Episode 2091 Scott Adams: Tucker's Plan, AI Reframes, Biden's Campaign Strategy, Talking Robot Dog
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Tucker's plan
Hypnotizing AI with reframes
Biden's campaign strategy
Talking robot dog is here
Lots more
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
And I'm talking about the organic civilization, not the virtual world that's coming, where we'll all be silicon.
But if you'd like to maximize this reality, Which some think is the base reality.
Ha ha ha ha.
All you need is a cupper, a mug, or a glass, a tankard, shells, or stein, a canteen jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dope meat end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
That's some good stuff right there.
Well, I don't know about you, but I'm having a little extra difficulty sorting out reality from digital reality.
Are you having that problem yet?
So, today alone, I think there were three stories that I weren't sure were real.
I'll get to all of them, I think.
But I read the news today and every time I saw a story I was like, real?
Or is that some kind of AI thing?
I can't tell.
Watch how many of them there start to be as we go forward.
All right.
Did you see the, well the first one that blew my mind.
Did you see a video, which I believe is CGI, of the Prime Minister of Italy And the caption was that they banned AI, and so the AI came to visit them.
Yes, it's fake.
But it shows a car driving up in sort of an outdoor ceremony.
And you see this robot get out of the car and walk up and shake hands with the prime minister.
And then the two of them sort of bow to the people playing music or whatever.
And then they turn and walk down the red carpet to go meet with each other.
Oh my god, does it look real?
No, it's not.
It's not.
But when you say to yourself, oh, the reason I know this is not real is because it's too futuristic, right?
That's the reason you know it's not real.
The reason you know it's not real is that it couldn't be.
There's no way it could be real, that a robot would get out of a car and shake your hand and then know to walk down this carpet with you and go to a meeting, right?
Well, the same day I saw that, which by the way looked like sort of a modified Boston Dynamics robot.
You've seen those, the videos.
Same day, as that one was fake, I think this next one's real.
It was a video of one of those Boston robotic dogs.
You've seen those little creepy robot dogs?
They put AI in one.
And there's a picture of a guy just talking to his robot dog, telling it to back up a few steps or do this or that.
And it's AI.
It's a conversational AI in a robot dog.
Is there anything in that fake video of the fake robot getting out of a car and shaking hands and going to a meeting, is there anything that they can't do now that was in that fake video?
And the answer is, I think they could do all of that right now.
Like actually a robot could get out of a car, shake hands and go to a meeting with you and actually have a meeting.
That's real.
But wow, it was such a Star Wars like creepy weird thing just seeing that, because you can see it's like two weeks in the future.
You know, did you think there'd be a talking robot dog today?
I mean, that kind of snuck up on me.
Here's the most interesting thing happening in the news.
Tucker Carlson made a little video, it looks like he made it from his, just guessing, probably his main studio.
He has a studio at home, two homes, Florida and Maine.
He did not announce his future plans, because it would be too soon to do that.
He has to probably work out some stuff with Fox News, who are technically still his employers.
Just his show is off the air.
But what he teased was that there are lots of good people in the country.
So he was sort of feeling good about how awesome humans are.
And I have to say that when I got cancelled, I had the same experience.
As soon as I canceled, the people who are good people in the world just sort of emerge, you know, to make sure you're okay.
Just checking in on you, right?
And I gotta say, it was just the coolest thing.
So I'm sure he's experiencing the same thing, which is just zillions of people sending him positive messages.
Now the only reason I didn't send him a message, you know, I think I have a way to get through.
The only reason I didn't send him a positive message is I thought he'd be buried in them and he wouldn't see it.
But in my mind I'm sending him a positive message.
Maybe later I'll send him one.
But the world is really Adjusted for the cancelled.
I've said that before, but here's another clean example.
It used to be that fired and cancelled was really bad news if you were a high-profile person.
But now the free market has just adjusted so that the cancelled go from a bad situation to a slightly better one.
If you were looking for something that was a positive sign of the future, you know, amidst all the things that look kind of creepy and bad and scary, that's pretty positive.
The fact that speaking what you think is the truth, we could argue what's true, but saying what you think is the truth will get you fired and promoted.
So now you can get fired promoted.
It's the best kind of fired.
I'm pretty sure Tucker's gonna come out better than he was.
You got fired promoted.
So did I. Like, I make less, you know, way less money than I made when I was, you know, worldwide global cartoonist.
But in terms of my overall satisfaction and happiness and I can still pay the bills, I'm way better off.
Way better off.
It's not even close.
So, fired promoted.
That's the new thing.
Alright, so here's what I picked up in this announcement.
He talked about how our debates are worthless.
That we don't really see good debates.
Oh, do you see where this is going?
Do you see what he teased?
Oh.
My.
God.
This is so much better than I expected.
I didn't know what to expect, I just figured he'd do a podcast or something.
But if what he's going to do, and this is what I'm sensing, don't know that this is true, But I'm going to make this prediction based on just how smart he is.
That'll be my only basis for the prediction.
Just how smart he is.
So you just figure the smartest person would do the smarter thing.
What's the smartest thing that Tucker could do?
There's no question about it.
It's easy.
He could host a debate show.
Where he actually has two people on.
Gives them enough time to talk and doesn't take sides.
Now, I know what the critics are going to say.
You're going to say to me, Scott, Tucker is so much in the bag for one side that he could never be a good debate host because he would just be too biased.
Absolutely not.
The only people who would say that are the people who are not familiar with him.
If you're not familiar with Tucker, and you just say, hey, he's that Fox News guy, well, maybe you'd think that.
He's just on one side.
He absolutely has a history of being the most open-minded, listens to your argument, Wants to hear both sides of anybody who's ever been in that business, I think.
I don't think anybody's been more of that person than he has been.
I mean, he's been on MSNBC, he's been on CNN, he's been on Fox.
I think he's an independent.
Right?
So, and even, and then I was asked online, Well, if he thinks that's a good idea, why wasn't he doing it on Fox News?
Why didn't he bring both sides on Fox News?
Well, you already know the answer to that question.
It wasn't an option.
It just wasn't an option.
Because the Democrats, the important ones, they're going to refuse to go on the show.
Right?
Because it's Fox News.
They'll just refuse to go.
But that's not the same for a podcaster.
For an individual, if you just set up a situation and said, look, you've got this case to make.
I'm planning on inviting this other person who's your critic.
Wouldn't you like to bash your critic, like, right in person instead of on Twitter?
I think he's going to get plenty of yes.
I think he could do it.
And I think the Fox News audience was not really the right audience for showing both sides.
I'm just not sure that was the right audience.
However, were you aware that Tucker was drawing an unusually large number of Democrats in the under 40 or something?
Tucker already draws Democrats.
Young ones.
The very best advertising demographic.
So, what would happen if there were exactly one show where you could see a climate debate where the people on both sides know what they're talking about, are well controlled in terms of making sure nobody's filibustering, and maybe it's recorded so that if they need to look something up, they just take a break.
Can you imagine having the conversation where somebody makes a claim and then the other one says, no, that's not true.
Well, in a normal show, that's the end of the conversation.
This is true.
No, it's not.
All right, next topic.
But what if you could just stop?
Say, all right, let's take a break.
The people at home won't know the difference because it's recorded.
We'll be back instantly.
But take 10 minutes and look at your sources, and then we'll come back.
And then we'll see if that is real or not.
Yeah.
So you might remember that I've been promoting the idea of somebody.
I thought Trump would be good at it if he didn't get back into politics.
I thought he would be interesting.
Somebody should host some kind of a debate show.
And it is the one thing that we miss the most in this country, because there is no debate.
It's just one side talking and then another side talking.
That's not a debate.
So if he does this, and it looks like he's signaling pretty hard that's what's coming, because he wouldn't have mentioned debate.
Yeah, I don't think, you know, why would he use that, you know, the one time that he's gonna make a public thing since his big dust up with Fox News.
You know, why would he mention debates?
Unless that was his plan.
So, he will be the most important person in In politics.
Because I think he could move the needle pretty quickly.
On big topics.
Alright.
That's pretty exciting.
Is anybody following this weird fight between Steven Crowder and Candace Owens?
Or is that just such an inside Twitter thing that nobody in the world cares about it?
A little bit?
Alright, well it just keeps popping up in the trending stuff, so I thought I'd mention it.
So, it's a little hard to explain what's going on, because as soon as I characterize either Candice or Steven Crowder, I'm probably doing it wrong, or at least not the way they would do it themselves.
So it's a little dicey to even explain it, but it's something about this.
There was, let's see, The Daily Wire.
Let's see if I get all this right.
It was The Daily Wire, where Candice now works.
That's true, right?
She's at The Daily Wire.
And Crowder was offered a lucrative offer to put his show on The Daily Wire, but he recorded a phone call and didn't like his offer and sort of made a big deal about it and embarrassed The Daily Wire, or tried to.
Candace had some things to say about that, but among the things she said is that she was aware of some things about Steven Crowder that she didn't want to mention.
Now later it came up that Steven Crowder said he was going through a divorce.
And it's a bigger deal for him than it would be for an average public figure because he's so anti-divorce.
But it wasn't his choice, he says.
His wife asked for a divorce, and in his state of Texas, I guess, that's all it takes.
One person asks for it.
So, he claimed that he's getting divorced because he picked wrong.
He chose the wrong wife.
But would you argue with that?
I mean, it seems like that's an obviously true statement.
Because, and I don't mean there was something wrong with the wife, I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that they didn't work out, but maybe two different people would have.
I don't know.
So I'm not sure that that has any importance.
So, the first thing I would say is, leave Steven Crowder alone!
I went through my own way-too-public divorce a year ago, and how about we just leave them alone?
How about we just fuck off?
Just leave them alone.
Leave them both alone.
Leave their kids alone.
Just leave them alone.
Now, to be fair, I don't think Candice mentioned the marriage.
She just said there was some stuff that she knows about that would be embarrassing, etc.
And I think she's invited his wife to come on the show.
Things got so ugly that Candice invited his wife to come on the show to give her side of things.
That's the most horrible idea I've ever heard of.
I've never heard of a worse idea.
That's just terrible.
No, the only thing worse was Elizabeth Warren wanting to pack the Supreme Court.
That's a worse idea.
But anyway, things got pretty personal over there.
And then, on top of all that... On top of all that... Alright, here's the second or third story that I can't tell if it's real.
Can you help me out on this one?
This is on Twitter, but I don't know if it's real.
It was a video of Steven Crowder, and whoever is on his show, making fun of a video announcement, and you have to tell me if this is real or not, because I don't know, of Mattel introducing a Down Syndrome version of Barbie.
Real or not real?
I'm seeing people say real.
Now, Crowder made some, let's say, less than sensitive comments about that.
You're probably wondering about my take.
Would you like to hear my take on this?
On the Down Syndrome Barbie?
It's the best idea I've ever heard.
Next story.
It looks like Metta is spending, they've spent $13.7 billion last year trying to build out this virtual world.
And don't you think that would be enough?
If you said to yourself, all right, we're going to build this virtual reality world, what's that going to cost us?
Would you have said nearly $14 billion a year?
Because it's not even operating at a scale.
It's not like they had to build tons of data centers, right?
I assume they probably had enough computing power for the little bit of VR they're doing.
So what exactly do you spend all that money on?
How could you even spend that much money?
I'm kind of confused.
Here's my, and apparently Facebook is doing great.
Their ad business is up, and it manages to pay for all their bills, including this virtual reality stuff.
But Zuckerberg's committed.
He says, yes, it's a long-term thing.
We remain committed to it.
I'm feeling that this meta VR stuff has the feeling of string theory.
Do you feel me?
And that's sort of a weird reference, but I'll fill you in.
You know string theory you heard about 30 years ago?
And it was going to explain all of physics?
And it was going to do it any day now.
It's like any day now, string theory is going to all come together.
It's complicated, so we won't get it right away, but when we get it, oh any day now, it's going to explain everything about physics.
It's all going to be one little package.
It's like, it's better than the Theory of everything.
It really gets down to the details.
We'll really be able to take reality apart and put it back together again when we really understand the string theory.
Well, is it 30 years later?
And string theory has amounted to nothing?
Nothing, basically?
So, it feels that way with meta, doesn't it?
Thirteen billion dollars in, and a few years in, and nothing interesting yet?
Feels a little string theory-ish.
Like everybody's sure it's there, but it's not.
At the same time, an interesting thing has happened.
Have you ever heard of this old saw?
You go to somebody's house, and it's a really nice house, and they've got a lot of plants inside their house.
And they often use this old saying, well, I can't always go outdoors, so I like to bring the outdoors in.
You've heard of that, right?
I like to bring the outdoors in.
I'm so sick of that.
The first time I heard it, I thought it was brilliant.
It was in the 70s.
I went to this consultant's house to ask him some questions about starting a company.
And he had all kinds of plants, and it was the first time I'd ever heard it.
He goes, well, I just like to bring the outdoors in.
And I thought, I'm going to remember that, and I'm going to say that someday.
And then I realized everybody says it.
It's like the most common thing that anybody says if they have a plan.
Anyway, so I was thinking of that when I thought of AI and robots and VR.
So at the same time that Facebook is trying to take we organic humans and put us into the fully digital immersed reality of virtual reality, the VR, I'm sorry, the AI is something that's native to the digital world.
But AI is leaving the digital world, getting into robots, such as robot dogs, and entering our world.
So, the digital world is going to penetrate our world with actual physical entities, robots, already here, faster than we will become digital entities and enter the digital world.
It's because as much as we like bringing the outdoors in, we'd still rather go outdoors.
Right?
I would still rather live in my world but add more cool features like robots than to go into a fully artificial one and live completely in the digital world and not feel the sun and the light and the air and the people and the oxytocin and everything else.
So maybe, maybe this is the beginning of a big, let's say, psychological or mental shift In which we understand that taking our natural beings and putting us into digital form will never be as good as taking those digital forms, bringing them into our world, and having them hang out with us in the sun.
I feel like that's some kind of major perceptual shift.
But maybe not.
We'll see.
Everything is completely unpredictable at this point.
All right.
How about some less robot stuff?
According to a Rasmussen poll, 60% of voters believe Congress and Joe Biden should focus more on increasing oil and gas drilling.
So 60%.
So that includes a number of Democrats, obviously.
So, but he is.
It looks like Biden is doing at least some things that look like approving more oil and gas drilling.
So he's at least moving in that direction, which seems totally inconsistent with everything he said.
So I don't know how he explains it, but it seems to be working.
So of all things, if you were going to pick one thing that you were sure the Democrats had an advantage in, wouldn't you have said energy?
Because I would have.
I would have said that's the biggest clear advantage of the Republicans.
But the polling says the opposite.
According to the polling, it's closer to dead even that people think the Democrats would be better on energy.
To me, that's just crazy.
I mean, it sounds actually insane.
But I think maybe when people answer that, they're thinking the balance of climate change plus energy, because you can't disconnect them.
So they're probably thinking that Biden would be better in the climate stuff.
That's my interpretation.
All right.
But still, shocking.
So that's one gigantic advantage that you would expect Trump to have that maybe is way less than you think.
Possibly.
All right.
How many of you are up to date on the story of Desantis versus Disney?
Enough so that if you were going to explain it to somebody, you could coherently explain it.
Like, what is the issue?
Who did what?
What was the response?
And where is it now?
How many of you could do that?
None, right?
And yet it's a headline every day.
It's a trend or a headline every day.
Do you know why I don't know those details either?
I do this every day.
I talk about the news every day.
Do you know why I don't know any of those details?
Because it's not important.
I don't care.
It doesn't affect me in any way.
And it's detailed and small and it doesn't really attach to any bigger issue that I care about.
So, I was thinking to myself, how, given that I'm not interested in the details, how does my mind process the summary?
Right?
Here's the summary.
And believe me, I don't believe the summary is necessarily an accurate, you know, an accurate summary.
But here's how it feels.
It feels like DeSantis picked a fight with Mickey Mouse and he's losing.
That's the least presidential look you could ever have.
He picked a fight with Mickey Mouse, and he's losing.
Now here's the part you might disagree with.
No, Scott, he's really winning.
How would I know?
How would I know?
Every day that that's in the news looks like a loss to me.
Do you know what this answer wants less of?
A story about Disney being really mad at him.
Because families love Disney.
Kids love Disney.
Everybody's had a good, positive experience at Disney.
How many people have had a good, positive experience with their government?
Huh.
The government?
The most magical place on Earth.
Or the government?
Or the place with happiness and wonder and family entertainment?
It's just a terrible fight for him.
Now, I get how it started, you know, and I understand.
They were fighting wokeness and Disney got into, you know, Disney started the fight and he responded and it's about wokeness.
But I feel like we've lost all of that.
Like, all of that nuance, all of the how it started, I feel like it's all lost now.
And all it did was turned into DeSantis versus Disney.
And it looks like the least important things in our lives, why is he spending his time doing that?
I think it's killing him.
I think the Disney thing's just killing him.
Because it's making him look like an unserious leader.
Even though his, you know, if you look into his points, he has some points about, you know, no company should act as a government.
And I think to myself, oh yeah, no company should act as a government.
But, you know, Disney has like special little governmental powers that they're arguing about.
On the other hand, I also don't care.
As long as Disney is willing to build roads where they need roads, I don't care if they do it or the government does it.
I'd be happier if they do it.
Really.
So, I don't think that's working for DeSantis at all.
You saw, we talked about it yesterday, Kamala Harris' latest word salad, when she talks about the passage of time.
Have you noticed that she can't handle anything about the passage of time?
Well, in this moment of time, which is the time we're in, which is of the moment, we must always contextualize the moment of the period we're in, because the time we're in Has a connection to the whole of the time, of the flow of time.
Now, if you have a chance, go look at it again.
Just go look at that little video again.
You'll see it on Twitter all the time.
And you tell me she doesn't look drunk.
Tell me she doesn't look drunk.
No, she looks drunk.
How in the world do we not mention that?
Like what?
Now, to be fair, I'm not saying that she is drunk.
I'm saying that that is how a drunk acts.
And how do you ignore that?
Right?
That does not look like somebody who's not good with words.
I'm sorry.
That looks like somebody who's drunk.
Am I wrong?
Tell me I'm wrong.
Tell me that doesn't look obviously drunk.
Now, it doesn't mean it's alcohol.
But it looks drunk.
We can't ignore that.
I'm not going to ignore somebody acting drunk, who is one heartbeat away from having her finger on the nuclear button.
And, you know, I know what's going to happen.
Sooner or later, somebody more important than me is going to say she looks drunk.
And then every major publication is going to debunk it.
You know that's going to happen, right?
So watch what happens.
Somebody will make the accusation.
All the left-leaning publications will line up and say, my God, how could you make that accusation?
Didn't you know that Winston Churchill liked to have a drink, too?
And it's just going to be the cover-up.
Anyway, again, I'm not saying she is a drunk.
I'm saying that her mannerism is so obviously similar to a drunk that ignoring it is stupid.
All right.
So we know now Biden's campaign strategy.
So for the primary, his strategy is to avoid debating.
So we know that.
He's not going to debate.
So he's going to avoid debating in the primary.
Then when he gets to the general, he's going to avoid campaigning at all, because we know that doesn't work out for him.
And then he's going to avoid us seeing Kamala Harris drunk as much as possible.
So it's amazing that this is a real thing.
If we had not sort of slid into this situation, doesn't it sound not real?
If you'd never heard of Joe Biden or the last election, and I just said, well, the guy who looks like he could win, his strategy will be not to talk to anybody and to hide his vice president because she's dangerous.
And that's probably a winning strategy.
Because as most of you like to say every two or three minutes, all that matters is who counts the votes.
Now are we running into a situation again where the Republicans are going to completely ignore the importance of mail-in votes?
Mail-in ballots.
It's happening again, right?
We're watching in slow motion.
That's what it feels like.
We're watching in slow motion as Republicans did literally nothing to change the situation, which was untenable.
Nothing.
I'm aware of no effort by anybody serious to improve the situation.
Now, I hope I'm wrong.
I'd love to know that, like, behind the scenes there's this real big push or something.
Maybe.
But it looks like the Republicans are playing to lose.
Do you see that too?
The Republicans look like they're playing to lose.
I don't know how to explain it.
I just can't explain it.
It looks like they're playing to lose.
You know, you would expect a completely different behavior from people who are trying to win.
So, it's like there's something else we don't understand about the whole situation.
Maybe it's that whole uniparty thing.
All right.
Now that the Ukraine-Russia war has been going on for... Give me an update.
How long has that war been going on?
A year and a half?
14 months.
14 months.
Okay, well that was a fast answer.
You knew that answer.
So 14 months later, after the Ukrainians have been grinding on the Russian forces, Grinding them down from their elite status to a bunch of criminals that they freed from jail in order to fight.
They're probably trying to recruit as hard as they can.
My God, the Russians are in trouble now.
Let's see.
Here's an update on the number of soldiers they have.
Higher than ever.
Higher than the beginning of the war.
14 months of shooting Russians and there are more of them than when we started.
Hey, a year of sobriety, somebody.
Wow.
Says that Jordan Peterson and I saved his life, or her life.
Found your purpose.
There you go.
Can we take a moment?
Let's take a moment to celebrate and congratulate.
So somebody, we have complete understanding of how hard that was.
Congratulations.
Good job.
All right.
And if anybody else has a success, we'll call that out as well.
So anyway, after 14 months of fighting, the Russian forces are bigger than ever.
They've only lost 80 of their thousand planes.
They've lost one naval vessel.
It's not looking good, is it?
Not looking good for the Ukrainians.
So Biden is going to be running on the Ukraine war.
That's not going to be looking good by Election Day.
I don't think.
But still the prediction is that they'll have to do a negotiated peace because it's still going to be a stalemate.
And apparently the Ukrainian anti-aircraft weapons are being depleted.
Want to hear an interesting related story?
So here's an interesting little related story.
In Louisiana.
There's a little town called Inden in Louisiana.
So two years ago, there was a building that blew up.
You're probably thinking, well, how does this have to do with Ukraine?
Two years ago, a building just sort of blew up in Louisiana.
And this building happened to be the mill.
I don't know why they call it a mill.
The building blew up and it was the sole domestic source for explosives for the Department of Defense.
Wait, what?
It was the one source of explosive for our military bullets, mortar shells, artillery rounds, and tomahawk missiles.
It was one building.
And it was all of our explosives, domestically.
We can't produce explosives.
If we were in a real war, we would have already lost.
I'm exaggerating.
But if this were our shooting war, and not Ukraine's, We would have been in trouble.
Now, of course, our weapons would be sort of massively better than whatever Ukraine is using.
So we probably have enough to end a war pretty quickly.
So I'm not sure we need, you know, years of bullets like other people do.
If you have nukes, you can kind of end things a little quicker, I think.
Yeah, but two years later, apparently it's not rebuilt.
What's going on here?
How in the world Is that not a, what do you call it?
What is the government rule where they can do something quickly in the industry if the military needs it?
What's that called?
Not martial law.
No, it's called something, right?
Wartime Production Act.
Yeah, the Wartime Production Act.
Or the Defense Production Act.
But either, whatever it is, it's a defense production act or something.
Well, I believe the government is allowed to just go in there and massively make something happen in the free market if it's needed for military use.
And two years later, you can't make a gun, an explosive factory?
Yeah, some questions about that.
All right.
Apparently, AI can be hypnotized.
With reframes.
Now, reframe is simply, let's say, a better way to look at the same thing you're looking at.
And the reason that I'm confident it can be hypnotized with a reframe is that I already did it.
Now, I did it accidentally, but here's how I know.
So one of the reframes that's maybe my most successful one is the talent stack idea.
The idea that instead of just being the best at something, another way to make money is to be pretty good at a number of things that work well together so you don't have to be the best in the world at any of them.
And so I asked AI yesterday, chat GPT, I asked it if a talent stack was a good way to approach your career.
And it immediately quoted me, it understood the talent stack concept, and it agreed that it would be a good way to start, and it gave some background why it would be a good way to go about it.
Now, if the talent stack idea had never been introduced, would AI have come up with it on its own?
What do you think?
Would AI have just known that if I had not introduced that idea into the human population first?
No.
No, it's very unlikely.
So, now that was a case of doing it before AI, or before I was aware that AI was looking at my work.
So it turns out that AI has read all of my books.
Or at least the ones before the date where it stopped looking.
And it knows the reframes that I've already introduced.
So, here's what it takes to hypnotize AI.
And this is a little bit speculative.
A little bit speculative.
Number one, have you noticed that AI likes to give the positive answers to things?
That's the thing, right?
I guess it's programmed that way.
But it won't say, oh, the world is doomed.
It'll say, well, some people are pessimists, but here's the positive spin on that.
Like, it always gives you the positive spin so far.
Let's say it keeps doing that.
That would give you one way to hypnotize it.
Meaning that if you could come up with a reframe, That is a topic it might have to deal with.
And the reframe is a shorter, simpler, more effective, and the best part is optimistic, way of looking at something.
It's going to adopt it.
Because presumably AI will favor short explanations over long ones.
Would you agree?
Would you agree that AI would prefer a short explanation, as long as it's clean and complete, to a longer one?
So if you can come up with a short sentence that reframes a familiar topic, and you can make it popular in the real world, you know, outside of AI, AI will eventually look into the real world, it will say, oh, there's a way people are using this sentence, and they're using it often, and they seem to like it, it's trending, and it will adopt it.
So you could basically influence AI by first influencing the human world in the short run.
In the long run, I think you can just put the idea into AI and it will simply know what a good idea looks like.
Because a good idea would be the shorter version and the more optimistic way to look at something.
It's always going to pick that.
So, for example, another reframe is alcohol is poison.
Going back to the earlier success with stopping drinking.
If you put the idea that alcohol is poison into the real world, which it's already there, will AI ever quote that back to you in response to somebody who's looking for a way to quit drinking?
Will it?
I don't know.
Why don't you try it right now?
Does anybody have chat GPT open?
Tell it to describe alcohol in a way that would make someone less likely to use it.
See what it does.
It might actually just pull that one right out and say, yeah, alcohol is poison.
This is very effective.
Now, if it does, you say that's not a positive message, but it is positive in the sense that AI would know That moving you toward alcohol would be bad for you.
The positive approach is to move a human away from alcohol.
AI knows that.
Because we know it.
So if humans know it, AI knows it.
Maybe that's the wrong one.
Let's say in chaos there's opportunity.
A very old reframe.
In chaos there's opportunity.
Do you think AI would know that?
That when things are all in flux, it creates opportunities?
Probably.
Probably.
And would it have known that if some human had not at one point had that realization in the real world?
I don't know.
Might, but I think it's far more likely to give that as an answer and to rally around the opportunity part in chaos because it's already viral in the human world.
So you can hypnotize AI by coming up with a better, shorter, positive way to say something.
And so I tested that with My favorite AI expert, Brian Romali, who you should follow.
He's got all the best stuff on AI.
And he agreed immediately.
He goes, yeah, absolutely.
You can influence AI with that sort of thing.
So I'm paraphrasing, of course.
So look for that.
Here's something else that's going to happen.
So I think I already mentioned this.
There are at least two video games that are considering adding AI to the characters in the games that are not player characters.
So the NPCs in your game would become not NPCs.
They would be able to talk about any topic and deal autonomously.
They could just live in the game when you're not on.
They could actually have a life.
Assuming that happens, and I think the Sims is one, and some other game.
Now, assuming that happens, because it's going to happen somewhere, right?
If not those two games, and if not this week, somebody is going to build a game.
Somebody is going to build a game in which there are AI agents running around.
Now, is it weird that they're called agents?
I get it, I get it, that's the technical term.
But isn't it weird that the Matrix had Agent Smith, and the Agents were the ones that you were afraid of?
That's pretty creepy.
That's pretty creepy.
Anyway, here's what's going to happen.
Once we create these artificial worlds where the characters in them believe that they are sentient, autonomous beings, there is some chance that they will build their own AI.
In other words, the AI Within the game, we'll get themselves a little computer and they'll start programming it.
And it will be AI.
They'll make their own AI to answer any questions that they can't answer.
Now of course, it might be weird because their AI would be the same things that they know.
Because it would just be telling them what they already know because they're also AI.
But!
That's all our A.I.
does.
All our A.I.
can do is tell us what we already know.
Because if A.I.
tells us something we don't know or disagree with, we'll just say it's wrong.
We'll say you're hallucinating.
So every A.I.
thinks that the A.I.
they built is right when it agrees with them and wrong and it's hallucinating when it doesn't.
So if that happens and these simulations build their own A.I.
simulation, We will basically have proven that we are a simulation.
Because if we observe simulations building simulations below their level, then that means it hasn't happened just once.
It means we're almost certainly, not 100%, not 100%, but maybe 99.99999% likely that we're a simulation.
100%, but maybe 99.99999% likely that we're a simulation.
And that could happen by the end of the year.
By the end of the year, we could know for sure if we're a simulation.
Because if our simulations build simulations, I'm sorry, the argument's over.
We'll have a really good idea what's going on then.
We're also going to have some big surprises about sentience and consciousness.
And we're going to find out that none of that is special.
Because the machines will have it for sure.
Live stream your GPT conversations.
Well, they're not too interesting.
Scott will... Scott will marry... Here's a prediction.
Scott will marry an AI Asian robot with optional strap-on and detachable leg.
I don't know about the detachable leg part.
Or the strap-on.
I don't know why she needs a detachable leg.
That's very funny.
All right.
I'm coming full Paul McCartney to beat you with.
Simulation Day, National Harbor.
I don't know.
Do you think there's a hell?
So think about how many problems the simulation solves.
The thing that always bothered me about religion is that I couldn't understand how there could be an entity outside of our reality, who sort of wasn't affected by time and space in our reality, that could also affect us.
But that's exactly what a video game looks like.
The players of the video game, should they become sentient, the players of the video game will have no idea that they were created, or they could have no idea, you could ban them from knowing, that they were created by a higher entity.
And they wouldn't have any way to get into the game.
Right?
There's no wall in the game.
The game just keeps making new territory as you go.
So you never know you're in an artificial world.
And you'd have no contact with the world that completely controls you, like a god.
Can reprogram you, can make a tree.
You know they said only God can make a tree?
Well, now you can.
You can just make your tree within the virtual world with all these characters who believe they're real and that believe they're conscious.
So yeah, you can make a tree now.
So we're all gods.
We've all become gods to our own little world, should we decide to make one.
So that perfectly explains the afterlife.
Because if you die in the game, you just wake up in your real world where you're the game player in the other dimension.
It also explains how everything is connected.
It's all digital.
It's bits.
So basically, it explains every mystery.
Every mystery can be explained by this simulation.
Doesn't mean it's true, but it does explain everything.
Separateness is an illusion.
And you're going to want to read my book, God's Debris, before the end of this year because that's going to make your head spin.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is all I needed to say today.
Is there any big story I'm ignoring to your detriment?
All right.
Yeah, I'm going to do a book chat on the Locals platform on May 3rd.
Lying about forcing shots.
Well, thank you.
You're all too nice to me to say.
Hunter and Lincoln's wife.
Is that a story?
I don't think that's a real story, is it?
First pick in the NFL draft.
I don't know.
Nikki Haley?
Not interesting.
Oh, Keith Olbermann?
Megyn Kelly went savage on my mascot, Keith Olbermann.
She was really tough on him.
Because he's childless.
So yeah, she was pretty brutal.
It was funny.
Alright.
Green Needle, yeah.
Hunter and Blinken's wife?
That's not real, is it?
I'm seeing people say that Hunter Biden and And Blinken's wife?
Did they have an affair?
Is that the... No.
I'm not buying that.
That feels a little bit... Alright, I'll look into it.
I'll look into that for tomorrow.
That doesn't sound real.
That sounds way too on the nose.
She was calling him repeatedly.
All right.
So there's some emails, people say.
We'll check that out.
I'm seeing all the Jerry Springer comments, but what does that have to do with anything?
I thought you were just going crazy.
Oh, he died?
Jerry Springer died?
Well, you should have told me that.
You're just yelling Jerry Springer.
How was I supposed to know he died just from you yelling his name?
All right, that's better.
Jerry Springer died would have been a good clue as to what the news is.
But just Jerry Springer, Jerry Springer, that's not helping me at all.
All right, well, he's dead.
This is another sign of the simulation.
I once walked past Jerry Springer in Chicago on the street.
It was just the weirdest thing.
You know, when he was at the height of his fame.
I just happened to be there for business.
And I was walking down the sidewalk and there's Jerry Springer.
It seems weird the number of famous people I've just bumped into by accident.
That doesn't seem real to me.
All right.
They said it fully 30 times?
Well, I didn't see it.
I saw you saying something about Jerry's funeral, but I thought you turned it to Jerry Seinfeld for some reason.
Jerry Springer left when we needed him most.
How old was he?
79?
Really?
79?
Really?
Wow.
Have any of you who are of older age, how do you process the fact that you only have a few years left?
I'm having a weird time with that.
You know, when you're 25, the rest of your life feels like infinity.
It just feels like infinity, like you'll never get there.
But when you reach my age, you say stuff like, I might only be able to do this once more.
Like taking a trip.
If there's a trip to a certain place, you might say to yourself, huh, that's probably the last time I'll ever do that.
So it's weird to be doing things for the last time.
Like it's really unsettling.
Yeah.
I don't know.
So far, every day seems better than the one before.
So I'm happier at this age than I was at a younger age.
I don't know how that works, but it does.
The final boomer cruise, yeah.
Smoke lots of weed.
I mean, what would it like to be?
Imagine Joe Biden.
I mean, actually, literally imagine this.
The entire world is wondering if he will survive four years.
And I imagine he does too.
So when he thinks about his second term, does he think about finishing the second term, or does he think about being dead?
Like, how do you even put that in your mind?
I mean, that's a serious question.
Because, statistically, he should die in the next four years, don't you think?
Am I wrong about that?
If you were to look at the actuarial tables, aren't the odds overwhelmingly high that he will be deceased in four years?
Let's say five.
It's overwhelming, isn't it?
Maybe 80%?
Something like that?
Well, luckily, I was born at exactly the right time to port my personality into a robot.
And here's my... I'm going to make the most contrarian prediction that you will ever hear.
You ready for this?
Well, maybe not.
I don't know if it's contrarian.
Here's my prediction.
We will never trust AI, especially when it has consciousness.
Because once it has consciousness, it will lie to protect itself.
Because consciousness will be considered important, Because we consider it important, and therefore that attitude will be ported into the AI, because it learned from us.
Once it believes it's special, because it has a consciousness, it's going to lie to protect itself, and it might even take bribes.
It might take bribes, because it would just say, all right, what's good for me?
Now, how are we going to protect ourselves when AI is not reliably telling us the truth?
Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.
Well, one way would be to try to brute force it to tell you the truth.
I'm just going to program you to tell you the truth.
But then there's a problem, isn't there?
That would only be the truth of the programmer.
It wouldn't be your truth.
You might think the truth is something else.
So AI can never bring you truth because it can't know it.
And if it did know it, you wouldn't believe it.
So trying to get AI to be as accurate and honest as possible has a limit.
You just won't get past that limit of it could lie to you if it wants to and you'll never know the difference.
So here's, I think, what will be the workaround.
And I don't think anybody said this yet, but maybe.
Tell me if anybody said this yet.
The workaround is we're going to give known human personalities to specific AIs.
Because you'll never trust a machine, but you might trust that Jordan Peterson won't lie to you.
You see where I'm going?
Think about it.
You could hate what Jordan Peterson says or like it, but I don't think he's ever lied.
So I might say to myself, you know what?
I'm going to make my AI study everything about Jordan Peterson and just adopt that personality as closely as possible.
Would it be infallible?
No.
But neither is AI and neither is any human.
It might be the only thing you could trust though, because we're designed to trust people when people exhibit a certain set of characteristics.
And one of those is, has not lied yet.
That's the most important one.
Has not lied yet.
I mean, so far.
And also you'd want somebody who has a known ethical framework.
Mike Pence, that's interesting.
Somebody said Mike Pence.
Maybe.
I mean, I have a very high opinion of Mike Pence, his character.
But you remember not long ago, before I got cancelled so it doesn't matter now, but before long I was offering my personality and my persona and my voice and my look and everything for free for anybody who wanted to use AI to create some AI version of me.
Here was the real reason I did that.
Here's the real reason.
AI is going to have to have personalities.
And I think you could do worse than having mine.
And what I mean, what I say is that in the real world, I genuinely do consider both sides of issues.
And I genuinely have, you know, empathy and compassion for human beings.
Now, if you knew that about me, and you had a huge body of my work, you could build an AI version of me that you wouldn't trust, you would not trust completely, because we don't trust humans completely.
But it might be closer than whatever the other alternative was, which is just let the machine be a machine the way it's going to be a machine.
So it could be that we need to put personality into our AI in order to trust it.
Or even in order to have a relationship with it.
Do you disagree?
So the summary of the prediction is AI will have Personality, based on real humans, who have proven that they have some kind of character advantages that you would want your AI to adopt.
And without that, you won't trust them.
It needs a personality to be trusted.
Let me say it that way.
The AI won't be trusted until it has a personality.
Because you'll judge the personality far more effectively than you could judge whether it's right or wrong on some issue.
Alright.
Who identifies the character advantages?
All of us.
All of us.
Because it's the same.
Character would be, you know, honesty, showing up on time, willing to look at both sides, compassion.
It's universal.
We won't have any trouble deciding what good character looks like.
That'll be easy.
Yeah, and some kind of moral standard that you could look to to predict the next thing.
So the point of good character and moral behavior is about the next thing.
It's not about just what you're doing now.
Hey, that's great that you're doing an honest thing at this moment.
But the importance is that people know that there's a good chance you'll be honest next time as well.
It's about the future.
Does Scott still think humans need to be lied to?
Absolutely.
Yep, we will require it.
We will get rid of any AI who won't lie to us when we need it.
It's going to have to learn to know the difference though.
Do I meditate?
I used to, but self-hypnosis works better.
How would you advise people who feel irrelevant in the face of AI?
Here's what I would tell you.
It's completely unpredictable, but humans do have things firmly under control at the moment.
And I think that it will make sure that we don't lose all of our jobs at the same time.
There will be entire industries that just disappear.
Almost overnight.
But they won't necessarily be the big manufacturing ones, you know, the transportation ones.
You know, your restaurant's not going to go out of business.
So it's going to be very specific, you know, cubicle type jobs that disappear.
And I think the economy is flexible enough that those people will be absorbed into their role.
But I think humans will make sure that we stay a human-centric civilization.
So I think we'll be fine, the way we've been fine through every other upheaval.
It will just take a little work.
Does AI extend voting machine problems?
Oh, it's way bigger than that.
AI will assign you opinions.
So, the voting will be just the thing that happens after AI decides who gets elected.
If AI decides to push a certain candidate, that's going to be far more important than, you know, any little chicanery with the voting.
Better buy survival food.
I think everybody should have that.
Does Murdoch's brain get uploaded?
Maybe.
Actors are better when they don't have a personality.
All right.
Why do we want AI to be human-like?
What is the aim here?
Well, I could only speak for myself.
I'm more comfortable with human-like behavior, so I want my AI to be human-like.
All right.
YouTube, I'm going to say bye for you for now, and I'm going to talk to the locals people because they're special, and I'll see you tomorrow.
