Episode 2071 Scott Adams: Trans News Everywhere, Surviving AI, Electric Cars vs Oil, Diet & IQ
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trans news everywhere
Surviving AI - my advice
Marriage is useless
Diet and IQ
Mexican cartels and car batteries
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
- Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and there's never been a finer moment in your whole life.
And if you'd like to take it up to levels that no one's ever seen before, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gels 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.
It's the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Oh yeah, that's the good stuff.
Yes, it turns out, in case you were worried about my health, my health is perfect.
But sometimes you have to sleep more than three hours a night.
So, after yesterday's debacle, I just went right back to bed.
I just slept until noon.
And then I felt great.
All good.
So, sleep.
It's kind of a miracle drug.
Well, what's in the news?
There's an account I follow that I don't think is a real person called Tyrone Williams.
He says a lot of controversial things, but some of the very interesting things he says is, I didn't realize that there was science about IQ and nutrition.
And apparently there's a lot of it.
I don't know how much it is reliable, But one of the claims is that when iodine was added to salt, it increased IQs by 15 points in the United States.
Does that sound true?
Do you think that iodine added to salt increased IQs by 15 points?
I'm seeing yeses and nos.
That seems like a stretch.
But the larger point is, apparently there are a number of Things like calcium, magnesium, and folates, and probably some other things, vitamin D maybe, that seem to be really correlated with intelligence.
How hard would it be to pick some poor part of the country and just say, hey, work on this experiment.
We'll give all of you poor people good supplements, good nutrition.
Just see what happens.
Might take a long time to see what happens, but I think by the third grade or so you'd know if their IQ was, you know, boosted.
So I would love to see that.
It really makes me wonder how much of the IQ differences that there are in the country are genetic and how much are nutritional.
Because the nutritional stuff we probably need to fix, if only for national security.
Doesn't it seem to you that it would be a national security issue to have educated and healthy kids?
It's hard to separate education and nutrition from homeland security, because if you don't do it all right, you're lost no matter what.
Yeah, OPC, etc.
So, Michael Schellenberger says that he has a whistleblower information saying that he and the other Twitter Files authors are going to be targeted.
Do you think that's real?
Because Matt Taibbi has already been hit pretty hard with some fact-checking.
Some of it may be important, some of it not.
And I think Barry Weiss and Matt Schellenberger are going to get attacked as well.
Now, I don't think any of them started as Republicans or Conservatives, but simply because they're not pro-Democrat narrative, that's enough.
Apparently they are being, what's the word?
Starts with an H. Oh, haunted.
They're being haunted.
That is the best prediction I ever made that was the least obvious.
Although I've had some pretty unobvious predictions.
Yeah.
They're literally being hunted, according to a whistleblower.
Now keep an eye on them.
You might have to help protect them.
But I love the fact that the people being hunted do have some recourse now.
You can go on Substack, you can go on Locals, you can go on Rumble.
You could go on Truth Social.
So apparently getting cancelled is not what it used to be.
But better protect those three authors.
I think they're too important to let them swing on their own.
So I just would like to put in the word that those of you who protected me when I got hunted and cancelled, I appreciate it immensely.
Just immensely.
Changes everything, really.
The fact that there's some way to still monetize your life if you've been cancelled.
So, protect those three authors.
I think the world is better with them.
Well, you may have noticed that all the news is about trans issues.
It's all... I think 50% of the headlines are about trans.
It's the weirdest phenomenon.
Just to give you an example.
I think this story is fake, or maybe not.
But does anybody know if it's true that the first female VP to head Bud Light, that for the first time they have a woman who's in charge of Bud Light?
Which could explain a little bit about the Dylan Mulvaney connection.
You posted it four days ago, but I don't know if it's true.
I know I've seen it, but apparently the LinkedIn profile's changed.
So I'm gonna say that's a maybe.
It's in Forbes?
Okay.
It's probably true.
So, do you think that it's a factor that the VP of Bud Light is a female?
Do you think the fact that she's female is why this happened?
We don't know.
Stop being a bunch of sexists, you misogynist pieces of garbage.
How could you possibly know that it's only happening because she's female?
You don't know that.
There's no way you could know that.
Now, certainly, certainly my bias agrees with you.
If I were to check my bias, it very much is screaming at me, a man would never have done that.
A man would never have done that.
But is that true?
I don't know if that's true.
Because I think a man or a woman might have some external forces and may feel the need to bow to some external forces.
Do you think that the VP of Bud Light has a boss?
Yeah, because it's only the VP.
Is the CEO a man?
I don't know.
Probably, right?
So there's probably a man who made the decision.
So I'm not so sure you want to jump on the diversity hire on this one.
I think you need to raise your game a little bit higher than there was one time a woman did something.
That's not exactly evidence.
But could be a factor.
You never know.
I just wouldn't assume it.
Then we've got trans in sports.
So the Biden administration is proposing some kind of new rule for K-12 and mostly for college and K-12 that would ban, it would ban any trans bands.
So it would ban the bands.
So you would not be able to say no trans athletes can compete in the gender that you don't want them to compete in, I guess.
Now, there is, however, an exception.
And the exception is that schools wouldn't be permitted to adopt a one-size-fits-all.
In other words, you couldn't ban trans in general, but you could ban a specific trans for a specific sport if you thought it was dangerous or there was some other good reason.
I'm perfectly good with that.
Does anybody have a problem with that?
Let me give you my universal example.
In my town there was, at one point, there was an 11-year-old kid, a boy, who was so good at soccer That he was elevated to the teenager league.
So he's like 11 years old, but I think he played with 14 and up, which are a big, big difference.
Now, did it make sense that they would take this one 11-year-old who was really, really good at soccer and put that one kid in a league where normally he would not belong?
Of course it does.
Of course it made sense.
It made complete sense.
Because if you were playing against him and you were 11 years old, how fair would that be?
It wouldn't be fair at all.
The kid would have just annihilated you.
Now I had the privilege, and it was a privilege, to actually watch him play on a team with older kids and adults.
I watched him play indoor soccer.
And it was a treat.
Watching this 11-year-old just totally dribble around adults and stuff.
And I gotta tell ya, it made sense to put him in a different league.
For everybody's benefit.
Now, 11 is not 21.
I don't know what that comment means.
However, I think the same is true of trans athletes.
There certainly are cases where the trans athlete does not belong on a woman's team.
We all agree with that, right?
There are certainly cases where that trans athlete would be so dominant or so dangerous, it wouldn't make sense.
But does it make sense to have a universal ban when one of the athletes could be Dylan Mulvaney?
Do you think Dylan Mulvaney would have a big A genetic advantage over female athletes in high school?
You think yes.
Some people say yes.
I'm going to say no, just for argument's sake.
Because Dylan Mulvaney looks about the size of a female athlete in high school.
Doesn't look like more muscles, doesn't look like more anything.
Now, I will agree with you that just having the advantage of male chemistry for early years probably gave some advantages.
But not enough.
Not enough.
If you put Dylan Mulvaney on a soccer field with a bunch of high-level college or high school players, I don't think Dylan would do so well.
So I'm completely in favor of this.
I didn't think I'd be this much in favor of a Biden policy, but this makes complete sense.
Now, who is arguing with the school having the judgment to do whatever they want?
How are you arguing with that?
I mean, seriously, how are you arguing with that?
Just let the school do what makes sense.
If the Biden administration says, don't do a universal ban, But you could make every decision individually.
That's as good as it gets.
I don't have a single complaint with that.
But think about it.
Let that sink in a little bit more.
I think you're going to like that more than you think.
You might be having a first reaction to it, just because it's a Biden policy.
It's not meant to be pro-trans or anti-trans.
It's meant to be pro-common sense.
The common sense part is you could make an exception for any athlete.
That's all I ask.
Just make an exception for any athlete for whatever reason you think is good for the kids.
Whatever reason.
It could be the physicality or any other reason.
That's fine with me.
All right, we'll see how that works.
At least as an experiment it makes sense.
So, I love watching Fox News Try to do a reverse on Democrats.
So, remember how the Democrats made a big deal out of President Trump saying that, on January 6, saying that you should protest or fight like hell.
I think he used the word fight.
Now, he used it, of course, in the hyperbole, meaning verbally fight or protest.
But not physically fight.
Now, in context, it was obvious he did not mean physical violence.
That's not what the word fight meant in that context.
It was obvious.
But, because he said it, and because it's politics, they can say, oh, you said fight, that's violence.
Well, turnabout is fair play, and Corinne Jean-Pierre has said about the Trans situation, blah, blah, blah.
Kids are resilient.
The LGBTQ plus kids are resilient.
They're fierce.
They fight back.
They're not going anywhere.
We have their back.
This administration has their back.
So because she said they fight back, the headline in Fox News was, Jean-Pierre slammed for praising trans kids who, quote, fight back.
Stochastic terrorism from the White House.
Really?
Is that stokadic terrorism?
Because fight back in this context means physically?
No, I don't think she meant physically.
I don't think she meant physically.
But neither did Trump.
Neither did Trump.
However, given that the Democrats did use this trick against Trump, is it not fair play?
Is it not fair play to give it back to them?
It is.
It is fair play.
It's not news, all right?
So if I said this is good, solid news reporting, it's not.
This is not good, solid news reporting.
But it is fair play.
It is giving back what they gave.
And then, of course, this gets to be juxtaposed, at least on the Fox News site.
And by the way, the moment I was writing this down, Fox News changed their website.
Like, so they moved it.
Originally, it had the Jean-Pierre story, and also below it, a separate story about athlete Riley Gaines being assaulted by a trans person after a speech she gave, talking about trans in sports.
Now, if you have a headline that says, Stochastic Terrorism, Trans Fight Back, and then the very next story below it is an actual attack by a trans person on a non-trans person, That's narrative.
That's not news.
That's narrative.
But to their credit, maybe, it could be an accident or a coincidence, but they did take off the other story.
They demoted the Riley Gaines story, which at least is half right.
I wouldn't pair those two stories on the front page.
That's a narrative.
Even though they're both true, even though they both happened, if you present them that way, it makes it look like there's some kind of trend toward trans violence.
I don't know how much of that there is.
Now, of course, everybody can be offended by this trans person attacking Riley Gaines, who was only giving a speech and certainly had a right to do that.
So we can condemn it, but at the same time, How much of it happened yesterday?
One time?
You know, as much as we condemn it?
Probably happened once yesterday in the entire United States.
So I don't think it's much of a trend.
But I'm interested that Vivek Ramaswamy and Jordan Peterson both talk about that incident as, well this is what Jordan Peterson says, a transgender male wearing a dress.
So they're basically, both of them are calling the attacker a male, or a biological male.
I feel as if the whole wrong pronoun thing is starting to fall away.
Are there enough notable people who are refusing to call a trans athlete necessarily a woman?
Are there enough famous people who are rejecting it, now you can do it without getting cancelled?
I'm not ready to do it without getting cancelled yet.
Because I still think there's a... Here's my problem with it.
Here's my problem.
I think that we're conflating the people who have mental illness with the people who have something actually going on in terms of their gender dysphoria or dysmorphia or whatever it is.
Don't you think that there's two categories?
Don't you think that there's some that are just mentally ill Or just gay men who like to wear dresses and are adopting a lifestyle, versus people who have something legitimate going on.
And I feel like when you throw the legitimate people in with the mental illness people, you're not getting a good outcome.
Like, it doesn't make sense to mix those two groups.
And I feel like everybody's doing it.
Like, I feel like, you know, Jordan Peterson and Vivek They may be going a little bit too far in the calling it men with dresses.
That may be a little too far.
But I also don't know what the percentage breakdown is.
Is it 90% mental illness or 1%?
How would I know?
Because, you know, there's mental illness everywhere.
It wouldn't be a big surprise if trans people have some mental illness like everybody else in the world.
I don't know.
So I guess I'm uncomfortable branding the entire group as men in dresses, when in fact there might be some of that.
But how much?
1% or 99%?
No idea.
A judge said, just looking at this comment, they weren't applying the trans ban equally.
Oh, so you'd have to apply it equally?
I don't know.
As long as you ignore the trans part and focus on the physicality part, I think you can do anything you want.
Because, I'll give you another example.
There was a kid in my class when I was young who was unusually muscular and bigger than most of us.
And from early days he was just way more muscular, I don't know how, and just way bigger.
So, he sometimes would be put on the older kids' teams if it was something dangerous like full contact kind of sports.
And I had no problem with that.
No problem at all.
Because he was just too big to play with regular boys.
He was just too big.
He would have hurt us.
I had no problem with that at all.
I don't think he did either.
So this is weird.
So Biden has green-lit two big energy projects.
So I'm a little confused about where Biden is on carbon.
Because apparently he's green-lighted this ConocoPhillips massive oil project in Alaska.
And he's green-lit bidding for oil auction sites, or gas I guess.
Oil and gas drilling in the Gulf.
So those are two very big things where Biden is pro-carbon.
But he also cancelled that pipeline, and he's cancelled other things.
Where is he exactly?
I feel like he's all over the place.
Now, I wouldn't call it flip-flopping.
I would just call it inconsistent.
Because it's not like he changed his mind on a specific thing.
It's rather that he rejected some things and he's accepting some things, but they look kind of similar from 30,000 feet.
Yeah, my guess is that he just has to.
He just has no choice.
So it might be, you know, lobbyist money, but it also might be that the country can't handle not having energy.
It just might be too big of a risk even for him.
Do you think it's location?
That it depends where it is, and that's the bigger factor.
That might be.
Anyway, that's just a question to me.
So then he's also promoting electric cars at the same time that he's saying that the standards should be tightened for gas cars.
And here's the problem.
We don't have enough batteries.
If you go full electric cars, you have more dependence on China, because they make most of our batteries.
So, here's my suggestion.
We should negotiate with the cartels in Mexico, and tell them that we'd like Mexico to turn into our biggest battery and rare earth mining place.
Because we want it to be physically close, Because I think that matters too, don't you?
Wouldn't you like to know that your batteries did not have to travel on the water?
I feel like that would be a big advantage that you don't have to ship your batteries over water.
Because it would be easier for somebody to blow up your ship full of batteries or to I suppose it would be very bad if the ship sunk.
You wouldn't want an ocean liner full of batteries at the bottom of the ocean, would you?
That sounds like a bad idea.
So I'd like to see the cartels negotiate with them this way.
Hey cartels, we're done with the old way.
So you get two choices.
One is we're going to send in the military and wipe you out no matter how long it takes.
The other choice is that you can give up now and we can turn you into equity owners and maybe somehow productive in this cobalt mining, you know, battery making world.
So that at least the leaders of the cartels could say, OK, I could at least have good jobs for my top 100 people.
Because probably that's where it ends, right?
If you take care of your top 100 people, You're probably pretty happy in your own family.
So I would try to convert them instead of trying to kill them.
I would try to convert them into the most important industry as long as they didn't have management control.
I wouldn't give them 51% control of anything.
But you could imagine saying to them, we're going to push you out of business, but if you go willingly and you help us close down all the other illegal stuff, Because, you know, the cartel leaders would know how to close down their own operation better than anybody.
If you help us, we'll give you a small percentage of equity in these good businesses and you'll just be rich forever.
Your family will have money forever.
And you'll never be hunted.
Now, they probably do need a lot of security because they've killed a lot of people, but there must be some way to make a deal.
And what we need is to move our batteries, like, really, really quickly to be closer to here.
And I don't think we'll be able to make those things in the United States because of too many environmental reasons, etc.
What do you think of that idea?
Close down the cartels, turn them into a battery-making country, and then they're our best buddies because we need batteries all the time, and it would be a gigantic industry.
The size of the industry could not be understated.
All right.
Yeah, I'm sure there would be problems, but there'd be problems no matter what you do.
All right.
So here's on immigration.
Rasmussen had a poll that, no surprise, Republicans are favored for immigration policies.
So this is one of the few Few topics where Democrats will leave their party.
Not necessarily to join the other party, but they'll vote against their own party on immigration because they think the Republicans are going to keep the border more secure.
And of course, they're right.
I mean, that's obvious.
So it's a pretty big difference.
So 86% of Republicans trust their own party, but only 73% of Democrats trust their own party on immigration.
Is it my imagination?
Or will immigration completely leave the news as we get to within one year of the election?
I believe that immigration will just disappear from the news.
And it will all be focused on trans rights and stuff where Democrats do terrible.
I'm sorry, stuff where Republicans do terrible.
The news is going to be about abortion, where Republicans do poorly, and LBGTQ, Where Republicans do actually great, but the way they talk about it is a disaster.
The Republicans just shoot themselves in the foot with all of the trans stuff.
If they just talked about it differently, they'd be fine.
Just talk about it differently.
Yeah, the media decides the topics.
So...
I've got some suggestions for Republicans in a little while, but let me talk about something else first.
So I saw one of these success guru types on Instagram who had a reframe that I wonder if you think came from me.
So this might be more relevant to the people on Locals, because I think you've seen me say it before.
On YouTube, maybe you've not seen me say it, but correct me if I'm wrong.
And the reframe goes like this.
Imagine you just woke up into this life, like it's a video game.
You have a history, but you didn't live it, so it doesn't affect you.
So there's like a memory of a history, but it's irrelevant.
You just appeared today, and a backstory was written.
How would you feel if you just appeared into your life, and you said, all right, make the best of this life.
You just appeared.
What do I got?
Oh, OK, I got a job.
Okay, job's pretty good.
What do I got?
I got, oh, a family.
Family's pretty good.
Now, you could be the example that the guru gave, was if you'd been recently divorced.
He said, if you were recently divorced, you're still living in the past, probably.
Like, you're just, you know, you're grief about things that didn't work out.
But suppose you just popped into existence at that moment in time.
You wouldn't be worried about your divorce or what went wrong.
You'd just say, okay, what do I have?
And what do I do with it?
And it would just change your frame of reference.
Have you heard me say that before?
Because I loved seeing that somewhere else.
I'm pretty sure it came from me.
Pretty sure.
But I couldn't, you know, it's possible somebody else came up with it.
And I've never seen it before, before I started saying it.
So I think it came from me.
So the way that I track my influence is to see if unusual thoughts make it into the public.
And that was a pretty unusual thought.
Has anybody seen that before?
Prior to, say, this year, have you ever seen that before?
I've never seen it.
All right.
Well, anyway, keep an eye on that.
Ann Coulter writing in Breitbart, she's on the team that says that the Democrats are cleverly trying to bait the Republicans into nominating Trump because Trump can't possibly win against Biden.
Do you buy that?
Do you buy that Trump can't beat Biden?
Now I've said this before, but aren't we fighting the last war?
Well, if you assume cheating, then it doesn't matter who runs.
Am I right?
If you assume cheating, then it's all the same.
It doesn't matter who runs.
So that's not about whether you run Trump or not.
But don't you think it's a completely different race?
Because the difference between wondering what Biden would do and actually seeing what he would do is a world of difference.
And thinking that Biden was too old at his prior age versus too old at what will be 86 if he got re-elected, that's not the same.
People don't see 86 the same as 80.
I mean, 80 is crazy, but 86 is, I mean, that's just bad shit.
That's just so, so crazy, right?
And then you've also had Trump out of office for a while.
How do you think people feel about January 6th today compared to how they felt when it first happened?
I think January 6th is already gone.
I think the news cycle has already erased it.
Because there were no charges and I think that it backfired.
I think that it looked like a big nothing.
I think that Tucker getting the extra footage.
I think the QAnon shaman being released.
I think that story looks completely different.
And then on top of that you've got Carrie Lake still picking at the election integrity.
Maybe she comes up with something.
So far, nothing.
But she has some interesting allegations about signature verification.
I don't know what the end story will be, but it's a real interesting accusation.
Very interesting.
And we might find out something else, too.
And then also, take a look at things that just went too far.
Would you agree that fentanyl's been a gigantic issue for several years, but doesn't it feel like only lately everybody agreed it's gone too far?
Doesn't it feel like that?
And that's the difference.
Because you know Trump would actually do something about it, or a Republican would, and you know that a Democrat would not.
You know that a Democrat would not use the military in Mexico, but There are definitely one or more.
Now there are two primary candidates for Republicans, Vivek Ramaswamy and Trump himself, who say they would use the military.
That's a big difference.
Big difference.
Oh, to Peter's point over here.
The issue of the political prisoners, I think, is very salient and current.
So in that sense, January 6th is very current, because those prisoners form a tapestry of Republicans being hunted.
And that is very much a current story, because there's always going to be a new Republican getting hunted.
There's always a new one.
So that'll stay fresh forever.
So that's a good point.
But the part about Trump Creating the violence.
I think that's largely gone.
Except for the crazy people.
Who never change, of course.
Okay.
So... Was there ever a time, can you correct me?
My understanding is that Trump beats Biden in polls today.
As if the election were today.
By a lot.
Was it ever true that Trump beat Biden by a lot in any polling before the last election?
Because I don't think he ever beat him.
He never was ahead, was he?
Was Trump ever ahead against Biden?
I believe he only got close.
I don't think he was ever ahead.
Oh, there's a poll yesterday that says Biden's up by two.
Well, You're going to see both those kinds of polls.
But here's what I would look for.
If the consensus of polls shows Trump winning, I think he could win.
But of course all that matters, all that matters is the swing states, right?
So somebody said that Trump is not ahead on the swing states.
Can anybody tell me if that's true or not?
So look into that, maybe you don't have an answer right away.
But it is true that he doesn't have a lead in the swing states.
Now, that would favor the argument that he can't win.
If Trump is not ahead in the swing states, that's a problem.
Now, I also heard the following element.
Have there been enough Republicans who have moved out of blue states and into swing states, like Arizona, that could change the election?
Is that a thing?
Have enough Republicans moved into Arizona since even the last election?
I don't know if it's enough of a thing, but it might be.
I mean, if somebody's gonna move for political reasons, they're definitely gonna vote.
If you move to another state for political reasons, you're probably registered to vote.
All right.
Here's my suggestion for Republicans running for office.
I believe that you could make commercials for your opponents and just play it straight and you would win.
Here is a commercial for your opponent, if you're a Republican.
Democrats, we'd like to take the guns away from the people and also let the criminals out of jail.
So my two big policies are I'd like to disarm the law-abiding people while letting the criminals run free.
That's the actual policy.
Did I add any hyperbole to that?
No, obviously they're not letting all criminals run free.
And they're not taking all of your guns.
But is it true that they're trying to let more criminals free at the same time they're trying to have you have fewer options to be armed?
Those are both true.
Do you think you need to add any hyperbole to that?
Those are just two true statements.
It's also true that Biden is telling you you can't have your gas car And you've got to be electric, at the same time use approving massive energy programs.
Like, you know, basically you just have to describe it.
Democrats are doing, you know, you could come up with ten more examples.
You don't even have to exaggerate.
You can actually do the commercial as if it's their commercial.
And just fund it and say, we'd like to take your guns away and let the criminals out.
And just play it straight.
And act like you haven't made a connection between letting criminals out and taking your guns away.
Like they're two unrelated things.
And just give a commercial like that.
Just see what happens.
It's a weird situation where you could actually accurately describe your competitor and then that's all you need.
You don't need to lie.
All right.
Chat GPT is going to be part of Google.
I'm sorry.
Let me say that in a more clear way.
That's completely inaccurate.
Google Search will take advantage of Chat GPT functions.
So it's not a merger or anything like that.
So you knew that was going to happen, right?
Because Bing is already doing it, I think.
But this is the big scary part.
Because it suggests that Chat GPT will have full access to the internet of Google.
And it's still a liar.
I have no idea what's going to happen, but boy, is it going to be interesting.
Boy, is it going to be interesting.
Or person, is it going to be interesting, to make it less sexist.
And I would like to give you my best career advice in the age of AI, and also my best, well, this is also career advice.
Advice number one.
I was trying to think of things that AI cannot take over completely.
And I can't think of a lot of examples.
But here's one.
It will not be able to own a facility for human exercise.
Like a gym.
Humans will be able to own property.
I don't think AI will be able to own property for a long time.
So if you wanted a business, I would own a piece of property.
Could be a gym, could be a sports field, could be an entertainment venue of some kind.
But something where a human can go to be entertained or to do sports.
Because the ownership of an asset, I think, might be protected for a while.
And an asset where people can go and use their bodies and get entertainment.
So that's my first advice.
The second advice, And this is what I'm going to do this weekend.
I've been putting it off.
This is the strongest advice I can give you unless you're retired.
And even if you're retired, I'd do it anyway.
It goes like this.
You need to take at least two days off from everything.
Your job, your family, your personal life.
And you need to figure out what's going on with AI.
And you need to find the AI applications.
There are about 150 new ones a month.
You need to find the ones that are relevant to your life and to your job, if you have a job.
And you really need to sign up for them, and you really need to use them.
This is exactly like the dawn of the computer age.
Remember when people said, I don't need to learn how to use a computer.
I'm already old.
I'm already 65.
I don't need to use a computer.
But then, when you're 80, you needed to use a computer.
And don't you wish you knew how to use one?
If you don't stop what you're doing, and I really mean just take time off from work, you need to walk away from everything and just do the deepest dive you can to figure out what's coming.
And you need to refresh that every few days.
And if you say to yourself, that's a great idea.
I've got a vacation coming up in three weeks.
No, you're not listening.
You need to do it closer to today.
Something like today would be good.
I don't think any of us have a good idea of how fast this is moving unless you're right in the middle of it.
No, you have to do it today.
Three weeks from now is the end of the earth.
I mean, three weeks, your whole job could be gone.
You might need to find a new job in three weeks.
You want an example?
There's now an AI that will take your book and turn it into an audiobook.
And it's perfect.
You just gotta feed it the text.
Takes about an hour.
And you're done.
The entire business model of audiobooks and people who are professional readers of audiobooks, it's already gone.
It's gone.
It'll never come back.
Now, at the moment, the big publishers are still hiring humans to do it.
But every one of them is looking at the AI option.
They're all looking at it.
And it's one year away from it would make no sense whatsoever to hire a human.
The human part is excruciating.
It takes days of recording and then days more of another human looking at all the edits and fixing and getting the good one.
It's just a mess.
Versus you just feed your book into the machine and it comes out As a perfect audio book.
There's no, I mean, you can't even compete with that.
So that entire industry just disappeared.
What about editors?
There's still human editors, but the need for them is really getting small.
So here's what might be a business for a while, until AI takes, I suppose.
In the finance world, There are a zillion types of finance things you could buy, but all you really need to do is get, you know, an index fund of stocks.
Fortune 500, you'd be fine.
You wouldn't need any advice, just open a Schwab account or some account, put your money in an index fund if you're not going to use it for five years, and that's all you need.
But how many people do that?
Even though I told you exactly how to, everything you needed.
That was everything you needed to invest.
I just told you everything you need to know.
But, there's an enormous financial advice industry.
Why is that?
Why is there an enormous financial advice industry when I just told you everything you need to know?
Put your money in an index fund, Fortune 500 index fund.
That's it.
The reason is that people don't trust that advice.
Because you would have to know as much as I know to know that that's all you needed to know.
So if you said to yourself, I don't need any expert to tell me how to use AI, I'll go use AI myself.
And five minutes in, you realize that there are thousands of AIs that you could possibly use, and none of the AIs will tell you which one to use.
So you're like, well, this is just as hard as if there was no AI.
Because instead of AI making something simple, there were so many AIs doing slightly different things, with different pricing and from different places, that you would need a human to tell you which AI to use.
And probably that will never change.
Confusopoly, exactly.
The Confusopolies will pop up so that one AI will not dominate.
One AI will say, I'll use my industry, audiobook.
One of them is going to say, yes, we'll make your audiobook, but You have to record using our software to make your own, you know, avatar.
You have to do this, and the pricing is something about the recording, but also the pricing is something about the usage.
And then somebody else will say, we do that too.
Except, it'll be free to record your avatar, and then the usage will depend on different factors, different levels, and what kind of job you are.
And then you'll have two AIs, just the way you have two cell phone companies.
And you'll say, I'm looking at all the minutes.
This one has, I can share these minutes with my family, but then this one has rollover minutes.
I can't tell which one's better.
That's called a confusopoly.
You can't shop because it's too complicated.
That's what AI is gonna be.
So you're gonna hire a human to tell you which AI to use.
For a long time.
Probably.
And that human will have to be using another AI to search the other AIs to find out who's confusing you and who's lying to you.
And then there'll be Yelp for AI.
So there'll be not just one AI to make audiobooks, there'll be a thousand.
There'll be a thousand.
What do you do when there's a thousand of them?
How do you know which one is the good one and which one is the fake?
Probably a human.
Probably a Yelp review.
So it's really going to be hard to trust AI when it's being made by human weasels, and you can spin up a company in five minutes.
All right, so that is your career advice.
Take the weekend off, as I am going to do, and study as much as you can.
I'll tell you the ones I'm going to be looking at, for sure.
Just to give you a lay of the land here.
Now your search would be different, depending of course on what things were interesting to you.
I'm going to look at Deep Zen for recording audiobooks.
AI or IO, I can't remember.
Mid-Journey.
I'm going to look at Mid-Journey for creating art and of just text.
Of course, I'm going to sign up for the professional ChatGPT version, which I haven't done yet.
There's something called DeepFakes.
You'll look into that, where you can make a fake of yourself.
SpeechKai.
It's also for audiobooks, I think.
Something called Descript.
Something called Runway.
There's a product called Runway to make a movie from text.
You just describe the scene and it makes the movie.
So these are all important to me because I've got two fiction books that I could read into, I think, read it into Runway and make a movie out of it.
Now, I need to know how to do that and I need to know how to do that right away.
Right away.
In a week, it'll be a different landscape.
I mean, I have to dig in, but I have to stay there.
I can't just visit and come home.
I have to immerse myself in AI and live it every day now in order to be in business, in order to do just what I do.
Yeah.
Now, pretty soon, there should be one that gives me makeup and fixes my physical appearance while I livestream.
Yeah, God's Debris will be the first one I do.
I'll make an audiobook of God's Debris as well as a movie.
So that's what I'll do.
So I think what humans will do is we'll own copyrights for a while, but they will become useless I think quite quickly because of AI.
And we can own physical assets, which other people might want to rent or use or... But other than that, it's gonna be tough to make a living.
So...
Can AI give me hair?
Yes.
AI could put hair on my head.
Although I think it would make me look worse at this point.
I don't know.
I'm pretty happy with my bald head.
Which I suppose is good news.
I see old pictures of myself with hair and it looks weird.
It just feels like there shouldn't be... Like you shouldn't put a sculpture on top of your head.
That's what it feels like.
You know, mine is just utility, like it's grown out a little bit too much, but when I mow it back, it'll just be basically my head.
But when I see somebody with like a newscaster hair, I say to myself, why would you do that to your head?
Why would you put that newscaster hair on your head?
Because it looks like a sculpture.
Or it looks like you just put a piece of art you wore on your head or like an ashtray.
It'd be like, hey, I wear a vase on my head.
Why do you ask?
It looks pretty.
Except it's a hair vase.
Hair just looks wrong on men now.
Sorry.
That's just my opinion.
Hair on men looks wrong to me now.
It does.
I was just looking at a young man yesterday.
And I was looking at his full head of hair, and I said to myself, I don't know, it just looks wrong.
It just looks wrong.
And I'm not talking about a fashion thing.
I'm not talking about, oh, those young people with their weird hair.
Nothing like that has nothing to do with your age or fashion.
It's just starting to look wrong.
Somebody said Bill Maher.
Yeah.
Hair just looks wrong to me.
Bill Maher's a good example.
Bill Maher's hair looks, it just looks wrong.
Looks like he shouldn't have any.
Yeah, Trump's hair looks the wrongest anybody's hair ever looked.
Why do people with full heads of hair shave their head?
Because it looks better.
Yeah.
I feel sorry for the people with hair.
Looks like a lot of trouble.
Alright, I'm going to say goodbye to the people on YouTube.
Thanks for joining.
Glad the news was a little bit more interesting than yesterday.