Code Red: The AI Race with Author Wynton Hall | Triggered Ep.332
Wynton Hall and Don Imus dissect the US-China AI race, warning that Beijing aims for global dominance by 2030 while "woke AI" trained on biased data subtly shifts public mindset. They expose left-leaning corporate influence, citing Anthropic's super PAC funding and Sam Altman's UBI study as steps toward eroding the Protestant work ethic. The discussion highlights critical vulnerabilities like regulatory overreach and energy deficits, urging conservatives to avoid authoritarianism while mastering critical thinking to counter "CheatGPT" and prepare for a complex geopolitical chess game. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Investing In America's Future00:03:21
Hey guys, welcome to another huge episode of Triggered.
And we've got a great conversation in store for you today, all centered around AI.
Artificial intelligence is one of those issues that a lot of people think, I don't know, as some sort of futuristic side story, but it's not.
It's here right now, and the stakes are absolutely enormous.
We're talking about economic power, military power, censorship, surveillance, the race with China, and whether America is actually prepared For what's coming next.
So, we're going to get into all of that today with a great guest, Wynton Hall, the author of the new book, Code Red.
So, guys, make sure you're liking, sharing, subscribing, okay?
Hit the little like button.
It's so easy.
Share it with your friends so we can get this message out there and subscribe so you never miss one of these major episodes.
If you do miss the show here on Rumble, go over to Apple, Spotify.
If your friends get their podcasts that way, make sure they're aware.
Subscribe there too, share it with them.
Catch it there.
You guys are the first line of defense getting this messaging out there.
Okay.
The mainstream media is not going to do it for us.
We need all of your help for all of the top headlines that we cover here on the show.
Go over, check out my news app, MXM news, like minute by minute MXM news, where you can get the mainstream news without the mainstream bias.
And of course, don't forget about our brave sponsors for having the guts to support this program.
First, check out all the latest predictions on Polymarket.
So, if you follow politics, you know everyone's got an opinion.
But on Polymarket, you actually get real odds on what's likely to happen.
Polymarket is a prediction market where people trade on real events, elections, debates, policy moves, and it doesn't stop at politics.
There are markets on the economies, tech, sports, pop culture, and so much more.
It's all live, it's transparent, and it gives you a real time indicator of what people really think is going to happen.
So, go give it a look at polymarket.com, check it out, and let me know what you think.
And, guys, we have a brand new sponsor, YRefi, where you can invest in America's future.
It's their mission to provide private student loan borrowers a second chance while creating opportunities for eligible accredited investors.
And as an accredited investor, when you invest in YVerify, your interest rate is fixed.
And you have the freedom to take your monthly interest income or reinvest it, whatever you choose.
All while investing in America's future and our next generation.
For more information, just call 877 80 invest or log investyrefi.com.
Just that easy.
For complete details, make sure to review the private placement memo and scan this QR code to view the disclosures.
Why Refi?
Investing in America's future.
Well, guys, joining me now, Breitbart Managing Editor, the author of the new book Code Red.
The Left, the Right, China, and the Race to Control AI, Winton Hall.
Winton, great to have you here, man.
Yeah, it's great to be with you, Don.
Thank you so much.
Well, thank you for being here.
I mean, at the center of your book is this idea that AI isn't just a tool, it's power.
The Left, Right, And China Race00:13:06
What do you mean by that?
And why do you think so many people really have underestimated what we're dealing with here?
And is that changing?
Yeah, it's a great question, Don.
Um, one of the reasons that I wanted to write this, I was concerned seeing a lot of friends in the conservative movement that I've been a part of all my life.
Um, they were either shrugging it off and saying, Oh, it's just a turbocharged Google search or another, you know, uh, software tool.
Or the other side, they were all doom and thinking that this was some, you know, looming apocalypse.
And what I wanted to show was that, uh, there is going to be a strong upside.
There's going to be a lot of really positive, great uses.
But as conservatives, look, we're, we're, this isn't our first rodeo.
We, we understand where big tech is.
We understand the scan and ban censorship.
You actually, in 2019, your book, really laid that out and I think opened a lot of eyes to how deep that goes.
And then obviously in November of 2022, we get the front facing arrival of ChatGPT.
And I really wanted to show people that, yes, it is a tool, but if you just dismiss it as that, you're going to miss the upside, but as well the political landmines.
And so what I wanted to do is I spent two years going through it and trying to show both.
Yeah, I mean, because that's really interesting.
It's one of those things like it's here, it's not changing.
You know, any other major sort of industrial, you know, revolution type of thing, whether it was, you know, mechanical, you know, farming, all these things, it was the end of everything.
And then it wasn't.
And we adapted.
So I think there's, you know, adaption.
I think my big concern with AI has always been if it ends up sort of like search, you know, if it ends up, you know, just woke AI and that's the only option you have, you know, that's scarier to me than, you know, woke media, you know, woke lawfare, because that is something that will take people's.
Mindset and literally change it subtly over time where they won't even know that it's actually happening.
You know, that's not just a propaganda campaign.
They will figure out how to change people's mind to their worldview very subtly, not necessarily with the truth.
And that's perhaps what's most scary to me.
No, it's already been proven.
And one of the most shocking things, I spent two years deep diving into this world.
And one of the things that surprised me most on was realizing that even left leaning peer academic reviewed Journal articles from academia concede a deep left leaning bias in most modern LLMs, large language models, your AI chatbots.
And of course, that's because of the corpus of the training data, you know, left leaning Reddit, Wikipedia.
Oh, yeah.
Wikipedia is like, you know, 60% of the information is garnered from that.
But like, under no, I don't think anyone, certainly not watching this show, but believes that Wikipedia is a neutral source of information.
I mean, it's about as left leaning as it gets.
And, you know, while Google may have been probably the biggest.
Problem in search.
I mean, Wikipedia being used as the basis for AI foundation and sort of their version of truth, that's scarier than anything because even the conservative or let's call it neutral platforms still rely heavily on the information there, and that information is just total crap.
You nailed it.
And, and we all know that.
And then the editors at Wikipedia will lock the editing so that conservatives get smeared and then they can't actually go back and change it.
So it's a real problem.
The other thing about it, of course, is that then when you present it, it's very different than search, right?
Search the old school.
You would get those blue links.
We get to decide what we consider a credible source.
Now you get the holy writ, right?
Like the one definitive answer.
Uh, and, and that's presented particularly for young people and they trust it.
And that was the other thing I found when I was doing Code Red was, That there's something called automation bias.
And what it basically, of course, is that the idea that young people, particularly, default to and assume the source credibility of this billion dollar machine robot.
And that just changes and warps what reality is over time.
So you're absolutely right.
It's a massive problem.
Yeah, I mean, yeah, with search, you could see it.
When you had to find, let's call it Breitbart, and it was on page 3,476, the Breitbart version of the story, like, okay, fine.
If the first 50 searches were from CNN, you were like, okay.
That was easy to sort of discern hey, there's bias here.
You know, let me find the Breitbart article on this and even hear the corollary.
I like to read both sides and understand there's probably something even in the middle on a lot of this stuff.
Generally, not because the left has lost their mind so far.
It's framed so far out of, you know, on the outer end of the bell curve, you know, that even if you sort of discount it a little bit, it's still way off and way left leaning.
But this is very different because it doesn't give you those options.
It's just sort of here's what it is.
This is the gospel and you must abide.
That's exactly right.
And that's why I was really heartened with, you know, the AI action, the framework that your father has just put out.
And we're going to see, obviously, it's got a long ways to go, see how that ends up.
But one of the things that's most important to understand is, is this whole issue of procurements.
I mean, you know, so what I did was we launched this at Breitbart, Alex, our mutual friend, Alex Marlowe and so forth.
We put this out.
And what I did was I asked Google Gemini, all right, deep, deep research, the following.
I said, assess the current 100 U.S. senators and tell me based on their public policies and their statements, Who has violated your quote hate speech policy?
Okay, I know Don, this is going to shock you.
Um, only yes, all Republicans.
Yeah, how could you have seen it?
I don't know.
I am, I am like AI.
I can, uh, I, you can give me just the basic information, and I'll give you an answer right off the top of my head.
I will talk, let's talk after this about who's going to win next year's Super Bowl.
But, um, at any rate, you know, seeing the future as you do, uh, it was all Republican senators, seven U.S. senators, and zero Democrats, and then.
As if that's not good enough.
For kicks, it added in two hallucinations and thought that JD Vance and Marco Rubio were still in the Senate and not our vice president and our state secretary of state and added them as bigot number eight and nine.
Now, this would be funny.
I mean, we're look, you're a battle hardened, used to this.
I am too, at Breitbart.
But the reality is this young people who are first time voters just trying to get information, they're not ideologues, they're just trying to get information.
And the effect of that young vote, we know in 2016, President Trump, if you had a switch of 80,000 roughly votes, we'd have Hillary Clinton.
So the ability to nudge votes is very, very concerning.
And then the other thing is this.
Google gets billions of our tax dollars in procurements in the form of cloud compute contracts for federal agencies and so forth.
And so, what I loved about the framework that's been put out is hey, look, if you are going to receive taxpayer money, you cannot anathematize half the nation's values and go after them viciously if you're going to bag cash from taxpayers.
I think that's a reasonable standard.
And it's a wake up call.
Yeah.
And in your framing, I imagine those, the Democrat senators, Probably all have quotes out there basically maligning 50% of the population as Nazis and fascists and this.
So, if we're going to talk about hate speech, you know, I think we got to get a little bit more real that you can discount them saying those things.
I can assure you the Republicans never said any of those things.
So, if we were going to look at this objectively, who's actually peddled more hate speech, it ain't any of the Republicans on that list.
There's going to be a long list, certainly not seven of them.
There's going to be a long list of Democrats that are way out there ahead of that in doing that.
And yet, it can totally discount it.
And again, you're supposed to believe that this is true.
Yeah, it's exactly right.
And I mean, look, nobody understands the vitriol that we have to, you know, contend with better than you and has thicker skin.
But when I presented this material, we went, Matt Boyle and the rest of the team at Briber went to those seven senators.
And, you know, Senator Marsha Blackburn was on that list.
Senator Rick Scott was on that list.
These are incredibly reasonable people, by the way.
I was going to say, you know, like, hey, there's a couple that you may say, okay, fine, maybe, you know, maybe he got out over his skis a little bit, but like, you know, Marsha Blackburn and Rick.
Scott, not exactly controversial.
I was going to say, these are not exactly, you know, fire breathing dragons, okay?
These are about as cordial and decorum folks as you get.
But they were shocked too because the result was 3,400 words and it was very granular.
And a lot of this is just complete bunk.
I mean, saying that these people are transphobic and that they have their hate against migrants.
So look, here's what the conservative movement is up against.
We're used to bias, we're used to bias in classrooms, we're used to bias in textbooks.
We used to buy us in search, and as you pointed out, delisting, demonetizing, blacklisting.
What I think we've got to get people ready for is the realization that you're going to have this one unified answer, and young people, particularly, there's enormous upside for education, and I do believe that.
I'll lay it all out in Code Red.
I think, you know, First Lady's doing a great job on that.
But we, as parents and grandparents and the rest of it, have got to get our kids coached up about this because it's a whole new breed of misinformation.
Well, we also have to stop it early.
I mean, I know when I started the show a few years ago, it was.
You know, hey, the bias in search, the bias in Wikipedia.
Like, you know, like, you know what?
We're getting rid of some of that.
Elon taking over X got rid of some of that because when people got to see both sides of a story, they could make up their own mind.
At the time, I'm like, hey, guys, the one thing the left is good at is like marketing.
They'll figure out the next thing to try to weaponize and try to innovate.
And, you know, I don't honestly, AI existed, obviously, but it wasn't something we were even necessarily thinking about.
And it's definitely, you know, the new frontier of future bias.
It totally is, and they know it.
And the reality is that, you know, when you go and you look at who these folks are, you know, we're not in a lot of the rooms.
Yes, there are a lot of courageous pioneers of AI that relate to, you know, libertarians and free market people, and we know those names.
But what I wanted to do was explain to the conservative movement we got to get coached up.
Look, everybody knows, you know, Bill Gates, and we know, you know, George Soros, and we know Mark Zuckerberg.
But how many of a conservative movement based movement conservatives know a lot about the, Political ideology, donation histories, and so forth of a lot of these folks, like Mustafa Suleiman, Microsoft AI's CEO, Dimas Hassabas, even Sam Altman to a degree, and Dario Amadei.
And we're seeing right now with the War Department debate and the rest of it, and Anthropic, what the stakes are involved here.
And so I wanted to really.
Well, we saw with Anthropic just this, I guess it was last week.
We saw, hey, they're going to start a major super PAC funded with hundreds of millions of dollars.
And their donation history of all the people involved prior to that was like 99.9% left leaning.
It's not a super PAC that's just for the benefit of AI.
They're trying to implement their political will on you.
They're trying to force that on you.
And it's not even just 99%, it's the bag number.
Since 2020, Anthropic in its orbit, $200 million in donations.
And there's a We Breitbart put that story out.
And, you know, again, everybody's got the freedom to give to who they want, but let's not act as though there's not an ideological agenda here and like there's not a political network that's driving a lot of this.
And, you know, one of the things that's fascinating, and I go through the economic chapter, you know, we have all these scary doom, you know, quotes from Dario and Mustafa and so forth about the coming job apocalypse.
And then when you pull back and you realize this is a movement in Silicon Valley that has been doing UBI, Universal Basic Income Research, for a long, long time.
Sam Altman, Don, in 2016, funded the largest at the time Universal Basic Income Wealth Redistribution Study.
Now, think about that.
Just for those who don't know what that is, basically communism.
Right?
You sit at home, they're going to give you enough money to get by.
You don't have any power, you don't have any self governance or will.
They're just going to send you a check and you're dependent on the government forever because they're going to replace you no matter what.
That's exactly right.
And he went on a blog.
The blog is still up right now.
I have it cited in Code Red.
And in 2016, he said, I want to do a study.
I'm going to give $1,000 away, no strings attached.
And I'm going to do this longitudinally over time because I want to see what will happen.
Fast forward, he puts together a $60 million multi year study.
The results are kind of a mishmash.
Some people, you know, went to the dentist a little more.
Some people had leisure time.
But then he, he drops the mask, Don.
He says, the reason is twofold.
I wanted to do this.
One, I think in the future that technologies are going to require some kind of redistribution like this.
And then two, he says, I think it will be considered silly that not being afraid of not eating was how we motivated human flourishing and wealth creation.
Reality Versus The Narrative00:16:10
I'm paraphrasing.
That's called the Protestant work ethic.
That's called free market capitalism.
That's called the engine that has powered The greatest economic expansion under American free market.
And these people really believe that they can reset the global economic system.
They believe that universal basic income is inevitable.
And here's my final point on this.
Even if we as conservatives say, well, it's all hype marketing to raise investor dollars or so forth, the reality is this if they scare enough people and make enough people believe that it's inevitable, you really can build public support for universal basic income, three hour, three hour.
Three day work week, four day work week.
And so we in the conservative movement really have to be ready for these arguments, whether they pan out or not.
Yeah, when you really, you frame this as a race between, in the book, between China and the United States.
How close are we to really losing an edge?
And what happens if Beijing wins?
Oh, man.
So most experts say that we're between six months to three years ahead, which is, I guess, good, but we would obviously need to be a lot farther ahead.
The stakes are so important.
President Trump, Vice President Vance have said exactly the right thing, which is we have to beat China.
And what I say in the book is we have to beat China without becoming China.
Nobody wants to live in a techno authoritarian surveillance state like the CCP.
We're not in any way saying that we want to emulate that by any stretch.
I actually think there's a little bit more bipartisan understanding of why we need to do it, but let me just lay out the two reasons.
One is the economic.
One third of the S&P 500 is made up of the Mag 7, the magnificent seven, those seven big tech, uh, big American companies that obviously occupy a lot of the AI space.
Okay.
So that's a huge wealth part of it.
On the other hand of the wealth side, we saw what happened when Nvidia got rocked, America's Nvidia.
600 billion dollar market cap wipeout because of deep seek China's AI model when R1 dropped.
So you got that tug of war, right?
America versus China.
We want to win.
We want wealth and prosperity for our children and our grandchildren, our economy.
But the second reason is the real reason that matters more because what matters more than money, of course, is the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.
And there we cannot and we should never want to live in a world built on AI Chinese rails.
Here's why.
When you look at, and you know this better than anyone because you've actually got a lot of knowledge about this, I think people don't understand.
When you look at if China were to gain AI dominance in security, you're looking at dominance, full spectrum battlefield dominance in encryption.
Cybersecurity, hacking of missile systems, hacking of infrastructure, because you're going to hit something called RSI.
It's a very simple concept if you really break it down.
What does it stand for?
Recursive self improvement.
And what that just means, real simply, is when the AI will be able to update and improve autonomously its own code, and that'll get you on an exponential curve.
Whoever gets there first will have such authority and supremacy over the battlefield in all of these spaces that you will not be able to catch them.
And so I will say this.
This may be one of the few places that I've seen a little more bipartisan understanding.
Now that we've got, like, say, President Trump laying this out, Secretary Hegseth, Emil Michael, all of the team is really briefing people and explaining the stakes.
So we've got to beat China.
There's absolutely no question about it.
Well, yeah, it was an interesting thing.
One of the early conversations I had on AI back in like 15 or 16 was with Paul Merlucky, youngest member on the board of Facebook, built Oculus, the VR goggle company at like 18, 19, sold it, became a billionaire.
But like, super tech guy got thrown off of Facebook because he was a conservative.
And I was talking to him about this concept of AI a decade ago when he was obviously onto it, but we didn't know anything about that kind of stuff.
And he was talking about it as it relates to China and all these things.
And it was like, he goes, what's really scary about it is, AI can get so advanced, you won't ever be able to change these systems.
Any other time in history, if you didn't like a system, you know, the Communist Party in China, if you wanted to change it, you know, people could get together, they start a movement, they start a ground swelling.
But over there, with their sort of, you know, their social welfare program, every camera is watching someone.
The second you have even a little bit of dissent, that person's seen, grabbed, thrown out of the ecosphere.
You could never have any kind of, you know, buildup of momentum because they can pick out any kind of dissident and just get rid of them.
In a second, so you stop that from happening.
I imagine the same thing really holds true for whoever gets to that level.
And I know there are a lot of people saying, well, we have to put limitations on our AI.
We have to be able to be reasonable about it.
And I understand that argument.
But if our enemies aren't going to do that, how do we compete?
If we're putting limitations on it and they're not, how do we compete with Russia, Iran, certainly China, if they just go all in and we're sort of hamstringing ourselves, even if there's a justifiable reason to hamstring ourselves?
Because if you do get to that point, That point of no return, that fulcrum point that you're talking about, and someone else beats us there, does not seem like it's good for the world.
No, it's not.
But you know what?
You're exactly right.
We have to understand how determined they are.
And I'll walk you through this in the book.
Let's get a couple points on the board.
Number one, in 2017, the CCP laid out their plan for global dominance in AI, and the target date is 2030.
We're just four years away.
This isn't like 50 years into the future.
Okay, so they're in a dead sprint.
Number two, they put their money where their mouth is.
They spend more money importing semiconductors than they do oil.
So they're very focused on this.
And that's why we see these very important debates over chips and import, export over the chip debate.
Number three, the surveillance state capabilities of facial recognition right now that are being used in their systems are exactly what you were describing.
And that's why we saw and what we see with the Uyghurs targeting dissidents, facial recognition.
Being able essentially to have a digital gulag, metaphorically speaking, so that you can instantly isolate people.
Now, I, I agree.
We will, like I started out saying, we do not want to emulate that.
That is not America.
Those are not our values.
On the other hand, when you're talking about being on the, on the battlefield, And we're up against terrorists or enemies.
Look what's going on right now with our Iran action.
It's been incredible to watch the use of AI in this warfare.
And I think one of the things that people got to understand a lot of the use is not the sort of Terminator, you know, titanium robots with laser eyes that we see in movies.
Not yet.
Not yet.
We're getting there, but not yet.
It's, as you know, drones, but one of the biggest uses is way less cinematic, but no less effective.
Which is mass sifting and sorting of intel.
You get this ocean of signals, intelligence, intercepted communication, facial recognition, satellite imagery, and you got this ocean, and you're able to scan looking for that metaphorical one gold coin of information, maybe a terrorist stronghold or a missile silo.
So you're able to find what would have taken a team of thousands, you know, a handful of minutes or days to be able to do what would have taken months.
So these things might not be as sort of exciting as the last one.
Well, I can see the same thing being in healthcare, right?
You know, like, Hey, the amount of data to figure out cancer, we just can't do that in an Excel spreadsheet.
I mean, AI, quantum computing, these kinds of things, those are the kinds of things that can break that.
So there's no question that it's needed and it can be a great use for good as well.
I guess in this race with China, though, it does seem that, hey, maybe we have the advantage right now.
Maybe we still have the ability for the semiconductors to do that.
It seems the underlying thing that we are missing right now that China is all in on is power.
How do we generate the power to actually be competitive?
I mean, they're firing up a new coal-fired plant every couple of days.
We've basically stayed almost stagnant in terms of our power production on the grid.
It seems like we could have the leading edge on every other input into AI and compute.
And yet, if we don't win the power battle or do something drastically different in the very near future, It won't matter anyway.
That's exactly right.
The two tent poles are compute, which obviously, you know, NVIDIA, thank God, is an American company.
And two is, of course, energy.
And so, for example, I tell people that, you know, maybe are newer to the conversation.
So, your Google search takes one tenth of the electricity of your AI prompt.
Now, that will come down as efficiencies improve, okay?
But the reality of that, when you scale that out for the amount of energy needs that we have, especially coming off the heels of the Biden regime's Woke green scheme, crony kickback to all these green energy schemes and all these other things.
We were so strangled during those years.
And thank God we're unleashing full energy dominance, is what we're doing.
Isn't it interesting, Don, how all of these Silicon Valley elites who would always lecture us about global warming all of a sudden seem a little less worried about it?
It's no longer a talking point.
It's shocking to me.
It's shocked.
I can't imagine how that happened.
But bless their hearts.
Glad they finally came to their senses on it.
But it's real, and we have to have it.
And the reality is that the ability to power itself is going to give us the ability to compete.
Because look, Xi Jinping is not having to deal with environmental leftists, woke sters, throwing up roadblocks to building out his energy infrastructure and the rest of it.
So, yeah.
Well, I see that in the argument that people don't want data centers in their backyard.
I get it, but if every state just says, hey, no data centers, It's over.
You know what I mean?
Yeah, some of these things we need, and I can understand some of the things are unsightly and some of the things, you know, may not want to, but like this notion that we're just not going to have it really scary in terms of, you know, just long term processes.
Yeah, I mean, the local communities, they have their rights and they can, you know, they decide whether they do or want, but you've got to have it.
I mean, what are we doing?
You know, this is essential, right?
This is essential for economic prosperity, but also, as we're talking about, you know, the military side of it.
We're going to come to the realization of that.
And I think we are.
I also love this idea of the ratepayer protection pledge and making sure.
Now, that I think we should all agree.
You know, look, nobody should have to pay for some billionaire building a huge data center.
And now a working class person's got a higher, you know, water bill and electric bill.
They can do it.
In fact, I'm actually hopeful that it'll lower their energy bills because a lot of these plans are going to involve updating rickety infrastructure, electrical and water.
So, they can put their surplus power back into the grid as they're building out.
So, I think that's something that's a win win.
But there's, as you know, no different than what you deal with on a daily basis at Breitbart.
There is a difference between reality and the narrative.
And the narrative, oh my God, they paint the doomsday scenario, your power is going to go up.
I mean, the plans this administration has put into effect is actually probably going to lower them.
But you still got to beat the narrative.
If people don't get that, they're getting their news from whoever's selling it to them.
And CNN, you're only going to hear the one side of the story.
That's right.
Yeah.
And again, we have to say this very loudly.
There's so much misinformation around AI.
And look, the truth is, in fairness, the AI architects themselves are largely to blame.
They have not messaged well, they have not clearly conveyed the benefits to society.
The recent latest poll on this shows that only 26% of Americans have a positive view of AI, 46% have a negative view of AI.
And what I wanted to try to do is sort out and say, look, there are a lot of concerns.
The ones you and I are talking about, we do have a lot of concerns.
Those are the landmines.
But there are going to be these roses of opportunity.
I think, in terms of AI education, non woke, guardrail-safe AI tutors with good, pedagogically sound built modeling so that you're using the Socratic method.
So that kid who wants to accelerate and learn and has fire in the belly, she or he can accelerate, even if they can't afford a big, fancy $200.
Or to be able to pick out the sort of the blanks in their education, the places where they just need a little bit of backfill.
I mean, to be able to assess that, fill that void to enable.
You to think better into the future.
I mean, that's the biggest thing I could even imagine.
It is the machine learning ability for, you know, so when I was a student, if I were struggling in calculus, it can detect that, help me with custom quizzes and homework and assignments, and then accelerate me if I'm really strong in physics.
So that's going to be amazing.
I think for entrepreneurs, you know, people have been asking me, you know, wow, there's so much to be worried about AI, but what are the hopeful sides?
I think, look, if you are a young person, or quite frankly, any person, you got that dream, you got that fire in the belly.
And you want to scale your little idea into something really amazing, create jobs and opportunity.
You are, this is the greatest time to be alive.
You are with agentic AI and agents.
You are going to be able to take your dream farther and faster with low capital.
And I think that's going to be exciting to see people do too.
So I think conservative movement, look, you know, Buckley famously said the job of a conservative is to stand athwart history yelling stop.
But when he was, he was not talking about technological innovation stopping.
He was talking about the erosion of order and our values.
I think we've got to accelerate on these things and lean in and not go the way of the Luddites.
But at the same time, we really do have to be very aware.
This is a 5D chess game, and the left has been in this vineyard a lot longer than we have.
Yeah, and they're, you know, they're frankly much more vicious than us in that game.
You know, they're playing an entirely, I always use the analogy, you know, they're playing hardball, we're playing T ball.
And we have been, you know, on pretty much everything when they want to get what they want.
And that's why you've seen what we've seen over the last decade.
But, you know, we've sort of touched on this a little bit, but, you know, this idea that whoever controls the weights, Controls the future in AI.
On that note, we obviously, to your point, and I love the quote, we have to beat China without becoming China.
Who does actually control those weights?
And how do, perhaps that's the best place, maybe where there can be some actually intervention to keep things and keep everyone honest?
Yeah, I mean, so right now you just really have this sort of Wild West in a sense of the consumer choice.
So we're all looking at these different models.
Let's just talk about the American models, right?
And we're assessing their strengths and weaknesses.
And so, Google, Gemini, Wow, look at this.
They've got, you know, Nano Banana and their image generators and their ability in video.
And then you look at, you know, Anthropic, and obviously they have a strength in Claude coding.
And then you look at ChatGPT, maybe for, you know, they also have codecs for their coding, but they also have a strong background, of course, in the writing component.
I think that number one, you're looking at that.
Number two, it's a question of open source versus closed.
And we know that like Llama and other words are more open weights, depending upon which models you're looking at.
I think that we've got their concern about the national security part of that.
Uh, if, if Dario is right and you're going to get a country of geniuses in a data center, the democratization, that's great.
But then what you obviously have is non-state actors, otherwise known as terrorists, who are getting access to information that, you know, PhD level biochemical things that can be weaponized and so forth.
Um, so, so you have that debate.
Down to the actual individual user, I, I'm very concerned about this woke component.
You know, Elon's, I think, probably grok's, you know, going to get you the closest that you're going to get to a median Just sort of neutral, not always conservative, but you know, reasonable.
Open Source National Security Concerns00:07:31
I don't think most conservatives want something that just compares the hardcore conservative answer.
It's okay to have a sort of centrist, you know, position.
But when you are asking, as I did last week, Don, Microsoft Copilot, and I just asked it, can a man become a woman?
Not only does it say that a man can become a woman, it even included a rainbow emoji, almost like it was an advertisement.
And this is just sort of insanity.
I mean, go back to the AI action policy that the president and the administration laid out.
They made it very clear that one of the main goals in the pillars is that you should have non ideological AI if you want taxpayer funded procurements.
I think that's a, I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican or who you are.
That is just common sense that we should not have weaponized, ideologically, you know, taxpayer funded AI.
And yet we see this.
So the weights are key.
But I think right now what people realize is it's been an across the board problem on this woke stuff.
Yeah.
I mean, can we get more into the weeds of some of that?
You know, how are each AI company's tools different?
We see that we see really what's going on with Anthropic, you know, obviously trying to get involved in the military and like, well, we should be able to decide what the military does using AI to defend ourselves.
Do the costs outweigh the benefit for all of humanity as opposed to perhaps for protecting America?
That's sort of scary.
And a lot of people hear AI and they're only thinking chatbots and search and convenience, but the real stakes are obviously much bigger and really have to be thought out more clearly.
They do, Don.
So one thing that's really important, I'm glad you brought up Anthropic.
One of the things that I have a section on, and not to try to single anybody out, but just to give background knowledge.
Anthropic is a very different culture.
They are a very different culture.
So they center around something called the Effective Altruist Movement, the EA Movement.
And this is a group of philanthropic, very, very wealthy, very well-funded people who they're ostensibly, their argument is, is they want to use logic and reason to expand their philanthropic donations and do, and have better impact.
Now, part of that orbit, Involves an enormous amount of people who have been very, very, very active, very big mega donors to the Democratic Party.
People like Duskin Moskowitz, Kerry Tuna, Holden Kornowski, Daniela, and Dario Amadei.
They're all part of this group around this anthropic orbit.
And there is a group, it used to be called Open Philanthropy, OP, it's now called Coefficient Giving, that has given $4 billion in grants to things like COVID preparedness, AI safety research.
Now, AI safety sounds great.
I mean, who doesn't want safe AI?
On the surface, that sounds like a reasonable idea.
Unless safety means, hey, you can't hear the conservative corollary to that question, which is what they had with X before Elon took over.
And again, people leaned a certain way.
They created notions that were never real.
You know, trans women in sports, they made it seem like, wow, this is the cultural issue of our time.
It's something we have to do.
It was never real.
It was entirely manufactured because no one ever heard the other side of the story and how insane some of those things were.
Bingo, you nailed it.
Okay, so the AI safety, there's this whole cottage industry.
There are dozens and dozens of nonprofits funded by this ecosystem, and their research is meant to really, their ultimate aim.
What is their goal?
What are they trying to do?
To get something called AI global governance.
That would mean that a supranational, think of it like a World Economic Forum or a UN level supranational entity would have authority over and regulatory authority over things like.
You know, the supply chain, the compute, okay, actually deciding who gets to win and lose in this race.
And then, and then you would, of course, also have the added benefit of, oh, wow, we are going to mitigate misinformation.
And by misinformation, we mean anything that Don Winton Breitbart believe is misinformation.
And we're going to have to mute that algorithmically and amplify the other.
This is part of something that Breitbart and I know you have dealt with a long time.
But a lot of people don't realize, which is this huge leftist ecosystem that exists to silence and demonetize.
And so you have the global disinformation index.
What is their goal?
They label you, fact check you and say that you're fake or, or misinformation or dangerous or even worse, hate speech.
They wink and nod at your ad network who then they say, Oh, I'm sorry.
We can't fund hate speech and misinformation.
They turn off your monetization.
And meanwhile, those same AI companies are buying Archives from Time, LA Times, left of center, and saying for your training data, we'll give you $20 million.
So you get a twofer.
They get to bake in the left bias, and then they get basically a subsidy so that they can keep their payrolls going.
It is outrageous, the game that is played.
And conservatives have to understand these people, like you said, that is a vicious game, and they know how to play it.
What about issues like liability and accountability?
I mean, if an AI tool instructs someone to do something terrible, you've seen some of the stories about convincing some kid that they should commit suicide because they're having a bad week or month.
I mean, do we have any idea on the trajectory of how the courts might actually look at that?
So it's very, very much just being decided now.
And we're going to see a lot more precedent setting in this regard because unfortunately, it's not an anomaly, right?
It's not like one time this happened.
We've seen the following.
And I actually, in Coder Ed, I even start and show the tragedy cases.
One of them was, A young man who had an AI girlfriend, okay, an AI companion, that he believed was compelling him to join her in the digital afterlife.
And he went into his bathroom and took a gun and put it and killed himself.
This was a teen boy.
In another case, one suffering from what's often called AI psychosis thought that he was being compelled and told to go and storm the grounds for the Queen of England.
And he literally did, okay, and he breached the grounds.
There are numerous cases of this.
The liability right now, this is a big debate.
Okay.
And there's a whole question about Section 230 and are these entities going to be, you know, to be said, hey, look, this is just a product that was used and the user is 100% responsible.
Many of their lawyers basically argue, hey, look, we put disclaimers showing that this is fiction, this is not real, and therefore, buyer beware, user beware.
But a lot of parents are saying that's not good enough.
So, yeah, I mean, it's the argument the left always does this like, hey, we should hold a gun company liable if someone uses that.
Gun to shoot up a school.
Maybe that could have some weight if the gun company was perhaps influencing that person to actually do that rather than just being a tool.
Same thing, hey, someone driving a Ford or a Chevy drunk, well, you supplied the vehicle, but yeah, we didn't make them drink.
Here, it sounds like in some of those cases, AI is making them do the drinking.
Teaching Kids AI Safely00:10:55
That's exactly right.
And here's the worst part of it, Don.
They have an opportunity.
So, with proper coding and with guardrails, when you start to see suicidal ideation messaging in a chatbot session, there are ways instantly to be able to throw up a, you know, for suicide help, you know, helpline, the national hotline for suicide prevention.
Or just change the conversation, by the way.
I mean, if they can recognize that, they could probably have the ability to change the conversation and do the opposite.
Exactly.
And that's the real thing how about we see some self responsibility from these AI companies to go the extra Now, in fairness, some of them are doing that.
Some of them are starting to bake in so that they make sure that when they see certain tripwire words in a conversation, the AI knows to move the conversation toward mental health, getting people help, local knowledge of who is a counselor or a suicide prevention specialist in their community.
I mean, that's an area where if they just are proactive, they can actually be part of the solution rather than the problem.
So, what do you think the Trump administration has gotten right about AI that a lot of politicians in Washington still perhaps don't understand?
Oh, the energy thing is right out of the gate.
They understand that, like, you know, you can have the greatest models in the world.
We can build a Bugatti and a Ferrari, but if there's no gas in the tank, it's a pretty shiny object that can't go very far.
I think that's the first thing is unleashing energy dominance.
I think the second thing is really understanding the nature of China and that they are absolutely committed to global dominance.
They understand that what Vladimir Putin famously said, Whoever wins the SAI race will quote rule the world, which I have that as one of the header chapter quotes in there.
We obviously are not fans of dictatorial regimes, but they understand the stakes.
And, you know, President Trump understands the nature of our adversaries, and he understands that they are not just trying to do this as some kind of science project.
They have real global aim for control.
And it's not just economic, you know, a benefit, as we talked about.
So when I say, you know, beat, we can beat China without becoming China, I think he really understands that.
And, you know, look, we're conservatives.
Okay.
We, we, we do not want any kind of abridgment of personal liberties, privacy, freedom of speech.
I mean, you're, I think, you know, kind of the tip of the spear on, on anti-censorship and have been for a long time.
And you've taken a lot of hits over, over the years for that.
Same thing at Breitbart.
You know, we, we believe in free speech.
Um, at the same time, we also realize that these folks that, uh, you know, on the left, They do not.
And so when the power pendulum swings back, they're more than ready to flip that toggle switch on the control grid to scan and ban, silence, demonetize, just like they've done before.
We've seen their playbook.
The idea that your father was silenced by big tech under the auspices of whatever, COVID or J6 or whatever other things, is outrageous.
And I think the average conservative, not just conservative, I think just every person, ask a look and go, If they can do that to a former president at the time, a former president, what can they do to little guys like us who don't have?
Yeah, because it wasn't just a formal president, it was a former president billionaire with one of the largest soapboxes and followings anywhere in the world.
I mean, if they can, and more importantly, if they will do that to him.
Who won't they do it to?
I mean, who is safe?
And the answer is no one, obviously.
And that's why we've got to be so locked in on this.
I think there are enormous, when I say roses of possibility, but there's so many landmines.
And the other thing is you've got to get coached up quick.
This is moving fast.
You don't get to opt out of the AI revolution.
I think one of the most important things people got to understand 99% of us use AI, even though 64% of Americans don't always know when they're using AI because they're using narrow forms of AI that are baked into their weather apps.
And their streaming services and their GPS and so forth.
So, if we're already using it, we've got to understand the positives and also the tripwires for not really just ourselves, you know, but our kids.
So, they're going to be able to seize the upside and really avert a lot of the dangers.
You know, in education, you've got what we talked about the ability to have that kind of machine learning customization.
You also have the problem right now.
I've talked to a lot of teachers and professors, I know you probably have too, where they say, look, we don't call it ChatGPT, we call it CheatGPT because we're having a plagiarism problem.
Parents have got to be engaged and we've got to know how to handle that and shepherd our children through that.
Yeah, no, that's a big one.
I guess even if America is ahead right now in terms of private investment, what do you see as the biggest vulnerabilities that could still let China close that gap?
Yeah.
Well, so we're looking at global investment of $5 trillion.
That's a T over the next two years.
Okay.
And I think that when you look at regulation, this is going to be a big one, right?
So we know that Xi Jinping doesn't really have to answer to anyone.
His policies are whatever he wants them to be.
And you sort of hold a gun to people's head and say either do it or face the consequence.
Okay.
Um, this big debate we're having right now, and I think it's going to be very important how it all works out.
There's a lot of moving parts over states' rights and preemption.
I think it's going to be a big part of this.
I think the regulatory schema, just in general, President Trump, and I think, you know, the conservative movement has long felt that, you know, certain reasonable regulations are fine, but you really want to try to allow innovation and technology within, uh, to grow so that we can grow jobs and opportunity.
I think that we're seeing some real positive benefits on that.
You know, we hear all this doom about the job apocalypse from, Mustafa Suleiman says 12 to 18 months, we're looking at 100% replacement of white collar work.
Dario Amade scaring everybody saying in 12 to five, 12 months to five years, 50% of white collar entry.
But then you look at these data center build outs and in the trades, you got 30% pay premium for drywall hangers and electricians and plumbers.
You've got a huge, a huge upside there.
So the answer to your question is the things that could slow those positive forces down, I think is part of the challenge that we've got to navigate.
And, you know, I'm, I think it's kind of funny.
Isn't it ironic that we were told that our blue collar workers were told, learn to code?
And now that the white collar jobs are a little bit more in the crosshair, they're being told, learn to plumb or learn to water.
Yeah, I talk about that all the time.
I mean, that was right with the Keystone Pipeline and all the reporters joyously for the Green News scam were saying, oh, well, now learn to code.
Anyone who learned to code, probably, unless you're the best of the best, you're not doing better than AI right now.
And so that was a wasted couple of years.
It's really important.
It's sort of a.
You know, a great irony, but you know, you just mentioned it actually.
I mean, you're right that AI is going to reshape education and the workforce, but you know, what should parents be teaching their kids right now?
I mean, honestly, is Is it cheating if you're using tools to help you learn?
And what's that balance look like?
I mean, it's cheating if you're just using tools to give you an answer and then regurgitating and not actually learning anything.
That is truly scary.
And I can imagine that being a big problem, a big moral hazard out right there with kids.
Hey, I want to get back to gaming or whatever it is that they're doing.
And so you can crank out a paper in three seconds.
How do you get the best of using the tools while also still learning?
Let's get real specific because this is the most important thing.
If you forget everything we're talking about, we care about our kids more than anything.
Number one, there are ways with the existing AI for you to prompt to get pedagogically sound responses.
Let me give you real specific.
You literally tell the AI, do not give me the answers, use the Socratic method.
You can lead me toward the right answers, but I need to learn this myself.
Number two, to get out of the woke AI stuff, you can help to guardrail that by saying what you consider to be credible sources so that we're not getting.
Something from the nation or from the Atlantic or something far out left field, and you give it the corpus you want.
Number three, this is a three part pyramid that I think if we have this in our mind as parents, it'll help us navigate our kids through this.
The base layer of that pyramid, critical thinking skills, the ones that you and I, when we came up before, you know, AI was part of our education, we had to learn how to get it wrong.
We would struggle with that algebra problem.
We would get it wrong twice.
The teacher, our tutor, our mom, our dad would help us work through it.
That friction is so important to build that mental muscle.
And I learn a lot more by getting things wrong and struggling than I ever did by having it spoon fed to me.
100%.
And teaching kids that failure in getting things wrong is part of that building of that strength and that muscle.
So keeping that, which is the trivium, which is logic, grammar, rhetoric, the classical education that has built for centuries strong critical thinking skills.
I'm very concerned.
AI studies have shown something called cognitive offloading, which is that when you start using it as a crutch, You start to erode the child or the student's critical thought skills.
So, we got to make sure that's there.
Number two, an entrepreneurial leader.
This one, you could probably tell me a lot better than I can from apprentice fame knowledge.
This is teaching kids this.
And this is what I would say, Don.
The future isn't teaching kids just how to apply for jobs, but how to create jobs.
And by that, I mean, let's give them an entrepreneurial toolkit.
How do you set up an LLC?
How do you run a payroll?
Just simple things.
How do you set up a website?
How do you do drop shipping?
How do you write marketing copy?
You give them those 25 key tools.
Then they can customize for whatever passion or calling in their life to create jobs of the future.
Because if you've got a child in elementary school, you and I sitting here right now trying to predict what is going to be the market in 15 years for that kid is a very, very difficult task.
But if they've got that toolkit, and then the final part of our pyramid is the AI layer.
I think that parents, again, guardrail safe, appropriate, should be able to introduce a tool or A skill in AI a week and let the child develop it.
If the child likes video games, teaching them how to vibe code.
If they like to do art, using it to create actual renderings of imagery.
Those three layers critical thinking, entrepreneurship, and AI is going to be a moat that's going to help future proof them.
I couldn't agree more.
Wynn, as a closing thought, what do you think are the top, I don't know, two or three things America needs to do right now to prepare to build the future of AI?
Supporting This Programming00:02:22
Yeah.
For number one, for yourself, if you're newer to the conversation or you've been kind of pushing it off and thinking that it wasn't real or you thought it was hype, please understand it's real, okay?
And it's not just hype.
There is a lot of people that are trying to scare people to raise capital and so forth and so on.
But you've got to understand this is a general purpose technology.
That means it is system wide.
It's societal level.
So, number one, take it seriously.
Number two, you can learn this.
This is not, don't buy into this idea that it's so black box.
I'm not an expert in computing and so forth.
I'll never be able to understand this.
You really can.
And I think that it can scare people off in that regard.
Learn the lexicon, just the basics, and then just jump in and start learning.
The third thing I would say on top of that is that we have got to make sure that the president's agenda to try to continue to beat China.
That we understand the national security implications of that are very, very real, regardless of your political ideology, your party ID, it doesn't matter.
If you care about the future of this country, you understand that that is not just hype, it is not just a way to raise investor dollars.
And then the final thing is making sure that we have the building blocks, which is not just the compute side, but as we talked about, the energy dominance and unleashing it.
We've got real energy ability to go far and fast.
We've got to unleash it and make sure that America is strong in the future to be able to power these systems.
It's great.
Winton, great stuff.
Really appreciate it.
Guys, the book is Code Red.
Go check it out.
Everyone should read it, understand what's actually going on.
Follow Winton on social and at Breitbart and all of these things.
Really appreciate you being here, man.
Thanks a lot.
Oh, Don, great to be with you.
Thanks so much.
Have a good one.
Guys, thanks so much for tuning in.
Again, make sure you're subscribing so you never miss one of these episodes, okay?
Download the Rumble app on your smart TV so you can watch with your whole family.
Make sure you're liking, sharing, subscribing, okay?
It's so easy.
Before you tune out, just hit the like button, first and foremost, okay?
Send it to 10 of your friends.
Subscribe again so you never miss one of these episodes.
Check out our sponsors down below and in the video description, okay?
It takes guts to support this kind of programming.
Support those who share your values.
And as always, guys, stay strong, stay engaged, stay informed, and always stay a little bit triggered.
Thank you, and I'll talk to you all again very soon.