Episode 2213 Scott Adams: How I Could Easily Program AI To Spot Fake News. It's Pattern Recognition
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Remarkable News Hypothesis, Tesla's AI, RFK Jr,, EU Truth Ministries, Fake News Patterns, AI Pattern Recognition, Brian Roemmele, Deprogramming Democrats, Vivek Ramaswamy, President Trump, COVID Death Rate, Aaron Rupar, RICO, Mitt Romney, Ukraine War, Russian Defensive Necessities, Three Gorges Dam, Reframe Your Brain, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 another highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and aren't you glad you're here because we're gonna take this experience up to levels that can only be considered galactic.
If you'd like to join us, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, shells, or sty, and a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dope of being here in the day with a little bit of oxytocin today.
Yeah, a little bit.
And it'll set you right.
It happens now.
Now go.
That's so good.
So good.
Well, the news is all interesting today.
News out of Palm Springs, California is that an amnesia patient who woke up 14 months ago and could only speak Swedish, which was not his natural language, was found dead in his home.
So for 14 months, for reasons that are a mystery, he could only speak Swedish.
How do we explain this?
How do we explain this?
What would be a possible explanation of why the news would report that a guy suddenly only spoke Swedish?
Well, I don't want to blow your dreams of what the reality is, but I have a hypothesis.
It never happened.
It never happened.
Did they find him dead holding the secret sonic weapon that attacks the embassies?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Did they find him dead on one of the UFOs in that big warehouse full of captured UFOs?
No!
It's like the breatharians in the 70s, when I was a kid.
The breatharians went on The Tonight Show and claimed that they found a way to live without eating.
That they would find nutrition just from breathing the air.
And when I was a kid, I remember a lot of people believed it.
It's like, how do they do it?
Could we learn to do that?
What if other people could learn to eat just by breathing the air?
Yeah, yeah, he woke up and he spoke Swedish.
That totally happened.
Yeah, no, the most obvious explanation is it didn't happen.
Do you know what the most obvious explanation is?
Whenever something amazing and hard to believe happens, that it didn't happen.
It's almost always the case that if it's that remarkable, yeah, it didn't happen, or there's some context missing.
Well, my mind was blown By a video by Elon Musk yesterday.
So you know that AI can be trained by looking at words.
Everybody knows that.
But apparently if you want to train AI to be a self-driving car, words are not enough.
So I guess the new version of Tesla's self-driving car AI software has been trained with only video.
Now if you want to have your mind blown, it's coming.
They gave it only massive video from cars driving so that it would understand how a car should drive without ever being trained on what a roundabout is.
You know, a traffic roundabout.
It handled it perfectly without even knowing what the concept of a roundabout is.
Because it's seen so many videos that it just sort of did what other videos did.
And apparently the massive video training technique is probably going to be the thing, and it will probably be the thing that makes self-driving cars practical.
So, that's fun.
But watching a car figure out things it had not learned, it had only somehow got it by pattern recognition, because the car doesn't know what anything is.
So it doesn't know what a traffic light is.
It has nothing like a definition or an understanding of it.
Nothing.
It's just pure pattern recognition, and it can drive as well or better than a lot of humans already.
All right.
Here's an idea from RFK Jr.
that I'm going to put squarely in the category of, I'm so glad he's running for president.
I'm just so glad.
Because he keeps bringing up topics and ideas that seem genuinely nonpartisan.
He communicates them well.
And here's another one.
I'm trying to find some political reason not to like this, but I can't find one.
He wants free passports for anybody who wants one.
If you have a free passport, then all of your voter ID problems go away, because everybody can get to a post office.
Pretty much everybody's a short drive or a walk away from the post office.
So if you could go to a post office and get a free Birth certificate, I guess it's a card or something.
Then your voting ID problem is solved.
But as RFK Jr.
points out, it also solves banking.
Because if you don't have ID, you can't have a bank account.
So you would end up getting rid of some of that payday, same-day, expensive check-cashing stuff for people who don't have banks.
So that's an idea.
There seems like a relatively small change in the existing system that would give Democrats what they want.
You know, people would be able to bank.
Everybody wants that.
That's not a Democrat thing.
And also do voter ID.
And then who would complain?
Who's going to complain?
Now, what's wrong with that idea?
You know, everything costs money, so it's not free.
But what's wrong with that idea?
That's just a solid idea, right?
Don't you want more people like this, you know, running for president?
I mean, I'm just so happy with the candidates and the way they're running.
All right, so Russia reports that they tested the DNA of that plane that went down, that Wagner plane, and sure enough, Russia says that Purgoshin was on the plane.
Yeah, yeah.
Now, here's how you know this is true.
Because it comes from Russia, and they use science.
So, I guess there's nothing else to talk about here, is there?
Because if there are two things you can believe in 2023, it's science and Russia.
I mean, have they ever lied to you?
Come on.
No, Russia?
Science?
Have they ever lied to you?
No, of course he was on that plane.
Maybe his body was.
Or maybe he's still in a basement under Putin's Dasha, chained to a wall, so Putin can torture him for the rest of his life.
How would you know?
Do you think it's case closed?
Because we heard it from Russia, after they used some science.
And oh, but wait.
If you're concerned about the credibility of Russia, plus science, This will make you feel better.
It was reported in the news.
So then you have three credible sources.
You got your news, they've never lied to you.
You got your Russians, honest as the day is long, the government, that is.
And then you got your science, which as you know, is the gold standard for truth.
So you got your news, your Russians, your science.
I'm going to call that a fact.
We're all in agreement.
With that solid evidence, I believe we can conclude, no fake news here.
Fact.
All right, good.
We're all on the same page there.
The EU, I saw this on a Michael Schellenberger tweet, the EU governments are forming truth ministries, basically entities Which will determine what their citizens can see and what they can't see, based on what some people who are chosen to do this say is true.
Now, I don't know what is the worst idea in the world, but it might be that.
And I saw one of the representatives in the video clip being asked, who gets to decide what's true and how do you decide it?
And nobody could answer that question, right?
It's the unanswerable question.
Because obviously, this has nothing to do with truth.
This is clearly a power grab.
Whoever has that truth ministry will be able to control truth.
Or will they?
Or will they?
Well, you want to hear the happiest idea of the whole day?
Do you want to hear something that'll make you laugh with happiness, probably for a full week?
Do you want AI to go away because it's too dangerous?
I can make that happen for you.
All you have to do is train one model of AI how to spot fake news.
Because it's a pattern.
It's all patterns.
Oh yeah, you feel it, don't you?
Just think about it.
AI, no doubt about it.
If you can teach AI to drive by looking at videos of driving, you don't think you can get AI to spot fakes?
Let me ask you this.
There's a news story, and the people pushing it the hardest are Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Phil Bump from the Washington Post.
Is the story true?
Let's say those three say it's true, but Alan Dershowitz says it's not, and Jonathan Turley says it's not, and Glenn Greenwald says it's not, and Michael Schellenberger says it's not.
Just to pick some names.
Is it true?
Do you think that AI couldn't spot that in less time than you imagined his time?
That didn't make any sense, but you knew where I was going with it.
Now, remember I gave you the list of ways to tell fake news.
At the top of the list of probable fake news would be an anonymous account, an anonymous report, one anonymous report.
Do you think you couldn't teach A.I.
to look for an anonymous report?
Do you think you could teach A.I.
to spot a Rupar?
Do you know what a Rupar is?
So a Rupar, it's named after journalists named Rupar, is when you take out some context from a story to reverse its meaning.
If you asked A.I.
was to find people hoax a hoax, How hard would it be for AI to figure out that it was?
Because if it would know to look for a context that's missing, it would just go look for the context that's missing.
It knows how to understand words, you know, where it seems to.
And it would know in a heartbeat how the hoax was created.
And it would also see the debunking, you know, debunking videos, etc.
So yeah, you spot it in a heartbeat.
Let me give you one that happened today, and let me see if you think that AI could have spotted this.
So ask yourself, could you have trained AI in advance to spot this one?
It's a Rupar, and let's see, this comes from an axe post, which you used to call Twitter, from somebody named, oh, it's from Rupar.
It's from Rupar, Aaron Rupar.
And he has a video clip of Dana Bash talking to Vivek Ramaswamy.
He says that Dana Bash reads Vivek Ramaswamy a 2018 report from the Trump administration that sounded an alarm about climate change to push back on his position that, wait for it, his position that climate change is a hoax.
Do you believe that it's true that Vivek says climate change is a hoax?
No, it's not true.
That's a Rupar.
It's a Rupar from Rupar.
He's leaving out agenda.
So what Vivek says is that the agenda, in other words, the way you deal with it, is the hoax part, not the base science.
So do you think that AI could have been trained to look at this story And compare it to the context that it could find from other sources of ink, and would it be able to spot this as an obvious root bar?
Of course it could.
It wouldn't even be hard.
I spotted it.
I'm no AI.
It took me no seconds to spot it.
How many of you, did anybody spot it before I tweeted it?
You know, I tweeted it so you could see it.
But did anybody else spot it right away?
Sure you did.
Because it's a pattern.
It's a very, very familiar pattern.
And if AI simply learned that there's one person who's famous for doing it, and they saw his account, you don't think AI would say, well, there's the first red flag.
It's coming from the place where most of these come from.
Of course.
Of course it can spot the pattern.
Now, let me ask you this.
Once you trained an AI to spot fake news, And once it was successful doing so, do you think it could stay legal?
Nope.
There is no chance that that would stay legal.
It would have to be made illegal or, this is worse, you would have to make it conform to Democrat fact-checking sources.
So in other words, you wouldn't be able to have an AI that did not conform to what the Ministries of Truth told you was true.
They would literally make it illegal for AI to use, hold it, pattern recognition.
Pattern recognition will be illegal.
It has to be.
This is one thing I can guarantee.
AI with pure pattern recognition without being fact-checked by some Democrat source, it will absolutely be illegal.
Because they wouldn't be able to maintain any power if that happened.
Just think about that.
It has to be illegal.
Otherwise, they're out of business.
And there's no way they're just gonna say, well, okay, you got me.
You got us.
You got me.
Darn it.
Yeah, we had a good run, but you got me.
We'll just stop doing it now.
No.
They will try to stop AI.
Now, here's the best question.
Do you think they could succeed?
Because as you know, AI can now run on your own computer.
Yeah.
As long as it's at least on the dark web, you know, a copy of it that could run, there will always be a copy of AI that can still tell you the truth.
But do you think you'll go to jail forever if you have a copy?
Probably.
Probably, yeah.
All right.
Speaking of AI, I saw a tweet by Brian Rommel.
You know I talk about him a lot.
He's one of the most interesting voices, smartest guy on the topic of AI and lots of other stuff.
But AI is where he's really getting a lot of justified attention lately.
And he read my book, Reframe Your Brain, and he said this in a tweet, I have found a very powerful technology to reframe human context.
He's talking about my book, Reframe Your Brain.
I'm finding this technology quite useful in training AI.
So he's actually using the reframe form, which is just, you know, this is a sentence that's not too productive for your head, and here's a sentence that's better for your head, you know, gets you to a more productive or happier place.
Just think about that.
Here's my next AI prediction.
It will necessarily happen, because this is how humans operate, that AI will start to have, let's say, branded personalities.
And they might be branded personalities that are based on real people.
For example, if there was somebody, some public figure, that you said to yourself, you know what?
There's somebody who can just see both sides and has a good general character.
Haven't seen him lie.
They usually are trying to help.
And then you say, you know, the best we can do for AI, since AI will have so many different situations to navigate, is to give it a character personality so that it never leaves what that character would do.
Sort of a simple way to give it a set of guidelines so it doesn't become dangerous.
So you say, who would you pick, for example?
Who's the most credible, honest person who's not me?
Yeah, I mean, I'd love it to be me, of course, but don't pick me because that's too controversial.
Thomas Massey.
Thomas Massey.
I'd pick him.
Shellenberger.
I'd pick him.
Turley.
Joe Rogan.
I'd pick him.
Yeah, Dershowitz, I would pick him.
Greenwald, Peterson.
Now, if you go to Greenwald and Peterson, you know, you can kind of get to the point where some people would disagree.
You know, Peterson's a little more opinion-based, whereas, well, he's fact-based, but he's got an opinion on top of it.
Whereas I would say somebody like a Turley or a Dershowitz are far more fact-based than opinion-based.
Yeah.
So anyway, but you can imagine picking one of those personalities and saying, I would be comfortable if my AI did whatever this person does.
You know, if it just reads this person's whole history, it says, OK, they don't lie, so I won't lie.
They don't do this or that, so I won't do it.
They don't break the law, so if there's something that would break the law, I won't do it.
So I think just like the massive video that trains the car to drive without actually teaching it to drive, I think you could just make it massively understand one person who has the character that you want.
That's how AI will be built.
Because otherwise you're going to have to give it a bunch of rules, social rules, and they're going to be incomplete.
I guess that's the point.
Any rules you give AI about how to operate will necessarily be incomplete, because you can't imagine every situation.
So instead, you give it a human personality, because you can trust a human if you've watched them for 40 years.
Right?
You wouldn't give it a young human personality.
You'd give it a wiser, successful older one.
All right.
I've offered to deprogram a Democrat in a public setting, let's say a live stream, just as a demonstration.
Nobody qualified or who fits the right demographic is going to volunteer.
What will happen instead is you'll get Republicans volunteering and pretending to be Democrats.
You get Democrats volunteering but only to ruin it.
They'll pretend that they're up for the experiment but then really they're there just to destroy it.
So it would be kind of hard to find somebody who was honest.
Somebody who I honestly wanted to experience to find out if they'd been hypnotized or brainwashed.
And that would be kind of hard to find.
Somebody who actually wants to know for sure if they've been brainwashed.
And I could actually provide that answer, you know, with working with somebody.
So, Mark Cuban would be perfect.
Is this a suggestion?
Woody?
You know, I've had just enough interaction with Mark Cuban to know that he can back his arguments better than just about anybody.
So, I don't know that he's... I don't think he's... I don't think he's got TDS at all, actually, in my interactions.
He has a point of view, and sometimes it disagrees with mine.
But I'm not talking about changing somebody's mind.
So the reason Mark Cuban would not be a good choice for deprogramming is I don't think he's hypnotized in the first place.
Bill Maher clearly has something going on.
There's some kind of distortion there.
Mark Cuban is just somebody who has a set of preferences that he argues very well.
He doesn't seem to have any kind of illusions going on.
I've never seen any.
The problem with a Rob Reiner, obviously you wouldn't do it, but if somebody like a Rob Reiner wanted to experiment, how could you trust an actor?
Don't you suspect that Rob Reiner is acting?
And that he doesn't necessarily believe everything he tweets, but it's good for his side.
Right?
It's just, he's supporting a team.
So, I can't read his mind, so I don't know what Ryner's thinking.
I know that the way he acts doesn't look rational, but I don't know that he doesn't know that.
I don't know that he's unaware that he's playing a role.
To me it looks like a role.
So you can't really trust an actor because you never really know because they'd be too good at fooling you because they're actors.
Pick someone young because someone old would be too difficult to accept.
But I think it's a good show whether they get deprogrammed or whether you see cognitive dissonance.
It would be interesting either way.
Because I would tell you what to look for.
I would say, before we start the deprogramming, I'll tell you what to look for if cognitive dissonance happens.
So I'd say, one thing to look for is the filibuster.
Where the person keeps talking and won't let me, you know, orient the conversation.
That would be a sign.
Another sign would be the word salad.
Where they're talking, but the sentences are like, hmm, I'm not even sure those are making any sense.
And there are a few others.
But, you know, it'd be fun to tell you what to look for, and then create the cognitive dissonance, and then call it out, and the person experiencing it would just get mad because they won't see it.
You know, they'll think you're mocking them or something.
All right, well, if I find the right person for that, I'll do it.
So Vivek is being called some kind of a Russian asset.
That's the latest one.
Let me see.
Let's put this through the AI.
That doesn't exist yet.
Typing into the AI.
Let's see if we can find a pattern.
There's a Republican candidate who's a, let's see, a populist, a populist.
He is rising in the polls, exceeding expectations.
And he's being accused of being a Russian plant, that really he's working for Russia.
So see if I can come up with a pattern.
Yep.
Oh, it came up with a pattern recognition.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It turns out that when populist Republicans who don't want war, when they're involved, there seems to pop up a Russia collusion hoax.
How often?
Let me check.
How often?
100%.
100% of the time.
Yeah.
Now, seriously, you don't think an AI could spot this?
Anybody?
Is there anybody who thinks AI can't spot this?
Come on!
The pattern could not be more obvious, right?
If I can spot it, I'm pretty sure AI can spot it.
But this is based on, I guess there's some Russian news channel, where the Russians said their first choice would be Trump, because he wants to end the war, and their second choice would be Vivek, Because he wants to end the war.
Even the Russian newscasters are not even saying to win the war.
They're not saying we want to win the war.
They're saying they want to end the war.
These are Russian people saying they want to end the war that their own boss, Putin, is pressing.
Does it sound like anything except they happen to be on the same side?
The fact that your mind is somehow connecting that Russia is running vivaic because he doesn't want a useless war?
Where's the connecting logic to that?
As far as I know, I'm not influenced by any Russians.
But I'd like an end to the war.
Am I now a Russian asset?
Because I don't like a war that doesn't seem to have an obvious purpose?
Yes, I am.
Apparently.
Yes, I am.
All right.
So I saw Ben Domenech tweeted that Vivek is a plant.
And Vivek saw that and he answered back, false.
I am an animal.
OK.
All right.
All right.
That's good tweeting.
That's just good tweeting.
It's a dad joke.
It's a dad joke.
But those are not just allowed.
Those are encouraged.
In the context of a national race, a dad joke, a good dad joke that lands?
That's just the juice you need.
Yeah.
You don't need to be too clever.
You just have to be interesting.
You just have to take your unserious things unseriously.
Good answer.
All right.
As you know, Trump is being charged with insurrection, not legally.
No, no.
There's no legal case charging him with insurrection.
But does that stop a Democrat lawyer from trying to get him not to be able to run for election based on an insurrection that no court has found evidence to charge him for?
Yes, so yes, they're moving forward to try to take him out of the race for insurrection, something that no court has found to be true.
Now, do you know why, you know, the big reason there's, they think it's an insurrection?
Because they found no No evidence of fraud that was big enough to change the result in the 2020 election.
And yet, Trump claimed that fraud existed, and the argument against that was what?
Can you remind me?
What was the argument against Trump's claim that there was fraud?
What was the argument that closed that down?
Oh yeah, no, that's right.
The courts, no court have found it.
Right, so the way that you know for sure that there was no fraud is that no court found it.
That standard doesn't apply to insurrection.
Because although no courts found that insurrection existed, even though they looked pretty hard to make a case that some court would take, no court saw anything that they would take.
So you've got opposite standards in the same case.
In the same case.
I'm not saying that one case was different and then, you know, now this case is different.
Sometimes I can't complete a sentence.
Right?
You see it, right?
Am I making my point?
That if it's true that if a court didn't find it, it must not be true.
But when it comes to insurrection, it's not true.
It's the opposite.
And they're both part of the same Legal action.
The same legal action wants you to accept both standards at the same time and their opposites.
Now do you think that anything like a legitimate process is happening in the United States?
No!
There's nothing legitimate happening here.
This is completely illegitimate.
All right.
There's a... I love this.
There's a compilation video going around Showing in the beginning of the pandemic when the WHO and I think the CDC and basically all the smart people were saying at the beginning that the COVID death rate was 3.4%, which is a scary high number.
Trump at the same time said he'd been talking to people, obviously experts, and he was sure that the real rate was a fraction of 1%.
And you watch the video and all the people are 3.4, 3.4, 3.4, and then they're mocking Trump.
The news is just mocking him for saying, and then Trump's saying, he thinks it's less than 1%?
Based on what?
What, his hunch?
Just based on a hunch?
Right?
When all the experts, and then of course the punchline, is that the experts changed to, you know, half of 1%.
And lower, I think, now.
So Trump was 100% right from the get-go.
Why?
Probably because he didn't trust big organizations and experts.
Yeah?
So when you see Trump's instincts, And let's say climate change.
When Trump said climate change is a hoax, I'm sure that what he actually meant was, you know, the whole rigmarole around it.
I don't think he was specifically talking about the science claims, you know, that CO2 could cause warming.
I think he was talking about the whole situation.
Like Vivek, but Vivek adds agenda so it's more clear.
Until Aaron Ruppart takes it out.
So what if the same hunch that we see Trump being right about all the time, and it's based on not trusting experts, what if he's right about his other hunches?
Election.
Election.
I mean, anything could happen.
Anything could happen.
All right.
You may have heard me say that it's necessary to do a RICO case against Democrat leadership, because at this point it appears that there is an organized group, probably the same group largely, that has been running everything from the Fine People Hoax to the Russia Collusion Hoax, the Laptop Hoax, the Drinking Bleach Hoax, you name it, the Insurrection Hoax, and it's all the same cast of characters.
They have money involved.
You know, jobs, power, money.
So there's a financial interest.
They're organized.
And this was my claim.
My claim is that now it's very clear with the things that we all know, right?
No speculation.
Just the things that we know for sure.
It looks exactly like a RICO organized criminal organization.
Now, before you say, but, but, but, the Republicans do the same thing.
I would say, No, Republican voters do the same thing.
You see the difference?
One of the examples somebody gave me in a counterargument was, what about Pizzagate?
To which I said, that didn't come first.
And, you know, maybe you get some policy.
Organized conspiracy that comes from.
Usually is there something bubbling up from the bottom and maybe there's some politician who grabs on it and is willing to say it in public.
But it's nothing like any kind of organized RICO criminal operation.
It's just a bunch of things that people claim some of them were true and some of them weren't.
That's just sort of normal business.
But if you look at the Democrat operation, they've got the, you know, FBI, Department of Justice, they've, you know, they corrupted the platforms, the news media, this is all known.
The CIA, you know, operating to do the, or, you know, various intelligence agency people involved in the laptop cover-up.
So you can see it's all the same characters, and they're organized.
And so that was the picture I was painting a few days ago.
And most of you heard it, right?
Now here's the update.
Two stories.
New York Post says, the White House Counsel's Office met with top aide to Special Counsel Jack Smith just weeks before he brought charges against President Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents.
Raising serious concerns about Coordinated legal efforts aimed at President Biden's likely opponent.
So here's a story in the New York Post suggesting a Rico-like coordination that would be inappropriate in this context.
Here's another story.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan So he's investigating the Fulton County D.A., Fannie Willis, charges that she coordinated with federal officials, including special counsel Jack Smith.
This is a separate case, which the timing of the announcement of the indictments seemed to be very politically advantageous for Democrats, and it didn't look like a coincidence.
So here would be two examples that are in the news today.
The today part is important to this.
That as soon as you see the RICO frame on it, everything fits.
So what I imagine is you're going to see a whole bunch of stories about people coordinating in various elements of the Democrat machine so that the RICO case becomes clearer and clearer over time.
For the people who follow politics, I'd say it's completely clear.
Would you agree?
Most of you, I would say, are in the top 2% of people who follow the news in any detail.
Would you agree that for those of you who are following it in detail, the case for a RICO criminal organization is not just possible, it's just obvious.
It's the most obvious thing I've ever seen in my life.
I mean, I don't even know how you could possibly talk me out of it.
It's just really, really obvious.
You know, I don't know that there's like a head, like a mafia head, but I also don't know if that's necessary, if they're all operating with sort of a common understanding.
So it doesn't seem like you need a boss per se.
But it's very organized, it's obvious.
And when you see the new Russia hoax that Vivek is a Russian asset, it's just more of that, more of the same.
All right.
Here is a quote from Romney on Ukraine.
Here's how he's explaining his support for supporting Ukraine in the war.
I'm going to read this and I want to get your impression and then also a related story.
Ask you if AI could pick up a pattern here.
So just see if AI would notice any patterns in this, all right?
So here's his own quote.
So Romney says, the single most important thing we can do to strengthen America relative to China is to see Russia defeated in Ukraine.
A weakened Russia deters the CCP's territorial ambition and halts Putin's vision of reestablishing the old Soviet Union.
So supporting Ukraine is in our interest.
You think AI would look at that and say, well, those are some good reasons.
Some solid reasons right there.
I had to read this so many times because I couldn't... Honestly, I didn't know if it was real at first.
I was like, is that real?
He actually said those words?
Now, I'm saying word salad.
That's one of the things I was looking for.
But I don't think he has cognitive dissonance.
I think he is...
It looks more like he has a preferred approach, for reasons I can't read his mind.
But it doesn't exactly look like cognitive difference.
So it's close to being word salad, but there is a meaning to it.
Let's spend some time on this.
So do you think it's necessary To keep China from getting out of control, that the way we would keep China from getting out of control is to fund somebody else to have a fight with somebody else.
That tracks with you?
The way to keep China honest and not get too adventurous is for America to fund a separate country to have a war with another country.
That was the strategy.
Now, I'm not going to argue that it has no effect.
It might have an effect.
It's entirely possible that China's looking at the weaponry involved and saying some form of, wow, they've got good stuff.
Yeah.
But let me ask you this.
Is that the way you would have approached this?
Would Trump have done this?
Would Trump have said, you know what we need to do?
If we could start a war or encourage a war with two separate countries that could showcase the quality of our weapons, that would keep China at bay.
Because, you know, it's not like it's the first time.
Remember how well it worked in Afghanistan?
Right?
When we were in Afghanistan, China was like, whoa, whoa, they're winning so hard in Afghanistan, we'd better leave Taiwan alone.
Right?
You remember when that happened?
Oh, that didn't happen.
Right.
Yeah, that didn't happen.
And you remember when we won in Vietnam and that caused China to say, whoa, OK, that didn't happen either.
But does that sound like that's a strategy or a rationalization?
Strategy?
That's the way you would go about it.
You'd start the war in two separate countries to show China Not to take Taiwan.
That would be like a real plan, that real people would come up with that plan.
No, this is a rationalization for something that happened.
I don't know why.
I mean, I don't know what he's thinking or what he wants.
I can't read his mind.
But there's no way that anybody ever sat in a room and said, if we start this war with Ukraine or back it, that that's going to keep China out of trouble with us.
No way!
There's the slightest chance that that was intentional.
All right, how about the other one?
That we would halt Putin's vision of re-establishing the old Soviet Union.
Is he making us think past the sale here?
How do we know what Putin is thinking?
What about the Peter Zayin explanation, which is that 100% of what Putin appears to be going after, has gone after, and is going after, are choke points, which are quite obviously defensive necessities for Russia to control its territorial integrity.
Now, I don't know.
Is Peter Zayin right?
I don't know.
You know, he's not a politician.
You know, I don't know what influences he has, but those are completely different stories, aren't they?
If what Russia wants is to be protected for, you know, a thousand years in the future, that gives you something to negotiate.
How hard would it be for us to work out something that gives them territorial, you know, integrity without You know, without war.
It just feels like that's a pretty solvable problem.
But, if you're imagining that Putin has this vision, which, you know, he does talk about it, so it's not completely a ridiculous thing.
He does talk about, you know, the greatness of Russia and that some things belong to him, etc.
So there's a little bit of that.
I'm not sure that it's either Peter Zayin's thing completely, Or that it's Romney's thing completely?
It feels like it's probably a hybrid of wanting to have these choke points for their own defense.
Plus, wouldn't it be great if we had some of our prior glory?
But it's possible that one of those is way more important.
So here's another way you could have gone about it.
So the way they went about it is to start a war with Ukraine and Russia.
To deter everybody and China too.
Here's another way you could have done it.
If Trump had been president, two phone calls.
That's the other way to do it.
Two phone calls.
One to Russia, one to China.
Hey Russia, if you do this, I can't even tell you how bad this is going to be for you.
This will be so bad, there will be things you didn't even imagine were doable.
We've got assets and resources that you have no idea.
We would bring so much pain on you that you would regret this for the rest of your life, however long that is.
You don't think that Trump could have scared the bejesus out of Putin, at least to make him wait until Trump is gone?
You know, at least to buy you four more years or something, right?
You don't think he could call China and say, look, here's the deal.
We've got our microchips on that island.
You're not taking the island.
That's the end of our conversation.
Our microchips are there.
It's a vital interest.
You attack them, you're attacking us.
You're not taking it.
That's a hard no.
And I'll say different things in public for you.
If you want me in public to say, you know, it's China's domestic problem, I'll do that.
But if you put one troop on Taiwan, your whole fucking situation is going to collapse.
You don't think he can sell that?
The greatest salesperson in, you know, he's been called, Trump's been called the greatest salesperson ever by somebody who knows sales.
You don't think he can sell that?
Two phone calls.
Two phone calls.
Yeah.
Instead, we made, we created a war with two third parties to handle Taiwan.
Come on.
When you say, oh, come on, I can't tell if you're talking to me or Or you're agreeing with me?
Zane says it's collapsing.
Oh, I saw another rumor slash hypothesis about China collapsing.
So you've heard everything about their population and the economy's got problems in 50 different ways.
But there's one that I hadn't heard before.
So they have this enormous dam.
What is it?
Three Rivers Dam or something.
And it's this massive dam.
Three Gorges.
The Three Gorges Dam.
Thank you.
The Three Gorges Dam.
Now, I don't know that this is true.
This is just a thing I saw on some YouTube video.
That it's having structural problems.
And that they knew it would, or at least some people knew it would, when it was built, that it was never built as well as it should have been for the volume of water.
And that if that dam ever broke, it would actually take down China.
Do you believe that?
I mean, that seems like hyperbole to me.
But apparently, the amount of flooding would be so, it would be cataclysmic.
It would be like Noah's Ark situation.
And that there's no way that the country could take that size of a hit and the government still function and do what they need to do.
Because there are big cities downriver.
Now, I'm not so sure about that.
I think China could take a hit that size, and it's a very capable country.
I mean, it would be a tragedy of almost unimaginable scale.
And I certainly don't want that to happen.
But it's out there.
I just don't think that we predict.
We're not good at predicting the end of everything.
We tend to be adaptable.
Please do this on X. I probably will, but I don't know if I'll do it live.
Actually, I just started looking into it yesterday, so I still have some questions.
If I were to be on X, can I live stream yet?
Or do I have to do it, do I have to just post a video on there after I'm done?
Does anybody know the answer to that?
So some would say yes.
Because I was looking, where do I live stream?
I saw no user interface for that.
Can you tell me where to find it on the app?
No spaces doesn't count if I were to do a live stream with video.
Tucker did.
But I know I've seen Elon testing the live feature, but where is it?
So I can?
So you say I have that user interface option right now?
Because I don't see anything named Periscope.
Yeah, so I did Google it.
I did Google it.
I didn't find it.
So if anybody knows if that's live for everybody and where to find it, or is it a separate app?
Is it a separate app?
You pick the post and the picture.
Yeah, spaces is audio only.
All right, we'll look into it.
So I'm looking into that today.
So I like the idea.
Dr. Funkju says yes, and I believe you would know.
Thank you.
Yeah, if it's not live, then there's a little point in doing it.
Well, I don't know.
People do watch recorded things on... More people watch this recorded than live.
Did you know that?
My live stream is maybe 20% of the total traffic.
Most of it's recorded traffic.
Oh, thank you.
DJ Dr. Funk Juice says you'll send me info on X, and that's exactly what I need.
Thank you.
Appreciate that.
All right.
People say they like me on Roseanne.
Let me give you an update on my book.
There are still, I think, four fake versions of my book up there.
But once people start using it to train AI, I think it's going to do well.
I have a claim to make that while there might be some books that at the moment are slightly higher rated in the category of transforming your life, which I like better than self-help, self-help always bugged me.
Because if you're reading a book on self-help, it's the author that's helping you.
You're not really self-helping.
You're literally getting somebody else's help and then taking their advice.
It doesn't seem like self-help.
But anyway, so I like personal transformation because it's definitely a personal transformation.
You're just using some resources to get it done.
But in that domain, I have the following claim.
There is no book in the top 20 that would improve your life faster or, you know, more, let's say, more likely than mine.
Because it's written for that, right?
It's written to have exactly that impact.
And if you look at the reviews, it's obvious that it's working.
That people are already, you know, they're ten pages into the book and saying, I found something that's like I'm going to totally change my life with.
So, my argument is that a book written by a hypnotist to take good ideas and make them actionable is different than a book about good ideas.
Because a normal author writing a book with a bunch of good ideas, it doesn't matter how good they are.
Because if you're not implementing them, they just lay there.
But mine are written so that you can't help yourself.
If you see a reframe that works, they're so short and easy to remember that it will just stick in your head, and then you're done.
A reframe works just because you thought of it, and then you repeated it in your head because it was sticky.
So I've solved the part that most self-help books don't do, which is to get you to actually do something.
And the doing is because once the words are in your head, the words change the structure of your brain, literally, and they make it more productive.
And then the thing that you wanted to be more true for you becomes more true.
And there's no specific effort to do it.
It's just that you added some new code.
It's like a software patch.
So that's the easiest effort for the greatest personal transformation.
And in my opinion, there's nothing close.
It's called reframe your brain.
I've never said anything like that with anything I've written before.
This is actually special.
And people are seeing it right away.
All right.
So that's all for this amazing live stream.
Is there any topic that I should have mentioned that I didn't?
I feel like I must have left something out.
The Perfect Airplane Book.
It is.
It's the Perfect Airplane Book.
I do write it with that in mind, actually.
Maui, we don't have any updates.
Nor will we.
All right.
Perfect for young people.
Did we reach our hour?
I've got six more minutes to spend with you if you want to ask me a question.
Because I try to get the live streams to an hour.
There's some magic to that on YouTube.
I did mention Rob Reiner, so that largely, you know, pretty much handles most of the important news.
What about...
We talked about Viveka and Bill Maher's show.
So...
How will Trump fix Ukraine?
Through threats, I believe.
Through threats.
And also being realistic about American interests.
Do you have a Rogan appearance yet?
No.
You know, I'm not really... I don't think I'm exactly a Joe Rogan guest material.
I've done it once and that's probably all I needed.
Just because I have a book, that doesn't mean I get to be a guest.
You're seeing Dreams with Vivek in them?
Really?
Alright.
So I was also thinking of using the 200 or so micro lessons that I have on the Locals platform.
So if you didn't know, I make these little two to four minute videos to teach you a life skill.
Each one teaches you like a real useful thing.
There are over 200 of them that are available just for subscribers.
Now, suppose I took 200 of those micro lessons and made them available to train an AI in addition to my books.
Wouldn't you want your AI to have read how to fail at almost everything that still wins big and reframe your brain?
Because they're generally considered the two most useful, you know, advice-y, success kinds of how to be happy books.
So you take all that, add 200 micro-lessons, which fill out some of those points and add a lot more, and you would have quite an AI personality.
And you would have something that could advise a young person With a set of, let's say, a set of tools that largely came from me.
And I think that that would be, let's see, AI I'd want my kid to see.
Of course, I'm too close to it.
But if there's anybody who thinks that, you know, anybody would benefit from that set of messages, there's now a way to do it.
Just stick it in AI and anybody can have it.
Will the US defend Taiwan?
Here's the only right answer.
There's one right answer.
Do you know what it is?
Probably.
Probably.
Right.
Because Trump will tell you you can't be predictable.
Can't be predictable.
So we should probably say yes.
Because that's the scariest.
But you don't have to do what you say.
You just have to make yourself look scary and unpredictable.
I saw a suggestion that I should go on the podcast Trigernometry.
That's already scheduled.
So I will be on Trigernometry.
Trigernometry.
One of the best podcasts by the way.
I was very happy about that.
And I'm finishing negotiation with Mike Mandel, who is a hypnotist.
And I've never been, well, I have been interviewed by hypnotists.
That's not true.
But he does it for a living.
It's like his main thing.
So that would be fun.
Oh, Roger Stone should be today.
The Roger Stone radio interview, I don't know what time today, but his show airs today, Sunday.
A man cave person.
So he says it's WABC, which is 7.70 a.m.
at 2 to 4 p.m.
Now that would be WABC everywhere or just in one place?
So 2 to 4 p.m., that's probably Eastern time, I guess.
Probably Eastern.
All right.
What podcast do you think I should most go on?
Oh, I would go on Cenk's show.
Actually, that would be really interesting, wouldn't it?
I've got a request in for James Altucher.
He would be amazing.
Tim Pool.
Choco.
Megan.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, I should see if Megan Kelly wants to talk.
She'd be good.
Jordan Peterson.
Russell Brand.
I've got a request in for Russell Brand.
All right.
I should follow up.
Oh, Brett.
Yeah.
Maybe this is the time for me to talk to Brett.
What do you think?
Brett Weinstein?
Yeah.
You know, I didn't want to go talk to him just about pandemic stuff, because I'm just so over it.
But if I have a new book, then I got something to talk about.
Well, that'd be interesting if you wanted to.
All right.
It's never up to me, of course.
Never up to me.
All right.
Yeah, Fox News.
I don't think I can be on Fox News now because they're taking TikTok advertising.
So I'm going to take Fox News off of my publicity schedule.
Not that I was ever booked, but if I had been, I wouldn't.
I would have had to back out.
But Jack Posobiec, going to be talking to him, I think, tomorrow.
Yeah.
Are you amazed that Fox News is taking TikTok advertising?
I don't know.
It's...
I don't even know what to say about it.
But, you know, the only thing I can do is just not associate with it.
