Feb. 23, 2026 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
59:07
The Truth About AI Part 2
Stefan Molyneux argues AI thrives on uncompensated copyrighted works, like millions of books, and will disrupt industries—from law (e.g., "Albonian AI legal chomper") to healthcare—by automating repetitive tasks faster than humans. Resistance from monopolies may fail as younger generations bypass inefficiencies via foreign systems or VPNs, prioritizing speed over tradition. He warns against government-dependent solutions like UBI, urging focus on creativity and critical thinking instead, citing his 2006 Introduction to Philosophy series as a blueprint for navigating an AI-driven future where human judgment remains irreplaceable. [Automatically generated summary]
A great tragedy for the world, but a great benefit to you, my friends.
Hopefully, hopefully you.
And I did a show today, a shoe.
I did a shoe, which was The Truth About AI.
Now, I've done some presentations on AI in the past, and I've thought a lot about it.
I've used it a fair amount.
I have created and designed my own AI for the general show, for real-time relationships, for call-in shows.
I've done one for peaceful parenting.
So I have a little bit of experience.
For those of you who don't know, I was a chief technical officer, director of technology, and worked in the software field.
Well, I first started programming around the age of 11 or 12, and it became the job, the career.
I worked in the field about, well, I guess you could say about 15 years and was programming up until not super long ago.
And so I know a fair amount about computers, technology, the business world.
And since my entire experience as an entrepreneur in the software world was to bring technology to bear on questions of efficiency and automation, I know a little bit about it.
Obviously, it doesn't make me any kind of final say expert, but maybe a little bit more than your average bear, having worked in software and technology for many, many years.
I have some idea.
Now, I did a show.
It's not out yet.
I did a show today about AI, that AI is basically a mutant creature allowed by governments refusing to enforce property rights in the realm of books, printed words, and so on.
Intellectual property rights.
I know it's sort of a hotly debated and contested topic in libertarianism, but certainly if you create a book, if you write a book, you have the right to have other people not pillage it for their own profit while not paying you one thin red cent.
That's wrong for sure.
You think of the like a million books in human history, and there's millions and millions of books that are hoovered up by AI algorithms.
Like a million books, a lot of writers take about two years to write a book.
That's typical in the realm of fiction, probably even longer when it comes to non-fiction because of the research elements, although there's research elements in fiction as well.
And the fact that millions and millions of man-years are just hoovered up by AI companies for their own profits, while the writers, the authors get not one pin dime, is not something that would happen in a free society.
It's not something that would happen in a free society.
So the entire specter of AI arises out of little more or less than governments refusing to enforce copyright.
Now, of course, we can say, yes, but the AI folks, but they're post-copyright, man.
They're open source.
They're Creative Commons.
They're the kind of people that, well, they just would never imagine that property rights are of any validity.
So they're in full accordance with their own philosophy.
And that would be not the case.
AI companies regularly enforce their own property rights, intellectual property rights.
If you try to use an AI to train your own AI, they will get kind of pissy, kind of bitchy, and they will threaten you with legal action.
So they very, very much want to protect their own intellectual property rights.
But basically, I view it as a fairly wide scoop pillage of authors.
Authors as a whole would not want AI to pillage their books because AI allows you to ask targeted questions of a non-fiction book, say, which formerly you had to buy the whole book for.
And AI allows you to ask targeted questions, which is like having a personal expert chef in the room to help you prepare a meal rather than buying a cookbook.
It is absolutely going to displace people buying books, and it is going to strongly discourage authorship.
So as a whole, I mean, I could see specialized AI arising in the realm, in particular, of law.
Law has become such a shaky business these days that it is fairly clear that AI lawyers, AI judges, and so on, it's not, sorry, it's not clear to me how that would be worse than the system we have right now, where it can take many years.
I remember once having a legal issue with a company, a pretty significant one, many decades ago.
And I talked to lawyers, as I have off and on over the course of my career as a whole.
I talked to lawyers and they said, yeah, it's going to take about 10 years and probably at least a minimum of a quarter million dollars to try and get remedy.
10 years and a quarter of a million dollars, which would be probably close to half a million dollars.
Now, as a bare minimum, that was the flaw to get in the door.
And of course, you know, if you get ripped off by a company, you're not exactly flush with cash.
That's kind of how you know you got ripped off.
And so I remember, because, you know, you see all of these shows on TV, right?
Shows on TV.
A guy gets arrested.
And in the next scene, he shows up in court.
And in the next scene, there's a motion.
And in the next scene, there's a trial.
And you think this is all happening over a span of weeks?
But no, you would be incorrect.
Entirely forgivable to have that mistake, but you would be completely incorrect.
Trials, complicated trials take years and The process is the punishment.
And even if you win, it's going to be, there's appeals.
And even if the appeals eventually fail, there's the problem of collection and so on.
It's hard to imagine.
I don't mean to say it's hard to imagine a worse system than what we have right now.
It's hard to imagine that an AI scouring through, like you would submit all the documents and you would have the AI scour through and compare it to the law and look for what's within the law, what's outside of the law.
And I mean, obviously you'd need a human being to eyeball it, but it's hard to imagine since that could all be done in a matter of hours rather than years.
You know, so I'm a voluntarist, for those of you who don't know, the technical term is anarcho-capitalist in that I believe in private property and the non-aggression principle and a truly voluntary society is where we need to get to, right?
We had societies based on slavery for hundreds of thousands of years, and we've now had societies based on governments for thousands of years.
And, you know, the next evolution is to work to minimize state power just in the same way that we worked to minimize slavery.
And that's what we need.
And of course, one of the questions that I'm asked on a regular basis when I talk about these things is this sort of, I don't mean to mock, but this sort of slightly slack-jawed, open, mouth-breathing, nasal passages expanding question of, but Steph, how could we possibly provide justice in the absence of a state?
And it's like, the only people who ever ask that question are people who've never even tried to get justice through the state.
It's one thing if you're in small claims court, I've had to go there once or twice and so on, but I could see AI in the law because the law is public domain, right?
The law is not copyrighted.
The law is public domain.
And given that there are more laws on the books than any human being could ever understand, putting it through a giant hell-style computer would not be the end of the world as far as efficiency goes.
And rendering a judgment based upon submitted materials, or at least a preliminary judgment, would be a good thing.
Fear Of Public Speaking00:03:12
AI in the realm of law would also possibly, potentially, perhaps, remove one of the ugliest aspects of the law.
So the law, and I'm talking here about Western tradition, Anglo-Saxon law, with complicated rules of evidence, chains of custody, perjury, punishments, discovery, the right to a speedy trial, the right to cross-examine your accuser, the right to call upon experts.
That was all developed when IQ was high and crime was low.
Because for hundreds and hundreds of years, a lot of Western European countries, in particular in England, are killed or reproductively disabled, right, either through keeping them in prison or sending them to Australia or something like that.
About 1% of the population.
And over hundreds of years, this virtually eliminates violent psychopathy from the general population.
And you end up with people who are self-regulating, which is why political freedom and free speech and property rights and small government tends to arise in Western European countries.
When I was little, I was scared of teachers and I was scared of getting into trouble and I was scared of social disapproval, like all the traditional British things.
Well, why was that the case?
Well, because being frightened of social disapproval when 1% of the population every year is being killed because people really disapprove of you is how you survive.
Or to put it in another way, those of my ancestors or those of our ancestors, if we're, say, European, those of our ancestors who didn't really care about social disapproval, but they didn't make it because you had to have social approval in order to not get drawn and quartered, say, or hung or guillotined or something like that.
So Western Europeans in particular tend to be self-restrained, quite self-critical, nervous of authority, nervous of social disapproval, and so on, because that was the only way to survive.
Western Europeans have a morbid fear of public speaking.
Well, why?
Because in general, public speaking meant that you had to desperately beg for your life from a mob that was aroused against you in some manner.
So this is why a lot of people fear public speaking more than death, right?
As the old joke goes, if there's a funeral, you'd rather be in the coffin than giving the eulogy, because public speaking meant begging from your life from a usually incensed and enraged mob.
So at a time when centuries of culling the most violent had led to a more peaceful society, unfortunately, the fear of authority that this resulted in allowed for World War I, World War II, and all this kind of stuff, where it's pretty easy for those in authority to point at your brother or sister across an imaginary line and say that they're your enemies.
Plea Deals and Hallucinations00:07:11
But the system, high IQ, a self-regulated regulated population, and very low crime levels, well, then you can have big, big, complicated trials and rules of evidence and interrogatories and appeals and all this kind of stuff.
The law was relatively simple.
The crime rate was relatively low.
People were pretty smart.
And of course, it was monoethnic for the most part.
So you didn't have the problem that those in Singapore noted some years ago that juries tend to be highly swayed by ethnic considerations, with the exceptions of whites who tend to be more universalist, yay, terrible, whatever.
So when you had a smart population, low crime, and relatively simple legal rules, then you could have big old complicated trial.
Now, crime rates are up.
Rules have become crazy complicated.
And we are not overly blessed with high intelligence in the modern West for a variety of reasons.
And so people can't get trials.
You've got a right to a speedy trial.
Like about 2%, in America, I think it's about 2% of charges go to trial.
And I mean, of course, some of that is reasonable.
Some of that is they charge you and they say, listen, bro, we got you on tape.
We got you on recording.
We got you on this, that, and the other.
There's absolutely no way you're going to win the trial.
Take the plea, right?
And there's some of that for sure, where people say, look, it's a fair car, right?
You got me.
You got me, copper.
And so they'll say, okay, well, I will take the plea because I can't win a trial.
But that's not a lot, always.
And there's some people who have a good charge, a good chance, a good chance and a bad charge, or something like that.
But that's not how the system can work anymore.
So generally, what happens these days, as you well know, of course, what happens these days is you end up in a situation where people get charged.
The evidence is maybe not where it should be.
And they are offered, right?
If you take a plea, you get two years.
If you go to trial and you're found guilty, you get 10 years, right?
So you're bribed with eight years of your life, say, to take a plea.
That is a bad system.
That is a bad, bad system, particularly, of course, if people are stuck in jail while they're awaiting their trial, and the trial can be a long way away.
So, you know, if the trial is two years away and they're offering you a plea for two years and you're going to be in jail for two years anyway, it makes some practical and rational sense to just take the plea so that you don't have to spend a further eight years if you lose the trial.
It's not a very healthy system to bribe people with reductions in sentences if they plead guilty.
Of course, it shouldn't happen at all.
You can't bribe people in the legal system.
You can't offer a judge a free lunch.
You can't buy an Amazon gift card for a prosecutor.
But you can offer people, you know, five, 10 or more years of their own life back if they please.
And that's not a good system.
I mean, we all understand that, but that's because we don't have the kind of efficiencies that AI might bring, might bring.
I get that it's, you know, whoever runs the code runs the world.
I get all of that.
There's dangers around all of that.
But is it possible?
Yeah.
When it comes to taxes, compliance, and so on, tax code is massive and complicated.
What if you could just feed everything in, receipts or a spreadsheet or something like that, or even scans, you could feed everything in, and your taxes could be done for you.
Is that possible?
I would imagine.
I would imagine.
And the tax code is not copyrighted.
It's not out of the public domain.
It may be incomprehensible, but it's not copyrighted.
So I could see that being of value.
AI, of course, people, there's a debate at the moment about healthcare and AI.
People say, oh, you can upload your blood work.
You can upload your scans.
And AI will do this, that, the other.
Or you can upload your legal questions and AI will pass it out for you.
And it's like, yeah, well, as far as I, I'm no lawyer, but as far as I understand it, AI is not privileged.
It can be subpoenaed.
The entire history can be revealed.
So, of course, your communications with an actual lawyer are usually privileged.
You can say whatever.
I mean, I remember the guy who blew the whistle on Elizabeth Holmes and Sonny Balwani at Theranos.
He ended up being sued in a pretty horrendous way.
And he couldn't even talk about it with his parents unless both his parents' lawyers and his lawyers were in the same room together.
It's very sort of awkward.
I mean, one of the things I think that happens if you are involved in legal action is you can't talk about it with anyone because anyone could be brought in and subpoenaed as a witness or something like that.
So unless everyone has their lawyers present, which is kind of awkward.
It's a little tough to talk about anything.
So that's not a particularly great system there.
But if it could be extended, if privilege could be extended to particular law AI, that could be of benefit.
But of course, you know, the lawyers aren't going to let that happen.
They're not going to, hey, progress.
Love to put ourselves out of a job.
And we still have quarter of a million dollars in student loans for our law degree.
So lawyers are not going to let that happen.
Judges are not going to let that happen.
They'll simply rule that it's not legal, not valid, blah, blah, blah.
And so that's very unlikely.
With regards to healthcare, I mean, I could see some value for sure.
But again, I assume you'd have to have privacy concerns dealt with.
And of course, doctors will fight it tooth and nail, right?
Doctors will, I mean, what do doctors do?
They read blood tests and give you medicine.
I mean, is that really something that can't be automated?
I mean, obviously some of it.
I mean, it's not like you're going to get robot to set a bone, at least not yet.
But some of the stuff.
And it would be great for prevention, right?
If you could have reasonable privacy and then you upload your blood work or you, you know, stop sucking in your stomach, send your picture.
And what's my body fat?
What's my ideal weight?
Design a diet for me based upon my blood work that's going to be the most effective.
Pretty good for prevention that way.
And once AI can process a video, you could set up, I mean, I know it does to some degree, but I'm not sure if it can do this yet, that AI can, you can upload a picture of your body and whatever and say, I want a smaller belly, I want broader shoulders, I want whatever, a better posture.
And then the AI could figure out an entire personal training and nutrition plan for you and could actually watch you work out and give you suggestions if you've got weights at home or something like that.
So yeah, could be very, very good and powerful stuff.
Error Rate Trade-offs00:15:07
Now, of course, the problem of hallucinations within AI is considerable.
It needs to be creative, but the more you dial up the creativity, then the more you get hallucinations.
But people talk about the hallucinations in AI, you know, the famous sixth finger and so on.
They talk about this as if human beings don't make mistakes.
AI doesn't have to be perfect.
It just has to be roughly equal to an average competent person, right?
And therefore, the least creative and most repetitive tasks are the easiest to automate because the relatively easier and more repetitive tasks tend to attract people or people stay there who aren't as intelligent, right?
I mean, this is a silly example, but from when I was from when I was younger, I worked in restaurants and I remember working in a pizza hut in Dom Mills and I didn't get any good sections.
I was just given the back corner.
I didn't get any good sections.
And I said, well, why?
Why?
Why Steph Botno get the good sections?
And of course, my boss said, because like you're a smart guy, you're just passing through.
The women who've been working here for 20 years, they're going to keep waitering until they can't put one foot in front of the other.
So they get the good sections because you're just passing through.
And the same way when I was a temp and people were like, no, we're not going to hire you for this job because you're too smart.
You're just going to move on.
And, you know, we need someone who's capable of repetition.
It's like in the police force, right?
Sometimes if you do an intelligence test for the police force, they'll say, look, bro, you've got an IQ of 125.
You don't want to be a policeman.
You're going to get bored out of your gourd, right?
Or whatever it is, right?
And, you know, this is no diss to anyone.
We need policemen.
We need waiters.
This is no negative.
It's just a sort of simple reality, right?
So if you've got someone who's a clerk, right, who's got an IQ of 100, which is there's nothing wrong with an IQ of 100.
It's the average for white people.
It's totally fine.
You can have a wonderful life.
And wisdom is more important than raw intelligence.
So raw intelligence doesn't bring you happiness.
Wisdom does.
And wisdom sometimes feels like it's a little scant at the highest levels of intelligence for sure.
So if you've got an IQ of 100 and you're relatively content with tasks that are too complicated and a little repetitive, and again, no, no negative.
I really don't want to throw any shade at all on this.
Just because I happen to be a smidge above the average in terms of intelligence doesn't mean that I don't value the people who are of less intelligence, just as I value the people who are more intelligence.
And I hope they don't look down on me.
Sorry, not the people, the person, the person, the one person with more intelligence.
That would, of course, include history as well.
So if these are repetitive tasks, you don't have to be super smart to do them or to stay on it, then you only have to be as good, or you don't even have to be as good, almost as good as the average person who does it.
So let's say the average clerk in some way, the average clerk makes one error every workday, right?
They work for seven and a half hours and they make one error because you know people make errors, right?
If you've ever had to, I had a job interview many, many years ago, actually a teenager still, which was typing out insurance codes.
And they put me on a test to look at paper and copy it.
But I'm a bit fussy when it comes to accuracy, so it wasn't quite fast enough.
But if you've ever had to do these kinds of things, I remember once doing a video game, creating a video game, or rather reproducing a video game because the actual machine codes were printed in the magazine so that it could be faster because basic was crushingly slow, but machine code was, and you had to type all of these weird codes, like five pages of them, and not get one of them wrong.
And there was no debugger or anything.
So you had to be really fussy about that kind of stuff.
But you make errors, right?
You make errors.
I tried to run it, didn't work.
Went back, went through everything with a friend of mine.
We finally found, I think there were one or two errors in five pages of closed text, and we got the game to run.
And the game was kind of disappointing.
But anyway, so let's say that average clerk makes one error every day.
And let's say he's processing 100 things, makes one error.
So you got a 1% error rate a day, right?
So how good does the AI need to be to compete?
Does it need to have only a 1% error rate?
I would say no, because it goes far faster.
So of course, you could ask the clerk to speed up, but as the clerk speeds up, the error rates will increase.
Let's just say it's something as simple as typing in numbers from a piece of paper.
The faster you ask the clerk to go, the more errors you will get.
And of course, you could get zero errors, but then it would take the clerk forever to triple check everything.
So the clerk is going to make one error a day on average if he's good.
Now, does AI need to get only down to 1% error?
I would argue not necessarily, because the AI is a whole lot faster.
So if you ask the guy to go twice as fast, maybe the error rate goes from one a day to five a day.
But if you can get AI to an error rate of 2%, but AI is way faster, you end up with, in a sense, far more accuracy because nobody can go as fast as computers.
If you've ever did these things, we used to do this as a kid.
I used to do this, you get a corner of a book and you do a little animation, little page flip animation, right?
So, you know, it takes 10, 20 minutes to do a little, there were big Star Wars ones or tire bouncing balls.
You know, this will flip the pages and you get the animation going.
Well, I mean, that takes 10 or 20 minutes to get like five seconds of a bouncing ball or a flying spaceship or something like that.
And then think of how much is being processed in 60 frames a second, a Fortnite, or some other visual game where there's a lot of movement.
So AI doesn't have to be accurate, it doesn't have to be as accurate as human beings because it's way faster.
Because it's way faster.
So if somebody goes twice as fast and has a 2% error rate, well, they're processing twice as many and it's double the error rate, but they're processing twice as many.
And there's value in speed as well as accuracy.
Otherwise, we do everything painfully slowly as if we were immortal and get nothing wrong at all.
But you have to get things done.
I could write out every show ahead of time, read from a script, and it would make perfect sense.
But I like to freeball it just a little bit.
I think it's more spontaneous.
I think it's more interesting.
It's certainly more engaging for me.
So I have to spend less time preparing for shows so I can do more shows.
But they're less accurate than if I had charted everything out ahead of time and triple-checked everything and got the researchers and researched and double-checked all their research and so on, right?
So AI is blindingly fast relative to human beings.
Right.
So if you look at a two-day process, let's say you process 100 items a day with a 1% error.
So at the end of two days, you have 198 accurate things and two erroneous things.
Right?
Now, it would be even faster than this, but let's imagine that AI is just 10 times faster.
So instead of 100 things, you have 1,000 things that are processed.
And instead of one error, you have 10 errors.
So instead of 99 correct things, you have 990 correct things.
And let's say that the AI has an error rate of 2% instead of 1%.
Okay.
So it's still processing 1,000 things.
And now there are 20 errors.
So one guy gets 99 things done a day.
In two days, he gets 198 things done with two errors.
But AI is getting 980 things done with 20 errors.
So would you rather have 98 things done in two days or 980?
If a 2% error or 990 at a 1% error.
I think that math is solid.
I'm just doing this on the fly, but I think that math is kind of solid.
And of course, we know that AI is not going to be 10 times faster.
It's going to be 100 or 1,000 times faster.
And AI doesn't take lunch breaks.
And AI doesn't get sick.
And AI doesn't get calls from the school to come and pick up their kid because he got into a fight.
And AI can work overnight.
And AI doesn't need vacations.
And AI does not need office space and additional computers and cubicles and heating.
And AI doesn't have to commute.
And AI doesn't have a quota system.
AI doesn't need HR.
AI does not sexually harass the cool theater kid in the corner who's just trying to do his work.
You know, that handsome, slack-jawed fellow with the dreamy blue eyes and the fading puff of blonde hair.
That guy, whoever he could be, this theoretical guy.
I actually did get sexually harassed at work on a couple of occasions that were actually fairly grim.
So there's none of that.
AI does not sue you.
AI doesn't have a union, right?
Honestly, you could go on and on.
AI doesn't retire.
AI doesn't steal from you.
AI isn't difficult.
AI doesn't have vendettas.
AI doesn't get together a little clique to take down the most productive person out of jealousy.
AI is not petty.
AI is not political.
I mean, you could obviously program it to be that way, but you would aim to not.
AI doesn't have an in-group preference.
A isn't going to be like that Asian judge who let the bad elderly Asian driver who wiped out a family walk free.
AI looks at OJ's evidence and makes a decision and isn't influenced by jurors who are into black power.
AI isn't tempted to take shavings of a penny and deposit it into another bank account, office space style.
AI doesn't get bored.
AI doesn't use company computers to look at bad things.
AI does not get pregnant and maybe will come back, but you got to hold the job open, otherwise you open yourself up to a lawsuit.
AI doesn't have to hire particular demographics of AI in order to avoid another discrimination lawsuit.
AI just processes.
And it's like a bunch of people out there, you're peasants like my ancestors, you're peasants who are out there and they've got to scythe down the corn and the wheat and they've got to harvest everything from the fields.
And they cut themselves, they get sick, they get an infection, they flirt.
If there are women out there, they gang up against the most productive person and try and sabotage him.
They do all kinds of dumb, human, inevitable stuff.
But if you have a big giant robot, I got a brand new combine harvester and I'll give you the key.
Well, you've got some big robot combine harvester.
It just starts, goes, starts, goes, starts, goes, starts, goes.
The rumba, unlike the mate, will never sleep with your husband unless he is very, very kinky.
Wrong suction!
Or is it?
So, merely human, merely human.
AI does not have a midlife crisis.
AI doesn't lose concentration on its job because it's going through a divorce or having an affair.
AI doesn't worry about extraordinary pains while urinating, pissing fish hooks, it used to be called, and think and lose concentration because it's like, oh man, do I have a sexually transmitted illness?
AI does not go to the company bathroom and do obscene things with itself while pretending to work.
AI doesn't even need to take bathroom breaks, right?
So AI doesn't have to even be as good as human beings.
AI can handle the kind of repetition that would drive intelligent people crazy.
And so the barriers are going to fall.
And useless repetitive tasks are going to be automated.
It's absolutely inevitable.
It's absolutely inevitable.
I'm sure you've seen the video, which is an AI-made-up video, of Brad Pitt fighting Tom Cruise over the Epstein files.
Or I saw another video, which was the beginning of a science fiction movie.
And I talked about this, I don't know, a year or two ago about how at some point someone's going to feed my novels into AI and get a movie.
That's in the movie.
And there'll be tweaks.
You know, this guy's hair needs to be longer.
This should be raining in this scene.
It wasn't mentioned, but it's better.
Like, there'll be tweaks.
There'll be, right?
But there'll be prompts.
And you can make a movie with some amphetamines and a long weekend, which means it's the quality of the stories that are going to matter.
It's the quality of the stories that are going to matter, not your access to technology.
And that means that humanity could have a tiny chance, a tiny chance to escape propaganda in the same way that we can have these conversations based upon me not having any barriers.
I can just fire up the old phone.
I can't believe that X spaces don't even work on a tablet, let alone a PC.
But anyway, I can fire up the old phone and chat with you all.
I'm certainly happy to take questions from you as well.
Quality Stories Matter00:09:32
But AI just has to get as good as people.
Now, AI is getting as good as freaking cinematographers.
I mean, if you've watched the progress of the Will Smith eating pasta process, you can see just how fast things are improving.
Repetitive tasks, complicated, repetitive tasks will be the first to go.
Now, of course, what's going to happen is all of the people, right?
Why progress is very hard in the world, not because of capitalism or free market or innovation, but because of the government.
So, of course, lawyers don't want to be replaced by AI.
And lawyers have a strangled hold over the law.
One of the reasons why, I mean, there are good lawyers out there.
I've worked with some, but one of the reasons why the law process is so ungodly long is because everybody in the receiving end of the lawyer and judge's checks makes a good chunk of change.
Makes a good chunk of change.
You know, when my long ago lawyer advised me, oh, it's going to be at least a quarter million, take, you know, five to ten years.
Well, that quarter million was going to somewhere and it wasn't going to me.
And you match my quarter million with the other people I might have brought action against, their quarter million.
That's a cozy half million from decades ago, about a million dollars now.
Well, people don't want to give up that kind of scratch.
They don't want to get rid of that.
So they'll do their best.
They'll do their best.
But then all that will happen is that there will be people who will say in their contracts, we accept the judgment from the AI in Albonia.
There'll be some country, right?
And, you know, because if two people come to an agreement, it doesn't have to go through the legal system.
I mean, if you have a conflict with your neighbor and there's some guy down the road who's really wise, you can sit down with him and adjudicate it that way.
I remember back in the day when I played Dungeons and Dragons, before it became super cool, obviously it was only about 14 minutes.
But when I played Dungeons and Dragons back in the day and had a conflict with other players, we would all troop down to the local library where a rather tubby guy with a giant beard, no future, a windowless office, and a great wisdom of DD law would attempt to adjudicate our disputes.
We didn't have to go to court.
Obviously, we just went to someone we considered wise and he would attempt to adjudicate our disputes.
It happens all the time.
I mean, if you have a friend group, some friend gets annoyed at someone else.
Well, what happens?
Well, you know, you know what happens.
Usually there's a peacemaker.
Usually there's a peacemaker.
Usually there's someone who's good at negotiating who can try and sit down with everyone and work things out.
That's the way that it goes.
So what will happen is there will be, you know, some place, someplace out there in the world will say, hey, you can upload all your documents and we will process it according to our interpretation of the laws in your land and you don't need to go to lawyers.
And people will bake that into their contracts or it will be a gentleman's agreement and so on.
And so people will just bypass all of that because you can't have a monopoly and an internet at the same time.
People will just find a way to bypass that.
And we'll either be written into, like you see this in contracts all the time.
You know, you have a contract.
These, any contract will be adjudicated in the court of Delaware or wherever it's going to be.
I think it used to be until the left killed it.
Delaware was a pretty popular place to incorporate for a variety of reasons.
So you'll simply say, well, we're going to adjudicate according to the Albonian AI law chomper or whatever it's going to be, right?
So they'll just do that and the demand will go down.
And eventually they'll have to find some way to adapt and so on.
Like everyone tries to stop these things.
But where there's a will, there's a way.
Life finds a way.
Efficiency finds a way.
I mean, honestly, it would not shock me at all if China would have set up AIs that fully scanned all of America's tax, compliance, and regulatory and legal laws.
And you just upload a bunch of documents and it gives you a preliminary output.
This is not legally binding, blah, But if you can get it done in a couple of hours rather than, say, five to 10 years, and if it's going to cost you $500 to $1,000 rather than, say, half a million to a million dollars, well, let's just say, well, people would just do that.
I mean, people would just do that.
And especially if the judgments are fair or considered or perceived to be fair.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
And AI will probably find a way to do that kind of stuff.
And I know they'll try to make it illegal and they'll try to make it bad and all that kind of stuff.
But I mean, you can't really very easily stop people from consulting others to resolve their disputes.
You know, if I have a friend who's having a conflict with another friend and I resolve it to both of their satisfaction, have I done something immoral?
Well, no, it happens all the time.
I mean, if you're a parent and you have kids, right, they have conflicts and you help them resolve their conflicts and all that kind of stuff, right?
So that's inevitable and it's going to be outsourced and that sort of grip and rule will be over.
And hopefully this will be an incentive for legal systems in the West to try and find ways to become more efficient, which would be good for them and would be more fun.
And I think that they would end up with a better conscience as a result.
Now, does the Albonian legal chomper 9000 have to be perfect?
No, there's no such thing, of course, right?
Does it have to be as accurate as the courts?
Nope.
Because it has the advantage of being a couple of hours rather than many years and has the advantage of being $500 to $1,000 rather than half a million to a million dollars or more.
And of course, when you go through these kinds of processes, I don't know, but if you go through these kinds of processes, I assume it's one thing to say, geez, you know, that took eight years and $300,000, but you don't know that.
You don't know it's going to take eight years.
It just ends up taking eight years.
You know, say it's a challenge for people.
I mean, what about wills, right?
I mean, you can run these kinds of wills rather than go through a probate lawyer or something like that.
I don't know.
I think they're already using automation to deal with copyright claims.
What?
Bittersweet Symphony?
Wasn't that somewhat taken over by the Stones?
And there was an adjudication on a Michael Bolton song.
And the, you know, you want it.
You know you want it.
That was the Marvin Gaye, was it Marvin Gaye's?
Oh, and the Cookabutter song.
There was a legal dispute with men at work, I think, over Down Under.
And this stuff just goes on and on.
It's kind of brutal.
And yeah, can you automate that stuff?
It doesn't have to be accurate.
I mean, if it's only 50% as accurate, but it's a thousand times faster.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So imagine you're lost at the desert and you have two options.
One guy says, I will try and shoot a bottle of water to you in my catapult and you're dying of thirst, right?
And some guy says, well, I will, with a good degree of accuracy, catapult you a bottle of water.
And you say, oh, great.
How long will that take?
He says, three months.
And you're like, I'll be dead.
And another guy says, oh, I can get you 20 bottles of water, but it's not going to be very accurate, but I can get them to you there in about 30 seconds.
Some of them will be far away.
Some of them will be closer.
Well, what are you going to go for?
The really accurate bottle of water that lands on your body, your corpse, or the less accurate bottles of water, they land some distance away, but you're not dead yet.
Justice delayed, is justice denied.
And of course, if people are concerned about accuracy with regards to these kinds of things, it's all just spitballing, right?
I'm not a lawyer.
I don't need any of this stuff.
Sure, it's just spitballing based on life experience and business experience and all of that.
And maybe you say, you know what?
We're going to take three runs at it, or we're going to take five runs at it.
And all that has to happen is that four out of the five have to match.
You know, that you can, or you can take 50 runs at it and 47 or more have to match, right?
So you can shave off the ones that are less accurate.
But this stuff is going to happen.
It's going to take over.
And it doesn't matter if the local monopolies say no.
Is your doctor going to forbid you, or are they going to try and get laws passed that say you cannot upload your blood work to an AI?
Boomers vs. Young Rebels00:09:19
You know, that stuff works oddly enough on the boomers, right?
The boomers started off, oh, they're such rebels.
Hope I die before I get old.
Don't trust anyone over 30.
Screw the man, rebellion.
And of course, they weren't rebels.
They were rebels exactly the same as everyone else.
They were rebels like salmon against the Swift Current are rebels.
But I'm telling you, man, none of this stuff is going to work on the young because they have no allegiance to authority and they'll just do whatever they can that's going to work.
That's just the way that it is.
You know, you watch Clivicular Clifficular, I think that's the guy, right?
The looks maxed guy who spent a good deal of time hitting his face with a hammer to further define his jawline.
Guy's on Piers Morgan, right?
And Piers Morgan tries to get him to apologize for that Kanye song in the club and blah, blah, blah.
And he's like, well, I didn't do that stuff and all that.
And I'm sort of paraphrasing here, but this is sort of the irreverence of young people, right?
He's in his early 20s.
He's on a big TV show.
You'd think he'd be a little intimidated or a little nervous or something like that.
He's very calm and he says, well, Piers Morgan, you're on the phone with one of the prime looks maxers in the world.
And you should be asking me on advice on how to look-max, how to ascend, so that your wife doesn't end up publicly fantasizing about other men.
I mean, I got to tell you, I'm not the most conforming guy in the known universe.
That's a little jaw-dropping at that age to have that little reverence or concern or fear or anxiety or anything about people in authority or people with a great degree of media power.
They don't care.
And if you say to young people, well, you can't do this online, they'll just, oh, VPN, right?
Let's find ways around it.
And there'll be an entire market on finding ways around it.
And they'll just ignore what doesn't work.
See, when I was growing up, you know, back in the 1760s, I guess, when I was growing up, there was no way to avoid the monopolies.
Couldn't avoid the monopolies.
Now, you can just avoid the monopolies.
It's wild.
It's truly wild.
And that's what people will do.
The more that people try to enforce a monopoly, the more the people will just work around it.
And it's just cat and mouse.
It's just a game.
Young people do not have any respect for the residual bottom-of-the-barrel scrapings of social authority.
Society burnt all that to the ground during COVID.
When, in order to save a small percentage of people in their mid to late 80s with four comorbidities, young people lost years of their life.
Young people are being brutally taxed and have no future because the government needs to borrow, print, and prop up the price of housing through mass immigration just to ensure that the boomers continue to have absolutely no contact with reality.
Not even a shred.
The boomers are Blanche Dubois.
And the young people are Stanley Kowalski.
They're just going to rip off all the crape from the lights and they do not care.
Or to put it another way, the young these days care about the authority and credibility of their elders about as much as their elders cared about them over the past 10 to 20 years.
Hey, kids, thank you so much for playing the game of life.
You can't have children.
You can't afford a house.
You can't get a stable job.
You are in student debt.
We'll pay the boomers just for breathing, but you can't discharge $100,000 or $50,000 of useless ball and chain around the neck, busy work debt that we made you sign at 17 or 18.
Nope.
The boomers aren't responsible for any of the shortfalls, but you are responsible for loans that you signed under fierce propaganda and with absolute promises of wealth and threats of complete social and economic ruin if you didn't go to higher education.
They don't care.
They don't believe any of it.
They are liars all, believe none of them.
The young are in a state of nature with the old, and the old have earned it.
They've earned it.
I want to say whether they deserve it or not.
Deserve is a word for children and fools.
It's like the word fair.
So the monopolies will try to bluster and say, bad things will happen if you don't obey our monopoly.
And people would just be like, yeah, yeah, yeah, let's find a way around it.
There was an old guy, is it South Park?
I've never really watched it, but I remember seeing a clip.
Sorry, that sounds kind of punk.
I've never really watched it.
But I think I watched Blame Canada.
Anyway, so South Park, these kids were trying to get to some illicit site, and they're just clicking through all of the yes, no's, right?
Yes, yes, I am of 18.
Yes, yes, yes, just click, click, click.
And then there's some vaguely German moaning that goes on from there.
So, yeah, I mean, the boomers are the actual absolute fragile, vainglorious busybodies who the government has to continually bribe to keep away actual reality, right?
And it's about six years, six and a half years, till Social Security is projected to go utter us up.
Well, it's all about keeping reality away from the boomers who greedily drink that Kool-Aid on a daily basis.
But I paid into the system.
No, you didn't.
If you paid into the system, why is there a million dollars worth of debt hanging off the nuts of every newborn on the planet paid into the system?
Nope.
Nope.
So, AI is going to chew through things.
There will be massive resistance from the monopolies in the domestic country, but there are many people out there with a fairly dim view, as you know, of course, every time you talk about slavery or colonialism or conquest or anything like that.
You know, see, when the indigenous populations, say, of North America, invade each other, kill each other, cannibalize each other, rape the women, and then conquer each other's lands, they're still indigenous, right?
They've conquered another indigenous person's lands.
It's totally fine.
They're not on stolen land because all the land was stolen back and forth, right?
But when tidy whiteies come 500 years later, they're still on stolen lands.
Indigenous people conquering each other is fine.
That's natural in the course of things.
White people conquering things creates a moral stain that bleeds out half a millennia and will never be extinguished.
It's like, ah, just racist bullshit.
But anyway.
So, yeah, the local populations, the monopolists will try to ban all of this.
And there'll be certain older people who go, oh, okay, well, Albania says that they have a dispute resolution mechanism entirely schooled on my country's law that is accurate, at least as much as the courts, or even if it's only half, or even if it's only a fifth as accurate as the courts, well, we just run it five times or ten times or a hundred times.
It's still going to be cheaper and faster.
Half a million dollars in five to ten years.
So it will be an act of asymmetric disruption, right?
Let's say it's, I don't know, Ireland, right?
Let's choose an even less popular country.
Ireland's fairly popular.
They didn't colonize and they didn't really get Southern Ireland.
They didn't even really get involved in World War II.
They were neutral.
Well, they still got to pay because the Westerners have to pay.
So, because Westerners stand between mankind and tyranny.
If the West falls, if Westerners fall, everybody who dislikes whites or Westerners or Europeans will just end up enslaved.
It's going to be their punishment for turning on their brothers rather than focusing on the powers that be.
And it's not much of a consolation, but justice will be done one way or the other.
So let's take some unpopular country in the West, whatever you want to say, and yeah, foreign countries that don't like them will just set up these AI mills and offer to bypass slow and inefficient systems.
You know, whether it's accounting or law or medicine or whatever, other countries will just set up these parallel systems, invite people over, maybe even offer guarantees, maybe offer money back if it doesn't pass muster.
Who knows, right?
But they'll do it in order to disrupt the West.
And a lot of the Western systems are so inefficient that it feels almost inevitable that people will have to take advantage of these parallel AI systems in other countries.
AI Mills Disrupting the West00:05:36
And then that will just weaken the local monopolies.
This is going to happen in the case of schooling as well.
People will offer more patriotic schooling from overseas through AI to lure people into homeschooling.
People will offer more patriotic homeschooling from overseas than will be offered domestically.
And that will undermine the power of teachers.
And then, of course, they'll try to ban homeschooling.
You know, people just greedy people who are in constant receipt of the unearned will always use force and fraud to maintain their privileges.
For sure.
For sure.
I mean, there will be HR departments that say, it's true that you have an AI workforce, but you still need HR.
You still need HR.
Trust us, man.
Why am I going to get a real job?
Past childbearing age.
All I have is my career.
So, yeah, there'll be all this disruption, and people will want to maintain their privileges, and there'll be all this undermining.
And eventually those privileges, like the systems will either reform, which is desperately needed, or there'll just be so much disruption and they'll just be bypassed.
They'll just be bypassed.
And I mean, if they're bypassed, well, it's pretty tough for them to get paid.
It's another reason why our teachers are so pro-immigration, because there's been a baby bust.
And if the class size has got smaller, teachers might actually lose their jobs, can you imagine?
You can't even stop getting paid for wildly inappropriate touching as a teacher of yourself or the team mascot, the Norseman, or the children.
You get put in a, they call it a rubber room or something like that.
You just get paid and you're kept away from the kids.
Maybe I sit around.
There's a story on X the other day about some guy working in the government office and he says, what does Jane do?
I never really see her do anything.
I see her.
She does some online shopping.
She reads the newspaper, goes for a long lunch.
And they're like, oh, yeah, Jane's job was actually restructured and eliminated like 16 years ago.
But they can't fire her.
Nobody bothered to fire her.
Nobody got around to firing her.
So she just, you know, just comes in.
She's got nothing to do, but she's okay.
Well, you know, all of that gravy train is coming to an end one way or the other.
And I think AI is going to be quite powerful that way.
It will, of course, continue to get more accurate.
But again, it doesn't have to be perfect.
It doesn't even have to equal what human beings do.
All it has to do is be faster, reasonably accurate, cheaper, because justice, even good health, top-notch healthcare, education, nutrition, exercise programs, the top-notch stuff, not really available to people through AI.
It will be, which means the monopolists will go mad, but you can't stop progress in the long run.
So I hope that makes some kind of sense.
If there's anybody who has any questions or comments, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.
If not, I will consider that I have done a reasonably decent job of sharing my thoughts.
This is part two of the truth about AI.
You know, you got to start thinking for yourself.
Go watch my 19-part Introduction to Philosophy series from back in 2006, like 20 years ago.
It's a great series.
And you can go to FDRpodcast.com.
Just do a search for introduction.
There's videos and I think I use a whiteboard.
It was that long ago.
But, you know, really learn from the ground up to think for yourself.
And truly, wonderful things will happen to you.
If you avoid thinking for yourself, avoid entrepreneurial stuff, avoid authentically working from first principles to create your own thoughts, then you will be overtaken.
You will be left behind.
And then you're going to end up dependent on some government pittance of universal basic income, which is going to be pretty depressing.
And I kind of want you to avoid that fate because this is a wonderful audience as a whole.
All right.
Do I have any comments here?
Comments?
What can I do to prepare my kids for living in a world of AI?
Teach them to be creative, teach them to think for themselves, teach them high-level negotiation skills, good conscientiousness, good work ethic, and so on.
All right.
Good evening, darling.
Back to you too, Vera.
I appreciate that.
All right.
Well, thank you everyone so much for dropping by tonight.
I hope you have a lovely evening.
We will speak to you all tomorrow night.
And thank you for dropping by on A Surprise Show.
Nice to see some more people here.
And it's funny because I asked AI today, this is how AI is helpful.
So I asked AI today, what is the topic that my listeners are the most interested in that I have dealt with the least?
And it said a couple of things, but number one was AI.
So I hope that this is helpful.
And this, of course, is part two.
This will come out after part one, which I recorded today, which is still in the queue for release.
And love you guys.
Thank you so much.
Freedomain.com slash donate.
If you find these kinds of conversations to be helpful and useful, you can go and support the show.
You can get your merchantshop.freedomain.com.
Freedomaine.com slash call.
If you want to set up a call-in show, that would be excellent.
And freedomain.com slash books for all of the free books.