Latest / Yaron Brook Show / AMA & Hangout with Contributors (Aug 2026) | Yaron Brook Show

Transcript

AMA & Hangout with Contributors (Aug 2026) | Yaron Brook Show · Yaron Brook Show

• 0:06
  Speaker 1: Though radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational self interest and
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: individual rights.
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: This is the Yiran Brook Show.
• 1:00
  Speaker 3: Can whenever you say something, oh, okay.
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: Hello, it's nice to.
• 1:08
  Speaker 3: Be on the air, give me a second. One second.
• 1:33
  Speaker 3: It was in Facebook story in Spanish. I don't know
• 1:40
  Speaker 3: what it was. Awesome music.
• 1:45
  Speaker 4: Yeah, there you go. Okay, that's good. What did we say?
• 1:51
  Speaker 4: Let me just see what the settings are again. We've
• 1:55
  Speaker 4: got okay on second? No no, no, no, okay? So output
• 2:03
  Speaker 4: is it is?
• 2:11
  Speaker 3: On okay? One two three? All right. I think we're
• 2:24
  Speaker 3: a ready welcome everybody to Ama. Off to a rocky
• 2:34
  Speaker 3: start with all my technical issues. I think the result,
• 2:39
  Speaker 3: but I'm not one hundred percent sure, so I guess.
• 2:45
  Speaker 3: I guess we'll see. And today we have a lot
• 2:48
  Speaker 3: of people attending, attending via zooms, so thank you all
• 2:53
  Speaker 3: for joining me. So I'm in Portugal. I'll be here
• 2:56
  Speaker 3: for the next ten dy eight ten days, so I'll
• 2:58
  Speaker 3: be doing shows here. Tomorrow we will have the Nicos
• 3:04
  Speaker 3: Nico show, so stay tuned for that. Let me see it.
• 3:10
  Speaker 3: I can see the chat. I assume you guys who
• 3:13
  Speaker 3: are not in the zoom can hear, and you can
• 3:16
  Speaker 3: hear everybody, So we'll be in for the next ten days.
• 3:20
  Speaker 3: Tomorrow Nicos will be I think same time as today,
• 3:25
  Speaker 3: we'll have the Nico Show, and then next week we
• 3:27
  Speaker 3: should have programs. We won't have a program on Monday
• 3:33
  Speaker 3: and Tuesday, but then Wednesday, Wednesday and the rest of
• 3:36
  Speaker 3: the week we should have programs. On Monday, I'm flying
• 3:39
  Speaker 3: to no Way to do a give a talk in
• 3:42
  Speaker 3: no Way, so I'll be I'll be gone at reasonable
• 3:46
  Speaker 3: hours East Coast.
• 3:47
  Speaker 2: Time, and then we'll be here.
• 3:50
  Speaker 3: And then from here I travel to Spain, and Spain
• 3:53
  Speaker 3: I've got I rented an office. I'll be there for
• 3:56
  Speaker 3: a month, and we'll have an office in Barcelona, so
• 3:58
  Speaker 3: we'll be able to do the shows from there, and
• 4:00
  Speaker 3: hopefully by then I will have figured out this new
• 4:04
  Speaker 3: setup that I've got which should allow me to do
• 4:07
  Speaker 3: everything I do from home from here. But it's being
• 4:14
  Speaker 3: a little bumpy as of today. All right, let's start
• 4:20
  Speaker 3: with our panel.
• 4:22
  Speaker 5: So let's start with with Jennifer.
• 4:31
  Speaker 6: Jennifer really, yeah, you know anarchists. Do you think anarchists
• 4:37
  Speaker 6: are anarchists? Because they, in theory think maybe having a
• 4:42
  Speaker 6: government is a good idea if they stay doing their
• 4:47
  Speaker 6: proper job, but they they always get corrupted and they
• 4:50
  Speaker 6: always end up growing and messing it up.
• 4:52
  Speaker 7: So because it doesn't work.
• 4:54
  Speaker 8: In practice that you have to end up having force
• 4:59
  Speaker 8: into the mar and it can't be a monopoly and
• 5:01
  Speaker 8: the government can't have a monopoly, or because they just
• 5:05
  Speaker 8: think it's not a good idea to begin with.
• 5:09
  Speaker 3: I mean, I think the two are related, right, So
• 5:11
  Speaker 3: I think they think it's a bad it's not a
• 5:13
  Speaker 3: good idea to begin with. And partially why they think
• 5:16
  Speaker 3: it's not a good idea to begin with is because
• 5:19
  Speaker 3: they view they view government monopoly as inherently. Inherently, it's
• 5:30
  Speaker 3: going to break down so it can be sustained. There's
• 5:34
  Speaker 3: no principle to sustain it. And the only way anything
• 5:39
  Speaker 3: works in the real world, the only way anything works
• 5:41
  Speaker 3: well in the real world is competition. And therefore, if
• 5:48
  Speaker 3: the government is going to work well, the rationalities, you
• 5:52
  Speaker 3: need competition for the government. So it's force utalitatory force
• 5:56
  Speaker 3: going to work well, you need competition and retalitatory force,
• 6:00
  Speaker 3: and that's the only way. That's the only way they
• 6:03
  Speaker 3: can conceive of it working well.
• 6:09
  Speaker 7: They basically don't understand the nature of force. That's basically
• 6:11
  Speaker 7: what it is.
• 6:14
  Speaker 3: They don't understand a lot of things. They don't understand
• 6:17
  Speaker 3: the nature of force. Yes, and as a consequence, they
• 6:21
  Speaker 3: don't understand the market is the place that doesn't have force.
• 6:25
  Speaker 3: But more importantly is they don't understand the nature of
• 6:27
  Speaker 3: objectivity objectivity. So they don't understand the nature of objective
• 6:32
  Speaker 3: law and objective procedures in law, and they don't understand
• 6:37
  Speaker 3: how that, you know, the objectivity breaks down once you
• 6:43
  Speaker 3: introduce you know, competing competing law enforcement agencies. They cannot
• 6:52
  Speaker 3: be objectivity in the situation like that, thank you, So
• 6:59
  Speaker 3: they you know, one of the reasons we think the
• 7:03
  Speaker 3: governmnopoly can work is because we believe in the objective law,
• 7:08
  Speaker 3: and we you know, based on individual rights, and the
• 7:12
  Speaker 3: objective law can exist and should exist, and it's important
• 7:15
  Speaker 3: that it exists.
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: And they don't get that whole conception.
• 7:20
  Speaker 3: So for them, all the rules of engagement like we have,
• 7:25
  Speaker 3: like think of all the laws you have today on
• 7:28
  Speaker 3: what evidence you can being to court and what evidence
• 7:30
  Speaker 3: you can can't, all in an effort to try to
• 7:33
  Speaker 3: make the proceedings objective. And they think that that somehow
• 7:40
  Speaker 3: can be achieved through a competition or think about how
• 7:45
  Speaker 3: a policeman behaves right. Not ice that don't behave this way,
• 7:49
  Speaker 3: but how policeman behaves right. They have to redo your rights.
• 7:53
  Speaker 3: They can't do certain things to you. There's a whole
• 7:55
  Speaker 3: process right and that doesn't exist if this competition, my
• 8:00
  Speaker 3: post is gonna be different than your process. Who there's
• 8:03
  Speaker 3: no arbiture, there's no uh, you know, mechanism by which
• 8:08
  Speaker 3: to uh to judicate if I if I misbehaved them.
• 8:14
  Speaker 3: Market takes care of it. Competition takes care of it.
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: People.
• 8:17
  Speaker 3: You know, people leave my agency because they don't like
• 8:20
  Speaker 3: the way I read them they writes, but you know,
• 8:23
  Speaker 3: if they are such a thing as race. So it's
• 8:26
  Speaker 3: those two issues that nature, force and objectivity. All right,
• 8:33
  Speaker 3: Thanks Jeff, Michael.
• 8:38
  Speaker 7: Now you're ron. Nice to chat with you.
• 8:41
  Speaker 9: I've been a viewer for many years and actually introduced
• 8:44
  Speaker 9: my cousin to your show, and I've really enjoyed following
• 8:47
  Speaker 9: the Iran war coverage.
• 8:50
  Speaker 7: And as a.
• 8:51
  Speaker 9: Birthday gift, he actually sponsored my Patreon membership so I
• 8:55
  Speaker 9: could join and participate in this oh Anything conversation.
• 8:59
  Speaker 3: So welcome, Michael, yep, thank you.
• 9:03
  Speaker 7: I wanted to ask a little bit about Venezuela. When
• 9:07
  Speaker 7: you spoke about Maduro.
• 9:09
  Speaker 9: Being captured, you mentioned that, well, in the past, the
• 9:14
  Speaker 9: US ship have gone to war when the oil industry
• 9:17
  Speaker 9: was nationalized. And I don't know if I agree with
• 9:21
  Speaker 9: that one hundred percent, because of course we do need
• 9:23
  Speaker 9: to defend property rights. But where do you draw the
• 9:26
  Speaker 9: line between a US company or if an individual citizen
• 9:31
  Speaker 9: had a house in Venezuela and that was attacked or
• 9:35
  Speaker 9: their rights were violated by the government.
• 9:37
  Speaker 7: There where's that dividing line.
• 9:40
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, it's it's tricky, right, So it has
• 9:45
  Speaker 3: to be. So the two issues. One is it has
• 9:49
  Speaker 3: to be a violation of property rights, and then it
• 9:52
  Speaker 3: has to be a vital national interest. It has to
• 9:54
  Speaker 3: be something that is crucially important to the United States,
• 9:59
  Speaker 3: to a enemy, to the livelihood of people in the
• 10:02
  Speaker 3: United States. And energy is clearly something that is vitally important.
• 10:08
  Speaker 3: And of course Venezuela is not the example. The real
• 10:10
  Speaker 3: example that I know Lenard is spoken about, and I
• 10:13
  Speaker 3: think I ran mentioned is the nationalization of the oil
• 10:17
  Speaker 3: in the Middle East, which and now was before we
• 10:21
  Speaker 3: had oil in the US. So at some point you
• 10:25
  Speaker 3: can say, you know, we don't really need it we
• 10:29
  Speaker 3: don't really need the oil because there's plenty of oil
• 10:31
  Speaker 3: in the world that it's not that big of a deal.
• 10:34
  Speaker 3: And the burden of risk is on you the company, right,
• 10:39
  Speaker 3: they nationalize are tough, which is true for most things.
• 10:43
  Speaker 3: When you're dealing overseas, right you're under somebody else's law.
• 10:47
  Speaker 3: Do the research. But particularly in the Middle East in
• 10:50
  Speaker 3: nineteen fifties sixty seventies, there was very little oil in
• 10:56
  Speaker 3: the US, or at least we didn't think there was
• 10:57
  Speaker 3: a lot, and the bulk of oil was coming from there. Globally,
• 11:03
  Speaker 3: it was essential to you know, the preservation of life
• 11:10
  Speaker 3: in America. And think about how the Arabs used it
• 11:13
  Speaker 3: in nineteen seventy three and then in nineteen seventy nine.
• 11:17
  Speaker 2: When they had an oil and ball go in the
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: United States.
• 11:19
  Speaker 3: So you know, they used the fact that they nationalized
• 11:22
  Speaker 3: the oil against Americans.
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: So it's a combination of property rights.
• 11:28
  Speaker 3: So there has to be a real violation and you know,
• 11:33
  Speaker 3: real national interests, real national security interests. So and of
• 11:37
  Speaker 3: course that's always abused. So it's right to be skeptical
• 11:41
  Speaker 3: of arguments like that.
• 11:44
  Speaker 10: Thank you, sure, Daniel, you muted, Yeah, I can't hear you,
• 11:57
  Speaker 10: but this time it's justified.
• 11:58
  Speaker 3: Okay, this time.
• 12:03
  Speaker 11: I'm wondering. I know it's a little early to talk
• 12:06
  Speaker 11: about post Trump, but when he is gone, will the
• 12:11
  Speaker 11: next president likely say, if Trump can get away with that,
• 12:15
  Speaker 11: just wait till you see what I can get away
• 12:17
  Speaker 11: with or are they more likely to go back and say, no,
• 12:21
  Speaker 11: let's be a little more constitutional about this. And if
• 12:24
  Speaker 11: it's the former, what can we do, what can we
• 12:26
  Speaker 11: start thinking about to to rent that from getting the
• 12:31
  Speaker 11: right person to get the right person into office?
• 12:33
  Speaker 3: I guess yeah, I mean it's almost. I mean, government
• 12:36
  Speaker 3: almost never gives back power right once it's once it's attained.
• 12:41
  Speaker 3: So you might get a president who says I'm not
• 12:45
  Speaker 3: going to expand on what Trump did, but it's almost,
• 12:49
  Speaker 3: but it's very unlikely that they say I'm going to
• 12:52
  Speaker 3: do less than what Trump did and then the next one.
• 12:56
  Speaker 3: You know, but there's no guarantee of the one following
• 12:59
  Speaker 3: that following that. So once you said in you bar,
• 13:02
  Speaker 3: what happens the same? So the same with you know,
• 13:07
  Speaker 3: once they know that they can get that they can
• 13:09
  Speaker 3: do stuff, they continue to do it. And then when
• 13:14
  Speaker 3: when the next crisis happens and the next really bad
• 13:17
  Speaker 3: president happens, then you get them pushing the envelope. What
• 13:21
  Speaker 3: do we do about it? God, I mean, you would
• 13:26
  Speaker 3: hope that the court, the courts are doing some about it.
• 13:28
  Speaker 3: Hopefully in the next two years they'll continue to do
• 13:30
  Speaker 3: it and they'll do more. But they haven't been. They've
• 13:33
  Speaker 3: been far from consistent with regard to that. But what
• 13:39
  Speaker 3: we need to do about it is talk more about
• 13:42
  Speaker 3: the you know, the role and the importance of the constitution.
• 13:46
  Speaker 3: Why the Constitution is the way it is, why we
• 13:48
  Speaker 3: have separation of powers, why we don't have kind of
• 13:53
  Speaker 3: a runaway executive, why it's so difficult to pass laws,
• 13:56
  Speaker 3: what's the role of the courts. We really need a
• 13:59
  Speaker 3: better conceptualize all of that and better ed you can.
• 14:03
  Speaker 11: Trump is the poster child of this of what you
• 14:06
  Speaker 11: should why you want a constitution right, not that it's
• 14:09
  Speaker 11: protecting us right now.
• 14:10
  Speaker 3: Yeah, he's the whole reason. Well, it's protecting us somewhat, right.
• 14:14
  Speaker 3: So he couldn't get away with getting rid of both
• 14:17
  Speaker 3: rights citizenship. He didn't get away with the tariffs, although
• 14:20
  Speaker 3: he's trying other tariffs. And I think that I think
• 14:23
  Speaker 3: there's a chance that Supreme Court will overrule these ones
• 14:25
  Speaker 3: as well, and then he'll go to the next you know,
• 14:28
  Speaker 3: who knows what he'll do. There's a few other things
• 14:32
  Speaker 3: that the courts have knocked down that that he tried,
• 14:35
  Speaker 3: you know, Biden, try to you know, a loan, a
• 14:38
  Speaker 3: student loan forgiveness out of nowhere, no legislation, and the
• 14:41
  Speaker 3: court said no. So the courts do do their function.
• 14:45
  Speaker 3: It takes time, and they and they don't do it consistently,
• 14:48
  Speaker 3: and they don't always do it, but they do it.
• 14:51
  Speaker 3: But what we need to teach people is do all
• 14:52
  Speaker 3: of the constitution. Why we need presidents to respect the constitution,
• 14:57
  Speaker 3: and really what you really need now is to resurrect
• 15:04
  Speaker 3: the Senate in the House. Like the Senate in the
• 15:07
  Speaker 3: House have become irrelevant.
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: They've they've they.
• 15:10
  Speaker 3: Don't pass laws, they don't challenge the president. They're completely partisan.
• 15:16
  Speaker 3: The you know, what we need is much more by
• 15:20
  Speaker 3: partisan and much more a Congress that is willing to
• 15:26
  Speaker 3: do stuff like for example, Congress could right.
• 15:29
  Speaker 2: Now withdraw whatever.
• 15:32
  Speaker 3: Caraff authority they had given the president in the past.
• 15:38
  Speaker 3: They could just do that, or they could rule they
• 15:40
  Speaker 3: could vote that the Iran war was unconstitutional because he
• 15:44
  Speaker 3: didn't you know, he didn't go to Congress to ask permission,
• 15:47
  Speaker 3: although so they could do stuff. And we need to
• 15:52
  Speaker 3: vote in senators and congressmen who willing to challenge their
• 15:57
  Speaker 3: own political party and hold willing to challenge the president,
• 16:02
  Speaker 3: and who respect the Constitution. Just that. Other than that,
• 16:07
  Speaker 3: everything's like, thanks Daniel Adam.
• 16:16
  Speaker 12: With respect to Congress respecting the Constitution. The Senate has
• 16:25
  Speaker 12: the authority and the duty to examine all our foreign
• 16:33
  Speaker 12: treaties and ratified those that it approusal. However, the Senate
• 16:42
  Speaker 12: never took up the Buddhapest Memorandum or made it the
• 16:48
  Speaker 12: law in the United States, never ratified it. And this
• 16:53
  Speaker 12: gave Trump a lot of room to side with Russia
• 16:57
  Speaker 12: in the war and Ukraine. Will you comment on that.
• 17:04
  Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, let me just get this whole set up. Yeah,
• 17:11
  Speaker 3: that's still yeah, I mean, I think that's that's right.
• 17:17
  Speaker 3: I mean, the reality is that Congress doesn't do its
• 17:22
  Speaker 3: job and it doesn't do its trouble with pign policy,
• 17:24
  Speaker 3: and you know, we never we gave Ukraine certain guarantees
• 17:32
  Speaker 3: and uh, because they're not you know, uh, yeah, they're
• 17:42
  Speaker 3: not ratifying the Senate. They're not always going to say law.
• 17:45
  Speaker 3: But that that's not law. They're not an official treaty,
• 17:48
  Speaker 3: right because they won't ratified, They haven't become an official
• 17:51
  Speaker 3: treaty of the United States. The present can ignore it,
• 17:54
  Speaker 3: basically ignore it. And and uh, and has this you
• 17:59
  Speaker 3: know way too much? You know, we know he's way
• 18:05
  Speaker 3: too friendly to Russia. And although you know, there's some
• 18:11
  Speaker 3: reason to believe that that's changing a little bit. I mean,
• 18:13
  Speaker 3: but it does look like Trump has shifted a little
• 18:18
  Speaker 3: bit towards Zolensky, or at least is not putting as
• 18:21
  Speaker 3: much pressure in Ukraine as he was a year ago
• 18:25
  Speaker 3: or six months ago.
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: So it seems to be he's he.
• 18:28
  Speaker 3: Seems to be a little fed up with Putin, so whatever,
• 18:34
  Speaker 3: whatever it is. But but yes, I think the Senate
• 18:38
  Speaker 3: needs to take on the farm policy responsibility that it
• 18:42
  Speaker 3: has and it's it has according to our constitution, and
• 18:46
  Speaker 3: it does not does not do it, right uh And
• 18:51
  Speaker 3: and I think that that allows presidents to basically run
• 18:56
  Speaker 3: farm policy with no checks and balance. Now, the president
• 18:59
  Speaker 3: has a lot of authority when it comes to phone policy,
• 19:02
  Speaker 3: according to the Constitution, but not as much as if
• 19:08
  Speaker 3: they if Congress is just silent on phone policy, right,
• 19:14
  Speaker 3: Thank you, Thanks Adam Kolby. Hello, Hey, all right, you're on.
• 19:22
  Speaker 13: I got a I got a big one.
• 19:23
  Speaker 3: For you, Okay, alrighty So.
• 19:26
  Speaker 13: I I don't I don't remember where I heard it
• 19:28
  Speaker 13: from you, but it was one of your videos sometime
• 19:32
  Speaker 13: a while ago. You were talking about how you were
• 19:35
  Speaker 13: talking to the Bahamas or something like that, about buying
• 19:37
  Speaker 13: island and like making some sort of country or something
• 19:41
  Speaker 13: or something like that. Yep, So how come why don't
• 19:47
  Speaker 13: we just make a town, make a town and get
• 19:51
  Speaker 13: rid of property taxes and I don't know, make it
• 19:54
  Speaker 13: dead in something.
• 19:57
  Speaker 3: Well what a town do? I mean, like you'd still
• 20:02
  Speaker 3: pay You'd still be under federal law, you'd still be
• 20:04
  Speaker 3: at a state law, you'd still pay all those taxes.
• 20:09
  Speaker 3: A town, we'd you know, it's small, I don't you know.
• 20:13
  Speaker 2: I don't know how many people want to live in
• 20:14
  Speaker 2: a small town.
• 20:16
  Speaker 3: You know, job opportunities are limited, You can pay no
• 20:21
  Speaker 3: property taxes. I mean Florida is now doing away with
• 20:25
  Speaker 3: property taxes. Of all the offensive things out there, yeah,
• 20:28
  Speaker 3: property tax is one of them, but it's it's relatively small.
• 20:33
  Speaker 2: I guess you could have.
• 20:34
  Speaker 3: No public schools. I don't know if the state would
• 20:37
  Speaker 3: allow that it would the state allow I think as
• 20:40
  Speaker 3: that state law, so you could you could have a
• 20:44
  Speaker 3: public school ban on everything. I just think the benefits
• 20:49
  Speaker 3: are a marginal and the costs are high. There's a
• 20:55
  Speaker 3: huge advantage in living in a city, even if you
• 20:59
  Speaker 3: have to pay pop Texas.
• 21:04
  Speaker 12: I should add that in California, the private cities do
• 21:09
  Speaker 12: not have government schools and premises, and they generally assumed
• 21:17
  Speaker 12: that the parents will provide.
• 21:21
  Speaker 3: For their children's schooling. Yeah, but there's kids, Their kids
• 21:25
  Speaker 3: say eligible'll go to private schools outside of the private city, right,
• 21:30
  Speaker 3: So most of the parents still send their kids to
• 21:32
  Speaker 3: public schools just outside of the city limits. So I
• 21:38
  Speaker 3: mean the neighborhood I was living in in Arche County
• 21:40
  Speaker 3: was privately incorporated, so it wasn't part of any other city,
• 21:45
  Speaker 3: but there was a public school close by, So you
• 21:49
  Speaker 3: could create something like that. I just don't see the
• 21:52
  Speaker 3: huge upsides. And then how do you prevent people from
• 21:58
  Speaker 3: moving there who don't I don't agree with our ideas
• 22:01
  Speaker 3: and ultimately change the governance to a system that we
• 22:06
  Speaker 3: don't like.
• 22:10
  Speaker 14: It.
• 22:11
  Speaker 2: There's just a lot of work to be done.
• 22:13
  Speaker 3: Still.
• 22:15
  Speaker 13: I just feel like if like the biggest thing about
• 22:18
  Speaker 13: it would be to make the example the model for
• 22:21
  Speaker 13: other people, but nobody, because like, I know, you're going
• 22:23
  Speaker 13: around and talking to people and you're telling them about it,
• 22:26
  Speaker 13: but most people are like they want to see it, you.
• 22:30
  Speaker 2: Know, Yeah, I mean I don't buy that, because.
• 22:36
  Speaker 3: You know, everybody's seen what socialism does and they still
• 22:40
  Speaker 3: want more socialism. Everybody's seen how well capitalism worked in
• 22:45
  Speaker 3: America in the late nineteenth century, in Hong Kong in
• 22:47
  Speaker 3: the twentieth century, and they still hate capitalism.
• 22:51
  Speaker 2: I just don't buy that.
• 22:52
  Speaker 3: What's missing as an example, and I'm not sure you
• 22:56
  Speaker 3: can the example can work at a city level so.
• 23:01
  Speaker 2: As to.
• 23:03
  Speaker 3: You don't be a meaningful difference from others at a
• 23:06
  Speaker 3: town level, to be meaningfully different than other towns to
• 23:10
  Speaker 3: serve as that example like maybe a country, but even
• 23:14
  Speaker 3: a country. People don't hate capitalism because they don't think
• 23:18
  Speaker 3: it'll work. It's the point I've been making for twenty
• 23:24
  Speaker 3: years is people don't resent capitalism because they don't think
• 23:29
  Speaker 3: it'll work. They resent capitalism because they think it's imall
• 23:32
  Speaker 3: and having an example another example of it is not
• 23:36
  Speaker 3: going to convince them otherwise, I think, Thanks Kobe, all right, Zach.
• 23:51
  Speaker 15: Hey get afternoon, doctor Brook. I recently listened to The
• 23:56
  Speaker 15: Real Lincoln. I think you've mentioned it before and didn't
• 23:58
  Speaker 15: have a very high opinion of it, and.
• 24:00
  Speaker 3: I'm a little skeptical.
• 24:03
  Speaker 15: But it got me thinking that the author seems to
• 24:05
  Speaker 15: portray Lincoln as just a warmonger just trying to grab power.
• 24:10
  Speaker 15: So that got me thinking, you know, what, were if
• 24:14
  Speaker 15: any attempts to maybe use diplomacy or financial incentives to
• 24:21
  Speaker 15: avoid war. The author really didn't cover any of that,
• 24:25
  Speaker 15: so but it got me curious, were any attempts made
• 24:27
  Speaker 15: like that prior to the Civil War? Did Lincoln do
• 24:30
  Speaker 15: anything like that? Do you have any insights into that?
• 24:32
  Speaker 3: Well, I don't think Lincoln did anything. And remember, you know,
• 24:35
  Speaker 3: the Civil War was started by the South. The South
• 24:37
  Speaker 3: fire the first shot, so it wasn't like Lincoln actually
• 24:45
  Speaker 3: initiated the war and went all in to liberate slaves.
• 24:50
  Speaker 3: But there were lots of attempts in the early nineteenth
• 24:54
  Speaker 3: century all the way up to the eighteen sixties to
• 24:58
  Speaker 3: try to convince the South to a band and slavery,
• 25:01
  Speaker 3: and there was an entire abolition movement dedicated to that,
• 25:06
  Speaker 3: and then there were all these new states being added
• 25:10
  Speaker 3: to the Union, and there were debates about whether they
• 25:13
  Speaker 3: could have slavery or couldn't have slavery. So certainly persuasion
• 25:17
  Speaker 3: was being used in order to in order to try to,
• 25:23
  Speaker 3: you know, do a way with slavery, and there was discussion,
• 25:25
  Speaker 3: I think of compensation for the slave owner, for the
• 25:29
  Speaker 3: slave owners in such a scenario. So, no, the South
• 25:35
  Speaker 3: wasn't interested. If you read what the South has to say,
• 25:37
  Speaker 3: the South was willing and indeed happy to go to
• 25:42
  Speaker 3: war in order to preserve slavery. Great, I appreciate it.
• 25:49
  Speaker 3: And yeah, there are libertarians out there who think slavery
• 25:54
  Speaker 3: would have gone away anyway because it wasn't economic, and
• 25:57
  Speaker 3: maybe that's true twenty thirty forty fifty years later, but
• 26:01
  Speaker 3: you can't justify the twenty thirty forty fifty years of slavery.
• 26:06
  Speaker 3: It should have never been allowed from day one, you know,
• 26:10
  Speaker 3: the founders should have found a way to get it,
• 26:13
  Speaker 3: you know, to abolish it or to phase it out.
• 26:16
  Speaker 3: And it was inevitable that ultimately would lead to a
• 26:20
  Speaker 3: war because it was a clear violation of the Declaration
• 26:24
  Speaker 3: and the spirit of the Constitution.
• 26:26
  Speaker 15: I definitely agree appreciate it.
• 26:28
  Speaker 3: So hey, Catherine, Hi, is.
• 26:32
  Speaker 14: It be if I stay off camera?
• 26:34
  Speaker 3: Sure?
• 26:35
  Speaker 14: Okay, this I have two questions, but you can maybe
• 26:38
  Speaker 14: just answer one this time. So two things. One, I'm
• 26:43
  Speaker 14: trying to figure out where I want to live, like
• 26:46
  Speaker 14: long term, like where are some of your favorite places,
• 26:49
  Speaker 14: like if you didn't live, where you lived, like in
• 26:50
  Speaker 14: the US, like I've lived in New York for all
• 26:53
  Speaker 14: of my twenties. And then my job right now is
• 26:56
  Speaker 14: San Francisco based, but my team is very global, and
• 27:00
  Speaker 14: so I think with this new remote work, people are
• 27:03
  Speaker 14: able to live all over And I like London, but
• 27:08
  Speaker 14: I really like the US. And then my other part
• 27:10
  Speaker 14: question is kind of related, is like we're planning a
• 27:12
  Speaker 14: bunch of travel and I know you've.
• 27:14
  Speaker 3: Traveled a lot.
• 27:14
  Speaker 14: Where are some of your favorite places that you've traveled?
• 27:18
  Speaker 3: All right, so let's let's leave the second question around two.
• 27:23
  Speaker 3: So places I like in in the United States to live,
• 27:26
  Speaker 3: I mean, California is a great place to live. You
• 27:30
  Speaker 3: have to suffer the taxes and uh, but because I'm
• 27:34
  Speaker 3: being taxed there already, you're being taxed the already. So
• 27:37
  Speaker 3: if it if you're already being taxed there and you're
• 27:40
  Speaker 3: not gonna so you're not gonna pay higher taxes by
• 27:42
  Speaker 3: moving to California. Then California is a great place to live.
• 27:46
  Speaker 3: Northern California is beautiful, but southern California the weather's even better.
• 27:52
  Speaker 3: I lived in Orange County. San Diego is an amazing city.
• 27:58
  Speaker 3: I don't like I don't like Los Angeles or the area,
• 28:01
  Speaker 3: but I'd say San Diego, Orange County, and then the
• 28:05
  Speaker 3: Bay Area. There's just there's just some beautiful places in
• 28:08
  Speaker 3: the area to live, both, you know, on the West
• 28:14
  Speaker 3: and even on the East Bay. There's some nice places.
• 28:17
  Speaker 3: So those are my two. It's so California is one.
• 28:21
  Speaker 3: The second is Austin, Texas. I mean, Austin is a
• 28:24
  Speaker 3: great city. Weather it's a little bit is challenging. It's
• 28:29
  Speaker 3: the summers a brutal that they're very hot and humid.
• 28:33
  Speaker 3: But other than that, it's just a great city. There's
• 28:36
  Speaker 3: a lot going on. It's it's there's a lot of
• 28:40
  Speaker 3: culture and university town. Uh. You know, housing is cheap,
• 28:47
  Speaker 3: rent is cheap relative to California, relative to New York.
• 28:50
  Speaker 3: So you can upgrade your standard of living based on
• 28:53
  Speaker 3: that and what else. Yeah, So I'd say Austin, those
• 29:05
  Speaker 3: are those are my favorite places. I mean, there are
• 29:08
  Speaker 3: a lot of nice places. You know, Charlotte is nice,
• 29:11
  Speaker 3: the places in Atlanta that are nice, Phoenix, if you
• 29:16
  Speaker 3: can tolerate the really really really hot summers and very
• 29:20
  Speaker 3: dry weather. What about Well, London's great, but you said
• 29:24
  Speaker 3: in the United States. I mean, London's super expensive. But
• 29:29
  Speaker 3: if that's not an issue, then yeah, London's and the
• 29:32
  Speaker 3: weather sucks, of course it's London weather. But but it's culture.
• 29:37
  Speaker 3: You can't beat it, right, It's so it's it's a
• 29:41
  Speaker 3: little similar to New York, probably more culture even than
• 29:45
  Speaker 3: New York. Great restaurants. But yeah, you know, you could
• 29:53
  Speaker 3: go a place like that for like three months, get
• 29:57
  Speaker 3: an Airbnb and test it out and see if you
• 29:59
  Speaker 3: like living there.
• 30:01
  Speaker 14: Yeah, okay, thank you.
• 30:03
  Speaker 3: Sure.
• 30:05
  Speaker 7: Houston's really nice.
• 30:08
  Speaker 14: I don't really like Texas as a state.
• 30:10
  Speaker 3: Yeah, Houston.
• 30:12
  Speaker 14: They don't really support women's rights very much.
• 30:14
  Speaker 3: Houston.
• 30:15
  Speaker 2: Yeah, they don't treat women.
• 30:16
  Speaker 15: Uh.
• 30:16
  Speaker 3: Yeah, Texas is a problem with abortion in particular. Uh
• 30:19
  Speaker 3: and uh and and and uh to disagree with Coleman, Uh,
• 30:25
  Speaker 3: Houston is nice, but it's flat. Uh, it's uh and
• 30:28
  Speaker 3: it's it's if the weather in Austin is bad. Then
• 30:31
  Speaker 3: it's it's a little bit worse in Houston, more heart,
• 30:37
  Speaker 3: more human. All right, Uh, Andrew, Hey, you're on.
• 30:46
  Speaker 7: Hey.
• 30:49
  Speaker 16: You had a segment on your show where you reacted
• 30:52
  Speaker 16: to David Zach's comments.
• 30:55
  Speaker 3: About Israel, and he was.
• 30:59
  Speaker 16: Just it was severely exaggerating, like the damage that Israel
• 31:04
  Speaker 16: was incurring in fighting Iran. And it was interesting in
• 31:09
  Speaker 16: a couple of aspects to me, Like one, I was thinking,
• 31:14
  Speaker 16: you know what, what would motivate him to do this?
• 31:20
  Speaker 16: Because it's so kind of easily it's easily disprove it
• 31:30
  Speaker 16: what he's saying, and it's such a severe exaggeration.
• 31:34
  Speaker 3: It's like when somebody does that.
• 31:36
  Speaker 16: The only thing I could come up with was he's
• 31:39
  Speaker 16: afraid of something, because you know, it just seems to
• 31:45
  Speaker 16: come from a place of fear when when you lie
• 31:48
  Speaker 16: like that. But I was wondering, like if you agree
• 31:51
  Speaker 16: with that, like what do you think he's afraid of?
• 31:54
  Speaker 7: Or what would be motivating.
• 31:56
  Speaker 16: Him in in misrep presenting the situation so badly.
• 32:03
  Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I don't know what psychology motivates him,
• 32:08
  Speaker 3: but look, he he assumes his audience has no clue.
• 32:13
  Speaker 3: He assumes the audience isn't going to check, and he's
• 32:15
  Speaker 3: probably right. So he because he lies about other stuff.
• 32:22
  Speaker 3: And you know, Lias just, I mean, why does Trump lie?
• 32:27
  Speaker 3: I mean Trump lies on things that it even easier
• 32:31
  Speaker 3: to directly check. An example, he lies about what he
• 32:34
  Speaker 3: said yesterday, so you can just rewind the video and
• 32:37
  Speaker 3: what he said ten minutes ago. So why does why
• 32:40
  Speaker 3: do liahlai to manipulate people to rationalize their own belief system,
• 32:49
  Speaker 3: so they believe you on as good Israel bad, or
• 32:52
  Speaker 3: they believe you on strong Israe weak, and they'll just
• 32:58
  Speaker 3: they'll just keep lying to present a front that suggests
• 33:04
  Speaker 3: that what they've said in the past is true. So
• 33:09
  Speaker 3: he's afraid of being wrong. I guess he's afraid that
• 33:12
  Speaker 3: everything he believes in, and everything all his studying and
• 33:17
  Speaker 3: all his work, and all his writing and all the
• 33:19
  Speaker 3: interviews he's ever done over the last twenty years, he's
• 33:23
  Speaker 3: afraid all of that is wrong.
• 33:26
  Speaker 7: Is he afraid of World War three?
• 33:30
  Speaker 3: That whole kind of No, I don't think he's afraid
• 33:34
  Speaker 3: of world with you, I don't think. I don't think
• 33:37
  Speaker 3: he takes World War three seriously. And Israel is not
• 33:40
  Speaker 3: going to cause World War three. So no, I mean,
• 33:43
  Speaker 3: he wants he wants to believe his worldview is, his
• 33:48
  Speaker 3: worldview is, and he wants to hold onto this worldview
• 33:53
  Speaker 3: that Iran are the good guys Israel in America the
• 33:57
  Speaker 3: bad guys. Iran are strong, powerful, Israel is weak, and
• 34:03
  Speaker 3: he's willing to lie, maybe to himself, it's certainly to
• 34:07
  Speaker 3: other people in order to tell in order to tell
• 34:11
  Speaker 3: that story. And you know, you say it's easy to verify,
• 34:17
  Speaker 3: but there's a million conspiracy theories out there that are
• 34:21
  Speaker 3: easy to verify that you're wrong, and people still hold
• 34:23
  Speaker 3: on to them. Yeah, okay, And I mean.
• 34:33
  Speaker 16: The other aspect of it, I guess that interest moves
• 34:36
  Speaker 16: like how indignant you got about it, because you know,
• 34:40
  Speaker 16: and that was like you really, you know, had some
• 34:43
  Speaker 16: firepower against him in that segment, And like, I guess,
• 34:47
  Speaker 16: I guess that just speaks for itself that you just
• 34:49
  Speaker 16: think it's contemptible to lie like that and to misrepresent
• 34:54
  Speaker 16: the situation.
• 34:55
  Speaker 3: Well, and it's so stupid because anybody with a brain wheelchack.
• 35:01
  Speaker 3: A lot of people have, you know, uh, relatives of friends.
• 35:08
  Speaker 3: Uh and uh so it's not it's not that it's
• 35:14
  Speaker 3: not that difficult to check it's just so stupid to
• 35:17
  Speaker 3: be that stupid. So okay, yeah, so that that that is,
• 35:24
  Speaker 3: that is I think why you know why I got
• 35:30
  Speaker 3: so plus you know, this was at the height of it.
• 35:33
  Speaker 3: It was just yeah, I mean, it was so stupid.
• 35:37
  Speaker 3: All right, all right, let's see we have a bunch
• 35:48
  Speaker 3: of super chats. So it's just some of those and
• 35:51
  Speaker 3: then we'll go to into round two. All right, Haupa Campbell,
• 35:55
  Speaker 3: there's one hundred dollars question. Thank you, Hapa. The Commics
• 35:58
  Speaker 3: Department announced seven xquity stakes in private companies. How is
• 36:02
  Speaker 3: the market doing so well? Given Trump owning shares of
• 36:05
  Speaker 3: major companies? Is he deregulating as he is socializing? The
• 36:09
  Speaker 3: deregulation is doing some more good than the socializing is
• 36:12
  Speaker 3: doing up well. But look, I mean, what is the
• 36:15
  Speaker 3: stock market measuring? What is the good and bad that
• 36:18
  Speaker 3: the stock market measuring? For example, you know, the government
• 36:22
  Speaker 3: took a ten percent stake in Intel and the Intel
• 36:25
  Speaker 3: stock is way up.
• 36:27
  Speaker 2: Since then? Does that mean the stock market says?
• 36:29
  Speaker 3: Oh, government ownership is good governorship, you know, it says
• 36:34
  Speaker 3: for Intel over the foreseeable future, government ownership reduces the
• 36:39
  Speaker 3: probability of bankruptcy, to zero and increasing is the chances
• 36:43
  Speaker 3: that the government will send business in Intel's direction, And
• 36:48
  Speaker 3: there's a really good chance and Intel will become more
• 36:51
  Speaker 3: profitable because the government owns ten percent. So Intel stock
• 36:56
  Speaker 3: is up because the stock market is not making philosophical statements.
• 37:00
  Speaker 3: It's not making long term statement about the benefits of
• 37:04
  Speaker 3: capitalism or the risks that exist to capitalism. It is
• 37:08
  Speaker 3: asking a question to this particular company, is the government's
• 37:11
  Speaker 3: ownership of stock good or bad? And over the next
• 37:16
  Speaker 3: foreseeable horizon, let's say five years, And the answer for
• 37:19
  Speaker 3: most of these companies is good.
• 37:21
  Speaker 2: They're going to get more business.
• 37:22
  Speaker 3: Now, other companies that might be bad the competitors who
• 37:24
  Speaker 3: don't where the government is not taking inequity stake. And
• 37:28
  Speaker 3: you could argue, yeah, but overall, this is the demise
• 37:33
  Speaker 3: of capitalism and this is going to hood companies over
• 37:35
  Speaker 3: the long run. Okay, but when how much? How does
• 37:42
  Speaker 3: it affect cash flows? Maybe the companies that are really
• 37:45
  Speaker 3: hooked by this a private and not public companies. Maybe
• 37:49
  Speaker 3: public companies the government takes a ten percent stake in
• 37:52
  Speaker 3: all public companies, maybe they benefit somehow from it.
• 37:55
  Speaker 2: In a show again in the cash flow segment.
• 37:58
  Speaker 3: And so it's not it's not like the stock market
• 38:05
  Speaker 3: is saying. The stock market is saying that on a
• 38:09
  Speaker 3: relative basis, the government taking at ten percent stake has
• 38:13
  Speaker 3: very little or no impact on the companies in the
• 38:18
  Speaker 3: stock markets ability to make money over the foreseeable future.
• 38:22
  Speaker 3: And I think that's right. Over the next five years,
• 38:25
  Speaker 3: this is not going to be that big of a deal.
• 38:28
  Speaker 3: And if it is a big deal, we don't know
• 38:30
  Speaker 3: even know how to price it. We wouldn't know what
• 38:32
  Speaker 3: to do with it. And at the same time, we're deregulating.
• 38:37
  Speaker 3: And look, the economy is doing okay, it's not going great.
• 38:41
  Speaker 3: Most of the harm in the economy is it being
• 38:45
  Speaker 3: incurred by small to medium sized businesses. The bigger businesses
• 38:49
  Speaker 3: that happen to be public are doing fine, and some
• 38:53
  Speaker 3: are doing really well. And there's a huge boom in
• 38:58
  Speaker 3: everything to do with AI data centers, which drives a
• 39:02
  Speaker 3: big chunk of economic activity. When that all gets built up,
• 39:06
  Speaker 3: how to tell what happens then, and there's some deregulation
• 39:10
  Speaker 3: going on. Imagine if Trump didn't do all the school
• 39:15
  Speaker 3: things that he was doing, the economy will be chugging
• 39:18
  Speaker 3: along right now at three percent, maybe more maybe four percent. Right,
• 39:23
  Speaker 3: without tariffs, with winning a war, and with winning the
• 39:27
  Speaker 3: war and all the other nonsense, and without taking equity stakes,
• 39:32
  Speaker 3: the economy could be going in three four percent. Underlying,
• 39:35
  Speaker 3: there's some really good stuff. There's innovation going on, there's startups,
• 39:38
  Speaker 3: the entrepreneurs are working, and the fact that Trump is
• 39:43
  Speaker 3: taking equity stakes is not stopping any of that, Thanks Harper.
• 39:51
  Speaker 3: Let's say, Colleen, how stupid would Fauci have been if
• 39:58
  Speaker 3: he hadn't taken How stupid would fout You have been
• 40:01
  Speaker 3: if he hadn't taken the fifth? Yeah? I mean he
• 40:04
  Speaker 3: has to take the fifth, right, I mean, what what
• 40:07
  Speaker 3: He's been given a pardon by Biden, but he doesn't
• 40:12
  Speaker 3: need to risk it. Why would he risk it not
• 40:15
  Speaker 3: taking the fifth? And you know they're they're just gonna
• 40:25
  Speaker 3: you know, he's being scapegoaded. Now. I think he did
• 40:28
  Speaker 3: some really stupid things. I think the power went to
• 40:32
  Speaker 3: his head. I think he misbehaved. I think a lot
• 40:35
  Speaker 3: of things. But the fifth exists. Why not take it? Right?
• 40:39
  Speaker 3: He's got he's got nothing to gain, and he's got
• 40:44
  Speaker 3: nothing to gain, a lot to lose by taking the fifth.
• 40:47
  Speaker 3: All that'll do is the people who hate him, continue
• 40:49
  Speaker 3: to hate him. By answering the questions, he could have
• 40:53
  Speaker 3: got himself into legal trouble. You know, he could have
• 40:56
  Speaker 3: affected all kinds of other people. He could have affected
• 41:00
  Speaker 3: all kinds of other issues. There was no advantage ship
• 41:02
  Speaker 3: for him to answer the questions in front of a
• 41:04
  Speaker 3: congress that is not inclined to actually listen to the answers.
• 41:12
  Speaker 3: Liam Are there some Asian countries that have no welfare systems?
• 41:17
  Speaker 3: Some of these Chinese systems look more advanced in American systems.
• 41:21
  Speaker 3: Maybe China is where free market revolution will happen. Yeah,
• 41:24
  Speaker 3: I mean there's no welfare in China. I mean, China
• 41:27
  Speaker 3: is a nominally communist country. There's no redistribution of wealth,
• 41:32
  Speaker 3: very little redistribution of wealth. Even healthcare. If you can't
• 41:35
  Speaker 3: pay for an operation, you don't get the operation. We die.
• 41:39
  Speaker 2: So you either have insured so you pay.
• 41:42
  Speaker 3: Cash, but there is no there's no socialized medicine, and
• 41:48
  Speaker 3: there's very little redistribution of wealth in terms of well,
• 41:54
  Speaker 3: you know, a welfare state in China. Now, the cities
• 42:01
  Speaker 3: in China are amazing, They're beautiful, the more advanced in
• 42:05
  Speaker 3: American cities. The architecture, the infrastructure, the high speed trains,
• 42:10
  Speaker 3: the trade stations, everything is amazing. But there is But
• 42:19
  Speaker 3: will there be a free market revolution? I mean, this
• 42:23
  Speaker 3: is the problem is that if you get rid of
• 42:27
  Speaker 3: the authoritarians, if you get rid of the dictators in
• 42:33
  Speaker 3: China and you actually allow people to vote, they'll probably
• 42:36
  Speaker 3: vote in the welfare state.
• 42:40
  Speaker 2: Right, So if you move towards more.
• 42:43
  Speaker 3: Political freedom, China will become more like the West and
• 42:48
  Speaker 3: therefore less free market. So no, I mean, there's no
• 42:57
  Speaker 3: there's no uh, you know, there's there's no possibility. I
• 43:11
  Speaker 3: don't think in the short run that China becomes, you know,
• 43:15
  Speaker 3: the laz Ifai capitalist, or Asia becomes Lasifai capitalist. Again,
• 43:22
  Speaker 3: Lasifai capitalism will not happen unless we have an intellectual revolution.
• 43:26
  Speaker 3: This goes back to Kobe's question, No example matters. It's
• 43:29
  Speaker 3: not like the example of a Hong Kong moved anybody.
• 43:33
  Speaker 3: So you want to change the world, you have to
• 43:36
  Speaker 3: change this philosophy. This is why it's so frigging hard,
• 43:39
  Speaker 3: This is why it takes so long. This is why
• 43:42
  Speaker 3: we probably won't happen in my lifetime. And so no,
• 43:48
  Speaker 3: I don't think it's gonna happen somewhere now. Is there
• 43:51
  Speaker 3: a chance that Asia, some Asian countries become more are
• 43:55
  Speaker 3: freer than the United States should That is definitely possible.
• 44:08
  Speaker 4: Let's see, not you have any algorithm.
• 44:14
  Speaker 3: Does the universe reward risk? They hate the universe. The
• 44:22
  Speaker 3: universe doesn't reward anything, right, The universe is just the universe,
• 44:27
  Speaker 3: you know, so not all risk is rewarded. You know,
• 44:31
  Speaker 3: I don't know. You know, there are lots of risk
• 44:39
  Speaker 3: you could take. You know, try driving one hundred and
• 44:41
  Speaker 3: twenty miles an hour down the highway, you know. Climb,
• 44:47
  Speaker 3: climber what do you call it? Climb that face and yellowstone,
• 44:52
  Speaker 3: the yellow the rock there without a rope, and you'll die.
• 44:55
  Speaker 3: They say, the universe doesn't care.
• 44:58
  Speaker 2: It doesn't what it doesn't reward, doesn't it?
• 45:00
  Speaker 3: Just? The universe is what it is. Rational risk taking
• 45:07
  Speaker 3: for human being can it is the only way to
• 45:11
  Speaker 3: advance in life. You cannot move forward without taking on risk.
• 45:17
  Speaker 3: But the risk has to be rational. The universe doesn't
• 45:22
  Speaker 3: reward anything. The universe is not rewarding. There is no use,
• 45:25
  Speaker 3: you know. The universe just is. All you can say
• 45:28
  Speaker 3: about the universe is it is and it functions based
• 45:31
  Speaker 3: on certain laws. And yeah, if you understand. The more
• 45:37
  Speaker 3: you understand, the more you succeed in the universe. But
• 45:39
  Speaker 3: it's not like the universe is rewarding something. The language
• 45:43
  Speaker 3: is inappropriate. Yeah, Koby, is this is this? Okay? Do
• 45:48
  Speaker 3: I get more than one question? Well? If the raising
• 45:52
  Speaker 3: a hand is good for if you want to if
• 45:54
  Speaker 3: you want to say something related to this question. Otherwise
• 45:57
  Speaker 3: I'm going to come back to the panel and do
• 45:59
  Speaker 3: another round in a minute. Okay.
• 46:02
  Speaker 2: Do that makes sense?
• 46:03
  Speaker 3: Yeah? Yeah, So I'll just finish. I've got three more
• 46:06
  Speaker 3: questions to get the super chat, and I'll come to
• 46:09
  Speaker 3: the panel. All right, don't you have a jogorithm? I
• 46:12
  Speaker 3: don't think bullying would be the norm amongst school children
• 46:16
  Speaker 3: in an objective's world. Well, children don't read content absorb
• 46:20
  Speaker 3: the nihilism of their parents and the culture at large.
• 46:23
  Speaker 3: But what about do you think there was bullying in
• 46:25
  Speaker 3: the twelfth century in the neighborhood. There wasn't schools then,
• 46:30
  Speaker 3: but sure, I mean, look, they were always bullies. Will
• 46:33
  Speaker 3: they be bullies in an objective's world, yes, not as many,
• 46:36
  Speaker 3: but there'll be some bullies, but they would be dealt
• 46:39
  Speaker 3: with and so their behavior would be inconsequential because the
• 46:45
  Speaker 3: other kids in the school would stand up to them
• 46:47
  Speaker 3: and they shut them down. But you know, there's they
• 46:51
  Speaker 3: are always bad people. Even in an objective's world, there
• 46:55
  Speaker 3: would be evil people, and that means they're evil kids.
• 46:59
  Speaker 3: So evil evil kids usually, So I don't think you
• 47:03
  Speaker 3: say they're no bullies, that absolutely be bullies. They're more
• 47:07
  Speaker 3: bullies now because we live in a more irrational culture
• 47:10
  Speaker 3: and we let them get away with it, so and
• 47:11
  Speaker 3: it encourages the behavior. And yes, some of the nihilism
• 47:15
  Speaker 3: seeps in from their parents and the culture. But to
• 47:18
  Speaker 3: assume that you're going to live in a objectivest world
• 47:21
  Speaker 3: there's some utopia where there's nothing bad that happens, I
• 47:25
  Speaker 3: think is wrong. And you know, kids are going to
• 47:31
  Speaker 3: experiment to try things, and they're going to be kids
• 47:34
  Speaker 3: who are going to experiment to try things using physical
• 47:37
  Speaker 3: force and see what they can get away with using
• 47:40
  Speaker 3: physical force. And that's bullies. And if they don't get
• 47:45
  Speaker 3: away with it, they'll learn hopefully and and move on.
• 47:48
  Speaker 3: But I think they'll always meet people like that who
• 47:50
  Speaker 3: try author This November, we will find out what America
• 48:01
  Speaker 3: voters dislike. More democratic socialists and neo nazi post liberals, individualism,
• 48:07
  Speaker 3: and happiness are not on the cards. I think that's right,
• 48:11
  Speaker 3: of course, in every district that you're in, every election,
• 48:16
  Speaker 3: right that's out there, you're choosing between a Democratic candidate
• 48:21
  Speaker 3: and a Republican candidate. The Democrat might not be a
• 48:25
  Speaker 3: socialist and the Republican might not be a neo Nazi,
• 48:30
  Speaker 3: So the referendum is not on the You know, midterm
• 48:36
  Speaker 3: elections are not referendums on the party. They tend to
• 48:41
  Speaker 3: be referendums on the president because people are less inclined
• 48:44
  Speaker 3: to vote for the president's party if they don't like him.
• 48:50
  Speaker 3: But you can't extrapolate. Now, We'll see how many democratic
• 48:55
  Speaker 3: socialists get elected among the Democrats, and we'll see how
• 48:59
  Speaker 3: many any of the kind of MAGA write get elected
• 49:04
  Speaker 3: in the Republican Party, and that'll be a referendum about
• 49:07
  Speaker 3: those people. But I think you have to be careful
• 49:11
  Speaker 3: to generalize. The Democratic Party is not yet socialist, the
• 49:15
  Speaker 3: Republican Party is not yet neo Nazi, and not everybody
• 49:20
  Speaker 3: in that Not everybody in the political party is a
• 49:25
  Speaker 3: socialist or a neo Nazi. And again, when you go
• 49:29
  Speaker 3: out and vote, you'll be voting between two people and
• 49:33
  Speaker 3: you'll have to make a choice between them. If one
• 49:35
  Speaker 3: of them is a socialist and one a neo Nazi,
• 49:37
  Speaker 3: you might not want one to vote. But if one
• 49:40
  Speaker 3: of them is better, and one of them better in
• 49:42
  Speaker 3: terms of not being a socialist and not being a
• 49:44
  Speaker 3: neo Nazi, vote for them. James, I heard an interesting
• 49:51
  Speaker 3: argument against the death penalty. It is better to keep
• 49:54
  Speaker 3: a few monsters alive for the rest of their lives
• 49:57
  Speaker 3: than to excellently kill an innocent person. Yeah, I mean,
• 50:00
  Speaker 3: I think I agree with that. I rand agreed with that.
• 50:03
  Speaker 3: She was against the death penalty for exactly this reason,
• 50:07
  Speaker 3: the possibility of killing an innocent person. Uh. And uh,
• 50:12
  Speaker 3: that's why she was against the death penalty. I think
• 50:14
  Speaker 3: with DNA evidence, there's there's less likelihood of that, but
• 50:19
  Speaker 3: it still exists. Uh, and you could they might be
• 50:25
  Speaker 3: situations where you still engage in death penalty when there's
• 50:28
  Speaker 3: just no possibility this guy didn't do it. Right, The
• 50:31
  Speaker 3: evidence is soverwhelming, but it's hard to go from, you know,
• 50:40
  Speaker 3: from certainty to even greater certainty. Right, So it's uh, yeah,
• 50:46
  Speaker 3: I think it's better not to have a death penalty
• 50:48
  Speaker 3: and and and not risk killing of innocence. All right,
• 50:55
  Speaker 3: back top panel. All right, we'll start with Kobe. The
• 50:58
  Speaker 3: order on my screen shifted around, changed around.
• 51:03
  Speaker 13: All right, I got another one for you. I was
• 51:06
  Speaker 13: making a burger on my back porch the other day
• 51:09
  Speaker 13: and the smell was wafting over to my neighbor's house, right,
• 51:14
  Speaker 13: So I was thinking about this and what is like
• 51:19
  Speaker 13: the what is the right revolving around like the smells
• 51:24
  Speaker 13: and the sounds and stuff like that, because it seems
• 51:28
  Speaker 13: to me like there isn't a right not to be annoyed,
• 51:32
  Speaker 13: but it's not causing damage either.
• 51:34
  Speaker 11: I don't know.
• 51:36
  Speaker 3: Well, I mean, it depends, right, So, if IF's the
• 51:38
  Speaker 3: smell of hamburgers, I don't think you have a wait
• 51:40
  Speaker 3: to be to avoid the smell of hamburgers.
• 51:43
  Speaker 2: But if it's if it's.
• 51:45
  Speaker 3: A smell that could literally make you sick, or a
• 51:48
  Speaker 3: smell that is clearly disturbing, I don't know. I mean,
• 51:51
  Speaker 3: I remember, yeah, our neighbors once they had dogs, and
• 51:58
  Speaker 3: they had this section where the dogs kind of lived,
• 52:01
  Speaker 3: and they would go days and days without cleaning it,
• 52:05
  Speaker 3: and the dogs would you know, would defecate there and
• 52:08
  Speaker 3: everything and it's stunk, and that can make you say,
• 52:12
  Speaker 3: I mean it's literally an offensive smell. You don't have
• 52:16
  Speaker 3: a right to inflict that kind of smell on a neighbor.
• 52:20
  Speaker 3: And the same with noise. If the noise is such
• 52:23
  Speaker 3: that it is literally disturbing people from their ability to
• 52:26
  Speaker 3: live their lives, keeping them awake, not making it possible
• 52:30
  Speaker 3: for them to watch TV, you know, can concentrate because
• 52:35
  Speaker 3: the noise is so loud, then yeah, you don't have
• 52:38
  Speaker 3: a right to do that, So they would have a
• 52:40
  Speaker 3: claim against you. So if you're doing something in your
• 52:43
  Speaker 3: house that is physically obstructing the other person, and sound
• 52:49
  Speaker 3: is definitely physically obstructing, you know, the sound waves are
• 52:52
  Speaker 3: hitting you and they're doing something to you. And I
• 52:59
  Speaker 3: think the smell is the same way. I can't avoid
• 53:01
  Speaker 3: the smell, right, if it's coming into my house, if
• 53:06
  Speaker 3: it's if it's offensive, and it's preventing me from living
• 53:10
  Speaker 3: my life, then you have no right to inflict that
• 53:12
  Speaker 3: on me.
• 53:14
  Speaker 13: But don't you see like how that's not very objective.
• 53:18
  Speaker 13: Like if I go to Vietnam or something, there's certain
• 53:20
  Speaker 13: foods over there that I think are totally disgusting smelling,
• 53:23
  Speaker 13: but everybody there thinks it's fine.
• 53:26
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean that that doesn't make it non objective.
• 53:28
  Speaker 3: For you, it's disgusting and for them objectively, and for
• 53:32
  Speaker 3: them objectively it smells fine. So the question is, in
• 53:37
  Speaker 3: the United States, given what we cook and given the foods,
• 53:41
  Speaker 3: and given the noise that we have, what is what
• 53:44
  Speaker 3: is offensive and what is not? And you've got to,
• 53:47
  Speaker 3: you know, you come up with some kind of standard
• 53:49
  Speaker 3: for that. It's not hard to do. Right. Objective doesn't
• 53:53
  Speaker 3: mean true for everybody. That's not what objective means. Objective
• 54:00
  Speaker 3: doesn't even mean true. You could be objective and wrong.
• 54:07
  Speaker 3: Objective means corresponds to reality. The reality is you perceive it,
• 54:14
  Speaker 3: and as you perceive it, your neighbor, as your neighbor
• 54:17
  Speaker 3: perceives it, and pretty much anybody else in the neighborhood
• 54:21
  Speaker 3: if they were if they replaced, that neighbor would perceive
• 54:25
  Speaker 3: those particular smells as offensive and therefore they are banned,
• 54:29
  Speaker 3: and they would perceive that level of noise is unable
• 54:33
  Speaker 3: to what the decimal is. I mean, you'd put something
• 54:37
  Speaker 3: into the law that was reasonable. I mean, I think
• 54:40
  Speaker 3: most cities have some kind of ordinance with regard to
• 54:43
  Speaker 3: noise that relates to a certain level of decibels after
• 54:47
  Speaker 3: a certain hour, for example, of the day. But you know,
• 54:52
  Speaker 3: there's no and it's true that some people might find
• 54:56
  Speaker 3: that level to when some people might find that level
• 55:01
  Speaker 3: too high. But since you have to set a level,
• 55:04
  Speaker 3: you set it at a reasonable level that affects the
• 55:07
  Speaker 3: most people. And if somebody yeah so, But again, objective
• 55:13
  Speaker 3: doesn't mean that it's true of all people at all
• 55:16
  Speaker 3: times in all places. And in Vietnam, the laws around
• 55:26
  Speaker 3: smell would be different than the laws around smell in
• 55:28
  Speaker 3: the United States, and maybe in different neighborhoods in the
• 55:30
  Speaker 3: United States.
• 55:31
  Speaker 2: Like if you live in a farm where there's.
• 55:34
  Speaker 3: Manure everywhere, then yeah, you can't be offended by manure.
• 55:38
  Speaker 3: I mean, it's just I mean, you can't say I
• 55:41
  Speaker 3: can't work with all this manure. You moved to a
• 55:44
  Speaker 3: farm area. This is a farm area, so that it's
• 55:48
  Speaker 3: going to be different.
• 55:49
  Speaker 13: That was another thing I realized is that if somebody
• 55:51
  Speaker 13: gets there first, I would think they would have a
• 55:53
  Speaker 13: higher right than somebody who got their second, versus like
• 55:57
  Speaker 13: who is the sound in the air quality of that
• 56:00
  Speaker 13: or something like that.
• 56:02
  Speaker 3: Well, No, I mean yeah, I mean, if you're running
• 56:05
  Speaker 3: a nightclub and I move into a into a place
• 56:09
  Speaker 3: next to a nightclub, then yes, I can't complain about
• 56:12
  Speaker 3: the nightclub. Absolutely, But if you have a house and
• 56:15
  Speaker 3: you like to blast your music in the house and
• 56:17
  Speaker 3: then I'm move in next go to you, No, you
• 56:20
  Speaker 3: can't blast your music anymore. So I have to be
• 56:25
  Speaker 3: able to know in advance the nature of what you're
• 56:28
  Speaker 3: going to be doing for me to be able to
• 56:31
  Speaker 3: avoid that location. And if I don't know because you
• 56:34
  Speaker 3: just own a house, then you know, then I can't
• 56:39
  Speaker 3: be expected to tolerate the noise.
• 56:42
  Speaker 2: But if it's a if it's a farm.
• 56:45
  Speaker 3: Area and I move in, it's a farm area. If
• 56:48
  Speaker 3: it's a nightclub and I move in, I knew if
• 56:50
  Speaker 3: it was a nightclub. Okay. So knowledge is contextual, objectivity
• 56:59
  Speaker 3: is contextual. It has to be depends on the context,
• 57:05
  Speaker 3: all right, Thanks Kobe Michael Hi.
• 57:13
  Speaker 9: Related to the Iran War, somebody on this call already
• 57:17
  Speaker 9: mentioned World War Three, and there's a lot of panic
• 57:20
  Speaker 9: about a forever war.
• 57:23
  Speaker 7: Where does that come from? And how do you strategically
• 57:26
  Speaker 7: avoid that from happening? If you were commander in chief.
• 57:30
  Speaker 3: World War three, I just don't see how it happened with.
• 57:35
  Speaker 7: The United States engaged in Iran.
• 57:38
  Speaker 3: So who's who's going to do? How does it get
• 57:42
  Speaker 3: out of control? I mean, you basically tell China stay
• 57:44
  Speaker 3: out of it. You tell Russia stay out of it.
• 57:46
  Speaker 3: You have no interest here, don't go to war with
• 57:49
  Speaker 3: us because we don't want world War three. You basically
• 57:52
  Speaker 3: annihilate Ron in three days and you that's it. It's done.
• 57:56
  Speaker 3: I mean, there's no there's no fear here because there's
• 58:02
  Speaker 3: no there there there's no what's the possibility And the
• 58:05
  Speaker 3: only reason why it could somehow is we do what
• 58:11
  Speaker 3: we're doing now, and we project weakness and it takes
• 58:15
  Speaker 3: months and months and months and months, and China goes, huh,
• 58:18
  Speaker 3: the United States looks weak. Why don't we invade Taiwan now?
• 58:21
  Speaker 3: And maybe we can send troops to Iran and help
• 58:24
  Speaker 3: them out? Because the Americans don't seem to be able
• 58:27
  Speaker 3: to do anything, so why not take advantage of all this?
• 58:30
  Speaker 3: But if you're quick and assertive and unequivocal, then I mean,
• 58:36
  Speaker 3: China doesn't want world War three and it doesn't Russia,
• 58:38
  Speaker 3: so they're gonna stay out of it.
• 58:40
  Speaker 2: Why would they answer?
• 58:42
  Speaker 3: I don't think world War three is even conceivably on
• 58:44
  Speaker 3: the radar. If I'm if I'm running things.
• 58:50
  Speaker 7: I agree. I'm just curious where does that come from
• 58:53
  Speaker 7: in the culture.
• 58:53
  Speaker 9: It seems like a broad reaction that every word becomes
• 58:57
  Speaker 9: world War three.
• 58:58
  Speaker 3: Now they're just afraid, and it's just it's again, a
• 59:01
  Speaker 3: few of these people like Mushamaya or what's his name,
• 59:05
  Speaker 3: Jeffy Cats, Jeffy Cats Sacks, Jeffy Sacks say this stuff,
• 59:11
  Speaker 3: and then people go, oh my god. Yes, I mean,
• 59:15
  Speaker 3: first of all, they think Iran is powerful. So Iran
• 59:18
  Speaker 3: they have all these missiles, and the Saudi Arabia will
• 59:20
  Speaker 3: get involved, and then the Hoodies and then maybe too
• 59:24
  Speaker 3: Ki and then yeah, but it's still not World War three.
• 59:26
  Speaker 3: It's still all regional kind of little powers. And then
• 59:30
  Speaker 3: the only way you get World War three in terms
• 59:33
  Speaker 3: of something that scares you in China or Russia. And
• 59:37
  Speaker 3: there's just no circumstance I can think of where they intervene,
• 59:41
  Speaker 3: I mean, other than America projecting such weakness that they
• 59:48
  Speaker 3: feel like they should and I think I think it's
• 59:50
  Speaker 3: just feel angering among certain intellectuals, and then the culture
• 59:55
  Speaker 3: being most people in the culture just being okay. So
• 59:58
  Speaker 3: here's the story. Most Americans don't know where Iran is
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 3: if you gave if you showed them a map, I'd say,
• 1:00:07
  Speaker 3: I'm going to guess you. But I think I'm I
• 1:00:09
  Speaker 3: think I'm pretty confidently guessing. Seventy five percent of Americans
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 3: couldn't point to Iran, couldn't point to Israel. Maybe could
• 1:00:19
  Speaker 3: identify China, becas it's such a big blob out there.
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 3: Maybe Russia. Certainly they don't know where Ukraine is. They
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 3: have no concert I'm not even sure they know what
• 1:00:27
  Speaker 3: content in Ukraine is on. And I'm not talking about
• 1:00:30
  Speaker 3: a small percentage. I'm talking about seven. So when I
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 3: was a kid, I was thirteen, thirteen or fourteen, and
• 1:00:37
  Speaker 3: I was a school in Boston at one of them.
• 1:00:40
  Speaker 3: It was considered at the time the best public school
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 3: in the country, you know, for a variety of stupid reasons.
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 3: But Dukakis, who later ran for president, who was mayor
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 3: of Boston at the time, his kids went to the
• 1:00:54
  Speaker 3: same school I did, right so, and most of the
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 3: kids were most of the kids were children of Harvard and
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 3: their I professors, like real educated people. And it was
• 1:01:04
  Speaker 3: nineteen seventy five. The US had just ended the Vietnam War,
• 1:01:14
  Speaker 3: and we had a big map on the wall, and
• 1:01:17
  Speaker 3: the teacher asked the kids where Vietnam was, and not
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 3: a single kid in this class knew, not a single one.
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 3: And me, who had just arrived from Israel. Israel had
• 1:01:31
  Speaker 3: nothing to do with Vietnam. It we didn't just fight
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 3: a war there, and I could point it out in
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 3: a second, but they had no clue. It was so
• 1:01:44
  Speaker 3: people ignorant. People are unbelievably ignorant. This is why I
• 1:01:47
  Speaker 3: said before Mushmai could say whatever he wants to say,
• 1:01:51
  Speaker 3: his audience has no clue if he's lying or telling
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 3: the truth. I mean, he says, oh, tel Avison's just
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 3: been bombed into rubble. They don't know what tel Aviv is.
• 1:02:02
  Speaker 3: And you know, they've never met anybody who tell They
• 1:02:04
  Speaker 3: don't They don't know, and they don't do the research.
• 1:02:10
  Speaker 7: Do you think the general public is too ignorant.
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 9: To be receptive to a clear message from the president
• 1:02:16
  Speaker 9: of we are entering this war for this reason, here's
• 1:02:19
  Speaker 9: the intended strategic outcome. Would that help counteract this crazy messaging?
• 1:02:25
  Speaker 3: Any question if Trump, you know, did something very untrumpy
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 3: and actually told the American people what was going on
• 1:02:37
  Speaker 3: and why was doing it? What the threat was and
• 1:02:39
  Speaker 3: what was to be achieved. Then he would counteract a
• 1:02:43
  Speaker 3: lot of this. And I remember even then, only a
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 3: minority of American people would even listen to what he said.
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 3: But at least there'd be something on record. Here's why
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 3: we're doing it, here's where we did. I mean, I
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 3: would even you know, Ross Perot when you ran for
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 3: president and four maybe two in ninety two or ninety six,
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 3: right he went for prison twice. He would sit, he
• 1:03:08
  Speaker 3: would sit at the desk and he'd have these flip
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 3: charts and he'd go over with people like, here's the
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 3: national debt, this is what's going on, this is why
• 1:03:16
  Speaker 3: we can't do it. And he got like fifteen percent
• 1:03:19
  Speaker 3: of the vote because he treated Americans like adults. Now
• 1:03:23
  Speaker 3: he was a wacko, but he treated Americans like adults,
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 3: and he told them the story and he told them
• 1:03:29
  Speaker 3: what was going on, and they responded. So I think
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 3: a president who actually dealt with the American actually had
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 3: a map, got on a map that would bring up
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 3: in a map and show them where the middle least
• 1:03:42
  Speaker 3: is show them where the straight of homos right now is,
• 1:03:45
  Speaker 3: show them what it's necessary to open it up, show
• 1:03:48
  Speaker 3: them where Ron is. Yeah, I mean imagine that. Imagine
• 1:03:52
  Speaker 3: a president who actually, you know, used as an opportunity
• 1:03:55
  Speaker 3: to educate the American people about the world. I mean
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 3: that would be.
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 7: It'd be great, wouldn't it.
• 1:04:00
  Speaker 2: It would be amazing?
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, thank you Roon.
• 1:04:03
  Speaker 3: Sure.
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 11: Daniel so U Political and Warning consulted a pole. Between
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 11: seventy two and seventy seven percent of surveyed Americans cannot
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 11: correctly locate Iran on a map.
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 3: I was guessing that was that was that was a
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 3: pretty damn good Guess where's the market going to be
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 3: in ninety days? Well, the stockwalker Stockwalker, Yes, all those people,
• 1:04:33
  Speaker 3: remember all those people are trading, Yeah, exactly. And then
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 3: and then we expect them to expect them to realize
• 1:04:41
  Speaker 3: that taking taking a steak in American companies is not
• 1:04:45
  Speaker 3: good for the US economy long term, and they should
• 1:04:47
  Speaker 3: price it into their stocks right now, into the meme
• 1:04:49
  Speaker 3: stocks that they're buying. Yeah.
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 11: Oh well, speaking of fear, AI is hugely beneficial in
• 1:05:00
  Speaker 11: in my industry, which is making chips, whether it's for
• 1:05:03
  Speaker 11: financial training or for devices AI boxes, And you know,
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 11: to us, it's like an idiot assistant. You tell it
• 1:05:15
  Speaker 11: to write some scripts and check on things every few hours.
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 3: And it's tireless.
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 11: Right, it's an idiot, but it's tireless at doing whatever
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 11: you ask.
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 2: It to do, and so huge benefit.
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 11: Yet there's a tremendous amount of fear that AI is
• 1:05:31
  Speaker 11: going to be destructive. How's AI are pacting you personally?
• 1:05:35
  Speaker 11: And where's this fear coming from?
• 1:05:39
  Speaker 3: Well, the fear is a fear that always accompanies new technology. Right,
• 1:05:44
  Speaker 3: it's not new, it's more because nobody understands AI, right,
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 3: even the people. So here's the thing about a fear.
• 1:05:53
  Speaker 3: The people who work at open Ei and Anthropic are
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 3: constantly telling us two things. One, they don't know what
• 1:06:01
  Speaker 3: they did. They don't know how the models work. They
• 1:06:04
  Speaker 3: don't know how they work. It's magic. And second, AI
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 3: is gonna kill us all. Now, maybe it won't, there's
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 3: a chance it won't, but literally, the CEO of Anthropic
• 1:06:15
  Speaker 3: is telling us A is going to kill us all,
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 3: and if it doesn't kill us all, it's definitely going
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 3: to cause mass unemployment. And we should have UBI because
• 1:06:24
  Speaker 3: nobody's gonna have a job in what did I hear recently?
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 3: Ten years? Ten years we're all out of a job.
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 3: So the fear mungering is coming from the people who
• 1:06:34
  Speaker 3: are most educated about the technology, so it's stronger than
• 1:06:41
  Speaker 3: it's It's not true, for example, that when textile when
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 3: when the steam engine, when it was introduced to mechanize
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 3: the looms, that the textile mill owner told everybody that
• 1:06:55
  Speaker 3: the textile looms were going to kill everybody or replace
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 3: all jobs. I mean, and here the people who are
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 3: designing the products of fear mongering alone, musk I just
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 3: heard the elone mask. In ten years, if we're still around,
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 3: if AI is still if we're still still in existence, right,
• 1:07:13
  Speaker 3: if A hasn't killed us all, there'll be no jobs.
• 1:07:16
  Speaker 3: So you have to we're going to have to figure
• 1:07:18
  Speaker 3: out how to how to provide I mean over there
• 1:07:21
  Speaker 3: will be no money, he said.
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 11: Exactly, There'll be so much abundance no money.
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 2: There's going to be no money in ten years.
• 1:07:28
  Speaker 3: I was actually going to use that clip of Ilan
• 1:07:30
  Speaker 3: on a future show to talk about it. I mean,
• 1:07:36
  Speaker 3: and that's Alan. And then you've got you've got the
• 1:07:38
  Speaker 3: guy at open AI and and they just signed a
• 1:07:42
  Speaker 3: letter over a thousand AI engineers. So the the fear
• 1:07:47
  Speaker 3: is coming from the industry and and and spreading Look,
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 3: it's the fear that we've had forever, from the beginning
• 1:07:59
  Speaker 3: of time, as far as I can tell.
• 1:08:01
  Speaker 2: That the world's going to end.
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 11: But back to your earlier point, they've got the textile example, right,
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 11: So it's not like this is uncovered territory and.
• 1:08:14
  Speaker 3: Every every twenty years, right, every twenty years, when the
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 3: new technology comes out, they've got the examples from before.
• 1:08:23
  Speaker 3: And it doesn't matter. This one is bigger than the
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 3: other technologies. This is huge. This might be on the
• 1:08:29
  Speaker 3: scale of agriculture. But it is true that throughout human
• 1:08:33
  Speaker 3: history we have been convinced that the world is going
• 1:08:37
  Speaker 3: to end. I don't know why that. I mean, I
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 3: mean Christianity was born as a religion of again, right,
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 3: Jesus was convinced the world was going to end any
• 1:08:50
  Speaker 3: day now. And Paul, right, the apostle, is writing like
• 1:08:55
  Speaker 3: he's going to see the end of the world in
• 1:08:57
  Speaker 3: his lifetime. And it's only like five hundred years later
• 1:09:01
  Speaker 3: that the Christians say, maybe it ain't happening, right or
• 1:09:04
  Speaker 3: in our lifetime, right, And even then you have millennial
• 1:09:07
  Speaker 3: cults repeatedly. So there is some underlying fear that a
• 1:09:14
  Speaker 3: lot of people have of reality itself that then it
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 3: gets projected onto the machine.
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 16: It's also you're on like something very mystical about that
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 16: we can't predict exactly what's going to happen, and that
• 1:09:30
  Speaker 16: somehow I think that creates and some people like are
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 16: real nerorocious, like they can't predict, so they fill in
• 1:09:38
  Speaker 16: the void with the worst case scenario.
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 3: It's like, yeah, but you can't predict anything about the future.
• 1:09:46
  Speaker 17: Yeah, I think there is a game of regulatory capture
• 1:09:51
  Speaker 17: going on, and a lot of what's coming out of
• 1:09:56
  Speaker 17: the AI companies should be put on the margin of
• 1:10:03
  Speaker 17: an attempt at regulatory capture and keeping future competitors out
• 1:10:09
  Speaker 17: of the vield.
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 3: I think there's an element of that, but I don't
• 1:10:13
  Speaker 3: think that's what's driving it. I really don't think. I
• 1:10:16
  Speaker 3: think they've always since the beginning of Opening Eye, they've
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 3: struggled with this idea of what're creating a technology that's
• 1:10:22
  Speaker 3: going to kill people. I think they believe that it's
• 1:10:25
  Speaker 3: going to reshape society. I think it's going to destroy jobs,
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 3: and yeah, they also as a side show, they also
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 3: want to have regulatory captures also on regulations that restrict competition.
• 1:10:37
  Speaker 3: But I don't think the fear is even coming from them,
• 1:10:41
  Speaker 3: is primarily driven by that. And look, it's all of them.
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 3: If you look at this letter that was just written,
• 1:10:46
  Speaker 3: written is it's people from Deep Mind, and it's people
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 3: from every single one of these companies. And by the way,
• 1:10:55
  Speaker 3: I know academics, I've got I think I told this story.
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 3: I meant this academic who's a big shot in AI,
• 1:11:01
  Speaker 3: in computer science and studying the stuff, and who listens
• 1:11:05
  Speaker 3: to the show once in a while. So he's a
• 1:11:06
  Speaker 3: you're on book fan, I guess. And he told me,
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 3: maybe we've got two years. This is even a half ago,
• 1:11:13
  Speaker 3: so maybe we have two years. You know, it's it's, it's,
• 1:11:16
  Speaker 3: it's it's finished. He says he can't think, and he
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 3: has no regreat, he's got none in the capture. He's
• 1:11:23
  Speaker 3: not he's not invested. He's not. He says he can't
• 1:11:27
  Speaker 3: think of a scenario, and he can't think of a
• 1:11:30
  Speaker 3: mechanism by which we can prevent AI from wiping out
• 1:11:33
  Speaker 3: the human race.
• 1:11:38
  Speaker 2: And this is, you know, such it's rationalism.
• 1:11:40
  Speaker 3: There's a lot of rationalism out there. Smart people tend
• 1:11:44
  Speaker 3: to be rationalistic, and they and they and they they
• 1:11:47
  Speaker 3: they in fear is what motivates them. So, but there's
• 1:11:50
  Speaker 3: an element of capture, but that's not the driving force
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 3: of it, you know out there. So we have White
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 3: you remember White two K. I mean that was funny. Yeah,
• 1:12:02
  Speaker 3: and that was that was and even Alan Greenspan, Alan
• 1:12:05
  Speaker 3: Greenspan literally the FED had a massive printing of cash
• 1:12:13
  Speaker 3: ready to go because because all the ATMs would stop
• 1:12:16
  Speaker 3: working in the banks would stop working, and they wanted
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 3: to be able to flood the market with actual cash,
• 1:12:21
  Speaker 3: to be able to provide people with liquidity because ye
• 1:12:24
  Speaker 3: two K was going to basically destroy everything. People catastrophizing
• 1:12:29
  Speaker 3: is you know, it's not human nature, but it's this.
• 1:12:33
  Speaker 3: It's it's a consequence of fear. It's a consequence of
• 1:12:36
  Speaker 3: fear of that unknown and people people love to do it.
• 1:12:40
  Speaker 3: So that's the bottom line. Now, how do I use it?
• 1:12:45
  Speaker 3: You know, I have it one. We're going to be
• 1:12:49
  Speaker 3: releasing a yuan Ai sometime in the next few months
• 1:12:53
  Speaker 3: which anybody could be able to use. Ask me, ask
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 3: questions of uan Ai and answer based on how I've
• 1:12:59
  Speaker 3: trained did so that is going to be happening.
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 2: I use it to outline talks.
• 1:13:07
  Speaker 3: I did this these courses for Peterson on iron Rand
• 1:13:13
  Speaker 3: and on benure capital and private equity. And I basically asked,
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 3: I asked you on AI to design a course on
• 1:13:21
  Speaker 3: iron rand uh and it did a first pass and
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 3: then I took that and I gave it to Chatchipt
• 1:13:28
  Speaker 3: and said, hey, Chatchet, what do you think about this course?
• 1:13:32
  Speaker 2: And chat Ret we critiqued.
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 3: The one before and then I then I edited and
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 3: changed stuff and re edited, and then I took it
• 1:13:39
  Speaker 3: back and I went back and forth between the ais
• 1:13:43
  Speaker 3: and between me editing and all three of us working
• 1:13:46
  Speaker 3: on this. I couldn't have done those two courses in
• 1:13:49
  Speaker 3: two weeks without a year. I wanted case studies right,
• 1:13:54
  Speaker 3: and I knew the case studies, but in all the details,
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 3: like the dates and the dollars, And I said, write
• 1:14:01
  Speaker 3: me up a ten minute story. I can tell about
• 1:14:07
  Speaker 3: the founding of Atari or the fund, the venture capital
• 1:14:13
  Speaker 3: investment in Atari.
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 2: It's a it's a famous story.
• 1:14:16
  Speaker 3: From the beginnings of Vinci Capital and Itari is the
• 1:14:19
  Speaker 3: game company. And it did it, and it came up.
• 1:14:24
  Speaker 3: And you know, I could dramatize it a little bit
• 1:14:26
  Speaker 3: and change some stuff and make it make it, but
• 1:14:29
  Speaker 3: and it does it.
• 1:14:30
  Speaker 2: It knows me.
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 3: It knows my voice, so it does it quite so
• 1:14:35
  Speaker 3: it's it's stunning. It's gonna make me so right now,
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 3: I have Chad gpt doing and I'm still working on
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 3: revising this and doing at ten am all the big
• 1:14:49
  Speaker 3: stories that are hitting right now, what are they?
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 2: With sources?
• 1:14:54
  Speaker 3: Right with sources? And then the.
• 1:14:56
  Speaker 2: Twelve human achievements.
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 3: Scan the news for any and achievements. And at one
• 1:15:01
  Speaker 3: o'clock I want you to look at the I want
• 1:15:03
  Speaker 3: you to look again at the news, see what the
• 1:15:05
  Speaker 3: updates are, what's changed. And by the way, I give
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 3: it a list of the new sources I wanted to
• 1:15:10
  Speaker 3: look at. So it was giving me Roysters, waters rights
• 1:15:13
  Speaker 3: rights waits. So I was like, I don't want just Royters,
• 1:15:16
  Speaker 3: and I don't want and I can't. I don't can't
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 3: access waits because I don't have a subscription. So here's
• 1:15:20
  Speaker 3: the stuff, and I want you to look at some
• 1:15:23
  Speaker 3: right wing stuff and some left wing stuff and some
• 1:15:25
  Speaker 3: middle I want you to scan the whole universe. Now
• 1:15:28
  Speaker 3: it gets lazy, so after a while, it's a first
• 1:15:32
  Speaker 3: few days, it'll scan all the things that I tell
• 1:15:34
  Speaker 3: it and then you'll see it. Now the scope down
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 3: back to where it's comfortable, and you have to again
• 1:15:39
  Speaker 3: tell it no boden the scope of what you're looking for.
• 1:15:42
  Speaker 3: And it's memory kind of phase. It has this fading
• 1:15:45
  Speaker 3: memory that it you know, you told me this a
• 1:15:47
  Speaker 3: long time ago, so it doesn't count somehow. So it's
• 1:15:51
  Speaker 3: I'm finding it fascinating. While I was talking to it,
• 1:15:54
  Speaker 3: It's come up with metaphors that I've never made, and
• 1:16:00
  Speaker 3: I don't remember any objective intellectual ever using, so it's like, really,
• 1:16:06
  Speaker 3: AI is creating original metaphors. So it's Stunningly it's stunning
• 1:16:12
  Speaker 3: how good it is.
• 1:16:14
  Speaker 7: It is.
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 11: But the thing is, if you just ask it to
• 1:16:18
  Speaker 11: blankly write you an interesting course, it would write crap.
• 1:16:22
  Speaker 11: It would not be worth anybody's time. And yet if
• 1:16:25
  Speaker 11: you ask it to start a time, a countdown timer
• 1:16:28
  Speaker 11: for ten thousand years, it's happy to do it. It
• 1:16:31
  Speaker 11: has no values, it has no skin in the game,
• 1:16:34
  Speaker 11: and people have got to figure out that if you
• 1:16:38
  Speaker 11: put the values in, hey I will deliver. But if
• 1:16:41
  Speaker 11: there's no values, AI isn't going to wipe out people.
• 1:16:44
  Speaker 3: It isn't going to wipe out all AI.
• 1:16:46
  Speaker 11: It's gonna sit there and wait for you to ask
• 1:16:48
  Speaker 11: it to do the next thing, yep.
• 1:16:50
  Speaker 3: And yeah, and so absolutely it has no goals. And
• 1:16:56
  Speaker 3: what I do is I tell it to write a
• 1:16:58
  Speaker 3: course as you're on. So it goes and say, okay,
• 1:17:01
  Speaker 3: what does you want? Really, Oh, I can write a
• 1:17:04
  Speaker 3: quoses you want and it takes my values and implies it.
• 1:17:07
  Speaker 3: So the first draft was not bad. It was not bad.
• 1:17:11
  Speaker 3: You know, somebody could have delivered it and most people
• 1:17:13
  Speaker 3: would have known the difference.
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 18: There are these legitimate concerns, as you've covered before in
• 1:17:20
  Speaker 18: the show, and it just strikes me of like how
• 1:17:24
  Speaker 18: a mature culture and rational culture would handle those concerns in.
• 1:17:30
  Speaker 19: A methodical, calm way that maybe would include some sort
• 1:17:36
  Speaker 19: of government involvement, you know, in conjunction with private sector consultation.
• 1:17:43
  Speaker 16: And that kind of But the answer is so stupid
• 1:17:46
  Speaker 16: and immature by the industry, by the tech industry, to say, well,
• 1:17:50
  Speaker 16: let's just let's just hold AI back, let's bam things.
• 1:17:55
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, because part of it is the reality
• 1:17:59
  Speaker 3: is that a lot of the concerns we have are
• 1:18:03
  Speaker 3: going to be almost impossible to deal with, and you know,
• 1:18:06
  Speaker 3: we have to find alternatives on how to deal with it.
• 1:18:09
  Speaker 2: So, for example, if.
• 1:18:10
  Speaker 3: You really want to if you want to figure out
• 1:18:13
  Speaker 3: how to build a biological weapon. Yeah, I mean if
• 1:18:16
  Speaker 3: you just ask the AI straight up, it's going to
• 1:18:18
  Speaker 3: say I can't teach you that. But they're always going
• 1:18:21
  Speaker 3: to be ways to figure that out. And even without AI,
• 1:18:25
  Speaker 3: there are ways to figure out. It just makes it
• 1:18:27
  Speaker 3: much much easier. And any decent rational AI is going
• 1:18:34
  Speaker 3: to put in some safeguards, and most of them do.
• 1:18:37
  Speaker 3: But if you get open soce AI and I can
• 1:18:40
  Speaker 3: put the AI on my computer at home and it
• 1:18:43
  Speaker 3: can run native on my home and I can I
• 1:18:46
  Speaker 3: can then change some of the guard rails that are
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 3: placed on it. I can get anything. So there are
• 1:18:54
  Speaker 3: elements of risks that are increasing because we have EAR,
• 1:18:58
  Speaker 3: and then the question is how to do we deal
• 1:19:00
  Speaker 3: with those? And I don't know I have a simple
• 1:19:03
  Speaker 3: answer to that. I don't have a simple answer to that,
• 1:19:05
  Speaker 3: But it's not slowly eyed down. It's probably to use
• 1:19:11
  Speaker 3: AI to figure out to catch the people who are
• 1:19:13
  Speaker 3: doing this, right, tracking, just track of them.
• 1:19:17
  Speaker 11: Yeah, exactly, bioweapons take bio ingredients, right.
• 1:19:24
  Speaker 3: Yes, there are all kinds of tells, right, They're all
• 1:19:26
  Speaker 3: kinds of tells, so you follow the tells. But yeah,
• 1:19:32
  Speaker 3: it's going to allow people to do things they couldn't
• 1:19:34
  Speaker 3: do before. And some of those things are not going
• 1:19:36
  Speaker 3: to be good. Okay, you don't stop civilization because people
• 1:19:41
  Speaker 3: some people are doing bad stuff. You know, people are
• 1:19:46
  Speaker 3: going to be able to create I mean they're going
• 1:19:51
  Speaker 3: to be able to create what do you call it,
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 3: simulated virtual child pornography right without real children? Right just now.
• 1:20:01
  Speaker 3: You could say that's disgusting and hubbable and all of that,
• 1:20:04
  Speaker 3: but okay, I mean, nobody's being abused, nobody, No force
• 1:20:09
  Speaker 3: is being used on anybody. So it allow people to
• 1:20:13
  Speaker 3: do sick things. And then the question is when does
• 1:20:17
  Speaker 3: it crossover devicece rights violation and how does the government
• 1:20:20
  Speaker 3: gets better get better at catching people who violatetes? Thanks yeah, Daniel,
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 3: good question, Zach, A question. We're gonna be talking about
• 1:20:32
  Speaker 3: a lot in the years to come. This topic is
• 1:20:34
  Speaker 3: going to keep circling back. It's the biggest it's the
• 1:20:37
  Speaker 3: biggest news story. So I guess the issue right now
• 1:20:39
  Speaker 3: facing facing mankind, if you will, right, Zach here, you're ry.
• 1:20:49
  Speaker 15: It's funny you mentioned Ross Brow. I work for Home Depot,
• 1:20:52
  Speaker 15: and from what I recall, he I think missed out
• 1:20:56
  Speaker 15: on a big opportunity to invest early on over some
• 1:20:58
  Speaker 15: silly reasons from what I or call could be.
• 1:21:01
  Speaker 3: I can't remember that story.
• 1:21:04
  Speaker 15: But I live in Salt Lake and of course it's
• 1:21:06
  Speaker 15: it's pretty dry here and water is a huge issue
• 1:21:09
  Speaker 15: with the Salt Lake going down, and it's a lot
• 1:21:14
  Speaker 15: of people blame, of course, the farmers and you know, Alfalfa,
• 1:21:17
  Speaker 15: and there's debates over building new data centers with the
• 1:21:21
  Speaker 15: you know, the water usage and whatnot. And of course,
• 1:21:24
  Speaker 15: you know, I think water should be private. But in
• 1:21:29
  Speaker 15: a transition period, you know, say the government was working
• 1:21:32
  Speaker 15: towards that, how would you prioritize needs or risks you know,
• 1:21:40
  Speaker 15: in that process when you're moving from a you know,
• 1:21:42
  Speaker 15: state allocated water system to a private system because everyone,
• 1:21:47
  Speaker 15: you know, everyone has their opinion on you know, what
• 1:21:50
  Speaker 15: the risk is. For example, you know a lot of
• 1:21:52
  Speaker 15: people say, oh, if the Salt Lake dries up, then
• 1:21:54
  Speaker 15: you know there's going to be all this toxic dust.
• 1:21:56
  Speaker 15: So how would a government in that process of privatization
• 1:22:00
  Speaker 15: and you know, handle those risks and allocations during that transition?
• 1:22:08
  Speaker 3: You know, I'm not sure. I mean, you'd have to
• 1:22:10
  Speaker 3: think about each industry, you know, specifically, and what the
• 1:22:14
  Speaker 3: risks are exactly and how to deal with them. And
• 1:22:17
  Speaker 3: each industry is going to have completely different risks, and
• 1:22:20
  Speaker 3: maybe with water, each geography will have very different risks
• 1:22:23
  Speaker 3: and you'll have to manage those. The sooner you can
• 1:22:27
  Speaker 3: privatize land, including the lake itself, the better. And then
• 1:22:35
  Speaker 3: there is an interest you know, I don't I don't
• 1:22:39
  Speaker 3: privatizing the lake. I guess there's an industry and salt,
• 1:22:41
  Speaker 3: So there's some industry the benefits from the lake. They
• 1:22:44
  Speaker 3: could buy it, and then they would they would have
• 1:22:46
  Speaker 3: an interest in trying to preserve the lake uh and
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 3: be willing to buy water. So you have to create
• 1:22:55
  Speaker 3: as many private owners as possible as you move to
• 1:23:00
  Speaker 3: it's private ownership with the water itself. And then the
• 1:23:03
  Speaker 3: other thing is you have to have real pricing. That is,
• 1:23:08
  Speaker 3: you can't have water priced a flat price for water,
• 1:23:17
  Speaker 3: I mean, it just doesn't make any sense. I mean,
• 1:23:20
  Speaker 3: you've got to have some kind of dynamic pricing model
• 1:23:23
  Speaker 3: for water. You know, different seasons, different quantities that you're demanding.
• 1:23:30
  Speaker 3: That is, if you use a lot maybe above a threshold,
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 3: you have much higher price. So you've got to introduce
• 1:23:37
  Speaker 3: market pricing. That is the first thing you do, even
• 1:23:40
  Speaker 3: while you're a government. You've got to introduce some kind
• 1:23:43
  Speaker 3: of market based variable pricing mechanism. And look, there's no
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 3: question like I can tell you the biggest users of
• 1:23:53
  Speaker 3: water in California or almond farmers, it makes zero sense
• 1:24:00
  Speaker 3: is to go almonds in California. It's insanity because California's doesn't.
• 1:24:06
  Speaker 3: And if you actually price water, if they had to
• 1:24:10
  Speaker 3: pay the price of water in a competitive market as
• 1:24:14
  Speaker 3: compared to how much I'm willing to pay for water
• 1:24:16
  Speaker 3: to drink and to have a shower, they'd be priced
• 1:24:19
  Speaker 3: out of the market.
• 1:24:21
  Speaker 2: And so they wouldn't be.
• 1:24:22
  Speaker 3: Almond farmers in California. The market would just make it
• 1:24:25
  Speaker 3: so they wouldn't be. So the first thing is that
• 1:24:29
  Speaker 3: is pricing mechanism and privatization of land and then privatization
• 1:24:33
  Speaker 3: of the markets of the water supply itself. That would
• 1:24:37
  Speaker 3: be the process, I think. And then in terms of
• 1:24:41
  Speaker 3: and then if somebody bought the salt lake, for example,
• 1:24:45
  Speaker 3: then like the dust would be their responsibility. They would
• 1:24:49
  Speaker 3: be liable for any damage they caused neighboring properties, and
• 1:24:53
  Speaker 3: they would have to be willing to take on that
• 1:24:54
  Speaker 3: liability and therefore invest in preventing it, and therefore you'd
• 1:24:59
  Speaker 3: probably sell the lake for nothing. Right, just anybody who
• 1:25:03
  Speaker 3: wants to own it can own it. And again it's
• 1:25:06
  Speaker 3: probably the industry that probably has the highest incentive to
• 1:25:09
  Speaker 3: do it. But you'd have to think about geography by geography,
• 1:25:15
  Speaker 3: case by case.
• 1:25:19
  Speaker 13: Jeron, do you have any ideas about what to do
• 1:25:21
  Speaker 13: about privatizing a water table or something like that? Like
• 1:25:24
  Speaker 13: people that dig wells with a it's a public I
• 1:25:27
  Speaker 13: mean that we've privatized.
• 1:25:30
  Speaker 3: We've privatized oil. Oil is the same thing. It's a
• 1:25:33
  Speaker 3: it's a tablet, right, it's all underground. And basically we
• 1:25:37
  Speaker 3: say that if you and I think different states have
• 1:25:40
  Speaker 3: slightly different laws with regard to this. But if if
• 1:25:44
  Speaker 3: you drill, you can pump out all the oil that
• 1:25:49
  Speaker 3: you can, but somebody in a property next to you
• 1:25:51
  Speaker 3: can drill and it might be from the same oil tablet,
• 1:25:55
  Speaker 3: they can drill out as much as they can as well.
• 1:25:58
  Speaker 3: So you know, you just bring the same kind of
• 1:26:07
  Speaker 3: people would sell the mineral rights. They would sell the
• 1:26:11
  Speaker 3: water under their ground, under their property. Two companies who
• 1:26:16
  Speaker 3: would then aggregate the ownership of a particular water shelf
• 1:26:23
  Speaker 3: and drill from one location. That doesn't make any sense
• 1:26:26
  Speaker 3: to drill from multiple locations. And the same thing basically
• 1:26:29
  Speaker 3: happened in the oil industry. People bought the mineral rights.
• 1:26:33
  Speaker 3: So we're the only country in the world, I think,
• 1:26:36
  Speaker 3: the only one in the world where private people have
• 1:26:39
  Speaker 3: rights to the mineral under their land and that allows
• 1:26:45
  Speaker 3: for much That's why we developed fracking in the United
• 1:26:48
  Speaker 3: States because there's a huge profit motive to do it. So, yeah,
• 1:26:54
  Speaker 3: it would just be private property. Whoever owns the land
• 1:26:56
  Speaker 3: on top owns the mineral underneath it him as long
• 1:27:01
  Speaker 3: as they exploit that mineral. If they somebody else sucks
• 1:27:04
  Speaker 3: it up on the side, So be it all right?
• 1:27:11
  Speaker 20: Adam Ah, Yes, like you, I have family in Israel,
• 1:27:23
  Speaker 20: and I've heard several stories about what caused it happened
• 1:27:30
  Speaker 20: on October seventh.
• 1:27:34
  Speaker 12: You probably also heard several stories. Which is the one
• 1:27:39
  Speaker 12: that you find most likely? And is there ever going
• 1:27:44
  Speaker 12: to be a judicial probe to establish the facts?
• 1:27:52
  Speaker 3: So I think there will be a judicial probe to
• 1:27:54
  Speaker 3: establish the facts once nit any hours out of the government,
• 1:27:58
  Speaker 3: there will be a probe. Will it satisfy everybody? I mean,
• 1:28:02
  Speaker 3: nobody's happy with probes. They still think they still think
• 1:28:08
  Speaker 3: the Mossade killed you know, Kennedy, So why would they,
• 1:28:12
  Speaker 3: why would any you know, why would it prevent the
• 1:28:14
  Speaker 3: conspiracy theories from happening. What happened was an intelligence failure,
• 1:28:20
  Speaker 3: But what really happened was a strategic failure on the
• 1:28:25
  Speaker 3: part of the government that for fifteen sixteen, seventeen years
• 1:28:31
  Speaker 3: allowed Ramas to build up and create become what it became,
• 1:28:36
  Speaker 3: and to grow in power and grow in confidence, and
• 1:28:40
  Speaker 3: resisted the need to destroy Ramas and perpetrayed a story
• 1:28:47
  Speaker 3: that came from the top from N'taielle that Ramas was
• 1:28:50
  Speaker 3: interested in getting rich, they were interested in in uh,
• 1:28:54
  Speaker 3: you know, economic activity, that they won't really didn't really
• 1:28:58
  Speaker 3: want a war with Israel. They had it once in
• 1:29:01
  Speaker 3: a while, keep up appearances that they would gauge you war,
• 1:29:04
  Speaker 3: but they didn't really want. And this is this isn't
• 1:29:06
  Speaker 3: made up because this is what Nataniel was saying right
• 1:29:10
  Speaker 3: in in in meetings. So it was it was that
• 1:29:15
  Speaker 3: that I think that attitude from N'tagniel down that ultimately
• 1:29:20
  Speaker 3: led to the intelligence failure because there was complacency. The
• 1:29:23
  Speaker 3: intelligence didn't want to send intelligence up that they thought
• 1:29:28
  Speaker 3: the people at the top would would turn away. But
• 1:29:34
  Speaker 3: there's also.
• 1:29:38
  Speaker 12: The fact that there were intelligence reports from observers, mostly
• 1:29:44
  Speaker 12: women in Israeli intelligence, who were observing what was going
• 1:29:50
  Speaker 12: on in Gaza, and they all said that Hamas is
• 1:29:56
  Speaker 12: preparing an attack.
• 1:29:59
  Speaker 3: This is the intelligence failure. So often what you get
• 1:30:03
  Speaker 3: is people, low ranking people, observers, and there were people
• 1:30:08
  Speaker 3: who were listening, listeners who said Hamas is preparing an attack.
• 1:30:14
  Speaker 3: And this senior command has said, no, I mean, they're
• 1:30:21
  Speaker 3: just they're just they're just pretending. No, this is just
• 1:30:26
  Speaker 3: if we quite wolf again, if we quite wolf again,
• 1:30:29
  Speaker 3: then they won't believe us when it really happens because
• 1:30:32
  Speaker 3: in the past they'd quite wolf before and they an
• 1:30:35
  Speaker 3: attack never happened. So there was that's the intelligence failure.
• 1:30:38
  Speaker 3: The intelligent failure is not that there was an intelligence.
• 1:30:41
  Speaker 3: There was intelligence. The intelligence failure was interpreting and the
• 1:30:45
  Speaker 3: willingness to accept that intelligence and send it up their flagpole,
• 1:30:51
  Speaker 3: as they say. And part of the resistance of sending
• 1:30:54
  Speaker 3: it up to the flag pole was the fact that
• 1:30:56
  Speaker 3: people at the top were resistant to any idea that
• 1:31:00
  Speaker 3: Ramas was actually wanting a war.
• 1:31:05
  Speaker 17: But everyone under the border with military experience was sent
• 1:31:11
  Speaker 17: on vacation.
• 1:31:13
  Speaker 3: That's not true. That's not true, not true. Okay, that's
• 1:31:17
  Speaker 3: a complete conspiracy theory. And not everybody on the border knew,
• 1:31:22
  Speaker 3: you know, that's like all the Jews were evacuated from
• 1:31:25
  Speaker 3: the towers before nine to eleven. It's just not true.
• 1:31:30
  Speaker 3: There were some soldiers, there were some military units that
• 1:31:34
  Speaker 3: were sent from the Gaza border to the West Bank
• 1:31:37
  Speaker 3: to deal with, you know, the settlers and the Palestinians
• 1:31:42
  Speaker 3: there because of the the priorities of the Nataniel government,
• 1:31:47
  Speaker 3: which were much more focused on helping the settlers. But
• 1:31:52
  Speaker 3: they weren't sent there because they knew something was going
• 1:31:55
  Speaker 3: to happen. They were sent there because that was the
• 1:31:58
  Speaker 3: priority at the time of of the right you know,
• 1:32:01
  Speaker 3: the crazy right wingers. So no intelligence people were not
• 1:32:06
  Speaker 3: sent away. And the reality is that not all the
• 1:32:14
  Speaker 3: observers observed.
• 1:32:15
  Speaker 2: Tramas doing stuff.
• 1:32:17
  Speaker 3: There were there were some intelligence reports that Ramas was
• 1:32:20
  Speaker 3: preparing an attack, both on the on the physical, both
• 1:32:24
  Speaker 3: from aerial photographs from listeners and from observers at the border,
• 1:32:29
  Speaker 3: but they didn't have a date, they didn't know when
• 1:32:33
  Speaker 3: it was happening, but they had the outlines of what
• 1:32:36
  Speaker 3: they would do and the senior people in intelligence didn't
• 1:32:39
  Speaker 3: take it seriously, and that's why the head of intelligence resigned. Right,
• 1:32:45
  Speaker 3: A lot of senior people within the Israeli army have
• 1:32:47
  Speaker 3: already gone and took responsibility. It's the political level that's
• 1:32:51
  Speaker 3: never taken responsibility for what happened. And they're the ones,
• 1:32:55
  Speaker 3: I think who set the standards and conditions, but they
• 1:32:58
  Speaker 3: never took it.
• 1:33:00
  Speaker 17: Is there any truth that sam senior Israeli military people.
• 1:33:10
  Speaker 12: Are so Orthodox that they don't believe anything that comes
• 1:33:16
  Speaker 12: from women, including the women who were observing the preparations.
• 1:33:21
  Speaker 3: No.
• 1:33:21
  Speaker 2: I mean my boss in military intelligence.
• 1:33:26
  Speaker 3: This is a long long time ago, granted, but my
• 1:33:28
  Speaker 3: boss was an Orthodox, I mean, a full blown Orthodox guy.
• 1:33:33
  Speaker 3: And you know, our best My wife was our best,
• 1:33:39
  Speaker 3: you know, photo what do you call it, Amiel photograph
• 1:33:42
  Speaker 3: an analyst, and he showed I mean, they didn't treat
• 1:33:47
  Speaker 3: women in other ways the same, but in terms of
• 1:33:50
  Speaker 3: in terms of accepting the data, no, I mean that's
• 1:33:54
  Speaker 3: not true. Very good, thank you, And even in their
• 1:34:01
  Speaker 3: own world. I mean, women work in the ultra Orthodox community,
• 1:34:08
  Speaker 3: women work, women are doctors. Men don't go I don't trust,
• 1:34:14
  Speaker 3: you know, I don't trust the information coming from a woman.
• 1:34:17
  Speaker 3: I mean the other ways in which they discriminate against women,
• 1:34:19
  Speaker 3: and they don't like you know, and they don't like women.
• 1:34:21
  Speaker 3: But I don't think it's the case that the that
• 1:34:24
  Speaker 3: the Orthodox wouldn't accept the word of a woman in
• 1:34:27
  Speaker 3: in a in a in business, or in medicine or
• 1:34:31
  Speaker 3: in something like that, or in the military. It's not
• 1:34:33
  Speaker 3: how it's not how they work. It affects them in
• 1:34:37
  Speaker 3: other ways. Yeah, they won't touch it. Well, maybe that's good.
• 1:34:43
  Speaker 3: They won't touch a woman and they won't and uh,
• 1:34:48
  Speaker 3: you know, they don't want to be a woman. They
• 1:34:50
  Speaker 3: say a prayer thank God for not making a woman
• 1:34:52
  Speaker 3: every day. But you know, but that it's not that
• 1:34:54
  Speaker 3: they it's not so much that they don't trust a
• 1:34:57
  Speaker 3: woman's mind or the product of a woman's work, right, Jennifer.
• 1:35:02
  Speaker 3: And I'm no fan of a ault Orthodox. I hate
• 1:35:05
  Speaker 3: them with every fiber in my body. So I'm not
• 1:35:07
  Speaker 3: trying to defend them in any way, Jennifer.
• 1:35:12
  Speaker 21: So, these AI people you said that, the people that
• 1:35:15
  Speaker 21: run these companies and know a lot about it and everything,
• 1:35:18
  Speaker 21: if they really think it's going to kill everybody and stuff,
• 1:35:21
  Speaker 21: why don't they quit?
• 1:35:22
  Speaker 7: Why are they doing it?
• 1:35:23
  Speaker 3: Then? I don't know why doesn't anybody ask them that question.
• 1:35:29
  Speaker 3: It's a good question to ask them, that's the first
• 1:35:32
  Speaker 3: thing I thought, because if they don't do it, somebody
• 1:35:35
  Speaker 3: else will, and they're more responsible. They're the good guys.
• 1:35:39
  Speaker 3: Everybody else are the bad guys. All these companies organizes
• 1:35:43
  Speaker 3: nonprofits in one way or the other. So open Ai
• 1:35:47
  Speaker 3: is literally run. It was created as a nonprofit and
• 1:35:52
  Speaker 3: then it couldn't grow, so it switched to a nonprofit,
• 1:35:54
  Speaker 3: but it still has its governance, is governed by this
• 1:35:57
  Speaker 3: nonprofit entity thing, and it's incorporated as a public service corporation,
• 1:36:04
  Speaker 3: so it's not as shareholder wealth maximizing corporation. By law,
• 1:36:09
  Speaker 3: it's supposed to take the public interest into account in
• 1:36:12
  Speaker 3: all his decisions. Anthropic is also organized at some kind
• 1:36:17
  Speaker 3: of public interest corporation with a trust, some kind of
• 1:36:22
  Speaker 3: nonprofit trust that I don't know. I haven't dug in
• 1:36:25
  Speaker 3: too much into. But they're not ordinary companies. These are
• 1:36:29
  Speaker 3: not this is not saying stuff. These are crazy people
• 1:36:33
  Speaker 3: who think that they are the only people that can
• 1:36:36
  Speaker 3: be trusted in the world. And I mean, I mean
• 1:36:40
  Speaker 3: there was a point where Opening Eyes fired Sam Altman
• 1:36:43
  Speaker 3: because they didn't trust him anymore, and then they had
• 1:36:45
  Speaker 3: to rehire him, and then they changed the border of
• 1:36:48
  Speaker 3: the nonprofit to be nice to Sam Altman. I mean,
• 1:36:51
  Speaker 3: this is all. I did a show on that. This
• 1:36:53
  Speaker 3: is all. Now Google has deep Mind where I think,
• 1:36:59
  Speaker 3: I mean nobody saying Google is a nonprofit and Google
• 1:37:02
  Speaker 3: and Microsoft. I mean my sense is if I had
• 1:37:05
  Speaker 3: to bet, if I was investing in the stock market, right,
• 1:37:08
  Speaker 3: I would bet on Google, Microsoft.
• 1:37:12
  Speaker 2: Apple.
• 1:37:15
  Speaker 3: To have the leading AI in ten years and not
• 1:37:19
  Speaker 3: open AI and anthropic because I think there's just something
• 1:37:24
  Speaker 3: weird about how they're structured and the kind of people
• 1:37:26
  Speaker 3: they've attracted. I think it's the bigger for profit. I
• 1:37:32
  Speaker 3: also don't think there's money to be made in developing
• 1:37:35
  Speaker 3: AI models because it's a super competitive industry, and I
• 1:37:40
  Speaker 3: think it's going to be a commodity. The model is
• 1:37:42
  Speaker 3: going to be a commodity. I think the winner of
• 1:37:46
  Speaker 3: the AI race will be a company like Apple if
• 1:37:49
  Speaker 3: they don't screw up right, and you know, they will
• 1:37:52
  Speaker 3: integrate into AI seamlessly into our devices so that we
• 1:37:59
  Speaker 3: everybody will be using the AI without even knowing it,
• 1:38:03
  Speaker 3: and they will make the money on the device. They
• 1:38:06
  Speaker 3: won't make the money on the AI they I will
• 1:38:07
  Speaker 3: be free and you will be using Now there'll be
• 1:38:11
  Speaker 3: they'll be AI that's charged, and there will be specific
• 1:38:14
  Speaker 3: companies that make money off of providing tools to Daniel
• 1:38:19
  Speaker 3: to do the programming. But I don't know that they
• 1:38:23
  Speaker 3: will have to use open AI Orthropic, they'll probably use
• 1:38:27
  Speaker 3: some of these companies. Basically subscribe to all the models
• 1:38:30
  Speaker 3: and then depending on your task, assign it to a
• 1:38:33
  Speaker 3: different model based on the task. Some of these models
• 1:38:36
  Speaker 3: are open source and are really really cheap, and some
• 1:38:38
  Speaker 3: of them are and so.
• 1:38:40
  Speaker 2: There's a price, there's a price.
• 1:38:43
  Speaker 3: Utility function, and the models will figure out what the
• 1:38:47
  Speaker 3: best combination and you'll be able to tweak it in
• 1:38:50
  Speaker 3: terms of what the speed versus price and things like that.
• 1:38:53
  Speaker 3: So there's going to be a lot of innovation in
• 1:38:54
  Speaker 3: the next ten years in how to use AI, and
• 1:38:59
  Speaker 3: I think that's where the money. It's not in the
• 1:39:01
  Speaker 3: air models themselves.
• 1:39:03
  Speaker 12: Both Apple and Intel already incorporate an AI processor, the
• 1:39:13
  Speaker 12: neural network processor and up in their current chips and
• 1:39:20
  Speaker 12: they're already in the current generation of devices that they're selling.
• 1:39:26
  Speaker 3: Yeah, they just don't haven't figured out. Apple hasn't figured
• 1:39:28
  Speaker 3: out yet, although I just saw it's a little bit
• 1:39:31
  Speaker 3: better now. They haven't figured out how to integrate them
• 1:39:34
  Speaker 3: into the device itself from a user perspective, and that's
• 1:39:37
  Speaker 3: what they're working on because that's what matters. It can
• 1:39:39
  Speaker 3: be in the chip and if I don't use it,
• 1:39:41
  Speaker 3: but they're working on it.
• 1:39:43
  Speaker 2: And I've just noticed, like.
• 1:39:46
  Speaker 3: Chrome, if you got the latest vision of Chrome at
• 1:39:48
  Speaker 3: least on a Mac, has just integrated Gemini in a
• 1:39:52
  Speaker 3: way that it's much more user friendly. It's still not
• 1:39:57
  Speaker 3: as good as chat GPT, but it's I can imagine.
• 1:40:01
  Speaker 3: So Google is trying to figure out how, god it
• 1:40:05
  Speaker 3: could do a whole few hours on this. But Google
• 1:40:08
  Speaker 3: is trying to figure out right now how to save
• 1:40:11
  Speaker 3: search or not to save search, but how to save
• 1:40:14
  Speaker 3: its advertising model. And the way to do it right
• 1:40:16
  Speaker 3: now is it's integrating Gemini into everything that you do
• 1:40:20
  Speaker 3: on the browser. Uh, it's it's it's a panel on
• 1:40:24
  Speaker 3: the side of the browser now and everything. So they
• 1:40:28
  Speaker 3: that's where it's going to be interesting. What's going to
• 1:40:30
  Speaker 3: be interesting is how different companies use AI to make
• 1:40:34
  Speaker 3: our user experience and how they create tools for professionals
• 1:40:38
  Speaker 3: who are going to use AI. And I'm not sure,
• 1:40:41
  Speaker 3: the money is made by open aie on thropic, but
• 1:40:44
  Speaker 3: the people who run those companies think that they are
• 1:40:48
  Speaker 3: the protectors of the world. If not for them, certainly
• 1:40:53
  Speaker 3: we would all die.
• 1:40:56
  Speaker 7: I thank you. I have to go now.
• 1:40:57
  Speaker 3: By Jennifer Hey Catherine, Oh so what was Catherine had
• 1:41:02
  Speaker 3: a second question?
• 1:41:03
  Speaker 14: But can I change it?
• 1:41:04
  Speaker 3: Sure? Okay?
• 1:41:06
  Speaker 14: So on this topic of AI, So, I worked for
• 1:41:10
  Speaker 14: American Express, and I've worked in like corporate America a
• 1:41:15
  Speaker 14: lot of my life. And what's been really interesting is
• 1:41:18
  Speaker 14: that like AI is doing and is going to do
• 1:41:22
  Speaker 14: a lot of the work that like all the junior
• 1:41:24
  Speaker 14: analysts myself included when I was in my twenties spent
• 1:41:28
  Speaker 14: like eighty hour work weeks doing like it'll do it
• 1:41:31
  Speaker 14: in like a minute, and it's crazy and it makes
• 1:41:33
  Speaker 14: me feel like, oh my god, I spend so much
• 1:41:36
  Speaker 14: energy and time doing all this stuff that like you
• 1:41:38
  Speaker 14: just press a button now and it like like even
• 1:41:40
  Speaker 14: just things like and you have like a meeting of
• 1:41:43
  Speaker 14: executives and you need someone to take notes, like you
• 1:41:45
  Speaker 14: can just record it, press a button and it'll take
• 1:41:48
  Speaker 14: like the most incredible notes you've ever seen. And so
• 1:41:51
  Speaker 14: I guess one of my questions is you know, like
• 1:41:53
  Speaker 14: in the Fountain Head when they talk about Rohix designs
• 1:41:59
  Speaker 14: versus all the other architects designs, how Roorics were like
• 1:42:02
  Speaker 14: original and the other architects were like just copies of
• 1:42:06
  Speaker 14: copies of copies of coffees yep, And so there was
• 1:42:09
  Speaker 14: no like real source of creativity or originality. Sometimes I
• 1:42:15
  Speaker 14: wonder if AI is like shining light on the fact
• 1:42:19
  Speaker 14: that a lot of the work that has done is
• 1:42:22
  Speaker 14: just like copies of copies of copies, and that's like
• 1:42:25
  Speaker 14: the originality is not really there. And a lot of
• 1:42:28
  Speaker 14: these companies because we're starting to see with how like
• 1:42:32
  Speaker 14: even just making like a board level deck or things
• 1:42:34
  Speaker 14: like that, like you can just now put us a
• 1:42:36
  Speaker 14: button and it'll do yep. All this stuff that like.
• 1:42:39
  Speaker 2: Took us hours and hours and hours.
• 1:42:41
  Speaker 14: Yeah, And like I guess my point is that it's like,
• 1:42:44
  Speaker 14: were we really bringing that much value? Like or is
• 1:42:48
  Speaker 14: the value in things that like what Howard or did,
• 1:42:51
  Speaker 14: which is like create original work, which isn't that common anymore.
• 1:42:57
  Speaker 3: Well, I mean you would bring value because nobody else
• 1:43:00
  Speaker 3: could do it right, you had to.
• 1:43:02
  Speaker 2: Do the day.
• 1:43:02
  Speaker 14: Yeah, it was valuable at the time because and.
• 1:43:07
  Speaker 3: The thing is that repetitive actions like that, they're creating
• 1:43:12
  Speaker 3: a deck that AI is going to replace. And what
• 1:43:16
  Speaker 3: they can't replace is the is the is the original
• 1:43:21
  Speaker 3: creative spark of a Howard work. So think AI will
• 1:43:25
  Speaker 3: never replace as Howard work, but he will replace the
• 1:43:29
  Speaker 3: junior analyst and the junior analyst will have to no
• 1:43:33
  Speaker 3: longer be junior. He will use AI to do the
• 1:43:36
  Speaker 3: junior analyst stuff and then have time to do other stuff.
• 1:43:40
  Speaker 3: And then the question is what are the stuff are
• 1:43:42
  Speaker 3: we going to have them do? And that's still an
• 1:43:45
  Speaker 3: open question, but we know from the past that there's
• 1:43:50
  Speaker 3: always more stuff to do.
• 1:43:52
  Speaker 14: And if people's jobs were just taking this from here
• 1:43:57
  Speaker 14: and putting it there, and taking this from here and
• 1:43:58
  Speaker 14: putting it there, and now it compute can do it,
• 1:44:01
  Speaker 14: and it's fringing up their time to be creative and
• 1:44:03
  Speaker 14: maybe it's shining a light that these people don't actually
• 1:44:05
  Speaker 14: have that much imagination or creativity.
• 1:44:08
  Speaker 2: That is absolutely right.
• 1:44:09
  Speaker 3: And then but it also will free people up who
• 1:44:13
  Speaker 3: could be creative and imaginative to be that because now.
• 1:44:18
  Speaker 2: They'll have the time to do it and they'll be
• 1:44:21
  Speaker 2: rewarded for it.
• 1:44:21
  Speaker 3: There'll be a much higher reward for creativity and imagination
• 1:44:25
  Speaker 3: and anything rot will be automatized immediately.
• 1:44:30
  Speaker 14: Yeah, which is cool. I think that's good for our world.
• 1:44:32
  Speaker 3: Then, I guess absolutely, it's super cool. Yeah, it's super cool. Yeah.
• 1:44:37
  Speaker 3: Thanks you having a question.
• 1:44:39
  Speaker 1: Yeah, Andrew, do you think that there's a way that
• 1:44:47
  Speaker 1: Israel could have defended itself in Gaza sufficiently.
• 1:44:53
  Speaker 22: And kind of mitigated or obviated this narrative that it
• 1:45:01
  Speaker 22: is responsible for war crimes and committing a genocide or
• 1:45:06
  Speaker 22: was that just gonna necessarily happen by by virtue of
• 1:45:12
  Speaker 22: the fact that.
• 1:45:13
  Speaker 3: It did, it was necessarily going to happen. I mean,
• 1:45:16
  Speaker 3: the world is conditioned to it. It's altruism. It's it's
• 1:45:20
  Speaker 3: altruism combined with anti Semitism. It's just there's no way
• 1:45:23
  Speaker 3: around that. It's just no matter what Israel did, it
• 1:45:27
  Speaker 3: would have it would have suffered that. I mean, it
• 1:45:29
  Speaker 3: could have done better pr but I don't think better
• 1:45:31
  Speaker 3: pa would have actually saved it. Yeah, it's just altruism,
• 1:45:38
  Speaker 3: and it was doomed from in the beginning.
• 1:45:44
  Speaker 16: So you don't think because I know one of your
• 1:45:46
  Speaker 16: criticisms was it should have done what it did faster.
• 1:45:52
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean I think fast would have minimized it
• 1:45:55
  Speaker 3: because it took time for that narative narrative to build,
• 1:46:00
  Speaker 3: wouldn't have spared it. So the faster they've done it,
• 1:46:02
  Speaker 3: the better, No question about that.
• 1:46:05
  Speaker 23: Okay, Yeah, all right, Kobe on topic, I no, it's
• 1:46:12
  Speaker 23: just a it's just a comment I wanted to say
• 1:46:14
  Speaker 23: for I don't I don't have any other questions.
• 1:46:18
  Speaker 13: I think you should really look into doing Twitch and Kick.
• 1:46:22
  Speaker 3: Because it's it's very difficult to stream there. I have
• 1:46:27
  Speaker 3: to create a I mean, I use restream and everything
• 1:46:32
  Speaker 3: else is automatic. And if I do stream, I've looked
• 1:46:35
  Speaker 3: into it. I have to I can't what step I
• 1:46:39
  Speaker 3: have to take. I have to take like three additional steps,
• 1:46:41
  Speaker 3: and it's just too much work.
• 1:46:43
  Speaker 13: I'm telling you it's worth it because those websites, not
• 1:46:46
  Speaker 13: only is it really young people there. Yeah, it's like
• 1:46:49
  Speaker 13: every single person on that website is like degenerate. They're
• 1:46:52
  Speaker 13: all idiots.
• 1:46:52
  Speaker 3: They're all idiots. Oh well, that's my audience.
• 1:46:57
  Speaker 13: But I'm saying, if there was one guy on that
• 1:47:00
  Speaker 13: site that made sense, I'm telling you, Snowball.
• 1:47:03
  Speaker 3: Well, I can do an experiment and see what happens.
• 1:47:06
  Speaker 3: You can try, all right, Michael.
• 1:47:13
  Speaker 7: Sorry, Also there's no background noise.
• 1:47:15
  Speaker 24: I had to take this hall on the road with me,
• 1:47:18
  Speaker 24: you'll find I.
• 1:47:21
  Speaker 2: Work in manufacturing.
• 1:47:22
  Speaker 24: So I'm curious if there's any proper role for defending
• 1:47:26
  Speaker 24: safety rights similar to OSHA.
• 1:47:29
  Speaker 3: Obviously there's a bunch of issues with OSHA.
• 1:47:31
  Speaker 2: But what would that look like?
• 1:47:33
  Speaker 24: How would workers safety be prioritized in a free market?
• 1:47:38
  Speaker 3: Well, I mean it was prioritized if you look at
• 1:47:41
  Speaker 3: if you look at safety in manufacturing, construction, all these
• 1:47:47
  Speaker 3: industries before OSHA, uh business, manufacturing and construction all getting
• 1:47:54
  Speaker 3: safer steadily and systematically for decades before she came into being.
• 1:47:59
  Speaker 3: Ocehan just canntinue to trend there was already starting beforehand.
• 1:48:05
  Speaker 2: The incentive is the incentive.
• 1:48:07
  Speaker 3: Of of the companies. You know, accidents are very expensive,
• 1:48:14
  Speaker 3: the time consuming, there's often litigation involved, u and they
• 1:48:20
  Speaker 3: just they just cause a work stoppage. A second, workers
• 1:48:25
  Speaker 3: workers are just not going to want to work in
• 1:48:27
  Speaker 3: a in a place that's unsafe, and they are going
• 1:48:31
  Speaker 3: to They're gonna, you know, demand that things get safe
• 1:48:35
  Speaker 3: or they leave. So even if even if you don't
• 1:48:37
  Speaker 3: have unions, your best people will just go somewhere else where.
• 1:48:41
  Speaker 2: It's safer.
• 1:48:43
  Speaker 3: So you've got pressure from the bottom line, profit pressure,
• 1:48:47
  Speaker 3: and you've got pressure from your workers. And I don't
• 1:48:52
  Speaker 3: think any owner, any manager really wants to see harm
• 1:48:55
  Speaker 3: come to his workers. That's avoidable. So I think there's
• 1:48:58
  Speaker 3: lots of incentives the increased safety beyond ocean. And then
• 1:49:02
  Speaker 3: you can imagine even industry groups getting together and formulating
• 1:49:06
  Speaker 3: best practices and you know, having recommended best practices for
• 1:49:13
  Speaker 3: an industry. So I think all of those mechanisms would work. Yeah,
• 1:49:22
  Speaker 3: I completely agree.
• 1:49:23
  Speaker 24: I think there would be institutions developed to help support
• 1:49:26
  Speaker 24: these things. And you're just naturally the world class companies.
• 1:49:32
  Speaker 3: You would not believe the.
• 1:49:32
  Speaker 24: Amount of morale and trust and team building that you
• 1:49:36
  Speaker 24: get just from making a decision that prioritizes somebody's well being.
• 1:49:40
  Speaker 3: Absolutely seeing it myself. So yeah, it's just good business.
• 1:49:45
  Speaker 3: It's just good business. And I think I think the
• 1:49:47
  Speaker 3: best companies know that and they get the best employees.
• 1:49:52
  Speaker 3: All right, good, let's go to us super chat. Let's
• 1:50:01
  Speaker 3: see Stephen says, have you tried to get Bill Marty
• 1:50:04
  Speaker 3: a gist in your show? No? I mean, there's no
• 1:50:07
  Speaker 3: way in hell he would come on my show. Why
• 1:50:09
  Speaker 3: would he? I mean, there's no benefit to him. He
• 1:50:11
  Speaker 3: has nothing to gain. If anything, he should have me
• 1:50:15
  Speaker 3: on his show, and we've tried that in the past
• 1:50:18
  Speaker 3: and he wouldn't do it. So I doubt that he
• 1:50:19
  Speaker 3: would come on my show if you won't have me
• 1:50:21
  Speaker 3: on his show. All right, the rational says, I've studied
• 1:50:31
  Speaker 3: an objectivist view on animal rights, but I still struggle
• 1:50:35
  Speaker 3: with it. I believe a free, rational society shouldn't tolerate
• 1:50:39
  Speaker 3: pointless cruelty or sadism towards animals, even apart from animal rights.
• 1:50:46
  Speaker 3: Ostracism doesn't seem sufficient. Well, I mean, but doesn't seem sufficient,
• 1:50:51
  Speaker 3: doesn't seem explanatory. Particularly why doesn't seem sufficient? And what
• 1:50:57
  Speaker 3: are you propose to do about it? Do you? You know? So, Look,
• 1:51:00
  Speaker 3: here's the bottom line. Being cool to an animal does
• 1:51:04
  Speaker 3: not violate an animal's rights because animals cannot have rights.
• 1:51:07
  Speaker 3: Rights come from the conceptual nature of man. A non
• 1:51:11
  Speaker 3: conceptual being has no rights. It's just just the very
• 1:51:16
  Speaker 3: the very notion of it. Right, So animals cannot have rights. Now,
• 1:51:20
  Speaker 3: it's true that you know, being cool or sadistic towards
• 1:51:26
  Speaker 3: animals is you know, immoral, because it is cruelty for
• 1:51:32
  Speaker 3: the sake of cruelty. There's nothing to be gained from it,
• 1:51:34
  Speaker 3: and it's cruelty towards a living being, and there's value
• 1:51:39
  Speaker 3: in a living being, So it's it's emoll to be cool,
• 1:51:42
  Speaker 3: except under you know, particular circumstances you can imagine, but.
• 1:51:48
  Speaker 2: So it's imal.
• 1:51:50
  Speaker 3: And then the question is how do you deal with
• 1:51:51
  Speaker 3: them all people? There are lots of things people do
• 1:51:54
  Speaker 3: that I morael that you don't criminalize. But you could
• 1:51:59
  Speaker 3: ask us somebody cheats on his wife. It's not a crime.
• 1:52:05
  Speaker 2: It's emol but.
• 1:52:06
  Speaker 3: It's not a crime. And you could imagine a society
• 1:52:09
  Speaker 3: in which we ostracize somebody like that, and somebody's cool
• 1:52:13
  Speaker 3: to the animals, they're ostracized. I just don't see. If
• 1:52:17
  Speaker 3: it's not criminal and it's not ostracism, what do you suggest.
• 1:52:21
  Speaker 3: And it can't be criminal because it's not a violation
• 1:52:23
  Speaker 3: of rights, And you can't expand the concept of rights
• 1:52:26
  Speaker 3: to animals. There's just no way to do it. If
• 1:52:28
  Speaker 3: you did, then there'd be no justification of eating them either,
• 1:52:32
  Speaker 3: So you couldn't kill them at all. But you can't
• 1:52:34
  Speaker 3: because again, rights don't come from being alive. Rights come
• 1:52:38
  Speaker 3: from being conceptual. They come from the role of the
• 1:52:42
  Speaker 3: mind and the human in human life. They don't come
• 1:52:45
  Speaker 3: from pain. Pain is not the source of rights, so
• 1:52:50
  Speaker 3: suffering is not the source of rights.
• 1:52:52
  Speaker 2: So animals have no rights.
• 1:52:54
  Speaker 3: They cannot have rights. That's just it's not debatable, right,
• 1:53:00
  Speaker 3: There's no debate there, because again, the source of rights
• 1:53:04
  Speaker 3: is the need of the human mind to be free
• 1:53:08
  Speaker 3: of force. Animal minds do not need to be free
• 1:53:11
  Speaker 3: of force because their minds are not what. They don't
• 1:53:19
  Speaker 3: need to be free in order to function, because they
• 1:53:23
  Speaker 3: function automatically. So animals cannot have rights given where rights
• 1:53:29
  Speaker 3: come from, so they can be protected by the criminal law.
• 1:53:33
  Speaker 3: So I don't know what else other gnarcissism is available.
• 1:53:39
  Speaker 3: All right, Richard's coming in with fifty dollars questions. All right, Richard,
• 1:53:44
  Speaker 3: do you know how much structural mechanical engineering need to
• 1:53:48
  Speaker 3: focus on appeasing regulators as opposed to real engineering objectives?
• 1:53:54
  Speaker 3: How much has this contributed to decline in construction productivity
• 1:53:57
  Speaker 3: in the US? I don't know how much, but it's
• 1:54:02
  Speaker 3: it's a big chunk, you know. I don't know if
• 1:54:05
  Speaker 3: it's thirty percent or fifty percent, but it's certainly in
• 1:54:10
  Speaker 3: the ballpark of thirty percent would be my guess. And yeah,
• 1:54:14
  Speaker 3: there's no question. I mean, regulators try to stop frankload
• 1:54:18
  Speaker 3: Right from building a building because they said his columns
• 1:54:21
  Speaker 3: couldn't withstand the weight, and he literally had to take
• 1:54:25
  Speaker 3: a column out into the open and load it up
• 1:54:29
  Speaker 3: to prove to them that it was way stronger than
• 1:54:33
  Speaker 3: what their regulations required. Today, you couldn't do that. You
• 1:54:37
  Speaker 3: couldn't prove the regulator wrong in a simple way like that.
• 1:54:40
  Speaker 3: So who knows how many structural engineering innovations I mean
• 1:54:45
  Speaker 3: held up, slowed down, and abandoned because of the cost
• 1:54:50
  Speaker 3: is too high. So there's no question regulations generally increased costs,
• 1:54:56
  Speaker 3: slow down innovations, slow down increased productivity, and make us
• 1:55:00
  Speaker 3: all poor. That's true of probably eighty to ninety percent
• 1:55:05
  Speaker 3: of all regulations contribute to that. Richard also says saw
• 1:55:14
  Speaker 3: the Odissey with my wife today. I think the theme
• 1:55:17
  Speaker 3: that came through most, whether or not Nolan intended it to,
• 1:55:22
  Speaker 3: was the decline in civilizations is the product of free will. Specifically,
• 1:55:27
  Speaker 3: it occurs when men choose to disregard their reason. Interesting,
• 1:55:33
  Speaker 3: I haven't heard anybody articulate that theme for the Odyssey,
• 1:55:38
  Speaker 3: so that's that's interesting. Yeah, I'm going to see it
• 1:55:43
  Speaker 3: probably this week. I'll probably do a whole show on it,
• 1:55:46
  Speaker 3: because not only will I review it, but then I'll
• 1:55:49
  Speaker 3: take up the different interpretations that out there, the different reviews.
• 1:55:56
  Speaker 3: I've read all kinds of reviews, from praising it to
• 1:55:58
  Speaker 3: The Hill Too, the Ideal Christian Movie too.
• 1:56:02
  Speaker 2: It gets Greeks pretty good.
• 1:56:05
  Speaker 3: But actually, well, anyway, I'm not gonna say anything until
• 1:56:10
  Speaker 3: I see the movie, So Richard, you're gonna have to
• 1:56:12
  Speaker 3: wait for my response until I actually see it and
• 1:56:15
  Speaker 3: have I am able to actually know what.
• 1:56:19
  Speaker 2: I'm talking about.
• 1:56:22
  Speaker 3: All right, Roberts says it's not all fear, not all
• 1:56:26
  Speaker 3: anti tech. To understand the AI hesitancy considered the argument
• 1:56:30
  Speaker 3: against private ownership of nuclear weapons, I agree Alex Epstein.
• 1:56:37
  Speaker 3: I agree with Alex Epstein more than I agree with Eliezaykovski.
• 1:56:42
  Speaker 3: But there is an issue. I mean, I think there's,
• 1:56:50
  Speaker 3: of course there's an issue. I mean, you know to
• 1:56:52
  Speaker 3: an extent that this AI can be used to break
• 1:56:56
  Speaker 3: into nuclear facilities on launch.
• 1:56:59
  Speaker 2: That is a real risk.
• 1:57:01
  Speaker 3: But the only way to solve that is to use
• 1:57:03
  Speaker 3: AI to protect the nuclear facilities against AI breaking in
• 1:57:07
  Speaker 3: and I'm sure people have been trying to break in forever.
• 1:57:12
  Speaker 3: I think the issue is way overstated. I don't think.
• 1:57:15
  Speaker 3: I don't think you want to really create a.
• 1:57:21
  Speaker 2: Spectrum between Nelias A.
• 1:57:23
  Speaker 3: Do Yudowski, who's a complete nutcase, and Alex, who is
• 1:57:27
  Speaker 3: completely sane. Reality is much much, much much closer to Alex.
• 1:57:33
  Speaker 3: Also because you know, also because AI companies are responsible,
• 1:57:37
  Speaker 3: they're not crazy, they're not suicidal, and if we had
• 1:57:41
  Speaker 3: a half decent or even semi decent government, it could
• 1:57:46
  Speaker 3: protect against these things. I don't think the fear is
• 1:57:50
  Speaker 3: anywhere close to being to being rational or to being legit.
• 1:57:59
  Speaker 3: I mean, at the at the levels that it's being expressed,
• 1:58:02
  Speaker 3: and at the kind of there's nothing we can do
• 1:58:04
  Speaker 3: about it kind of attitude that they have. There are
• 1:58:10
  Speaker 3: problems and there are reasonable solutions to be had around
• 1:58:17
  Speaker 3: Richard said, I saw a study that showed regulations are
• 1:58:20
  Speaker 3: responsible for over one hundred and forty thousand dollars out
• 1:58:23
  Speaker 3: of US median home price of slightly under five hundred thousand. Yeah,
• 1:58:29
  Speaker 3: I mean that that kind of makes sense. It's over
• 1:58:32
  Speaker 3: twenty percent. Yeah, of the cost of a house is
• 1:58:38
  Speaker 3: the cost of regulation. I wouldn't be surprised at all.
• 1:58:41
  Speaker 3: I mean, imagine how much cheaper everything would be without
• 1:58:46
  Speaker 3: the regulations. I mean, I know, because just doing a
• 1:58:50
  Speaker 3: little renovation in California on a home that has no
• 1:58:53
  Speaker 3: impact on anybody, anybody, you can have contractors sitting around
• 1:58:59
  Speaker 3: on there, you know, doing nothing for days and days
• 1:59:02
  Speaker 3: and days waiting for an inspector. And you know, one
• 1:59:08
  Speaker 3: could just imagine what the cost of that is, you know. Yep.
• 1:59:18
  Speaker 3: All right, let's see.
• 1:59:23
  Speaker 5: Uh, all right, we've got quite a few super chats.
• 1:59:27
  Speaker 3: Let's go through these quickly, Thomas. Have you heard of
• 1:59:34
  Speaker 3: Sarah c and Payne. She's a former professor at U
• 1:59:38
  Speaker 3: c U S Naval War College. Great talks on war geopolitics.
• 1:59:43
  Speaker 3: Perhaps a guest future guests. I have not heard of her. Now,
• 1:59:48
  Speaker 3: thanks for the recommendation, Sarah Paine. All right, Wyatt, can
• 1:59:53
  Speaker 3: you believe Fauci taking the fifth? I would be surprised
• 1:59:57
  Speaker 3: if he didn't take the fifth. Why would he not
• 1:59:59
  Speaker 3: take the fifth? He's got nothing to gain, right, everything
• 2:00:02
  Speaker 3: to lose, and with all the conspiracy theories and everything
• 2:00:04
  Speaker 3: else going around, and the fact that he did at
• 2:00:09
  Speaker 3: the very least miss, misinformed, deceive, probably bold out lie
• 2:00:15
  Speaker 3: about the.
• 2:00:19
  Speaker 2: Possibility of a lab laque.
• 2:00:22
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I don't know what anybody expected and anime.
• 2:00:28
  Speaker 3: Were earlier objectivists wrong to consider objectivism and movement? Were
• 2:00:33
  Speaker 3: they just being overly optimistic? I mean I think they
• 2:00:37
  Speaker 3: were being overly optimistic. There was somewhat of a movement,
• 2:00:40
  Speaker 3: but it didn't I think it's it hasn't really become
• 2:00:45
  Speaker 3: a movement in terms of actually a program and something
• 2:00:49
  Speaker 3: to do more than just a philosophy for living. So yeah,
• 2:00:53
  Speaker 3: I think a little overly optimistic. Liam. Your answer from
• 2:00:59
  Speaker 3: the last show to Cells that being a loser is
• 2:01:01
  Speaker 3: a choice would be a great title for a show. Yeah,
• 2:01:05
  Speaker 3: that is a good I like that being a loser
• 2:01:07
  Speaker 3: is a choice. Good idea. Michael, When is Peterson Academy
• 2:01:16
  Speaker 3: releasing the Iman lecture that should massively increase your subscriptions?
• 2:01:23
  Speaker 3: Michael is an overly optimistic guy. Maybe I don't know
• 2:01:28
  Speaker 3: if it will massively increased my subscriptions, but they will
• 2:01:31
  Speaker 3: be releasing it in October I think late October, So
• 2:01:36
  Speaker 3: none of their releases and massively increase my subscribers. The
• 2:01:39
  Speaker 3: one thing that increased my subscribers I think was when
• 2:01:42
  Speaker 3: they released the first lecture of my capitalism talk to
• 2:01:47
  Speaker 3: the general public, not just to the Peterson Academy students,
• 2:01:52
  Speaker 3: not Chavs algorithm. Why did you move around so much
• 2:01:55
  Speaker 3: as a kid? My dad was a doctor in Israel
• 2:01:59
  Speaker 3: in those days. For doctor to get to advance, they
• 2:02:04
  Speaker 3: had to spend time in outside of the Israel. So
• 2:02:10
  Speaker 3: we spent time in London and then spent time in Boston,
• 2:02:13
  Speaker 3: and my dad kept moving around after that, spending time
• 2:02:17
  Speaker 3: in ih and in Seattle, in different places. And also
• 2:02:23
  Speaker 3: he he was you know, he was drafted into the army,
• 2:02:28
  Speaker 3: so that was one move. And then he had a
• 2:02:33
  Speaker 3: big fight with the administrative of a big government run
• 2:02:37
  Speaker 3: hospital and he had to move. So we moved all
• 2:02:40
  Speaker 3: for my dad's job. Basically, Zachary, I need to drop
• 2:02:45
  Speaker 3: off call early. I appreciate that. Thanks, Zach really appreciate
• 2:02:49
  Speaker 3: you being on today.
• 2:02:51
  Speaker 2: Richard.
• 2:02:52
  Speaker 3: Is there an alex Epstein for housing healthcare? Polsey had No.
• 2:02:56
  Speaker 3: There's only one alex Epstein, and he's for energy. There's
• 2:02:59
  Speaker 3: no other there's no there's nobody else doing what alex
• 2:03:02
  Speaker 3: Epstein does for any other profession. We need them. They're
• 2:03:07
  Speaker 3: just not there. I like numbers, says you say we
• 2:03:11
  Speaker 3: need way, We need a way to keep people with
• 2:03:16
  Speaker 3: different values out of objectives town. Perhaps some reasonable immigration
• 2:03:22
  Speaker 3: restrictions would help. No, I just don't want reasonable restrictions. Reasonable. Yeah,
• 2:03:29
  Speaker 3: reasonable restrictions and immigrations say, if you can work, you're invited.
• 2:03:32
  Speaker 3: That's the reasonable restriction. If you if you if you
• 2:03:36
  Speaker 3: can get a job, you're in, that's the reasonable restriction. No,
• 2:03:42
  Speaker 3: I'm just saying it's not a good example, partially because
• 2:03:44
  Speaker 3: you can't have you can't rationally have immigration restrictions, and
• 2:03:49
  Speaker 3: you can't have restrictions and who are living in your
• 2:03:52
  Speaker 3: town and who won't live in your town, And as
• 2:03:54
  Speaker 3: a consequence, I don't want a town like that. So
• 2:03:59
  Speaker 3: it's not I want the town, but I have to
• 2:04:02
  Speaker 3: change my immigration position. It's that I don't want the
• 2:04:05
  Speaker 3: town to begin with, partially because I don't want to
• 2:04:08
  Speaker 3: compromise my views and immigration author we are paying into
• 2:04:15
  Speaker 3: a system out to destroy us.
• 2:04:18
  Speaker 2: Yes, very much so, Jacob, you lied.
• 2:04:24
  Speaker 3: I never said anything for soak tried trial no saline
• 2:04:28
  Speaker 3: medium one ninety nine Henry Ford's study doctor Zeros vaccine
• 2:04:34
  Speaker 3: exposure high incident chronic disease. Yeah, I'm not saying you lied.
• 2:04:39
  Speaker 3: I'm saying you're wrong. You're absolutely wrong. The Soul trials
• 2:04:43
  Speaker 3: did have saline. You know, there's a million sources out
• 2:04:48
  Speaker 3: there that show that you can ask that question every
• 2:04:51
  Speaker 3: single AI, including GROC which conspires I guess with right
• 2:04:57
  Speaker 3: wing fanatics, and even it's as that soak used saline.
• 2:05:04
  Speaker 3: The trial, directed by Francis Junior at the University of
• 2:05:07
  Speaker 3: Michigan and sponsored by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis
• 2:05:12
  Speaker 3: March of Dimes, was one of the largest clinical trials
• 2:05:14
  Speaker 3: in history and involved roughly one point eight million children
• 2:05:17
  Speaker 3: In the placebo controlled areas eighty four test areas in
• 2:05:20
  Speaker 3: eleven states. About two hundred two hundred and one thousand
• 2:05:24
  Speaker 3: children received the inactive polio vaccine basically sailing, and a
• 2:05:29
  Speaker 3: comparable number received the placebo.
• 2:05:33
  Speaker 2: And it randomized double blind design.
• 2:05:35
  Speaker 3: Additional children served as observers non injected controls in other
• 2:05:40
  Speaker 3: areas right and inert substance inert fluid dummy shot i e.
• 2:05:45
  Speaker 3: Saling or material prepared to look identical to the vaccine
• 2:05:51
  Speaker 3: but without antigenic activity. That was what that was what
• 2:05:55
  Speaker 3: the placebo was, right, and there are plenty of sources
• 2:06:01
  Speaker 3: for that. And again you can you can ask any
• 2:06:05
  Speaker 3: one of the ai is, you can, you can check
• 2:06:07
  Speaker 3: them against each other. Not a single one of them,
• 2:06:11
  Speaker 3: not a single one of them, reports that there was anything. Yeah,
• 2:06:19
  Speaker 3: so uh yeah, I think you are confused. You're wrong,
• 2:06:24
  Speaker 3: You're you're being you You're he says wrong, ass Claude Medium.
• 2:06:31
  Speaker 3: I don't know what they called it. Maybe they called
• 2:06:32
  Speaker 3: the medium one ninety ninety assault. I don't know what
• 2:06:34
  Speaker 3: they called it. But every single source out there, every
• 2:06:37
  Speaker 3: single source, says there was a placebo with basically an
• 2:06:41
  Speaker 3: A note substance in it. And you are you know,
• 2:06:49
  Speaker 3: you're just being misinformed by sources that have that I
• 2:06:55
  Speaker 3: believe have corrupt intentions. You might not have intentions, but
• 2:07:01
  Speaker 3: your sources have co upted intentions. The doctors you're citing
• 2:07:03
  Speaker 3: have co opt intent and you're saying wrong. Ask Claude
• 2:07:14
  Speaker 3: Medium on any night, I'll ask Claude. Uh and uh,
• 2:07:18
  Speaker 3: my guess is it'll tell me what all the other
• 2:07:21
  Speaker 3: ais have told me, so we will see. Oops, that's
• 2:07:36
  Speaker 3: no good. All right? What did we want to? We
• 2:07:40
  Speaker 3: m and uh with regard to everything else I said
• 2:07:44
  Speaker 3: last time again, you're wrong and you misinformed everything I
• 2:07:47
  Speaker 3: said last time that you're wrong on, you're wrong on,
• 2:07:50
  Speaker 3: and you.
• 2:07:53
  Speaker 2: Have a source.
• 2:07:54
  Speaker 3: You have a series of sources that you're using that
• 2:07:58
  Speaker 3: are basically wrong in the fact. All right, one second,
• 2:08:08
  Speaker 3: what am I doing here? All right? Where are we?
• 2:08:21
  Speaker 3: Wyat Rand said on Tom Snyder? What will save this
• 2:08:26
  Speaker 3: country is not its intellectuals, but the people. Do you agree? No?
• 2:08:32
  Speaker 3: I think what's happened is that people didn't save it,
• 2:08:35
  Speaker 3: and in order to turn it around, it's going to
• 2:08:38
  Speaker 3: be new intellectuals. I don't think the people are going
• 2:08:41
  Speaker 3: to save this country. And maybe they, you know, to
• 2:08:43
  Speaker 3: the extent She's right, the spirit of the American people
• 2:08:47
  Speaker 3: allowed us to survive from when she taped that in
• 2:08:50
  Speaker 3: the nineteen seventies to today, what's that fifty years? But
• 2:08:55
  Speaker 3: I don't think that spirit is there anymore, and I
• 2:08:58
  Speaker 3: don't think it allow us to survive the next fifty
• 2:09:00
  Speaker 3: years without a dramatic, dramatically a group of new intellectuals.
• 2:09:11
  Speaker 3: All right, here's Claude, just for fun, right, just for fun. Yes.
• 2:09:16
  Speaker 3: In part of the trial, the nineteen fifty four Assault
• 2:09:18
  Speaker 3: Field trial ran two designs side by side, and only
• 2:09:22
  Speaker 3: one of them used the saline placebo. The placebo control
• 2:09:26
  Speaker 3: design did use sailing. In eleven states, about two hundred
• 2:09:29
  Speaker 3: thousand first through third graders got injected or either the
• 2:09:32
  Speaker 3: vaccine or simple salt solution sailing, assigned at random in
• 2:09:36
  Speaker 3: a double blind setup. Neither the children or the doctors
• 2:09:39
  Speaker 3: e valuing them knew who got which. Pro University of
• 2:09:42
  Speaker 3: Chicago statistician Paul Meyer's account that saline injection was the
• 2:09:46
  Speaker 3: whole point because the control kids received a real shot
• 2:09:50
  Speaker 3: of something in nerds right. The observed control design used
• 2:09:56
  Speaker 3: no placebo at all. In thirty three other states, only
• 2:09:59
  Speaker 3: second graders were vaccinated and first and third graders were
• 2:10:03
  Speaker 3: simply watched as untreated controls. No injection, no sailing, no blinding.
• 2:10:09
  Speaker 3: So accurate answer is the trial as a whole was
• 2:10:12
  Speaker 3: not a clean sailing placebo study. Roughly seven hundred and
• 2:10:14
  Speaker 3: fifty thousand were in a rigorous sailing placebo arm, over
• 2:10:18
  Speaker 3: a million more when the week of observed control arm.
• 2:10:22
  Speaker 3: The seventy two to eighty percent effectiveness figure that matted
• 2:10:26
  Speaker 3: came out of the sailing placebo portion precisely because that
• 2:10:29
  Speaker 3: arm was the one you could trust.
• 2:10:31
  Speaker 2: This is a claude opus four point eight.
• 2:10:38
  Speaker 3: I did what you said, Jacob didn't give me the
• 2:10:40
  Speaker 3: same results.
• 2:10:41
  Speaker 2: Sorry, And I mean.
• 2:10:44
  Speaker 3: There are dozens of accounts out there of these things
• 2:10:49
  Speaker 3: of Sulk's life, of the tests of you don't have
• 2:10:55
  Speaker 3: to believe the conspiracies that you know that a few
• 2:10:59
  Speaker 3: people are eating books about and that uh you know,
• 2:11:03
  Speaker 3: driving this they have an incentive to convince you. But
• 2:11:08
  Speaker 3: so anyway, that is what Claude Opus four point eight,
• 2:11:13
  Speaker 3: to be exact, said. So ummm.
• 2:11:20
  Speaker 5: I once, let me just check this, Uh all right,
• 2:11:42
  Speaker 5: uh just it just just mp something I heard you
• 2:11:47
  Speaker 5: say that the only way to deal with a bully
• 2:11:49
  Speaker 5: is through brute force in the context of kids at school.
• 2:11:53
  Speaker 5: Couldn't interpretation of that be dangerous especially for young people? Sure,
• 2:11:57
  Speaker 5: I mean bullies are dangerous, and you know, adultshi interoveno
• 2:12:01
  Speaker 5: as quickly as possible. But the reality is that the
• 2:12:04
  Speaker 5: only way to stop a bully is to confront him
• 2:12:08
  Speaker 5: and to challenge him.
• 2:12:09
  Speaker 2: And maybe you don't do it alone.
• 2:12:10
  Speaker 3: Maybe you get a couple of kids or three kids
• 2:12:13
  Speaker 3: to do it together, but you've got to confront him.
• 2:12:17
  Speaker 3: And parents and administrators of schools can help, but they
• 2:12:23
  Speaker 3: won't stop the bully unless the kids, you know, they
• 2:12:27
  Speaker 3: can I guess they can move him out of school,
• 2:12:29
  Speaker 3: They can keep him out of school, but they don't.
• 2:12:31
  Speaker 3: So the only way to deal with it is with
• 2:12:32
  Speaker 3: other kids. Now, in a morational school, yeah, a bully
• 2:12:37
  Speaker 3: would be kick out of school, but you can't do
• 2:12:40
  Speaker 3: that in a public school where you're supposed to admit
• 2:12:43
  Speaker 3: to everybody, So they'd be kicked out of school. There's
• 2:12:45
  Speaker 3: no place in school for somebody who's violent, all right, Wesley.
• 2:12:55
  Speaker 3: Companies like Anthropic have recently been buying large numbers of
• 2:12:58
  Speaker 3: books and taking out the pages, scan and train AI models.
• 2:13:02
  Speaker 3: This is being done discreetly without contacting the author's thoughts. Okay,
• 2:13:06
  Speaker 3: so there are two stories out there. We got to
• 2:13:08
  Speaker 3: get us. We got to get clear on which one.
• 2:13:11
  Speaker 3: There's a story that came out just a couple of
• 2:13:13
  Speaker 3: days ago, three days ago. Maybe the Nthropic is buying
• 2:13:16
  Speaker 3: old books, pre nineteen oh five books and many of
• 2:13:21
  Speaker 3: them rare editions, rare copies like this, and they're destroying
• 2:13:26
  Speaker 3: the book to scan it all in. There's no copyright
• 2:13:30
  Speaker 3: issue because the author the copyright has expired. And the
• 2:13:33
  Speaker 3: reason they stopped in nineteen oh five or nineteen twenty,
• 2:13:35
  Speaker 3: I can't remember that.
• 2:13:36
  Speaker 2: Article is because they don'tant toviolate copyrights.
• 2:13:40
  Speaker 3: And there the complaint is they're destroying old books. Old
• 2:13:43
  Speaker 3: books are beautiful things, and they're destroying them because they
• 2:13:47
  Speaker 3: they're literally ripping the pages out and scanning them. So
• 2:13:50
  Speaker 3: that's one story. And there, if you buy a book,
• 2:13:54
  Speaker 3: you should be able to do whatever the hell you
• 2:13:55
  Speaker 3: want with it, including bone it. So the fact that
• 2:13:58
  Speaker 3: they're scanning it is not a bad thing and ultimately
• 2:14:02
  Speaker 3: is good for all of us. The second part of
• 2:14:06
  Speaker 3: that is there are lawsuits out there saying that Nthropic
• 2:14:12
  Speaker 3: and open AI have been buying copyrighted books and scanning
• 2:14:18
  Speaker 3: them and accessing the New York Times website and without
• 2:14:22
  Speaker 3: in a sense paying a wality And that's in the courts,
• 2:14:25
  Speaker 3: and I think Anthropic and open EIE settled that and
• 2:14:29
  Speaker 3: paid out a huge amount that ultimately part of that
• 2:14:32
  Speaker 3: money went to authors of the books that they scanned.
• 2:14:36
  Speaker 2: So the courts are dealing with that issue.
• 2:14:39
  Speaker 3: So where rights are being violated, the courts are dealing
• 2:14:43
  Speaker 3: with it, and they're trying also to figure out when
• 2:14:47
  Speaker 3: is a right violated. Is the right violated when you
• 2:14:50
  Speaker 3: scan a book to train the model, but it's not
• 2:14:53
  Speaker 3: going to use it it's complicated, so the courts are
• 2:14:58
  Speaker 3: trying to figure this out. I don't think it's a
• 2:15:00
  Speaker 3: slam down case in terms of what the right approach
• 2:15:05
  Speaker 3: needs to be. But I think they need to pay something.
• 2:15:08
  Speaker 3: It's just a question of of what they pay, and
• 2:15:13
  Speaker 3: they are paying that. My point is they are paying.
• 2:15:15
  Speaker 3: The courts are forcing them to do that. Mary Ben's
• 2:15:18
  Speaker 3: did you see the graphs? I emailed? Helpful?
• 2:15:23
  Speaker 14: No?
• 2:15:24
  Speaker 2: I somehow missed that.
• 2:15:25
  Speaker 3: Could you email it again? Sorry about that? Uh, Michael,
• 2:15:34
  Speaker 3: why haven't the communist dictators of China imposed a welfare state?
• 2:15:38
  Speaker 3: Because they're not communists? And uh, they they they believe that,
• 2:15:43
  Speaker 3: you know, they they believe something that I think, you know,
• 2:15:47
  Speaker 3: Mark said, maybe you gotta you gotta you gotta, you
• 2:15:51
  Speaker 3: gotta work to eat. They are nowhere near as a galitarian.
• 2:15:56
  Speaker 3: They're not a galitarians at all. So they want to
• 2:16:01
  Speaker 3: encourage people to be successful because that's how society, in
• 2:16:04
  Speaker 3: quotation marks builds wealth. The answer to that is not communists,
• 2:16:10
  Speaker 3: And they'll only establish a welfare state if they think
• 2:16:14
  Speaker 3: they need to do that to appease the people, so
• 2:16:17
  Speaker 3: they don't rebel against them, and so far they haven't
• 2:16:20
  Speaker 3: felt the need to do that, all right, Michael. Do
• 2:16:26
  Speaker 3: you find people more friendly in red states than blue states?
• 2:16:33
  Speaker 3: I don't know. I mean, people in New York are
• 2:16:35
  Speaker 3: not friendly, but that's New York. It's part of being
• 2:16:38
  Speaker 3: in New York. People in California very friendly, and it's
• 2:16:43
  Speaker 3: a blue state. People in Texas are very friendly and
• 2:16:45
  Speaker 3: it's a red state. I don't know. My guess is
• 2:16:52
  Speaker 3: the South is friendlier than the North, and that has
• 2:16:55
  Speaker 3: more to do with weather and the kind of people
• 2:16:58
  Speaker 3: who settle in the south. Southern Europe is friendlier than
• 2:17:01
  Speaker 3: northern Europe. So I don't know that has much to
• 2:17:05
  Speaker 3: do with red blue. And it depends who you are, right,
• 2:17:10
  Speaker 3: If you're black, are they going to be friendlier to
• 2:17:13
  Speaker 3: you in blue states or red states? If you're Hispanic,
• 2:17:16
  Speaker 3: if you're fun, if you speak with an accent, I mean,
• 2:17:20
  Speaker 3: I don't know what the answer is. I think you
• 2:17:22
  Speaker 3: have to go town by town or state by state.
• 2:17:25
  Speaker 3: I don't think it cuts blue red that way. All right,
• 2:17:30
  Speaker 3: that's a super chat. Thanks to all the super chats.
• 2:17:32
  Speaker 3: You guys have been great today. You guys in the panel,
• 2:17:37
  Speaker 3: does anybody have like a question you really want to ask?
• 2:17:42
  Speaker 3: We've gone about two and a half hours. But anybody
• 2:17:45
  Speaker 3: who asks a question really want to ask. Katherine, I
• 2:17:50
  Speaker 3: get a question for you.
• 2:17:51
  Speaker 13: Yeah, Kobe, when you guys finished building that place in Austin,
• 2:17:56
  Speaker 13: that museum or.
• 2:17:57
  Speaker 3: Thing you're doing it, it opens opens it September two. Yeah.
• 2:18:04
  Speaker 13: Are you guys gonna move the ARI office to Austin
• 2:18:07
  Speaker 13: or stay in California?
• 2:18:08
  Speaker 3: Yeah, it's going to be in that building. Oh cool,
• 2:18:13
  Speaker 3: All right, Catherine, did you have a question.
• 2:18:15
  Speaker 14: Oh, I was gonna say, well, well, what's your favorite
• 2:18:17
  Speaker 14: places of all the places you've traveled?
• 2:18:20
  Speaker 3: God, it really depends on why I'm traveling, right, So
• 2:18:23
  Speaker 3: for scenery, New Zealand. New Zealand just blows everything out
• 2:18:27
  Speaker 3: of the water. It's just gorgeous, beautiful. For culture, you know,
• 2:18:33
  Speaker 3: it's hard Florence, Paris, London, Rome, So that's culture for
• 2:18:47
  Speaker 3: you know. For food, Son Sabastian in Spain, Barcelona in Spain, Spain. Generally, yeah,
• 2:18:55
  Speaker 3: it depends why you're going what you're going for a
• 2:19:00
  Speaker 3: lot in the world to see, go see it is
• 2:19:02
  Speaker 3: my view, lots of different reasons to travel, lots of
• 2:19:07
  Speaker 3: different things to see. Barcelona, Edinburgh, Oh, definitely Barcelona. I
• 2:19:15
  Speaker 3: mean i'd visit Edinburgh for two days and but I like,
• 2:19:19
  Speaker 3: it's so glum, it's so gray, it's so wet. It's
• 2:19:24
  Speaker 3: beautiful when the sun is shining like two days a year.
• 2:19:28
  Speaker 3: It is a gorgeous city. But it you know, it
• 2:19:31
  Speaker 3: doesn't happen very often. All right, guys, thank you? Yeah, um.
• 2:19:46
  Speaker 2: Right, I will see you, oh.
• 2:19:48
  Speaker 3: Nicos tomorrow, same time, eight pm tomorrow with Nicos, see
• 2:19:53
  Speaker 3: then bye everybody.
• 2:20:00
  Speaker 7: Three