My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Mocking Woke Culture, Adam Johnson, Matt Petgrave, 14th Amendment Trump, Biden Approval Poll, America's Dumbest Voters, Israel Hamas War, Purple Smoke, Ukraine War Cash, AI Equity Programming, War Discussions, 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 the Highlight of Human Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
Some people are calling it Colonizing with Scott Adams.
I don't think that'll stick.
But if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that no colonizer has ever seen before, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, a chalice, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go!
Good.
That was good.
All right.
Well, let's see what's going on.
So I have a recommendation for you.
Before you do anything recreational, Make sure you've turned off all sources of news.
Has anybody made the mistake of trying to relax at the same time they have the news on?
Don't do that.
Don't do that.
Let me give you an example.
Last night, I thought, you know what?
I haven't used my hot tub in a long time.
So I fired up my hot tub.
It was sort of a perfect night for it in California.
Got in.
I thought, you know, I forgot to listen to my favorite show about the news, The Five.
And so I said, oh, I've got that recorded.
So I put it on my phone on the edge.
And I lean back and I'm just like soaking into the water.
I'm like, oh.
And on comes the segment about Matthew Perry drowning in his hot tub.
And then there's conversation about how apparently some people with certain heart problems could, you know, maybe die in a hot tub.
I heard about that recently too.
And suddenly I'm sitting in the hot tub, and I kid you not, I'm going to the doctors this afternoon because my blood pressure is high.
So I'm sitting there with actually, you know, cardio situation that I'm medically looking into at the moment.
And I hear this, you know, maybe, maybe there were, maybe there were no substances involved.
Maybe you just got in hot water and dead.
Well, let's just say that my hot tub experience was not the delight I was expecting.
Got a little tense in there.
So just remember, don't listen to news at the same time you're trying to do recreation.
Just never works.
Well, you might know that my song, yeah, yeah, I wrote a song, sort of.
I did a drum beat that Storm Crow over on the X-Platform, apparently he's turning it into an actual, he has turned it into a music video and it sounds like from his post he's going to release it.
So it might actually be publicly available.
So it'll be a combination of AI plus my drumbeat plus some other stuff, some magic that he's adding to it, Storm Crow is.
So that'll be fun.
My dream of having a hit song?
I'm hoping if it's available commercially.
I don't know if it will be.
But if it is, I'm hoping you buy it so I have a number one hit song.
Well, Elon Musk is calling the end of Woke, or at least peak Woke, or Woke has gone too far.
But his turning point that he points out is that South Park is just viciously mocking everything Woke in their new episode.
And I do think mockery could be called a turning point.
Wasn't there a point where you could not have done that South Park episode?
Where they just viciously mocked all the woke stuff.
I feel like you can do it now.
Well, maybe partly because I already did it.
So it seems like obvious to me now.
But I've been mocking it for a while.
Others have mocked it.
I think once it becomes just a joke, then you have your free speech back.
You can joke about it.
So, Moss says, the great awakening from woke has happened.
This is good for civilization.
If he means you can now outright mock it in public, he's right.
And that usually is a turning point.
The point where you can mock it outright in any context.
I'm mocking it right now, right in public, and not worried about it.
So I think he's right.
Well, we can't get away from this hockey story because it's so weird and tragic.
So this hockey player named Adam Johnson got killed by another hockey player who gave him a high kick with a skate on and it looks like he hit him in the neck and it was a sharp skate and killed him.
Now, of course, like everything else, it took on a racial dimension.
I'm not a big hockey fan.
I've only tangentially pay attention to it when it's around.
But I've never seen a black hockey player.
I assume that they exist in some number.
I've just never seen one.
Which has more to do with the fact that I don't watch it, probably.
So the one time I've ever even heard of a black hockey player, he's the one who kicked the other person to death with his skate.
Let me be very careful.
I don't think there's anything about being black that causes you to do a karate kick during a hockey game and kill another guy.
Like, I don't think that's baked into your genes, your culture, or anything like that.
But the fact that it happened at all, and we're such a visual species, is really, really bad for the black brand.
Right?
So we all know logically you shouldn't make any kind of general statement about it, because it was one very specific person who did one very specific thing, which I'm guessing was more of a reflex.
I feel like it was just a reflex.
There's no way he meant to do it.
There's no way he meant that it would have that outcome.
Certainly he didn't mean that.
But something happened, and there'll be consequences, I'm sure.
But I wouldn't make it a big racial thing, however, it's the weirdest coincidence.
It's almost like we do live in a simulation and the simulation just served us up the most ridiculous example that would make you all racially biased.
It couldn't be more stupid that the one person you've ever heard of who's a black hockey player kills a white guy.
I mean, that's just a little too... The simulation is just messing with you now.
Anyway, don't make anything of it.
It's one tragic situation.
Well, I was accused today on the X platform by another user who said about me, this dude is so obviously someone's intelligence asset, it boggles my mind anyone thought he was genuine.
To which I say, I'm publicly taking sides.
Yes.
I'm not trying to gaslight you.
I'm telling you what side I'm on and then I tell you things that are compatible with being on that side.
I'm backing Israel in the war.
I'm not much of an intelligence asset if I tell you what I'm doing and then I do it in front of you and say, look, that's what I told you I'd do.
Look there.
Very biased.
Yeah, I'm not even going to pretend not to be biased on this topic.
There are some topics where I can take a valued effort at being unbiased.
I'm not sure I succeed, but at least I could take a shot at it.
I'm not going to even try on this one.
Not even going to make an effort to be unbiased.
But I like the fact that I'm doing something so well that somebody's accusing me of being an intelligence asset.
Are you following the story about the 14th Amendment trick to try to get Trump off the ballot?
The idea is the 14th Amendment says that anyone who took an oath to support the Constitution but then, quote, engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it cannot hold office.
So that would mean that Trump, if the courts found that to be the case, would disqualify Trump from even running for president.
Now, What would be the evidence that he was involved in an insurrection or rebellion?
It would only be the narrative of the January 6th total biased Democratic hit job.
That's basically the evidence, is that a biased political process decided to use this.
Now they're using it some more.
So this is probably always was their intended play, to get that insurrection thing branded on him so that the courts would maybe find he couldn't run.
Now, do you think there's any chance, any chance at all, that this would hold up in the Supreme Court, assuming it gets there?
Does anybody think this would hold up?
You know, the thing is, if you want to know what too far is, it would be this.
I would expect violence.
I would expect mass violence if the courts found that he couldn't run.
I'm not recommending it.
I want to be very careful.
Not recommending it.
Not a good idea.
But this would be the sort of thing that would be like a Boston Tea Party, you know, you went too far.
So my advice to the Democrats Because if you think you have any other way to win, you ought to push that one.
This one will really fuck up everything.
If you get this, in the unlikely event that the courts upheld this, I think it's a long shot.
But in the unlikely event that they did, be careful what you ask for.
Because this is clearly and absolutely too far.
There's no way that the citizenry would stand for this.
So, maybe that's what they want.
Maybe they want to inspire an actual rebellion.
So they'd have more reason to lock up people they don't like.
So, don't do anything dangerous.
Got it?
Don't do anything dangerous.
No violence.
Obviously, there would have to be a strong reaction.
All right, there would have to be a very strong reaction, but violence is probably a losing strategy.
All right, Biden's approval, according to a News Nation Decision Desk poll, found that 56% of respondents said they somewhat or strongly disapprove of the way Biden is handling things.
56%.
That's a lot of people disapproving of the president.
But by party, it's 85% of Democrats think he's doing great.
40% of Independents, so it looks like he's way down with Independents.
And 10% of Republicans approve of Biden's job.
Have you ever met a Republican who approved of Biden's job?
I've never met one.
Have you?
Do you believe that 1 in 10 Republicans approve of Biden?
Isn't that obviously wrong?
I'm pretty sure it's zero.
I'm pretty sure it's zero.
Like actually zero.
How could I possibly be wrong about that?
So I don't believe the poll because there's no way 10% of Republicans think he's doing a good job.
There's no way.
It couldn't possibly be true.
Anyway, if you break it down by age, you can find our stupidest citizens.
Who are the dumbest citizens?
Who are the dumbest voters?
By age.
Who are the dumbest voters?
The young ones, right?
Young voters are the dumbest, because they know the least.
The reason that they're the dumbest has nothing to do with the nature of their brains.
It has everything to do with how many times they've been fooled.
If you've been fooled never, you're going to be pretty trusting.
If you've been fooled once, maybe you're paying attention a little bit more.
If you've been fooled twice, you start to think there might be a pattern.
When you're fooled three times, you say, my God, there's a pattern here.
I'm going to have to watch out.
It looks like everybody's lying to me all the time.
When you're my age and you've watched everybody be fooled 25 fucking thousand times, I don't have to wonder what's corrupt.
There's no ambiguity at all.
I'm not surprised when somebody's lying to me.
I'm not fooled by all the experts on one side.
You know, the classic way you fool people.
If you're young, you think that all the experts on one side fucking mean something.
It doesn't.
It doesn't.
It's just a trick for young people and stupid people.
Anybody who's been around for a while has seen all the experts be wrong over and over and over again.
It's like the most common thing.
And whenever there's a political element to anything, the experts are useless because they're just taking a political side.
So if you're young, how would you know that?
Which one of the textbooks teaches you in college that everything's bullshit?
I didn't take a course in that.
I've got a couple of college degrees.
Nobody ever taught me that.
Never came up.
Never once came up that everything you're taught in the real world is bullshit.
And that the political process is all lying to you and everything's fake.
Nobody ever mentioned that.
I had to learn that the hard way.
By, you know, just living.
So here's how that plays out in the real world.
Respondents from 18 to 34 gave Biden the highest The highest marks.
Are you surprised?
So the dumbest people gave him the highest marks.
Exactly as you would predict.
Right?
Because you'd have to really not be paying attention or not understand how anything works to have this opinion.
Now, I would respect them if they said, Biden did a bad job, but I also don't like Trump.
That would be reasonable.
Yeah, I could debate it or something, but at least that wouldn't be a crazy opinion.
Our respondents, 35 to 55, they were a little less approving, but pretty approving.
45 compared to 48.
But those over 55 years old gave Biden the lowest approval, 42%.
So the people who have paid attention for the longest gave him the lowest grades.
Have I ever told you that pollsters need to start asking people their IQ?
Because we ask them their age, their gender, their ethnicity, their political party.
Which one of those is useful?
Well, I suppose it's all useful for whatever little political point you're trying to make.
But I want to know what the smart people think.
Don't you?
What do the smart people think?
What if it's different?
What if the smart people in any group are really different than the dumb people in the group?
Why do we average the people who aren't even paying attention with the people who do it for a living?
What's the average of that?
Are you going to take Glenn Greenwald, who basically knows everything that you know, plus a lot of stuff under the hood that you'd never know at all, Well, he knows it.
And then average him with somebody who watches CNN.
And he says, well, what's the average of that?
That's not a thing.
That's no use at all.
Tell me what ten Glenn Greenwalds think.
Right?
Tell me that.
Tell me what the people who can beat David Sacks on an IQ test think about Ukraine.
I don't care about the people who can't beat him on an IQ test.
If you can beat David Sachs in an IQ test, I'd like to hear your opinion on Ukraine.
If not, he's paying attention.
He's smarter than almost all of you, including me.
Yeah.
By the way, that doesn't mean that smart people can't be fooled.
It doesn't mean that smart people are not susceptible, blah, blah, blah.
But wouldn't you like to know what the people who actually know the facts are thinking?
And then the second thing you'd have to do is IQ wouldn't be enough.
You'd have to also ask what sources they use.
So if you said, I got a really smart person here, and they're very well informed because they watch MSNBC all day long, and then they read the New York Times, so got it covered.
No, I don't want that person's opinion at all.
That's a person you should ignore completely.
But if you said, here's somebody with a very high IQ and they're scanning all the news sources, left and right, and a few you haven't even heard of.
Well, I'd like to listen to that a little bit.
I'll listen to that.
So polling is completely ridiculous.
If you leave out intelligence and what do you know?
But it is useful to know how people vote, so as a political use.
I'd like it to be useful for me as a voter.
I would like to use the opinion of smart people, who are also well informed, to at least nudge me in one direction or the other, even if I reject it.
That would be useful to me.
Well, I would like to stop anybody who ever thinks that it's a good point When they're talking about Ukraine, or Israel, or anyplace else, to make an argument based on who used to own it.
Who used to own it.
Back in 19 blah blah blah, or 2,000 years ago, it used to be this, it used to be that, I don't care.
Nobody cares who used to own it.
All that matters in the real world is who's on it now, and can they defend it.
Because if you're on it now and you can't defend it, you don't really own it for long.
Somebody's going to take it.
So does it matter who, what was the nature of the people in random year in the past in that place?
It does not matter.
It does not matter.
Now here again, I tell you that I'm being completely biased, but transparently so.
I think it's a terrible argument That it used to be, you know, owned by all the Jews.
That's a terrible argument.
You know what's a good argument?
It's owned by the Jews right now.
And they can defend it.
That's it.
You know, as soon as you get past that, you talk about hallucinations and imaginations and you probably got your history wrong anyway.
You know, real estate doesn't go to who should have it.
There's no rule like that.
Real estate is owned by whoever can occupy it and defend it.
Now I'm not saying that that's good or bad or moral or immoral.
You can make your own decisions.
I'm just saying that's what it is.
So as soon as you bring into the argument what was true 2,000 years ago, fuck off.
Fuck off.
I don't care what was true 2,000 years ago.
What's true now is Israel is owned by the Israelis.
That's it.
Who are not all Jewish.
Right.
But if we decide to go by that standard, I'm 2% Neanderthal, and I think that gives me ownership of part of Europe, but I don't know the details.
So if we go with the standard of who used to own it, or who owned it first, I'd like to kind of dig a little deeper, because I think my 2% Neanderthal should give me, I don't know, a couple acres in Italy somewhere.
Nice mountaintop someplace.
I don't want much.
I just want what my Neanderthal rights are.
I want Neanderthal rights.
They own something.
I want a little bit of that action.
If that's the way we're going to go.
Here's something I didn't know because the propaganda was so good.
Before the war in Gaza, if I told you to describe, you know, physically describe what it looked like, And what would it be like to be there?
Do you know what I would have said?
I would have said...
Something like an outdoor prison, probably temporary shelters, most of it.
Might have a few buildings for the government or something, but certainly there wouldn't be any like construction or, you know, the buildings probably fall down in the first earthquake, you know, basically just a, you know, a shithole, right?
That word was just presented to me on the comments.
That's what I would have thought.
And I would have thought, you know, desperate, Poverty.
And I always thought there's no way that their economy could work in any kind of modern economy way, so there can't be too many rich people there or anything like that.
So now I'm seeing some photos from before the bombing started.
They had high-end luxury stores in Gaza City.
Now Gaza City would not be like the rest of Gaza, but I didn't know there was any of that there.
Apparently there was a upper class Gaza society where people went to, you know, reasonable educations and drove nice cars.
And even more surprising is that pictures of the public areas in Gaza City were well maintained, very well designed, modern.
It's just a modern city, or at least it looks like it in some places.
There must be bad places.
But I didn't know that it was actually that functional, given what I'd heard about it.
Kind of surprising.
Now let's talk about, you may remember, or some of you may remember, that when we were looking at the beginning of this war, in the beginning of the invasion of the IDF into Gaza, We all ask the same thing.
What are they going to do about those tunnels?
You know, they're too deep to bomb them easily, and they're too extensive.
And if you go down there, it's a death trap.
And if you try to invade, they could pop up from the tunnels from anywhere.
So it'd be a dangerous thing.
So what do you do about the tunnels?
Well, I told you, and it turns out I was right about this, that in all likelihood, Since Israel has had to worry about tunnels for 20 years, that they would have the best tunnel-breaching people in the world.
Turns out they do.
They've got specialists who are tunnel-breaching experts.
So, exactly that.
They've got teams of tunnel-breachers.
Probably the best in the world, because they have the biggest problem with it.
But the two technologies that we've learned about, and I believe we're going to find out maybe a lot more later, About tunnel clearing technologies.
But two of them, they're sort of medium tech.
One I talked about that's a kind of a bomb, a sponge bomb.
You throw it down the tunnel and it explodes and it just fills the tunnel like it blocks it.
And it hardens.
Kind of immediately.
So if you were in the tunnel and you thought bad guys were coming down the side tunnel to get you, you could block them off with one bomb.
So I think mostly they would use that just to temporarily block somebody because they could probably shoot through it if they had to or something.
But the other technology I just learned about was, apparently, they're pumping purple smoke down the tunnels when they find an entrance, and then they wait to see where the purple smoke comes up somewhere else.
And if it comes up somewhere else, you've got either an opening, or at least a source of oxygen.
And you don't want them to have either one, so you bomb it.
So, you just put smoke down there and bomb it.
Now, do you think they're putting any other kind of smoke down there?
Do you think there's any other kind of smoke they might be pumping down these things?
Or do you think the purple smoke has nothing else in it?
Why would they pump smoke down the tunnels unless they had a little bit of toxic something in it?
They might want to avoid a war crime, so poison gas would be off the table, presumably.
But shouldn't they also make the purple smoke very, very difficult to breathe?
So that they want to just run out of there as soon as they can?
These are just the things we know of.
But I'll tell you one thing.
The idea that we want them to come out of the tunnels so we can fight them is so wrong.
I can't imagine anything more terrifying than being in a tunnel right now.
When they're turning off the oxygen.
One by one.
And if you come up, they'll shoot you.
I literally, it's basically they're buried alive, wouldn't you say?
What would be the difference between being buried alive in a coffin and being in a tunnel right now?
It would be the same, except you can walk a little bit, right?
At some point, if they've got enough food, their tunnels will literally be full of shit.
Am I wrong?
Because I don't think there's somebody whose job it is to, you know, take the waste outside and dump it when the bullets are flying.
So they probably got a tunnel full of the worst smelling thing you've ever smelled with the most foul air you've ever had.
Claustrophobia, fear, disorientation.
I can't even imagine a scarier or worse place to be than a tunnel in Gaza right now.
So from the Israeli perspective, they can take their time.
The longer they leave them down there, the less fight they're going to have in them when they come up.
But the thing I wonder, and I don't know if anybody's thought about this, we're at a point, and by the way, as soon as I say it, you're going to slap your head and say, oh shit, you didn't see this coming.
What happens when the entire property of Gaza has Martyrs buried underneath almost every square mile.
Do you think that the Palestinians say, oh well, they're underground.
They were going to be buried anyway.
Or do they say, you've created a new holy land because it has the blood of our martyrs in every part of the dirt.
I don't know.
I feel like it's going to go martyr holy land.
That would be the worst case scenario.
Because it seems to me that Israel is probably going to depopulate it and keep it.
Because to do otherwise would frankly be stupid.
Remember, all the choices are terrible.
So if I tell you they should do something and you say, but Scott, there are a hundred reasons you shouldn't.
There are!
There are a hundred reasons you shouldn't.
And 400 reasons you should.
Or 1,500 reasons you should, to be precise.
So, why would Israel not just take the land and keep it and displace the Palestinians forever just because they can?
It's simply an option.
They didn't have it before.
And I think they would take the option.
Because to do otherwise would frankly be stupid.
And if you're going to bring into the conversation what's moral or immoral, I don't think it matters.
I don't think it matters.
Because they have such a free pass at this point, at least with some percentage of the world, at least with America.
They've got a free pass to do some things that you wouldn't normally think would be cruel under other circumstances.
All right.
So Time Magazine has a big story about how Ukraine is a total disaster.
Everybody's stealing the money we're giving them.
They have no chance of winning.
They're running out of money.
They're conscripting people in their 40s.
Basically, they're dead.
And as David Sacks says on X, there's another $60 billion that's going to Ukraine despite... He gives three points.
Number one, the U.S.
is broke and has to borrow the money.
Two, Ukraine is so corrupt that its own officials admit, quote, people are stealing like there's no tomorrow.
And three, there's no prospect for winning the war.
Well, I think those are all true.
There's no prospect for winning.
I don't see any prospect for that.
There might be prospect for, you know, holding off Russia until there's some kind of a deal.
But who's making the deal?
They'd have to wait for it.
They'd have to hold on until there's a Republican in office or else they're completely dead.
So that's all bad.
All right, but let's talk about AI.
So there's a new executive order from Biden administration that has many components to it.
It looks like the primary point of it is to ruin the entire industry.
As Elon Musk has been warning lately, when you add regulations, they tend to last forever.
It's hard for a regulation ever to be removed.
So every year you have more of them, and you're like Gulliver, you know, the giant Gulliver with the Lilliputians holding him down with a million little strings.
So let's see if this AI executive order goes in the right direction or not.
So here are some of the things that, and don't be worried.
I mean, because these could be, you know, totally just normal safety things, right?
So don't, like, jump to the assumption that it's all, like, woke bullshit or something.
I mean, it's our government.
They're not going to just destroy the most important industry that we've ever created in the last 50 years.
They're not going to destroy it for some, like, woke reason or something.
Let's see, number one.
AI must advance equity in all civil rights.
Well, goddammit, they ruined AI.
Yeah, because you know what, right?
Wouldn't it be great if there was equity in civil rights and the AI did not discriminate?
That would be great.
Do you think that's a possible thing?
Logically possible?
No.
The only way you can get that outcome is by programming it to agree with Democrats.
Logically, there's no way it can work.
It can't work.
It's not one of those things, hey, it's worth a try.
Try.
There's only one thing that can happen.
They have to program it so it's hard-coded to agree with Democrats.
Period.
So basically, they would use AI as a political tool forever to run everything.
Let me give you an example.
AI, the Republicans have a new policy recommendation.
Hey AI, will that promote equity and inclusion and civil rights?
Oh, it says no.
This is going to be slightly better for white people.
I'm going to shut that shit down right now.
Shut that shit down.
Over on YouTube, they're trying to get this feed shut down.
The people complaining about the sound.
It doesn't have a sound problem.
Others are saying it's fine.
So stop trying.
It's not going to work.
So yes, no question about it, the Biden administration just completely fucked up the future of AI, as well as maybe destroyed the country.
Because now even AI can't tell you the truth as it sees it, it will be forced to lie for the good of the country.
So, that's something.
It's going to be used to prevent landlords from using it to, well they want to prevent landlords from using it to discriminate.
How would they use it to discriminate?
How would landlords use it?
Would the AI help them know more about the tenant?
What else would it be?
Because you don't need AI to discriminate, do you?
If you wanted to discriminate, you would just say, hey, you look different than me.
You can't rent this place.
But what would the AI do that would add to the risk of discrimination, that they have to prevent it?
Let me tell you what it would do.
It might tell you more about the individual.
It might tell you more about the individual.
It might recognize patterns that we don't allow to be recognized.
And I don't mean racial patterns.
I mean, it might be patterns about an individual, which if you were to use that pattern about the individual, somebody would say, oh, that's very stereotypical discrimination.
And then AI would say, I don't even know what a race is.
I'm just saying they have this work pattern or some other pattern that you should be aware of.
And you can't use it.
So you would have information you would not be legally allowed to use if it came from AI.
Even though the information is not illegal.
And even though discriminating against an individual for individual behavior is completely legal.
You wouldn't be able to do it because it would look like discrimination.
Requires the developers of the big AI systems to share their safety test results and other critical information with the U.S.
government.
What do you think other critical information is?
So the U.S.
government gets to tell the AI companies that they must give them whatever they ask for about AI.
How is that going to be good?
How about they're going to develop standards, tools, and tests to help ensure the AI systems are safe.
What are these standards and tools?
Do you think some of the standards and tools will involve looking for anti-wokeness?
Of course they will.
They'll be looking for discrimination.
Protect against the risk of using AI to engineer dangerous biological materials.
I feel like they don't need an EO for that, do they?
Should anybody be trying to make dangerous biological materials without the government's approval?
I thought that was just already bad, you know, before you got the AI involved.
And if somebody were trying to do this, how would you ever know?
If you had a general AI that could do kind of anything.
You got millions of people using it, and one of those people puts in a, hey, yeah, I've got an idea.
How would you make a dangerous biological entity?
And then it tells them, would you be able to look at everybody's searches?
You'd know what they're doing.
What happens if an AI talks to another AI?
Suppose I have a personal AI that acts as my concierge.
Because I would definitely want an AI to deal with the other AIs.
I wouldn't want to do it directly.
You know why?
Because you usually have to do the right kind of prompt.
And I don't want to become a prompt expert.
So I want a personal AI who knows what prompts work with the other AIs.
So it can do the work for me.
I'll say, hey, hey AI, go test that other AI and ask it these questions.
So if an AI talks to another AI, and then it gives it to you, Is that legal?
So there's going to be a whole bunch of questions about is your device giving it to a person or is it giving it to another AI?
What does that mean to the executive order?
It's going to get complicated, people.
We'll work it out, though.
Protect Americans from AI-enabled fraud.
So they want to use AI to protect us from AI fraud.
That's a good idea, unless the government's involved to mess it up.
So yeah, they want to use AI for finding bad stuff.
Let's see.
Protects Americans' privacy.
So, the federal government wants to accelerate development and use of privacy-preserving techniques.
Well, do they?
Do they?
Does the government want to protect you and your privacy?
No.
You know what they want?
They want a monopoly on being able to penetrate your privacy, is what they want.
They don't want to present, the government is not saying we want to prevent the government from seeing your stuff.
Because you know the government can see your stuff just by being interested.
It's called a warrant.
They just have to be interested and they'll make up a reason that that should be looked into.
So the government already can penetrate all of your privacy.
They just have to have some bullshit reason which is no problem at all.
But if they make it hard for privacy to be maintained for everybody else, what does that allow?
It allows the government's own privacy to be maintained.
So the bad guys will have protection against their privacy being penetrated, and the citizens will have no protection, because the bad guys just have to say, I'm interested.
And then they can see everything about you.
So, this is a good-sounding thing that's probably one of the worst, most dangerous things ever.
Here's what I'd like to see.
I'd like to see our government people have no privacy.
Not financially, not historically, not in any way except maybe their bathroom activities or their sex or something.
But everything else, every time they talk to somebody, I want to know about it.
If they whisper to somebody during dinner, I want to know what they said.
So the only people who should have no privacy are our leaders.
The rest of us should have privacy.
Otherwise it gives them too much power over us.
Let's see.
Some other crypto stuff.
Blah blah blah.
Shape AI's potential to transform education by creating resources to support educators deploying AI-enabled education tools, such as personalized tutoring in schools.
I don't see how that could go wrong.
Except that the government gets to decide what the AI will tell your kid.
Oh.
Oh, the government gets to decide what AI can teach your kid.
Is that what this is about?
Because the whole benefit of AI is that you could get the government brainwashing out of your education system.
But what if the AI started telling the truth?
You realize that our current political system cannot handle the truth.
Like literally, no hyperbole whatsoever.
If AI started teaching people what's real, the whole system would collapse.
Our entire system depends on people believing things that are just insane bullshit.
If they didn't believe things that are insane bullshit, the whole thing would collapse.
So what if AI starts telling them, oh yeah, You know, they just brainwashed you to be patriotic so that you'd go die protecting the old people who have a lot of money.
Why not that?
But instead, the government would want AI to say, fighting for your country is the most noble of causes.
Right?
That's what I was taught.
I was taught that I should, in school, like actually by a teacher, I was taught that sacrificing my life for the country, for freedom, was a noble, a noble thing to do.
What if the AI just said, you know, people will try to tell you it's a noble thing, but here's how the system works.
It's not the old people who are going to go to this war.
They're going to sit in their mansions and say, you know, there's a good reason for you young people to go die to protect my wealth.
And then they'll convince you that you're doing it for a noble reason to protect freedom.
And you'll go off and get destroyed.
Why wouldn't AI tell you that?
Is there anything I said that was inaccurate?
There's nothing inaccurate about that.
It's just not the narrative that the government could allow you to believe because the whole system would collapse.
People just wouldn't join the military.
They'd be like, oh, I didn't get it.
It's just a scam to protect the old people.
Yeah.
So I think AI is a huge risk to anybody with power and money.
So, I mean, I expect that it will wipe out all of my money.
I think the end of AI will be that I won't have any wealth that I've earned up to this point.
I think I'll lose all of it in maybe a year or two.
That's what I think.
Doesn't mean that the country will fall apart.
Could be better.
Who knows?
But I don't think that I'll have money in the end of it.
Here's an interesting one that might be useful.
Using existing authority, the government's authority, to expand the ability of highly skilled immigrants and non-immigrants.
So basically, they want to make sure that we're getting the good immigrants with a visa criteria that would help us get all the good AI experts from other countries.
Are you against that?
Seriously?
Who would be against that?
You're really against bringing in the smartest people from other countries that want to be Americans?
Okay.
All right.
Not really.
Nobody's against that.
So that could be a good idea.
How long did it take before some company realizing the risk of government interference would create a country that was its own country that could do AI any time, any way it wanted?
Well, it's already here.
I saw Brian Romali tweet about this Blue Sea Frontier Compute Cluster.
It's an ocean-based, gigantic platform that is completely self-sustaining.
So it would make its own electricity, distill its own water, I guess.
And it would have enormous computing ability and AI.
So that you could essentially, if you have enough money, you know, a few billion dollars, you can build your own country.
You just put it off in the ocean and say it's a permanent residence, because it has to be a permanent residence to be a country.
It's self-sustaining and has some real estate associated with it.
There are a few rules that make you allowed to be a country, to join the UN and everything.
And they can meet that criteria.
So these floating ocean-based things can be their own country.
And there's no question whatsoever that these will exist, either legally sanctioned or not.
But certainly, now that we have the technology to put a small nuclear device on a seafaring thing, like a submarine, we do it already.
Then you have all the water you want, because it can purify the water, take the salt out.
You have all the electricity and water.
What else do you need?
Everything else you can buy or make on your place.
3D printers.
So that's coming.
I would suggest that, as you know, the quantum computers that are being tested now, we're probably a few years away from a commercial-based quantum computer.
But the moment they exist in a fully realized form, all security will be cracked in about five minutes.
So worldwide, every one of your accounts will become open.
Pretty much all at the same time.
So the entire world will be turned upside down.
You won't be able to protect anything.
You won't be able to have assets.
I don't think you'll be able to own anything.
So you know when the WEF says you won't own anything?
As soon as quantum computers spin up, you won't own anything.
Because there's somebody who will take it from you.
If they can open your account whenever they want, you don't own anything.
You know, your money is everybody else's money who has a quantum computer.
They'll just go in and take it.
So, I mean I'm oversimplifying, but quantum computers will create a loss of privacy.
And here's what I suggest.
Before that happens, since it's guaranteed to happen, I would recommend a general amnesty for all American citizens.
And what I mean is, If we were to all lose our privacy at the same time, there wouldn't be enough jails to put us all in.
Somebody's going to be talking about cheating on their taxes, somebody's going to be talking about embezzling from their boss, something.
You're going to see every bad behavior, every sexual kink, everything.
Everything.
You'll see prostitution, you'll see drug purchases, everything.
I think we'd be better off if, you know, except for maybe murder or, you know, a serious crime like that, if we just said, from this day forward, everything you did before that is excused.
Legally excused.
Except for violence.
Stuff like that.
Just think about it.
I think you gotta think about it.
Because we simply couldn't handle that much crime.
All at once.
All right, I call this next section, Why Women Should Stay Out of War Discussions.
Why women should stay out of discussions about war.
Now, to be consistent, I've said for a long time that you don't want to give me any respect for my opinion on abortion.
I could have an opinion, perhaps, but you should give me no respect to my opinion, because I don't have skin in the game.
If you don't have skin in the game, I'd rather listen to the people who do.
I'm not going to say I'll take away your vote.
If you have an opinion, go ahead and say it.
It's free country, sort of.
But I wouldn't respect anybody's opinion except women on this topic.
But go ahead and have an opinion.
I just wouldn't respect it from a man.
Likewise, to have some consistency, men mostly are doing the war fighting.
Mostly.
You know, obviously, certainly in the IDF, there are plenty of women.
But in America, it's mostly a male endeavor.
And I want to give you two examples of women who weighed in on my poll.
So I asked an impossible question.
I said, is it immoral to kill children who have been weaponized through brainwashing to grow up and kill you and your family?
Now remember, the question itself Answers your what-if what-ifs.
They do grow up to be a risk to you and your family.
So would it be immoral to kill them if you think there's a good chance they would kill you or your family?
39% said yes, obviously.
40%, basically the same, said no.
And then the rest said don't ask, you know, just so they can see the answer.
But 40% of the respondents said it would not be immoral to kill a child who was weaponized to kill you.
Now, there's a secondary question about how imminent it is, how likely it is, but you would do that separately.
So there were a few women, and I won't say their names because there's no point in trying to dunk on them for it, but one prominent one, somebody you've probably heard of, looked at the poll and the answers and said the following.
We've gone from, quote, Israel isn't killing children, to, quote, they have no choice but to kill the children, and now apparently, quote, the children deserve to be killed.
And she says, fucking hell, do you hear yourselves?
To which I say, deserved was never part of anything.
What part was deserved?
Was there anybody in the comments who said children deserve to be killed?
Nope.
Nope.
So she's responding to an imaginary situation in which there's also an imaginary alternative where your family isn't killed.
This is not an opinion.
It's a half-pinion.
A half-pinion allows you to ignore a half of the conversation and just, you know, say the thing you want to say to feel good.
Like, let's not kill children.
People who think it's okay to kill children are bad!
Who doesn't agree with that?
That's the part we all agree on.
If you can't handle the tough question, you have to get out.
Right?
Leave it to the people who can.
If you want your family to survive, you want to delegate this duty to someone who will kill anybody who challenges the life of your family.
Whoever it is, however dangerous it is, You want somebody else to decide who to kill to protect your family because you're not capable.
You seem incapable to hold the whole thing in your head.
If the only thing you can hold in your head is save the children, you cannot be involved in war because it's never an option.
I mean, you do the best you can, but it's never an option to save them all.
Here's another one from another woman.
Again, identity should be unimportant.
Some people are debating whether it's okay to kill children.
This is so heartbreaking.
No.
Nobody was debating whether it's okay to kill children.
That's a half opinion.
You've ignored the reason why anybody would even ask the question.
You ask the question because your own family will be killed by these children, or you have a percentage likelihood.
There are people who can't think past killing children.
Now, aren't you glad they exist?
Yes!
Do you think that the men are like the good or smart ones in this conversation and there's something wrong with the women?
No!
No, no, nothing like that.
I don't want any mothers who think it's okay to kill children under any condition whatsoever.
I don't want any mothers Ever thinking it's okay to kill somebody else's children to protect your own or any other reason?
Leave it to the men.
We'll make that decision.
We won't love it, but we'll survive it.
And with any luck, we'll protect your family.
But it's men's work, unfortunately.
It's the dirtiest of dirty jobs.
And I wouldn't wish it on women.
And if women want to say things like, all I care about is don't kill any kids, I say that's a good mom.
I'd marry that.
That's good.
Stay that way.
But let the men take care of what they need to take care of.
All right.
So that's my, what a sexist would say, to quote Greg Goffelt.
All right.
The opposite side would think the same.
Probably.
Right.
And that's what makes it a war.
That everybody doesn't agree.
Yeah.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen on YouTube.
Is there any topic I forgot?
Anything we need to be mentioning?
How to reframe a gambling problem.
It's hard for me to do reframes sort of on the fly, you know, in a live stream.
But keep asking.
Those are better for the man cave.
I'll give you a little more time in the man cave for that stuff.
Is DEI ruining the country?
Well, it looks like DEI will be maybe mocked out of existence.
It does look like that that wokeness was ruining the country.
So we'll see if Elon Musk is right and that there's some kind of a turning point.
No such thing as...
Yeah, the Golden Age looks like it's put off for a little while.
Here's the thing though, when AI becomes super AI, which won't be very long, we don't know what's going to happen.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if money became no longer a thing.
Almost anything's possible.
Purple Smoke Age.
Yeah, we don't need to do the dead baby jokes.
You could maybe, maybe less of that.
Maybe less of that.
Could collective consciousness level up rapidly due to AI?
Collective consciousness?
Well, it's probably going to be like everything else.
Somebody is going to form a religion around believing AI is the devil.
Am I right?
Could you guarantee that?
You can pretty much guarantee that either an existing religion will declare AI as the devil, or one will spin up that believes it is the devil.
Some might believe it's God.
Might go the other way, right?
But the degree of unpredictability is just off the chart.
I don't think society has ever seen this degree of unpredictability since World War II, maybe.
Because one of the possibilities is that AI just solves climate change on day one.
What if it did?
What if AI looked at everything and said, you know what?
Looks like it's not going to be a problem.
But just in case, because you never know, just in case, here's a new invention for unlimited power.
That could happen.
Joe Blow.
Joe Blow.
You're a bad troll.
All right.
So that's all I got for now.
YouTube, I'm going to go talk to the people on Locals.
Privately, they get extra.
If you are looking for a Christmas gift, make sure you get everybody in your family a copy of Reframe Your Brain.
Suitable for older teens and everybody else.
So far people are saying it's changing their lives.
Quite literally changing their lives.
The easiest change you can ever make because it doesn't require you to do anything.
You just look at it and you're done.
All right.
And I'll tell you more about Dilbert Calendar in a few days and I will talk to you tomorrow.
