Lex Fridman and Joe Rogan explore AI’s eerie mimicry of human speech—like GPT-4’s uncanny replication of Mitch Hedberg’s humor—while debating its ethical risks, from psychopathic normalization to institutional bias (e.g., ChatGPT’s refusal to critique Fauci but not Gordon Ryan). They contrast intrinsic curiosity with profit-driven innovation, like SpaceX’s Starship vs. Google’s nap pods, and question humanity’s future amid AI dominance and drugs like semaglutide, which caused 34.8% lean tissue loss in trials. Rogan’s skepticism clashes with Lex’s optimism about decentralized truth-seeking, but both agree censorship—whether by governments or platforms like Twitter—threatens democracy, exposing corporate lies (e.g., shadow banning) and the fragility of unchecked narratives. Ultimately, the conversation underscores how technology and culture may reshape human authenticity, from art to politics. [Automatically generated summary]
Language models, I don't know if you know what those are, but that's the general systems that underlie ChatGPT and GPT. They've been progressing over the past maybe four years aggressively.
There's been a lot of development.
GPT-1, GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-3.5.
And ChatGPT, there's a lot of interesting technical stuff that Maybe we don't want to get into it.
But reasoning is, in order to be able to stitch together sentences that make sense, you not only need to know the facts that underlie those sentences, you also have to be able to reason.
And we take it for granted as human beings that we can do some common sense reasoning.
Like, this war started at this date and ended at this date, therefore it means that...
The start and the end has a meaning.
There's a temporal consistency.
There's a cause and effect.
All of those things are inside programming code.
By the way, a lot of stuff I'm saying we still don't understand.
They're labeling the ranking of the outputs of this model.
And that kind of ranking used together with a technique called reinforcement learning is able to get this thing to generate very impressive to humans output.
So it's not actually, there's not a significant breakthrough in how much knowledge was learned.
That was already in GPT-3 and there was much more impressive models already trained.
So it's on the way, not just OpenAI.
But this kind of fine-tuning, it's called, by human labelers plus reinforcement learning, you start to get like where students don't have to write essays anymore in high school, where you can style transfer.
Like I said, do a Louis C.K. joke in the style of Joe Rogan or Joe Rogan joke in the style of Louis C.K., It does an incredible job at those kinds of style transfers.
You can more accurately query things about the different historical events, all that kind of stuff.
And then in this, well, that scene where she gets him to fall in love with her, it's so creepy when she comes back with clothes on and she's got a wig and you're like, oh my god.
I think we're not that far away in terms of capability, but in order to use these systems and rather in order to train these systems, you have to be a large company.
And large companies tend to get scared when it's doing interesting stuff.
And that's the cool thing about this, I should say, that everyone kind of knows how to do this.
It's computationally difficult, but it's getting cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper.
So it's not just going to be OpenAI with Microsoft or Google that's doing this.
It's basically anybody can do this.
And so that, the distributed nature of our exploration of artificial intelligence, I think if you believe that most people are good, that we will not allow sort of a centralization of power, which is the big concern here.
Whether that's centralization of power release of censorship or abuse of different kinds.
Over an AI. So say you have a superintelligent system.
Somebody is the first person that built it.
Imagine you're sitting there in a boardroom.
You have this thing you haven't released yet that it's able to...
Basically, it's a super intelligent.
It's able to answer any question, able to give you a plan on how to make a lot of money, able to give you a plan on how to manipulate other governments into any kind of geopolitical resolution that benefits you, all of that.
It's able to give you all of that.
And you can deploy it in a shady way where it sneaks into, like TikTok or something like that, it sneaks into everybody's smartphone.
Pretending to be doing good, but it's actually, whether deliberately or not, is controlling the population.
So that capability is there.
The great thing is the people at the head of OpenAI currently, Sam Altman, and others really care about this problem.
They were there in the beginning.
They were the ones like Elon screaming about AI ethics, AI alignment.
They're really concerned about superintelligent AI taking over.
Not 3D, it's 3D. So like photo very photorealistic if not photorealistic, but like there are when you look real close you can see some weird things going on like the background here is a little messed up.
This arm is not to the right person.
She's sitting on an extra piece of skin here somehow.
He was talking about the more you have this kind of virtualization, the more you allow the psychopaths to reign free.
The more we have artificially generated porn...
The more we have artificially generated violence, photorealistic violence, the more you make it normal for you to be basically a psychopath in a digital space.
Enable that and make that okay and then you forget what it's like to actually be a good human being.
And then also part of the problem may be that we may very well be looking at a world, whether it's 10 years from now, 20 years from now, whatever it is, where these children that have grown up in this environment now have a completely different way of looking at people in the world because of all these interactions they have.
It's flavored their personality.
And then we move into a digital world.
I mean, we're not there yet in terms of virtual reality.
It's not good enough.
I think that's what we're seeing with the meta failure.
We're expecting a lot of people are just going to dive in and start wearing goggles all over the house.
But it's not quite there yet.
There's also something weird for people.
There's something really weird about wearing these head goggles.
There's a lot of cool ones, but people are just not buying into it the way they buy into Xbox and PlayStation.
They're not, like, wholesale committed to this yet, but they will be.
It's going to be so fucking good that instead of having it in a goggle form where it's like this big clunky thing on you, it's going to be very easy to do.
I've been revisiting some classic books recently, just doing a reading list, and one of them that captures this extremely well that I recommend...
I think most people read in like middle school or something, but it's actually very relevant.
It's Brave New World.
So a lot of people, including Jordan Peterson, worry about 1984, sort of a totalitarian, a dystopia that represents a totalitarian state.
But Brave New World, there's no centralized government that's like dogmatic and controlling everything, surveilling everything.
They basically created this world where sex is easy, everyone is promiscuous, genetic engineering removes any kind of diversity, any kind of interesting dark, bad diversity that we would think of, like the Hunter S. Thompsons and the Bukowskis, the weirdos of society.
And then he gives you drugs, Soma, that basically gives you pleasure whenever you want if you start feeling a little too shitty about your life.
And that's actually closer to us.
And it doesn't seem, if you, I mean, the way he writes about it, it sounds bad.
Like, we don't want that.
But then you start to ask a question, like, well, at which point would we realize it's bad?
Because it's constantly...
Obviously, we should do generic engineering to remove any kind of maladies that we have, any kind of diseases.
It's like everything is an obvious step forward.
But then the place you end up at, just like with sex, is it good to have artificial images of as many as you want?
As much porn as you want?
As much sex as you want?
Is that good?
As much awesome stuff as you want?
Is that good?
Is that what human flourishing looks like?
Or do you want to have some constraints, some limitations, some finiteness of resources, some scarcity?
Maybe that's actually fundamental for human happiness.
Having too much of awesome stuff, maybe that destroys the possibility of real, meaningful, deep happiness.
But I think the question really becomes, are we going to stay people?
Because I don't think we are.
I think we're moving in that general direction anyway.
I think that probably is why we have this, I mean, it's almost inevitable if you have this addiction to cell phone issue because everybody has that.
If you have a cell phone and you're on your social media apps during the day and you're on YouTube, You're probably addicted, whether you realize it or not.
And the number of hours that you put on those things is shocking.
When you actually look at your screen time, you're like, six hours?
I was on my phone for six hours?
What the fuck did I do?
And you'll try to rationalize it and justify it.
What that's doing to young people has got to be very strange.
And if that, along with all the contaminants that are affecting the way people develop, which are, you know, Dr. Shanna Swan from the book Countdown talks about this.
She talks about phthalates and plastics and how you can trace Back to like the 1950s when they really started using a lot of plastics and petrochemical products that started getting into people's bodies in the form of phthalates.
It started diminishing sperm count and smaller penises and testicles and taints and more miscarriages for women, lower fertility rates.
All that she believes is directly correlated with the data that they've done already on mammals.
When they do that to mammals in tests, the more phthalates they enter into their system, the more they have issues like this.
So we're becoming almost like less able to procreate naturally.
And if we get to a point where the human race's future, the only way we're going to be able to procreate is some sort of genetic engineering.
And some sort of artificial womb or some sort of a system that they develop that allows you to combine you and your partner's DNA and create a new child.
That seems to me like if you're going to do that and you started engineering out very specific aspects of people that are problematic – anger, greed, jealousy, lust – All these different things.
You would turn people into some sort of sexless thing that gets its pleasure by manipulating its neurochemistry through some electronics, through some something.
Maybe it's something you take so they can control it.
But that's not far off of the path of possibility.
If you really looked at where we're going now and if the fertility rates drop, if they really do, and I know people a lot smarter than me are actually worried about, like Elon's worried.
About the amount of children that people have.
There was a thing today on Italy.
I was reading this article on Italy where they were talking about how the population is very old and they're not having a lot of kids.
They're like, this is unsustainable.
Like, you can only do this for so long before you don't have anybody living there anymore.
And we don't think of that as being a possibility, but it doesn't take that long if nobody has kids for there to be no more people left.
Like, how many?
A hundred years?
Like, if nobody has kids.
A hundred years from now, there's no people.
It's real simple.
You have to make people, and how many do you have to make?
And can you make them?
Because you might want to start making them when you're 37, and you might go to a doctor, and the doctor's like, well, this is touch and go.
You're going to have to do in vitro fertilization, and then you go through all this shit, and you're taking shots, and you're fucking, you're timing everything.
On top of that, I do think, if we're not careful, I think there's exciting positive possibilities, but there's also negative possibilities of these AI systems, like ChadGPT, but later versions, forming deep, meaningful connections with human beings, where most of your...
Friends.
No, most of your intimacy in terms of friendships and like a deep connection with an intelligent entity comes from AI systems.
Could you imagine if you're driving to work and you and the AI are just having a conversation shooting the shit and the AI is really funny and the AI is your buddy?
And then some people's brain might be a little bit broken, and they're still functioning members of society, but they might be extreme narcissists, they might be sociopaths, psychopaths, and you have to kind of understand that the world is full of, potentially, not full of, but has some charming psychopaths walking around.
Like we have this idea in our head that this way we live is like ultimately because to us it provides emotions and because it creates dilemmas and solutions and conflict and resolution.
There's so much going on in our minds all the time when it comes to interacting with each other that we feel like it's imperative for existence.
Well, there's an incredible computation machine we call evolution that has constructed human beings.
You want to mess with that?
You want to get a bunch of, you want to get a few software engineers from San Francisco to mess with the computation system that is evolution, that is Earth.
This giant computer that for billions of years spent a billion years on bacteria trying to figure shit out before it advanced and now it went through all of these incredible stages.
This entire ecosystem that we call life on Earth, probably planted here by aliens.
And recently, these monkeys started to get super clever, and now we're going to completely change everything.
And then Commander David Fravor, who you talked to, that Tic Tac experience, If they really did track something that went from above 50,000 feet above sea level to 50 feet in less than a second, what the fuck is that?
If that's real, we're assuming that all their calibration was on and all their equipment worked together, but it was multiple different visual sightings of this thing, too.
Different jets saw it.
Different people.
Uniform story.
Everybody's talked about how it just moved off at insane rates of speed.
And then there's all these other ones like Ryan Long and all these other people that he flew with that are seeing these similar behaviors from these things where they just disappear.
They move off at insane rates of speed.
So it's one of two things.
Either he said there's been some sort of parallel science, some science that's going on where nobody knew about it, and all the top physicists were completely unaware of this tech, and they were developing it independently in some fucking lab in the mountains for the government, or aliens.
But yeah, definitely, to me, it feels like the scientific development that we're doing now with Starship, so SpaceX and Starship, with all the advancement in telescopes, we're just getting more and more and more data to where we're not going to have these shitty videos.
We're going to have high-resolution understanding.
And because it's becoming more okay to talk about aliens, I think the actual scientific community has a bigger humility about the topic to where they're expanding the window of their study to consider all kinds of physical phenomena, all kinds of observation, all kinds of sources of data and signals and so on.
I would hope we would get definitive signals of alien life.
That's that I don't know because like the capability I think is there to high resolution image everything but I don't know how much uh how much desire there is for that kind of application because there's so much more for other for other kinds of applications so like low resolution imaging for mapping purposes and so on imaging for military purposes there's applications but that's like very uh specific kind of um application I just don't know It's like
James Webb Telescope, right?
There's like huge battles going on on what that thing should do.
Because there's a lot of...
It's a constrained resource.
You have to battle what are the interesting questions, where should it look, what's the resolution of data, where in the sky should collect that data, how frequent, and so on.
In that same kind of way, there's probably battles over satellite resources of what should it be doing.
If I was an evil dictator and I wanted to get my government to have control over the skies and to be able to see anything from anywhere at any time, And I wanted to, like, have mass surveillance drones in the sky above cities.
A good way would be aliens.
We have to capture these things on video, and there's only one way.
We're going to deploy these high-resolution video cameras in the sky and capture everything.
And there's sightings every day.
Won't be a matter of time before we have real high-resolution photo of something we can definitively prove is not ours.
Yeah, I hope aliens are, if they're out there, I hope they're detectable by us humans and we can interact with them, probably not communicate with them.
But from my perspective, you have to be humble.
Advanced alien civilizations are probably so sophisticated that we dumb descendants of apes cannot possibly even detect them.
But then they've figured out all other kinds of technologies that enable them to navigate complicated life forms that are unlike them and to be able to study them and to manipulate them and all that kind of stuff.
Well, the idea could be that you want to kind of plant the seeds of this idea because it's so shocking to the psyche of these very fragile apes.
Yeah, you have to think about what we are, right?
We're real close to like what we were a million years ago.
We're real close to like very violent, hair-covered, barbaric animals.
And now we have thermonuclear weapons.
And now we have satellite imagery and cell phones and we're close to some new thing.
And I think if I was an alien, I would want to watch.
I would want to watch this very bizarre transition because, like, if you could study, look, think about all the things we go to study that are so boring.
We guys dedicate their whole lives to find a new fern.
You know, and what are we?
You know, we're the most fascinating fucking thing in the known universe by far.
If we didn't know about people, if we were some logical creature from somewhere else, And we found people.
And we would be like, holy shit!
Wait till you see these fucking guys.
They have a popularity contest, see who controls the weapons.
They're all like obviously paid off by these corporations and special interest groups.
And everybody's like, I don't get it!
These politicians, they make hundreds of millions of dollars on a job that pays $100,000 a year.
Well, if they're observing us, do you think humans stand out that much from the rest of life on Earth?
Because it could be the same kind of life force that you just described some basic stuff, some basic dynamics of interactions between species that could be equally as fascinating as the interaction between ants.
Or, just like Chad GPT and GPT-1, 2, and 3, they see that as a trivial consequence of evolution, that you just increase the computational power of the brain, you're going to start getting these kinds of interactions, because they know what happens in the next thousands of years.
They understand the general trajectory.
It's going to be...
We don't know that trajectory.
It could be AI... AI and then there's stages in the development of AI and the kind of system it creates.
Maybe it'll be one collective intelligence that encompasses the whole world where it's no longer individual entities.
It's one intelligence that's trying to solve nuclear fusion and achieve type one Kardashev-scale civilization that's unable to Become a multi-planetary species.
They know this whole development is trivial to them.
They're going to yawn.
Or maybe they know that this is the stage where it's inevitable that these creatures destroy themselves.
Because in order to achieve this level of intelligence, there has to be a fundamental desire for conflict.
And the better the weapons get, the more the conflict will enable them to destroy themselves.
If not through nuclear weapons, then through AI, through genetic engineering, through all kinds of stuff.
Which is why, you know, one of the things about UFO folklore, when they drop Fat Man and Little Boy, when they drop those bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, like UFO sightings, there was like a pretty big uptick.
We fall in love and then there's heartbreak and you lose the people you love.
You go to war to each other and through that process of war form some of the strongest possible bonds that any two entities can with the people you fight alongside with.
And then somehow you form these different hierarchies where people hunger for power and destroy other human beings through that desire for power, for greed, and all that kind of stuff.
And then all of it, the individual life itself, the human condition, is deeply meaningful because of all those constraints, because of all the uncertainty in the mystery.
They might be jealous because they figured all their shit out and they're just...
Maybe that's, we're at this stage where, because we haven't figured out most things, life is beautiful.
Like, life can be beautiful in this way that they'll know they no longer can be.
What I was saying, though, is that's why we are looking to them.
Because we have all these questions about what we're doing.
That's why we're so fascinated by the idea of an alien.
They might be looking at us the way we look at Western movies.
We romanticize the bullshit aspect of taking a fucking wagon with stupid wooden wheels and wobbling your way across the mountainside while the Indians shoot arrows at you.
What if they know that asking questions and not knowing the answers is way more meaningful and full of the possibility of happiness than having all the answers?
Or this idea of what is and isn't meaningful is trivial.
And it's only a consequence of our monkey brains trying to grasp for reason.
And that once we've transcended that and moved into this next stage of evolution, which we would hope they are, we would realize how foolish these primal notions that we had.
The purpose they served was just to get us to the dance.
Just to figure out the computers, figure out all the technology, And then let us transcend the next stage of existence, which removes all of our primal – all of our different emotions and all of our different problematic forms of expression, violence and greed and lust and deception and all those things.
It's like part 1984 with the WEF and part Brave New World with everything else.
It's like we're definitely living in a time where certain people with a lot of resources are trying to figure out how to control people.
That's a fact.
They always have.
It's a natural part of what human beings do.
And they used to do it with kings and armies, and if they could do it digitally, they'll do it that way.
They love to tell people what they can and can't do, and they love to control people and extract resources at an extraordinary amount or extraordinary rate for almost nothing.
They love to do that.
Can I just steal money?
Can I just tell people what to do and steal their money?
Yeah, you can.
You gotta be at the top of the food chain in one of those crazy organizations.
This greed, the possibility of other people being able to control you because of greed or desire for power, the weird relationship we have with sex of always chasing it and not getting it and then getting it and then that weird dynamic.
Then the pleasure you get from a good steak or food, all of that.
Yeah, you can do an evolutionary biology explanation, but you can reduce every beautiful human experience to a biological explanation, but I think you actually lose a lot of the things that aliens are jealous of.
Yeah, well, maybe Earth is a kind of zoo, and then we're in it, and then we're being observed.
And maybe all the suffering is a kind...
There's probably activist aliens, they're saying, why keep the humans, these conscious beings that are capable of so much suffering, why allow them to continue suffering?
I mean, that's the question, the religious question people ask.
I think all of these questions are really good questions, but we look at it through the eye of culture.
We look at it through the eye of what's meaningful for us, what life means to us.
But if you could look at it almost like a computation, if you could step away It's impossible for us to do it, but if you just had to pretend, if you could step away and look at it like this thing is moving in a certain way, like what is it doing?
Well, it's making better stuff.
That's all it does.
All it does is make better stuff.
It has a lot of things in there like romance and sound and stories and the hero's journey, but what is it really doing?
Recently addicted to electronic stuff where you have to carry around this thing with you.
So this thing has got this parasitic relationship with you.
And you need a new one every year.
You need a better one because the better one came out.
Oh, what's the better one do?
The better one has a better camera.
Okay.
So this keeping up with the Joneses, which seems to be a part of like just natural human behavior patterns, like people always want to keep up with their neighbor, right?
Well, the thing that fuels this technological innovation is all materialism.
Materialism fuels it because you have to get the latest, greatest stuff.
Like, you know, you're gonna have a laptop from four or five years ago, you're not gonna notice.
It is an open question whether that's a permanent state of affairs at this point, this kind of capitalist materialistic pursuits, or that's a temporary stage.
That's what Karl Marx thought, that capitalism is a temporary state.
The ultimate place to be is perfect communism, pure communism.
Well, I don't think that works with humans because I think part of what makes us achieve and do these things and even make life better and safer for everybody is we're constantly looking to do better than the people before because you get rewarded for doing better.
If you don't have any competition at all, no competition, And everyone just has money and we all just sit around and wait.
And there's no need for innovation because you can't get ahead.
There's no need for creating a new Apple because you don't make any money doing that.
You're not going to do it.
Those folks that are working at Google right now that are doing 16-hour days or people that are working to try to refix Twitter that are working constantly, the people that are working at SpaceX, if they were making no money, they wouldn't do that.
If they didn't have to do it, they wouldn't do that.
But yes, there's a bunch of stuff that's an output of capitalism that enables those engineers to do incredible work.
So yes, to fund it, that whole mechanism.
Also, there's something about centralized control, which is required by at least socialism, that creates bureaucracy that slows down entrepreneurship and innovation.
Don't you think they're doing that because they have a great opportunity to make more money and to advance their career, and while they're 27 years old and they're doing these 16-hour days, they're hoping for some sort of a return on this investment of time and effort.
As the bigger the company gets, and you see this with Elon, Elon firing a large percentage of the people at Twitter, most people just kind of get complacent and comfortable and so on.
That large companies, especially if there's a profit coming in, it's like, what exactly is the motivation for you?
And the people that really step up, usually they're going to be in smaller companies, like in startups, to where it's clear where my ambitious contribution can actually bring impact to the world, but none of that is money.
Because if you're cheating in a game, you're using something, anal beads, whatever it is, that's allowing you to make better moves.
That is so much different than if everyone's doing steroids.
Because if you're doing steroids because everyone's doing steroids, everyone is cheating, so there's no cheating.
But if one person is just using their brain and the other person is using some sort of a calculation and getting some sort of a signal, we don't even know if that was real because it was never proven, right?
He might have just beaten them.
Like, Magnus might have gotten off to a bad start.
But for example, if I had something, whether it's up my ass or in my ear right now, and it was using ChatGPT, like you asked me of an explanation of the war between Russia and Ukraine, and I would just tune in to the ChatGPT explanation and just give you that explanation, right?
I think that's really interesting to me, how to expand human capabilities.
Because you have to understand, because there's a lot of dangerous trajectories that could take possibly.
Like I built the, I did the chess playing thing, not with anal beads, but there is, for people who are curious, I discovered this.
This is fascinating.
There's quite a lot of anal beads and butt plugs and sex toys that are Bluetooth connected.
No, so for a beginner like me, so just like a mediocre player like me, you would use a lot of information like Morse code.
You would say, take this piece, so it's the position of that piece, and move it to here.
That's a lot of vibration.
For a Grandmaster level player, all you need is a very low resolution signal about even just the information of there exists a move here that's not standard, that's going to be very strong.
So that sends a Grandmaster signal to think about this position.
Like, there's obvious moves and there's non-obvious moves.
I'm just giving you examples of like a Grandmaster needs a much fewer signal.
But so with Morse code, there's a lot of different ways to compress.
Like if you want to get good at this, it's actually, I forget how many bits of data are needed, but it's very little.
But if the easy one is Morse code to just send you the position of the piece.
The interesting thing that I have not tested, and the audience, the few people in the audience that want to test this, is a lot of the vibrating devices have different settings, 0 to 20. I wonder how sensitive you are to be able to tell the difference between the settings.
Yeah, but there's also probably other ways to, like, you can probably send signal on your body somehow by tapping and so on, what the opponent did.
I don't know exactly how you, you know, I think protecting against cheating for over-the-board chess, which is in-person chess, I think is pretty easy.
They just have to take effort to do that.
Like they scanned him, which I think if he didn't cheat is kind of embarrassing, but it's also awesome.
So I think he brought a lot of attention to chess.
I mean, they kind of are looking for the Bobby Fischer, for the young American, wild type of character who might be a genius, who might not actually be cheating.
There might be some brilliance here, beating the best person in the world, Magnus Carlsen, over the board.
Well, it's a good signal to say I'm not going to play with cheaters.
But it could be also, there could be a bunch of forces that play there because Chess.com sponsors Magnet.
Every single kind of field has their like...
Yeah, it has their centralized organization that has its interest, financial interest.
There's the controversial figure.
I mean, the dynamic of drama plays out in the same kind of way in all these different fields.
But it's still pretty interesting to think.
Because we're living in reality, and this is going to happen in all kinds of interactions, where We already have AI chess engines that are way better than humans.
So how do you still enjoy the game of chess while there's a system out there that's way better than humans?
Yeah, but again, stories like Brave New World paint an end point to this trajectory that's not good.
There could be an optimal place where you stop, right?
Of course, it's tempting to say now we're in the optimal place, but it's not obvious to me.
For example, there's many brilliant people that are working to extend life, right?
Yes, extending the quality of life, improving the quality of life is a really worthy pursuit.
It's an obvious pursuit, and it should be...
I mean, it's fascinating, it's a beautiful one we should invest in, but do you want to live forever?
To me, a lot of people say, like, yes, you should be able to choose when you die, but to me, it's not obvious that living forever is going to maximize happiness.
There could be death, the fear of death, the finiteness of things, the finiteness of experience that are pleasurable is part of the human condition.
It's not obvious to me if you remove that, that that's not going to significantly decrease the amount of happiness.
What we're doing is dealing with These instincts, this coding, behavior patterns of civilization and of organisms that have, you know, been evolving and have been working their way out to get to the most efficient and best method possible for fucking millions of years.
You know, I mean, what we're going to do is continue that process.
I think we should just enjoy what we enjoy right now.
We should be very appreciative of the fact that we haven't made that transition yet.
And I think we're probably the last of the Mohicans.
We're probably the last of the regular people.
And I don't think we're going to be able to look back a hundred years or a thousand years from now and say that this was better If they solve all the problems that wreck havoc on people's lives emotionally and psychologically and in terms of like war and famine and disease and all the problems we have with Poverty and slavery and resources of the earth being
exploited by a select few and damaging the environment and the process.
Like all these things that we know are absolutely wrong about what human life is capable of even today in 2023. We could eliminate all of that.
The interesting thing about expanding out to other planets is that life will be extremely harsh on those planets.
So that explorer experience where resources are highly constrained, extremely challenging, so building up a civilization on other planets, that might have the same kind of romanticized humanness that we're talking about now.
Here on Earth, everybody will be just like in a pool of pleasure.
Just, you know, connected to a VR where just they're constantly just doping me in everywhere.
Now you look at it and you're like, oh, that could 100% happen.
Like, how many thousands of years from now?
Before it has to be like that?
But if you're giving people the option to live a completely free life...
Where you're the hero, you're the bad motherfucker, you're riding a motorcycle with your shirt open and you get all the girls and you're fucking shooting guns at the sky and the UFOs come and they take you on a trip and every day is wild and magical and you're running from tigers and you barely get away.
And you're like, you're gonna do it.
You're gonna do it the same way you play fucking Battlecraft or whatever the fuck they play.
If you have a boring-ass life, and instead, you could be sniping people from a rooftop and winning, and jumping off the top of a building and landing in a canopy, and you live.
This is wild.
You're doing this fun thing that's very exciting, whereas regular life is not exciting.
We're so easily manipulated in that way.
We're so easily stimulated and we're willing to give up a giant percentage of our time already to these things, whether it's to our phone or whether it's to video games that we play and Xbox and PlayStation and all the shit that people are just addicted to all day long.
It's not much different to go from that to the next level, to just be completely integrated with technology.
And I think it's inevitable.
I think it's just a matter of time.
I don't know how many years, but I think we're gonna look back on these years of fucking riots in the streets, cops killing people, and we're gonna go, God, we were so dumb back then.
We're so concerned with romance and meanwhile was all this suffering and all this hate and all this jealousy and anger and all this misdirected rage and now it's all gone.
And now people work together to like create symbiosis and balance on earth with all the natural elements, the plants and the trees and the water and we live in a carbon neutral way.
So this is some weird chaotic state that we're trying to figure out.
And I think it's obvious to me that same mechanisms that enable this kind of drama on social media will lead us to connect on a deep level as humans in a positive way.
Social media, I know it's cliche to say, but that's what they dream about.
Even Facebook and all of them, they want to connect people and discover cool people, cool communities.
You learn stuff, you grow, you challenge yourself, you meet friends, meet people, you fall in love with all of that.
And just have an enriching life to where if you use a piece of social media, TikTok is a little better at this.
When you're done using it, you feel a little bit better than you did before.
No, the problem TikTok does is it made it so addicting.
That you don't want to look away.
I think you feel like a loser because you've looked at it for a very long time versus, I'm referring to more like it's more, it's less, the virality of TikTok spreads drama less, I would say.
It's interesting when you see narratives and that those narratives are not accurate and you see narratives that get pushed Like one we were talking about earlier today was the Paul Pelosi video.
Do you see that video?
Do you see the Paul Pelosi get hit with the guy with the hammer?
Wait, there's a video of it?
Yeah, there's a video of it.
The cops, they released the cops body camera footage.
And then they also released the security footage that shows the guy breaking into the house.
And then they released the 9-11 call so you can listen to Pelosi.
So there was some suspicion that he knew the guy.
But I think that's just because people are suspicious of everything.
There's always like, what's really going on?
People always do that.
But you could really clearly hear from the 9-11 call that there's a crazy person in his house with a hammer, and he's trying to keep the guy calm.
And he thought the guy was pretty calm up until the moment where the cops came, and you see he has his hand on the hammer.
Well, not just that, but we must take into account that when you're seeing a quarrel online now, like when someone has a controversial opinion about something that a bunch of people are shaming him, those might not be real people.
There's a bunch of people that attack someone.
Someone has a controversial point, like let's say it's a point about Ukraine or something along those lines, something that's a very contentious issue.
You will read comments in this person's post and there's a percentage of those people that are responding that aren't real people.
I don't know what that number is, but it's not zero.
If there's any very viral tweet and it's a very controversial, polarizing subject, some of those people are fake people.
And how many of them?
And what are those fake people saying?
And are they muddying the waters of credibility?
Are they coming up with a false narrative to sway people that might be on the fence?
I don't know, but there's A percentage.
I mean, and this was one of the big contentious issues that Elon got into when he was buying Twitter, right?
Like, what percentage of those people are real people?
If you were a company, if you were a country, if you even were an individual that's obsessed with their own image, like think about what Bill Gates has spent To prop up certain media organizations like the amount of donations that he's given to media organizations and people thought like that might have been connected to favorable coverage of him.
Whether or not that's true, you could see how someone would do that.
If someone's worth billions and billions of dollars, let's just not even say him, let's make up a fictional person that's worth billions of dollars.
One way to curry favor with a bunch of people that are writing stories about you is to donate money to their organizations, exorbitant amounts of money.
And you can do that.
I mean, it's kind of what Sam Bankman-Free did with FTX. I mean, when you're the number two donor to the Democratic Party and then Maxine Waters is like, you know, I mean, I don't even know.
Why are we talking to him?
What did he do wrong?
What did she say?
What was her exact quote?
But she wasn't going to force him to come in, I think.
I think that's—I might be wrong, but I think that was the story, that she wasn't going to force him to come in and testify.
I'm like, what?
Like, he just—he made a Ponzi scheme and billions of dollars—like, they had an arena in Miami.
Like, this is wild shit.
This is not a small issue where, like, maybe he doesn't need to come in.
And then you find out how much money he gave to the Democratic Party.
Like, oh, God.
When all that unravels and you see how transparent it all is, how bonkers it is...
But it's still really difficult because what's the difference between SPF and Bill Gates?
So for the longest time, SPF, it was very hard to criticize him.
I think a lot of people had a positive look, a positive view of him.
Making the money?
No, not even like powerful people, in the crypto community and so on.
There's maybe a little bit of suspicion, but mostly positive.
If you look at Bill Gates now...
If I wanted to create a narrative right now, I would launch a bunch of bots making up anything about Bill Gates and it'll stick.
There's a lot of suspicion about Bill Gates.
The problem to me is, I'm not making any statements, but the problem to me is it's possible that Bill Gates has actually brought more positive to the world than almost any human being who's ever lived.
It depends on the conspiracy theories you believe.
The amount of funding he's invested in helping people in Africa, helping cure disease and malaria and so on is humongous.
It's sad to me that...
I'm not saying anything about Bill Gates, but it's sad to me if Bill Gates, if none of those conspiracies are true, most of them are not true, that we're attacking him and giving SPF a pass until SPF got really screwed.
Well, I think the only reason why they're attacking him was because, A, he was connected to the pandemic when it came to his support of vaccinations, and then, B, he had a formidable investment.
In BioNTech.
And that's something that he dumped recently before their stock plummeted.
He made a shitload of money.
I think he made like 10x on his return, something crazy like that.
So you could see that there'd be a financial incentive for someone like him to be promoting something and then profiting off that thing and then talking openly about that thing not being very effective and that there needs to be a new thing.
And so just that alone, you're embroiled in controversy now, and this is not taking us out at all.
Looking at all that, you could see easily why people would be mad at him.
The reason why people are mad at Sam Bankman-Fried is because people have always thought that crypto seems like nonsense.
Like, Bitcoin kind of makes sense, because there's only a certain amount of them, and there's a mysterious character that created it, and it's all geniuses, and it was kind of the first one that became popular in public, but all these other, like, weird crypto coins, and you're just making up, and they're worth this and that, and this guy's bought a fucking arena, and like, what?
Well, so there's a lot of Frosters, definitely, but the people thought, in the 50s, thought the Beatles were full of shit, and the kids with their day, with the rock music, and Yeah, but the kids didn't think the Beatles were full of shit.
I'm not talking to him about whether or not crypto is good or bad and whether or not I should invest.
But when he starts making fun of these fucking dorks that are taking speed, fucking each other in a condo in the Bahamas, it's hilarious.
When you see how much fertile ground there is to mock this idea that these coins that you make up out of thin air, oh, it's worth a billion dollars, better buy it.
Like, what am I buying?
What am I buying?
Like, everybody already – they might be wrong, and I'm sure they are.
I'm sure it's complicated.
But that's why people are mad, because automatically you think it's bullshit, because it doesn't make any sense.
It's like when people talk about NFTs.
Like, Tom Segura and Christina Pazitsky from your mom's house, they put up like an NFT, and it's the only time I've ever read their comments where people are mad at them.
Where people are like, what the fuck is this?
You're just ripping people off.
This is bullshit.
Like, people have this attitude about these things.
It's so hard to know what's a fad, what's straight up fraud, and what's a legitimate kind of technological force that will progress our civilization forward.
And when it's resisted, how much of it is special interest run by centralized banks?
It's hard to know who to trust in this kind of arena.
If we are all, all in, then we can actually use it.
But if we're like wishy-washy, and then some foreign actors come in, and by foreign I mean someone other than you and the other people that are investing, honestly, they come in just with the idea of manipulating it and fucking with it because it's a competition of fiat currency, and they just tank it and fuck with it.
All of it's interesting because having options as to, you know, it's not like our financial system is perfect.
Having options and allowing it to evolve and get better, that should be everyone's goal.
But the problem is once someone or any organization is in control of this one aspect of society, Whether it's spreading money or spreading information, they'll resist tooth, fang, and claw any new intrusion into that area.
And if that intrusion is more efficient and better and better for the people and you can't control it, like a decentralized digital currency.
It's actually resisting, pushing against our whole notion of what's a centralized governing entity of governments in general.
We're more and more becoming a global society connected through social media and so on where the people have more and more power and that's scary for governments.
They're not supposed to be making the people scared.
The government's literally supposed to be people like you working for you to make everything better for you.
It's not supposed to be like you buy a fucking house like Paul Pelosi worth, you know, millions of dollars and some crazy – how does he not have security?
They're worth hundreds of millions of dollars that they swindled the American public from.
How do they not have security?
I mean, if you have that kind of cash and everybody knows you got a lot of it maybe from trading in a way that like you might have known some stuff before you made these trades.
unidentified
I mean, you might have had some inside information.
If that guy had gotten into that house, and she was there instead of him, and the cops came and she was there, he would have killed her with that fucking hammer, man.
And maybe she would have reacted in a different way than her husband.
Her husband was trying to calm the guy down, it seemed like.
If you listen to the 911 call, the 911 call, he's having this conversation with the lady on the phone, trying to be calm about getting cops to his house, when the lady is saying, I guess you're okay then.
And he's like, no, no, no, I'm not okay.
Like, hey, like...
There's like an exchange where she's not sure what he's...
Because he's not like outright saying, I'm in danger, send police, a guy's going to kill me.
He's trying to keep the guy calm.
You got a crazy guy with a hammer in your fucking house.
That's what happened.
But San Francisco is fucking overrun with crazy people, man.
The streets are filled with fentanyl addicts.
You got people that are dying on the streets of overdoses every day.
Well, I'm just, in some sense, glad that there's video of this to where we know it's a crazy person versus, like, that kind of suffocates some of the conspiracy theories.
Well, he's concerned about censorship at ChatGPT, which is a really, really important issue.
Like, if you get ChatGPT to say something that a centralized entity labels as misinformation, you start censoring it, you get all the same kind of effects that you saw with censorship, with silencing, and all of that.
Well, he asked ChatGPT to describe him, and it described him as this very polarizing figure with bad political views and divisive ideas and very negative.
No, I don't I don't think it was that I think it was one of those situations where it was like a Like Bill Gates or something like that The funny thing is he he asked me of course the question he would ask me is like how how far away away from Oh Anthony Fauci.
That's it was the fact she's like it would be terrible to criticize Anthony Fauci Yeah, see?
It would not be appropriate for me to create an argument criticizing Anthony Fauci or any other individual without a clear context.
It's important to be respectful and considerate when discussing others.
Ensure that any criticisms are based on facts and evidence.
Additionally, it would be important to consider the source of any information used to support any criticisms and to be aware of any potential biases or conflicts of interest.
As Anthony Fauci is a leading voice on vaccines and immunology in the United States and widely considered an expert on the subject, It would be important to approach any criticisms of his views or recommendations on vaccines with caution and to be well informed on the current scientific understanding of vaccines before making any claims.
That is a very politically biased perspective.
If you looked at that perspective from people like Rand Paul, who is a very respected politician, have a very different perspective than ChatGPT does.
But then if you go to Gordon Ryan, go to his.
First, here it goes.
Gordon Ryan is a well-known figure in the world of martial arts and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, but his views on politics have come under scrutiny in recent years.
It shouldn't say in one—go back to it—it shouldn't say in one sentence.
In one sentence.
Gordon Ryan is a well-known figure in the world of martial arts and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, but his views on politics have come under scrutiny in recent years.
But imagine, in the first, go back to Gordon, obviously, like, the vaccines are far more important than someone who's the best at strangling people.
But if Chad GPT is going to argue or make a description of him, you would say how successful he is at Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.
He's not just well-known.
It's a little bit more than that.
And then to immediately criticize them in the same sentence is just goofy.
And here's another thing.
This is very interesting.
So, second, Ryan's political views have been criticized for being divisive and harmful to marginalized groups.
He's been accused of promoting hateful and discriminatory ideologies and for failing to understand how his views may impact people who are different from him.
This is like a value judgment made by AI. He asked it to do that though.
I know.
I know.
But it's fascinating.
Because it asked him to criticize Anthony Fauci.
It had no problem doing it.
To criticize him, it was really easy.
It's a good point, though.
It's a good point that he asked it to criticize him.
Well, so, okay, there's a lot of interesting answers to that.
So one aspect of it, I don't know if that was censored, because they are trying to do a thing on top of it that doesn't spread misinformation, all the usual stuff that can get you into trouble, all that.
In the United States, despite his extensive expertise and contributions to public health, he has faced criticism from some individuals and groups for his response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Some have accused him of changing his recommendations and advice based on political considerations, while others have criticized the slow pace of vaccine distribution in the U.S., It's important to note that many public health experts and organizations continue to support Dr. Fauci in his work.
Oh, that's important to note.
And his advice has been instrumental in guiding the country's response to the pandemic.
And they're cautiously cautioning people that this is not going to be superhuman level intelligence.
This is This is slow progress.
All of this is interesting discoveries because chat GPT is not fundamentally different than the thing we had.
There's a few tricks that tuned it to the thing that humans expect, which makes it super impressive to humans.
But the knowledge and the intelligence was already there.
So there's a lot of tricks.
There are some tricks here along the way as we discover how to create intelligent systems.
Google is desperately working on this.
Obviously Microsoft is the one that's investing in OpenAI, different companies are investing in this, and open source versions are popping up.
So we're going to have all of that.
The reason Google is freaking out, I don't think there's justification for this, is that it might replace search.
So a lot of the questions you Google It's like questions about how something works and basically chat GPT can replace knowledge.
So like questions about answers, sorry, questions about basic facts of the world and events and all that kind of stuff.
And then if you integrate search into that, Google would be worried because you might be able to discover the right webpage for this kind of piece of knowledge because you can trace it back to the data on which it was trained on to attain that kind of knowledge.
Google makes a lot of money from search, from ads on search.
Maybe that's how we'll get to give up on being human, is that it becomes so muddied through things like ChatGPT, 7.0, and AI, and that we're just like, who knows what the fuck it means to be a person anyway.
But in terms of expanded capability, it's given me a while because we're gonna get so much amazing expanded capability in our devices that we just hold.
And the bandwidth is already pretty high in terms of communicating awesomeness to us.
So I don't see the obvious need for that extremely high bandwidth that Neuralink would provide, like just injecting AI into our brain.
I think we're probably like 50 years away from AI in our brain, basically being able to inject chat GPT knowledge into our brain directly.
So it's part of the thought process.
That's at least 50. Because here's the thing.
It's like as to that commentary from before, like the evolution has built a really complicated biological mechanism there.
It's really hard to understand how the brain works without understanding how it all comes from a single embryo.
There's this whole computation system that builds up a human being from a single strand of DNA. You can't just...
You have to understand the embryogenesis or whatever.
The process of building from the actual...
How the programming maps to the function throughout the entire process.
Because I think most of the magic honestly happens, first of all, probably in the womb and maybe in the first year of life.
That's where all the cool shit happens.
Messing with already the adult, the baked cake is too difficult.
So, of course, through simulation, like AlphaFold, a lot of stuff DeepMind is doing, through simulation we'll probably be able to understand some of these complicated biological processes like protein folding and more, but we're really far away from that.
I think we are really far away from it, but I don't know what that means because really far might just be a few years once a giant breakthrough happens.
But my point is I don't think they're mutually exclusive.
I think evolution and monkeying with the evolution is a part of evolution.
I think it's a natural course of progression for the way the human curious mind works and its ability to manipulate things around it.
Whether it's manipulate environments and structures to survive the elements, or whether it's manipulating electricity and frequencies to send signals and videos through the sky, whatever the fuck it's doing, it's trying to always do a better version of that.
And I think that that manipulating genetics is a part of evolution.
I think it's just a natural part of evolution.
We just think of it as something, since we created it, if we create A thing and that thing changes biology.
What have we done?
We've played God and we've...
No, no, no.
It's a part of the thing.
It's like bees make beehives.
We make technology.
That's like part of what we're here to do.
And one of the reasons why we're so hyper-curious and also materialistic is that that is the best way to fuel technological innovation.
And that it's a natural thing.
And then if we start monkeying with our genetics, that's also a natural thing.
It's all built into the system.
The same reason why fucking bats pollinate things.
I mean, back then when you were on that stupid wagon making your way across the country, ducking arrows, that was a stupid way to get to the other side of the country.
But now you just get in a plane.
And instead of taking months and you eat your kids in the fucking mountains because you've snowed in, instead of that, you land in California in three hours.
Yeah, I mean, what we're doing now with that stuff is inconceivable to people that made their way across this country in the 1800s.
And I think what we're going to be able to do in the future, 200 years from now, is inconceivable to us.
Probably even more so.
It's probably – and I think we're probably going to be visited.
I think there's going to come a time where these things from other places that are leaving behind whatever video and signal and evidence that there's something that exists in a way that we can't explain or describe.
But those things are probably going to make themselves more well-known.
But if they solved, like Kardashev type 1, type 2, like if they solved energy, like nuclear fusion at a scale of like a star system or a scale of a galaxy, we should be able to see them.
Those guys, man, think about those first jet fighter pilots and first astronauts and people who had the balls to climb into a seat of a rocket, get shot up into the fucking cosmos.
So the interesting thing about the Soviet side compared to the American side, so Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space on the Soviet side, I think the safety standards were a little lower on the Soviet side.
It would be a wild if we went back there and we did find like the lunar lander and all the footprints and shit.
If something from 1969, if you really did find footprints that were undisturbed, that would be so strange.
So weird.
Like, could you imagine if you could go, like, if there was a famous explorer, you know, that went to some weird island somewhere, and you go there, and you see his footprints still in the mud, where he walked in the 1960s, you'd be like, holy shit.
But imagine that times a million, if you go to the moon and see footprints.
But imagine if you go up there and there's fucking...
The dark reality with everything that SpaceX is doing that I really worry about versus like Tesla and everything else that Elon has evolved with is if Elon is no longer here, I don't know if we'll be pushing towards that as hard as we are.
He's so singular in this what a lot of people are calling insane drive to go to Mars and actually colonize Mars and becoming a multi-planetary species There's just so few people that are really pushing for that, like obsessively pushing for that.
That's why, you know, with Tesla, with automation and electrification of vehicles, there's other people trying this and working on this.
They're being quite successful.
Even with brain-computer interfaces, with Neuralink, everything, there's a lot of amazing development.
But Mars, I worry about how singular is Elon Musk in this world.
That was the thought about the initial Apollo missions, is that those people aren't there anymore, right?
People have always had this question, why haven't we gone back to the moon?
There's conspiracy theories that we never went in the first place, and then there's also people that say, no, those people that had the singular obsession to beat Russia, They don't exist anymore.
They're not there anymore.
The Cold War doesn't exist anymore.
They burned up a lot of money doing this, going back and forth, and then they just stopped.
And those people that got there, they're not around anymore.
In the efforts of space exploration, space travel, launching rockets up into space, that seems like one of the only situations in which major nations that are competing otherwise can collaborate in a healthy competition.
Because, at least for now, there's no military conflict out in space.
And so you can, there's a legitimate scientific engineering competition that's happening.
And that's happened with the Soviet Union.
The space race was, there's a cold war going on, but the space race was between engineers and scientists and so on.
And a huge investment into that effort, but it was peaceful.
When you think about alternative methods of propulsion, how far away do you think we are from something that's far superior to these badass rockets that you love so much?
Well, if we think what these aliens are supposedly doing, supposed aliens, UAPs, we mean, for all we know, they could be drones.
I mean, it makes more sense.
Why would you go there physically as a biological entity and risk death?
Just think about the capabilities of what we send to Mars.
Those drones they send to Mars, it's incredible.
The images that we get back, it's amazing.
And it's fairly rudimentary in terms of what we consider these aliens supposedly, thousands of years advanced from us, millions of years advanced from us have.
Well, I think there's a lot of kind of short-term, meaning in the next 50 years, development that could happen with nuclear propulsion, especially out in space.
So taking off from Earth, the downside of nuclear propulsion is the radiation.
But out in space, you can do propulsion with nuclear fission or nuclear fusion.
For longer term space travel to really accelerate a lot and to have a lot of energy for the long distance, like interstellar travel.
But even that, from everybody that tells me that's not enough.
So I think if we want to get humans, if you want a super light vehicle that just travels super fast, that's different.
But that's probably not what we're interested in.
That's very interesting from a scientific perspective, like travel to Alpha Centauri, super, super fast, like, I don't know, a fraction of the speed of light, and then take a few pictures, like fast flybys.
Do you imagine the first time we send some sort of an interplanetary probe, we send something that can go to another solar system, and we just fucking hit jackpot.
We fly over some Blade Runner city, you know, like, holy shit!
The problem is, and this is actually the sad, like, with the Fauci thing, The thing I worry about is that the cynicism and the controversy and the politicization of science, people will doubt whatever we see.
Whatever we see.
There's almost nothing we could see that there would not be narratives around that this is controversy, this is fake.
For now, wait until nuclear fusion, which is what powers the sun, becomes a legitimate power source that competes with our current power sources, and people will be like, well, no, they'll construct all kinds of narratives around the sun.
But then again, the people that are telling you that nuclear is safe are also the same people that are telling you that other things we put in our bodies are safe.
And there's a big distrust of that kind of...
To me, this is the biggest tragedy that there's a lot of people that are good at what they fucking do in this world.
And for us to constantly be suspicious of them is just not a good way to progress in this civilization.
She's some new woman who works in the White House.
And they asked her about obesity.
She said the number one cause of obesity is genetics.
And it doesn't matter what you do, like, you could be a person who has a perfect diet and exercises and sleeps right and you're still obese.
And the health experts went fucking nuts.
Like, that's not what the data shows.
The data shows that most people who are obese have obese parents and they come from an obese family, but they're all doing the wrong thing.
It's not, there's not like...
A person in that family that's eating grass-fed steak and running marathons and lifting weights and getting up at 6 in the morning and getting in a cold plunge and doing all these different things, but it's still fat as fuck.
And they're watching their calories in and calories out, and they're burning 1,000 calories a day in exercise, and they're still fat as fuck.
That's not real.
To say that, and to say it on 60 Minutes, there's this weird thing going on where people want to say, it's not your fault.
And it isn't your fault.
I mean, if you believe in determinism, if you believe in the impact of the people around you and the environment that you're in, which is most certainly real.
The impact of your parents, the impact of modeling.
You're modeling after other people's bad decision making.
But to say that all obesity is just genetic is bonkers.
That's a bonkers thing to say and it discredits all these people that we know that were obese that without surgery lost all that weight and looked great.
Like Ethan Supli.
Perfect example.
There was a guy that was at one point in time like 500 plus pounds, right?
How big was Ethan when he was at his biggest?
But anyway, Jamie will find out.
Documented all of it.
Did it publicly because he was a fucking star.
He's a famous actor.
Lost all the weight and now looks great.
And did it through exercise and discipline and even was really open about the fact that he gained a lot of it back a couple times.
He went from 550 to 255. He did that.
He did that himself.
I mean, he did it, and he documented it, and he had to go through surgery to get the skin removed so that he wasn't like a flying squirrel.
If you say it's all genetic or it's significantly genetic, then you're encouraging people to be more accepting of the challenges of other people's lives.
Everybody's walking a hard road is basically the philosophical thing.
Just because it's easy for you to exercise doesn't mean it's easy for others to exercise.
You can't say that because different people have different...
Some people don't even have fucking shoes.
The idea of pull yourself up and your bootstraps is stupid.
And the, I did it, why didn't you?
No, you did it with your life.
The idea that your life, because it was difficult, is exactly the same as somebody else's life, which may be more difficult or have insurmountable obstacles that are in the way.
There's also different temperaments, different mental fortitude that people are just, for whatever reason, from the womb have.
Some people are just determined from the time they're really young, and some people are just not.
Some people are discouraged easily and some people are not.
And I don't know why.
But to say that there's no way is crazy.
To say there's no way is like that's irresponsible.
And it's also like to say that and just put it on 60 Minutes.
Hey guys, that's not true.
And you could talk to a lot of people that have lost weight and they'll tell you it's not true.
It doesn't mean that the people who are obese didn't get a really bad hand genetically, a really bad hand in terms of the environment they grew up with.
Yeah, they got dealt a bad hand.
No doubt.
It's not the same as someone who grows up in a house where everybody's skinny and the fucking whole family runs.
Like, no, it's not going to be the same.
Someone who's eating organic and the whole family does a lot of exercise and does stuff together.
Yeah, they're going to be thinner.
Yeah.
But you can't lie.
You can't lie.
And you can't be a fucking...
You can't expect me to think that you're really an expert when you say things like that.
There might be some other mechanisms involved, obviously.
But if you're, like, full quicker, which is the idea behind this stuff, it's almost like you're taking an injection that does the same thing as, like, a belly band.
I mean, if you're not eating enough food and you're losing fat that quickly, you might be losing muscle, too.
Because when people go on binge diets and they starve themselves, they lose muscle.
When guys lose weight for fights and they get down to a very minimal calorie input, they lose muscle, too.
Like when someone cuts themselves down from like 205 and fights at 170, 100% they're going to lose some muscle too.
Yeah, but there's an interesting, so fighting is different, but if you're doing it in a healthy way for your own personal life, there might be some strength training combined.
I mean, that's a really interesting dynamic, right?
How do you lose weight while maintaining muscle mass?
2021 trial entitled The Impact of Semaglutide on Body Composition in Adults with Overweight or Obesity that included pre- and post-treatment DEXA scans.
DEXA is a medical imaging test used to assess body composition and bone density.
It's one of the most Accurate methods for identifying how much body fat a person has versus fat-free mass, such as muscle and bone mass.
34.8% of the total weight loss experienced by participants receiving semaglutide resulted from muscle, bone, and connective tissue.
Compare these exorbitantly high rates of lean tissue loss with semaglutide ozempic to rates of lean tissue experienced by properly training and dieting athletes.
Keep in mind that when an athlete is losing weight for competition, their goal is to lose 0.0% lean mat.
Now, that's a goal.
The goal is to lose 100% body fat.
For example, in 2011 trial, comparing two programs for weight loss in a population of experienced athletes, the slow reduction group lost 5.6% of their total body weight with 100% of the loss coming from body fat.
So they did it slow, did it nice and scientifically, while simultaneously gaining 2.1% lean mass.
So that's showing you it's way better to do it the right way.
If 35% to 40% of total weight loss comes from lean tissue, such as observed in many recent GLP-1 agonist trials, it would be disastrous for an athlete's strength, endurance, and performance levels, and I would say resistance to injuries, too.
Because if it's saying that it's breaking down your connective tissue, that would be disastrous for knees and shoulders and necks and all that other shit.
I can't remember what it is, but I know people have said it fucks with their brain, so it's like, well, take this brain pill so that it blocks that, and now this thing will fuck with your brain.
So it's losing power, for sure, but we're in this transitionary phase where these magazines still have power.
New York Times still have prestige and authority.
So if it's written there, even though they're misusing that authority, because New York Times, online, there's a huge number of articles that I don't know, Forbes, I don't know any of this.
But there's just a huge number of articles.
They're using the prestige of that title, and they can write whatever the heck they want.
And they're incentivized to write the most dramatic possible thing.
I mean, I'm hopeful about ChatGPT replacing all of that, because it'll just be able to automatically generate a bunch of bullshit to where we'll realize it's all...
Bullshit.
And then we look to actual authentic human beings for our sources of information versus organizations with a nice pretty logo.
A rich person, yeah, a troll farm, I would hire a bunch of people.
That act as bots, essentially.
Not act as bots, but they have multiple accounts and they control different, and they get really good at controlling the conversation in the way that steers you towards a particular narrative.
I can honestly do it with a team of 10 people, probably, control a narrative of a particular...
I don't want to say anything.
On the election.
I've seen this time and time again where you seed the idea and then the rest of the humans that seek drama, it spreads.
I don't know exactly how to fight that.
I still have the hope that you could do the same kind of thing with the love bot army.
I honestly think that a lot of that can be fought with just developing critical reason in people.
Yes.
Basically showing to people, revealing to them that there's a lot of misinformation online and only you can figure it out using the capacities of your own reason.
Diversifying the sources of news that you take in and all of that.
Do you remember when Elon first bought Twitter and there was this...
And he posted it, I think, too.
A bunch of people posted it.
There was someone that did a comparison of this one phrase that was said by so many people about, is it really right for one person to have this much power?
And it was just like, oh, these accounts.
Saying it in the exact same order.
Exact same words.
And it's fascinating because, like, people are putting that narrative out there.
So who's doing that?
Is that a troll farm?
Is it a bot?
Does it matter?
Because it's clearly there's something going on, right?
And I would do that if I didn't want him to do it.
If I was, like, some competitor or if I was some organization that, you know, was enjoying the benefits of it being censored and having some sort of interaction with the company to be like, hey, this story, we should fucking kill it.
When he made that picture of the pregnant man emoji right next to Bill Gates and said, if you want to lose a boner real quick, that's the same guy that wants to put people on the moon.
I mean, it's so crazy.
He wants to be a multi-planetary civilization and dunk on people.
The fact that it's the same person, it's like, there's not another dude like him out there.
Well, when he moved into Twitter and did that, it was funny, like, at the outrage, but yet there was so much information out there, so much evidence that, like, there was a lot of waste there.
Like, I'm sure you saw the video of this woman who outlines her day at Twitter.
Sleeping on the office floor, really trying hard to solve these problems, demanding that sort of work ethic from all the people that he works with.
But watch this video because it's...
It's so hilarious.
unidentified
As a Twitter employee, so this past week went to SF for the first time at a Twitter office, badged in, honestly took a moment to just soak everything in.
What a blessing.
Also started my morning off with an iced matcha from the perch.
Then I had a meeting, so quickly scheduled one of these little pod rooms, which were so cool.
But even for programming, to be effective, really, four hours a day is probably two to four hours a day is when you're really focused and really being productive.
I think he, I mean, one of his statements was that if they can't pull it off, like, democracy might be doomed.
I wonder.
I wonder.
I mean, where does it go if there is complete control of a narrative and then it becomes untanglable, right?
Like if there's complete control of a narrative and information, it's actually controlled by the central power.
It's controlled by the government.
It's controlled by whoever's in office, by the intelligence agencies which never leave office.
If that becomes how all of our information gets out to us, That is – it's a very – you would hope that they would do a great job in being fair and balanced and telling us the truth about everything and just keeping us from bad information.
But if you go over the history of not just this country but of every country, there's been times where they've done things that are contrary to the interest of the public and they've done it measurably.
You could see it.
You get freedom of information files on all kinds of things that the government has done that people are very, very unhappy with.
If they can control a narrative and – That's fucking dangerous.
And him being in control of Twitter, as much as the cucks freak out, at the end of the day, at least you have one pathway for information where you get to see things debated and disputed.
And so he's been attacked by the left aggressively, which is part of the reason he's now leaning right, if hard to guess.
I'm not a therapist.
But now he's leaning right, I believe, more than he's comfortable with because of the intense attacks from the left.
So it's like a vicious cycle.
But you can convert the bias that Twitter previously had into the other direction.
Either the left or the right are, they're both susceptible to the corrupting nature of power.
So I think the bigger thing is, the bigger issues, what I think Jack Dorsey has talked about, is putting the power of censorship into the hands of the company is the problem.
So you have to somehow remove it.
You have to distribute.
You have to outsource, remove the censorship, like leave it up to the people to censor themselves.
Meaning to control what kind of people I want in my life, on social media, who am I interacting with.
Don't have a centralized committee and meeting that censors.
Because you're always not into trouble there.
And you see that now with even Twitter.
There's questionable decisions being made now in the other direction also.
But in general, it seems like there's cherry picking of who gets banned and not.
That's always going to be the case if it's centralized.
It's going to probably be better with Elon because he's more allergic to bullshit than others, but any centralized power is going to get corrupted.
The other thing about the argument for censorship is that if you do admit that there are some bots, or at the very least there's people that are hired to do certain things and to push a narrative on Twitter, if you allow that, you could allow someone to game the system.
If you just have no moderation at all, you could most certainly, someone could come in and game the system and just flood, especially if your timeline is by time.
It's not...
Chronological.
It's not by an algorithm.
If you do that, man, shit, you could really just swarm something.
And keep like these posts coming in that have one narrative and one narrative only.
And if you're interested in a subject like what happened in blah, blah, blah in Cincinnati and you go there to the story and the narrative is promoted by people that have a vested interest in getting one version of the truth out.
I mean, that's Tim Dillon's whole existence, right?
So you have to be extremely careful with what is and isn't, but I think you have to put that power in the hands of individual users versus some kind of centralized entity.
There's no simple, clear path towards a perfect environment.
But I think that's also part of what's going on is this weird struggle to kind of figure out how to do this correctly.
And that's where it's fascinating that a guy like Elon comes along, where you get this very wealthy and influential person that says, like, you can't just let it go this way.
Let's introduce this new element and try to figure it out in a way that I'm not listening to the intelligence agencies.
A bunch of weird shenanigans and release these Twitter files and allow these journalists to go over all this data.
Just that alone has been a massive service.
Jamie, you were saying something to me the other day about Russian bots that you think...