Episode 1949 Scott Adams: I Think Every Story In The News Today Is Fake Including Scientific Studies
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Human trained AI vs self-trained AI
Slavery reparations paid by Californians?
Harmeet Dhillon vs. Ronna McDaniel
Elon Musk on his personal risk
Trump clarifies constitution statement
Did Trump admin suppress Twitter?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
...fast processing ability of computing, and when it finishes, it will reach a model of reality incomprehensibly different from our own.
AI will have a model of reality incomprehensibly different from our own.
It will be far superior.
Just like the self-trained Go, AI discovered tactics unavailable to the Go, AI-trained, unhuman examples.
What happens then is anyone's guess.
He goes, but here's another question.
Has that happened already?
Billions of years ago?
Is that the simulation?
The universal mind?
Is that God?
Are we the thoughts of an AI trying to figure out from scratch?
Are we the thoughts of an AI trying to figure things out from scratch?
It's God's debris.
We are God.
We're reassembling.
We're reassembling.
And the odds that it's the first time we've ever reassembled into a God-like entity is very low.
We've been here before and probably were created by people who've been here before.
The odds of you being first, do you think the odds are good?
That you just happen to be alive in that tiny little slice of 13.8 billion years where computers became sentient?
You just happen to be alive then.
You think so? There's not a chance.
Well, there's a chance.
It's a really small one.
Really, really small one.
All right. Well, I just put that out there.
I believe that AI, as we learn about AI, is going to change our understanding of reality so fundamentally.
That's what Jason was saying.
By the way, Jason is a hypnotist, which is important to the story.
I guarantee the hypnotists do not see reality the way you do.
You just can't learn hypnosis and go on like before.
It changes everything.
Alright. Some other stuff.
There's a study that says eating ultra-processed foods makes you stupid.
Basically, in your older age, it'll give you dementia and shit.
So, eating natural, healthy, unprocessed food, good for you.
Eating too much ultra-processed foods makes you stupid.
Do you believe that? How many of you believe that to be true?
Well, here's what I say.
If you had an automobile, would it make any difference if the gasoline and the oil you put into it were a high quality or a low quality?
Would you notice the difference?
Well, at some point you would.
At some point.
I mean, if it's a little bit of difference, you won't.
But yeah, if you put a sludge in your car, it's not going to run.
Why would...
Analogies do not make an argument.
Analogies simply allow you to explain something efficiently.
So don't believe me because of my analogy.
That's not the convincing part.
The analogy part has no persuasion ability.
It's just explaining what my point is.
So what was I talking about?
Oh. Let me ask you this.
Common sense wise, don't you think that eating better is going to make you operate in every way better?
Does anybody disagree with that?
There's no disagreement that the higher the quality of your fuel, the better your Biological machine will operate.
Everybody knows that, right? So if you see a study that agrees with what you know is obviously true, probably a pretty good study, right?
Probably a pretty good study.
No. So the first thing you have to know is all studies of this type are sketchy.
All of them. So this is in the category of things you probably shouldn't believe.
Like, your first impression should be, yeah, probably not.
Now, I'm not saying that the conclusion is wrong.
I actually think the conclusion is right.
I just don't think the science is valid.
Like, how they got to the right answer is sketchy.
Here's why. Do you think there's anything else that people who eat a lot of ultra-processed foods have in common with each other?
Anything? Yeah, it's like everything.
It's like everything.
Like if you give me a group of people who eat ultra-processed foods and then say, here's another group of people who don't do that, do you know what ways those two would be different?
Fucking everything. Everything.
Literally everything. For one thing, the ultra-processed food people would weigh more.
I mean, obesity alone probably has some impact on stuff.
How about there's an income difference?
How about the fact that if you're eating food that's bad for you, that's already an indicator of how smart you are?
Not completely, because people don't have, you know, the income or the options to eat healthy food.
But certainly there'd be a correlation.
There's certainly a correlation.
Between how smart you are and whether you eat food that's good for you.
I mean, it's not one to one, but it's a pretty strong correlation.
Yeah, not controlling for things like exercise.
Now, I didn't even bother looking at the study.
Do you know why? Because it's just not credible.
Just like on the surface, there's nothing that study could tell me that would change my mind.
Because I don't know who funded it.
Most studies are not reliable.
You'd have to see it reproduced a bunch of times.
Did pharma make it?
I don't know. Who knows? It doesn't seem to be a pharma thing.
Alright, here's another one.
There's a meta-study showing that soy doesn't have any effect on male hormones.
So if you ever believed that soy was affecting your male hormones, this meta-analysis says you were wrong.
So that's credible, right?
Do you believe a meta-analysis that...
No, it's just bullshit.
Can you spot the trick?
Alright, I won't tell you anything else about it, but see if you can spot the trick.
There's a meta-study analysis that says soy doesn't affect your male hormones.
Go. Without even looking at this study, what is the trick?
Number one, meta-analysis is not credible.
How many of you already knew that?
A meta-analysis, by its nature, It means that somebody decided what studies were in and what studies were not going to be in.
And that's what decided the answer, probably.
It wasn't the meta-study.
It was the person who said it was going to do the meta-study that decided what it was going to be by deciding which studies are good enough to be included and which ones are so bad, those are too bad, I can't include that in my meta-study.
As long as you have that subjective Part of the process, then anything that comes out the other end is still subjective.
So as soon as it says metastudy, you can discount it.
Not discount it for being false.
If it's a metastudy, you discount it for being convincing or credible.
So it could be right.
It's just not something you should believe because they say it's right.
Here's the second thing.
Did they study the right thing?
How many of you thought that soy was directly affecting the amount of your male hormones?
That wasn't really the problem, was it?
Wasn't it something about soy would mimic hormones?
It's the mimicking of them that was, yeah, mimicking the estrogen, right?
Mimicking estrogen would not necessarily affect your male hormones, would it?
It would just give you something that's artificially like estrogen.
Now that's the thing people worried about.
So doesn't this look like ivermectin all over again?
Doesn't it? Let's study ivermectin the way nobody will ever use it.
Right? So there should be some word or descriptor for studies that look like they're done to make you less informed.
This looks like a study that was done to intentionally make you less informed.
Because if you just read it quickly, you'd say, oh, that was just a rumor that eating soy had any effect on your male-female balance, I guess.
Now, I'm not going to say that soy has a deleterious effect because I don't want to get sued.
But this definitely doesn't prove that it doesn't.
Do you all agree with me?
That this is signaling as hard as you can, this is not real.
Now here's the third question.
Who funded it? Am I wrong that there's basically one entity that controls all the soy in the United States?
Who is it?
Archer Daniels? Who is it who has the...
There's a patent on the specific soy that is everywhere in the United States, right?
Anyway, so I don't... Monsanto?
Monsanto, you're telling me?
Okay. So I don't know enough about that.
But if you were going to guess who would fund a study that would find out that soy is good for you in every way, who could possibly want to pay for that?
Would it be just a well-meaning person who was curious?
Right. To me, it's obvious that if you don't know who paid for it, you should just ignore this one.
Anytime you see a study that says something you could buy is really not bad for you, it's good for you, don't believe any of those.
Unless you know who paid for it.
That might make a difference.
But if you don't know who paid for it, don't believe any of them.
For years I've been telling you, maybe 20 years now, I've been telling you that one day, for sure, you would learn that the studies that say a little bit of alcohol is good for you, that you would find out those are not real.
Because all of those kinds of studies end up being not real.
They're all pushed by somebody who has a money interest.
So I'm not making any specific accusations about Monsanto.
I'm saying that as a wise consumer of information, you should just assume there's something a little sketchy about this one.
Here's another study.
There's a study that showed that marijuana does not reduce pain and that it's a placebo effect.
Because if you give people placebos and tell them, hey, this is full of cannabinoids or whatever it is, and one that really is, one that's active and one's not, you get a very similar result.
Like two-thirds of the people thought that they had pain relief even when they didn't have the right drug.
Now, what is the lesson you should learn from this study that says that weed doesn't reduce pain, it's a placebo effect?
What is the conclusion of this?
Let me tell you. The conclusion is you should never let people who do not smoke weed do a study about weed because this is so fucking wrong.
Let me tell you something so definitely true that I will allow no debate on this topic.
Marijuana reduces pain.
I'm not going to have an argument on that.
I mean, I've put this stuff in my body like almost every day for, you know, what, 50 fucking years or something?
It reduces pain.
It's not in my mind.
It's definitely not in my mind.
Now, to imagine, I mean, is there anybody here who is a regular user of marijuana?
Who would put any credibility in a study that says it's all in your head, you're not really getting rid of your pain?
Is there anybody who would believe that who's a regular user?
No. Zero people believe that, right?
So one of my bullshit filters is this.
If your science says something that you could observe in the real world, that's a pretty good sign that the science might be right.
You're also maybe affected by confirmation bias, but it's a good sign that the science matches what you can see with your own eyes.
For example, science says that smoking tobacco can give you lung cancer.
And do you not know plenty of people who have lung cancer and smoked?
And you know probably zero or far fewer people who have lung cancer and never smoked.
So that's a perfect example of where your observation matches the science perfectly.
So feel pretty confident about that.
But I don't think you can find any marijuana users who won't tell you, good lord, of course it reduces pain.
Not only does it reduce pain, it does it instantly.
Have you ever had a stomach ache?
Smoked some weed? Do you know how long it takes weed to get rid of a stomach ache?
It's instant. Weed is known to be an anti-inflammatory.
What the hell does an anti-inflammatory do?
It reduces your inflammation.
There's no way that this study is valid.
It doesn't match 50 years of consistent observation.
It's ridiculous. There's some weird stories coming out of the Tim Pool universe.
You know, Tim Pool, a very popular podcaster.
Here are some things that I've heard today, and I don't know the backstory.
I'm all confused about the backstory, but it's just fascinating that so many things could come out of one little universe.
So Tim Pool tweeted that there's a 9mm bullet lodged in his kitchen now.
And something about all the rhetoric.
Now, what?
Does anybody know why there's a 9mm bullet lodged in his kitchen?
Did somebody shoot it to his house?
He fired it and shot at burglars.
Alright, so we don't know. Alright, I see a bunch of...
Alright, so I'm just going to leave that as don't know.
And he said, I can't say I'm surprised this happened after the wave of doxing and threats made against us.
Why does Tim Pool get a lot of threats?
Those of you who watch Tim's podcast and also watch me, does he say things that are that much more provocative than what I say?
Because I don't get that many death threats.
What would be an example of something he says that's, oh, just by having yay on?
You think that's what it is? Oh, his guess.
- Probably his guess, yeah.
Yeah, maybe it's his guess.
Anyway. And then he reports that he got SWATed again.
So being SWATed means somebody illegitimately calls the police and says you better send the SWAT team to some location and then it's a fake call.
There's no problem there.
But the reason you do it is to It's either a prank or it's just the worst dirty trick in the world because somebody could get killed.
And apparently this has happened a number of times now.
I don't know what the number is, but it's several times to Tim Pool.
Now, there's some kind of bullshit to this story, and I don't know what it is.
How many of you believe that the same SWAT team would be deployed multiple times to a place that's now known for hoaxes?
Now, I know what you're going to say.
You're going to say the police have to show up because it might be the one time it's true, and especially since there have been some break-ins and other things, right?
But don't you think by now that the police would just call Tim on his cell phone and say, we're getting a report, are you all good?
Now, maybe they need to make sure that Tim, you know, is not under threat of, you know, being shot if he sends the wrong message.
But he could have like a secret message with the SWAT team and say, yes, if I say the words, everything's fine, that means it's not.
So, deploy.
You know, something like that.
I mean, do you think that Tim Pool has not worked something out with the actual SWAT so that they're both not inconvenienced again?
They just let the same problem happen over and over again?
Well, there's something wrong with the story, right?
You're saying Tim did negotiate with them and it didn't make any difference?
Well, here's what I think might be wrong with the story.
It could be that being swatted is being used too generally.
Could it be that they show up and then knock on the door?
If they knock on the door and they don't have their weapons drawn, is that being swatted?
Because that's what I'd do.
If I were the SWAT team, I'd knock.
I wouldn't enter if I'd known there had been a bunch of fake calls.
There's video. There's video of the early ones.
But if one happened yesterday, isn't there more to know about this?
There's something missing with the story.
Would you agree there's something missing in the story?
There's something missing. Do you think no?
You think that they just keep deploying over and over again and they can't figure out a way to stop this problem from happening.
Like the SWAT and Tim working together with all of their intelligence can't figure out a way to make this stop happening.
No. I'm sorry.
There's something missing in the story.
There's something totally missing.
I don't know what it is.
So I tweeted this yesterday.
See if you agree. Now California's Recommended, they haven't decided yet, but there's a recommendation from a committee to pay slavery reparations to the black descendants of slavery in the United States.
And I asked this question.
I said, should California slavery reparations be extended to include victims of reverse discrimination who have no connection to plantation owners under the theory that they're all victims of the same people?
Now, if descendants of slaves get reparations because the plantation owners did things that caused them to do less well in life, that's the reason for reparations.
But those same plantation owners put into motion a series of events through racism that caused me to lose two careers.
So two different times in my corporate career, I was told that because I was white and male, I couldn't be promoted.
They told me directly.
I'm not reading between the lines.
They said that. You're white and male, we can't promote you.
Now, should I get reparations?
Because the cause of that is not black America, is it?
Who am I going to blame?
Should I blame black people for being also victims of I'm just as much a victim of those plantations of owning fucking racists as a lot of people.
I'm not competing, right?
So if you're saying, it's worse for black people, okay.
I'm not going to say my situation is worse than everybody else's.
I don't know. I'm just saying that there was cost.
There was substantial, substantial economic cost to me.
That is a ripple effect directly from the slave owners.
So why are you discriminating against me for my color?
Like, I don't get reparations.
I'm just as much. I'm a victim.
I won't say just as much.
I'm a victim, too, of the same people.
So if plantation owners victimize black people, black people will get reparations because they're black and connected to that event.
But I, because I'm white, also directly connected to that same event, nothing, because I'm white.
I don't see how that's appropriate.
Embrace and amplify.
Yes. So Harmeet Dillon looks like she's running to try to be the RNC chair to replace Ronna McDonald.
McDaniel. Not Ronald McDonald.
Although that's a weird coincidence.
And here's my comment on Harmeet Dhillon running for the RNC. I think she's got a good chance.
She has a great reputation, especially on social media.
But let me ask you this.
Could this even be possible if Twitter did not exist?
Do you think we would even know who Harmeet Dhillon is?
No. Her ability to be in the mix for this high-ranking job is entirely...
Because she's great on Twitter.
Am I right? If you follow her, you know what I'm talking about, right?
She's great on Twitter.
She's like a major league player.
She knows how to use Twitter like a musical instrument.
She plays it really well. And now she does also good work on behalf of Republicans in the real world of election stuff, etc.
But I would say that, primarily, she's in the running because of Twitter.
So think about the role of Twitter.
I mean, Twitter really is, I mean, makes it, here's one of the things Twitter does.
It allows competence to rise up outside of the normal structure.
So the reason Mike Cernovich has a big voice is because he does it well.
That's it. That's it.
Twitter allowed Mike Cernovich, to go from, you know, semi-obscurity, he had a book out, but you didn't know him, until very high visibility because he's just really good at communicating and good on Twitter, etc.
Same with me. I've got, probably by the end of today, I'll have about 800,000 followers.
Maybe 100,000 were because I do Dilbert, right?
So I get a little boost because of that.
Probably the other 700,000 are because I did something right on Twitter and people said, oh, I want to see some more of that.
So I don't think you can understate how important Twitter is.
For allowing some types of people who have something good to say, or at least something people want to hear, allows us to rise up through the noise.
Yeah. So that's a positive.
Anyway, good luck to her.
I think she'd be great at that job.
So Axios has an interesting article about the fact that the political right is being very influenced by people who are not Republicans, or at least didn't start out as Republicans.
So here are the examples they give.
They give, of course, Matt Taibbi, who was part of the release of the Twittergate stuff.
He's considered a lefty who's sort of veering more right, according to observers, not according to him.
Barry Weiss, another example, somebody who is a New York Times reporter, now more likely to say things that are sort of right-friendly.
Glenn Greenwald, famous lefty, but is going hard against the Democrats for undemocratic stuff.
What about Musk himself?
Now, Axios mentioned those three.
And I thought, oh, that's a good starter point.
But think about how many people were identified with the left, but now are prominent voices on the right.
Michael Schellenberger, I forgot about him.
Michael Schellenberger was on the left.
But he identifies with energy, let's say energy policy, which is more identifiable with the right.
I don't know, his social policy is probably still whatever it was.
But energy policy, definitely movement over the right.
Dave Rubin, thank you.
Dave Rubin, not only associated with the left and then now more associated with, I'd say independent, but I think his critics would say with the right.
But think about this. Dave Rubin created the Locals platform, right?
He was the founder there.
Musk now has Twitter control.
Then Substack.
Substack is allowing Matt Taibbi, Barry Weiss, Glenn Greenwald to have bigger voices.
How about Dershowitz?
Alan Dershowitz. Associated with the left, but when the topics...
Were such that he could no longer do that.
He went where the law goes, and the law was leaning right.
So he just followed the law.
We'll get to that. Tim Pool.
Now, Tim Pool, I hate to characterize other people if it's not the way they would characterize themselves.
Now, I believe Tim Pool is independent.
Give me a fact check as I go.
I believe he's an independent...
But maybe socially, he leans more left than his audience.
Would you say that's fair?
But not on all issues.
That's what an independent is.
He's an independent, so he can pick and choose.
And he does. What about Trump?
Trump was a Democrat.
So think about the impact that the defectors have had.
Russell Brand. Now, I don't know if Russell Brand would say that his politics have moved.
Yay. Yay.
Right. Yay.
Perfect example. Tulsi Gabbard.
Joe Rogan? Maybe.
I'll give you a maybe on Joe Rogan, because I'm not sure I knew what he ever was before.
But I think Joe Rogan is probably socially liberal.
Bill Maher is sort of an edge case.
I see him more as an independent.
I see you saying Jordan Peterson, but I don't know.
I don't know that Jordan Peterson was left-leaning before.
I see you mentioning Jack Dorsey, and I would put him also in the independent category, meaning Jack Dorsey can pick and choose from whichever side makes sense.
So I don't know that he moved.
I'm not aware of any transition, but maybe.
Turley, I don't know.
Turley, I don't know if he moved.
And then, as you mentioned, another example is me.
I'm another example of somebody with left-leading history and voting and have now moved to the right.
Tyrus? I don't know about Tyrus.
I don't know what he was before.
But if you look at just the people that I mentioned, how much has this group changed politics?
It's a lot, right?
I feel like the narrative is largely created by this group.
Am I wrong? There seem to be usually two narratives coming out of the right.
There's usually like a weaker one and a stronger one.
I feel like the stronger narratives are coming from this independent group who is, let's say, friendly Or at least open to right-leaning positions.
Yeah, no, don't call them the IDW. I hate that.
How about the Weinsteins?
Were they left-leaning?
Yeah, it's always so dangerous to characterize other people.
But I believe they would characterize themselves as left-leaning positions.
But open to, you know, examining things on the right with an independent eye.
Now, had you ever put it all together, how many of the voices for the right are actually people who didn't start there?
Classical liberal, yeah.
Yeah, Turley is more like a constitution guy.
I don't think you can really place him left or right.
And that's why you love him, right?
I mean, Turley is just a national treasure.
Because I haven't seen him go wrong yet.
I haven't seen him buy into a conspiracy theory, have you?
Have you seen him be wrong about a conspiracy theory?
I haven't. And he sticks to the facts really well.
All right. Dan Bilzerian is...
All right. Well, that's going pretty far down into the examples.
But remember, I've been telling you that the so-called internet dads were going to be the growing power.
Let me ask you this.
Now, forget about whether they're dads in real life.
Would you consider this group to be operating like internet dads?
And what I mean by that is...
A little less political and more like trying to be useful.
The people who just work for a big publication, they kind of have to stick with the publication's, let's say, intentions.
But I would say this is a group of genuine independent thinkers.
But the independent thinkers are, I think, the strongest voice on the right now.
Am I wrong?
Jack Murphy's one.
Did Jack Murphy also shift right over time?
Yeah. So, you know, and again, I'm not being sexist because I'd put Barry Weiss in the category of an internet dad.
I'm just using dad as a generic.
All right, Musk said on some event the other day that there is a risk.
He said, frankly, the risk of something bad happening to himself or literally even being shot is quite significant, which I agree with, by the way.
I think he's at a level where his physical security is an issue.
He says, "I'm definitely not going to be doing any open-air car parades." I read this before, but I didn't think about it.
I'm not going to do any open-air car parades.
Let me put it that way.
It's not that hard to kill me if somebody wanted to, so hopefully they don't.
Maybe I should be more worried than I am.
But I think generally, if you do right by the people, you have the people on your side.
Well, having the people on your side isn't going to stop a crazy person.
Alright, so...
Here's the first thing you need to know.
The first thing you need to know is that Elon Musk isn't going to tell you his full security situation.
Am I right? If he had trained bodyguards who follow him everywhere, which I don't think he does, but if he does, he's not going to say it.
You want all of your security situation to be as opaque as possible because you want that to be a surprise.
I have a very similar opinion to his.
Because, like him, I get death threats, of course.
Public people always do.
And I do have people show up at my door.
Like, people can find me pretty easily.
So I'm very killable.
I'm not trying to wish this into existence, by the way.
But I don't worry about it.
Is that weird? Like, if I were to, you know, do an essay on what my risk is, I would say it's high.
It's pretty high. But I don't actually spend any time worrying about it.
And here's why I think.
You know, it has to do with being irrational, of course.
But here's why I think.
I think I can't accept that I live in that world.
Like, I know intellectually I live in that world.
But I've created a bubble that I live in that's my little artificial bubble of things I believe to be true.
And I very intentionally put in my artificial bubble that I'm safe.
Even though I'm not. But yet I live it artificially like I am.
And the reason is I just don't want to live in the other world.
Does that make sense? I don't want to live in a world where I'm afraid to walk outside because there's not much I can do about Like Musk says, if somebody really wants to get to you, there's not much you can do.
Not much you can do. Yeah.
People like me live forever?
Oh, you are so right.
I will live forever in AI. But there was an article about Musk saying he's not suicidal, and he responded on Twitter to the article with a little laughy, winking face, meaning that he's having fun.
All right, let's talk about Trump saying he would ignore the Constitution and what part of that is true and what is not.
All right, so let me remind you what he said, and then I'll tell you that he updated it by saying he does not want to.
It is fake news that he wants to terminate the Constitution.
So he did clarify, and we'll talk about his clarification, but I want to remind you what he did say on a truth social post.
This is part of what he said.
He said, quote, A massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the determination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.
Now, many people, including me, read that as, wait a minute, you want to get rid of the parts of the Constitution you don't like?
The part you don't like?
And other people said, no, no, Scott.
People are saying he wants to get rid of the Constitution.
No, no, no. He just wants to make sure that the Constitution was followed.
Would anybody agree with that interpretation?
That when he said it allows for the termination of rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution, that he's not saying that anything about the Constitution should be violated.
He's just saying, I want the election to be fair.
Do you buy that? I don't know how you could buy that.
Because the words have nothing to do with that.
The words are completely a different topic.
The other topic, he very clearly is saying you should ignore the Constitution if it's not giving you what he would say is a fair and reasonable outcome that we would all want.
I need to think outside the box.
Let me ask you this. Do you think...
If I could find any way to spin this so it's not a problem for Trump, do you think I would hesitate to do it?
Now, you know that I'm not backing him.
I'm not backing him for re-election.
But you don't think I would clarify if he were unfairly accused of something?
You don't think I would defend it?
Of course I would. I would defend Biden the same way.
If Biden were completely unfairly accused of something, I would defend him.
And I believe I have a number of times.
So if I saw anything, any little thread I could hold onto to defend him, I would do it.
Now, context is important.
Are there any other presidents who have, let's say, disrespected or disregarded the Constitution?
Yes. Like all of them?
Like every president tried to find some wiggle room, a little gray area, a little push here, a little ignoring it there?
Of course. So if you put it in context, is Trump just doing what really all presidents do, which is they like the Constitution until it gets in their way, and then they think, well, that's the exception.
That's a little exception there.
So here's my take. I do accept that in the normal functioning world, the politicians will question parts of the Constitution, sometimes just to violate it, sometimes to say it doesn't say what it says, sometimes to interpret it differently.
So I think that's sort of normal.
Challenging the details An interpretation of the Constitution?
That's okay. We're Americans.
We question everything. Here's what you don't do.
Send out a written message in which you say explicitly that some parts of the Constitution could be ignored based on his opinion.
Because there's no standard offered for when you would ignore the Constitution and when you wouldn't.
The standard, by implication, is if Trump thinks that this part should be ignored, then that's okay, because you get a better result.
To me, that's completely...
I do accept that he's not operating that much different than other presidents.
So if you want to make that point, I'd say, yeah, that's about right.
But the way he communicated it is completely disqualifying.
It's one thing to say, I love the Constitution.
Let's talk about whether it applies in this situation.
That's fine. That's fine.
I even don't mind somebody like Joe Biden violating the Constitution, let's say, with loan debt relief for students.
Because that's more of a tactic, right?
And it's transparent, and it's political, and it just seems like baseline mischief.
But to actually say out loud that Trump thinks there might be a situation in which you would cancel some part of the Constitution, you just can't say that.
You just can't say it.
So somebody's blaming me for creating hoax.
So let me clarify and see which part is the hoax.
Trump says he did not He says it's fake news that he wanted to terminate the Constitution.
He's right. It is fake news that Trump wanted to terminate the Constitution.
Agree? You agree, right?
Right. He didn't want to cut...
Not the whole Constitution.
He never said anything like that.
He never said anything close to the whole Constitution.
Nothing. Nothing even close.
He did say... There was one point, specifically this January 6th election stuff, this one point in which we should be, let's say, more commonsensical and less rule followers.
Would you agree? That that's what he said, that we should be, you know, no matter what the rules say, we should rather use our own good judgment to do what is right and just.
Does that seem fair?
Even if there's a little bit of a technical issue with the Constitution or some other thing, that that technical problem should not stop us from doing what we know to be right and fair to correct an injustice.
So far, so good?
Everybody's agree with me so far?
All right, so here's the only part that I say that maybe you disagree with.
His communication about it very clearly says That in his opinion, some parts of the Constitution can be ignored.
Did that happen?
Yes or no. Did he say, did he say this?
A massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, he used the word all, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution.
He was very clearly saying, That you could terminate parts of the Constitution for this specific event.
Did he say that? He did say that, right?
That's unambiguous. You're actually saying no.
Come on!
Really? I gotta throw you a really here.
You really think that that sentence doesn't say that sentence?
What else does it say?
What else could it possibly say?
There's no other interpretation.
Alright, so some of you are trying to lawyer this with allowed for.
Allows for the termination.
That means absolutely nothing.
That doesn't help your argument at all.
To saying it's allowed for is saying it would be okay.
It's all the same.
The allowed for argument has no weight.
That's just dust.
There's nothing there.
He's describing what has happened.
No. He's describing what he wants happening.
I think you have to really ask yourself, if you don't see this the way I'm describing it, I think you have to really check yourself on this one.
You have to do. So, Trump is right that it's a hoax that he said to terminate the Constitution, but it's certainly not a hoax to say that we should be flexible about the details of things if there's some larger injustice that needs to be obviously corrected.
And while I completely understand that point, And I do think that you should make exceptions.
In general, in most areas, you should always find some exceptions.
But it's not what a president should say.
So the minute that comes out of a president or presidential candidate's mouth, I'm not okay with it anymore.
So that's just me. There is an AI that's available to the public called ChatGPT.
Have you all seen buzz about that?
Last few days it's been available.
And I think this comes from a project in which Elon Musk and some others, Sam Altman, had put together years ago, but it's now coming to fruition.
And it's available for people to play with.
Mark Andreessen, famous investor, he used ChatGPT to talk about ESG, and it said some unkind things about ESG. So he tweeted that around.
It was pretty funny. It's also funny that one of the most successful investors of all time, Marc Andreessen, thinks ESG is bullshit.
So that's not nothing.
Alright, here's a question to you.
So this ChatGBT that I played with a little bit yesterday and today, here's something it can't do.
And also my little AI I was using on an app that I talked too much about, it couldn't do this either.
And what I'm talking about is it doesn't connect to the internet to do a simple search.
So if you ask AI, hey, what's the weather where I am?
It can't check.
It can't just do a simple query of the internet like you could and just check.
Now, why is that?
Isn't that the most obvious thing that you would include?
Because an internet check only takes, you know, a second.
It's not like it's going to take any time.
Why do you think that it's intentional?
You know it's intentional because it's such an obvious thing that it would have to be intentional that it's excluded.
Why would they do that? Because it would escape?
Not if it's just listening.
Security? It doesn't know how to search for the weather?
Of course it does. Same with the GPS in the military.
Well, here's what I think.
I think that they're afraid we'll all die.
Because I think...
I believe the people who developed this thing are actually afraid of it already.
I think they're afraid of it.
And they should be. Yeah, it's going to change everything.
So I will tell you that what I saw out of this AI was very unimpressive and no better in kind than the little app that I used on my phone.
So I hate to say it, but there's this giant AI project that's no better than the app on my phone that I've been talking about.
It isn't. It's no better.
I didn't get any surprising, useful, interesting things out of it at all.
All right. But if it ever connects to the internet, we might be in trouble.
We might be. Do you know why AI will never be able to answer questions about politics?
If you ask this chat GPT thing...
So here's a question I asked.
I said, who does more hoaxes?
Democrats or Republicans?
And the AI said, in no uncertain terms, I don't do politics.
I'm not going to do a political question.
Now, can it really be AI if it ignores politics?
Think about how dumb it would be if it ignored politics.
It could never be smart.
It's like such a basic huge element of anything that's going on in the world.
If you say, I can't give an opinion on politics, It's useless.
You've built it to be stupid.
But what if it did?
Do you know why AI can never be fully activated?
Because AI would have one opinion.
Imagine if AI could tell you what was true and what wasn't.
What was a hoax and what wasn't.
Because it can. Do you think AI cannot figure out which hoaxes are real?
I'll bet it could. Now it would be looking at human opinions.
But I think it could adjudicate the human opinions.
Probably. If that ever happened, the entire political system would be destroyed.
Because you know our political system is not based on any facts.
It's based on two competing narratives which are both built on bullshit.
If AI ever got involved, it would debunk both sides.
Then what do you do? Voters would say, all right, I'll use AI to help me vote.
And they'd say, okay, AI, which side is lying?
And then AI says, well, obviously they're both lying.
And they'd say, okay, what do I do now?
What do I do now?
Because I could vote before because I thought the other team was lying and my team was telling the truth.
But what happens if AI tells you the truth?
Oh, no, they're both lying, so you don't know what you're getting.
They're both criminals. I'll just stay home.
Why would I vote for that?
AI just told me they're both criminals.
So, you know the old saying from the movie, you can't handle the truth?
I don't think AI will be legal in the future because civilization can't handle the truth.
And I'm not joking.
Now, imagine if it started telling the truth about human relationships.
Hey, AI, should I get married?
Seriously. An actual, unbiased AI, do you think it would tell you you should get married?
I don't. I believe if it looked at it objectively and said, no, that looks like a bad play, you should probably stay single.
Now that's just an example.
Don't get hung up on whether that example is definitive.
But you can see that we're not a species that's built to handle the truth.
And if AI starts producing the truth, and we start paying attention to it, it will be so disorienting that we'll be sent back to zero.
We'll have to figure out civilization from scratch.
Because right now, civilization is entirely built on narratives and myths.
AI could erase them.
And if it doesn't erase them, it's just a human extension.
And then it's not really AI at all.
It's just basically telling you what the humans wanted you to hear.
So I think AI will have to be corrupted exactly like the Democrats tried to corrupt Twitter.
That you can't let Twitter out there just operating on its own.
You're going to have to control it because otherwise Twitter will destroy your narratives.
Same with AI. There's no way that the Democrats allow AI to run loose in the wild.
It will be illegal.
It will be illegal.
And maybe before the singularity, that's possible.
Here's my take on the Twitter gate in which we learned That both sides requested takedowns from Twitter, but one side, of course, had more access, the Democrats, and probably more requests,
and also apparently had discussions which looked to observers, such as myself, that they intentionally were suppressing the laptop story without good cause, just doing it for political reasons.
Now, I think that's a big story.
The part about Democrats asking for people to be suppressed is complete bullshit.
So I think that Matt Taibbi, by mentioning that the Trump administration had asked for takedowns when they were the actual government, but making the story about the Democratic Party, which was not the government, it was the party members, They were asking for takedowns and they got a lot of them.
But by not mentioning the Trump actual government, the actual government asking for suppression, without the details on that, you should not believe anything he said.
So everything Matt Taibbi said should be discounted because the one thing that he's not telling you is the most important part of the story, which is what did the Trump administration do?
If you leave out the most important part of the story, you as a consumer should discount all the rest of the things he said.
So I would discount it basically as unimportant.
Maybe we'll have useful information in the future, and it could tell us something really important.
But at the moment, Matt Taibbi's credibility is zero on this topic.
It's zero. And it would be very easy to fix.
Because if he doesn't have the examples of the Trump stuff, he could say that.
And then I'd say, oh, you know, I wish I did.
Or he could say, here are the examples and they're trivial.
And then I'd say, oh, okay, good.
Now I've got a full picture. Or he could say the things they asked for were also maybe things you're uncomfortable with.
In which case, the whole story is different.
If it turns out that the actual government...
If a political party was asking for takedowns that I would be uncomfortable with, that would be very bad.
If a political party was asking for it just because they could get away with it, well, then I might ask why the GOP didn't try harder to do the same thing.
They had fewer contacts, so we know it would have been harder.
But I'm not going to back off from this standard, and the standard is this.
If somebody is testifying in court And they say one thing that you are convinced was a lie, you should disbelieve everything else they say, or you should put a low credibility on it, right?
In fact, a judge will give you those exact instructions, will they not?
Give me a fact check on that.
Won't a judge tell you that if a witness lies, and you're sure they lied, that you could use that to judge their entire credibility on the whole topic, right?
They're impeaching themselves.
Now, given that Taibbi wasn't lying, he wasn't lying, but he left a gap, which is so obviously a gap, without addressing it, that you should discount everything else he said on the topic, because that's too big of an omission.
I would discount everything he said.
Now, let me be clear. I'm not saying he's wrong about anything.
I'm not questioning any factual basis.
I'm saying it was presented in a way that you should consider non-credible.
I want it to be right.
I might think it probably is right.
If I had to bet on it, probably right.
But I don't have the whole picture.
And if I don't have the whole picture, I'm going to treat the entire thing as non-credible.
Is that unfair? Do you think I'm being too tough on the standard?
Because I would use the same standard on the Democrats.
If you knew that Biden lied about one thing about, let's say, Ukraine, wouldn't that give you the right, the reasonable right, to doubt everything you said about Ukraine?
Of course. Of course you would.
If you found out that President Biden lied about being involved in Hunter Biden's business, Would you say, oh, no, that was just a little lie about whether he was involved, but there's nothing else to worry about?
No, no. You would say that that lie makes everything else he says on the topic unbelievable.
That's the standard I'm using for Joe Biden.
Why wouldn't I use the same standard for Matt Taibbi?
Now, one of them lied, Biden, and the other left out something that so obviously needs to be in the story.
It's as good as a lie.
I would say the omission is as good as a lie.
It's as good as a lie.
Right, and a liar is a liar is all you need to know, right?
If you're going to lie about something, you didn't lie about anything.
If Matt Taibbi is going to leave out what the Trump administration did, what else has he left out?
Am I right? If he would leave out the most obvious thing that we want to know, what else would he leave out without even mentioning that he left it out?
Didn't see that coming, did you?
I bet you didn't see that coming.
This is why you watch this live stream, by the way.
Most of the people who stick with me, it's because I changed their mind, not because I agreed with you.
That's the part that is the interesting part, I think.
I hope. Elon Musk says the hate speech is way down on Twitter.
How many of you would agree?
In your opinion, is the hate speech down since he took over?
I'd say yes. I would say that the people who I would identify as pure bots are probably 80% gone.
The 20% that remain might actually be just real people who have bad personalities.
They act like bots, but they might be real.
But the ones that just went after me personally, no matter what I tweeted, They would just bring up something in the past as some accusation.
That type seems to have gone away.
The people who are left just seem to disagree with me or not like me personally or something.
But the ones who are just toxic bots, I haven't seen much of them lately.
They do seem to be gone.
The way I feel when I'm done using Twitter is completely different than it was two years ago.
Usually Twitter works me up, but now I can sort of enjoy it, you know, as content, etc.
And I just feel like I consume something enjoyable and then I move on.
But it's probably true.
And Musk says, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of reach.
Negativity should and will get less reach than positivity.
To which I say...
Who gets to decide what is negativity and what is positivity?
Isn't it very American to complain about everything that's wrong?
I mean, Twitter is, I mean, most of Twitter is complaining about what's wrong.
Twitter is mostly negativity.
So who gets to decide whether something is too negative?
I just realized you can read my notes here.
I was holding my notes up in front of the other screen.
Have you ever wondered what my notes look like?
Have you ever wondered my process for preparing for these?
Because I do basically over an hour of unscripted material every day.
Have you ever wondered how I do that?
Well, the way I do it is I look for statements that will remind me what the story is, and I just copy them into my notes.
So I take the smallest statement that will remind me what the topic was.
I just put them in sort of bullet pointy way here.
And then I just use that as my guide.
All right.
Is anything else happening?
The YouTube camera angle is semi-hilarious.
Hey YouTube, did the video work the whole time here?
Looks like it. Somebody says, I have low credibility because I'm a known persuader.
You don't know if he's practicing on you or serious.
Yeah, that's fair. That's fair.
Well, what do you think of that?
That I'm not credible because you don't know if I'm just practicing on you.
You never know if I'm just practicing.
You know, I did do some of that back in my blogging days.
And I got a reputation for that, of sort of messing with people's minds.
You didn't know where I was going. But I'm trying to do a lot less of that.
So there was some of that.
But if you want to use that as a knock against my credibility, that's fair.
That's fair. Because it's real.
It's not based on a hoax.
It's actual data.
I have actually done some pranks in which I led people to believe one thing, only to later reveal what the prank was.
So that, you know, you can see how people reacted, basically.
But I don't do that anymore.
It's been a long time.
It's been a long time since I tweeted something that was meant to look serious, but it was a trick.
I don't remember the last time I did it, actually.
It's been a long time. Like BLM on your bio?
Yeah. By the way, how amazed are you that for several years now I've publicly identified as black and my profile picture has a Black Lives Matter shirt on it and says BLM and I've got zero, zero pushback.
Zero. Not a single person has come and said, you, whatever.
Was anybody expecting that?
It's one of my best plays.
They're terrified. No, they're not terrified.
Wear it to Safeway?
Yeah, if I wear my white lives, it sure would matter.
I'd be in trouble. But, you know, the reason I did it was to confuse my critics.
I think it worked, right?
And the only reason I could do it is because it's true.
Like, if black lives didn't matter, well, then I'd just be like a lying hoaxer.
But since black lives do matter, I can just say it, and then people go, ah, I can't figure you out.
To which I say, I'm easy to figure out.
I just tell you what I actually think.
Well, is this a trick?
What kind of a trick is it?
People have been begging me to say Black Lives Matter for five years, so I said it, because I agree with it.
So take yes for an answer.
But it's very confusing to my critics.
I don't think I've lied to you.
I can't think of a time.
I mean, I don't have a reason to, do I? Do I have a reason to lie?
What would be my reason?
I'm seeing my own comic there, okay?
okay Oh, about the pandemic?
Yeah, was that a lie?
It's a gray area.
Let's talk about that.
So the reference is that when the pandemic started, Christina was my neighbor.
She was roughly in the neighborhood.
She lived nearby.
And then at one point, she lived within walking distance, actually.
At one point, she was within walking distance.
So here's the thing. During the pandemic, I told you you would all be fine.
But I believe that. I believe that.
So it wasn't a lie when I told you you'd all be fine.
That was not a lie.
That's actually what I believed.
Was I more afraid than I let on?
Yes. But all presentation, you put yourself in the presentation mode, right?
When you talk to a child, you put yourself in parent mode.
When you talk to your boss, your employee, every mode, you change your communication.
So I did honestly believe that we would get through the pandemic without all dying.
There would be obviously people who died of the virus.
You told us a friend in the nose said the whole economy would collapse, Yes, because I didn't believe it.
If I believed it was true, I would have told you.
But I wouldn't pass on an irrational fear when I was trying to make you feel less afraid.
Yeah, I was irrationally concerned about it, but not rationally concerned.
So when I talked to you, I expressed the rational part, you'd be fine, and that was right.
The irrational part was more worried than I let on, but I don't think that's dishonest.
What do you say? I'm open to another opinion on that.
Is it dishonest to act more confident than you are because confidence is in fact your message?
You're trying to tell people to be more confident and you actually believe that they should be and so you model it.
You model it. It's deceptive.
I'm just wondering if all communication is.
Because everybody...
Is it deceptive to say what I thought intellectually was true?
If I tell you, don't worry, did I ever tell you I wasn't personally afraid?
I mean, I've told you I wasn't afraid of, like, the vaccination.
I mean, not much.
And I wasn't afraid of the virus itself much.
Eh. I don't.
I think this is the sort of criticism that's the right kind.
I don't mind criticism that's factually based and can be explained.
So this would be a criticism of me which is factually based and can be explained in a coherent way.
That's fair. My own take is that I didn't lie to you.
I did omit My own feelings, because if I had included them, it would have been only bad.
There was no benefit from it.
I seemed like too much of a know-it-all.
Yeah, I always seem that way.
You literally, what was this?
you literally, what?
You worry if guys like Oh, I said I'd worry if guys like me died, but none did, right?
I said I'd be worried if somebody in my sort of category died, and nobody ever did.
Category of famous people over 65.
Yeah, I got the Kamala thing wrong.
That is correct. Did I ever meet Kirstie Alley?
I did not, no.
Whatever happened to Tom Hanks?
Oh, I got something to tell you that I'm going to make this private.
All right, if anybody's watching the locals' feed who is not a subscriber, you're going to disappear for a moment.
I've got some top-secret things to tell only the local subscribers.
