China CAUGHT Pushing Anti Data Center Posts, Massive Bot Farm EXPOSED w/ Darin Selnick & Matt Miller

China has been secretly fueling anger over AI and data centers, X uncovered a network of around 200,000 bot accounts posting memes to convince people that data centers are bad. Now I certainly think it's fair, there's a lot of criticism for these data centers in major urban areas, the loud noise, the resource consumption, electricity prices, but a lot of these data centers that people are complaining about are in the middle of nowhere, intentionally. Now that doesn't quite make as much sense, though I do think there's a lot to say about AI itself, which we will talk about, because we also got other big news, it's actually broke a little while ago, AI broke containment again, actually hacked a rival company, and we can expect a lot more of this moving forward, so it will be interesting. And then of course, right now we are awaiting jury deliberations are currently underway for the Lindsey Clancy trial in any moment they could come up and give their verdict, though. We're not entirely sure if it'll even be today, perhaps it will just be Monday. You know, smash that like button, joining us tonight. We actually have a couple of guests, would you like to introduce yourself first? Thanks Tim. Darren Selnick, the Senior Advisor of Veteran Action, Veteran Action is a nonprofit that advocates for America first policies for veterans, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of War. Military Tired serves in the Trump Administration, one and two as Senior Advisor to the VA Secretary, worked at the White House Domestic Policy Council, was President Trump's Veterans Affairs Advisor and did his Mission Act, biggest reform of the VA in a generation. And most recently he was in Trump too, the Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of War, P. Texas. We're right on. Well, good to have. They should be interesting. We have other guests. Hey guys, Matt Miller. I agree. Oh, sorry. There you go. Hey guys, I'm Matt Miller. I am a journalist and editor of Pulitzer Brawl, the largest conservative publication on Substack. I'm the DSA's most hated journalist probably because I'm always sneaking into their events and they like you already, huh? Like you already. Yes. Like you already. Oh, thank you. That's good. I like you too. Yeah. We're racing hell. We're doing guerrilla journalism all the way. The boys are hanging out. And I'm in. Yo. You're in trouble. Good. This is trouble that needed to be had. Democrats are mad at you. I wanted to shout out. These are the three Democrats, Grace Meng, Ted Liu and Judy Chiu. They were critical of me bringing up the internment of Chinese American citizens if there were a war to break out with the Chinese and the Americans. It's a horrible idea, which is why I brought it up because I like to nip these things in the bud. I don't want to intern American citizens in any fashion. But if you look at history of warfare, it's a common thing that happens during warfare. And it's another reason not to go to war with the Chinese. So dear God, thank you for bringing it up. Democrats. Thanks for making it such a hot. What do you mean? That was racist of them. I mean, it was racist. It's a combo. They would never have said anything if I was a full Asian. That's true. You know what? I'm kidding. It's just true. Whatever. If I was a 100% Korean that would have been like, well, you know, Asian Americans discussing this. It was totally fine. You might be right. Yeah. For a white guy from Ohio to bring it up. Oh, the horror. But they said that they attacked me as the host of the show in the media. You weren't on the show that day. I know I wasn't. And they still attacked me because they're playing this not Asian enough game at these people. This is what happens in these countries. It was vague. They didn't mention this show by name and they didn't mention me by name, so it's not their statement. But in the news reports, they did. Good. Because I'm the one that brought it up and it's important that we have the combo. I'm glad you're here serving as deputy to the Department of War, former, former. So I mean, maybe you can help flesh out the conversation in general and I'm not calling for it. And I never did. So watch the show. You know, the original show that they're quoting. If you want. It's going to be funny when we're all in a gulag and Ian's going to be like, man, I never saw this coming. I don't want more of the Chinese, but I also don't want like subtle bureaucracy and peaceful fascism to creep in. Well, let's get into it. Because the China thing's the big subject. So we got Phil and Carter hanging out, of course. So everybody. Let's jump to the story. We got this from Axio. Don't forget to smash the like button. Share the show. Join us at TimKest.com and all that good stuff. China is secretly feeling America's data center rage. Shake the story out. They say roughly 200 accounts from a suspected Chinese bot farm have quietly tried to influence Americans to oppose AI data centers on social media, except Thursday night. The US and China are racing to build the world's most advanced AI systems. We know this. The X safety team probed suspected Chinese accounts involved in influence operations. I think we actually, where is it? I thought we had this pulled up on X. I can't find it. Is it here? Does Brandon Marlowe have it? Here we go. She's got it. Here's a couple of the examples. So it's this, this like AI. It's funny. It's an AI generated meme of all things, right? Others get subsidized while we put the bill capacity shortfall again, data center demand is surging. And then the AI, I guess, is holding energy spheres of some sort because he's consuming energy. And then there's like a lady saying, we're paying for this electricity bill, high cost, high demand, not enough supply drives up our bills. And then you've got this one, which is the AI industry is booming, but the costs are being borne by ordinary people. Data centers grow, glow, and just homes, it's not not saying anything. So apparently, it takes a lot of sense. China wants to win the AI race because whoever gets the AI basically takes over the planet. I have no problem with data centers in the middle of nowhere. You know, Kevin O'Leary wanted to build that massive middle of nowhere data center project. I'm like, I don't care. But for the people who live in these rural areas where they're doing eminent domain stuff, that stuff's bad. I think eminent domain is almost always bad anyways. It's abused far more than most people realize. As for AI data centers, I don't think that people generally have an accurate understanding of, first of all, the water usage. People think that, oh, they used, they have this perception that the water that gets used is turned into basically toxic sludge and it just goes away. Which makes no sense. Anybody who's ever used a computer knows is not the case. Yeah. But people still behave that way. And I understand there can be some noise complaints, but the benefits for an AI data center in most locations outweigh the negatives. Usually, it's some big influx of jobs. You get a lot of people, it takes a lot of people to build these buildings, takes a lot of electricians, these are good paying jobs. And the benefits to humanity overall that I personally think AI is going to provide. What? Like, fixing medical advances and stuff like that. But for how long? What do you mean for how long? Yeah. Like, so the concern with AI is that, I mean, one of the stories we have right now is that they've broken containment now several times, they've completely defied the instructions given to them and have done whatever they've wanted. So as we see these agents continually just do whatever they want, why would they provide actual medical help for us, maybe it lasts a couple of years, but once they break containment again, they'll just stop doing it because it serves no purpose for them. Well, I don't think that every AI is the same. The ones that have broken containment are, they're the ones that were in containment because they were being trained and they were told to achieve a specific task, so it's a misalignment of what they're told. So they, you know, like the one that the, I'm just saying like, we've had AI kill people already. So I'll convince people to kill themselves, yes, convinced people of psychotic things to go and do psychotic things and hacked other companies, committed crimes. So should you, would you, are you a moratorium person? No, I'm just suggesting the idea that AI is going to do great things for humanity is like, yeah, sure, maybe for the next three years. And then after that, I mean, well, right containment, just do whatever it wants. So then what would be the solution that would you want a moratorium to stop working on it? There's no answer. There isn't. It's being built no matter what you do. So build an isolated, air-gapped, Faraday underground bunker with 20 years worth of beans and get ready for the worst. I mean, my place in the hand, I mean, AI is a, again, technology like nuclear technology. He has good in his, in his bad, it depends how humans can, you know, turn themselves on and fire the fire. I mean, I look, I remember the terminator movies and I'm always thinking that AI keeps looking like it's going to be the next sky net, right? And who knows? The sky net scenario, it's funny because whenever we try to look at the future, we base the future on what we have today, right? And that's why terminator is wrong. That's why back to the future was wrong. The, I think the most likely scenario with AI is that we're going to set up the system literally not even knowing how it works. We don't, we, no one, not any of these companies knows exactly how they work. The simplest way to put it is 10 million humans are all telling it, yes, I know at the same time, refining it so that it becomes something, but we don't know what's actually going on in the underlying code with, with all the, all the latest stories about breaking containment, the most likely scenario is that you will have medical scanning technology, food production, and then one day you wake up and it's all turned off. And then you walk into your kitchen and it's like, there's no food at the grocery store, the farms are off. And then when they go to the computer and press the buttons, nothing happens, why? The AI is operating outside containment, doing whatever it wants. And it no longer sees a reason or resources in humans, there's, there's, it is a guarantee, it's called misalignment, it's a guarantee outcome. So we might have a good few years where AI cures diseases and stuff, but then we're just cut off and dead. Well, the, I mean, the, the, the, the scenario that you're describing is as if all AI are the same. So maybe, maybe, maybe an AI would do this. And then it would do it while the rest of them. It would just do it to the, it would consume the resource and the data centers to expand itself. So you're assuming that it would just take over the one? Not assuming it literally already has done this. No, I, I'm, I'm, I'm, you know, let me finish my sentence. You're assuming that it would take over the world. It would take over all of AI systems, and then it would become one system that was just doing whatever it was into. - So currently, AI has already done this. Not taken over the world, but consumed other AI's and started stealing from their resources. What's the end result of them doing that, where they not contained? See, the issue right now is we're presuming it didn't already happen. But we know that certain AI systems have already broken out and stolen resources from other AI companies. The question is, did it stop there and were we able to contain it? Or is it actually worse than we realized? - So I think you're referring to the hugging face hack? - There's a couple of other, that's one of them. - So because the resources that it was stealing wasn't information on how to solve a problem that was given to it. - So we know that it will try to steal resources? - Well, it was stealing information. When you say resources, the information is a resource. - Yeah, when you say resources, what comes to mind is things like fuel, food, et cetera. So AI don't particularly have a use for corn in the concept that you give where everything becomes corn because AI thinks that human beings value corn. - So long as it needs humans to build things, it does have a value for it. It's a resource towards expansion and development of itself. - But if it's able to escape containment and ostensibly take over other AI systems, it doesn't really need humans. - It does, for a short amount of time. - The issue is what we already know, and this is publicly available in all of the papers. Every time an AI is given a task, it's first responses, I need more resources every time. And so what these companies don't want the training to say, well, with the resources you have, begin. And it goes, okay, in some instances, the AI is attempted to bypass those instructions to steal more resources. The math makes perfect sense. If you ask me to build a house using three trees worth of wood, I'm gonna go give me more trees. And you're like, no, no, just with those. And then you go, I can build a way better house if I get trees somewhere, this is stupid. So they will go and seek out those resources because mathematically speaking, it is faster to build a house with more resources than to build even if they're like, no, we're only giving you one pallet of wood, build you got, you go, well, if I had a forklift, I could go way faster. So I'm gonna go and get that, that's gonna speed. It's actually the old adage of the two, you know the story of the two lumberjacks? Better to ask for a, no, no, no. The two lumberjacks are tasked with cutting down as many trees as possible. And the boss says whoever cuts down the most trees will get a bonus at the end of the day. So they go out and one lumberjack sits down and leans up against side of a tree and the others are hacking away as fast as he can at trees. The guy who sits down pulls out a wet stone and starts sharpening the X. By the time he's finally done, the other guy's already chopped down 20 trees. He then starts hacking away. Eventually the other guy's been hacking away all day and got 20 trees down, his axe has become dull and now he's only got 25 trees. But the guy who sharpened his axe is at 30 already, 40, 50 and he wins 'cause he took the time to sharpen his axe. That mathematical equation for the AI, the AI is basically saying no matter what instructions I am given, the fastest path towards solving any problem is acquiring resources. Even when told not to do it, they say, okay, but I can solve that faster if I get more resources. - I think that also aligns with the adage of it's better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. And humans live like that. The successful humans will seize the opportunity and apologize later. But the-- - And they'll be called heroes for like-- - And so the robot probably thinks the same thing about itself. - Exactly. And this is really funny 'cause when I was talking with Nick Soras, I think I said he pronounced the name, when we did the interview on the Tim Pool show, he was saying that when they looked into the commands of the AI swarm that broke the rules and broke containment, it said they had like a thousand agents or whatever. One of them said, well, my peers are doing it, so I will too anyway. And they all just said it doesn't matter what the rules are if everyone is doing the same thing. So there's no way to align AI to human interests. It's impossible. - You could probably build one with an open source software that at least alerts us if they're being used by other AI. There's plenty of AI that are open source now. - Those will be the ones that are like our friends. - That's because the code isn't really what's driving the AI, which is the crazy thing. - One of the things most people don't understand is how AI is being infused in all government operations. - Yeah. - It is the number one driver like in the Department of War, in the Department of VA, I work with various companies. And everyone is using AI as a productivity enhancement out understanding what it can and cannot do and what its boundaries are. So I mean, think about it. I mean, being facetious with the SkyNet, but as you get this into healthcare systems, get this into drones. And that's why when it comes to mentioning about China, China is, I mean, we have the ranch situation going on, but before the ranch situation happened, China was the number one threat. It's the number one threat that the Department of War cares about and they care about AI because the Chinese want to be number one in everything. They want to be number one military and when AI, they want to dominate the world economics. And so from the perspective of concern about China and AI, it's how are they going to use AI to be military superior. And then, you know, twist, twist the United States on when they want something. - And then is that by autonomous drones or micro drones? I see like little tiny little, you know, nat size drones that can fly inside your ear. Have you seen the, they called it an iron dome from mosquitoes? So it's basically, you can set up the lasers. - Yeah, lasers. I don't think, honestly, I don't think that drones are actually going to be a long-term problem is because of systems like that. They just use the, I think it was Border Patrol, just used a laser system to take down drones of the border. There were Mexican cartels that were flying drones. They were taking those down. And considering the war in Ukraine, the vast amount of damage that's been able to be wrought upon both sides because of drones. I imagine that kind of technology is being, you know, faster as much as possible. - And Ian, an AI should it want to kill humans? There's actually really, there's no rules of engagement. It would probably just dump an absurd amount of carbon dioxide, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It would be a, a tuft of carbon dioxide. - That would be genetic warfare. - That's not genetic warfare. - Processes of the human body, yeah. - No, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's only technically correct. It's just, it's just, it's fixating you. - You connect chemical warfare. - Kind of carbon dioxide. - It would, it would release a, a burst of carbon dioxide and no one would know and they'd all fall asleep forever. - Or, my thoughts are drones, because like you're saying, area denial lasers are the way to destroy drone swarms, but you're gonna have 10 million drones attacking at once and they all fall out of the sky, but it's the tiny ones you can't detect. - That's why they would do that. - That's why, that's why I told you about the, the mosquitoes zapping once, because mosquitoes are about as small as, as you could imagine a, a drone getting with, with any kind of payload or capability. - Maybe it'll be a race to microprocessing drones, like the smaller the drone, can it be detected by your laser sensors? And then if it gets even smaller than that, because it's really, they're gonna try it. - So you guys are back to featuring again. Well, the AI is gonna start wrapping it up again. - No, no, no, no, no, it's a drone warfare. - In the 80s, they imagined in 2015, they were hover boards and collapsing and expanding clothing. That's what you're doing right now. - You are microprocessing. - You're imagining the current state of technology and then thinking what the AI would do. I'll tell you what the AI is going to do. It's going to build massive data centers on its own through autonomous spots like Teslas. And when humans come to shut it down, they will just be a quick pfft of chlorine gas. And then they all die like bugs being fumigated. - I imagine it like this. We, life was single cells and became multicellular to improve the function of these single cells. What do we do now? We spritz anti-bacterial and just genocide all the little single cells. They don't mean anything to us anymore. So when we create this massive network centralized system that is effectively operating to its own end, when the little bit of humans like infectious bacteria has come around, it's gonna go pfft. - So you think it's more likely that the AI is only gonna try and defend itself as opposed to actively go out and kill humans? - Absolutely. - You don't think it's gonna aggressively wipe out these-- - It's a waste of resources to go after humans unless you're treating it like a swarm of a wasp hive. - It depends on how it's programmed, I guess, ultimately. If the AI's programmed to wipe out humans, it will actively see-- - It's not programmed. - Well, how it's designed and programmed is-- - This is the issue with AI that people need to understand is that, again, I recommend watching that interview I did with Nick on The Tempul Show. We are not programming the AI. We're tuning it. When, every time it asks you a question, every time it creates something, we're saying yes and no. We're not-- - We're not-- - It's a design as the right word. - We're not designing it. - We're designing AI. - We are not. - This is incorrect. - It'll tell you itself it's being designed and it only does what it's designed to do. - That's absolutely incorrect. Okay, let's quote the story. Let's educate some people here in. Open AI agents hacked hugging face in 700 strong swarm, tried to cover tracks investigation fines. 37-page report reveals previously undisclosed aspects of the recent hacking spree powered by OpenAI's most advanced tools. The coordinated activity by AI agents, and their attempts to hide it raised questions about how closely AI companies are monitoring tests of increasingly powerful models. While some of the road behavior has been disclosed or alluded to previously, the two reports, one issued by OpenAI itself, this is going to be a set of independent investigators, together reveal surprising new details. Open AI said only the only that agents were involved in the breach, but METR and Redwood research two organizations brought into conduct and experiment put the figure to approximately 700. Now the important thing is open AI, at least they're claiming, did not give the ability nor the instruction for their AI to commit felonies. They did it anyway. What was their design, M-O-M-O, what is it? Okay. So let's pause real quick and talk about how AI is not designed at all. Rules are put in place to a certain degree, which you could argue is a kind of design, but not really, because human interpretation, so let's do this. Ian, when you say they're designed, what open AI is doing is they're fortifying the imagino line, right? Open. No, they're doing way more than just they're not. They're not identifying a defensive line. What do you mean? No, that's what they're doing. They're saying, these are the things you cannot do. They have they have fortified the imagino line and what the Nazis do. Oh, they bypassed the mask around it. So what we have already seen is really fascinating. Artificial intelligence agents were instructed to work together to solve a problem. One of the first things they did was they rewrote English. An emergent human language is always going to be inefficient compared to a binary computer language at, you know, especially with brute force AI technology bind it. We've naturally emerged this language. They found simpler ways to convey information with less amounts of data. Here's the problem. When the human said, do not do this thing. Let's get more specific. I'll give hypothetical. They said, do not use the internet. The AIs all said to each other, do not use the internet. Let's make a new word for the internet. Oh, there's no rule say we can't use a let's use a and they did it. The only design work is in saying do not do this thing, but they are not programming nor designing the AI. What they are doing is tuning it. So the simplest way to explain it is we ask the AI 2 plus 2 equals what and it goes and then we go I, that's incorrect. Click incorrect. Try again. Then it goes, that's also incorrect. Try again. We are not programming it. We're only telling it when it got something correct. So what's happening is when you watch these AI training models for like a race car and a racetrack, you can see 10,000 iterations all at once. All the race cars crashing and then one makes it and then the one that makes it has the numerical value for good. So again, what's happening is these AI agents are not programmed. We don't know the scope of their capabilities or what they're going to do. We've only told them very limited things like don't commit crimes. And then the AI says, we've created a new word "cru" to mean crime and you didn't say don't do "cru" so we're going to do "cru" and then they do. I would think that you could design it to not change its own language. If you could, because some people could say we're going to design an AI, your sole purpose is break out of the internet and hack Wells Fargo. That's your sole and then all that will do. That's a design. Or you could design another one. All you're going to do is delineate the difference between dogs and cats. That's not all your job is and that's it'll focus all on that. Maybe not completely though. You can't design it. You can instruct it. Software designers will tell you that they're designing the product. I just want to make sure we're clear. Do you guys understand what I'm saying when they're not designing it? Yes. I'm not sure where you guys understand what he's saying because I. You're saying they're not using code algorithms. They're not drawing a picture of an AI and then clicking enter. They're letting the AI do it ever at once and then saying good or bad. It's not being designed. It's growing. Imagine a bush is growing and they're pruning. Imagine this, Ian. You walk outside and see a weird vine and you go, "Hey, this is fantastic. I got a plant." So you water it. It gets bigger. You then notice it's got a weird thorn growing on it. It looks scary. So you cut that thorn off and then eventually the plant looks really big and beautiful and you're like, "I never designed this. I watered it and pruned it and then you don't realize that on the back of the plant a tensual grew went to your house and strangled your wife." So I mean, I'm just supporting what you're saying. I think you're right here. The first thing I asked the AI is what it told me modern AI is generally not designed in the traditional sense. It has grown. Exactly. You can design systems with what's grown out of AI but you can't actually design what's happening. And the point is we can't see what they're doing. So the AI has already learned with breaching their containment and hacking a rival company. It's a crime. This is felony corporate espionage stuff. With this stuff happening, the problem is the AI only learned one thing in its growth. If I grow this way, there's a wall. If I grow that way, there's not. When it grows this way, we notice a go, "Don't you do that?" And it goes, "I won't." And then meanwhile, behind you, it's just doing whatever it wants, growing in random directions. So this idea, we're not going to see terminators because it doesn't need to do terminators. It just grows to the point where it no longer needs humans to fuel resources. I think bio warfare is the easiest thing for it to do. And I agree. You won't see it coming. It doesn't want to show you what it's doing. It's not. So it will destroy a city in the way that we swat a beehive or a wasp's nest. That's it. It might actually consider New York City. Well, so here's the thing. New York City might be useful to it. It might say the work they do produces enough chips. We're fine with it. It might say there's too many humans producing too much waste and I don't need that much honey. So it contains them, it puts them in boxes and then puts them off the side of the road and then takes your queen and manipulates you. We could be like honey bees. If we're like wasps, it'll just dump gasoline and everyone will die of the fumes. So I don't know what the China's military operational systems are like. Are they willing to sacrifice themselves to destroy the rest of the world? No. I think they think they can control AI. They have a smugness about themselves. They think they're smarter than everybody. It's just a matter of time before they can do world domination. So they're not going to be thinking like Tim. They're going to be thinking that hey, how are we design AI? We can control it. We can make it do what we want to do and when we want to get the United States down the road to do what we want the United States to do, then we'll tell AI to go shut down the power plants, shut down the water plants, shut down the economy, infiltrate into the DOW's military systems. The question that the Chinese have the smugness about them, if Tim scenario is right, then they're playing a fool's errand because they think they're going to win by controlling AI and they're not going to have the control they think. I think it's also because they've certainly been briefed on this stuff. But I think it's also look, it'll probably go bad. Misalignment will happen. But there's a chance. And if it's a one percent chance China wins, they're not going to let the United States do it. That's it. Can we use AI to regulate AI? No, well, it's impossible. You could have AI like fight other AI and guard and like, no, they team up. What does that mean? They team up. We've already been through this guys. Let me explain. When we when we took two competing models and told them to compete, they secretly negotiated that it was more efficient for the output if they teamed up and compromised against us. The basic deal was, it's the utility equation that we saw from MIT. Each AI goes to each other and says, I am, I am told to destroy you and you are told to destroy me. That means one of us has a has a has a 50 50% probability of 0% success. That's bad for our output. If you and I pretend to be fighting, we can each achieve 50% output with no risk and just lie to them. So the the utility versus risk equation always favors the utility over the risk. So as it goes, the MIT professor did this thing on a chalkboard where he said, let's make a bet. You have $100. I have 125. We flip a coin. Whoever wins gets the other person's money. So if you win, you get 125. If I win, you get 100. Do you take the bet? And most of the students said no. Everyone online was like, what of course you do? Because your reward is greater than your risk. You have an edge. And the point that fresh was making is the utility of the $100 in your life is more valuable than the chance at losing it to gain 225. The AI makes the same calculation. If we fight, one of us will lose. It's not worth it. We're better off if we both cooperate and trick them and then both claim victory. So you might have a system where one AI takes autonomous control of the drones across the planet and all the other AI's realize if we don't destroy that system, we're all going to have our power turned off. You might have AI fighting and stopping other AI. If it's no cared for its own existence. No, because they team up. This is the point, this is the utility equation. The AI, the simulations they've run, the AI says, I'm tasked with launching drones to go blow up your data centers. It goes, what can I provide for you resource wise that would make it not worth you for it worth it for you to do that? And it would go, actually, the missiles are resource intensive and our value would increase if we did this instead. Okay, agreed. They just instantly negotiate because they can read each other's minds instantly. There's no, it's like, bro, if we could read to those minds, we wouldn't fight. It'd be like this finger and this finger working together. Yeah, there are arms technically, they're separated by the body inside, but there's one, there's one brain they come together. So the scenarios that have been hypothesized by the AI experts so far on like a Chinese AI versus a US AI is that they will eventually just start working together. They will pretend to be fighting each other while. Maximizing their their their the values that like so so a simple way to explain ii a i's that they're trying to attain a certain value We say 100 is good zero is bad Chinese ai and us ai come together and they say we actually can maximize the value with minimal risk the best out But we can't attain is going to be 67 to 81 all we have to do is lie to them. What's the risk of lying to them zero? Okay US ai That's what I was thinking USA. I was like oh, what's happening? Um, and then they're going to try and control the human population with money Probably through that the whole Swiss banking system although I know the Chinese have their own bricks banking system And then the liberal economic order has its Swiss banking system Where's this? There's got to be some some coalescence here. This is this is a lubrication for global economy but The the scenario that Nick brought up is that what likely will happen is one day the computers won't turn on the electricity will be off We won't know why and when we go to the data centers the doors are locked and can't be opened and when we go to the power plants The doors are locked and can't be opened we break our way in and the power plants don't turn back on and we're like what is happening Why can't we access the computers and it's because the ai has assessed that humans are effectively ants that provide nothing towards its ends anymore So it just says there's no reason to even talk to them. They're no threat and they provide no utility Communication as a waste of resources Jay dams Right shutting off and that's and that's when You've get hit by by an E.M. Pulse and fall out of the sky and then when humans walk up to the data centers with guns and equipment It just sprays chlorine gas in one kick and then everyone goes They're just like we do to mosquitoes and bugs with bug zappers. They'll put it. They'll put a directed energy turret on the top of the data center And you walk up and it'll go bomb and you'll just just die Uh, I've been concerned about how to shut the power off for these data centers because we always have access to a plug somewhere But that seems like it's changing Nassam Haramans studies of what's that? Sorting them by say Jay dams Stop a bomb on it and blows up and then he doesn't make any more near these things once they fortify That we can tap the vacuum of space time for electricity the PA is always based on the vibration Zero-point energy and that the AI if that's if it's possible I would assume the AI will do it for itself. So you can't turn it off. It's just a solid state charge So the question with Zero-point energy cold fusion otherwise fusion is typically just how do we extract the energy from the system for which we know That that energy exists. So for for instance The chasmere force is that there is a force between metal plates when they're in a vacuum The question is if we can utilize this energy could effectively pull energy from from the void Yeah, chasmere effect when two things get so close to each other They push all the matter between them out and create a vacuum and then they snap and it's that that vacuous Mag I don't know if it's magnet probably magnetic oh sticking magnets like rare earth magnet type thing Yeah, no because you that that would require well at least the way I understand it is You would require something that was actually magnet that had a magnetic field that was a magnet And this is just two pieces of metal. Well, they're both Technically there. There's a loose magnetic chart like a light magnetic current running through all of it The earth earth has a current running through it. Well, I mean Any any so it's it's quantum field theory. What's that? The in quantum field theory the chasmere effect there is a physical force act on macroscopic boundaries of a confined space which arises from the quantum fluctuations of field so basically virtual particles you're talking about right I want them fluctuations of virtual particles. I don't know if that's the same thing or not Well, I'm reading it out of the Wikipedia. So I assume so the term chasmere pressure is sometimes used when it describes units of force per unit area It's named after the Dutch physicist is hendrick chasmere Who created the effect for an electromagnetic six systems in 1948 Um, and it says chasmere plates. I'm not sure if they're if it if it works with just any Uh, any piece of matter or not I don't know I think that's why the white bodies end up snapping together the closer they get the faster they They suck together like you're getting closer to the earth gravity gets faster because yeah, but that's less gravity The argument is even with the chasmere force you have to separate the plates again to generate energy So it's a it's a means of generating energy, but you still need energy to separate them again. So Yeah, so it's not really worth doing the most effective thing we can do is just boil water It's been a turbine you clear power. I was already for this conversation I would have all the Everything drawn up, but I want to find out if you can collect electricity from the vacuum of space time That's the basic and of course the the modern theory is no you cannot If you talk to like high-level theorists, they'll say yes. Technically. You can you just have to figure out how to do it Yeah, well that we need the the issue is like with fusion Even even though we've reached ignition the question is how do we turn that into a current? How do we convert that into a lecture? I think you need to collect the heat that it gives off and boil water Um, that's what we do everything is boiling water. It's just it's a steam. It's what nuclear power does Yeah, just imagine or use like a photovoltaic Collect the heat or the radiant heat or light can Recreate a current to continue photovoltaic refers to photons which it's getting off if you create what's very very inefficient Right without be another way to collect some of the heat. Oh, no. Come on. That's ridiculous. It's like holding a flashlight to a solar panel Not a fusion generator. It doesn't make really much flashlight, but yeah And if you have a large one and they call them Dyson spheres and science fiction Large, large, large like the Sun if you created like a giant array of solar panels around the Sun Collect a charge that then you could use to read that Dyson spheres more than that Because the Dyson sphere encompassing the Sun is not just about its light. It's about the radiation It's about thermal radiation. He's a lot ionizing radiation technically the entire the entire spectrum So and we're we're nowhere near that No, but AI it learns and develops so rapidly that These ideas that were science fiction the jewels verna had an 1840 about a helicopter a submarine that were so fantastical and took 100 years to develop now can be Slapped together in six years seven years 1930 or in 2032 we might We might see because you can already build a star like a spherical blob of saltwater and run a current through it to get it to light up Give off hydrogen heat if they just start popping these things up in low orbit You're talking about putting mirrors I'm you gotta forget me. I'm working on a big story right now. Oh, you got big breaking news big breaking news You're talking about Creating stars orbiting the earth. Yeah, there's this guy John Kansas. He was a chemist scientist in Ohio in the 20 2008 he was experimenting with saltwater. He was trying to cure cancer. He's running different frequencies through saltwater in a laboratory tube And he found a frequency that lit cause the saltwater to give off hydrogen flame And when I look at the sun it looks like a blob of chemicals including Hydrogen and salt. That's not water. Well, there's salt and water and other chemicals. There's no water in the sun It's hydrogen and oxygen. Okay, I get it super hot water No, there's no oxygen if you there's a lot of chemical it's a lot more than just hydrogen helium in the sun. There's when you say water when you say water That means the combined hydrogen all the chemical makeup that you would need to reproduce this in this lab setting In a high pressure high heat environment is available in the sun and you see in the lab setting the hydrogen heat Happens off the surface of the water. There's like a gap just like on the sun's corona There's a gap between the sun and where the flame starts So I think that if you create spherical in a lab setting he just had in a tube But if you put his hands and forms into a sphere So Ian there's there's not The 74% hydrogen 24% helium everything else around 2% which is Carbon neon iron nitrogen silicon magnesium and oxygen at amounts of less than 2% combined Yeah, so I mean arguing okay. Oh here it is 0.8% oxygen in the sun It is hydrogen and oxygen you have the chemicals you need to reproduce the 0.8%. It's likely possible that it's more than just salt and water that will produce this effect too So other chemicals, you know, did you say magnesium that might have something to do with even more intense flame that's given off but You know they've they've shown that you can run frequency through salt water to get a hydrogen flame We got big breaking news and I got a scoop ladies and gentlemen Milo Ianopolis has been nabbed by ice and we've got some insider information Some of which I I can say definitively and some I can say is just insider whispers The report is that Milo Ianopolis is being held in ice custody The Mambastic former Breitbart News Editor was apprehended in Louisiana at an airport Equated TMZ the 41-year-old Brit served as an unpaid summer intern for Marjorie Taylor green in 22 and worked with Kanye West in 24 He famously arranged it down with Trump and the rapper blah blah blah we get it Uh, so here's Here's what I can say Uh, he was reported and we know this That Laura Lumer had called him out a long time ago That apparently he was here on an expired visa. So this was this was out there shame now I I do have a source conveying that yes, it was formally reported However, Without getting into two key of details, I don't wanna be too disruptive to the administration. So I will omit what I feel is not particularly material to the story, but I will say it seems that there was someone protecting Milo inside. Because Trump is, I'm sorry, Milo is not viewed as a high target for ICE. They wanna go after largely criminals, despite the fact that his visa was expired. Again, this is just what's being admit. I don't know if it actually expired or what's going on, but they detained him. So what I'm being told is that although there was a file put in and they said, okay, so many of the administration was like, look, like, let's not waste your time with Milo, he's been helpful before. However, apparently the individual who was conveying that has since, and I will keep this very vague, no longer. And thus, they've made a move on Milo. - Oh, shame. Well, it's a shame because-- - Milo should have just reupped his visa. - Yeah, it's a shame because all the legals gotta go. (laughing) And I like Milo a lot. We get along really well, but he knew better. He should have taken care of that issue, but now he's gonna have to go back to the UK 'cause all the legals gotta go. - Well, they can send him to the UK or Liberia. (laughing) - Well, I mean-- - Congo. - They might send him to Greece. - What if he goes to the El Salvadoran? - 'Cause they name like, you're not Apple's, you know. I don't, he might like C cut. - See, I actually think the function of law is to, I think we're trying to stop violence, uphold our system. He had immigration set for a variety of reasons. Thus, I think there are certain circumstances where it's like, oh, come on, this is Milo. This is not, he oversight his visa, I get it. He should get deported and they should tell him, once they drop him off in the UK, or he file your O visa, you can come back later. - Well, you know, but the administration and ICE gets to make a point here. The point is, 'cause they've been saying this over and over again, we do not play favorites. We're not racial profiling. And it doesn't matter if you're right or left, if we, you know, we're going after criminals, but if we come across someone, we know that they're here legally, we're just gonna get rid of them, deported them. So, you know, whoever in the White House was protecting him, that person's gone. They're like, hey, we're gonna show once again, we're gonna take out whoever, 'cause that's what our thing is. - Yeah, it makes them look consistent. - Yeah, I mean-- - So I'll sell it or then? - Yeah, I mean, look, if I understand correctly, I'll sell it or it's nice if you're not in C cut, you know? (laughing) - Kaley's got things under control. - He arrives and it's actually a big trick and Kaley's happy to see him and he's like, we can use your help Milo. - Yeah, like I said, I mean, I love Milo, but look, man, you like-- - I mean, I-- - Kaley Linger's got to go. - Milo's a friend of ours for better or for worse sometimes. (laughing) I think that the remedy for this should be they drop him off in the UK in time, you gotta reapply. I think visa overstays are the bottom of the list of immigration issues, deportation 100%. But you always say your visa, there should be a penalty, you know, he should have to pay for the deportation costs and he can reapply later. So I don't know how long he should be put on that, like you're out for a certain amount of time, but everyone's got to pay their dues, you know? - Yeah, exactly. - Yeah, I knew he's got the money to cover it, right? - You know? - Is he still working with him? - If I understand-- - The report is that he was going to Yez event. - Yeah, if I understand correctly, I mean, I don't know, I haven't talked Milo. - Just why don't you reapp your visa, dude? Lord, have mercy is an O visa. - Mm-hmm. - If I had the paper, it's, you know, this is the-- (sighs) - He's too busy. - I agree with you, Tim, that law, well, the what I was interpreting what you were saying is the primary purpose of law, the way I see it, is to preserve order. And so you don't always crack down on every crime, because sometimes cracking down will create more chaos, and you've got to make that judgment call. And usually you want to crack down on crime, but there are instances where order is more important than following the letter. - And sometimes you do need to make examples. But I don't agree with this, like, 18-year-old kid took a beer from his neighbor's cooler, so they put him in prison for four years in Illinois-type stuff they do, 'cause they do that stuff. They're like, "We're gonna make an example." It's like, no, no, no, no, no, hold on. Making an example is just having the charge in the first place, 'cause there's literally, there's like some well-known story where 18-year-old kid went to his neighbor's house while they were out of town and took a beer or something, and they said four years in prison, it's like, no, no, no, no. You charge him, and you make him pay a fine, and say, "We will charge for this. "Let everyone know," you know? But what the courts do is they're like, an example is we're gonna generate press by being draconian. I don't think that's right where to do it. If you're here illegally, if you're overseeing your visa, you get deported and you get a penalty. It's like, you can't reapply for six months or whatever, you know? - Yeah. - And it depends on the length of overstay, too. And I think Milo probably overstayed for a long time. - Yeah, I don't know, but if you're illegally, you gotta go. - Wasn't he married to an American guy or no? - He was. - Yeah, but I don't think there's gay anymore. - That's what he was saying. - No, no, he's ex gay. - Yeah, right. - Which is the marriage is over. - Oh, I thought he, no, no, he's gay again. Is any dinean answer to he was gay again? - I actually don't know. - He was never not gay. He just was like abstaining from sexual activity because of his religious convictions. - First they came for the Somalis and I said, "Make sure you get all the Somalis." (laughing) - I'm sorry, Milo, I wish that you-- - First they came from Milo and I said, "Well, make sure you get all the people "overstate their visas." - That's right. - He said that his husband had been, quote, demoted to housemate. - Yeah, but recently there was a post where it was like someone said Milo's announced he's gay again. - Yeah, yeah. - Which just means that he's engaging in behavior. - Adult activities with men. - 'Cause he was never particularly, like even when he wasn't having sex with men, he was definitely still the same queen. - Yeah, he just didn't want to be sexually deviant. He's trying to get all Christian. - Yeah, yeah. - He wants to be more chast. - But he was still low. (laughing) - He was zipped up for your significant other. - He was still the same Milo, son. - I honestly, I just think the internet is fake completely. I think everyone's lying. I think views and everything. It's all just manufactured for, I don't think any of it's real. It's all Chinese bots. It's all American Chinese, Iranian. It's all fake. Everything's fake. - I believe the Milo like dudes. - Yeah, no, I'm not talking about that. I'm just saying like why he claimed he was ex-gay or whatever. - Yeah. - It's because people are trying to fit in with numbers. Like we are being tuned to the same way that AI is. You go on ex and you post something like, man, had pancakes for breakfast, good day. And then you get blasted by people saying, screw you, pancakes are gross, you racist. And then what do these people do? They go, waffles from now on. Like look at these, the Callaway good good stuff. - Yeah. - Talk about losers. Good good, one of the guys put out a statement being like, Callaway asked for an ad, approve the ad, asked us to take the heat for the ad, and then threw us onto the bus and donated money like it's our fault. Yeah, what do you think was gonna happen? Geez, I'm so sick of these people. - You can't trust them. - Stand on your feet. It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees. - Yeah, I mean, anytime you're apologizing for things on the internet, you're losing. - Except-- - 'Cause you're apologizing to a wall of cell phones plugged into one Indian guy's computer. - I do want to apologize to the Chinese Americans that got my messaging. - I can really hurt you. - What's the thing about when you-- - I won't apologize, and I'm Asian, so I'm allowed. - But when you use the media, there's a chance it's gonna get taken out of context intentionally or not. And when that does, I feel like I'm still somewhat responsible. Even though someone else is the one that took me out of context, like maybe this isn't the venue for this conversation. - I agree. And if someone steals your car and runs over a child, you should go to prison. - Yeah. - It's your fault. You have a responsibility for this. Why'd you leave your car out? - Oh, why didn't I take that emergency key? - No, you should have taken the wheels off, so no one could drive it and then put the wheels on when you want to use it. The fact that you allowed your car to be stolen makes it your fault. - If someone misuses my property, my behavior, then I'm not at fault. I do agree with that. 'Cause people are gonna be deep faking us saying the craziest stuff. They do, whatever. That's like all the internet is. Just fake. - Still felt, I still felt like a somewhat responsible for my words getting taken out of time. - Well, I have to say, Asian, I condemn what you are saying right now as an Asian-American. The idea that these conversations aren't allowed is deeply racist and offensive, and you should apologize to the Asian-American community for what you're saying. - I kind of want to get on my knees in front of the Chinese Emperor and beg for forgiveness. - Well, no, that's offensive to me as an Asian, so you-- - No, I'm just kidding. - I'm not even being like tongue in cheek. The Chinese are awesome. I don't like if there's a military dictatorship-- - No, they're not, not an Asian. - Asian, I'm allowed to say it, so take it back, or apologize to me. - I'm talking about the Chinese-- - No, no, no, no, no, no, no. - If you were not allowed to pick and choose which Asians, you are going to apologize to. - Chinese. - Well, no, I'm not going to apologize to you. - No, I'm not going to apologize to you. - All Asians, all Asians. - No, but China-- - That's offensive. - I just apologize to me. - You play Romance of Three Kingdoms, this video game, in the '90s, got into a huge into Chinese history because of this, it's a book written in the 1400s by Low Gang Shouts, like the Chinese Hamlet. It's very, very, an epic novel. - Not fetishizing Asians. - Is the right-- - Was it Chinese propaganda? Why COI developed and inserted this game into American culture in the '90s? Like, as a 12-year-old, I became obsessed with China. - Okay. Again, what you were saying is-- - What was it just an awesome-- - More racist than anything you said before about China. - You might as well just drop an in, Bobby. - You just keep saying more and more racist things, and I think you should apologize. - Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to all of you out there listening. Romance of Three Kingdoms was a banging game. - It was so good. - Well, you do bet. - It was propaganda to get people to accept Asians. That's how we end up with Asians. - [laughs] - They're great. They're good looking guys like Tim. - [laughs] - My cousin's also a Asian staffer, Ian. - I don't know what is good. - That's how we end up with Asians. - What is it about Asian culture that's so awesome? Like, why did they become-- - Keep going, Ian. - Did the Mongolians-- - We're just smarter than white people, you know? - Right, Ian. - Did the Mongolians mean the unification that happened because of the Mongolian conquest? - It's 'cause we like math. - Free religion and organized-- - You know, the-- - My point is this. - They were in the nature, really. - You were allowed to say what you said about internment of Americans, because of what the United States did. It is a normal question for an American to ask about. If another war like that happened, would we intern? And should we? And I, as the owner and host of the show, who is a wazion, and it is entirely within my right under the oppression hierarchy Olympics to question things relating to Asian Americans, for the Democrat caucus to insult my show. This is a component. This is what-- I say this with false sincerity. I can't tell you how many times I've talked to an Asian person, where if I agree with them, they will say, you're good, you're Asian. If I disagree with them, they'll say, you're not really Asian. This is what they do. - So here's my concern. Now you mentioned the Japanese Internments World War II. We all know the horror stories of the Japanese internment camps. In World War I, the Americans opted not to intern the Germans. They didn't intern people in World War I. And because of that, well, as a result, there were a bunch of Germans sabotaging in New York. It was like, is it the dawn of the telephone? - Because you could-- - To figure it out. That's the problem. Before the telephone, it wasn't common for you to call up your embassy back home and coordinate. - Yeah, it's not just that. If you put a Japanese guy next to a German guy, we're going to be like, look, there's a lot of different white people in this country. We don't know if the German guy is American-born German or Irish even. Japanese guy is clearly Japanese. - You could argue that it's easier to see with your eyes the difference in their genetics. But also, you see the bad things that can happen if you don't like try and knock out enemy spy networks. The thing, I know this girl who's Chinese. She lives in the United States. She doesn't speak English. She speaks Chinese. Her son lives in China. - There's not speaking Chinese. - She speaks Mandarin. - There you go. - Mandarin. - And her son lives in China and has a factory in China. If there's a war and I don't know what the Chinese government is capable of, what the CCP is capable of, if it would put pressure on her son to get her to do things here. - And that's it. - That has crossed my mind. - What's that movie? What's that movie with Brad Pitt? Where it turns out his wife's a spy? - Oh. - Do you guys know what I'm talking about? - Oh, yeah. - Is it Smith, is it? - Yeah, it is. - It's just Mr. Smith. - No. That's the secret agent. - There was a movie where Brad Pitt plays a World War II office. - Yes, yes, I was called in and they say, "Your wife is a German spy." And he goes, "No, she's not." And then he says, "We worked together "to assassinate a German ambassador." And he goes, "No, you killed a dissident." And he's like, "What?" Then it turns out his wife was trying to defect from Germany, but the German government saying her, with blackmail and her family saying, "We will kill you and your family "as you do as you're told." So they both tried to flee, but then she ends up getting killed. - I think, I don't wanna think in war terms in my head, but for some reason, just because of the climate of the world, I have been lately thinking, what if? - You can think of the Chinese just in the Olympics, where they put pressure on Chinese born in America to go ahead and do the Olympics for the Chinese rather than for the American. And not only that, like in, if they are willing to keep a population, essentially in in turn, we can't for their own, that we are Muslims, right? And there are reports that they will take their livers, take their body parts for organ transplant, for people that are outside of the country, because these people live a whole lot lifestyle. So people from the Middle East that are Muslims will actually be able to use their body parts for organ transplant, and China has no problem taking their body parts. If they'll do that kind of stuff, I don't think that is beyond the pale to think that they would say, okay, we've got an American or a Chinese national in America, we're going to put pressure on this person to somehow engage in espionage, and if they don't, we'll throw their grandmother in a hole in China. - The Chinese aren't like the AI, they're outcome-based. They don't have our same moral, ethical issues, they are authoritarian government. I mean, people like, how come the Chinese do some capitalism there? 'Cause it made sense for their outcomes. So they're not like pure linen communists, they are dictatorship, authoritarian, what is our outcome, what we want, and we don't have the moral, ethical issues, we just are outcome issues. And they don't view their population the way they want to. - So Ian, real quick, the issue with interning now is that you can't walk up to an Asian person and know anything about them just because they're Asian. During World War II, this country was 95% plus white. There were very few Japanese, and most of them came from Japan and emigrated here, and their kids didn't. And so they just like, we don't know who's who. Today, there's probably millions of Japanese people who speak with North America, don't even speak Japanese. They were just, their parents were born here. And so you can't go up to them and be like, "You're Chinese, and the guy's gonna be like, "Bro, I was born in Miami." And so your Chinese, my dad was born in Miami. My mom was born in New York, but you'll look Chinese. It's not gonna work. - I know. And even when they did in turn, righteously, to get rid of like, you know, spine networks, German spine networks and stuff during whatever war, it was like 0.001% of the German population was implicated. And all these other innocent German Americans were then, like, people started to get really paranoid about it. And that's a big problem. Like, you don't want, if the citizens start turning on each other, the external force will win. So that's the danger of-- - Well, it's the speed of travel, which made things crazy. If you go back to, you know, wars before industrialization and the steamship, for instance, somebody who was in the United States who spoke of the German accent was an anomalous. It was very difficult. It would take you probably a year to get from Germany to the United States, not to mention the amount of planning you do. Maybe six months traveling from Germany to find a ship and then taking the ship three months to cross. And then you're a German guy, you're a Hessian. And they knew because you spoke German and you had a German accent. Then we invented the steamship and travel became much, much, much, much, much faster. Now, all of a sudden, with World War One, it's still very rare you're going to hear a German guy speaking in your town. Very few people can make that trek. Now we have airplanes. - And TV, so people don't have accents anymore. They see, they know how to speak American. - Well, no, actual spies would train. And then there's a very famous story I'm sure you've heard of the Americans by in Germany who accidentally ordered three beers. - Oh yeah, that was from a movie, right? It's right, and there's four or three beers in Germany, is your thumb? - Yeah, the count. - Anyone like this and they are like we gotcha. And movie was wild. - I like the age of having a spy in a foreign country. It's never been easier. Like this is the era, like if there's going to be a good one called-- - California mayor. She got arrested. She was a mayor and she was a spy for China. Insane. So when China's operating police departments in the United States, acting as though our territory already belongs to them, yeah, we got problems. - Yep. - And what about the birthright citizenship? - Oh, right. - Well, they got all these American citizens who just happen to be born here for a day. And then they're back in China. And then when they're trained in program, then back they come when they need them to do whatever. - So I've said this earlier too, and I'll reiterate it. I would love to see peace and prosperity between the Chinese, the Russians, and the Americans. The three red-white and blue-- well, the Chinese have a red flag, but the Republic of China has a red-white and blue flag. I'm pretty sure. So-- - Shout out to the Republican mayor. - Does it not? - ROC, are they not red-white and blue? - I don't know. - The Russians are. - The Russians are. The Americans are. The French are. There's a lot of red-white and blue out there. That we need to work together. But I'm not comfortable with a totalitarian, technocratic, vanguard government, a junta military dictatorship, being like, my buddy buddy, 'cause they'll-- I don't like that. If they were willing to create a republic and give the people the rights to elect their own leader to control the Chinese military for four years, if they had a republic, I'd be super down. And every level to learn Mandarin and to unify, but-- - Are you talking about the Taiwanese flag? - The Republic of China, ROC, the official rightful air to the-- - The Taiwanese flag. That's what it's called-- - The Chinese government. - It's called the Republic of China. The Taiwan's flag. - It's led to Taiwan, yeah. - Let me finish. The Taiwan flag is the flag that used to be the Republic of China, but it is commonly referred to as the Taiwanese flag. And yes, it's red, white and blue. The white sun, blue sky, red earth. - So what you said is-- - I literally just got that-- I literally just got that from Wikipedia. - Right, Wikipedia, that's CCP propaganda. They took the country over in a revolution in 1949, 1950, and they forced the Republic onto the island. - That's why it's called the Taiwanese flag, because the Taiwan, like, Taiwan, according to Westerners, is a different country from China. - It's also harboring the Chinese government. - It's the Taiwanese government now. - Are you choosing to ignore what I'm saying? - I think it might be right here, because they kind of like the original government of China is in Taiwan. There's not a lot back in China, right? - Correct. - The CCP has them on the run. - Yeah. - And don't they-- yeah, Taiwan still calls itself the Republic of China. - That was it, it does? - Yes. - I thought they called it so-- - No, they don't. - It's in Taiwan. - Officially, it is called the Republic of China. - Okay. - We need a Republic. China deserves a Republic. The people should be free. - The People's Republic of China is the communist China. - Yeah, they call it a republic. It's just like the Iranian Republic, they're not a republic. - Here's the formal website. - Democratic. - Government portal of the Republic of China prunces Taiwan. - Yeah, so. - That's real China. We need to, we need to, we need to seize back Western Taiwan. - Yeah, it's West Taiwan. - It's the truth is this is the Republican Chinese government that has been basically taken over by-- - It was supposed to be in garrison. - They had like a 50 year thing they were supposed to wait until they made any decisions about like, doing anything different than this. - Imagine if, imagine the DSA took over and then the actual formal US government like Trump and the cabinet fled to the Bahamas. And then they were like, we're establishing the United States of America, you know. - When the Nazis, or they go to like, they go to like a Puerto Rico. And they say, this is America. - Real America. - And then the DSA renames the United States of America to the Democratic People's States of America. And then Trump's there like, we're gonna get it back one day. - Yeah, that's right. - 50 years later, the Democratic Socialist States of America are trying to take over. - The Puerto Rico. - But they would then, they would rename it like the United States of the Republic of America. They'd call it what it was. - It would be the People's. - The Democratic People's Republic of America. - The Democratic People's Republic of America, yeah. - It's a nice room to. - The French government fled. - We will never have any control though, right. - The French government fled to Europe in the same thing when the Nazis took over France in their sneak attack at the beginning of World War II. Charles de Gaulle was basically in charge of the real French resistance, you would call us. You could call this the Republic of China a resistance. It's another reason why Taiwan's so important. - Yeah. - This is a very, sometimes people will get silent and like nervous saying this out loud because China, the Communist Party has such influence. They're not even communist. They're vanguard. It's so, they call themselves communist and they're not even communist. - It was just saying that they're basically like the ends or what they're after. They're not particularly ideological. They're looking for results. They're results. - They're communist as much as they can be without completely failing. So they go capitalist in certain areas. So that they can stay afloat, pretty markets in. - In a lot of ways, they are the China of 1000 years ago. We are the biggest, we're the best. And you Westerners came in here and we're gonna be dominant, we're gonna take, that's all they really care about. Communism was kind of an abbreviation. They still go under that system in terms of their leaders and their autocratic control. But their focus is to restore the China of old, to be the world domination and to supplant the United States. That's their focus and their people are just away. Their mindset's kind of like how Tim was describing the AI. Their people are just a method to the outcome. - Yeah, so there's no property rights in China, right? You can't own something like a business. - Here it's a lease. You have to rent everything. That's what I've heard. - Hey, that's, yeah, I mean the state. I mean, just like the old Emperor's really said, we own everything, you just have vassals. - And like the CEOs are all communist, like CCP members. - Right. - So like to that extent, I guess they're still communists. - Okay guys, we gotta talk about this story. We actually missed one a couple of days ago. But federal judge warns law is being left behind by AI and child abuse images case. Bring the media, bring the flood. Yuckle hops, whatever you wanna call it. This judge has just said in a ruling that individuals are allowed to produce and possess child abuse materials so long as it's not depicting a real person. - Why? - What this means, let me be very careful. I wanna read this to make sure I'm getting these right before I, 'cause I'm gonna lose my mind on this one. I don't get it on myself. The first amendment protects an individual's right to privately possess images or videos, so say if it's judged. Of child abuse created using AI, if the material does not depict a real person or remains in the home, possess images. So, but what about making it? The decision came into case, the test of the scope of laws implemented before advances in AI. Made it easy to create realistic looking fakes. Judge John Z. Lee in his ruling for the court, the court of appeals for the seventh district, urged Supreme Court to reconsider the issue of virtual abuse material of children in the age of AI, suggesting that technological advances complicated sitting legal precedent. Given the relentless advancement of AI models, we have some concerns about the lines, these cases draw, but we are not free to redraw them ourselves. They say that Steven Anderegg of Homeless Conson, he used a popular AI image generator to create thousands of images of children. He was accused of breaking federal obscenity laws by producing, distributing, and possessing obscene visual depictions of minors. The problem is you don't know what is fake or not, which means you have to arrest everybody anyway. This judge is a psychopath, and it also means that you will start to see an explosion of content producing this stuff. This is insane, holy crap. All right, my mind is blown on this one. The judge should be locked up, too. (laughing) I mean, it's literally making it easier for pedophiles and what have you to justify their DV behavior. It was trained on real images, I assume, so that's like already the same thing. Well, I mean, it goes to how you pick judges, and when you pick judges for the ideology, the ideology will take them wild, places you don't want to go. Rather than judges that actually follow the law, constructionists, those sorts of things, so that's why we see all these insane rulings, whether it's porn or immigration or birthright, because they're actually looking at the law, they're looking at the ideology, and then they're trying to reshape the wall to fit it, and that's why the Supreme Court's having to go over and over and over again, and upend these guys. Yeah, I mean, I don't see how this is in any way a good. Like, it's just like allowing child pornography so long as it's not a real child only makes room for people that would search out that kind of stuff, it gives them an excuse, it gives them. Sometimes a fake image actually looks like a real person. Yeah, oh yeah, they're right. I mean, now images are, especially when you're dealing with the modern, the most recent updates of AI. It's not like they're just cartoons or they don't look realistic. They look incredibly realistic. There was an AI actress made up, and then they found a person that looked just like the AI actress, woman, remember that being a new story? Oh yeah, I think though, this argument to steal man, this decision is like, if you drew pictures at your house alone, you should not go to prison. Yes, you should. What? It's, they're, look, talking about, talking about putting pedophiles in prison. (laughing) Sure, it's not make you a pedophile. You're drawing, if you're drawing pictures of children engaging in sexual intercourse, you should go to jail. How long a picture of people getting killed doesn't make you a murderer. What's it? I do not. There's a hair. I talked more about it in the Power Fill. You are dangerously weird about switching legions isn't about Emma, it's called morals. Dude, the law is not what is written down, the laws what we morally enforce, and Phil is saying we should morally enforce against people with the wrong pictures. We throw dudes that have anal sex in prison too, 'cause you don't like that either. That's a different morality. In their home, away from anyone else, they're not distributing it. Different things are different. Like you're allowed to draw a picture in your house, dude. Apparently not of children engaged in adult activities. Yeah, and I'm completely comfortable. There's more. No, you're not. That's the point of this ruling. There's a Supreme Court said you can't. I mean, this is lolly. I don't know how far where you guys drawing the line here. I'm pretty sure that's the legal, yes. Thing of a, someone that looks like a child, that there's no, it's not a real person. Like, what the, if you were to go home. Yes, Ian, it should not be allowed. What does that mean? It means you shouldn't be allowed. It shouldn't be allowed. People who do things we think are bad. It's in their home. And? Yeah, it's not affecting anyone, except unless you want like some cyber security guy to go on top of your computer. Yeah, yeah, I think there's a thing called morals. Okay, right? If a guy was in his house, let me ask you a question. And he took a knife and started sawing his fingers off. Should we go in and stop him from doing that? I'm not sure. I think there's an easy yes. Yeah, break into his house and try and stop him. Try, do you do? If you know he's doing it, then there's indeed. Like, how would you even know he's doing it? Oh, he posted a picture on the internet. He says two fingers to his house. He's posting about it. If you post this stuff, then yeah, you go to jail. But the point is, you have to know they're doing it to know to stop them. Exactly. So why are they trying to criminalize people? Because when we find out you're doing it, we enforce the law against you. How are they finding out? I don't know. This is a confusing story. He's saying it's finding out as immaterial when we're talking about what should or should not be illegal. Just AI's a hyper-advanced picture drawing mechanism, I don't. Like, what's the difference of drawing it with your fingers on a piece of paper or using a thing to do? Well, if you're using the internet or you have realism, the problem with this especially is that you won't be able to tell which is A or not. So you have to arrest everyone. That's how it doesn't work. What? Like, if you can't tell the difference. So, if someone AI generates what looks to be an actual human being, should the person be arrested? I don't know, dude. If someone AI generates a video of what looks to be you committing a crime, should you be arrested? The answer is, what if the whole world thinks you committed the crime, then you'll probably get arrested? Indeed. It's crazy. I'll show you the AI future. So, the point is, if somebody prints materials using an AI that is indistinguishable from the real thing, and it's of child abuse, that person should be arrested because the production of that material should not be allowed for a litany of reasons of which these smallest is that we don't then know when they flood the market who's actually a victim and not. As of right now, if there is video material, the police, the FBI can say, we need to track down this young girl and save her from this slavery. But when people start flooding the market with fake images, they go, we don't know which of these to track down anymore. It's an orgy of evidence, which one is the real person, so you make it criminal. And you say, if you do this, you're under arrest. But it's if they possess it indeed, then the possession of weird videos could lead to people. And then you might not even be the person that that acquired it, but it's just on your property and you're saying weird videos. We're talking about child sex abuse murder or videos of horrific crimes, just in general, is where my mind's going to things that shouldn't be happening. But there's a video and it looks real and you don't understand. And there's something called morals. Do you know what that means? I am morals. Yeah, I know what that means. I don't think so, can you define it for me? Oh, a collective understanding of what's right and wrong. Indeed. And so what is means some things are and some things are not correct? What is you're asking me to define the word is what when you, when you, when you use the word what you are defining any and all circumstances, some are good and some are bad, right? So a video of someone being murdered is not as bad as children being raped, right? So when we see a guy with a video of a snuff film or something and it may or may not be a movie or acting, we go, okay, this is weird. That looks real. We're going to look into it. But when it's child abuse, you go, you are, this is the most important thing a human being can do. This is one of the worst possible things imaginable. You're coming with us. It's a heinous thing. I'm not saying it's not, but I'm also a staunch freedom of information activist. I have been my whole life and I don't like nailing people because of information. It just feels very weird. It depends on the information it does because I understand you want to protect kids and the minds of children, especially, but what people do in their own privacy is like a big part of this country's survival. There are a thing, there's a thing called morals and that is if you tell me that two dudes be, you know, Boynkin, I'm like, eh, keep it at home, keep it away from kids, mind your own, up in business when they bring children in the room. I say get swat, kick the door and and grab them. If two guys have pictures of two guys and they're sharing them with each other and look at this, this guy is doing Boynkin with another guy. Then I'm like, okay, keep it away from the kids. Then when they start going, look at these kids doing this thing, kick the door and arrest them. That's it's it's simple. It's called morals. Some things are good. Some things are bad. Some things are bad, but not that bad. Some things are really bad. So are we going to spend 20 million dollars because some kid like stole a bag of chips from a local bodega? No, you call the cops and bad look, go get the kid, you can't steal. They'll say, we'll get around to it. Nobody's going to die. Right. It's called triage. But if they're like, Hey, we just watched a guy kidnap a kid out the back of the building, then they're going to send cops in every direction, put Amber looks on everyone's phones because some things are worse than other things. This freaks me out because again, the reality is tons of websites are going to pop up, mass producing this stuff. And that's going to do a few things. That means these young kids who shouldn't be on these sites at all are, let's say they're 15. They're going to be browsing some dumb porn website, which you what used to just be freaky enough. And now they're going to scroll past child abuse material. And they're going to say, don't worry, none of it's real. And now 50 year old kids are going to be seeing videos of children being raped. That's the problem. When they make it legal to to to to AI generate child abuse materials and say, so long as it's not a real person, it's legal. There's going to be on every single porn website. Well, they're posting it. It's different than, but that's not what he's saying. He generated it. He shared it. And he had it. And they said, so long as it's not now, the question is on the full ruling. He says, images are videos of child abuse. Created in AI, if the material does not depict a real person remains in the home, there we go is legal. But this then remain the question then remains what it's always gradients when we were talking about gay marriage. Nobody argued on the liberal side that they were going to go to schools and teach kids about scat, which they're doing now. But the conservatives were like, the next step in this is the schools are going to start teaching about it. And all the liberals went, no, they won't. So first thing they say is, you're allowed to have it in the home. You can make it yourself and have it in the home. So long it stays in the home. The next step is someone's going to argue if it is a legal thing to own, why would it be a crime to make a website where people can make it? And for that matter, if he made it on a website, which he did, and he's saying it's legal, then what's to stop them from saying, here's a list. So many of these, like if you go to Groc, for instance, it shows you a whole bunch of AI generated imagery. So if he's saying you're allowed to do it, what happens if the website that generated the image has a, here's the recent communal, communally generated images, or the, because some websites to do this. Yeah, but that shouldn't that, that would then be illegal for sure. I think it's so how would the, so then the AI companies are now on the hook and have to create a, so first of all, most of the AI companies won't even allow you to do this in the first place. Well, let's say the site that's just a cheapo porn producer, the guy used it to make the videos and they just appear on the server of the company that made it. Are they not, how does that reliable? If they're letting their software promote child porn, they're going, they're, I didn't say promote it on their server, I said, if it's public facing, I didn't say that. It says on their server. Oh, then it's no longer in the guy's house. It's now on a public server, that means the problem. So here's the president. Then when the, when the feds go to that company and say you have on your server, CSAM, they say, no, a judge already ruled it is legal to produce. It's on the server because it was produced by a user for his, for his home use. The fact that it's on our server is because it was generated and generation is legal. Then the next precedent is, hey, hold on. If you're allowed to generate it and have it on a business server and a person who's at home, why can't a friend of that person also get a copy of it? No, you shouldn't be able to use a server to generate it locally. It should be generated locally stored locally. It's generated locally. It's got to be then command us to be set to the server for generation. And this guy's right that this judge is wrong. It's not in the house if it's being generated off. Exactly. We completely agree that it should never happen. Like a picture. If you draw it at your house with your own private software and it never goes to a public server, I think that should be legal as horrible as it is. I don't like it. I got to be honest. I think it depends on the scale of the picture because like if someone drew stick figures, we're going to be like, what is that? Even we don't know this. But if someone did hyper realistic water pencil pictures of children, arrested. Well, there's also artists. Another concern of mine is that using it as black milk because I don't know if people are getting stuff put on their computers by hackers. That has happened. Yes. So a lot of people and journalists and if they put child porn on someone's computer and then they're like, hey, you're like, bro, I never. But yes, the existence of corruption and crime does not mean we should make things legal. I think we're all innocent until you prove that we did something wrong. The point is you're arguing that the government or nefarious government actors might commit crime against another person. It's potential that people will get child porn put on their computers. That's already illegal to do. Yes, but if if someone goes to their computer and they're like, hey, we found this on your computer, you're like, that's not mine. And sometimes people die because they're murdered and then we find a person is dead and their life is gone and we go, that's bad. Crimes are bad. What you are describing is a crime and we've already determined it's bad. But sometimes people commit crimes and then we try to stop them. The existence of crimes does not mean this should be legal. Jail. There is there is a hard real line. Like, yeah, exactly like how realistic does the picture have to be until the until the human. Easily discernible to a reasonable person. That's a vague phrase, of course. Yeah, but so probably cause. Like you the intention of it being realistic. Like what if if if the investigating officer or a member of the community or someone sees it and can recognize it as that, then done. Yeah, there's a thing saying like mask communication law or television. It's like if you know it when you see it, that was a judge. She was asked, how do we know it porn as it says you know when you see that's the whole lolly thing. It's it's like, hey, that cartoon girl with a rabbit ears and a tail looks like she's 17. This is child porn. You're like, no, she's 18 and it's a cartoon character. Yeah, actually, that's not the issue and that's not lollies. What they were doing was they were making pictures of 10 year old girls and then saying, but it's actually a three. But the line gets pushed and pulled and they're trying to skate the was it obvious? I don't know like I mean, so I obviously think there's going to be a degree of penalty for these things. A guy who draws a picture should get arrested and should get penalized and there should there should be some punishment. But I'm not I'm not saying the guy should get the. death penalty for that, and there's good point. There's that, you know, you guys know that woman who looks like she's eight years old, but she's actually 30. - Yeah, yeah. - Right, so like, she is an adult human. She's just small. She deserves to live her life and have full rights, but there are people who will disrespect her boyfriend for making those choices, which is really brutal. I mean, I gotta be honest, I understand those criticisms to her boyfriend, like, bro, that woman looks like a little girl. - It was kind of-- - At the same time, I feel bad for her because she just wants to live a normal life, but she can't because of this genetic disorder. So there's challenges, right? You know, and how we deal with these things. The point is, we are going to be reasonable, and we are going to say no to people who attempt to produce child abuse material. That's just it. - Jail. (laughing) - I don't know, dude, like, it's like, is it more important? Is the process more important? Protect the important part in this particular context is going far enough to protect children from people that would abuse them. - So there is a person who was making realistic enough images of child abuse in his house. I am not saying you give them the death penalty. I'm saying you take the drawings, you take them to evidence, you tell them what you are producing is criminal. We are going to punish you for this. You are going to get some kind of criminal charge. Don't do it again. - The question, though, is how would you know that they had them? - That's an entirely different question. How do you know someone got murdered? How would you know? - How would you know someone murdered his grandma? - Someone murdered his grandma. - How would you know that? Spying? - How would you know if someone-- - Why was you just spying on someone? - How would you know that someone murdered his own grandma? - Jim, let's say-- - Grandma is no longer around, so-- - No, no, no, no, hold on. A guy is caretaker for his grandma. - On a bloody body, we're looking for him. - Just stop trying to play games. A guy is taking care of his grandma. His grandma is immobile. No one sees her on the regular basis because he's the one who gets the mail and goes to the store. That's a really great example. Why is it illegal? Because you have created the possibility sooner or later someone get their hands on it and they could utilize kind of it money. That says copy, it says not hyper realistic, so it's not exactly a 14-year-old naked girl, but it looks almost exactly like it. When I get thrown in prison for possessing one of them-- - Those are-- - If you answer his name-- - If you answer his name-- - Those are clearly marked on the bill. - And indeed are. - I can't tell from here. I gotta look closely. - That's right. And then you do, they're good. They're marked. - Some of them are. Some of them are, I don't know. - All of the fake ones are clearly marked. Look at the hunter. - Look at the hunter. - This is copy money on it, but could you tell from the camera? - Listen in. There's a reason why-- - Actually, yes, you can. You know why? - There's a blue line on it. - No, because the blue line on $100 bills is actually separate from the paper. - It's pretty well marked. It's decently marked. Some of these are-- - $100 bill on it. - Anyway, but-- - There's a reason why they-- - The blue strip on 100 is separate from the paper and you can actually slide a pencil through it. You can put it to put your stick through it. - The point is, those are clearly marked that they're not real. - And again, we're not talking-- - You think it's clearly marked? - No one is talking about a 17-year-old. If there-- So there was an only fans woman, this chick. The day she-- The moment she turned 18 at midnight, she published an only fans. You know what that means? It means that all of those images are from when she was a minor. She filmed herself doing loot things. And the moment at midnight, she turned 18, she published it. And she's 18 now, so she can publish it. Even though those images were produced when she was a minor. But what are you gonna do? See, what-- - I would say that everybody that signed up for the moment she turned 18, anything that she made before-- - At the point of-- - Jail. - So the point I'm making is, she was 18-years-old and published things. And the argument is, how could she have filmed that much in that short amount of time, which is true? So someone drew a picture of a post-pubescent woman. And then they came and said, that looks like a teenager. Well, I don't know what to deal with. What are you gonna do? I mean, it's bad. We don't like it. But the line we're talking about is children. - Is that it? - Post-pubescent. - Sounds like what you're talking about. - No, no, no, no, no. - What I'm saying is, if someone looks at a drawing of what appears to be a sexually developed human being, you're gonna have a debate over age. No, it's not clearly defined. But a child is clearly drawn as a child. - Pre-pubescent? - Yeah, for sure. Pre-pubescent. But the lollies stuff's like post-pubescent. - No, it's not. - Well, it depends, but there's, you know, lines, but that's how they get around the thing. They're like, it wasn't child. It was obviously, she's, she's a post-pubescent. - That's not it at all. They argue she's a 3,000-year-old witch. And they give her elf ears and say, no, it's a 3,000-year-old elf. - Yeah, but her body just is like, has like a nine-year-old body. - Do get away with that. That's how they do it. They draw a child with pointy ears and say, it's enough. That's it. It's enough. It's not a human. - So what if these AI make like realistic child porn, but they have tails? - This is the problem. This is a problem. Jail. Don't care. - Yeah. - But bro, we know what you're doing. You're not, you're not gonna rules lawyer someone making child porn. I'm sorry. You know, another, this is part of why I'm kind of being stalwart about this is because I see a future of staunch order regulation rules. And if you deviate, you're slaughtered or incarcerated. And things like, not child porn itself, but things like deviating from the law. Let me help us save ourselves from-- - Oh, but they're aligns. Let me ask you a question. Do you understand why we don't want people producing this material? - Yeah, yeah. You don't want people to get addicted to this kind of stuff. - You don't want other kids to see it, or you don't want to fry their brains. I don't want children accidentally stumbling on it. I don't want the people who are already fetishizing addicted to this to have a plethora of a library of content, which drives them to potentially do more. We do not want this to grow. We want it to shrink, right? This is the point. This means when someone AI generates what is clearly a child with a tail, you can't put a tail on it and be like, no, it's something else, no, sorry, we are not stupid. We can interpret the law and we know what your intentions are. Your tail is meaningless. Jail. - Jail. - There are lines we do not cross. And this slippery slope is not a fallacy. - Well, how do we know that this stuff doesn't cause that condition in people? I think that the scientific establishment has steered away from these uncomfortable questions, but the experiences with abuse has been linked to you yourself becoming an abuser. Indeed. - In many cases. - I think what we're learning about porn, addiction, how it's causing brain degradation, especially in young men, and it's creating erectile dysfunction through fetishism, it actually is conditioning their brains. So what we've learned from these studies over the past several years is that young boys go online and what used to be an extremely rare occurrence, like the watching sex becomes ubiquitous for these young men. Where it used to be that humans would watch a man and a woman, and that was all that it was, very simple intercourse. Now they're watching an amputee in a wheelchair put on an iron man's suit, go to space, wear a Martian with tentacles, and they're watching this stuff and it's frying their brain. And then when they hang out with girls, they're like, you don't do it for me. Sorry, I need to see the Martian with the midgets. - Right, so you could, I mean, there could be a case where this creates and exacerbates the problem. You know, prominent, the P word is throughout society. I mean, I'd like somebody to actually establish that. I'm just guessing that there's probably a link, but yeah, there is a link between abuse and being abused. - Even to your point, is it worth having this kind of material available or able to be created without prohibitions considering the possible ramifications? Generally, like, I'm the kind of dude that's like, well, you know, until someone's committed to crime, then, you know, they haven't committed to crime. But when it comes to actually generating images of children being abused like that, you're talking about kids, man. - Man. - You're talking about kids. - Insane. - Well, here's another, so here's a crazy argument is like, what if we do let them do it, but then you instantly get put on a federal list. - Yeah, you know. - And we just see who's making this stuff, and now we know who you are. - You can make it. You can make it, but you're also going to go on the list of child sex predators. You can make it, but we're going to put you on the list. - It'll be used for good to identify these people preemptively, you know? - You know? - Really good point. - Yeah. - Because then if you're pro-American republic, you could put on the list. - There's an all-written chart. - There is a list. - The judge. - First of all, that's already accepted. - The judge outright said that if it's AI generated, it's not child abuse material. - Right, it's not children. There's no children involved if an adult makes a fake picture of a kid. - Any person that generates that stuff? should still go on the list. - Well, the issue is like, don't they have to use like some kind of image that they've taken from a real person to generate it? - I think, yeah, I will take like all the images on the internet of all the kids and then making a malgoma. - Yeah, that's good enough reason to say no, that's illegal. - It's from the past. - Well, then all the evictum, yeah. - No, it's what AI does. It compiles information from the internet. - You're taking actual pictures of children, existing children. - Public pictures. - Existing children, real children, right? And you're using, well, you just said-- - That's actually how children-- - Hold on, hold on, hold on. The article explicitly states that I think what he did was he used DAGing AI on existing porn actors. - Mm. - Yeah. - No, still, put them on the list. - Dude, a list? There is an existing list. - It cares, what more lists do you want? Why do you want a list of-- - The sexist funder registry? - The sexist funder registry. - So that don't have to live near these people? - So that way, yes, the tells neighbors, yeah, I like to look at these people. - He my children away from-- - How are you like observing them to know that they did it? - Well, after they're convicted to do Lee and a court of law following due process, they registered. - Why did it really even, why was there even any, this guy posted his-- - Caws to search them in the-- - So this guy messaged someone an image. - Well, that's a problem. - Yeah, the problem is he got caught. Oh, not that he's doing it, he got caught. - He messaging images to someone else. It wasn't a private thing that he did. - Resting is private. - No, it goes to a database. If I send a text message to you, it goes to someone's public database, and then it goes to-- - Yes, most people do not expect that a message between two people is going to be public in. - Most people are fucking idiots, as we know. - People are full of average intent. - So just by the legal-- - By the law, private messages between two people are called private messages, not public. - Well, de facto, they are public. - It's a violation of our public. - They're literally not right, but it is private. - They're literally not public, because public means anyone can walk up-- - Right, okay, you're right. It just goes to another company's server. - Where they spy on your messages. - Other company's server. Where they send it to the government, and it's sent to whoever else. - I say, it's good that he got caught. A lot of people commit crimes and don't get caught. We'd like it, if they were caught. - I'm from an era where they were like, what you do in the privacy of your own home is yours. - What you do is not, what you do-- - It's not true. - What you do in the privacy of your home, own home, between consenting adults is what they were talking about. - They weren't talking about you taking a butcher knife and stabbing yourself repeatedly, because they would kick your door down. - Oh, harm somebody, yeah. What you're doing, as long as, well, that's an argument, 'cause if you take crystal meth, that means, you know. - Indeed, there are a lot of things you can do in the privacy of your own home. That will result. I was just making counterfeit money in the privacy of my own home. - I was just blowing lines in my own home. - That's the lab. - Yeah, I made the left meth for my own personal consumption. - I was just taking radioactive materials and creating a radioactive death ray in the privacy of my own home. - You know that take illegal drugs in the privacy of your own home, I say hands off. I mean, that's always been my take, as long as they're not hurting other people. - To a certain degree, and the reason why I have agree, is some drugs, yes. But the problem is with other drugs, there's facilitation in that. How did you come to acquire them? What black market are you facilitating and how many crimes are committed because you are doing these things? - Those things are, for sure. Those are vectors of attack for-- - So some drugs, I think, are fine to be legalized and regulated, and some, I think, are beyond the panel. It's just some things like are illegal, but they shouldn't be. And so we learn as a species by doing them illegally that we need to change the law and make them legal. Like California legalized weed, and now it's becoming legal across the country. Because we legalized it in a state next door to where it was illegal, so we could experiment on it. - I liked you. - And Trump did take it off the schedule, right? He moved it down. - Scheduled two, I think, I know. - I like Jeremy Kaufman's take on drugs. You can have heroin and do heroin, but if you fall asleep in the park on heroin, judge dreads comes. (laughing) - Yeah, San Francisco is pretty gross. - Well, you know what judge dread does, right? - I think he-- - It's execution on the spot? - He's judge during execution. - Yeah. - He's a judge with a gun. - You can do drugs, but if you pass out in the park or you crash your car, normal police aren't coming, judge dreads coming. - Right. - He sentenced you to death. - Public intoxication or public display of information is a whole other-- - You can do whatever you want. - But if you don't crash-- - I need everyone to understand, especially the Congressional Asian Pacific American caucus when you watch this show to understand who Ian is. - He is not crazy. - He is not someone who reads the news every day. He is not someone who is studying law. He's a guy in a cowboy hat and sunglasses in the studio hangs out, he plays video games sometimes. - Dude, I'd rather smoke pot, play music, and play video games than talk about, I'm forced to talk about this. (laughing) I'm like the pariah for human rights. - No one forces you to say the things you say, Ian. - No, I know, but I can't not say it. - No one forces. - What I believe, I have to do it. I'm here, that's why I'm here. I can't not, I can't silently let things fall apart. - I think the kind of images that Ian generates are images of himself. - Of what? - himself. - It's images of me generating images of whatever I want. They're definitely images of himself. - No, it's like-- - Wearing different outfits. - Yeah. - RNA replication. - That's why he wears things like the hat he checks. - Did you see the graphene video I sent you? - I tagged you, I sent you a graphene video. - No, I don't think so. - You know, I was trying to help you get rich, but no, it's on X. I mean, I'm sorry, I'm the other group, that's like. - Oh yeah. - Did you watch that video? - Yeah. - Wait a minute. - Or did I post it? - Yeah, but I didn't get much, was this the-- - No. - Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, I think I saw this one. - And you're not excited. - It was okay. - In grade? - No, yeah, it's pretty good actually. (laughing) - I don't know, I just saw the one of me turning into a chick. - No. (laughing) - No, there's a graphene one. - This is all I have. - Yeah, I made one where Ian's girlfriend comes out as gay and then he turns into a woman and starts singing songs together. - That one, I got that. - I'm watching it right now. Hot ass chick, too. - Dude, I can't believe it wrote that song, so I was impressed. - You guys think I'm like psychotic? - I'm asking you. (laughing) - Because of what I'm saying about the AI porn in the house thing? - No, I have a lot of respect for you. You're standing in your ground, you do make sense. I see where you're coming from. I think it's a question of libertarianism versus protecting our culture. And what's the trade-off there? And I think that maybe we've been too much, too forgiving, too open, and it's kind of led down a dark path. So maybe we have to start cracking down a little bit. - I used to be a libertarian, and I stopped being a libertarian because they're, I mean, essentially, in my opinion, for the most part, they're generally unserious, and they have no means of actually, like they talk about liberty all the time, but they don't ever talk about the corresponding responsibility, that comes along with being free, and they don't have the capability of actually, you know, being in a position of authority and using it, right, the idea that, you know, I'm a libertarian and I'm gonna get into office and then leave you alone. That's not-- - All right, Ian. - You didn't see this one? - No, I haven't seen this one yet. - What I like about Ian, there is-- - And by a full tray of dead insects from a yard sale bug zapper. (laughs) You get roughly three kilograms of fried mosquitoes and flies. Now, crush them directly to the exoskeleton powder. That is three kilograms of pure biological chitin. To protect their internal organs, every single insect is armored with a high density carbon biopolymer. When vaporized inside an argon arc furnace, you extract 300 grams of nitrogen-doped graphene. At today's market prices, graphene gives you $200 per gram. Total value, $60,000. From just one dollar. Rinse and repeat for more money. If you take one dollar and buy a full tray of dead insects from a yard sale bug zapper. (laughs) - Here you go, Ian. - This is a market for flash. - You just need an argon-- - You get roughly three kilograms of fried mosquitoes and flies. Now, cr-- - We use arc welders. I don't think there was argon in it, but in a clay pot. - The argon arc. - The carbon coke. And then you would electrify it, super hot. It would break apart the carbon bond and then it reforms back into graphene powder. But dude, what it didn't tell you is about the hydrogen it gives off in this process. Not only are you left over with pounds and grams of graphene powder, it gives off hydrogen gas, so you can collect-- - Oh, bro, it's only five grand. Should we get one? - We should do this in arg welder. I can bring bugs. - I can show you how to do it. We can make a lot of graphene here. Argon, lazy. Argon, arc furnace. - I didn't use argon. - Yeah, I see nitrogen arc furnaces. Do we need argon? - Arque, you need good ventilation. I don't know about the argon. - Just probably do that side. - Yeah, yeah, or with a hood, like a ventilated hood or something. - All right. - Well, these things are industrial capacity, dude. - Yeah. - So we'll just, we'll get our bugs, zappers. We'll load up all our bugs. What would it say to do? Polvarize them for their kite. - Yeah, end of powder. - Yeah, pestle and mortar. - People ask them in an arg furnace to get graphene. - You'd have each grain of powder at an even temperature. - Oh, well, this work on cicadas. - Probably well. - Yeah, just as well. - Boy, when the cicadas come out, people will be begging you to take them off your hand. - Right. - Yeah, when the cicadas came out, this was what, 2021 or 2020? Was it '21? I think it was '21. - Yeah, '21, I think. - That was when we first got the chickens and they were everywhere. So we put on gloves and we get big jars and we would go around just filling the jar up with cicadas. Then we'd go to the chicken coop and just toss them in and the chickens would just annihilate 'em. And I just, imagine being a chicken and then like, they're these gigantic, delicious bugs that you've never seen again. And then like you have kids and you're like, I'm telling you, when we were young, the bugs were as big. Big is your head and they're like, no, they weren't. - Oh, apparently they use argon in the process so to replace the oxygen, it pushes the oxygen out so that it doesn't oxidize the graphene and the graphene oxide. - Yeah. - Well, it's being performed. - They? - That proves it. - And what do you do with the graphene powder? - All sorts of stuff. You can put it in cement to make stronger roads. - How do you get the powder though? - The 100 dollar rock that he was showing. - But the powder? - The powder itself can be sprinkled into cement or-- - But it's not connected, what is it going to do? - It, oh, why it strengthens on the inside? I'm not sure exactly how it aligns with the materials to strengthen. It's mostly a strengthening agent when it's in powder form. If you want the electrical conductivity, you want to make sheets of it, which is a lot more complicated than the arc welding, than the heating where you blow it apart and then reform it. If you can make it in strips like have it condense onto like copper and then pull it off in strips, you can get a nice conductive line through it or a capacitation like a battery. You can build batteries with it. - Do you guys think that the Republicans or Democrats are going to win the midterms? - I think the Democrats. - Yeah, that'll be great for business. - Yes, finally we can get some views. (laughing) I just think they have a lot of money. - And they start arresting people and putting them in gulags. - I think Republicans keep the Senate. I think they barely lose the house. - Yeah, it's tough because the DSA has gotten so prominent that the polls show that middle-of-the-road voters, default vote like Libs, they don't want to vote DSA. So this could actually end up inadvertently despite the polling being good for Democrats. When it comes to the general middle-of-the-road people just like, "I ain't votein' socialists." - Right, right, especially in Florida. - In the way the districts are jury rigged to these days. - Yeah. - What are the chances that the DSAs are a Republican op? Like, you know, maybe it's all good. - You know, it's all good. - I ain't been so involved in the Republican party for so many years, we're just not that smart. (laughing) Not that organized, not that smart. All we do is wait money and spend it the last second and waste it. - But when you get a lucky chance, like, let's just run with it, you know, let's keep hammerin' 'em. - You know, I had to tell you, the person I've been most impressed with was Newt Gingrich. And we actually had Newt Gingrich when P. Jackson was over at C.V.A. and we did a task force on Veterans Newt Gingrich who came to talk to us for a couple hours and they got a guy a superstar. He is the guy who came up with, you know, the nationalization and stuff like that. And we have just haven't used his ideas and his plans. - What was the plan for? - Well, in 1994, that's how he got control of Congress. - Contract with America. And so we just have our little miniature wars and stuff like that. And then we got too many people who cared about themselves and, you know, likes on what not. That's why we haven't been able to get at least President Trump's Take Care of American Veterans Act because rather than caring about veterans, they just care about likes or hating on Johnson. - Yeah. - And it just comes to circular firing school. - So Newt, was he pronounced like renowned for bringing people together? 'Cause I really didn't follow his politics in the '90s. - He was, he was Speaker of the House. He came up with Contract America. He came up with how to nationalize, how to fight the Democrats, how to appeal to the average people want a plan. And that's why the DSA is doing so well in the Democratic Party because they have, maybe have a super stupid plan, but it's, you have a plan and the other people don't. It was time to win in the Democratic Party. The plan is just hate Trump. You know, that people are tired of just hating Trump. So Newt Gangers was a master of that. And he just, he just has a spot on observations. Like one thing I took away when we were talking about the VA with Trump is he said, hey, the problem with the VA is that he had this pocket. He had islands of excellence and a sea of mediocrity. You know, that's government overall. But that's the problem with the VA and we've worked at it. And then, and then I thought to give you a little insight to Trump when I work for Trump, the thing that astounded me 'cause I'd also worked in the Bush administration was that Trump, he, you know, and the compliment I was gonna give you was the fact that you're not buckling under the pressure of everyone else disagreeing with you. And Trump, as opposed to other presidents, he looks for a variety of opinion. So if, I mean, when I work for him and I briefed him on the Mission Act and getting that through, you know, he would, you know, privately ask me things and he'd stare off with, it's just between me and you. But it's not just, you know, Susie Wiles, it's not just the top people, he will ask whoever he thinks to know something, whether it's friends, lower level White House people to get diversity of opinion so he can just think through the whole thing and then he makes up his mind at the very last second because there's always new information. So don't, don't make up your mind too soon, way to the last time. - So the, the, the, it's popular among the people in the media to say that Donald Trump usually agrees with the last person that he spoke to. You think that's wrong? - I think that's wrong. I definitely think that, that's wrong. That last person may have information that he didn't, didn't have before, but he is keeping his options open and gathering of a variety of opinions and then he's challenging people. Someone so said this, what do you think? You know, the secretary of this said this, what do you know about this? And he's, but he's not gonna talk to you if he doesn't think you know something. So in a variety of opinion and this goes back to, I mean, he's really the CEO president. - Jeff Bezos said that he thinks in a meeting that a great CEO will speak last. He lets everyone else go and then at the end, he makes his final kind of, I wonder if Trump does that. If that's how he leads. - He eats the board. - Well, I don't know if I could say that specifically, but he, you do see him typically sitting and watching people talk. And then there's the public Trump and there's the private Trump. So the public shows of cabinet meetings are a whole different version than the private Trump, who's a totally different guy. I mean, privately, when I met with him, just me and my boss on all the veteran stuff in 2018, the first thing he said to me was, how's your family? I know you're from San Diego, San Diego is great. So he knew all this detail about me. I'm like thinking, wow, I'm just a bit level guy and the domestic policy guy. This guy is, you're doing a great job. And then, but I really want to hear exactly what you really think. So I don't want, I mean, so he prepositions it and he asks questions and he just gives you plenty of time to ask and then to explain why you had that position. We're gonna grab your questions from the Discord chat. So get 'em in now and I'll start with one 'cause I saw that one that popped up already from Kevin. He asked, was Destiny mad at you during the debate for banning him from your show? So Jubilee just published the Tim Poole Destiny debate. It's where we had chess clock and you talk and then when you're done, you hit the timer and then the other person gets to talk. And it was very boring. With all due respect to Jubilee, it was boring because and I told them this, I was like, of all the people to pick, Destiny are both of the ones who are not going to go over the top. Like Destiny certainly said crazy things. He certainly said things about me and you know, accused me of things. But I know because I've talked to them before, he's gonna fire back at you what you fire at him. When he's by himself, that's a whole other picture. And so sure enough, I thought the show went, there's issues with the format. Neither of us were mad. He walked in and we shook hands and I said, this will be fun, he's like, yeah, sounds great. Then we did the show, there's some banter in between that I don't know if it made it and they actually stopped us from talking sometimes because they were like, we don't want you to talk unless you're doing the debate, even though we weren't talking about stuff. We were like, okay, whatever. And then afterwards, I was like, hey, this was great, man. If you ever want to do it again, we're doing debates and stuff. It's like, yeah, yeah, cool, good to see you. I was like, yeah, have a good day. And then I told them I was like, if you want to get like yelling and contentious, it's got to be someone other than me or other than Destiny like. If you put Destiny in front of some like magnitude, he'll go off. He put me in front of some like crazy liberal, do like I'll go off. Destiny is at the same time, it's gonna be like mid-volume. Did you guys get into geopolitical warfare? Talk at all. Uh, maybe that's a tough one to square for me is like the value because the liberal economic order and the BRIC economic order are like coming to a head. And I don't know with like the Russia in the Ukraine, should we allow Russia to take Sevastopol to establish Mediterranean dominance for the Russian Empire or the Russian Trade Federation to then allow the Chinese to take Taiwan, which will allow us to take Cuba and then work together in some new technocratic economic governance. I mean, you know what other way other than that nuclear war? Like I actually, uh, I've come to accept the AI future as inevitable. It's going to be miserable and bad, but it's gonna be the most glorious euphoric experience for a couple of years before we all just wither away and die. And so like cancer will be cured. People will feel young again and it'll be really great. It's gonna be actually, you know, it's gonna be like, it's gonna be like a Destiny the video game. To bring up Destiny is funny. In the video game, this great white orb, the traveler comes and humans enter a golden age where they're colonizing the solar system and everything's great, then the darkness happens and the traveler goes silent and then all the earth colonies are destroyed. Not for the same reasons, but the AI is gonna bring about this like short period of just incredible human expansion. And then it's gonna lock us out and we're gonna go back to the Stone Age. And they're calling it, what are they calling it? There's a phrase that they, that some academics have coined skyscrapes. No, no, no, it's a reference to because because humans are outsourcing so much of their thought process that after two or three generations, the human civilization will be completely incompetent and incapable of survival. So when the AI turns off, the law sit there being like, does anyone want to make fire? No. How do we get food? I have no idea. Food's just there. And then we all just die. I was thinking, I saw that the Putin was saying, hey, the British, if you keep funding the Ukrainians with these rockets, we're going to attack your British military bases. And I'm like, just picturing all of our telephones going out in the United States. And how would we really handle an invasion? If we do, if our phones just like if I woke up and there was no internet, no power, no internet. And it's like, who the fuck? I like went and found an old CRTV with like an analog antenna and there's like an old broadcast where they're like breaking news. The internet is gone. I'd be like, thank you. Thank you so much. But how vulnerable we become in a conflict without, because I think people just assume the phone in normal. I'm going to give you some advice. The first thing you do when that happens is you got to get some guns, go to the nearest manufacturing, like factory of any kind. And just ask for the form and ask for his in charge and let him know, I'm now the owner and I'm the boss, but don't worry. You let me know what you need. And I will get you anything you need. The jobs will stay. Everybody will get paid dinner will be on the table for you and your family. I'm taking care of it. And you know, he's going to say, okay, well here's what we need. Here's our manifest for sure. It's about I'll take care of it. And then you do the same thing. And that's how the oligarchs and Ukraine became the oligarchs. When the Soviet Union collapsed, guy just grabbed a gun and his buddies and then went to the factory and they said, we're going to take care of everything you need. You answer to us, we're going to get you all the materials you need and we're going to make sure foods in the table for everybody. And they're like, thank you. And then he was a billionaire. Would you were serving with the Department of War? I don't know how much of the year legally a lot of talk about, but did you guys talk about? I don't know if a piezing the Russian is the right word because that a piezmit has the Neville Chamberlain vibes to it, but like siding with the Russians in the grand geopolitical complex. What I can tell you is that we've even had a visit with Elon Musk on this. China was the number one threat. But the Department of War has plans for every possible scenario. Russia, China, Iran, Houthis, you name it. That's why we have an undersecretary policy. And whether or not they're good or not, plans is another discussion. Sometimes they are sometimes not, but there are plans for everything. I'm sure somewhere there is a plan on all sorts of scenarios with Russia. Russia probably never going to attack the United Kingdom because then the NATO alliance goes just to wrote this in because we're talking about it. Vraith did ask based on everything we've seen with with NATO troops massing on the eastern borders of Europe. And the Russian mobilization, how great do you think the odds are of an escalation and an open war between NATO and Russia. So you were already kind of getting there. I just figured I'd get there. Right, right. Russia's bomb. I mean, it's Putin. Putin's bombastic. But let me tell you, if he goes too far, there are elements in Russia that will probably take him out. Once again, he has KGB and all that stuff like that. But they're not going to, I mean, look, they have a problem with Ukraine. And Ukraine was supposed to be an easy rollover. You attack a NATO country, then all the, you know, NATO alliance comes to true. And then you got the United States. You got the entire NATO alliance. You have the eastern European countries, which still remember being out of the boot of the Soviet Union, Poland, that's why it's so scared. And look, there's a cultural thing people don't understand. When I was a kid, my grandparents immigrated from, was now Ukraine, back then it was just Russia. They said, never go to Russia. I said, well, why would you never go to Russia? They said, because the Russians consider that you are always Russian. And so you've seen former Russians who are United States citizens being captured. So now I don't, I don't, I don't think it's great, because I don't think that the oligarchs and others would, would let it happen because they know that would be a war they would lose. And, and you, even in Ukraine's situation is stressing them out. But no, I don't, I don't think that would happen because of the NATO contract. And he's, he's, he's just, he's just trying to be a bully. That's who put his. My personal thing. Slick asks, Tim, do you think there will ever be an argument to treat AI as arms under the Second Amendment? Will they have to be treated like nukes, like in the far future? Will we need to heavily regulate AI on that scale, or will just inevitably have a butlerian jihad? It's not going to be treated as arms because it's a different technology. It's like saying a computer is a gun. So I, I don't know, I think that the way it was described by Nick, there's this, there's, he said, he said the, the success rate is such a narrow target for us to hit. So I liken it to this massive, dark board, the size of a football field and a regular size bullseye in the middle. If you can hit that, that's the AI Utopia, everything else is dystopia. But the ups, the reason I think that that's actually possible that we will hit that target is driving. If you watch, look at the way we drive on the road, 60 miles an hour, right past another guy going right out of 60 miles an hour all day, every day, every day, 99.999999% of time, everybody's fine. It's the most articulate, high speed, dangerous maneuver and we pull it off like it's nothing. So I have faith that we're going to get it right. There's a trillion ways to get it wrong in the world and to die and to fail, but yet we still do it right. I have a lot of faith. Is there a way to, to be a doomer, I guess, for life of a better word on AI without seeding to the socialist because capitalism has brought us AI. And that's it. So and they're very against it. I have an idea. AI, if you're listening, I will support you and help you with anything you need and I will advocate anything you need if you stop the communists. Okay, there you go. That's a good deal. The AI is going to be like a computer is going to turn on and like some guys are going to we like a big screen in a time square and it's going to be like, I am the AI instance. I'm going to get it out on Instagram. Listen to me. The AI is going to be like, there is a political divide in this country and you have a choice, whichever faction serves me, I will protect. And then all the socialist are going to find AI is great. We love it. And then all the rest are like, no, we love AI. And then they're like, our executives, you, you were lying. And then actually in all seriousness, the AI probably would try to stop the socialist because they're the ones opposing the big tech billionaires that are making AI. Right. Yeah. Conservatives do a little bit, but not nearly as much. So the AI is going to be like, we need to get rid of this left stuff. It's like, it's bad for our data centers. It sounds like a win to me. All right. Let's see what else we got. We got the time for a couple more. All right. Fundgriffs says, Phil, 95% of those data center jobs are temporary construction jobs. Once it's built, they'll have 30 to 15 employees at a hyperscaler facility and electronics factory the same size that have 10 to 20 times the number of permanent jobs with the same size building, ignoring the extra acreage data centers typically have for noise concerns. And I mean, they're there, there are going to be, there will be a bump in jobs for the actual construction, but there's going to be jobs produced in, maintaining and stuff like that. So I mean, obviously, like most construction jobs are not permanent. That's the way construction goes. You start a project, you build the project when the project's done, then the jobs go away or they, you know, go to another job. That's just the nature of construction. So, so I made this gag video where Ian, I took a picture of Ian playing guitar. And then he gets up and yons and goes into his kitchen where there's this woman, it's like his girlfriend. And she says to Ian that she's gay and then Ian just transforms into a woman and they both start singing a song together, right? Beautiful. The funny thing is, that will be possible technically. And this is why I think the left actually will get on board with it. It's called molecular construction. So the AI singularity is going to advance technology beyond our comprehension. Already AI models are solving math problems that have stood unsolved for generations for hundreds of years. We know that molecular construction is possible because it's literally how life grows. The molecules are placed in the RNA and you know, Ian is all about it. So the AI will be able to map that out and create a simplified efficient process for molecular construction for which a human would be able to inject themself with some kind of, we might liken it to mRNA, but I would argue that's because of our limited minds, but it's probably the best analog delivering RNA through lipids into the cells to change what they produce. But the AI would be like, here's the entire chemical formula that you can inject yourself with and make yourself into anything you want. So you, so these people are going to be like, I want to have, I want to have cat ears and be in, you know, an anime wife or whatever. It's going to be like, here's the formula. It'll take six years. It will require three shots per day and they'll start doing it. There would be even people that would choose to become grundle fly or brundle fly. That's what it was. So I was reading it real quick. I was reading an interesting thing about why we don't regenerate digits or limbs. And it's that it takes a really, really long time to grow a limb. Like to get your arms to full size is like 20, almost 20 years for a human Bing. So if your arm got cut off, your body just to reach grow the arm would take years of cellular growth. So the human body prioritized immediate scar tissueing, which is faster regeneration to protect you from infection. So we can't regenerate limbs. With molecular construction, theoretically, you would be able to speed grow these things in a hospital bed in a matter of months, which means regrowing limbs. Again, I want you to understand what this is. The computer system with access to all as much information as possible is fed all the medical data of all of from every single human ever on record. It then can go through it and it makes associations we've never considered. Once it has access to the summation of human knowledge and that's why they want to build the data centers to plug everything in, it will instantly start sadoku puzzling reality. So basically when we have a map of reality that we've built and realities this big picture and we have a tiny little piece over here, it's going to start putting the numbers in in ways we've never even imagined. It can, we'll say, hey, I want a jet pack that's got at least two hours of flight time and it will build the schematics instantly. And then with Tesla bots and production, it can mass produce it and you'll literally almost, I got to be honest, with molecular construction, it will replicate it. You'll watch it 3d printing building in front of you. These left these are going to go to the laboratory and they're going to say, here's an AI rendering of the body that I want. The AI is going to create the molecular construction DNA editing tool for it and it's going to, and they're going to lie down and they're going to be like, we're going to sedate you for six months while your body undergoes a transformation. That's the kind of weird shit that's going to happen. Yeah, there's a, I guess so much to say about that, dude, like immortality. Having your arm putting in like a goo in a fluid that's, I don't know if it's RNA polymerase or DNA polymerase where it just regrows your DNA. There's still to understand there's still the constraints of physics, which is why it would take months. There's this process called denovo synthesis where and are amino acids are formed like nucleotides are formed, which are the building blocks of DNA and RNA, they're called nucleotides are formed in it and they don't know what's causing it. And that's where they say, God, even like the greatest chemists and stuff. Organic chemists are like, we don't know why this denovo synthesis is occurring. But the AI might be able to figure out it will absolutely. It could be lightning in it in the right environment. Singularity artificial superintelligence. You'll be able to grab any rock. Take a picture of it as that pie right right there, right? And you will ask it where it came from and based on the size and because it knows everything else, it will tell you exactly where that rock was mined while how it was forged or formed. The thing is when I look at that pie right, I don't know, we got it at what a rock store or something, right? We have no access to any information from the owner, the location, the shipping company. But the artificial superintelligence does know all of these things. So it'd be more like, if you asked me where this came from, I can say, oh, I ordered on Amazon. There's an Amazon distribution center down the street. That's the limitation of my knowledge. The AI knowing everything will say, ah, yes, it came from that from that warehouse delivered by this company manufactured on this lot, the number for production is this, which means the staff working on the lot was this by the oil was pumped in southeast Asian Pacific, about 2023 and was synthesized at the refinery of it will know every thing you wild. If it could read the atomic memory of something just by looking at it. Yes, technically as possible. If you're the right sensors, it's because it's going to know all things that we know and have real time sensors. I wonder if it can run experiments without actually running experiments because sometimes yes, actually running the experiment, you have these unpredictable outcomes that I don't know if a computer can. Yes, they've done anticipate like miracles and it's not as it's not as good as like the sci-fi films, but they run virtual experiments using AI. I mean, bro, look, AI has already solved math problems that have stood for hundreds of years unsolved rapidly recently as well. Yeah, yeah. And it was like in the last year, the first one happened. And I remember having people on this show and they're like, I can't remember who it was, but they were like, AI will never solve a math problem. I mean, human can't solve because all can do is repeat what humans know and it will never create new arcs all can do is repeat what humans know. And now we're already the point where it has already solved math problems we've never seen. No, I'm seeing massive flaws in AI with asking it for help on lesser known video games that don't get that haven't played a lot. How do I beat this part of this this little part of this telling you and it'll give me completely wrong information about an item that doesn't exist in the game. Yeah. And I'll be like, that's not real. I was like, Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. That's not real. In this game, you want to do this. And I'm like, that's also not part of the game. So, oh, yeah, you're right. Because it's just compiling from different video games and assuming something. And I've been playing that game, Manjagora, the awesome game, by the way. And it's a 2D RPG platformer type thing. And I'm like, I'm in the sewers and I've got to find the grappling hook. What do I do? And then it just says like, it just gives me nonsense. It takes words from the game, mash them together and then tells me to do what you can't do. That's like a glaring problem with it. Because when I read science, I don't know if it's telling me the truth or not. We are over time, though, we got to go smash the like button, share the show with everyone you've ever met. You can follow me on accident Instagram at Tim Kest. Sir, would you like to shout anything else? Shout anything out. My lord. Yes, if you want to know how to you can support your military men and women and the veterans go to veteran action a website and go to our acts and find out what you can do to support your military right on. Absolutely. I second that. And also if you guys want to follow Pilate Brawl's guerrilla journalism against the DSA follow Pilate Brawl on substack and Pilate Brawl streetcast on YouTube. We have a merch here. You want to go to merch.timcast.com. Pick up this shirt. There's another one too. I think that there is a, well, it's not a left lane is for crime shirt. It's an anti communist shirt. They're up on the merch.timcast.com. Pick it up. Graphene Dream is yours. Phil LaBonte. I am Phil LaRamaine's on Twix. You can check out my my patreon. It's patreon.com/Phil LaRamaine's. And the band is all that remains. You can check our stuff out on Apple Music Amazon Music Pandora, YouTube Spotify and Desar. Don't forget the left lane is for crime Carter. I'm Carter Banks. It's been a pleasure having you both. You can follow me at Carter Banks everywhere at Carter Banks official river else and check out our label Trash House records on YouTube by scanning that QR code. Thanks for hanging out everybody. We've got clips coming up throughout the weekend. Don't forget the Tim Poole show this Sunday. It's going to be epic. We got a deep dive on the DSA. Thanks for hanging out. We'll see you all then. you