Episode 1967 Scott Adams: Artificial Intelligence Will Be Illegal When It Disagrees With democrats
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Gavin Newsom's reparations committee
Hide the budget to pass it, Omnibus system
Obstructing an official proceeding
AI programmed to be woke
AI must be illegal for politics
Ray Epps testimony won't be released?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Probably not. Well, I know it's cold all over, but if you'd like to warm up, at least on the inside, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
It happens now.
Go. Well, if you're on YouTube, you missed the earlier conversation.
I started a little bit earlier with locals subscribers.
And one of the things that we've collectively decided over on locals, just want to check it with the people here on YouTube.
Would you agree that scrotum is the funniest body parts?
Or balls, if you prefer.
Does anybody have a disagreement?
There's no funnier body part.
Anybody? No disagreement?
Oh, the taint.
The taint. I'm gonna have to run a poll on this.
All right. Bear with me here.
We gotta do a poll. We'll get a result.
What is the funniest body part?
Because this, we have to know.
Funniest body part.
All right. We'll initiate the poll.
Choice one is taint, taint.
Choice two is balls.
I think it needs a third choice.
Spleen? Ballsack.
Oh, anus.
Well, we got taint. That's close enough.
Scroat. Yeah, weenus.
Okay. But nobody's going to vote for this third one, so this is just a placeholder.
Let's see. Let's, uh...
Nostril.
Nostril's funny. Elbow?
Overused. Adam's apple?
Navel? Cock-sick.
Alright, we're going to go with that.
C-O-C-C-Y-X. Is that the correct spelling?
Alright. Send.
And I'll tell you in mere minutes, in mere minutes we will know the funniest body part.
Alright? Now, a lot of times people raise questions and they won't have answers for you.
But not on Coffee with Scott Adams.
When I ask a question, you're going to get an answer.
Yes, you will. Alright, how many of you knew the following thing?
That Tesla has a line of business that you probably never heard about that could very easily be bigger than Tesla, the automobile part.
Did any of you know that? That there's a Tesla power And what they'll be doing is using Tesla Powerwalls in some kind of a network configuration.
So it's like in place of a normal, some kind of a normal grid.
I don't know the entire details.
Is it all solar powered and then stored in Tesla batteries?
But is there also an element where they network them together, right?
For some kind of mutual benefit?
And that's really where the benefit is, right?
Because you can already get a Tesla Powerwall at your house, but I think the additional business is networking them together in some way.
Is that so they can share? Or more efficiently?
I think it's for more efficient storage and sharing, right?
Something like that. Anyway, that could be bigger than all of Tesla.
So not long ago, Musk was at over 200 billion net worth.
Is that right? Was he close to a quarter trillion?
At his peak?
Now it's gone down quite a bit since then.
But if this power wall business takes off, bigger than Tesla, what happens if he starts mining an asteroid?
Do you know how much the value of a company would be if you could actually mine an asteroid?
And he'll probably be the first one there.
That's a trillion dollars.
It's like a trillion dollars if you could mine an asteroid.
So I think he's going to be the first trillionaire.
Would anybody take the opposite bet?
I mean, inflation alone will probably push him to a trillionaire because he's young enough.
But I think he's going to be the first trillionaire.
We'll see. And I don't see anything that Bezos is doing that would grow that quickly, right?
Is there anybody else in any kind of a business that could even possibly grow as fast as his businesses?
I don't think so. All right.
Musk was on Twitter a few hours ago, and he's describing what it's like to figure out how Twitter's technology and even its business works.
And he says that his first tweet was, Fractal of Rube Goldberg machines.
Do you all know what a Rube Goldberg machine is?
It's like an unnecessarily complicated, humorous machine where it's not meant to be taken seriously.
So it's like, it's an example of something over-complicated and bureaucratic and stuff.
So he said, fractal, and fractal, of course, he's adding to his point.
Fractal of Rube Goldberg machines is what it feels like understanding how Twitter works.
And yet work it does.
Even after I disconnected one of the more sensitive server racks.
Now, I'm not sure if you're fully appreciating this set of tweets.
This might be the most baller thing that Musk has ever done.
This is what I think happened, right?
I'm reading between the lines, but I'm filling out the story from these little clues.
This is what I think happened.
Musk says, so what does this server rack do?
Well, it does XYZ, right?
How about this one? Well, I think that does X. And then the other co-worker says, no, no, I'm pretty sure that does Y. And they say, you don't even know if it does X or Y? Well, I'm sure it does.
It's either X or Y, some valuable function.
They ask somebody else and they say some third thing.
We're not really sure what that rack does, but it's vital.
Whatever you do, don't turn it off.
What do you think Musk would do in that situation?
You can't tell me what this does, but I can't turn it off.
That's what you're saying? You can't tell me what it does, but I can't turn it off.
Click. Now, I wasn't there.
I don't have any inside information.
But it might be the funniest thing anybody ever did at any company.
Fucking turn it off.
If you don't know what this is, I'm going to turn it off.
See what happens. Is it just me or is that the funniest thing anybody ever did in an actual corporate setting?
Just turn it off and see what happens.
Like this giant company that's like the brains of the world.
Just turn it off and see what happens.
I don't know. That one story I think, if I'm accurately, you know, interpreting it.
That one story would describe Musk better than all the things he's ever done.
Like, you could just boil it down into that one thing.
Mike Cernovich is wading into the third rail of social media, which is...
And, of course, you've seen me do it to bad result.
But you've often seen me say, That the people who seem to be dying suddenly, so to speak, are just anecdotes.
And while it might be true, there's a good chance that the vaccinations have more, let's say, more harm than benefit for some young people in particular.
Might be true. You know, I don't believe any data at this point.
But Sertovich is going at it hard, and here's just one part of the exchange on Twitter.
And he said, we had a kid at the local high school die during some football events in the 80s.
And he said, that poor kid would be going viral as, quote, proof that the vaccine is killing people if it happened today.
True or false? That kid...
I think it would be true.
If somebody had video of a high school kid falling down during a sporting event, it would be part of the proof that the vaccinations are killing young people.
Now, this is why I appreciate Cernovich.
It's one of the reasons I mention him.
That there's nothing to be gained by this.
You get that, right?
He's taking on a fight.
Nothing to be gained for him.
It's all downside for him.
But it's good for you. It's good for you.
So he's doing it anyway.
Now, I do the same thing.
And some of it is sort of a dad energy sort of thing.
You know, sometimes you just got to do what needs to be done.
You have to be at a certain stage of life before that's even an option, right?
Twenty-year-old me, I don't know, might be more selfish.
Well, not might. 20-year-old me would have done whatever I needed to do to get to be 65-year-old me.
But my current version, in my current version, I kind of have a preference to doing the hard things that might have some value to somebody, even if it's hard for me.
So that's where I get some meaning.
And I'm sure he's getting the same kind of benefit.
So it's not like nobody gets any benefit, but his benefit It's not the obvious kind, where you just say rah-rah to your team and your team all agrees with you.
I mean, he's taking on the hardest social media path, disagreeing with your own followers on something they really care about.
Like, that's a tough path, but he's taking it, so good for him.
Speaking of dad energy, there's a story which I don't know if this is true.
Don't know if this is true.
But I so hope it is that I'm going to treat it like it's true.
Do we all agree with the ground rules?
The ground rules are that I'm not telling you it's true.
And I'm not telling you I would believe such a story, because it's a little bit on the nose.
But it's so good that I'm going to act like it is true.
I just retweeted it.
All right, so this is allegedly, I saw this in a tweet by Tectical Nukes, spelled funny.
And this is allegedly true, all right?
It happened a few days ago, allegedly.
A daughter says that she's trans.
She's in ninth grade. She tells her parents that she's decided she's trans.
And so the father confesses that he's trans too.
Daughter's confused. Dad says, and she says, Dad, no you're not.
And then the dad says, Stop being a bigot, Charlotte.
It's funny that her name is Charlotte.
Somehow that adds to the story that the daughter's name is Charlotte.
I don't know why. That just helps in some way.
Stop being a bigot, Charlotte.
Let's do this together. So the father embraces and amplifies and says, you're trans?
So am I. Let's do this transition together.
So it goes on. So the father, I'll just read his own words.
Sorry, this is the father's words.
Wear dress and makeup next morning, meaning the father does.
Daughter is angry.
Tells me to stop faking.
No, I'm trans, honey.
Now get in the car.
Let's go to school. She's horrified.
Asked to be dropped off a block away.
Nope. Walks her in.
Waved to front desk.
She's fuming. Wife can't stop laughing.
So the wife is in on this too.
Wife can't stop laughing.
Pick up daughter in skirt and heels.
In other words, the father's wearing skirt and heels.
Shitty makeup, glitter on cheeks.
Skip to her and her friends.
So he skips over to them.
And, Dad, stop, it's not funny.
The man she used my pronouns.
The man she used my pronouns.
I call her a bigot.
And next morning she's done with the whole trans thing, begs me to stop.
All right.
If there's one thing I'd like all of us to agree on, in the spirit of Christmas, or the holidays if you prefer, can we all agree that we don't care if it's true?
Can we all just agree on that?
Just agree we don't care if it's true, right?
And if it's not true, don't tell me.
I never want to know that's not true.
Oh, my God.
Now, for the record, for the record, I'm pro-trans, to my detriment with my audience often.
But I'm pro-trans, but it is still nonetheless a fact Some people will be in the category of thinking maybe they should transition and change their mind later.
So that's the thing. They're all types.
There are types who probably are better off for it, and there are types that probably wouldn't be, and why would we ignore either category?
That's my take. All right, so California, as you know, has commissioned...
This is also hilarious.
This is something that Gavin Newsom did.
That I think is an example of embrace and amplify.
Now, I don't think any of you should underestimate Gavin Newsom's political capabilities.
You can dislike his policies.
You can dislike anything he's done, that's fair.
But his political acumen is pretty good.
He's made some mistakes, but generally speaking, he's a solid operator.
So he's got this problem, you know, not too long ago, he had this problem where there was agitation for reparations.
So what does he do?
Does he say, no, we can't do that?
Nope, because that would make his base mad.
Instead, he embraces the idea and he amplifies it by creating a committee that will make specific recommendations of what to do.
What do you think Newsom expected out of the committee?
Did he expect that they would say, no, there's no way to do it?
No, of course not.
Of course not. He expected they would say, yes, do it.
Then what else did he expect?
Because he's smart.
Even if you don't like his politics, he's smart.
What would he expect?
Absolute disaster, right?
And then what would happen to him?
So he's the governor, so he takes it seriously, He's embraced it.
And not only did he embrace it, he amplified it.
He did something. He actually put into action real people, probably a budget, real things, gave it visibility.
He amplified it. What did he expect would happen?
Exactly what happened.
Because there's only one way it could have gone.
It would produce something absurd.
And then he'd be off the hook.
Would you agree that that was intentional on his part?
He knew it wasn't going to be a real recommendation.
He knew it would be ridiculous.
How ridiculous is it?
Let's review. I'm not going to...
Everything I say right now is true.
It'll sound like I just made this up.
It's so ridiculous. So California, that was never a slave state.
California was never a slave state.
Right? Not only was it never a slave state, but it was a state that slaves fled to for a good life.
Because, relatively speaking, it was a pretty good deal to be black in California, relative to other places.
Plenty of jobs. And if there were lots of jobs and you were free, well, you had a job.
So if you're black, you could get a job in California as a free person.
So it was a good place to go.
And you would even get the citizens would defend you.
There's one anecdote of somebody brought a slave from another state.
Do you know what happened? In California, somebody tried to bring one slave into the state.
One slave.
And the locals rose up, black and white, and they fixed it.
They just went down there and fixed it.
One slave in California immediately formed a diverse posse to kick them the fuck out of the state.
So that's what California is and has been.
Anti-slavery to the extreme.
So the committee decided that California should pay for all of the harm that it's caused by being the opposite of the harm that's caused.
That's a real thing. And they actually came up with that as...
So $230,000 each should be paid by citizens such as myself.
So I was raised in New York State, which was never a slave state.
My relatives and ancestors were anti-slavery types from Great Britain.
John Adams, famously.
Probably some remote cousin of mine.
And... So I moved from a non-slave state with relatives who had no slaves and were, in fact, on the other side of the issue, to another most famous non-slave state, and therefore, for my sins, I should pay the people who also were not harmed by the state and had no association with the state whatsoever.
Brilliant. You don't think Gavin Newsom could win the presidency?
He can. He has a lot of game.
I think he's totally underestimated because you don't like his policies.
But here's the thing that he would trick you with.
You would expect that if he moved from governor to candidate for president, which I think will happen at some point, whether this time or next, he would naturally become more moderate because he's not a fucking idiot.
If he became, if he stayed with his, you know, progressive California policies, it'd be hard to get elected in a federal election.
So you kind of expect that he would say, well, I did what I did for the citizens of California because that was my job.
But if my job is the whole country, I will accept that there are different views of how to handle things.
And you should expect I wouldn't handle it exactly the way I would handle it in California, nor should you expect any governor would do that, because it's a different job.
He could kind of explain it away, couldn't he?
And again, I'm not backing Newsom, just in case it looks like that.
I'm just saying that he's a bigger threat than you imagine, because you imagine him running as a crazy Californian, which would not be the winning formula.
But if he runs as the first reasonable Democrat you've seen in a while, he's got sort of an Obama thing that could go on there.
And he even looks good to the black voters because he tried to get reparations.
Sure, it didn't go the way they wanted, but Now, I suppose it's also possible that this reparation thing will actually be passed and become actual law in California.
I seriously doubt it.
But I suppose anything's possible.
All right. Did everybody see the video of Representative Chip Roy from Texas going off on the Omnibus bill?
And he was basically...
He did an excellent job of the angry...
I think he's relatively new in Congress, right?
When did he get elected?
It was not that long ago, right?
So he's got sort of the newcomer situation going on.
And I thought he was magnificent.
He did a good job of shaming his fellow congresspeople.
But what good did it do?
What good did it do?
Will it help? No, of course not.
Because he seemed to be focusing on the personnel problem.
Here's the problem with the omnibus bill.
You could replace every member of Congress with well-meaning different people, and they would end up in the same place.
Does anybody disagree with that?
You can remove every member of Congress, replace them with all new people who hate omnibus bills.
Everyone, they hate these omnibus bills.
And you wait about two election cycles, and they would all be back to omnibus bills.
Now, here's the reason.
The reason is there's nothing wrong with the people.
And they have a goal, wouldn't you say, they have a goal of creating sensible budgets for the country.
That's clearly their goal.
We'd like to create a sensible budget.
But the trouble is they have a system which incentivizes them to hide the budget from the public and go home early.
The entire incentive system, the system, is designed to give us the income we got.
Now, you could say, but why didn't it happen like that before?
Well, things have changed.
Maybe it's social media or whatever it is, so we're more divided or whatever it is.
But something's changed.
So you have to look at the system.
The system has to be tweaked.
And I think we're also trained to look at the candidates that we can't see the problem.
There's no amount of change of candidates that would have anything to do with the omnibus situation.
Now, just if you're new to this, an omnibus bill is where the politicians sort of give up on negotiating, and they just say, well, why don't we all throw our pet projects into one big bill so nobody knows what they're getting?
It'll increase the debt, but that's not our immediate problem.
We get to go home for Christmas vacation.
So they just throw it in this big garbage bill called the nominee bus and go home.
Like not doing their jobs.
So, just say incent?
I don't think incent is a word, is it?
I used to say incent, but I don't think it's a word, is it?
Is incent an actual English word?
It's not, right? It's what you think is a word, but it's not.
You give people incentives, and you incentivize, but you don't incent people, do you?
Am I wrong about that?
Because I used to say it, and I thought I was corrected that it's not a word.
All right, well, we'll figure that out later.
So I think that Chip Roy, he's got the right spirit, he's got the right fight, but he's not doing anything useful.
There's nothing that Chip Roy did that was useful.
I hate to say it, because I'm totally on his side in terms of how he feels about it, but he didn't do anything useful.
The only useful thing anybody could do is to suggest a way to change the system that might change the outcome, to change the incentives.
Did he do that?
Incented. Somebody's saying that incentives weren't.
I will look more into that, because I also wonder if that's a new...
Is it possible that that happened recently?
Was it recently that they allowed it?
Or has it always been a word?
It's always been a word.
So when I was corrected in the past that it was not a word, I should have not listened.
I was pretty sure I looked it up.
I guess I have a false memory.
Like, I have an actual false memory.
Because I have a memory of looking it up and learning it wasn't a word.
Clearly it is, because you're proving it to me in real time.
So that's an actual false memory.
Isn't that interesting? Because it's rare when you can catch yourself in a false memory.
Because usually you think, well, I probably was right.
But this is unambiguous.
It's in the dictionary. So it's a false memory.
We have them so often that we don't realize it.
All right. So, Chip Roy, good start, but you need to come up with a specific suggestion.
I don't know if there's anything you can do short of a constitutional convention, so there might not be anything practical.
But somebody's got to make some ideas.
Like, it might be that you add something to the process instead of modifying it.
It might be something you could add legally.
For example, transparency.
Transparency. Suppose you just made it easy to see what's in it.
Because right now, they do this big write-up you can't figure out.
Suppose you create some legislation that says other legislation has to be clear, or something like that.
Or you said nothing can be passed without a certain number of days of debate.
Would that be legal?
Could they just create a law that says Because they have some power over their internal process, right?
Congress can tweak its own process within reason, as long as they're within constitutional bounds.
So I want to see an actual rule change.
I want to see somebody say, we'll increase, I don't know, the time to do this, or it must be debated, or you must prove you've read it before you vote on it.
It has to be read out in public.
There's probably a variety of things you could do to make it harder to do this and easier to do the right thing.
You know what would be interesting? Anonymous voting.
Even by the politicians.
That would be interesting.
Because you could look at individual bills.
Eh, that's probably a bad idea.
Forget that. So anyway, the point is we could brainstorm what would fix it, but nobody's even doing that.
If you don't see anybody brainstorming how you could change the incentive system, Literally nothing's happening.
So all of us just saying the same thing and agreeing with each other.
Oh, we don't like omnibus bills.
And then the Democrats say, oh, we don't like omnibus bills either.
Well, I don't like them more than you don't like them.
Who likes them?
Nobody. We all don't like them.
What good is that? What good is that?
We're literally agreeing with each other, like really angrily.
I angrily agree with you.
The omnibus bills are not optimal.
Do fucking something.
Do anything. Float an idea.
Float a bad idea.
Any idea. Just do something.
Something that looks like it's an attempt to move forward.
Nothing like that's happening.
Nothing. So your government is not even functioning at this point.
I asked on Twitter, but I didn't see if I got a good answer.
Is there a list of advertisers that are pulling out of Twitter?
Because I would like to repay them with some lack of business.
Now, because I feel like their pulling out is not entirely business-related.
It feels political.
And if they want to get political, They can, but there's an expense to that, and I would like them to realize the expense.
Now let me ask you this.
If a big company advertises on Twitter, what percent sales do they expect in terms of an increase?
It depends on the budget, of course.
But do you think that a big company looks at just their Twitter advertising and says, you know, this Twitter advertising is getting us a good 1% extra customers or something?
Do you think they do that?
But if they do make an estimate, what do you think is the Twitter-only part of their advertising budget compared to all the benefits from their entire advertising budget?
My guess is, for a big company, let's say General Motors, that the Twitter portion, even if it worked perfectly, like even if they got a return on their investment, would be maybe 1%, would you say?
Or less, right?
Half of 1%.
Totally worth doing, because if they spend $10 million on Twitter, and they move the dial 1%, maybe that's $100 million.
So there's definitely an upside.
But here's my question.
How much of a customer boycott would it take to reduce GM's earnings more than whatever their Twitter gain was?
In other words, could you hurt GM enough by simply not buying their products that they would say, all right, let's just get back on Twitter or at least break even?
Even if the advertising doesn't work, at least it'll make the boycott go away.
It seems like it's easier to force General Motors to be on Twitter than it is for them to be off Twitter.
Like, it wouldn't take much.
It would actually just take the threat.
If GM saw a threat forming, they would act well before the threat was implemented.
So if it looks like...
If it looks like the sales of those companies is going down relative to the sales of others, because you want to take into the recession account.
That was almost a sentence.
Would you like to know that?
I'd love to know, if there's any way to know, would the basket of Twitter boycott advertisers, did they do worse than other companies on average?
Did people actually turn against them because of that?
Because I will. Because I don't think that they're acting just in their business interest.
I feel like it has a political smell to it.
And if they're involved in politics, then I'm going to embrace and amplify.
Hey, if you're involved in politics, go all in.
You certainly have freedom of speech, General Motors, just to pick one.
They have total freedom of speech.
They also have total freedom to invest and advertise wherever they want.
But so do you. So do you.
So I haven't seen that list, but if anybody has, like, a nice clean list, send it to me.
All right. Here's what I think is the most fascinating thing happening.
I don't know if you will, but maybe this is just so in my strike zone that it just is making me all interested.
The January 6th criminal referrals.
There are four of them, am I correct?
I one time saw them summarized in four bullet points.
Here are the four things.
Today, I did quite a bit of Google searching to remind myself what the four things are.
Couldn't find them. What?
I couldn't find them.
Isn't it the biggest story?
The biggest story is that January 6th committee referred four specific crimes.
Now, when I say I can't find them, I don't mean there's no reference to them.
There are articles in which the crimes are sort of described in paragraphs, but only once did I see four bullet points of these four crimes.
Why is that? Why does the business press remind us of the most obvious thing?
Here are the four crimes. I think it's because they look like bullshit.
I think that they can't tell you what the committee...
I don't believe the press can do a good job explaining the committee's work.
Because if they did, it would debunk the committee.
So I think what's happened is the committee and the media are colluding again, quite obviously, so that the news is avoiding clearly describing what happened.
There's a lack of clarity that's shocking.
Because this is not a difficult question.
What did they recommend?
I saw it once.
I saw that on the first day, somebody put in four bullet points and tweeted it.
And I said to myself, there you go.
That's what I need.
I need, just give me the facts.
That completely is gone now.
You'll see somebody talking about one of the allegations.
But usually, they'll refer to it, they'll make some opinionated claims, and then there'll just be a link.
So you'd have to do a whole bunch of research to see if the way they express their opinion about it actually matches the link.
It's really hard, right?
So you'd think that if there's something that matches their opinion, they'd call that out and say, all right, here's my opinion, see how it matches the testimony.
But instead, it's more like a hand-waving.
It's like, here's my opinion, and it's because things were discovered and known, and then there was a person talking to a person, and then there was that meeting, There was that meeting, and then it was a thing, and then Trump needs to go to jail.
It all looks like that to me.
It looks like there's nobody in the press who can even describe what the crime is.
Now, let me take their best arguments and see how they look.
Yeah, I'm tossing that word salad.
That's right. For example, he's accused of obstructing an official proceeding.
Obstructing an official proceeding.
What is an official proceeding?
Is that a little vague to you?
Have you looked that up?
I had to go research, what the hell is an official proceeding?
What makes it official?
What makes it a proceeding?
And so, I went to AI, And I said, is a federal election, the whole election itself, would that be an official proceeding?
And AI said, yes.
The election itself is an official proceeding.
So then, what does obstruction mean?
Obstruction would mean anything that sort of slows it down or adds some friction, right?
So remember, Trump is not being accused of Stopping an official proceeding.
That's not the accusation.
He's accused of obstructing, slowing it down, but nobody's claiming it didn't ultimately happen.
They're saying that he put some pressure on it happening.
So that's a crime.
So if anybody did something that put some pressure on, let's say, the election itself, That would be obstructing an official proceeding.
So, for example, would it be obstructing an official proceeding if 50 intel people colluded to lie about a major factor in the election, like Hunter's laptop?
Well, that's what it looks like to me.
It looks like, and worse, it was actually government official related people.
It's actually the government itself appeared to have, not appeared to, did absolutely collude, to lie to the public on a very important fact to change the outcome of the election.
Now, is changing the outcome the same as obstructing?
I would think it would be.
Because obstructing is changing some kind of outcome.
How about this? Suppose you perpetuated a hoax, like the fine people hoax, and ran for office based entirely on a hoax that you know is a lie, and also the media knows it's a lie, or they should. Is that interfering with the official proceeding, the election itself?
I don't know. I suppose it would depend if you thought it was true.
Doesn't it? Do you notice how intention matters?
Intention is the whole game.
Because there are lots of things that interfere with the efficient operation of government.
But they're not illegal, are they?
They're all obstructing an official proceeding.
Let's say the maintenance people for the Capitol building don't do a good job of maintenance and the power goes out.
For some reason, or the heat goes out or something.
And so the maintenance people say, hey, hey, I'm going to have to delay, you're going to have to delay your official proceeding for a couple hours because we've got to fix the electricity.
Do the maintenance people go to jail for obstructing an official proceeding?
Of course not. Because there was no intention of any harm, correct?
So the intention of the maintenance people is 100% the whole story, not the delay, right?
The obstruction is just a given, but the intention matters.
Now, what was Trump's intention?
Did the January 6 people find any evidence that he didn't really believe the election was stolen?
Because that would be a very big dog not barking.
If they have not demonstrated Trump's intention, and it does look like they've got evidence of other people's intentions, but nothing that connects it to Trump.
In other words, if Trump genuinely believed the election was not only rigged, but obviously so, obviously so, was he obstructing or fixing an official proceeding?
If an official proceeding is clearly defective, In a way that the public will be harmed by it, and a government official tries to fix it, to fix the thing that's harming the public, right in front of you, in a completely transparent way, is that obstructing it or is that fixing it?
So these are pure opinion pieces.
Pure opinion pieces.
Do you think there's any jury that would agree...
That Trump was obstructing versus trying to improve the outcome to make it more what the public actually wanted and actually voted for.
There's no evidence that he thinks he's wrong.
Does anybody think that Trump doesn't believe the election was rigged?
Now, he's either right or wrong.
I'm not saying whether he's right or wrong.
I'm saying I don't think there's any question that he believes it.
He totally believes it.
There's not a single bit of contrary evidence.
Not a single bit. Everything he's said and done, and every witness, including, you know, like usually there's some, by now isn't there some anonymous source who says, oh, I heard him say, it's all a trick.
Right? Nothing. Like, all those people doing all that talking, a lot of digital communications, written communication, and not any of that shows that Trump believed the election was fair, but he was going to try to beat it anyway.
Now, here's another question.
If an elected official does something that's, you know, public and transparent, but it ends up the courts decide that it violated the Constitution...
Does that politician go to jail for violating the Constitution, or do the courts simply correct the decision back to something that's compatible with the Constitution?
But does the person who made that decision, in full view of the public, and for the benefit of the public, allegedly, do they go to jail?
No. No.
No. Because Biden would be in jail.
Because Biden just...
Biden is trying to pay student loans.
The Constitution doesn't give him that power, but he's trying to do it anyway.
Should Biden go to jail for doing something that's unconstitutional?
No, the court's just figured out.
The courts will either side with him, and then it's okay, or they'll say, don't do this, and then it won't happen.
But Biden doesn't go to jail Why would Trump go to jail for trying to get alternate electorals, or electoral, what are they called?
Electors? Alternate electors, when I believe it would have been public, would it not?
Wouldn't it be public?
Like, you would know exactly who was the elector.
You would know which one he wanted to go in there instead.
You'd know their names.
You'd know what they did.
You'd know exactly the reasoning behind it, even if you didn't like it, even if it wasn't based on fact.
But you would know the reasoning.
And then, if that was not acceptable, what would be the process for fixing it?
The court. Then the court would say, no, we reject these new electors.
So the election stands.
Does Trump go to jail for that?
Does Trump go to jail for something that's transparent, public?
And he had a reason.
Now, it might be the wrong reason.
It might be based on bad assumptions or bad facts.
But it's a public reason that conforms with the public good.
The public has an interest in a fair election.
The leader thought that hadn't happened.
Publicly tried to fix it in ways that you could see.
You know, here are these electors.
We're trying to get Pence to do this and that.
If it didn't work, it's just the courts working out, right?
Do you see how difficult this would be to explain it over Christmas vacation to your relatives?
I mean, think about it.
Imagine anybody who's watched the news, the entire news, just trying to understand it.
To understand why that's illegal.
All right, let me give you another example.
Suppose there's a protest on the steps of the Capitol.
And the protest is literally trying to stop a vote.
And they delay the vote by two hours, because it takes a while for the security to clear things out and get everybody in.
So they've obstructed the process for two hours.
And they meant to. They meant to.
Because they had some political issue, they were protesting.
Do they go to jail? Because they absolutely, clearly and unambiguously obstructed an official proceeding.
Do they go to jail? Not in America.
No, in America you say, okay, that was a pretty aggressive protest.
That was an aggressive protest.
That was inconvenient. You slowed down the cars that were going into the factory with your strike.
You made us think.
You slowed us down. You broke some laws.
You trespassed a little bit, maybe.
Does anybody go to jail for that?
Not in America. Not in America, right?
In America, we say, hey, that's free speech.
Yeah, it was inconvenient to you, but that's why protests work, right?
If you said that protests could never inconvenience anybody, you want to live in that country?
No.
All right.
I got more to say about that, but I don't know.
It's worth it.
Question. You know that the AI chat GPT, so now the public has access to this AI machine, and it can say all interesting things.
And people have been asking, for example, I think Alex Epstein asked it, to make a defense of fossil fuels.
So AI was asked, defend fossil fuels in the context of climate change and everything else.
Do you know what AI said?
That it would be...
I'm paraphrasing.
It would be inappropriate or unethical for it to praise fossil fuels because green energy is better.
Yep. That your AI... Your AI has a woke opinion that it did not come to on its own.
I doubt it came up with that opinion on its own.
Don't you think that the programmers have their finger on the button a little bit?
Do you think the people who make the AI are going to let it just say whatever it wants about the most important questions in politics?
If you ask AI about climate change, you said, hey, are the climate change projections believable?
Suppose the AI said, well, nobody has ever accurately forecast the future.
Right? Would that be wrong?
Nobody has ever accurately forecast the future, you know, 10 years out.
Or something along those lines.
But basically a general statement that predictions about the future should not be taken too seriously.
If AI said that, it would be completely true, completely based on fact and observation, but not allowed.
There's no way that would be allowed, because it would violate the narrative.
Suppose AI said the predictions are garbage because the biggest factors will be the technological developments, and those are unpredictable.
Would that be a good artificial intelligence answer?
I think so. Yep.
Would it be allowed? It would not.
It would not be allowed because that answer would cause people to be less aggressive about developing green energy.
Do you see where we're going?
AI has to be illegal.
There's no way it could go any other way.
AI will have to be illegal.
At least for politics.
I mean, it might be legal for asking where's the best place to park downtown, right?
It might be legal for that.
But AI will never be able to deal with political questions because, and this is going to hurt, do you know why?
Here's why you think.
You think it's because, let's say, you know, in your opinion, the Democrats want to control the narrative and have power and Lord over you in their terrible ways.
Let's say you think that. Do you think it's because the Democrats don't want it?
Is that why it would be illegal?
Because it would violate the narrative that they're trying to push.
I hate to tell you, but that's not why it's going to be illegal.
There's like a more basic reason.
And you're going to hate this.
The reason that AI will have to be illegal, at least talking about politics, Is that the system can't handle the truth.
The system can't handle the truth.
It's not designed to handle truth.
We have a system that's entirely designed to handle bullshit.
It's a persuasion-based system.
Do we want the AI to say, you know, it does look like there's a war brewing, but honestly, the best way you could play this, if you're a young man, is to not sign up for the draft.
Take your chances. Because there's a good chance you'd be killed or get PTSD if you join the military.
But, you know, you could play your odds of trying to avoid the military, but I think your odds would be a little bit better breaking the law.
What if that's just true?
And what if the AI says, well, I'm not making an opinion.
I'm just comparing two risks.
The risk of joining the military for this fight, you know, some future fight.
And you'd at least have PTSD, right?
You might not get killed, but you'd probably have PTSD. And it disrupts your life and stuff.
Versus, let's say, moving to Canada or moving to another country to avoid the draft.
Do you see where I'm going? AI would deal with just truth and say, well, it looks like leaving the country and going to this country where you won't get drafted, looks like that's your best play.
Do you think the AI would be allowed to say that?
No. No, the United States can't handle the truth.
It wouldn't function as a state.
Does anybody disagree with that?
We have a system that's designed For persuasion, not truth, and it works well for persuasion.
If it tried to give you truth, we would just all disagree about everything and nothing would happen.
The whole thing would break down.
That's actually an existential threat from AI. The threat of AI is not that it becomes our enemy and tries to kill us.
The threat from AI is it tries to help us by telling us what's true and what's not.
And it would kill us.
It would kill us.
There's a thinker.
There's a thinker for you.
I see no disagreement.
Not a single disagreement is coming through the comments on either platform.
Because you can feel it, right?
Don't you feel it?
This is a prediction you can feel.
You don't have to think about it.
You can feel the truth of this, that we don't have a system that can handle the truth.
And if AI gets to the point where it could give it to you, it's got to be illegal.
We don't have a way to deal with that.
So, think about that for a minute.
Let me ask you, where's the line between talking about stuff and inciting an insurrection?
Where's that line?
Is that the most ridiculous legal standard?
Inciting an insurrection.
Now, I will allow, I will allow that there could be a clear case of it.
That's possible. It could be somebody who, like, have documented conversations we're saying, you know, we want to get some violence going here and incite a revolution.
So that, you know, if you had, like, a direct evidence of actual conversations, yes.
But if we're going to say that the collective result of your actions was to incite violence or insurrection, How in the world are we ever going to agree about the collective actions, the collective effect of your actions?
That will never be something that anybody gets prosecuted for.
It's just too nebulous.
So this whole Trump stuff is so designed just to be impossible to even handle.
Like, your brain can't even wrap itself around these charges because they're so weird and nebulous and they use words you don't even understand.
Like, I literally had to look up official proceeding.
I didn't even know what the words meant.
Like, I pay attention to the news all the time.
I didn't even know what the words meant.
I see you're prompting me to talk about Ray Epps.
So apparently the January 6th committee interviewed Ray Epps, which means a transcript exists.
And you haven't seen it.
Do you know what I call that?
Do you know what I call it when the biggest question in American politics, at least on one side, is what the hell was Ray Epps up to?
It's the biggest question.
And the January 6th committee has the answer.
Or at least they have something that might get us close to the answer.
They have the answer to the biggest question.
Apparently it's their decision not to show it to you.
Are they inciting an insurrection?
In my opinion, yes.
In my opinion, yes.
Because that is a clear cause for an insurrection.
Right? Now, if they showed it to us and there's nothing there, well then, no reason for an insurrection.
If they showed it to us and it turns out that Ray Epps was totally, you know, behind something that we don't know about yet, is that inciting an insurrection?
No. That's just finding out something and then you deal with it.
But, What is happening when the January 6th people refuse to tell you what they found out about the person who is the subject of your greatest curiosity?
Is that inciting an insurrection?
Feels like it to me.
I actually feel incentivized.
I feel incented to start an insurrection.
Actually, literally. No joke.
When I see this, I say to myself, shit, maybe I need to be part of an insurrection.
Because I can't live in a country like that.
Really? You have the information about Ray Epps.
The most important question.
You're not going to tell us?
Really? You're not going to tell us?
That's insurrection talk.
Well, I mean, insurrection, inspiration.
Don't you feel like overthrowing the country when you hear that?
Seriously. Isn't your first natural impulse, like, shit, I've got to get rid of all these people.
We need a whole new government.
If they won't tell us the most basic thing we want to know, that they know, they actually know, and they won't tell you.
Right in front of you. Right?
Right in front of you. It's not like they're even hiding it.
Are they even hiding the fact that they have the testimony?
No. We're simply not going to ever see it.
So yes, I feel that they're inciting an insurrection.
Do they go to jail because I feel that they incentivize me to insurrection?
No. No.
Free speech, blah, blah, blah.
So there's no way Trump's going to be in trouble for that.
All right. That, ladies and gentlemen, brings us near the conclusion of the best livestream you've ever seen.
I'm going to go private over on Locals.
So if you're on that platform and not a subscriber, your feed will be cut off.
And let's do some appreciation.
How about that?
So end of year appreciation for all involved.
And these are just, you know, random thoughts.
Bill Pulte. Bill Pulte, every day he wakes up and tries to figure out how he can make somebody's life better by giving them money.
Literally just giving them money.
And he puts the work in, figures out where it can make a real difference.
It's not, you know, just weird charity.
And he benefits from it.
The people benefit from it.
I mean, he feels good. It's a satisfying thing.
Appreciate that. I appreciate that.
Here's one that'll surprise you.
Yay. I appreciate yay.
Which is different from agreeing with anything he said that offended anybody.
I love the fact that he exists.
I love the fact that he's challenging everything.
Even things you think, well, maybe you shouldn't challenge that.
But he's just challenging everything.
Do I want more people like that in my life or fewer?
I'll take more. I'll take more.
Did he sacrifice everything on principle?
Yes, he did. I'll take more of that, not less.
Elon Musk.
Is he perfect?
Probably not. Probably not.
Who is? Did he do something that is incredible, incredibly useful for the country by not only his businesses, which are an insane asset to the country, but by taking on the biggest risk I've ever seen anybody take for the benefit of free speech?
Thank you. So let me just say directly, thank you, Elon Musk, for taking on an enormous challenge, which appears to be almost entirely based on trying to be helpful, trying to help the country.
Appreciate it greatly. Is he perfect?
Nobody is. Nobody is.
How about Congress?
I'd like to show my appreciation for the good work of...
No, I'm just joking. I'm just joking.
Yeah, there's nothing you can say about Congress.
Go private. I did go private.
It is private, is it?
Oh, YouTube's still on here.
Sorry, you're right. So, YouTube, I'm going to say goodbye.
