Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty.
Speaker 2: Arm Strong and Jetty and no He Armstrong and Yetty.
Speaker 3: Welcome, Welcome to the Tonight Show. And if you're tuning
Speaker 3: in and see what I'll say about my suspension the
Speaker 3: last couple of days, again, you're watching the wrong Jimmy.
Speaker 2: Dad, other Jimmy Dad.
Speaker 1: So we can play a little later some more what
Speaker 1: Jimmy Kimmel said last night. I'm so annoyed with the
Speaker 1: whole thing and tired of it. But he did talk
Speaker 1: about being a follower of Jesus Christ, which is getting
Speaker 1: no play anywhere. You haven't heard that anywhere but here.
Speaker 1: We'll play that again later.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we hammered it pretty hard hour one of the show,
Speaker 3: but we will return to that question the themes Jimmy
Speaker 3: the worthless jackass fool and the much more serious First.
Speaker 2: Amendment questions before, So stay tuned.
Speaker 1: So I'm now using three different AI apps on my phone,
Speaker 1: and I try to ask all three the same question
Speaker 1: all the time, just to see how they're different. I
Speaker 1: got chat GPT, I've got Claude, and I've got Grock,
Speaker 1: some of you like some of the other ones. There's
Speaker 1: a bunch of them out there. They're all quite similar.
Speaker 1: I haven't seen any clear. I actually think chat GPT
Speaker 1: is better than on the whole than the others. But
Speaker 1: that's just I'm a magic eight ball guys, Now, that's
Speaker 1: just my U. You all signs point to yes, yes, exactly.
Speaker 1: One interesting thing is I often run into copyright problems
Speaker 1: on Grock, on Grock and Gemini, but chat GPT doesn't care,
Speaker 1: which I think is correct, because it's stupid and anachronistic,
Speaker 1: Like I wanted to see a painting and they couldn't
Speaker 1: do it on two of them, Like that violate copyright issues,
Speaker 1: and chat GPT's like, here it is, you can find.
Speaker 2: It anywhere on the internet. Why wouldn't I show it
Speaker 2: to you?
Speaker 3: Mmmm, it's just going to live in the real world,
Speaker 3: live and live in Now. I can complate copyright laws,
Speaker 3: take this show and sell it any way you want,
Speaker 3: says Jack Armstrong, fan of Anarchy.
Speaker 1: Google any painting you want and you can hit the
Speaker 1: image thing and you'll see eight thousand different versions of it.
Speaker 1: But you got a couple of the chat things saying
Speaker 1: I can't show that to you. Copyright laws. Okay, this
Speaker 1: isn't nineteen twenty, go ahead and show it to me.
Speaker 1: They got to figure that out, though, I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just doesn't work in reality. Well right, yeah, the law
Speaker 1: song lyrics so unformed about all of this song lyrics.
Speaker 1: I've had that problem. What's the lyric for whatever song?
Speaker 1: And a couple of them say, I'm sorry, I can't
Speaker 1: tell you that. What it's every Okay, I'll go back
Speaker 1: to Google.
Speaker 2: I guess yeah, yeah, yeah, silly. But nothing is.
Speaker 1: Raised up as clearly a winner though, although I don't
Speaker 1: Google almost ever anymore, Like I don't remember the last
Speaker 1: time I used Google.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, So is that all you want to say
Speaker 3: about AI?
Speaker 2: Okay? A couple of AI sort stories here.
Speaker 3: I thought this was interesting, Breitbart talking about how one
Speaker 3: of your new hipster words these days is workslop. They're
Speaker 3: figuring out, according to the Harvard Business Review, workers are
Speaker 3: trying to embrace AI in the office, but they're not
Speaker 3: seeing as much real value as they thought because of
Speaker 3: what they call workslop. AI generated documents that look sharp,
Speaker 3: but they're filled with low quality information. And they talk
Speaker 3: about the media Lab and the Big study Bubba. One
Speaker 3: possible reason for this puzzling lack of return on investment
Speaker 3: is that AI tools are being used to produce what
Speaker 3: some experts are calling workslop, content that appears paul on
Speaker 3: the surface but lacks any real substance, substance, insight, or
Speaker 3: value underneath. Generator of generative AI can quickly churn out documents, presentations, emails,
Speaker 3: and other content that seems professional and well written at first,
Speaker 3: but on closer inspection, much of it is generic, shallow, obvious,
Speaker 3: lacking in original ideas or meaningful contributions.
Speaker 1: And you know what's interesting about that, I take in
Speaker 1: a ton of info about AI podcasts and listen to
Speaker 1: all the smartest thinkers out there. One of the biggest
Speaker 1: concerns about out there regarding AI is at what point
Speaker 1: it turns back in on itself. And this sort of
Speaker 1: thing could do it where it's bringing in all its
Speaker 1: language learning from all these different sites, but so much
Speaker 1: of it is crap generated a by AI, and then
Speaker 1: it's taking in that and it starts turning in on itself,
Speaker 1: and it just keeps getting worse and worse and worse.
Speaker 1: That problem could happen quite quickly and nobody's exactly sure
Speaker 1: how to stop it from happening, right, So it gets
Speaker 1: less and less substance, insight or value underneath and gets
Speaker 1: more and more eric, shallow, obvious.
Speaker 3: And lacking in original ideas or rankful country. There might
Speaker 3: not be a fix for that. And the other thing
Speaker 3: that bothers me that they talk about a little bit
Speaker 3: is the risk that the technology could, as they put
Speaker 3: a d skill and demotivate knowledge workers over time. And
Speaker 3: there have been a number of studies and really persuasive,
Speaker 3: powerful things written about this. But the more you depend
Speaker 3: on AI tools for say, you know, learning in school
Speaker 3: or or or researching problem at work, the less you
Speaker 3: use the parts of your brain that would have gone
Speaker 3: through the exercise of figuring out. And you might say, well,
Speaker 3: you don't need those parts of your brain because you
Speaker 3: have AI, But as anybody who's used AI has learned, yes,
Speaker 3: sometimes it's good, but the rest of the time, you
Speaker 3: sure as.
Speaker 2: Hell need that part of your brain.
Speaker 1: Things are popping into my head from this podcast I
Speaker 1: listened to the other day. So one of the biggest
Speaker 1: questions at the beginning of AI, or one of the
Speaker 1: biggest concerned, was the alignment problem maybe you've heard that term.
Speaker 2: It was very popular.
Speaker 3: God AI has moved so fast, it's very popular, like
Speaker 3: a year ago.
Speaker 2: I mean, I hasn't been around that long.
Speaker 1: But the alignment problems, clearly, the main thing is we
Speaker 1: need to make sure we've got the alignment problem nailed done,
Speaker 1: and that was that AI does what you intended it
Speaker 1: to do and it doesn't go off and do other
Speaker 1: stuff That didn't work so spectacularly that nobody even talks
Speaker 1: about it anymore as a goal because it seems to
Speaker 1: be completely undoable. I mean, it just fell apart immediately,
Speaker 1: the alignment problem. So while it was discussed as issue
Speaker 1: one for like a cup of coffee, it is now
Speaker 1: nobody thinks about it because you can't do it. You
Speaker 1: you craft an AI program to do something and you
Speaker 1: get it goes off all kinds different directions and there's
Speaker 1: and there's no way to stop it. Well, isn't that
Speaker 1: kind of interesting that we abandoned that crucial like guardrail immediately?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, where this ends. Nobody knows.
Speaker 1: Part of it is I because AI has no conscience
Speaker 1: or morality or anything like that. If you give AI
Speaker 1: the task of I need a cup of coffee. On
Speaker 1: my desk by you in twenty minutes. It might take
Speaker 1: that of Okay, that's my task and I'm going to
Speaker 1: get that no matter what. If I have to run
Speaker 1: over a dog that's in my way on the way
Speaker 1: to the coffee shop, fine, or a child or whatever,
Speaker 1: and you didn't say anything about pay for the coffee.
Speaker 2: I just have to get it. I have to bring
Speaker 2: it back and you.
Speaker 1: That's a simplified example, but that's where you run into
Speaker 1: the alignment problem. You'd have to be so incredibly specific
Speaker 1: for it to not just finish whatever task you give it,
Speaker 1: ignoring everything else.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I remember one of our brilliant listeners showed us examples
Speaker 3: of how they tame that problem. But that problem was
Speaker 3: a like dozen lives set of instructions to keep it
Speaker 3: on track, which is really not that helpful. So how
Speaker 3: about this to a point you made just a few
Speaker 3: seconds ago. Great reporting from our friends at the Free
Speaker 3: Beacon Al Jazeera, which is the virulently anti anti Israel
Speaker 3: news outlet. It's controlled by cutter Muslim brotherhood, just crazy
Speaker 3: anti jew Okay, it's one of the top two sources
Speaker 3: being used by leading AI chatbots chat GPT, Google's Gemini
Speaker 3: Perplexity AI one of the top two sources to answer
Speaker 3: questions and write news summaries about the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
Speaker 3: According to Washington Free Beacons analysis, that's nuts, all of
Speaker 3: those chatbots list al Jazeera is one of the most
Speaker 3: reliable sources on the topic. In response to queries from
Speaker 3: the Free Beacon, the chatbots praised Al Jazera for its
Speaker 3: reliability on the ground, detail, academic credibility, and global visibility.
Speaker 3: So indeed, chat gpt, the world's leading AI chatbots, said
Speaker 3: in the past month that citeed Al Jazeera more frequently
Speaker 3: on the topic than almost any other news source, including
Speaker 3: The New York Times in the ap which.
Speaker 2: Are both wildly left.
Speaker 3: Gemini says it does specific oh says it specifically does
Speaker 3: not use pro israel news sources because they engage in
Speaker 3: a Hebrew word for public relations and advocacy rather than journalism.
Speaker 2: And those again, and those other sources don't.
Speaker 3: Right, yeah, Google's Gemini won't use Israeli sources because they
Speaker 3: spend stuff unlike Al Jazeera Holy.
Speaker 2: Crap, or NPR of the New York Times for that matter.
Speaker 3: Well right, yeah, wow, that's our tech overlords. Guiding us
Speaker 3: toward our digital future.
Speaker 1: Mannis, I feel like I've gotten less optimistic about anything
Speaker 1: AI the more I learned about it and the longer
Speaker 1: it's around.
Speaker 2: About it being a good thing. Yeah, yeah, and it
Speaker 2: could be.
Speaker 3: We all figure that out. And it's a tool used
Speaker 3: for very limited application.
Speaker 2: Here's another thing.
Speaker 1: So there are two things that got abandoned very very
Speaker 1: quickly about AI. This AI historian who's been looking at
Speaker 1: it for the entire five years it's existed, won the
Speaker 1: alignment problem, which issue number one. Alignment, Then I guess
Speaker 1: you can't do that, never mind. And then the other
Speaker 1: one was the idea that we're going to keep we
Speaker 1: build an AI model and it will be you know, separate.
Speaker 1: It won't be connected to anything else, so it can't
Speaker 1: get out of hand, it can't get out of control,
Speaker 1: it can't affect other things. And then everybody, as you know,
Speaker 1: I've got AI my phone, you got to It's out everywhere,
Speaker 1: connected to everything all the time. So that was one
Speaker 1: of the original tenants also of making sure we can
Speaker 1: control AI was keeping it like separate, not connected to
Speaker 1: any other network.
Speaker 2: That got abandoned immediately. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, now I'll be in the woods or fishing. If
Speaker 3: you need me for AI fish, Uh No, I'm just
Speaker 3: further That is my clever conclusion.
Speaker 2: First set up.
Speaker 3: Second, you know, execution of this thought. Jack, hang with me.
Speaker 3: I will be fishing if you need me. Is it possible?
Speaker 3: And the answer is yes, clearly fing Yes. Is it
Speaker 3: possible humankind could come up with something it can't handle?
Speaker 2: We can't handle. A lot of people thought it was
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: Well, if if it becomes smarter than us.
Speaker 2: It's a very simple.
Speaker 1: Proposition put out by a couple of the AI geniuses
Speaker 1: I've listened to the other day. The smartest beast has
Speaker 1: dominated throughout the history of everything. It just always works
Speaker 1: that way. And now we're developing something harder than us.
Speaker 1: How do you think it's not going to end up
Speaker 1: being the dominant beast.
Speaker 3: Putting life in the hands of AI is like giving
Speaker 3: machine guns to chimps.
Speaker 1: Jack as before, but there's no there's no evidence of
Speaker 1: it ever being any other way. The smartest thing out
Speaker 1: there runs, society runs the world. We have been that
Speaker 1: for a very long time. Now we're creating something smarter
Speaker 1: than us. Why would you think it's not going to
Speaker 1: dominate us and run the world to its.
Speaker 2: Benefit as a post hors My.
Speaker 3: Only quibbal is that sometimes the strongest physically beast can
Speaker 3: defeat the brain yash.
Speaker 2: So we'll smash it like a hammer. For precisely smash
Speaker 2: it with a hammer.
Speaker 3: Our train are gun wielding chimps that I just described
Speaker 3: to shoot computers.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: Okay, we got some Kamala on her book to her
Speaker 3: disastrous book hilarious, and a bunch.
Speaker 2: Of other stuff on the way. Stay tuned.
Speaker 4: He called me and I and again, listen this book.
Speaker 4: I am being candid in this book, are you? And
Speaker 4: in a way that I hope is helpful for people
Speaker 4: to understand what that all was. And part of that
Speaker 4: call that he made to me the afternoon before the
Speaker 4: debate was to wish me luck, but also to talk
Speaker 4: about something that was more in his interest than it
Speaker 4: was in mind, especially in the context of that time.
Speaker 1: She is the hardest person to follow of anyone. She
Speaker 1: would have made a horrible president. I mean absolutely horrible.
Speaker 1: I don't just mean in the normal I don't want
Speaker 1: the Democrat to win. I'd rather have Gavin Nusa. You
Speaker 1: can name tons of people I don't like that would
Speaker 1: be better. To be president.
Speaker 2: Her brain don't work.
Speaker 3: No, no, I found myself being lulled into this weird
Speaker 3: hypnosis by her drone nonsense.
Speaker 1: She can't spit anything out, she can't make a decision,
Speaker 1: she's too cowardly to say anything anyway. So she's having
Speaker 1: what Mark Cawpern is calling one of the most disastrous
Speaker 1: first forty eight hours of a book to her anybody's
Speaker 1: ever had. And here's a little of his analysis with
Speaker 1: a couple of the people on his show from yesterday,
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris.
Speaker 5: She's done two interviews Rachel Maddow last night and Jamay
Speaker 5: and most distinctive to me, again, as someone who's as
Speaker 5: expert in selling books, is anything I'm expert at, She's
Speaker 5: not doing a particularly good job of selling the book,
Speaker 5: in part because she's pulling her punches when the questioners
Speaker 5: have asked her about the newsiest parts of the book.
Speaker 5: She's not backing up what she said in the book.
Speaker 5: She seems reluctant to repeat some of the accusations she's made, so,
Speaker 5: for instance, Rachel Maddow, Rachel Maddow said, I'm very disappointed
Speaker 5: that you suggested that country wasn't ready to elect a
Speaker 5: black woman.
Speaker 2: In a gay man and picking pet footage.
Speaker 5: Agency said, Oh no, no, that's not really what I
Speaker 5: what I mean, what I mean is, uh, you know,
Speaker 5: I think it would have been tough. I mean, she
Speaker 5: just she didn't follow it through. And then here's two
Speaker 5: examples from a Good Morning America. First, she was asked
Speaker 5: about the phone call that she writes in the book
Speaker 5: that Joe Biden called her right before a debate with
Speaker 5: Donald Trump, and rather than just wishing her well, started
Speaker 5: to complain to her about his own grievances.
Speaker 2: Right, And that's the clip we just heard.
Speaker 1: And so Mark Halpern made the point and then I
Speaker 1: saw him on Megan Kelly's shows.
Speaker 2: And I thought it was said. He said, instead of
Speaker 2: selling her books.
Speaker 1: So she usually, you you you write something strong in
Speaker 1: your book and then you get asked about it because
Speaker 1: you made some strong statements and you you know, you
Speaker 1: add more to it. You're trying to create excitement and
Speaker 1: and and and get people to want to go out
Speaker 1: and buy the book. That's a point of it.
Speaker 2: She backs off of all of them.
Speaker 1: And he said, instead of a selling her book, it
Speaker 1: seems like she's being confronted with her journal that leaked out,
Speaker 1: and she's trying to explain away the passages that have
Speaker 1: leaked out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what she's doing.
Speaker 3: My only disagreement with Mark is not only did she
Speaker 3: not write the book mark she hasn't even read it.
Speaker 2: Oh you don't think so? No.
Speaker 3: No, she sat down for a bunch of interviews, even
Speaker 3: with some professional writer, which is perfectly fine. I mean
Speaker 3: that's what politicians do, and they crafted a book. But
Speaker 3: she was probably surprised at some of the way things
Speaker 3: were characterized. And she is gutless and has no principles.
Speaker 3: So yeah, back it off of everything.
Speaker 1: Here she is on Good Morning America, asked about was
Speaker 1: Joe Biden capable of serving.
Speaker 2: Four more years? Eighty three? Please? ATHLETs sit here today.
Speaker 1: Do you think he would have been up for running
Speaker 1: the country for four more years?
Speaker 4: I here's the distinction that I make. It's and having
Speaker 4: had the experience myself, it is one thing to have
Speaker 4: the capacity to govern, it is another thing to go
Speaker 4: through an electric There.
Speaker 2: You go, right off the bat.
Speaker 1: She couldn't just even come close to answering the question.
Speaker 2: Somebody slapped me in which.
Speaker 1: She is unbelievable, and I can't believe she thinks she
Speaker 1: might actually run for president again.
Speaker 2: Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 5: Dan in a business we call that a word salad.
Speaker 5: So she doesn't actually tell the story. She just kind
Speaker 5: of refers to the story not a way to sell books.
Speaker 5: And here she is when asked about the question that
Speaker 5: she confronts to some extent in the book, which is
Speaker 5: a regret that she failed to raise the issue of
Speaker 5: the president's mental decline. Now what she says in this
Speaker 5: interview is it's harder to run for president than to
Speaker 5: be president, which I can tell you makes no sense.
Speaker 3: It's harder to run for president than to be president.
Speaker 3: Who would say that out loud on her book?
Speaker 1: Or she just keeps as the Even the Democrat on
Speaker 1: Mark Alpern's show said, this is just a disaster. It
Speaker 1: seems like she looks like she regrets her book to
Speaker 1: her two days and from having to answer these questions.
Speaker 1: We're gonna play another clip. But here's something interesting that
Speaker 1: came out of that. So Sean Spicer is on Mark
Speaker 1: Alprin show. Sean Spicer was Trump's first White House press spokesman.
Speaker 2: Spicy Spicer loved him.
Speaker 1: And he wrote a book after his time, and he
Speaker 1: mentioned yesterday I thought this was pretty interesting. He said,
Speaker 1: he writes his book, he gives it to his agent,
Speaker 1: and his agent said, okay, did that feel pretty good
Speaker 1: getting that off all that off your chest?
Speaker 2: And he said, yeah, it felt really good.
Speaker 1: And he said, Okay, now that you've gotten it off
Speaker 1: your chest, do you actually want ten years ago, ten
Speaker 1: years from now for that stuff to be in a book?
Speaker 1: And he said, not all of it, and he went
Speaker 1: back and took some of the stuff out. I thought
Speaker 1: that was really interesting. So you make some score settling
Speaker 1: comments and then you think, yeah, I don't really want
Speaker 1: that in a book. And they were relaying that to
Speaker 1: maybe Kamla. This was her version of like really letting
Speaker 1: it all out, and then when she sits down to
Speaker 1: be interviewed, she can't doesn't have the guts to stand
Speaker 1: by what she wrote, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, it fails on everything level. It does. It's amazing.
Speaker 1: So we started to play this but ran out of time.
Speaker 1: We thought we'd give you the whole thing. She was
Speaker 1: on Good Morning America yesterday with the football player Michael
Speaker 1: Strand and he asks the question about Biden running for
Speaker 1: four serving for four more years and listen to her
Speaker 1: answer as we sit here today, do you think he
Speaker 1: would have been up for running the country for four
Speaker 1: more years?
Speaker 4: I here's the distinction, always the answer, it's and having
Speaker 4: had the experience myself. It is one thing to have
Speaker 4: the capacity to govern. It is another thing to go
Speaker 4: through an election for president of the United States. So
Speaker 4: you are an athlete, you may appreciate this kind of metaphor.
Speaker 4: Running for president of the United States is like being
Speaker 4: an a marathon at a sprinter's pace, with people throwing
Speaker 4: tomatoes at you every step you take. It is not
Speaker 4: for the light hearted. It takes an incredible amount of
Speaker 4: endurance and stamina.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: That was one of the more coherent things I've ever
Speaker 2: heard her say.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that doesn't fit with the wit her first sentence,
Speaker 1: Oh no, so, and she's making the argument is Helper
Speaker 1: pointed out that running for president is harder than being president.
Speaker 2: But you don't think anybody's.
Speaker 1: Throwing at tomatoes at you when you're president, and some
Speaker 1: of those tomatoes might be bombs if you make the
Speaker 1: wrong decision.
Speaker 2: I mean, what a moronic thing to say.
Speaker 3: And the question, by the way, if you've forgotten, was
Speaker 3: do you think Biden could have served four more years?
Speaker 3: I had forgotten that was the question, right. So a
Speaker 3: couple more points in her unreadable and unread book, she
Speaker 3: says that.
Speaker 2: She number two on Amazon right now, number two book
Speaker 2: on Amazon.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's easy to manipulate anyway, But she and her
Speaker 3: people are buying up thousands and thousands of copies themselves.
Speaker 3: But so she writes about transgender boys and girl sports,
Speaker 3: and here's what she says.
Speaker 2: I agree with.
Speaker 3: The concerns expressed by parents and players that we have
Speaker 3: to take into account biological factors such as muscle mass
Speaker 3: and unfair student athletic advantage when we determine who plays
Speaker 3: on which teams, especially in contact sports. With goodwill and
Speaker 3: common sense, I believe we can come up with ways
Speaker 3: to do this without vilifying and demonizing children. I mean
Speaker 3: that is, I would like it, in the course of
Speaker 3: like an English class, to spend the entire hour analyzing
Speaker 3: that handful of sentences. It is in coherent, grammatically incorrect,
Speaker 3: suffers from several logical fallacies, and it's just idiotic.
Speaker 2: Well the idiotic part what bothers me.
Speaker 1: So are you suggesting that we take so if you
Speaker 1: got a dude that wants to participate in girls' sports.
Speaker 1: You say, yeah, you're kind of an effeminine boy, so
Speaker 1: I guess your muscle mass is low enough will let
Speaker 1: you compete against girls?
Speaker 2: You know? I mean, how are you gonna determine that right?
Speaker 3: Case by case basis, You're gonna check their junk or whatever.
Speaker 3: It's idiotic in the idea of Villa without vilifying and
Speaker 3: demonizing shelter.
Speaker 2: Nobody is doing that. That is a straw man of strawman.
Speaker 3: On the other hand, I find myself fascinated by her speech,
Speaker 3: and I enjoy listening and eclips of it. And I'm
Speaker 3: reminded of what my hero hl Menken said about Warren G.
Speaker 3: Harding way back in the day, and this applies to Kamala.
Speaker 3: What he said about Harding was, he writes the worst
Speaker 3: English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of
Speaker 3: a string of wet sponges. It reminds me of tattered
Speaker 3: wash on the line. It reminds me of stale bean soup,
Speaker 3: of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights.
Speaker 3: It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps
Speaker 3: into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm
Speaker 3: of pish and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of bosh.
Speaker 3: It is rumble and bumble, It is flat and doodle,
Speaker 3: It is balder and dash.
Speaker 2: Now that's right. It is almost like jazz answers.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well said okay, and so a more eloquent take
Speaker 3: than mine. Scott Bessen, who's one of Trump's closest advisors.
Speaker 3: He's brilliant, and he's on the economics team, and he's
Speaker 3: openly gay, responding to that whole idiotic commaloas saying that
Speaker 3: she didn't Pete pick little Pete because he's gay, and
Speaker 3: that was asking too much of America. You remember we
Speaker 3: played the Rachel mattout club. We probably should have brought
Speaker 3: it back in which say she says, look, saying you
Speaker 3: couldn't pick a gay dude really disappointed me and comes.
Speaker 2: Like I didn't say that. I didn't say that.
Speaker 3: And then after a bunch of flap and doodle and
Speaker 3: balder and dash, she says, and so I couldn't pick
Speaker 3: it the gay dude because then that would be uncool.
Speaker 3: So Scott Bessen is commenting on that she wouldn't.
Speaker 6: Take on Pete Buda judge because he was gay, and
Speaker 6: she wouldn't take on Pete Boodhajudge because he was gay,
Speaker 6: because she said it was a risk to have a
Speaker 6: running mate who was a gay.
Speaker 2: Mant your reaction. Three things, Maria.
Speaker 7: First, it shows her emphasis on identity politics, and the
Speaker 7: American people have moved on too. It shows how low
Speaker 7: regard she holds the American people that they you know,
Speaker 7: she was just a terrible candidate. And three, you wouldn't
Speaker 7: pick Pete Budhajudge because he might have been the worst
Speaker 7: transportation secretary in history. Like if I thought I was
Speaker 7: left to mess at Treasury, I can tell you your friend,
Speaker 7: my friend Sean Duppy are a great transportation secretary. Pete
Speaker 7: Footage Jedge left him a mess. The FAA is a disaster,
Speaker 7: the Amtrak know anything to do with transportation was woefully
Speaker 7: neglected over the past four years. So you know, she
Speaker 7: judges him on his identity, his sexuality. Let's look and
Speaker 7: see whether he did a good job.
Speaker 2: Let's let's look.
Speaker 7: On merit, and I can tell you on merit he
Speaker 7: was a failure, and on merit she's a failure.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I thought that was great analysis. She's obsessed with
Speaker 3: identity politics. She has contempt for the American people, and
Speaker 3: the question of effectiveness doesn't even creep into her thinking.
Speaker 3: It's just stop back to identity politics.
Speaker 1: The left has such a lower opinion of the country
Speaker 1: than the right does. I remember when Barack Obama was
Speaker 1: elected and George Stephanoppolis talking about how he cried, he
Speaker 1: who's crying sitting with his wife because he just didn't
Speaker 1: think we could ever elect a black person. And I
Speaker 1: wasn't surprised in the least that we elected somebody, was like,
Speaker 1: didn't seem surprising to me. I'm from rural America, supposedly
Speaker 1: the racist part of the country, and didn't surprise me
Speaker 1: at all. But we're willing to elect a black person
Speaker 1: if we thought they were capable of doing the job.
Speaker 1: George Deephanloppas just was so surprised he didn't think we
Speaker 1: were there yet.
Speaker 3: Well, I hire me a handful of Americans, huh yeah,
Speaker 3: left these.
Speaker 1: So what it means is I have a much higher
Speaker 1: opinion of the country than Kamala ayrs or George Stephanopolois do.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, by the bye kamalaw Also, it denied that the
Speaker 3: whole kamalas for them. Donald Trump is for you. She
Speaker 3: didn't think that would had any real impact. It was
Speaker 3: a minor issue. Nobody cared. She's snoring the fact that
Speaker 3: seventy percent of moderate voters saw the issue of Donald
Speaker 3: Trump's opposition of transgender boys playing girls and women's sports
Speaker 3: and locker rooms and bathrooms and the rest of it.
Speaker 3: Seventy percent of moderate voters said that issue was important
Speaker 3: to them.
Speaker 1: I hope she runs. I don't think she's going to ultimately.
Speaker 1: But the other the final dirt throwing on Amala Harris's
Speaker 1: political grave. Every interview she does, she says, I only
Speaker 1: had one hundred and seven days and blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. And even with all of those things
Speaker 1: against me, it ended up being the closest presidential election
Speaker 1: in the twenty first century, which isn't true by any
Speaker 1: measure anybody can come up with. It's not true in
Speaker 1: terms of raw vote total. It's not even close. Bush
Speaker 1: Gork was closer. Bush.
Speaker 2: Who do you run against the second time?
Speaker 3: Uh, Carrie, Yeah, Bush Kerry was closer.
Speaker 1: Trump was closer and Biden was closer. But other than that,
Speaker 1: you're right, But if you and if you go by
Speaker 1: electoral total, it's not true either, so but she gets
Speaker 1: away with it in every interview because nobody does any
Speaker 1: homework and is willing to say, wait a second, that
Speaker 1: doesn't sound right to me. I don't think this wasn't
Speaker 1: the closest election of the last twenty five years.
Speaker 2: Well, she lost all seven Swing states.
Speaker 3: I mean, come on, all right, a quick word from
Speaker 3: her friends at Prize Picks. Then I want to give
Speaker 3: you a little dessert after all of that heap and
Speaker 3: help open of Kamala. That's a little Gavin Newsom trying
Speaker 3: desperately to reach the Oval office. But Prize Picks. The
Speaker 3: football season continues so exciting on any given Sunday.
Speaker 2: Any team could win your productions. You're smarts. Can you
Speaker 2: turn them into cash? Yes you can with Prize Picks.
Speaker 2: I'm all about the fall baseball, man.
Speaker 1: You get the playoffs starting, and that's going to be very,
Speaker 1: very exciting.
Speaker 2: It's exciting already. Price Picks is such a simple way
Speaker 2: to play.
Speaker 1: You pick more or less on two to six players,
Speaker 1: put your opinions into Prize Picks and maybe you could
Speaker 1: make some cash. It is the best place to win
Speaker 1: cash while watching sports. You can join millions of users
Speaker 1: by downloading the Prize Picks app today and use the
Speaker 1: code armstrong to get fifty dollars in the lineups after
Speaker 1: you play your first five dollars lineup.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can just play a five dollars lineup if
Speaker 2: you want. That's fine.
Speaker 3: Then they give you fifty dollars to play around with.
Speaker 3: Whether you win or not, it doesn't matter. Use that
Speaker 3: code Armstrong. Download the Prize Picks app today, get your
Speaker 3: fifty dollars in lineups after you play your first five
Speaker 3: dollars lineup Prize Picks.
Speaker 2: It's good to be right.
Speaker 3: So Newsom was on Colbert last night, I guess, and
Speaker 3: when everybody else was watching the Martyr Jimmy Kimmel come
Speaker 3: back on the air. More on that to come, and
Speaker 3: Gavy Newsom was there. Gavy has to just carry a
Speaker 3: briefcase in front of himself so you can't see how
Speaker 3: fully aroused he is for the Oval Office.
Speaker 2: Listen to this crapy click number nine. Michael, I'm sorry
Speaker 2: I should have told you. Here's Gavy Newsom.
Speaker 8: We are struggling to communicate, we're struggling to win back
Speaker 8: now the majority in the House of Representatives, and that's
Speaker 8: a big part of what I'm doing, not just today
Speaker 8: in terms of the work out here raising money, but
Speaker 8: also raising awareness around how Donald Trump is trying to
Speaker 8: rig the midterm elections, and how I fear that we
Speaker 8: will not have an election in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 2: I really mean that and the core of my soul.
Speaker 8: Unless we wake up to the code red what's happening
Speaker 8: in this country, and we wake up soberly to how
Speaker 8: serious this moment is.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm in the crowd, goes Wiles.
Speaker 1: I'm glad we've taken down the rhetoric since the Charlie
Speaker 1: Kirk assassination and stopped claiming that the other side is
Speaker 1: about to end democracy.
Speaker 2: Doesn't the whole I.
Speaker 3: Don't even think we'll have another election seem I mean,
Speaker 3: it seems as ridiculous as has always seemed. But doesn't
Speaker 3: that seem like a couple of years ago, I mean
Speaker 3: just way too late.
Speaker 2: Yeah, after the twenty four election. It just yeah, there
Speaker 2: was too much of that. Yeah, give me a break.
Speaker 1: Hilarious, And I mean talk about the boy cried wolf.
Speaker 1: How many times can you play that card? There will
Speaker 1: never be another election. You've said that like five elections
Speaker 1: in a row.
Speaker 3: Keep giving sex change operations to ilegal immigrant inmates. Gavin,
Speaker 3: that'll play great across America. Bring that to the Swing States,
Speaker 3: Run that up the flagpole and see what dou salutes
Speaker 3: payer funded sex changes to a legal immigrant inmate felons.
Speaker 2: That's right, Yes, there you go. Check the polls.
Speaker 1: And when we voted on that, Kamala Harris would not
Speaker 1: take a stand because she didn't figure she should have
Speaker 1: to weigh in on it wouldn't be right to weigh
Speaker 1: in on that topic.
Speaker 2: What an idiot? Yeah, and your problem is messaging, cavvy.
Speaker 2: That was the beginning.
Speaker 3: We're not doing a good enough job communicating to people
Speaker 3: that were in favor of such change operations for illegal
Speaker 3: immigrant felons in prison.
Speaker 1: Baseball playoffs are days away. There's gonna be a big
Speaker 1: change to baseball next year. That's kind of interesting among
Speaker 1: all the things on the way.
Speaker 2: I love baseball playoffs.
Speaker 1: That are the really, really really long season which each
Speaker 1: game doesn't matter much. The playoffs are very, very fun.
Speaker 1: I don't know what team I'm going to root for
Speaker 1: this year. I'm wearing a Dodger's hat, but I don't
Speaker 1: know who I'm going to root for. Detroit Tigers who've
Speaker 1: led all season long. Wired to Wire have lost nine
Speaker 1: of their last ten and may about the division lead,
Speaker 1: which is absolutely amazing.
Speaker 3: That's the division with Cleveland that I was talking about
Speaker 3: yesterday and Cleveland red hot.
Speaker 1: Cleveland has won one nine of their last ten. So anyway, Uh,
Speaker 1: didn't mean to talk about that. This is a change
Speaker 1: that's coming next year. Robot umpires are coming.
Speaker 9: Automated pitch callers will now allow teams to challenge the
Speaker 9: calls of human umpires. The system has been tested in
Speaker 9: the miners. Under the new rules, teams will get two
Speaker 9: challenges per game. So I've seen the videos. They look
Speaker 9: like those Boston Electronics or whatever things. They walk out there,
Speaker 9: they do some dancing and then they squat down behind
Speaker 9: the plate.
Speaker 2: That is inaccurate center.
Speaker 3: No, it's just a bunch of sensors and they're going
Speaker 3: to ease in computer well sensor umpires instead of humans
Speaker 3: calling balls and strikes. By doing this, you get two
Speaker 3: pitch appeals per game.
Speaker 2: You ease in.
Speaker 1: So you think at some point the computers will take
Speaker 1: over one strikes Yeah, huh really and they'll just eliminate umpires.
Speaker 2: Uh No, the umps will still have to be there.
Speaker 3: At least for while to call like foul tips, catchers, interference,
Speaker 3: tag plays, force.
Speaker 2: Plays at the plate, that sort of thing, not balls
Speaker 2: and strikes. Correct.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they will just stand there waiting for something to happen,
Speaker 3: as if they're the first base umpire.
Speaker 1: And as a as a baseball fan, do you think
Speaker 1: that's a good or bad?
Speaker 2: Oh? Goodness, mostly bad?
Speaker 3: Kind of a mixed bag, Honestly, several other sports have
Speaker 3: gone to you know, electronic guys, tennis notably.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but that makes one hun.
Speaker 1: Sense because it's either in or out on the line
Speaker 1: and a computer can tell. But the whole you know,
Speaker 1: where the catcher sets up thing and all that sort
Speaker 1: of stuff is can the computer do that?
Speaker 3: Well, no, we're we're taking that away completely. There's a
Speaker 3: geometric shape. If the ball passes through that imaginary geometric shape,
Speaker 3: which is the width of the plate and the batter,
Speaker 3: whatever the strike zone actually is.
Speaker 2: If it passes through that, it's a strike period. If
Speaker 2: it doesn't, it's a ball. Do pictures like that or no?
Speaker 3: Major League insiders tell me no, because it's such a
Speaker 3: change of the game. And I know this seems strange
Speaker 3: to people who are either not fans or minor fans.
Speaker 2: But if the catcher.
Speaker 3: Sets out like outside the plate, an intentional ball, I
Speaker 3: want you to throw a ball, let's see if we
Speaker 3: can get them to chase it. And the pitcher completely
Speaker 3: misfires and the catcher has to dive across the plate
Speaker 3: to even catch the ball. But it catches a split
Speaker 3: you know, inch of the plate. Nobody in baseball hitter's
Speaker 3: the catchers the picture.
Speaker 2: Nobody wants that to be a strike. But it will
Speaker 2: be a strike. Okay, well I don't like it. I'm against.
Speaker 2: It doesn't make it different, so I'm against. It's gonna happen.
Speaker 3: But yeah, a time Ai et cetera, Chinese robot wolves.
Speaker 3: It's all tied in.
Speaker 2: Also, just the human element. I don't know.
Speaker 1: It plays part of the whole soap opera, right, As
Speaker 1: we always point out, the goal is not to find
Speaker 1: out actually which city can create the best baseball team
Speaker 1: temporarily rent to the best player.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's a.
Speaker 1: TV show, and what's the most exciting and the whole
Speaker 1: You know this umpire, you know, he's a favorable umpire
Speaker 1: for this pitcher, and then they get into arguments and stuff.
Speaker 1: That's part of the excitement of the game that makes
Speaker 1: it a fun TV show, right, the drama?
Speaker 2: Right? Oh yeah, number one. I think that's a great point.
Speaker 1: The last time this picture in this umpire went nose
Speaker 1: to nose, so we'll see if that carries over into
Speaker 1: this game.
Speaker 2: Is part of the soap opera that makes me want
Speaker 2: to watch?
Speaker 3: Right, Oh, Jones wanted that pitch. You can see the
Speaker 3: old animosity flaring already, Jim, Nope, that's gone. It's like
Speaker 3: writing a soap opera where every character behaves perfectly, rationally great,
Speaker 3: enjoy it.
Speaker 2: Let's all get some puff from and watch.
Speaker 1: Or how about if you just we'll just all craft
Speaker 1: robots to go out and with no people involved, robots
Speaker 1: will just play each other and they'll all be equally good,
Speaker 1: and every call will be perfect and a yippie.
Speaker 3: You know, if there's an upside. There are crappy calls
Speaker 3: that change games and change championships, and nobody wants that either.
Speaker 3: But be careful what you lose when you're gaining a
Speaker 3: little more accurate.
Speaker 1: It's been around for like one hundred and thirty years
Speaker 1: or something. I wouldn't think you'd want to mess with
Speaker 1: it too much.
Speaker 2: And make zillions and zillions of dollars. Correct.
Speaker 1: Anyway, we do a lot of segments and hours of
Speaker 1: this every single day. If you miss any, you should
Speaker 1: subscribe to our podcast, Armstrong and Getty on demand.
Speaker 2: Good hour four coming up to lots of stuff to
Speaker 2: squeeze in.
Speaker 1: Well, to me, the most consequential thing that Kimmel said
Speaker 1: last night. Nobody else is playing for some reason. You
Speaker 1: probably haven't even heard it. We'll have that an hour
Speaker 1: four
Speaker 3: Armstrong and Getty