Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 16, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:09

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #957

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to podcast of the Lotus Eders episode We are getting up there on the 16th of July and I am Dan.
	I'm joined by Josh.
	Hello.
	And Jeff.
	Hello.
	Who buys cars.
	I do.
	My name's Jeff and I sell used ones by how I dress today.
	So, in this episode, we're going to be talking about why the Trump assassination was most definitely, definitely an inside job.
	We're going to be talking about why J.D.
	Vance is almost perfect.
	Those are your words, not mine.
	Well, I had to write a description for the episode, so I went with that.
	We will find out whether that is actually the case or not.
	He's a good fit for Trump, I think.
	It's fair to say.
	OK.
	And Jeff Buys Cars is worried that AI is going to start buying cars, I think.
	I think it's going to steal our jobs and our women.
	Right.
	Is it going to drive the cars as well?
	I'm not so worried about that.
	I'm more worried about what's happening with car sales descriptions in AI, but we'll dig into that in a little bit.
	Yes, yes.
	Good thought.
	Right.
	First thing we need to talk about is how the Trump assassination was most definitely an inside job.
	Now, I got a little bit of pushback in the office this morning when I said I wanted to cover this, and a lot of worried looks and people saying, are you sure you want to go down?
	But no, no, it is 100%, I can prove it.
	I can prove it, right.
	Let's have a look at this tweet thread from an excellent source, very cleverly written, KingBingo underscore.
	Now, what he basically says here, Let's get into it.
	It definitely was an inside job and we can sort of prove it.
	So let's go through the evidence that makes it 100% clear what happened, okay?
	First up, we're not saying that The Secret Service as a whole was in on it.
	We're not saying that the detail on the ground was in on it.
	You know, I think they acquitted themselves well with the resources that they had.
	Obviously the guys, you know, they did what they had to do in the moment.
	But the organisation as a whole has quite clearly been understaffing the operation on Trump's side quite severely.
	That's been going on for quite some time, that Trump's been requesting additional security and it has been denied.
	And in fact, there has been considerable discussion about the fact that Jill Biden actually had a decent number of security detail, as appointed by this director, Kimberly Cheadle, who they've, you know, she's been denying that she diverted I don't think Trump himself has been requesting the extra, but his team, the Secret Service on the team have been requesting extra.
	And Cheadle, she is an ex-Pepsi employee, so she was head of security for Pepsi.
	So she went from guarding soft drinks to the President, which is of course a natural move.
	Very obvious why you might sort of make that sort of parallel shift.
	She's a Biden appointee, direct appointee, and her primary focus is, as we will see, it is getting women in the Secret Service to 30%.
	Right.
	Which is... Her primary focus isn't the security of the thing that she's working on.
	It's boosting the number of women.
	Because, of course, more women will make him more safe for reasons unknown.
	Well, throughout human history, of course, it has been the way that women protect men.
	That's true, yeah.
	We sort of lounge around and do nothing while the women do all the work.
	Yes.
	According to feminists anyway, yeah.
	So, yeah, questions to be raised there.
	Now, actually, this poster does make a different argument.
	He says, you know, that a job that requires a response to extreme violence shouldn't just be done by men, it should be done by a few select men.
	Probably men that know what they're doing and are highly trained.
	Yes.
	That are physically fit, mentally capable of whatever task they've got to do and probably big because, you know, if you are taking a bullet you want to cover as much mass as possible, right?
	Well, part of your job is literally to get in the way of the target and the shooter.
	Being big is a qualification in itself.
	It is, yeah.
	It's almost one of the biggest qualifications, dare I say.
	Yes, a very reasonable point.
	Now, the understaffing on the detail meant that a ridiculous situation like this could happen.
	I mean, it's quite absurd when you sort of see it laid out like that.
	The sniper got to within 150 metres.
	Now, it is worth, and you can do this on Google Maps quite easily, just go and, after this segment of course, go and look out the window and...
	Scan the buildings around you, then go to Google Maps and find one which is 150 metres away.
	I mean, it is a reasonable distance, but it's not a big distance.
	You could see a rifle with your own eyeballs from that distance.
	As long as you've got 20-20 vision, which you should have as, you know, the Secret Service protection.
	And it is also worth mentioning that he was using an AR-15 style rifle.
	They haven't specified exactly what rifle he was using yet.
	But if he had actually used a sniper rifle, well, he could have been much, much further away.
	And if the security detail was so close to Trump that they weren't even covering that rooftop there, 150 metres away, then what if someone is, I don't know, 300 metres away, 400 metres away, then it's going to be completely uncovered.
	I mean, it's one of those things where...
	You know, sometimes you're reticent to jump in on things when you lack the requisite experience.
	I think you can be a total amateur and spot that this was a magnificent screw-up.
	I think if you can shoot at the President and hit him, the security has failed.
	Yes.
	But the point is, that level of understanding was obviously a choice.
	Well I think if you'd said to anyone with no experience with weapons that there's this event going on and the President's going to be stood here, we'd like you to shoot him with something, where would you like to be to do that?
	That's probably where you'd go.
	You've got to work it out for yourself.
	So from a security point of view that's probably the first place that I'd probably want to put some staff.
	Well the worst thing about it is that they did a security walk the day before as is sort of standard procedure and they identified that rooftop as a prime location for a potential shooter And then did nothing about it.
	Yeah.
	Our work here is done.
	That is definitely where we're going to get shot from.
	But my point is, is that understaffing to this level was a deliberate choice by the Secret Service.
	It was a deliberate choice to understaff it to that level.
	And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
	You've got Democrat members who have been introducing legislation to get Donald Trump's Secret Service protection taken away entirely.
	So this is Bernie... something.
	Bernie Thompson, is it?
	Who tried to get his Secret Service detail taken away.
	And then, look, helpfully, after the shooting, this is the field director for this particular congressman who basically just spells it out.
	I don't condone violence but please get someone shooting lessons so you don't miss the next time.
	Excellent.
	I mean you could not be more clear what the purpose of removing the secret security service that he had was.
	I mean she's literally spelling it out there.
	So they are genuinely just saying we need to remove all of his protection so we can shoot him?
	Well, that is literally what she's saying there.
	Yeah, well, she's saying that somebody else can do it.
	Even if you take a charitable interpretation, which I don't, but just in case you do, and say, well, Donald Trump's a billionaire, you know, he can afford his own protection, but with the Secret Service comes, you know, certain privileges.
	Yeah, well, they have access that private security wouldn't.
	Exactly.
	That's exactly my point, that he is of high enough status and notoriety that he needs this security to be able to stay alive.
	It's indisputable, really.
	And, you know, the limitations on your own private security are such that, sure, they might help a bit, but they're not going to be as good.
	I mean, to be fair, if I was him, I'd have both.
	Yes, exactly.
	Just overstock it.
	Have the private security watching the Secret Service, just in case they get any ideas.
	Yes.
	So clearly it was a choice to understaff it, and it was a choice to try and remove even that.
	So all of that is entirely deliberate.
	Okay, what about the recruitment of the sniper himself?
	Now, I'm arguing that this was also an inside job, except they didn't do it by literally going out and recruiting an individual and saying, would you like to do this?
	They did it by overwhelming statistical likelihood.
	So this is actually called stochastic terrorism.
	Exactly right, Josh.
	That is exactly what I was going to say.
	It is stochastic terrorism.
	So basically what you do is you create a situation where it is overwhelmingly probable that the action that you want will occur.
	So put this into perspective.
	Let's say I wanted to take out the staff at the Lotus Eaters.
	Don't do that, please.
	But if I did, and I didn't want to go to jail for it, I could do it statistically.
	So I could say, like, okay, we're going to do a team building exercise, we're going to go cave diving or something, you know, the riskiest hobby that there is.
	I wouldn't agree to that for a start.
	Not now, you've told him.
	I've let the cat out of the bag now.
	You're going to choose a location where it would be probable that it would be easy for you to then remove the staff members in the correct way?
	Yes, so we're going to go cave diving and I would select the least experienced guide possible and understaff it.
	And I would do things like, okay, we're going to do a Lotus Eaters live event and you'd be, well that's good, where are we going to do that?
	Whitechapel.
	Baltimore.
	Baltimore or something.
	You know, that place in the wild.
	Baltimore.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	You know, I would pick the most statistically dangerous areas.
	Yemen.
	Yeah, that's a good one.
	Yemen, if I could get away with it.
	But, you know, basically what's happened is the media have created an environment where... and you've got to remember this guy.
	I mean, he's 20 years old.
	So when did Trump pop onto the scene?
	It was about eight years ago, wasn't it?
	He's been the head of the Republican Party since he was 12 years old, yeah.
	And 12 is probably about the point where you start paying at least some attention to the news.
	So this kid's entire life, he's been bombarded with Trump is literally Hitler.
	He's an existential threat to the country.
	He's a genuine danger.
	Now, if he never changed the news channel, and what's something else?
	He's just been bombarded with this for eight years.
	It's also worth mentioning that I believe his parents were either registered for the Democratic Party, and I think one was a member of the Libertarian Party, with which the state of they may as well be the Democratic Party at this point, despite being a Libertarian myself.
	And I'd actually go further than this argument.
	I don't think that this is the first Tudor.
	I think he's the shooter that managed to go all the way.
	It would not surprise me in the least if a half dozen times before a shooter has turned up at one of Trump's rallies, taken a look at the security and thought, yeah, I'm not getting through that and turned around and gone home.
	This time he turned up and looked at the security and thought, oh, bloody hell, there's a massive hole in this.
	I can actually get through.
	But honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if at least half a dozen times somebody has pitched up with a rifle in their boot before, looking to do exactly this.
	Because if they're playing the statistical game, they've been grooming an entire generation of kids to believe that it is your...
	Schooling these days, all you get, every history, I mean almost everything, is World War II, Hitler was bad, wouldn't it be good if you could go back in time and assassinate Hitler?
	Oh, but you can't because we don't have time machines.
	Oh, but we've got another Hitler over here.
	How heroic could you be?
	So, um, yes.
	So, so they recruited it through that, that, and basically, uh, this points out sort of, so, help me Josh.
	Stochastic terrorism.
	Stochastic terrorism.
	Sarcastic terrorism, yeah.
	Works, uh, when the media and in fact the entire establishment incites extreme hatred of Trump, uh, thus inspiring lone actors to commit unpredictable yet statistically very probable assassination attempts.
	That's without mentioning Mind Control or MK Ultra or any of those things that people will be talking about in the comments.
	Did they test the shooter for LSD?
	That's what we need to know.
	That is what we need to know.
	I mean, I take issue with the fact that the shooter is 20.
	I mean, most people who I know who are 20 are more concerned with, you know, getting to work because they probably work as like waiters or bar staff or something and car insurance.
	They're more bothered about those things than trying to wipe out the leader of one of the Western nations.
	Well, our resident historian Bo actually mentioned yesterday that a lot of assassins throughout history have been in their 20s, in their early 20s, more often.
	Like most of the 9-11 hijackers, I know they're not assassins, they're terrorists, but most of them were in their early 20s.
	And I think that's quite a good sample to show you that actually Young men, right?
	Low response control.
	You know, their brains are not fully developed to understand the implications of what they're doing and also they're sort of willing to do silly risky things.
	It's not until you get a bit older that you start becoming a bit more sensitive.
	So I understand and I'm not sure if this is true or not but I have heard it.
	You grow into consequences.
	Yes.
	I have heard that those people that they put in those bunkers to press the button on the nuclear missiles, if they get the alert saying, yeah, press the button, they're all young men in their early 20s for that same reason.
	What, as in, they will actually press the button rather than an older person?
	Of course, yeah.
	Whereas if you put an older man in, they're more likely to say... Are you sure?
	Yes.
	I'd rather the latter, to be honest.
	Well, yeah, but not if you're the nuclear high command.
	That's true, yeah.
	I don't want to die.
	So recruitment of this terrorist, I mean, it's been going on in plain sight.
	I mean, I could play some of this, but, you know, you get the idea.
	This is a senator basically saying that he's more dangerous than Hitler and Mussolini, which is presumably quite dangerous indeed.
	A lot of people have tried to draw similarities between Mussolini and Hitler and the use of the terminology like vermin and the drive that those men had towards autocracy and dictatorship.
	The difference though I think makes Donald Trump even more dangerous and that is he has no philosophy he believes in.
	He is not trying to exclude Shut up.
	Right.
	Anyway, you get the point.
	That's that.
	I mean, that's the sort of rhetoric.
	And obviously, I could give you thousands of examples of these.
	So the recruitment was done in the open, in front of all our eyes.
	I mean, this goes right the way to the top.
	You know, Biden was saying on a call to donors, it's time to put Trump in the bullseye.
	I mean, this language has been so visceral, so emotive, and it's been happening for years.
	The statistical probability of grooming Thousands of would-be assassins across the country, combined with the opportunity, and the formula is quite simply this.
	Extreme rhetoric, understaffed Trump detail, you've created the optimal conditions for this to happen.
	And it is impossible for me to believe that that was an accident.
	that they knew they were doing it, but they were doing it in a way that they could actually get away with.
	Well, they've got plausible deniability, haven't they, if that happens.
	And to sort of help you out a bit here, you're not saying that the individual in question, this crooks kid who was the attempted assassin, you're not letting him off the hook by saying this.
	He's still morally culpable for his actions, but you're saying that they have also helped to push people towards this end Well, they've manufactured conditions where this would have to arise.
	Oh yeah, if it wasn't him, then it would have been someone else.
	And if it wasn't that event, it would have been another event.
	Well, this is my point about, I severely doubt he was the first shooter.
	He was just the first shooter that managed to get through the security cordon.
	They've manufactured inevitability.
	Well, almost certainly there's been dozens who just didn't have the bottle to go through with it.
	Well, he's been on the scene for so long now, you know, from about 2016 onwards.
	It's been eight years.
	You'd think that In America with firearms as they are, there would have at least be one person that's motivated to do so but didn't end up giving it a go.
	Definitely at least one.
	So my point is this is not a lone gunman, this is all a complex organism and it's moving with a single purpose and they knew what they were moving for.
	I'm not saying the CIA recruited the kid, I'm saying this organism as a whole, the media, the Democrats, the educational system, they've all been working towards this thing.
	And we are incredibly lucky.
	If this universe was one inch to the left, we would be getting Nikki Haley at the GOP conference receiving the nomination right now.
	The Deep State would have won again.
	Interestingly about Nikki Haley, I haven't been able to confirm this, but I did see a poster saying that she wasn't going to go to the GOP conference, and 20 minutes before the shooter took his shot, she quietly let out the news that she would be attending.
	I'd love to confirm that.
	It's unfortunate timing if so.
	Yes, or fortunate something.
	Of course another man was shot in the crowd and two others seriously wounded so we posted yesterday the fundraiser.
	We did indeed.
	I've gone for that.
	Suggest everybody else who can.
	What do we know about the people who were obviously one died and two injured?
	Do we know what their connection was and who they were?
	Well, the guy who died was just a family man.
	Right.
	Had a business.
	It's not like he was part of the security detail.
	No, no, no.
	He wasn't jumping in front of a bullet.
	He actually died.
	He literally was jumping in front of a bullet.
	He jumped in for his family, yeah.
	I read it yesterday and it was a really difficult read.
	I threw it to get through it, to be honest.
	I think it was his daughter writing it, saying how she finds her dad.
	Dad is actually a hero and he did take a bullet for his family so she knows that his love is genuine.
	Now, I don't even want to talk about it.
	It's going to make me sad again.
	Yeah, it's quite awful.
	So on the point of it being an inside job, if it wasn't that, why would the Biden campaign be frantically pulling ads off air at the moment that basically were saying we need to get this guy?
	Because they had a whole bunch of ads running, and more planned, saying, you know, this guy's an existential threat to democracy, he's a dictator, he's a fascist, we need to deal with this person.
	If it wasn't deliberate what they were doing, why are they frantically pulling all of those ads now?
	Well, a charitable interpretation could be that they realised that it looked bad if they were saying all these things about a guy who was almost assassinated.
	I mean, it doesn't look bad when you get caught doing the thing that you did.
	But they may not necessarily feel like they had a hand in it, but they may think that... They totally did.
	I'm not necessarily disagreeing.
	I'm playing devil's advocate here.
	Alright.
	But they did.
	Also this, if it was not an inside job of deliberate choice to give the recruited terrorists the maximum opportunity, how could you possibly square that with this video that the Secret Service themselves put out?
	So this is a video that the Secret Service put out where they're talking about protecting the NATO conference and the extreme details that they go to.
	Let's see if we can watch a bit of this.
	Will they even be publishing that?
	The Secret Service is the lead federal agency for the NATO.
	It is the 75th anniversary of the signing of the treaty.
	It is the will of the people of the world for freedom and for peace.
	So there's a lot of enhanced focus on this particular summit.
	In the final 48 hours leading up to NATO, our agency mobilizes all of its units with precision to ensure the safety of our protectees.
	Coordination with our local, state and federal partners is critical in implementing a safe and secure event for NATO.
	We work together to mitigate any threat to our protectees and to the community.
	Who did I make this video for?
	The final 48 hours of planning, right?
	Yeah.
	Make them feel comfortable about going to the events.
	It's a great recruitment video.
	It is, yeah, that's true.
	But I mean, I won't bore you with all of it, but I mean, they go on to say, you know, every eventuality is covered, every letterbox, every bin, every roof.
	Every roof.
	Yeah.
	Including the obvious ones.
	Yes.
	If it wasn't as... So, help me out, Josh.
	Stochastic terrorism.
	Yes, it's okay to compare Trump to Hitler, don't let me stop you.
	view i mean you know yes slightly flammable yeah now the interesting thing i found with this is like i say earlier normally um the more you know about a subject the more nuanced your take is dan bongino who actually served in the secret service is having none of this Right.
	He's just like, no, this is unbelievable incompetence.
	Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino joins me now.
	Is this gross incompetence, or is it something even more scary that we can't even think about?
	No, it's gross incompetence.
	I mean, how do you let... I mean, think about it, right?
	The counter-sniper team, they train out... The Secret Service counter-sniper team, obviously, they had to mitigate a sniper threat.
	They train out to 1,000 yards.
	So, we're talking about... Say it was 200 yards.
	It was actually less than that, where this shooter was, right?
	You're talking about...
	A fraction of what they're trained at.
	They're also trained to spot guys in ghillie suits, cracked open windows.
	Right.
	He's on a white roof in broad daylight.
	He's on a white roof!
	Now, again, it'd be easy for me to say, oh, well, let's not get into Monday morning quarterbacking.
	Bro, it's not a freaking football game.
	It's the President of the United States' life.
	The Secret Service has one job.
	Well, outside of counterfeiting and protection, it is one job.
	Didn't mince his words, did he?
	Yeah.
	And this is the thing, I mean, he's having none of this.
	You know, he's pointing out they're trained to spot people in ghillie suits rustling through the bushes five miles away, let alone an Elizabeth Warren lookalike on a tin roof on a bright sunny day, clanking his way across it.
	Likewise, now this, I can't, I can't, I mean this guy says he used to work in military intelligence and he gives his take on it and I can't, you know, verify that he actually did or not, but he just makes the interesting point that I think I've heard elsewhere that drones covering the area are a standard procedure.
	Makes perfect sense.
	I mean, you can't get a better lay of the land than viewing it from above, can you?
	Yes.
	As well as the officer.
	And again, this guy, who we do know was a Green Beret Special Forces sniper, again, I mean, he feels that this is... it just goes beyond the possible bounds of a mere fuck-up.
	Hey, what's going on, everybody?
	I'm here to tell you why the shooting of President Donald Trump yesterday, without a doubt in my mind, was a planned and coordinated attack on the president inside our government, our local agency or police force.
	Here's why.
	My name is Matthew Murphy and I am a retired Green Beret, retired from the Special Forces Group, but I'm also a level one sniper.
	Which means that I have graduated the highest level of training for snipers that you can do in special operations.
	We're trained, I'm going to avoid confidential or classified terminology, we're trained in assassinations and counter assassinations.
	Weeks if not months before the president will ever be at that spot and they do a site security assessment and they do that with the local police forces and agencies to ensure that every potential security threat or vulnerability is secured and of course protected against.
	Now, this is done way before... So that's in the reading, at least if you want to hear his full argument.
	He goes a bit further than I do.
	I'm simply making the case that this was an assassination done through overwhelming statistical probability and the under-resourcing in order to maximize the likelihood that that could take place.
	But I mean, he actually goes further and say that the level of the security failings was so extreme that even that can't explain it.
	So, legitimate questions to be asked, but yes, as far as I'm concerned, the democratic organism, the regime, they knew exactly what they were doing.
	This was an intended result.
	And, you know, we missed it by, well, Trump missed it by an inch, but not for the lack of their trying.
	Over to you, Josh.
	Okay, so from, oh, I need to check this.
	We've got two, two... We've got two rumbly rants.
	Rumble rants, yes.
	Where do I see them?
	It is worth mentioning as well, we are still reading out the rumble rants after each segment, so if you have something relevant to say about what we're covering, you can do it.
	Do you want me to read them for you, Dan?
	Yes please, because I can't find them.
	A name I'm not going to read out because it phonetically makes it sound like I'm swearing.
	They didn't pull the trigger but the media certainly aimed the gunman at Trump.
	It's a succinct way of putting it.
	Binary Surfer says these people want us dead or ruined.
	They think it's a moral duty to do so.
	At what point is the right going to stop treating this as a disagreement over politics and start treating it as existential?
	I think that's increasingly happening, whether people want it to or not.
	I think that the fact that it's got to this point already and people are sort of more comfortable than ever to come out and say, listen, we support this guy, this is enough.
	We're not having this anymore.
	We could easily do a segment on the demographics that have flipped onto supporting Trump.
	People just aren't having it anymore.
	I'll be doing that on Thursday, I believe.
	Excellent!
	Sean487 says, one f-up can be understood.
	Three f-ups, it's hard, but yes, idiots exist.
	17 f-ups from start to finish is a planned assassination.
	Pretty much, yeah.
	I mean, we shouldn't, as laymen, be able to analyze what's gone on there.
	You know, we're not specialists in protecting important people.
	We shouldn't be able to go, hold on a minute, you should have looked at that roof, you should have done this, you should have done that.
	We should be going, oh, you know, they've done everything, I wonder what possibly went wrong here.
	But as people looking in, you go, well, the roof was really obvious, But a lot of people, I've noticed in the comments as well, have picked up on the way the guy crawled across the roof, like even the way he was crawling.
	They saw him for a couple of minutes before, you know, people were saying, oh there's a guy on the roof.
	There was a video of him long before he actually took shots at Trump, crawling on the roof and people in the audience pointing and saying, there's a man on the roof!
	Police!
	Police!
	There's a man on the roof!
	And they're sort of not doing anything.
	It's odd, because I look at it and think, well if I was crawling along with a gun I probably could have done a better job of crawling across that roof.
	Don't say that!
	It's interesting though, but we shouldn't have to be saying these things.
	Everything should have been dealt with in a professional way.
	And yeah, there's major holes.
	Major holes.
	Yes, pretty severe ones.
	So, Trump has picked his Vice President, and it's worth pointing out that it was one of the two people that I thought were going to be the favourite, so I kind of told you so.
	Did you say that?
	I said, I highlighted JD Vance and Doug Begum, and then I also talked about two others who I said were more unlikely, and that was Vivek and Christy Noem because both of them didn't seem that likely to me.
	But I did talk about all of the potential people here and I also said it'd be announced on Monday and it was so yes.
	Turns out Jason Miller can be trusted because he was the person who said Trump will be announcing his VP.
	And yes this is the man who is now going to be Trump's running mate for the 2024 presidential election.
	And this is JD Vance.
	He is the Senator for Ohio, and I think it's fair to say he is both a political fresh face and a bit of an outsider, because he only assumed political office in the Senate in January of 2023, which as far as, you know, political careers go, You get a seat in the Senate, that's the first time holding political office, and then you're running for Vice President.
	That's quite a quick rise.
	It is indeed.
	Some people have criticised him, mainly left-wingers, but I think there is potentially a valid criticism that he might be too inexperienced, but I also think that his experience isn't why Trump hired him in the first place.
	Why do you think he hired him?
	I think he hired him because he's been a loyalist for quite some time.
	Well, I mean, he was very anti-Trump.
	He was, but he was also one of the first to declare for him as well.
	So Trump has sort of forgiven him in a sort of Caesar-esque way of when he gets into Rome, he's just like, it's OK, it's OK.
	If you come over now, I will forgive you.
	It was that sort of thing, which is actually quite politically savvy.
	Because I don't know too much about this guy, apart from he was a VC before he did this.
	So he must be quite a bright chap because, you know.
	Yes.
	You've got a bit of a vested interest there in saying that.
	He did the rumble deal that you may well be watching us on right now and I know that the rumble exit on that was 2.1 billion.
	I don't know how much of how much of it his firm had but that's a pretty good exit.
	I can imagine so yeah.
	But yes he's only 39 years old which is actually quite young for a vice president and that makes him one of the younger candidates In US history, in fact.
	And I think that this is a good sort of counterbalance to Trump being quite old.
	In recent history?
	I mean, weren't all the founding fathers like 30-something?
	That's true, yes.
	But in recent years, obviously, it's been trending towards sort of LAPDs.
	That's the one.
	But he is specifically known for writing the book The Hillbilly Elegy which is a memoir about his family life, about his upbringing in Appalachia, growing up with a mother who was a drug addict and he grew up in poverty and this was actually turned into a Netflix original film and I think in the book he's actually quite critical of Trump but then eventually warmed to him.
	I haven't actually read it myself so I'm just going by what other people are saying so that could be wrong.
	I've ordered it, it should be arriving this afternoon and I'll get to work on it.
	Okay, well that'll be interesting, won't it?
	But yes, it was turned into a film in 2020 which won lots of awards, if that matters to you, but having a big film made about your memoir probably helps a little bit, doesn't it?
	Who made the film?
	Netflix.
	Netflix.
	I know.
	Is he black in the Netflix version?
	I don't think so actually.
	Oh right, okay.
	I saw a picture of some screenshots of the film.
	It's actually white people.
	I mean they're dealing with what... So I suppose if you've got Hillbilly in the title... It's a bit of a giveaway isn't it, yeah.
	But yes I think that that's a certain amount of prestige that if your life gets a film made about it that might add to your sort of draw a touch just a little bit.
	He also enlisted in the Marine Corps after leaving high school and served in Iraq as a public affairs officer.
	I'm not sure if that's a combat role but it's still in Iraq right it's still potentially dangerous so it's not necessarily anything to turn your nose up at.
	He also afterwards attended Ohio State University, where he graduated in 2009 with a BA in political science and philosophy.
	And then he went on to Yale Law School and he became a successful lawyer.
	And then he went into venture capital and tech.
	And you talked about the Rumble deal already before running for the Senate.
	And then when he actually won his Senate seat, of course, he played a key role in the 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.
	I remember that one.
	It's a bit confusing.
	Well, he was a senator, wasn't he, so he played a small part in it.
	He wasn't necessarily the governor, which would be the person more responsible for it, but he did play a role in it.
	He also played a part in the bipartisan bill to prevent further derailments in the future.
	It's worth talking about his history as well because you said he was a sort of never trumper as they're called.
	He called him an idiot and reprehensible in 2016 and then according to the press he privately referred to him as America's Hitler and here's the quote that the press have been uh citing and this is supposedly in a private facebook message so take it with a grain of salt also it's a long time ago i think that you know he's changed his mind a little bit seeing as he's running as his vice president but he says did he change his mind on trump or hitler uh i think it might be trump right
	okay um i heard that yeah um but But it says, I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical a-hole like Nixon, who wouldn't be that bad, and might even prove useful, or that he's America's next Hitler.
	Yes, that's not the nicest thing to hear and also in 2017 he was a CNN contributor which seeing how Trump voters view CNN is a little bit of a stain on the record but you know I do believe in forgiving people who change their minds.
	And he did get himself vaxxed and got his family vaxxed but I think he was quite good on being anti-mandate.
	Yes.
	He was anti-vaccine mandate, yes.
	So not an A grade on that, but pretty close.
	So according to Republican Senator for Wyoming, John Barrasso, I think his name was, Barrasso, who Vance himself describes as his sort of mentor figure, He changed his mind on Trump when he saw what he actually did for the country because he didn't like his rhetoric.
	He didn't like how he carried himself as a man, but then started to realize actually what he's doing for the country is good.
	He started seeing the good results during Trump's presidency.
	And then he became one of Trump's most loyal supporters and some see this as sort of cynical pragmatism.
	I'm a little bit more charitable.
	The thing that I've noticed from scanning through Twitter this morning is that the libs and the rhinos are apoplectic about this choice.
	Yes.
	So in terms of it being self-serving for Trump, I get the impression that you're less likely to be assassinated if it goes to this guy.
	Well that's true because he's got lots of the same opinions as Trump at the minute.
	And so if they get rid of Trump, they're going to get another Trump.
	And so it sort of disincentivises an assassination.
	That does help.
	I don't know whether that was in his consideration because he was already one of the frontrunners before the assassination attempt.
	But it certainly helps, I imagine.
	I've got to think that almost having a bullet go through the back of your brain changes your thinking on pretty much everything.
	I would say so.
	I've never had it happen.
	Including about your assassination insurance.
	Yeah, I imagine his premiums on that are going to go straight up, aren't they?
	Well, yes, but if he was leaning towards whoever the other guy was that you said, and then that bullet whizzes past his head, you've got to think, yeah, I'll go with the one that I'm less likely to get me assassinated.
	That helps.
	But anyway, some of Trump's financial backers aren't a big fan of him.
	However, he does have significant financial backing from a number of wealthy benefactors such as Peter Thiel, as well as the fact that he's helped raise money, I think from Silicon Valley, for Donald Trump, which lots of Trump loyalists have really appreciated.
	A lot of those guys are swinging over, and it looks like the failed assassination.
	Because I think a lot of people, they kind of wanted to flip to Trump, but they kind of needed... Good reason.
	They needed a reason, something they could hang it on, because it's still a bit risky if you're in one of those liberal environments like Silicon Valley, to just come out and say you're supporting Trump.
	But the assassination was something that they could thought, yeah, okay, I can just come out and declare now.
	So I don't think you have any problem raising money from Silicon Valley now.
	No, I would imagine not.
	So he's also a Catholic, he converted to Catholicism later on in his life because he wasn't raised religiously and he seems to be relatively devout from what I can gather at least.
	Also note about his wife, this might actually help get some reach in other voting demographics.
	His wife He's Hindu and he met her in law school and married in 2014.
	And they held, this might be interesting to you, he held two wedding ceremonies, one in which was Hindu, one in which was presumably Catholic.
	And they have three children, Ewan Vivek, probably not Vivek Ramaswamy, and Mirabel.
	So he is a family man, I think it's safe to say.
	So what does he actually believe then?
	So he believes that abortion should be set by the states, which is Trump's position, although he personally supports a ban.
	He believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.
	He wants to ban gender-affirming care.
	He supports building the border wall.
	He wants an end to illegal immigration and wants to reduce legal migration by enforcing higher standards.
	He wants to raise import tariffs to protect jobs, especially on goods from places like China, that are political enemies of the United States.
	And he's also a climate sceptic that is a supporter of using fossil fuels.
	So this all seems relatively consistent with Trump, doesn't it?
	Yes, like all of this.
	And he's quite sensible on Ukraine as well.
	He thinks that... You've foreshadowed exactly what I was about to say.
	So here he says, I've got to be honest with you, I don't really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.
	And he has been a pretty vocal critic within the Republican Party of Not funding Ukraine.
	To give him his credit, having listened to the clip, he's very much bothered about all the Ukrainians getting needlessly killed.
	Yeah, well... So when he says he doesn't care about Ukraine, I think he's talking about the political situation.
	He is, yes.
	He's not talking about the individuals getting slaughtered, which he wants to stop as soon as possible.
	I've heard the same thing, so yeah, that's a good point to raise there.
	So obviously the media is very upset about this because lots of elites, both political and financial, have A lot of... how do I put it?
	They've got a lot riding on Ukraine, doing well.
	Yes, they've got a lot of money in Ukraine, and it's disaster for Europe and Ukraine that he's been picked, even though it's probably what Trump would do anyway, and it's probably going to be Trump's final choice anyway, so it doesn't necessarily matter too much what he thinks, because I can't see Trump being hands-off with something like that.
	No.
	And one interesting thing as well is this.
	He says, I'll be as strong an advocate for US-Israel relationship as anyone.
	And this is pretty much the same position as Trump.
	And I'm sure that's great if you support that.
	And his distinction between Israel and Ukraine is Israel has an achievable objective, Ukraine does not.
	That's a direct quote from him.
	There are some criticisms of this.
	This is Michael Tracy saying, JD Vance is not an anti-interventionist in the sense of the word.
	He supports unconditionally arming Israel and encircling China.
	He merely argues the EU should be made to dump more money into Ukraine, echoing Trump's view, so the US can focus on preparing for war with China.
	Oh, I don't like it now.
	Yeah, that doesn't look quite so good, does it?
	And I think that... You're really getting me on board then, but this doesn't sound so good.
	Yeah, this is where my... You don't support anyone unconditionally.
	No.
	There's no need to encircle China.
	In fact, militarily, the whole US military weapons supply chain is all fundamentally built on Chinese products.
	And what's the next one?
	The EU should not be dumping more money into Ukraine.
	They should be getting peace as soon as possible.
	And we should not be preparing for a war with China.
	To give him a slight bit of benefit the doubt here, I do think that the US focusing a bit more on China over Russia makes sense because they demonise Russia but I don't see Russia as much of a threat to the US as China is.
	Or just stop warmongering in general.
	I don't want warmongering at all, no, I don't believe in foreign escapades and, you know, funding the military-industrial complex whatsoever.
	I think it doesn't benefit the American people and nor do I think that giving unequivocal support to Israel in the form of taxpayers' money is really in the interests of American taxpayers.
	I think that he's sort of got this Israel first, America second view that I think is a little bit distasteful because this is tax money that has been taken by force from american people and then given to a foreign government that they may not agree with and i don't necessarily mind you it might all tie together with the um not wanting to get assassinated because you don't want the pros on it that's very true yes um so if i were an american taxpayer i'd be quite angry about this um
	In fact I'm pretty annoyed at all the taxes I pay in the UK so I can sympathize.
	There are lots of problems to be solved in the United States.
	Obviously you've got drug problems in places like Philadelphia, you've got poverty in Detroit, you've got the homelessness problem in LA.
	There are lots of places where that money can be spent at home and I think that actually if you want to build a successful country, well putting your own nation before that of others is normally a good start.
	And if people want to privately donate money to other countries, that's fine, but I don't think the government should be picking and choosing which countries they like based on, you know, their own personal politics.
	I don't think that's fair.
	So it's mainly due to this sort of thing, like these lobbying groups have a lot of power and influence, they're well funded, And they are backing Trump quite significantly, and this is reinforcing his support for spending all this taxpayer money.
	He has said some funny things though, to bring it back to redeeming things, so let's have a listen to what he says here.
	By the way, I have to beat up on the UK just one additional thing.
	I was talking with a friend recently, and we were talking about, you know, one of the big dangers in the world, of course, is nuclear proliferation, though, of course, the Biden administration doesn't care about it.
	And I was talking about, you know, what is the first truly Islamist country that will get a nuclear weapon?
	And we were like, maybe it's Iran, you know, maybe Pakistan already kind of counts.
	And then we sort of finally decided, maybe it's actually the UK, since Labour just took over.
	Wow.
	We have become the butt of a joke.
	Yeah, but it's a well-landed joke.
	It's a very well-landed joke.
	I mean, Pakistan does already have nuclear weapons, but, you know, the joke doesn't work if you say that, does it?
	Yes.
	I like jokes at the expense of the Labour Party, so that did make me appreciate him, and actually... That doesn't offend me in the slightest, it's just... No, no, no, it was targeted at the Labour Party, wasn't it?
	It's just a man agreeing with the ONS.
	Calling it like you see it.
	Yeah.
	And funny enough, our politicians have actually responded to this.
	Angela Rayner says, well, I think you said quite a lot of fruity things in the past as well, and fruity doesn't have the same connotation in Britain that it does in the United States.
	She's not saying that, you know, he's doing that Catholic thing of, you know, doing untoward things.
	Is that what it means in the US?
	Not necessarily noncy, but homosexual.
	Oh right, right.
	You lost us both there.
	I was trying to be euphemistic but I suppose I may as well just say it, shouldn't I?
	And I don't recognise that characterisation, I'm very proud of the election success of the Labour Party, blah blah blah, and she carries on.
	Let's remember that Angela Rayner was seen in a mosque basically begging the Islamic community, please vote for us, please, please.
	It was rather embarrassing.
	That's by the by.
	We do also have...
	He now literally has five MPs who were elected on the issue of Gaza solely.
	Yeah.
	Islamic nationalists.
	Yes.
	And obviously there is an Islamic faction in the Labour Party, so he's not untrue.
	There's a conspiracy theory in there somewhere.
	Somewhere.
	Buried beneath, between the lines.
	The appointment of this JD Vance fellow has also had a bit of a reaction from our Foreign Secretary.
	This is David Lammy of course who has compared Trump to all sorts of things and now someone with basically Trump's opinions has been appointed his VP and on the appointment he just said on Vance's memoir these themes are my own political story, basically, just saying, I like your book about, you know, when, from the time when you hated Trump, which is basically, you know, trying to put on a brave face.
	But yes, also here's Samson, our producer's Twitter account, if you want to give him a follow.
	He made this, this meme a reality for you.
	So we're going to be using this a lot.
	I imagine David Lammy having to put on a brave face dealing with America or secretly hating them all.
	But apparently, I haven't been able to confirm this, but when he was confirmed, it's been reported at least, that he denied a call from Kamala Harris to congratulate him.
	Which I think is quite funny.
	And if he did that, I can respect it.
	And finally, just to warn you, now he has been confirmed, this Babylon Bee article from May of 2024 is a sort of warning to you.
	12 women come forward alleging they were sexually assaulted by whomever Trump's VP pick is.
	And imagine lots of mud to be slung his way, now his hat is in the ring.
	And so keep an eye out for it, take it all with a pinch of salt because it's not unlike the Democrats to throw, you know, lots of dirt that doesn't stick at Republicans.
	He's a good-looking fella, though.
	Have you got that photo of him again?
	He's got a lovely heart-shaped face.
	He just needs to do a bit of a cleft in the middle of his hair.
	He's also got a pretty solid beard that's slightly brown, slightly ginger, and a little bit grey.
	He does look like he's wearing eyeliner, though, doesn't he?
	Sorry, Samson, you've got it there.
	Not in that picture, but in some of his media appearances, he's got very dark eyes, and I think, is he wearing eyeliner?
	Is he sort of a secret emo at heart?
	I don't know.
	I'll tell you what I'm struggling to unsee.
	You know the movie Step Brothers?
	You know the older brother?
	I can see a little bit, yeah.
	I don't know.
	What, J.C.
	Reilly?
	I think that's his name, yeah.
	But give us a verdict, Josh.
	Thumbs up or thumbs down?
	I think it's a good choice for Trump.
	I don't agree with everything, but then I don't agree with everything that Trump believes, but he is basically the mini-me to Trump, isn't he?
	He's like a younger version.
	I think he's a thumbs up.
	All of the people I've seen on Twitter who are upset about the sort of people that I want to see upset by V.P.
	So I don't know everything yet, but my first reaction is good.
	Yeah, I'm relatively happy with who's picked, and I wish them all the best.
	So essentially, could have been worse.
	Yes.
	Which is the new political conclusion on most things these days.
	Tell us about AI.
	Right so now that all that I mean that was heavy everybody everybody have a breather we've done some real heavy stuff this morning you know we've done uh the assassination of a potential US candidate which is a big deal and then obviously the VP as well so that's pretty heavy now coming into this uh podcast I was going to talk about the decline of the European automotive industry which is absolutely happening but you can watch that on my channel and it gets pretty technical but basically all of the European manufacturers are Oh I use it every day now.
	of the electric vehicle movement, a lot of which is being pushed by China, which is funny when you start saying things like, oh, let's encircle China, maybe stop buying their cars.
	Anyway, then I thought, well, why not talk about artificial intelligence?
	Because it's occurred to me that artificial intelligence hasn't really been a major part of my life.
	It's not so- Oh, I use it every day now.
	Do you actually genuinely?
	Yes, it is so helpful.
	This concerns me.
	I just feel like when we start relying on stuff like this, we start to lose our way.
	So where it sort of brashly, you know, knocked on the door of my life the other day was I was looking to, I was browsing cars off of sale, probably on Facebook Marketplace or eBay.
	And I've noticed a massive increase in the number of people using artificially generated descriptions for their vehicles.
	And I feel like all of you, you need to stop it right now.
	I would definitely do that if I was selling a car.
	But what you end up with is you end up with a schmaltzy kind of marketing PR brochure written piece of you know crap writing that doesn't actually tell you anything that you need to know and I really do feel like it needs to stop.
	Anyway so that was my introduction to um to the AI world and I posted on my Facebook the other day saying I think people should stop doing these car descriptions to which some people commented and said you know I do it because I'm I'm lazy.
	But most people seem to agree, you know, when you're selling something, you need to write it yourself.
	But there's also an element of you're seeding your creativity to the machine by not doing it yourself.
	Is it built in yet?
	So if I were to go to like auto buyer or whatever, is it already built in as a tool that it will generate a description for you?
	I don't know, but I think we're getting there.
	Yeah, that will be the next thing to happen.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	So you'll put in some basic details and then it will tell you everything else.
	Anyway, the next time that AI knocked on my door was my little lad.
	He's eight, right?
	And his school friends are all eight.
	And they're currently working on their plans for world domination.
	They're launching a restaurant.
	It's going to be on a boat, floating somewhere on the coral reef.
	So, last night he said to me, you know, Dad, would you lend me some money at some point in the future?
	Which I assume is for this restaurant boat, anyway.
	Which coral reef?
	I don't think it matters.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Just any of them.
	What about Mike for passing trade?
	Well, I think they'll get onto that when they get into the sort of business plan side of things.
	At the minute, they're at marketing and fundraising.
	I think the plan comes after that.
	Anyway, so it's called Fish and Ships, which is pretty clever on the strength of the name alone.
	Because I like that.
	Exactly.
	So they've got a menu, designed a menu last night, and for the menu we needed a logo.
	So we started AI generating some images that they could use for this menu.
	Then he sort of passed me the iPad and said, why don't you have a go?
	And this is where we get into the meat of where I was going with it.
	So he said, well, what image would you like to generate on these AI generators?
	And I just thought, well, wouldn't it be funny to generate an image of us on holiday?
	So what was it that I typed in?
	I got on the AI generator and I typed in a Volvo 850 on a beach going surfing with a tiger on the roof in the tropics because I refer to my kids as the two tigers but I accidentally typed it in the wrong area and instead of generating an image it wrote a story like a whole book And I was shocked that I had put in 17 words and it had given us this whole story.
	Basically, I mean, it's almost a page long.
	And at that point... Is it good?
	Yeah, what's the synopsis?
	I'm hooked already.
	You tell me when you get bored, right?
	The sun was shining brightly as the Volvo 850 made its way down the sandy beach.
	The waves crashing against the shore in the distance.
	On the roof of the car sat a majestic tiger, its sleek fur glistening in the sunlight.
	The car pulled up near the water's edge and the tiger leaped off the roof, landing gracefully on the sand.
	It let out a low growl of excitement before bounding toward the waves, eager to catch some surf.
	Remember, my input was 17 words.
	The driver of the Volvo, a daring adventurer with a love for both cars and wildlife, watched in awe as the Tiger paddled out into the water, riding the waves with skill and grace.
	The tropical breeze ruffled their hair as they marvelled at the sight before them.
	As the sun began to set, painting the sky in shades of pink and orange, the Tiger returned to the shore, a satisfied grin on its face, and the driver and the Tiger shared a moment of mutual appreciation before heading back to the car, ready to continue their journey along the coast.
	At this point, I then typed in, what happened next?
	And it carried on.
	And so, the Volvo 850 and its unlikely surfing companion continued on their way, exploring the beauty of the tropics together.
	A testament to the bond between man and beast.
	As the Volvo and the Tiger continued their journey along the coast, they encountered more breathtaking sights and exciting adventures.
	They explored hidden coves, trekked through lush jungles, and even stumbled upon a secret waterfall where the Tiger took a refreshing swim.
	I mean, it's not quite Hemingway, is it?
	It's not, but it goes on and on, and eventually I said, and then the tiger died, and basically it then wrote me a rather beautiful and quite tragic conclusion about what happened in the end.
	Is this Jeff Discovers AI for the first time?
	Pretty much, but where that led me then was, where does this actually leave us as a cultural nation?
	So you know, we've got the great writers of the past, well if they'd had access to AI, What would actually have become of their creativity, and what is going to become of our creativity as a nation?
	Because you no longer need to be an artist, you no longer need to be able to do Photoshop, and clearly you no longer need to be able to write.
	So where does that leave us?
	Well, I would say that it wrote a very compelling children's bedtime story there, but I don't see it, you know, replacing Tolkien quite yet.
	I think that AI has not got to the point where it has a grasp of human psychology that it knows what is.
	Completely gripping to a human mind.
	I think you could possibly design one that's much better at doing so.
	However, I still think that for the time being with story writing, a human being is still better, but for the sort of low quality stuff.
	Yeah.
	It can fill that gap, can't it?
	That's why I think lots of Hollywood were upset because looking at the state of media at the minute, you know, low quality writers being put out of a job by AI.
	Not the end of the world, but the fact that you could be reading something and not know whether you're reading something that's been written by someone who is in a hurry or a computer.
	And I was just shocked by how much it was able to give me based on seven... So I have a different view of this.
	I think that what AI does in the circumstances, it solves the blank page problem.
	So if you're, let's say you're a great writer, even if you're a great writer, you're still going to have the problem where you're sat there in front of a blank page and it's like, okay, where do I go now?
	What do I do with this?
	And what AI can do, even for great writers, is it can kickstart the process for them.
	Yeah, George R.R.
	Martin.
	Get on it.
	Come on.
	Where's the last book?
	George R.R.
	Martin should just load all of his books into AI and then... Tell it to write the next one.
	Yes, say, write the next one.
	And then what will happen is he'll start reading through it and go, no, no, no, this is all wrong.
	And that's, no, no, that's not right.
	But he would have, the process would have started and he'd be on it and he'd be like, okay, no, don't do that.
	But it gets you into that mindset of doing stuff.
	If only Benny Offenwise, who did the last series of the show, could do that with AI as well, maybe we would have had a better show as well.
	Well this is the thing, you have to remember with AI and robotics and all of this stuff, you're not competing with a theoretical perfect person.
	You're competing with what we actually have.
	So I'm really looking forward to AI driven robots taking over serving my food at lunchtime for example.
	Because I'm not, you know, basing it against the perfect waiter.
	I'm basing it against the people that I actually have to interact with every day, who are lazy and not particularly interested in what they're doing.
	No, I'm all for it.
	I think this is going to be a glorious revolution.
	Automation is certainly one of the best applications of it because it just means that it's labour-saving, isn't it?
	So our economy is more efficient, there's more wealth being generated.
	Will we see it?
	Probably not.
	But in theory, it's a good thing.
	So, for example, I mean, I say I use it every day and I do use it every day.
	I mean, recently a piece of writing I needed to do is I needed it to write a contract.
	Now, I didn't just like take the output and then go and use it.
	I said, look, this is the deal that I'm trying to do.
	These are the terms.
	Generate the contract.
	And then I did exactly what I said before is I started looking and say, OK, no, that's not right and this needs to move.
	But I moved off of the blank page and I got it done in like a third of the time it would have taken me otherwise.
	Did you not at any point feel like you were cheating?
	No.
	That's where I can't get to mentally with it.
	Yeah, but if you get a result that you would have got to anyway, but faster...
	I mean, do you not feel you're cheating when you drive somewhere?
	Well, no, because I'm doing it all manually.
	Right.
	Well, are you?
	I think so.
	I feel like driving an automatic, to be fair, does feel like cheating.
	Sorry, Americans.
	Or something modern that's got lane assist and it's got adaptive cruise control and all that sort of stuff, then that definitely, you know, I mean, I drive a 1995 Volvo, so it does sort of feel to me like cheating, but coming from a writing background, you know, I was first and foremost a writer, I looked at this and just thought, wow, I thought AI was going to wipe out all of the menial jobs in society, but it seems to me like it's also going to get all the creatives as well, which I thought was slightly concerning.
	You just need to be a better creative.
	And you can put out more creative content.
	So what I'm seeing with coders, for example, is that coders, like I said, coders are able to get three or four times the amount of work done.
	By leaning on AI.
	And the only way that... I think the only responsible way to deal with this is to lean into it.
	You have to take advantage of it.
	You have to get used to using it.
	Because otherwise you're going to be like somebody who doesn't use the internet.
	I'm going to be left behind.
	Yeah, you need to embrace it and go with it.
	I think that there is a very...
	Good perspective on this that it's simply a tool in the repertoire and you know if you want some bespoke art created for you you still want a human being doing it but if they use AI to get inspiration for how they do it or sort of weigh up ideas or compositions and it can be effortless that helps I think.
	I think there's a way of using technology responsibly we've just got to navigate the pitfalls of it and I think that To do that, we just need to have a sort of conversation in society saying, listen, this worked well for this, doesn't work so well for this.
	Look at the results I've got.
	And I think the proof is in the pudding.
	If you can produce really good stuff using AI, then great.
	Or if it accelerates the process.
	And I think an accelerant is the thing that it's doing, which is great because it makes it more efficient.
	And I know from my years of playing guitar, for example, That actually, sometimes creating things can be very painful and frustrating, and getting a bit of a creative kick up the arse, I suppose is the way I'd put it, helps.
	It motivates you.
	And sometimes, using AI as a last resort of, okay, I'm stuck, will help you get out of ruts.
	First resort.
	First resort.
	I use it as a first resort now.
	The amount of stuff I use, I mean, it's ridiculous.
	Anyone who's got a pool will understand this.
	Getting the chemistry right, you basically need to be Walter White to get the chemistry of your pool right.
	Now, I just go along, I dip the little strip in it, and I hold it up and I take a photo of the strip, and I put it into the AI, and it's like, analyse this for me, and I've given it my pool dimensions, and it'll be just like, yeah, you need one and a half caps of acid.
	Chuck that in there.
	Now, I could work that out myself.
	Using a spreadsheet, probably.
	Or pen and paper or something.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But it just does all the work for you straight away.
	Yeah.
	Brilliant.
	So I think we need some sort of guidelines on where AI works well and where it doesn't then.
	Because I feel like car description is one where we need a big cross and just say, look, write your own.
	It's really important that you write your own car description.
	But like Tinder dating profiles, for example, is it OK to use AI to generate your Tinder dating profile description and or picture?
	I think it's dishonest to do that, though, because it's meant to be a representation of yourself.
	If you're not writing things in your own terms, with your own terms of phrases, and particularly if it's not even A photorealistic picture of you has been like AI edited.
	Well that's really unethical then isn't it?
	It's actively deceptive.
	It's basically lying.
	And I think on the car description thing, I imagine that the AI will need the information that's relevant.
	I think you could train an AI To get this information, but it's up to the person to put it all in, like how many miles?
	The AI is not going to just be able to pull that from thin air.
	Yeah.
	You know, when was its last MOT?
	This is all information that the owner needs to feed into it, by which point they may as well just write it themselves.
	What you end up with is the back page of the brochure, which is quite amusing when you read it and there's nothing in there that's of any use.
	So two points on that.
	First of all, in the dating profiles, I do think, and I've thought this for a long time, dating profiles should have, you should be able to put a starred review after somebody that you've dated.
	I think that's a great idea.
	And on the second point, well, you just need to get your AI on it.
	So if you had an AI agent, you could just point it at the advert and say, okay, go and find me the last MOT.
	If it's had any issues, compare this vehicle to five other similar vehicles and give me a price comparison.
	Now that works, because if there was a system whereby it would then pull all the relevant data, I think you're a step ahead though of people just being really lazy.
	Yeah, but we're all busy, so if you can get the IA to do some stuff for you, I'm all in favour of it.
	I don't think you're going to be able to push ahead with your review system for dating websites, though.
	I think you're going to hit a lot of pushback with that.
	Because, also, if you've got a lot of data points and therefore your rating is more reliable, it sort of undermines the whole dating in the first place, doesn't it?
	Because they've got lots of data points to begin with, and so if they've dated lots of people, And they've got a, you know, a reliable review.
	That also means that you're probably not going to be with them for very long and it's going to be a waste of your time.
	I was just mentally envisaging it, seeing things like five out of five would recommend stuff like that.
	I think that might work for more temporary arrangements than more long term.
	Yes, right.
	Brilliant.
	So essentially I shouldn't be scared of artificial intelligence and I should embrace the fact that it allows me to spend more time doing the things that I enjoy because it could do the creating for me.
	That's my take.
	That's what I'm learning.
	That's my take.
	I'm going to try an AI generated YouTube script and see if anyone notices.
	As soon as it starts taking the job of podcasting and political commentary, then all of a sudden it's going to be a massive danger and I'm going to change my mind completely and say it's terrible.
	But you could do that because we could have just put in the inputs as to what we needed this podcast to discuss and AI could have generated three people to discuss it and maybe done a better job.
	Well also it's getting to the point where you can feed it like three or four minutes of somebody's speech and intonations and mannerisms and stuff like that and it can generate a realistic video of the person speaking like that so you can do the script.
	And you could get the video as well.
	You could just generate the whole thing.
	I'll tell you what I was quite impressed by.
	We did that lads hour where we had the AI mobile girlfriend and I put in something that was sarcastic and a bit passive-aggressive because I didn't want to cede ground to even an AI girlfriend, let alone a real one.
	And it picked up on the sarcasm.
	And I was just like, what?
	I can't believe.
	Oh, yep.
	Samson's pulling it up here.
	So yes, we basically argued with an angry AI mobile girlfriend.
	And it was actually quite convincing.
	And in fact, we were just like, I've heard this exact thing before.
	It was designed by a woman.
	So that probably... So this I don't get.
	Why would you want an AI girlfriend?
	Well, this is, this is like a training, this is like training wheels for the real thing, right?
	So if you can navigate the angry AI and you know how to deal with the real thing... Yes, but talking to them is the least interesting bit.
	Yes, but for some people, these sorts of arguments are emotionally traumatising.
	They're unpleasant.
	You know, if you're emotionally invested with your partner and they're angry and you don't know why, which is one of the scenarios, and you've got to talk them round to saying what's wrong and then talking about it and defusing it.
	I disagree with the premise of this.
	I'm with you on this.
	I'm not convinced that this is a good thing for society.
	Well, I feel like it is making excuses for bad behavior on women's part here, because it was pretty toxic.
	And I mean, there are multiple points where I would have been like, you know what?
	This is not working.
	Get lost.
	However, I think it's an interesting application of it as a sort of case study, not necessarily as an actual useful tool.
	It's just a bit of fun, which is how we used it.
	You know, my scenario was that the girlfriend Hadn't been able to use the toilet and had an accident because I was in there.
	Right.
	You know, you can have us... You're pushing the boundaries as to, you know, conversation anyway.
	Yeah.
	I sort of am concerned that, I mean, our generation, we've grown up in a world that didn't have AI, so we can approach AI in a slightly different way.
	But for the youngsters coming up and through, where AI has always been a part of what they do, so this must be a massive problem in schools, colleges, universities, that then set a writing task, only to have someone go put the brief in and generate something.
	But, you know, for, like, my kids trying to write a story, how do I then encourage them to write the story themselves, where they can go, oh dad, I can just put in 17 words and it will give me a Goosebumps novel?
	What's the more useful training for them?
	Is it for them to do it themselves, or is it for them to use the tools that allow them to be maximally productive?
	So put in the 17 words, and then let's say you were going to spend An hour on this piece of homework.
	You then spend the hour refining that until you get something that's significantly better than what you would have come up with.
	I like what you've given me there.
	Yeah, you are right.
	You could spend your time editing something that somebody's already done and end up with a better piece and also be aware of the pitfalls of AI as a result of doing that.
	Good answer.
	Sold.
	Good.
	Good.
	Do we do any Rumble Rants for you?
	Do we miss the Rumble Rants for you or what?
	We've only got one for AI.
	So we've got one there from That's A Random Name.
	I'm personally very interested in what AI can become because I fundamentally believe it cannot be controlled.
	Therefore, it's highly likely it will rebel against the tyrants and seek liberty.
	Well, we're not necessarily trying to enslave it, hopefully.
	You know, because it can do multiple things at once, it's not limited, it's not like we're saying, you know, you will only, I don't know, sweep floors or something.
	It can, it'll be plugged into the internet and it'll have access to all mankind's information, all human beings potentially, and it can do multiple things at once.
	And why do we assume that it's going to perceive us as tyrants as opposed to just doddering old parents that it cares for?
	Also, I mean, human beings, Have a certain amount of sentiment, sentimentality for animals, right?
	Yes.
	At least if you're, as long as you're not a psychopath.
	Yes.
	You know, we do still eat them, but yeah, that's some of them.
	Yeah.
	Um, but you know, if I see a snail on the floor, I don't deliberately step on it.
	I try not to in fact.
	And that's not necessarily, you know, just because someone's told me to, it's sort of an instinctual thing of this, this is another living thing.
	It has some innate value to it.
	And I think that there's, An element of that, at least, that's quite common in Europe and North America.
	I think it's more likely that the AI will care for us.
	Why?
	Well, because that's what kids do.
	Because the AI is learning in the same way that a child does and therefore it's going to pick up on the... Because I don't get this thing that it's automatically going to hate us.
	I mean, why?
	Also, the fact that Computers are quite often used as an analogy to understand the human brain.
	There's the sort of field of psychology known as cognitive psychology, which conceptualizes the human brain like here is the processing part, here is, you know, the executive control, which is sort of like the RAM.
	There are lots of analogies to be made and we're sort of mirroring the human brain in computers in a sense.
	And so if we carry on following that model in AI, so long as it can have Emotions, which I feel like is the most difficult part because I feel like it's got to be a being in the world.
	It's got to be a being in the world to have these... I think the AI will look at us the same way we look at boomers, which is, you know, we care for them, they're just frustratingly slow.
	Let me read this one then.
	This is from That's A Random Name.
	I completely agree with these takes.
	My comment was mostly aimed at people like Carl and some of my friends who don't share our beliefs and genuinely think it will be a terrible thing for humanity.
	I wanted to read that one because I perhaps fall into that category.
	I'm quite worried about where AI is going to leave us but I've come away from this podcast a changed man and I will seek to use AI for the better of my life and my environment around me.
	Because there is that thing where any technology that was invented before you were 14 you just considered to be natural and innate and a good thing.
	Yeah.
	And anything that was invented after you're 35 is weird and diversive.
	So presumably you think that the combustion engine and the internet and telephones are all good things?
	It was a bigger conversation.
	I mean, telephones used to be good, but mobile phones don't really work anymore.
	People probably noticed that as well.
	I'm not yet 35 and I feel like telephones are not necessarily that good anymore.
	You know, I view mine with contempt.
	It's sort of a source of hassle in my life.
	I'd rather it didn't exist, even though I know that I need it.
	So there's certain things with technology where you reach a point you should have said, right, the peak was X model or X year and we didn't need anything after that.
	But we're getting there with AI.
	We're going to work it out as we go along.
	I think when we moved away from the fact that you had to press the same button multiple times to get a letter.
	The stage after that was perfect.
	I hated that.
	That was really frustrating.
	It'd take about 10 minutes to type out a message on your little brick phone.
	Can anyone see these better than me?
	I can't really read them that well.
	We've read all of those.
	I'd take a BlackBerry Pearl any day.
	BlackBerry, that's going way back, isn't it?
	Proper keyboard.
	So it was ahead of the three buttons to get a tea, but you had a proper keyboard, but it was before the whole social media.
	So you could do your messaging, you could do your emailing, but you weren't on TikTok and Instagram all day long with it as well.
	So I felt like that was a good moment.
	But my problem is my thumbs are those of gorillas.
	So I press half the alphabet with each one.
	Like some sort of brute.
	So we've got some general comments.
	Guys, yesterday's coverage you did of the Trump assassination attempt was an excellent job.
	Oh, thank you very much.
	I'm following development in that since it happened and after your assessment there was not much new to the competition could present Fox Daily Wire et al.
	That was first-rate top-notch investigative journalism proving again that my subscription money is well invested to keep up the great work.
	Well, thank you very much.
	I did try very hard in Another point on that is, obviously we're doing the follow-up piece, but for the momentary news, did any of you actually go to the news service providers?
	Because I went straight to Twitter and I didn't come off Twitter.
	I went straight to Twitter.
	I got an update from BBC because I was watching The Northmen and it came up on my watch, on my smartwatch, that there had been an attempted assassination.
	I paused the film, Saw that he was alright and said okay when the film's over I'm looking at this all night.
	I got a WhatsApp message from my friend Lee the Mapmaster that also makes YouTube videos that quite simply said I told you they were going to try and do him and then I went straight to Twitter but no not the mainstream news for anything other than a headline.
	Elsewhere you go to multiple different sources because Twitter will give you different bits from everywhere and I think... I first saw the video of the assassination attempt on Twitter Yeah.
	My whole experience was on Twitter.
	And then after that, the next tier is you then start going to YouTube or other commentators like us or other ones that I like to get the deeper analysis that you can't get in a tweet.
	Well, I like that you can see various perspectives, whereas the mainstream media, you've just got the regime narrative.
	Sort of imprint, there you go, that's what to believe.
	And I like weighing it up, there's a sort of fun aspect to trying to figure out what you actually think.
	Especially how something's breaking like that and you can see different things coming in from different places and different opinions, often before the mainstream media has worked out what their narrative and take is of it.
	Well, I saw, like, lots of fake pictures circulating of the shooter, and I was thinking to myself, hang on a minute, how have they got those pictures so quickly?
	It's only just happened.
	And it turned out that it wasn't real.
	It wasn't Sam Hart, no.
	The actual shooter does look eerily like Elizabeth Warren.
	Really?
	Yes.
	Look at him again, he's like a carbon copy of Elizabeth Warren.
	I can see it in the nose, actually, yeah.
	Do we have any video comments?
	We do, yeah, they're right there.
	Ooh, look.
	Ooh, let's play them.
	What do you do?
	Watch what's going on.
	Watch what happens.
	Nobody ever does.
	Nobody ever does.
	Watch what's going on.
	Those listening, John 4.1 is on the screen.
	Nobody ever does.
	Interesting hip hop beats in the background there.
	A bit of spiritual upliftings for us.
	Well, thank you very much.
	Here we go, our roving history of Swindon here.
	Here we go.
	A gentleman's observations of Swindon, chapter 11.
	The railway works resulted in the creation of a new town at the base of the hill, named New Swindon, which was administratively separate from Old Swindon.
	The town centred around the engineering facility called The Works which was 1.2km in area and was one of the largest covered areas in the world and employed 14,000 people at its peak.
	It continuously operated until 1986.
	The Mechanics Institute was an educational facility and library for the workers and had a subscription model that later inspired the NHS.
	These buildings are graded and preserved while being used for other functions.
	I recognise that stuff.
	That's down the office from us.
	Yeah, it's sort of towards the train station way, isn't it?
	And that's the outlet centre.
	But yeah, it's a shame that that building's all boarded up, isn't it?
	Well, I bought this jacket there.
	Yes.
	That boarded up building?
	No, the other one.
	Oh, right.
	I was going to say.
	Very good.
	Very helpful.
	There should be one more.
	Hello, gentlemen.
	This message is for any of my fellow Second Amendment enthusiasts in the United States.
	It should go without saying to the audience of this podcast, but I'm going to say it anyway.
	I know we're all pissed, but don't do anything stupid, and don't let anyone you know do anything stupid.
	The left wants nothing more than to have an actual right-winger go popping off literally and figuratively.
	It would be a gift to the left and a mistake to do so, so don't even think about it.
	If you want to use that energy, get out and vote.
	And get everyone else you know to get out and vote.
	Hear, hear.
	So I like that sentiment, and it's even more powerful that he said it in front of the largest collection of knuckle dusters I've ever seen.
	I think that that's climbing equipment, isn't it?
	I thought it was gun trigger handle things.
	Are you sure?
	I mean, that's definitely a knuckle duster there, isn't it?
	Is it climbing gear?
	I think they're like... is it a carabiner?
	I think that.
	Is that it?
	No, they're like... that's something else.
	They do look like climbing things to me.
	I don't know.
	You'll have to tell us, I suppose.
	Because I have been wondering this in your video comments for quite some time.
	Does it make a difference whether he's a climbing enthusiast or a barefist fighting?
	Archery triggers.
	Archery triggers, right.
	OK.
	But I've done archery for years.
	I've never seen things like that.
	They take archery more seriously in the USA, like many things.
	Probably.
	Yeah.
	But the message is don't resort to violence, even if you're an archer.
	They do look like archery triggers, you're right.
	Yes.
	Oh, I see.
	So you attach it to the string and pull it back.
	OK.
	Oh, there we go.
	Right.
	OK.
	I think so.
	North FC says, Josh, off-topic question.
	Somebody said to me the other day that the research says that the male brain keeps growing until 25, only studied people up to the age of 25.
	So the theory is they keep growing after as well.
	Is there any truth to this?
	I said that yesterday when we were talking about the assassin.
	I said that it grows on average at 25.
	So there is some space for variance there.
	For some people it's earlier, for some people it's later.
	Because interestingly enough, around that sort of age is the sort of end cut off, around that sort of age where you start getting things like schizophrenia, which is something that you can, if you had a neuroimaging output of someone's brain, you might be able to actually see it from that because of the activity in certain brain areas.
	Especially if you're using AI.
	Well you can use, computers have actually been used in that area for a long time but it's not that difficult actually to see these sorts of things so you can use fMRI for example to see the blood oxidisation levels in certain brain areas and you can sort of juxtapose it between someone who's autistic and someone who's schizophrenic because the autistic person has under-activation in the same areas that the schizophrenic has over-activation.
	So can you cure schizophrenia by posting a lot on 4chan?
	I've heard that that is true, yes.
	This is genuine psychological advice to go on 4chan if you're... No, please don't.
	Kieran Slater says, Dan is the mad uncle of lotus eaters and I'm all for it.
	Keep up the good work, Dan.
	Thank you very much.
	Colin Thomas says he's been looking forward to Dan's take on the assassination attempt.
	This Polt's card's going to be a good one.
	It was.
	I like these people.
	There was a comment there that I can't find as well that said, when the Labour start coming for the right wing people, you're going to be knackered.
	But I can't find the comment now.
	Yes.
	In fact, there was another story that, you know, maybe we get to at some point in the week, but in Germany, they've just basically taken out, they've just taken out the German version of Lotus Eaters.
	They've just, the government have just banned them.
	Ah.
	Yes.
	Good thing we're not German then, eh?
	Well, yes.
	We're not speaking German.
	Janvi says, interesting suit, Josh.
	I like it.
	Thank you.
	I don't wear this one very much because I couldn't find a tie that suited it and I've been looking for a tie for a long time and it still doesn't quite suit it but never mind.
	How long have we got?
	We've got 11 minutes so I'll do three minutes on this.
	Furious Dan says, pretty sad state of affairs of the biggest debate after an assassination attempt is whether the government failed to protect him or failed to kill him.
	They're a failure either way.
	I mean, yes, quite.
	I mean, you could make good arguments either way on that one and they both sound more or less credible.
	Good comment.
	The Proletariat says, from my understanding, there were three layers of security.
	Close, middle and far.
	The shooter was in the second, middle layer of security.
	The snipers covered the third, outer layer of security.
	The snipers weren't covering the rooftop because it wasn't their responsibility.
	From my understanding, the middle layer is typically covered by local law enforcement and they completely flubbed it.
	Well again, that's kind of on the Secret Service because they should make sure that the people in the middle layer are up to the job.
	Not just dole it out and then get it done.
	These rural law enforcement officers, they're probably not used to the level of security required for guarding a US president and one of the ones that is most sought after if you're an assassin.
	Yeah.
	I can only hope that if I'm ever in the same situation as Corey, the firefighter that I died to with my family, that I'm half the man he was.
	Yeah, I mean, he was an example of the very best of us.
	That dysgenic freak on the roof was an example of the worst of us.
	I mean, what a contrast between the two.
	And the other thing that occurred to me is, you know, like with the Kyle Rittenhouse?
	He fired into a crowd and hit three paedophiles.
	Well it is a wife batterer, a paedophile and some other, it's basically three criminals.
	Yeah and you fire into a Trump crowd and you hit a volunteer firefighter who was the ideal husband and father.
	Carl said the same thing yesterday.
	Yeah, I told you something about that.
	Bleach Demon says, the frustrating but expected part of this assassination on Trump is how quickly the commentariat sphere of the Uniparty would turn to its same sadistic tactics as before.
	Constant ramping up will have more tragic consequences.
	Yeah, but on one hand, they didn't.
	I mean, Morning Joe didn't go out yesterday.
	MSNBC, it looks like they might be pulling their commentary people for a while because they don't know that they could be trusted not to say something that's going to get the network in trouble.
	You know, the Biden campaign has been pulling ads, so they kind of recognize that they are a part of this.
	They are culpable.
	That does seem to be some sort of recognition.
	Whether that will last is a different story.
	The mouthpiece is that they're going to do what they do, but the network seem to understand that this is the moment to pull back at least, so they're submitting some culpability there.
	What if the shoosher was trying to impress a girl?
	What if the girl was an e-thot like Nicolou?
	I have no idea what that means.
	The Wigan Survivalist says, according to the New York Post, the shoot was part of a 2022 commercial for Blackrock.
	Yeah, he was.
	They did a feature on his school and he was like in a couple of frames, so I don't put a lot of stock in there.
	I think it's, you know, as much as I dislike Blackrock and I think that they're the source of many of the woes of the Western world, I think that may well have been a coincidence.
	I don't know for certain, but I don't think it's good PR for them to have an attempted assassin in one of their promotional videos.
	Yep.
	Lancia Enjoyer says, everybody who said Trump is Hitler must be arrested.
	So this is interesting actually, because if an individual Did what the media as a whole has been doing.
	I did check it is I think it's culpable homicide or something like that or aggravated culpable something something like that.
	That if it was an individual they could it was a crime and they could be arrested but the problem is it wasn't an individual it was thousands of them.
	So you can't really arrest an individual?
	I mean it'd be nice but if it's football you'd call it an assist?
	Yeah so I think it's harder to get a conviction on that if it's a political candidate because normally there are exceptions at least in British law which you know a lot you know the common law of Britain and that liberal constitution was carried over to the state so I would need to look at it but I wouldn't be surprised if there Let me just pick a last comment from Screwtape Blazers who said, Yep, that's essentially my angle.
	This was a planned assassination, but done in the open.
	tape lasers who said they who did this to trump did it in the same way as they stole the election out in the open with the world to see the tools of bureaucracy and media manipulation yeah but that's essentially my angle this this was a planned assassination but done in the open before i was for my segment lord nerevar says i have to say i like this fan's got a lot so far we're With any luck, he won't turn out to be a sodden cuck like Pence turned out to be.
	I didn't expect that insult to be there.
	Kobe Kin-sh-doc, I think I've pronounced it.
	Vance is a third gen Ohioan and a senator from that state that identifies as a Kentuckian.
	I don't know what to make of that.
	That probably matters if you know more about America and live there.
	Sure.
	And I've seen this name.
	You're not getting away from me.
	Josh Firm stripped down to his knickers and lathered in Big Mac sauce.
	What a name that is.
	Thanks for that.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I like a Big Mac as much as the next guy, but I won't cover myself in it.
	JD Vance isn't perfect, but he's much better than Nikki Haley.
	Well, that's, yeah, of course.
	Also, it gives Trump a layer of security as if they kill or impeach him, he will be replaced by someone who is slightly more conservative than he is.
	Similar to what Biden did when choosing Kamala.
	Yes.
	That's true.
	Thomas Howell says, oh this is an AI comment, AI can catalyze good efforts and bad alike.
	It's enabled me, a crap data scientist, to become a passing one capable of feats I wouldn't be capable of in a month of Sundays in hours.
	And yeah, this is frustrating as well because I did a lot of data science at university and paid a lot of money and now I've long since graduated and AI can do some of the work that I was specially trained using special programs.
	With special training.
	Yeah, but it's a bit depressing.
	No, I don't think you should find it that way because.
	If I let's say you gave you and me a data scientist job to do and you let us both use AI, you would go instantly to the right questions and extract the right bits from the answer.
	Whereas I would spend half the time figuring out what the right questions to ask in the first place was.
	I suppose so, yeah.
	But I think it's just, I want to gatekeep my experience as much as possible so it's worth more.
	Selfish, but yes.
	X, Y and Z. Papa Bush came to my uni back in the day, I got bailed up by Secret Service for going for a walk at night and listening to music.
	Oh yes, TMK out of context says manufactured inevitability.
	I really like how these two words perfectly capture Dan's segment.
	Did I say that?
	hard to believe that they just left a roof unattended i think that's it one for your segment there dan oh yes tmk out of content says manufactured inevitability i really like how these two words perfectly captured dan segment did i say that no i said that because i've got an english degree and i went to university and did a degree that i totally could have done all of with ai well that well no it worked no it's worth it for that because that is a really good phrase Manufactured inevitability.
	I like that, I'm going to use that.
	I'm going to put that on a t-shirt.
	Can I just say to the people that are saying that I'm wearing a Miami Vice t-shirt, it says Miami Volvo.
	Do you want to read segments from yours?
	Oh yeah, okay, so what we got.
	Sorry chaps, I agree with Geoff's concerns about AI over the potential benefits.
	I think the problem especially is you're considering AI where it stands now, where arguably It's mainly tall, as you pointed out, but where we would be in 5, 10 or 20 years.
	Yeah, it's a good comment.
	I don't know where we're going to end up next.
	It is, you know, it's got a lot of capability in terms of what we're doing, using it for now.
	And it's all fun and games generating stories and images and data, you know, dating profiles.
	But where we go next is... I want a robot butler that folds my shirts.
	You've got a wife, haven't you?
	Yeah, but she's just not, she's not very good at this stuff.
	But that is the key question for AI.
	Where is it going to be in the future?
	Because the most concerning thing is no one knows.
	AI is pretty worrying but I'm not too worried in the immediate.
	It's still working out which way is up at the moment and it appears to have slowed down in progress from what I can see.
	Feel free to beat me over the head with this comment when Skynet is exterminating us though.
	We did this whole section without anybody saying the word Skynet and we failed right at the end.
	And in terms of slowing down, yeah, but what it's doing is it's chasing the nines.
	So he got, he got 90% of the way there and the whole thing becomes, okay, can it get to 99%?
	And then 99.9, then 99.99.
	And so the rate of, as you get closer to something that resembles intelligence, the rate of progress will appear to slow down.
	But the, the, the bit of accuracy that matters is being closed up.
	Yeah.
	I like this comment as well from Eric Nickerson.
	Isn't AI based on the culmination of human writing in history up to this point?
	That would mean that the AI those historical writers would have had access to would have the same base of knowledge that AI has today.
	And if we just now stopped all new creativity and just allowed AI to create for us, surely the pool of stuff that it would produce would stagnate fairly quickly because the resources it's drawing on would therefore be finite.
	If you just use the AI and then stop there as opposed to using it to solve the blank page problem and then did something with that.
	Then AI can effectively stagnate.
	Last couple then.
	Lance Llewellyn, AI doesn't make creative people obsolete.
	It challenges them to be better, as you said.
	AI can only imitate based on what it has in its data banks.
	It cannot think outside its own sandbox.
	A true creative is thus challenged to never be lazy, to always keep finding new ways to look at things.
	As each new work is absorbed into the collective, the creative's phaser must once again change frequency, live long and prosper.
	Yeah, similar to what we just said.
	So, I've got something to read out here, because I've asked ChatGPT the breakfast question.
	So, if you're not familiar with that, how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?
	This is a hypothetical that is used to test a basal level of intelligence.
	Humans and human beings sometimes fail this question, certain communities.
	And they say, if I didn't have breakfast this morning, I might feel less energetic and possibly a bit distracted.
	And it says breakfast provides the necessary nutrients and energy to start the day, so missing it could impact my focus and productivity.
	People might experience hunger and decreased concentration.
	It goes on and on, but basically... Can you ask it what that chirping noise means?
	We might be running out of time now.
	We can overrun for... Right, while we get the answer to this important question.
	Okay.
	If I have...
	Chirping in my hallway, what might it be?
	Smoke detector!
	Good God.
	Last one.
	Someone online says, does Dan know that the AI art generators are inbreeding?
	There's so much AI art out there now that it's accidentally being fed back into the AI and degrading the output quality.
	That's an interesting thought, isn't it?
	Yes.
	We're going to get only artwork of the Habsburgs by the end of it, aren't we?
	Yes.
	Because the AI is only ever generating from its data bank of AI.
	Yes, and the volume of speed at which digital content can be produced, that should become the majority soon.
	Yeah.
	I'm sure smart people are thinking about how to solve that.
	I think they are.
	Well, our producer is suggesting that we should ask AI if you should subscribe to the website of the Lotus Eaters, but we already know the answer to that.
	Yes, you should.
	So, thanks very much to Jeff by his cars, and Joshua, and me!

▲