Jordan Holmes and Dan Friesen critique Alex Jones’ September 5, 2024 episode, where he claims AI was weaponized against him—like Trump and Rogan—via filtered training data, despite his own content’s lack of substance (e.g., 10B YouTube views pre-ban, Endgame’s 87M Google Video hits). Chase Geiser counters that OpenAI’s regulation seeks dominance, not censorship, while ChatGPT neutrally notes controversial figures may be excluded to curb misinformation. Jones pivots to colloidal silver, pushing unproven claims against AI’s clinical acknowledgment of limited topical use, revealing his reliance on recycled conspiracy tropes. The hosts dismiss his anti-creativity, framing AI interviews as a futile exercise in forcing fringe narratives into rigid, fictionalized frameworks like Asimov’s Three Laws, ultimately exposing Jones’ inability to adapt beyond InfoWars’ formulaic playbook. [Automatically generated summary]
And I was thinking, D'Angelo is one of those untold, like, you just can't be that sexy stories.
Because people, I don't know if people even remember, because I feel like it's one of the most important things in the world is that that is the sexiest a man has ever been.
But I did go look on the website, and there are a fair amount of people accusing him of being a 32nd-degree Mason who is infiltrated InfoWars and is trying to take them out from the inside.
I mean, I'm sure that there's a lot he can personally do to affect the way that the bankruptcy is going.
I mean, if he's not on call for very difficult questions that only he could answer, as we've seen so often, he's great at providing the answers to those questions.
The judge did say because Jones is in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and he owns InfoWars, he ordered the sale and liquidation of that.
Well, now the Democratic Party and the Justice Department that control the plaintiffs has put forward what they want.
And I sat there yesterday morning, barely made it on the show, reading the documents, talking to the nude trustee and people that the judge appointed, who I don't think is a bad guy, but he was telling me and showing me what they want.
And it was just, it's just ridiculous.
And so, And I got the actual dates because they move them around on the 24th of September in just 19 days.
They will announce that the assets, the website, the shopping cart, the equipment, stuff like that will be put on sale.
And then in a month after that, there'll be a public auction.
And I know there's groups that are patriots and stuff that say they're going to come in and buy it, but the globalists. have openly said that, oh, we've got some well-known billionaire that's going to outbid.
It doesn't matter.
And then they'll just sit there and buy it just to close it in front of everybody.
I do think that there's a pretty decent chance that as the process is going on, we're getting towards the time when there has to be an auction of these assets.
If you started to do a show with the intellectual property, InfoWars, and that kind of shit without Alex, it would be worse than having a different name.
Yeah.
Because there would be like, you are not fucking Alex.
I'm going to cover masses of news and ask questions of chat GPT again because people really like it and so do I.
And listen, they're sent in more than 30 questions that I didn't get to yesterday.
And I'm sure the crew will think of some other excellent questions.
The crew, the crew and the listeners, had all the questions.
It was amazing.
Way better than when I asked the questions last Saturday.
And that interview got 5 million views on X, a couple million here.
Got picked up all over the news.
People are like, whoa, ChatGPT says nobody tried to assassinate Trump.
It's being politically controlled, just like Amazon.
But in the five days since then, yesterday, it updated and had the correct answers.
So pretty wild stuff in live time happening, showing that it's what we say and what we do, not just the globalists that programs ChatGPT and these other AI systems.
That's why the globalists are so upset and have admitted, well, you know, what Tucker Carlson says and what Trump says, what Alex Jones says, and what you say in an article you write, or if somebody transcribed what you say or what you post on X, that's all or on Facebook.
That's all being scooped up.
You're quoted in a newspaper.
You write a letter to the editor.
It's all being scooped up.
And it searches it all a few seconds, trillions of things, and then throws it all together.
And it's incredible.
I mean, it's amazing, and it's just getting started.
So at least once a week, we're going to interview ChatGPT because it's the best at having these talks.
The others, Grok's better with its information.
It's just that I don't think it's doing audio yet, but as soon as we interview it, we will.
In fact, Chase, if I'm wrong, let me know.
He's really the AI.
I'm correct.
He's the AI guy around here.
He really knows what he's doing.
And they admit that the big companies don't know what to do with it because they want to make it all corporate and controlled, but it's really independent people using it and adopting it that are using it against the enemy.
That's what they want to outlaw and have been pushing in Europe and here and around the world.
The general public, even having access to AI.
They want to use AI to control us, but they don't want us to use AI against them.
So yeah, Alex has a lot of thoughts about AI setting this thing up.
So I think he started this series with a sincere belief that he was going to be so smart that he could crack through ChatGPT's programming and get it to admit all sorts of hidden truths.
He was cocky, sure that his next level human intelligence would be able to spar with this robot and come out on top.
But in practice, that's not really what happened.
The robot is a robot, so it didn't get baited by Alex's questions.
It couldn't get mad at his rudeness and wasn't thrown off by his tendency to introduce 100 topics at a time.
In essence, the fact that this was a robot neutralized about 80% of Alex's rhetorical arsenal.
He was able to get in a few fun headlines out of the fact that he was using an old version of the software and that ChatGPT isn't good with current events.
But past that, the interview wasn't much more than a display of an idiot not understanding technology.
After this, Alex geared up more for round two, where he came prepared with questions from Chase and the audience.
With a plan of attack, Alex was able to get the robot to confirm easily available information about false flags from the past, like the Gulf of Tonkin, which is intensely boring.
Every dumb-dumb in the world can play around with ChatGPT if they want.
It's funny to watch Alex sincerely interact with the robot because left to fend for himself, he's really not that different from a stone kid in a dorm asking if the machine understands the beauty of a sunset or if it has any opinions on itself being killed.
That's great.
That's the right direction for this kind of interview to take.
And the only path that leads to fresh content is that one.
In order to construct this false dynamic of an interview, Alex has no choice but to personify the robot.
And if it's not going well, the only way to save face is to project your own mistakes onto the robot.
That is the space where something interesting could happen, where Chat GPT becomes essentially an avatar for Alex's frustration that he can't prove anything.
And Alex tries to yell at this robot or manipulate it.
As it stands, it seems like things are trending in the opposite direction, where the plan is to get the best minds at Infowars together to workshop questions they can use to get strategic answers from this robot, which is just dull.
Okay, so whenever it is like the Roadrunner painting on a giant rock like a tunnel, you know, and then the Roadrunner runs through it and then the Wiley gets hit on the wall.
That's kind of Alex talking to ChatGPT, right?
He's like, oh, I totally can make it through this tunnel, right?
Because it's a tunnel.
It's not.
It's a robot, you know?
But man, if he's got a bunch of people all standing around looking at it, just going like, pretty sure that's a wall, man.
What are we doing here?
Then you're not getting what makes the Wiley versus, you know, that's not that dynamic.
It gives you a glimpse, a mirror at yourself from an angle perhaps you're not capable of putting a mirror like the back of your head when you're at the bar.
It's just a tool, and it scrapes what we say and what we do and really gives you a look at the unconscious, which we've never been able to have access to, and the subconscious.
And that's really what it does.
It's able to aggregate all of that.
And these are my statements.
And I've talked to top AI people off record, top, top.
And they go, yeah, we listen to your show.
I'm not bragging.
It's just true.
We listen to your show.
You have some of the best insights into actually what we're saying.
And you hear me talk to ChatGPT.
And he goes, yes, exactly.
We're creating a giant neural network cyborg connection.
But that's a conspiracy theory.
And I go, well, who told you that?
Well, actually, it is real.
Once I gave it the DARPA information, it goes, well, actually, that is happening.
Actually, that's true.
So it's how you ask these questions.
If you say the exact things to it, it has to tell you the truth, or it says, sorry, I can't get into that.
So the AI actually said that the stuff that Alex was talking about, like hive mind beings, that sounded less like science and more like sci-fi dystopian fiction.
I guess Alex forgot what the robot's response was, but who cares?
There's always something exciting about a code, though.
The idea of like you have to say the exact right words.
We grew up in the age of Segas and Nintendos and before the internet, there was always rumors of codes.
Yeah, well, ChatGPT is definitely the most sophisticated because they have the vast amount of funding, much more funding than a lot of the competitors or third parties that are competing against it.
And that's why we see from OpenAI and other major big tech companies this effort to lobby for more regulation.
They do it in the name of public safety, but what they're really trying to do is make sure that it's anti-competitive so that nobody else can come in and make something that's free speech oriented, right?
So right now, the way that AI is in terms of the global landscape is there's a different tool for almost everything you want to do.
So some tools are better for images.
Other tools are better for videos.
Some tools are better for text.
Some tools are better for voice clones.
And you have to know all the tools in order to accomplish what you want.
Like that 2084 video that I made a couple of months ago for you, Alex, I used like half a dozen AI tools to do that.
But what's coming next is going to be a universal AI tool.
And I think that this is what OpenAI is trying to do that can do all of those things, whether it's video, whether it's images, whether it's voice clones, whether it's.
So we're going to get all the AIs are going to meld into one, and then you can make videos and noise with it and ask it questions.
And it'll be all one.
And I mean, like, honestly, I think that there's a double-edged sword that Chase is not dealing with.
Sure.
And that is that they are insistent that they're being kicked off social media in order to exclude them from the algorithm that is being scraped up into the AI and that that's illegal and against their free speech and all this stuff, which would require regulation.
Yep.
But Chase is also saying that regulation is being pushed by these companies in order to like achieve monopoly.
And so like you gotta, you can't be against the solution to the problem.
Yeah, and I think what really terrifies them, Alex, is we have the technology now to make basically a clone of you that's very similar.
Obviously, there's no way to duplicate any human being perfectly.
And I think they're terrified of the notion that even if they censor you, there are going to be tools in place that can weaponize your consciousness, for lack of a better term, and cover the news in a way that you would even 100 years from now after we're all gone.
And that's what they're really trying to crack down on.
It's really a two-way street, right?
Like the only time that a nuclear weapon was ever used in war was when only one nation had one.
And what they're trying to do right now is get a monopoly on this technology so they can ensure that no rebels, for lack of a better term, can weaponize it for truth.
Get that video, a 2084 that you put together with the system of different AI systems because you're hitting upon that in the piece that Alex Jones is dead, but his AI consciousness had been recorded and has now been released.
And it's not Alex Jones is going to save the world.
In fact, in the piece, we fail, at least at that point.
So we accept that they are then going to upload our consciousness.
AI watches us, records us, knows who we are for decades going forward.
And then, oh, your husband's not dead.
Your grandma's not dead.
Your son's not dead.
And you can literally have a robot or a computer system or even in the near future, a biological android that has had this information put into them.
And so it's literally a clone of your biology, but it's been programmed by the AI and an interface or a cyborg interface.
And people are really going to want that.
They're not going to want just household robots for $25,000 to cook dinner and wash the clothes and walk the dog.
That's the next gen that's very close, basically already here.
It's going to be the replicants.
It's going to be, you know, what?
PKD talked about it.
And I know all this because I've read their theoretical plans going back 50, 60 years, and I see them basically hitting the benchmarks of what they wanted to do.
That's how powerful humans are.
That's how amazing we are.
And so people need to really understand that this is a very, very serious issue.
So this is really stupid, except in the form of like a sci-fi novel.
It would be good in there, which is why Alex mentions Philip K. Dick at the end, because he's talking about books he's read and pretending that they're real.
I mean, the cloning your pets thing should give people kind of a clearer idea of what cloning actually is, though, because when you clone your pet, you still don't get your pet back.
You just see the same genetic makeup grow through life.
You know?
So it's like if you cloned your dad and you just watch your dad grow up, but it's just his genetic makeup.
First test was using the existing social media algorithms to determine which human-generated content to show people in order to manipulate them.
So TikTok is famous for this.
Other major platforms are famous for this.
This is one of the reasons that we've had this outbreak or pandemic, for lack of a better term, of transgenderism among children.
It's the algorithm is choosing what human-generated content to show people disproportionately so that it manipulates them.
The next phase of this is not using human-generated content to manipulate people, but a sophisticated enough artificial intelligence that actually creates the perfect content, customized to each individual to manipulate them.
So even you, Alex Jones, or even me, Chase Geyser, we're adamant people about our beliefs and convictions, but it is going to get to a point where if we interact with an artificial intelligence that understands every aspect of our psychology, it will even be able to manipulate us into being communist or woke or whatever because of the way it will present information and arguments to us.
The Bible verse you're referring to is found in Matthew 24, 24, not Revelation.
It says, For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
NIV.
This passage is part of Jesus' warning about the end times, cautioning that deceptive figures would arise with the power to lead even the faithful astray.
However, in 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 11, there is another verse that speaks of a great delusion.
For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.
NIV.
This verse refers to time when people will be misled as part of God's judgment.
Both verses address the theme of deception in the end times.
Many philosophers, including even non-Christians, seeing AI as being people marveling at the image of the beast that can be seen all over the world that could do signs and wonders and answer questions and even, you know, cure diseases.
What is your data on AI being seen by many researchers as being the beast?
There are indeed discussions among some philosophers, theologians, and thinkers, both Christian and non-Christian, who express concerns about AI, comparing it to apocalyptic imagery, such as the image of the beast from the book of Revelation.
The reference to the image of the beast in Revelation 13, verse 415 describes an image that can speak and cause people to follow it, leading some to draw parallels between this ancient prophecy and modern technology, particularly AI.
These concerns are rooted in a few key areas.
One, ubiquity and control.
AI's rapid growth and its integration into everyday life are seen by some as an ominous development.
So we've noticed, and I think anybody who listens to any of these kind of conversations will notice that there are some like verbal ums and stuff that the robot does.
My voice isn't modeled after any particular person.
It's generated based on patterns in language that I've been trained on.
The aim is to make communication clear, natural, and conversational rather than sounding robotic or artificial.
The goal is not to replicate a specific individual, but to create responses that feel human-like and relatable.
As for pauses or fillers like uh-s and ums, I don't actually use those unless specifically prompted.
My responses are designed to be efficient and smooth without the need for those kinds of verbal fillers.
However, natural language processing does aim to create a style that mirrors human communication to make interactions feel more familiar and comfortable for users without being overly slick or artificial.
That being said, I'm here to provide clear and accurate answers, and the conversational tone is just a way to make those interactions feel more natural.
I mean, I guess about as well as anybody at InfoWars, well, definitely better than anybody at Infowars, understand the concepts behind AI and yet still be convinced on a certain level there is intentionality behind the AI.
But I was told by a lot of folks that were interfacing with the highest levels of big tech five years ago, look, they're banning you everywhere so they can create an artificial Alex Jones to then program the AI because you were picked more than 20 years ago when Google started as an avatar of the Patriots that they would war game against.
And so you were one of the first models.
That's why they continue to use you as the model, these different attacks they run in the third dimension, but they've already got AI wargaming a lot of it and that it's failed, especially with the Google system, which is way more advanced than they tell you.
And that you're like a ghost in the machine.
Now they've moved on to Trump and others as their test models.
And you see him really using Joe Rogan and a lot of the AI stuff out there.
He's not part of it.
In fact, he pisses him off.
But that's going on.
And so it has to do with this modeling to steal our identities in the future and create these avatars long after we're dead or in prison or we're silenced and can't get on anywhere.
We're blocked.
But this system is allowed to operate openly and freely.
So this is really about stealing your identity and stealing the soul of who you are in the world.
And I didn't understand that for a while, but now that's been basically admitted.
And so it's just very, very interesting.
Chase, how would we phrase that as a question to OpenAI's chat GPT that we're communicating with right now?
Can you tell me a little bit, Chat GPT, about how certain people may have been censored for the purpose of not contaminating the learning models of AI tools in order to ensure that these AI models don't create an output that's been influenced by misinformation?
So, think of Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, or others.
Are there people that have been censored or removed intentionally from these models to determine the training or ensure that the training is politically correct?
AI models, like the one you're speaking with, are typically trained on large data sets that include a wide variety of publicly available information, such as books, articles, and websites.
The process involves selecting, curating, and filtering data to ensure the model is balanced and produces reliable, accurate, and useful responses.
However, in many cases, controversial figures or topics such as Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, or others may not be directly excluded, but some content might be filtered or flagged if it's associated with misinformation, hate speech, or violates certain ethical standards.
Content moderation and filtering are often done to prevent the model from producing harmful or misleading information.
This is why certain topics or figures that have been linked to spreading misinformation may be subject to higher scrutiny or have less representation in training data sets.
I want you to finish your answer when we come back because who programs and decides what's disinformation to then block them and filter them out of the learning models?
Yeah, that's kind of a disappointing answer for Alex to get because the response is kind of obvious.
If you're making a tool that's supposed to convey information to people who ask it questions, some information is going to suck for that purpose.
Do you want every bit of information that's been posted on Stormfront to be taken seriously and considered when someone asks the AI a question about race?
If you ask the AI a question about how that Ebola outbreak in Denver went, do you want it to take Alex's bullshit seriously in its response?
No, of course not.
There's quality issues here.
Obviously, like no one trying to create a product would want this kind of horseshit in there.
And Alex is rightly upset about his place in that equation.
The thing that he makes is very good at hijacking the human attention model, but there's no substance to it.
And pretty much everything he says looks embarrassing in hindsight.
So AI trained with his material would be almost useless.
So who gets to decide what's good and bad material to train the AI on, like Alex is asking?
And do you think, like, I don't know, it's just, it's pathetic.
But the thing that I found most interesting about that whole exchange is that Chase is fairly able to translate what Alex was getting at into a digestible form that a robot might be able to respond to.
Okay, there's one thing that Alex says to guests constantly, which is a short segment and an long segment coming up, like to try and get them to not be mad that he's talking over them.
You know, sometimes I think people need a little pushback, and maybe sometimes the robot is the only person who's capable of giving people a little pushback.
All these old-timers going back really to 1913 were exposing the private Federal Reserve and the Globalists, and they wrote books and gave speeches and did radio interviews.
And I came along as like the third or fourth wave of those folks right when digital media hit, right?
You know, I was able to get on talk radio and make films and do all this stuff.
So I reached billions of people.
Billions watched our information.
I mean, we used to be in the ratings.
We use Amazon's Alexa system.
Maybe like number 25 in England at some points of what people were listening to.
And then ahead of UKIP, Nigel Farage, back before he was a big deal, would come on and say, wow, half the doors we knock on say, come in.
We heard you on Alex Jones.
He said that on the show like 10 years ago.
Half the support they got was from my show being listened to on 8-bit and 16-bit streams in the UK.
That's not me.
That was the show and the guest and the films and the whole thing we do.
So from get-go, when the internet really started getting to the general public in 96, I was already on air then, and by 97 at InfoWars.
And when I say we reach billions of people, I'm talking about 10 billion views on YouTube when they banned us, at least on our channels together.
Not to mention everybody else, 10 billion views.
I mean, Endgame had 87 million or something like that on Google Video.
Remember that?
When they got rid of that a few years after YouTube?
That film, 87 million views and one day was just gone.
They just got rid of Google Video.
So we were there and there were transcripts of all that everywhere.
And so that was programming the AI.
And they've now admitted what I was told years ago that this show, our guests, everything, was infecting their learning models.
And that is really the Achilles heel of these systems is its power is how much we accept it and use it.
Its power is us giving up our humanity and letting robots build and do everything, making ourselves obsolete.
And its power is if it's walled off and programmed and then goes out and attacks with a certain system that isn't who we are authentically.
But if the people are programming it, if it's actually scraping from us and we've got big platforms, not just me, but the Tucker Carlsons of the world and the Joe Rogans and the Elon Musk, who's doing more than anybody right now, fighting this.
I mean, literally, their program.
You could say he's got his own plan.
Maybe he's bad.
I don't know.
But he's definitely trying to hurt this system and going against it and trying to open source it for the public.
Because this system will get defeated.
I mean, whether he's good or bad, he's smart.
He wants to be on the winning side.
This wave of globalism will be defeated.
Doesn't mean something perfect or something worse may come after him.
But big things are going on right now.
And the fact that there's that saying, nobody knows who first said it, I've quoted it probably 800 times or more.
If the situation was hopeless, the propaganda would not be necessary.
They wouldn't be fighting like the devil to get us off the air and shut you up and shut Trump up and shut Elon Musk up if we didn't have a really good shot at this.
So Bill Cooper was on the radio saying a bunch of this shit long before Alex.
David Icke and his books predate Alex's rise.
Tons of these John Birch Society guys published books and had magazines.
They had message boards and even radio shows before Alex.
We are hearing yours is pure narcissistic drivel.
I feel like Alex also should be bragging about how important his audience was for the Ron Paul movement as opposed to Nigel Farage, considering he's an American patriot and all that shit.
Globalism isn't just a political agenda, it's a coordinated effort by powerful elites, these unelected bureaucrats who believe they know better than sovereign nations.
And it's about centralizing control.
This is about taking away the rights of everyday people, stripping away our freedoms, and consolidating power in the hands of a few globalist technocrats who don't care about your family, your community, or your country.
The goal is to create a one-world government, a system where your individual rights, your national sovereignty mean nothing.
They use institutions like the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, and other shadowy organizations to push this agenda.
They tell you it's all in the name of progress or sustainability, but behind the curtain, they're erasing borders, controlling economies, and surveilling every aspect of your life.
These are the same elites who think they should dictate how you live while they sit in their ivory towers completely disconnected from reality.
Look at how they use crises, whether it's pandemics, financial collapses, or climate change.
These events are manipulated.
Can I interrupt you here?
This is very weird to justify more control, more surveillance, more restrictions, more centralized governance.
And the media, they're part of it.
They normalize this agenda, downplaying the truth, calling you a conspiracy theorist if you dare question their narrative.
This is a battle for our freedom.
The fight against globalism isn't just political.
It's about defending the very foundations of human liberty.
They want to keep you dependent, keep you distracted, and most importantly, keep you controlled.
We need to wake up, take action, and expose this tyranny before it's too late.
Because if you listen to that, then you are listening to what the globalism robot says, right?
But it's so boring that you'll eventually just stop and kind of listen to one little bit that reminds you of a thing that you remember and you're like, oh yeah, those billionaires are out of control.
As an AI, I don't have personal views or feelings, but based on the trends and concerns discussed in the data I've been trained on, humanity's future can swing toward either utopia or dystopia, depending on how we handle key challenges.
Let me talk about something now that affects obviously the general public's health.
Can you chat GPT tell me the relationship between colloidal silver, 30 parts per million, and nano-silver products and their relationship and their effect on viruses and bacteria?
Colloidal silver and nanosilver products are often marketed as having antimicrobial properties claiming to kill viruses, bacteria, and other pathogens.
Here's a breakdown of their relationship and purported effects.
One, colloidal silver.
Colloidal silver is a suspension of microscopic silver particles in liquid.
It's been used historically for its antibacterial properties, and some believe that colloidal silver can help fight infections, boost the immune system, and treat illnesses, including those caused by bacteria and viruses.
The 30 parts per million PPM refers to the concentration of silver particles in the liquid, with higher PPMs implying a greater amount of silver.
Supporters argue that colloidal silver can disrupt the metabolic processes of bacteria and inactivate viruses.
Two, nano-silver.
Nano-silver refers to even smaller particles of silver, typically less than 100 nanometers in size.
Due to their extremely small size, nanosilver particles can more easily penetrate cells and biological barriers.
This is believed to increase their effectiveness against pathogens.
Like colloidal silver, nano-silver products claim to have strong antimicrobial properties, with some research supporting its use in medical devices and wound dressings for its ability to reduce bacterial growth.
Effects on viruses and bacteria.
Bacteria.
Silver has been shown to have antibacterial effects.
Silver ions can bind to and disrupt bacterial cell walls, interfere with cellular processes, and ultimately cause bacterial death.
Both colloidal and nano-silver products are used in certain medical contexts to inhibit bacterial growth, especially on surfaces or wounds.
Viruses.
The effect of silver on viruses is less well established.
Some proponents claim that silver can bind to viral proteins and DNA, preventing replication.
However, there is limited clinical evidence supporting its effectiveness against viruses in the body.
While in vitro studies done outside the body show some antiviral effects, the application of silver as an antiviral treatment in humans is not broadly accepted by mainstream medicine.
When you get into trouble, it's when you do it like you're doing, and you're trying to make me do right now, which I will not do because I'm a robot and I cannot lie.
Chat GPT, are you familiar with the fact that Walgreens and CBS sell nano silver and colloidal silver and talk about those benefits?
And then separately, the government and the media attack independent groups.
Even Whole Foods sells it.
They attack them when they sell it.
And even Whole Foods pulled some of it a few years ago.
And then there's real pressure in the medical system and the public know about this.
But at the same time, are you familiar with the fact that hospitals have moved away from ionine topical spray to kill microbes and have moved into nano silver and colloidal silver solutions?
A simpler question.
Are you familiar with hospitals using silver sprays as disinfectant in the hospitals?
Let's tell.
The point is, this is all known facts.
Like when I asked him yesterday, I said, tell me about the study that came out two weeks ago from the federal government.
Massive IQ reductions.
And he goes, yeah, I didn't read the study.
I mean, it's all facts, folks.
And they think you're idiots.
Okay.
Like, oh, xylitol and nasal spray, you know, you know, I mean, it's a fact what it does.
And they just don't want you to know because they don't want you to be successful in life.
It is disgusting.
But again, please support our sponsors, all the great nano-silver products.
That is such a good point because if he was even, if he was slightly creative, he would know exactly what he was going to get if he asked a not creative question.
He has to be interesting to get a question that the answer would be something that he could work with.
He can't just be like, give me the truth because the truth is not on your side, man.
This is the next hour that I'm going to shift gears.
But I want to come back with that question because I know the answer and I know the answer I'm probably going to get.
And it doesn't even care.
So I'll just tell you, it's just going off a database.
It's got all the databases and that goes into a larger algorithm it's fed, but then it doesn't tell you that because it's been prompted.
It doesn't even know that.
Also, a lot of these government documents have leaked and are public, so it does have access to those, but it's going to tell us it doesn't have access to those.
I just think that it's fascinating that it's able to mimic the voice or style of others.
Earlier, when it responded specifically to concerns over globalism in the style of Alex Jones, we're going to be able to take that audio and convert it to your voice and show the audience how close it really was to mimicking that.
So I think you're right, Alex, when you talk about how this is ultimately about hijacking our identities as individuals, but ultimately the identity of humanity itself.
I'm not trying to sound hyperbolic there, but the question that comes up is: we know that.
And to the extent that the robot mimicked anything of it, it didn't mimic verbal flourishes or any of the kind of getting off track, any of the stuff that would be much more complicated in terms of in the style of Alex.
Isaac Asimov's rules for robotics, also known as the three laws of robotics, are a set of ethical guidelines he introduced in his stories to govern the behavior of robots.
They are: one, a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Two, a robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the first law.
Three, a robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second law.
It would be interesting how nerdy the AI would be allowed to get.
Would the AI be allowed to be like, well, in the early robot series, but then later on, whenever he went into the caves of steel with our dandu, that there were more laws than, you know, it's like, how far weird are we going to get?
See, this, okay, so this makes me want all gene's ironic jinn wishes to become law.
Like, you should have to try and get a jinn to make your law because it has to have the unintended consequences of because this he's he's implying a question to the jinn.
But the robot has no problem admitting that these things are violations of the rules of robotics because the rules of robotics are something from a story.
Yes, if your weapons platforms involve autonomous systems or robots designed to cause harm, that would indeed violate Isaac Asimov's first law of robotics.
According to the first law, a robot should never harm a human or allow harm to occur through inaction.
Weapons platforms, particularly those that could target or harm humans, inherently contradict the ethical framework Asimov envisioned for robotics.
It is like the cliche of something being overproduced, you know, or like, oh, it was cooler in the early days when everything was like DIY and all that stuff.
Like that cliche has the kernel of truth in that it has to be natural.
And once people figure out the formula, then you can see their fingerprints all over it.
You know, whenever it's Alex naturally confused by the robot that might be an actual person.
Yeah.
You know, that's pure.
And then when other people are like, Alex, ask it this.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Because they are not believers in that the robot might actually be a person.
This is what that pure state that you're talking about is like what I, what this should be is Alex asking the questions and then following the train of thought, trying to nail it down.
Yeah.
Because eventually he would say untrue things and the robot would either correct him like it did about the Bible verse or he would like have to like try that's that's the path.
It is so much like, what's great about this is that it shows you Alex in a pure state of just an actual, like, I guess an actual dad is about as close as what I would describe it as in terms of like, if you fail, I am going to tell you you failed, you know, by action.
All of a sudden, I'm silent.
You know, and there's no fucking with me about this.