The Culture War - Tim Pool - AI BACKLASH Growing, SLUR For Robots Widespread, AI Expert Weighs In ft. Nate Fischer

Aug. 5, 2025 - The Culture War - Tim Pool

31:06

AI BACKLASH Growing, SLUR For Robots Widespread, AI Expert Weighs In ft. Nate Fischer

BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tate Brown @realTateBrown (X) Guest: Nate Fischer @NateAFischer (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL

Participants

Main voices

nate fischer

23:13

tate brown

07:45

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
nate fischer ▲ ● ▼		A different form of transhumanism and it relates to the sort of a continuation of the woke trend.
		You think of the sort of woke trend of everything about it is teaching you to be suspicious of your own judgments.
		You are not worthy.
		You're not worthy.
		You're not worthy to rule an institution.
		Your judgments are sort of, your judgments are corrupted to the point that even if you're trying to be fair, you have so many sort of systemic biases.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		I'm producer Tate, Tate Brown, holding it down for Tim Pool today.
		Let's open up this story here from NBC News.
		This is a great headline.
		Is an AI backlash brewing?
		What clanker says about growing frustration with emerging tech?
		A slur for robots and AI has emerged online in recent weeks, offering some sense of growing societal anxiety with increasing capable technology.
		It's a slur for the AI age.
		Clanker, a word that traces back to a Star Wars video game, has emerged in recent weeks as the internet's favorite epithet for any kind of technology looking to replace humans.
		On TikTok, people harass robots in stores and on sidewalks with it.
		Search interest for the term has spiked.
		On Sunday, Senator Ruben Gallego used the term last week to tout a new piece of legislation.
		People are getting a little fed up with AI and clanker has emerged as a slur.
		I mean, that was pretty quick that people got fed up with AI.
		I think people are a little nervous about it.
		I thought it'd be cool to bring in an expert to have a chat about it, maybe put people at ease.
		So let's see here.
		Nate, can you hear me?
nate fischer ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Dude, what's up?
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		How are you?
nate fischer ▲ ● ▼		Doing well.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Good to be on.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Do you want to give the viewers an intro who you are, what you do?
unidentified		Sure.
nate fischer ▲ ● ▼		So Nate Fisher, founder of New Founding, which is a venture firm focused on critical civilizational problems.
		And I use that really in a broad sense.
		We have a venture fund, but we also have a real estate project.
		We're actually building a community, sort of a new vision of local life.
		We have a company that's involved in AI transformation, which we're pretty involved in.
		We really built it.
		So kind of a wide range of things.
		I use venture in the broad sense.
		Based in Dallas, Texas, wife, five kids, and really just look for, kind of look to understand the intersection between the big political cultural trends of our day and outsized business opportunities.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Love it.
		Well, I was leading in with a story from NBC.
		I don't know if you've been on social media recently and seen the new slur for robots that's been occurring.
		People are calling them clankers.
		It's like a throwback to like a Star Wars video game.
		People obviously are very, very skeptical about AI technology and robots and that sort of thing.
		But a lot of people, especially in our circles, have been promoting it.
		They're saying this could be the solution to a lot of our civilizational problems.
		A big one that people highlight is the birth rate, the declining birth rate.
		People say this could be good for filling in gaps without being dependent on immigration.
		I'm wondering what you're seeing, what your kind of general general thoughts are on this transition to AI, where we maybe need to stop, where we need to go, that sort of thing.
nate fischer ▲ ● ▼		So I'm an optimist about this.
		At least about the possible, right?
		I think that it's not, I don't think there's a guarantee of a good direction, but I think that we should be, my view is on the right, we're in a world where many of the legacy institutions have been sort of defined and controlled by political opponents.
		Any disruptive technology should presumptively be something that we believe we can lever that's a friend of ours because it's certainly more of a threat to the establishment than it is to us.
		It's going to come with its own threats.
		It's going to come with its own challenges.
		But really, how those shake out could go either way, right?
		There's no guarantee that they're going to sort of further cement, let's say, the less hegemony or further accelerate.
		I actually think it's very likely that many of the distortions, if you think of sort of anomalies of the last 50 years or whatever, that are really sort of distortions or divergence from the historical norm.
		I think a realistic expectation is that powerful disruptive technology will first eliminate those and sort of first, the most likely impacts are actually to move us back to historical norms.
		Now, they'll bring their own distortions that we need to be aware of.
		But again, I think we should embrace these.
		I think in many ways, the job of entrepreneurs is to make sure that we actually lever these new technologies in ways that are in line with our vision for society rather than in line with others.
		So what do you do?
		You sort of envision a future that doesn't yet exist and you will it into existence as an entrepreneur.
		And there's a lot of plausible directions here for us to work on.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Well, you kind of mentioned it because when most people think AI, the direction we're heading, they're thinking like Blade Runner.
		That's just, it is what it is, or possibly WALL-E.
		I'm not sure.
		But you mentioned this could actually be a perhaps way to return to older civilizational norms.
		Could you maybe expand on that thought a little more?
nate fischer ▲ ● ▼		So there's an interesting concept.
		It's called the Lindy principle, which is the expected life of something corresponds to how long it has existed so far.
		And I think you could look at sort of any, you could look at sort of any institution, any anomaly.
		You could look at Harvard and you could say it's been around 400 years.
		So there's a good chance that it has, there's a good chance it'll weather a lot of disruptions.
		It'll be around another 400 years.
		You could look at, let's say, a particular social dynamic or whatever, online dating, right?
		It's been around 10, 20 years.
		It's likely that whatever the dynamic, and even then it's changed substantially in terms of dynamics, rather than assuming that those trend lines will actually just continue more and more.
		I think the more likely, the more reasonable thing to do is to actually look at the lifespan of a particular dynamic and assume that within that amount of time, it's expected to change significantly.
		So I think one of the major things, you look at mass immigration, you look at sort of the dominance of administrative, sort of bureaucratic administrators in the workforce, the extent to which companies have been dominated by those.
		And maybe, you know, three, four, five decades in many cases, maybe a little bit more than that.
		I think we should say their expected lifespan is there's a good chance that those institutions don't survive into the digital age and that these disruptive technologies actually first sort of erase the anomalous changes of the last of recent decades.
		And the baseline is actually looking at sort of norms that continued for much longer before then.
		And then on top of that, you'll have your own digital anomalies.
unidentified		Right.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		I mean, on top of that, I think a big fear people have is replacing jobs, right?
		They're afraid of jobs being wiped out at a large scale.
		Obviously, people that are in more creative fields like art and video production have been sounding the alarms.
		You know, There's a whole other side of that, which is perhaps these are actually just tools that make those people's lives easier.
		Do you see AI really expanding beyond?
		Because right now it does seem to actually kind of just be more of a tool or an aid.
		It's not quite able to replace an artist entirely.
		Do you anticipate that occurring?
		Do you think there's other jobs that are going to be maybe on the chopping block?
		Or how do you think this will evolve?
nate fischer ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I think there's a lot of jobs that'll be on the shopping block, but by and large, I would say those are jobs that you would probably look at and feel like that is a less human job in some sense.
		I mean, there's a lot of jobs where you almost feel like the work you're doing is dehumanizing.
		And if it's dehumanizing, there's a good chance that it is and that a machine can do it better.
		I think there's a lot of other jobs where there's something sort of fundamentally human to them and those aren't going to go away.
		Like to me, I think a good heuristic is new technologies first replace old technologies.
		They're much more likely to replace old technologies than they are to replace people.
		Now, I would say bureaucracy, when you think of bureaucracy, in a sense, you've actually forced people to become cogs in this system that you could think of as sort of a quasi-technology in itself.
		So there's a lot of systems where people play a role and those are good candidates for replacement by more advanced technologies.
		But there's a lot of other, there's a lot of other jobs where people are fulfilling a fundamentally human function.
		I mean, I think the most clear one is executive agency.
		I mean, to the extent you are exercising executive agency, AI is only a powerful tool, a powerful lever for you to get more done, essentially what might other require you, otherwise require you to have a lot of people.
		Now, I think there's going to be real questions about sort of entry-level jobs and opportunity to gain experience, and that will require adjustments in sort of the credentialing pipelines and training.
		Maybe you have to move back to more of an apprenticeship where there's sort of a wrecking, rather than, let's say, investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in this formal education, and then you're supposed to get into a job where you're paid immediately.
		Maybe there's some sort of hybrid where you're an apprentice and you're paid less, but you're gaining some experience that wouldn't be possible.
		It wouldn't be viable as an entry-level job because there's not enough sort of straight work to be done, but that hybrid works.
		I mean, there's any number of ways that we can sort of reorganize that process, but I don't think that the jobs are going to go away.
		I would also say that skilled physical world work, there's no shortage of what needs to be done.
		Skilled physical world work will always be a bottleneck.
		AI, you can think of as sort of a complement to physical world work.
		And the example I like to give actually is like contractors, HVAC contractors, let's say.
		Let's hear an HVAC contract or you're an HVAC technician.
		50 years ago, you might have ran your own shop.
		You would have run your own shop.
		You would have a, you'd have a number in the telephone book.
		Someone would call you.
		You'd come fix something.
		You've really had that model of work kind of squeezed out in a sense over the last, certainly over the last few decades as there's been this sort of push toward economies of scale, economies of scale allow you to have a sort of centralized back office billing system, customer service system, all things that sort of a solo tech doesn't necessarily like doing that much.
		And so how do you get those economies of scale?
		You get those economies of scale with private equity at low interest rates to enable private equity to come in and sort of roll up these HVAC guy, you know, HVAC groups, which might have been a solo tech.
		They might have been maybe five or 10 guys or whatever, but it's a small operation, now rolled up into a big private equity-owned operation.
		And they can then, you know, their capability is really well suited to sort of building that back office.
		Well, what AI could do is AI could come in and I think it could replace that entire back office with an algorithm.
		So you don't need scale.
		You don't need that sort of private equity owned.
		You don't need that private equity sophistication to manage a back office team.
		Now you go back to being on your own, or maybe it's you and like five other guys and you have essentially a bunch of algorithms that do everything else.
		And so, and yet you can compete at the same level as those big private equity companies would offer.
		So I think there's a world.
		And what does that mean?
		It means that instead of, let's say, you getting paid a wage that's like half of what you're billing or less, maybe that software stack costs you a little bit, but you're keeping 80% of what you're billing because you are doing the fundamental, you're doing the primary function of what an HVAC shop actually does.
		So in that scenario, you'll see sort of the relative income of a guy like that, a skilled, a skilled worker who's doing something that can't be replaced increase.
		And you'll see the sort of relative income of people who are doing those back office administrative functions decline.
		But overall, I don't think that's a drop in income.
		I think it's just in many ways a sort of redistribution of it largely to the guy who's actually doing the work that matters.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		But wouldn't this all be predicated on a retraction in the workforce, broadly speaking?
nate fischer ▲ ● ▼		I mean, well, we already have a birthright that's low.
		So the workforce is already retracting absent mass immigration, filling the gaps.
		And I would say, you know, another example is that that can be a reorganization, right?
		Like the person who, I mean, I think just in the example I gave is one example, gender dynamics, right?
		The back office people would be way more likely to be women, the guys who are doing the physical world work, way more likely to be men.
		You're much more likely to now see an arrangement where I think the women are more likely to get married, actually.
		When relative incomes change, they're more likely to see the guys more attractive, more likely to get married, more likely to stay home.
		They're doing work there.
		They're raising kids.
		That's another form of work that isn't measured in jobs, but you could have a similar household income and now it's suitable to that arrangement.
		So I think there's all sorts of different configurations that aren't sort of straight reflections of job numbers that fill the gaps with work that needs to happen.
unidentified		Yeah.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, that seems to, that needs to, I feel like personally, that should be prioritized by movers and shakers because you're seeing a lot of misery right now with young people.
		And I think a big contributor to that is the lack of general social formation.
		Like people just aren't socializing properly anymore and they're getting stunted very early.
		I mean, COVID probably had a role to play, but I'm even seeing it now with these post-COVID generations.
		They're not hitting those milestones of not just marriage, but like meeting friends and these sorts of things.
		And obviously there's a lot of fear that AI could make that worse.
		I think people are rightfully a bit suspicious after the whole dating app.
		You know, revolution has kind of nuked dating in a lot of ways.
		But like what you're saying is the way that AIs could reconfigure the workforce.
		I mean, this could actually be a boom, a boom for marriage formation and social formation.
nate fischer ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I'll sort of delve into the dynamic a little bit more.
		And I think this ties into sort of the dating market dynamics.
		I think you'll see this decline in sort of white collar.
		You'll see this decline in the sort of white collar administrative jobs.
		Right now, if you have a let's say you have a woman who is a college graduate who's an $80,000 a year sort of HR job very common scenario and you have a man who's $80,000 a year in some sort of skilled trade like that typically there's stats that show that people don't want to sort of date down when it comes to education so even though they're making the same amount of money she is probably not gonna she's less likely to date
		because in a sense, he's seen a sort of a lower socioeconomic status, which is paying for a lot of money, paying for a lot of debt and everything.
		But that's the way that current, that's a very pernicious dynamic where a sort of a larger share of women are actually in that college-educated category.
		It's pernicious when it comes to the likelihood of actually dating and marriage.
		Well, in the scenario I described, that HR job just goes away.
		And the number of those people drop significantly.
		A lot of those people aren't going to see a return on their college degree.
		They're probably not going to go to, I mean, these are sort of second and third year college degrees.
		They're not the ones that are sort of, they're not the ones that are necessarily going to weather the AI storm.
		They're the sort that would be replaced by AI.
		Meanwhile, that guy doing the trade could see his income rise significantly.
		You now see a very, very different dynamic where suddenly the guy is seen as much more attractive.
		He has higher relative status in society.
		She doesn't have the job that would sort of lead her to not want to date him.
		And so you could easily see a whole bunch of people who, for all intents and purposes, are peers, historically would have been seen as peers from a sort of dating market value.
		But for, this is why I talk about anomalies, right?
		For a few decades had this anomaly that sort of broke that perception of peer status, cut into marriage.
		That's an anomaly that could very quickly disappear given AI and could actually restore, restore family formation.
		So I'll actually jump off on sort of one other thing you mentioned, though, that I think is, is interesting.
		You talked about people not even going out.
		I could make this a lot worse.
		Yes, there's going to be people who are sort of totally addicted to AI.
		There will be algorithmic, essentially algorithmic drugs that are sort of like as addictive as heroin or whatever.
		But by and large, I think there's also a scenario where AI kills the internet.
		You think of this with spam already, right?
		You get, I mean, you have this guy who sends 40,000 spam emails a day looking to offshore workers or whatever.
		Very quickly, people just ignore literally everything they see from someone where there's no skin in the game.
		The internet as it's designed today is full of sources where there's no skin in the game, which means that bots and spam can absolutely proliferate.
		And so I think that people actually start to devalue the digital more and more.
		They really look more and more for something that has some level of signal, some level of skin in the game, signaling that this is worth their time.
		First and foremost, that means physical proximity.
		If I'm spending, if I'm spending 30 minutes with you in person, I know you're a real person.
		You're not a deep fake.
		You're not a deep fake that's replicated, you know, a thousand times trying to sell me something.
		It's just a meaningful, but that, that, that signal of meaning would certainly make sense in a commercial sense.
		Like I described, we'll also just, I think it'll permeate how we see the world, meaning that people will actually value physical proximity, even in friendships more for a while.
		I think they were actually happy to move a lot of their friendships online.
		I think people are going to recognize that that actually feels faker in a sense, even when it, even when it might be real, it's, we're just going to value the in-person.
		We're going to value the proximity more.
		It's why we at New Founding are actually focused on building a physical world community in Tennessee and Kentucky.
		Our bet is that people will actually, they'll actually put a lot of effort into moving to a place where there can be a high trust community, where their local community is something that they value, they can actually put down roots in, in a world where most things feel like there's no rootedness.
		So, uh, I see it.
		I see a possibility that these trends actually sort of erase some of the, uh, erase some of the maybe over moves toward the virtual of the last decade and move us back toward something that again, is closer to historical norms where, where that sort of in-person proximity actually signals something meaningful that cannot be baked and cannot be replaced by, uh, by, uh, digital interactions.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Well, I mean, as far as the dating goes, if, if this means never having to see another one of those day in the life, tick tocks, then like spring it on, please can't do it anymore.
		But, uh, with that, I mean, you're tapped in what, what, what parts of this new, this new era that we're entering, what parts are you fearful of?
		What parts do you think we need to keep an eye on and have conversations around?
nate fischer ▲ ● ▼		So I, I, as I said, each, I think each technology will often disrupt the anomalies of the last year brings its own, I would say transhumanism, obviously a, obviously a threat and, uh, a new threat and transhumanism.
		Now it's new and old in a way, right?
		I sort of tie transhumanism back to the tower of Babel and this idea of ultimately using technology to sort of pursue.
		There's, there's two things, right?
		There's, there's technology where man tries to use technology to make himself into a God.
		And that's a conceit that will always fail.
		That's, that's Icarus, that's tower of Babel.
		Uh, but I think that, uh, the other one is actually, uh, a different form of transhumanism and it relates to the, it's sort of a continuation of the woke trend.
		You think of the sort of woke trend of everything about it is teaching you to be suspicious of your own judgments.
		You are not worthy.
		You're not worthy.
		You're not worthy to rule an institution.
		Your judgments are, are, are sort of, your judgments are corrupted to the point that even if you're trying to be fair, you have so many sort of systemic biases.
		Uh, it's all about essentially, uh, deprecating the human, particularly deprecating you as a white male, uh, as someone who has, uh, who can act as a human agent in a meaningful way.
		And what is the alternative?
		Ultimately the best alternative to that is to be presented as turning yourself, turning the decision over to AI.
		What is fairer than just abdicating and giving the decision to a totally neutral algorithm.
		And so I think that the biggest call of AI will be to essentially abdicate decision-making in favor of AI.
		I think the optimistic view of technology is technology gives us a lot of leverage.
		The algorithms give us leverage.
		Uh, you are the executive and you are ruling technology as has been the case since the very beginning, right?
		You pick up a hammer and you use a hammer and the hammer does exactly what you want it to do.
		It's a very, very powerful piece of leverage massively increases your productivity and it does everything you want.
		You get in a car, to a large extent, the car does what you want it to do.
		Now, driverless cars could go either way, right?
		I mean, it could, it could be something where you maintain total control and it's just a, another source of leverage.
		Uh, I think it's fundamentally different from going into chat GPT and asking chat GPT, should I break up up with my girlfriend or what should i do in the situation i mean that's like people are going to do that people are going to feel a temptation to that decision making that act of that act of agency of executive agency is hard.
		It's often one of the hardest things you do throughout the day, even if it's a small share of time.
		It's incredibly mentally burdensome.
		I mean, look at TikTok, right?
		You referenced TikTok.
		TikTok itself and feeds in general are designed to reduce your need for any agency in terms of what you see next.
		The algorithm just automatically feeds you something.
		That's abdication.
		And there's going to be a pull for more and more important decisions to be turned over to similar algorithms that are optimized or fair or are really just available, you know, really just sort of a temptation to laziness.
		We need to resist that.
		If we give into that, we essentially can lose our culture.
		We can lose our humanity.
		We can lose our agency.
		It's not that I believe that superhuman AI is going, we're not going to have this sort of AGI that actually becomes superhuman and is able to exercise agency in a way that both intelligence and agency in a way that exceeds you.
		I think that that's a category error.
		These are predictive algorithms.
		Predictive algorithms don't have agency.
		But if you delegate your agency to the algorithm and sort of walk away from that, sure, it'll absolutely be able to start filling in the gaps there and may do so in a way that allows that we sort of quickly lose control of many things that, you know, I would think of it at a high level as sort of self-government.
		Self-government requires a high level of agency.
		It's not the easiest option.
		It's almost always the easiest option to just hand over government to someone else and enjoy consumer comfort.
		Self-government requires responsibility, requires uncomfortable decisions.
		And the siren song of AI is going to be giving that up for comfort.
unidentified		Yeah.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		I mean, that seems to be my biggest fear.
		Like, I'm kind of with you.
		I don't think we'll ever have this superhuman, you know, like dystopia, robocop, whatever.
		But that is a fear of mine.
		I was sharing before we hopped on the call.
		Cracker Barrel, this like great American institution, they've totally gutted the place and they've just turned it into like a Brooklyn, you know, coffeehouse.
		It's very depressing.
		And that kind of fits on you mentioned earlier with the Lindy effect is kind of the same idea that he kind of coined was the refinement culture, the idea of refinement culture.
		And that's something that I feel like AI is going to strap a booster rocket to and completely homogenize any consumer trend whatsoever because it's going to be reduced down to an algorithm, like you said.
		I mean, that's kind of my biggest fear is that we're all just going to be reduced to the same.
		We're already heading that way in a lot of ways, but I don't know.
		I mean, is there potential that AI could actually help?
		I don't know a good way to word this, but help kind of foster organic subcultures or sub-niche interests, these sorts of things.
		Is there an avenue for that?
nate fischer ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think it can decentralize, right?
		I think that it certainly is capable of decentralizing power.
		I actually think that in many ways, the sort of greatest alpha for AI will go to users.
		So as I said, it's a lever for executive agency.
		In theory, as a lever for that executive agency, it means that if you are, let's say you're the owner of a restaurant designing that restaurant, you now have more and more power to compete with the back office of Cracker Barrel.
		So maybe you don't need to be a national chain like Cracker Barrel.
		You have fewer disadvantages as a solo shop, which means that you could use it.
		And you're the executive.
		You could prompt it in a way to actually give you very powerful design services to design something.
		Not that defers to the algorithm.
		You don't ask the algorithm, how should I define, how should I design a restaurant?
		What should the, what color should the tables be, but it's more like you have your creative vision.
		It can fill in necessary best practices for a restaurant, but it can also fill in your take.
		It can help you just get the agency to fill in your tastes and apply them in all sorts of different ways.
		It also, I think, could mean that people, you could see a world where people crave the authenticity that comes from a sort of one-of-a-kind thing.
		Again, that's a symbol of sort of skin in the game.
		That's a symbol of something different from the sort of endless spam that they receive.
		And even like totally personalized, right?
		Personalized spam, spam that just looks like it's perfectly personalized to you actually has no information value because it's just based on your data profile.
		Something that is the creative expression of what a particular person, a particular entrepreneur or individual created is something that's actually going to stand out to you as something that clearly is different from everything you received in your inbox at sort of zero value.
		So I think largely it comes down to the choice, right?
		If you have people who, as a result of this, increasingly crave and pay for the individualized, for the distinct, for the custom, for the craft, you'll see that.
		And the tools will be there for individuals and entrepreneurs to actually build things that are distinct and that are particular expressions of their human creative agency.
		On the other hand, you also have TikTok style algorithms that will be constantly constantly offering an alternative.
		You know, plenty of people who are content to sort of retreat into those and just mindlessly scroll and essentially surrender their humanity to those algorithms.
		So two very different forks we could go.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Well, Nate, I appreciate the insights.
		It's obviously a huge topic.
		It's hard to really condense down to 30 minutes, but that was excellent.
		I really appreciate it.
		Is there anything you want to plug, shout out, or I think where people can find you at?
nate fischer ▲ ● ▼		I mean, this is a topic I've been exploring.
		I'll be exploring more.
		Really, these sort of intersections are at the core of how we think about the future, how we think about what's worth betting on.
		Best place to find me is on X at Nate A. Fisher.
		Post under my name.
		Our company, New Founding, does a lot of posting on these topics, but I'll explore this and then a wide range of political and political and business as well.
		So certainly the hub of, I think, a lot of the most interesting discussions in this space.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		That's awesome.
		I really appreciate it.
		I'm glad we got the chat.
		Thank you so much.
		Yeah, we'll see you around.
nate fischer ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
nate fischer ▲ ● ▼		Thanks for having me.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, sir.
		All righty.
		That was awesome.
		He is incredibly high IQ, high IQ patriot.
		There's, yeah, there's so much discourse around the AI stuff.
		It's really interesting to hear an alternate perspective.
		And I'm actually kind of relieved to hear that there is a, if we handle it correctly, we could return to these older civilizational norms, especially when it comes to dating.
		Like there has to be an off-ramp.
		It actually is kind of interesting that the discussion I was leading into, I didn't even know, I didn't even for me to line up perfectly like that.
		Just kind of talking about the declining, the lack of us achieving these milestones as young people, that actually we could, there could be a way out and it could be AI.
		I don't know.
		We're spitballing here, but I want to see if there's any rumble rants.
		Did you see any rumble rants?
		No rumble rants.
		Yeah, we can look at chat.
		Hey, Tate, there's a, I don't know if it's a thumbs up or a middle finger.
		It's kind of hard to decide.
		That was high IQ.
		No, that wasn't me.
		Nate was the high IQ Patriot.
		Yeah, I don't see any rumble rants, but yeah, I want to appreciate it.
		I thank you guys for hanging out.
		I think we're going to raid Russell Brand.
		Andrew, do you is it Russell Brand up next?
		I think it's Russell Brand.
		It's so hard to tell.
		But yeah, I really appreciate you guys hanging out.
		It's fun.
		It's stressful getting this sort of getting this show built.
		But it makes you appreciate Tim's job a lot more because it's pretty tricky.
		So appreciate you guys hanging out.
		We're going to get you sent over to Russell Brand here.
		You can find me on X and Instagram at RealTate Brown.
		We can hang out there.
		Let me know if you have any hot takes on AI.
		Let me know.
		We'll be back tonight for Timcast IRL at 8 p.m.
		I think it's going to be another Phil Cast tonight.
		So we'll see.
		See you there.
		So thank you.

▲