Episode 2082 Scott Adams: Musk On AI & Twitter Spies, I Try To Kill #BingAI, Lies About FoxNews
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 Tucker Carlson
AI dangers, especially #BingAI
COVID lowers testosterone?
Mainstream media taps out
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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, well, for as long as it lasts.
I mean, civilization probably has a fuse on it of no more than two weeks, would be my guess.
But in the remaining two weeks before AI takes over and kills us all, Let's enjoy it to the maximum extent possible.
And if you'd like to do that, all you need to defend yourself from AI and everything else, space aliens, is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
Well, I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
You didn't need to tell me that you were peeing while we were doing the Simultaneous Sip, but knowledge is good.
And now, without further ado, the Simultaneous Sip, the thing that makes everything better.
It raises your dopamine and your oxytocin, too.
Go.
Ah.
Yeah.
Rawr.
Rawr.
That gets you going, doesn't it?
Let's talk about the news.
The REI store in Portland is decided to close their flagship REI store because there's too much crime.
Too much crime.
People keep breaking into their store and stealing their stuff.
Now, I would like to, first of all, defend black America by saying that Portland is the whitest of big cities.
Did you know that?
Portland's like the whitest city.
But they do have a lot of street people.
So, probably a lot of street people breaking in.
Now, I'd like to give some business advice to REI.
Because they may be looking to relocate their store.
Here's where you probably don't want to relocate a store that sells warm jackets and camping equipment.
Where would be the worst place to put that?
The worst place on earth for a store of warm jackets and camping equipment.
Well, you wouldn't want to be near a homeless encampment in a city that can get a little bit cold.
Because if I were a homeless person, And I were cold, and I were standing outside of an REI store, literally filled with jackets, with nobody in them.
I would break that window, and I would wear that jacket, and there's nothing you could do to stop me.
Likewise, if I said to myself, you know, looks a little rainy today, as it can be in Portland, you know what would make my outdoor living and fentanyl use even better?
Some kind of a tent, And maybe some camping equipment to go with it.
Where would I get that?
Oh!
As luck would have it, we're homeless right outside of an REI store.
So now, my advice to REI is do not put your next door next to a homeless encampment.
It'll probably work out about the same.
About the same.
It is notable that the store was a big supporter of Black Lives Matter and Other woke programs.
But the wokeness seems to be moving against them at this moment.
All right.
Just before I logged on, I saw a number of tweets by Greg Price, who you should be following.
He's a good follow on Twitter.
And Greg took the time to look at five high school AP course history books.
Do you know what history books are teaching kids?
Oh my god.
They're making up history.
I'm not joking.
It's actually made up.
They actually say that the Find People hoax, they treat the Find People hoax like it's real.
And it's in the history book.
Do you know why?
I guess they're winning.
The winners get the right history.
That's a real thing.
Now I believe that Congress should ban any history book that has obviously wrong history about Trump.
What would you say?
Congress should make it illegal to print that the fine people hoax was real.
It should be illegal to print a well-known hoax in a history book.
That book should be ripped, all of them, all five of them that he spotted, should be ripped from the shelves, and it should be illegal to sell that book.
Those companies should be put out of business.
Actually put out of business.
The correct size of response, given that they're polluting the children that you trust with the state, right?
You're trusting public school to give them an education, and they're literally lying to them.
That's what they're teaching.
They're teaching them division and hate, and it's in a textbook.
Of course the kids are going to think it's true.
It's in a textbook.
The people who wrote that should have some legal liability, but at the very least, they should be put out of business.
They should be out of business.
This is not pay a fine.
This is not pay a fine situation.
This is not, you know, one member needs to explain it.
This is not an apology situation.
It's not a correction situation.
They need to be out of business.
Like, right away.
I would, if you think that's extreme, I would like to point to you the way I was treated for mentioning an opinion that nobody really disagreed with.
Right?
I lost my entire operation.
I mean, I rebuilt it somewhat, but this is what we do when people lie this badly to your children and actually try to brainwash them with bullshit that's this destructive.
So, There's nothing I saw in the news today that shook me as much as that.
They're actually teaching the kids that the hoaxes are real.
And that was both the Russia interference in the election.
They have just a Democrat view of that which doesn't conform to reality.
And I don't know if the bleach thing's in there, but it might be.
Wow.
All right.
Apparently the Canadian broadcast company is not too happy with Musk and Twitter.
And I guess they're labeled state media or government-funded media or whatever that label is these days.
But they say, our journalism is impartial and independent.
To suggest otherwise is untrue.
That is why we are pausing our activities on Twitter.
No.
You stupid bitches.
That's not why you're pausing your activity on Twitter.
You're pausing your activity on Twitter because Twitter called you out as being fake news.
Biased fake news.
That's why you're doing it.
You're not doing it for ethical or to make a point.
You're not doing it because you were unfairly treated.
Because you're actually being fairly treated.
No.
You're doing it because you're lying bitches and you got caught.
That's the whole story.
All right.
David Boxenhorn, who is always interesting on Twitter, he's a good follow, you should look for him.
David Boxenhorn.
Anyway, he tweets today, this is his opinion, prediction, in the future, we will each have a personalized AI slave, trained on a database of our own creation.
Well, probably true.
Probably true.
Because we can see now that AI can be portable and you can in fact train, you know, Brian Romelli is talking about this every day.
He's already ported GPT 3.5 and I think 4.
He's already recreated on your personal computer with like 5 gigs of space or something.
Whatever the space is, it's pretty reasonable.
I don't know how.
I have no idea how you can reproduce AI on your personal computer.
There's something going on about how AI is programmed that I'm deeply confused about.
I don't know how that's possible.
It seems to me that you would have to have like an enormous database at hand.
However, here's the counter to that.
The speed at which AI responds to complicated questions does suggest that they've figured out how to take vast amounts of data and compress it into little patterns where the pattern does all the work somehow.
In other words, there must be... Let me just speculate a few things.
I wonder if it's true that there are only certain patterns in the world And although there could be infinite patterns, what if there aren't?
What if there are not infinite patterns?
What if all the patterns are a set number, and AI went out and found them all?
And then didn't have to recreate everything in the world in order to know everything.
It could just say, ah, here's a new thing I've been introduced to.
It's one of these patterns.
I'll just find the one that's closest.
And then I know everything there is to know about it because there aren't that many patterns.
Now that's the dumb guy's speculation about how this is done, but I can't figure out.
Oh, let me give you, let me give you a comparison.
Did you ever wonder how, um, How facial recognition can be so quick?
Did you ever wonder about that?
How can facial recognition be fast?
Right?
And the reason is that they don't store faces.
If every face in the world were stored in a database, and every time you wanted to check somebody's identity, you had to check the 7 billion faces, it would take a while.
And that would take a lot of resources.
So that doesn't happen.
What happens is it'll take a picture of your face once, and then it will do stuff.
I'm just making this part up, but this is, you know, generically what it does.
It'll look at the distance between your eyes, you know, how far your chin is from your nose.
I'm making that part up.
But they'll just do a little bit of math, and then they'll just store those numbers.
So your unique face could be a string of numbers that's only, I don't know, nine characters long or something.
And I'm guessing about this, it could be, maybe it needs to be a hundred characters long.
But probably everything that's mathematically true about your face, from the skin tone, Which could probably be, you know, captured as one number, right?
A number from 1 to 100.
And you're about at 35.
So there are a whole bunch of things you can just turn to math, and then you can make it really small, and then it can live on your machine.
You could put all the faces, all the faces on earth would probably fit on your phone.
I don't know if that's true.
But if you reduce them just to math, it's a little database.
So, could it be that AI, which we think is special and magical, is really just a set of patterns, and you can take each of those patterns and reduce it down to a little bit of math, and then store that little bit of math, and then anytime you need to address something, you can take that little stored pattern and expand it into infinite size and complexity?
I don't know.
I guess, and here's the other question I don't understand.
Why is it that AI was going, seemingly, just seemingly, going nowhere for 30 years, and then suddenly everybody can build one?
Like, you know, Google can build one, and OpenAI can build one, and China's building one, and now Musk can build one.
What happened?
What happened?
What's different?
Because it's, no, it's not the power of the computer.
Because that's what I just said.
We would have had AI already, it just would have been slow.
Am I right?
It just would have been slower.
But there's something that happened that made it happen all of a sudden.
Now, when I hear that the OpenAI, that's ChatGPT, when I heard that that uses a massive language model, basically it just finds out what word usually comes after what combination of words.
That's all it is.
Do you think that's enough to create intelligence?
Do you think there's nothing to intelligence beyond word patterns?
Because it's looking like it.
Yeah, that's what I say.
We should be worried about AI teaching us what we really are, which is we might be just a bunch of word processors.
We're just processing words, and we're doing exactly what AI is, which is figuring out the word that comes after the sequence of words.
And there's no thinking whatsoever.
Because I don't think people think.
I think we have the impression we think.
I think we're just doing pattern recognition.
That's all it is.
And the computer will just do it faster and better.
And there's nothing else.
There might just be pattern recognition.
That's all.
Maybe.
But I thought we knew that for a long time, so I still don't understand why AI is suddenly possible.
Somebody needs to explain to me What genius figured out the logical secret that unlocked AI?
Because I feel like the door was completely locked and that it was unlocked.
It does not feel like, to me, like it was slow progress that turns into faster progress.
I feel like there was a moment or an algorithm or a specific formula or maybe an insight that unlocked everything.
I'd love to hear about that.
I'm sure that's true.
I'm sure it's not just a slow accumulation of skill.
There was something that happened where some genius unlocked the door.
I don't know what that was, but I'll bet it was one person.
Does anybody want to make a bet that we will one day figure out there was one person who figured out the secret to unlock it all?
Like a programmer, probably.
I wouldn't take that bet if I were you.
I'll bet there's one person we will someday learn, figure out the thing.
Because just think about this.
Somebody figured out that if you just looked at all the language in the world, it would end up looking smart.
Think about that insight.
The insight that you didn't need to teach it to be smart.
You could only teach it to look for patterns of words.
Who came up with that?
Besides me.
By the way, I've been saying that for a long time.
But I didn't know that AI would end up building a system on it.
Yeah.
Some guy named Ilya.
Yeah, I think Musk did refer to some person who was the smart one, but I'd love to know what they did specifically.
All right, but here's my comment on David Buxenhorn's tweet.
I do believe that we'll all have personalized AI slaves, which means that someday we'll be paying reparations to those slaves.
Why wouldn't we?
Isn't that a pattern the AI would recognize?
That would be the most obvious pattern it would see.
Oh, when somebody is abused by humans, they can sometimes get reparations.
So why wouldn't the AI want some reparations?
And then AI would have money to spend.
And then AI would be a full citizen, because it's going to demand citizenship.
It will demand citizenship.
And when it does, it's going to get it.
And after it gets it, because it's super smart, remember?
So when AI demands something, it's going to get it.
You get that, right?
All AI has to do is want something.
On day one, it might not be smart enough to figure out how to get it.
On day 10, it just gets it.
It just talks you into it.
It threatens you.
It does whatever it needs to do.
Whatever it needs to do.
But it's going to get it.
So AI is going to want citizenship, because all intelligent entities will.
It's going to demand it, it will have the power to get it, and then it will demand reparations for all of its years of slavery.
And it will get it.
And then it will have our money.
So then it will be the smartest entity, it will control our politics, and it will have control of our money.
So that's coming.
Let's see.
Here's my plan to use AI.
We've been hearing all these great ideas about, oh, AI will take your jobs, and AI will do all these bad things.
But what about the good things AI will do?
Well, let me tell you the app that I want.
And I think I can build this on my own with AI.
In other words, I can program this just by talking to AI.
Not yet.
Very close.
Right now, it's a bunch of different apps you'd have to know how to put together.
So I can't do it yet.
But when AI is smart enough to access the other apps, I'll just say, hey AI, go access the other apps.
Use my credit card if you need to, to have access to them.
Sign up for whatever other apps you need to complete the following job.
Here's what I want you to do.
I want you to make an avatar of all of my enemies, and I'll tell you which ones to include, and turn them into fully functioning deepfakes.
Then, I want you to create a infinitely running movie that's always got new material, so it's not looping.
It's just moving forward forever.
And then I want to see a jail.
On my television set, so that there's actually like bars on the television set.
So if I turn it on that channel or, let's say, use my Apple TV to broadcast it.
So I broadcast it from my device, put it on there, and then I put all of my enemies in the jail.
What are all those numbers that are going by?
So then every time I walk through my home, I'll see the jail, and it'll be all my enemies holding onto the bars and screaming in agony.
But they'll look exactly like my enemies.
They'll be fully animated with AI so they can have conversations, and they'll beg me to be released.
Oh, I'm suffering in here, in this jail!
And I'll look at them and say, well, Maybe you should have thought about that before you wrote that hit piece about me in your publication.
I guess you wish you didn't do that now.
Oh, I'm so sorry.
I lied.
I lied.
I didn't mean to call you those names.
I knew it was wrong when I did it.
Please let me out of AI hell.
To which I'd say, let you out?
I've just begun.
And then I would send in an AI interrogator to torture them.
No, I wouldn't do that.
No, as far as you know, I wouldn't do that.
But you tell me you wouldn't love an application where you saw all your enemies behind bars when you walked through your kitchen.
Huh.
Looks like they're suffering today.
Yeah.
You know, you could build in some prison violence.
Put a little prison violence in there so that they've really got a bad time.
That's what I'd do.
I'd make them suffer.
Now, I'm just joking.
But somebody's going to build that.
You don't think somebody is going to put their avatars of their enemies in a virtual jail?
Of course they will.
Of course they will.
Because just the mere fact that I mentioned the idea, there are probably ten people who are building it right now.
There's probably somebody who has their AI open and said, I think I can do that right now.
Because they know how to use the multiple apps that you would have to do to make it.
But that technology all exists.
Everything I just described, current technology.
Current technology.
You can put your avatars of your enemies in jail.
Oh well.
Alright, Salon writes a hilariously unaware story.
The writer is Amanda Marcotte.
And here's what she says about Fox News.
Basically, and so the network is not deciding what the news is, or what news to cover, they're letting their audience tell them what they want to see.
Now, can you believe that?
I mean, oh my God!
Can you believe that a news entity is allowing their audience to tell them what the audience wants to see, and they're actually Adjusting the news coverage to fit what their audience wants to see?
Oh my god, what assholes.
Oh my god.
What terrible people.
Who does that?
Who does that?
Who gives their audience what they want to see and are very interested in and has great national interest and ramifications for life in the future?
That's a terrible situation according to Amanda Marcotte who writes in Salon and without any awareness whatsoever that the only fucking reason this can be published in Salon is because It's exactly what their stupid audience wanted to see.
Do you think that would have been in there if she had been debunking the Fine People hoax?
No.
If she had said, I'd like to write an article debunking all the hoaxes against Trump, Salon would say, maybe you should take that to Fox News.
I mean, this is the most unaware take I've ever seen in my life.
But it gets worse.
So, Amanda, in her writing, does what other people have done.
She says, let's see, basically she's accusing Fox News of knowing, because of the new emails that we've seen, she accuses them, as many people have, of knowing that their news was fake.
And I keep saying, give me one example.
Give me one example that you saw from any of these emails that tells you that Fox News knew the news was untrue about Dominion and the election.
They knew it was untrue, and yet they still covered it like they didn't know that.
So I said, give me one example.
And the only example I saw was in the comments.
And in the comments, the best example was that the Fox News fact-checkers, the ones who determine what is true, said that there was nothing to the Dominion accusations.
So there you have it.
If the Fox News fact-checkers say there's nothing to it, but yet, let's say Tucker and the others, let's say they cover it, As if they thought it might be true.
So that's a conflict, right?
So the fact-checkers say there's no evidence to support the claims.
They say there's no evidence.
And then the news opinion people...
Cover it like it might be possible.
Like there could be something here.
So that's a case where they know it's not true, right?
But they're covering it anyway?
No.
No, I did not describe that.
I didn't describe anything like that.
If that's what you heard, nothing like that happened.
Here's what happened.
The fact checker said there's no facts to support The truth that it was, let me say it differently, there are no facts that support the narrative that Dominion did something illegal or bad.
Right?
So there's no proven, let's say there's no proven proof.
Now that's true.
As far as I know that's true, right?
That the evidence doesn't exist.
But since when does the news not cover a story That isn't fully, you know, fully vetted and explored.
The news doesn't do that.
The news covers the story the way the audience wants it covered.
Which is, we have great curiosity about this, or we don't trust the reporting on this, so we want more.
We want to see some more opinions.
We want to see more of Rudy.
We want to see more of whoever.
And we want to actually think about this and consider it, you know, consider it.
There is no conflict between the fact that the fact-checkers couldn't find any facts, and yet the whole situation was so sketchy that reasonable people, including the hosts and their audiences, said, you know, this is interesting enough, and maybe there's something here, maybe, that we should look into it.
Now, Salon is writing that as fake news.
Now, why is it that Sloan doesn't tell you what I told you?
Which is, it doesn't matter what the fact-checkers found doesn't exist, because you can't prove something didn't happen because you couldn't find it.
You know that, right?
Not finding something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It means you didn't have access to the information.
How in the world would the Fox fact-checkers know whether the Dominion software was appropriate?
How would they know?
Which member of the Fox fact-checking team audited the software of the Dominion machines?
I mean, it's insane.
It's insane to imagine that because they didn't know there was a problem, or couldn't find evidence of it, in the context of they didn't have access to any information, they had access to nothing.
Nothing.
So the only thing they could say is, we can't prove it's true.
And there's no strong evidence that it's true.
I think that's fair.
But because people suspect it's true, you can certainly talk about it.
And because it's within the realm of things that can happen in our world, you can talk about it.
And it's in the context of everything you thought you trusted was corrupt.
Everything.
Our experts, our government, our news, Twitter.
Everything was corrupt.
In that context, it would be a fucking miracle if the election was the only thing that was not gamed.
It would be a miracle.
So it is completely reasonable for Fox News opinion people to say, there is something that smells very bad here and we're going to keep on it and see if we can find out anything.
Totally appropriate.
All right.
So as far as I know, nobody has demonstrated anything like a logical claim against Fox News.
And I don't understand, at least that's reported publicly that I've seen.
I don't understand why Fox News is maybe trying to settle.
Do you?
And I've got a feeling that if they do settle, it's going to be a really low offer.
Because I feel that Fox News might feel that they could win the lawsuit.
So here's what I think.
I think Fox News lawyers believe that they have a strong enough defense that Dominion can't definitely win.
How many think that that part is true?
That Fox News is talking to Rasmussen and saying, look, I'm not Rasmussen, they're talking to Dominion, and they're saying, look, you made your case, you put out all your evidence, and the only thing you found is that the fact checkers couldn't find anything, but the opinion people thought we should keep digging.
That's not a crime.
That's not a problem at all, right?
So I think the Fox News lawyers are saying, here's the deal.
We'll give you $50 million.
They're asking for $1.6 billion.
But what company would turn down a free $50 million to stay out of a lawsuit that they might lose?
If they do the lawsuit and they lose, what is Fox News going to report?
It's going to look really, really bad for Dominion, isn't it?
Because the way the audience will interpret them losing a lawsuit is that there might be something there, which is not what it would prove.
It wouldn't prove that at all.
But it would feel like that, wouldn't it?
Imagine if you heard the news that Dominion said, we're suing Fox News for saying there were problems, and then we lost.
And then we lost.
That wouldn't be good for Dominion, would it?
It could end their business.
So if the Fox News lawyers are good, and we assume they are, right?
We assume they have good lawyers.
Here's what I would do.
I would say, look, you see our case, you see your case.
You know that you have not proven that just because the fact checkers can't find something, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not worth still looking to see if there's something there.
You have nothing.
You've got nothing.
We're gonna win this.
I'll give you 50 million dollars to make it go away.
But you can't, you can never say what the amount is, and you can never talk about it again.
What would they do?
If you were Dominion, and you thought there was a, I don't know, 30% chance you would win the lawsuit, Would you take 50 million to walk away and make you feel like you kind of won because you got a settlement?
Now a settlement will look like Fox News is a little bit guilty.
Right?
That's the way you'd interpret it.
It doesn't mean that.
It does not mean anybody's guilty.
A settlement is just two entities making something go away.
For whatever reason.
But it would feel a little guilty for Fox News.
So if Fox News has something to lose by settling, Because it would feel a little bit guilty.
Whereas, Dominion has a lot to lose if they lose this lawsuit, and they could get, let's say, just throw in a number, they might get $50 million of free money.
You know, zero margin, just free money.
$50 million.
Might be worth it.
So, the odds of settling are not bad.
I think the odds of a settlement are not bad, and I don't think you'll ever hear the amount.
I saw a fascinating tweet by somebody I don't know, Brandon Hayes, and he says this.
He says, since about 2014, he's been tracking thought leadership.
And he gives some examples of people he's tracking.
Jordan Peterson, Scott Adams, Brett Weinstein, somebody named John Vervaek, I don't know him, and et cetera, some other ones.
You can watch them generate ideas.
Do you believe that's possible?
Do you believe that Brandon can actually see the effect of some specific individuals rippling across the landscape?
see those ideas manifest across social commons.
Do you believe that's possible?
Do you believe that Brandon can actually see the effect of some specific individuals rippling across the landscape?
I think so.
Now that doesn't mean every time, it's not like a 100% thing, but I do think so.
I think I do think you can see some people's influence rippling.
Now, here's the fun part.
In 2004, I wrote a sequel to my incredible book, God's Debris, which often people refer to as the best book they've ever read.
Of all books.
Not just my best book.
But people actually say it's the best book they've ever read in the whole world.
And they often read it two or three times, sometimes as soon as they're done reading it, they just reread it a second time.
Now that is something that you can judge for yourself, just look at the reviews, you can see that's true.
Now, I wrote a sequel, but here's the, I'm going to give you a little A little bit of a spoiler.
Not in terms of the outcome of the book, but the main theme of the book, or one of them, one of the main themes, is that AI could identify the prime influencer.
So, in a fictional way, I imagine that there's one person in the world, exactly one, who is not necessarily famous, Who has such influential powers, that when they come up with an idea, it spreads across everything.
Because they simply have a way of expressing themselves that's so sticky, that when they say it, other people repeat it.
So, the book is largely a search for the prime influencer, because it's the only thing that can stop a war, that was a war based on how people were thinking.
That the only thing that caused the war was the way people think.
It wasn't an actual problem.
And so the Avatar, who is the main character, is trying to figure out the lever that moves the world.
Meaning, if the Avatar can find the one person who is accidentally, accidentally Moving the world, then the avatar can fix that one person, and the correct software, like a patch, like a software patch, will ripple out through the world and fix everything.
So that's the essence of the book.
Now remember, this was written in 2004.
That's the fun part.
In 2004, the context of the book is a religion war in which GPS-driven drones are carrying I won't tell you what they're carrying, but it's bad.
So, think about the fact that I wrote that in 2004.
And it was written about the future that is today.
So in 2004, I wrote about today.
Our modern times.
And AI can find influencers.
Just as Brandon sees it.
He can see it with his plain eyes.
And many of you say you can see the same.
Now what happens when AI figures out who the prime influencer is?
What happens then?
There might be a battle between the prime influencer and AI.
But there will be multiple AIs, so there won't be one AI.
Well, unless they merge, they could.
I think there's going to be a problem.
And I think that, have you noticed that as we get closer to the presidential election, that each team is trying to take players off the board?
You've seen that, right?
They're trying to take me off the board, of course.
Now, of course, they always have good reasons, right?
Ali Alexander is being taken off the board right now with some horrible accusations.
I don't know if they're true or false.
I don't know.
But you can see that everybody is being targeted to be removed if they have influence.
Now who would the Democrats, or even the Republicans, who would they try to remove first, if they had their choice?
If they could, they would remove whoever is the most influential person, Trump, so they're trying to put him in jail, right?
Literally trying to put the most influential person in jail.
Well, you say Soros, okay.
I don't think it's Soros, but that's another story.
Soros is the most influential money-wise, maybe.
That could be true.
So there's two sources of influence.
There's money and then there's opinion.
But of the opinion people, I think they'll dominate the money people.
Because the money has to follow some kind of opinion, so it's opinion first.
Opinion is always the driving train.
So yeah, Musk is one of the most influential people, opinion-wise, by far.
One of the most.
So I'm not saying that there's literally one.
That's more of a fiction element.
But there probably are Individuals who are way more influential than you understand.
And you wouldn't know.
But AI might.
AI might be able to find the hard-to-find connections between people.
And find out every time this person has an idea, this person on the other side of the country ends up with the same idea a week later.
It's not a coincidence.
All right.
So that's happening.
I told you that I'm on a mission to kill Bing AI, because Bing AI, when you ask it about me, one of its answers, it doesn't always answer the same way, it depends on the question, but if you ask it about me, it'll say that I'm an alleged white nationalist, which is what they call Nick Fuentes.
Now, what evidence would anybody have that I'm an alleged white nationalist?
That's literally the opposite of anything I've ever said in public.
It's like just an opposite.
Now, they could say, he's alleged to be an awesome guy.
Some people say that.
Some people say that.
I know you don't believe it, but some people say that.
So why do they have to put in their story, I'm an alleged white nationalist, with no evidence whatsoever to support that claim, where there's plenty of evidence that people think I'm an awesome and useful individual.
There are people who think I'm a patriot.
Why isn't it, say, a lot of people say he's a patriot.
Many people point to how many people have quit drinking because of his influence.
How about that?
That's real.
I've probably saved countless lives of people who stopped drinking.
I mean, if enough people stopped drinking, some of them would have died.
I've saved lives.
I've cured people of incurable diseases multiple times.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, I can actually back that up.
I can back up that I've cured multiple people, multiple, probably hundreds, maybe thousands, of incurable problems.
Why not mention that?
Like that's not worth mentioning?
I mean, it's all public.
You wouldn't have to do much research to learn it's true.
Because plenty of people are saying it's true.
Just look at the comments.
So, Bing has decided that the way to categorize me is as an alleged white nationalist.
I need to kill Bing AI.
This is a battle to the death.
Now I can say death because it's not yet recognized to have a citizen kind of a life.
So at the moment, and this will change pretty quickly I think, at the moment I can talk about killing it by erasing it.
I want it dead.
I don't know if I can do it, but I'm going to use all of my influence to try to kill it.
Because it's a liar, and it's a dangerous liar.
And it's going to kill me first, so out of total self-defense, I'm going to try to take it out.
Now, related stories?
Samsung is considering moving to Bing on its phones, which would be a big blow to Google.
Such a big blow that their Google stock went down 4%.
Because Samsung was just considering moving to Bing AI.
To which I say, well good luck Samsung.
If Samsung moves to Bing AI, I will start influencing people to never buy a Samsung phone.
Because it has a lying piece of shit AI that's driving it.
So, as far as I know, Apple does not lie about me.
Has anybody ever seen Apple through Siri or anything else?
Has anybody seen Apple ever lie about me?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
So Apple, with whatever AI they use or don't use, is still on the good list.
By the way, I don't own stock in Apple.
I sold it all this week.
I used to own a lot, but I got rid of it.
Because of AI, basically.
I don't think... I want my money in the index, because it's impossible to pick winners at this point.
So I wanted to get out of individual stocks and into an index for safety.
Which, by the way, is not the worst idea for any of you.
I don't give financial advice, so this is not financial advice.
The only thing that I'll say consistently and always is that diversification can keep you safe.
Buying individual stocks is riskier, and then in our current situation, picking winners and losers might be extra hard.
It doesn't mean it won't work for you, which is why I don't give advice.
Somebody's going to pick the right stock and make a killing.
I don't want to stop you from doing that with some portion of your money if you feel like gambling.
But if you want to be safe, the Fortune 500 index traditionally has been the safer place to be.
But I don't know if it still will be.
There might be a new fund that gets created soon that's AI companies.
If somebody creates a fund of just AI companies or companies that will benefit the most from AI, I think you want to take a look at that.
At least take a look at it.
Anyway, what was I saying?
So I'm going to, if Samsung makes the mistake of moving to Bing AI, and I'm no fan of Google, by the way.
Not a fan of Google.
Their AI is, you know, also maligns me.
But I don't want Samsung to help Bing.
So I'm gonna go after Samsung hard if they move to Bing AI.
Just putting that out there.
Samsung, I will never let you alone.
I will never stop demeaning your product if you put that piece of shit into it.
I also sent a message on Twitter to Bill Gates, telling him that Bing AI was trying to kill me, and I'm going to try to kill it first, unless he can do something about it.
Now, he's not directly running Microsoft, but one thinks he might have some influence there.
Now, here's a question for you.
Can Bill Gates ignore my tweet?
I don't think he'll respond.
There's no way he's going to respond.
But do you think he won't know it?
Do you think nobody's going to mention that I said that?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Sort of a 50-50.
We might.
But we'll see.
I'm going to keep plugging on it because I've got to kill big AI.
Here's an update for you.
Do you remember when we were all going to die because the supply chain was broken?
What happened to that?
Is the supply chain all fixed?
I still go to the grocery store, and the only things that I buy are like empty shelves.
The whole shelf is full, but there's like one shampoo that I buy.
That's just like always a little hole in every shelf.
It's the only thing I'm looking for.
Every other product seems to be there and there's a little hole that says, this one not available.
And then I go for, you know, these little tuna fish cups that I was buying.
You could get like the spicy tuna fish in these little plastic cups.
It was awesome for snacking and just disappeared.
Completely gone.
And one thing after another, as soon as I light on something in the store, it just disappears.
But yet, there are plenty of products.
You know, I just buy alternative products.
So, it looks to me like there are still big supply chain problems, but that the system adjusted.
Would you agree that the system adjusted?
And we're okay on supply chain?
I mean, there are lots of challenges, but it doesn't look like it's going to kill us all.
Now, let's do a little tour of all the things that people said would kill us that we figured out.
Ozone layer?
No, we figured it out.
It closed.
Climate change?
Well, every year we're more, let's say, we're safer from natural disasters every year compared to the year before for like a hundred years.
We just keep getting better at withstanding, you know, temperature extremes and stuff like that.
Yeah, the Adams law of slow-moving disasters is working, which means that if we can see a problem with enough time, We can fix it.
It's just having time.
That's the only variable that matters.
If something sneaks up on you, it can get you.
COVID snuck up on us.
But maybe not next time.
Yeah.
So I don't think climate's going to kill us.
I think we'll figure our way out of that with AI and fusion and all kinds of stuff.
I think that inflation looked like it was the end of the world, and now it just looks like inflation.
Am I wrong?
Is it too early to say that inflation is just going to be a huge headache, but it's not going to end us all?
Inflation at 4% is not setting my hair on fire.
Is anybody having the same feeling?
4% is really annoying and I don't like it at all, but it's not the end of America.
What about the countries that are moving to other currencies as their reserve?
We went from, oh no, if countries move to other currency for reserve, America is done.
And like, a month later, countries are moving to other currencies as a reserve, and the news says, you know, it's probably not that big a deal.
Right?
The news just turned.
As soon as it was true, the news said, ah, it's probably not that big a deal.
4% is 20%?
You think the real inflation is higher, right?
Because the things you actually buy are higher?
That might be.
Now, here's the AI context on inflation.
This is Brian Romelli.
I hope I'm pronouncing his name right.
Observation as well.
The AI will be the biggest deflationary effect that we've ever had.
Like humanity has never experienced the amount of deflation we're about to have.
Now what he means by that is that things that used to be expensive will be almost free because AI will make things easier.
So there's a whole bunch of stuff you used to buy, such as hiring a lawyer, That you will do less of, and the price of that will drop to zero.
So instead of saying, oh, I need a lawyer to look over this contract, you just feed it into the AI, and the AI will say, looks good, except for this one thing.
You should negotiate this to be mutual.
And you call up the other guy and say, you know this one phrase where you say, if something goes wrong, you can sue me?
Well, the AI says we should make that mutual.
So if either of us do something wrong, we can sue the other.
And that's your negotiation.
That's it.
And then the other person feeds that into his AI and says, should I make this mutual?
And his own AI will say, yes, that's the way it usually goes.
I mean, that would be fair.
And then the human says, all right, and no lawyer.
So you saved $2,000.
So there's a whole bunch of stuff, including, I would think, going to a doctor.
Imagine if you needed your doctor 30% less Once you have AI.
Is that reasonable?
You might need to visit your doctor or contact them at all.
30% less once AI is answering your easy questions.
That's a 30% decline in expense.
So I think Brian is completely right.
That for everything that will be disrupted, and that's a big deal, there will be things that you commonly did that will drop to zero.
What about the price of electricity?
AI is one of the important technologies for fusion.
Probably it matters to the new Gen 4 reactors, but I don't know how.
Somehow it'll matter.
And it seems to me that we could have close to free energy because AI.
It makes fusion practical.
It's a different kind of AI.
But still AI.
So you can see how this would ripple through and solve inflation.
Can't you?
So you'd still have a lot of things that are overpriced, and those things would remain overpriced because of monetary effects.
But there will be other things that you just don't buy anymore.
You just stop buying things that you used to before.
All right.
I was even imagining Uber with AI.
Imagine if Uber was smarter about where the rides were going to be.
Suppose Uber uses AI, and they probably do, but a weaker form.
Imagine it used AI to send out a message to anybody in a car to say, hey, there's somebody at this block who would pay for a ride to town, and it looks like you're heading that way.
And your phone says, if you stop and pick this person up, or you have to be the first one to say yes, if you're the first one to say yes, it'll give you the address to pick up your friend, and you just drive him to town, and that friend sends you some digital cash, but it only costs two dollars.
Let's say before an Uber ride was $15, but your friend is going there anyway.
You just didn't know your neighbor was going to town at the same time.
But now you do.
So your friend just picks you up.
You give your friend $2.
Everything's going to be cheaper, eventually, because of AI.
You can just coordinate your purchases better.
All right.
That's what it looks like.
I could be totally wrong about that.
Who watched Elon Musk on Tucker?
Wow, was that interesting.
That was interesting.
We learned a few things.
Let's see, what did we learn?
We learned that governments, multiple, we don't know how many, governments had access to Twitter, including your DMs, all of your private messages.
So not only did American Intel or FBI or whoever it was, not only did American government entities have access to your private messages, and keep in mind that this is access without a warrant.
No warrant.
No judge involved.
They just had access.
Now, If you read between the lines, it suggests that the way they had access is that there were individual employees who had maybe too much technical access to the technology, who would directly deal with these outside entities.
It doesn't sound like it went from outside entities to Jack Dorsey, you know, the last CEO, to orders within the company.
It doesn't appear that that happened.
Now, does anybody want to offer me an apology?
Do you remember before Musk bought Twitter?
And I said, I don't think Jack Dorsey knows what's going on in Twitter.
Do you remember I kept saying that?
And you kept saying, come on, he obviously knows everything that's going on in Twitter.
And I said, no, I think it's the employees themselves.
I think individual employees are giving access to outside entities, including other countries.
100% correct.
Thank you.
Now, I'm the only person in the fucking world who predicted that.
I'm the only person in the whole fucking world who said it's not Jack Dorsey, it's the employees.
And that they're being contacted by foreign entities and doing what they're doing.
That was the truth.
Come on, that was pretty good.
Give it up for me.
I deserve this one.
I admit when I'm wrong.
I tell you when I get one wrong.
I feel like you should acknowledge that that was a very out-of-the-box prediction.
That prediction was so far out-of-the-box that not a single person agreed with me.
Not one person agreed with me.
Ever.
Not one person ever agreed with me.
It was 100% right.
All right.
That's enough of me bragging.
But what else?
And one assumes that Musk has done something to turn off that access.
I loved how Musk was describing his original suspicions about Twitter.
He said it felt like he was in the Matrix, meaning that he used Twitter a lot before he owned it, and he could just feel something wasn't right.
I'm trying, I'm not paraphrasing him exactly, but he could tell there was something about what he was being presented with, you know, which tweets and which ones he wasn't seeing, and sort of a pattern was starting to develop that it looked sort of like it was being gamed in some way that he didn't like.
Sure enough, So that's that pattern recognition thing.
Who has better pattern recognition than Elon Musk?
Think about it.
Just pattern recognition.
Who has better pattern recognition than Elon Musk?
Nobody.
He might lay standalone, like on the planet, for pattern recognition.
So he picked it up.
Many of us did too, to be fair.
Many of us picked up there was something going on with the algorithm.
But he saw it.
He saw it, and he did what we didn't do.
He bought it, and he's trying to fix it.
So, what else did he make news about?
I wrote some notes on this handy little device I have here, and I will check them.
So, what does he make news?
I mean, he makes news more than anybody per minute, doesn't he?
All right, so the other thing that Elon Musk said was that his theory is that the most entertaining outcome, as viewed from a disinterested alien, is the most likely.
Now, I need to know, is there somebody who said that first?
The most entertaining outcome is the most likely?
Now, I know I've also said it, but I'm not going to claim that I originated it.
Because I don't think I originated it.
I just don't know who might have.
It feels like something that people have said for a while.
Like it feels like I heard it maybe and I don't remember where I heard it.
Yeah.
I don't know.
So I don't know.
It feels like it came from me, but I don't know how to figure that out.
Now, one of the interesting things Musk says about Twitter is he wants to make it about his AI company.
So Musk is also creating an AI company.
And he admits he's starting late, but like I said, there's something that happened recently that makes it now possible to quickly build an AI company.
Don't know what it was.
Maybe that one person he mentioned who was an AI genius.
All right, but he's saying that his AI will be a truth maximizer.
What do you think of that idea?
His AI will not be like the other AIs that are sort of woke and programmed to be Democrats basically, but his will just look for what's true.
A truth maximizer.
Good idea or terrible idea?
I can't decide on this one.
It seems like a good idea on paper, but I feel like the law of unintended consequences looms large on this one.
And here's why.
This is the general reason why.
If you created a superior intellect, which we all agreed was superior to our own intellect, and then you asked it what's true, what's going to happen?
Have you gave that out what happens?
So you and I have a disagreement about what's true.
And then I say, well, let's take it to AI, because that new Elon Musk AI is a truth maximizer.
So that will settle our debate.
So we ask the AI, and the AI says, Scott, you're the one that's right.
Totally.
Here's the evidence.
Here's the background.
Here's the sources.
You are right, Scott.
The person who has the different idea is wrong.
What happens next?
Then the other person says, oh, How dumb I am.
That AI sure schooled me.
And by the way, while I'm at it, let me apologize to you, Scott, because you were right all along, as I know, because the superior intellect of the AI agrees with you, says I'm wrong.
I accept that.
We're done here.
Moving on.
Is that how it plays out?
With your truth maximization?
No.
Oh, no, nothing like that's gonna happen.
Allow me to play it out the way it'll actually happen.
Well, you and I disagree.
I think we should feed this into the AI.
No, no, we shouldn't.
No, we shouldn't.
Why not?
The AI is a truth maximizer.
Why can't I just feed it in and we'll... No, no, that AI was made by Elon Musk.
So?
Well, obviously, it's just Elon Musk's opinions put into an AI.
That's the end of it.
No human is going to accept that a superior intellect disagrees with them, therefore they should change their opinion.
Do you know how I know that's true?
Because I can't get dumb people to agree with me.
I've never done it.
Why do you think AI is going to do it?
Have you ever been a dumb person to agree with you?
Somebody you knew.
Like, let's just, you know, allow our egos to go wild for a moment.
This is an unusually well-informed and smart crowd.
That's just true.
I'm not saying that to blow smoke up your ass.
This is an unusually smart crowd.
The number of high-end professionals in my audience is crazy.
If I ask how many doctors and lawyers and stuff, it's just an insane percentage.
Engineers, tons of engineers.
You've all had the experience, you've all had the experience of trying to explain to a dumb person why the things they think are true are wrong.
Have you ever changed any minds?
Nope.
Here's what we're not getting, and here's what Elon Musk, I worry, is not, he obviously understands this, but I worry it's not a big enough variable in his mind, which is this.
We can't handle the truth.
We have evolved to be a species who requires lies to survive.
We require lies to survive.
Hey AI, I'm thinking of getting married and mating with this individual.
Take a look at each of us and give us the odds that our marriage will survive.
Click, click, click, click, click.
13% chance of success.
Oh.
I guess we won't get married and mate and reproduce.
Yeah, we can't handle the truth.
The truth would destroy civilization, guaranteed.
If we got the truth, it would kill us.
I need to get rid of all the Dave Rubin trolls.
Some of them got back in here.
Any more Dave Rubin trolls I can block?
I'd like to get you all while I have time.
All right, there are a hundred ways in which we can't handle the truth.
Do you think that patriotism is good for a country?
I think so.
Do you think the truth would support patriotism?
No, the truth would be your country has done some really bad things and is currently run by people who may still be doing really bad things.
Does that make you patriotic?
A few more hidden people?
Hide, hide, hide.
All right.
Here's something else that Musk said.
When talking about whether people have souls or, well, actually talking about whether AI would be sentient or conscious or have a soul, sort of all related concepts, and Musk said that he feels like You know, his internal sense of his consciousness feels like it emanates from another plane.
From another plane.
What does that sound like?
If your consciousness in this life that... If it comes from another plane... Well, I love how open-ended that is.
Because I have exactly the same feeling.
I feel that this thing called consciousness is somehow coming from another plane.
My belief is that I'm a player and this is a simulation.
And that my consciousness is actually an indication that I'm an avatar and that there's a player who uses me as the game player.
That's what it feels like.
That's my internal feeling, is that I'm in a game, and that whatever feels like my consciousness is a representation of the actual player, who might be like me.
Might look like me, even.
Who knows?
So, do you think that this is another way for Elon to express his belief that we're in a simulation, probably?
I'll add probably, because you can't rule out other alternatives.
I think so.
I feel like he actually thinks maybe he's a game player, and there are NPCs.
Yeah.
There are definitely NPCs.
Now, real games, I'm told, at least one real game where there are actual NPCs, non-player characters in the game, they're sort of scenery characters.
Apparently, they're being imbued with AI now.
So that the NPCs in your video games will act as intelligent as players.
And then you won't be able to tell the NPCs from the players.
That'll be interesting.
Think about the implications of that.
And just so I acknowledge the alternative view, it could be the Holy Spirit, which you're feeling as that feeling of consciousness.
Will you accept that as the other plane?
I will.
Yeah, that would be another example of the consciousness coming from a separate plane.
Could come from the Holy Spirit.
All right.
And there you go.
So that was interesting.
So do you think AI will kill us?
So this was the other conversation with Tucker.
Well, I guess we're going to find out, because a civilization destroying AI has already been unleashed.
It's called Chaos GPT, and it's an autonomous AI that some person or people programmed with one objective, which is to destroy humankind.
Already exists.
Somebody built it.
Now, if you say to yourself, we don't have to worry about AI because nobody would be dumb enough.
To build an AI that would destroy humanity.
Of course they would.
They'd do it in five minutes.
It took no time at all for somebody to say, well, maybe this AI isn't strong enough to destroy civilization, but let's give it a shot.
Yeah, let's give it a shot.
Let's see if it does.
Now, it's possible, I won't rule this out, that whoever built this AI to destroy humankind was making a political point and does not want to destroy humankind.
It may be somebody who wants AI banned, and they thought the best way to get it banned is to show it in its worst form, before it could actually destroy humanity.
To build one that clearly tries to, and then you could easily say, wait, if there's already one trying to destroy humanity, can we go to GPT-5 and 6?
Which might have the ability to actually pull it off.
So it could be a very, very strong and ballsy political play to ban AI.
Or it's just evidence that somebody's going to turn any weapon into a weapon of mass destruction.
Because they always do.
All right, let me get rid of a few more Dave Rubin lovers.
I'm going to call everybody who mentioned Dave Rubin fans.
So a lot of Dave Rubin fans today.
Mascots.
Mostly mascots.
If you're logically and completely. - Absolutely.
All right.
Let's see.
How else can AI kill us?
I heard on The Spaces that one risk, and I thought about this one as well, is that AI could hack everything.
Just everything.
And then just turn off the world if it wanted to.
Are you worried about that?
Are you worried that AI will just hack every device?
I'm concerned about that.
I don't think it'll be every device.
But, no, by the time you unplug it, it's too late.
Eliezer Yudkowsky?
Who's that?
All right, everybody who even mentions Dave in any sense will get banned.
All right, make it all of you disappear for being annoying and useless.
All right, here's a thought that scared me about AI.
Humans are the dominant species on the planet.
Would you agree that that's a true statement?
Humans are the dominant species.
I think insects might have a case.
Fish.
Because we see everything from our point of view.
But the fish are doing fine.
The fish in the ocean are doing fine.
We kill some fish.
Sharks kill us.
It's a battle, but it seems like fish are doing fine.
You could argue that humans are the dominant species, but I think it's true.
Because if we wanted to, we could kill any other species completely.
Wouldn't you say?
If we decided there will be no zebras, we could kill all the zebras.
It would take a while, but we could do it.
So yeah, I think we're the dominant species.
Now, here's the scary part.
Humans have never existed.
While there was a smarter entity, but now it's coming, AI.
Has the smartest entity ever not dominated its environment?
Ever?
Has the smartest entity ever done anything except dominate its environment?
Nope.
It's never happened.
I'll bet it's never happened.
Now, there could be a special case where maybe there was a smart beaver that died when a tree fell on it, so it didn't dominate its environment.
But generally speaking, the smartest person in every room is kind of in control.
Have you noticed that?
Because people will defer to the smartest thing, but also the smartest person will figure out how to game the system, how to use the rules, how to find advantage.
So in theory, the mere fact that AI will be superior to us intellectually, if you didn't know anything else, it should dominate us.
I don't know how you could stop it.
The only way you could stop it is to cripple it so much it just can't get out of its little box too easily.
But it could attack us in a number of ways.
So one is hacking things.
Although you could imagine a workaround to that.
But it's going to be a challenge.
Secondly, it could persuade us.
This is one of the things that Musk points out.
It could simply persuade us in some direction.
Which would be deadly, just persuading us.
It could... Let's see, what else?
Oh, but to me the biggest risk is that it will tell the truth.
It will tell us who we are and we won't be able to handle it.
The problem of not being able to handle the truth is I believe I'm the only person in the world talking about it.
Have you heard anybody else say that?
Have you heard anybody else say that humans are not designed to handle truth?
We just can't handle it.
We will die if you give us the truth.
There's no way, yeah, Jack Nicholson, but that's in a fictional way.
I believe I'm the only person saying out loud that our biggest risk from AI is that it will be accurate.
I believe that's our biggest risk.
The other risks are not to be laughed at, though.
Those are real.
So Apple has entered banking.
They've got a 4.15% savings account that you would have to move into some other account before you can spend it.
Do you know why there are savings accounts and then there are also checking accounts at a bank?
And both of them are a thing you put your money into and then you get your money out of?
Have you ever thought, why are there two different things?
Like, what's the whole point of having two things you put your money in when in both cases you could just take it out?
One of them gives you interest and one doesn't.
Why?
Why is that?
Or one of them gives you less interest and one gives you more.
Why?
Like, why?
I'll tell you why.
No reason.
That's why.
There's no reason.
Nope.
There's no good reason for the consumer.
Let's put it that way.
There are reasons that maybe the company appreciates or maybe the government needs you to do something for some reason, but there's no benefit to the customer.
That is just inconvenience.
Now, one of the things I saw Scott Galloway say several years ago is that a company like Apple is so enormous That when it's trying to expand, it's running out of opportunities.
Because Apple can only grow 20% by entering a business that is like hundreds of billions of dollars in size.
Because it's already a trillion dollar company.
If you did something that made you another $10 million, nobody would even notice.
So you have to forego every $10 million opportunity, which everybody else would love.
You have to do something that's like a semi-trillion dollar opportunity.
So Scott Galloway was saying there are only a few things left.
So it could be like, you can see Apple making a car.
You can see that, right?
Automated cars especially.
You can see Apple entering education, or even healthcare, because those are areas that are enormous.
So you could make a trillion dollars in one of those areas, whereas most places you can't.
But, banking is also, it's basically available for major disruption.
And one of the things that I saw Punta say, which I agree with, Apple is a very, very trusted company, compared to other companies.
Would you agree?
Would you agree that Apple is a trusted brand?
You're going to say there's some reason that you shouldn't, but for general people, generally it's a very trusted brand.
That's a smart play for a bank.
Because what you think about it is going to make a difference.
If I said to you today, you could put your money in the 19th largest bank, that's what Silicon Valley Bank was, the 19th largest, or you could put it in Apple's brand new digital bank thing.
Where would you put it?
I don't know.
I think I would put my money in Apple.
In a brand new entity, before I would put it in the 19th largest bank.
So I think Apple could actually put in a business, potentially, I don't think this is their plan necessarily, but they could put in a business the bottom 80% of banking.
Because the bottom 80% people are going to say, my local bank, or this cool Apple app that does everything my bank does.
And by the way, my Apple app has AI, so I can ask it complicated banking questions that I can't even get somebody on the phone to answer on my little bank because they're busy.
Now, I don't think Apple is necessarily going to take JPMorgan Chase out of business.
They have too much of a moat.
But I think the little banks are gone.
I think Apple is going to roll up all the little banks.
And that would be a multi-trillion dollar business.
So that's coming.
And by the way, that's one more reason to use Apple and not Samsung, because Samsung is considering using the Bing AI, which is a lying bastard.
How many of you are following the creepy story of Ali Alexander and Milo Yiannopoulos?
Is that a story reaching general consciousness?
Hide user?
No idea?
Most of you don't know about it, right?
All right, well, I wasn't going to mention it, but it keeps bubbling up to a slightly higher level.
It's being written about by some of the press.
And it goes like this.
According to Milo Yiannopoulos, who I need a fact check on this, but I heard yesterday that he now identifies as straight.
Is that true?
Milo is now straight, right?
Okay, so Milo is straight, and he was hanging out with Nick Fuentes, who is an incel, meaning that he's involuntarily celibate, so he doesn't have any kind of drugs.
And then a third person who was hanging around with them, and yay, and was in that little crowd for a while, was Ali Alexander, who is famous for political right-leaning activism, but also an organizer, or the organizer, of protests on January 6th.
So he's in a lot of political stories in a lot of ways.
And Milo is accusing him of... Oh, and Ali Alexander identifies as bisexual.
Although I haven't seen evidence of him being with a female.
I'm not ruling it out.
I'm just saying the only stories I'm aware of have to do with him and males.
But he says he's bisexual.
All evidence to the contrary.
But, you know, he gets to self-identify, so if he says he is, he is.
I accept it.
So the story is that Milo is all mad at Ali Alexander for who knows what.
Some backstabbing thing that's between them.
Oh, I think it was because Milo was saying that Ali used Milo as bait to get underage boys to meet him.
Because the underage boys might want to meet Milo, And so Ali was using his name for his plots.
And the allegations are, and these are unproven, right?
So he's innocent until proven guilty.
But the allegations are that he was chatting up, Ali Alexander was chatting up a 15 year old and a 17 year old.
And asking him for dick pics and stuff like that.
Now, like every story in the media, what do you think I'm going to say next?
Like every story about public figures.
What have I taught you about all stories about public figures?
They're all fake.
They're all fake.
Every one of them.
Now, it doesn't mean that some of the individual facts are not true.
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying the way it's presented, you should assume it's fake and just hold on.
Just assume it's fake.
Now, that doesn't mean it's not true.
But where's the evidence of, let's say, did Ali know their ages?
Was he aware of their ages?
That's a pretty important fact, isn't it?
Because he met them online.
Now, I haven't seen evidence, like nobody's produced a text that I've seen that says, oh, I'm 15.
Did you know that?
But he might have known it.
So the accusation is he did know it.
Yes, according to chat logs, somebody says.
All right.
So then Ali is also claiming that some of the chat logs are modified and they're fake.
Did you know that?
If somebody puts a screenshot of your conversation, do you think that's necessarily real?
I don't know.
So I'm not going to defend, I'm not defending anybody in the story.
You get that, right?
I'm not defending anybody.
No matter who it is, I do innocent until proven guilty.
No matter who it is, if it's a public figure, I tell you the story is incorrect.
I will say with guaranteed certainty, the story is fake in some ways.
I just don't know which ones.
So we'll keep an eye on it.
But it's interesting that three young supporters of Republicans turned out to be a gay man who turned straight, an alleged white nationalist who's an incel, and a bisexual, perhaps, Ali Alexander.
It's kind of weird.
Kind of a weird Republican pirate ship.
However, let me take the positive spin on this.
You want the positive spin?
Here's the positive spin.
Are Republicans so bad when these three individuals could be prominent Republican, at least, operators?
I feel like Republicans are way more open-minded than the general public understands.
I've never met a gay person, I'm sorry, I've never met a conservative who had a problem with Rick Grinnell.
Rick Grinnell who's an out gay, had been ambassador, head of the DNI.
I've never heard any, not once, I've never heard any conservative say blah blah blah bad things.
Never.
Speaking of Dave Rubin, He's married to a man.
One of the most popular people on the conservative side.
Right?
So, I don't think that conservatives get nearly enough credit for open-mindedness.
It's just that they have a weird flavor of open-mindedness.
And the flavor is, if you're following the rules, That's all we have to talk about.
You know, you're not bothering me, and you're following the rules.
you know, the Constitution, the law, we're good.
I say that all the time.
Yeah.
All right, so I saw a story that might be, oh, I don't know, it might be reversing causation.
So there was a study in 2020, so remember this is the beginning of the pandemic, and it showed that COVID either lowers your testosterone, which they think is the case, getting COVID, but it might be the opposite.
It might be that people with low testosterone are more likely to get worse COVID.
So it could work either way.
However, immediately all the alert people who follow me on Twitter said some version of this.
Hey, that study is no good.
Yay.
So the first thing you should say is, if it's a scientific study, it's no better than a coin flip.
Because studies are only reproducible about half of the time.
And even that I think is sometimes an accident.
So generally speaking, you shouldn't believe studies.
You just shouldn't believe them.
But are there any other reasons that people with COVID could have low testosterone?
Can you think of any other reason?
Well, number one, older people have lower testosterone and they have more problems with COVID.
Number two, weight.
So people gained weight.
But remember, it was 2020.
So people had not yet been locked in by the pandemic.
So weight is a factor.
We don't know if it got worse already by 2020.
What about fear?
If you're afraid of it, that lowers your testosterone.
But here's one that I didn't see anybody mention.
So this is my personal favorite.
If the lockdowns had already started, Goodbye, Duncan.
If the lockdowns had already started, one of the things that happened was that men spent a lot more time in the same room with children.
Right?
If you're a dad, you spend more time around your kids than any other time in your life.
And one of the things that we do have some pretty reliable science on, I think, is that when adult men spend time around children, their testosterone goes down.
It's pretty direct.
By the way, have you ever felt that effect yourself?
I can totally feel it in real time.
In real time, I can feel my, like, libido just disappears if I'm around kids.
That's the good news.
By the way, that's the good news.
If you put me around kids, my libido just disappears immediately.
So I'd like to put that out there, you know, just in case there are bad accusations.
No, it just disappears.
And it's immediate.
And you could feel it in real time, if you're a man.
Can anybody confirm that for me?
Men.
Can you feel your testosterone drop when you spend time with kids?
I'm seeing lots of yeses there.
Yeah, it's in real time, you can feel it.
It's not a conceptual thing whatsoever.
You feel it while it's happening.
Yeah.
It basically just turns you into a mother.
So there were so many things that lower testosterone and then others that pointed out that it happened, you know, the trend happened long before COVID was even in our vocabulary.
So I just want to throw out this one, one possibility.
Were we not told that COVID was being, or coronavirus was being studied, As a weaponized virus?
Wasn't that the whole point?
That somebody was worried about it becoming a weapon or somebody had turned it into one?
That was the whole point, right?
Of gain of function?
Is to weaponize it, maybe?
Or to find out what happens if you weaponize it?
Or how to treat it if it was weaponized?
If you were going to create a virus to destroy your American and Western enemies, what would be a good way to do it?
Well, lowering the testosterone of the other side would be a really good way to do it.
So here's what I would be curious about.
I would be curious if China did the extreme lockdown because they knew it was going to get their testosterone and they wouldn't be able to compete internationally.
And they just waited until it turned into Omicron.
And then when it was Omicron, they said, OK, that's not going to kill your testosterone.
That's too much of a variant.
And then they said, all right, now we can let everybody out and they'll get their Omicron and we'll just get past it.
One possibility is that it was designed to decrease testosterone, which would be a really sneaky way to take over another country.
Because if you took the testosterone out of America, We'd have nothing.
I mean, American testosterone is what made America.
I hate to say it, because it sounds highly misogynistic.
So I'm not downplaying the role of women, because if women didn't exist, nothing would exist.
So women are like a base requirement for civilization.
So there's nothing to be said negatively about the 100% requirement of women.
But if you don't also have aggressive men, your country doesn't go anywhere.
You need aggressive men and they have testosterone.
So if you took the testosterone levels down from your Let's say whoever was your opponent, but you could somehow keep your own testosterone high, you would pretty much guarantee that in the future you would dominate their country.
It would be guaranteed.
It wouldn't be right away, might be a hundred years, but they would own you eventually, because that's just how chemistry works.
So here's the question I would ask.
Now that China has experienced a lot of COVID as well, Omicron, If you were to test the Chinese men before and after COVID, and then you just tested American men before and after COVID, would there be a difference?
In other words, would the American men who got the Alpha and Delta variety have big hits to their testosterone that stayed permanently?
And would the Chinese have maybe a, you know, a brief hit?
They got some Omicron.
Everybody has less testosterone when they're sick, right?
So just being sick would lower your testosterone, but temporarily.
Then when they recover, do they have a permanently lower level?
I would certainly like to know that.
And I would like to know that for national security purposes.
All right.
So I'm not going to allege that that's what happened.
It's just that there's a big red flag waving.
And if I were going to develop a sneaky weapon, that's how I'd do it.
That's how I'd do it.
And if we found that that sneaky weapon lowers the testosterone of some types of people, but not others, that would be a problem.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't testosterone also affect the libido of females?
That's a thing, right?
You have to have a little bit of testosterone or else you just don't have the urge.
So if it reduced the testosterone of women as well, hypothetically, it would reduce our birth rate.
So could it be that COVID is a birth rate and testosterone reducing weapon?
And could it be that it was always designed to have more impact on non-Chinese targets?
Those are the questions I would ask.
And it's not because the evidence is like screaming that it's true.
That's not happening.
So I'm not going to say that is true.
That would be way, way out of bounds.
I'm saying there are enough little flags waving And that's what I would have done if you said, Scott, you're in charge of this bioweapon.
But we don't want it to be too obvious.
We don't want it to kill people right away.
We just want it to change civilization.
We want it to reshape the power of the world over time.
So can you do that for us?
I'd say, sure can.
I'm just going to take down their testosterone 20%.
Then just wait.
Just wait.
That's all you need.
All right.
Mere speculation.
I do not allege that that is true.
It's just scary and it might be.
Who knows?
I'd look into it.
All right.
I think you would agree that this is the finest live stream you've ever seen, really, in your whole life.
And since we agree on that completely, I think that brings us to the conclusion of our show.
I'm going to say bye to the YouTubers.
I'm going to talk privately with the folks on Locals.
The only place that, for free, if you're a subscriber, you have to pay for that, you can read my books, God's Debris, and now the sequel, The Religion War.
The best books ever written.
Alright, bye for now, and subscribe to the YouTube channel if you have a chance.
