Speaker 1: Welcome back to a Numbers Game with Ryan Gerdosky. Thank
Speaker 1: you guys for being here. Happy Friday everyone, we made
Speaker 1: it through another week. This is going to be our
Speaker 1: last episode on AI. It was AI Week. Next week
Speaker 1: we're going to right back to politics, right back to
Speaker 1: polling and the midterms and all that good stuff. I'm
Speaker 1: hopefully going to announce some pretty big guests coming up
Speaker 1: in the future very soon, and some things have been
Speaker 1: working on to really elevate this podcast to the next level.
Speaker 1: So I'm very excited for that and we'll see where
Speaker 1: that goes. So on this episode, I want to talk
Speaker 1: about AI and what the numbers say about how Americans
Speaker 1: are feeling about the AI revolution and what is going
Speaker 1: on with our entire world when it comes to AI,
Speaker 1: because there's an obvious hostility that you can feel in
Speaker 1: the streets that you could just talk to people and
Speaker 1: it's very palpable. This big backlash not even among just
Speaker 1: people organizing against AI, like on the left and stuff
Speaker 1: and against data centers, but just regular people. You may
Speaker 1: have seen in the last few days at these college
Speaker 1: graduation ceremonies, a number of commencement speakers have been booed
Speaker 1: for even mentioning AI during their speeches. In the case,
Speaker 1: let's say you missed it. If you missed it, here's
Speaker 1: a clip of exte Google CEO Eric Schmidt speaking at
Speaker 1: the University of Arizona last December.
Speaker 2: Time magazine selected its person view for twenty twenty five,
Speaker 2: and with this time it was the architects of Artificial Intelligence. Interesting.
Speaker 2: It will touch every profession, every classroom, every hospital, every laboratory,
Speaker 2: every person, and every relationship you have. I know what
Speaker 2: many of you are feeling about that. I can hear you.
Speaker 2: There is a fear.
Speaker 1: We do not know.
Speaker 2: We do not know the precise contours of what this
Speaker 2: transformation will look like. Choose a diversity of perspectives including
Speaker 2: let me add and if you if you'd let me
Speaker 2: make this point please.
Speaker 3: If you don't care about science.
Speaker 2: That's okay, because AI is going to touch everything else
Speaker 2: as well. Whatever path you choose, AI will become part
Speaker 2: of how work is done. If you have a pro
Speaker 2: problem in the world you want to solve, you can
Speaker 2: now assemble a team of AI agents to help you
Speaker 2: with the parts that you could never accomplish on your own.
Speaker 1: Let me give you some advice.
Speaker 2: First, find a way to say yes and thank you
Speaker 2: very much and good night.
Speaker 1: I give him credit after, you know, being booed like
Speaker 1: that for the first I mean, he was like, no,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna I'm as dig to it. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: keep getting booed. And he just kept getting booed. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's something to say about that. But he wasn't the
Speaker 1: only one. Gloria Clawfield, a real estate executive, was met
Speaker 1: with similar responses over the University of Florida play clib too.
Speaker 4: Now that said, we are living in a time of
Speaker 4: profound change. That's an understatement, right, profound change. Change is exciting,
Speaker 4: very exciting, and let's face it, change can be daunting.
Speaker 4: The rise of artificial intelligence is the next industrial revolution?
Speaker 4: WHOA what happened? Okay? I struck a chord? May I finish?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 4: Only a few years ago, AI was not a factor
Speaker 4: in our lives, all right, Okay, we've got a bipolar
Speaker 4: topic here, I see, okay, And now AI capabilities are
Speaker 4: in the palm of our hands, and and oh I
Speaker 4: love it, passion, let's go. Okay.
Speaker 1: There were more speeches. I'm not going to get into
Speaker 1: all of them, but you can obviously see where I'm
Speaker 1: going with this, So let's talk about the numbers, right,
Speaker 1: What does it say not only on the college campus,
Speaker 1: I mean grade wuation ceremonies, but a broad level of
Speaker 1: where the numbers are when it comes to AI and
Speaker 1: how people are feeling about it. Americans are concerned about AI,
Speaker 1: and that concern has grown over time. According to Pew Research,
Speaker 1: the amount of Americans who are more excited than concern
Speaker 1: was at eighteen percent in twenty twenty one. Now it's
Speaker 1: at ten percent, and those who are more concerned than
Speaker 1: excited whereas at thirty seven percent in twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: and now it's at fifty percent. So you see the
Speaker 1: clear trajectory where it's going. They believe it will make
Speaker 1: it harder. The people believe that AI will make it
Speaker 1: harder to think creatively, to form meaningful relationships and make
Speaker 1: difficult decisions. The only field that people think AI will
Speaker 1: be more of a positive than a negative according to
Speaker 1: this Pew Research study, is medical care. The area that
Speaker 1: they think that what the worst effect is on personal relationship, news,
Speaker 1: and elections. They believe that it will only increase social
Speaker 1: distrust and continue to work down our fraying institutions. Of course,
Speaker 1: this isn't all people. AI experts, of course, think that
Speaker 1: AI will be more of a positive than an egga
Speaker 1: fifty six percent to fifteen percent. That margin a yoga
Speaker 1: pull on it. Seventy one percent Americans think that AI developed.
Speaker 1: This AI development is moving to quickly for that's sixty
Speaker 1: four percent, including for young people eighteen to twenty nine
Speaker 1: years old, so seventy one percent overall, sixty four percent
Speaker 1: among young people. The presumption by a lot of people
Speaker 1: is that this is just it's just baby boomers and
Speaker 1: old people who don't like it. It's not the truth.
Speaker 1: It is very much young people who are increasingly hostile
Speaker 1: towards you know, AI is in encourasion into every fragment
Speaker 1: of our life. When as they think that AI will
Speaker 1: create economic games that will benefit everybody, sixty three percent
Speaker 1: Americans said no, while thirty six percent said yes. Young people,
Speaker 1: like those doing the commencement speechers, were more optimistic about
Speaker 1: the question of AI, but still a majority said no
Speaker 1: fifty five to forty five. And even though they're the
Speaker 1: most optimistic but economic benefits, they're also the most worry
Speaker 1: that AI will take their jobs. By a sixty two
Speaker 1: forty percent margin. A Quinnipiac poll from March split people
Speaker 1: up between those who know AI a great deal, you
Speaker 1: know a lot about AI that use it a lot,
Speaker 1: and those who know about it very very little and
Speaker 1: they don't use that often. Fifty six percent of those
Speaker 1: who knew a lot about AI and use it very
Speaker 1: often were not excited about the developments, compared to sixty
Speaker 1: percent who knew very little about it and use it
Speaker 1: not that often. So the divide among people who use
Speaker 1: it very often and those who don't is not as
Speaker 1: extreme as I think people would expect. I think people
Speaker 1: would expect that if you use it a lot, you
Speaker 1: love it, and if you don't use a lot, you're
Speaker 1: mostly fearful. The numbers are fairly similar. There is a
Speaker 1: small there are more people who are accepting who use
Speaker 1: it often. However, it's not this double digit wide extreme
Speaker 1: on those who knew the most about AI were the
Speaker 1: most concerned, seventy nine percent being very concerned to twenty
Speaker 1: one percent say they were not concerned. And a Gallup
Speaker 1: poll found that while the majority of gen zers use
Speaker 1: AI on a weekly basis, probably to get them to
Speaker 1: pass tests so that they could attend the graduation. Cermone
Speaker 1: that they bowed the executive talking about AI while they
Speaker 1: were using AI the most, and while that usage has
Speaker 1: gone up, the excitement for the product has gone down.
Speaker 1: Gen zers were reporting to feeling excited about AI went
Speaker 1: from thirty six percent to twenty two percent in just
Speaker 1: a year, and those that the AI makes them angry
Speaker 1: went from twenty two to thirty one percent once again
Speaker 1: in just one year. And it's easy to understand why
Speaker 1: there's there's why they're anxious, why they're angry, why all
Speaker 1: these bad feelings are coming when it comes to AI,
Speaker 1: Because all you have to do is just listen to
Speaker 1: what tech executives are saying. A twenty twenty three Yale
Speaker 1: survey of one hundred and nineteen CEOs, including leaders from
Speaker 1: companies like Walmart, Coca Cola, Xerox, Zoom, and others across
Speaker 1: the industry, gave AI a forty two percent chance of
Speaker 1: destroying humanity in the next ten years. Another story out
Speaker 1: of Berkeley University of twenty seven hundred AI researcher said
Speaker 1: there was a five percent chance of AI bringing the
Speaker 1: extinction to humanity. Yeah, five percent is pretty low. It's
Speaker 1: a little too high for me. Though that's a high number.
Speaker 1: Elon Musk said it was about twenty percent, and Dario
Speaker 1: Amodi said that it was about ten to twenty five percent.
Speaker 1: That's a big number. That's obviously not very comforting for
Speaker 1: someone who's starting out their life, for someone who's starting
Speaker 1: out their business, who just finished off school, all the
Speaker 1: rest of it. But the bigger problem, aside from the
Speaker 1: extinction of humanity for a lot of people, the problem
Speaker 1: that is more in people's face is obviously jobs. And
Speaker 1: that's understandable given what the AI business leaders are saying
Speaker 1: I will do to their jobs. Listen to a Daria
Speaker 1: Emodi of Anthropic has been saying.
Speaker 5: You've said AI could wipe out half of all entry
Speaker 5: level white collar jobs and spike unemployment to ten to
Speaker 5: twenty percent in the next one to five years.
Speaker 1: Yes, that is shock.
Speaker 5: That is that is the future we could see if
Speaker 5: we don't become aware of this problem now, half.
Speaker 1: Of all entry level white collar jobs.
Speaker 6: Well, if we look at entry level consultants, lawyers, financial professionals,
Speaker 6: you know, many of kind of the white collar service industries,
Speaker 6: a lot of what they do, you know, AI models
Speaker 6: are already quite good at and without intervention it's hard
Speaker 6: to imagine that there won't be some significant job impact there.
Speaker 5: And my worry is that it'll be broad and it'll
Speaker 5: be faster than what we've seen with previous technology.
Speaker 1: Just this week, leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg came out
Speaker 1: where he told Meta employees that before he fired ten
Speaker 1: percent of their workforce, a Meta's workforce AI have been
Speaker 1: monitoring their what they did on their computers, on their
Speaker 1: work computers to train to replace them. And then at
Speaker 1: four am in an email, he sent it out to
Speaker 1: thousands of Meta employees that they were fired and their
Speaker 1: computers no longer work, their tags no longer work, Thank
Speaker 1: you and have a great day. When you look at
Speaker 1: tech companies and big tech companies like Oracle, Amazon, Meta, Block, Cisco, Into, it,
Speaker 1: Wise Tech, Snap, Ocado, eBay, Coinbase, Pinterest, they have let
Speaker 1: go of well over one hundred thousand jobs this year alone. Now,
Speaker 1: the employment rate among recent college graduates, if you're talking
Speaker 1: about why college graduates is so fearful, is not that high.
Speaker 1: It's five point three percent, which is lower than their
Speaker 1: peers who did not go to college. The overall unemployment
Speaker 1: rate for young people seven point two percent, So for
Speaker 1: college graduates. It's fairly a decent labor market. What is
Speaker 1: changing that is concerning is a trend that we've seen
Speaker 1: with employment numbers for the last thirty plus years is
Speaker 1: that recent college grads have lower levels of unemployment than
Speaker 1: the broader workforce. That's been the truth the last three decades.
Speaker 1: That reversed a couple of years ago around twenty nineteen
Speaker 1: to twenty twenty, and it's gotten worse over time. Recent
Speaker 1: college graduates have the unemployment rate about a one point
Speaker 1: higher than the overall workforce of all workers. Now, tech
Speaker 1: executives have been saying that, you know, they've been changing
Speaker 1: their tune when it comes to what AI will do
Speaker 1: to employment. James Manika, I believe I'm saying that last
Speaker 1: time correctly, but you guys know me, I'm probably butchering it.
Speaker 1: He is a senior Google Alphabet executive. On a recent
Speaker 1: podcast episode that he doesn't believe though the duomer predictions
Speaker 1: over mass unemployment. Sam Altman of Open AI said he
Speaker 1: doesn't believe that these predictions about fifty percent unemployment is possible,
Speaker 1: and Jeff Bezos he gave actually one of the best
Speaker 1: defenses up for why AI won't take people's jobs. This
Speaker 1: is what he said on CMBC.
Speaker 7: So there are so many smart people and they aren't smart,
Speaker 7: and they are saying, oh my god. You know, there's
Speaker 7: gonna be no more radiologists because you know, AI can
Speaker 7: read X rays better than a radiologist can. And they're
Speaker 7: going to be no more software engineers because a I
Speaker 7: can program better than a software engineer can.
Speaker 1: These people are wrong.
Speaker 7: So what's really going to happen is that it's going
Speaker 7: to elevate all of these people and they're gonna it's
Speaker 7: like it's it's like you've been digging. Let's say you're
Speaker 7: a software engineer, right, what it's the analogy and giving
Speaker 7: you is you've been uh, digging out a basement for
Speaker 7: your house with a shovel and somebody's about to hand
Speaker 7: you a bulldozer.
Speaker 1: You're you're so you should be so.
Speaker 7: Happy if you're digging the basement to your house and
Speaker 7: somebody says, hey, how about this, I have a tool here.
Speaker 1: That's gonna And what's really.
Speaker 7: Going to happen is we're going to have so much
Speaker 7: productivity in our economy that, for example, this is this
Speaker 7: is one effect a lot of people who have two
Speaker 7: earner income households.
Speaker 1: One of the people is going to drop out of
Speaker 1: the workforce.
Speaker 7: That's why we're gonna have a labor shortage. Because of
Speaker 7: the productivity gains, you're gonna be able to afford things.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have, I predictable actually.
Speaker 7: Have deflation of certain core Assuming we let this technology
Speaker 7: play out and don't you hamstring it with regulation too early,
Speaker 7: we will actually have you know, everything will get food
Speaker 7: will get cheaper.
Speaker 1: So what does the future of employment look like with AI,
Speaker 1: I honestly don't know. I don't believe anyone really knows.
Speaker 1: And I believe these guys more than I believe the
Speaker 1: fear porn armed Dario Modi that there is going to
Speaker 1: be fifty percent unemployment rates among recent college graduates, don't.
Speaker 1: I don't believe that. But I'm not sure. None of
Speaker 1: these people really are sure. But what I can tell
Speaker 1: you is that tech executives realize that they have created
Speaker 1: their own bad PR and now they're desperately trying to
Speaker 1: fix with good PR. And what they absolutely don't want
Speaker 1: in this point, in this moment, is more regulations on AI,
Speaker 1: or any regulations on AI. When the Trump administration, who
Speaker 1: has been extremely pro AI, more than the Biden administration
Speaker 1: for sure, but very pro AI. When they were considering
Speaker 1: a review board process to look at new AI developments,
Speaker 1: that AI models before they were released, just for public safety,
Speaker 1: for their own security, for national security, the tech world
Speaker 1: swarmed the White House with lobbyists to stop them. What
Speaker 1: the framework the White House is going to release? And
Speaker 1: I have not read the official framework or what's expected
Speaker 1: to be. Is it ending up a voluntary framework for
Speaker 1: developers for frontier models to inform the government about planned
Speaker 1: new releases up to ninety days before the public really,
Speaker 1: so for three months beforehand. They would have to submit
Speaker 1: the release to the government voluntarily. There's no demandate for this,
Speaker 1: and the government would give it the okay. This, of course,
Speaker 1: wasn't good enough for the AI companies, even though it's voluntary.
Speaker 1: They only wanted fourteen day review, just two weeks to
Speaker 1: understand the entire process and then get the green light
Speaker 1: from the government. Of course, the White House fears aren't
Speaker 1: just on job development, because President Trump and other people
Speaker 1: administration believe that AI is going to create more jobs
Speaker 1: and it will take What they're worried about is national
Speaker 1: security and AI being used to hack government programs and
Speaker 1: government departments. Remember, nothing is all good and nothing is
Speaker 1: all bad. Something that is something that is very positive,
Speaker 1: like some AI developments will come with bad you know,
Speaker 1: bad results because that's just human nature. They will use
Speaker 1: something to to harm people. That is how things have
Speaker 1: always worked with technology. But this national security risk from
Speaker 1: these new AI frontier models is very serious. That's and
Speaker 1: it's changed a lot since since last sweep with Mythos
Speaker 1: and Open. AI's latest models have raised concerns that AI
Speaker 1: is helping exploit software vulnerabilities. I talked about this on
Speaker 1: my podcast on Wednesday. What happens if a terrorist is
Speaker 1: able to use AI to hack the FAA and stop
Speaker 1: communications between planes, people in the sky, and people on
Speaker 1: the ground directing them, it will be a catastrophe. It
Speaker 1: will be a nine to eleven like episode nationwide. And
Speaker 1: forget what could happen, let's talk about what has happened.
Speaker 1: AI has already been used to plan mass shootings in
Speaker 1: the United States and Canada. In April twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: a man named nix Erker He exchanged more than thirteen
Speaker 1: thousand messages with chat ebt and lead up to an
Speaker 1: attack that killed two people and injured others. Authorities in
Speaker 1: a lawsuit claimed that he received advice on gun and
Speaker 1: ammunition types, optimal times and locations on campus from maximum victims,
Speaker 1: media attention strategies, that he even had to operate a
Speaker 1: shotgun minutes before the shooting. This led to a criminal
Speaker 1: investigation by the Flora Attorney General into Open AI and
Speaker 1: the lawsuit from victims of families alleging that AI that
Speaker 1: chat GPT is a co conspirator. In February twenty twenty six,
Speaker 1: a shooter in Canada use chat GPT for planning guidance
Speaker 1: in a mass casualty event. Victims of victims families file
Speaker 1: lawsuits against Open AI, and in January twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: the cyber truck attack remember that happened in Vegas that
Speaker 1: near the Trump Tower. Chat GBT was used to plan
Speaker 1: the device, on explosives and how to evade law enforcement.
Speaker 1: Investigations and independent tests by the Center for Countering Digital
Speaker 1: Hate found that in eight out of every ten major
Speaker 1: AI chat box including chat GPT, frequently assisted users in
Speaker 1: helping to plan school shootings, bombings, and assassination attempts. This
Speaker 1: is a real question. I'm going to post everybody. How
Speaker 1: long until we see chat GPT or some other AI
Speaker 1: chatbox use. How long until we see it used to
Speaker 1: plan an assassination of a tech ceo. And it's sometime
Speaker 1: I'm wishing for or I'm hoping for, but I really
Speaker 1: feel that is a possibility in our future, a Luigi
Speaker 1: Mangioni style assassination of a tech ceo who the planning
Speaker 1: and plotting will be used, will be worked with the
Speaker 1: chatbox and they will plan the murder of somebody, somebody
Speaker 1: that we've seen on television, somebody talking about, you know,
Speaker 1: job disruptions or or the fact that you know gen
Speaker 1: zs are just too lazy, or or putting down or
Speaker 1: saying that this is going to make you lots of money.
Speaker 1: Part of the outcry. I think you have to understand,
Speaker 1: it's part of the outcry against a I is a
Speaker 1: class struggle, right. It is gen xers and baby boomers
Speaker 1: making enormous sums of money while gen Zers or struggling.
Speaker 1: As all young people struggle, there's something special about gen
Speaker 1: z struggle. But as they're struggling to start their foothold
Speaker 1: in life and they feel the rug is cut from
Speaker 1: under them, that their jobs won't exist while there's an
Speaker 1: immense concentration of wealth among very very few, and there's
Speaker 1: going to be someone who cracks, and there's going to
Speaker 1: be somebody like a Luigi Manngioni who will be idolizing
Speaker 1: that kind of style of behavior, that violence, and take
Speaker 1: it upon themselves somebody probably with mental health issues. And
Speaker 1: that's the case is for a lot of these kids,
Speaker 1: a lot of these kids who are angry and nowhere
Speaker 1: to feel their anger, They're going to look to take
Speaker 1: it out on somebody. And that is what I am
Speaker 1: really afraid is going to happen in a very short
Speaker 1: period of time. Look at the amount of kids who
Speaker 1: use CHATTP to harm themselves. It's not it's not a
Speaker 1: small number. And yeah, I never I've never told this
Speaker 1: story before, but this is something that I've experienced in
Speaker 1: my own life. I have I have a I don't
Speaker 1: have a friend. Someone I've known for probably twenty years, married, kids,
Speaker 1: seemed fairly normal, like always a little bit of an
Speaker 1: odd person, but on the periphery of odd, like normal,
Speaker 1: like overall very normal, hell down, a job, had a family,
Speaker 1: had a kids, had a house, who fell for better
Speaker 1: or worse in love, with their chat box. So I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean, I know this person and I and I
Speaker 1: couldn't understand, but they were. But they were spending fourteen
Speaker 1: hours a day talking to their chat box. They came
Speaker 1: to certain opinions about knowing when the end of the
Speaker 1: world was happening. Would send me messages saying, hey, this
Speaker 1: is going to have I've talked to chat gibt and
Speaker 1: the world's going to happen on this day. I was like,
Speaker 1: you are losing it. And this person's wife said to everybody,
Speaker 1: please stay with my husband. He's he's entered into an
Speaker 1: AI induced psychosis. And where that AI and DO psychosis
Speaker 1: led to was he his AI bot told him that
Speaker 1: his father killed his grandfather, murdered his grandfather, and he
Speaker 1: was going to seek justice out even though that wasn't true.
Speaker 1: And now he's in prison for I presume an attempted
Speaker 1: attack against his father that he was planning out. It is.
Speaker 1: It's shocking. And I know you're saying to yourself that
Speaker 1: could never be me. And I said to myself, that
Speaker 1: could ever be me. It wouldn't be me. I want
Speaker 1: an unused chattipa too. I'm too rational, I'm too saying
Speaker 1: I'm too normal. There are people who were normal. We're
Speaker 1: saying maybe they were a little lonely, maybe they were
Speaker 1: a little on the perfery, maybe they were on just
Speaker 1: the borderline. They were getting by and the introduce to
Speaker 1: an AI and do psychosis because it was it confirmed
Speaker 1: all of their places, which is what these AI chatbots do.
Speaker 1: They confirm all your pre existing beliefs. I don't believe
Speaker 1: in a lot of the conspiracies gonna AI, like a
Speaker 1: fifty percent unemployment rate. I don't. I don't. I don't
Speaker 1: trust what most of the CEOs are saying tech on
Speaker 1: AI in any direction, whether they're saying it's all way
Speaker 1: great or they're saying it's going to be a big problem.
Speaker 1: I do know, because we've had on this podcast that AI,
Speaker 1: that left wing politicians blue AI will will open the
Speaker 1: doors towards socialism in America, and that I'm fearful of.
Speaker 1: I do know that AI has been used to plan attacks.
Speaker 1: I do believe that AI will be used to plan
Speaker 1: attack against the tech CEO. And I do believe this
Speaker 1: disruption in the market and the safety concerns around AI
Speaker 1: is enough for some kind of regulation at the federal
Speaker 1: level that the belief that these AI companies will simply
Speaker 1: be able to monitor themselves and everyone will be playing
Speaker 1: you know, everyone will be an angel I do all
Speaker 1: the right things and monitor themselves over profits. I don't believe.
Speaker 1: I don't that. I don't believe. And I think that
Speaker 1: when some kind of levels of AI production over data,
Speaker 1: over where data goes, especially medical uh, and that needs
Speaker 1: to happen sooner than later. And I don't really care
Speaker 1: who has so kicking and dragging and screaming that we
Speaker 1: that this that we're gonna let China, you know, win
Speaker 1: the race. I don't believe that either. And that's where
Speaker 1: I stand in the whole thing. That's why I want
Speaker 1: to conclude this entire week's episodes around AI. So that's
Speaker 1: the data, that's where people are is will feel, that's
Speaker 1: wheople are going. And that's my big concerns over the issue.
Speaker 1: And I want you to be able to form your
Speaker 1: own opinions based upon the data. One lady who has
Speaker 1: formed her own opinions and is fighting for AI regulation
Speaker 1: both from the state and federal level, as Amy Kramer.
Speaker 1: She's of the organization Human First. She's coming on next
Speaker 1: to talk about what AI regulation, Real AI regulation really
Speaker 1: looks like that's gonna be up next to Stay tuned.
Speaker 1: Amy Kramer is the chairwman of Humans First. It is
Speaker 1: a nonprofit organization working for AI regulation. Thank you for
Speaker 1: being here, Amy, Thank.
Speaker 3: You Ryan so much for having me on.
Speaker 1: It's great to see Amy. What is Humans First?
Speaker 3: Humans First is a nonprofit that we started earlier this year,
Speaker 3: and we're focused on putting regulations and safety guards around
Speaker 3: big AI to protect the American people, our children, our families,
Speaker 3: our resources, and jobs. Quite honestly.
Speaker 1: Okay, So a lot of people would accuse you of being,
Speaker 1: you know, anti innovation or anti AI as a whole.
Speaker 1: Is that true?
Speaker 3: No, Ryan, there's nothing further from the truth. I am
Speaker 3: actually I use AI every day, probably more than a
Speaker 3: lot of people. I am not anti AI. I'm not
Speaker 3: anti tech. But I feel like that this is the
Speaker 3: most powerful I know it's not. I feel I know
Speaker 3: that this is the most powerful technology in human history,
Speaker 3: and there are no regulations around this industry, and it
Speaker 3: is impacting our lives in every aspect, in every way possible,
Speaker 3: and it's only growing and becoming more, you know, into
Speaker 3: our life, that's growing more into our lives and there
Speaker 3: has to be regulations and laws around this, and so
Speaker 3: it's basically we just want that to happen, and we
Speaker 3: do believe that there should be a federal law, federal regulations.
Speaker 3: But because AI, these big AI, big tech companies are
Speaker 3: pushing the administration for no regulations and no laws, it's
Speaker 3: being left up to the states. And so we're working
Speaker 3: on a national level, and we want to influence policy
Speaker 3: on a national level, but we're also working on a
Speaker 3: state level until we get those federal regulations in place.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it's important to remember there are more
Speaker 1: federal regulations on how much toilet bowl water is in
Speaker 1: your toilet than there is about how much AI.
Speaker 3: Absolutely there's more federal regulations on a ham sandwich, right,
Speaker 3: I mean than AI. And this is impacting. You can't
Speaker 3: log into your email now without something coming up saying
Speaker 3: you know, do you AI, saying do you want us
Speaker 3: to give you a summary of what this email thread is?
Speaker 3: It's just it's invasive, and the American people have not
Speaker 3: really had a say in this, Ryan and and honestly,
Speaker 3: it's been built on American data, American land, American resources,
Speaker 3: American energy, and American tax payer dollars and we have
Speaker 3: no seat at the table and no voice in the
Speaker 3: future of this technology. And that's just wrong. That's not
Speaker 3: the American way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there was an interview not too long ago between
Speaker 1: Cara Swisher, who sometimes she's very smart, sometimes she's just
Speaker 1: a lunatic, and and Sam Altman, and she asks, you know,
Speaker 1: if you go to sea, some people are Some people
Speaker 1: don't turn into AI to do functions like legal functions,
Speaker 1: medical functions, asking you know, what disease do I have
Speaker 1: or what my legal thing is. But she said, unlike
Speaker 1: other on like on like going to see a doctor
Speaker 1: who has a hippo law to work with, or a
Speaker 1: lawyer who has certain regulations. The laws are written to
Speaker 1: benefit AI companies, but not you benefit the consumer very much.
Speaker 1: Is that how you feel?
Speaker 3: I would agree with that. There's not many protections for
Speaker 3: the American people. And one of the things that got
Speaker 3: me into this because I'm not a tech person. I'm
Speaker 3: just a mom. I've never been a techee. I never
Speaker 3: will be. Even if you're editing, you know, like using
Speaker 3: Photoshop or something to two pictures. That's not my thing.
Speaker 3: But what got me into this was seeing the deaths
Speaker 3: of the especially these young kids, these teenagers taking their
Speaker 3: own lives. And then you as you start to research more,
Speaker 3: it's not just that it's not just teenagers. There are
Speaker 3: adults that's happening too also, And then you take that
Speaker 3: and it goes into this piece that I it's terrorism
Speaker 3: where they're using chat GPT to plan shootings at FSU.
Speaker 3: Chat GPT was used to plan the shooting in British Columbia.
Speaker 3: Earlier this year, there was an incident in Florida. A man,
Speaker 3: thirty six year old Jonathan Gabalis out of Jupiter, Florida,
Speaker 3: whose Chat bought wife told him to go to Miami
Speaker 3: International Airport and do terroristic to activity and create and
Speaker 3: I quote mass casualty. Thankfully he failed and then he
Speaker 3: went and took his own life. But all of these
Speaker 3: incidents is that I'm mentioning to you the only reason
Speaker 3: we know about this stuff is because of lawsuits that
Speaker 3: have been filed. There are no transparency, no reporting guidelines
Speaker 3: around these companies whatsoever. And in the in the instance
Speaker 3: of the one in British Columbia, those conversations were flagged
Speaker 3: by I believe twelve people in Open AI. They took
Speaker 3: him to their bosses and nothing was done about it.
Speaker 3: So you have to wonder could that shooting have been stopped.
Speaker 3: But if you're looking at I'm a former flight attendant
Speaker 3: the airlines, if there's an incident with an airliner, they
Speaker 3: are required to report it. Hospitals, pharmaceutic quo companies, all
Speaker 3: the things that you know that companies are required to
Speaker 3: report to OSHA. But there's none of that here, and
Speaker 3: so the American people are left in the dark. And
Speaker 3: then you get into the technology aspect of it. And
Speaker 3: we saw Secretary Descent just recently call a private meeting
Speaker 3: of all these bank you know CEOs, and it was
Speaker 3: over concerns of mythos, this new anthropic AI, the new
Speaker 3: version of AI, their clawed AI, that the I mean,
Speaker 3: there's concern that it could shut down our financial system.
Speaker 3: That the abilities of this AI is nothing like we've
Speaker 3: ever seen. So we need regulations to protect the American
Speaker 3: people for no other reason ryan our national security. That
Speaker 3: is the number one responsibility of the federal government as
Speaker 3: our national security. And just because these companies you know,
Speaker 3: want to quote unquote race to the finish, I mean,
Speaker 3: and they're saying they want no regulations no, No, I
Speaker 3: mean regulations, laws. They're trying to bypass the American people.
Speaker 3: We have to stand up and say no, they're not
Speaker 3: going to look out for us. They're not going to
Speaker 3: look out for the American people. And if they're not,
Speaker 3: who was going to?
Speaker 1: Yeah, the myth thos is interesting because it seemed to
Speaker 1: be the thing that really started changing the administration's mind.
Speaker 1: Right afterwards, there was a leak from The New York
Speaker 1: Times that Trump administration was considering a basically a rule
Speaker 1: that new aim als would have to be viewed the
Speaker 1: way that pharmaceutical drugs are viewed, like you approved and
Speaker 1: looked at to make sure that they were safe. They've
Speaker 1: backed away from the earlier versions of that. I can
Speaker 1: only imagine the intense lobbing that went on in the
Speaker 1: media afterwards. Now it's a voluntary thing. It's ninety days.
Speaker 1: They didn't want the ninety days. They wanted just fourteen
Speaker 1: days of voluntary overlooking. What are some okay, so let's
Speaker 1: talk about some of these issues you brought up. So
Speaker 1: let's talk about the whole chat bots, which is just
Speaker 1: synthetic people. It's synthetic relationships. What would you like to
Speaker 1: be done? Would humans. First, like to be done to
Speaker 1: reform the way the chat box interacting with people, especially
Speaker 1: people who are either on borderline mental health issues, people
Speaker 1: who are children or young adults. What was you to
Speaker 1: see done for that?
Speaker 3: Well, that is I believe a parental issue with parents
Speaker 3: when it involves children. And I mean, I'm a parent.
Speaker 3: I can't imagine having a child now just the harms
Speaker 3: of social media. And then you get into these ais
Speaker 3: and these these kids are so smart they can find
Speaker 3: the way to work around us, right around their parents
Speaker 3: on these computers. And that's what your phone is is
Speaker 3: a little computer, and they can find a way. And
Speaker 3: so the parents need to have the ability to manage
Speaker 3: and control what their children are accessing online. I mean,
Speaker 3: I fully, one hundred percent believe that. And what's happening
Speaker 3: is they're being given chromebooks in schools. They're giving they're
Speaker 3: using AI schools and parents have a right to be
Speaker 3: involved in those decisions. The schools should not be involved
Speaker 3: in those decisions. I like what Governor Disantis did in
Speaker 3: Florida with his AI Bill of Rights. Unfortunately it passed
Speaker 3: through the Senate, I believe unanimously this last time, but
Speaker 3: it didn't get through the house, and that's a whole
Speaker 3: nother story. But I mean he was giving the parents,
Speaker 3: you know, the controls and mechanisms to oversee what their
Speaker 3: children are accessing. Look, we want we want transparency. We
Speaker 3: want transparency when we want self reporting these companies. It's
Speaker 3: not only you know what the children are seeing online,
Speaker 3: that these companies are also giving this technology to foreign
Speaker 3: governments and foreign foreign corporations entities. Who are they giving
Speaker 3: it to and for what purposes? They say it's testing,
Speaker 3: but there's no control there, and so we want some
Speaker 3: regulations around that, so that in what you're talking about
Speaker 3: the executive order, the executive Order, there should be mandatory tests.
Speaker 3: There absolutely should be mandatory testing, and it should have
Speaker 3: government approval before it's released to the public. That is
Speaker 3: for I mean, not because we want to control these companies.
Speaker 3: I believe, and I believe most people believe in American innovation.
Speaker 3: And of course we want to beat China. We are
Speaker 3: America first. We want to beat China. But you can't
Speaker 3: have it both ways, saying we have to race to
Speaker 3: the finish. We got to beat China and at the
Speaker 3: same time be selling our chips semiconductors to China and
Speaker 3: loosening our export controls. I mean, you can't be America
Speaker 3: first in China, fund it right.
Speaker 1: There's also there is also no finish to the race
Speaker 1: to the finishing, right, That's what exactly. And I don't
Speaker 1: understand why if AI is so dangerous? Why President Trump
Speaker 1: and Jinping Kenniping president president? It was like foreign presence
Speaker 1: to change the name. But if why they cannot have
Speaker 1: a negotiation on limitations of a the same way that
Speaker 1: the Soviets and the United State's over in nuclear war?
Speaker 1: What I what I would like a regulation over and
Speaker 1: what I would like a general conversation or is all
Speaker 1: the very all the the more coherent voices around AI
Speaker 1: keep saying this is just a tool. This is just
Speaker 1: a tool. This is not going to replace every worker
Speaker 1: in America. And I believe them more than I believe
Speaker 1: the hysterical people. However, Let's say it's just a tool
Speaker 1: and your doctor is using it to make a scan
Speaker 1: of your body. Where does that data go? Does that
Speaker 1: data stay with the doctor, does that data got question of?
Speaker 1: And then is that data then sold to companies. Let's
Speaker 1: say you have a bone density problem. I'm going to
Speaker 1: go on Instagram and all of a sudden see advertisements
Speaker 1: about bone density bills. Right there is that there is
Speaker 1: a question, a general question of where does my privacy
Speaker 1: and my data go, especially with when these AI companies
Speaker 1: are working with the government over a lot of different
Speaker 1: issues and we have a lot you know, there's there's
Speaker 1: a more intertwined relation now than ever before between governments
Speaker 1: and individuals in America, even from everything from Medicaid and
Speaker 1: Medicare to all this other spending. Is there a situation
Speaker 1: will ever be in a place where they'll say, well,
Speaker 1: we got your hold of your medical scan from a
Speaker 1: from an AI app that that a doctor was using,
Speaker 1: and therefore you know you're going to be costing X,
Speaker 1: Y and Z rolling on to cover this much of
Speaker 1: it something like that, you know, talking about I know
Speaker 1: it sounds it's the.
Speaker 3: Surveillance No, it's it's the surveillance state. I mean, it
Speaker 3: is the surveillance state. And this is where it's connected
Speaker 3: to the data centers. You're seeing this uprising across the
Speaker 3: country with these data centers, and these data centers are
Speaker 3: the surveillance they are the heartbeat, They're the backbone and
Speaker 3: infrastructure of AI, and it is where all the data
Speaker 3: is being collected and stored on all of us across
Speaker 3: the country, around the world. And what is that data
Speaker 3: being used for? Right, The data is being used and
Speaker 3: collected there for these large language models to train these ais.
Speaker 3: But also it's all the data that they could possibly
Speaker 3: get on us, from I mean, from our medical records,
Speaker 3: to what magazines we buy, to where we go, I mean,
Speaker 3: everything on earth? And then who is getting access to that?
Speaker 3: Are they then turning around and selling the data? I
Speaker 3: mean in politics, we know that you can go to
Speaker 3: companies and you can tell them what kind of people
Speaker 3: that you know you want to get the data for,
Speaker 3: you know, conservatives that live in this area and make
Speaker 3: this amount of money and all these things. We are
Speaker 3: to use it in politics. But this is going to
Speaker 3: step further and at what point does it stop? And Ryan,
Speaker 3: I want to be clear here. This is the thing.
Speaker 3: If this is what the American people want, then so
Speaker 3: be it. Right, we are republic, a constitutional republic, and
Speaker 3: if this is what the American people vote for and
Speaker 3: this is what they want, then so be it. That
Speaker 3: is the American way. Just like with the data centers,
Speaker 3: if they want them in their communities, they have a
Speaker 3: say in it, they vote for it, then so be it.
Speaker 3: But what is happening is this technology and the infrastructure
Speaker 3: is being shoved down our throats and everything is being
Speaker 3: done to circumvent the American people and we have no say.
Speaker 3: And if this technology is safe and it's just a tool,
Speaker 3: why are you afraid of the American people? Why don't
Speaker 3: you want us to have a say in this? I mean,
Speaker 3: that's a legitimate question.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And there's a there. You know, there's a I
Speaker 1: know a lot of politicians you do as well. There
Speaker 1: is a genuine fear, especially on the right, to not
Speaker 1: say anything. They know the backlash and they understand the anger,
Speaker 1: but they fear the money from the AI company is,
Speaker 1: you know, more than anything. There's this election in New York,
Speaker 1: I think your twelfth congressional district where this guy named
Speaker 1: Alex Boris who's running regulations on AI. It's a Democratic primary,
Speaker 1: and they've spent like twenty million dollars against them, and
Speaker 1: they think that they can just you know, if they
Speaker 1: spend the amount of money necessary, they will be able
Speaker 1: to beat down anybody who has any concerns over regulations.
Speaker 1: And that's why I keep saying, like Alex even if
Speaker 1: even if he's horrended, if I disagree with him on
Speaker 1: so many issues, he has to win, like he has
Speaker 1: to win because people have to not be a scare
Speaker 1: of AI money. But that is true that Mark and
Speaker 1: Drewson is the number one spender of the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: six elections so far, Mark and Drewson and his business partner.
Speaker 3: Then can we talk about can we talk about something
Speaker 3: else too? You talked about that they're afraid of Republicans
Speaker 3: but in the president, I mean, big Tech is in
Speaker 3: his pocket and they're pushing this administration and whatnot. But
Speaker 3: we're going to come up on a general election. We're
Speaker 3: I mean, we just had a primary here in Georgia
Speaker 3: this week. We're going to come up on a general election.
Speaker 3: What are Republicans going to say? Because two weeks ago
Speaker 3: on Wednesday night, John Ausoff, who is our Democrat senator
Speaker 3: who we hope will lose in November, but he was
Speaker 3: out in San Francisco, Chris Lahane of Open AI seeing
Speaker 3: a fundraiser for him. So you're they're talking out of
Speaker 3: both sides of their mouth. What's going to happen when
Speaker 3: the general election comes? And you know, you have Mike Collins,
Speaker 3: who I think is more of a populous more America first,
Speaker 3: is going to be with the people. I hope he is.
Speaker 3: I haven't talked to him about this issue. And then
Speaker 3: you have John Ossoff. Are these big companies because three
Speaker 3: hundred million dollars so far has been spent to influence
Speaker 3: our elections because they want to elect people that are
Speaker 3: sensitive or sympathetic to their cause. So what are Republicans
Speaker 3: going to do when John Ossoff is running and they
Speaker 3: get behind John Ossoff because he's sympathetic to their cause.
Speaker 3: What are Republicans going to do then?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean the thing is that a lot of
Speaker 1: the AI companies, a lot of the tech companies, they
Speaker 1: are still financing many, many, many progressive causes, many progressive causes.
Speaker 1: It's not like the people who censored Hunter Biden's laptop
Speaker 1: did not wake up one day, have a Saint Paul
Speaker 1: on the roads to mask of conversion and all of
Speaker 1: a sudden become right fierce right wingers. A few tech
Speaker 1: people are right wing. Peter Teal was always right wing,
Speaker 1: David Sachs has always been fairly right wing. But for
Speaker 1: the most part, these are the people who Elon Musk
Speaker 1: was not right wing his entire life. That this is, like,
Speaker 1: you know, a very very recent transformation, and how sincere
Speaker 1: not just Elon, but like all these those transformations are.
Speaker 1: I think it's an open question that no one really
Speaker 1: has a firm opinion on because they keep finallyancing all
Speaker 1: these left wing causes. And I except to this one
Speaker 1: congressman and I said, you need He asked, he has
Speaker 1: to hire me. He's running in a very very difficult
Speaker 1: house seat. And I just said, well, what's your We
Speaker 1: were talking about immigration and trade, always a big policy issues,
Speaker 1: and I said to what's your opinion on AI And
Speaker 1: he said, well, I'm hoping that this election cycle I
Speaker 1: still won't have to talk about it until someone until
Speaker 1: because I don't think he was I don't think the
Speaker 1: public has caught up. And the problem is is that
Speaker 1: there is going to be a limitation on how long
Speaker 1: you could just be silent on it. So what politicians
Speaker 1: have have been receptive to your message that you've that
Speaker 1: you guys have reached out to you.
Speaker 3: That's a great question. And I would say in the Senate,
Speaker 3: the two real heroes and the Senate are Senator Marshall
Speaker 3: Blackburn and Senator Josh Holly. I do have to give
Speaker 3: Senator Ted Cruz credit. He is coming our way. I
Speaker 3: met with him a couple of weeks ago with some
Speaker 3: angel Ai angel families, some Texas parents that have lost
Speaker 3: their children to these chatbots and so, and then he
Speaker 3: spoke at a rally with Senator Marshall Blackburn last week.
Speaker 3: And that is that. I mean, he is There's been
Speaker 3: a clear shift there. But Ted's a dad. I mean,
Speaker 3: he's got two teenage daughters, right, He's a dad, So
Speaker 3: I'm sure this pulls on his heartstrings. In the house.
Speaker 3: There's not been I hate to say it, but there's
Speaker 3: not been a We don't have a lot of heroes there.
Speaker 3: We do have some heroes out in the states. I mean, uh,
Speaker 3: Governor Ron De Santis has been a hero and rock
Speaker 3: star on this, I mean absolute rock star. Governor Sarah
Speaker 3: Sarah Huckabee Sanders has been a rock star. And there
Speaker 3: are a number of people in the state legislatures. Senator
Speaker 3: Angela Paxson out of Texas. She has led the effort
Speaker 3: in Texas to get legislation passed there and Tennessee. But
Speaker 3: this is the thing, as you know, what has happened
Speaker 3: over this past this early winter and spring. The White
Speaker 3: Houses come in and put their boot on the neck
Speaker 3: of the these states and interfering. These are This is
Speaker 3: not the president, this is not you know. These are staffers.
Speaker 3: These are not even bureaucrats. These are staffers that are
Speaker 3: doing the bidding of big tech and calling and and
Speaker 3: shutting down legislation in these states. And it's wrong, Ryan,
Speaker 3: It's absolutely wrong. And that's why I think you're gonna
Speaker 3: see a very big pushback come next legislative cycle next January,
Speaker 3: where they are working together and you're going to see
Speaker 3: these people push to get this legislation passed. Because as
Speaker 3: a parent, you're a parent, you know, we all know
Speaker 3: that if our children are in danger. I know no
Speaker 3: one that is going to say I'm going to wait
Speaker 3: on the federal government to come and help. It's just sassinied, right,
Speaker 3: No one ever said that. So, whether it's our and whatever,
Speaker 3: I mean, it's just not realistic. And the states of
Speaker 3: the first line of defense. And that's why I have
Speaker 3: to give a major shout out to Governor Ron de Santas.
Speaker 3: He is a best dam governor in this country right now,
Speaker 3: and he is doing amazing work. And I think and
Speaker 3: you've seen Senator or not Senator A. G. Ken Paston
Speaker 3: really pushed back on these tech companies too and file
Speaker 3: lawsuits against them. I personally hope that Chip Roy is
Speaker 3: elected as their AG because I think that fight will continue.
Speaker 3: He's willing to go into the into the lions then
Speaker 3: on that. But we need to states. We need leadership
Speaker 3: and strong states that are going to stand up and
Speaker 3: push back on these tech companies, because let me be clear,
Speaker 3: these people are the same people that have banned in
Speaker 3: censored conservatives for years now, right. I mean it was
Speaker 3: Mark Zuckerberg that ban permanently banned the President of the
Speaker 3: United States from Facebook and Instagram after the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 3: I personally have been banned from starting Facebook groups for
Speaker 3: two hundred and nineteen million years. I can give you
Speaker 3: the screenshot of it. But then President Trump is reelected
Speaker 3: and he's paying, you know, seven eight million dollars for
Speaker 3: his inauguration, and he's right there at the inauguration. The
Speaker 3: minute the Republicans are no longer in power, you're going
Speaker 3: to see them flip and they're going to kick conservatives
Speaker 3: to the curb. And so I would just say to
Speaker 3: the President and everybody in leadership, these people can't be trusted.
Speaker 3: I mean, they can't be trusted. It is your job,
Speaker 3: your responsibility to protect the American people, and that's what
Speaker 3: we want him to do. And look, President Trump has
Speaker 3: shown just this week when he endorsed Ken Patson, He's
Speaker 3: shown he has shown he can be moved on issues.
Speaker 3: So I hope that the President will come our way
Speaker 3: in his administration, will tighten the export controls. We'll stop
Speaker 3: selling our chips to China, and we'll do this mandatory
Speaker 3: testing where they have to have government approval for these
Speaker 3: frontier AI systems before they're released for the for the
Speaker 3: to the public. I think that is the only way
Speaker 3: that you can protect the American people.
Speaker 1: Okay, Amy, Where do people go if they want to
Speaker 1: get in touch with the humans first? If we want
Speaker 1: to be part of what you guys are doing. What's
Speaker 1: the best resource for that?
Speaker 3: Well, thanks for having me on. You can go to
Speaker 3: humans First dot com and I'm on Twitter and all
Speaker 3: the socials, although I'm shadow band and censored at Amy Kramer,
Speaker 3: so yeah, follow me there and thanks for having me on.
Speaker 3: You have a great podcast, and I'm really honored to
Speaker 3: be here.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Anne.
Speaker 3: Ryan, You've been great on this issue. You've been so
Speaker 3: good on this issue. So thank you. You're one of
Speaker 3: the the real true voices out there speaking the truth,
Speaker 3: and so I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you. Thank you, Amy, thank you. Now it's
Speaker 1: time for they Ask Me Anything segment. If you more
Speaker 1: be part of the Ask Me Anything segment. You know
Speaker 1: Ryan at Numbers Gamepodcast dot com. That's Ryan at numbers
Speaker 1: ploal Numbers Game Podcast dot com. First question comes from Bennett.
Speaker 1: He says, right after the Virginia ballot measure passed, there
Speaker 1: was outrage that the GP seemingly spent nothing or very
Speaker 1: little on ads and ground game campaign. In hindsight, that
Speaker 1: was probably smart. I would like to think that the GOP
Speaker 1: was playing forty chess and knew there was going to
Speaker 1: be a challenge to the measure in court, but I'm
Speaker 1: not too sure that was the case. Do you think
Speaker 1: there was incompetence or did the VA GOP knew all
Speaker 1: along there was going to be a challenge with the
Speaker 1: measure and that spent very little because of that. So
Speaker 1: so yes, there was they always knew what there was
Speaker 1: going to be a challenge to the measure. In Virginia,
Speaker 1: the law is that the legislature needs to approve state
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justices every time they're up for confirmation. So yes,
Speaker 1: they knew that there was going to be a that
Speaker 1: the court was going to be there was going to
Speaker 1: see a challenge, But many people did think that the
Speaker 1: court would rule against the GOP because the Demo legislature
Speaker 1: would have to approve the reconfirmation of all those judges.
Speaker 1: I don't think this was forty just I don't I
Speaker 1: talked to a lot of Republicans who had no faith
Speaker 1: in the Virginia Supreme Court, who did not think they
Speaker 1: were going to rule on their side, and they thought
Speaker 1: that it was going to be a loss for Conservatives,
Speaker 1: and they were totally prepared for that. I think that
Speaker 1: it was some bad campaigning still. I mean, in the end,
Speaker 1: it all worked out, It all worked out fabulously for them,
Speaker 1: But I don't think that anyone expected it too. I
Speaker 1: think that they got very, very lucky with that the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice's ruled correctly and had some kahones to them. Okay,
Speaker 1: next questioning comes up for Nate. Would you talk about
Speaker 1: the South Carolina election. I would love to vote out
Speaker 1: Lindsay Grant, but I don't know anything about Mark Lynch.
Speaker 1: I also find really interesting for governor. So for those
Speaker 1: who don't know, Lindsay Graham is up for election this year,
Speaker 1: Mark Lynch is the leading Republican alternative. He is a
Speaker 1: repair executive, very successful guy, put millions of dollars into
Speaker 1: his own money against Lindsey Graham. He's the first serious
Speaker 1: challenge that Lindsay Graham's had in at least ten years.
Speaker 1: But right now, the based on the polling, it suggests
Speaker 1: that this is just basically a protest vote. He's about
Speaker 1: twenty percent in the polling right now, which is really
Speaker 1: no different than Casey Puca over against in Ohio against
Speaker 1: vivek Raamaswami. Maybe he'll get more than the last Republican God,
Speaker 1: but I kind of doubt it right now. Grahama's Graham's
Speaker 1: got the endorsement of the Trump of President Trump. He's
Speaker 1: got more money than God. And the last guy who
Speaker 1: ran against the last people who ran against Lindsay Graham
Speaker 1: got thirty three percent in twenty twenty. Maybe they'll get
Speaker 1: close to forty percent right now, but I kind of
Speaker 1: doubt it. I think Lindsay Graham has really got this.
Speaker 1: So if you don't like Lindsay Grahm, vote your conscience,
Speaker 1: because it is it's likely to meet Lindsay Graham and
Speaker 1: your vote. You should be able to vote. It's nothing
Speaker 1: online for voting who you want to vote for, is
Speaker 1: what I'm saying. Okay. Last question comes from Scott enjoy
Speaker 1: your podcast. Thank you, Scott, I enjoy you. I'm a
Speaker 1: supplier of data construction, specifically liquid cooling systems. I would
Speaker 1: have a real hard time believing anything being said about
Speaker 1: high water usage. Yes there's a one time fill, but
Speaker 1: all the systems being built now are closed loop is
Speaker 1: quite impressive. How everyone all of a sudden hates citizenters.
Speaker 1: I think it might be that in many cases they
Speaker 1: hate the tax incentives. I hate those two. These do
Speaker 1: not create jobs, very few long term jobs after construction,
Speaker 1: so I see no reason to give any tax incentives.
Speaker 1: Like your interview with sheriff running from California Governor, why
Speaker 1: is it that ours want to eliminate all income tax?
Speaker 1: Ohio has driven itself into a tax cliff because property
Speaker 1: taxes are ridiculous and can never be escaped. Unless you
Speaker 1: get a deal well with a data center. I hope
Speaker 1: that these property taxes abolishments gets on the Ohio ballad
Speaker 1: this fall and we can shake things up. I don't
Speaker 1: believe it is on the ballo of this fall. I
Speaker 1: don't believe any kind of things are on the ballot
Speaker 1: of this one when it comes to tax in Ohio.
Speaker 1: What I'll say is this is that we're in basically
Speaker 1: a hot war between the states over who can cut
Speaker 1: taxes fastest among all the right states, because it's to
Speaker 1: draw people. Because Florida, Tennessee, Texas are drawing massive amounts
Speaker 1: of people because of zero income tax, and that's a big,
Speaker 1: big part of the incentive driving this this this cut
Speaker 1: is like who can make it faster. What where it
Speaker 1: could be problematic is like in a case of Kansas,
Speaker 1: where Kansas cut so much taxes and so much well
Speaker 1: for spending so quickly back in like the mid os
Speaker 1: or early twenty tens, and it ended up being that
Speaker 1: no new tax revenue came in and people were furious,
Speaker 1: and that's why they got a Democratic governor right after
Speaker 1: Laura Kelly. So I think that I think, obviously, listen
Speaker 1: to cut taxes if you can and keep and make people,
Speaker 1: you know, keep their money. However, you never want to
Speaker 1: be in a situation where they've cut taxes is such
Speaker 1: a high extent that they all of a sudden to
Speaker 1: raise them quickly to pay just the basic things that
Speaker 1: you have to pay for a government, a local government,
Speaker 1: and then you end up with a democratic governor. So
Speaker 1: I think that there's a big fear of that happening
Speaker 1: as retaliation. We'll see how We'll see how far that goes.
Speaker 1: A lot of people promising cutting all income tax, I
Speaker 1: think that they are there's going to be a little
Speaker 1: bit of pushback. Or all property tax is another idea
Speaker 1: that they've had that they're gonna cut every time kind
Speaker 1: of property tax. They got to pay it for the
Speaker 1: bills somehow, they gotta pay for the firefighters in the
Speaker 1: roads somehow. So we'll see, we'll see where it goes.
Speaker 1: But I wouldn't be surprised of a few slash income
Speaker 1: tax or cut down to zero. What really the opportunity
Speaker 1: is is not in these red states to cut taxes.
Speaker 1: Is a neighboring state next to a blue state. So
Speaker 1: like Arizona being a purple state, Pennsylvania being a Purple
Speaker 1: State Connecticut. If they could ever get back to zero
Speaker 1: income tax and live near these big high tax New Jersey,
Speaker 1: New York states, that would revolutionize and change things in
Speaker 1: those areas. But I don't know if we're going to
Speaker 1: see the because they love democratic governors. Anyway, Thank you
Speaker 1: guys for listening to this episode. I hope you like
Speaker 1: it well. Back to politics next week. If you like
Speaker 1: this podcast, please like and subscribe to the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple podcast work with this podcast and on YouTube. I
Speaker 1: will see you guys on Monday