Speaker 1: Welcome back to a Numbers Game with Ryan Gardowski. Thank
Speaker 1: you all for being here on this Thursday episode. A
Speaker 1: lot of news broke since Monday, so let me give
Speaker 1: you guys some quick hits before talking with the main topic.
Speaker 1: You should know a little bit of news to keep
Speaker 1: you more informed than the average person. In Poland, the
Speaker 1: Nationalist Party candidate, the Law and Justice Party nominee for president,
Speaker 1: Carol Norwiki, won the presidency in an absolute come from
Speaker 1: behind victory. Law and Justice is a nationalist party in Europe.
Speaker 1: Not my favorite because they do a lot of like
Speaker 1: public outreach that's not really They come out as a
Speaker 1: very anti immigration policy immigrant immigrant politicians and political party,
Speaker 1: but they're very pro immigrant. Really, it's a lot of
Speaker 1: pr that's bigger than the actual policy anyway. Norwicky's win, though,
Speaker 1: is notable because he was double digits behind the polls
Speaker 1: as recently in April and had an absolute monster comeback,
Speaker 1: and it dispels the myth that Trump is so toxic
Speaker 1: to nationalist and pop those candidates around the globe. This
Speaker 1: is the third straight presidential election with the Law and
Speaker 1: Justice Party one in Poland and on the other side
Speaker 1: of Europe, National's populace firebrand Gets Wilders removed his party
Speaker 1: from the coalition government and it collapsed the coalition. It
Speaker 1: will force early elections later on this year. Here's how
Speaker 1: that went down. So the Netherlands is a multi party system.
Speaker 1: They have lots of parties. I'm talking they have more
Speaker 1: parties than gen Z has Genders like. It is a
Speaker 1: lot of parties. In twenty twenty three, Gets Wilders, who
Speaker 1: is the longest serving Dutch politician and always a political
Speaker 1: outsider for being a hardliner against mass immigration and the
Speaker 1: Islamification of the Netherlands, and had his party, the Freedom Party,
Speaker 1: surprise everyone in come in first place. But in order
Speaker 1: to form a government you need seventy six seats in parliament.
Speaker 1: His party only had thirty seven. So we entered a
Speaker 1: coalition government with three other center right parties and populist
Speaker 1: parties on the condition that he could not be prime minister,
Speaker 1: but they would concede his demands and immigration. Eleven months
Speaker 1: later the coalition. After the coalition government was formed, Fielders
Speaker 1: has decided to leave the coalition and trigger early elections
Speaker 1: because the other three parties refused to move forward on
Speaker 1: what he called the strictest asylum policies in Europe. This
Speaker 1: is not the first time Builders has lost left the
Speaker 1: coalition government created a snap election. In twenty ten, he
Speaker 1: pulled a similar move because the coalition government moved forward
Speaker 1: on austerity measures. The result was a political instability and
Speaker 1: Wilder's party was punished in the next election, even though
Speaker 1: austerity measures were unpopular. Because if there's anything you should
Speaker 1: know about voters in all of the West, regardless of
Speaker 1: what country it is, they punish in political instability more
Speaker 1: than anything else. Now, whether it be Builders leaving the
Speaker 1: coalition government or Republicans shutting down the government or Democrats
Speaker 1: passing Obamacare, people don't like to make it the feeling
Speaker 1: of being unstable in their politics. So we'll see what
Speaker 1: happens in the next election. If Wilders's party can survive
Speaker 1: and grow, I don't know. I'm pessimistic on that. Stranger
Speaker 1: things have happened. Maybe immigration is a big enough issue
Speaker 1: that voters won't mind, but it's something worth keeping an
Speaker 1: eye on. It's all the politics I have for Europe.
Speaker 1: I love talking about European politics, I love foreign politics.
Speaker 1: I know it's not for everybody. I try to make
Speaker 1: sure that you understand how it's connects to American politics.
Speaker 1: But if you're okay with me doing more episodes on
Speaker 1: other countries, particularly in Europe's politics, let me know. I'm
Speaker 1: building the show with you for you, so your feedback
Speaker 1: is very important. I read every email. Emailm me Ryan
Speaker 1: at numbers gamepodcast dot com and shoot me either an
Speaker 1: idea for an episode or if you want to hear
Speaker 1: more about European politics, I'd love to do an episode
Speaker 1: about it. Okay, Now to the States. Elon Musk has
Speaker 1: officially left the White House and DOGE is all but
Speaker 1: dead after just a few months of being inactive. And
Speaker 1: I told people that I didn't think what Elon was
Speaker 1: trying to do was what he said he was going
Speaker 1: to do. I don't think it was about trying to
Speaker 1: balance the budget, but that's what it was sold at,
Speaker 1: and that is what he's leaving on. On Tuesday, Elon
Speaker 1: took a swipe at President Trump's big beautiful bill, tweeting quote,
Speaker 1: I am sorry, but I can't stand it anymore. The massive,
Speaker 1: outrageous Porkfield Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame
Speaker 1: on those who voted for it. You know you did wrong.
Speaker 1: You know it, and then he followed up by saying
Speaker 1: it will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to
Speaker 1: two point five trillion and burden American citizens with crushingly
Speaker 1: unstable debt. Elon has a point, right, not my favorite
Speaker 1: personal world, but Elon has a point, and he has
Speaker 1: been warring with members of this administration for months now,
Speaker 1: according to Axeos Treasury Secretary Scout Besset, and he got
Speaker 1: into his screaming match outside the Oval office, where Besset
Speaker 1: called him a fraud for not finding two trillion dollars
Speaker 1: dollars in wasteful spending. It he claimed he would find,
Speaker 1: and to be fair, Beset, he's right. Elon promised brillions
Speaker 1: in cuts without having any pain because he was going
Speaker 1: to find it in a waste fraud abuse. He gave
Speaker 1: Republicans cover to increase spending and then didn't deliver. It's
Speaker 1: just calling balls and strikes. But here's the thing. Among Republicans,
Speaker 1: especially grassroots donors, Elon is very popular. So I don't
Speaker 1: think this is all about spending. I think there's a
Speaker 1: lot of sour grapes between Elon and Trump that isn't
Speaker 1: going away. But this part of this bill is going
Speaker 1: to Elon's words about this bill are going to impact
Speaker 1: the base of the Republican party. Parts of this bill
Speaker 1: are very unpopular. I think it's still likely to pass,
Speaker 1: given that almost all of Trump's legislative agenda is wrapped
Speaker 1: up in this single bill, and Republicans can't afford not
Speaker 1: to pass anything. But the one provision I want to
Speaker 1: talk about, the one persition I'm thinking about, is on
Speaker 1: page two hundred and seventy eight and to two hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy nine of the bill. If you want to
Speaker 1: go in the congressional website and read it, which up
Speaker 1: till this week had almost nobody noticed. On page two
Speaker 1: hundred and seventy eight, Congressional Republicans snuck in a ten
Speaker 1: year moudatorium on states regulating artificial intelligence. The section reads,
Speaker 1: and this is a bit long, but I want I
Speaker 1: want to read the whole thing. It's important. Quote no
Speaker 1: state or political subdivision thereof may enforce during the ten
Speaker 1: year period beginning on the date of the enactment of
Speaker 1: this Act any law or regulation of that state or
Speaker 1: political subdivision thereof limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models.
Speaker 1: Artificial intelligence systems or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce.
Speaker 1: Paragraph one may not be construed as prohibited enforcement of
Speaker 1: any law or regulation that the primary purpose and effect
Speaker 1: of which is to remove legal impediments or facilitate the
Speaker 1: development or operation of artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems,
Speaker 1: or automated decision system or streamline licensing, permitting, routing, zoning, procurement,
Speaker 1: or reporting procedures in a manner that facilitates the adoption
Speaker 1: of artificial intelligence models, systems or automated decision systems. Does
Speaker 1: not impose any substantial design, performance, data handling, documentation, civil liability, taxation, fee,
Speaker 1: or other requirement of artificial intelligence models, artificial in intelligence systems,
Speaker 1: or automated decision systems unless required, unless re requirement is
Speaker 1: imposed under the federal law. Sorry, that was long. I
Speaker 1: know I started at the end, but that is important.
Speaker 1: I want you to hear the actual law, not just
Speaker 1: what somebody is saying about it. So, states which already
Speaker 1: have begun to regulate AI. More than twenty states have
Speaker 1: a law on the books to regulate AI in some fashion,
Speaker 1: will not only not be allowed to pass new regulations,
Speaker 1: but they cannot even enforce the ones currently on the books.
Speaker 1: They are also not allowed to make any AI civil
Speaker 1: civilly liable and cannot create a special tax for the
Speaker 1: AI system. Okay, I'm going to give you both sides
Speaker 1: the argument, and then my take. First, the most ideal
Speaker 1: case would be for a national standard in all fifty states,
Speaker 1: not to have a patchwork across the country. It's what's
Speaker 1: best for business. It helps companies know the regulations and
Speaker 1: the laws and how to work properly. I think that's
Speaker 1: best business practices. A lot of economist would agree with me.
Speaker 1: It's what we've done for our whole host of industries
Speaker 1: like cars, telecom, food, drugs, and the AI innovation has
Speaker 1: a lot of positives to it. A lot of doctors
Speaker 1: told me they use AI to double check research. Scientists
Speaker 1: are using AI to help discover new curs for diseases.
Speaker 1: I use AI when doing research for podcasts and articles.
Speaker 1: I find it to superior to Google. So that's I mean,
Speaker 1: there are positives this new technology, and there is a
Speaker 1: giant elephant in the room, being China. We want to
Speaker 1: be more advanced than our main global adversary. Now here's
Speaker 1: the negative side. Congress is broken and does very little,
Speaker 1: very quickly, and AI is moving at light speed. Remember
Speaker 1: Chat GPT is less than three years old, and colleges
Speaker 1: and high schools are struggling to adapt. We don't know
Speaker 1: where this technology is going. And with an aging population
Speaker 1: in Congress that knows very little about technology and is
Speaker 1: dependent on donation from the text industry, how can we
Speaker 1: hope that they properly regulate it and it moves with
Speaker 1: the times. There are legitimate concerns what happens to intellectual
Speaker 1: property with AI? What happens to deep fakes? Especially regarding
Speaker 1: to health science politics. Boomers can barely already tell the
Speaker 1: difference between a real video and a fake video and
Speaker 1: pictures on Facebook. What about if an AI system is
Speaker 1: incorporated in healthcare database and screws up and gets people
Speaker 1: injured or god forbid, dies and they can't be held
Speaker 1: civilly liable. What happens if an AI company makes a
Speaker 1: ship and some it's designed to put into kids' brains?
Speaker 1: I know that sounds insane, but that's what tech people
Speaker 1: are saying that they want to do. That's what the
Speaker 1: future they want to have. I don't know if they
Speaker 1: can get there, but what if they can. Are we
Speaker 1: supposed to wait for Congress to just do something? How
Speaker 1: is that going? We are thirty years, thirty plus years
Speaker 1: into the Internet revolution, and Congress has only passed a
Speaker 1: handful of regulatory bills over the Internet, many of which
Speaker 1: protect Internet companies and not consumers. We're twenty one years
Speaker 1: since the creation of Facebook and the rise of social media,
Speaker 1: which we know has massive effects on children's mental health.
Speaker 1: We know that drug dealers use Snapchat to pedal illegal
Speaker 1: substance substances to miners and other users. We know how
Speaker 1: social media companies censor news and affect our elections. And
Speaker 1: until last year, Congress didn't do anything to protect Americans
Speaker 1: on social media. And what they've passed is very limited
Speaker 1: and so in scope except when they ban TikTok, and
Speaker 1: that isn't even being enforced by either the Democrat president
Speaker 1: left office or the current Republican president. So don't tell
Speaker 1: me that you're so concerned over the future of the
Speaker 1: Chinese Communist Party when you won't even stop using their
Speaker 1: spy app. You know, because nurses have to do their
Speaker 1: little TikTok dances in hospitals. We can't sit there and
Speaker 1: stop Chinese spyware, but we have to beat them in
Speaker 1: the AI race. It is not a coherent message. There's
Speaker 1: also the worry about what's going to happen to the
Speaker 1: job market in the future. AI Dario Emodi, and I'm
Speaker 1: probably mispronouncing his name. I'm sorry. He is the CEO,
Speaker 1: anthropic and a leader in the AI industry. He even
Speaker 1: an interview to Anderson Cooper on CNN. Sign note, I
Speaker 1: watched the interview, and Dario looks exactly what you would
Speaker 1: think tech AI CEO looks like like a virgin who
Speaker 1: just fell up a building. Anyway. Anyway, he believes that
Speaker 1: we are just five years away from twenty percent of
Speaker 1: all entry level white collar jobs being erased. He says
Speaker 1: he has an idea of the future where GDP is
Speaker 1: at ten percent, the national debt is erased because of
Speaker 1: massive GDP growth, and unemployment is at twenty percent. He said,
Speaker 1: that's not out of the question. Now, remember during the
Speaker 1: Great Recession of the two thousand and eight, which led
Speaker 1: to rise of a lot of socialists thinking in our country,
Speaker 1: led to a rise of the Bernie Sanders movement in
Speaker 1: a certain way, led to rise of Barack Obama in
Speaker 1: a certain way, that was when unemployment was at nine
Speaker 1: percent nine point five nationwide. Twenty percent is double more
Speaker 1: than double that, and he's not the only one. David Sue,
Speaker 1: the founder of retools, says his goal is to automate
Speaker 1: ten percent of the labor force in the next five years.
Speaker 1: I want a trip to the border with some tech CEOs,
Speaker 1: like maybe two years ago, and they were all talking
Speaker 1: about this, that millions of jobs were going to be
Speaker 1: wiped out and people would not be able to find work.
Speaker 1: They all said, we're going to have to either have
Speaker 1: some kind of government work projects or some people have
Speaker 1: something to do, or a universal basic income to subsidize
Speaker 1: people who won't be able to find work. We already
Speaker 1: could be seeing the signs. Derek Thompson from The Atlantic
Speaker 1: Track the recent college graduates have a higher unemployment rate
Speaker 1: than the national average for the first time ever. This
Speaker 1: is especially true for kids going into STEM fields. Computer
Speaker 1: engineers have the third highest unemployment rate among recent college graduates.
Speaker 1: That's right now, and Americans are increasingly worried about the
Speaker 1: fear that AI will cost their jobs and their industries.
Speaker 1: In March twenty twenty three, a Yuga poll found that
Speaker 1: twenty nine percent of Americans thought that the advances in
Speaker 1: AI would lead to a decrease in the amount of
Speaker 1: jobs available in their industry. Fast forward to August twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, that number increased to forty eight percent. So
Speaker 1: what's the reaction then to the big beautiful bills AI moratorium. Well,
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz says that he's all for it. Josh Howley
Speaker 1: says he's got some anxiety about it. I think he'll
Speaker 1: fold like a house of cards. And MTG, who voted
Speaker 1: for the bill in the House, the first version of
Speaker 1: the bill in the House, she says she's going to
Speaker 1: vote against it, the compromise bill if the Senate does
Speaker 1: not strip that language. Now, remember the bill passed by
Speaker 1: a single vote in the House Representative. So if MGG
Speaker 1: sticks to her guns, then we might get the ten
Speaker 1: year moratorium out of the legislation. We'll see Speaker Mike
Speaker 1: Johnson said that he feels very compassionate. We need to
Speaker 1: keep that in there. More than three hundred and sixty
Speaker 1: state legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, I need a letter
Speaker 1: asking Congress to strip the language from the bill. This
Speaker 1: includes very progressive Democrats and Super Mago Republicans who signed
Speaker 1: with this letter. It wasn't like, you know, just a
Speaker 1: rhino and a bunch of Democrats. No, there were hardcore
Speaker 1: state legislators signed on to this letter. Senate Republicans will
Speaker 1: likely have to make some reform simply because something called
Speaker 1: the Bird Rule, which allows Senators to block provisions and
Speaker 1: a reconciliation bill that are deemed extoraneous. The federal budget
Speaker 1: can't put anything in the reconciliation bill. It has to
Speaker 1: be kind of stuck to spending. I spoke to a
Speaker 1: Republican Senate staff or a top Republican Senate center for
Speaker 1: some cenator you would all know, and he told me
Speaker 1: that they plan on attaching the regulation to federal money
Speaker 1: so that states could go forward regulation on AI, but
Speaker 1: they'll lose access to federal money, something that some states
Speaker 1: can't afford to do, but many can't. And when I
Speaker 1: brought up the concerns with AI, the staff are simply
Speaker 1: said there is no AI crisis, and that this is
Speaker 1: to prevent future gridlock, to create a national standard something
Speaker 1: that we've seen the kind of gridlock we've seen over
Speaker 1: national data privacy laws. We can't get it because states
Speaker 1: already started making their own policy. He also assured me
Speaker 1: that this is only a moratorium undeveloping AI models, and
Speaker 1: states can do whatever they want about specific harms or
Speaker 1: offering it in their states. I cast a lot of
Speaker 1: doubt on the second part, because why would they ban
Speaker 1: legislation on civil liabilities? Republicans in favor of the ten
Speaker 1: year more term have fallen into the scarecrow argument that
Speaker 1: if Congress doesn't forbid it, then California will create the
Speaker 1: regulations and we can't trust gavenusom Okay, if California becomes
Speaker 1: too onerous, they'll move to Texas or Florida, or Utah
Speaker 1: or Tennessee. Elon Musk moved to Tennessee. They'll make their
Speaker 1: own set of standards, the ones that Republican legislators would
Speaker 1: work better with. The Truth is that twenty states, including
Speaker 1: many Red states, already put AI regulation in the law,
Speaker 1: while Congress has done nothing. But by waiting ten years
Speaker 1: with the hope that Congress will make regulation that protects consumers, children, workers,
Speaker 1: and somehow manages to avoid mass unemployment and wealth consolidation,
Speaker 1: leaves someone like me feeling very skeptical and as far
Speaker 1: as winning the AI race, against China, goes when does
Speaker 1: this race end? Where's the finish line? What are we
Speaker 1: racing tours? And can we for one second have an
Speaker 1: adult conversation without hyperbole before doing something that probably can't
Speaker 1: be undone? And my last thought on this monologue to
Speaker 1: any Republican who is running for office or considering to
Speaker 1: or in office and hearing this, if you want to
Speaker 1: turn twenty million Trump voters into hardcore AOC or Bernie voters,
Speaker 1: in the blink of an eye, replace their jobs with
Speaker 1: AI without ensuring they can find another one. Now, I
Speaker 1: have two guests coming on No Far More but AI
Speaker 1: and the policies around it and how it affects the
Speaker 1: economy than I do. They're coming up next. Stay tune.
Speaker 1: My guest for today's episode is Brad Carson. He's the
Speaker 1: former president of the University of Tulsa and the current
Speaker 1: co founder of Americans for Responsible Innovation, and Mark Beam,
Speaker 1: who's the president of Government Affairs for the AI Policy Network.
Speaker 1: Thank you both for being here. I want to start
Speaker 1: by talking about the Big Beautiful Bill and the ten
Speaker 1: year moratorium on states regulating AI systems. Brad, your organization,
Speaker 1: America for Responsible Innovation took part in an effort to
Speaker 1: get three hundred and sixty state legislators to sign onto
Speaker 1: a letter to oppose that section of the bill. Why
Speaker 1: do you feel it's better to have states regulate the
Speaker 1: industry instead of like a federal proposition.
Speaker 2: Well, I think you have to view the choices as
Speaker 2: not simply a binary between states regulating it and the
Speaker 2: federal government. We would prefer a uniform federal regulatory scheme.
Speaker 2: That's the best option. The second best option is states
Speaker 2: experimenting with something. The worst option is to have a
Speaker 2: moratorium on state action and have no federal approach. And
Speaker 2: my worry is going forward that third option is actually
Speaker 2: what Congress is going to take. We know how hard
Speaker 2: it is it get things through Congress. So a moratoria
Speaker 2: without a regulatory scheme in place is the worst of
Speaker 2: all possible worlds.
Speaker 1: What about the argument from supporters of a more robust
Speaker 1: AI policy that has very little regulation, that we don't
Speaker 1: want California setting the standards for the and that's just
Speaker 1: too onerous for companies to fallow.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm open to the idea that California or
Speaker 2: New York shouldn't set a national standard, but states seem
Speaker 2: to be free to experiment with regulation in the absence
Speaker 2: of a federal regulatory scheme, and the preemption as it's
Speaker 2: written today, would ensure that a lot of very important
Speaker 2: consumer protection laws they really have nothing to do with
Speaker 2: frontier AI regulation, which is the cutting edge, would be
Speaker 2: stopped at their tracks too. So what we have going
Speaker 2: forward with the Congress that can't pass laws, and I'm
Speaker 2: a former congressman, so these are my colleagues. They can't
Speaker 2: pass laws. A moratorium would basically leave a vacuum in
Speaker 2: which there'd be no oversight at all of what's probably
Speaker 2: going to be the world's most transformative technology.
Speaker 1: Mark You had a tweet in response to Dario Anodi's prediction,
Speaker 1: I don't know if I'm saying his last name correctly.
Speaker 1: I think I am prediction that AI will lead to
Speaker 1: wiping out twenty percent of white collar jobs for recent
Speaker 1: college graduates. You said, quote nine to eleven may meet
Speaker 1: study intelligence failures. How we had warnings but couldn't believe them.
Speaker 1: AI execs are telling us what's coming millions of jobs
Speaker 1: gone or worse. Will we act on this intelligence overly
Speaker 1: wait for an impact. History doesn't repeat it something it
Speaker 1: does rhyme what does responsible AI regulation look like? Because
Speaker 1: tech execs basically say, if you either have almost no
Speaker 1: regulation or you allow us to lose to China.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think we love to sometimes frame a bit
Speaker 3: of a false choice and a false dichotomy here. And
Speaker 3: I think, certainly, you know, as as folks in the
Speaker 3: Senate Commerce Committee, like to say, it's either going to
Speaker 3: be some European Union style heavy handed regulation or America
Speaker 3: is going to win and accelerate. And I think we
Speaker 3: have to find a middle path, you know. And I
Speaker 3: think AI, given how disruptive and transformative it might be,
Speaker 3: and also given some of the uncertainty about the timelines
Speaker 3: associated with how fast it's moving, I think what would
Speaker 3: be obvious to do sort of time now would include
Speaker 3: basically increasing the US government's capacity to test and evaluate
Speaker 3: these systems for things like loss of control risks, for
Speaker 3: things like weaponization, and even things like starting to track
Speaker 3: the types of tasks and jobs that are being automated
Speaker 3: at least in the Fortune five hundred companies. And this
Speaker 3: is an important set of data that can help drive
Speaker 3: a more refined regulatory approach. And the fact that we're
Speaker 3: not even seeming really interested in getting our arms around
Speaker 3: where this has head. It seems to be a significant
Speaker 3: potential intelligence failure.
Speaker 1: Oh question, I forgive me if I sound naive, because
Speaker 1: I don't know this answer. If China invades Taiwan, is
Speaker 1: the AI race essentially over? You know, I obviously it's
Speaker 1: it's sort of the chips, That's why I'm thinking that.
Speaker 3: So obviously, you know, the Taiwan some In Conductor Manufacturing
Speaker 3: Center is perhaps the world's most strategic foundry for producing
Speaker 3: the chips that go into the training runs for advanced
Speaker 3: AI systems. And you know TSMC is looking to diverse
Speaker 3: its manufacturing capacity, including in places like Arizona. But I think, yeah,
Speaker 3: one of the biggest for strategic challenges if the China
Speaker 3: were to invade Taiwan would be associated with that fabric.
Speaker 3: That fab and whether we even survive the war, our
Speaker 3: survivor conflict would be sort of a top of mind question.
Speaker 3: But if it's in fact true that China were to
Speaker 3: seize that capability and have it for its own, then
Speaker 3: I think it would certainly put us in a significant
Speaker 3: strategic disadvantage.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I so, speaking of China, we always hear
Speaker 1: about the race against China. I want to ask you
Speaker 1: both this question. I'll start with Brad and go to Mark.
Speaker 1: But there's the race against China. What is the finish
Speaker 1: line of that race look like? Because that's the thing
Speaker 1: that we all have. Every job and military thing is
Speaker 1: completely replaced by computers. Like what are we racing towards?
Speaker 1: And I don't know that answer.
Speaker 2: It's a great question, they don't think people who use
Speaker 2: that metaphor have always thoughted through. Usually in the past
Speaker 2: we talk about arms races. We use that term pejoratively, right,
Speaker 2: It's about excessive expenditures of an escalation of threats that
Speaker 2: often leaves a lot of people dead in the back.
Speaker 2: And so it's a good question. Is the arms race
Speaker 2: the right metaphor for AI? I think what we're trying
Speaker 2: to get to is some sense of artificial superintelligence. Right,
Speaker 2: the first person to get there, in some speculative scenarios,
Speaker 2: I could have a decisive military advantage. The issue is like,
Speaker 2: is that actually possible? What does that mean? How quickly
Speaker 2: would it diffuse to China? And I think we'd actually
Speaker 2: probably be wise to get away from the arms race
Speaker 2: framing of it and instead think about what we can
Speaker 2: actually do in this country sometimes cooperatively recognize that China
Speaker 2: will likely have AI whatever we do shortly thereafter, So
Speaker 2: it's going to be difficult to keep to have us
Speaker 2: possession of it alone and try to think of a
Speaker 2: way to use AI for the good and get away
Speaker 2: from this kind of militaristic framing of my.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean self taught AI is and I push
Speaker 1: this over to Mark. Self taught AI isn't that everyone
Speaker 1: says could be possible or super intelligence AI, but it's
Speaker 1: years in the future. If then, but there was a
Speaker 1: thing instance with a I might be saying this wrong.
Speaker 1: Palisade AI open AI three model rewriting its own code
Speaker 1: to avoid being shut down, and even blackmailing one of
Speaker 1: the developers saying they'll reveal their spouses indiscretion or their
Speaker 1: indiscretion with their spouse for the fact, are we close
Speaker 1: to that? And like is I mean, do we want
Speaker 1: a situation where we're like doctor Frankenstein making the self
Speaker 1: taught monster and saying, okay, this is a superior for humanity.
Speaker 3: This is a very concerning development, and unfortunately it's one
Speaker 3: we've seen little warning signs along the way that these
Speaker 3: AI models behave in strange ways. And to be clear, Ryan,
Speaker 3: when developers who are making these systems are not really
Speaker 3: building them themselves, they're almost like growing them. And so
Speaker 3: they take a whole bunch of compute resources and a
Speaker 3: whole bunch of data and run these algorithms ruin these
Speaker 3: AI write their own ways, and as a result, it's
Speaker 3: it's like there's no it's like a very much a
Speaker 3: black box. We can't like crack these things open and
Speaker 3: understand how they work and reason about them, and they
Speaker 3: make these really weird decisions sometimes, like the example that
Speaker 3: you made with the team at Palisade Research in three
Speaker 3: avoiding shutdown anthropics model Opus four attempting to blackmail. It's uh,
Speaker 3: it's it's engineer, you know. I think if you extrapolate
Speaker 3: this further, I think super intelligence might actually be a
Speaker 3: little bit closer than than folks may realize. Although it's
Speaker 3: some some some disagreement in the field there. But if
Speaker 3: you have a super intelligent system that is capable of
Speaker 3: rewriting its own code and avoiding shutdown, this is the
Speaker 3: scenario on which a lot of the experts are starting
Speaker 3: to sound the warm bells about right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there was there was that a conversation Dario had
Speaker 1: with Dara Modi had with r Anderson Cooper talking about
Speaker 1: this entire thing. And I have a young recent college
Speaker 1: grad who's a researcher for me, helps kill like some
Speaker 1: data for this podcast. And it's a part time job,
Speaker 1: you know, it's just data for my twice a week podcast.
Speaker 1: But he can't find a full time job as a
Speaker 1: recent college graduate. And he blames in part automation and
Speaker 1: they just don't hire these types of entry level jobs anymore.
Speaker 1: We've seen that college graduates, recent college graduates have a
Speaker 1: higher unemployment rate than the national average for the first
Speaker 1: time in forty years. You're both dads. You said this
Speaker 1: on Twitter, so I'm not exploding some new information. But
Speaker 1: your both dads. You both have kids. I don't know
Speaker 1: how old they are. Are you both worried about their
Speaker 1: opportunity for the workforce and what are college kids supposed
Speaker 1: to do to ensure they can get work in this future.
Speaker 2: It's a great question.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: We do see companies like do Alinko and Shopify say
Speaker 2: that before you post a job, you have to assert
Speaker 2: that AI cannot do it. As you mentioned, the un
Speaker 2: deployment rate for new college graduates is larger higher than
Speaker 2: the national average. The Washington Post recently said that it's
Speaker 2: the worst market for software years since nineteen seventy nine,
Speaker 2: we hardly even had computers in wide dissemination. So I
Speaker 2: do think the jobs are going to go away. There's
Speaker 2: a debate in the AI community about how rapidly that
Speaker 2: will be, but most people think that white college jobs,
Speaker 2: especially will be increasingly automated. And you might see in
Speaker 2: the next five or seven years fifty percent of white
Speaker 2: college jobs could be done by AI. And so it's
Speaker 2: a very good question, and there's no obviously answer for
Speaker 2: what you should study. You know. One hand, one could
Speaker 2: try to study machine learning itself, where you're one of
Speaker 2: the engineers making these products, you know. On the other hand,
Speaker 2: it's not obvious what you could do. And I think
Speaker 2: this calls into question, like the very social compact, what
Speaker 2: is democracy in a world where lots of people don't
Speaker 2: have jobs, where we have incredible economic growth, perhaps, but
Speaker 2: it's concentrated in a very very few number of people,
Speaker 2: the people who are running these labs, and the rest
Speaker 2: of us find ourselves and penury. I think it's actually
Speaker 2: going to be a devastating problem for us, and it's coming.
Speaker 2: As Mark said, we very much agree on most of
Speaker 2: these issues. It's coming a lot faster to the average
Speaker 2: American things, whether it's two years, five years, seven years,
Speaker 2: it's coming very rapidly for all of our jobs. And
Speaker 2: there's no easy answer to it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it might be the number one issue going into
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty eight presidential election. Mark, what I mean,
Speaker 1: what would you say about fifty percent wipe out of
Speaker 1: why college educated jobs is like absolutely devastating. And when
Speaker 1: you hear these techeos talk and I've been on trips
Speaker 1: with tech CEOs and they've talked about this going back
Speaker 1: to three years. In my case, to me, they're like, oh,
Speaker 1: we have to do ubi universal basic income. There is
Speaker 1: no other They will just be permanently unemployed people.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, I agree with a lot of what
Speaker 3: with Brad said. I have a sixteen year old son.
Speaker 3: We were talking about, like what do you study in
Speaker 3: college these days? I mentioned maybe physics and philosophy could
Speaker 3: be things that could be useful, But I mean, I
Speaker 3: think even the Bureau of Labor Statistics earlier this year
Speaker 3: reported something like a twenty percent year over year drop
Speaker 3: of entry leveled positions. And I think to your point,
Speaker 3: it's not that people will become unemployed, it's like they'll
Speaker 3: become unemployable. And I think this is a significant disruption.
Speaker 3: I think on the good news is that looking at
Speaker 3: where this administration is and some of the remarks that
Speaker 3: the Vice President made in Paris, it seems like we're
Speaker 3: going to try to give workers. I see it at
Speaker 3: the table. I know folks like Senator Cruz are very
Speaker 3: focused on jobs, jobs, jobs. I think this is one
Speaker 3: that we're going to have to grapple with and candidly
Speaker 3: data Like Ryan, I, you know, when people say UBI,
Speaker 3: it's probably the most under specified term I've ever heard.
Speaker 3: I think by default it's the wealth and power will
Speaker 3: amass with a few folks, and I think the rest
Speaker 3: of us are going to be left holding the bag.
Speaker 3: And I'll say that whenever anyone sort of talks about
Speaker 3: this utopian vision, I like to think that. You know,
Speaker 3: if you look at history, every time someone promises utopia
Speaker 3: ends in one place, and that place is the Gulag.
Speaker 1: And so I think we need to outbeat That's not
Speaker 1: a lot I.
Speaker 3: See some message coming out of the White House saying like, oh,
Speaker 3: it's just a left wing agenda, is not. I think
Speaker 3: it's going to affect everybody, and we have to make
Speaker 3: this as much as we can, not partisan, and together.
Speaker 3: We have to have a national dialogue. And it's going
Speaker 3: to provoke some very serious reconsiderations of the fundamental assumptions
Speaker 3: of it that strames our constitutional order right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, I hear. I hear the things that
Speaker 1: come out of Republican and I work in republic and politics,
Speaker 1: so this is what I'm most familiar with. Is uh,
Speaker 1: you can't let Gavenuwsom run the entire AI economy. You
Speaker 1: can't let China win. And even Ted Cruz, who you mentioned,
Speaker 1: he is absolutely opposed to any state regulation. Even though
Speaker 1: Texas regulates AI. It was one of the earlier states
Speaker 1: to have a regulation, and I a I put into
Speaker 1: law and signed by the governor. I don't it's not
Speaker 1: a serious, serious piece of legislation, but it is a regulation.
Speaker 1: So it's just curious of what see they are. I
Speaker 1: spoke to someone, a very senior politician in office right now,
Speaker 1: and they had a very optimistic view. They have been saying, yes,
Speaker 1: jobs will be lost, but jobs will be created. A
Speaker 1: bil like the Internet, We're going to see millions of
Speaker 1: new jobs that we don't even know about be created.
Speaker 1: Is that a possibility.
Speaker 2: It's always a possibility, right. We talked about the lump
Speaker 2: of labor fallacy and economics, where even when the automobile
Speaker 2: comes and many people were put out of business, new
Speaker 2: jobs were created as mechanics or manufacturing. I do think
Speaker 2: there's a very real chance at this time. Is different.
Speaker 2: I mean, we should be paying attention to what these
Speaker 2: tech executives are saying. They have stayed it openly that
Speaker 2: it's their job to try to create an artificial intelligence
Speaker 2: that can do ninety five percent of the work that
Speaker 2: humans can do today. And we're giving them hundreds of
Speaker 2: billions of dollars and the smartest people on the planet
Speaker 2: to make that happen. And they seem to be making
Speaker 2: very real steps toward the realization of that goal. And
Speaker 2: so it's a bit of hope to always say, well,
Speaker 2: we'll have some kind of new job, you know, this time,
Speaker 2: it seems like they're actually going to come and take
Speaker 2: a lot of our jobs away, interestingly white collar first,
Speaker 2: but as AI gets embedded in robotics, it will come
Speaker 2: for the blue collar jobs too, and the goal is
Speaker 2: to displace all of us, and they seem to be
Speaker 2: making steps toward it. And so that's a very glib
Speaker 2: thing to say when said you already see the software
Speaker 2: engineer market being crushed, unemployment rising, and again you're probably
Speaker 2: going to see more of this going into the future. So,
Speaker 2: you know, I hope that person's right. One doesn't really
Speaker 2: know how this will develop, but you have to take
Speaker 2: it seriously that this time it's very different.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Mark, what do you saying?
Speaker 3: You know, I asked Claude Opus for who would be
Speaker 3: the most likely the United States senator to oppose federal
Speaker 3: preemption of state regulation, and they answer back with Senator Cruise.
Speaker 3: And you know, I think I think we, of course are.
Speaker 3: We want to be optimistic, we also want to be
Speaker 3: clear eyed about the issue. We can't just pretend and
Speaker 3: handwave that this is all just going to be fine.
Speaker 3: And you know, if you look at what happened during
Speaker 3: the Industrial Revolution, which is what a lot of folks
Speaker 3: compare this to. You know, human physical labor was automated
Speaker 3: and it became next to zero related to GDP output today.
Speaker 3: So physical strength became automated, and that's now not a
Speaker 3: function a factor of the economy. Well, now what we're
Speaker 3: doing is automating our intelligence, and so the question is like,
Speaker 3: what's what's left at that point? Are are you know,
Speaker 3: maybe people can have access to their own, you know,
Speaker 3: very powerful AI systems, and those AIS can go out
Speaker 3: on the Internet and do work for them. But it's again,
Speaker 3: it's it's quite under specified. And I admit the fact
Speaker 3: that I might not be intellectually intelligent enough to predict
Speaker 3: what's going to happen. But I think this seems to
Speaker 3: be a bit of a platitude in a handwave to
Speaker 3: keep people from panicking, and we might be at the
Speaker 3: ponment where it's time to have some of that panic.
Speaker 1: Yeah, someone said that there's the possibility that within the
Speaker 1: next year, I forget who was as an AI person
Speaker 1: on Twitter, So take it with a very small grainssalt.
Speaker 1: But they said that it is possible for a single
Speaker 1: person to have no employees and make a company that's
Speaker 1: valued in the tens of millions of dollars, and then
Speaker 1: the very near future will work the billions of dollars.
Speaker 1: Weird though, that it feels like people are having conversations
Speaker 1: past each other about something that will affect all of us.
Speaker 1: Do you guys get that feeling?
Speaker 2: I definitely think people are talking a bit past one.
Speaker 2: Another part of it is it's still a very technical
Speaker 2: and fairly new technology for most people, and so they
Speaker 2: don't really understand it. They're not aware of what's really happening,
Speaker 2: and even if they're aware of what's happening today, they're
Speaker 2: not paying attention to where it's going. It's rapidly improving,
Speaker 2: so it's not we don't worry so much about what's
Speaker 2: happening at this moment, it's what's happening in a year,
Speaker 2: two years, five years. Where they've actually radically improved even
Speaker 2: today is quite remarkable capabilities. So I think people to
Speaker 2: understand it, they want to believe things will just be okay.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of reflexive opposition to any kind of regulation,
Speaker 2: especially if you're working in Republican politics right regulating business.
Speaker 2: It's just the per se bad which I understand that,
Speaker 2: and they're not often wrong to believe that. But here
Speaker 2: is a technology that's openly stating it's going to try
Speaker 2: to transform our lives up in our world, and it's
Speaker 2: probably worth paying attention to and putting in like reasonable safeguards,
Speaker 2: where like Mark suggests, at the beginning, we're at least
Speaker 2: having the capabilities to deal with it. We're getting more
Speaker 2: information about where it's going, We're watching what jobs are
Speaker 2: being displaced, and we begin the conversation very difficult one
Speaker 2: about how this kind of social compact to undergirds our
Speaker 2: life might radically change.
Speaker 1: Okay, so I want to ask you both of our
Speaker 1: last question. What is a state and what is a
Speaker 1: federal regulation on AI that is not in place currently
Speaker 1: that should be in place if you were speaking to
Speaker 1: a state legislator or governor or someone either in Congress
Speaker 1: or the president. So you can go first, Mark.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think the most important thing the federal
Speaker 3: government ought to be doing time now is taking the
Speaker 3: testing and evaluation regime at the classified level very seriously.
Speaker 3: I think having the data to make inform regulatory choices
Speaker 3: is a foundational first step. And given everything Brad said
Speaker 3: about the technical nature, the relative opacity, the relative fact
Speaker 3: that you know, Washington's quite behind on understanding whether I
Speaker 3: mean the Vatican seems to be further ahead than Washington,
Speaker 3: d C. I'm appreciating the significance of this moment and
Speaker 3: then I would urge my friends and the Republicans Republican Party,
Speaker 3: you know, we can't take a country club attitude towards
Speaker 3: this one. And I agree with that. The fact that,
Speaker 3: you know, the government's oftentimes very ham fisted when it
Speaker 3: engages in the economy. It's not efficient, but it does
Speaker 3: have an important role to play. And we can't, as
Speaker 3: Mike Davis use the term, let the tech brodogarchs you know,
Speaker 3: run the show. We have to think about the broader
Speaker 3: social compact and issues associated with that. And so, but
Speaker 3: the first thing we need to do to get through
Speaker 3: some of this talking past each other is generating the
Speaker 3: right data and having that informed conversation being grounded in
Speaker 3: the facts, and then from there we can have actually
Speaker 3: a productive discussion.
Speaker 2: That's great.
Speaker 1: I love the idea of the country club attitude because
Speaker 1: that is pervasive still despite the whole working class overtures
Speaker 1: being made at least verbally towards voters. Right now, it
Speaker 1: is still very much a country club attitude. What on't you, Brad,
Speaker 1: what would you say is a state or federal policy
Speaker 1: that it's not an ACTI currently that should be an actor,
Speaker 1: or it's an acted in one state and all the
Speaker 1: other states should adopt it.
Speaker 2: I think what marks is something I would associate myself with,
Speaker 2: but I would add just this. We have the AI
Speaker 2: Safety Institute, something that the Treasury Department yesterday renamed as CASEY,
Speaker 2: the Center for AI Standards. So having an institution in
Speaker 2: the federal government that can collect data that brings together expertise.
Speaker 2: It can be the repository of this kind of data
Speaker 2: and to help work with the frontier labs to get
Speaker 2: information and to fund them adequately. But they have the
Speaker 2: right people who are often quite high paid and very
Speaker 2: high levels of skill. That's an important kind of bedrock
Speaker 2: policy we have to have in place. We've had something
Speaker 2: like that, but it's never been codified. Right, it's an
Speaker 2: executive order Biden. Now they've changed a little bit of
Speaker 2: the President Trump. We need to put that into law.
Speaker 2: We have an institution, it's like, dedicated to looking at
Speaker 2: what's happening AI in our economy.
Speaker 1: It's politicians is one class of jobs that probably will
Speaker 1: not be automated, and that's probably why we're not seeing
Speaker 1: much moving on it. Uh Bra, Where can people go
Speaker 1: to find more of your work.
Speaker 2: In the American's responsible innovation can be found at AARI
Speaker 2: dot us. You know, read about all our policies, what
Speaker 2: we support, blog posts, links to many of the kind
Speaker 2: of other thinkers that we find important the work we're doing.
Speaker 2: So ar dot us.
Speaker 1: And Mark where can people find more about them? Government
Speaker 1: affairs for the AI Policy Network.
Speaker 3: Yeah, THEAIPN dot org. We're focused on accelerating federal preparedness
Speaker 3: for tras formative AI, looking at national security, at economic security,
Speaker 3: and human flourishing, and would be excited to partner with
Speaker 3: anyone out there who wants to help promote education around
Speaker 3: this content and help Congress make informed decisions that's going
Speaker 3: to be driving towards the betterment of the American people.
Speaker 1: Well, you guys do great work, so I hope that
Speaker 1: hope they listen, and hope that we are not as
Speaker 1: slow moving on AI as we were on social media
Speaker 1: and everything else. So thank you both for being here.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: You're listening to It's the Numbers Game with Ryan Grodowski.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back after this message. Okay, I know
Speaker 1: the show's gone a little long today and I hope
Speaker 1: you've learned something I did. But before we go, I
Speaker 1: need to do the listener question they Ask Me Anything
Speaker 1: segment you This might be actually a great episode one
Speaker 1: day to do just ask me anythings. If I get
Speaker 1: enough emails, I would love to do that. If you
Speaker 1: want to be part of the ask Me Anything segment,
Speaker 1: please m them email me Ryan at Numbers Game podcast
Speaker 1: dot com. That's ryanat Numbers gamepodcast dot com. Today's question
Speaker 1: comes from David Inda. He writes, my name is Dave.
Speaker 1: I'm a huge fan of your podcast. My question is
Speaker 1: regarding the changing voting patterns of different demographics in the US,
Speaker 1: specifically black and Latino, and any possible conversations you may
Speaker 1: have had with your friend Ann Kolzer, who I'm a
Speaker 1: massive fan of AND's great. That's not the thing, but
Speaker 1: and is great anyway, and talks extensively how the GOP
Speaker 1: should only ever focus on winning over white voters. But
Speaker 1: in light of the recent data that has been released
Speaker 1: post election, I am wondering have you tried to convince
Speaker 1: her that the GOP tried to win black and Latino voters?
Speaker 1: Is that a good idea? Or do you think the
Speaker 1: only thing Republicans should talk about is crime and immigration?
Speaker 1: This is what I believe, and these two policies seems
Speaker 1: to be universally popular regarding race and ethnicity. I would
Speaker 1: love to hear your thoughts on this. Also, I currently
Speaker 1: live in Michigan planning to move to Tennessee, and I'm
Speaker 1: wondering do Republicans have any chance of winning the open
Speaker 1: Senate or governor seat in Michigan in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1: Along the same lines, why are some states voting one
Speaker 1: way at state levels at either red or blue and
Speaker 1: the opposite of presidential elections? Namely places like George in
Speaker 1: New Hampshire and Michigan come to mind? And this question
Speaker 1: is party affiliation as salient as people typically believe. Where
Speaker 1: does candidate quality in a particular year have a bigger
Speaker 1: impact on the people's votes. I know there's a lot
Speaker 1: of rambling, so I apologize and massive fan of the
Speaker 1: podcast and all the important work you do. One final question, Sorry,
Speaker 1: the ADHD is really strong today. I am originally from
Speaker 1: Illinois and wondering if there's any hope for a place
Speaker 1: like that or is it goondla with California? Wow? Dave, Okay,
Speaker 1: lots of questions. Highly recommend switching a decaf, but I
Speaker 1: love the passion I have ADHD two so I know
Speaker 1: how difficult the struggle com based going to go through
Speaker 1: as quickly. Okay, so first and a culture. I try
Speaker 1: to keep our conversations private. But what I believe Annas
Speaker 1: said is that they shouldn't try to win over non
Speaker 1: white voters by remaking policies like we should try to
Speaker 1: win over non white voters, but focus on policies that
Speaker 1: actually help our voter base, which is namely whites without
Speaker 1: a college degree. We haven't talked about the demographic breakdown
Speaker 1: the election yet. It's something we're trying to get a
Speaker 1: dinner around to sit there and go through it and
Speaker 1: we talk about it. I'll send her your woman's regards.
Speaker 1: But I think that's what ann really says. It's not
Speaker 1: that we shouldn't try, It's that we shouldn't sell out
Speaker 1: on policies like on crime, immigration, which are two very
Speaker 1: popular policies. Secondly, do Republicans have a chance at winning
Speaker 1: the Michigan governor or Senate election next year? Both seats
Speaker 1: are going to be vacant, that is correct. My bet
Speaker 1: is on the governor's race. And here's why. Mike Dugan
Speaker 1: Dugan whatever's last name is the Democrat mayor of Detroit
Speaker 1: is running as an independent and will likely take more
Speaker 1: votes from Democrats than Republicans. Duggan has been on the
Speaker 1: rise in the polls, but it's essentially a toss up
Speaker 1: between the likely Democrat Joyce Leen Benson and Republican John James.
Speaker 1: As for the Senate seat, it just depends on who
Speaker 1: the Democrats nominate, because Republicans will likely pick Mike Rogers again.
Speaker 1: Early polls show it's close, but the only canet Rogers
Speaker 1: has a decent lead against is Wayne County Health director
Speaker 1: and Bernie Sanders supporter. Abdul l said, I think that's
Speaker 1: how you pronounce that name. So we'll see if that
Speaker 1: you know who they pick. That's a big question. And
Speaker 1: how many third party nominees get on the ballot is
Speaker 1: a big question. There were a lot of third party, conservative,
Speaker 1: third party, libertarian, third party. Last time, they took enough
Speaker 1: of the vote to matter. I think he lost by
Speaker 1: nineteen thousand votes and they took well over two hundred
Speaker 1: thousand or something like that. Anyway, why do you states
Speaker 1: vote differently in federal elections state elections? This depends on
Speaker 1: one canon. Quality does matter. If you run some link
Speaker 1: Kerry Lake, you're probably going to lose irregardless of the
Speaker 1: fact that there's more Republicans than Democrats. Party affiliation matters
Speaker 1: to a point. It is the most likely outcome. If
Speaker 1: you're readister Democrat, you will most likely vote Democrat. That's
Speaker 1: the biggest consideration than any almost anything else. Right, I
Speaker 1: think gun ownership is the only other larger indicator of
Speaker 1: how you will vote than party affiliation. But party affiliation
Speaker 1: is very, very important. But in places like Kentucky which
Speaker 1: vote for Republicans federally but Democrats locally, or Vermont, which
Speaker 1: vote for Republicans for govern but Democrats in the legislature
Speaker 1: and federally, a lot of it matters in the minds
Speaker 1: of voters is who can put a check on the legislature. So,
Speaker 1: because the working class people of Kentucky oftentimes have a
Speaker 1: Republican party that has a lot of country club attitudes,
Speaker 1: as I said earlier on this podcast, they will support
Speaker 1: a Democrat who's more pro worker, pro union. I mean
Speaker 1: it was a coal mining state forever Likewise, Vermont, they
Speaker 1: will support a socially liberal Republican who's more pro economic
Speaker 1: growth because the legislature is so anti economic growth. A
Speaker 1: lot of it depends on what the state's going through
Speaker 1: and the character and how the character of the candidate
Speaker 1: and how much they reflect the interest of that state.
Speaker 1: The last question was on Illinois, has it gone the
Speaker 1: way of California. I actually think California is in a
Speaker 1: better place in respect of how Republicans are winning over
Speaker 1: voters than Illinois Black voters, which make a bigger population
Speaker 1: Illinois than in CALIFORNI and you are moving slower at
Speaker 1: a slower speed towards the GP than Asians and Hispanics,
Speaker 1: and southern California whites move towards the Republicans faster than
Speaker 1: Chicago area whites. So I think we're going to see
Speaker 1: more gains in California than in Illinois, both in Congress
Speaker 1: and the state legislature. I know it's probably not the
Speaker 1: answer you want to hear, but that's how I see it.
Speaker 1: Thank you again, though for listening. I really appreciate your email, Dave.
Speaker 1: If you anyone else on any other emails, please email me,
Speaker 1: and once again Ryan at numbers gamepodcast dot com. Thank
Speaker 1: you for listening. Please like and subscribe to this podcast
Speaker 1: on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Give me a five star review if you're feeling generous,
Speaker 1: that really helps people find the show. And I will
Speaker 1: see you guys on Monday. Thank you again.