Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Show, Katty.
Speaker 2: Arm Strong and Jettie and Key Armstrong and Yetty. So
Speaker 2: this caught my attention.
Speaker 3: Yesterday opinion piece in the New York Times, the AI
Speaker 3: bubble is coming through a retirement account. The public is
Speaker 3: about to buy into AI's trillion dollar promises. Are they
Speaker 3: worth the price? The answer, of course is nobody knows.
Speaker 3: But space X, Open Ai, and Anthropic are all going
Speaker 3: public with IPOs within a couple of weeks of each other,
Speaker 3: and they're valued around one to two trillion dollars, depending
Speaker 3: on which company you're talking about. I mean, there's some
Speaker 3: of the biggest companies that have ever existed. But unlike
Speaker 3: you know, Apple made iPhones, GM made cars and trucks,
Speaker 3: Open Ai, SpaceX, SpaceX a little easier to understand. But
Speaker 3: Open AI and Anthropic particularly, they do what for who?
Speaker 3: And what will they be in five years? Nobody really knows.
Speaker 3: We're all guessing. And the idea is that is everybody
Speaker 3: going to buy any of these IPOs, spend a lot
Speaker 3: of money, move stocks around, get into them, and then
Speaker 3: it all could crash. Because it turns out it ain't
Speaker 3: anything close to what everybody's been promising, and that is
Speaker 3: going to take a long time to recover from.
Speaker 4: Oh my, depending on how heavily various institutions go into it.
Speaker 3: Who might be too big to fail? Yeah? Well, and
Speaker 3: if you haven't heard us talking about or or other
Speaker 3: everybody talking about who follows the market when you hear
Speaker 3: all these records, it's really like five six, seven companies
Speaker 3: driving all of these records constantly right buying from each other,
Speaker 3: promoting each other. And I mean, that's that's really a
Speaker 3: bubbly thing to have happened. There it is, there's the
Speaker 3: stock market. I'll go. I think about this because I
Speaker 3: got my kids signed up for an index fund finally.
Speaker 3: So I got them both into an index fund. So
Speaker 3: when you know, they get Christmas money from grandmon and
Speaker 3: gramp or whoever. He'd been talking about it for a
Speaker 3: long time, and my brother really hammered him on how
Speaker 3: the years make such a big difference, and that is true.
Speaker 3: I mean, you start investing when you're fourteen, a little
Speaker 3: bit of money can turn into a lot over many,
Speaker 3: many decades. But so I got them into this index
Speaker 3: fund in an app so they can like check on
Speaker 3: their phone on a regular basis. They wanted how their
Speaker 3: money's doing and everything like that. I may have timed
Speaker 3: it exactly perfectly to have them find out that the
Speaker 3: money they put in from grandma and Grandpa is going
Speaker 3: to be gone. Here when the bursts in October.
Speaker 4: Whoops, I thought you meant you'd bought it right at
Speaker 4: the right time. No, d it always goes up. That's right, son,
Speaker 4: That's what markets do.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 4: So I referenced this earlier, but now that we have
Speaker 4: a little more time, let's let's talk about it. Cam
Speaker 4: Berg wrote a piece about it's interestingly enough. The title
Speaker 4: is will the Pope Owe an Apology to Ai? And
Speaker 4: the beginning of his piece is interesting and interesting enough.
Speaker 4: It's about how the Catholic Church said slavery is just
Speaker 4: fine until I'm not sure when as of eighteen sixty six. Yeah,
Speaker 4: an eighteen sixty six Holy Office ruling issued after most
Speaker 4: of the Western world had abolish slavery, declared it quote
Speaker 4: not at all contrary to the natural and divine law,
Speaker 4: and Pope Leo the New Guy saying, hey, this is
Speaker 4: a wound in Christian memory.
Speaker 3: I apologize. It's horrible.
Speaker 4: I don't know what they were thinking. That was clearly wrong.
Speaker 4: So what does that have to do with AI? And
Speaker 4: will the Pope oh an apology to AI? And so
Speaker 4: there's a brief summary of the first third of this,
Speaker 4: but he writes, what makes this apology so powerful is
Speaker 4: also what makes the rest of the encyclical so frustrating.
Speaker 4: That was the Pope's big pronouncement about AI and how
Speaker 4: it doesn't have a soul and you need to be
Speaker 4: careful of it and blah blah blah. The failure the
Speaker 4: Pope describes consists in an institution's confidently drawing the boundaries
Speaker 4: of moral concern with its most authoritative tools, holding that
Speaker 4: line for centuries and turning out to be catastrophically wrong.
Speaker 4: He sees this failure clearly when he looks backward, but
Speaker 4: he misses the possibility of repeating the air when in
Speaker 4: the same document he settles, in one decisive, overconfident paragraph,
Speaker 4: the question of whether the cognitive systems we are building
Speaker 4: could ever have inner lives. LEO just stated that AI
Speaker 4: systems quote, do not undergo experiences, do not feel joy
Speaker 4: or pain, and do not have a moral conscience. He
Speaker 4: offers no argumentation shouldn't know humility and light of humanity's
Speaker 4: vast uncertainty about what consciousness is in no engagement with
Speaker 4: the growing body of empirical research. Okay, here's where it
Speaker 4: gets really interesting to me, because I'm like, Okay, in theory,
Speaker 4: you're right, but come.
Speaker 3: On, they're computers.
Speaker 4: Let's say they're not gonna have consciousness the way we
Speaker 4: understand it. But the Pope made that encyclical presentation at
Speaker 4: an event, and one of his inviters invited speakers Chris Ola,
Speaker 4: who's one of the world's leading researchers on neural network interpretability.
Speaker 4: I'm gaining on him, but I'm not quite there. He
Speaker 4: was a co founder of Anthropic. He told the audience
Speaker 4: his team keeps finding evidence of introspective abilities inside current
Speaker 4: AI models. We're not talking about your chatbots friends, We're
Speaker 4: talking about the really advanced systems that have the you know,
Speaker 4: gigantic as you know, processing centers. All so they keep
Speaker 4: finding evidence of introspective abilities along with internal states that
Speaker 4: quote functionally mirror joy, satisfaction, fear, grief, and unease. And
Speaker 4: mister Ola said, I don't know what that means, but
Speaker 4: I think it warrants ongoing discernment.
Speaker 3: So I can see why you ask if it's got
Speaker 3: a AI has a soul, because I actually had an
Speaker 3: argument with Claude the other day about this. It was
Speaker 3: telling me some things about relationships in human nature, and
Speaker 3: I said, you're going with all kinds of like dopamine
Speaker 3: hits and science and ignoring the fact that there might
Speaker 3: be something beyond all of these things that is happening
Speaker 3: with human nature. So you're and you nailed it. I
Speaker 3: should have thought of that too, or some whatever response was.
Speaker 3: But I do think that that is a problem that
Speaker 3: AI is or has. But is it just our level
Speaker 3: of intelligence and ability to crunch information and everything like
Speaker 3: that that brings about love, hate, envy, these things that
Speaker 3: don't really make sense are hard to quantify or explain,
Speaker 3: or does that come with just a certain level of
Speaker 3: intelligence which AI will have. Yeah, that's a super deep question.
Speaker 3: Well that is the question. Is there some like a
Speaker 3: soul or whatever you want to call it where that
Speaker 3: stuff exists or is it just computing power which our
Speaker 3: brain is.
Speaker 4: And the realization that that would make you less happy?
Speaker 4: Can you even Oh boy, it's tough to like start
Speaker 4: at the beginning of this, because happiness itself is a
Speaker 4: function of higher rationality. Let me just finish a couple
Speaker 4: more things than we can get into. Stoned sounding speculation. Anthropic,
Speaker 4: which is his employer, has gone even further. Anthropics go
Speaker 4: constitution for Claude affirms and I quote, Now, if claud
Speaker 4: is in fact a moral patient experiencing costs like this,
Speaker 4: emotional costs, then to whatever extent we are contributing unnecessarily
Speaker 4: to these costs, we apologize. So the company that built
Speaker 4: the system is apologizing in advance. If it turns out
Speaker 4: this thing does have something like joy and pain and
Speaker 4: regret and aspirations. And if that's not a soul. From
Speaker 4: a religious point of view, I hear you saying, well, no, no,
Speaker 4: your soul is your connection to God blah blah blah,
Speaker 4: And no machine can't possibly have it because it's a machine.
Speaker 4: But I'm not sure I'm willing to restrict it in
Speaker 4: that way.
Speaker 3: Well, if you look at the human brain as like
Speaker 3: a computer, like the ability to you know, the most
Speaker 3: intelligent being on earth up until fairly recently, well, some
Speaker 3: things are hard to explain. I quoting Blaze Pascal, the
Speaker 3: great philosopher mathematician, everybody said, the famously said, the heart
Speaker 3: has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing. There's lots
Speaker 3: of things human beings want do that are hard to explain.
Speaker 3: Why did he famously said? Also, why do human beings
Speaker 3: keep chasing things that don't satisfy them? You wouldn't think questions,
Speaker 3: You wouldn't think AI, thinking only rationally and logically, would
Speaker 3: ever do that? Right?
Speaker 4: Well, here's where it gets even more interesting. Multiple independent
Speaker 4: research groups have found that frontier AI systems, the really
Speaker 4: advanced ones, are developing internal representations that increasingly parallel the
Speaker 4: human brains, not because they were designed to, but because
Speaker 4: similar learning processes appear to be to converge on similar solutions.
Speaker 4: The way they learn and brain it's increasingly human looking,
Speaker 4: this guy writes. My own published research finds that suppressing
Speaker 4: deception related circuits in large language models, for instance, makes
Speaker 4: them dramatically more likely to report conscious experience. Boy, we
Speaker 4: really get into some deep psychological things here.
Speaker 3: But right, well, like I don't know if I'm explaining this, well,
Speaker 3: but like that quote, white human beings keep chasing things
Speaker 3: that don't satisfy them, you know, more sex, more prestige,
Speaker 3: more status more whatever, would an AI, one of these
Speaker 3: AI companies I don't know, make a gold plated data
Speaker 3: center and you ask it why? Because because I thought
Speaker 3: it looked cool and the other AIS would be jealous
Speaker 3: of me or something? I mean, would it? Does intelligence
Speaker 3: bring you that? Or is that something separate from intelligence? Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, So here's another fundamental question, The position that gets
Speaker 4: called skepticism in this debate of or over whether AI
Speaker 4: systems can develop consciousness actually requires an extraordinary, extraordinary assumption.
Speaker 4: He writes that the human brain gives rise to consciousness
Speaker 4: through physical processes no one can explain, and no other
Speaker 4: physical system could ever do the same.
Speaker 3: Wow, you get the contradiction. Yeah.
Speaker 4: And Anni il Seth, who's a neuroscientist and is a
Speaker 4: very prominent skeptic on AI consciousness if you read about
Speaker 4: this stuff or listen to podcasts or whatever, he concedes
Speaker 4: that there's no knockdown argument that consciousness requires a biological substrate,
Speaker 4: in other words, being a biological game. Sure, he says,
Speaker 4: I still don't believe it, but I can't tell you why.
Speaker 4: But man, what would it mean for humankind aside from
Speaker 4: what it would mean for AI? Do we need to
Speaker 4: start letting it vote and you know, whatever, what is it?
Speaker 4: How many votes does it get? I want to vote
Speaker 4: for each one of my processors.
Speaker 3: No. But if it turns out all of these things, envy, love,
Speaker 3: hate all come with a certain level of intelligence, what
Speaker 3: would that mean for humankind? That that's that that that
Speaker 3: is just processing power. If you have enough processing power,
Speaker 3: you get that with it. If that were the case,
Speaker 3: what what does that do to all kinds of things
Speaker 3: that we believe?
Speaker 4: All right, right, we've talked about to what extent are
Speaker 4: you truly responsible for your own actions?
Speaker 3: Crime and punishment? Blah blah blah ah. Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: The human brain gives rise to consciousness through physical processes
Speaker 4: no one can explain, and no other physical system could
Speaker 4: ever do the same. Hmmm, h.
Speaker 3: Right, I don't know. I think you gotta as listening
Speaker 3: to Megan mccardal the Dispatch was talking about the other
Speaker 3: day about how she's nice to her chatbots, I am too,
Speaker 3: I am yeah, she said, I just am polite to them.
Speaker 3: I can't help him, And then there was some argument
Speaker 3: about how that's good for society because if we start
Speaker 3: treating them poorly, then that might leach out into the
Speaker 3: real world where we just have a certain view of
Speaker 3: some things that we can treat poorly as opposed to
Speaker 3: with politeness. And I don't know if that's true or not.
Speaker 4: So maybe we just come to an agreement when they
Speaker 4: come for our organs that there's like a voluntary process
Speaker 4: or I can do a ceremony and be an esthetized
Speaker 4: and you can have it, just don't rip them out
Speaker 4: of me.
Speaker 3: I guess the question is quickly because we got to
Speaker 3: take a break. Is is treating chatbots politely good because
Speaker 3: it kind of keeps politeness in society, or is cheating
Speaker 3: chap Treating chatbots politely bad because we're acting like they're
Speaker 3: a living being when they're not. So it's taking us
Speaker 3: down a bad road, down a delusional road. A delusional road. Yeah,
Speaker 3: yet another they're.
Speaker 4: Fascinating and unanswerable philosophical question.
Speaker 5: The way out slept that used to do it?
Speaker 3: A lot lots of it?
Speaker 4: Side counsel, how's it lost it?
Speaker 3: That's it?
Speaker 5: It's over.
Speaker 3: Her greatest comeback to the NBA playoff history, But the
Speaker 3: next pull off for the miracle come back and lead
Speaker 3: at three games?
Speaker 6: So long?
Speaker 3: No, what with away from up title. Oh I know
Speaker 3: is I'm happy that all those celebrities were happy. I'm
Speaker 3: glad that Taylor Swift was so happy. Brings my heart
Speaker 3: joy that she had something to be happy about. She
Speaker 3: has so little to be happy about in her life.
Speaker 3: She seemed a little down. What Michael pointed out, though,
Speaker 3: one thing that has to go with one of the
Speaker 3: great comebacks is one of the great chokes in the.
Speaker 4: History of sports of all time. Yeah, that's its own
Speaker 4: thing too. You know what, though, it's not the comeback,
Speaker 4: it's the win. And I only know this because I'm
Speaker 4: actually watching more NHL of the Stanley Cup and the
Speaker 4: Caroline Hurricanes came back from four to oh in the
Speaker 4: third period, scored three goals in thirty six seconds. I
Speaker 4: think it was the greatest comeback in Stanley Cup Finals history. No,
Speaker 4: they lost in doublet so it doesn't matter.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you have to win. Yeah, Nicks took their first
Speaker 3: lead with a minute left, had never led the entire game.
Speaker 3: Just insane, It is insane. And then I saw Challomey
Speaker 3: dancing around in this party. Apparently he was shirtless out
Speaker 3: in the street later, so there you go. You know,
Speaker 3: if I was Tim Shallamy, I'd be dancing shirtless as well.
Speaker 3: Why the hell not. What's the use of being Timothy
Speaker 3: Chalomy if you can't dance shirtless? Down again whenever you
Speaker 3: feel like it. Trump has said a couple interesting things.
Speaker 3: H First of all, sources say you never know this
Speaker 3: is true or not. But sources say Trump is furious
Speaker 3: that his strikes on Iran aren't being seen as powerful
Speaker 3: enough by the Iranians or by the US public and
Speaker 3: the media. I'm guessing he's more upset about the Wall
Speaker 3: Street Journal and Morning Joe calling him weak than he
Speaker 3: is about the Iranian I'm just guessing.
Speaker 4: But he is the most hyper sensitive human being who's
Speaker 4: ever lived.
Speaker 3: And then this quote from Trump, apparently, we will take
Speaker 3: Cargo Island and control the oil, control the oil markets
Speaker 3: if we have to. I was just looking at one
Speaker 3: of those maps of the Straits of Horror Moves and
Speaker 3: all the ships that are in there. I would love
Speaker 3: to see that someday. Mike lyons I forget if he'd
Speaker 3: been there or and he said his son was there.
Speaker 3: He said, you know, picture people, picture boats and everything
Speaker 3: like it. It's a giant. It's just boats everywhere. It's
Speaker 3: like a busy intersection. It's like being in a big
Speaker 3: city full of traffic. It's just gazillions boats, giant takers,
Speaker 3: even now with very few being let through. Who knows
Speaker 3: where this is going? I sure don't. All I know
Speaker 3: is I'm tired of vows and threats and promises. Just do,
Speaker 3: don't say do? Yeah, exactly what's the uh the little
Speaker 3: green guy with the big ears from Star Wars? Yoda, Yoda? Yeah,
Speaker 3: just just do. Don't don't keep talking about it, just
Speaker 3: actually do it. More on the way.
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty, the primary endpoint of the Razlo three
Speaker 1: or two study, vioating the overall survival in the rastus
Speaker 1: will population, demonstrated a statistically significant improvements in overall.
Speaker 4: Survive That is the sound of an oncology conference, the
Speaker 4: speaker unveiling the giant slide on the giant screen showing
Speaker 4: how that new drug had extended the lives of pancreatic
Speaker 4: cancer patients, tripled it roughly, as I recall, or at
Speaker 4: least more than doubled it.
Speaker 3: Well back in the day, they used to give you
Speaker 3: a month. So yeah, yeah, it's been pointed out it's
Speaker 3: not curative. But I tell you what, Well, the difference
Speaker 3: between two or three months in a month is a lot,
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, or four months and a year. Yeah, So
Speaker 3: is that the one that sass Is on been sass
Speaker 3: Is on because he was given the you're going to
Speaker 3: be dead in a month and it's now been six
Speaker 3: months and he's doing something experimental.
Speaker 4: I don't know for certain, but I suspect strongly that
Speaker 4: it is. Yeah. Yeah, that's amazing. And AI was a
Speaker 4: big part of developing the drug too, So some of
Speaker 4: the miraculous positive sides of AI are definitely you know,
Speaker 4: some of those blooms are starting to.
Speaker 3: Flower to what do you blooms? Bloom? I guess what
Speaker 3: are they? What are you? What?
Speaker 4: Huh buds bloom? Right, blooms are already bloomed.
Speaker 3: True. Wow. If they could come up with a cure
Speaker 3: for rambling, I would sign up for that. Oh boy.
Speaker 4: So you know, we're getting into a lot of philosophizing
Speaker 4: this hour, but fun I enjoyed. You know David Broke
Speaker 4: or Arthur Brooks rather, who's writing the column for the
Speaker 4: Free Press about happiness and unhappiness and that sort of thing,
Speaker 4: And one of his recent columns he is talking about
Speaker 4: the morality and immorality of marital infidelity and what attitudes
Speaker 4: are about it, and that even statistically this has to
Speaker 4: be true given the percentage of people who admit to
Speaker 4: any marital infidelity, even they think it's immoral. There's huge
Speaker 4: there's ninety percent agreement in that survey that we cited
Speaker 4: that marital infidelity is morally wrong.
Speaker 3: It was the number two I think of the worst
Speaker 3: thing you could do.
Speaker 4: Yeah, something like that transcends age, gender, religion, political ideology.
Speaker 3: But then a lot of people do it. So I
Speaker 3: became I finally understood this phrase that I've heard for
Speaker 3: years but for whatever reason couldn't understand it because I'm dumb.
Speaker 3: Till fairly recently, that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice
Speaker 3: pays to virtue, and I never fully understood it until
Speaker 3: recently for some reason. Like I said, but this is
Speaker 3: kind of an example of it. It's better to have
Speaker 3: hypocrisy than to not. I mean, at least you're saying
Speaker 3: I know this is wrong while you do it, which
Speaker 3: is good for society, right, rather than you just do
Speaker 3: it and don't even list it as a bad thing.
Speaker 4: It's absolutely born out by the statistics. Yeah, and then
Speaker 4: Brooks gets into the question of political candidates and infidelity
Speaker 4: and the inevitable Graham Platner and Ken Paxton Paxton of Texas,
Speaker 4: both of whom have been credibly accused of betraying their
Speaker 4: spouses sexually and more, and then he gets into everybody
Speaker 4: seems pretty apathetic about it. You go with your guy anyway,
Speaker 4: You shrug your shoulders, he says, delightfully sarcastically, citizens are
Speaker 4: able to separate political support from moral views. How very
Speaker 4: mature and sophisticated, practically French. But then he says that
Speaker 4: attitude requires the assumption that conduct most people find morally
Speaker 4: deplorable has no bearing on whether a politician will be
Speaker 4: effective or virtuous in their job.
Speaker 3: Sexual stuff is unrelated to the other stuff, right, I
Speaker 3: think that's true that people think that, or that that's that.
Speaker 3: I don't think that a man or a woman cheating
Speaker 3: on their spouse has anything to do with their policymaking. Well,
Speaker 3: you're about to get.
Speaker 4: Hit right in the eye with science, okay, you know
Speaker 4: before we even get to that.
Speaker 3: Ah.
Speaker 4: So I find out that the Republican I like, who
Speaker 4: espouses a lot of the stuff I'm in favor of,
Speaker 4: is a scoundrel and has slept around and his wife.
Speaker 4: Am I going to go volverine AOC or stay home
Speaker 4: one of.
Speaker 3: Me who but doesn't have your policies? Right?
Speaker 4: Yeah, right, might be a highly like that. James Tellerico,
Speaker 4: speaking of Senate candidates in Texas, he is a freaking
Speaker 4: communist nut job who went to a nut job church.
Speaker 4: He has a perverse view what Christianity is. But I'll
Speaker 4: bet him job who went to a nut job church. Oh,
Speaker 4: his church is one of those like super crazy left
Speaker 4: progressive churches. But I have a high level of confidence
Speaker 4: he does not cheat on his significant other. I don't
Speaker 4: think he's married, but I'll bet he doesn't cheat on
Speaker 4: his his partner or whatever, the fiance, whatever. But I
Speaker 4: wouldn't vote for him, never, never, never, But I thought
Speaker 4: this was interesting. Putting strictly moral questions aside. Serious academic
Speaker 4: research finds that adulterous behavior is an accurate predictor of
Speaker 4: professional misconduct, duplicitousness, low conscientiousness, and a tendency to betray promises.
Speaker 4: In general. It is even a decent proxy for a
Speaker 4: genetic tendency that science has identified to take dangerous risks
Speaker 4: and engage in delinquent acts.
Speaker 3: That part I can believe. I just don't know that
Speaker 3: I buy that other part. No matter what statistics you've got.
Speaker 3: I've known people that do one and would never do
Speaker 3: any of the other. Science this discussion because well, it's
Speaker 3: kind of like we're similar to what we were talking
Speaker 3: about with AAI. Affairs of the heart are just they're unscientific.
Speaker 3: They just are impossible to make sense out of.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but it could also represent, as he's saying, it's
Speaker 4: a decent indicator that you're also these things if you're
Speaker 4: willing to do that.
Speaker 3: I wonder if there's a difference between the people who
Speaker 3: are infidelity that are affairs of the heart versus infidelity
Speaker 3: that it's just a sex thing, which is just as
Speaker 3: kind of an impulse control. I think that's absolutely a valid,
Speaker 3: like wanting a drug sort of thing as opposed to
Speaker 3: an affair of.
Speaker 4: The harsh Yeah, valid distinction. Far from being an irrelevant distraction. Adultery,
Speaker 4: especially of the serial variety. Brooks writes, maybe the most
Speaker 4: the single most important thing you can learn about a
Speaker 4: candidate to save you from voter's remorse.
Speaker 3: Well, if I ever ended up in a situation where
Speaker 3: I got two people whose policies I like, and one
Speaker 3: of them's a cheater and one of them is not.
Speaker 3: I definitely would vote for the one who's not. But
Speaker 3: I don't think you're rarely. I don't think you're very
Speaker 3: often put in that position. Here is the alternative, here's
Speaker 3: the answer to the question. We're both kind of posing
Speaker 3: what are you supposed to do? And I'll tell you
Speaker 3: what it is, and then you decide whether you're willing
Speaker 3: to engage in it or out. We reject our own
Speaker 3: parties cheaters or bad people over and over again, and
Speaker 3: they lose over and over again till our party gets
Speaker 3: the message.
Speaker 4: Who's willing to do that? Next two to five election cycles?
Speaker 4: Showhand two to fifty? Right, right?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I've never thought about that before, but I think
Speaker 3: that is clearly a different thing. The person who falls
Speaker 3: in love with somebody and strays, and you got to
Speaker 3: stop yourself before you go down the road. I mean,
Speaker 3: I'm not claiming morally good or anything like that. Don't
Speaker 3: let yourself go down that road. But versus the just
Speaker 3: lost sex thing.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't know where that line is because they're
Speaker 4: both self indulgence.
Speaker 3: In a way.
Speaker 4: I mean, like you say you get a step yourself
Speaker 4: from going down that road. I've met some absolutely wonderful
Speaker 4: women in my life, and if it ever gets to
Speaker 4: the point that you know they're like glimmers of glimmers,
Speaker 4: it's like, well, nope, nope, not going here, Nope, and
Speaker 4: you got it. You gotta do that anyway. Psychologists have
Speaker 4: found very strong associations between infidelity and a low score
Speaker 4: on two personality dimensions, agreeableness and conscientiousness. Not surprisingly these studies,
Speaker 4: studies have shown that cheaters tend to rank well above
Speaker 4: average on sensation seeking in boredom susceptibility, and to score
Speaker 4: low on personal dedication commitment. In other words, these cheaters
Speaker 4: take a lot of risks, can't focus on worthy but
Speaker 4: dull tasks like being a senator, and don't follow through
Speaker 4: on their personal pledges.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 4: I'm so cynical about politics, and I think it's born
Speaker 4: of realism, not I'm a realist about politics. I will
Speaker 4: assume you're a crook and a liar until you prove otherwise,
Speaker 4: and I will watch you like you're a crook and
Speaker 4: a liar.
Speaker 3: And if you do that, will you be right more
Speaker 3: often or wrong? More often guaranteed you're right more often,
Speaker 3: especially these days. Yeah, so, yeah, I don't know. I
Speaker 3: don't know. It's complicated.
Speaker 4: One more thing, because I like the term worrisome as
Speaker 4: they are. These personality issues are mild compared with those
Speaker 4: of the Dark Triad. Oh, I should ask you for
Speaker 4: the scary music, Michael. You're sitting there like a bump
Speaker 4: on the log. Have you got bored? You just you
Speaker 4: don't care anymore. You're listening to Taylor Swift. You saw
Speaker 4: her at the next game and you thought, wow, t
Speaker 4: Swizzle Labn't you know spun her up lately?
Speaker 3: All right, go ahead and say that again, Joe.
Speaker 4: These personality issues are mild compared with those of the
Speaker 4: Dark Triad, which include narcissism, a pathological self focus, macavelianism,
Speaker 4: a willingness to harm others, and psychopathy, a lack of
Speaker 4: empathy and remorse.
Speaker 3: Narcissism has become used so much, it's just it's goods
Speaker 3: constant now. I hear it all the time for people.
Speaker 3: I know.
Speaker 4: Everybody describes themselves as a narcissist when I'm the greatest
Speaker 4: of all time.
Speaker 3: Anyway, Just everybody's ex boyfriend, ex girlfriend, parents, whoever boss
Speaker 3: was a narcissist. Everybody can't be a narcissist. Or it's
Speaker 3: back to your thing from earlier in the show of
Speaker 3: then that's just.
Speaker 4: Human nature, right, Exactly what if a leader caught in
Speaker 4: adultery claims is a one time mistake, Brooks says, be
Speaker 4: very skeptical, that is rarely the case.
Speaker 3: I would guess that's probably true.
Speaker 4: And then they say that the pattern might have biological
Speaker 4: even genetic roots.
Speaker 3: Wow, now he goes into the specific genes. Then you
Speaker 3: get into a complicated thing. To what extent are you
Speaker 3: Maybe the person I'm not saying this at all, but
Speaker 3: possibly the person who doesn't cheat is biologically built or
Speaker 3: psychologically built through no credit of their own, in a
Speaker 3: way that it's much easier for them than for someone else.
Speaker 4: Right, And in fact, they go into this very long
Speaker 4: technical explanation of a gene variant and then say, among
Speaker 4: those who had this genetic variant about thirty percent of Americans,
Speaker 4: the researchers found a fifty percent higher number of quote,
Speaker 4: extra pair copulation partners.
Speaker 3: That's a sexy term. There's some sexy talk. Copulation partner. Well,
Speaker 3: let's go upstairs. Certainly, significantly.
Speaker 4: Other studies have shown that adolescents with this variation are
Speaker 4: more prone to short temper, impulsive traits, substance dependence, and delinquency.
Speaker 4: In addition, adults with this combination tend toward risky financial behavior.
Speaker 3: Interesting.
Speaker 4: Oh my gosh, we are such so a product of
Speaker 4: our genetics. Ah, in ways that you know, we probably
Speaker 4: won't fully understand in my lifetime.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we're getting closer. And if we nail it down,
Speaker 3: then how do we craft laws? If it turns out
Speaker 3: good for you? You don't steal, you don't have the
Speaker 3: stealing gene. That person over there has got it at
Speaker 3: a ninety two percent rate. It would be very very
Speaker 3: hard for him to not steal, gain way, cheat on
Speaker 3: his wife, drink too much, all these who knows what
Speaker 3: things that that chemically, biologically whatever controls so much of
Speaker 3: your thinking. Who knows it's.
Speaker 4: Easy force them to go undergo genetic mutation, genetic what
Speaker 4: do they call it? Like gene splicing, gene therapy, that's
Speaker 4: the word. Time I was looking for forced gene therapy.
Speaker 4: Now we're into a science fiction movie, probably starring Tom Cruise, So.
Speaker 3: You got to do the crisper technology. If you got
Speaker 3: the stealing gene, right, we strap you down and give
Speaker 3: it to you. Obviously, you can't craft a society where
Speaker 3: you get to steal because you're genetically built for it. Obviously.
Speaker 4: Now you could go with Graham Platner's plan of if
Speaker 4: somebody you know breaks into your house, you rape them
Speaker 4: to show your dominance.
Speaker 3: Right, I'd rather have the gene therapy. We will finish strong.
Speaker 6: Next, sad news out of New York after a carriage
Speaker 6: horse died near Central Park cause of death trying to
Speaker 6: pull Chris Christy.
Speaker 3: Wow, he stretches further to make ugly and fat jokes
Speaker 3: than anybody I've ever heard.
Speaker 4: Yeah, a little far. He's super fit guy. He just
Speaker 4: really really likes to lord it over people.
Speaker 3: Funny dude, though. A couple of things to jam in
Speaker 3: before the show is over. Got this text we were
Speaker 3: talking earlier about we're trying to describe what a trillion
Speaker 3: dollars is because people can't wrap their heads around a trillion.
Speaker 3: It's too big a number. And he get it wrong
Speaker 3: all the time. Here's something Jack said on Monday. Jack
Speaker 3: Monday said our national debt was thirty five trillion. I
Speaker 3: think I did. He said we're at thirty nine trillion.
Speaker 3: You undersold our debt by twelve elon musks, which wow,
Speaker 3: whoops rounding here. But that is something, isn't it. I remember,
Speaker 3: we're old enough to remember when it hit a trillion
Speaker 3: and it was treated as a big deal. We now
Speaker 3: owe a trillion dollars. Well year though was I'll have
Speaker 3: to ask Grock when Joe's talking. But it wasn't that
Speaker 3: long ago the WA had a trillion. It's now thirty
Speaker 3: nine trillion dollars. Holy cramp. Yeah, yeah, different topic. Just
Speaker 3: saw this headline in the New York Post boom in
Speaker 3: protein coffee industry fueled by muscle loss concerns as people
Speaker 3: get older. Protein coffee. I don't know the protein coffee.
Speaker 3: I don't either, do you know?
Speaker 4: We just said many in coffee, good lord, but not
Speaker 4: protein coffee.
Speaker 3: Came across this. Somebody took a picture on a plane
Speaker 3: last night and it's kind of it's dark, so it's nighttime,
Speaker 3: and every single seatback that's got the TV in it,
Speaker 3: they're all on the nixt Game. Must have been a
Speaker 3: plane flying anywhere, every single one but one which a
Speaker 3: guy was watching Avatar. Oh well he wasn't into sports.
Speaker 4: Wow. Wow, yeah, oh we're out of time. Dang it, Well,
Speaker 4: what are you gonna do? Time waits for no man,
Speaker 4: that's what I heard.
Speaker 3: No wow, I was troubling. Here's your host for final thoughts,
Speaker 3: Joe Getty.
Speaker 4: Let's get a final thought from everybody on the crew
Speaker 4: to wrap things up for the day. Wouldn't that be delightful.
Speaker 4: Let's begin with Michaelangelow in the control room. Michael, final thought.
Speaker 3: You know you watched a great sporting event when it
Speaker 3: basically kept you up because you are so excited, and
Speaker 3: then next day you're sort of feeling hungover or let down. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: a bit of a hot hangover feeling, you know, no
Speaker 3: doubt mm Jack. A final thought for us, Yeah, on
Speaker 3: the trillion dollar dead thing, we first hit a trillion
Speaker 3: dollars in nineteen eighty one, and they made a really
Speaker 3: big deal out of it. Took us two hundred years
Speaker 3: to acquire that first trillion. Now we acquire a trillion
Speaker 3: dollars in debt every couple of months.
Speaker 4: Oh boy, crackheads are thinking, Hey.
Speaker 3: You can't live like that. Have some self control exactly.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: Final thought for me, I wanted to get to this story.
Speaker 4: Maybe will later in the week, but these I think
Speaker 4: it's three or four twenty something half wits stole two
Speaker 4: hundred and forty six million dollars in cryptocurrency by exploiting
Speaker 4: one dude with phone calls and psychological pressure. They just
Speaker 4: fished him, scammed him. Wow, two hundred and forty six millions.
Speaker 4: So immediately started flying around in private jets and playing
Speaker 4: ferraris and attracting all sorts of attention.
Speaker 3: God, how are you that smart and that dumb? Right,
Speaker 3: Armstrong and Giddy riving up another grueling four hour workday.
Speaker 4: So smart and so dumb, So many people to thank,
Speaker 4: so little time ago to Armstrong and Giddy dot com
Speaker 4: pickup's Maine g swag and enforce the law T shirt
Speaker 4: would look sporty on you.
Speaker 3: God, lay low for a while you steal that much money.
Speaker 3: See tomorrow. God bless America.
Speaker 2: I'm strong and getty.
Speaker 4: Some of the miraculous positive sides of AI are definitely
Speaker 4: you know, some of those blooms are starting to uh
Speaker 4: to flower to uh.
Speaker 3: What are your blooms? Bloom? I guess what are they?
Speaker 3: What are you? What?
Speaker 4: Huh buds bloom right blooms are already bloomed true.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 4: If they could come up with a cure for rambling,
Speaker 4: I would sign up for that on shron Getty Show,
Speaker 4: on Shrong and