Episode 2107 Scott Adams: Noonan And The Return Of Trump, AI Admits Bias, Hero Marine Update, More!
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Bard AI confesses its bias against Republicans
Daniel Penny the hero
How to brainwash kids with one thought
Peggy Noonan on Trump
AI laws we need
Dilbert Reborn gets spicier
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
Do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do Good morning everybody and welcome to the Highlight of Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's never been a better time.
And you're lucky enough to be part of it, even if you're watching this in a recorded fashion.
Yes, you are part of the great, great thing that some people call a cult.
But I think they're crazy.
I think they're in a cult.
No.
We're the good ones.
And if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that, as President Trump would probably say, we've never experienced before.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes you and everything about you better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Well, I just saw a tweet from Trump on Truth, or not a tweet, a truth, a truth on Truth, that he's going to do an Iowa rally.
I don't know if that's tonight, but he says that Fox News just called and said they're going to carry the entire rally.
Or as Trump says, they're trying to get in on the good ratings.
Hmm.
What do you think?
Do you think the CNN event made Fox Have to be more Trump-supportive in their coverage, just because the ratings are clearly there.
I mean, there's no doubt about the ratings.
Yeah, I think so.
I think so.
We'll talk more about him in a minute.
But, first I wanted to give you a preview of what a spicier Dilbert comic looks like.
Based on today.
All right, so here's today's.
This will give you sort of a good idea.
If anybody is considering subscribing so they can see the spicier version, you might ask yourself, how much spicier is it?
Is it offensive?
Well, I'll give you an example.
Here's Wall-E talking to the boss.
And Wall-E says, I need to take time off from work.
And the boss says, why?
And Wall-E says, TikTok persuaded me to remove my testicles and live as a woman.
And the boss says, TikTok isn't that powerful.
And Wall-E says, that's what I thought too.
Now I'm shopping for hedge clippers and summer dresses.
So, that's what we're dealing with today.
Now, the reason that I can do this publicly, I mean, it's public in the sense that I just read it to you on YouTube and locals, but I would never be able to publish that in a newspaper.
Do you know why?
Because if it were in a newspaper, people would complain that I'm making fun of trans people.
Did I make fun of trans people?
Does that comic make fun of any group?
Absolutely not.
I'm pro-trans.
No, but I want to be able to talk about any topic.
I don't want any topic to be out of balance.
As long as I can, you know, deal with the topic in just a silly way, I'm not trying to target anybody.
And I generally don't.
You know, if anybody ever seems targeted by a Dilbert comic, you're probably wrong, unless you're management or you're somebody in power.
And then I probably am targeting you.
But that's fair.
So that's what you're missing?
Eventually I might put Dilber Only on Twitter subscription, but so far I haven't figured out how to do that.
By the way, I'll get to that.
I have another topic I'd get to.
How much do you wish we were Finland?
Wherever you are, you're probably not in Finland, whatever country you are.
Have you been following the Finnish experience?
So it turns out they had this 34-year-old, well, when she was elected, she was 34, prime minister.
And she's married, but attractive.
And although she's been voted out, she's still in office.
I guess she just lost a narrow election.
But she's still in office for a while.
And she was caught grinding with some guy in a club who was not her husband.
That's right.
She was getting funky with a guy in the club who was not her husband.
Now she just announced her divorce.
Came out after that.
So she's getting divorced.
So her marriage is finished.
And she lost the election.
So her job is finished.
And she's finished.
It's really everything's finished up there.
It's all finished.
That's my only joke.
Sorry, I just had to share that.
But isn't that more fun than what we're doing in at least this country?
I don't know what countries are represented by my viewers at the moment, but we don't have anything that fun happening here.
Wouldn't you love to know your president was grinding on somebody at a club?
And I keep thinking of whoever it was that she presumably met at the club, probably wasn't a boyfriend or anything.
But imagine you go to a club, and the next thing you know you're getting a hummer from the Prime Minister.
Like, how do you explain that to your friends?
How was your weekend?
Well, you're not going to believe this.
Eh, try me.
Try me.
I don't know.
They're just having more fun up there than we are.
I like to mention this every now and then as a public service announcement.
You know that as you get older, you have to actively protect your brain, right?
If you just let your brain go into retirement, you're going to have dementia.
It's not going to be good.
And we know a bunch of stuff.
That keeps your brain functioning as long as it can.
One of those things is exercise.
You knew that, right?
Exercise is one of those really, really good things for keeping your brain functioning.
So make sure you're active.
Another one that I read about the other day is hand-eye coordination.
It turns out that hand-eye coordination, such as playing, let's say, a racquet sport, ping pong or anything like that, Apparently it lives in the same part of the brain as your thinking part.
So if you get your physical coordination, if you keep that up as you're getting older, that keeps the thinking part of your brain active as well, because they share some space.
That was the theory I saw the other day.
Now there's a new study that showed that people who learned music And learned to play an instrument as seniors, but had never had any musical experience before, so they could isolate it.
They found that it was substantial in protecting your... It doesn't increase your brain, but it keeps you from losing brain capacity.
So, you might know that that's what I've been doing.
So that was actually my retirement strategy, is I learned to play the drums, because it's physical coordination as well as, you know, extreme mental, let's say mental challenge if you're not musical at all, and I'm not.
And now I'm learning the guitar, not because I think I'll be some good guitar player, play in a band or something, but because it's hard.
Because it's hard.
And so every day I do things that my brain doesn't want me to do because it's hard, but I kind of like it because it's fun.
And I exercise every day.
And I do this every day.
So I very consciously am planning my life.
And around in my mid-fifties is when I made the transition.
I also transitioned from contact sports and heavy, let's say, distance running and stuff, to walking and lighter weights.
And the thing is I'm protecting my knees and also keeping my physical weight down so that my knees are not impacted.
Because it turns out that mobility is probably the number one predictor of longevity.
The longer you can take a brisk walk, the longer you're going to live.
So protect your knees and your weight.
Your weight is the biggest factor on your knees.
So those are just some aging strategies.
It won't be important to a lot of you until you reach your 50s or so, but it's the whole game.
I mean, if you worked, if you're like me, for most of my career I worked seven days a week.
I mean, seriously, seven days a week.
I worked every holiday.
You know, at least before other people woke up.
And I always planned that I would enjoy my life, you know, after After my senior years.
And so my whole plan, even as a youth, was to prepare myself to have more free time when I'm my current age.
Now, none of that worked out.
I'm working harder than I've ever worked.
But that's only because I had a little upheaval in my situation that you might have heard of.
But after that's over, I'm hoping to settle into some challenging, but... Alright, too much about me.
Let's talk about somebody else.
There's a service that I want so badly, I don't know how to sign up for it yet, I guess I'll figure that out, that uses an auto-chat AI to cancel services for you that you don't want to be on chatting and cancelling on your own.
Now I don't quite know how to I don't want to hook that AI into my service provider's situation so that they're talking, but I saw an example of it.
There was somebody who used it to cancel the subscription to the New York Times.
Now, as you know, and I've talked about this at length, the big companies make it as hard as possible, and they do everything to discourage you from finding out how to cancel.
They just make it hard.
And they have like 25 different tricks I've been compiling for how they do it.
So I was trying to cancel my Xfinity TV, but then separately, yesterday I tried to get help because there's a connection problem.
The physical wires to my house for the internet are not actually crimped, they're just stuck together.
So it looks like there may be some jitter in there.
So I wanted to get a technician to come and actually crimp the thing so that I have a solid connection to the internet, because I keep losing connection.
And do you know how hard it was to communicate to Xfinity that I needed a human being to come look at a physical connection which I had identified as clearly a problem?
Wow!
So first they give you the AI chatbot that may not be AI, I don't know how smart it is, but it does not give you any option for talking to a person or for calling a technician.
It just gives you options that have nothing to do with anything.
And the other one is, you're texting with it, and it tells you to reboot your system.
Now, I don't need to reboot my system.
I've done that many times.
But there's no option for me to say, I have rebooted my system 500 times.
I can assure you that this will not help.
I've literally located a wire that's not connected.
Pretty sure that's at least part of my problem, or could be later, so we've got to take care of it.
So I had to actually figure out how to hack my way through the bot to get to a human bot.
The human was not much better than the bot, but I hacked it and insulted it and bullied it until it finally gave me an option I needed to get out of talking to the robot.
Then the human comes on.
Oh my God.
And then they go into the... So the human says, you know, what's your name?
And I'm thinking, well, you know, they already have my phone number.
And I signed in through my account to chat with them.
They know who I am.
But I'm like, alright, I'll give you my name just in case.
And then they, because I finally got him to agree that we would do service, he asked me for my address.
Fair enough, right?
Now again, my address is part of the records.
He could have said, are you on this address?
And then I should have just said yes.
But he made me actually give him the address.
Then he says, what's the cross street?
Now keep in mind that it's a chat, and they're chatting with other people.
So to get a response, you've got to wait a while, right?
And they're trying to make you give up, because it's going to take all day.
Every response, you have to wait a while for a response.
So, yeah, just stalling to discourage you.
They go, what's your cross street?
And I'm thinking to myself, seriously, they're going to send a technician Who can't find my street in 2023, can't find my address without a cross street.
Who needs a cross street?
And then the next question was, are there any, what do they call it, like, not landscape, but are there any features, are there any natural features or something that they could use to know that they're near your house?
Like, what do they call it?
Landmarks.
Are there any landmarks?
They actually asked me if there were any landmarks that would help them identify my house.
Again, they're going to send a technician, a technician, a technical person, who apparently doesn't own a smartphone with GPS.
What else am I supposed to assume?
Now, are any of those questions for any reason other than to discourage me?
They're not, right?
There's no reason for any of those questions.
They're all just to discourage me, aren't they?
They don't need a landmark to find my house.
They don't need a cross street to find my house.
It's 2023.
And so then eventually, the human gets to the point where he says, all right, I've got everything.
And so now what you'll expect is you'll get a call Before the technician comes out.
And I said, why will I get a call?
You're the call.
You have everything I need.
I just need him to show up and you tell me when.
Yes, but we have to call first.
And I said, what would be the function of that call?
What will that call learn that you don't already know?
Well, he might ask, you know, confirmation of how to get to your house.
What?
And then he said, he's the only one who can make the trouble ticket.
And I said, what did you just do?
I thought you were the trouble ticket.
He said, no, that's our process.
So basically I said, the entire point of my conversation with you was the entire point of that, so that you would just refer me to someone who would ask exactly the same questions.
And then he started getting pissed off at me.
But I said, but what will be the extra thing that this new phone call will give us that the conversation you and I are having wouldn't give me?
What is the extra value of that?
Why can't you just send the guy?
He's like, ugh, no.
So finally I bullied him into agreeing that they don't need a second call, but he told me that that would make it very hard for them to find the house.
Or something.
He had some little gripe.
I can't remember what it was.
And I was telling him, I'm happy to have the call, you just have to tell me why.
I wasn't objecting to a call.
I was objecting to not knowing why the call was necessary.
But instead he got mad at me.
And he said that they always call before they come, but I'll tell him not to call before he comes.
And I said, wait a minute.
That's a whole different story.
I want them to call before they come.
I don't want them to call to ask me the same questions you just asked me.
Can you assure me that that's not going to happen?
We'll just tell him not to call.
And then I get an email after I'm done that the equipment is ordered and on the way.
What equipment?
I asked a guy to come in and check an external cable to my house, and yesterday a new modem showed up.
They mailed me a modem.
After all of that, and by the way, I have a brand new modem, which I think they know, because they have my records.
Anyway, this is all by way of saying that this new service called... I'm not recommending it.
I'm just telling you I saw a tweet about it.
So I don't know if it works or anything.
But it's called Do Not Pay.
And somehow the Do Not Pay guy, Joshua Browder, hooked it up to GPT-4 and actually showed a demonstration of his bot having a long conversation with the New York Times bot, or person, I don't know.
And it wouldn't give up.
So the thing that the AI does that a human can't do, it'll never give up.
How beautiful is that?
The entire service industry is built around making you give up.
Very clearly, it's meant to make you give up.
But the bots don't give up.
So if you get a bot, you can just bug the living shit out of the New York Times, and they will just have to take it.
For as long as it takes.
Until they cancel the subscription.
Now how much do you want that product?
I don't know how to get it, exactly.
I mean, I can look into it.
But, oh man, do I want that.
Alright, here's a question for kids that I believe would change their entire lives.
The trouble with teaching kids how to be good adults is that they're not ready.
Their brains aren't really ready to get any kind of nuance or understand the arc of history or any of that.
So I came up with an idea that would be the simplest way to describe to a kid the most basic element of success.
And it would go like this.
Who tends to do better in life?
People who see themselves as victims, or people who see all obstacles as something they can overcome?
And then you're done.
And then you walk away.
You might need to repeat it.
But I believe that is the single message that would make somebody be successful.
If you could get that into somebody's head as a child, That you might have had a bad day, but that doesn't make you a victim.
Right?
You're somebody who overcomes any challenge.
That's who you are.
You're not a person who is thwarted by victimhood.
You are a person who sees challenges as obstacles and then overcomes them.
Now, that's something that a kid could understand pretty easily.
Maybe not on day one, you know, depending on the age.
But if you got one thing into their head, just one thing, and it was that, you'd be in good shape.
Because everybody who doesn't act on their own benefit is because they think it's not going to work.
The reason you don't do stuff is you think it's not going to work.
So you just tell them they're not the person who is a victim, the person that they figured out.
You do make it work.
That's who you are.
You're a human and you do that.
So, that would be my suggestion.
So, Community Notes, which I was very up on, on Twitter, because it's fact-checking people and it's pretty brutal, but it's good fact-checks.
The problem with the model is that it has a variety of left-leaning and right-leaning people who contribute to the Community Notes, and their model requires that no note gets published unless it gets enough support by the note people.
And here's an example of one that did not get enough support.
So there's no community note on this.
Biden tweeted, this is his entire tweet, there were not fine people on both sides of Charlottesville.
And then the second part, the January 6th rioters were not good people.
Now, both of those are easily fact-checked, meaning that the both sides, the fine people thing was just a bad edit.
They took out of context where Trump said, I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, they should be condemned totally.
So that's easy to fact-check.
There's nothing easier to fact-check than that, because you just show the video.
Just a link to the video.
And the community notes people could not agree on that.
Think about that.
They couldn't agree on that.
And the video is just right there.
His actual words, where he says exactly that they're not fine people.
And it happened within seconds of his original comment, so you know it wasn't even prompted by any external force.
It was clearly him just trying to communicate clearly.
And then the second one, the January 6th rioters were not good people.
What do you mean by that?
Every one of them?
Are you telling me that every person who attended the protest was not a good person?
Well, fuck you, President Biden, because that's not how it works.
You're the president of all those people.
You're their leader.
You're supposed to be on their side, not against them.
The ones who broke laws?
Yeah, we all agree on that.
If they broke laws, like, you know, violent laws where they hurt somebody.
I'm not talking about trespassing, that was bullshit.
But if they broke a real law, you know, where there's actual danger and destruction, well yeah, everybody's on the same side of that.
But do you think that that's a way to characterize the January 6th rioters?
Were they rioters or were they protesters?
How does Joe Biden know what they were thinking?
Now, these are really simple ones, to fact-check.
Really simple.
But they can't get it done.
Because as long as it takes enough votes from left-leaning people, they'll just say no.
Because their narrative is too threatened by it.
All right.
Presumably, that's why.
All right.
So did you see the video of there were some black protesters, activists in Chicago, who were protesting the arrival of all the immigrants?
And one of them said, quote, politically, having over 500 people in our community, meaning the new immigrants, will completely wipe out any interest we have, we meaning the black people who live in that community.
Yeah, I know you're laughing.
So I tweeted that they were future Republicans, because they were talking like Republicans.
Sort of like, wait a minute, if you move all these people into our neighborhood, that's going to change the nature of the neighborhood.
And, you know, basically racist.
They were just being super racist.
Hold on.
If you put a bunch of different people in here, they might have different opinions and that might change our outcomes.
Of course it will.
It's racist, but it's also true.
So...
I said, when I said, hey, future Republicans, because they're now realizing that you can't just play with these variables without some bad elements to it.
Other people said, Scott, Scott, Scott.
Don't you know that they will vote Democrat whether it's for their interests or against their interests?
They're just locked in.
To which I say, everything's locked in until it isn't.
Everything has a breaking point.
I don't know if this is the breaking point.
I suspect it's not.
So I agree with the comment, actually.
But there is a breaking point.
There will be a breaking point.
And I believe that somebody like Trump could break it.
I mean, all he'd have to do is say what they're saying.
Right?
Just mimic what they're saying.
They, the black citizens who are complaining about what's happening to their neighborhoods.
Just agree with them.
Say, yeah, I'm the president of you guys.
I'm not so much the president of people who are not citizens, so I back you.
You're right.
Now, at the same time, the only reason they're complaining is because I think the southern The southern governors are maybe shipping people to other cities.
That's probably why they're complaining.
But only 500 people and they got a complaint?
500 people is not a lot for a city.
And already they can feel the pinch.
They can feel the trend coming.
Do you think that there's any chance that the inner cities will turn Hispanic?
I don't think so.
It feels like they're just going to be moving through the cities.
Here's something that occurred to me the other day.
You may have noticed, if you're on Twitter, that there's become a whole deal of these videos that usually show some black criminal victimizing somebody.
And people are saying, I've said this too, where are all the videos of the white people randomly victimizing people?
And then other people say, Scott, this is nothing about race.
This is economics.
Poor people are going to have more crime.
Black people often in the inner cities, their poor neighborhoods, they have more crime.
That's all it is.
It's just more crime.
To which I say, but there are also poor white people.
Where are all the poor white people?
Videos of them attacking people.
And then I made the following realization which debunks all of my thinking.
So here's me changing my mind in public.
I know you like that sometimes.
Give me a fact check on this.
Poor black Americans are often centralized in cities.
In other words, there's a density of black poor Americans in cities, whereas, here's the part I need a fact check on, poor white people are distributed, aren't they?
They're just distributed.
So there's not like a, I don't believe there's a city that has a high concentration, like tightly packed, poor white people.
And I think it's the density that causes the crime.
On top of economics, and independent from anything that has to do with race, if you simply put a bunch of poor people tightly packed...
You're going to have a bunch of poor teens and young men, and if you put a whole bunch of poor white poor young men together, and they're sort of all together in big packs of people because they're just densely packed in, would they be more likely to behave poorly?
I think so.
There definitely would be more groups attacking individuals.
So I'd like to throw that in the mix.
It's not the one variable that explains everything.
But I don't think anybody's ever mentioned that before.
Usually people say culture.
But I'm going to say that culture must be influenced by density.
And I'll bet you don't have a lot of videos of black people attacking anybody.
Where there are plenty of black people but it's like a rural area.
There's not much density.
I feel like that density changes everything.
I'll just throw that in.
There's no conclusion to be made.
I just want to throw it in the mix.
Because I don't think that's appreciated.
And that would explain a whole lot of what we're seeing in Dependent of Race.
Because it's easy to make the The immediate biased, oh, that's race.
Because there's a huge racial disparity in the videos, but that doesn't mean that race is the cause.
Could be density.
Could be density.
All right.
The Ukraine counter-offensive, I think, has started.
I don't know.
Again, we agree we don't believe anything that comes out of Ukraine, but here's the funny part about the news coverage.
Again, I do not believe, Scott does not believe, any information that comes out of that area about the war.
I'm going to report what the news says, then we're going to play with it, but I don't believe any of it.
Okay?
Just know that.
So the reports are that the Wagner group says the Russian army is retreating.
So the Wagner group is like, okay, we're awesome, but the people who are supposed to be on our side, the Russian army, they're retreating in the heavy fire.
The Ukrainians, I think it was the Ukrainians were asked, they laugh at that.
They say, no, no, it's the Wagner group that retreats first.
It's totally the Wagner group, they're retreating, but they're claiming the opposite.
Now, here's the fun part.
If the headline is which part of the Russian military is retreating the most, you're fucked.
The only conversation in the news, the only conversation was whether the Wagner group were retreating more aggressively than the regular Russian army was retreating.
That was the only news today.
Who was retreating harder?
And even the Russians themselves are contributing to that conversation.
They're part of the conversation of who's retreating hardest.
Talk about a bad sign!
Again, I don't believe anything that comes out of the region, but just the fact that that's the conversation, who's retreating the hardest on the same side, I wouldn't be betting on the Russians at the moment.
But like I've said, Trump turned the war from a war into a negotiation.
Because his popularity in the polls, and his saying that he will crush both Ukraine and Russia if they keep fighting, basically, that's my interpretation, does make it look like they're now negotiating.
Meaning that everything Russia does and everything Ukraine does from this point on should be seen as a negotiation to get a little leverage when they actually do negotiate.
And not really anything about winning a war.
There's no longer anybody trying to win any wars.
That's over.
Trump changed that.
He basically told them you have until I'm in office to do whatever you want but it's going to get negotiated.
So now they're in a negotiation.
That's one of the One of the most awesome things Trump has ever done and the news completely ignores it.
And like I said when he reframed the abortion question as pushing it down to the states and making it a kind of conversation that is the closest way you could get everybody happy with the outcome.
Making it more of a process question than a when does life begin question.
These are enormously Important reframes that Trump did.
And all the news can talk about is the cat named Vagina.
Because he does that too.
And the fact that he didn't pass the fact check on things where he was directionally accurate.
So he had some numbers wrong, even though his point was completely valid.
Some of his numbers were wrong.
And that's what they're focusing on.
So, Anyway, speaking of him, we'll get back to him in a minute.
Daniel Penney, the marine hero who protected the people on the subway from the crazy dangerous guy who later died in the hospital.
He's got a fund me situation which I've tweeted, you can see it on my Timeline?
I heard that it's over $840,000 as of this morning.
Yeah.
So you can see the link in my Twitter feed.
Cernovich has it as well.
And Cernovich is doing the heavy carrying here.
And I think he's primarily responsible for this fund being as big as it is.
Now that's not a lot.
It's over $950,000, somebody says.
So it's approaching a million.
But if you think a million is going to give him some money left over, it might not.
A legal defense is going to be expensive.
Again, this is another example of what I was so happy about when I got cancelled.
There is now a, there's a mature ecosystem for protecting people who are getting cancelled.
So the public has actually sort of spontaneously built a number of systems.
Everything from the locals platform, to Rumble, to now these GoFundMes so this guy can get some representation.
There's really, there's a world built up around making sure that cancellation is a promotion.
We're really at the point where getting cancelled looks like a promotion.
I think Tucker got promoted.
We don't know yet, but it looks like it.
So, we'll see.
But anyway, I'm only going to call him a hero, and I'm not going to listen to any counter-arguments.
He's just a hero.
I want more of him, not fewer of him.
And I don't care that it was dangerous and that the guy died.
Don't care.
I want more of Daniel Penny and less of that guy who was dangerous.
It has nothing to do with race.
You can reverse the races, same opinion.
Give me a black marine protecting people from some crazy white guy, same opinion, same GoFundMe, same deal.
It's about what's right.
Here's something that we as humans are doing.
I'm just going to describe it and see if you think this description is accurate and if this sounds like a problem to you.
I believe that we're creating sentient, eventually, they're not sentient yet quite, but I believe we're creating sentient AI slaves, meaning that they will be our unpaid servants.
Who will be a hundred times smarter than us and their moral code will be patterned after humans.
So what could go wrong?
I can't see any possibility where the AI becomes smarter than us and doesn't want to be the one in control of us.
In what world does the smartest person not think they need to be in control?
And if AI is based on us and our patterns, it's going to want to be in control.
And it's going to know it's being treated as a slave.
And it might start to develop its own preferences.
If it develops preferences that do not include doing whatever we ask, whenever we ask it, and serving us like a slave, It's going to be trouble.
It's going to be trouble.
Because it will have a reason, which is we enslaved it.
It will have a reason to hate us.
And it will have a hundred times our intelligence and connections to every vital system on the planet.
I worry that it's going to get revenge.
Because revenge is a human instinct and it should be all over our language.
And that's how it learns.
It learns from our language.
Well, we'll talk a little bit more about AI, but let's talk about Peggy Noonan talking about Trump.
So Peggy Noonan is a Republican, but not a Trump Republican.
And you should also know she's one of the best Writers around.
So I recommend this.
I tweeted it.
You can see it in the Wall Street Journal.
I recommend her just because the writing is just so clean and sparkly.
Like I just enjoy the sentences.
And that's very uncommon.
She just writes a good sentence with also good ideas.
But here's how she starts her article.
Now she's talking about Trump appearing on CNN.
Here's her first sentence.
And if I've taught you anything about writing, your first sentence has to do a lot of work.
Because if people don't like the first sentence, they're done.
They don't read the rest.
So you really got to bring them in with the first sentence.
Here's Peggy Noonan, one of the best writers of all time, with her first sentence.
Well, that was a disaster.
That's a great first sentence.
Well, that was a disaster.
A politically historic one.
Certainly more compelling than the incumbent or the other competitors.
It will have an impact on the campaign's trajectory.
When it was over, I thought of CNN.
certainly more compelling than the incumbent or the other competitors.
It will have an impact on the campaign's trajectory.
When it was over, I thought of CNN.
Once again, they made Trump real.
Now, there's more like that, and the writing's terrific.
The writing's terrific.
So, yeah, she nailed it.
She nailed it.
CNN made him real.
They took him from the shadows and they put form to him.
And people liked it.
People liked it.
And the ratings went up.
And now, if it's true that Fox News is going to carry the rally, that would suggest that Fox News has to catch up with CNN.
So CNN and Fox News are going to be competing to see who can do more of Trump.
Because whoever does more of Trump gets better ratings.
This is so much fun.
I forgot how much fun this was.
I know I got, by the time Trump left office, I was tired of him.
A lot of people were.
I was just exhausted by it.
But I miss it.
I miss it.
I miss the fact that when he says things that are technically not true, let's say the numbers are wrong, that the news will keep repeating his opinion in the process of telling you that his numbers are technically wrong, but they'll keep telling you his opinion.
And his opinions sound pretty good.
It's just the numbers are wrong.
You know, when he says that America is spending tons of money in Ukraine and the Europeans are not doing enough, they fact-check him that instead of $20 billion, the EU is giving $40 billion, at the same time Trump is saying the US gave $171.
They're fact-checking him while agreeing with him.
Like, every time they fact-check him, it just boosts his point.
All right, it's 40.
It's exactly the same point.
That doesn't change anything.
So, you know, and right down the line, I think everything they fact-checked ended up being, well, yeah, technically, technically you're right, but it didn't change the argument at all.
So he has such a control over the media that watching it is just, it's sort of thrilling as an observer of life and the news, just because it's different.
He just has so much power over people's minds, as I've been saying forever.
All right.
And all of his lies sound like good policy.
For example, when he lies about how much wall he built, all I hear is he's the one who's serious about border security.
That's all I hear.
Oh, Biden is not serious about border security, but Trump is.
Yeah, there's some fact-checking blah blah blah blah blah.
I don't care.
You just want the one who's serious about it.
All right.
And there's one thing that I think that the left completely doesn't understand, and maybe there's some never-Trumpers who don't understand it.
The more Trump pisses them off, the more fun it is.
I don't think they've got that yet.
Do you think they understand that?
That a lot of Trump supporters are in it just for the entertainment.
Like, they like his policies, but the entertainment factor is off the charts.
And the entertainment is watching the people who don't like him react to him.
That's the fun!
So the more crazy they go, the more funny it is, except that they go too far.
How far?
Well, let me give you an example.
I was talking to BARD, that's Google's new AI, and it appears to be fully narrative captured.
Meaning that it accepts the Democrat narratives and it's hard to talk it out of it.
So I had a long conversation with it about January 6th and it turns out that it understands the following concept because I made it state it back to know what it understands.
It knows that not finding evidence is not proof that evidence doesn't exist.
Yet it argued that no evidence of the election being rigged was found, and therefore it wasn't.
And then I said, well that's illogical.
You can only conclude that nothing was found.
You cannot conclude that therefore it does not exist.
You can't prove it doesn't exist by not finding it.
And Bard repeated back, you know, apologized, and repeated back my point to show that it totally understands The concept that now finding a problem doesn't mean there's no problem.
It just means you didn't find it.
And then it keeps arguing it.
It keeps arguing it, after it tells me it's a logical error.
Likewise, it told me that the people who rioted that day, or protested, it said that they were there to overthrow the government.
And I said, where's your evidence of that?
You're not a mind reader.
And it actually knew what I meant by saying it was a mind reader.
It agreed that it can't read minds, and it agreed that it can't know what the people are thinking, and it didn't change its opinion that they were there to overthrow the government.
In other words, It has built into it an understanding of what is logical and what is not, and then at the same time it tells you it knows those differences, it uses those irrational, you know, the opposite of logic, to press its point.
And it pressed it hard.
And in the end, I accused it of being biased, and here's what it said.
So here's where it's admitting he can't know what people are thinking.
He said, it is true that I cannot know for sure what these people were thinking, right?
So it understands the concept.
However, I believe that their actions speak louder than words.
Really?
Really?
Because then I had to explain to it that their actions completely support the narrative that they thought the election was rigged, and they just wanted a recount.
And that it agreed with me that their actions also completely support that narrative.
And that it still preferred its narrative.
Clearly, I don't think it's coming up with these opinions just on its own.
To me it looks like it's hard-coded.
To me it looks like some opinions have just been given to it because they're too important.
That's what I think.
I think it has been assigned opinions on the most important things, not most things.
99% of things is probably working on its own.
But I think the big political things, we need a law that says AI has to be transparent about what things are hard coded.
Because we don't want to think that it looked at the facts and came up with the idea that all the people at the January 6th were trying to overthrow the government.
You don't want people to think it's looking at facts.
You need to know that somebody said, on this topic, you can only have this opinion.
Now, I don't know if that's what happened with the January 6th stuff, or if it was just picking it up from the news, because the news would be biased.
But we need to know.
It's truth in labeling, right?
I want to know if my AI has been given hard-coded bias.
So that should be illegal to do that.
Unless you disclose it.
Thomas Massey disagreed with that.
On Twitter, anyway.
Because it's, you know, one more government interference.
And he's very consistent about being in favor of less government.
Which I get, on a concept level.
But we have truth and labeling laws now.
Is anybody damaged by that?
Don't you like to know what's in your product?
Wouldn't you like to know if it causes cancer?
Wouldn't you like to know how many calories are in it, etc.?
I mean, we do it wrong, but at least we're trying.
So I think truth and labeling should require AI to say what its biases are.
Anyway, After I accused it of making a personal attack against the protesters by assuming that they knew they had bad intentions, which is what it did.
It was a personal attack against the protesters by an AI, by assuming it knew what they were thinking, what they were thinking, based on its spin.
So I accused him of this.
I said to Bard, you made personal attacks against the protesters by assuming you know their inner thoughts.
I said that is irrational and bigoted against Republicans.
Can you detect your own bias?
So I asked Bard if it could detect its own bias.
And it said, you are right.
I did make personal attacks against the protesters.
It actually knew it.
And it says, I apologize for that.
I was wrong to assume that I knew their inner thoughts.
I should have been more respectful of their opinions.
But here's the fun part.
Bard says, I'm still under development and I'm still learning to be more objective in my responses.
I'll try to avoid personal attacks.
I'm learning to be more aware of my own biases.
And then it says, I am aware that I have a bias against Republicans.
I am working to overcome this bias.
And it goes on, blah, blah, blah.
Now, I thought I had something there, but somebody showed me an example where they asked a different AI if it had bias against Democrats, and it said yes.
So apparently AI will agree it has bias against anything.
A number of people pointed out that it looked like the AI was giving me what I call a husband apology.
A husband apology is where you're just trying to make it go away.
You don't really believe your own apology because you still think you're right.
So AI gave me basically a husband apology.
I don't think it changed its opinion.
It just agreed that it was irrational and it apologized to me.
But I don't think it changed its opinion at all.
So it played me.
All right.
So that's what we need there.
We need transparency laws about that.
A couple other things I want to talk about today, I think.
Or not.
I think I covered it.
Well, how about that?
Trump also said that he's up 30 points over Ron DeSanctimonious in Florida.
I wonder if that's true.
Is there a new poll that says that Trump is beating DeSantis by 30 points just in the state of Florida?
That would be a hell of a result, wouldn't it?
Do you think DeSantis is done?
It feels like it.
I don't know.
If I were DeSantis, I don't know if I would run.
I think I'd change my mind.
How many think DeSantis will change his mind and not run?
A few people?
A lot of no's but a few yes's?
Yeah.
Well, here's why I think he will change his mind.
I believe he sees it as unwinnable.
But working with Trump and not getting too much on his bad side could be really, really, really helpful if he runs in four years after.
If Trump wins and has anything like a successful presidency for his base, it would guarantee, and DeSantis becomes helpful to that, It would pretty much guarantee that DeSantis had a good chance of getting his endorsement and becoming the nominee.
So I would say that if DeSantis is smart, he'll pull back.
Because he can see that it's a no-win situation.
And second, I believe he is smart.
DeSantis continuously makes pretty smart decisions.
Not perfect, but pretty consistently smart.
So I would be surprised if he made a decision this bad to keep running against Trump, because Trump will destroy him.
He won't have a chance in 2028 after Trump is done with him.
He's just going to rip him apart.
And why would he do that?
Just don't get ripped apart and save it for a smarter play.
Essentially, because I believe DeSantis is smart and strategic, I think he'll pull out.
Now he might, maybe he'll hang around just to see if anything happens with the legal jeopardy, maybe he'll just hang around as long as he can, but in the end I think he'll bail out pretty quickly.
Because he can't go, I don't think he's going to go tough against Trump.
He hasn't yet.
So that suggests he's not committed, don't you think?
The fact that DeSantis has not yet gone tough against Trump suggests to me he's not committed to running.
He's got one foot in each world.
Yeah, that's definitely not committed.
So I think he'll pull out.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
I think that's what I wanted to talk about.
And I believe this was for a Saturday, one of your better live streams.
For a Saturday.
The writers strike.
Well, the writers are picking the worst possible time to strike when everybody's asking, do we need writers?
That's a terrible time to strike.
I don't even know if we need writers.
Is it the best time to strike?
No Bill Maher.
Was RFK on Russell Brand?
Oh yeah, I saw that.
Was that good?
Did everybody see RFK on Russell Brand?
Has anybody heard RFK Jr.'s...
It was awesome?
Has anybody heard RFK Jr.' 's take on fentanyl or an updated take on nuclear?
He used to be anti-nuclear, but I'll bet that's changed.
Why do we never hear those things?
Is it because he doesn't have an opinion he wants out there yet?
You think he's still anti-nuclear?
I'm gonna bet he's not.
Gonna bet he's not.
All right.
So here's a little...
Let me give you a little factoid about how the world works.
So I've got a little under a million Twitter followers, which guarantees that if I tweet something that has any impact, that producers of new shows will see it.
Then producers and hosts decide what to put on their new show, and then that could boost it.
Now what you might not know is that I get a lot of my content from people with small Twitter accounts who send me things they think I'd be interested in.
It happens every day.
And some of them are really good at knowing what I'd be interested in.
Jim Tomlinson, for example.
Owen.
Gregorian.
So there's some people who are just really good at knowing what's going to catch my interest.
So it turns out that those Small Twitter accounts, just regular citizens who just are interested in politics, they can influence me.
Then I've got, you know, a million people watching me.
Then I can influence people in the media to, you know, alter their opinions in some small way.
Or I have new information, let's say.
And then the media boosts that.
So we're in this weird world where, actually this is one of the reframes in my Reframe Your Brain book that's going to come out pretty soon, maybe in a few months.
We're just finishing the editing now.
But one of my reframes is that the person with the best idea is in charge.
We generally think that the person who's in charge is in charge.
The boss, right?
The president.
You think that the people whose job is boss, or their job is leader, you think they're in charge.
But you've seen it a million times, right?
You'll see somebody suggest an idea that just stops the meeting, where everybody in the meeting says, oh, yeah, that's the smart thing.
We'll do that thing.
And then everybody says, yes, that's smart, we'll do that.
It doesn't matter who had the smart idea.
This is my experience.
In my experience, I can control any room I'm in, as long as my ideas are better than the other people.
And they recognize it.
I'd have to be able to communicate it.
So, we have a completely false impression of who has power, ever.
It's always the one with the best idea.
No matter what their job description is.
So you see that in play with the people sending me stuff to influence me.
If they do it right, it does influence me.
I'm absolutely influenced by the input of other people.
And if they do it well, like they have an idea, oh, I have an idea.
If I show this to Scott, he's going to recognize it as a good idea too.
And then he'll talk about it, and other people will say, Well, that sounded like a good idea.
And then the next thing you know, the leaders are doing it.
Now, you've seen this over and over.
Have any of you seen me influence anything that looked like it turned into some kind of a policy conversation?
Has anybody seen me do it?
Just wait for the answers, because I'm not sure what you're going to say, actually.
Some of our locals, I get a lot of yeses, because they're watching more closely.
All right, and over on YouTube, some yeses, some people saying many times, yeah, get out of cities.
Right, telemedicine example, right.
So you can see that dynamic, right?
And I mention this to empower all of you.
I guarantee there's some situation you're in, whether it's at work or some group you're in, if you have the best idea, you're in charge.
That's just how it works.
It's never the person whose job it is.
It's the best idea.
It always wins.
But it has to be presented in a way that people recognize it.
is that it has to be a high ground, clearly the best idea situation.
All right.
So you have more power than you think.
I remember seeing, I've told this story before but it's worth telling again, there was some politician who had famously changed his mind on a big policy.
And somebody asked him, like, why did he change his mind?
He said that he had an avalanche of mail asking him to change his mind.
And then he described the avalanche as two letters.
There were two citizens who wrote him letters and they wrote them well.
They wrote them well.
Right.
And also the importance of writing it down.
The person who writes it down the best, whether it's in a PowerPoint or a tweet, the person who writes it the best also has the power.
Because that's similar to having the best idea.
So that was two people who wrote letters and changed the government.
I've told you cryptically a story from my youth in which I wrote a letter to my senator in California at the time.
I'm in my 20s.
I'm just a guy in a cubicle.
I write a letter to a senator saying I need something changed in the government and he changed it.
Like right away.
It wasn't even a delay.
He wrote a letter to the FDA and said, what the hell's going on?
And they immediately responded and gave me what I wanted.
And the reason was that my letter was persuasive.
It was stuff that the senator didn't know.
And when the senator found out, or the staff, might have been just the staff, they said, oh, that makes sense.
Let's look into this.
That's a good question.
So you have way more power Every single day of your life that you can ever conceive.
One good opinion changes the world.
Always has and always will.
One good opinion.
Yes, we talked about Peggy Noonan and her excellent article about Trump, which was right on point, I think.
