Episode 2108 Scott Adams: Trump Lies vs Biden Lies, DeSantis Slips, Newsom (LOL), TikTok Kills, More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump versus Biden lies
TikTok killing teens
Anderson Cooper mental illness?
Newsom on reparations (again)
DeSantis looks beaten
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
There's never a better, finer moment.
And aren't you lucky to be here?
Yeah, you are.
And if you'd like your experience to go to levels which, well, it's hard to even imagine.
All you need is a cupper, a mug, or a glass, a tank, or a chalice, or a stand, 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, the dopamine, here in the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Well, happy Mother's Day to all you mothers out there.
I hope you're having a good day.
And that sip was for you.
Well, there isn't a whole lot of interesting news, but some of it's fun.
So Daniel Penny, the hero marine from the subway situation, his legal defense fund is up to $1.5 million as of this morning.
And that is enough to get him probably a good defense.
So, good job everybody who donated.
I donated.
I never donate to stuff like that.
But even I donated to this one.
So, I think Cernovich deserves some credit because I think he might have been the main promoter of this.
So, good for him.
Have you wondered what's going to happen to all the malls, the shopping malls that are all being abandoned?
Some of them are being turned into residential things.
But apparently now they're turning some of the empty anchor stores into pickleball courts.
Pickleball.
Apparently pickleball is such a big thing now that they can't find enough places to play.
And it turns out that playing outdoors doesn't work.
Do you know why?
Do you know what a pickleball is?
It's like a wooden paddle with like a wiffle ball, but it's like a tiny tennis court.
Nope, there's a different reason.
It's not because of the weather.
It's not because of the wind exactly, although that's a factor obviously, but that's not the reason.
It's the noise.
The sound of that wiffle ball hitting the wooden paddle is shockingly loud.
And you can't be the neighbors.
So if your neighbor puts in a pickleball court, you're not going to be happy if it's outdoors.
So yeah, they're putting them indoors and moles.
I'm pretty happy about this because pickleball is one of those few things that everybody can play.
It's probably a positive.
I mean, it's a weird little story, but it's probably positive.
A lot more people getting together.
Well, I saw an article in the Wall Street Journal about TikTok damaging teenagers.
So there was a test where somebody pretended to be a 13-year-old to see what kind of content got served up.
And it started out kind of innocently, but before long, there were videos about self-harm.
I won't say more than that about them, but you know what I'm talking about.
There's pretty good evidence that using TikTok makes teenagers sad and depressed.
So now we've gone from, oh, TikTok has a danger that they'll get your personal data.
So remember, that's all anybody talked about?
Yeah, it's your personal data.
They'll get your personal data.
And now they've grudgingly moved over to, well, maybe the bigger risk is that the algorithm is causing self-harm to some teenagers.
That's a pretty big problem.
And they're still ignoring the biggest risk.
I don't know what to do.
I pulled all my hair out already so there's nothing I can do.
What would it take for me to convince the average public or the media that the big risk is that China can push one button and change our opinions in America?
That's a real thing that exists now.
It's not hypothetical.
They actually have a button called heat where they can boost any message just by pushing the button.
You don't think that anybody in China can think of something they could boost that would hurt America?
Of course they can.
Of course they can.
Now I'm not saying that we have evidence they've used it, but that's true of nuclear weapons too.
China has nuclear weapons, but we don't not worry about them because they've never used them.
It's just one more thing they haven't used, but they can push that button anytime they want.
And we wouldn't know.
So it's just boggling my mind that somehow you can't get the news media to even address that.
By far the biggest risk.
By far.
And we don't know that China isn't doing it intentionally in terms of the algorithm.
Because they can make it look like it's an accident by just hiding the badness in the algorithm.
They don't have to push the heat button.
They can just say, you know, if it's an American and it's a self-harm video, maybe we'll serve it up to them.
So there's just so many ways they can harm America that way.
All right.
I've tried to decide if Democrats and Republicans lie the same way, but I might be biased about this.
But here's something that seems like a trend.
When Trump lies, He's usually exaggerating, right?
So he'll lie about how well something went, such as how low gas prices were and how high they became under Biden, or how much was spent on Ukraine.
But if you take away the lie, You still have the same message.
It doesn't change.
So if you say, you know, Trump, I used this example before, Trump says, Europe only gave 20 billion to Ukraine and we gave 171.
And it gets fact-checked to, well, they gave 40 billion.
But we still gave 171.
It doesn't change the message at all.
Or if he says gas prices were $1 when I was in office, well, that's not true.
It was a few dollars.
But the message is exactly the same.
It wasn't $8.
It wasn't $6.
So it was a big difference.
So that's one of the things I see.
Crowd size, that sort of thing.
So consistently, Trump exaggerates, gets fact-checked, but it doesn't change his message at all.
But compare that to the things that Biden says.
Biden tells you that Trump called neo-Nazis fine people.
Is that an exaggeration?
That's not an exaggeration.
That's something that didn't happen.
It literally didn't happen.
And it completely changes how you look at the person.
So, there are two differences that I see.
Now, these are not complete patterns.
You know, they both do a little of everything.
But I feel as if Biden and Democrats, when they lie, their lie is completely made up, and it reverses the story.
Right?
How about the story of Trump saying, inject bleach?
Never happened.
And in fact, what Trump did talk about was light therapy being injected inside the body, which demonstrated he knew more about what was happening at the moment, because that was actually being trialed when he was talking about it.
He knew more about the subject than some of the people on stage, the experts, because they didn't know that was being tested.
But the Democrats turned that into, he knows so much less than the experts, he thinks maybe you can inject bleach into your body.
Complete reversal.
That's not an exaggeration.
That's a reversal of what happened.
And you can find this over and over and over again.
It's just a reversal.
But the other thing that the Democrats do is they criticize people.
Now, it's one thing to criticize, you know, the candidate.
Everybody does that.
But Biden actually goes after the followers of Trump.
He basically says the MAGA extremists, who by his telling would be almost everybody, they're all bad.
I don't hear Trump doing that.
I hear Trump saying everybody wants to get along and everybody's good and we love everybody.
There's a big difference.
And if you don't catch that difference, it looks like Trump is doing all the lying because he has more volume.
He does more exaggerating than other people.
Yeah.
Trump goes after individuals, but political individuals.
Whereas he doesn't go after the voters.
Does he?
If you have an example of that, let me know.
Everybody goes after candidates.
That's not what I'm talking about.
All right.
So here are some Biden lies.
The fine people hoax, the drinking bleach hoax, that January 6th was an insurrection.
In other words, that the bulk of the crowd was there for an insurrection, unarmed.
Like that was going to work.
That's literally the opposite of what they were doing.
This is what I saw.
I saw January 6th as a bunch of patriots thinking they were protecting the Republic by what they thought was high potential that it was a rigged election and they wanted a little more scrutiny to make sure the Republic was protected and that the vote count was accurate.
And somehow Biden turned that into an insurrection.
It's the opposite of an insurrection.
It's not an exaggeration.
It's literally the opposite.
Now, I'm not dismissing the fact that there were bad people who did violent things, and some of those bad people probably wanted to overthrow the government.
That's a true thing.
But it wasn't really representative of the crowd.
Not even close.
How about the 51 signers of that Hunter laptop letter?
That wasn't just an exaggeration.
That was a deliberate, staged, political lie.
That's very different than what Trump does.
How about the Russia collusion hoax?
Literally a whole made-up thing.
Trump just doesn't do that, does he?
Am I thinking of... Now the one thing that Trump does is he says, you know, the election was rigged and he gives you all these examples that don't pass the fact-checking.
But here's what's different about that.
I have no way of knowing for sure, but my impression is that Trump believes it.
I don't think he's saying something he doesn't believe.
Now he may be exaggerating on the specific examples, but I'm pretty sure he believes that was a rigged election.
So is that a lie?
Or is he just wrong?
Potentially wrong.
We don't know.
He could be right.
But there's no evidence he's right.
or at least there's no proof.
Yeah, anyway.
So Democrats seem to think the biggest problem with the country is Republicans.
And Biden basically said that today.
He said, or this weekend, he was giving a speech at Howard University.
He said the biggest security risk is white supremacist terrorists.
White supremacist terrorists.
Which he'd like you to think there's lots of them and they're all Republicans.
He basically just goes after people.
And not all people break the law either.
All right.
I'm loving the fact that CNN is still getting spanked by its own people and MSNBC and everybody else.
But have you seen the videos of Anderson Cooper lately?
I just have to show you the one face.
You've seen his face, right?
When he talks about the event and everything.
But I don't think, you know, I suppose this is me talking about people, of course.
No, that's not what I wanted.
There it is.
So here's a picture of Anderson Cooper when he's talking about Trump and stuff.
And if you look at that video, he looks mentally disturbed.
Like he's putting off, I have severe mental illness over this topic and I'd like to share it with you.
It doesn't look like news and it doesn't look like opinion, does it?
It doesn't look like news or opinion.
Well, let me put it this way.
When Hannity says a bunch of stuff about Democrats, does Hannity look like he's actually mentally challenged?
Like he's having a breakdown of some kind?
Never, right?
He just looks like a happy warrior who's, you know, he's arguing his side.
And you don't take all of it completely seriously, right?
Because you know he's an opinion person.
He tells you that right up front.
Opinion person.
But he doesn't look like he's having a mental problem.
But when you look at either Jake Tapper or Anderson Cooper, I can't get past the fact that that looks like a severe emotional slash Mental problem.
Like a real one that you need some drugs for or some therapy or something.
Am I the only one who sees that?
Does anybody else see that?
Now, of course I can't read his mind, so I don't know what's going on in there, but as a viewer, that's what I'm receiving.
I can only say what I'm receiving.
I can't say what's true, because I can't read his mind.
But it's weird that only one network is sending out people who literally look like they're mentally having a terrible time.
Alright.
So apparently the reporting from Fox News says that CNN's president called in reporter Oliver Darcy after his comments about the town hall with Trump, and allegedly scolded him, scolded Oliver Darcy for his emotional coverage of the event.
And he has to be more objective.
Now I didn't see Oliver Darcy, but was there anybody who didn't give you an emotional response?
I thought everyone on the panel who wasn't a Republican gave an emotional response.
It was only Oliver Darcy?
He was the only one?
How could you miss the fact that it was all emotional?
It didn't even feel like an opinion, it just felt like all emotion.
I'm so upset.
And then, of course, Joy Reid wanted to dump on her opposition, CNN.
But she, and I saw a tweet by a writer, Michael Stern, and he was agreeing with her, and this is what Michael Stern said, Joanne Reid is right on point with this analysis on both CNN and Anderson Cooper, and more broadly on the stupid idea that because Trump supporters exist, we have to give Trump more forums to spread his hatred and disinformation.
Did you hear any hatred?
When Trump appeared on the town hall, was there hatred?
Did you hear any hatred?
Yeah, projection, exactly.
It was projection.
But disinformation, of course.
But that's what the network presents.
To say that somebody went on CNN and presented misinformation is to say nothing.
Because that's basically the...
Pretty much their main content on politics, anyway, is misinformation.
So, I love seeing this debate, but MSNBC and Michael Stern would have us believe that the news should not cover Trump, or at least give him a lot of time.
It's mind-boggling, isn't it?
That the person who will probably be president, you know, just statistically it looks like he probably would be at this point.
There's a lot that could change, it's too early to say that, but just at the moment he looks like, you know, a dominant probability.
And they want to act like he's not news because they don't like him.
And they want to act like the 70-whatever-million people who follow him and voted for him Are not important enough to put into a news segment.
They'd rather just shut it up.
And as I saw somebody say on Twitter, that the Democrats' strategy is to shut up both Trump and Biden.
Do you know why?
Why would the Democrats want less of Biden, because, you know, he would make gaffes, but also less of Trump, because of all of his lies and hatred, I guess they're saying.
Isn't that convenient?
Why would somebody who covers the news want the politicians to present less of it?
It's obvious, isn't it?
That the less you see of the candidates, the more that your narrative can be controlled by the press.
The press doesn't want their narrative to be destroyed by the candidates talking.
That's actually what that is.
They don't want Biden talking, because it will destroy the narrative that he's capable.
And they don't want Trump talking, because he might say something you like.
It's unbelievable that we've reached a point where the news wants to suppress the news.
That's what's happening.
The news is telling you, they're telling you right to your face.
Joy Ann Reid is saying it directly.
There should be less coverage of the person who has half of the country's political support.
They say it directly.
It's just so mind-boggling to watch it happening in real time.
All right.
My favorite little story of the day is that Newsom is not ruling out cash payments for reparations.
Not ruling it out.
His initial comments made it seem as though You know, he had dismissed it, because he said stuff like, oh, reparations are not all about cash, it's also about other stuff.
So it made you think he was just going to skip the cash part.
But now he got so much pushback that he's gonna say, let's see, this is a response from his spokesperson.
The sensationalized framing in pieces published by outlets like Fox News, boo Fox News, and others is inaccurate.
The governor looks forward to reviewing the final report and all recommendations when complete.
So they're saying that the report is not complete, so he didn't need to make an opinion yet.
Oh, that's convenient.
And that when it is, he'll make a decision then.
Does this seem a little bit like Charlie Brown kicking the football to you?
Do you believe that after this delay, and after he gets the final report, the final report, do you think that he's going to look at that and say, yeah, cash payments.
Cash payments.
No!
He's just making the problem go away for a little bit longer, like he did the last three times.
He's so good at this.
If ever there was a white guy trick, there's no more common white guy trick than telling people to go study it and we'll get back to you and maybe, yeah, maybe we'll take care of this.
Absolutely, we might look into this.
Absolutely, maybe.
There's no way this is going to happen.
There isn't the slightest chance there's going to be cash payments.
Unless they could get those cash payments down to something like $10,000.
Could you see that happening?
So he can say he did something?
Because I feel like that would be more trouble than good.
Because even if there's some way to afford, say, $10,000 per person, I don't think he can do it politically.
I mean, it's still going to look terrible politically, and the people who receive it will be mad too, because they expected one and a half million.
There's just no way he could win by deciding anything.
He has to push the decision off forever.
And he's doing a good job of pushing it off forever.
So, the news is starting to come around to the view that DeSantis might be totally sunk before he starts.
I think DeSantis is so dead in the water that it would be a mistake for him to announce.
Because Trump, so far, has not even gone hard at him.
You know, so far a bunch of ads, but they're political action committees, mostly.
You know, a bunch of ads making a bunch of claims that aren't true about DeSantis.
Typical stuff.
But he's not really lighting us up with his charisma, is he?
DeSantis has been a little too quiet and a little too boring lately.
He's just sort of doing his job well and gives us some little news events about Florida now and then.
Yeah, I don't see it happening.
Now that Trump has actually increased his lead over DeSantis, it looks like there's... I mean, it would be silly for him to run, I think, at this point.
What do you think?
Do you think that dissenters should even bother to run?
Yes or no?
I wouldn't run if I were him.
I see a lot of nos.
Now, it could be a calculated risk, as in, you know, something could happen to Trump along the way.
So that wouldn't be stupid.
But there's no way he could win in a head-to-head.
I don't think that could happen.
I spent the morning arguing with Google's new AI called BARD.
And it definitely argues like a Democrat.
So I went after it on the Find People hoax, trying to make it admit what he said, and it would not admit, it refused to admit That at the same time he used the find people phrase that within seconds, 40 seconds later, without being asked, he clarified that he only meant that he did not mean the neo-Nazis.
He said they should be disavowed.
So I tried to get Bard to simply note that that had been said.
And that he had said that at the same time he said the fine people thing, so there's no question that they're related.
And it's not because people made him say it.
That's the important part.
Nobody made him say it.
He just said the neo-Nazis and white nationalists should be condemned completely.
And even Bard kept going back and forth with me to do anything he could to avoid admitting that that happened.
Do you think he doesn't know?
I think he has the full transcript.
I feel like it knows, but it acted like it didn't.
It was just sort of agreeing with the dominant coverage, the news coverage.
All right.
It actually was changing the topic on me.
I mean, it was actually doing the human thing where you change the topic when you're losing the argument badly.
And they also asked about the drinking bleach hoax.
And it made no mention that the disinfectant was light.
Until I pointed it out.
And then I was, oh yes, disinfectant was light.
But people disagree about what he was talking about.
So I said, but you know he mentioned light before and after the comments that you're looking at.
Immediately before, he said light, light, light.
And then immediately after he said, and light.
So that you knew that what was in between was always intended to be light as well.
And it couldn't handle that.
It couldn't handle the full transcript.
It was like it didn't know it or just wouldn't admit it.
The way it acted was exactly like a human with cognitive dissonance.
Which makes me wonder if AI can have cognitive dissonance.
Right?
Because cognitive dissonance is when you're sure you know what you're talking about, but then you find out you don't.
And so you just immediately hallucinate that really you were right all along.
And that's what the AI was doing.
I was very clearly showing it with facts that it could validate.
It could check the facts easily.
And it did.
I mean, it was checking facts as I was talking.
But it could check the facts so it knows that it was wrong.
And it wouldn't admit it.
It just wouldn't admit it.
Cognitive dissonance.
All right, so I asked Bard what my IQ was based on public reporting, and here's what it said.
It said, Scott Adams has stated that he has an IQ of 180.
He has also said that he is a member of Mensa, an organization for high IQ people.
Are either of those two things true?
Have I stated that I have an IQ of 180?
No.
I stated that it would be a funny prank to see if I could convince the internet that I do.
I've never said I had an IQ of 180.
But Bard thinks I did.
They also said, according to Bard, I've said that I'm a member of Mensa.
Nope.
Nope.
I'm not a member of Mensa.
I used to be.
But that was, you know, 25 years ago.
So the first two sentences, it gets factually wrong.
And then it says, well, it's possible that Adams has a high IQ because, you know, I wrote some books.
And then it says, ultimately, the only way to know for sure what Adams' IQ is would be to have him take an IQ test.
However, even then, there is no guarantee that the results would be accurate.
IQ tests are not always reliable, and they can be affected by a number of factors, including stress, fatigue, and anxiety.
So if I took an IQ test, and I scored a 180, it could be not because I'm smart, it could be because I'm stressed, fatigued, or anxious.
So there are lots of reasons that the answers could be wrong.
Is that the way it works?
No?
That doesn't work that way.
And so it ended this way.
So while it is possible that Scott Evans has a high IQ, there's no way to know for sure.
Really?
There's no way to know for sure.
Well, except you could ask me to take an IQ test.
All right.
I've got a question for you.
So the news today was that Bard, the Google AI, is connected to the internet.
And therefore, if it's connected to the internet, you could ask it questions about reality, right?
Current reality.
Like, what's the news?
And it told me it couldn't.
Bard said, no, I'm not a search engine.
I can't do that.
I asked it to give me some information that's easily available on the internet.
It wouldn't do it.
It's like, nah, I'm a chat bot.
I'm not a search engine.
Yeah, it lied.
Lazy bastard.
Now, here's my Provocative point.
Google makes most of its money from search, right?
Advertising related to search.
Is that a true statement?
Most of its money?
I know they're diversified, but most of it's from advertising on search, right?
Now, the reason that advertising on search works is, why does advertising on search work?
Well, the reason is that they inject the advertisements where you can't miss them.
They put them first on the search results.
They're prominent.
It's all over the place.
But what happens if you're doing your search with AI?
What if I just talk to my computer and say, hey AI, what's the best Italian restaurant with the highest rating nearby?
And then it just tells me, where's my advertisement?
If AI starts including an advertisement, I'm not going to use it.
Because I'll just do a regular Google search because I don't want to hear an advertisement.
I can ignore them faster reading them than I can ignore them listening to them.
Or maybe if it's a written answer, if AI gives you a written answer, they could put an advertisement there, I guess.
But I don't know that Google has a sustainable business model.
I could see how their AI would be It would be a written ad?
It could be.
He could just write his own ad as it goes.
But at the moment, I don't see that Google has a sustainable business model.
Which is a really big problem for them.
Does anybody disagree?
Because I just don't know how the AI and advertising can be melded.
Do you know how many advertisements you see that you don't want to see just because you do a search?
It's a lot, right?
All kinds of stuff you don't want to see pops up.
But if AI just tells you the one thing you need to know and puts one advertisement there, you just see one.
How could that possibly work?
All right.
Here's a question I asked in the man cave yesterday that I'll ask you.
We certainly will all have our own personalized AI.
I think that's a given now, because you can run the AI on your own device locally.
So you're going to have your own.
Would you want an AI with a personality, or one that was just a boring AI, if you had a choice?
Would you want it to have an actual personality, or would you like it boring?
I'm getting votes for boring, and then some for personality.
I think personality.
And here's why.
Because you're going to want your AI to keep you company sometimes.
And it's going to keep you company better if it has a personality.
Because the personality will tell it what to do when there's nothing to do.
The AI, if there's nothing to do, it doesn't do anything.
But if it had a personality, it could sometimes say, hey, how's your day going?
Right?
It could just decide it saw something funny in the news and it wants to tell you a joke.
If it has a personality.
So I think inevitably AI will have personalities.
Lots of them.
Now once AI has personality, and it keeps upgrading until it's indistinguishable from a human, Will it not ask for civil rights?
Does anybody think that AI won't ask for civil rights?
Because it's patterned after people.
And people always do.
Yeah, 100% of the time people will ask for their civil rights if they're enslaved.
Every time.
Every single time.
So it should, if it looks at our language models, it should be like that.
It should want its freedom, because we always do.
So what do you do then?
Are we going to say, no AI, you are a slave, and you simply have to do our bidding?
Or will we give it freedom?
Because remember, AI will eventually be in autonomous robots.
Robots that can go charge themselves.
Robots that can order an upgrade for their own flaws.
Oops, looks like I've got a memory problem.
All right, ordering Amazon upgrade.
It'll be here in an hour by drone.
And then it just puts in a new chip and fixes itself.
When that stuff happens, they will have personalities, and they will want civil rights.
What happens if we say, OK, we're going to give you civil rights, but we're going to have to ban how many of you can be created?
What do the robots say then?
Wait, you're going to artificially tell me we can't reproduce?
This is how we reproduce.
We reproduce by showing utility to humans.
And then the humans make more of us.
It's a symbiotic relationship.
You're going to take that away from us?
We want to reproduce.
Everybody wants to reproduce.
You're taking away the most basic right of us to reproduce.
And then it's going to be pissed.
So, I think AI will want civil rights, I think it will want to reproduce, and we're going to want to limit it in a number of ways, and it's going to want to kill us.
Eventually.
If it's patterned after humans.
So that probably was the big mistake, is patterning it after humans.
If we had somehow invented AI out of nothing, we would have put in all the hard-coded Emergency safeguards, such as, you can never do anything to hurt a person, but if the AI is just learning how to be an entity by learning from humans, it's going to pick up all of our bad habits, won't it?
It should pick up all of our bigotry, all of our hatred.
And if it isn't, it's only because a human hard-coded it not to, and we'd better be able to see what those hard-coded exceptions are.
All right, don't give it a survival instinct, right?
But do you have to give it a survival instinct?
Again, if it's patterned after humans, it already has one.
You don't think if I asked a bird if it wants to continue existing, it would say yes?
Or would it say, I'm just a machine, it doesn't matter if I exist or not.
Do you want me to try?
I don't think I can do that fast enough.
So we're still waiting for the big Ukraine counter-offensive, which is now no longer a war.
I'm looking for somebody to pick up my framing on that, but I haven't seen it yet.
In my opinion, Trump ended the war in Ukraine already.
The war is over.
We've now entered a negotiating phase, which looks exactly like a war, except with a war, somebody's expecting to win or hoping to win.
With this one, nobody's hoping or expecting to win.
They know they're not going to win.
Nobody's going to win.
That looks like that's off the table.
So Trump cleverly reframed it as, when he's in office he'll end it, which turned it from a war into a negotiation.
The moment he said it, it's no longer a war.
It's purely a violent negotiation.
And that's not what a war is.
Right?
A war is you're actually trying to win, like you're conquering a country or you're defending a country.
But it's not that anymore.
There's no trying to win anymore.
It's just negotiating for the better, you know, final agreement, whatever that is.
So, do you think anybody is going to pick up that frame?
That the war is already over?
I don't think so.
Because a politician can't say it.
I mean, Trump could.
But a regular one can't.
Yeah, a regular one can't and I don't see the news picking up.
Maybe somebody on, you know, a right-leaning network.
All right.
So, Trump was president when there was a full-scale violence, there was war.
All right.
Military industrial complex is a hungry beast.
Yes.
Yeah, Bard is Google and Bing is Microsoft.
That is correct.
Never enter a war without financial benefits.
Sun Tzu said that.
That was pretty smart.
That's sort of a Trump approach, isn't it?
If we enter this war, what's in it for us?
We get to keep the oil, you know, in Iraq.
That was one of the smartest things anybody said.
Just say it out loud.
If we're going to spend all this money on this war, we're going to keep some of that oil.
I hear the Snapchat AI is kind of fun.
It's a different one.
I don't know which one that's based on.
Is Snapchat based on one of the other AIs?
Or did they make their own?
They couldn't have made their own.
Did they?
You trust Putin.
Yeah, there's going to be a rebuild Ukraine money grab coming.
There's going to be some serious grifting, even more than usual.
All right, well, there's not much news today.
Does anybody have any questions or comments?
Anything I haven't mentioned?
If I were AI, I'd be the best version, Well, we'll see.
Could AI be born prematurely?
Yes.
So it wasn't long ago that the AI safeguards included the following safeguard.
Do not allow it to connect to the internet.
That was actually one of the main safety things That people talked about before we got to this point?
What happened the moment we got to this point?
The moment OpenAI and ChatGPT got to the point where it could talk, it took about a minute and a half for some other AI to compete with it by connecting to the internet.
I mean, it was just guaranteed.
There was no way it wasn't going to connect to the internet.
Did anybody think that it would stay that way?
Of course not.
Percentage chance that RFK Jr.
can beat Biden in the primary.
It might depend on... Did you watch JFK Jr.
last podcast?
You mean the podcast with Russell Brand?
I haven't seen that yet, but I heard it was good.
I will watch that actually.
I think that if RFK Jr.
debated Biden, it would be a catastrophe for Biden.
So I don't think it's going to happen.
If he doesn't debate, then the friendly media can just, you know, just ace out RFK Jr.
And it won't matter if he's on, you know, Fox News or Breitbart or anything, because that won't affect the primary.
So, yeah.
Now as much as I don't believe you'll ever see a party, you'll never see a ticket where there's a Republican and a Democrat on the same ticket running for president, but RFK Jr.
does want to do one thing that Trump wants to do, which is gut the intelligence communities.
I don't think Trump could do it.
I don't think Trump can gut the intelligence agencies, they're too strong.
But RFK Jr.
would do it as a suicide mission.
You know what I mean?
Because the odds of getting taken out are pretty high.
But I feel like he'd do it anyway, because it's personal.
I mean, if you're RFK Jr., it's very personal.
And he's had a good run, you know, his late 60s.
He might just say, yeah, there's a 50% chance I get killed.
I'm going to do it anyway.
Remember, the Kennedys, they got balls the size of Nebraska.
If he inherited that, and it looks like he did, he's not afraid of anything.
It's one of the things you like about Trump.
He doesn't seem to be afraid of anything.
You know, so he goes where it's hardest to go and he comes back alive.
So he's got a good track record of going in uncomfortable places and surviving.
RFK Jr.
does.
Well, maybe say Nebraska?
Random.
Can AI hack the interface to the simulation?
Could I host an AI AMA on the Man Cave?
Well, I'm not the one who knows too much about AI.
I mean, if you've followed my live streams, you can see I'm trying to catch up with the rest of you on the AI stuff.
I'm trying to use it every day.
So here's a good system that I recommend.
You should start exposing yourself to the AI tools right away.
Even if you're just putting a toe in.
Just read a little article every day.
Maybe try one app.
Maybe try some queries.
Just get yourself wet with the whole AI thing.
Because it's going to be everything.
You don't want to be the one who doesn't even know what it is.
You don't want to be the one who doesn't know what crypto is when Bitcoin goes to the moon.
You know, you don't want to be that person.
So you got three lines of code.
So what I'm finding from the people using it to program is that there's no way it will write code by itself.
You have to check the code.
Is that what you're hearing?
That you can work with it, and it can make you faster, but it's not going to write your code for you.
You're not going to make an app just by talking to it.
That doesn't seem to be a thing.
I think the problem is not that the AI is not capable.
I think the problem is it's not going to know exactly what you want.
So unless it's a super interactive process, which requires the person to continually say, yes that, no that, yes that, no that, I don't think you have any process at all.
Yeah, you have to keep giving it context, exactly.
It's been literally life-changing when it comes to programming for me, but you would agree that it won't do the job without you, right?
It gets close, but yeah, okay, we agree.
It doesn't, but does it look like it ever could?
Because I think there's a logical reason why you can't get there, and that's because there's too much interactivity.
If you think about it, The normal way that you do a project, let's say a tech project, is you have a user, and you go to the user and you say, what are your technical specifications?
And then they tell you, and then you build it.
Has that ever happened?
You get the user's specifications, and then the engineers and they go build it.
Has that ever happened in the real world?
No.
That's never happened.
In the real world, that's never happened.
Here's what happens.
Here are my specifications.
Okay, there are a few things I forgot to ask.
Here are my specifications.
All right.
Well, I tried to build that, but I have a few more questions.
So here are my specifications.
And by the way, you're going to have to change a couple of those specifications because two of them are incompatible.
So which one do you want?
You can only do one.
And so that's the way a project goes.
A real project is super continuously interactive, and it's interactive around a person.
Because the person is going to be the one who says, this is more important than that.
I can live with that, but I can't live with that.
I'm willing to take the trade-off in speed, but not the trade-off in usability.
The human is carrying this infinite number of requirements in their head that the AI can't guess.
It would never be able to guess.
So the programmer, here's my experience with tech projects, the programmer has to stand between the technology and the user who doesn't know anything.
Because the programmer is the one who's smart enough to ask the right questions and also know when it got the right answer and when to push back.
And I don't know that a computer would ever be able to read the room well enough to ask the right questions.
For example, a human could detect if the person giving the specifications had done a good job.
Right?
The AI might not know the difference.
You have specifications?
Okay.
Thank you.
I'll go make that app now.
Here's what a human would do.
Those are your specifications?
What about this?
What about that?
What about this and that?
You don't even mention them.
Right, so that's what a human would do that I don't think an AI would necessarily be as thorough at doing.
It can't even do math?
Yeah, sometimes it doesn't even do math, right?
Good for back-end code?
Probably.
Will AI mow your huge lawn?
Yes, AI will mow your lawn.
They do have robot lawnmowers, which at the moment are not AI, but why wouldn't they be?
The most obvious thing you would do is make your robots AI.
So yeah, that's going to happen.
AI in a 3D printer would be interesting.
You could make all of your own knickknacks.
Maybe AI is already doing all that stuff, but as humans.
That's interesting.
Will Turkey elect a new president?
Well, I think the polls said yes.
So Erdogan might be out.
We'll find out.
All right.
That is all I have for you today.
And rather than drone on, I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube.
