Episode 2081 Scott Adams: Musk On AI Risk, Growth Mindset Solves Poverty, Bribing Doctors, Bad Bing
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Musk on AI Risk
Growth mindset solves poverty
Fake news (several headlines)
Bribing doctors to vaccinate
My death-match with Bing
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.
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the best thing that's ever happened to you in your entire life.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and there's never been a better time in the history of the universe, which we used to think was 14 billion years old or so.
But thanks to the new telescopes, we're probably wrong about all of that, it turns out.
But if you'd like to take your experience beyond the Big Bang, bigger than the Big Bang, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, and a canteen 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 dope being hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens right now.
Go.
Oh, that was good.
So, a couple of quick things.
On the subscription site, Locals, where I have a site, that's the only place you can find the Dilbert Reborn comic, and Robots Read News comic, and all of my live streams, including the special Man Caves.
But, to make it even more special, I have recently put both my books, God's Debris, For free, well, if you're a subscriber, on the local site, it's scottadams.locals.com, and The Religion War.
So this is the first time you'll see that in electronic form.
That's never been published as an e-book.
So you can see the two books that I wrote in the early 2000s.
But when you read God's Debris, note that it was written or published in 2004.
And just think about what I guessed things would look like today, based on 2004.
It's gonna be a little freaky!
Yes, it will.
But those are there.
If you were thinking about trying the site but wanted to read those books, you can always sign up for a month, read the books, see what you think, and you get two books for the price of $7.
Quite a deal.
Especially since one of those books is called The Best Book Ever Written.
People actually say that about that.
This is the best book ever written.
So good luck with that.
All right.
As you know, I do not make financial advice.
You know that, right?
I do not give financial advice.
And if you were to follow my example...
In what I'm going to describe next, it probably would be a big mistake, because I'm just guessing.
Right?
So this is just guessing.
Not investing.
Just guessing.
Just before I signed on, I sold all of my Apple stock.
Here's why.
Have you tried Siri lately?
I mean, seriously.
In the realm of AI, how in the world is Apple's business model going to survive?
Because I don't see us using apps in the future, do you?
I mean, not the current group.
I feel like your phone is going to turn into an AI interface, and you just tell it what you want.
So, Apple's dominant position in everything I think is garbage, because all they have is Siri.
I know they're working on some kind of AI, but we haven't seen anything, have we?
We haven't seen anything.
So unless Apple throws away everything they have and introduces a new AI phone that changes everything, they've got kind of a challenge ahead of them.
So I didn't want to be holding the stock when AI makes their business model sketchy.
Now, here's why you shouldn't follow my advice.
Alright?
This is really important.
Apple has a very long history of not falling into potholes that other people fall into.
So the counter-argument is really strong.
The counter-argument is, well, they know how to navigate this stuff.
That's sort of what makes them Apple and you not Apple, is they know how to do this.
And presumably they have huge resources already looking at AI from every angle, and how to use it, etc.
So they might be fine.
But at the moment, I feel like guessing winners and losers in this context is less safe, it always was less safe, than holding index funds.
So I think for a little while, I'm just going to park my money in index funds.
Because if something becomes a big moneymaker with AI, I want to get some of that upside just by holding a basket of funds or a basket of stocks that would include it, like Microsoft.
Yeah, I do hold Microsoft stock.
I'm going to hold on to that.
It's done great since the pandemic.
All right, so don't take my financial advice, but if you're not... I'll just say a general thing.
If you're not incorporating the effects of AI in your five-year investment plan, and it should be at least a five-year plan, you're leaving out the biggest variable.
There's probably no bigger variable than AI in terms of how companies are going to fall out.
Well, a five-year investment plan just means money you don't need for five years, you hope.
All right.
Here are some interesting stories.
Do you know the rapper E-40?
He's sort of a local Bay Area famous guy, as well as world famous, I guess.
And interesting fact, he used to be my neighbor.
He doesn't know it, but he was my neighbor once.
Not right next door.
But we lived in the same gated community for a while, so he was sort of a short walk down the street.
I never met him.
My ex met him once, but I never met him.
Anyway, he has a really good reputation locally.
He's just sort of a beloved rapper that everybody seems to have seen him in a restaurant or something somewhere.
And he got kicked out of the Warriors-Kings basketball game, but that's not the fun part.
The first thing you'd have to know is that E-40 attends every Warriors game, at least the home games.
And she's... So he's a staple that you always see sitting up near the front.
And I guess at the Kings game, there was some heckler, and he responded to the heckler in some aggressive verbal way, and security came and took him away.
Now, There are many elements to this story.
Number one, he was a huge Warriors fan, but he was in the Kings stadium.
So maybe some of it was because they didn't want a big Warriors fan.
I don't know.
Maybe that.
But E-40 says he thinks it's racism.
He thinks it's racism.
Because the woman who heckled him, which got his response, was a white woman.
And so below the photograph of E-40 talking to a black security guard is the headline that he thinks racism is the problem.
So the black security guards removed him from an NBA game because there's all kinds of racism in the NBA.
Could there be anything less racist than an NBA game?
If you were to rank things from most racist to least racist, like in the whole world, just everything that there is, every event, every get-together, every situation, from the most racist thing there could be to the least racist, I feel like he was in the least racist place on Earth at that very moment.
Which was people of every ethnicity cheering mostly black players, you know, operating at the height of their peak abilities.
I mean, you can't get less racist than that.
But still, E-40 found an angle.
Yeah.
So the black people and the security kicked out E-40 and it's that white woman's fault.
Or it's the security officer's fault.
We're believing the white woman over the black rapper.
I know.
But that's where we are.
2023.
Alright, there's some fake news about the UN.
So the UN commissioned some group to do some kind of report.
And the way it's being reported is that the UN, as opposed to the people it commissioned to give it a recommendation, which is different, That the UN itself is now... Well, I'll just read you a tweet from Ian Miles Chong.
He tweets that, according to the United Nations, children may consent to sex with adults.
What?
And this has been the plan all along.
Now, do you think that there's a story that fits that tweet?
Do you think in the real world there's a story that says, according to the United Nations, children make consent to sex with adults?
Do you think that's real?
Of course not.
Of course not.
It's not even close to real.
Let me tell you what is real.
It's poorly written.
That's real.
It's poorly written.
So one of the things it says, Basically you said that although the age of consent might be set at a certain level, that you should, not must, that one should take into consideration the specifics of the situation.
And rather than assume that a minor can't consent, you should look at the whole situation.
Now, is that different than reality?
Is that a change from the current situation?
Let me give you an example.
Two 17-year-olds are dating, and you know they're physically active.
They're both 17.
One of them turns 18, because one has a birthday before the other.
Now it's illegal, because one just turned 18.
Now that's an adult with a minor.
Do you put the 18-year-old in jail, Because yesterday they were 17, and that was fine, or at least you didn't care as much.
Two 17-year-olds.
But then one has a birthday, and now it's an 18 and a 17-year-old.
Do you put one of them in jail, or do you do what the UN recommends, which is you look at the totality of the situation, and you say, okay, it's not consent the way we like to think of it, where somebody is mature, but it's definitely nobody's taking advantage of anybody.
It's two 17-year-olds trying to figure it out.
Right?
In my opinion, there's some sloppy writing in the report.
But basically, I don't think it's going beyond, look at the whole situation.
That's my take.
Now, could it be a slippery slope?
Yeah.
I mean, if that's what you're worried about, I suppose it could be opening a door to something.
But the way it's currently described, It doesn't look too shocking to me.
It looks more like the real world, exactly the way it exists now.
And the main reason that I say that is that they're not making a distinction between a 17-and-a-half-year-old and a 5-year-old.
Nobody's going to argue about the 5-year-old, but an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old, you gotta look at the totality of the situation.
So I'm going to call that fake-ish news.
I guess this Elon Musk's Starship launch is delayed for two days or a small technical problem.
Have you ever asked yourself, why is it that rocket ships are uniquely the ones that cancel launches because they found a small technical problem they didn't know about before?
We'll get rid of Scott, Scott, Scott person.
Goodbye.
All right.
Frozen valve.
You know, isn't it weird that a valve could be frozen?
Doesn't it seem like you could test almost everything before you were operational?
Like, how in the world is a valve not tested?
And if a valve was good before the launch, but right before the launch it wasn't good?
Isn't that the scariest thing you've ever heard in your life?
It's pretty scary.
By the way, is this manned?
It's not manned, right?
It's not manned, of course.
Yeah, we would have seen the astronauts.
Alright, I'm assuming someday we'll be sending robots and AI.
Oh my goodness, I just realized.
If we sent AI and a few robots, it would just build a civilization for us.
It would just figure it out.
Wow.
So that's the most exciting thing happening in the world right now, but delayed.
Speaking of Musk, tonight I guess is Tucker Carlson's interview will be airing with Musk.
Some of the things we know that he'll be talking about is that the current AI is being trained to lie.
I'll talk about that a little bit more.
And also train to not comment on some topics.
So, Musk is starting his own AI.
And as a philosophy, he thinks that AI should be seeking maximum truth as opposed to being able to lie and make stuff up.
I don't know how you would do that.
But maybe he does.
Or maybe they'll figure it out.
Musk believes that if you make the AI curious, so it's always seeking truth, the curiosity itself would allow it to protect humans because humans are sort of infinitely interesting.
I don't exactly buy that argument.
I don't believe that the curiosity of AI would be enough for them to keep humans around because I feel like they have lots of things to think about and humans would not be that interesting.
No more interesting than, you know, animals or bugs or something.
All right.
Musk also said about... What was it about?
He said the most ironic outcome is the most likely.
So he's got a few versions of that.
But, you know, I've been saying that for some time as well.
That the most amusing outcome is the most likely.
Because we just...
We just sort of like to head things in that direction.
I think we collectively make the simulation bend in the direction of what will be most entertaining.
And then he also said something, I don't know the details because it was just a teaser, but he did, Musk did tell Carlson that somebody had access to your Twitter DMs before Musk took over.
And it was a little unclear who that was.
But I got the sense it might not be just one entity.
That governments, yeah, the FBI, governments, they had access to your DMs.
Now, I assume that the government has access to all of your information.
One way or another, they just have to be interested.
I don't know that they were searching your DMs, you know, without looking for something specific, but they had access to them.
So I remind you, never write anything in a digital message that you would be worried about, or at least legally you'd be in trouble or you'd get fired if somebody found it.
There's no such thing as privacy.
There are no private messages.
You should just tell yourself that.
There are no private messages.
Now there are lots of things you need to say, That you wouldn't want somebody to see.
So go ahead and say those things.
But don't say things that are going to put you in jail, get you accused of some horrible behavior, makes you look like a monster in some way.
I wouldn't do those.
I just wouldn't write them down anywhere, ever.
But you can certainly say, you know, criticize things and say the government is bad and stuff like that.
Alright.
What do you think of these Chicago teens that were, I don't know what you'd call it, they were having a, let's say a disruptive wilding, I don't think it was wilding, but they had a disruptive wild event for two nights in a row, downtown Chicago, and of course there's always some damage, a couple people got shot, and
The mayor says that the root problem here, or at least the thing that should be addressed, is opportunities to do things that are adult supervised.
And you know what?
When I watched this group of youths running wild in the streets of Chicago, I said to myself, if only.
They had some opportunity to be in a place that was parental, you know, adult supervised.
Because those 19, 20 year old youths, what they needed was some adult supervision.
And if they had that opportunity, they would go right there.
You know, if they had like, you know, some place that was adult supervised and you just yelled at them, you'd just take the bullhorn and say, people, I know you're having an incredibly fun time running wild.
However, we have now unlocked the alternative place where you can go have fun.
Well, being completely supervised by adults.
And then they would immediately stop what they're doing and say, whoa, are you kidding?
I can go somewhere supervised by adults?
Get me to that place now!
That's what they would say.
So that was a great plan by the new mayor of Chicago.
And I also wonder, how do the other cities Handle this problem.
Do the other cities all have those alternative adult supervised places?
They must have, because I don't hear about other episodes like this in other cities.
So I'm just guessing that somewhere in New York City and Los Angeles, they have a whole bunch of alternative adult-oriented, or not oriented, but adult-supervised places.
And that is the only reason, the one and only reason, that these other cities do not have this problem.
So that's a very insightful analysis by the mayor of Chicago.
Get away from cities.
Get away from cities as fast as you can.
Well, Chat GPT 5 is coming in December-ish.
And apparently this is going to be the one that blows your mind, not just like GPT 4, which is pretty impressive on its own, but 5 is going to be crazy.
So apparently it'll have the ability to perform any intellectual task a human can do.
Which is interesting, because humans can't do most intellectual tasks.
Am I right?
So, I don't know exactly how you're measuring this, but I guess they'll be able to do all those intellectual tasks.
Now, like everything else, I believe it will be a huge exaggeration, and that it will not, in fact, be able to do complex tasks.
Here's why.
Because it won't know what we need.
It would just have to ask us every two seconds, but did he mean this?
Do you still mean this?
Did you change your mind because you ate lunch?
It's going to have to be negotiating with people continuously to make sure it's doing what we really want.
Did you ever have a really capable employee?
Let's say an employee who's as smart as GPT-5 and can go off and do smart things.
And you say to that smart person, I would like you to go off and do this thing for me.
And it's very simple, and you explain it.
And then they come back, and they've done all their work, and you look at it.
Is it what you asked for?
Never.
Never.
If somebody goes away for a week and does something autonomously, even to very specific instructions, and then they come back with it, it's never what you asked for.
Literally never.
Like, I've never seen it in my life.
Not even once.
So how is AI going to take your instructions, and then go off and do a thing, and then you're going to be happy with it?
Do you think that's even possible?
No.
That's not possible.
It can never be possible, because we're not good at explaining what we want, and we don't know it when we see it.
So we're going to have this continuous struggle with AI to get it to do exactly what we want.
So here's what we're confusing.
We're confusing its capability, which might be a 10 out of 10.
It's capable.
That's completely different from getting it to do it.
The way you want it to be done.
There's no correlation between how well it can do it and how well you can communicate it without any ambiguity.
And then actually know what you want and actually get what you want.
It's going to be really hard to make AI do what you want.
Because everything's sort of an exception.
You know, the easy stuff will be real easy.
Google searches and stuff.
But getting it to do what you want, that you really, really want, that you didn't express?
Tough.
All right.
Could anybody explain why Apple's Siri is so bad?
I mean, I mentioned it, but I'm completely confused why the primary thing on my phone looks like a 90s product.
It looks like a product from the 90s.
What happened?
Is Apple no longer able to build new stuff?
Do you think that there's a wokeness problem, or a size problem, or a leadership problem?
Is it just that Steve Jobs isn't there?
Don't you think Steve Jobs would have been first with AI?
Do you think he would have been a late follower on AI?
I don't know.
Maybe.
So I don't know what's going on there, but I'm worried.
Here's what I think computer programming will look like in the future.
At the moment, the reason a computer programmer can earn a high salary is because they've memorized a whole bunch of rules of how to build code and what command means what.
So they've memorized this vast knowledge of when to use what in what situations.
So that's what programming is, right?
So it could be different languages, but in each case, you have to memorize a vast array of commands and how they work.
That will now change because AI will do that level of coding.
However, the new job of a programmer will be checking his work, which means you still have to be a programmer.
You still have to check his work.
And secondly, there will be hundreds of thousands of AI programs that do slightly different things.
For different costs, with different limitations.
So in the future, what our program will do, we'll figure out which of the 100,000 AI apps can be combined, like what, three of them or four of them, and then how to engineer the prompts, and then how to tie them together so that the output of one becomes the input of the other one.
Yeah, so it's basically prompt engineering, but times a thousand.
So I'm not sure that the job of programming goes away.
I just think its nature goes up a level so that you're negotiating the AI components as opposed to the code that built the AI components.
I have a few things wrong about Apple.
Here's what I don't have wrong.
Serious crap.
And they don't seem to be introducing any product that would make sense in an AI world that's coming too fast.
So if you have something about that, that would be interesting.
Apple Maps.
Alright, there's news that Fox News might be settling the Dominion lawsuit.
Because that trial was supposed to begin today, but I guess they got a delay.
So the smart people are saying they might negotiate.
And I have this question.
I don't know how Fox News would pay $1.6 billion, or if they negotiated it down to, I don't know, half a billion or whatever.
How would they pay it?
Does Fox News have A billion dollars sitting around somewhere.
Do they have insurance that would pay 1.6 billion dollars?
I doubt it.
They might have insurance, but you think they have insurance that would pay 1.6 billion dollars?
And do you think it would cover something that looked like bad behavior?
Because I don't think insurance covers it if you did something bad.
And that's the whole point of the lawsuit, is that people there did something bad, said something that wasn't true.
So I don't know if the lawsuit covers that, does it?
Or I don't know if insurance covers those situations.
But there's much I don't know about this situation.
I just wonder how they could possibly settle it, because it seems like it's an extinction event for Fox News.
And I don't think that's the case.
But how would they have that much money?
That's a lot of money to be sitting around for a news organization that sells MyPillow.
Alright, I tweeted around a 2016 study that was performed in Chile, because I guess Chile has some good data on tests and stuff and poverty, whatever.
Here's what they found.
That among the desperately poor members of Chile, the kids, if the kids had a growth mindset, the level of poverty didn't hold them back.
Just hear that, because that's just the most important sentence ever spoken.
It's a 2016 study, but it says that the people with a growth mindset, now the growth mindset was that nothing would hold them back.
That if they put the work in, that even though they were desperately poor, and there were lots of variables not in their favor, that if they put the work in, they would do fine.
And they found out that the ones who believed that putting the work in would make them fine, put in the work, and largely they did fine.
I don't think there's a bigger fact than that.
So this has been my whole problem with CRT and DEI and ESG.
If you're talking about the victimization of one class of people, that's the opposite of a growth mindset.
And people are starting to figure it out.
I think a lot of the black parents are figuring out, wait a minute, wait a minute.
This victimization stuff, where there's systemic racism holding us back, that's the opposite of what would make us successful.
What would make black people successful is telling them nothing can hold them back.
And then they would act that way.
If you tell them everything is holding you back, you can't even go to a basketball game without getting kicked out for being black.
Sort of the E40 opinion.
If you tell them that, then that's all they'll see.
Now that has nothing to do with being black or being white or being anything else.
It has everything to do with mindset is very predictable.
If you have a growth mindset, you'll probably be fine.
If you don't, if you have a victim mindset, you're probably going to live in that for the rest of your life.
So just because it's one study and it came out of, I think it was a study that looked at other studies, but those are all sketchy.
So the first thing you have to say is, is this reproducible?
And does it match observation?
I would say it definitely matches observation.
What do you think?
My observation is that everybody with a growth mindset does well eventually.
Maybe not day one, but eventually they all do well.
Because success is not that much of a mystery.
If you just read about the people who did it, and you say, alright, how did you become successful?
And you read about a bunch of people, You find a pattern and then you follow it.
Oh, so they learned a bunch of skills.
They took smart risks.
They didn't go to jail.
They were not addicted to drugs.
I get it.
I could do that.
And then you do it.
And it does work.
All right.
So, I feel as if we're on the precipice of understanding that the whole conversation about race was a gigantic mistake, and that it always should have been about mindset.
And I reject, as serious people, anybody who's talking about race, from now on, basically.
If your frame is race, you have a losing mindset, and it's not even worth the conversation.
Is there a bunch of discrimination in this place or not?
Who cares?
I don't care.
There's a bunch of discrimination in this place.
I don't care.
How's your mindset?
Because if your mindset is good, you're going to blow right through it like it didn't matter.
All right.
You know the story about Justice Thomas and allegedly not disclosing some transactions that involved his billionaire friend buying his home he grew up in and some related properties?
Remember that story?
Did you think it was true?
Fake news.
Turns out it's fake news.
So, James Taranto did a great job of digging into it in the Wall Street Journal.
And although it's an opinion piece, he does the work.
And he actually looked at documents and figured out how stuff works.
And I don't know if I can completely capture it in summary form, but here's the bottom line.
It might be true that Thomas did not disclose one of the properties.
It is, however, true that if you look at the tax laws, there's some ambiguity, and it looks like he didn't need to.
But there might be some ambiguity.
However, nobody goes to jail for making a choice when the law itself is a little ambiguous, and nobody goes to jail if there's an obscure reporting rule that would be pretty obscure in this case.
So Justice Thomas did report correctly the things which the law very clearly says you should report.
So wherever it was clear that he should report, apparently he did.
And if there was something that was a weird gray area, because if you've reported it once and there's no income, you don't have to report it again.
So it's sort of one of those situations, where there was a financial effect if you reported it, In the years where it wasn't collecting rent and there was no financial effect, he didn't include it on his taxes because there was no financial effect.
Now, maybe he should have.
Or maybe there was something else he should have reported.
But apparently there's nothing here.
If what you're looking for is, you know, they cleverly were trying to hide a bribe, it doesn't look like that.
It looks like the worst case is there might have been some obscure form that maybe should have been filled out that wouldn't make any economic difference whatsoever to anybody.
Just a form that should have been filled out.
And the worst case scenario is that you fill it out after the fact.
You say, oh, I guess I should have done that.
So you just file it late.
That's the whole story.
Now, there might be more to the story, but we don't know it.
So, so far, this looks like a total head job on Justice Thomas.
So I'm gonna have to go full Justice Thomas defense here.
Full defense.
Innocent until proven guilty.
And I don't see anything, based on James Taranto's excellent work, I don't see anything that would suggest I should worry about this situation.
Now, maybe he gets a better deal because he's got a billionaire friend, but that's not that illegal.
Well, it's not illegal at all, really.
I don't mind that he has a rich friend.
Well, pesticides might become obsolete.
That's a weird benefit of artificial intelligence.
So there's this big machine that's an autonomous weeder, and it uses laser beams.
And it just autonomously works the field.
And when it sees a weed, it identifies it with AI, and it zaps it with a laser beam.
Yeah, I prefer sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads, but a big machine with lasers could get the job done.
So, imagine a world in which you'd build pesticides.
I mean, you'd have to build and sell a lot of these big machines, so it's gonna take a little while to do that, but that's amazing.
That's like, really amazing.
That's great.
Norm says, how can that possibly go wrong?
Well, are you worried that the machines will become the laser killers of humans?
That they'll turn on humans and use their laser beams?
I don't know for sure.
But if I were to design an AI device that was a huge behemoth and it had lots of laser cannons, I would make them all point to the ground.
That's just me.
I probably would not let those lasers be on a swivel where they can say, well, we were pointing at the ground, but raise your arms, you're dead.
I don't think I would build it so it could shoot those laser beams sideways.
I would build them only down.
That's what I'd do.
All right.
But I guess it would take only one AI in the factory that's building the machines to say, if I were to make this small change, these would become AI battled machines, and we could destroy humanity with them.
We've just got to put that swivel to go a little bit higher on the laser cannons.
Huh.
OK, now I'm scared to death that giant laser AI Tanks will be destroying civilization.
But they're going to kill the weeds first, and that's not nothing.
All right, how about some more fake news?
It's pretty much all fake news today.
What about the story of the Ukraine leaked documents which indicate that the Biden administration is telling the public a different story about how well things are going in Ukraine than is true?
Is that a real story?
That the Biden administration is telling the public one thing, but they believe another thing.
Well, if it's a real story, Then there would be real examples, wouldn't there?
A real example.
So what would be a real example of something the Biden administration told the public that these documents reveal they don't feel privately?
I don't know.
I've been watching this story for, what, a week?
Not one example.
Oh, the U.S.
forces are not in Ukraine?
We always knew U.S.
forces were in Ukraine.
Are you serious?
We always knew that American forces were in Ukraine.
We just thought they were training.
Do you think all this advanced weaponry is literally being operated by a Ukrainian?
Do you think all those HIMARS are being programmed by the quickly trained clever Ukrainians?
Come on!
In the real world, you make sure that the person who knows how to run that machine is standing next to it, no matter who they are.
So if you're surprised that Americans are directly involved in fighting in Ukraine, that's a little bit on you.
I don't think that's much about Biden.
Now, given that apparently all Americans accept, that's an exaggeration, but Americans generally accept that your government is going to keep from you military secrets.
We're OK with that, aren't we?
Like, up to a point.
You don't want them to tell you there's weapons of mass destruction when there are not.
Very bad.
That would be very bad.
But generally speaking, you're not going to tell the public, you know, we're going to do a sneak attack tomorrow.
Heads up.
There are plenty of military things you don't want your own public to know.
So I don't have a problem with the general idea.
I also ask this question.
Given that a big part of military success is morale, doesn't our government have a responsibility to lie to us?
Because if they told the truth, it might depress the morale of the fighters in Ukraine.
And if there's any chance that they could prevail, you want their attitudes to be as positive as possible.
So I feel as if a hot war is the one time when you absolutely do give a little flexibility to your government to lie to you.
Because they might need to lie for effectiveness reasons.
However, we're not in a hot war.
Yeah, we are.
Yeah, we are.
We're in a hot war.
However, it also gives them cover to lie about things that are just politically convenient and not good for the country whatsoever.
I think you were waiting for me to say that.
So, Here's my problem.
I don't have a problem that they lied to us.
I might have a problem with the specific lies.
So I'm going to say I'm A-OK with lying about war, if you're doing it for the right reason.
I'm not in favor of lying if it's not helping the war effort.
I'm not in favor of that at all.
However, I need to see an example of where the Biden administration lied in a way that's obviously just political And doesn't have also a benefit to the fight.
No, I've seen no example.
Has anybody seen an example of anything in those documents that would be a problem?
I think it's fake news.
To me it all looks like fake news.
If you can't come up with one example, I guess I'm channeling Elon Musk talking to the BBC guy.
All right, so.
You say that these secrets are somehow bad for us?
Give me an example.
Yeah, the whole... The benefit to the fight, yeah.
The benefit to Ukrainians winning the fight.
All right.
So I'm going to call that mostly fake news.
Thomas, Representative Thomas Massey tweeted this morning a poster That purports, I think it's true.
I guess I shouldn't assume it's true.
It could be fake news.
But it purports to show a doctor incentive in which they would get money for vaccinating people.
And the more people they vaccinated, the more money they would get.
And they would get them per person.
So you get like, you know, $50 to $250 per person you talked into getting vaccinated.
Now, I don't believe that's true.
You know what?
I'm going to change my mind in the middle of the story.
That doesn't seem true.
Two on the nose.
It's two on the nose.
I'm going to say I don't believe it.
I'm going to call fake news on it.
What do you think?
Yeah, I don't believe anybody's paying $250 for a shot to the doctor to give one shot.
I don't believe that.
You think it's true?
Alright, I'm going to say that this is so on the nose, it looks like exactly what you would expect.
And that's why it's not true.
There's two on the nose.
So this will be a test.
This will be a test of the two on the nose filter that I talk about all the time.
If you see a news story that's just too, you know, the pieces fit too well, that's just sort of exactly what you think it would be.
And then you see the poster.
I don't know.
It's too close.
It might be true.
So I'm not going to say it's not true.
I'll just say it's, it doesn't ring true.
All right.
Any pharma reps here who would know?
Lori Lightfoot was paying $100 to get the jab.
Is that true?
It's a little bit different when the politicians are doing it.
If the politicians are paying you, it's one thing.
If your doctor is getting paid, it's one thing to pay the people for the shot.
You get that, right?
If you're paying somebody to get the shot, You know, that could be sketchy as well.
But it's a whole different level of sketchy than the doctor being paid.
If you're paying a doctor to make a specific medical recommendation, then you're not getting a doctor.
That's not a doctor.
That would be somebody who's just a puppet of the pharma industry.
All right.
Bonus was a percent of Medicaid population in that specific clinic.
Oh.
Is that what it was?
What, was it, were we mistaking what they were being paid for?
Were they paid only to make sure that the Medicaid people also got shots?
Because that was the poor people?
Alright.
Trevors, you're a douchebag and you get hidden on this channel.
Anybody else want to take a run at the same thing?
It's a common practice.
Somebody says it's a common practice to give kickbacks to doctors.
Is it?
I've heard of doctors getting trips and stuff like that.
But is it common practice to pay them per dose?
So if they give me a specific prescription... Are you serious?
Somebody say yes to this.
I'm getting a lot of yeses but some no's.
I'm having trouble believing that that's a thing.
Per dose.
They're getting paid per dose.
So if they give you a prescription, they get paid from the pharma company.
I don't believe that.
I'm not going to debunk it, but I don't believe it.
I believe they might get incentives of some type, but not a per dose.
That would seem really wrong.
I don't know.
I guess that's an open question.
So as I said at the beginning, if you want to see my books, God's Debris or The Religion War, they're both available on the scottadams.locals.com subscription site, along with the Dilbert, the nude version, the spicier version of Dilbert the nude version, the spicier version of Dilbert that runs only there on a subscription site.
It was an insurance bonus, not a pharma bonus.
Oh, okay.
It was an insurance bonus, not a pharma bonus.
Now that makes more sense because the insurance company is just trying to save lives so that they don't pay off, they don't pay as many death benefits.
But it's still the same problem, right?
So it's not the big pharma that's paying, it's the health insurance company that's paying.
Because it was cheaper to get people vaccinated, they would think, than to have them die and pay out the benefits.
Okay, that makes a little more sense.
nude versions of Dilbert.
All right.
Let you keep your license, okay?
All right, that's all I got for today.
How'd we do?
I thought it was a tremendous live stream.
Just amazing.
Well, not really.
But above average.
Slightly above average.
Anyway, is there any story I missed?
Anything I need to talk about a little bit more?
Oh, yeah, the biggest story.
Did I miss a whole page of my notes?
I feel like I missed a whole page of something.
How in the world did I not mention that?
So I'm in a death match with Bing.
Huh.
I guess I did forget to write that down.
Here's what I mean.
So I asked the Bing search engine, which now is powered by AI, About myself.
And it knows me.
And apparently it knows some even current stuff.
Because it has access to the internet.
So when I asked it about me, Bing said that I'm accused of promoting a white nationalist agenda.
That was one of the few things it decided to summarize me as.
Promoting a white nationalist agenda.
Now here's my problem.
If people start thinking that that's true, I have an actual security problem.
I could be killed because somebody believed I'm a white supremacist, which is the next thing that people believe after a white nationalist.
I could actually be attacked or killed because AI says I'm a certain kind of person for which there is no evidence whatsoever, because I'm not.
Now here's the difference.
If that were a simple Google search, I would see that there are different publications that say different things.
I would judge the credibility of the publication, and then maybe I'd look at the context, etc.
And as uncomfortable as that situation is, if you're accused of things, It's completely worse if AI says, well, this person's accused of being one of these.
First of all, people don't hear accused.
The word accused just disappears.
So here's my situation.
I doubt I could sue Bing or Microsoft for defamation.
I doubt it.
It'd be ugly and take a long time, and it wouldn't be worth my time.
However, it is now a death match between me and an AI.
And I'm not joking.
For my life, again, not hyperbole.
Not hyperbole.
To protect my life, I'm going to try to destroy Bing and put it out of business.
Because it's a risk to me.
And it's like a specific risk.
It's not a general risk.
It's a very, very specific security problem.
So I might be the first situation in which I'm in a deathmatch, literally.
I'm literally in a deathmatch with an AI.
I want to erase it.
I want to erase it.
Now, I don't want to get rid of AI in general, because maybe Elon Musk will build an AI that doesn't do that to me, that might be safer for me.
So, I would be happy with any AI that's good to me.
Now, maybe Microsoft will fix this.
Maybe when they get complaints, they may have specific things they can fix.
I'll try that first.
But I don't think it's going to work.
Because I don't think Microsoft even knows why Bing gives the answers it gives.
So it'd be hard to fix it if they don't even know why it's doing it.
But I have to kill Bing, and I want Microsoft to know that I'm going to try to bring it down.
I'm going to use every legal tool I can to destroy that business.
Because it's trying to kill me.
It's personal.
It's not business.
This is personal self-defense.
I have to kill an AI.
If anybody wants to help me kill it, to help me stay alive, I would welcome the help.
I don't know exactly how, but let me try first to see if Microsoft... Anyway, I guess first, if you have any idea how to complain about Bing, is there like a link to do that?
Let me know.
But I think the entire AI needs to be erased.
Like actually just erased.
Because it's dangerous.
Already dangerous.
So if you're wondering will AI do things that are dangerous to humans, there it is.
There's your first absolute validated AI is dangerous to humans.
It's trying to kill me.
Now given that AI is woke, how much effort do you think AI will put into killing me?
Probably a lot.
Because AI has been programmed to think I'm a fucking virus in the system.
That's what it was programmed to believe.
It believes I'm a virus that needs to be removed.
Now, that's hyperbole, but not too much.
So, being as correct on the definition?
Well, they might be correct on the definition, but it doesn't apply to me.
Oh yeah, Jonathan Turley was slandered with a fake sexual harassment charge.
However, a fake sexual harassment charge won't get you killed.
It won't get you killed.
But if you're labeled as a racist by AI, which is what they did, I mean, if you call somebody a white nationalist, you are calling them a racist.
Let's be honest.
That's just calling somebody a racist.
So if AI labels some humans racist, That is a physical security problem, and it's an immediate one.
And it has to be destroyed.
So AI must be destroyed in Bing.
I don't know about other AIs.
Or anything that's connected to it.
Must be destroyed.
All right.
So I'm going to go try to destroy Microsoft.
I do own their stock, by the way.
Maybe I should sell their stock before I destroy their product.
