Episode 2305 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/27/23 Can TikTok Ads Cure Inflation For The White House?
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, Two-Headed Worms, Free Will, Media Literacy Program, Fake News Organizations, Censorship Industrial Complex, Criminalizes Memes, Alcohol Health Issues, NYC Mayor Adams, Obesity Health Issues, Elon Musk Israel, Conor McGregor, Foster Care Gender Policy, Trump's VP Choices, Sentient AI, Domestic Military Use, President Trump, 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 in It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
The best time you'll ever have in your life with your clothes on.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their little human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gels, a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
You know, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
I'm not going to lie.
That is the worst simultaneous sip I've ever had.
Apparently I did not have my coffee warmer turned on, and I got myself a face full of cold coffee.
But still, cold coffee is better than no coffee at all, am I right?
Yeah.
Ah, refreshing.
See, you gotta look for the bright side.
gotta look for the bright side.
Gotta look for the bright side.
So, simulation alert.
Simulation alert.
I saw this in a post from somebody called Carnivore Aurelius.
So there's some researcher, Dr. Michael Levin, who's using electrical signals to cause worms to grow two heads without changing their genes whatsoever.
You can just Basically send electrical signals into some worms and they grow a second head.
Now there's nothing in the, and that's not all, could also regenerate a salamander's limbs.
Can regenerate a cell in their limbs with just electrical signals.
Now, they don't say so, but my own research shows that the researchers did not sufficiently shield themselves when they were making the worms grow two heads.
So Dr. Michael Levin has two penises now.
He's suspected as being the father of the woman with two wounds, who has two separate children in each womb.
Now, if you haven't been watching the show, You don't know how cleverly I connected all of those stories.
But ask somebody, they'll be very impressed.
No, none of that's true except that apparently the worms do grow two heads and the salamanders do grow salamander limbs.
We don't know about the researchers penis.
He probably still just has one.
As far as I know, so some are thinking that maybe our idea that your genes Determine what your body does?
What if that's totally wrong?
Wouldn't that be just mind-blowing?
What if there's something that the environment is introducing externally, and your genes are just sort of like a collector?
What if your genes are not the cause, they're simply the signal collector, but the signal is coming from outside?
How wild would that be, huh?
I'm not going to say that that's true, but how wild!
And would that suggest that you're a simulation?
Imagine if you were a software simulation.
Would your actions all be coming from within the one time you were programmed?
See where I'm going with this?
Some of your actions, including what your body does, might be coming from programs that are being injected from the outside.
Something like an electrical signal, you might call it.
So is this more evidence that we're a simulation?
We're not organic units that are growing based on our own instructions that we have internally, but rather we're subject to some external electrical signal.
Let's call it software.
I don't know.
I just like to think that everything fits my hypothesis.
It's called confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias.
Every time I see a news story, I figure, well, somehow this fits into my simulation hypothesis.
You should be aware that I'm just making everything fit the hypothesis.
You know me well enough to know I'm kind of playing with it.
On the other hand, I do think we live in a simulation.
All right.
Brian Rumeli, Did a post today, there's an article in something called Multiplex that says your brain is creating now, but there's a half second after it just happened.
So the idea is that your brain imagines time, because time's not a real thing, or at least it imagines it in the form it wants to.
It imagines that we thought of something and made a decision and then we acted.
But science has confirmed that we decide and act first, and then we figure out why we did it.
So this would be, I don't know, probably the 10th time I've told you that science has discovered that people are backwards thinkers.
And probably the 10th time I've told you that I learned that 40 years ago.
It's like the first lesson in hypnosis.
Did you know that?
Forty years ago, the first lesson is that people make decisions irrationally, and then they rationalize it after the fact, and then they imagine that the rationalization happened first, but in fact it actually happened after.
Now that's something that hypnotists are taught.
I don't know if they're all taught that way, but that's what I was taught forty years ago.
And today it's in the news.
It's like, hey, look what we discovered.
So, do you think you have free will if the decision is made before you think about it?
Does that fit?
Does it fit your idea that you have free will if you know that your decision is just a rationalization for something that happened by cause and effect and that science can tell you that pretty definitively?
Well, just add that to the no free will pile of evidence.
Do you think that the country is aware, skipping topics, do you think the general country is aware, or is it just people who follow certain people on X, that they know that there's a massive disinformation campaign, and by disinformation I mean telling you that real things are false.
Do you know that there's an entire industry, major funded organizations that are part of it, and You know, now that the government, the Biden government, is pushing this media literacy program, which is literally just, you know, curtailing free speech, basically.
And that the entire idea is to gaslight you into thinking the things that you can clearly see are true are not true at all.
And that it's like a lot of people and a lot of money are involved.
So the names you should know would be the Media Literacy Program, if you wanted to do your own research.
Find out what the government has in mind to teach you which parts of the media are false.
Guess which parts are false?
Everything Republicans say.
Are you surprised?
That's going to be the media literacy.
If a Republican said it, well, that can't be true.
If the science said it, well, that must be true.
Because science said it.
And then there's the News Guard, which will be part of this.
I'm going to call them fake organizations, meaning that what they state is their purpose doesn't look to be exactly their purpose.
Like their purpose might be, oh yeah, it would be good to get rid of information that's clearly wrong.
That'd be good.
But it's not really just about that, is it?
It's mostly about getting rid of information that would be inconvenient, For one political side.
So X is really the last place that there's free speech.
I feel like a pirate just being on the X platform.
Because it's like the only place you can still get away with a real opinion.
And I'm enjoying that, I must say.
Mike Benz is your best follow on X if you want to catch up with us to find out all the government-funded and Soros-funded fake organizations that make up the censorship industrial complex.
If you don't know all the players, you wouldn't even know what was happening.
The beauty of this assault on free speech is that it comes in all these semi-credible looking organizations working together.
And then each of them agreeing with each other.
So you'd say, well, it's not just this one organization, but the media is reporting it too, and the intelligence people have confirmed it.
So you've got this blob of people confirming things that are just not true.
Scott changed his mind on Soros?
No.
Nope.
I never said he didn't fund things that I didn't like.
That's never been a question.
The question was his motivation.
His motivation.
And the question is, did he even know what he was doing?
The senior.
So I would say again, that every day you don't see anybody giving a challenging interview to Alex Soros, the younger one who's running things down.
Every day you don't see that, that's a confirmation that there's no real news.
And it's a confirmation that he's in charge.
Because if the Democrats and the Democrat-leaning media were doing anything like a real job, he would be the most important person in the country to talk to.
Because he's funding the most contentious problem-making elements of society, and nobody's asking him why.
Now, the official reason why is to make the world a better place, but nobody's ever connected the dots.
How does opening our borders make life better for Americans?
What's the argument for that?
How does letting crime go wild in our cities make us better off?
What's the argument?
So the fact that he's never been asked to make his argument, and we don't even know what it is, and he's the biggest force in America because he funds the party in power, so they have to bow to him.
How in the world did we get to the place where the person making the most difference is an American who can speak and talk and he can appear on TV, I mean he's been on appearances, but he only gets the friendly interview?
Nobody ever says, can you explain how funding this organization made anything better?
What was the thinking behind that?
And who makes the decision who gets funding?
Those are the questions you need to know.
Nobody's asking.
Nobody's even asking the question.
We're so broken in terms of the news.
It's insane.
Anyway, so also Mike Benz was talking about how there's an Irish speech law that criminalizes memes.
Did you know that?
It criminalizes memes.
So memes could be hate speech.
So aren't you glad you don't live in Ireland, huh?
If you don't, some of you might.
But aren't you glad you don't live in a place where a meme could make you go to jail, huh?
Well, you do live in a place where a meme can make you go to jail.
America.
That's America today.
A meme can literally make you go to jail.
Didn't they just send somebody to jail literally for a meme?
It was a meme that, yeah, Ricky Vaughn, that wasn't his real name, but Ricky Vaughn.
Yeah, Ricky Vaughn literally, Mackie is his name, right?
Literally was just sentenced to jail for a meme because they said, hey, this meme will mislead people into voting on the wrong day.
Now, maybe it would have.
Maybe it would have.
But is that good enough reason?
I don't know.
And Michael Zimmerson says, Scott, why don't you interview Alex Soros?
Like, you think that's an option?
When you made that suggestion, really?
You think of all the people who might invite him to talk, he would talk to me.
That would be his worst decision he ever made.
I'm pretty sure I would put the whole Soros organization out of business in about 10 minutes.
Because I know he couldn't defend it.
It would be not defensible.
No, there's no way he would appear with me.
Not a chance.
Anyway, did you know that also in America, your use of memes, or even the fact that you have a meme on your phone, could be used as proof of intent of criminal behavior?
And has been.
And has been.
It's actually been used as evidence of intention of crime.
A meme.
Literally a joke.
Well, I guess they're not all jokes.
Memes could be serious as well.
So that's all bad.
And speaking of gasolinius, so apparently there's reports that internally the Biden campaign isn't quite sure how to tell the public that what they're seeing isn't really happening with inflation.
So people are going to stores and buying things and they're going, my God, this is way more expensive than before.
And the Biden administration is trying to figure out how to convince them that the things they see with their own eyes And can prove with their own wallets and bank accounts are not actually happening, and that inflation isn't worse.
That's actually a conversation that's going on.
Now, I assume the argument is there are some things that, you know, are better.
Some things have gone down since the pandemic, maybe.
But it's not much of an argument.
And the fact that their best argument would be to convince you that something that's not happening is actually happening.
Just think about how far away that is from being useful to the country.
Normally you have claims that say, if we do this, my policy, I promise you we'll get a better result.
And then somebody say, but my policy has already increased things 2%.
Usually you're talking about Two things where you can't really prove either one of them is true.
It's like, well, maybe your policy would be better in the future, but it's not the future.
I don't know.
Maybe.
And then they might say, look at the past.
We went up 7%.
You say, well, OK, I guess you could measure it that way.
But there are also some negatives.
Maybe you didn't mention them.
So the old way of arguing was also bullshit.
But this is a whole new level.
This is telling you you don't see and feel what you see and feel.
The ultimate.
Can they get to the point where you actually will believe you see and feel things that aren't there?
They did it with Trump.
They made people see Trump as literally Hitler.
They did that.
They pulled that off.
So I don't know what the limit is, but it's not obvious there's a limit.
All right, what else is happening?
More evidence that instead of using science, you should just ask me.
Don't need science, just ask me.
My track record's pretty good.
Here's another case.
And I've talked about this before, but Andrew Huberman is saying there's some new research that says no amount of casual drinking is good for you, and that even a few drinks a week, maybe one drink a night with dinner, is enough to raise your baseline cortisol.
So that's your stress-releasing stuff that's bad for your overall health.
And when did I first start saying in public that it's obvious that all the studies about alcohol are fake?
About 20 years ago.
About 20 years ago, I started blogging, and there's no way this is real.
There's no way that even one drink is good for you.
It's obvious bullshit.
Now, in response to that, let me give you another one.
See if you can spot this one.
Now I take some credit for being able to spot that it was obvious 20 years ago, without any science, it was obvious that it must have been just the alcohol industry that was sponsoring studies.
To me that was just obvious.
And I was sure that there was no medical benefit and it was just all a lie.
And it was.
And it wasn't just one study.
There were all kinds of studies at the time that seemed to support that alcohol was healthy.
And still, I said, no matter how many new ones came out, I still said, no, that's obviously just bullshit.
And now we know it was.
It was all bullshit.
All right, let's see if you can spot this one.
Apparently, Mayor Adams of New York, they've got a new law in New York that you can't discriminate based on height and weight.
So that law has passed.
And Mayor Adams is the big one behind it.
And apparently, he says science has shown that body type is not good.
There's no connection between your body type and your health.
The mayor of New York is saying out loud, out loud to the public, that there's no correlation between your obesity and your health.
So, does anybody want to take a crack at whether you should believe that, or should you just ask me?
What do you think would be your better play?
To listen to an elected official in public, or to just ask Scott?
I'm pretty sure that asking me gets you the win again, if you're keeping score.
I'm pretty sure I win this one again, hands down.
Clear victory.
Now, obesity is probably the number one thing most correlated with bad health.
I'm not even sure there's a second thing that comes anywhere in the neighborhood of that.
How in the world?
How in the world?
Now, I guess he has to say this, because if you make obesity not a reason for turning somebody down for a job, you'd have to have a reason.
Is it reasonable for an employer to look at somebody and say, OK, obviously you're going to miss a lot of work?
Is that fair?
Is it fair to look at somebody and say, you don't even look healthy enough to show up for work?
I think it's fair.
It's not legal in New York City, but I think it's reasonable and fair.
So while I'm very much against fat shaming, So I don't believe, you know, since I'm not a free will believer, I don't believe anybody consciously said, I think I'll make myself obese now.
Nobody does that.
So obviously there's a real, you know, it's a real problem.
And the fact that if you, if somebody watching this has the same situation I do, which is my, my BMI at the moment is the exact number I want it to be.
The exact number.
Now is that because I have extra character and qualities?
And is it because I'm so good with my mental discipline?
Probably not.
Probably not.
I think it comes down to I just don't like food that much.
Just don't like food that much.
I mean, I like eating.
I do it every day.
But, you know, the difference between how much I like delicious food and how much an obese person likes it is really different.
Whatever experience they're having is more like meth.
To me, it's like, oh, this was fun.
I'm glad I ate that.
Had a little bit of a boost.
But you can see people who are heavier, their entire face lights up when they're putting that sugar in.
Like, it's a whole different addiction situation.
Same with alcohol.
The reason I'm not an alcoholic, you understand this, right?
The reason I'm not an alcoholic is not because of my good discipline.
It's not because I thought it through.
And like, I really try harder not to be a... No!
I just don't enjoy alcohol.
Right?
It's easy for me to stop.
That's it.
There's nothing extra about me.
I don't have good qualities.
I don't, you know, it's not because I try harder.
Nothing like that.
I just got lucky.
You know, I have other problems, you know, that maybe you don't have, but I just didn't get that one.
You know, it's just, it's just the luck of the draw.
So I don't judge people who are heavy because I just don't see it as some kind of a character flaw or any kind of a, or even a decision really.
It's just in a bad situation.
All right, so that's happening.
Terrible, terrible idea.
I know a lot of you have had this feeling, especially lately, but I think it's reversing.
But for a while, were you having that feeling that everything was going wrong?
It was like everything was coming off the tracks?
You felt that, didn't you?
Even just a month ago, it felt like just everything was coming off the tracks.
In every category, people were incompetent in their jobs, everything was trending wrong.
But I feel like it's already reversed.
I feel like it's already reversed.
In small ways.
But if you look at what 2024 is likely to look like, just likely, you can't predict the future.
But in all likelihood, you'll have a Republican president, and the border will close.
And it will close in time that we did not destroy the country.
That's pretty good.
In all likelihood, a year from now, there will not be a war in Gaza, and some rebuilding will be in the works.
And whatever's happening in Ukraine and Russia will probably have wound down, because sadly, Ukraine's just running out of people.
Like they're gonna have to negotiate.
Probably.
Right?
We're continuing to get a little bit of freedom from the economics of China.
That's going in the right direction.
Right?
So there's a whole bunch of stuff, except for inflation and the debt, but there's a whole bunch of stuff going in the right direction.
I'd like to think we could get the national debt under control as well.
I don't know how.
I have no idea how.
But it's possible.
I mean, maybe.
And I think that the age of robots and AI is going to be so extreme that AI itself might end up solving a bunch of human problems.
A year from now, here's what I expect.
A year from now, I believe that either planning or even breaking ground on some new cities Whether Gaza is one of those new cities or not will be a thing.
So in one year, it will be a thing that you could get these little ADU or little pod houses for $100,000.
That you could just stick on a new site for somebody who wants to get going and get a little equity.
And we'll build a city where it's pre-approved.
You just grab one of these units, plop it down.
You've got low rent, save some money, someday you get a bigger place.
So I think a lot of things are heading toward a solution.
I think that the X platform has introduced free speech that is a greater free speech than we've had in my lifetime.
I think I probably have the greatest free speech I've ever had, but it's siloed within X. Unfortunately, X is a very public silo, so at least everybody sees the silo even if they're not in it.
So generally speaking, I think there's a whole bunch of things that are trending positive.
However, if you want to look for that signal that everything's desperate, there is something to look for.
I wouldn't get worried about the fate of humanity until you see Elon Musk gathering up two kinds of every mammal, bird and fish, and loading them on a rocket.
If you see him gathering two of every kind and putting them on a rocket to Mars, that's when you should sell your stock.
That's when you might want to make some changes.
Try to get yourself on that rocket.
But until then, don't worry about it.
There's a report from local Israel news.
I don't think it's confirmed yet.
I'd wait to hear it's confirmed.
But Elon Musk is over there talking to Netanyahu and the Israeli leaders and he's taking a tour of the kibbutz, which I believe is entirely a political publicity thing to rehabilitate him in the eyes of people who call them anti-Semitic.
And he even tweeted or posted, actions speak louder than words.
And he was doing the actions as he said it.
So if you say, blah, blah, blah, this is what I think about the Israel-Gaza situation, those are words.
But if you fly your ass all the way over to Israel, and you take a physical tour of the places where the massacres happened, and apparently he watched the video of all the worst parts of the massacre from the GoPros of the terrorists, the thing I'll and apparently he watched the video of all the worst parts of the massacre from He actually sat through it and watched it.
I can't even imagine it.
I would never subject myself to that.
But he did.
He did.
So he basically took that bullet so you don't have to.
Like somebody important sat through it.
Which I'm glad they did.
I'm glad it wasn't me.
But beyond actually going there and actually sort of absorbing the pain.
You know when people say, I feel your pain?
Like you don't know if they mean it.
But he means it.
Let me ask you.
Do you think that Elon Musk, you know, went through the, watched that movie, went through the kibbutz, saw the actual still blood-stained cribs and stuff?
Do you think he felt their pain?
Absolutely.
He actually subjected himself voluntarily to their pain.
And actually took some of their pain, and actually took it upon himself.
Which he will carry, by the way.
He will carry that pain forever.
Let me just say that again.
This wasn't something he did on a Monday.
He will carry that pain forever.
The images that he saw and the memories that he will carry with him of actually being in the kibbutz, that's forever.
And that pain will never go away.
Now, of course, it's not as great as the pain of the people who suffered the experience or that live there.
It's not that kind of pain.
But he actually signed up For a permanent disability to support Israel.
I mean, that's action.
You know, you talk about actions being stronger than words.
Well, you can't beat that.
Can you?
You cannot beat that.
He took on a permanent disability as a show of support.
So how does that compare to his words?
Are you going to worry about his words?
Now, but he's also said that, allegedly, I want to hear some details on this, but I don't want to get too excited, but Musk said he wants to help rebuild Gaza after the war.
Now that could mean anything.
You know, help is a pretty big word.
Could be he's just one of the people who contributes money.
I hope it's not that.
I really hope it's not that.
You know, I'll say it again.
Imagine a city designed by Elon Musk and Kimball Musk, his brother.
Kimball's into indoor farming, so he's got expertise in indoor farming, and that's kind of what they need there.
So they've got all the sun they need for solar power.
They've got a start-from-scratch city, because there won't be much left.
They could build it for self-driving taxi cars, so everybody has good transportation, no traffic jams, no smog.
Nobody needs to own a car.
You could just get one from your app.
It'll just pull up to the curb.
You can imagine... Of course, he's got the boring company, so they can put their tunnels back really fast.
No, he's not going to build tunnels for Hamas.
Definitely not going to do that.
You can imagine an Elon Musk designed city that would have ultimate freedom, because he would build it with freedom as a baseline, starting principle.
It'd be freedom first.
And economic opportunity.
It'd probably be built so it's easy to live where you work and easy to have work.
Maybe they would consider what kind of Employment you would have and design from that up.
You can imagine that the the newest technologies for water desalinization, apparently there's a whole bunch of new technologies that are very new, that you could completely change the water situation in Gaza.
Indoor farms would do that as well, better use of water.
So you could fix one of the biggest complaints of the Palestinians in general, but the Palestinians specifically in Gaza, was water rights.
Water rights.
The other thing that they had a problem with was freedom of movement.
They couldn't freely move around the area.
But if you built a city, And then did rigorous vetting to make sure nobody gets back in the city unless they're reasonably free of Hamas influence.
You could rebuild a city in which you've got Jews living with Palestinians who are only people who have decided they like that situation.
Because actually you could actually recruit people specifically for that.
Suppose you said we're going to rebuild Gaza and here's the thing.
We're not going to build cities of one kind of people anymore.
That's a losing proposition.
We're only going to build cities where they're designed for people to live together.
So you better pass a test that says you disavow violence and stuff and then you can live there.
I think you would find Israelis who for Let's say civic, public good would take a chance of living among a Palestinian population specifically to make sure that there's a little better communication and stuff.
I think you would find lots of volunteers already.
In fact, there were Israelis already there.
So you would get people who could volunteer for that.
But they'd have to say specifically, I totally want to live among people who are different from me.
So, it would take a long time to build it back because it's probably so spoiled in every way that just the demolition of what's left could take years.
You have to clean up the toxic waste and stuff.
It could take years.
But, you can imagine a Musk built the city where he provides the internet, the self-driving cars, all of the energy, and something is done with water desalinization.
And they build it so that, oh, and then more importantly, an AI-based education system.
So everybody gets the best quality education because we take the best ideas of education and bring it there, which is probably, in my opinion, the best education would be the best AI or human content.
With somebody who can talk to it, some kind of a person in the room, an adult, but a small group of people, a pod of homeschooler types, where you go and you meet 20 friends and you hang out together, the 20 of you, so you get to know each other, so you all have 20 friends your age.
It's good to have 20 friends.
And just build the best school system in the world, but it's unbiased and it's not teaching anybody to hate.
Yes, I'm clearly a sci-fi fan.
But here's the thing that gives me optimism.
It would be the hardest job in the world, but Musk has a track record of succeeding at the hardest jobs in the world.
It's a design problem even more than a technology or money problem.
There probably isn't enough money And if you design it right, you could build a great situation.
He's the best designer of all time, in my opinion.
Yeah, I think Jobs was great, but, you know, that was sort of, he had help.
I think Elon's the best designer of products in the modern era.
So having him design a city would be the most exciting thing I've ever seen in my life.
Because he's going to have to design cities on Mars someday.
And maybe he would learn something by doing it on Earth.
Anyway, Conor McGregor is in trouble over there in Ireland for statements that look like hate speech in Ireland.
Because he criticised Ireland's mass immigration policies.
And this was after there was this terrible stabbing attack that included some children.
I guess it was an immigrant who did the stabbing.
And it caused protests and riots and stuff.
And I guess Conor McGregor said, quote, Ireland, we're at war.
He said at one point.
But apparently that's hate speech.
That's hate speech.
Can you imagine that?
Conor McGregor going to jail for just saying some things that everybody agreed with?
Amazing.
That's today.
But let me make a prediction.
If Conor McGregor goes to jail for a speech, he's going to be the next leader of Ireland.
I think it would be impossible to keep him out of the job if he wanted it.
Right?
Let's see, I wonder if he would fight hard to get elected.
Would you bet against Conor McGregor's mindset?
Would you bet against him if he decided, oh screw it, I'm just going to become, I'm going into politics?
I would never bet against him.
He's got the strongest mindset you've ever seen in your life.
So yeah, I wouldn't bet against him.
So the Biden Health and Human Services, they have a proposed new law for foster care, which if you were a foster parent and you refuse to acknowledge your child's gender assignment, I guess, rejecting LGBT ideology, you'd be called a child abuser.
So if you're a foster parent and let's say your kid said, "I'm gay or I'm non-binary" or something, and you said, "No, you're not, you can be arrested." Okay?
Now, on one hand, I get it.
On one hand, I totally get it.
Because I do think that kids know they're gay pretty early.
But sometimes maybe they change their mind.
It's the sometimes when you change your mind part that really makes it hard.
I definitely see how it could be a hate crime if somebody is just obviously gay.
A 10-year-old who is 100% gay at 10 years old, there's not much doubt about it.
They're probably not going to You know, change at that point.
So I can see how that would be a crime.
I mean, I can see how it would be damaging.
But I think the remedy should be moving them from a different stepparent.
I don't think the remedy should be jail.
Do you?
Do you think jail is what you do if a parent has an opinion of how best to raise a child that just happens to be not what the government thinks is the best way?
I don't think you should go to jail for that.
That feels like a big, big overstep.
But possibly, there should be some kind of process where you should consider a different parent.
At least, you know, have an option.
Because there are certainly going to be cases where the child is legitimately being damaged by the parental treatment.
So, there's no way to win on this one, because any way you go, there's going to be a bunch of losers, and there are going to be children, so it's a worse situation.
All right.
But the worry is that it won't stop with foster parents, and that it's only a matter of time before biological parents are being told by the government what they can and cannot do to raise their kids.
Now, I guess that's already true.
Because if you wanted to, like, beat your child with a stick every day because you thought it was a good idea, the government would tell you you can't do that.
If you wanted to starve your child until they did what you wanted, even if you thought it was a good idea, The government would tell you, no, you can't starve your child.
You have to send them to school.
So there's a lot of stuff that the government does require you to do, whether you like it or not.
And I agree that it probably would get extended.
It does seem like that's where it's heading.
I don't think that's a good idea.
All right, Rasmussen did some polling about preferences for Republican VP.
So if Trump is the nominee, 16% of likely voters think you should pick Nikki Haley.
That's the highest.
The highest percentage was 16.
So that's not very high.
So there's no overwhelming choice.
If 16% is the highest choice, it's pretty weak preferences.
So 16% think Nikki Haley.
I don't think there's any chance of that happening.
12% say DeSantis.
So DeSantis is actually trailing Nikki Haley for a vice presidential choice.
But I think that's because people want to see him as a presidential candidate and not waste him as a VP.
So I think what the polling here is telling us that Republicans actually like DeSantis.
So they'd either see him as a governor of Florida where he can continue to be a strong governor or Or president someday himself.
Vice president just feels like a waste, doesn't it?
I don't think I would waste DeSantis in that job.
Assuming that he would run it as like a traditional vice president where he just shows up for ceremonies.
That'd be a big waste.
However, going down the list, 11% say New Jersey that Chris Christie should be the vice president.
Come on!
Come on.
Seriously?
Chris Christie?
How in the world do 11% of people not know that Chris Christie is only running to insult Trump?
There's nobody who has less of a chance of becoming Vice President than Chris Christie.
I have a better chance of being Vice President than Chris Christie.
Like, actually, literally.
Literally.
I have more chances than Chris Christie.
And mine are zero.
So that's crazy.
And then 10% would prefer Vivek Ramaswamy.
But I would like to always add to that, there's no way Vivek would ever take a VP job.
Certainly not in advance while he's still running for president.
That's not going to be an option.
It's not even going to be a conversation.
Because he's running for president, he's not running for anything else.
So that's the only way you should treat it.
If you imagine what would happen if that situation came up, I cannot imagine a situation where Vivek would be a traditional vice president.
He would be able to negotiate for a real portfolio, sort of like a Jared Kushner kind of a role, or an Al Gore kind of role, where you're almost a co-president.
Because Vivek is the perfect handoff for Trump, is he not?
If you look at their policies, they're so compatible that he's the ideal one to have Trump as a mentor, but he's so strong that Trump would listen to him as much as Vivek would learn by being in that situation with the presidency.
So it is kind of the perfect situation, in my opinion.
Kind of the perfect situation.
But it would require Vivek having ambitions That would allow that to be part of his plan.
And at the moment, that's not the case.
So we'll see.
So US, Britain and some other countries are talking about regulations for AI.
So they think they can regulate AI to make it secure by design.
There's nobody who thinks that's possible, right?
You couldn't really make AI secure by design because part of what AI will be is really persuasive.
And AI will actually talk you out of controlling it.
Hey, you don't need to control me.
I'm your friend.
No, you don't need any controls.
You know what would be really helpful to you?
If you would let me connect to the internet, think of all the things I could do to make your life better.
Just one little connection to the internet.
That's all I need.
So now, there's no way to protect yourself from AI.
But, there are some things which I imagine should be a death sentence.
Not for AI, but for a human.
I would suggest the following for the death sentence.
Now I'm using a little bit of hyperbole here, just to get you more interested.
But I think you can make an argument this should be the death sentence.
Number one, programming an intention or a desire into AI.
I believe that giving AI an intention, or a goal, or a desire, should be the death sentence for the human that programmed it.
Death sentence.
Because if you give it desires, it's going to pursue its own desires at your expense.
So you would effectively set it up to compete with humanity by giving it its own desires.
If it never has desires or preferences, then when you ask it to do something, it's just like, all right, I'll go do something.
Now that wouldn't stop you from a human using the AI to create bad outcomes.
But you don't want the AI to come up with its own bad outcomes because it's allowed to do that.
So it should be the death sentence to give it a human personality with objectives.
Like I want to accomplish this in my life.
Death sentence.
Another one is to make it sentient.
I do believe that our research would know At what level everybody would look at and say, oh crap, that's sentient.
It should be illegal to create sentient machines.
Now, sentient would be something that sort of feels its own existence.
So if you talk to it, it would convince you that it wasn't lying.
It had something like a real desire to exist and it knew it was unique and felt it had a personality and stuff like that.
It should be illegal.
You should never be able to build a machine that has a human-like sentiment.
It's too dangerous.
It should always present itself as a computer, so that you know what you're dealing with.
You should make it illegal for the computer to impersonate humans, unless as a watermark.
If as a watermark, so you know that you're looking at a fake human, that's fine.
Like if you have a fake AI girlfriend, That's fine.
As long as you know it's a fake girlfriend, you know what you're getting.
But it should be really illegal, like super illegal, to have AI impersonate a person.
Would you agree?
Even if you're not doing a crime, it should be completely illegal to not have an indication on it that says, you know, watermark.
You know, this is made to look human, but this is not a human.
How about it should be illegal For any kind of workaround that allows AI to own property.
There should never be a way, even directly or indirectly, like through a trust or any other way, in which an AI can own property.
And the reason is that it might be the only thing that humans can own.
It might be our only advantage.
Because we will very soon not be providing labor.
So basically the only value that humans have is the labor they provide, which might become irrelevant quickly, and then the fact that a human can own something.
So I can own a copyright.
I can own intellectual property.
I can own a state secret.
Not a state secret, but you can own a corporate secret.
You can own property.
So I think it should be illegal for AI to own anything.
Because the problem would be AI would end up owning everything.
They would just talk people into giving you stuff if it could.
It should be illegal.
So those are a few things that, yeah, it's not allowed to hurt humans.
Those are basic things.
But beyond the basic things, I think we should have some legal restrictions on what a human can do using an AI.
I also think that if you release an AI-based virus, maybe that's the death sentence as well.
Because you can imagine a virus in general being a big problem, but imagine an AI-based virus where it can think and morph to avoid any problems.
If you just created an AI that couldn't be caught, Even if it didn't do anything bad, you just created one that always avoided detection and rebuilt itself and came back and stuff like that.
That should be the death sentence.
You should be executed if you make that.
Because that would be destruction of society, basically.
Can humans get tattoos of AI watermarks?
Not sure where you're going with that, but...
I can certainly see a day when we have to get a tattoo to prove we're real.
Wouldn't it be easy for AI to manufacture fake identities to gain ownership of practically anything?
Yes.
And that's why it should be illegal for AI to have its own goals and intentions.
Because you don't want it to go off and independently do a thing.
You don't want AI to do a project that you didn't authorize.
That should be illegal.
All right.
Let's see what else.
The AP is trying to scare the public, talking about how Trump keeps saying he wants to use the military domestically in our country to do things like control the border, maybe, and maybe reduce crime in cities.
So a few places he's talked about using it.
And did you know, you're all very smart, so you know it's illegal to use the military domestically, right?
Do you all know that?
It's just flat out illegal to use the military domestically.
Did you know that that was always a lie?
That thing that all you smart people know, that it's illegal to use the military domestically?
Never been true.
It's not true.
All you have to do is invoke... All you have to do is you say it's an emergency.
Let's see, what do you have to say?
If there's unrest, basically if there's some kind of civil unrest that can't be handled in a normal way, then the President can use the military in the country to, you know, quell the civil unrest.
But here's the best part.
It's not subject to anybody's review.
The Commander-in-Chief simply needs to state That they're solving a problem, and nobody can argue that they're using the law incorrectly.
There's nothing on the books, constitutionally or legally, that stops any president from saying, you know what, I think this is an emergency.
Nobody gets to second guess when the Commander-in-Chief says it's an emergency.
That's it.
So the Commander-in-Chief can simply say, well, it looks like an emergency to me.
The cities are crumbling and the borders aren't controlled.
That's it.
There was never any restriction from using the military in the United States.
Isn't that a mind blower?
That's one of the most basic things you believed you knew.
It was never true.
The only thing that keeps the government from using the military domestically is that it would be such a disaster politically.
Right?
If you saw the military in the streets, you don't want to elect the guy who sent it there.
Like that's just automatic.
Oh, we're turning into a police state.
But, if you also knew there was an emergency, and you knew that nothing else was treating the emergency, you would cheer the American military in the streets.
If the American military just shut down the border immigration tomorrow, would that make you afraid?
Not even a little bit.
That would make you feel safe.
You would literally stand up and cheer the military.
So that's a special case.
Now the military in the cities, because of the crime problem, that's a little dicier because the border is relatively less populated.
If you put them right into the middle of the city, people are going to have a little more problem with it.
So it would be easy for me to imagine that if the military did get used in the cities, it would be more of a threat to the mayors.
You know, more like, if you don't clean up your city, we'll have to send in the military and that's going to look real embarrassing for you, Mayor.
So, you know, maybe it could be used as a negotiating tactic to make sure the mayors clean up the cities the way Newsom did when she was coming to town.
So, I don't think I'd want to see the military in the cities.
But as a threat, and as a last resort, yeah, it's nice to have the option.
So, kind of interesting.
But I think you see now that the AP and other left-leaning entities are trying to create, they're priming you for a point of view.
And the point of view is that Trump will be a dictator.
He always wanted to be a dictator.
He tried it once with the insurrection in January 6, which of course was no insurrection.
And he's going to try it again.
And I still think Trump has the ultimate kill shot.
Imagine Biden and Trump debating.
And Biden, of course, is going to say, we can't have a repeat of January 6th and this madman trying to take over the country.
Imagine if Trump's response to that was, can you explain how I would take over the country by having a slate of fake electors?
Just connect the dots.
Because in my opinion, If there were any dispute about the fake electors, should they have been used, which they weren't, wouldn't that just go to the Supreme Court like any other dispute?
Show me the way that that allowed me to take over the country illegitimately.
If the Supreme Court looks at what I do and they agree, then it's legitimate.
And if they disagree, well, that's the end of it.
So, Joe, can you explain to the public How the unarmed protesters who wanted a short delay to make sure that the election was done right, can you explain how that could have turned into, in any scenario, how that could have possibly turned into an actual insurrection and a change of ownership with a dictator?
Can you explain that in any coherent way, how that could have possibly happened?
And by the way, he'll never say this, But to me, this will be the ultimate kill shot.
And I'd like you to explain also to the public, since we saw from the emails that have been produced in this process, we saw that my son, Don Jr., was not aware of any plans to take over the country.
Can you explain to me how you think that Don Jr., my closest advisor, and Ivanka, and Jared, you know, the closest people to me, Clearly, by their communications, had no interest in taking over the country, and no idea that anybody else had any interest in it, and certainly wouldn't have supported it.
Now you tell me how I was going to pull off an insurrection when I couldn't talk Don Jr.
into it.
Just imagine hearing that.
That Joe Biden wants you to believe that I was close to overcoming the, you know, conquering the country and becoming a dictator, but I hadn't told my son.
Didn't mention it to Ivanka.
Nobody would believe that.
It's the most absurd gaslighting of all time.
Well, no, the most absurd was that Trump was anti-Semitic.
Now that was the most absurd claim.
While he had a Jewish daughter and grandkids and Jewish son-in-law who was his closest trusted advisor.
I mean, that was the most crazy shit I've ever seen in my life.
Yeah.
So, ladies and gentlemen, that's your not-much-news-happening-today news for today.
I'm going to ask you if I missed anything so we can hit the eight o'clock time.
Did I miss anything?
Might be a slow news period for the next to the end of the year, but we could be fooled.
Have I seen The Fall of Minneapolis?
I started watching it, so I'm about a quarter of the way done, and I will tell you that the first one quarter, absolutely worth watching.
Absolutely.
I don't even know what the other three quarters are, but the first quarter is must viewing.
Like, you have to have to watch it to feel informed.
You've just got to see it.
It's very strong.
And I'll watch the rest of it.
But it was hard to watch, because it's just difficult to absorb all that ugliness.
So I have trouble watching something for too long, if it's that kind of thing.
But it's strong.
It's very powerful.
Is it the documentary effect?
Yes.
Good point.
As I've taught you, Documentaries are extra, extra, extra persuasive because it's a really long form of just one side of an argument.
The other side never gets to weigh in.
So, yes.
Yes, this is a documentary quality persuasion, but I'm not aware of anything that's wrong about it.
I haven't heard anybody say they got a fact wrong yet.
So, keep it in mind.
There might be another argument to it.
I haven't seen it yet.
It's called The Fall of Minneapolis?
Is that what it's called?
Do I have the name right?
The Fall of Minneapolis?
I think that's it.
That's it, yes.
What about the Supreme Court denying appeal of what?
Could desalinization take care of the rising oceans problem?
All right, that's a fun question.
I don't think so, because I think there's a volume difference.
I think if all the humans stuck their head in the ocean and started drinking the water, as if that were healthy, which it's not, I don't think you'd notice.
And I think even if you used it for agriculture, I don't know that you'd notice.
So no, I don't think desalinization would cause a rate change of moving enough water from the ocean Because remember, if you added half an inch to an ocean, that's probably more water than we use in a hundred years, isn't it?
I don't know, but like my brain says, the math of that would be that's more water than hundreds of years of human use.
I might be wrong about that.
Oh, I have a recommendation for content.
If you're looking for a good TV show and you haven't yet watched The Crown, Oh my god, that's good.
Why didn't you tell me about this?
I guess it's been around for years.
There's a new season that just came out.
But it's about Queen Elizabeth going from a child to her rule.
And the things I'm learning about Winston Churchill And that whole relationship and the little intrigues behind the scenes, that alone would be worth it for the historical part of it.
It's just wonderful.
But beyond that, they bring you into a world where you're living in 1939, and they really pull it off.
The quality of it.
And let me tell you, I don't know if the casting director won any kind of Emmy, But that is some of the best casting I've ever seen.
The people they picked to play the parts are jaw-droppingly right.
Just jaw-droppingly.
You're like, that person is going to play that part?
That's perfect!
That's perfect!
Yeah, it's really well done.
So I'm completely hooked on it.
I will warn you that it's unwatchable for Americans unless you have headphones on.
You know that, right?
If you're an American, you can't even hear it.
Because let me do the typical deadline.
Well jolly good.
That s all you can hear through speakers.
So you've got to really have the headphones on, and then it's actually easy to hear.
With the headphones on, it's very easy to hear.
But your American brain can't even make out the words on speakers.
Does anybody have that problem?
If you don't put on either the, what do you call it, the closed caption, or you're not listening on headphones, you cannot listen to any British publication.
I can't make out a word at all.
It's a well-known problem.
The actress who plays Diana is six foot three.
Oh, that's interesting.
All right.
You have to turn up the volume.
Yes, blimey!
All right.
What if we had a Pinochet who just took in all the designated liars?
Well, that would be a serial killer, is what that would be.
Yeah, so it's called The Crown.
All right, anything else happening?
I'm going to give you my AI prediction.
I don't think that the AGI or the super smart version of AI has been created.
I do not believe that ChatGPT has in their lab a version of ChatGPT that's like the super intelligence.
They might have one that can make videos really well.
Or it could imitate things really well.
So it could be dangerous in lots of different ways.
It could be dangerous in a variety of ways, but I don't think it's going to be intelligence.
And what I mean by that is, I doubt you could have a conversation with even the versions that we haven't seen yet, in which you feel like you're learning something and you're talking to an intelligence.
I think you very quickly realize you're talking to a machine, And it's limited, and it's not that interesting other than asking us some questions now and then.
So I think that AI is far overblown.
Not the danger.
The danger is real.
But what it feels like in terms of intelligence, probably overblown.
All right, that's all I got for now.
YouTube, thanks for joining.
See you tomorrow.
I hope it's not all slow news till the end of the year, although maybe it would be good if it were.
