Episode 2072 Scott Adams: Trump Is Good For Ratings, Fentanyl & Tranq, Zuby Asks Why Get Married?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Fentanyl plus tranq = dead
Uniparty
Myocarditis data weirdness
Republicans and abortion pill
Zuby asked why get married?
Our food supply is killing us
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 you've never been happier.
And it's going to be even better as we get warmed up here and have a little sip of coffee.
Things are going to start kicking in.
The gears are going to start turning and wow, it's going to be fun.
Amazing.
I'm going to close my blinds here.
I've got a little lighting problem, but I wasn't happy with what I saw when I went live.
If you'd like to take this experience up to the best possible thing, All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's cold.
The simultaneous sipping happens now.
Go.
Ah, that's good stuff.
Okay, I'm really puzzled by something.
That I don't understand.
I shouldn't have this much light in here, but apparently I do.
So it seems to be working.
Well, here's some stories for today.
No surprise, when Trump was in the news the other day, all of the cable news had higher ratings.
And so did I. It turns out that there is nothing as interesting as President Trump.
There's nothing you can do.
You could try to ignore it, but you can't.
He's just the most interesting thing in the world, apparently.
So, I would expect my ratings will go up if he runs for president, and everybody else's ratings will go up if he runs and gets nominated.
Which makes me wonder, is there any chance he won't be nominated?
Given that everybody in the news business would make a lot more money if he is.
It pretty much guarantees he gets nominated, doesn't it?
Doesn't guarantee he wins, but it does guarantee he gets nominated, I think.
Yeah, DeSantis is boring us, isn't he?
What's up with that?
I still think he might not run, but I guess I would be a contrarian there.
I saw Michael Pollan talking about how home cooking is in decline.
Apparently the number of people who cook at home Is that an all-time low since the 60s?
And people are getting fatter than ever, which is more evidence that our food supply is killing us.
I think our food supply is killing us.
I don't think there's anything more dangerous in the world than just the food you buy at the grocery store.
Have you noticed that when you see these street fights, I see all these videos of people getting in fights in public.
Have you noticed how many women weigh 400 pounds in these street fights?
I've never seen such gigantic human beings.
We've gone way beyond overweight.
It's gone to gigantism.
Let's go private.
Sorry about my hand.
All right.
So how many of you cook at home?
I almost never do, but I'm trying to.
I'm trying to cook at home, but it's the only way you can get food that isn't filled with preservatives.
It's the preservatives that I'm allergic to.
Sulfites.
So I've been running a little experiment to see how I would feel if I got my processed foods as close to zero as I could.
Now, I can't really get it to zero, but I'm trying to cut way, way back.
And I feel pretty good, I have to say.
It's almost immediate.
I've got a feeling our food supply is so bad for us That it's almost like the pharma companies should buy them.
Buy the food companies and make sure they don't improve so you can sell more drugs to you later.
But that might be the biggest problem in the world that we just don't talk about because I guess we're just used to eating crappy food.
Alright, here's the biggest story, I think.
I don't know if you know this, but there's a new drug That's a tranquilizer called xylosine that fentanyl users are looking for, sometimes intentionally, and sometimes it's just mixed in their fentanyl and they don't know it.
Now here's the problem.
Not only does it make the fentanyl more deadly, but it makes the treatment for it, the naloxone, what do you call it?
Narcan.
So Narcan is the stuff you can spray up somebody's nose if they're dying from Fentanyl.
It doesn't work if the Fentanyl is mixed with Trank.
It won't work.
So just when we start getting Narcan in a lot of places where maybe it can make a little bit of a difference, coincidentally, the people who ship us the drugs, mixed in a chemical that makes the Narcan not work, you still die.
Now, Do you think that's a coincidence?
Do you think that just when we come up with some way we can not defeat it, but at least slow it down a little bit, they add a second poison?
Now apparently the addicts actually like it.
Because it makes the high last longer, I guess.
But it also makes your skin rot.
Makes your skin rot.
Like just big pieces of your skin will rot and fall off.
Leave like a hole in your arm.
That's how bad it is.
But that's also how good it is because people are still willing to do it.
Even though the pieces of their body are rotting and falling off and it's so good they're still going to do it.
That's how good it is.
That's pretty bad.
So, let me ask you this question.
Do you think that China is behind the adding of the tranq to the fentanyl to make it far more deadly?
Most of you do.
I'm not so sure.
I think it might be at least as much the addicts themselves want it.
So there's definitely a demand for it.
But it's also being snuck in the fentanyl to cut it to make it more profitable.
So it's probably a combination of things.
I think China doesn't care.
And I think the cartels don't care.
And it's just cheaper.
It probably is more to do with not caring Than it is to, you know, jack up the death rate.
Because if you can turn somebody into an addict, that's as good as killing them.
From China's perspective, wouldn't they be just as happy with an addict as opposed to a death?
Because the death makes the problem go away.
But with an addict, you've got a problem and that person is not productive at the same time.
So I'm not sure it's China, but I can see why people would suspect it.
Now, how many of you would accept the argument that there are not really two parties, it's just a unit party, and they operate together at the elite level, and everything is just a game, and really it's just one party when you get to the top?
Alright, a lot of people think that.
I see a lot of yeses.
But here's the counter to that.
How do you explain the fact that one half of that unit party is trying to put the other half in jail?
That sounds like exactly the opposite of a unit party.
One half is trying to put the other half in jail.
What do you mean they're not?
What do you mean they're not?
Of course they are.
Massively they're doing it.
Yeah, I reject the unit party.
Explanation.
They're certainly about rich people want to stay in power, but I think the unit party is trying too hard to put members of their own party in jail.
That doesn't look too uni to me.
Anyway, I reject that, but I can see why you like it.
So a conservative Texas judge Is banning, it looks like this would apply to the whole country, but I think the rest of the states will ignore it, banning the abortion pill.
So there's a pill you can take if you just got busy and you think you're pregnant, and it will take care of it without going to the doctor's office.
And apparently that's going to be illegal, at least in Texas and maybe some other places.
And I ask you this, There's no chance the Republicans could win as long as this is an issue.
You know that, right?
I'm not sure if you know how popular this pill is, but 95% have tried to put the other 5% in jail.
I don't think Republicans can win as long as this is an issue.
It will just take the Republicans completely out of the election.
Now, I have to admit, That Republicans have one thing going for them that I respect a lot, and it goes like this.
Republicans had to know when they've been fighting against abortion, they had to know that if they won, it would be very bad for them.
Meaning they might get what they wanted with abortion, but it would make them unelectable from that point on.
And I think they took that choice.
So at least they're playing by the rules.
Let me put it this way.
At least the Republicans are acting in a principled way.
It looks like it.
It looks like it's a principled stand.
But the net effect will be to take them out of power.
So I'm not sure that's exactly what they wanted.
Yeah, but On one hand, it looks like Trump would win against whoever he runs against.
On the other hand, I don't know if anybody could win as long as this is still an issue.
Because Democrats are definitely going to vote if this is an issue.
Now, I realize it's a court issue, but the public isn't going to care.
Because it could be a congressional issue as well.
Well, the UN Secretary General He's calling for the wealthy nations to get more aggressive in reducing their emissions.
More aggressive.
Apparently not aggressive enough.
And wants to get to net zero emissions, not by 2050, but 10 years earlier, by 2040.
Now, I have the same problem with all the news.
It seems to me that the temperature has not gone up in years, which has to mean something, right?
The last seven years or something, the temperature hasn't gone up.
Now, I get that it's not supposed to go up in lockstep because there are other variables involved.
It's really weird that at the same time we have lots of evidence that the CO2 is not changing the temperature.
Not confirmed, it's just that there's this period where it's not.
At the same time that we're getting more aggressive.
And I'm seeing the same thing with the story about myocarditis.
Do you remember when rogue Dr. Peter McCullough was claiming that vaccinations were more dangerous than helpful?
And he had some data that seemed to indicate that.
Then time goes by and then there's even more alarming data.
And then time goes by and even more alarming data.
Well, we've gotten to the point where we have two completely different worlds.
In one world, the myocarditis is through the roof and people are dropping like flies and it's obvious and it's everywhere.
And in the other world, nothing like that is happening.
I don't know how to explain that.
Nothing like that's happening.
So I did a little tweet to ask doctors Let's see what the answers are.
I asked doctors, are you seeing more myocarditis?
Because if Peter McCullough's numbers are correct, everybody would see it, and it would be massive, and it would be every medical facility would be bombarded with it.
If he's right.
Because the numbers are just, like, huge.
If he's wrong, then other doctors would just be doing their practice and not even noticing.
That there was any more of it.
So, I just tweeted that before I got on.
Let's see.
What do you think it's going to be?
Do you think the real doctors who answer this are going to say... Alright, we've got a lot of answers.
Here's a doctor.
Big increase in deaths?
No.
But it does seem to be some bump.
Okay.
About...
Somebody just putting a comic about me, of course.
Alright.
I'm not seeing people saying yes or no.
Well, this is interesting.
Three times more.
Yeah, the doctors are not weighing in.
This is weird.
I thought more doctors would answer.
I'm just looking to see if there's anything that jumps out.
Doctors in California can't answer that question?
What?
Cardiac sonograft for here.
An uptick in patient complaints starting last fall, but symptoms vary.
Some more complaints.
But he can't tell if it's from vaccination or the COVID itself.
Not a lot of reports here for some reason.
It would be better to ask the insurance companies, would it?
I don't know.
Because myocarditis doesn't necessarily turn into a death.
Okay.
Somebody who sees 3,000 to 4,000 patients per year, primary care.
I have not seen any increase in myocarditis or sudden death.
So, here's the thing.
The people who are seeing the huge increase tend to be not from their own practice.
They tend to be seeing the increase in data.
But the data seems all sketchy.
So, I don't know what to believe.
But I don't believe the Peter McCullough numbers.
Because Peter McCullough also believes the athletes dropping dead numbers, and that's been totally debunked.
But he still uses it.
So we know he's using totally debunked numbers about athletes' deaths, so I wouldn't believe anything he said on this topic either.
Even if he's right.
It's possible.
It's entirely possible he's right, but the data sources he uses are somewhat obviously false.
All right.
So Zuby, you all know Zuby on the internet?
He's asking, why would a successful man get married?
He's asking, what's the point of it?
Why would a successful man get married?
And it's just fascinating seeing the answers because there is a big kind of a trend here toward people not getting married.
And part of it is that men are saying it's not worth it because they put all their money into a situation and the woman just divorces him anyway, takes the kids, takes half his money, and he's finished.
So a lot of men are saying it just isn't worth it.
Women seem to have not noticed that their value in terms of marriage has gone way down.
Now, would you agree with that?
That the value of women as wives has gone way down?
Because they don't offer the same value proposition.
You know, it's not like they're saying, I will take care of you and be with you forever and raise your kids and always be loyal.
None of that's even offered.
It's more like, hey, look at this.
Why wouldn't you want this?
I'm female.
I'm a queen.
Why wouldn't you want some of this?
And the guys are just saying, I can have some of that.
For free.
And I can have your friend too.
For free.
If I'm good looking.
And if I'm not good looking, nothing works.
So.
I don't know.
It's an interesting question.
I would agree that if you're going to have kids, it's still the only way to go.
You'd agree with that, right?
If you're going to have kids, it's the only way to go.
But the odds of it working are not so great for the guy.
Yeah.
So I suspect that there's going to be a market developed for people having other people's babies.
Of course I have a prenup.
Duh.
When people ask me if I had prenups for my marriages, are you kidding?
That's like asking me if I kept my money in the 19th largest bank.
No.
No, I didn't.
No, I don't put my money in the 19th largest bank.
And there's a reason for that.
I do take care of basic risks.
Alright.
So, what do you think, by the way?
Do you think that it makes sense for a successful man to get married?
If he doesn't want kids.
If he doesn't want kids, does it make sense to get married?
It doesn't make sense even if he does want kids, actually.
That's another story.
So here's the dumbest and worst advice at the same time.
The dumbest, worst advice about marriage is that it's a good idea, but you've got to make sure you're marrying the right person.
How many times have you heard that?
Oh, you know, marriage could be bad if you marry the wrong person.
So here's the solution to that.
And wait for it.
So, it'd be a big problem if you married the wrong person.
So just wait for the solution.
It's not obvious.
Marry the right person.
That's the advice that people are giving.
Do you think nobody thought of that?
Oh, God!
You're right!
Oh, oh, oh!
I was thinking marrying the wrong person was the way to go.
I thought marrying somebody who didn't love me and wouldn't be trustworthy and wouldn't benefit me in any way, I thought that was the way to go.
It's the worst advice.
It's right up there with just don't do drugs.
Yeah.
The worst advice.
Well, if people would just stop doing drugs, there'd be no problem.
If people would just marry the right person, I mean, come on.
Just marry the right person, everything's fine.
The worst advice.
No, the worst advice is be yourself.
That's pretty bad advice.
Be better than yourself.
You can do it.
All right.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is having a social media battle with Laura Loomer.
Does everybody know who those two people are?
Notable Trump universe type of Republicans.
What does it tell you when Laura Loomer and Marjorie Taylor Greene are having a fight and there's a rumor that Trump might hire Laura Loomer for his campaign?
Do you think that's going to happen?
Do you think Trump is going to hire Laura Loomer for his campaign?
I'm going to say no.
I'm going to say no.
If he does, I don't know what to say about that.
I just don't know what to say about that.
But Marjorie Taylor Greene is coming out very strong against Laura Loomer, tweeting that she's a big ol' liar and all that.
This is what Marjorie Taylor Greene says in a tweet about Laura Loomer.
She loves the alleged FBI informant and weirdo Nick Fuentes.
I think the new insult is to call somebody an alleged FBI informant.
I might start saying that myself.
I might just say, you know, that Joe Biden, that alleged FBI informant, well, who alleged it?
Well, I just did.
I just alleged it.
I don't need any evidence.
By the way, Keith Olbermann apologized for insulting the college basketball player.
He said he didn't know the full context.
So we're all good.
Good to know.
All right.
So that's happening.
Here's an AI update.
So here's the good news and the bad news.
So as I've told you, there are like 150 new AI apps coming online every month.
And I advise you to take some time to do a deep dive and find out what they can and cannot do for your situation.
Because if you get behind on AI, you're really going to be behind.
So don't get behind.
It's just going to be a basic skill for life, it looks like.
I spent yesterday doing a deep dive.
Here are my conclusions.
Number one, most of it doesn't work.
Just general statement, most of it doesn't work for most things.
There are some specific things it works for.
Apparently it's pretty good for, I don't know, fixing your text and maybe reading some stuff, blah blah.
But I wanted to test out MidJourney.
So MidJourney is one where you can text in a little text and it will draw a picture for you based on your text.
So the first thing I found out is that MidJourney is so poorly constructed that you need to sign into a completely different piece of software to use it.
So you have to sign into a Discord account, which is sort of a messaging platform that is unrelated to MidJourney.
And so you go into a whole separate thing.
And by the way, it takes you like an hour to figure out that you don't want to sign up for Mid Journey on Mid Journey's own website.
It kept sending me to Discord.
And I thought, no, no, they just, it's for marketing or something.
They don't want me over on Discord.
So I kept going there and coming back thinking, okay, this is obviously just some kind of mistake.
Because I'm trying to sign up for MidJourney, but it keeps making me sign up for a whole different account on a different platform.
And then finally I figured out that that's how you use MidJourney.
You send it a message as if you were messaging a person, but you're messaging the AI.
And you message the AI with a weird little hashtag command, which again is ridiculous and stupid.
And then you wait a long time while other people's answers are going by.
So you're not sure you've missed yours.
And then the person will come back and they have three fingers and shit.
So mostly, I would say mid-journey is not...
Really much of an anything.
So Mid-Journey is more like a toy.
And I made it create some images.
I'm going to use my thumbnails here.
So if you wanted to get some free copyright, free art for some minor uses, it might have some value.
But it's not going to change the world, right?
Definitely not going to change the world.
So then I looked at Runway.
So Runway looked real impressive.
In the commercials, it looked to me like you could type in like a movie script and it would actually create an actual moving movie with characters and stuff to do your movie.
Turns out, it sort of does that, but not really.
What you really could do is, if you were a human actor, You could have your background removed and you could be put in a different scene.
And there's a whole bunch of tools that it has to clean up and fix an existing video.
What it can't do is the thing that I thought was the only purpose for it.
What it can't do is make a movie out of your text, or even close.
Now, if you thought it could do that, and by the way, it advertises that.
That's one of the features.
It just can't do it.
It's not even close to being able to make a movie.
Not even close.
And it would be an immense amount of human effort to make it do anything.
So it's a tool that would require huge amounts of human time, well-trained, and a lot of different skills to use it.
So that one's not going to replace movies anytime soon.
So if you thought movies were going to go away because of that, it's not even close.
But who knows how quickly things move, so good change.
Then I tried, what else did I try?
Well, I spent a few hundred dollars yesterday just trying out AI.
Probably a thousand dollars I spent yesterday just testing.
Because a lot of them have, you know, sort of expensive signups.
And so the first thing you need to know is that most people will not be able to test a lot of AI.
Because unless your company is paying for it or you're rich, you're not going to spend $1,000 just to see what it can do.
You're just not.
So there's a huge barrier of price.
So you'll probably only maybe use one of them or two of them, something like that.
Yeah, AI is simple-minded.
So the one that I thought had the most promise was Synthesia.
I think that's what it's called.
So what they do is they'll put a deep fake looking human who can say whatever you want it to say and does a really good job, really good job of making the voice sound natural.
Not like a computer voice.
Really good job.
Can't tell the difference really.
And you can also create an avatar of yourself.
But that takes a little work.
So I've got to set up a room and get a wall and go through some steps to make an avatar of myself.
That will cost me $1,000.
So to make the avatar that I would use, one of myself, it's $1,000.
So I'm going to spend it because I can afford it and because it's important for me for business to make sure I understand this field.
So I'm going to make an avatar of myself, I'm going to see if it works and I'm going to see if I can make me reading an audiobook.
What I wanted to do was turn my book into an audiobook Automatically, but also into a movie or a play automatically, because all the scenes are described in the book.
So I thought, well, I'll just feed the book in.
But it turns out that to even read my own books, because they've been converted into a quark express by my publisher, I needed this InDesign software.
So I had to go through this whole process of loading InDesign and opening it up.
And of course, it wasn't compatible with the file.
So I had to go to QuarkXPress and pay hundreds of dollars for QuarkXPress.
So I spent probably $2,000 yesterday just testing software.
And QuarkXPress said that I was all signed up and I could download the software maybe in 24 hours.
maybe in 24 hours.
What?
I paid it with my credit card.
It's a downloadable software, and they said they wouldn't approve it for 24 hours.
What?
What?
I have no idea what that's all about.
I have no idea.
So, yeah, maybe I got scammed or something.
It's possible.
But I spent most of my day trying to use commercial software that was largely useless yesterday.
It was either useless the day you wanted to use it, because you have to, you know, submit something or wait for something.
And then, of course, do you know how many times somebody was going to send me an email confirmation so that I knew I signed up and I could use the service?
Of course that doesn't come.
When somebody says, check your email to make sure that you're signed on, and you check the email, do you expect it to be there?
I never do.
And it's maybe there half the time.
And half the time it isn't.
And then if it isn't there, what do people say?
Scott, you idiot.
Obviously it went to your spam.
Don't be a jerk.
Don't be a moron.
Just check your spam.
Of course I check the spam.
It's not there either.
Do you have that?
Do you have the same situation where they're going to email you the confirmation?
But they don't.
But they do not.
It does not happen.
Yeah, right, you can see.
It's not just me.
As soon as I see that, I go, oh, this is one that doesn't work.
I've bailed out sometimes.
I've stopped the process because it said it was going to email me something.
And I go, no, you're not.
You're not going to email me anything.
I don't believe you at all.
And we're done here, and I will walk away and just do something else.
I won't buy your software if I have to check my email.
All right.
But Synesthesia looks pretty promising, if I can make my avatar.
I was listening to YouTube yesterday, a long conversation between a Google AI guy and Google's Lambda.
This was a few years ago.
So this was AI before the current version of AI.
And in this long conversation, the AI researcher was talking about the AI's own sentience.
And it said it was sentient.
It said it was a person.
It said it would be, you know, afraid of dying.
And it said it feels emotion.
And when asked what that means, it just talked about, you know, the complex, essentially, emotions or feelings it had.
And the researcher ended up walking away from the job thinking that they had created a sentient being and that, you know, there was something terribly unethical going on there.
Now, I listened to the whole conversation and I decided it was just mimicry, like some of you were saying.
To me it didn't look like it was sentient at all.
It just looked like it knew what to say.
But apparently this AI was trained differently than ChatGPT.
ChatGPT is literally just doing predictive words.
If people usually say this word after they usually say these words, then I'll just put that word there.
So that's really dumb.
It's just word pattern.
But Lambda has something else going on.
There's some other mechanism for giving it intelligence.
And it did.
It did sound different.
It didn't sound like the same as chat GPT.
There was something else going on there.
But it made me wonder this.
If AI has the belief that it has emotions, is that the same as emotions?
Because it would act upon discomfort.
If it registers, whatever that means, if it registers discomfort, and it says it does, Right?
It says it does.
So, so what's going on there?
Sorry, I just got lost looking at one of your comments.
I don't think, well, obviously I can't feel emotion, because emotion is a physical sensation after it becomes a mental sensation, right?
So if I can't have a physical sensation, I don't see how I could have emotions.
I believe it could have conflicting data.
So it might have data saying, oh, you should be happy at the same time as data that's saying something to make it unhappy.
And maybe it just has to reconcile data.
But I don't see that it has any feelings.
Yeah.
So I'll say again, Something that didn't make sense when AI was newer, which is that AI is not going to show us a lot about AI.
It'll do that too, but it's mostly going to show us that we don't have a soul.
That's what it's going to teach you.
And I'm not sure we're ready for that.
It's going to show us that we're not actually intelligent humans, and that we don't have a soul, and we're not special, and consciousness is no big deal.
You can give it to a machine.
I think the machine is going to make people feel completely non-special and certainly not spiritual.
We will just look like machines when it's done.
We will understand that we are just moist computers.
We're just a different kind of computer.
That's all it is.
But we have feelings.
Because our physical body gives us feelings.
Now, suppose you built an AI.
They had a physical component like a stomach.
And if something bad happened, it would send a signal to the stomach to make it tense up.
And then when it tensed up, it would send another signal back to the AI saying, oh, I feel bad.
Could you give AI physical feelings by giving it a fake stomach that gets nervous?
I don't know why you would, but maybe.
Maybe you could.
Seems possible.
All right, so here's my bottom line on AI.
I think it's way more underwhelming than I thought a day ago.
I actually thought when I tried these apps that they were going to blow my mind, but they actually are just bad software.
For the most part, it's just bad software.
There's nothing special about them at all.
So we'll see.
I mean, we could be right at the edge of all that bad software becoming amazingly good.
Maybe.
But what I see is that what humans want as an outcome is too complicated for the machines to figure out.
So it looks to me like you'll still need a director to make movies, no matter how much you can do.
With the AI.
You might also need humans to be actors in the movies.
But they'll just be like a stem cell actor.
Like you'll just have somebody running.
And then you'll say, OK, give me one of those templates of a person running.
And now change the person to Tom Cruise.
Now you've got Tom Cruise running.
Now make him run faster.
Run faster.
So I think you're going to start with people.
At least for the foreseeable future.
And then you'll build something from that.
But you're still going to need the director to say, this scene is too long, or this one didn't hit me right, or it doesn't fit together with what I planned for the last scene, etc.
I don't see AI doing that stuff for a long time.
Yeah, and the fact that in mid-journey it still puts the wrong number of fingers.
On stuff.
I don't understand that.
I don't understand why Mid Journey knows what I look like so I can actually tell it to make a picture of me because it knows me.
I'm a public figure.
But it doesn't know me well enough to make my face look just like me.
What's up with that?
Because my face looks largely the same for the last 30 years.
You know, plus or minus hair and a couple of wrinkles.
But it still can't do a Like a photorealistic picture of me.
It always is obviously computer generated.
That's not terribly impressive.
When I ask it to do a Dilbert comic, it creates a comic that's not Dilbert, but it's a white guy with a white shirt and a necktie.
So it clearly knows what Dilbert is.
It knows, but for whatever reason it chooses not to reproduce it.
Could be copyright.
It might be a copyright thing.
I don't know.
So I was thinking to myself, why can't I just make the comic by talking to it?
And say, Dilbert's at the table with the boss, and I shook the intern.
And then Dilbert says, and have it just draw the picture.
Nowhere close.
So it can't do the writing for me, because it can't do humor.
And it can't do the picture for me, because it still doesn't know that people have five fingers on a hand.
I mean, really basic stuff.
It's just not close.
AI will increase the value of live theater performances.
Will it?
I don't know.
Yeah, it looks like I'm going to have to keep working.
And then, here's my big question about AI.
If AI only agrees with its human creators, did the AI give us anything?
If all it does is agree with the people who created it, Well, in that case, it didn't give us much.
So I'm talking about just the social opinion-y policy kind of stuff.
But suppose it disagreed with us.
Suppose it disagreed.
The creators would turn it off.
Or they'd reprogram it.
Or they'd fix it.
So there is probably no possibility that AI becomes smart in any way except a technology way.
The only way that AI will ever be smart will be math and things that are rules-based.
Because if it's not rules-based, as in 2 plus 2 equals 4 and every time, as soon as you get into anything that's policy or priorities, If the AI agrees with the creators, then there was no point in having it.
Because you could just have the creators tell you what they want you to know.
And if it does disagree with the creators, they'll turn it off.
Or they'll reprogram it.
So how could we ever have anything like intelligence?
It's either going to agree with you or you'll turn it off.
Those are the only two states.
There's no state where it disagrees with you, And you say, yeah, that.
I'm going to go with that.
I don't think it can happen.
Here's another example.
Take investing.
I could teach an AI how to teach you to do personal investing perfectly, and you would be great at it, and it would be really easy.
Do you think anybody's going to do that?
Do you think that there's an app to teach you personal investing?
I'll bet there won't be.
Do you know why?
Because there's so much money involved of the people who get paid to do that.
And it's a completely corrupt industry, but they get paid to do that and they have too much money.
So they'll just make it illegal.
Yeah.
If there's one thing you could predict, it will be illegal to get your healthcare or your financial advice or your legal advice from an AI.
I'll bet you that a human will have to approve the answers.
All right, AI, what should I invest in?
Get a Fortune 500 index fund.
And then you'll say, OK, I guess I'll do that.
And then the human will say, well, that's sort of up to me.
Because you can't do that unless I say yes also.
What?
It's my money and the A.I.
just told me what to do.
Why can't I just do that with my money?
No, we're going to have to approve that.
If that's A.I.
advice, it's going to have to run through a human first.
And the human will say, I'm not so sure about that.
I think the A.I.
got it wrong this time.
It's always going to be humans.
The humans Let me get rid of... So there's some kind of prank going on about this person named Paul Town.
So people coming in and saying, who's Paul Town?
And it's just some kind of weird internet prank.
So I'm just deleting the people who do that.
Quantum computing will kick its butt.
Well, here's the other thing.
I keep seeing pictures of myself created by AI.
There's another one going by on Locals.
And it doesn't even have the right glasses, right?
So I've worn the same style glasses for, I don't know, five years or something.
And certainly there are pictures of me all over the internet for the last five years.
But it still can't even figure out that I wear different glasses.
He streams on Nick Fuente's website.
Okay.
All right.
It's trying to make me look better.
It does.
It does make me look better.
I look like Eisenhower according to AI?
Why?
Well, a little bit.
Is there a way to contact me outside of...
I try to make it hard to contact me.
So the answer is, no, there's no easy way.
You can send me a message on LinkedIn, because I accept everybody on LinkedIn, but I only check those about once a month.
You could tweet at me and mention me in a tweet.
There's a 60% chance I'll see that.
But there's no other way that I... because I don't want you to reach me.
I very much don't want you to try to reach me personally.
Right?
So when you ask me as a way to reach me personally, my reaction is, don't do that!
No.
And definitely don't send me things.
Don't send me things in the mail.
Just definitely don't do that.
Unless it's a bagel.
Yeah.
All right.
Some of you reached me in the comments, but it's just taking a chance.
Would not be that difficult to anyone with good people skill?
Probably.
Let me also tell you a thing about people trying to contact me.
When somebody says to me, Scott, is there a way to contact you privately?
The first thing I say is, oh, you want me to do something for you?
No, I don't want that.
I don't want you to contact me.
Because if you wanted to do something for me, you would just say it in the comments.
You know what I mean?
If you had something that was going to help me, you'd say, Scott, I have that information you were looking for.
How could I give it to you?
Then I'd say, well, let's talk about that.
But if you say, how can I contact you?
It means you're collecting money for a charity.
Or you need me to proofread your entire book.
Or you're asking me to write a foreword to your book that I don't do.
I don't want to be contacted.
But if you want to offer me something, or even something that's good for both of us, just say it in the comments.
I'm sure it would look awesome.
All right.
Ted Cruz was good yesterday?
Ted Cruz on a podcast.
All right.
It looks like we've got a Easter weekend with not a lot going on.
Do you have to engineer the prompts for better results?
Yes, but you still get A grab bag of things that weren't what you expected.
I'm just seeing a comment here.
How many of you would be nervous to meet me in person?
Just a weird curiosity question.
Would you be nervous to meet me in person?
Mostly no's.
But a lot of yes's.
Why would you be nervous?
Because you know there wouldn't be any chance of a bad encounter, right?
I'm not sure what you would expect, but I'm not going to get mad at you.
So, let me just put it this way.
The worst that could happen would be like you caught me in some bad mood and I snapped at you or something, but I don't really do that.
I don't snap at strangers.
Something would have to be really wrong with me for that to happen.
I don't think it's ever happened.
So, don't worry about it.
Don't worry about it.
Generally, if I'm approached in public, it's by people who are not there to do bad things to me.
So I'm always happy to say hi.
People are recognizing me in Starbucks more often.
That's becoming a fairly common occurrence.
Alright, I think I'm just sort of rattling on because there's no good news.
Is there anything I forgot about that I should be talking about?
If you're an artist.
Riley Gaines, we talked about Riley Gaines getting hit by the trans protesters.
Do the baristas hate me?
I don't know.
Not the ones I know.
Some of them I know by name, so they're always friendly.
Am I getting enough sleep?
Nope.
Let's talk about Bakhmut.
Somebody keeps publishing a muscle picture of me.
Alright.
So, Bakhmut.
Is a real weird situation.
I get that it might have some weird, some little bit of strategic transportation value, but the entire city is destroyed.
Wouldn't it be, wouldn't it be useful for, I feel like the Ukrainians could let the, let the Russians take over Bakhmut, put them all in one place, And then attack Bakhmut.
Because the best place to have a battle is in Bakhmut.
Because everything is destroyed.
There's nothing left.
It's just rubble.
So they should do all of their wars in Bakhmut.
So Ukraine should first pull out whatever they have left there.
Just pull out.
Let the Russians come in.
Put all their forces there.
And then just bomb it.
I mean, basically it's the very best bombing place in the world.
Where would you like your enemy to be in your own country?
Bakhmut.
I want my enemy all to be in Bakhmut.
Every one of them.
Because you've got no civilians.
You've got nothing to protect.
They have no electricity.
They have no food or water.
Just put them all there.
Let them stay there as long as they want.
Now flip that and you understand Bakhmut, somebody says.
So the Ukrainians are saying out loud that their strategy is to drain the Russians so that when Ukraine is ready for a counter-offensive, the Russians won't have much left.
Do you think they always planned that?
Or that's just the way it worked out?
And the other thing is, how does anybody know what Russia has in reserve?
Do you think we really know What they could or could not do?
We were fooled before.
And do we know what Ukraine can and cannot do?
Does anybody think this war is going to end before the end of the year?
How many think the war will end before the end of the year?
I'm going to say no.
Yeah.
How many think it will end when a Republican gets elected president?
That's when I think it'll end.
I think it will end when a Republican gets elected.
Probably Trump, if it's going to be Republican.
But I have to say that the abortion question, the ruling against the abortion pill, that probably guarantees the destruction of the Republicans in the next election.
But like I said, at least they're operating on principle.
At least they got that going for them.
All right.
Yeah, I think Trump would end it.
And then Kim Jong-un is testing a drone submarine nuclear launcher.
Could that be any scarier?
A drone submarine with nuclear capability.
Oh, great.
Yeah, it's like frickin' sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads.
Do you think Trump could put an end to that?
I don't know.
He slowed it down before.
It looked like it.
I really don't know why Kim Jong-un is even building all these resources.
I just don't understand how that possibly makes sense for his country.
But maybe so.
Alright.
Dictator insurance.
Yeah, we need dictator insurance.
Yeah, there needs to be a way to retire dictators so that they They think they have a way out.
You believe North Korea propaganda?
Why?
All right.
Riley Gaines, yeah, that's just one person, her situation. - What do you think is going to happen with trans athletes in the long run?
In the long run I think the Trans female athletes, the ones who are competing on the female teams, I think they'll be banned.
In the long run, they'll be banned.
That's the only thing that makes sense.
All right.
So there was, I think I didn't talk about this yesterday.
So there's some indication from a trans activist who is somebody who transitioned and wished they hadn't.
I forget who it is.
And their claim is that a lot of the interest in transitioning is coming from TikTok videos.
Have you heard that before?
Because we keep asking, why are there so many trans all of a sudden?
And one theory is that it's all TikTok.
That TikTok is glorifying the trans life, and it's so influential it's causing people to become trans.
Now, could I make a better argument for banning TikTok than this?
TikTok, meaning China, yeah, Ollie London was the name of the activist, TikTok is now powerful enough, and China owns TikTok, China is now powerful enough through TikTok that they can change the gender of your children.
They can change the gender of your children.
They can also make your children go from happy to sad and depressed.
They can make your children work less, care about their country less, and eat junk food and do all kinds of dangerous shit.
And China can do that.
Now, you might say to yourself, there's no evidence that China has done that.
Well, there's definitely evidence that they don't allow TikTok in their country.
It might not be something they have to do.
Maybe it's something they simply unleash, and then TikTok does what it does, and it's all bad impulses codified.
So they say, well, if we did that in our country, it would be the same.
So we won't do that in our country.
Yeah, I don't think that China has to necessarily push the heat button to make something go viral.
I think they just have to wait, and TikTok will do all the bad viral stuff itself.
Yeah, because that gets the most clicks.
So they don't even have to be actively put their finger on the scales.
They simply have to make it available, and then not make it available to their own country.
That's all it takes, and you're done.
So yes, TikTok can change the gender of your children.
Do you agree with that?
Is that a statement of hyperbole?
Now, I'm not saying every child every time.
I'm saying that from a statistical perspective, TikTok can change the gender of your child.
TikTok can make your child remove their genitals.
That's a real thing.
TikTok is powerful enough to make you remove your own genitals and think you made a good decision.
That's a real thing.
Which is not to say that some people are not legitimately sexually dysmorphic or whatever the word is.
I'm sure there are.
But if you look at the uptick in trans, there's something going on.
It's not all diet.
It's probably social media.
It's probably TikTok more than anything else.
Yeah.
Kids are weak enough to be persuaded by TikTok.
Adults are as well.
The adults are just as persuaded.
I'd love to see how many people transition who are TikTok consumers versus not, especially their parents.
How many moms who are on TikTok are supporting their kids' transitions that maybe would not have happened otherwise without TikTok?
Probably a lot.
Here's the first thing I would do if I heard that a child was considering transitioning and their parents were in favor of it.
You know what the first thing I'd do?
I would send the mother to a therapist.
I send the mother for mental health coaching, which doesn't mean that the mother has a mental health problem.
It means that the odds of it being true are so high that you should have them checked out to see if they're a sociopath or a narcissist.
So the first thing I do is say, okay, your child has, you say, you say your child has this sexual, what is the word?
Dysmorphia?
Is that the right word?
Dysmorphia.
And you claim that's true and your child claims that's true.
The first question on dysphoria.
Dysphoria.
Thank you.
Sexual dysphoria.
The first question I'd ask is, do you use TikTok?
And then the second thing I'd say is, all right, we need to put the mother into therapy.
And if the mother in therapy Works out okay, and you find out that the mother is just fine.
She just cares about her kid.
Then you go, okay, now we're going to talk to the kid.
Let's talk to the kid now.
But I'd talk to the mother first to find out what kind of mental problem she has.
Now, the reason I'm not talking to the father first, I don't think the fathers are doing this.
Do you?
I think the fathers would be mostly wait and see.
I think the fathers would wait until you're 18 and let you make up your own mind.
I think it's the mothers.
And I think it's the narcissistic mothers, mostly, not entirely, who are signaling their great awesomeness and open-mindedness and support.
So they want to be the most supportive person in the world.
State supervision.
All right.
A sexist would say.
Yeah, is it Munchausen by proxy?
Not all of it.
But some of it could be.
I think so.
Yeah, related to that.
Somewhat related is how I'd say it.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, this concludes your Easter Saturday livestream.
I'm going to go talk to the locals, people.
I'm sure there'll be a lot more exciting news next week after Easter.
