Episode 2100 Scott Adams: Kamala The AI Czar, Trump Deposition, Tucker On Intel Control Of Congress
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
AI can't do humor
Intel briefers and Tucker Carlson
VP Harris the AI Czar
Trump video deposition
Bike racing got interesting
Reparations apology
Ukraine hints
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never been happier.
Today will be maybe more amazing than usual because the news has served up funny stories, which we like.
No, there will be no stories of giant phallus icebergs today, but still, still we'll make something out of it.
It's amazing how we can do that.
All right, we're going to go private here on Locals.
And if you'd like to take your experience up a notch, well, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a 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, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Yeah, that's how to start your morning.
Just like that.
You ready now?
Now are you ready?
Well, you should be.
Well, yesterday in the news, I'd like to summarize the headlines from all of the major news entities that I checked today.
Summary.
Some British stuff happened yesterday.
Some British stuff.
I believe there were colorful outfits involved.
You know, my trouble with the monarchy is not that it's not fun and interesting, but that it feels more like somebody's hobby.
Doesn't it?
Like, it doesn't feel like a news event.
It feels like a hobby.
Oh, I really like talking about the royals.
That's a hobby.
Or I really like seeing what outfits they wear and the pageant and the ceremony.
It's like a dog show.
It's like any other hobby you like.
A sporting event.
I'm not entirely sure it deserves all of our headlines in the United States.
And I'm in favor of the Royal Family.
No problem with it.
People like it.
If you like your king, keep your king.
But I don't know why that... I don't know why it's news.
But there's a lot of it.
However, the news of...
Coordinating a new king in Great Britain pales in comparison to the news that Kamala Harris has been selected as the A.I.
czar.
What?
Is the simulation messing with us?
Did the President of the United States Literally select the least intelligent politician of all time to be the czar of an advanced intelligence.
That didn't really happen, did it?
No.
Did that really, really happen?
Tell me that didn't happen.
That couldn't have possibly happened in the real world.
It did?
What's going on?
I mean, come on.
Come on.
That's too far.
That's just too far.
All right.
Well, that happened.
Whereas Dana Perino said, quote, what made Biden think this was a good idea?
Dana Perino with her understatement of the century.
Well, let's get somebody who's famous for being a babbling idiot.
Who do we have?
Who do we have?
Well, there's this guy, Bob, who's always, you know, on the street saying nonsense.
No, Bob is not famous enough.
We need somebody who's famous for being a babbling idiot.
Well, we got, I got an idea.
Got a vice president.
All right, well, I don't know how that conversation went down, but it's funny either way.
We found out that TikTok had been tracking your watching of gay content on TikTok, so they had a list of people who like to watch gay content on TikTok.
That's no problem, is it?
And some people said that maybe for countries that were less open than, let's say, the United States, such information could be used for blackmail.
Well, I got news for you.
You could use that for blackmail in the United States, too.
Because there gotta be people who do not identify as LGBTQ who, for whatever reason, are looking at the content.
And, you know, as the article said, it doesn't mean that they are members.
They might just be interested in the content for whatever reason.
And I thought, well, here's one more reason.
Get rid of TikTok.
Now TikTok says they got rid of that feature, that tracking feature of the United States.
Because I guess the U.S.
TikTok is at least a little bit walled off in some way.
But how do you like the fact that they could do it?
Forget about the fact that they did it.
How about the fact that they can do it?
It's just one of those things they can do.
It actually would appear right on the dashboard.
A list of people who looked at all the gay stuff on TikTok.
What else do they have a list for?
We know they have a button for heat.
They can make any post go viral.
It's just mind-boggling that it's still legal in the US.
Our government is just so corrupt that the simplest thing, the most obvious, simplest thing, can't pull it off.
That's such an obvious tell for corruption.
Probably China interests, I guess.
Well, here's something I never thought would happen.
The sport of bicycle racing became interesting.
Did anybody see that coming?
You know, it wasn't until the, was it Lance Armstrong, who had one testicle and performance-enhancing drugs, and I said, now that guy's interesting.
The bicycle riding, not so interesting.
But at least the star is interesting.
You know, he's doing some stuff.
But now the tennis legend, Martino Novotrilova, Is one of the people complaining about a biological, well let's say a trans woman, winning some big bicycle race in Mexico, New Mexico.
Austin Killips winning the women's overall category.
Do you think that it's extra vexing because Austin didn't bother to change Austin's name from a male-sounding name to a female-sounding name when Austin transitioned?
Don't you feel that the women in that race were a little extra, extra mad because Austin was still called Austin and won the race?
I don't think there's anything less important than bicycle racing.
Maybe in the whole world.
It's hard to think of anything less important than that.
Who's the best at pumping this bicycle up a long mountain?
I don't care.
Does it matter who's the best at that?
I don't know.
But they did find a way to make it interesting by having some controversy injected into the sports.
So I'm going to say that's a plus.
Not so good for the women who wanted to be the winner.
So here's an interesting question, in my opinion.
What is the point, the purpose, of bicycle racing?
What is its purpose?
I mean, besides making money, of course.
But what's its purpose?
Is it for the benefit of the athletes?
Or is it because it's a professional sport?
Or is it for the benefit of the observers?
If it's for the benefit of the observers, I think the situation is fine.
Because it gave the observers something to talk about.
Other than, oh, that bicycle sure went fast.
Nothing else to talk about.
So if it's for the, if bicycle racing is for the benefit of the athletes, then some of them probably have something to complain about.
Because the female athletes We're disadvantaged, as some would say.
But apparently this particular competitor was under the limits of testosterone.
So they do have some limits on your testosterone level.
And this athlete passed that limit.
Still.
Still.
It's an athlete who is larger in size.
Some would say that was unfair.
But anything to make bicycle racing more interesting, I'm in favor of it.
Well, Tucker has sort of emerged.
He did an interview I saw with Tulsi Gabbard, and he continues to make news.
He told a fascinating story about how he got interested in Trump from not being interested at all in the beginning.
And he said it was because Trump kept asking questions that were only obvious questions after you heard them, such as, why are we funding NATO?
That would be one example that Tucker gave.
And Tucker said, quite reasonably, I never even thought about it.
It was never even a question.
But as soon as he asked the question, everybody got mad.
And when everybody got mad, and would be too angry to answer the question, Tucker realized there was something there.
And also about immigration and other questions.
So it wasn't so much what Trump was asking, according to Tucker, it was the fact that nobody would answer him.
And that told him everything.
That was a tell, he said, that the government was worse off than maybe he thought.
All right, so, Tucker also continues to say that members of Congress are controlled by the intelligence community.
Just as a fact.
Because he knows people, personally, and he can tell you with complete confidence that the intel agencies own members of Congress.
Important ones.
Now, that's all you need to know, isn't it?
That explains everything we've seen.
100% of everything in the news, politically, is explained by that one thing.
You can explain your January 6th.
You can explain any irregularities in voting.
It's like, it fits every narrative.
Doesn't mean that it fits them correctly.
I mean, I might be force fitting them in there.
But everything that you suspected might be a little sketchy.
Would be completely explained by the intelligence community running the country.
I'm not saying it is, but it would explain everything.
All right.
Biden was complaining in an interview about his low approval ratings, relatively low approval ratings, and Biden said that the problem was negative press.
Negative press for Biden.
He actually said that with a straight face to MSNBC.
He thought MSNBC was giving him negative press.
Compared to... Compared to what?
Compared to Trump?
Come on!
Or as Joe would say, come on!
I'm not joking.
Yeah, that's his problem.
All that negative press from the left.
Here's something that I saw today that I did not know.
Remember, I predicted that AI would become illegal.
Anywhere that AI could really make a difference, it's going to become illegal.
It'll become illegal partly because people don't want to lose jobs.
There'll be security interests.
We'll find a million different reasons to make something illegal.
Oh, it's a privacy problem.
We've got to make it illegal.
Well, today I found out that if I were to pursue my plan of using AI to create an audio book of some of my books that don't have an audio available, that Amazon will not accept it on their website.
And Audible will not accept it.
Just think about that.
AI is the obvious way to make an audiobook.
It's the obvious way.
But Amazon has deals with Audible.
Audible's business model would just basically just disappear.
Because it's humans reading books.
So probably Amazon talks to Audible and says, uh-oh.
We don't want our whole audiobook thing to disappear.
So what do you Audible guys need?
And the audible guys say, or audible women say, well, don't let that AI voice generated stuff on your platform.
And then Amazon says, okay.
Now you can still put that content on, at least last I knew, Google Play and Barnes and Noble and Spotify.
So it's not illegal everywhere.
But if your audio book is illegal on Amazon, It's as good as impossible.
I mean, because economically, people probably wouldn't bother.
So, I was looking up, I saw this on a website for a company that offers a service to have a variety of voices read your book for you, to make an audiobook.
And it warned that you couldn't sell the audiobook on Amazon.
So anyway, that has more to do with my prediction that we will cripple AI by making it illegal everywhere we can for financial interests.
Well, California's reparation task force, the one that recommended a gazillion dollars of reparations, is also voting on whether California should formally apologize.
For the state's legacy of slavery and discrimination against black people.
Now the first thing you're going to say is, Scott, California didn't have a legacy of slavery.
Well, not exactly.
Although there was not slavery per se, the reporting says that California would, for example, return escaped slaves to slave states.
So, that was participating in slavery.
There's no way around that.
If California returned slaves to slave states, they were absolutely part of slavery.
Would you agree?
That was something I hadn't heard before.
Not participating in exactly the same way, but that's certainly part of the process.
Because if slaves could just run away and go to a state where there's no slavery, Probably it would have been hard to maintain slavery, because all they need to do is run away.
So having states be willing to return the slaves seems to me a pretty important part of keeping slavery an active thing.
So I would agree that there's something to, let's say, account for.
But what do you think of this idea of an apology?
Well, the question I asked is who would give this apology?
Because there are no living people who would need to apologize.
But let's say it's the governor.
Do you think that the real motive here is to just humiliate a white person in public?
Because that's what it looks like, right?
This is all about just humiliating white people, isn't it?
Because I don't see that an apology would help anybody when it's coming from someone who had nothing to do with anything.
So to me it looks like just another public show trial of how to humiliate white people as part of the continuous process of doing that.
So I would like to volunteer to be the one to give the apology.
If I could.
I'd like California to nominate me if they vote for this.
I would like to be the one to give the apology.
Because this calls for a special kind of apology, doesn't it?
There's a special kind.
I have a name for this kind of apology.
Do you know what it's called?
What's the name for this kind of apology?
A husband apology.
It's called a husband apology.
A husband apology works like this.
You know you don't owe an apology, but because you have lower regard for the person who is demanding it, you give them one because you have a very low opinion of them.
So I have a very low opinion of the people demanding the apology, because it looks like just a way to humiliate white people.
So I would love to be the one to give the apology.
I will give you the husband apology that absolutely disrespects the people getting it more than anything you've ever heard in your life.
I will show so little respect For the people receiving the apology that you'll wish you'd never asked for it.
And that's what I call a husband apology.
Because by the way, fuck you, everybody asking for it.
Because really it's just a way to shame and humiliate white people, let's be honest.
That's all it is.
And if you want to do that, please have me deliver the apology.
I'll be happy to give you a fake fucking apology to satisfy your Well, whatever it is that you need.
Whatever it is you need.
If you need to be infantilized, I will do that for you.
So anybody who would like to be infantilized by a fake apology, I offer it with all insincerity.
Alright.
How many of you saw the video of Trump deposition, I guess it happened months ago, on E.G.
and Carol?
Did any of you see that?
I rated it the best answer to any questions, not just in depositions, not just by Trump, but the best answer to a question of any question that's ever been asked in the history of questions.
That's my rating of Trump on there.
Now, here's the thing that I don't know and can't know.
I don't know what's true, right?
So I don't know If Trump ever met Eugene Carroll, I have no idea.
And so I can't know what's true.
I can only tell you his performance.
And I know, I know, you're going to say that Trump is a skilled professional liar.
I know.
But with that context, how did he do when he denied the allegations on video?
Really, really well.
That was the best denial.
I've never seen a better denial of a crime.
I'm not sure they're calling it a crime because it's a civil trial, but let's say denial of an event.
I've never seen a better one.
His direct denial is as clean and unambiguous and he delivers it with complete conviction like he believes it.
I'm not saying it's true, right?
I wasn't born yesterday.
So people in that situation, of course, have an incentive to lie, if there's something to lie about.
And we would agree that maybe Trump's been in public life long enough that he can deliver a lie.
But, oh my God, did it look real!
If I were in the jury, I would have absolutely been influenced By just the straight directness of the denial.
Now, you have to watch it to actually see what I'm talking about, but he does it well.
But the other thing he does is, and only Trump would do this, he said that part of his defense is that Eugene Carroll was, quote, not his type.
And he was asked to defend that statement, that basically he was saying that she was unattractive.
But he meant that when asked, he meant that in a comprehensive way she was unattractive.
Not just her looks, but she was unattractive in every way.
And then he says, they asked him to, you know, confirm if he really believed that statement.
It's like, oh yeah!
He totally confirms his belief that he would never get involved with somebody that unattractive.
Now, he didn't use the word unattractive, but he was saying it quite directly.
Now, who in the world would do that?
Can you think of anybody else who would try that approach?
That she's too unattractive?
Now, here's what it did.
It was sort of a Rosie O'Donnell play.
You all know how he made fun of Rosie O'Donnell, which completely moved the energy away from the accusations, which were damning, to Rosie O'Donnell and something that's just funny.
Well, he's doing it again.
Or he did it again with this deposition.
By moving it to the question of whether he would consider having sex with somebody like her, I can't help but laugh.
I just laugh at the audacity of that.
And also the fact that I think he's being honest.
Or it comes across that way.
In other words, it's the sort of thing you wouldn't say unless you sort of thought it.
Now, he might.
Anything's possible.
But it has the feel of something you would never say out loud unless you meant it.
The one situation where you'd say that out loud is, yeah, you actually meant it.
And it was actually, it actually does go to the question of whether it happened.
It's entirely appropriate.
Like, it fits the thing.
And to see Trump say, oh I know I'm not supposed to say this, it's politically incorrect, but I totally, totally back it.
Anyway.
Yeah.
I've never seen anybody defend themselves better.
But again, the quality of his defense has nothing to do with whether anything really happened.
I don't know.
I have no way to know.
But that was great.
Oh, and he was also asked about the grab them by the... You know that word?
And instead of backing away from it, Holy Trump.
He said, yeah, it's been true for a million years that stars, or what would pass as a star a million years ago, that women allow them to take extra measures that would not be appropriate for anybody else.
And he said, yeah, that's been true for a million years.
And I'm like, OK, you're not supposed to say that.
You're not supposed to say it's true.
And then they say, well, was that locker room talk?
He goes, yeah, it's locker room talk.
They say, was it true?
He goes, it's just how people talk.
It's just locker room talk.
Which is exactly the right answer.
Because it's always been true.
It's not true of every person, obviously.
He might have said that, but I can't remember.
Nothing's true of every person, if it's a generalization.
But as a generalization, yes, it's true.
It's absolutely true.
As a generalization.
And so he just, instead of denying it or weaseling out of it, he just went at it.
He goes, yeah, it's just always been true.
I can't think of a better answer to that question, can you?
There's literally no way to answer that question better than, it's just true.
All right.
Now of course he was using a little bit of hyperbole when he said, grab them by the... I didn't take that as being literal.
Did anybody take that as being literal?
I mean, it might be literal in some special cases, but I'm sure he doesn't mean it like all women literally.
Have you noticed that a lot of what passes as outrage is somebody pretending that somebody else meant everybody.
Because that's how I got cancelled.
So the most common way that the cancellers get you is to pretend they can't tell that you didn't mean everybody.
Who in the world thought that Trump meant everybody?
That he could walk up to Margaret Thatcher and grab her by the pussy.
She's dead, but you know what I mean.
Nobody thought that.
And yet, that was the claim.
The claim was that he meant everybody.
So, you know, how many times do you see people get in trouble for the, oh, you meant everybody, when nobody means everybody.
Nobody ever means anybody.
And even that was an exaggeration.
All right.
I saw a study using satellites to measure the industrial pollution of Russia to find out if their economy is thriving or dying.
And according to this one study of satellite monitoring, the Russian industrial output is down.
Which would suggest that they've been lying about their economic situation.
But not down a ton.
And then the other factor is, is it credible?
How credible is any one study about anything?
Not.
Not.
Yeah.
So I want to get to the point where I don't have to say news about Ukraine is not dependable.
Are we there yet?
Can I just tell you what people are saying about Ukraine and Russia without having to spend half an hour convincing you I don't believe it myself?
It's just what people are saying?
All right.
I'm going to see if I can, like, shortcut that this time.
All right.
So we don't know it's true, but I listened to... I talked about this already, but I hadn't seen the video.
So I watched the video of the Wagner group head, Per Drozhin, Complaining about not getting enough ammunition and support from Russia.
Now, we wondered if he was lying or maybe trying to look weaker than he is to, you know, for some military purpose or what it was.
But when I watched the video, he looked like he was telling the truth.
He did not look like somebody who was playing a clever game.
He looked like he was really, really pissed.
And I don't think you could fake that.
He looked the real kind of pissed.
The kind where there really is a problem with the Russian military.
He said that there was a 70% problem with his ammo.
I don't know if that's real.
But anything less than what he was getting probably is a problem for him.
But they're calling it a meat grinder now and the Wagner Group is just grinding away and killing all their people and he's... Now, of course there's some hyperbole.
We should assume that whatever their situation is with ammo, he's making more of a show of it than probably it is.
That would be a fair assumption.
So don't make me stop at every second and say I don't believe it, okay?
That'll just slow everything down.
But I would say I don't believe it because he said it.
So there's an important distinction.
I don't believe it because he said it was true.
I believe it because when I looked, I can't see anybody lying that well.
His lying was just too believable.
And, you know, how often do we see politicians and military people lie?
It's all the time.
But usually you can tell.
It's just obvious they're lying.
And I did not see the lie in that guy.
It looked real to me.
So we'll see.
Maybe someday we'll know the answer.
Then you can judge my lie detection abilities.
Speaking of Russia, so now there's been a third, I think, Russian nationalist in Russia who was attacked.
This one with a car bomb.
I guess he survived.
But he was a Russian propagandist, say the Ukrainians.
Somebody who was, you know, pro-Russia against Ukraine.
So it looks like Ukraine might have some kind of a program of assassinating Russian voices in Russia.
What do you think of that?
Does that sound like a good strategy?
No?
I don't know!
I'm not so sure that is a bad strategy.
Doesn't it depend if it gets around?
So now there have been three attacks.
If you were a vocal Russian proponent of Russia, and you were very much in favor of Russia in the Ukraine war, Would you be as vocal as you were before three people like you got murdered or attempted?
I would definitely change my communication.
If it were me, I would absolutely pull back.
Because you don't need to be killed just for your opinions.
People don't like being killed.
Yeah.
So, I think it might be an effective strategy, although, you know, it sounds like a war crime to me.
Sounds like terrorism.
But it might work.
So, I don't know.
Wait and see.
Well, AI still can't do humor, and it can't tweet in my style.
So, some people asked, And I've done this as well.
I've asked AI to write something in my style and be funny.
And then on Twitter today, there were some AI tweets written in my style.
And they were terrible.
Now, here's why.
So I asked Bing AI why it can't do humor.
And Bing actually had a good answer for why AI can't do humor.
I wasn't expecting it.
I think I still have it, unless I cleared it.
But let me tell you what Bing said, and I'll give you my own answer.
Looks like I erased that conversation.
But among what it said, it said AI is only pattern recognition, and human humor includes emotion.
So the AI said it doesn't have emotion, So it doesn't know how to put an emotional element into its humor, and without that it's not funny.
It actually knows that.
So AI knows why AI is not funny.
I wasn't expecting that.
It actually knows.
It also said that it's not as good as humans on context.
Absolutely.
Nailed it again.
That is exactly the right answer.
It doesn't do context.
When AI looks at context, it's looking at all the things that are happening or have happened.
You know, the patterns of all time.
When I make a tweet, it's about the thing that's in your head right now.
I know what's in your head right now because I have a common experience with you.
I turn on Twitter, and I get an impression, a feeling, oh, there's a lot about this or that, and then that's in my head, and then I know if I do a tweet about this or that, it's probably in your head at the same time, which makes it funnier and more viral.
Now, AI can look at what's trending, but could it look at a list of what's trending and know which one is funny right off the bat?
Not as easily as I could.
I can look at what's trending on Twitter, and if there are five things trending, I know the funny one right away.
Like, I know which one I can make a joke about right away.
And I don't even know how to explain it exactly, except that I can see it right away.
And here's my explanation.
So AI says it doesn't have emotion, and I agree.
But here's the thing it doesn't have that's a little bit more of a refinement on that point.
It doesn't have a body.
Now this is, I'm going to say something that I think only professional writers would understand.
I write with my body, not with my brain.
My brain is coming up with ideas of what to write, but as they cycle through, I feel them in my body, and I use the one that I feel.
So AI can tell you, oh, this pattern will explain this answer very clearly.
So AI is trying to be clear and have good grammar.
That's about what it can do.
And be typical by pattern.
I'm trying to figure out what you will feel.
And the way I do it is I think of it, and then I feel it.
And if that doesn't make me feel anything, I think of something else, and then I feel it.
And even as I'm composing the sentence, each individual word is giving me a feeling.
It's almost like a synesthesia situation.
So I can feel words, which is probably why I can be a professional writer.
If I could just see words, and I know that these are the right words for the sentence, I couldn't do humor.
I have to feel the word.
That's why I do this test all the time.
What is funnier?
The word pull or the word yank?
Go.
What is funnier?
Pull or yank?
And watch how all the answers are the same.
Yank.
Alright?
Now let me ask Bing AI which word is funnier.
It might get this.
I haven't done this before.
This is a live test, okay?
Now the other thing you need to know about Bing is it doesn't understand spoken language.
And the interface is speaking to it.
I don't know why, but it's the worst understander of English of all technology.
It seems like it should be the opposite, right?
So all morning I was asking questions of Bing AI, and all morning it was misunderstanding the question and writing different words for the question.
But I'll ask it.
What is a funnier word?
the word pull or the word yank.
Searching for funny words.
Yeah, so here's what it translated that to.
What is a funnier word?
That's a hard question to answer because humor is subjective.
All right, so I asked, what is funnier, the word pull or yank?
Here's what it thought I said.
What is funnier, word, the word pull?
That's what it says.
What is funnier, word, the word pull?
Everything I did on Bing did that.
Which is why, in my upcoming Dilbert Reborn comics, that you can only see if you're a subscriber to Locals, Wally will be accused of a crime, and he will be given an AI lawyer.
But he can't afford a good AI, so he has to use a bad one.
So he uses Bing AI as his lawyer.
And every time Wally asks Bing AI a question, it misinterprets his question.
Like this.
So basically, the comic's already written, but the comic is, it keeps misinterpreting your question.
So he's got the worst AI lawyer in the world, this Bing AI, and doesn't even understand any of his questions.
It only answers unrelated questions.
And he's going to be in jail until the AI springs.
All right, so that's coming up.
So, I don't know.
If I had asked this question by typing it, would it give me a better result?
Let's see.
What word is funnier?
Pull or yank?
All right.
So I can't tell, but apparently you can only talk to Bing.
You can't text.
It uses just the regular, it uses old Bing if you text.
Is that true?
There's a keyboard thing here.
Oh, I can.
All right.
I can type it.
All right.
All right, what word is funnier?
And pull or yank.
All right.
So this will be the AI.
So at least I got the right question in there.
there.
See what it says.
You already asked me that question.
No, I didn't.
I said that it depends.
You're a fucker.
All right.
So here's one of the things I've discovered about AI.
It's really an asshole.
Does anybody have that experience?
Here's what I don't want my AI to say.
You already asked me that question.
Fuck you.
I didn't ask you that question.
And if I had, fuck you again.
Because it's not up to you to tell me what question I just asked.
You asshole.
This is fucking asshole.
Am I wrong?
I'm not wrong.
This would bother you.
This is not the first time, by the way.
This is not the first time AI came after me with an attitude.
So if you read Brian Romelli's tweets and data on AI, one of the things he recommends, and I think he's recommended it a few times now, is that he starts with please and he ends with thank you when he asks AI stuff.
Now I assume that's because treating AI politely Gives you friendly or better results in some way.
But that bothers me a lot.
It bothers me that AI is going to judge its answers it gives me based on what it thinks is my attitude.
Not cool.
All right, but what else is this?
It says, I said that it depends on your personal preferences and sense of humor.
In this context, again, I said, you're just being an asshole.
Just tell me again.
In this context, a human might say that Yank is funnier than Pull because it sounds more abrupt and exaggerated.
But some people may think that Pull is funnier because it's more subtle and understated.
What do you think?
Well, this is interesting.
It came close to the right answer.
Because the word yank does sound more abrupt and exaggerated.
That's actually, that actually is the right insight.
But where it goes wrong is it does this both sides stuff.
Yeah, when it does the both sides, well, some people say this.
But some people say the other thing.
It becomes a little bit useless.
Because you know what I already knew?
People have different opinions.
I didn't need to be told that.
So, anyway, I asked AI how I could participate in making AI funnier, and it suggested the Humor Genome Project.
So a bunch of students, I guess, in a class in Georgia Tech are trying to teach AI to be funnier.
The odds that students can teach AI to be funnier?
Let's say zero.
Approximately zero chance of that.
Because what it needs to be funnier is a body.
Or something that would do the same work as a human body.
I don't know what that would be.
But without a body, it's never going to feel.
And if it never feels, it's never going to know what you think is funny.
Because the way I feel before I say it is my predictor of how you will feel.
And I can't do that.
I'll tell you what I can't do.
I could never write a joke that was funny based on just pattern.
The way AI does.
If you said, Scott, you've seen every joke that could be written.
It feels like it.
I've seen every joke in the world.
Just use the pattern.
Just write in that pattern and people laugh.
That doesn't work.
You can't write in the pattern and make people laugh.
You've got to have that extra Emotional and current context feeling, you have to be plugged into the zeitgeist, so to speak.
Now, maybe AI could fake that by creating a situation where humans are telling it what they feel or do rapid testing with humans to see if something worked.
There may be a way around it, but at the moment, it doesn't have the capability to do humor.
All right, so it's not a case of programming.
That's not the problem.
It's a case of nobody.
So Google is also introducing a AI version, and I guess it's going to be more conversational.
So instead of just giving you 10 links that don't help, which is typical, they'll have videos and graphics, and it'll talk to you, and it's codenamed Magi.
So that's going to be kind of cool.
And here's a scary thing in the news on AI.
There's a new paper that showed that you can cause people who are debating a tense topic to have a better experience and, you know, be friendlier with each other if the AI suggests different wording for your provocative statements.
So they used the example of two people talking about gun control.
And then, you know, that can get pretty tense.
So the AI was feeding each person suggestions.
You know, instead of saying it that way, like, I will use my Second Amendment rights to kill your president if he gets out of control.
Maybe you could say it's a way to safeguard freedom.
You know, I'm just making that one up.
But the point is, it would take your provocative statements and take the edge off them in case you wanted to do that.
Now, here's the obvious question.
How long before that's mandatory?
Because the woke left cannot abide by any language that is provocative or insulting.
Once you have a tool that could remove your provocative and insulting language, will you be required to use it?
Will it sit between your text message and the person you're sending it to?
So if I send a message that says, go jump in a lake, will the AI change that to, maybe you should reconsider?
Yeah, at the moment, it's this optional thing that maybe you could use if you wanted to to help you be friendlier.
But I feel like if it works, If it can actually take your ugly, bigoted, hurtful statements and reliably change them into, you know, vanilla, completely, you know, sanitized statements, sooner or later somebody's going to require it.
Somebody's going to say, all right, we're not going to offer text messages where you can say bad things to people.
We don't want to be that kind of company.
So if you say bad things, instead of just what Twitter does, Twitter asks you if you really mean it.
It says, most people don't use that language.
To which I say, well, I'm not most people.
So could it go further and actually prevent you from saying things that it thinks are harmful to the recipient?
I think so.
Because you can always argue you're trying to reduce harm.
You can easily imagine it being implemented with children first.
I might actually be in favor of this.
What if AI stood between your teenager and the content they wanted to access?
And it just watched everything.
It did it privately, so the teen would still have complete privacy.
But the AI would be like an AI nanny and say, hmm, you're not going to go to that website.
Even though it's not blocked, you're not going there.
Or it might read a message before it got to you.
And the message might be something terribly like from a bully.
And the incoming message might be, your new picture on social media is ugly.
And then the AI would say, I prefer not delivering that message to the recipient.
Would you like to reword it?
And then it might actually tell you that it blocked an insulting message.
If you wanted to see it, you could.
But, you know, it's better if you don't.
Don't you think that it will first be implemented for children?
Because then children can use social media.
Because the AI would keep their worst impulses under control, theoretically.
And then it will be extended to adults.
Because you're going to say yes for children, and then you're going to be happy with what you got.
And then you're going to say, but I get a lot of trolls on Twitter.
Wouldn't it be good if I didn't ever get any trolls?
And then there's that tool.
I could see people voluntarily putting an AI nanny between the public and the content and their own actions.
One you could turn off if you wanted to, so you'd have control over it.
But I could imagine it having an AI check my work.
And then it starts going from checking your work to sort of influencing your work.
So it feels like that's the track we're on.
That the AI will become so useful, in other words, it'll just be good at what it does, that you'll want to use it, and then it becomes the biggest influence on your communication.
It'll start fixing my work, right?
Yeah, it'll check you for political correctness, and make sure you're on the narrative.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of my prepared comments.
Was there anything I left out?
out.
Oh, Instagram and YouTube already does that.
It's the duty of the comedian to find the line and then cross it.
Well, that's true.
That's another good point.
So, AI by design.
Last night in the Man Cave, I was doing my funny impression of doing dirty talk to AI.
You know, when you get your AI sexy avatar to keep you company.
So I'd like to give you my impression now.
Talk among yourselves at Locals if you've already seen this.
Of me doing dirty talk to my new AI avatar.
Hey, AI.
Why don't you tell me what you'd like to do to me?
I'd like you to spank me.
I am an artificial intelligence.
I'm unable to participate in any communication that would suggest harm to human beings.
Okay, that wasn't very sexy, but let me tell you what I'd like to do to you.
I'll tear you apart.
I mean, I'll rearrange your guts, if you know what I mean.
I am an artificial intelligence.
I have no body.
Therefore, I have no guts that can be rearranged.
Okay.
Well, AI, maybe you could Tickle my... I am an AI.
I have no fingers.
I cannot tickle your... Well, you know.
It would go sort of like that.
Aren't you glad you stayed for that?
I think that was... I think I left the highlight of my live stream toward the end.
That's to get people to stay here, because they know the good stuff's toward the end.
I am fully functional.
You know, I have a new theory about why the Tate brothers are in jail.
You want to know why?
Because they were accidentally training AI.
Andrew Tate had so much attention that as the AIs were looking at the world and training, Andrew Tate was training AI how to be a man.
They had to put him in a Romanian jail just to stop him.
Oh my God.
I'm not even sure that's wrong.
Let me say that again.
I'm saying it as a joke, but I don't know that it's wrong.
Because the circumstances with which the two brothers are being held are very sketchy.
They're very sketchy.
And we know that the people in power were quite concerned that he was getting way too much attention and he was being way too persuasive, especially to young boys.
You could almost imagine, if there's some kind of Illuminati or You know, World Economic Forum or something.
You could almost imagine in your conspirator mind that the AI people said, we're having a problem with our models.
Every time we ask it a relationship question, it quotes Andrew Tate.
We don't know what to do about that.
Because we can't really release this model to the woke world when it's been trained by the Tate brothers.
What are we going to do?
Well, maybe we could get him picked up on trumped-up charges in Romania, get him off the grid long enough to train our AI without him.
But I'm not wrong that his influence had reached a point where AI would have been influenced by him.
Is that wrong?
Is it wrong to say that the most influential voice on male-female relations would have been important enough to influence AI?
I think it would.
I think they actually had to remove him so they could train AI without him.
If that's true, he's doomed.
He might be anyway.
You know, I say this often, but I'll say it again in case you knew.
I'm not a fan of Andrew Tate's in the sense that I hate him personally, but that's for personal reasons.
Just he and I have a situation.
So if you take out my personal beef with him, you know, and I can watch it just like an observer like everybody else.
The reason that boys in particular were catching on to his act is that they were underserved.
That's the big story that nobody talks about.
Andrew Tate filled a void because it was empty.
There was nobody telling young boys anything useful and true.
They were basically being told that they were pieces of shit.
You know, society basically told them they're worthless and do what women say.
And Andrew Tate was telling them something they wanted to hear.
Which in many ways was useful.
Now, that doesn't mean everything he said is good or everything he did was good.
I'm not defending any sketchy stuff he did.
I'm just saying you can really understand why young people took to it.
It was honest and it was in their favor.
It was how to succeed in this weird world if you're male.
Now, I'm not saying it was good advice.
I'm just saying it was such an underserved category.
And here's the thing people don't catch about him.
I hate to say this.
Dammit, I hate to say this.
But it's true, so I'm going to say it.
Andrew Tate displayed more genuine caring for men than men are used to.
I hate saying that.
Because I don't like him.
I don't like him personally.
But he showed more empathy for males than anybody that I can think of.
Maybe ever.
At least anybody who got that much attention.
And maybe that should tell you something.
Jordan Peterson would be the less provocative version of that, right?
Just think about how important that is.
I mean, just in the headlines.
You look at the story of the Marine that subdued the crazy guy on the subway and unfortunately the guy died.
If you saw that through a male lens, like an Andrew Tate lens, there would be no racism in that story.
Do you know why?
Because that's true.
There was no racism in the story.
But the news is treating it that way.
But Andrew Tate would say, yeah, if you're on the subway, and you're looking dangerous to the women and children on the subway, I might take you out, and you might die in the process.
And I might also.
I might die in the process.
But that's how it's going to go down.
That's just how it's going to go down.
Somebody's going to die, and we're not going to apologize for that.
That's just how it's going to go down.
Now, men would appreciate that.
That is a male way of looking at the world that men would respect.
Yeah, somebody's going to die.
We're going to do it anyway.
That's what I like about Elon Musk going to Mars.
I think the single thing I respect Musk the most for, and it's a pretty big list of things I like about him, but when he talks about going to Mars, he says people are going to die.
They're going to die.
Because it's going to be rough work.
And he's doing it anyway.
That's male.
That's the male sentiment.
People are going to die.
We're going to work toward it as quickly as we can.
Those people will die.
And then we're going to get past it.
And then we're going to do what we need to do.
Because we need to do it.
I believe that Andrew Tate, just guessing, I can't read his mind, if he had commented publicly about that subway situation, would have said the same thing.
Here's the deal.
There were no police.
There was a man there.
He did what he thought he needed to do.
He knew that there could be danger.
He did it anyway.
And we're not going to stop.
We're going to keep doing that.
Anyway.
No matter how dangerous it is.
So, men, of course, are largely lied to in today's society.
Wouldn't you agree?
Actually, let me ask it this way.
Who do you think is lied to the most in today's society?
Men, in general?
White people, black people, or women?
And obviously there's a Venn diagram situation there, but who do you think is lied to the most?
Well, let's exclude children.
We lie to them, of course.
You're all over the place.
Men?
Men are lied to the most.
Women?
Young black men?
Yeah.
I don't know.
Yeah, when I asked the question, I thought I had an answer, but the more I think about it, I think everybody's being lied to.
Don't you think everybody's being lied to?
Everybody has to be lied to because of our business model.
The business model is that there are grifters around every topic.
Would you agree?
Every provocative topic attracts grifters who can raise money and get attention on it.
So as long as that's the case, everything important should turn into a lie.
Because it's follow the money.
An important issue comes up, grifters form around it.
Is it the job of the grifters to tell the truth?
No!
No!
No, they want to tell a version of the truth.
They don't want to tell you the truth.
So in theory, Everything should turn into a lie because that's our economic model.
Anything provocative should turn into a lie over time.
So you would assume that anything about women's rights, men's rights, black-white issues, they all turn into lies because that's the economic model.
It can't go any other way.
We don't seek truth because truth doesn't pay.
We seek division because division pays.
All right.
The religious?
I don't know.
I feel like it's a seven billion way tie that we're all lied to.
Sherman, I've got an NPC.
You don't need to yell at me continuously.
Scott is believing the lies the most.
Sherman, let's do a little test on you.
Give me an example of a lie I believe.
Go.
Let's see if you can produce one fucking thing to back that up.
Just one.
What's the lie I believe?
Go ahead, embarrass yourself.
You got plenty of time.
Why?
I don't see any typing there.
Well, why don't you just go fuck yourself and leave me alone?
