answer a question of what is a woman.
Isn't it amazing all these godless, miserable, upper-middle-class, secular, white liberals that go around and be like, yeah, I vote for Democrats for women's rights.
I vote for Democrats.
What is a woman?
Your leaders you put in power can't even tell you what a woman is.
New Zealand has the same issue.
This is a leader in New Zealand, the prime minister of New Zealand, Chris Hipkins, asked the question, hey, what is a woman?
Who would ever have thought how to create a glitch in the trans totalitarian left is asking an elemental, simple question?
They just start, they can't answer the question, play cut 52.
How do you, and how does this government define a woman?
To be honest, Sean, that question's come slightly out of left field for me.
The, well, biology, sex, gender, people define themselves.
People define their own genders.
Well, I think as I've just indicated, I wasn't expecting that question, so it's not something that I've pre-formulated an answer on.
But in terms of gender identity, I think people define their gender identity for themselves.
Yeah, people, they define gender identity for themselves.
Defining Gender Identity 00:01:16
By the way, the 1984 thing, it could be a parody that I'm reading, or it could be real.
That's how you know you live in Orwellian times.
I'm going to read the tweet.
The tweet is there.
It could be real.
It could be a parody.
Penguin has announced major revisions to a new edition of Orwell 1984.
The novel requires updating.
It almost sounds too on the edge to be true.
Or it could be true.
I mean, we live in such Orwellian times as it is.
But they are real.
The reason it's believable is because they're editing a ton of books right now.
They're rewriting a ton of books to try to be politically correct.
Woodhouse, Ronald Dahl.
So it is in the pattern of believability.
Boy, this artificial intelligence topic has really animated many of you.
And you've emailed us freedom at charliekirk.com.
I'm open to ideas.
You guys can email us, freedom at charliekirk.com.
How do we stop it before it takes us off?
I asked our friend here, any good news?
He said, well, potentially, it can help us be a hedge against tyranny if it enables humans to parse information faster and hence forces governments to be transparent.
But that's unlikely.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email us here Fox is always freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thanks so much for listening, and God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.
Export Selection