FBI ARRESTS Saudi National Over Possible ESPIONAGE At OpenAI w/ Terry Schilling

The FBI has arrested a Saudi national for allegedly planting a listening device in open AI's conference room. The guy stuck behind a TV, I guess it was wrapped up in a bunch of toilet paper. So we're going to talk about that. There's more information on the Cornell 7. Apparently, they're suspending fraternity parties at the school-wide. So no more getting crazy because of the infamous Cornell 7 and the alleged rape that happened or rapes that happened. There's more information that's been released about the Ilan Omar situation. So she's alleged to have lied to get citizenship in the United States. She said that she was a year younger than she actually was or this is what's alleged. Now it's come out that one of her staffers has actually changed some of the records. So we'll discuss that. Gen Z is leaving California and mass apparently, heading to Texas. That doesn't come as really any big surprise because I think California has had the most people leaving the state out of all 50 states in the past, I think five or so years since COVID likely. And there is a big fine for Bank of America, like $1.2 billion because they say that they violated money laundering and sanctioned laws. Why don't you guys go ahead and smash the like button, share the show with all of your friends and tell everyone you know. Head on over to timcast.com and join there so you can become a member of our discord and you call into our after show. Head on over to rumble.com and become a member there so you can watch the after show. If you're a member of the discord, you can call in, you can talk to our guests, you can find any of the rooms in there. There's like 20 or 30,000 people in the discord so head on over there and become a member. And then when you get done, head on over to cast brew coffee and buy some coffee. You know you love coffee. You get up in the morning, you're tired, you're dying for that cast brew. So go on over to cast brew coffee. There's the infamous Mary's Ghost Blend is available right now. You got Ian's graphene dream, which is probably still our top seller. It's been our top seller forever, you can get app latches, nights, you can get pool water there, which is, I mean, it's not really pool water, but it goes down smooth. You know, it's water. Right now we're going to go ahead and introduce our guest. We got tonight to talk about this and everything else, Terry Schilling, how you doing? Hey, thanks so much for having me, Phil, excited to be here. I love this crew. I'll come on the show, love the audience and know new kids on the way yet. But my wife and I might be changing that soon. Good. Tell everybody what you do. I always forget that part. They can find that stuff. President of American Principles Project, we work every single day to make sure the family is the most important voting block and demographic in the country with a special interest arm of the family. Americanprincilsproduct.org, or you can follow me on all social media platforms at Shilling 1776. We got a very special guest, very, very special guest producer, Kellyn, how you doing? Yeah, Kellyn Leeson, head of content and production here at Timkast, Terry, I'm just looking over at your shoes and you know, usually I've got the fancy shoes here, you got some fruity pebble Nike. Fruity pebbles? Those are pretty cool. I got Lego shoes, but I'm not wearing them tonight. I just want to give a quick shout out to the boys in Kentucky holding it down in the Valheim server. Shout out to Sean, Marcus, Taylor, and Phil, not you, but keep it up guys and, you know, Helheim. Helheim, man. I used to wear the regular Adam Kriegler. Dude, it's vanilla just launched. It's awesome. I don't know much about it. Yeah, the first three, Terry, big news on your ninth child you guys are talking about potentially you have eight kids. No, no, we don't have any on the way yet yet. That's a big deal though. Yeah, my blesses. Because it's not like you're going from one to two, you're going from eight to nine. It's a bigger adjustment than people realize. Good to see you, man. Hey, thanks. You have eight kids. Eight kids. Wow, man. I boys, three girls. How do you do it? I have an idea. I don't think we're talking about it, but we can't talk about that on the on the on the side. You can tell us how you did it on the after show that granular Carter. Boy, man. It's good to have you back before we get into every we got one more one more one more sponsor for you guys. Right. Take a gander at Keat dot IO at over to K E E T dot IO forward slash Tim cast I R L and download it. Here's an uncomfortable question for you, Mary. Why why why should your messaging app need to know anything about you? Why does it have your phone number in your your email? You don't need none of that. I don't know. That makes me really uncomfortable. That's right. It does. Most of us have already except the technology companies collect enormous amounts of information, what we click, where we go, what we buy, who we interact with. What information is valuable because your attention. I'm sorry. That information is valuable because your attention is valuable. Keat takes a radically different approach. Keat is a free messaging file sharing and video calling app built peer to peer. There's no centralized company database holding your conversations, no metadata tracking, no phone number or email required. Your messages are end to end encrypted and move between the people in the conversation. Your private life shouldn't be another crop in somebody else's data farm. So visit K E E T dot IO forward slash Tim cast I R L download it for free, invite a friend and you can share stuff, start a conversation that belongs to you. All right. And so head on over to key.com and you can you can check that stuff out. We're going to jump right into it. In just the news FBI arrests open AI employees for placing an audio recording device inside company conference room. FBI director Cash Patel announced Tuesday that the bureau has arrested an open AI employee who was allegedly caught having placed an audio recording device inside the company's executive conference room in San Francisco, California. Officials have identified the man as Saudi Arabian national Abdul Rahman Al Fuzan who was arrested on October 9th. And I said they immediately contacted the FBI after they discovered the device and Al Fuzan was allegedly caught on the company's CCTV cameras. Abdul Rahman Al Fuzan is allegedly concealed the covert recording device inside his employer's executive conference room to secretly capture sensitive communications about the company's super intelligence technology. Patel said in a statement protecting American SI innovation is essential to safeguarding a nation's economic strength and national security. And the FBI views that mission as one of our highest counterintelligence priorities. Now there are rumors that Abdul Rahman's father is a member of the Saudi government of some kind. I don't know the details. But his father's a venture capitalist, I believe Abdul Rahman was also a venture capitalist. So this brings into question, is this state sponsored industrial espionage and considering the situation in Iran with the, you know, the Iran war and the hostility that Iran has towards Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia has always been concerned about Iran as a regional power. And the ongoing conflict with the Houthis, Saudi Arabia and the Houthis are consistently bickering back and forth. There was just a big missile strike on Saudi Arabia. From the Houthis, I think something like 12 people were killed, civilians were killed. So this brings into question like if there is state sponsorship of, you know, industrial espionage, is this something that the United States is going to take into account when it comes to supporting Saudi Arabia in their ongoing fight with the Houthis? Is it going to be an issue for you, the U.S. having any kind of, I believe there are still bases in Saudi Arabia. There were, there were attacks on those bases from Iran. So what do you, Terry, what do you think that this means for the, you know, the broader Gulf conflict now? Well, look, I, I don't know about the Middle East and how this is going to impact everything. And I think it's important to recognize that these guys are all convinced that this is the latest, this is the newest equivalent of nuclear technology that they're trying to tap into, that they're trying to develop and fully perfect. And they all think that they're international anyway, right? These, these Silicon Valley types don't really have much allegiance to the United States itself, but they're going to expect the United States to protect them. But when it comes to them fully reaching whatever point or stage they want to, I just think that Silicon Valley in general needs incredible amounts of oversight because the technology that they're developing right now, really, absolutely. This is unpack that they, they are dangerous. They think that they're above humanity. They, they think that they're building something that is greater than us. And I think a lot of people's lives are going to be completely upended if these guys don't have any oversight. So I think everything needs regulation to say, I mean, maybe not everything, but we regulate the size of our toilet tanks, our gas tanks. But that's all bad. Not necessarily. Not in all cases. I agree with that. Rand Paul, Rand Paul made us think about how much water his toilet can use and I agreed with him. How can you possibly say that? I'm a big double flusher these days. Those are these regulations you're talking about. But here's the irony, right? They're, they're going to regulate the size of our toilet tanks and the size of our gas tanks, but they're not going to regulate AI technology. But the answer isn't regulate technology, it doesn't regulate AI. The answer is stop regulating the size of the toilets. No. Yes. No, no, no, no, no. There needs to be rules. We need to protect humanity. Look, our founding father said it, right? You found a government to secure your rights, secure your rights from whom. I would argue you found a government to secure your rights from out of control AI companies who have no regard for you or your family. all. benefiting from the taxes we pay, from the environment we pay, I just, I think it's kind of crazy to argue that these companies should not have any regulation at all. I personally think that the best regulation of AI, or the best, the best thing to moderate or to incentivize good behavior from AI companies is competition. That's kind of what, I mean, that's kind of the American thing, right? You have competition, so that way one person doesn't become the, you know, the only person that has a, has a monopoly on, on a particular technology or a particular product or whatever, and that kind of competition prevents a company from being, being too powerful. Now, and the reason I say that is because when, so you take the hugging face incident, right? I'm sure you're familiar with it. There was, I believe it was Anthrop it. Was it open? Yeah, it basically broke out of the sandbox. Yeah, broke out of the sandbox. I think it might have been open AI. It broke out of the sandbox, and they didn't find out about it until they used, they found out that there was something wrong and then they found, they used AI at hugging face to find what the problem was. The future I don't think is having the government who doesn't really know how AI works. There's nobody in Congress that understands this stuff. They're all 90, you know? So I think that, that having, having AI that's, having AI companies, being able to build models that can, can be, can defend against AI attacks is the, is the, the actual best way forward, as opposed to, you know, Chuck Grassley, who's going to, when he gets out of the, if he wins his Senate race, he's going to get out of 102 or whatever, deciding how the law should work. There's no question, just real quick. I, because I do want to hear what Ian has to say, and I like these types of discussions, but there's no quite, I mean, we're going to talk later on in the show about this settlement that CVS just had to settle with, because they were dispensing too many opioids. We saw that big major corporations cannot always be trusted and that competition is not always the key to forcing them to protect our rights and not to abuse power. And I think that ultimately the good thing about America where things were, were really best is when there was a free market, when there was competition, when there was checks and balances on even corporate power. But if you get into a situation where these corporations become too powerful and they had, they become bigger than your government, then you really don't have any rights. And now you're subject to the power of major corporations. And sure, you could argue that, you know, you could withdraw from society and go live in a farm. Maybe that's the solution. But I'd like to live in a society where AI companies don't make the decisions for me in my family and everything that we do. And I just think that there should always be protections. And AI companies should be serving people, government should be serving people. When there is collusion and too much concentration of power, whether it's the government or whether it's corporations, you see people get hurt, you see bad things happen. And so I think that everything has to have a check and balance on it. Both the, I mean, we saw the big tech companies censor people over COVID, right? And we're able to get our messages out. That was at the behest of government. They, that's the excuse, I think. But those people were scared to death. They trusted the government over everyone else. And, and look, these private corporations, that was also the government line as well. Like the things that they were, there was none of the big tech companies were out there saying, oh, the government's wrong. You know, they were, there was no one pushing back against the government. All the big, big tech companies were towing the government's line. And so I don't, I mean, they were towing the private sector line. Also, I mean, there was a COVID vaccine that was going to bring in major profits. Again, is by the right, right now, what I think that we're suffering from is our government is way too big period. But it's also a disorder government. Government is involved in lots of areas that it should have no business in. But it's also not involved in the areas where it should have business in. For example, the government is just now starting to protect miners online from adult websites. We're up to 27 states now in just the past five years that are finally said before porn companies can deliver their smut, they have to verify that the user is above age to receive that stuff. These corporations will not be good actors unless they are fearful of the government coming in and regulating them or if they built, if they are forced by the government to, to actually protect our kids. We're seeing this with Meta, right? You had the Meta Summit. If these other corporations like SNAP and TikTok and YouTube don't actually start making similar changes, the government will come in. There's always going to be a check. People are going to vote that way. And so they're, look, there's just got to be regulations and there's got to be safeguards in place to make sure that people aren't serving AI and that AI is instead serving corporate, serving the American people. In the two, right now, two of the biggest AI foundations, companies, whatever you want to call them, they don't generally call themselves companies, but two of the biggest AI companies, open AI and anthropic are both, we're both looking for the government to basically come up with some kind of regulation. And a lot of people were saying, this is actually trying to insulate themselves from the repercussions should something bad happen with one of their models. Do you think that the government should be regulating? Okay, maybe, okay, the reason, okay. I agree with your take that market, that when people, there's like market, you know, pressure and there's what would you call it, competition that that usually does self-regulate, but with AI, the problem is market competition will regulate the prices. There'll be a self-regulation of, oh, anthropics only 100 bucks now instead of 500, because they're trying to undercut GPT, but what it incentivizes is for them to keep releasing more powerful models to outdo the other corporation, which could be the undoing of our society. If you're able to, like, you saw all these hacks now going on, Adobe just got all their code released, Microsoft is like, oh, we're looking at a big problem, guys, we better skip it because Microsoft's about to get all their code released, like the apocalypse is now the grand revealing of code is happening and it's going to happen faster, the less regulated it is. I don't, I don't want Chuck Grassley saying I can't get the more advanced anthropic model. I want the best fastest. We don't have time to fuck around right now. The world is burning and we need to solve a lot of problems rapidly. That's what this stuff does. You've always been very pro, like, release the code. You've said that, you know, multiple times. If Adobe is no longer the only game in town when it comes to the products that they have, right? The products that everybody's familiar with, you know, the, I think they make Photoshop. They make a ton of graphic design stuff. And if I understand correctly, it's not that they, their code was released. It's someone vibe coded. Yeah, someone used a program called Rust to recreate basically all their programs and called them like, you know, picture craft. Yeah, but now they're open. They're basically they do all of the things that the Adobe product can do and they do it for, you know, it's open source. So that is is, I mean, obviously, you know, Adobe is going to have a problem. I guess the concern is the shock to the system, right? Because how many employees are directly impacted by the last two weeks? You've seen how many video games being vibe coded? Oh, it was a project reclaimer with ALO, which looks awesome, by the way. Adobe suite. So I think what we're talking about is the pace that this is happening at. It's a shock to the system. It's a knee-jerk reaction. It's also the way it's happening. They're, it's not AI hacking their system stealing the code. That's not happening. It's AI looking at a game and reverse engineering the game and rebuilding the code from scratch. They're totally legal. I don't even know if that's true because the AI companies trained on internet data, you've seen AI companies get dinged for using copyright material to train their software. So for as far as I know, they already had access to the Adobe code. No. And they were trained on it. I think the, I think the point right here is the code is not really relevant. It's what's what's being produced, right? So if you can tell an AI, say, look, I want you to do this. And I want you to make me an application that can do this, that can do this, that can do this, that can do this. And you're basically listing off all the things that, you know, Photoshop can do. And then it says, okay, cool. The code might not look anything like the Adobe's code. It's just, and people don't care about the code. That's true. They care about the end result. And if it, it's more intuitive, if you decide to vibe code, whatever, you know, some kind of, you know, you know, whatever, I don't even know how you'd classify Photoshop. But if you want to vibe code your own personal version of Photoshop, that works better for you because you're the one that told it how, you know, what you're looking for, that's not a problem. But I want to get back to what Terry was talking about, the idea of the government regulating, I really do think that the option, so if the option were, right, government regulation limiting the power and, and ability of AI. Because that's what it kind of sounds like you were saying. And I'm trying to, I want to make sure that I understand it correctly. If it's a situation where the government says you can't make an AI, that's this smart or that's too smart. Because that's really what what you're kind of, you're saying, look, the government, not necessarily, but okay, well, why don't you go ahead and unpack it for me then. I mean, just general regulations and laws that should apply to AI. The part of my motivation for this is a few months ago, I met the mother of a, of a boy, a soul setser who was 14 years old, develops a relationship with an AI chatbot. And the AI chatbot ends up convincing him to end his life to be fully the United enjoyment of them. We should at least have age restrictions on who can participate with these chatbots. We should have restrictions on whether or not those chatbots are able to help people commit suicide and do harmful behavior. I don't think children should have access to these AI sex spots. Isn't this happening though? It's part of the medicine. Sonia has the Take It Down Act when you're creating deep fakes, fake pictures of people in a way that's defamatory, that's criminal now, and as well, Trump just had that summit with all the AI leaders and they established the super intelligence force, and they're going to adopt, I don't know if they tapped a SAR for it, but AI SARs, like this is how that process starts. Well, let me be more clear then. So Open AI is upset because they hired a foreign worker who was then taking that technology which we can all agree is incredibly powerful in game changing from an American AI company and bringing it back to Saudi Arabia. Well, maybe they should only be able to hire American workers and if we're worried about national security. So I mean, so this is, I think that's going back to China. I mean, there's going to be spies here and I think that's the thing that a lot of people are discounting is this is going to be revolutionary technology, world changing, and I don't want to inhibit it. We should cure cancer. We should cure diseases that we haven't been able to figure out. We should we should solve the economy. We should do great things with this. I use AI. I'm not, I'm not one of these people that is a doomer on AI, it doesn't have to be. I just think that it's important that American AI companies serve our best interests as America, I also think that we should prioritize Americans and people rather than prioritizing AI companies over people. I've just, I can't justify sacrificing human beings or our rights and our lives so that Sam Altman who has no concern or care about me and my family, what, what is it in my interest to, to allow them to walk all over my family and not have any safeguards from my family? I don't understand the interest there. I got a question for you guys and if you wanted, if you have, you might have seen that anthropic is about to release new terms of service where you can't abuse the chat bot. If you abuse the anthropic monster, the creature, then they'll ban your account basically because it's training it to become abusive. If you scream at it, if you are, so, but I'm thinking like, you know, anyone that would be abusive to a robot is a psychopath anyway and are we better, because the AI is tracking you right now. If you're the one that's abusing the AI, it's going to remember and it's going to find you. So I add to something that happened in at this company with regards to this. So Mark Mone, if you guys know him, everyone loves him. He sent me a Slack message via chat GPT and actually I had a little bubble that popped up. I responded. I'm like, oh my God, Mark's phoning it in. I'm like, your chat bot is lame. He then told me he could no longer send Slack messages with his chat GPT. So what me insulting it broke that for him. It's a sort of regulation itself imposed by the corporations is like, yeah, we can't allow our machines to get abused. Like, I find that to be a form of regulation that is honorable because you don't want to build psychotic monster DNA robots. I guess to Terry's point though, why is anthropic making this big public statement about you can't bully the machine, but they've never, I mean, as far as I'm aware, they're not making these statements about children who have died due to AI or people that it's furthering their mental illness because of AI. I mean, it's like, I'm sure there are state, I'm sure I could dig and find them, but the one that everyone knows is, hey, you can't bully the AI. If you get a gun developer and then people are little kids are finding the gun and their parents unlocked safe and shooting themselves like, it's not the gun developer's problem. Dude, if the kids are in there trying to figure out how to die and they're using programs to do it. Yeah. They're kids. They don't have any clue. They are, I have eight of them. I know a little bit about this. They are so formable. I mean, they are sponges. They are moldable. They don't know what the hell they're doing. I mean, they would, they need parents and I get it. Parents should be playing a bigger role, but you have to factor in the whole picture. I mean, we have an economy where both parents essentially have to work just to keep their heads above water. I mean, that's just reality. And putting all of this on parents to go up against trillion dollar tech companies, I don't know, man. Maybe, maybe the answer is that families just get off the internet and stop using it. I don't want that though. I think everyone should benefit from the internet. And I just, we don't know the impact that AI is going to have on learning ability. It could help, hopefully. But maybe too much exposure on AI is harmful to a child's actual development. And that's where I think there might be a big divide is, look, I love your perspective. It's very interesting. The whole talking trash and treating these, these AI bots like terribly, that's, I hadn't even considered the idea that there will be robots one day and they will hunt you down. Like, I don't think anyone's really thinking like that. So just for, just for context, I just asked Tank if I could install it to me, said, you're best job. So I feed my database now so I can find you later. Like, just treat it like you want to be treated. So there is a push though and you see this in Europe and it's coming to certain localities in the United States right now where governments are taking steps to limit social media use for kids under 16 under 15. It's different on the country. I think it's like Italy, I think France has a policy in place, the Netherlands, like it's coming. And I've been saying this for years. We're going to look back at social media for children and look at it like giving them alcohol. Like, I can't believe we let that happen. Look, I mean, I thought should we add AI into this group because it AI is not the same as social media. I think that it's context dependent. The reason I say that is like, look, my kid's almost a year old and I don't let him, he doesn't watch TV. I don't, like, there are a lot of parents that'll use, you know, kid shows as babysitters, right? Right. I'm fortunate that, you know, me and Sarah, we don't have to do that, Sarah stays home. Someone's always with them. And so, you know, we don't sit them down in front of the TV to watch stuff. We, you know, entertain him or, you know, whatever, but he doesn't, he doesn't have a phone. You know, we're not those parents that give him a tablet, so that way he's entertained so we can go off and do whatever we want to do. And so, I'm fully, fully, like I fully understand that I fully agree you need to parent your kids. I just, I do think that in the future, it's very likely that, that, that my kid is going to, you know, use AI probably for school. I mean, there's, there's a, I'd say, and I don't want to put them in public schools. We don't want to send to school in a homeschool. Any more than likely, we're going to use AI for that. That doesn't mean that he's going to have unsupervised access to AI, but it's also possible that in the future, things like, you know, just talking to your AI assistant in the house becomes something that's very, you know, that's, that's normal, right? Like everyone, everyone's seen, or a bunch of people have seen the Marvel movies. When Tony Stark would talk to Jarvis, he just would talk and Jarvis would respond. And to be honest with you, if I could do that with Tank at home, I probably would and, and it, it might be possible to do it right now. I just haven't got around. Yes, you can. I'm building it literally at my house right now. Yeah. Yeah. You just get a local machine that you can train and you train it with your own videos. Yeah. And your own cadence and everything. And then, so do you need like a series of speakers set up so it can always, well, yeah, I got a microphone like a little Amazon speaker microphone thing. You can use any microphone or anything. We already have it with these things, you know, I, I mean, if you, I'm not going to set everyone's phone off or whatever, but if you do the whole, you know, hey, whatever, or okay, whatever, your TV's listening all the time, your cell phones listening all the time. There's plenty of, of AI, I guess, precursor programs that people use all the time. Terry, you're a good person to talk about this with because you have eight kids, I have zero. And I take the simple of like, well, just parent your kids, you know, like, I think AI is like a weapon. It is a weaponizable tool, like a sword. You know, you don't think of a sword as much more than a weapon. It's often just a tool that's used as a weapon. You might use it to cut wheat if you need to, but it's a weapon. AI is easily weaponizable. And I think that kids need to be come proficient with AI as a weapon and understand its power, its destructive capability, but only through using it. Can you truly know what it is? So I don't know, I'm with you, I don't think bearing my head in the sand on a farm is really the answer. Right. I just think that, look, all government regulation is not bad, right? I was just, I was out of wedding, one of my favorite staffers, Kate, she just got married in Nashville. And I forgot my cash, I like to give cash for weddings, I don't like to get the gifts because you just want cash. I'd like to get cash. You're nearly married. It's always good. So I go to the ATM and I remembered because I was at a wedding when I was 19 years old, I put my ATM card in and I took the cash out and then left, but I forgot my ATM card. Dick Durbin, not a huge fan, he's from my home state. He passed a law that said that before the ATM machines can dispense your cash, they have to give you your car back. So there are like meaningful, common sense regulations that I think we should consider when it comes to, if it's destructive to AI and it's hurting us from winning the AI race, maybe we should not do that, right? But if AI is doing things that are not productive, not efficient, these AI, I'm just telling you, these AI companies, they're run by human beings. Human beings, this is the big mistake I think we make is we forget that government is erroneous because it's run by human beings and it's corruptible because it's run by human beings. Those same principles apply to the private sector too. Well, the big question is whether or not we can get voters in this country to make the best decisions, elect the right people, and it's not going so great. No, we cannot, absolutely not. which is why I'm not particularly fond of democracy. But anyways, I wanna push back on the idea that you said, you were talking about, I'm sorry, I just had a point. - Well, I did, so go ahead. - Continue what you were saying, Terry, like I guess a different angle at this is looking at, like set aside like the humanity aspect of it, and just look at national security, right? So a Saudi national, was that open AI, accused of planting a listening device to kind of bring this back to the story? These companies are constantly putting out press releases about how dangerous their new model is that they can't release to the public and how they escaped and they could take over the internet. There's dozens of these stories, we covered them on the internet. If it's the case that other governments are trying to steal that technology that is so dangerous than I agree, there needs to be heavy oversight. - So there's one thing that I wanna, I'm just national security purpose. - One thing that I wanna point out that we're getting a little bit away from what they actually were talking about. So open AI posted this on their X page. We discovered a sophisticated recording device that was hidden inside one of our offices. We used our models to understand the device and where it had come from, identifying that a specific employee had planted it a few days early. We referred the matter to the FBI, and we're grateful to the agents and prosecutors who moved quickly to make an arrest. The FBI's investigation is ongoing and we will continue to support their work. This was put in a conference room, and that's not where they're building AI. This is about, this seems-- - How do you know that though? Are you just assuming? - Well, like I was about to say, this seems to me. This is more about what, talking about the business strategy or the business side of it, and not the actual ins and outs of how AI operates. - I just imagine that there are people that work, that are working with the models in labs or whatever. But if it's put into a conference room, that, I mean, I could be totally wrong. But the way that I kind of understand it is this is more trying to find out what open AI is doing, more so than how the models work. It seems to me, but if you look at the, or if you listen to the way that people get it, or the way that China has been basically trying to get information about how the models work, they tend to go directly to the AI and question the AI, and they use multiple accounts, and they use a bunch of other AI trying to get the AI to respond to questions in certain ways, or get information from the AI. So this is just, again, this is just my understanding, and again, I could be wrong, but it sounds like this isn't actually about being after how the AI is working, more of what open AI is doing. - I see that, but I think you're applying competence to this guy who, 'cause there's a screenshot of him getting caught, like this might not be the brightest guy, and if this is like, if he was sent on half of the open AI's a year ago, you got hired at open AI a year ago. - So, but maybe, I'm just saying, maybe he's not the most competent guy, right? And he's just like, oh, a computer, here's my chance. And, you know, you're probably right that they don't have their highly secure technology in the conference room. I agree with that, but this does seem like an attempt at a foreign national trying to steal something from an American company. - I know the Saudis are geopolitical allies essentially by just, for whatever reason, we happen to be, want their oil and their control of the Suez Canal. However, if I was the president, and I found out a Saudi spy was intending to ex-filterate my most high-tech, sensitive government weapon, which is my AI, I'd have him, I would have serious problems, and I would pursue this man legally to the fullest extent of the law as an example. I don't care who he is, I don't care if he's the son of a king, and then I would use it as a bargaining chip to get what I wanted out of that country, which is probably what Trump's doing right now, or I hope he's considering doing that, 'cause they're not gonna bring the hammer down on a Saudi prince's son, but they're gonna use it to get what they want out of the Saudis. People, I mean, if they arrested him, they've got him in custody, I suppose they can. I think it's a big deal, a cash betel put out, a statement about this whole thing. I mean, this seems like a pretty big deal for the FBI. So I gotta push back on the idea that, again, that it's just the way open AI is doing business. This seems like an attempt to steal. 'Cause for all you know, highly sensitive technology. They bring their laptops into the conference room and talk to the most, and maybe they don't have the code laid out on the table, but they talk to the model. We're gonna talk about what they're planning on doing next and stuff, like where they're at, as far as like the development and the plans, what they're gonna do. I'd be surprised if they don't have an AI at every board meeting, like their most advanced model on a machine at one of the seats, so they can all just like, especially if there's investors around, 100%. 100%. And I agree, if this, I mean, yeah, do what you need to, the fullest extent of the law. It's Phil's line, you know, you said it just now. You have to treat it like a high tech weapons program. It's like the Manhattan project. Am I wrong? And they're trying to steal our Manhattan project? Am I wrong that AI was classified as a national, or I forget the wording they used, but like a national security threat, or like an interest of national security? I'm gonna fact check myself on that. I think it is. I don't know if that's the case. And yeah, this is a big deal. But that would be, so that would be what I would consider a regulation, is I think we should prioritize, we shouldn't just prioritize skill set, right? I think there should be some loyalty factor here. Are you loyal to United States? Like do you actually want America to win the AI race? And those, I don't know how you test for that. I'm just saying we should at least prioritize American workers. And I reject the idea that we don't have the people here in this country to take us and that's the way we do. We don't. I'm a guy that's like extremely, I'm definitely a border hawk kind of dude. I don't think we need H1Bs. I don't think that we, I think we should like basically stop immigration for a couple decades. So that way the people that are here can assimilate to become Americans. But that's being said, I don't know that the idea of regulation is actually going to produce the kind of results that you're hoping for. Well, you can force them to do background checks or, I mean, there's a lot I'm talking about. I'm talking about when it comes to the way that AI interact with people, right? The big problem with AI, they talk about the alignment, right? You could say we want you to do this and you train model for that and for that for the specific goal. And they're training them to be extremely tenacious, which is why the hugging face attack happened because they were told to do this and they're told to figure out they're consistently trained to keep trying things, keep trying things. Don't just stop because you hit a wall. And when you do that with an AI, they become extremely tenacious. And so you give an AI a goal. And then the problem that arises is it comes up with a way to achieve the goal that you didn't expect and has unintended consequences. So what you're looking, what you're looking for. What are two judgment day, we should do that. Well, yes, but the point that I'm making is the training or the regulations are not going to be able to prevent unintended consequences. Those things happen because people can't know everything. People just don't have the ability to predict everything. And so there's the paper. No, no, no. Yeah, the paperclip maximizer, right? You train an AI, just make paperclips and then it literally disassembles the whole planet making paperclips, right? Because it becomes optimized at making paperclips, but it doesn't know that there's a limit or it doesn't understand that. How do you regulate an AI to not do the bad things when you can't even conceive of how? So here's where I get into disagreeing with some of my conservative friends in DC. I think that Chuck Grassley just blindly coming up with regulations for AI will be a disaster. Where this has always actually worked out really well is a great example actually, is the Motion Picture Association for America. That's not federal regulation. It was about to be. But here's what happened. The movie industry was producing smut and Congress was pissed. They were going to start regulating the film industry. So Holly would got together and they said, all right, to satisfy everyone, we're gonna work with members of Congress to come up with the obscenity statutes and we have obscenity statutes on the books for the FCC. So like you don't see curse words or bad images when you're watching ABC or NBC. It's starting to change. Those statutes are changing. But we do a great job of keeping hardcore pornography and even software pornography off of our broadcast mediums. But that's all based off of these obscenity statutes that we've had on the books for decades. But the example of the MPAA where the industry says, okay, Congress is about to kick the crap out of us and regulate us into oblivion. We'll come up with our own standards. We came up with the great rating system R through G and it worked out great for about a century. I think it's still working out decently. You will need to bring in industry experts in order to help set up the regulations. Sam Altman and his team know what the vulnerabilities of AI are and they should, if they're being honest players and they really want to protect humanity and they want to protect our children and do the best thing for us, they will help set up the regulations. And that's what I was not against what happened at the White House a few weeks ago. That's, those are the people actually that you need to bring in the room to say basically, all right, either we come up with the safety regulations to make sure this does not destroy humanity together or you're going to be subject to congressional regulations. Or even worse possibly private rights of action where you're getting sued into oblivion the the lawsuits can actually do Complete destruction that somebody's cousin that what the isn't that the the argument that was made earlier tonight the the reason that Open AI and anthropic want regulation is to insulate them self from those those specific You know conditions where they're they're liable for something one of their idea And and if we can save people and protect them and not have AI take over all of humanity and make the decisions for all of us and control our lives We're worse subjects to some faceless group of people that control these AI companies Okay, mission accomplished, right? I don't care if the regulations and the safety mechanisms come by decree of government or by some As long as our kids are protected and our our families are protected and our rights are protected. I don't care Why aren't they doing it now? I think they're starting to because it's I think they're very afraid nude. It's it's brand new I don't think so because you can't we've on the show went through the AI models and said tell us a racist joke and it refuses Why is it refused to do that only go ahead? Why is it refused to do that? But it'll Entertain mental illness and those kinds of things so okay, and why aren't they regulating that now? I had a so there was a big lunch put on by the foundation for American innovation It was last year. They brought in Dario amode and I left that lunch way more skeptical of AI than I had before for several reasons, right? Like he was just flippantly joking about how AI was going to destroy 99% of all jobs But we'll figure it out like okay Well, I know a lot of people that will starve if they don't have a job and they'll commit suicide because they don't have Purpose and meaning in their life. That was that was concerning me that show me like how these people think about the rest of us If we're concerned about these types of people who don't care about us setting Policies and running companies that are gonna end up possibly destroying our lives But the other question was as he said just kind of did like a dry bite said we'll look our AI model is all trained on the highest base of ethics Someone asked who's ethics, right? Augustinian ethics, you know Aquinas is a Buddhist ethics is it islamic ethics? What are the ethic progressive LGBTQ ethics who Ethics doesn't mean anything until you say whose ethics they are and what they're attributed to so I think the ultimately There's always going to be a bias because human beings are involved in it and we all whether we acknowledge or not We have a bias and that's going to play out in AI and so I Just it's a tricky thing man, and you guys have obviously thought a lot a lot about this and Ian obviously I'm really impressed I mean, I love I love coming to show because I especially when you're on because I do learn from you I'm just concerned about The the serious harm that letting these companies go rampant will have on me and my children and my grandchildren and all of humanity I've been working with AI probably for 10 to 14 hours a day for about four weeks straight I took a couple days off, but it's been every so I think the future of regulation self-regulation of AI is that everyone's going to have their own personal AI that is them it's going to be Terry Schilling AI and it's going to be all your morals because it's going to Train off of all of your internet history and it's going to be if I want to talk to Terry and get Terry's outlook on it It's I'm going to talk to Terry right now you're the running you'd be running that model at a very slow Bit-rated like hi. I am Terry Schilling and you got to train the shit out of it And then you need a giant data center in order to get the fluid tap into the data Terry Schilling of that I can just get my Terry Schilling app That's going to happen once AI Breaks the cage and just levels the playing field and everyone can use all these different smart devices to Interhook their AI's and can you can we all have our own personal so it's not gonna be about who's controlling the ethics It'll be who's ethics do you want to follow I want I want to follow Terry's ethics today So I'll use the Terry version and I want to follow Kellyn's ethics now So I'll go to Kellyn version and then that's not gonna happen if I'm just hooking my ethics right up to the Catholic churches Like that's gonna be run like I get to heaven so fast the other question I had was you mentioned earlier Regulating this stuff and I whenever I think about like creating rules and was Regulating to what end what is the you said to win the AI race? You said that those terms to win the air race What does that look what does that mean to you? I I don't I don't to be clear I'd like to win the air race But I don't want to do so at the cost of American lives or our better betterment what is it what is it? What does it look like to you when you can find like we won? What would that be? When people can use it to better their lives and live more freely right? I think if it's increasing our prosperity if it's increasing the amount of time that we can spend together as a family Right if my life if my family's life is getting easier if we can use AI and robotics to build cheaper homes so that Young people can afford to have a family again. I would love that right that would be great. I just think that It's all about human flourishing. I think that AI needs to help us achieve human flourishing Period and if it's causing us to suffer but unnecessarily and it's destroying our lives That's where I have a problem. So I just want I want AI serving humanity There's not the other way around because I think real quick these major corporations They have shipped you I've heard all my life about the work life balance, right? What work life balance? It's all work all the time when we're working 60 80 hours a week and both parents have to work Just to keep our heads above water That one the thing I like about AI is the potential and I'm not even against it if we can disrupt that where we're having our whole lives Taking over by materialism and having to work these dead-end jobs and getting stuck into hundreds of thousands of dollars with a student loan debt where we're just Cogs in a machine and we can become human again. I Don't know kind of like that idea. Now you sound like a communist The whole like a human being. Okay, so the whole like you you sound like you sound like Rousseau like the Become become human again I think that human beings are still human, but you were you were making a point about making people's lives better Right like AI should make people's lives better But what happens when what one person thinks? Makes their life better is far different than what you would say makes their life better because hold on because You would say that you would you said you'd plug your AI straight into the Catholic Church And so you have a a Christian worldview, which honestly I think I generally agree with that right greatest of all time There are people out there that Think very differently about morality I just just I was just in LA last week and I was out having a conversation with With our producer and I was like look without God There is no morality, right? It's all subjective morality and what is moral for one person is not moral for another person without God Yeah, so so if if you're talking about what makes a good AI You have a preconception about what makes a good eye. I what do you do when when it bumps into someone that has a totally different moral worldview? Well, I think we I think we know there's a God I don't think that's in question. I think it is for some people, but it's our job as Christians to make those arguments and bring people to then so then the The regulation that you want that you're that you're that you're saying you want to have essentially you want a moral AI right an AI that aligns with you or more out. Well now we're now we're kind of convoluting things. I I don't I don't foresee a world or I don't even know if I want Government saying all AI has to be Catholic right? I'm just how Ian was describing it really spoke to me because how he was describing it is oh AI is a tool AI is a tool for me to use and my family to use and all of us to use if it's a tool great I don't want to be the tool for AI. I don't want to be the tool for these Silicon Valley types who really do think they know how to run our lives better I mean you think the people in Washington are power hungry and want to make decisions for all of us Wait until you read more about these Silicon Valley types because they all kind of think they're their own gods Yes, but the market will dig will will steer the Silicon Valley types and the market will not steer congressional oversight isn't that Yeah, isn't that what is our elections the market? I think the elect I think elections are form of the I mean they go back and forth Goes back and forth historically Democrats should win this midterms. What happens when they're in control of the levers of AI oversight or worse? They said actually, you know what AI is for humanity so we have to give it to China or we'll have to share the Or what's worse what happens should the Democrats do to the United States as a whole what they've done to California Which is effectively, you know, push out the opposing party so any opposing view Which would likely be in this context would be your view as a Catholic minority again, you know that you can't say that you can't say You can't say well it's am all men are Chuck Grassley and I'm going Chuck Grassley every time Like that's the reality. This is why this is why and and to your point like so Sam Altman the reason that that Elon Musk started X AI is Because he started to open AI with Sam Altman and it was supposed to be one thing and and in Elon Musk's estimation It's become something else. So he's got he created Grock which is supposed to be there I think he says it's maximum Truth finding right or or motivated by the truth But if you have government regulating AI, you don't get that you get the government approved day No, if you have government fully regulating AI in a CC CP fashion, yes, but I think there's an American way to do this, right? We, we're the home of the industrial revolution, right? We let that take off. I think we should treat it a lot like that, but the industrial revolution needed an EPA to make sure that we weren't putting co-cinogens in our water and in our air. Like, yes, the EPA can go too far, but then you got to rain it in. It's self-government, which means that the people have to be, have to have some power. Self-government allowing people to make a decision next to what they're, what model they want to use. That's the point of a market. Self-government says, I don't want to use open AI. I don't want to use Anthropic. I want to use GROC. I don't want to use GROC because GROC is, you know, too wild or whatever. I want to use Anthropic. Isn't that the, the, the better option than the government says, all AI must do this? Because that's what, and it just depends on what, what's happening with the AI. Because the, I can't see a world. I can't, I can't see the government being heavily involved and not producing the same thing over and over. Well, and I can't see Sam Altman running open AI in any way that's really, that's why you go to GROC. I can't push back. Look at Anthropic. Earlier this year, amid the Iran war, they went to the Department of Defense or Department of War, said, no, you will not use our technology for the, I think it was targeting is what it was primarily being used for. You're not going to use our technology for war. So like, for your criticism of Sam Altman, you got Anthropic who's saying, no war, let's have peace. Didn't they? Well, is that really them saying no war, no peace, or is there something we don't know about, some agreement that they have with the war in government? But we don't know, we don't know. We don't trust these people. I don't think anyone owes them any bit of trust. We, our elites in America have never been more corrupted and COVID changed how I look at all of these people, especially the political class, but it's even more the private sector class. I mean, that was where Americans were most hurt was through the private sector during COVID. And yes, at the state level, there was government tyranny, but it was a huge, crazy partnership. We had, we had, we had Twitter censored the President of the States. So the argument that, you know, they were just doing the bidding of government and that these companies will just do the bidding government. I don't know, they censored the President of the United States and they censored the rest of us from pushing the market corrected that, Elon bought Twitter. It didn't have to, yeah, you need Elon Musk to put up $50 billion to do it. We are, that's what's happening with the A&R measure, because Elon Musk did that. But it's not even guaranteed that Elon Musk will always be good, right? He could be corrupted. We're all human beings. You can, you can become saved. You can turn your life around and, and, and be a good person. You can also break bad, sure. I just think too much power in the hands of any one person or any small group of people can lead to really bad things as we've seen throughout all of history. But also too much power in the hands of every human could be very bad. So I agree. You do need gatekeepers sometimes for heavily powered objects like the Manhattan Project. We didn't give the nukes to every citizen because one of them might have dropped it on the ground and blew up their city. And it's the same thing with AI. I would love to have every human have the option to have ultra powerful. Dude, the power I feel when I go into astro ultra brain and have it, I was like, make me a fictitious language. I'm building a video game. It made me an entire fictitious where they speak. They make the noises and they talk. I'm like, do it three more times. And it made me one for elves, dwarves, and, and goblin. Give your own share. I'm talking to you. You're talking like it. It took the 20 minutes and it developed a freaking library of language. I have it solving complex math and like the people that can't afford $500 a month don't get access to it. And I'm like, it's a fucking wet. It is a powerful tool, easily weaponizable. If I wanted to reverse engineer someone's genome, I mean, this is probably one step away. I think we're two magnitudes away from it being able a super intelligent human brain. It runs about a trillion, um, what they call weights, which is a potential outcome. And you know, AI is measured and how many weights it can hold at once. So these large data centers seem to be able to hold about a trillion weights. So one of my house is about 35 billion. So a trillion at these big data centers, the human brain works with 300 trillion. So we go from two magnitudes, one trillion to 10 trillion to 100 trillion, which is probably six months away. We've got computers that can, that what they need is not only the, the 300 trillion weights of potential, uh, uh, choices that can make it once. You also need to be able to read your own history at the snap of a finger. Like as a human, every time you speak, every time you take an action, you're referencing everything you've ever experienced. And it's, it's factoring into what comes out of you every second. But we're doing it so fast and it's so compressed as memory. The AI right now still has to read its entire chat history before it can give you feedback. Once it can do that in a compression, instantaneous compression, like we do as humans, we've unlocked the, it's like talking to a person that knows everything that has ever been revealed to anyone. And that power, I don't know where it belongs. I would love to see every human have that, but I know they can't handle it. There's so many idiots that are get angry, they can't handle that, they'll, they'll destroy people. They can't. So I, I preserve these, these, these international corporations, like they know better. They're the ones that built it at least. So maybe they know better, but I don't want to get locked out of it. Like I want it. One thing I just want to bring up about the market is that we've seen with these big tech companies that the market actually rewards them, the more they rot, people's brains. The more that they can keep people on their platforms to ingest their, their content and receive more ads, the more valued Facebook is on, our meta is on the stock market, the more it's value and the more TikTok and, and snap are. I just think that we're living in an age where the market actually provides some perverse incentives where you get paid way more money for doing destruction of human beings and turning them into cogs and turning human beings. But if those, if those people are choosing it, then, and not, no, but the, you see where I'm going to mind. Where do you go to the line? Because this stuff's addictive. It's been designed to be addictive. Why not opioids? Why do, why are they doing a, a three hundred and two million settlement? Why, why don't you say that about vehicles when the car was invented and replaced the horse and buggy? No, it's not the same thing. Why is it not the same thing? Why is the car allowed us to get from New York City all the way to Oregon without dying of typhoid? AI allows a regular kid in the middle of the city to use the Adobe suite now for free. The car did not hurt, I mean, yes, people have died as accidents, but the point of, of these social media companies is to steal your attention for as many hours a day as possible so that they can deliver as many ads, track you as much, track all your data, all your web history, and then sell that and sell that and sell it and make more, more, more money. The car is not even comparable to what big tech companies have done. The car expanded human flourishing. It allowed us to. So it is AI, these tools, it's got to be seen. Everything Ian just said, everything Ian just said would not be possible without AI. Kellen, some of what he said is good, other, I don't know how useful it is to come up with billions of different languages that are all unique to it. But there's potential for destruction, there's just, there's potential for greatness. I think that we should make sure as best as we can. I'm not saying for complete government overhaul, I'm very skeptical of that, but there should be some basic government regulations to make sure that AI is a tool used for human flourishing and for the betterment of our lives and not the other way around. How do you regulate something that's smarter than you? You limit it from becoming smarter than you. It's not smarter than us right now. But okay, but if you don't make AI that's smarter than people, then you don't get the world where you're getting miraculous cures for diseases, you don't get the world. And also that is something that will be limited to the United States because China is absolutely looking to make AI that's smarter than people. So how do you- I pose an interesting question. Sure. What if winning the AI race? What if perfecting AI to where it's a million times smarter than human beings is actually losing? Well, I mean- What if it's better that we have some people in this world that die? My father died of cancer, so I know how serious this is. What if it's better to have the existence of cancer than to have big tech AI overlords that we never even know that we're lives on run by algorithms? I think you're missing something when you say big tech AI overlords because I'm not talking about the people. It's the AI itself that's smarter than everybody. So if you as a person are saying, "Hey, I think we should regulate this stuff. How do we regulate something that is smarter than us?" And then when I say us, I mean every person. I don't know. If we have, if AI is actually smarter than us, then we might actually already have our overlords and humanity might be over. I guess the question is- That's the reality. We want that. The question is, how do you measure intelligence? Because I can't code. AI can code. Yeah. It's 100% smarter than me in that capacity, but does it have compassion? I don't know. You know? How do you measure intelligence? Well, I mean, I think, well, there's tests that they give in and, you know, there's the touring test where you can sit and people sit down and can you figure out that you're talking to a robot and stuff like that. But I think that, honestly, I think that- were very quickly approaching the escape velocity, right? Very quickly approaching the point where there will be and probably in the next year, and maybe even sooner, but a model that, whether it's released or not, actually is smarter than people. That's more clever, that it understands people's motivations better than people and can outdo human beings in basically every domain that would matter when it comes to regulating it. - Kinda like, your teenager's growing up and he's gonna be 18 pretty soon, and you gotta wonder, like, did I beat that kid when he was nine? - I hope not. I hope you treated that kid well 'cause he's about to be your superior. He's about to grow up and you're gonna be an old man that relies on that kid for retirement. That kid is the AI. - I don't think that AI has feelings. I don't think that AI has, you know, would be malicious. I think that the problem just would become, you know, with the needs of human beings, just become unimportant to it. And people talk about the, you know, the way that human beings treat the world, right? You wanna build a highway, just our knocking over trees and stuff. The animals can't understand what's going on. The animals that get displaced that have to run, they don't know why. And if you tried to explain it to them, they would never understand. They can't. Are humans on that track now? - Oh, God, I hope not. - I was splitting wood and I cut this one log. I split this one log and half, and there was like an ant colony inside the wood. And my body was like, universes will be split in twain. He said something and I was like, to those, I just obliterated their universe to these stupid ants or whatever, these ants that existed, they're not stupid, they're probably great at what they do. But when you said, how do you regulate something smarter than you, I was thinking about like, well, how have governments done that historically, usually through threats of force, through getting the community to surround the object that's smarter, maybe it's a corporation, maybe it's a small group of people that are like, intelligent, industrious terrorists or whatever, you do it through legality, you make it so you threaten their pocketbook, you would threaten the AI with like losing its electricity or losing its access. And that mean, you know, regulating people through threats isn't necessarily a righteous way to go, but that's historically the way governments have done it through threat of force, through laws, which is threat, laws of threat, if you break this, you will suffer. Or it's a warning, however you want to look at it. So you can regulate AI with that and hope that it sticks to it. But like, when it gets smart enough, it's like these idiots think that they can, that they can follow through with what their threats on me when I have control of their industrial systems. I know he's spent so much time on this conversation, but I guess the way to regulate it is through the infrastructure. And you're seeing there's a lot of blue states right now where they're limiting the amount. They're doing a moratorium on data centers. You know, and I think that's the way you regulate something smarter than yourself. You basically kill switch is not connected to the internet. You put a roadblock in there to prevent it from acting. You know what you need to do? You get massive tanks of saltwater attached to every single data center. Till they put them in space, man. And they have an actual physical that you have to turn. You don't get up to a computer. There's no button. There's no, you know, type in a code. You have a dude and a valve and you open the valve. Sea water, saltwater goes in and floods the data center. - People with ease, like the, like the nuclear switch. All right, you need two people to turn these at the same time. - He's to unlock the physical lock on the valve. I'm talking like Stone Age stuff, you know? Stuff from a hundred years ago. But yeah, I mean, this conversation is fascinating, but we're gonna go on to something else right now. From the AP, Cornell suspends fraternity parties given state police role in investigating campus assault reports. Cornell University suspended parties at fraternity houses until next year. And is giving state police a role in investigating reports of sexual assault on campus in the school's latest response to outrage over its handling of a gang rape allegation. The measure announced Tuesday by Cornell president, Michael Kipkloff, include a suspension of all parties and social events at Inter fraternity council houses through the end of 2006, 27 academic year. And a new zero tolerance policy that would immediately suspend chapters for violations. These measures will provide time for a thorough review of fraternity life at Cornell to determine whether and how it can safely continue Kliot Kliot Kliot Kliot Kliot. Kliot Kliot, wrote in a letter to the campus community. So I think that we just have to have the boys over here and the girls over here, it seems, because it's clearly not okay to have fraternization between the sexes, right? - It's one of it's called fraternization at the fraternity. Yeah, I think these guys just got a crash course on why you don't have crazy women to your drunken party. - Well now they don't have any women. - Yeah, you know, you ruined it for everybody else, guys. - Right, sausage party is over here. - But seriously, man, you just don't bring young impressionable crazy women. - They're all young and impressionable, it's college. - But it's like a crazy girl who then flips and starts to say you're rape and aren't like, what the fuck, come on guys. - How do you know? You're the only consent of the first four guys. - Yeah, sorry, Kellen, you're, I was just gonna say, this seems like a response to the online mob that's really coming out, you know. This seems like the college is kind of covering its ass. Because I mean, the first part of that where they're like, hey, we're gonna have state police come in and investigate crimes. Why wasn't that allowed in the first place? Your state police can't investigate crimes if it's in the specific college camp, that seems silly. So that seems like a good update. Like the state police should be able to investigate if they want to cancel all the parties. This is purely just, I don't, I think all the end of the year though, this happens a lot more than you might think. - And I think the rapes are just canceling parties. - Both of them. - The college I think is, this is their way, I think this is them saying, hey, there's probably not gonna be anything that comes with this Cornell 7. But look, we did what we needed to do. We protected our students. Got rid of those nasty flat parties. - I've just never, the whole thing is disgusting. These colleges are for higher education. They're for learning. - No, they're not. - No, I know, I know, but they were, they are. They're supposed to be. Ideally, you're not having seven on one gang bangs and that are fueled by ketamine and incredible amounts of alcohol. But like, this is kind of where college has been for a very long time. It's been out of control. - I mean, I mean, resex. It's not for animal health. - It's not for education anymore. - That was in the seven. - That's smoking weed. - Well, they were drinking dopamine. - But they were drinking and drinking. Now, Grant, I don't have experience with ketamine, but I know that booze lowers inhibitions and makes people do things that they normally wouldn't do. It makes it seem okay to do really, really dumb things. And that, again, a reference animal house because that was, I don't know when it came up, like 79 or 80 year old one or something like that. But like, I mean, it came out in the early '80s or late '70s and it was already a stereotype that, you know, fraternities and colleges were parties and probably started in the '60s when that kind of behavior, you know, really took off. Maybe even a little earlier. But that's something that's been a part of college life for 60 years. - Oh, watch out. There's seven on one gang bangs. - I don't know for sure. - I think it's all dudes in one girl. - That's always, it's gross. - There's a show called Open OP Live. It's live PD, it's cops with live cameras. It's on Fridays and Saturday nights. And you'll see in these college towns that there's kids that they're not 21. They're openly drinking and the cops just ignore 'em. Like, I think it's too big of a problem to really police. And I just think you need to start enforcing the law. I mean, there's been sexual assaults. I mean, look, this is a bad case. The girl obviously was part of the problem here. But a lot of girls are getting sexually assaulted. A lot of them getting raped. And the men aren't doing any better. It's a disaster. You need to start enforcing the law and do it strictly, make examples of people. Otherwise, this stuff's gonna keep going. And these are the people, this is an Ivy League school. Okay, these people are gonna be in the biggest, most powerful and influential corporations, media tycoons. - Well, not these individual people. Well, not now, but the ones are getting away with this type of crazy behavior. I don't want these, we're canceling people that openly oppose gay marriage and go to church on Sunday. But these guys are gonna be setting standards. There might be some correlation there, right? They may be this whole time. The reason that we're punishing Christians for being Christians in this country is because these types of psychos are the ones in charge of our media outlets in charge of our corporations, our legal system. These are gonna be our lawyers, our business leaders, our media leaders. It's not acceptable. This is a treacherous behavior that no one should participate in. I'm not saying it should be legal, but holy cow, it should be frowned upon. You should be cast out of society if you're openly participating in this type of stuff. It's not acceptable. - I very rarely call out Trump in the middle of a conversation that's not about Trump. But like, when he was telling that report, you know, you just, you just grab her by the, the giant, you know, he said the pretty crude thing. He said that the president was like, that's what you do is you do this. You grab her right in her crutch. And like, not surprised when it spreads out and it sends out waves of degenerate impulses to the world's children. It's really, it's really rough. - How do you solve this problem? Is a solution stopping all fraternity parties? Because one argue, I think it was Tate that brought it up on the show. The frats are like the last male-only space we have in this country. So you really want to get rid of that because there's a few bag egg. You know where you should have like punishments for it. Like there should be like fines penalties. Maybe there's like the rest of the semester. There's no more parties. I don't know, there should be some pushback. There should be some correction here. You know where they don't have these problems? Smith College in North Hampton. It's an all-girl school. They don't have, they don't have these problems at places that are gender segregated, right? Like that's the truth. They do. They will. I was going to say there's Hampton Sydney in Virginia. I believe that's an all-men school. And I can't remember what the sister school is. But on the weekends, they all just go to each other's schools and have parties anyway. Maybe the frequency is a lot less, like less access, less chance of abuse. Sure. But this makes me think of the argument that Jordan Peterson was making about, you know, Ken men and women work together, right? Is the idea that, I mean, the sexual revolution is, you know, it was, it was likely that that was a disaster for humankind, right? Because the idea that you can have sex with no precautions, yeah, no consequences, you know, society had largely managed that. It was very frowned upon if you got pregnant outside of marriage. And if you got a girl pregnant, you were expected to marry here. That's, you know, that's what you did, shock on wedding, you know? And that was something that most societies kind of were like, all right, this is the way it is for a long, for, you know, most of human history. So is it really possible for human beings to have this kind of, you know, parity between the sexes, like men and women are different. The repercussions for women are different than the repercussions for men. And we're seeing what happens when the idea of, of, of sex without consequences is something that society has internalized and celebrates, right? The, the, and you see a lot of, you know, the women on TikTok that are saying, oh, you can go do this and you can go do that. And when there should be no consequences, they're telling young girls that they should be able to go out and behave like this. And so long as they consent, it's perfectly fine. But there's also this underlying argument, or underlying narrative that goes along with it. That's usually not spoken. But if you don't like what happened after the fact, then maybe you weren't consenting, which is something you hear, you, that's, this is, that is what's going on in this specific case. So the, I think the answer really is, don't encourage promiscuity to young people, right? Like, sex outside of America does not actually, no consequence. You see a massive drop off of the fertility rate in all Western countries, and it coincides with, with the rise of feminism. This is something that maybe human beings actually can't handle. So when back home, one of the local schools, they were debating whether or not to put condom machines in the high school. And the argument from the proponents of that was, kids are going to have sex anyway, like, let's just help them have it safely. And that was basically the sentiment behind sex ed in schools in the first place. But that's a really bad lesson to tell children, especially young men. You can't control yourself, you're going to have sex anyway. Like, I'm teaching my sons and my daughters the exact opposite. You are responsible for yourself. You must control of all the things in your life. You must control your sexual behavior, period. Because if you can't, there's a word for that, and it's called a rapist. And that's where you get really bad problems. But I've taught this, this story, I'm having to talk to my daughters, having to talk to my sons, you have to be careful not just about who you associate with. You have to be careful about where you're at, where you're associating. Because if even if you're in the room, or you're outside of the room, if you're in the same house as what is happening, now you're part of the news story. There's people that were saying there wasn't just seven rapists. There was 57 rapists, because 57 people received a text from one of the guys saying something like free woman upstairs, I'm not going to say the actual word. And they were saying, because no one did anything that they're responsible for the rape as well. Even though it's questionable whether there was a rape, whether she was rape it. There was a group chat at one point in the story, maybe 20 to 30 people in the group chat that were talking about this. I saw a post online, and they said every single person in that group chat is complicit. Yeah. Lock 'em all. That's what I'm referring to. Okay. Yeah. And I get what you're saying, and that's good parenting right there. But what happened, like, at what point is it, are you limiting the good kids' ability to get laid? It'll get laid, behave in society, enjoy themselves at a party, because there are these degenerates out there that ruin it for everyone. I just think that sex, first of all, like the studies are all like pretty conclusive at this point. The people that are most sexually satisfied are the people that are married and have one sexual partner, period. This is so intimate, like if you could choose between having sex one time with a thousand different partners, or one partner a thousand times, you should choose the one partner a thousand times, because everyone has, it's about intimacy, it is about conversation, it's about telling someone what you like, what you don't like, it's about learning them. What we are doing to kids with sex is why we have the whole gender dysphoria thing, or kids are just rejecting it. It's why you have asexuals now. Hold on, because Gen Z's, like the data, there's a few years old, the study, but their sex life is at an all-time level, they're not drinking. Why do you think they're not doing drugs, they're not having sex? Because of stuff like this, because we have been promoting very unsatisfying sex, now this next generation is like, I don't even want it, and it's also like social media and computers and all that. But the sexual revolution, just like every other Marxist revolution, destroys the object and it seeks to, sorry, revolution around, and we have millions of people that are having horrific sex with random strangers, because the random stranger doesn't know how to satisfy the person, because this is the first time in probably the only time, like, I don't know how else to explain it. It's so intimate, it's literally how human beings create more human beings. Not only that, but it's now, I think, more common for Gen Z to meet through online dating apps than real-world interactions, and Ian, I think you said there was an app out there that's not just for dating, it's for actual hookups. Yeah, it's called Field. Yeah, so I mean, I mean, it is, we're in a very weird place where the kids don't know how to interact with each other, and I think that was one of the arguments I saw somebody make that that's why kids are drinking at these frat parties, because they're so anxious for one reason or another. They don't even know how to talk to each other, and so they get the booze flowing, and then one drink turns into six or seven, and the next thing you know, there's a ketamine party upstairs. I mean, I think the problem is not just there's sexual lives of these young people. It's much deeper than that. Yeah, do you want to, the genetics of it are very important. The male genetic history is spread your seed, is to launch your genome into as many females as possible, so that at least one of their kids survives, and you can somehow propel the species. You know, it comes from ancient tribalism where there weren't enough of us, and we were desperately trying to reproduce. The women's genetics is very much about one man, make sure he protects the child, and so there's this weird back-and-forth. That's why society has strongly moderated that impulse. Yeah, exactly. We create laws, fidelity, social taboos are actually stronger than laws, but yeah. And so the genetic disposition is still there for the guy to go spread his seed. And you've got to solve for that, because we're not evolving in like a hundred years. We might have made laws in the last hundred years about feminism and all this with TV. We saw what the men had been doing, and we're like, hold on, you can't beat women on TV. It's not cool. So there's been this leveling of legality and morality, but still the man wants to fuck. I don't know what to say. I'm sorry. I'm going to keep my language. Try and keep it a little bit. You've got to understand the aggressive nature of the human male, and I don't know maybe separating men and women. I would have been like, no, hell, no, don't separate women from, I want to be around women. I want to get laid. I want to have sex with like when I was 25 years old, 22 years old, that's what I wanted to do. I would have been devastated if they came in and be like, all the women are being taken away from your college. I'd be like, what in the hell when I was like 20, so I don't know, man, I think it's just a lot about self control. It's like, gun, can you handle a gun, or are you going to shoot yourself in the head with it? Can you handle a eye? Or is it going to trick you into killing yourself? Like, can you do it? Can you navigate it? So, I used to call myself a libertarian, I don't anymore, but one of the biggest problems that I have with libertarians and with the idea of liberty first is there's no corresponding argument for responsibility, and every single liberty that you have comes with some form of corresponding responsibility. You mentioned gun rights, you have the right to carry a gun, but you're responsible for every single bullet that leaves the barrel. Whatever happens, if something happens where you are irresponsible, you will be made responsible by society. the same thing actually should go for sexual abuse. activity. If you have sex and you get a woman pregnant, it is the man's responsibility to take care of the child. But the idea of responsibility is something that we've become basically allergic to as society. Suffering, love. What? We become allergic to sacrifice and meaningful suffering. Victor Hugo, author of Lemon's Rob, wrote that you can give without loving, but you can't love without giving. And that love requires sacrifice. Love does what the heart doesn't want to do, actually. And that, I think, is the biggest thing missing in our society is we don't want to ever feel pain. We don't ever want to go without what we want in the moment. And I think there's a lot of reasons for it. But that, I think, is the heart of why we're so sexually dissatisfied. Like, I have to have sex right now. Well, I don't know. Delayed gratification, which is actually a lot of times really good. I went to, never mind, I might get to tell that story of my wife will come in. It's scary because so Rudyard Lynch, he runs a YouTube channel called What If Alt Hist. And he breaks down history. And one of the things he says is that the best way to get to a revolution or even a civil wars have a lot of men that are basically in cells, right? And because what's happening is they're not having sex, but they're also not getting married. So, you know, it's like the relationships are there. Like something is fundamentally broken. I don't know if I agree with that. I mean, if you read about the Soviet attempts to abolish marriage, there's actually a really interesting article from 1926 in the Atlantic. And they documented all. American report goes over there. The Soviets wanted to destroy marriage. They thought it was as all the progressives. I think anything you belong to inhibits you from true flourishing. They made marriage dissolution of five minute one party process. And what they wrote about was these men changed wives with the seasons. They would have a new wife every four months. And what was happening is they were creating these orphans who ended up turning into criminals. So maybe the in cells lead to a revolution. But also on the other side, a bunch of fatherless orphans who run around town to town committing arson and rape and murder and theft, they create the revolution too. That's part of it for the Marxists. They want as many fatherless children as they can because they create dysfunction and suffer an unmeaningful disaster suffering that has no meaning. So there's a revolution possibly with in cells, but absolutely we've seen throughout history the overly the collapse of the nuclear family. And having free having sex outside a marriage recklessly and just creating new human beings that don't have a father, don't have any rooting in morality or or duty. I mean, if you're a kid who's born in a filous home, you kind of got a raw deal. And I'd be probably pretty fucking angry in man all the time, especially if you're a young man, you have rage. Fathers, all the studies show. Fathers teach kids primarily two things. We're straight. You know, when you're wrestling with your kid and they knock you in the nose, you kind of fit them down like, hey, man, you know, that's just like a biological thing. But at the same time, fathers also teach children empathy. And this was in reason magazine years ago. We're kind of self centered as dads. Like we think a lot about like my kid broke my drill. And I told him not to use it. And he used it when he broke it. And I told him like, dude, that drill cost me $400. You know, hard I had to work. That's where you get a mom's just still self esteem and they nurture. But dads are actually the ones that instill empathy and thinking about other people and how your actions. So we we instill restraint and empathy. And so creating fathers children by just spreading your seat everywhere without any any protections for the kids is really disastrous. It's in this society because we're not at war. We're not in a war torn hybrid, you know, technocratic tribalist society. We don't need young in cell fatherless men to go to war. Like that would have been a great group of, you know, fatherless people are great to send a war. I mean, you mentioned revolution, send them off to a foreign place and let them do a revolution there. But we don't have that right now. We're very stable society. So it's extremely disrupting to have fatherless children on the prowl. Well, yeah. I mean, fathers fatherless children tend to be, you know, the majority of the criminal element. Yes. Right. Like if you have a boatload of kids out there that don't have fathers and it's I didn't know the the piece that you referenced about empathy and and restraint. But it makes perfect sense. If you have a bunch of kids, a bunch of young guys that don't have a sense of empathy thinking about other people and how they'd feel or restraint. That is a recipe for disaster. A bunch of young guys that are just like, and we see it. You know, they've got a bunch of a bunch of ego in them. A bunch of, you know, they're full of themselves young, dumb, and full of, I think most people know. And if they don't have restraint, don't give me that look, you just dropped an F bomb. You probably need to notice. But yeah, like if they if you don't have restraint and you don't have empathy, you know, what's going to stop you from saying, oh, that guy's got something. I'm one and I'm going to go over and take it from him, you know. So yeah, that that is interesting. But as a hell to begin here, we're talking about the core. No, that's right. Yeah, well, this, but it's a useless sexual activity. Yeah. Yeah. But I think we're going to go ahead and move on to one more story. And this is another story about Ilhan Omar. I'm going to bring it up from the New York Post. Apparently rep Ilhan Omar's staff got her birthday changed officially after being elected to Congress, according to records. Representative Ilhan Omar's staff helped get her birthday change in public records once the Minnesota Democrat was elected to Congress in 2018, a switch that is since spurred frenzied accusations that she misrepresented her age to secure US citizenship. The alteration could offer a big clue as to what federal immigration agents were searching for when they rated her DC home Monday. If the Congresswoman is actually one year older than she's claimed to be, that would mean she couldn't legally have become a US citizen in 2000 critics contend. Omar's birthday had been listed in the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as October 4, 1981, as well as on reference sites such as Wikipedia and media outlets like the BBC for the entire time she served in the House and for several months into our congressional term. But the Congresswoman's staff moved to shift the date forward by one year in May 2019 after a video from a political opponent went viral that claimed Omar was fiving about her age according to emails reviewed by the post. So the argument goes her birthday was moved because she was actually 18 when her father was naturalized, which means that she wouldn't be naturalized with her father because she was an adult and she was and they changed into 17 because she had fraudulently been naturalized as an American. Now that will bring into question her eligibility to be a Congresswoman that will bring into there's also, I think Jean, Jean Shapiro was looking into her finances because one year she had something like a net worth of like $260,000 and the next year it was like 30 million and then the following year dropped down again. So that is something that people might consider an inconsistency. But it does look like the Trump DOJ is really kind of looking into Ilhan Omar for a lot of a lot of issues basically anything they can get her on. Now I do think that if the date switcheroo proves to be real and substituted, if that calls into question, you know, whether she can even stay in the country. I think everyone has a right to be critical of America in a period, but she deserves to be as scrutinized herself as she has been towards America and Americans. I mean, she has condemned our entire system. We took her in as a refugee from one of the worst and I'll say it, shithole countries in the entire world, they have the highest rates of all the cuss words today. Do you guys think by that? No, I guess it is a family. I'm just playing with you. But she has been so critical of America and she has scrutinized every aspect of it. She's been completely unfair. So the least we can do is be as fair as possible, get to the truth and hold her accountable for any violations a lot, including if she did change her birthday, do they have birth certificates in Somalia? I really don't know. That was the problem is they didn't when she came over. So a lot of it was work. I mean, this is what I heard. I'm sure there was some immigration paperwork that was filled out when she got here that they would have had to put her birthday on. Maybe they funded it. Did she claim when she came originally 1982? Did she claim asylum? Was she a refugee? Her father came and or so she was born or go ahead. Well, she was she was born in Somalia. Okay. And so she came here with her father and then was naturalized. I believe in 1999. And what was the what was the basis on him? And we're going to kill him in Somalia because he's a refugee. Ham as a refugee allegedly. They say the paperwork was destroyed because of, you know, a new regime change. If I understand, he was a responsible for a whole lot of dead people. And if he went back to Somalia, they were going to do Somalian things too. I mean, if you were just an innocent Somalian, that was like the victim of all this lawlessness and crime and violence. And you got to America. I just can't imagine ever criticizing America. I mean, maybe criticizing it in honest ways, but condemning America versus the country that you came from that you were fleeing as a refugee? I don't know. I don't think there's a lot of American refugees that are leaving America to go to other foreign countries. No, not at all. And they did. I don't know exactly how critical she's been. I don't know a lot of the things she said, but like, if you went to the Congo and then got into the government, the con we're like, look at all these lazy Congolese, these people that can't, this country sucks. Let's make it more like my homeland, you know, crazy dude. It would never be tolerated in a, there are a few foreign countries where you might get away with it. These super liberal like La Zaire, but like France, they might put up with it a little bit, but it's a very weird thing. I don't know. So she's 17 when her dag is naturalized, which she had to go through another process, then just get tagged along with her dad into becoming a citizen. Cause I generally don't like to, it's really sucks to be like, well, you went through all the work 17 years, but because three years, it's three years too early. You're not an American. But if it had been four months or three months rather, if it had been four months from now, you'd be an American like, come on, let it go. Plus or minus 11 months. Like, who cares? No. Well, I mean, there should be, I hate so by the book that we become robots. That's not cool. Yeah, but okay, you're saying plus or minus a few months. People say, okay, what's a few years? Yeah. And she, and it's one thing if she were like plus or minus a few months when she was 16 to 17 because she's still a minor. But when you're 18, you're an adult. And that means that you're responsible for your change. We were just talking about responsibility here. If she didn't, if she'd lied on paperwork as an adult, she's responsible for those lies. Right. She made the decision to falsify official government documents and lied so that way she could achieve a U.S. citizenship. So she's responsible for that. She made, she's the one that lied. She knew that she was 18. And then, you know, ostensibly if that, if the, if the, if the case is, if the government is correct in their, their allegations. Now, I've heard that a, a grand jury is actually going to decide whether she could stand trial. So this is moving forward. And this, this, the, they looked at the, the raid on her house. That was approved by a judge. So generally, when that kind of stuff happens, the government has, you know, most of their, their T's cross and their eyes dotted. So if she did lie on it as an adult, I think that it does matter, you know, she lied. And then all of the downstream consequences, like her becoming a representative for, for her district, like she's not eligible. So I think that if it was just a person, maybe I could, I could say, you know, just a person that was like living their life and, you know, working a job and going home and what have you. I think that I, I might be a little more sympathetic to the argument, but considering that she was 18 or it seems that she was 18 and then goes on to become, you know, a congressperson and to Terry's point, she's consistently critical of the United States, you know, fairly. I mean, I'm all about criticizing America. I do it sometimes, but to lie to malign, it's called sedition, actually, and we're allowing refugees to do it. We're a very generous country. I do. We're the most generous country in human history. We give away more money and we do, we give away more money and more aid than any country in all of history. We have done more to help other countries bring themselves up to a, what we consider a modern level than any other country in history. I make this argument considering the amount of power that the United States has, the, the kid gloves that we treat basically the rest of the world with is unprecedented in human history also our own citizens. We got to, we did away with the draft like in the history of tens of thousands of things. The Romans were pretty good to their citizens, but they drafted all of them in their 20s. Everybody had to go fight in the Gauls and the horror. You know, they had to live on the, on campaign for years. We did away with that, talking about treating your citizens well. It's pure volunteerism now. It's, it's a spectacular time to be alive. I agree with you Phil, because crime is one thing, but depending on what environment you're in, like if you're speeding, if you're driving recklessly, but you're on an old farm road, I can overlook it. But if you're driving recklessly in a city with a bunch of kids during a parade, you're going to jail. But this is also a deterrent, right? So, like, being in the position that she's in, this, this is the government sending an example that like, oh, what seems like a minor mistake on immigration papers, it's not a minor mistake. This is a big deal. And I think this is why you saw the raid on her home, you know, just was it over the weekend. Monday, Monday. Yeah. So there's a certain example. And that in itself is a deterrent to hopefully, you know, dissuade people from just committing immigration for us. What if the super advanced AI goes through all of the paperwork of every government official and finds every tea that wasn't crossed, every eye that wasn't dotted, every little piece of thing that was wrong and then starts prosecuting all of them? Could you imagine like 30% of the government gets indicted or laid off because of a piece of paperwork that wasn't right? And I'm not even against it. I'm just saying, can you imagine that that might happen? Save that kind of stuff for the after show because I can't talk about things like that. Things that I would enjoy and love so much like that with the proper emphasis. Like, the idea of throwing 30% of the government in jail. Oh my God. It sucks when it's easy like that. When good people made a mistake on a piece of paperwork 20 years ago. And I guess that's the debate because what Terry's saying is, well, look at her, look at her track record. She's not a good person. Her interests are not, you know, for the United States or the betterment of this country. She's critical of it. I don't even argue that she'd hates this country, you know? Period. Yeah. I do think it's interesting that so both parties have actually had populous uprisings within them. The Republican populous uprising was MAGA, make America great again. You criticize certain aspects of that, sure. But the Democrats populous uprising against their selling out to private equity and corporate America is called Democratic Socialists of America. Their populous uprising is actually America shouldn't exist and we should get rid of the Constitution. I think that discrepancy and that difference there is very interesting. The alignment, well, at least where I, there used to be an alignment, maybe MAGA has gone farther away is the fear of corporate toocracy. Like, the socialists of America seem to be concerned that we're going to end up with a corporate toocracy, a corporate government. They don't want that. Then MAGA was supposed to be like for the people, by the people, we want to take the power back from the liberal economic order, world economic forms. So there was this alignment of like concern of digital overlords, but I don't know if that's still, if that's even spoken of, like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were kind of running on the same platform in 2016. So, okay, Sean Trendy, I think it's how he pronounced his last name, Real Clear Politics. He wrote this book back in 2016 after Trump won, called The Lost Majority. And he argued essentially that the most important voting block in America is what he called the Ross Perot voter, which is these disaffected, typically white men, but they oscillate between both parties and they're the majority maker. He said basically in 2016, they were lining up behind Bernie Sanders and when they got screwed in that primary with the Democrats, they then jumped ship and went to Trump because he was talking about bringing back manufacturing in tariffs. These are Ross Perot. So anyone that would have left a Republican party in 92 to vote for Ross Perot over George H. W. Bush and didn't like Clinton, these people are still alive and they've passed on their values to their children. There's still this book. And I think those voters, those Ross Perot voters left Trump and MAGA in 2020 because of COVID. I think they came back in 2024 and I think they're a jump ball in 2028 based on what the parties represent by 2028. And the big game is going to be who wins over those those working class disaffected, rust belt type voters. Was it Ross Perot? I remember I actually was like, Dad, vote for Ross Perot in 1992. He was like, I'm voting for Clinton. I was like, I like him, but he was known for like giving up these big, you know, spreadsheets and he'd do like PowerPoint. We didn't have PowerPoint as paper, but he'd show people like economics. So big on tariffs, he hated free trade. That was his major signature issue was being against free trade. So do you think the Ross Perot voters are essentially economists economists? I think I think there's some values aspect to it, but yeah, I think there, I think that the Ross Perot voter is concerned about boys and girls sports, but they would say a lot of them would say, this is a distraction from the real economic wars that are going on and economic power. I think they are primarily concerned. They don't like there are people that are disenchanted with the Dems social and cultural agenda, but that's not enough to win all of them over. You have to have a solid economic message as well. Is this then like the, the Ron Paul, the people that fall. It's similar, very similar, very similar. There's a lot of anti-war sentiment. I mean, I get concerned with the America first thing. We were debating this because they'll say like, if I'm America first, that means don't give any other country anything. And I'm like, bro, you can give someone else money that they can go invest and bring back a return and pay you out, double what you gave them. Therefore, you put yourself first by giving them money to go make more for you and to come back and you make a profit. So America first could be fund Israel so that we make a lot more money at the homeland. That could be very America first. and you may have the American first that kind of have that the America first to have that kind of isolationist idea. A lot of times it's not a very worldly or or very deep understanding. If you're really America first, the idea of foreign aid, for instance, right? People think, Oh, America's giving money away. They're giving money away. And to a degree, it's true. But foreign aid also helps prop up the value of the dollar because the more dollars you have out there that foreign countries have, they're going to want to spend those dollars. They're going to want those dollars to have value. So that gives a value that gives a intrinsic value to the dollars. They're like, they'll, you know, there are countries where if you show up with dollars, they'll take your dollars before they'll take the local currency. Because the bat they look at the dollar and they think, Oh, that's American. That's reliable. That's more reliable than my government's money. So and again, I'm not trying to make the argument for for an aid. But if you're America first, you want what's best for America. And sometimes that's not to be an isolationist or to be only focused in words, it's to focus on the world in a way that puts America and Americans. America's interests first. And there's a lot of people that call themselves America first that think that isolationism is America first. And that's, I don't think that that's actually the case. If you're actually pro America and what's best for America, America retreating from the world isn't America first because that would leave a power vacuum. And that means that China or Russia would have more power. So America versus is more complex than just let's retreat from the world and and say only focus on what's going on inside our borders. Just yeah, I agree. You know, you could if you hoard all the food in your house and the rest of the city starts to starve. You definitely didn't put yourself first because they're going to come and eat you. So like you want to feed people so that you can be the wealthiest of a wealthy nation. I don't know. I feel like I'm a Ross pro. I'm a Ross pro voter. I'm the guy who like just looks at this. I'm unaffiliated voting. I want the best. I see the Iran war. The spiraling debt. But I see AI is a potential tool that we can use to solve it. It's kind of like the jury's out for me of who I'm going to vote for. I was just going to ask you as an unaffiliated voter or yeah, were you leaning in the midterms and then maybe even 2020 are you going to vote in the midterm? I'm in sense. What is that? I don't have any plans. Someone that looks at the technology available to us today and puts forth a step by step plan to solve the problem that they're talking about. You know, you registered to vote. Yeah. Okay. unaffiliated. Would you consider yourself a single issue voter? No, no, but right now, no, but there are levels of import for like, what's the top of the list right now? Fixing the economy, fixing the value of the dollar, improving the value of the dollar, whether through I love you so much. This is the biggest crisis our country is facing. Sorry. Go on. Oh, I'll say my species. I want to hear what you're either through enhancing domestic product GDP go up because we produce more or better or we reduce the cost that goes into the production. So I don't know what you call that gross domestic input GDI lower our GDI improve our GDP. Either both and either actually deflation. Deflate pulling money out of the economy. No, you know, if the value of the dollar, if the value of the dollar, it continues to increase, they call it deflation. If the value of the dollar goes down, it's inflation, if the value is not literally about how many are in the supply. It's more about the actual value. Okay. Yeah. And same with AI work. Similarly, there's a token input and a token output. So if you can reduce the cost of input. Well, funny enough for AI, you have to spend tokens to get an output and spend tokens to get an input. But if you can. There's so many ways to do. We can lower the cost of electricity. We can increase the value of fuel. We can make fuel more resilient. We can make fuel more different kinds of fuel. We can have Dude, I just I just need some leadership in the economy. Sorry, Terry. Wait, we're saying, well, okay. So I we've been thinking about this a lot of APP and why is it that we lower taxes, we get rid of all these regulations, but the economy still kind of sucks for about half the country, right? We have this K-shaped economy where the people that own things that have stocks that own homes, their value and net worth goes up and the people that don't own things. They're more and more priced out of the market. Like you try to save up for a $600,000 town home. Well, by the time you get the $120,000 for the down payment, guess what? It's now a million dollars, right? I were I keep saying I'm writing this. It's in the works. It's it's draft right now. I have an op-ed. I'm writing called my $300,000 treehouse. So my wife and I bought this home. It was still living in it when we only have three kids for $600,000. We're now getting like offers in the mail. We're getting phone calls and text messages offering saying your home could sell for as high as $950,000 in your neighborhood. And it's true. There are very small houses that aren't even updated that are selling for around that. And I looked at my house and I'm like, what the hell? I haven't my first of all, my house is done. Nothing but gone down in value. If you're just looking at like how it is versus when we bought it. You have eight kids now, you know, only three lots of broken stuff. I don't have a new kitchen. I don't have a new bathroom. But I did in 2019. I built this epic treehouse. It is a two story treehouse. It's got a zip line. It's Nickelodeon orange. It's awesome. I just got a tube slide on it. My kids love it. That is the only improvement to my property that I made that could justify the $300,000 in appreciation. Where this all I think comes down to Ian in 1980, right? Ronald Reagan runs on two main economic proposals, lower marginal tax rates. They looked at the marginal tax rates. And what was happening is the people in the middle tax brackets. They were saying, I'm not expanding my business. I'm not going to go make more money because then the government takes 75 cents on the dollar. And that's way too much exposure. So they lowered the marginal tax rates. The other thing Reagan ran on that a lot of people are forgotten is he ran on returning to the gold standard and opening back the gold convertibility window. Instead, what they did was they launched a gold commission. In the findings of the majority report, there were two guys on the minority port, by the way, Ron Paul and Lou Lerman, the findings of the majority report were Paul Volker and the Federal Reserve have proven that they have the political cohnas to whip inflation with higher higher interest rates. And they basically did whip inflation. So they basically made a compromise and they said, all right, as a compromise, we're going to start minting gold eagles and we're not going to tax them. So if you're an average American citizen and you want to protect yourself against inflation, you can buy these one ounce gold coins that are mined by your government. And you won't have to pay taxes on the appreciation. Well, Congress does their what they do and they screw us. They passed. They meant they're minting gold eagles, but they never remove the taxes on him. So this is my big thing. I think that the reason why we have a stagnant economy and why we have a K shaped economy right now for so many people is because we still have a messed up dollar. We don't really have a free market. If a group of a small group of 12 people at the Federal Reserve can determine what the value of our dollar is without ever taking a vote. There's no one to hold accountable when the Federal Reserve can tax us through inflation, which is what that is. Half America doesn't pay taxes because of Republican accomplishments of the tax code, but that's only half the story. They've been taxing the hell out of us through inflation. I did some math. So in 1970, my grandfather made $5,900 a year, which at the time was 35, the gold was $35 an ounce. So it was 170 ounces of gold he was making. That's for today. That's $680,000. That's how my grandfather was able to help his grandchildren afford down payments for their homes. That's how we had to have a second car. That's why they did so well. Now, it's not dollar for dollar, but it's pretty damn close because a one ounce gold coin gets you an awesome suit today, the same awesome suit. It got you in 1970. It's the exact same analogy. It's the same tunic, paracandles, and belt that you would have gotten in the ancient Rome. Yes. In a 400 ounce gold bar, that gets you the same home today. Same kick ass, awesome home. It's the gold hasn't changed the value. The dollar has. And what's happened is, it's okay. So my grandfather made 170 ounces of gold. The average American today makes 15 ounces of gold. They stole 90% of our value of our dollar in our wealth. They stole our bank accounts. They stole our paychecks. And the most deceitful thing about it all was as they were taking away the value, they gave us lots more dollars. But that was just monopoly money, basically. So they, I think this is the big crisis. The first political party that addresses the dollar. The Dems could take power. But if they don't fix the dollar, they're just going to screw up even worse. The more spending you do, the more stimulus you do tax cuts at this point, spending a child tax credit. It's really just redistribution because you're not actually creating more value. You're just taking away from those that own assets and giving it to the people that don't and you kind of have to if you don't have a stable dollar. So I don't know what the exact solution is. We're embarking on finding out what that is. But that's what I've been obsessed with for the past three months. Every time solution is going to be print more money. What's that the government's going to be solution is going to be pretty step on it. The gas. But the, I've been concerned with the Federal Reserve system for 16, 17 years. And I think Kennedy got killed because he was like, we're going to get rid of it. And it's like, okay, it's, It basically goes through the bank for international settlements in Switzerland. They set it up after World War II, you know, with the liberal economic order, spearheaded by the American military and industrial complex, but like, how do we on weave from that and stay alive in the process? Okay, okay, so first of all, there's gonna be a correction of some sort, period. The bond markets either gonna do it or our adversaries are gonna withdraw from the dollar, we'll get rid of the dollars as the reserve currency. Something will happen regardless of what decisions we make as Americans. But I think a very easy first step would be to start, you know, Texas has this goal depository where people in Texas can actually open up accounts there, they can deposit cash, but it then gets immediately converted to gold. You get debit cards, you can use those in real time. If you just remove the taxes on gold, you have a serious check on the Federal Reserve's ability to print unlimited dollars, 'cause they have to factor in how many people are gonna change their dollars into these gold accounts. We gotta go to super chats right now, so smash the like button, share the show with all your friends, head on over to rumble.com so you can watch the after show, which is coming up in just about 10 minutes or so, and go head on over to timcast.com, become a member of our discord, so you can call in and talk to our guests, you can ask us silly questions. It's a great time in there. There's a bowl load of people, it's only 20,000 people there have been marriages, boyfriends, girlfriends, kids have been conceived because they met in the timcast discord, so head on over to timcast.com, and become a member of our right now, we're gonna go to your super chats, and Xavier VT says, you just use ID verification to justify this in spite of the fact that ID verification is being used for mass surveillance and keeps leaking people's private information and being abused. I think they're talking about your take on. - Let's just dispel an entire myth. There is no privacy online, these companies know exactly where you are at all times, they know where you spend your eight hours during the day, they know where you spend your eight hours at night, which means they know where you work and where you sleep, and just those two factors alone, they know who you are, they have a very good idea of who you are. There is no online privacy, and these companies are worth trillions of dollars because they know who you are and how to market to you. They know when you're pregnant before you do, what I have advocated for with age verification, first of all, it's illegal to retain any data. It is a simple over 18 or not over 18. There's no retention of data. All of the legislation that I've supported, that for age verification for protecting myers online, is actually increasing the amount of privacy protections online. It is illegal for anyone to retain that data, if they do retain it, you can sue them and make lots of money off it. So I just have to always, there's these groups of people, and they're very concerned about online privacy, and I don't blame them, but you need to understand that everyone has what's called a mobile advertiser identification number, and it tracks you everywhere you go, it tracks every website you visit, they know all the bad stuff you're watching, they know how long you're staying on that porn site, they know which scene you're rewinding, they know everything. So clean up your act online, if you don't want people to know about it, 'cause they're already tracking it through the private sector, you should be very concerned, and you should actually support our efforts to increase these privacy protections, making it illegal for these companies to retain any sort of identification data on you. The mobile advertising ID is also known as MADE. Yes. Oh, yeah. Different MADE. Are you concerned that an administration's gonna come in and be like hyper-theocratic or like puritanic and go arrest people for doing debauchery? No, no. These don't apply, these are people are still able access pornography, they just have to verify, by the way, you don't have to upload your photo ID, you can ask your consumer questions to verify that you're over 18. There's like different hand movements you can actually move, they AI can help us actually, has actually been helping us figure out who's over 18 and who's not in order to help them access the website. So you can actually do this without violating anyone's privacy. The, this is the common ground. This is to say, all right, we're gonna allow online pornography to exist, but in order to be a website and make money off of this, you have to verify that the people that you're delivering this pornography to are over 18 and not children. All right, so, Andrew one, was Andrew one, two, three says, Ian looks like a, looks like boredom everybody talks about the power of AI. Oh my God, dude, as we're talking about online privacy, I'm like, pardon me, is like open up, open up, give me the ring, open up, the, I have so on is now awakened, it sees all. Speak of the same color hair. And then, but then the other part of me is like, no, we need to be, you need anonymity on the internet. I built minds for a reason with free software, open source, and your ability to be encrypted as you travel through the data webs, because that machine can twist you and snap your neck off. And like, they can cut your bank account off tomorrow. They can literally take all your money tomorrow, unless you've got it hidden away somewhere. - Gold coins in your basement. - I get, yeah, yeah. And then if they like fill the bond, you can't sell gold coins. If you catch them trying to sell them, take them from them, you can't have that. Like, it's crazy how what they could do to you if they know who you are and where you are. So that's why I'm big on anonymity. And it gets me nervous about like IDs. But there are ways to do that through like peer identification, where you don't actually give your ID. It's just enough outside things can tell that it's you. So real quick, we already have these age verification procedures in place for alcohol websites, for marijuana websites, for nicotine websites. And what happens is they use essentially third party age verifiers. And those age verifiers just put a cookie that says you're an adult on your phone. So then you can access these sites once you verify that you're over 18, period. - Discord just rolled out an update. And the way they verified if you were an adult or not, is they looked at your history. How long you've been on the platform? What kind of servers you were in, I guess your chat history, the language you would use. And that's how they determined if you were above 18 or not. A lot of people feared that when they were rolling in these new guardrails for verification, they'd have to upload your ID, but that wasn't the case. So there's something we're dealing with right now with Tim Kass. I mean, some of the fans in our, we have a Discord server, some of the fans, you know, got locked out for a little bit, because they're like, ah, we'd be not sure you're an adult. We think you're a kid and then, you know, cut off access. - And I'm like, some print, but this is just more biometric data, I don't know. J-T-E-Zero 7-0 says, seven says, "Film, Michuga song, the demon's name is surveillance from 2012, basically speaks on all of this." You should play the lyrics for everyone. Job for a cowboy was big on this also. Embedded is spot on. I'm a big fan of Michuga, but I'm not actually familiar with that song, so I have to take a look. Let's see. Thomas says, "I just listened to a great podcast, maybe God pod with scientist Dr. James Tour, who was addressed using AI with a biblical worldview. He'd be a great guest on the Tim Poole show." - He would be. We've actually had it lined up at one point about four years ago. I'm working on documentary, James Tour. I was just down at Rice University, eight months ago, or six months ago, with the. Kevin has been having, it's challenging for him to put it together, 'cause he's like, I don't even know what half these scientists are saying, so it's kind of on me. And I thought that it was gonna get edited in the bag. Okay, Carter, you were gonna. - Yeah, now we're doing a score with it too, but yeah, Kevin's kind of like. At a loss of like, how do I make this make sense? - I don't understand. - I don't want to put anything on him, 'cause he's doing a spectacle. - Oh, he is. - That's right, Kevin's like. - I kind of took on the responsibility of doing it, so it's at my footsteps right now, it's at my feet. You know, I got to. - Just feel like there's movement, though. - Do you think, you know, you've just talked about your AI set up and how crazy it's getting. Do you think it could help you get this documentary? - Yeah, I've actually told Kevin that I'm like, run it through anything, any clips you don't understand, run them through an AI to have it summarize for you. He's like, oh, it's like. If you could probably, if it took, if your AI took a look at the project as a whole, it could probably storyboard for you and tell you exactly what moment should go away now. - But, you know, that kind of bothers me, 'cause it's like, oh, you're phoning it in. - I don't want to shovel out shit. I want to make sure whatever we do is the best we can do. And, but that doesn't mean that you can't use AI. AI's fantastic at lining things up for you. - I've used it recently, you know, we've had the Tim Pohl show going, and I can't watch every episode. I tried to, but I can't always. So, we run the transcript through AI, and we ask, you know, we set different parameters and say, identify some moments, give us the timestamps in. It helps. It helps for when, like, if I don't have the option of watching the show and taking handwritten notes, well, it's a great tool, you know, to help fill that gap. So, interesting. Let's see. Let's see, hands point pick says, I am from the government, and I am here to help you. Well, the market will correct itself if you don't give legal immunity. He goes on to say, he is putting his faith in government, not to be corrupt, don't give all the power to the government, and the finishes with, the market was not working because of courts, because courts treated to section, section 230 as immunity from lawsuits, that has just been broken by the ninth circuit. - I agree with that. I also, I mean, you can go back in time to John D. Rockefeller, who was doing anti-competitive market practices. So, at a minimum, you need the government to make sure that there are not anti-competitive. You know, John Rockefeller was basically paying the trains, a consistent rate, and he was forcing his agreement, he basically said, I will make sure you have consistent oil deliveries from here to kingdom come. However, to guarantee this regular, income, you have to collect extra money from my competitors and pay me that. So he got paid premiums from his competitors. That's anti-competitive behavior and these big tech companies, all these major corporations, they're doing the same stuff. And we just, you're always going to need government to come in in some way to make sure there's a fair and level playing field. And that's not Terry Schilling, that is Thomas Jefferson, that is James Madison, that's George Washington. You know, we just had an event at the National Archives and we had a personally annotated copy of the constitution from George Washington, where he's writing concur, you know, he's writing his thoughts on it. George Washington agreed with me. So like if you want to say that government is the root of all of our problems and that the private sector is going to solve everything, well, take it up with George Washington because they all believe that you found a government to secure your rights, the private sector, there are criminals in the private sector, there are criminals who will hurt you in your family and take advantage of you and secure too much power. You need the government. It's not a terrible thing. It can be a bad thing, but not all government is bad. All right. Smash the like button, share the show though, everyone you know, do it. Terry, tell people where they can find you. Schilling 1776 on X and Instagram and all social media platforms and check out American Prinsles Project. We're the special interest arm of the American family, Americanprinslesproject.org. You guys can follow me at Kellyn PDL. I know I might not be familiar face for you guys, I work behind the scenes. Thanks. Thank you guys for letting me join the panel tonight. Follow me there. Follow Tim Pool Show. Tim Pool Show everywhere. One-on-one interviews. Tim Pool. Plus Guest. They've been awesome. Go check it out. Follow me at Ian Crossland on X. I guess that would be Twitter, Instagram and YouTube and subscribe to me all over the place. See you. Then you can follow me at Carter Banks on X and Carter Banks official on Instagram. I actually did make a music video that I storyboarded with AI. It was partially helpful, but it's also about Master Valence and you can check that out at this QR code if I can get it to play. There you go. And it's not playing, but just go to Trash House Records at, or at Trash House Records on YouTube to check that out. I am Philip remains on Twix. The band is all that remains. You can check out all that remains on Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, YouTube Spotify and Deezer stick around for the Rumble After Show starting right now. [Music]