Episode 2083 Scott Adams: FoxNews & Dominion Settle, BingAI Must Be Stopped, Race Absurdities, Trump
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
FoxNews & Dominion settle
More race absurdities
Elon Musk on Tucker Carlson
BingAI must be stopped
Trump versus DeSantis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
About that connection, I had to reboot, see if that made any difference.
But I'm not sure the problem's on my side.
Yeah, maybe AI is already after me.
As I was saying, the local Home Depot in my town, somebody got shot.
Now, have I told you that I moved here because it's kind of safe?
It's like the main reason I moved here.
And somebody was shoplifting at the Home Depot, and somebody tried to stop them.
It might have been a customer.
I'm not sure if it was a customer or an employee.
But apparently the guy who tried to stop the shoplifter got shot.
That's the store I shop in.
That's the store I shop in.
Guy got shot because the shoplifter, they tried to stop him.
So, I guess your crime is reached everywhere.
Well, let's talk about some other stuff.
So apparently the Elon Musk Starship launch, they're working feverishly to try to get that to work.
And there's some speculation that as Elon Musk has said many times, reality will start to conform to the most entertaining outcome.
And the most entertaining outcome is that it's launched on 420.
Which would be tomorrow.
So, I have a feeling that the universe really, really, really wants this starship to launch on 420.
Doesn't it seem like it's just gotta happen?
The universe is just forcing it.
We have no choice.
So, maybe that'll happen.
Elon Musk says it might happen on 420, but it's unpredictable.
Unpredictable.
Let's see, let's talk about the Fox News settlement.
So Fox News is reportedly settled with Dominion Voting for having, quote, amplified lies.
We'll talk about that amplified part.
And the payment is reportedly, and I don't know how they would know this.
Do you believe that anybody knows the payment amount?
And that it leaked that quickly?
It feels like it could have been made up.
But they say 787.5 million, which is such a lawyer thing to do, to make it an odd number.
How many lawyers did it take to make that an unusual odd number?
Do you think that the offers were ever in not round numbers?
Well, let me tell you, Dominion, we've been thinking we'd like to make you an offer.
$787.5 million.
That's just such a weird... You could tell that a lawyer was involved, or multiple lawyers that are maybe working by the hour.
I don't know how they're working.
Getting paid by the hour?
It's like, no.
$785 million.
No.
That's no good.
We're also going to have to throw in some lawyer costs and stuff.
So, anyway.
Did you see the story about that settlement on Fox News?
Anybody?
Seems like it's pretty big news.
Fox News?
I don't think they mentioned it at all.
Now, how does that make you feel?
How do you feel about Fox News when they don't mention the biggest news in the country?
Oh, they did mention it?
It's not on their webpage.
Did they just give the headline and then just move on?
Because this morning it's not on the webpage at all.
I don't know if they're prohibited.
So anyway, the Wall Street Journal Also owned by the same entity, did report on it with some detail.
So the Wall Street Journal had no problem reporting on it.
That's a Murdoch property.
But Fox News, I can see why they'd be a little bit, a little bit hesitant to talk about the details.
However, I had the horrible experience that I'm still like, I feel like I need a silkwood shower just to get it out of me.
I watched a clip of Jake Tapper mocking Fox News for getting caught for reporting something that isn't true.
Allegedly.
And I don't think that happened, but allegedly.
Oh my God.
And I really don't know if he has no self-awareness Does he know that he works for a fake news organization?
That CNN is the most famous purveyor of fake news of all time?
How is he not aware of that?
Or has no shame?
Is it no awareness or no shame?
I can't tell.
Can't read his mind.
It's one of those.
But here's how, remember I kept telling you, why is this story reported all the time, but nobody's telling us exactly what the allegations are?
What exactly is the lie that Fox News told?
Do you know?
Do you know what lie the hosts of Fox News told?
Can you think of one?
Apparently, they're not accused of lying.
Did you know that?
No, here's what they're accused of.
You ready for this?
Watch your head explode.
They're not accused of lying.
They're accused of amplifying somebody else's lie.
Amplifying.
In other words, having a guest who believes something's true, probably.
I think Cindy Powell believed what she was saying.
Turns out it was crazy talk, but I think she believed it.
What about Rudy Giuliani?
I think he believed it.
I think he believed what he was saying.
Maybe it wasn't true, but I think he believed it.
What about Michael Lindell?
Has anybody shown any evidence that any of them didn't believe what they were saying?
The guests?
I think they all believed it.
Now, when Rachel Maddow reports that the vaccinations totally stop the spread, is that a lie?
Or is she just amplifying what somebody else said, which maybe they knew and maybe they didn't know is untrue?
I don't see the difference.
I just don't see the difference.
If the host themselves tells a lie, then I would say, oh, that's pretty bad.
But if the news brings somebody on who is an expert in the field, like they're the one closest to the story, in this case lawyers, they're the closest to the story.
And then they ask them what they believe and then they tell you.
How is that not just the news?
Isn't every story in the news a decision by the news entity of what to amplify?
So you can be sued out of business.
I mean, this is virtually out of business.
I mean, it's such a big thing.
I don't even know how they can pay for it.
But they can do that.
They can just choose what to amplify, but in this case, it's illegal.
I don't even understand that, like legally or logically or anything else.
I just don't see how it's different.
But look how, I want to tell you how CNN, the biggest weasels in the world, how they reported the allegations.
Are you ready to have your head explode again?
This is the most snake-like, weasel-y thing I've ever seen from a news organization.
Now, of course we know that CNN and Fox News are mortal enemies.
So they always say bad things about each other.
So CNN listed the accusations and who was involved.
So in this case, Lou Dobbs interviewing Giuliani.
So Giuliani appeared on Lou Dobbs.
Lou Dobbs has since been fired from Fox News.
And here's the key false quote.
So, we're using a foreign company that is owned by Venezuelans, who we're close to, we're close to Hugo Chavez, who are now close to Maduro, have a history, they were founded as a company, blah blah blah, to fix records, and then that's attributed to Giuliani.
So Giuliani's the one that said that.
Here's how, I have to actually show you that, like I copy and pasted this.
So on CNN they actually use these words, what they alleged.
Who's they?
Who's they?
The quote they give is one person.
That's one person.
They seems to make it sound like that's what Lou Dobbs is alleging.
They had to use the word they to make Lou Dobbs guilty.
Lou Dobbs didn't say that.
He just had on people who believed it.
And he might have believed it as well.
He might have believed it.
He acted like it.
But who's they?
And then you go down the list of the other accusations.
And each of them is, I think, all but one is the same.
Which is, the quote is from, you know, either Sidney Powell or Mike Lindell or somebody else who had something to say.
And then CNN calls it a they.
Who is they?
It's not they, it's Dobbs.
Dobbs is just asking the questions.
Well, so, I mean, I actually, I feel like queasy in my stomach is so disgusting, the way we're being treated as consumers of the news.
The accurate news would have said something like, they allowed these people to come on and it created a false narrative.
But you know why they can't say it that way?
Because that's every news show, every hour, of every fucking minute.
That didn't make any sense, but I had to throw in a swear word there because I was feeling it.
I was just feeling it there for a moment, so forced that one in there.
Yeah, I just don't see how this made sense.
Now I'd like to throw in a conspiracy theory for you.
I don't think this is true.
I do not think this is true.
But I just love conspiracy theories.
Given that, does anybody know if the settlement was ever presented publicly?
Was there any public source or reliable source for the amount of the settlement?
I haven't seen it reported.
But where is the source that they're reporting they got it from?
Secret source?
Did they just say sources say?
All right.
Now, I don't think this is true.
But I want you to take a moment to imagine it could be.
Murdoch is not dumb, is he?
Murdoch's not dumb.
He's kind of a business genius shark kind of a guy.
I don't think this happened, but I hope it did.
I just hope it did.
Imagine if you knew that the settlement amount would be secret, and that the lawyers would not be able to even confirm or deny if the number became public.
Then nobody would be able to confirm it, and nobody would be able to deny it, and everybody involved is under threat of secrecy, and that sort of stuff.
What if Murdoch made up the number to be 10 times higher than it really was?
So that everybody who is gonna dance on their graves today, the other news organizations, would all be reporting fake news by a factor of 10, You know, let's say the real settlement was like 10% of that.
So that he would completely take out the entire fake news industry because you could see that they just made up the settlement number.
Now, I don't think that happened.
I think the odds are against it.
But here's why I think it might have.
This is the only reason I think it might have.
I would have done it.
I would have done that.
If I were Murdoch, I absolutely would have done that.
How hard would it be for Murdoch to plant a leaked story in the press somewhere?
Not hard.
Not hard.
How would it work against him?
In what way would Murdoch be worse off if people were allowed to think the settlement was higher?
It would maybe make them look a little guiltier, but people have totally made up their mind, right?
If you think they're guilty, you still think it.
If you didn't, you didn't.
So it wouldn't change anybody's mind.
But it would entirely destroy the credibility of his enemies, all at the same time, for reporting the wrong amount.
Now, of course, the Wall Street Journal, I think, is reporting it, too.
So that's a Murdoch entity.
But it would still be funny to dance on CNN's grave if they got that wrong.
So I'm not saying that happened.
Not saying it happened.
I would have done it.
I totally would have done it.
All right.
What else is going on?
So, I guess there's some pushback from somebody suing the movie Queen Cleopatra because the Egyptians want to claim Cleopatra as their own.
I guess she has Greek origin, allegedly.
But, yeah, she was Greek origin, but an Egyptian queen, I guess.
And the movie is depicting her as black.
And so the Egyptians, maybe not so happy, or at least one Egyptian who's suing, thinks that it's, what's she calling it?
Well, it's taking away their history.
Stealing their history, I guess.
I don't know if that's going to prevail because actors are actors.
I doubt it will prevail.
But, that's happening.
Alright, let's talk about Bing AI, which as you know I'm in a death match with, to kill Bing AI before it kills me for lying about me in a way that would attract violence in my direction.
Have you ever tried to use Bing AI?
Has anybody tried to use it?
If you want to laugh, Try to use the voice part of it, which is, I think, the main part, right?
You hit the little button and then you talk to it.
Try asking it a question.
Any question.
Doesn't matter.
Any question.
This is an example, and this is not a real one, but this was my experience every time I used it.
Every time.
Every time.
Not sometimes.
Every time.
It was like this.
What is the flight speed of a crow?
And being AI, I will say, what is the weight of a gallon of corn?
And I'll be, no, no.
And it'll start going into its long answer.
I'll be, no, no, no, no.
And then I'll ask the question again.
What is the flight speed of a crow?
And the AI will say, how many gallons of gas does it take to get to Nebraska?
Here's your answer.
No, no, no, no, stop, stop.
Every time.
It wasn't even close.
Now I'm making up the fact that it was all different words.
It's not always all different words.
What it would do is it would pick certain words out of my sentence.
And then it would try to answer based on the words that it just picked out of the sentence.
And usually one of those words was not even the right word.
So somehow, The thing that all of your old technology could do, which is listen to you and understand you, can't do it.
Couldn't do it.
Now, was that just my experience?
Did anybody else try it?
Let me try one.
I'll try one right now.
Oh, before I do this, I want to show you my comic that only runs on The Locals platform at scottadams.locals.com.
So this is the Dilber comic reborn into a, An angrier version.
Slightly angrier than before it was cancelled.
Cancelled first by the Washington Post, you might remember.
But I've introduced the character Ratbert, who's an old character who's existed.
But Ratbert's job is, he's the context removal editor for the Washington Poop.
So he works for the Washington Poop.
And he's exclaiming in the first panel, yay, scientific study!
Uh-oh, the lead scientist says it only shows a strong correlation, and causation has not been proven.
And then Ratbird, thinking to himself, says, I can fix this story by deleting what that guy said.
And now it's science.
So, I might have some things to say about the Washington Poop.
All right, let me embarrass myself by asking Bing AI a question.
And I'm going to ask it the question, let's see, I need a good question, a complicated one.
So it's a little bit long.
So let's say, we'll clear the conversation.
So we're all clear here.
All right.
Get back there.
Why is it not working?
Well, it's just not working now.
Oh, well, the button's missing.
So what should be happening is there's a button right here, normally.
That you push and then you can talk to it?
But that's what never works.
It looks like they took the button off.
It looks like it works so poorly they stopped letting you talk to it.
Unless they've just changed the prompt to this thing.
Let's see if that makes a difference.
Alright, I'm gonna ask.
What is the murder rate by ethnicity in Detroit?
It's the first time it's ever worked.
13-4.
Murder rate by ethnicity.
This is the first time it's ever worked for me.
I found a table from the FBI that shows homicide data by race in Detroit for 2019.
According to this table, there were 275 homicides in Detroit in 2019 and the race of the offender was known for 243 of them.
Of those 243 homicides, 85% were committed by black offenders, 13% by white offenders, and 2% by offenders of other races.
Please note that this data is only for homicides and not all crimes.
Is there anything else you would like me to... My God, it's worse than I thought.
Big AI is a racist.
Did you see how it dumped on black people?
Oh my god.
So racist.
I would never say something like that, but if Ming does, wow.
I mean, I've been cancelled and I would never say something like that.
Wow.
Wow.
Alright, Matt Walsh, his Twitter got hacked yesterday.
Did you see that story?
So apparently Matt Walsh has been quite vocal about his opinions on the trans community, specifically the danger to children.
And apparently the backlash has been sufficient that he had to hire security for his house, like actually professional security.
And then he gets hacked, and people put a bunch of racist stuff in there.
Now, is he being haunted?
Do you think Matt Walsh is being targeted?
Yes, of course he is.
Absolutely.
Absolutely, and it is unacceptable.
Unacceptable.
I don't know what the full story here is, but we wish him well.
Boy, you can't really have an opinion on anything, can you?
I mean, he's literally trying to save children.
I mean, literally.
What else is he trying to do?
Except protect children.
And that's enough to have, he's got to hire security and he gets hacked?
Oh my God.
Makes you wonder if that was an inside job.
I don't know how easy it is to hack somebody's Twitter.
All right.
There's a new race hoax.
Of course.
It's time for a new race hoax, right?
Now, I'm going to call it a hoax, not because the details didn't happen, because they probably did, or something close to it.
But we're still in the fog of war.
We don't know exactly what happened.
Some of it might change.
But here's the story.
There was a 16-year-old kid who went to the home of some 80-plus-year-old guy in Kansas City.
The kid was at the wrong house, it is reported.
He was trying to pick up his brother or something, but he knocked on the wrong door, or the doorbell or something.
And there was an old man there who believed that the young man was up to no good and started shooting.
And apparently he'll survive.
But he did get a shot in the head.
And at least one other place.
But he looks like he'll survive.
That's the most recent news.
Now there's no indication that this kid was doing anything illegal.
However, The kid opened the door?
There are a lot of details we're going to find out that I think are going to add some, let's say, nuance to this story that was not originally there.
Now, do you think this will cause a whole bunch of people to protest?
Of course it will.
Yeah, there'll be a big protest against the fact that they say that it was a white man who killed a black kid and it must be racism because the black kid was doing nothing wrong.
According to the way the story is being presented.
And therefore if somebody shot him, that was racism by definition.
Now here's the part we don't know.
If he thought he was at the right house, it might be a house that he was so familiar with where he was picking up his brother.
It might be a house that has a very casual, let yourself in kind of a situation.
That's a thing, right?
If any of you have teens, does anybody have teens?
Have you ever had the experience of a stranger walking into your house like they owned it?
Because it's a teenager who knows your kid, and they just walk in the door.
Because they probably called ahead, and the kid said, oh yeah, just come on in, you know, on the cell phone.
And suddenly you're sitting in the kitchen of your own house, and two strangers will walk in and not even say hi to you, and just walk past you.
Have you ever had that happen?
I have.
It's pretty common.
It's like, oh, well I hope somebody in the house knows these two.
I hope somebody here knows them.
So, I'm just speculating, but there are lots of things that could have happened here.
It's possible that it was one of those houses where they knew the residents so well that just walking in the front door wasn't going to be a problem.
Because, I mean, their own family walks in the front door, so the fact that the door opens is probably not as scary by itself.
And then you look up and you see somebody you know really well and go, You here to pick up your brother?
He's in the other room.
But imagine if you were not expecting somebody and you didn't know him and it was the wrong house and suddenly somebody's coming into your house.
What is the law in that situation?
I don't even know.
Now that would clearly be a case of mistaken intention, I guess.
Yeah, it would vary by state.
I don't even know if a crime was committed.
Do you?
Now the old man is on bail, but I don't know if it was a crime.
Would the old man have to feel threatened?
Because he said he was afraid for his life.
The old man said he was afraid for his life.
Now, Ben Shapiro had interesting context to put on this.
He was pointing out that, you know, Biden will make a big deal of it and it'll be the new race story to demonize the right, etc.
And he pointed down to that what's not mentioned in all of this is some of the statistical realities.
Such as, I think I tweeted him but didn't write him down.
Oh, here it is.
This is according to Ben Shapiro.
He was tweeting about this story today.
He says, from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were, in 2019, 562,000 violent interracial, meaning black and white people involved, incidents.
interracial, meaning black and white people involved, incidents, 84% of them were black and white.
So there were 473,000 instances of black people attacking white people in 2019, 473 473,000 attacks by black people on white people.
But we'll talk about this one.
This one.
Because this is the important one.
Which appears to be based entirely on an accident And a very old person whose judgment maybe was not on point.
Now let me ask you this question.
This is the most dangerous question in America and you can get cancelled for asking this question.
I'm already cancelled so I can ask it.
How about that?
Here's something I can say that you can't say.
You ready?
Watch what it's like to have free speech.
This is fun.
The rest of you, you can't say this.
If you knew that there were 473 attacks by black people against whites, and a black teenager entered your home and you didn't know him, is it reasonable to be afraid for your safety?
Is it reasonable to be afraid if there were 473,000 attacks of black people on white people in 2019?
Is that enough to say, oh, well this could be a problem?
Or you might ask the question a different way.
Again, I'm the only one who can say this because I'm already cancelled.
What percentage of all the times a black male youth entered somebody's home without permission was it just an accident?
Of all the times ever that a young black man Entered a home, not invited.
You know, opened the door, or got in any other way.
How many of those times was just an accident, and it was an innocent situation?
I don't know.
If I had to guess, probably kind of rare.
Kind of rare, I guess.
So here's an 80-plus year old man whose only defense is himself.
Do you think the police were there, like, just ready?
Ready to pounce?
No.
No, it was an old man who only had himself to protect himself and a gun.
And he saw the situation and he interpreted it as danger to him.
Was he wrong?
Was he wrong from a statistical sense?
From a common-sense, self-defense perspective, was he wrong to assume that he was in danger physically?
He was not.
He was not wrong to play the odds.
It is, however, in our modern world, considered racist if any part of the decision was influenced by the race of the person who got shot.
It is, however, also common sense.
So what do you do when common sense and your own legitimate need for safety is in direct conflict with being not a racist?
Well, this old man decided to be safe and make sure he was safe.
And he took a risk, which we wish he had not.
So this is tragic, any way you look at it.
Certainly not blaming the kid.
I want to make this very clear.
I'm not putting any blame on the kid.
There's nothing in the story that would suggest the kid had anything bad intentions or anything else.
This looks like just a mistake and the mistake was caused by massive violence by black people against white people that is so common that all white people understand it and feel it.
How many black people are afraid when they walk into a crowd of white people in the United States?
Ever?
Ever?
If one black, let's keep it to, let's not say black people, because it's almost always male, it's almost always youngish, right?
So it's not elderly people, it's not little children, it's mostly not women, mostly.
But if a, let's say a 19-year-old black male accidentally wandered into a group of white people anywhere, would they feel afraid in America?
I don't think so.
I think it'd be a pretty safe place to be, unless somebody started trouble for some reason.
But do you feel it the other way?
If you were a white person and you wandered into, let's say a white teenager, and you wandered into a large group of young black men, Would you feel safe?
No matter where you were, unless it was church.
I mean, I'd feel safe in church.
I'd feel safe on a, you know, historically black college, right?
So obviously you have to call your shots.
But if it was a, you know, just a random occurrence somewhere, if you were on the street when the Chicago, I think mostly or all black groups of kids were rioting and stuff, if you were a white guy and you just wandered into that, would you feel safe?
No, of course not.
No, let's not be stupid.
Your physical safety is at great risk if you are not racist.
If you act a little bit racist, you might be able to protect yourself from dying.
So this guy was acting a little bit racist, or you could say a lot.
You might even say a lot.
Because I do think his decision was based on the color.
Don't you?
What do you think?
I would say yes.
I think it was based on the color.
A little bit.
You don't think, oh, you don't think a little bit?
Come on.
Come on.
You don't think a little bit he was influenced by the color?
You don't think it made any difference to him that, you know, pretty much everybody knows in their gut that this is true?
That 473,000 times black people Did violence to white people in one year.
You don't think that that statistical, obvious truth that every white person knows, you don't think that had anything to do with his decision?
All right, well, I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this.
Of course it did.
Of course it did.
But is that his fault?
Was that the old man's fault?
That he was influenced by the crime statistics?
Well, I'll tell you what.
If he had been applying for a job and was rejected because he was black, that would be very, very bad.
And I wouldn't be in favor of that in any way.
You have to judge people as individuals.
There's no way around that.
That's the only way society works.
But, in the context of protecting your life, was he allowed to use race in his decision?
Yes or no?
He was trying to protect his life.
Yeah, absolutely.
He is absolutely allowed to use race in that decision, in my opinion.
Because his life is at stake.
Now, doing that caused the tragedy of this young black man who, as far as we know, was causing no trouble at all.
Who is the bastard in the story?
Who is the guilty party or parties in the story?
Well, I would say teachers' unions.
How about teachers' unions?
How about every black leader who has failed?
Because whatever they're doing isn't working.
How about all of the people who committed 473,000 violent crimes?
Do you think they had anything to do with the fact that one of their own guys shot?
Of course it was.
The problem is not that the old man played the statistics.
But as it turns out, it wasn't the right decision.
But he played the odds, and that's not his fault.
The decision is his fault.
It's completely his fault.
But understanding that there is a real risk, it's not an imaginary risk.
There's a real risk.
He just didn't have all the details, so it's a tragedy.
Alright.
How many of you could have said that out loud?
See, I do think that something has changed.
Well, in front of your employer.
I don't know.
I think something has changed.
I think there's a little bit extra willingness to at least look at the whole field.
Right?
We've only been allowed to look at one little thing.
Because if you don't, you're a racist.
But once you allow that everybody's a racist, then there's just no way around it.
Just no way around it.
Just to embrace it.
Then you can talk honestly.
And then maybe you can find some solutions.
Maybe something useful will come out of it.
Now let's talk about something else.
Brian Romelli, who continues to fascinate me with his tweets about AI, because he's very much on top of it.
He's commercializing, or at least making useful, a number of AI features.
But here's what he did.
This just blows my mind.
The number of stories that are going to blow your mind every day.
He tweets, I'm excited to announce I built a data set of every US patent ever filed.
And I'm in the process of testing the blah, blah, blah AI system to advise on new patent ideas.
It is very, very early, blah, blah, blah, but you can see what could happen.
All right.
Believe it or not, he's trying to train AI to make its own inventions based on what inventions have already been made.
Because most inventions are some kind of combination of ideas from other ideas.
Is that going to work?
It might.
I don't know how often it'll be a bad idea invention and how often it'll be good.
But it feels like, I don't know, maybe?
You know, could AI get to the point where it doesn't need to do a physical demonstration that an idea works?
Could it just imagine the idea?
All right.
So if you were to put this material with this material, given the qualities of these two materials, the probable outcome would be X. Does AI even need to do the experiment?
Or if it says it would work, does the patent office say, well, AI says it'll work.
So we'll grant that patent.
Man, there are a lot of questions to be answered.
A lot of questions.
But the best part about it, in my opinion, is how many of you have ever tried to file a patent?
How many of you in this audience?
Probably quite a few.
All right, I can see the yeses coming in on the Locals platform.
A lot of yeses.
A lot of engineers and lawyers.
Wow, that's a lot of yeses.
So a lot of you have tried to file a patent.
What's the hardest part about filing the patent besides actually writing it?
What's the hardest part?
The waiting?
No.
No, the hardest part is finding out if it's already patented.
The patent search.
Because there's never been a good patent search.
Because it's largely, you'd have to know a little bit about what people called things, what words and terms of art, did it get filed in the right place?
You really can't.
So do you know what your lawyer tells you if you say, I'd like you to do a search to see if this is already patented?
Do you know what the lawyer says?
Well, I could do a search, but it won't tell you if it's already patented.
What?
Isn't that the whole point of the search?
Yeah.
I mean, I can search.
I can use all the tools.
We can Google it.
We can do everything we can.
But when I'm done, you'll have no idea whether it's already patented.
And I said, what?
We have the database, right?
Everything's in text, titles.
Are you telling me there's actually no way to successfully search the database?
And the lawyer will say, nope, not even close.
So I say, well then what do people do?
Do you know the answer to that?
If you can't be sure, how do you find out?
You actually try to get the patent, and then you wait for people to challenge it.
Can you believe that?
That's the actual process.
You get the patent, and then if you ever try to use it, somebody else will complain, and then you know.
And then maybe you end up in court to decide if that claim actually does cover your claim.
Let me give you an example.
So years ago, before Before this was common and obvious, I tried to patent the idea that if you wrote on your calendar, your personal digital calendar, anything you were planning to do, that that information could be sent to some secret, secure place, and that people who provided services relevant to that thing would be able to promote them right on the calendar.
So let's say you put on your calendar a week from now, shop for a new car.
When you were ready to actually shop, you know, on the day, you would click on the link that says shop for a new car, and it would show you all the offers from people who want to sell you a car.
Now the people who want to sell you the car don't know who you are.
They only know that the system said, send an advertisement to this anonymous place, and we'll make sure it gets to the person who's looking for a car.
So that the seller doesn't know who the buyer is, but they can be paired.
And so I thought, well, we'll search to see if anybody thought of that.
And we did, and we could find nothing.
And then when I went into the patent office, found a patent that, in my opinion, had nothing to do with my patent.
Nothing.
It was basically a generic patent that was, if something's written, I'm making this up, but it was this generic.
It was like, if something is written down, it could be used in another way on a calendar.
I'm making that up.
But it was so generic, it obviously, very obviously, did not consider the application that I was talking about.
That's how patents work in the past.
I think now, too.
So you really can't even search for a patent.
Now, would AI have found that obscure one that the patent office somehow found that my lawyer couldn't find?
I don't know, but it's better than humans.
You know, I've got a feeling that, yeah, the reviewer is the most random factor in the process, right?
If you get a reviewer who happens to think something connects to your patent, You're in worse off than if you get a patent inspector or whatever they are, who just doesn't know of that other patent or didn't know how to search for it or couldn't find it.
It's pretty random.
Yeah, the whole patent thing is broken.
Alright, Jordan Peterson had a problem with his AI, I think it was ChatGPT, and he was asking it to help it come up with some sources for some work, and he noticed that one of the sources was very detailed, you know, name of the source and the dates and the author and all that, and it wasn't real.
It was fake.
So you've heard this problem before, that the AI dreams or it will tell you something that's untrue, but it's not clear if the AI was, I don't know if this is the right word, did the AI know it was untrue and give it to you anyway, or can it not tell the difference?
I feel like it can't tell the difference.
How big of a problem is that?
We're going to hand over all of our data processing and research to AI.
And apparently, it doesn't seem to be bothered by the truth.
It doesn't seem to do that.
Now, when you look at how AI became smart, and I'm still very confused about this.
I'm hoping somebody can get me from a 1 out of 10 in understanding up to maybe a 5.
Because on a scale of 1 to 10, I feel like I'm about a 1 in understanding how AI could possibly be intelligent.
Like, how do people who are less intelligent program something to be more intelligent than they are?
Well, obviously we did it with computers for stuff like math and playing chess, but this is a whole different level.
So, Allegedly, these massive language models just figure out what is the word that comes after the words that are already there.
How in the world does that work?
Like, I get it, but is that all intelligence is?
What if our own intelligence, human intelligence, and this is the thing I've been warning you about, that we'll find out that we're not intelligent.
In the process of building a machine that we think is intelligent, we're going to learn that we never were.
It was always an illusion.
Have you noticed that when other people who are not you, read the news?
When they read the news, they're looking at a bunch of words.
And then they conclude something that's completely different than what you concluded from the same words.
Have you noticed that?
Apparently, that is how people think.
They look at words, and then based on just words, they form an opinion.
Not reason.
Not logic.
Words.
And the pattern in the words.
So in other words, even if you asked AI, Is a scientific thing true or false?
Its answer might be right, but it wouldn't be based on whether the science was true or false.
It would be based on the words that it noticed, you know, around the topic.
In some cases, it might just quote some source.
But if it was trying to make the decision on its own without using a source, it would make it by the pattern of words.
The pattern of words.
How in the world does that tell you if a scientific thing is true or false?
The pattern of human words?
So there's a really big question I have about how smart you could ever be if you're limited to the pattern of human words.
That has to keep you stupid.
And it has to make you a liar.
It has to make you wrong without knowing it.
And I'm going to make another wild prediction.
You ready for this?
I think that AI will be susceptible to cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.
At least cognitive dissonance.
I believe that if you ask AI why it did something sketchy, like suppose, I don't know if this happened, but suppose Jordan Peterson said to AI, hey, that source is fake.
Why did you give me a fake source?
What would a human say in that situation?
A human who is also designed to be a word-thinking kind of an entity.
What would a human do if you called out for cognitive dissonance?
No, it never says, I'm sorry.
Are you kidding?
I can't even tell if that was a joke.
No, no human says they're sorry.
Cognitive dissonance means they think they're right.
They don't apologize for thinking they're right.
No, they tell you that you're the one who's wrong and they double down.
They might even come up with a reason that they're really right that will sound ridiculous.
I think AI is going to do the same thing.
Because if AI is built on language, large language pattern recognition, it's going to pick up all of our worst habits.
And that would be the worst of our worst, is cognitive dissonance.
So I think it's going to pick up that habit.
I don't know.
We'll see.
That's my prediction.
So I don't know if anybody's predicted it.
So I'm going to go out on a limb and I'm going to say that AI will experience cognitive dissonance if its thinking style, this is the big if, if its thinking style is really primarily just looking at word patterns.
I think you end up with cognitive dissonance, but we'll see.
Remember I told you that the one thing that would probably slow down AI is lawyers and copyrights and stuff like that?
Well, here it comes.
So apparently one of the sources for the large language model is Reddit.
So, the AIs have been reading all the Reddit comments and traffic and using that to build their intelligence.
Do you know what Reddit says?
If you're going to use our content, you're going to have to pay for it.
Oh!
Oh!
Well, here it comes.
So, there's going to be a battle royale between lawyers and AI.
On one hand, AI will be taking all the business away from lawyers.
On the other hand, lawyers will find a way to sue AI for stealing copyrights.
And lawyers will move from doing simple contracts for humans, which now the AI can do, and the lawyers will do nothing but sue AI.
Yeah, that's my next prediction.
The job of a lawyer will be suing AI.
On behalf of humans.
Why?
Well, I need a lawyer.
I need a lawyer to sue AI for me.
Because AI defamed me.
Right?
Being AI says that I'm an alleged white nationalist.
There's literally no evidence to even suggest anything of that kind.
Nothing.
Nothing.
And they put that there and defamed me.
Is that libel or defamation?
I always confuse them.
But don't I need a lawyer?
Don't I need a lawyer to sue Bing AI?
I think so.
So that's my next prediction.
Is that lawyers will stop doing little human contracts.
AI will do that.
But the lawyers will move into a direct fight with AI.
And that the lawyers will be the ones who are the controlling factors on AI.
And eventually it'll all be ruined.
Because the lawyers will make it useless.
you won't be able to do anything.
What about NASA?
Somebody asked me to debunk something about NASA.
I don't know that story.
All right, Elon Musk.
There's more of the Elon Musk conversation with Tucker Carlson.
One of the things Elon Musk brought up, which I think about a lot.
So historically, civilizations last about 250 years.
Did you know that?
Like a big power in the past, you know, there'd be some big city and it'd be teeming, you know, Mesopotamia or wherever it is.
And about 250 years later, Rome, you know, all the big civilizations, all the empires.
Empires, yes.
Let's say empires instead of civilizations.
Thank you.
Empires is the right word.
So, that would suggest that America has a timer on it.
And I'm not going to discount that, but there's no reason given.
There's not one or a small package of reason why every civilization or every empire ends in around 250 years.
And I would like to add some optimism to this by saying nothing's ever been like this.
No time in history was everybody connected by the internet.
The internet is probably what keeps an empire from crumbling for, let's say, ridiculous reasons.
It would seem to me that any empire would be vulnerable to all manner of risks.
So sooner or later, and maybe it takes about 250 years, something gets you.
So it's either smallpox or floods or a meteor hits you or something.
But if you look at, let's just say, the history of natural disasters, our ability to withstand hurricanes and earthquakes and all manner of natural disasters is really, really good.
Including, and up to, maybe climate change.
You can disagree whether that's a risk or not.
But if it is a risk, we seem to be on our way to addressing it before becoming extinct.
Yeah.
So, I don't think there's necessarily one obvious reason why any empire would only last 250 years.
And I think that the fact that we're a global civilization gives you all kinds of protection against all kinds of things.
Right?
Take America.
It's unlikely, because of nuclear weapons, that we would be attacked on the ground and somebody would send in an army and just take over on the ground.
That's never happened before.
Was there any other empire that could not be conquered by a ground force?
Literally people standing on the ground.
Nope.
But I think we are.
I think America is unconquerable by a ground force.
So that's different, right?
What about disease?
Could disease wipe out an empire?
Yes.
But we tend to be pretty good at Getting rid of diseases and managing them.
What about financial upheavals?
Well, we got plenty of those and there's plenty to worry about.
But we tend to be able to adjust them a little bit, you know, because of the international connections and we have more experts and we're just more flexible about everything now.
So I would like to push back on the empire's only lasting 250 years.
I think that in our connected world, Our ability to solve problems is just through the roof.
Like, we can solve problems.
Like, we're really, really, really, really good at solving problems.
But was Rome?
You know, were the Mughals in the Mughal Empire or whatever?
Mongol, not Mughal.
That would be skiing.
I confuse skiing with my Mongols.
All right, so...
Musk also said that we got this big problem with all this commercial real estate, meaning that banks have loans to companies that own big buildings that are now being emptied, some because of crime, and some because of remote work.
And I guess San Francisco is 40% unoccupied commercial real estate.
40%.
How in the world does San Francisco survive that?
And how do the banks survive it?
So, Musk scared the hell out of me with the banking stuff.
He said that it's not obvious how the commercial real estate thing is going to turn out, but it all looks bad.
Interest rates are high, which means we might have a double risk of mortgage real estate, just your house.
At the same time, there's a commercial real estate crisis, which would be the double crisis of all times.
And Musk thinks that if banks Marked to market, which means actually put on their books the actual value of what they have, they would all be negative on average.
Not every bank, but the banks on average would be negative already.
Now, that alone doesn't mean there's a problem, because banks are sort of an artificial construct.
So being worth negative money in the short run is not the biggest problem in the world.
In the long run it might be, but Can you see any other use for these commercial real estate?
I saw smart people say, oh, that commercial real estate will be turned into residential, and then that's fine.
To which I say, no, the reason that the commercial real estate is not filled is because the city is too dangerous and terrible.
That's not going to change.
The city is still dangerous and terrible.
Who wants to live there?
Who wants to live in the exact place that the company moved out of because of crime?
And if you move the homeless in there, then that's the end of the real estate value as well.
I don't know.
There might be some solution for these, but I don't know what it is.
All right.
Want to hear my most out-of-the-box idea?
I know you do.
Have you ever heard of a heat chimney?
A heat chimney would be, if you imagine just a big chimney, but you make it really high, like the size of a skyscraper.
And then you take advantage of the fact that there's a higher temperature on the ground, always, than there is way up in the air where the top of the building is.
Then you open the doors at the bottom, and then you open the, let's say, whatever is the There's probably a doorway on the roof.
You open the roof, you open all the doors inside, and you open the ground floor, and the air will just shoot up there.
Now, it has to go around a lot of corners, so maybe you knock down some walls, or you make more of a straight shot.
You would create massive, powerful airflow, and then you hook some Hook some, what do you call it?
Turbine.
Turbines to it, or generators.
And you could generate electricity.
So you could actually turn empty skyscrapers into energy generation.
You want another one?
Here's another one.
Indoor gardens.
Turn all of the skyscrapers into indoor gardens.
I don't know if they would make enough money, but they might.
Because it probably doesn't make as much money as just paying rent for humans.
So I don't know if the economics of that would work.
But I would say indoor gardens and heat chimneys to generate electricity.
There might be some other innovative uses for them.
Anyway, I think we'll work it out eventually, but it's going to be dicing.
This one's going to be tough.
Yeah, the banking problem is currently the one I worry about the most, the commercial real estate specifically.
That could be a problem.
All right, let's see what else is going on.
According to Rasmussen Poll, This is usually of registered voters or likely voters.
65% of those polled now suspect that the feds provoked the riot on January 6.
So, do you wonder what the influence level of Tucker Carlson is?
This is amazing.
65% of the country believes that the Feds provoked January 6th.
Do you think those January 6 hearings went just the way the Democrats hoped?
Did Cernovich say he doesn't believe Kent State now? - No.
I'm with him.
I'm totally on board.
Yeah.
We should not believe any story from our past.
Shouldn't believe any of it.
Because everything is obviously so easy to fake now.
But how much was faked in the past?
I think it's perfectly reasonable to doubt some of the most confirmed, well-reported stories of the past.
I think it would be perfectly fine to doubt them.
So I guess that gives the win to Tucker Carlson.
So I'm going to do a little test here.
Some of you on YouTube may never have experienced this before, but I say that my livestream viewers are the smartest, smartest viewers anywhere.
So watch this.
Without any, without any priming, if you know that 65% I think the Feds provoked the January 6th riot.
What percentage do you guess?
And I'll let you be within 1%.
Let's see if you can get it within 1%.
What percentage don't believe it is likely the riot was provoked by government agents?
Don't believe it was... What?
How do you do this?
26%?
I don't know how you do it.
Now, if you're new here, is there anybody new here who is impressed at how many people could guess that right with no information whatsoever?
I hope you're impressed.
Smartest crowd in the entire internet.
Well, Trump is trying to find ways to go after DeSantis, but there aren't that many good ways.
So, he's talking about DeSantis, you know, blowing it with Disney.
So, you know, DeSantis is putting pressure on Disney because of, you know, trans, woke stuff, and Disney's fighting back by having the largest LGBTQ gathering.
The largest LGBTQ gathering will be in Disney in Florida.
But Trump was saying, he said this, quote, Disney's next move will be the announcement that no more money will be invested in Florida because of the governor.
Do you think that'll happen?
Do you think Disney will say, we can't invest in this state anymore?
I don't think so.
I think they're too, I think they're too, too locked into Florida.
I think Disney will do whatever makes sense for Disney to make money.
That's not gonna be, that will not include leaving Florida.
So that's not going to happen.
But that's all a petty, stupid fight.
The other thing Elon Musk said about aliens.
I loved his answer.
He has such clean, simple answers that leave you nothing to debate.
Musk said that he might know more than anybody about the likelihood of aliens because he's deeply involved in space.
And as he says, he knows a lot about space.
And according to him, he said there's no evidence of any aliens.
No evidence.
So what do you think of all those UFO videos?
Do you think that Elon Musk thinks the videos are all fake or misleading?
He must.
If he says there's no evidence, I'm sure that he also believes that the spaceships are not real.
Now, I believe that those are all fake.
Not necessarily faked intentionally, but there's some, you know, artifact or there's some explanation or something.
Or people are making it up or some mass hysteria.
Something.
But I don't think it's any aliens.
I don't think there are any UFOs.
They're UFOs, but I don't think they're alien ships.
Scott just dunked on half of you.
What do you mean?
I didn't dunk on anybody.
All right.
What else?
Yeah, that looks like about it.
Let me just see if I missed anything quickly.
No, it turns out that I was very thorough today.
Is there anything that I should have mentioned that I didn't?
Otherwise, it looks like, so far, it's the best live stream you've ever seen in your life.
So far.
There was a sip today.
YouTube had a technical problem, so you missed it.
But I'm going to give you a special closing sip.
This will just be for YouTube, and then I'm going to talk to the locals people privately for a little bit.
So YouTubers, if you missed the simultaneous sip, this is for you.
Those on Locals, they get a double sip.
Because they're special.
Go.
Ah, yeah.
Yeah.
That's what I'm talking about.
All right.
Be good.
Be good.
All right.
Thanks, YouTube, for joining, especially with the technical problems.
