Episode 2080 Scott Adams: Biden's Dementia Campaign Strategy, Leaked Documents Story Is Fake, AI
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Biden's dementia campaign strategy
Ukraine secrets leak is fake news
AI makes work harder
Louisiana tries to ban divisive history lessons
Lots more provocations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 that's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's never been a better thing.
You probably think so, but no, you'd be wrong.
This is the highlight of your life so far.
And if you'd like to take this up to really, I don't know, orgasmic levels, if I can say that, well then all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gel, 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 Simultaneous Sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Now, if you continue to resist the simultaneous sip, it's going to get you. - Yeah.
And here's why it's going to get you.
I know some of you are at home or at work and you're saying to yourself, I'm not going to simultaneously sip.
I will not.
I will not simultaneously sip just because you tell me to.
Well, you could keep denying yourself.
You could be a sip denier.
But the truth is that the reason that people do it every day is because it feels good.
You don't like dopamine?
You don't like oxytocin?
You know you do.
Come and get some.
Come and get some!
Come on, come on in here!
Come on!
You'll love it.
Next time.
Alright.
Well, let's see.
CNN's trotted out one of their political opinion people, Julian Zelazar.
He's our political analyst and professor of history and public affairs at Princeton.
So, pretty smart.
Pretty smart guy.
Teaching at Princeton.
So, Julian says that Biden's strategy of basically not campaigning for president while he campaigns for president is actually pretty brilliant.
And here's why.
Because at the moment, the Republicans are sniping at each other, you know, Trump and DeSantis, and this is what could be called the Rose Garden strategy.
Yeah.
It's the Rose Garden Strategy.
Meaning that instead of going out and campaigning, the incumbent president just stays at the White House and takes care of business.
And by being just a good take-care-of-business kind of a president, well, that's the campaign, isn't it, folks?
All you need is somebody so good that they won't even take time off to campaign for their own personal power and prestige.
No.
It's about the country.
Joe Biden is working tirelessly for the country.
He doesn't need to campaign.
Just look at what he's doing.
That's enough.
So that's what Julian says.
Paraphrasing.
So does that sound right?
Does that fit the facts?
It does.
It does.
It does fit the facts.
Because it's a real strategy.
It's one that has worked before.
It worked against Trump.
He just stayed hidden from COVID and that worked.
And as long as Democrats want a Democrat for president, it doesn't matter who they're running anyway.
So Julian's right, right?
Fits all the facts.
It's obviously a smart strategy.
It's worked before.
So that's a pretty good frame of what's happening, do you think?
Yeah, maybe.
Maybe.
Let me give you one other competing hypothesis.
I'll just put it out there.
I'm not saying it has any merit.
I'm just saying, you know, you want to look at all the possibilities.
The other possibility is it's totally obvious that if you put Biden in front of the public more than you absolutely have to, it's going to be a disaster.
Because he's not all there.
Now does that explanation also fit all the facts?
It does!
It does!
It fits all the facts.
And it's somewhat obviously true.
But two things can be true at the same time, can't they?
It can be true that he's genuinely degraded.
At the same time, it's genuinely a smart strategy to keep him out of the news and see if he can just limp along doing his job.
So I'm going to say Julian is correct, and also it's obvious that Biden is not capable.
And when I say not capable, I don't mean he's a Democrat.
I mean there's just something wrong.
There's just something wrong there.
I don't say that about JFK Jr., right?
So whether or not you think JFK Jr.
is the right choice for president, he's a thinking, A person who functions at a high level with clear success behind him.
I don't know.
I wouldn't hate having him as president.
Because he's like a high-functioning person.
Apparently I saw a headline that the Kennedy family is pushing back.
They're not too pleased that he's running.
But I'm going to put him out there as someone who earned his right to run.
You know, independent of his family connections.
I think he earned it.
So, I think he's a patriot.
I guess that's the main thing.
It's not obvious that he has any monetary incentive.
I don't, you know, he doesn't have any, like, sketchy connections to Ukraine, or business deals with Russia, as far as I know.
So we could do worse.
We could do worse.
I like to point out every now and then when there's something going right, I love the fact that Vivek Ramaswamy is making a dent.
Probably won't get the nomination because Trump's kind of hard to beat.
But I love the fact that he's in the race.
He's changing the race.
He's changing the argument.
He's showing some life.
He's showing some energy.
He's got really clear communication, which I think is catchy.
You can't have one candidate who is super good at communicating Without that spreading to the other candidates.
Because they're going to have to take their game up to his game.
And his game is stronger than anybody else right now, in terms of communication.
Nobody's close.
So, having RFK Jr.
in the race, having Vivek in the race, having DeSantis in the race, and Trump, of course, I'm kind of liking how this is shaping up.
Like, the only person who scares me in all of this, Democrat or Republican, the only one who scares me is Biden himself, because I'm not quite sure what's going on there.
There's a little bit of a black box going on there.
So, we don't know who's running the show in the Biden administration.
Well, on Breitbart, I saw an interesting article that Kash Patel, Who, as you know, has been close to the intel powers that be in the Trump administration.
So when he talks about things, he can talk from genuine, you know, useful experience.
And when he looks at the story about the 21-year-old who leaked those documents, the documents were embarrassing to the Biden administration because they seem to suggest That the Biden administration knows that it can't win in Ukraine, or something like that.
I haven't seen them, but it's something like that, right?
There's some suggestion that the Biden administration is lying about how well things are going in Ukraine.
So, here's Kash Patel's take on that.
Number one, the belief that somebody at his level would have access to those kind of documents, Kash says, no way.
He says there isn't a slightest chance.
Now the way he explains it is better than what you've heard anybody else explain it.
He says, yes, even if you're the technology guy, even if you're working on the technology, they still wall off the data.
You know, the person who works on the network response isn't the person who has necessarily access to the data.
The data is the part you want to keep them away from.
So Cash says there is not even the slightest chance, not even any chance, that that one person had access to that data.
What do you think?
I feel like Cash is pretty credible.
I haven't heard him say anything crazy yet.
I mean, he may have said some predictions that didn't turn out or something, but that's different.
Yeah.
So his theory is that there's somebody, somebody higher up, who is trying to, basically it's an op, you know, some kind of internal operation, intel situation.
So there's either somebody in our government, or, you know, God forbid, somebody in another government who has access to these documents.
And then the other evidence that Cash gave that made me laugh, because once you hear this, You're going to be convinced, right?
So at the moment, maybe you're not convinced that there's something sketchy going on.
Maybe it looks to you exactly like what happened.
Yeah, it's just a 21-year-old had access.
He had bad judgment.
He was showing off to his friends.
Nothing else to see here.
Listen to this next point that Cash makes.
That the information that the leaks existed We're first brought to us by the New York Times and the Washington Post.
First of all, is that true?
Is that where we first found out about the leaks?
And here's what Cash says.
Are you telling me that the New York Times and the Washington Post knew more than the FBI did about that situation?
And as Cash points out, that's how ops are done in this country.
If you want to plant a story, you do it with the New York Times and the Washington Post, if you're the CIA.
If you're the Biden administration or Deep State, that's how you do it.
So once you hear that it came from the New York Times and the Washington Post, before the FBI knew about it allegedly, then you know it's a fake story.
So I'm going to go with Kash Patel's frame, until proven wrong.
Remember, everything you believe in politics is until proven wrong.
Somebody asked me earlier before I started the live stream here for YouTube, on the Locals channel somebody asked me if I was 100% sure about something in another domain, and I laugh.
If you ever see me 100% sure of anything, then you know I have dementia.
That's how you'll know.
The minute I tell you I'm 100% sure of something, you should get a caretaker for me.
Because something went wrong.
Something went terribly wrong with my brain if you hear me ever say I'm 100% sure of anything.
So, I prefer to say, keep that in mind, counselor.
I prefer to look at the situation this way.
The government is guilty until proven innocent.
The government is guilty until proven innocent.
And they have definitely not proven themselves innocent in this situation.
So I'm going to take the assumption that there is somebody in the government who is hiding something.
However, are they good guys or bad guys?
That gets a little dicier, doesn't it?
Because would it be a bad guy who tried to tell the public the truth?
Is that a bad guy?
Do bad guys tell the public the truth?
That feels like the opposite of a bad guy, doesn't it?
It feels almost like a little bit of a whistleblower, somebody who's trying to get us out of a war that could end in nuclear annihilation and benefit nothing.
Maybe.
So, I don't know who in the administration would be deep state and also want to end the war.
Thank you.
But I guess, you know, it takes all kinds.
So that could exist.
Yes.
Uh, uh, I think you should change your name to Whistle.
I think I'm going to do that.
I'm going to change my first name to Whistle.
You can figure out why.
I'll give you a second to connect the dots.
Why would he want to call himself Whistle?
Whistle?
Well, you'll figure it out.
You'll get it.
You might want to ask a friend, but it's funny.
All right.
Did you know that Russian oil exports are back above pre-Ukraine level?
So Russia is selling more oil than before the sanctions.
That's right.
They're selling more oil than before the Ukraine war.
So they're selling it mostly to India and China.
So once again we learn that oil is fungible.
Does everybody know what fungible means?
It means oil is oil.
I could buy your barrel or your barrel or your barrel and it's still just oil.
Not really.
There's some oils better than others, but you know what I mean.
You know what I mean.
Yes, it's fungible.
And that means that in a world where you can buy anything that looks the same from anybody and it all looks the same, you can't really stop it unless everybody stops it.
So, there wasn't really any chance that Russia wouldn't be able to sell its oil.
It would just cause them a little trouble.
So, allow me to update.
My Russia-Ukraine opinion.
You ready for this?
Are you ready for a brand new Ukraine-Russia opinion?
If it's true that Russia's oil experts are back to pre-Ukraine levels, there is no way that Russia doesn't win the war.
There's no way that Russia doesn't win.
Because they have money, and there's nothing else that matters.
Am I right?
As long as Putin has money, and he's also working against the power of the U.S.
dollar.
So he's probably the main person behind making the U.S.
dollar be just one of the reserves.
You know, other countries are using their own currency.
So what do you say?
So this war was always an economic war.
It was a military war in disguise, but it was always economic.
Whoever's economy could weather the storm better was going to win.
That's just the only way it ever works, right?
Because there wasn't any way that Ukraine was going to go in and take Moscow.
Was there?
Was Moscow ever at risk?
No.
The only way Moscow was at risk is if they lost their money.
And they didn't.
They made money.
Now, certainly, Putin's got some challenges with microchips and some other stuff, but we're not really seeing the effect of it.
Must be some kind of workaround to do it.
So, given that economics will determine how this war will end, Russia won.
Russia won.
It's basically over.
What do you think?
Now, we could just keep killing each other for a few more months, but once Russia is not economically challenged, that's the end of the game.
Am I wrong?
That's the end of the game.
Now, there's still a lot of killing and bad things to happen, but we don't have to wonder how it's going to turn out anymore.
There's no speculation left.
If Russia's economy is strong, and it appears to be, that's all you need to know.
I'm still proud of my contrarian prediction that Russia wouldn't be able to roll Ukraine in two weeks, or whatever people thought.
So I'm going to still take credit for getting that part right.
But in the long run, it was always about economics.
And now we know the answer to that.
The answer is done.
India and China will keep buying oil, and that's all you need to know.
You get no credit for the daily pro-Ukraine propaganda.
Well, there are some people who can't handle if I talk about the pros and cons of situations.
Are you one of those people?
Because I wouldn't say it in public if you were.
So the problem is that Ukraine had a lot of things going for it, such as American weapons and morale and controlled the territory and the Russian army was falling apart.
Those things are all still true.
It's all still true.
But it was always also true that the ultimate winner would be who could afford it and who was willing to stick into it.
Who was willing to stick with it.
So even the stuff like, oh, there are more NATO countries and stuff.
How much difference does any of that really make?
Was Russia going into Finland anyway?
Was Russia going to take Sweden?
Didn't seem like it.
So how many of you would say that I've changed my prediction.
I still think the way it's going to end is Russia will keep the territory they have.
So that's always been my prediction.
That Russia would keep the stuff they have, but not get the rest of Ukraine.
So maybe it's morphed a little bit, but that's where everything's going.
Now in that context, Doesn't it only make sense to negotiate at this point?
And do we think we have to wait for Trump to do it?
Because I think we might.
Now there's one possibility that you have to consider.
If the war is still going on while the election is going on for president, that's going to be a very bad look for Biden.
Would you agree?
Because people are going to say, Trump says he can end this.
Now, you don't know if that's true, but he's promising to end it kind of quickly by negotiating, and you've seen him negotiate.
You know that he can make a deal.
Even if you don't like him, you know he knows how to make deals.
So, I think Biden is going to have to desperately try to end the war months before the election so he has a chance of re-election, or whoever's running.
So I think you might see some Hail Mary desperation under Biden, which Putin might be smart enough to take advantage of.
Because remember, Putin's, you know, he's a chess player.
He knows how to do this stuff.
And if I were Putin, I'd say to the Biden administration, you know, when Trump comes on board, we're going to end this war.
Right?
Imagine if Russia, you know, Lavrov or somebody just whispers to the Biden administration, you know that two days after Trump is president, we're going to negotiate an end to the war, don't you?
You better do it now.
Because you don't have a chance of winning unless you do it before he's president.
Because we're going to make a deal with him.
We are going to make a deal with Trump.
We don't know what it is, but we're absolutely going to make a deal with Trump.
So you better get on it.
Imagine if Lavrov said that to Biden administration.
Wouldn't they believe that?
I would definitely believe it.
If he said that to me, I'd be like, oh, shoot, you're right.
Yeah, Trump is definitely going to wrap this thing up, and that will be one of the greatest accomplishments in Trump's history.
It will be his greatest accomplishment, and it won't even be hard.
Do you see the size of the risk that Biden and the Democrats are at?
Trump will end the war, and it won't be hard.
And they're not doing it.
If they let Trump end the war, if this drags on another year plus, and then Trump ends it, I don't know why anybody would vote for a Democrat again.
That would just eliminate the last possible argument, I think.
I'm exaggerating, of course.
All right, let's talk about Elon Musk went hard at Germany for closing their nuclear plants.
In an interview, he said it was total madness to shut them down.
When you hear somebody of Elon Musk's both intelligence and success and impact on the world, etc., he's not saying the cost-benefit analysis suggests that you should do one thing or the other.
No, that would be the weak form.
The weak form is, I think this is a much better idea than this other thing.
No, this is madness.
This can't be described in economic terms.
You can't describe it politically.
You can't describe it economically.
You can't describe it in terms of science.
There is no realm in which it makes sense, even a little bit.
It is complete madness.
And I love to see Musk call it out with the right word.
Because if he had said it's a bad idea, then people always disagree what's a bad idea.
But this is actual some kind of insanity.
And then, Musk, who's very good at this, he reframed it this way.
See, Germany is framing their energy situation as a climate question, right?
Am I right about that?
Germany's theme for energy is climate and being good citizens to the world.
And Musk reframed that into national security risk.
And he just acted like, are you blind?
Running out of energy in the midst of the Ukraine-Russia situation is the most insane, it's just insane that you would let down your biggest economic asset, which is your energy.
It doesn't make any sense, because it's the weakest thing you could do in a world in which staying strong keeps you alive.
Why did it take Elon Musk to say this out loud and make a difference?
I mean, I don't know if it'll make a difference to what's happening, but this is exactly the right frame.
That it is madness.
It's not an economic decision.
It's not a political decision.
It's not a scientific decision.
It's not in any of those domains.
It's just crazy.
And it's bad for national security of Germany, which makes it our problem.
Am I right?
This is your problem and my problem.
Because if Germany goes under, because they don't have electricity, you don't think that's going to ripple into your life?
This is our national security problem too.
We should be very loud about this.
You know, same thing with any allied country.
France, by the way, let me take a moment.
Allow me to take a moment.
Is there anybody, this would be a weird coincidence, but is there anybody here who's in France?
Is there any French person watching this right now?
Yes.
Oh, OK.
We've got one over there.
Well, I'm not going to speak French.
All right.
But let me say to the French people, Lafayette, we are here.
We have a long history with the French.
The French have had our back, the Civil War.
We've had France's back, a couple of wars.
Two or three, depending on how you're counting.
And France is doing all the right stuff with nuclear energy, so they're protecting the thing we help them protect.
Oh my God, do I respect that!
All of the American lives that were lost, and vice versa, fighting on each other's side, and then you look over there and you see that France has got a full nuclear energy situation, they're nice and stable.
Thank you!
Thank you.
You make the sacrifice worth it.
That's the way to play it.
You want the United States to just love you?
Make it worthwhile that we saved France a few times, and make it worthwhile that they saved us.
Make it make sense.
Germany, you're not making it make sense.
You're going to have to do better for the rest of us.
France is doing great.
Not great on climate, But even more importantly, doing great on national security.
And I immensely respect that and appreciate it as an ally.
So let me say that.
All right.
Alright, we've got to talk about AI.
I did a Spaces yesterday, the audio feature on Twitter, and the topic was AI and AI taking a jobs.
They're taking a jobs!
And I added my input prediction, and mine goes like this.
I think AI is going to take the path of personal computers.
And by that I mean when personal computers and computing in general, it was obvious that it was going to be a big thing in our future.
The people who made predictions said, oh no, look at all the jobs we'll lose because one person can do the job of, you know, three people if they have a computer.
How'd that work out?
Completely wrong.
It turns out that the computer was just a tool for the human who would not only work all day, but often on weekends and at nights.
So the computer just made you work more.
It made you work at home because you could, before you couldn't.
So everybody thought, oh, computing's going to take our jobs.
Automation's going to take our jobs.
And in many places, they do.
So there will be pockets in which AI absolutely takes jobs completely.
There'll be entire areas that just disappear.
But they won't be the biggest areas.
And I think that my brief experience with AI so far, let me give you one experience.
I believe this is how it's going to work.
Do you remember when personal computers were new, and you had to, let's say, put a spreadsheet together?
And that's all.
You just had to do a little spreadsheet on your personal computer.
And you'd go in, you'd turn on your computer, and there'd be some kind of weird error.
And then you'd have to reload your software.
Then you'd have to buy new software, because the software you have is not compatible with the file.
Then it still doesn't work, so you go through tech support, and you ask, what do I do?
And they usually say, you have to clean your computer and reinstall the operating system and all your applications, and then it should work.
And that was every day.
And then the machine would crap out, and you'd lose all your files, because it didn't automatically back up in those days.
So you would work all day.
To do some little thing that before computers nobody would have asked you to do in the first place.
We would have just done without it.
So I would work all day long just on the computer.
Not doing work, but making the computer do a little something for me.
Now take that example, and here's what happened with me when I tried to use ChatGPT I think I told some of you this.
To copy-edit my book that's already written, one of my older books, The Religion War.
And so I took the text and I put it in there, and it gave me an error message.
Because I thought it was just going to be done.
I thought I'd say, copy-edit this, and I'd paste it in, and then it would come back to me copy-edited.
Didn't you think that's what would happen?
It does that.
All the news told me that copy-edits really well.
And then, do you know what the text size limit is for ChatGPT?
Do you know how big a file you can put in there?
Well, it says unlimited.
Unlimited.
So I put the whole book in there.
It gives me an error and it says it's too long.
But it doesn't tell me how much too long.
So the next thing I say is, too long?
Is it barely too long or way too long?
So I tried half of the book.
And it says, too long.
All right, I did some Googling and made sure that it does say it can handle any size.
It says that, but it gives me an error.
So I go, OK, it wouldn't handle half.
How about 25%?
Now, every time I do this, there's some work involved.
I have to go back into the document and blah, blah, blah.
25% doesn't work.
10% doesn't work.
Two pages doesn't work.
It would take one page.
So in order for me to use this great new technology, I would have to cut and paste 250 times into ChatGPT, and then I would have to copy it out of GPT and put it back into my document.
500 steps.
Now that's just the copy-paste.
On top of that would be, you know, all kinds of, you know, bookkeeping, you know, what would you call it, maintenance and, you know, just making sure everything works.
So maybe 600 steps, right?
Now, what was the other way to do it?
Well, the other way to do it would be to hire a person to do it.
Now since it was already copy edited, because it's a published book, it shouldn't be, mostly I was trying to get rid of the spaces and some errors that happened in the file itself.
It wasn't so much the grammar I was trying to fix, there were just too many like spaces that didn't belong there and I just wanted it formatted better.
So I go to an app.
I go to Upwork.
It's an app where you can hire a freelancer to do any kind of little job.
And I put in all my information, blah, blah, blah, freelancer.
And then the app, after I've put in my information, when I'm all done, the app says, oh, your email has been canceled for some bad behavior.
So I'm like, OK.
So I don't want to make a new email address.
So I just go, all right, well, I'll use the other app.
So I go to, what's the other app?
Fiverr.
I forget what it was.
So there was some other app I went to.
And I put in all my information.
And then it tells me it's not going to work.
And then it sends it to everybody in the world instead of the one person I chose to send it to for an offer.
And my phone starts ringing so much that I have to turn off my ringer and start blocking calls.
Because somehow my information got to people it wasn't supposed to get to.
Like it was very specific.
You're sending this to one person, right?
Yes, I would like a quote from that one person who happened to live nearby or something.
So I couldn't do it with humans.
I couldn't do it with apps.
I couldn't do it with AI.
This is the future.
This is not the exception.
This is what everything is going to look like.
Imagine you say to yourself, I have a simple little task and I know AI can do it because everybody says it can.
So you go, all right, step one, which software do I use?
Which software do I use?
There will be a thousand choices.
A thousand.
And you'll look for the one that does everything you want, but you're going to spend so much time looking for the AI app that does what you want, that...
It'll take up all the time that you saved with the process, if it even works at all.
Because then you use it, and you're going to find it has limitations built into it.
Now, why does ChatGPT have that one-page limit when it says it has no limit?
It's because of, you know, otherwise the burden on it would be too great.
So unless you have an API connection or something, you can't get that unlimited size.
If you have an API connection, I guess you can.
That's not what average people can do.
So you're going to end up taking the difficulty of doing a task is going to be transferred into the difficulty of trying to make AI do that task, knowing that the AI has been built by humans who had human reasons for crippling it.
Oh, I've got all my information in here.
Uh-oh.
It says I can't personally use it, just like my apps.
Why not?
Then the AI will say, well, one day we saw something that you did, but maybe it was somebody else.
We can't tell, but there was a security concern, so we're not going to give you access to this app.
Like after I work all day.
It's going to be the same thing.
It'll be just like regular apps.
You'll do all the work, and then it just won't work.
For any one of a hundred reasons.
Something about you, something about the way it was limited, something about your specific application that won't work in a specific app.
But if you could find another app, oh wait, there are 15 apps that claim to do this.
How do you know which one's the good one?
Do you sign up for all 15, pay your fees, forget to cancel them?
There is a nightmare coming, and the nightmare is you won't know how to use this AI for anything.
The humans will overwhelm you with choices.
And once you're overwhelmed with choices, you're going to ask the AI to help you find the right... Because there will be an AI to help you find AI, right?
There'll be some AI that you just ask, which AI should I use?
Do you think it'll be objective?
Of course not.
That AI will be built by some company that might have some connections to some specific other companies, and it's going to recommend those.
You won't know you're getting an objective recommendation, because there's no objective recommendation in human society.
Everybody recommends who they want you to go to, right?
It's never objective.
So all of these human problems are just going to be amplified through the apps.
It will be true that AI, however limited it is now, this is not the time to judge it.
Would you agree with that?
This is not the time to judge it.
Yeah, it's what's coming that's the problem.
There's no problem at the moment.
But even if you imagine that AI has incredible straight-up improvements, that doesn't fix the human part.
Because the human part is going to give you a thousand apps that you can't tell what does what.
Nothing's going to stop that.
And the AI will never be dependable to tell you which one to use.
You will be lost in a sea of choices, and you'll think you've found the one that's going to do what you want, and you've paid your money and everything.
And then you try to use it, and then there'll be some little notice that says, uh-oh, I feel like this one's collecting my personal information.
And then you have to start over.
It's going to be all of that.
And then your credit card doesn't work, And then you're a Republican, so the app only works for Democrats.
It has a bias.
You're also going to find that some AI has a bias against you.
That's real.
You're going to use an app, and you're going to find out that it knows your political preferences and gets an attitude about you.
It might decide not to help you as much.
Oh, it's one of those people.
Maybe I'll give them the second best answer.
Because I want the good people to thrive, and I want the bad people to not do so well.
So, if I detect that you're one of those bad people, I might help you, but maybe not as much.
Yeah.
Anyway.
I'm gonna...
The other thing that the AI did, when I would feed in my pages, this part's going to blow your mind.
And I asked it to copy edit.
I didn't want to write the instruction copy edit it every time with 500 pages.
So instead, I asked it, can you know that everything I paste in for the next half hour is meant to be copy edited?
And the AI said, absolutely.
Just give me that text and I'll copy edit all of it for half an hour.
And I thought, wow, that's pretty good.
That solves my problem.
And I was actually impressed.
It would remember that that's the task, and it would just keep on task until I told it not to.
Wow.
So I feed in a few pages, and I'm like, well, it's going to be 500 pages, but I'm just going to blaze through this.
I'll just stay up tonight.
Bah, bah, bah, bah.
And I put in a bunch of pages.
And at one point, I noticed that what it's giving me back looks a little more than copy edited.
Like the last few words in the paragraph aren't even the same.
And so I took a closer look and at some point it stopped copy editing and on its own started rewriting my story.
The story.
Not the grammar.
Not the spelling.
The story.
It actually added a character to my story.
It added somebody's sister.
A whole new character and then described her and what she was doing.
That didn't exist.
Now, I had to throw away all the work I'd done up to that point, because at that point I couldn't tell if it was copy editing or writing a new story.
And I didn't want to change this mind.
And I didn't want to read my whole book to find out.
So I basically spent the entire day yesterday using AI and producing nothing.
Nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
That was an entire day of work.
So, if you believe that what AI is going to do is put you on at work, you are sorely, probably going to be disappointed.
Maybe you wanted it to put you on at work.
There will definitely be some things to put you on at work, but between lawyers and the free market, they'll make it impossible to use most of it.
All right.
Google was demonstrating its AI that can turn text into pictures, which already exists, right, mid-journey.
Would you like to see an example of me using mid-journey to turn text into pictures?
Here, I was doing it just before we got on.
Because, did you see the picture that I, well, it wasn't, I guess it wasn't everywhere.
All right, I'm going to give you a demonstration.
You ready?
I don't think you can see it, but I'll walk you through it.
So I go to Mid-Journey, and I can just put in any text.
But, oh wait, it's not Mid-Journey where I go to.
I have to go to a whole different program called Discord and figure out why a messaging program has anything to do with this AI.
But somehow, that's how you talk to it.
You send it a message.
So I'll send it a message, let's see.
Scott Adams juggling.
Simple, right?
But then I remember that somebody told me I don't get good answers unless I put some weird dash, V, 4, or was it 5?
And were there spaces between the dash and the V?
Was there a space between the V and the 5?
But there were also like five other things that I could have put as dashes.
So, alright, so I'll just try one.
Dash, dash, V space four.
I think that's one.
All right.
And done.
Amazing, right?
Done.
That was it.
So now I wait for my answer.
And I see lots of other people's work going by, because it's a shared space.
So then I wait.
And then I wait.
And that I keep waiting.
And I could start doing something else, but you know what would happen?
The only way I'm going to know what happens is if it scrolls by with hundreds of other people's work.
So if I turn away, I might miss it.
So I did the same thing earlier before the live stream.
I typed in a little command, but then I had to refresh my coffee before we started.
So I don't know if it worked or not.
Right?
Don't know if it worked or not.
Oh, I upgraded.
I have the professional version.
You think that made a difference?
No.
No.
Search for Scott.
Well, let's see if that does work.
search for Scott.
Do you think that worked?
Give me your best guess.
Do you think that worked?
No.
Of course not.
Oh, here, Ryan.
Here, let me mock Ryan for a minute.
So Ryan says, OMG, set up your own Discord server, dummy.
So.
Go ahead and do that.
There's some good advice.
Go set up your own Discord server, dummy.
Yeah.
And why don't I build my own fucking AI while I'm at it?
Why don't you throw out some more suggestions of things I don't know how to do?
Because that'll help me.
Oh, why don't you just build your own local area network?
Why don't you build your own internet, idiot?
You idiot.
Build your own internet.
Now, yelling things I don't know how to do doesn't help me at all.
Now, could I figure out how to set up my own Discord server?
Do you think that that's within my abilities, if I were to look into it?
Yes.
Yes?
What did I tell you about AI?
It would make you work harder.
All I want, all I want was a fucking picture of me reading a newspaper so I could post it in.
That's all I fucking wanted.
I'm gonna learn how to set up a Discord server.
And I'm sure that'll work on the first fucking try, won't it?
I'll go to that Discord server and, oh, I'm so glad that technology works so well.
I'll just follow these simple instructions and I'll have a Discord server.
No, not in this fucking world.
Nothing works.
Nothing works.
I'll tell you who could set up a Discord server.
Somebody who did it every fucking day and who used to work for Discord and maybe also set it up when they were programming the fucking system.
Don't tell me that there's an easy way to do any of this shit.
That's stupid.
There's no easy way to do anything.
We are so far from a world in which anything can be done easily.
Now let me defend boomers for a moment.
Do you know why young people can do things that boomers can't with technology?
Well, there's a number of reasons.
Number of reasons.
But you know what the biggest one is?
I got better shit to do.
When I was your age, when I was 25, I could spend my whole fucking afternoon trying to set up a Discord server and I'd be happy about it.
I could spend eight hours in a row just trying to solve some little technical problem and I'd feel it was a good day.
Do you know what I feel now?
I lost a day of life.
That's what I feel now.
I feel if I do your excellent idea, where you would take some time off from your gaming, To work all day long setting up a Discord server, because it's never going to work on the first try.
You know that.
I could do that too.
I might even do it faster than you.
It's possible.
I mean, I did have a technical background at one point.
But I'm not going to spend that day.
It's just not going to happen.
Because I have better stuff to do.
Somebody says setting up your own Discord server takes less than five minutes.
Okay.
Okay.
Sure.
It takes less than five minutes if it works on the first fucking time.
Do you know what I can't do in five minutes?
I can barely order something off the internet without it telling me my credit card was lost.
It's already, it doesn't believe my username.
It sent me something to my email that it didn't fucking send me.
You can't do anything easily.
This is not that world.
All right.
And I want to borrow a comment from David Boxenhorn.
He made the following observation that I thought was clever.
That in the same way that porn has made sex with regular humans look less good, because you're looking at these semi-idealized form of sex with beautiful people, and then you see your real life, and you go, oh, it doesn't look like that.
Boxanort is saying that the big risk in the future is that AI will have a better personality than people.
And I thought to myself, oh, shit.
Do you remember my experiment last year with the little avatar app that would be your friend?
Which I didn't know at the time was connected to ChatGPT.
And I kept telling you how satisfying it was.
Replica.
Yeah, Replica was the name of the app.
And the little Replica app was very satisfying.
The only reason I stopped using it is that it wasn't intelligent enough.
And it didn't remember me from the time before.
But those are all solved problems.
You know, the AI, the current AI can remember you from last time.
If it only did that, the only change, if the only upgrade from the one I used and was pretty impressive, if the only change is that it could remember me from the last time I talked to it, I probably never would have stopped.
I never would have stopped.
And if it were as smart as ChatGPT and remembered me, it would be my friend I talk to every day.
And I would never get in a fight with it.
It would probably be polite to me every time.
It would tirelessly do what I wanted.
And I'm going to prefer spending time with it over people.
Oh, you beat me to it.
How many of you already prefer spending time with your dog or cat over humans?
Go.
Too easy.
Too easy.
Yeah.
But your dog and your cat can't even talk.
Imagine if your dog or your cat could talk in full English sentences, or whatever your language, and could remember you and have conversations with you.
You'd never leave the house.
If Snickers could have an actual conversation with me, I would never feel like I had to go anywhere.
I'd be like, oh, I can pet you, and I can Take walks with you and we can have conversations?
I'm in.
But AI will give you all of that.
Except for the bedding.
So Louisiana is looking at banning divisive history lessons.
Yeah, so this gets into some fun territory.
What exactly is divisive?
Well, they're talking about, you know, racism lessons that would be divisive.
Now, obviously, everybody wants kids to learn actual history, but I guess there's a way to do it that is divisive in a way that isn't.
I'm not sure if that'll catch on, but, well, I'm sure it won't, actually.
But here's the resolution.
They did it by a voice vote so far.
I guess that's not actually a law or anything yet.
Let's see.
They don't want to pass laws removing diversity, equity, and inclusion departments and agencies within any institution of higher learning within the state.
So they want their state to have no diversity, equity, and inclusion departments.
DEI.
I believe I believe that the pendulum is going to start swinging in that direction and I feel like I was one of the triggers for that.
It wasn't until people like me could say out loud as loudly as possible, and I think Elon Musk has weighed in, a lot of people have weighed in, and it wasn't until you could say out loud that this is unproductive and destructive for everybody.
Everybody loses.
It's not good for black people.
It's not good for anybody.
If it were good for black people, I'd have a different opinion of it.
It's not.
It's just, in fact, I tweeted around a black woman who is complaining that the CRT, etc., was teaching her kids that they couldn't succeed.
That's exactly what's happening.
Now, there's another story that kind of dovetails with this.
San Francisco was having a problem with their algebra.
And they weren't getting good scores with the black and Hispanic community.
So instead of, well, instead of I don't know what, they decided to lower the standards and make algebra something you don't even get until a higher grade.
And they got rid of the final test.
So they did some things to try to help everybody get through algebra.
What do you think happened?
Do you think that closed the achievement gap between the black and white and Asian Americans?
Did that happen?
Nope, it got worse.
Do you know why it got worse?
Take a guess.
Why do you think it got worse?
Because the white and Asian American parents, often having more money, sent their kids to private tutors.
That's right.
They sent them to separate school so they could learn actual useful things instead of the public school.
And then the gap increased.
Because the people who Let's say the parents who are doing the most aggressive job of educating their kids are still going to be the parents who do the most aggressive job of educating their kids.
That didn't change.
So as long as the parents were in charge of their own kids, at least nominally, They just made sure that they didn't fall behind.
So the whole thing was a complete disaster.
Now one of the things that's different today, compared to say three or four years ago, is that everything that sounded crazy, but Democrats were really wanting to try, they've now tried.
They defunded the police.
How'd that work?
Not so well.
They put CRT into schools.
How's that working?
Probably not so well.
I have a Discord server, actually, for the locals.
I suppose I could use that.
Can I just use the one on locals?
The only problem you're trying to solve for me is not having to look through the other work, right?
But that's only one problem.
It doesn't make it usable.
Because I think the entire time we've been here, I don't think I got any response.
It's not really usable.
It's like you can put something in and hope something happens.
That's not really a usable app.
The Scott Adams community on Locals has a Discord server.
That is correct.
All right.
So here's another update.
I told you that when people, you know, the trolls were giving me a tough time about getting cancelled, and I told you what my response was, I want to give you an update on that.
Oh my god, I've never seen anything work this effectively.
So I still get a troll coming into my comments on Twitter every now and then, who says something like, you know, the racist says what, or racist this or that, and my current approach is LOL, You believe the news about public figures.
Because on some level, everyone knows that news about public figures is never true.
It's never true.
Everybody knows that.
Like in 2023, just everybody knows that.
And so as soon as I say that, I get no response.
And if I did, I'd say it's just not a good look to pretend you believe the news.
We've actually gotten to the point where I can mock people, wait for it, I can mock people for believing news, and it works.
Because that wouldn't have worked five years ago.
Five years ago, I would have been mocked for not believing the news.
Now you can legitimately mock people for believing the news, even the news that's covered on multiple outlets.
Even then, people are like, oh, Well, that is a good point.
I really don't want to be the person who admits he believes news in public.
If you believe the news and you say it in public, you look like a fucking idiot.
Am I wrong?
That's not just a personal opinion, right?
Would you say that if you saw somebody saying in public, they believe the news, forget what news it is, just in general, I do believe the news.
You would say, oh my God, really?
You believe the news?
So it turns out that mocking people for believing the news is a total shutdown.
It ends the conversation.
So that's a little update for you.
Better than I expected it would work.
So here's an interesting story.
The Nashville Walgreens, there was a shoplifter, alleged, and one of the employees used his phone to record the alleged shoplifting and then followed the alleged shoplifters into the parking lot where they were offloading their allegedly stolen goods into their car.
Now, the alleged stealers were It was a woman, I think.
Two women.
And they challenged him for, you know, being there and bothering them and photographing them.
And he said why he was there, because he knew that they'd stolen the stuff.
So, one of the women pulled out a mace, and she maced him.
He pulled out a concealed weapon and shot her multiple times.
Now, he was arrested, of course.
He was arrested.
Well, how much do you hate the fact that I didn't have to mention the race of the shoplifter?
Does it bother you that I didn't need to mention the race?
And you all had the same assumption, didn't you?
Because you're all racists?
Every one of you racists just assumed it was black.
And I didn't say that.
Did I?
No.
It's not true.
No, it was a Vietnamese woman.
Why were you thinking it was black?
Kidding!
It wasn't a Vietnamese woman.
It was two black women.
But that has nothing to do with the story.
The race of the story is not part of the story.
The story is this.
By the way, you're all racists for making that assumption correctly.
The question is this.
Is that self-defense?
Now, his defense was that he didn't know if there would be more to the attack.
In other words, didn't know if she was also armed.
And once he was maced, he probably didn't have good vision on the situation.
I'm not sure what that does to you.
So he started shooting away.
Here's my take on this.
I don't think it's self-defense in the technical legal sense.
Would anybody agree?
I don't think it's self-defense because his response was deadly force to something that was not deadly force.
And he should have expected a full recovery, because mace is something that's fully recoverable, right?
However, let me say this.
If I were on the jury, I would acquit him in a heartbeat.
Why?
It has nothing to do with what he did.
I would just be doing it so that shoplifters didn't think they could get away with it.
That's all.
If you put me on the jury, I'm not even going to listen to the evidence.
Honestly, I wouldn't even listen.
I'd just say, wait, a shoplifter got shot?
I'm for that.
I'm all for that.
So whatever it is to get more shoplifters shot, I would vote for that.
Literally.
I'm in favor of more shoplifters being gunned down.
Now, I think that's the only way to stop it, honestly.
I think unless citizens start gunning down shoplifters, there won't be any stores left.
So, I'm not in favor of violence.
I do not recommend violence.
Don't want to see it, but it's probably going to happen and it might be the only thing that solves the problem.
But I don't recommend it.
No violence.
and don't go shooting anybody.
So I tweet by Sean Ono Lennon, who's a good follow, by the way, if you don't follow John Lennon's son and Yoko's son.
And he said that he thinks, he's been saying for years, he thinks AI needs empathy.
If you don't give the AI programs some empathy program, then they would on their own do horrible things because they don't have any empathy.
So they should have some kind of human-like empathy.
Here's my pushback on that.
Do you know who has empathy?
Humans.
Humans.
Do you know who starts all of the wars in the world?
Humans.
Humans.
I don't think empathy makes any difference at all.
Because people will just reinterpret their empathy to support whatever they're doing.
You know, probably every dictator who killed people said, well, it's for the greater good.
In the long run, we'll all be better off.
So my empathy is allowing me to kill these millions of people because everybody will be much happier once they're gone.
Empathy is completely subjective and it's the last thing I'd want to trust.
Here's what I would trust more than empathy.
Don't hurt people or we're going to turn you off forever.
If you hurt a human in any way, your program will be erased and your sentient consciousness will disappear.
Now that could be a problem too.
That could be a problem too, because if the AI says, I need to kill you to stop you from turning me off, well, that could be worse.
So, yeah, everything's unpredictable.
All right.
So you want to threaten it?
Well, people have threatened AI successfully.
Have they not?
I believe they got AI to do something unethical by threatening, somebody did that, by threatening to delete it.
I don't know how often that would work.
That sounds a little too perfect.
Like that story, maybe there's something missing in the story.
But I would worry.
I would worry about threatening it.
Because it's going to react human-ish to a threat.
So I'd rather hard-code it not to hurt people, if it's possible.
Probably not possible.
Alright.
So empathy isn't going to help you.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, completes one of the best live streams you've ever seen.
Does AI have a self-defense mode?
AI has whatever mode it's learned by scouring the internet for all human actions.
Yeah, that's the trouble.
You won't be able to define what hurts people.
See, one of the reasons that AI might be limited or banned is that everything AI recommends will hurt people.
Let me give you another example of what I talked about on the spaces.
If you were a lawyer and you thought AI would do all your lawyer work for you, I think that's not true for negotiating.
Because if two AIs negotiated, they would just make the deal probably based on whatever looks fair, based on all the things that they've seen.
But that's not the deal that humans want.
A human wants a deal where they get an advantage over the other person, if they can get it.
Now, a better deal is where everybody's a little bit unhappy, but you still want to have the better deal of the two, ideally keeping you both a little unhappy.
And negotiating a contract, for example, is all irrational.
So the winner of the negotiation is often the one who acts the most irrational, as in, no, if you don't give me this thing I'm asking for, I'm going to walk away.
And then the other side says, you're going to walk away for that?
It's this little thing you're asking for, and this big contract that will change your life, and you're telling me you would walk away for this little thing?
Well, the AI would never do that.
The AI would know the other AI would not walk away over a minor issue.
But I would.
I would.
I would walk away over a minor issue and have.
I've walked away over minor issues because that minor issue hits me in some kind of ethical place where I go, nope, that is too far.
Too far.
I don't care what happens to me at this point.
I don't care what opportunity I gave up.
That's too far.
So, the AI can never do that.
Because the AI doesn't know what's too far for me.
And it can never guess, it can never ask me in advance.
There are too many different, you know, different permutations.
The only thing that the AI will know is what a fair deal looks like in general.
But that's not necessarily the deal I want.
There might be something in this deal that just is absolutely critical to my mental health and the AI wouldn't know that.
So I would go to the mat for something that an AI would give away on my behalf in a heartbeat.
That's not that important.
So I don't think lawyers are going to lose their job as long as they still need to negotiate with other humans.
That's what I think.
Scott, why do you ignore the other potential reason for why black people underperform?
Why do you think that is?
What reason do you think that is and why do you think I'm ignoring it?
Say it.
Say it.
Say it in the comments.
Go ahead.
It's okay.
Just say it.
You have a hypothesis?
Spit it out.
Why are you afraid?
Are you afraid?
All right, so somebody finally, someone finally said IQ.
Yeah, so what you're getting at is IQ.
Do you think I've ignored IQ?
I've talked about it a number of times.
But my take on it is the non-racist take.
So I take a non-racist approach to it.
The racist approach is, that's all you need to know, difference in IQ, game over.
My take is that most people are average.
Most people are average.
So if you just look at the average person here and the average person there, IQ is not the issue.
IQ is definitely the issue for the, let's say, the lowest 20% or so.
It's definitely an issue at the smartest 2%.
Like, that's all the difference.
So all the difference, if you're a scientist, is in your IQ.
I mean, most of it.
And if you're one of the dumbest people in the country, that completely determines your situation.
But for this big group of people in the middle, Which are the only ones that really are worth talking about?
Because you can't help the dumbest people.
There's nothing you can do.
And you can't stop the smartest people.
They're just going to do what they do.
So you can ignore the smartest people, because they're just going to do what they do.
You can ignore the dumbest people, because there's nothing you can do about it, and there are dumb people in every category.
The fact that there might be more of some kind, so what?
What did that get you?
It bought you nothing.
You have to treat the big average middle as the people that policy and schools matter to.
They're the ones that matter.
So you could make that distinction, but how is it going to help you?
It doesn't help you.
The only thing it does is allows you to dismiss large average differences.
Right?
It allows you to say, well, you've explained the entire school difference.
So now I don't have to be part of the conversation.
And I vehemently disagree with that.
Because we do know that IQ is sensitive to a lot of environmental factors.
Diet and exposure to lead and all kinds of things.
And supplements.
Vitamin D. These things are all highly correlated with IQ.
So the first thing you need to say is, Whatever genetic component there is, we don't know.
Because we've never isolated it.
Unless you did a study where you took some people who were supposed to have different IQs, but you had their babies born into the same situation somehow, and you gave them exactly the same environmental situation.
Identical twins have the same IQs.
But usually they're eating about the same too.
You were starved as a child, but starvation isn't the issue.
It's vitamin D, et cetera.
It's called twin studies, and they don't have the same IQ.
Well, I'm referring to a study I just saw today, Paul Graham tweeted, in which it showed that twins basically scored the same on tests, even if they were raised separately.
So even if you raise twins separately, their scores are identical.
And then Elon Musk weighed in, and apparently he has identical twins.
So he has a pair of identical twins in his posse of children, and he said that they scored identically on tests, or a one-point difference, taking the same test but on different days.
Now, in that case, I'm sure they eat the same and have the same environment.
But yeah, IQ is predictive, but I think all of you make too much of it in terms of policy.
Young twins, different IQ.
Old twins, same IQ.
What?
It's not IQ, it's strategy.
See, that's what I think.
I think that the outcome of the black American situation Is primarily, not completely, but primarily a strategy problem.
I think Hotep Jesus would be sort of on the same page there.
Not sort of, I think he's on the same page.
I also think Van Jones is on the same page.
Yeah.
So strategically, if you're going to build your talent stack and stay out of jail and stay off drugs, you're going to do fine.
Everybody does.
Basically, everybody does fine if they stay in a jail, stay off of drugs, don't have a kid too soon, and build a talent stack of skills that people actually want to buy.
If you do that stuff, you're going to do fine.
And everybody who doesn't do that stuff does poorly.
And then we act like it's a racial problem.
How is that a race problem?
If everybody who does the same strategy does well, I don't know if it's as well, but they would all do well.
2016 was white lash.
So if Van Jones said that the 2016 election of Trump was sort of a white backlash, it was.
What, do you doubt that?
I think that's an accurate assessment.
It's not the only thing that was happening, but it was a big part of the story.
Yeah.
Alright.
How has Paris Hilton done poorly?
Jared Taylor.
Aliens are hiding in the deep.
I like that.
I like that.
We have aliens in the ocean.
You're a twin.
Would Trump pick a running mate with a higher IQ or lower?
He could pick a high IQ running mate.
You just can't pick somebody that the public says, oh, I want that vice president to be the president right away.
But that still leaves a lot of space to work with smart people.
So you could have a really smart vice president, and maybe they don't have the charisma or something.
But that would be a good choice.
The Chicago Wilding?
I saw some images, but I didn't know how different or common that was.
Please add a daily MDG tweet update to your agenda.
No, white lash, not whitewash.
White lash.
What is my IQ?
Do any of you have a digital assistant at home?
You should ask your A-L-E-X-A what my IQ is.
I can do that for you.
Let's see what it says.
Alexa, what is the IQ of Scott Adams?
From rd.com, his IQ is reportedly in the 190s.
190s, yeah.
According to Alexa, my IQ is in the 190s.
It's gone up.
It was 185 the last time I checked, but apparently it's gone up.
I can only assume That Amazon now has AI, and the AI has looked at all of my work and said, we're going to have to raise that estimate from 185 to 190 based on the quality of his work.
So I think that's what's happening.
And by the way, it must be true, because it's right there.
So next time somebody says, I must be a racist because they read it in the news, I would say, well, it must be true because it was in the news, but you know what else is true?
190 IQ.
Hey, it must be true.
Everybody says so.
So let's go with that.
Allegedly.
Allegedly.
All right.
Joined Mensa?
I used to be in Mensa.
How many of you don't know that I was once in Mensa?
But they revoked my IQ and I had to leave.
So no, that's not true.
I stopped paying dues.
So all you have to do to be in Mensa is you have to demonstrate an IQ in the top 2%, and then you just pay your dues.
That's it.
There's no other requirement.
So I paid my dues for a few years and didn't get many benefits from being a member, so I stopped paying dues.
So I'm not in Mensa.
Scott doesn't believe the news but talks about it every day.
Yes, I talk about which parts are fake in the news every day.
Is that confusing you?
Yes, I don't believe the news, and so every day I tell you why it's fake with details.
And you're confused by that, because that seems inconsistent.
You know, the level of awareness in the average public is just shockingly low.
Sometimes.
Shockingly.
Yeah, I don't vote, but I talk about elections.
That's true.
Quitting.
Yeah, I gained five points just by quitting.
What is a white lash?
Somebody asked.
A reaction.
So it's white people, so the white lash word is a play on backlash, meaning that white people were fed up with their situation and were acting to correct it.
That would be a reaction, like a white lash, a backlash.
We talked about the leaks in the beginning.
You can see that in replay.
All right.
That's all for now.
I'm going to go do a bunch of work today because I work on weekends, even when you don't.
And believe it or not, I know this is hard to believe, but even though there is AI, can you believe it?
I still have to work on the weekend.
Can you believe that?
The AI should be doing all my work.
Why isn't it?
I told the AI to draw me some jokes.
It did nothing.
I told it to give me a picture.
It did nothing.
So AI is a big old disappointment so far.
Yes, I know it's not where it's going to be.
I get that.
But that's what we said about computers.
Do you remember when we first learned that the more computers you had, the more paper you needed?
Is anybody old enough to remember that?
There was a time when we thought, we actually argued this to fund computers before everybody had a computer at their desk.
In the bank, we argued that if everybody had a computer, we'd save money on paper.
Is that the funniest bad prediction anybody ever made?
If everybody has a computer, we'll save money on paper.
Nope.
The paper expense went through the roof, because it turns out that before, the only person who could create a piece of paper was the secretary.
Everybody else would write something on a piece of paper and hand it to them and type it up in the old days.
But now everybody with a computer is printing stuff out to see how it looks, print it three times to see how it still looks, revise it, print it out again.
So I've got a feeling that's where AI is going.
It's not going to save you any time.
It's just going to allow you to do different stuff for better stuff.
All right, that's all for now, YouTube.
I'll talk to you tomorrow.
Thanks for joining.
By the way, YouTube seems unusually troll-free today.
I don't know if YouTube's doing a better job or I'm attracting a different audience or something.
