Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe, Ketty Armstrong and
Speaker 1: Getty and he Armstrong and Eddy. I don't know that
Speaker 1: that happened, And Pete said he did not want that.
Speaker 1: He didn't even know what people were talking about. So
Speaker 1: we'll look at we'll look into it. But no, I
Speaker 1: wouldn't have wanted that, not a second strike.
Speaker 2: So that's a story that's burbled up over the last
Speaker 2: couple of days of So when we blasted I think
Speaker 2: it was the first drug boat we blasted. After we
Speaker 2: blasted it, there were a couple of people clinging to
Speaker 2: the boat, and then, according to The Washington Post, Pete
Speaker 2: Hegzeth ordered those two people to be blasted again, which
Speaker 2: would be a violation of all that is good and decent.
Speaker 2: Here is a report on NBC about that. Then we'll discuss.
Speaker 3: The Washington Post, citing two sources with direct knowledge, reports
Speaker 3: defend Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a verbal directive to target
Speaker 3: a boat suspected of ferrying drugs, with one source saying
Speaker 3: the order was to quote kill everybody. But the Post
Speaker 3: reports when it was discovered two people on board had
Speaker 3: survived the strike. A Special Operations commander ordered a double tap,
Speaker 3: a second strike that killed the survivors, one source telling
Speaker 3: the Post the follow on strike was to clear the
Speaker 3: debris of the wreckage for other boats, not to kill
Speaker 3: the survivors.
Speaker 2: Now, these are anonymous sources from the Washington Post. They're
Speaker 2: the original reporting on this. Nobody has confirmed those reports
Speaker 2: that I'm aware of. Yet every story I saw about
Speaker 2: this today NBC, whoever I was watching that, I'll say,
Speaker 2: we have not individually confirmed these reports from the Washington Post.
Speaker 2: Pete Heggzath says that is not what happened. That was
Speaker 2: news to him. Trump says, if it did happen that way,
Speaker 2: I would not have wanted it, which is interesting, But
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: Who said was that Pentagon sources who said the second
Speaker 4: strike was to clear debris, So that was acknowledging a
Speaker 4: second strike occurred.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 4: So the only question then remaining is were their survivors
Speaker 4: clinging to that wreckage and did the US military know
Speaker 4: it before they fired the kill shots of people who
Speaker 4: are obviously no military threat.
Speaker 2: The thing that is a war crime, and the crime
Speaker 2: is murder. The thing I really don't know. That needs
Speaker 2: to be nailed down. I haven't everybody talk about it?
Speaker 2: How much? How many people are involved in this communication
Speaker 2: between Pete and whoever? You know, how many people are
Speaker 2: down the line from Pete to somebody else, to somebody
Speaker 2: else to somebody else who actually pulls the trigger on
Speaker 2: the aerial shot from the drone? I mean, I don't.
Speaker 2: I don't know how many people are involved there. And
Speaker 2: then there is there any record of that communication they
Speaker 2: record that is it a verbal I don't.
Speaker 4: Know any of any questions all. Yeah, the Free press
Speaker 4: is writing about it. According to the post mission, Commander
Speaker 4: Admiral Frank Mitchell, Bradley ordered the second strike specifically to
Speaker 4: kill the two survivors, so he he would certainly be
Speaker 4: guilty of the war crime, and depending how to direct
Speaker 4: the order was from Pete, hegseeth he might.
Speaker 2: Be as well, I guess, you know, allegedly. And then.
Speaker 4: It's worth pointing out we have Republicans joining in the Hey,
Speaker 4: we've got to figure out what happened here.
Speaker 2: Cry It's not just you know the usual suspect, right.
Speaker 2: You only open an investigation in the House of Representatives
Speaker 2: if the majority of party wants it, and they've opened
Speaker 2: investigations and a couple of different committees in the House
Speaker 2: of Representatives because the Republican committee chairs have said, yeah,
Speaker 2: we want to look into this. Also a Senate committee
Speaker 2: looking into it. And is it just a coincidence that
Speaker 2: the week before this story broke the Republican the Democrats
Speaker 2: put out that video of you do not have to
Speaker 2: follow illegal orders, You do not have to follow illegal
Speaker 2: orders and that whole dust up. Is it just a
Speaker 2: coincidence that that happened right before this information came out.
Speaker 2: That would be a hell of a coincidence.
Speaker 4: Sure seems like it because this attack allegedly happened on
Speaker 4: September the second, So yeah, you absolutely could believe that
Speaker 4: there were leaks and people were hearing Oh, this was
Speaker 4: a clear war crime in the blasting the drug boats
Speaker 4: the thing, and that's why they put out that video.
Speaker 4: It makes more sense now.
Speaker 2: Right because it kind of seemed like it came out
Speaker 2: of nowhere. Although would they be after this what is it?
Speaker 2: Admiral whoever? Yeah, of a Bradley. You know, I'm pretty
Speaker 2: cynical about our politics today. I'm not sure how many
Speaker 2: of these Democrats who are making a big deal out
Speaker 2: of this, are actually concerned about these Venezuelans clinging to
Speaker 2: the boat versus they want a scalp in the Trump
Speaker 2: administration to damage the Trump administration, which is more important
Speaker 2: to them. So I feel like some admirable, no admirable,
Speaker 2: I did it. Yeah, I feel like I feel like some
Speaker 2: admiral whose name nobody had ever heard before would be
Speaker 2: enough for them to feel like they got a victory. Yeah.
Speaker 4: I don't disagree with anything you said, but I don't
Speaker 4: think it's appropriate to look at this story through the
Speaker 4: lens of what is the motivation of Democrats, whether it
Speaker 4: is holy or unholy? If a war crime was committed,
Speaker 4: we got to get to the bottom of it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess I was assuming that it didn't happen
Speaker 2: the way it's being portrayed in the Washington Post, and
Speaker 2: we don't know that. Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 4: No idea the fact that were you going to play
Speaker 4: our two Congress fellas?
Speaker 2: I wasn't, But we can. Let's do it. Sixty three
Speaker 2: and four back to back.
Speaker 4: Mike Turner and Don Bacon, both Armed Services Committee guys
Speaker 4: or House Intelligence Committee guys, both Republicans.
Speaker 5: Congress does not have information that that had occurred. Both
Speaker 5: the chairman of the Center Armed Services Committee, Chairman of
Speaker 5: the House Armed Services Committee, and ranking members have opened investigations.
Speaker 2: Obviously, if that occurred, that.
Speaker 5: Would be very serious, and I agree that that would
Speaker 5: would be an illegal act.
Speaker 6: If the facts go to where the Washington Post article
Speaker 6: takes it, well, then.
Speaker 2: We'll have to go from there.
Speaker 6: But if it was as if the article said, that
Speaker 6: is a violation of.
Speaker 2: The law of war.
Speaker 6: But people want a survivory, don't kill them, and they
Speaker 6: have to pose an eminent threat. It's hard to believe
Speaker 6: that two people on our raft trying to survive would
Speaker 6: pose an eminent thrut.
Speaker 2: I would just like to have somebody point out that
Speaker 2: if it turns out this didn't happen, how about a
Speaker 2: little pressure on the Washington Post and not put out
Speaker 2: this sort of crap because that happens a lot too.
Speaker 2: Where you get these stories with anonymous sources. They become
Speaker 2: a big deal for a couple of twenty four hour
Speaker 2: news cycles. Then they kind of drizzle away and nobody
Speaker 2: ever gets packed.
Speaker 4: Straight years during the Russia collusion hoax, please hat them shift,
Speaker 4: you scum back.
Speaker 2: No kidding, And then never nobody ever circles back to say, hey,
Speaker 2: that stuff that didn't turn out to be true.
Speaker 4: That's not cool, right, right, just take down the Washington Post. Sorry,
Speaker 4: Jeff Bezos. I know you wasted a lot of money
Speaker 4: on it, but I'm sorry. We're shutting it down. Yeah,
Speaker 4: we'll just have to wait for the facts to come out.
Speaker 4: It's troubling. We need to be.
Speaker 2: Better than the worst people on earth as a country. Well,
Speaker 2: it's getting it pretty hard to imagine either Pete or
Speaker 2: the guy underneath him thinking that was okay, yeah, yeah
Speaker 2: it is. I mean that would be extraordinary.
Speaker 4: I mean if Pete said something to the effect to
Speaker 4: kill them all, which I think is in the Washington
Speaker 4: Post story. I can't remember the phrase exactly, and this
Speaker 4: guy interpreted that to kill hopeless, helpless survivors, Yeah, that
Speaker 4: would be an enormous error in judgment, the sort of
Speaker 4: which results in, you know, prosecutions.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 4: The commander overseeing the operation from Fort Bragg in North Carolina,
Speaker 4: this Admiral Bradley, told people on this secure conference call,
Speaker 4: according to Washington Post, that the survivors were still legitimate
Speaker 4: targets because they could theoretically call other traffickers to retrieve
Speaker 4: them and their cargo. According to two people, he ordered
Speaker 4: the second strike to fulfill Hexeth's directive that everyone must
Speaker 4: be killed.
Speaker 2: So, I don't know anything about this. So if you're
Speaker 2: in that line of work, you're the sort of person
Speaker 2: that pulls the trigger on the drone to blast these
Speaker 2: people in the boat. Are you taught all of this
Speaker 2: and some sort of training or are you just supposed
Speaker 2: to know it from watching movies? Are I don't know that.
Speaker 2: Would you have been taught. Now if you hit the
Speaker 2: boat and there are survivors, they're no longer a threat,
Speaker 2: so it would be illegal to kill them. Are you
Speaker 2: actually taught that? I would hope so, but maybe maybe
Speaker 2: are Maybe aren't. I don't know if you know anything
Speaker 2: about this, Like you served in the military and you
Speaker 2: got that sort of training. Let us know on the
Speaker 2: text line or the email.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm looking to see if we have any decisive,
Speaker 4: knowledgeable emails. No, just a bunch of dopey comments online.
Speaker 2: Well, this is a Grade A scandal. If it can
Speaker 2: be substantiated in any way, it would drive Hegzeth out
Speaker 2: of his job and perhaps have some sort of trial
Speaker 2: or something.
Speaker 4: I don't know, here's a Trump loyalist says, Joe, you're
Speaker 4: missing a possibility. Maybe the Dems made that illegal order
Speaker 4: video because they were going to play and to a
Speaker 4: false story about Hegzathy.
Speaker 2: See that's yeah, that's a stretch.
Speaker 4: And this from Robert So the WAHPO reports something quoting
Speaker 4: anonymous sources. Why is that given any credibility at all,
Speaker 4: given the history of the WAPPO with fabricating things. The
Speaker 4: dude was just put in place. That would be the
Speaker 4: admiral on August first Navy seal. I'm guessing he knows
Speaker 4: the law and is not afraid of the Secretary of Defense.
Speaker 4: This is an entire argument against a straw man to
Speaker 4: put and keep it in the news unless there's proof
Speaker 4: this order exists or something happened illegal. It's just people
Speaker 4: trying to whip up news. Yeah, you know what, And
Speaker 4: he says our media is so broken. I would agree
Speaker 4: with you, and both Don Bacon and Mike Turner said,
Speaker 4: if this is true, it's a serious deal. But all right,
Speaker 4: now we're in the let's let the facts come out
Speaker 4: part of the process.
Speaker 2: I'm kind of interested. I often like what Barry McCaffrey says,
Speaker 2: retired general. He's usually on NBC. Can we are sixty seven?
Speaker 2: I'd just like to hear his stake on this.
Speaker 7: The easy question is whether or not we are allowed
Speaker 7: to use LESO force against people clinging the wreckage. They
Speaker 7: have submitted there's no threat to the US military forces.
Speaker 1: That seems to me.
Speaker 7: It needs to be investigated, need to be confirmed. It
Speaker 7: seemed to be clearly an illegal order in a war crime.
Speaker 7: And this admiral should have, when he got allegedly got
Speaker 7: this verbal order from the Secretary of Defense, should have
Speaker 7: put it in writing, said we will not comply and
Speaker 7: explained why. So that one straightforward, it's no different than
Speaker 7: a Nazi submarine machine gunning survivors in the water of
Speaker 7: a sunken ship in World War Two.
Speaker 4: For which they were prosecuted at the Nuremberg trials and.
Speaker 2: Executed man And so how fast does this stuff happened? Too?
Speaker 2: So the first shot on the boat went How much
Speaker 2: time was there but between the first strike and the
Speaker 2: second strike, probably not a lot, I'm guessing.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the Wallpole count Is took a while for the
Speaker 4: smoke tick clear, and that booty was surprised to see
Speaker 4: survivors and the order was given hit him again. But again,
Speaker 4: at this point, I feel like the entire question is, Okay,
Speaker 4: did that stuff actually happen in the way it was described?
Speaker 4: If so, okay, then the process begins. If not, let's
Speaker 4: move on with our lives after kicking the hell out
Speaker 4: of the wallpole for false stories.
Speaker 2: Again, there needs to be better reporting on how this
Speaker 2: whole thing works, and I'm surprised that's not included. That's
Speaker 2: one of the reasons that makes me very skeptical about this,
Speaker 2: because if I'm the reporter receiving this information from some
Speaker 2: anonymous source, I'm asking, Okay, how does the chain of
Speaker 2: command work here? Pete talks to who, who talks to who?
Speaker 2: Who actually fires the rocket or the missile? Is all
Speaker 2: of this videotaped? We've seen the video of the original
Speaker 2: strikes on a lot of these boats. Are all of
Speaker 2: them videotapes? So are you claiming there is a videotape
Speaker 2: of this out there? Also? I would ask those questions
Speaker 2: if I as the reporter receiving this information and include that
Speaker 2: in my report and say videotape exists of this, for instance,
Speaker 2: because that would be a big deal. It's very easy
Speaker 2: to get to the bottom of then whichever committee just
Speaker 2: needs to say, Okay, we need to see a videotape, like
Speaker 2: by noon today. I'm not always surprised at how long
Speaker 2: it takes to answer these questions. Seems like they should
Speaker 2: be answerable, like in an hour.
Speaker 4: Yeah, of course, but everybody lawyer's up and drags their
Speaker 4: feet as much as possible. I mean, you can have
Speaker 4: the most legitimate request in the world for information from
Speaker 4: the government, and it's just it's.
Speaker 2: Like, you know, I don't know mining for rare earth minerals.
Speaker 2: Do you have Republican committees in theory trying to protect
Speaker 2: a Republican administration and a Republican sect deaf and all that.
Speaker 2: I would think they'd all want to Yeah, let's get
Speaker 2: the video out. This is what happened, unless something bad happened. Yeah,
Speaker 2: interesting thoughts Texas please four one, two, nine, five KFTC.
Speaker 2: I might want to get super involved in the AI
Speaker 2: argument because it might be the most important thing that's
Speaker 2: ever happened in the history of the world. Want to
Speaker 2: talk about that coming up next segment. Became aware of this.
Speaker 4: New book, A Kinder Gentler Feminism that well, the title
Speaker 4: is actually the Dignity of Dependence, a feminist manifesto that
Speaker 4: Caleb Bart reviewed super interesting. We don't really have time
Speaker 4: to get into it now, but the author, who's a woman, uh,
Speaker 4: talks about, you know, feminism got way off track, but
Speaker 4: it got off track when it began to deny women's
Speaker 4: essential differences from men. She observes with great acuity, depth,
Speaker 4: and wisdom that much of feminism today seeks to make
Speaker 4: women more like men in so far as they are
Speaker 4: autonomous and impenetrable blah blah blah, and and just that
Speaker 4: that's a very perverse way to look at empowering women.
Speaker 2: There's no make them into There's no doubt that that's true.
Speaker 2: Though a lot of modern feminism is just if you're
Speaker 2: anything that's not being like a woman is wrong. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: it's just crazy.
Speaker 4: And then that reminded me of something else i'd seen,
Speaker 4: and I'd mentioned earlier in the show that in the
Speaker 4: midst of my holiday revelry and a lovely time with
Speaker 4: my family, I made the mistake of clicking on an
Speaker 4: article in The New York Post, which was just a
Speaker 4: perfect example of Internet snipy bitterness, superiority trolling.
Speaker 2: The rest of it here's another good one.
Speaker 4: This is a Vice article that came out a couple
Speaker 4: of months ago, but now it's gone viral.
Speaker 2: It's about man keeping. I will quote.
Speaker 4: Mankeeping describes the emotional labor women end up doing in
Speaker 4: heterosexual relationships. It goes beyond remembering birthdays or coordinating social plans.
Speaker 4: It means being your partner's one person support system, managing
Speaker 4: his stress, interpreting his moods, holding his hand through feelings.
Speaker 4: He won't share with anyone else, all of it unpaid, unacknowledged,
Speaker 4: and often unreciprocated.
Speaker 2: What are we talking about, well man keeping?
Speaker 4: And as Nelly Bowles writes, hmm, when I was young,
Speaker 4: it was called loving someone. Matter woman, you do a
Speaker 4: lot of that stuff for your partner, But now we
Speaker 4: call it man keeping and we hate it.
Speaker 2: Oh do we hate it? Holding his hand ew through feelings. Eh,
Speaker 2: he won't share with anyone but you. Ooh. And it's unpaid.
Speaker 4: This is worse than an internship.
Speaker 2: Took the words right out of my mouth. That's that's
Speaker 2: called love?
Speaker 4: What that is a viral whatever that means? Article on
Speaker 4: the internet that's really making the rounds. Young women can say,
Speaker 4: I don't need that this.
Speaker 2: Man keeping good grief. Unplug the effing Internet.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna miss buying stuff online, but I'll schlep to
Speaker 4: the store. I'll write letters, I'll call people on the telephone.
Speaker 4: Unplug the Internet.
Speaker 2: Well, it's too late to unplug the Internet. Is it
Speaker 2: too late to unplug the a dot? The idea of
Speaker 2: AI taking over the world and destroying mankind? And probably
Speaker 2: isn't too late. But we'd all have to rally together,
Speaker 2: which I might be interested in trying to start? What
Speaker 2: do I need? A sledgehammer, a fro bar and a gasoline?
Speaker 2: What do I tell me?
Speaker 3: And I'll bring up day tune, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 8: Retailers are hoping to add a new spin to their
Speaker 8: sales events, leaning into artificial intelligence. In the weeks leading
Speaker 8: up to peak holiday spending, chat GBT maker open Ai
Speaker 8: partnered with Walmart and Target. Over half of shoppers set
Speaker 8: in a recent survey they plan to use AI this year.
Speaker 8: This year, Amazon's offering its own chatbot called Rufus, where
Speaker 8: you can take a screenshot of a shopping list and
Speaker 8: automatically add those items to your card.
Speaker 2: Oh, how exciting is that? That's not that great? All
Speaker 2: the discussions we're having around AI are missing the main
Speaker 2: topic which should be discussed probably constantly and maybe maybe
Speaker 2: the number one political topic in America, if not the
Speaker 2: top couple. As it's been pointed out by a number
Speaker 2: of the people I've been watching and listening to and
Speaker 2: reading over the last several weeks about AI. These chatbots
Speaker 2: were all using They're like a web page as opposed
Speaker 2: to the Internet. It's got nothing to do with what
Speaker 2: AI is going to become or the impact it's going
Speaker 2: to have on the world. The fact that chat GPT
Speaker 2: is a cooler Google, you know that sort of thing,
Speaker 2: and it's kind of misleading people into thinking as to
Speaker 2: what AI actually is. So I've been on this kick
Speaker 2: for quite a while. If you listen you know, the
Speaker 2: big into AI and read about it and listen to it,
Speaker 2: let's podcast about it and everything like that. The book
Speaker 2: that came out fairly recently I mentioned Before the Break
Speaker 2: by Ellie Ykowski, which has gotten a lot of attention
Speaker 2: in AI circles. It's called if Anyone builds It, Everyone Dies.
Speaker 2: He was the one of the biggest proponents of AI
Speaker 2: over the last several decades, one of your leading cheerleaders
Speaker 2: for AI. If you ever read anything or watched a
Speaker 2: show or anything like that, or any network television show
Speaker 2: Oprah in the afternoon, whatever, and somebody was talking about AI,
Speaker 2: it was probably him up until recently when he decided, no,
Speaker 2: this is we can't control this. Superintelligence is absolutely going
Speaker 2: to happen. We're creating a beast significantly smarter than us.
Speaker 2: How do we think that's possibly going to turn out
Speaker 2: to our benefit? We need to stop it immediately. And
Speaker 2: he wrote this book. If anyone builds it, everyone dies,
Speaker 2: and he's trying to get a whole bunch of people
Speaker 2: on board to do something about this. Elon said the
Speaker 2: other day he thinks there's a ten to twenty percent
Speaker 2: chance that AI destroys mankind. Why in the hell would
Speaker 2: you build anything that there's even a ten percent chance
Speaker 2: that destroys all mankind? It seems crazy, that is.
Speaker 4: I mean, the answer is so so clear and so unimplementable.
Speaker 4: At the point that it gets real good at curing cancer,
Speaker 4: for instance, we all love it and then stop right,
Speaker 4: but it's unimplementable.
Speaker 2: I was watching it.
Speaker 4: I mean, for the obvious reasons, we don't have the
Speaker 4: cooperation of everyone on Earth.
Speaker 2: I was watching a I'm gonna start wearing t shirts
Speaker 2: from the doom people because I'm one of them. I'm
Speaker 2: a doomer definitely that believes that it's all going to
Speaker 2: go to hell. Doom Debates is a website. I've been
Speaker 2: watching a lot. Practically everybody involved in this arguments within
Speaker 2: sixty miles of this radio studio, and I wish we
Speaker 2: could get some of them on the air, the Doom Debates,
Speaker 2: where they have some of the leading people on to
Speaker 2: discuss various sides of it. I was watching a doom
Speaker 2: debate between this guy, Max Tegmark, who I've mentioned a lot.
Speaker 2: I've read a couple of his books, Life three point
Speaker 2: zero and bunch of different stuff. He's an MIT scientist
Speaker 2: with this other guy who's one of your leading AI researchers,
Speaker 2: who thinks you know hit And the main pro argument
Speaker 2: from this dude is there's just no regulating it anyway.
Speaker 2: I mean, how the hell are you going to regulate it?
Speaker 2: Which he might be right about, but tech Mark and
Speaker 2: a lot of others, and this is what I might
Speaker 2: want to get involved with personally. They're trying to get
Speaker 2: people's attention and maybe have marches or something to try
Speaker 2: to alert the government. We need to come up with
Speaker 2: a plan. We're just screaming one thousand miles an hour
Speaker 2: toward developing a beast or whatever you want to call
Speaker 2: it that is absolutely going to doom humanity and nobody's
Speaker 2: putting any brakes on it. What the freaking hell are
Speaker 2: we doing?
Speaker 4: Yeah, twice already you've used the word something, And I'm
Speaker 4: not saying that we shouldn't be trying to get people's
Speaker 4: attention so that they're willing to do something. Then the
Speaker 4: obvious next step is what thing.
Speaker 2: Welle Mark, tech Mark other people's argument, And he's been
Speaker 2: he's been trying to lobby Congress, but there's just not
Speaker 2: enough public knowledge out there will to really have any
Speaker 2: any haf yet. And that's why I's wondering where maybe
Speaker 2: we can come in, or I can come in or whatever,
Speaker 2: get the media involved to alert people to what could happen.
Speaker 2: Would just be to say, everybody's got to stop open
Speaker 2: AI chat, gpt elon Zuckerberg, you gotta stop no more
Speaker 2: until we get our heads around this and come up
Speaker 2: with some sort of regulations. One of the points being
Speaker 2: made is we have way more regulations on sandwiches in
Speaker 2: America currently than we do on AI. It's not even close.
Speaker 2: There are Sandwich There are almost zero, almost zero regulations
Speaker 2: on AI at this point, right, And you know, if
Speaker 2: you're a listener to this show, you know it's not
Speaker 2: like me to want to be pro any kind of regulation.
Speaker 2: But as he points out, you're not allowed to just
Speaker 2: make any kind of drug you want to and put
Speaker 2: it out to the people. But we have no regulations
Speaker 2: on AI for what we're just going to unleash on humanity.
Speaker 4: Does I assume he gets to my next you know,
Speaker 4: Devil's advocate type question is okay, if we regulate it
Speaker 4: but China does not, then where are we?
Speaker 2: That always gets sticky also, and that's one of the
Speaker 2: pushbacks from people. You'd have to have some sort of
Speaker 2: world pressured, same way we had around nuclear weapons, that
Speaker 2: inspectors going in, or you have to announce when you're
Speaker 2: blah blah blah, all kinds of different things. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: don't know if that's fling me. Don't know what the
Speaker 2: questions and what the some things are. Yet does not
Speaker 2: in any way deny that we ought to be trying
Speaker 2: to come up with them. But boy, it's a head scratcher.
Speaker 2: I'd say it's one of the arguments is that we're
Speaker 2: the smartest beast on earth. Every other living organism lives
Speaker 2: at our pleasure. It's only because we as a society,
Speaker 2: and this is kind of in the modern age, that
Speaker 2: we've decided we want to let chimpanzees live and we
Speaker 2: should value them and not just murder them for their
Speaker 2: teeth or whatever. Uh, it's they live at our even
Speaker 2: though they're the second smartest beast on earth. Why would
Speaker 2: you think that that's not going to occur when there's
Speaker 2: a smarter thing than us that we're not going to live.
Speaker 2: It's its pleasure, whether it wants us to be around
Speaker 2: or not. Makes sense to me. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I've got this horrible thought that when the super
Speaker 4: Ai is developed, the first thing that's going to happen
Speaker 4: is Kim Jong un is going to empty everybody's bank
Speaker 4: accounts worldwide. It's all going to flow into the North
Speaker 4: Korean treasury and that'll be it. That'll be plenty, can
Speaker 4: you imagine?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know if that. I don't think any
Speaker 2: individual is going to have any control When all the
Speaker 2: experts say this, no individual is going to have any
Speaker 2: control over super AI. It will do whatever the hell
Speaker 2: it's w it wants. It's not going to do the
Speaker 2: bidding of the Chinese or North Korea or US or
Speaker 2: any other human. It's going to do whatever it wants
Speaker 2: and what it wants. Nobody has the slightest idea.
Speaker 4: May I hit you with an intriguing email from our
Speaker 4: friend jt in Livermore about the dangers from super intelligent
Speaker 4: general AI. I think it comes down to this question.
Speaker 4: Would an intelligence vastly superior to human intelligence basis actions
Speaker 4: on the most base animalistic behaviors and emotions, or would
Speaker 4: it be driven by a higher understanding and intelligent empathy.
Speaker 4: Claiming that a super AI would attack us out of
Speaker 4: desire for self preservation, or out of paranoia, or out
Speaker 4: of indifference to the value of life, for presupposes that
Speaker 4: the basist emotions would be the domin drivers of the
Speaker 4: AI's action. But don't most higher thinkers believe in empathy,
Speaker 4: helping those less fortunate, the sanctity of life and the
Speaker 4: beauty of life. Wouldn't a super AI be more likely
Speaker 4: to adopt those higher forms of enlightenment rather than the
Speaker 4: basist motivations of a selfish scared Toddler, and then, by
Speaker 4: way of illustration, at the end of the fabulous original
Speaker 4: Blade Runner movie, the last Ultra Advanced Replicant has almost
Speaker 4: every reason that killed the human that has killed all
Speaker 4: of his friends, and that was trying to kill him,
Speaker 4: but he chose to let Harrison Ford's characters live. The
Speaker 4: character live because it believed in the beauty and sanctity
Speaker 4: of life.
Speaker 2: Yeah, one would that'd be fantastic that went that direction,
Speaker 2: but I don't know how you count on it. The
Speaker 2: example was used that when Germany started two World Wars,
Speaker 2: they were pretty much the most sophisticated advanced society on
Speaker 2: planet Earth, with the finest arts and writers and everything else,
Speaker 2: and they went completely off the rails and did the
Speaker 2: things that they did because intelligent beings are capable of
Speaker 2: doing that and convincing themselves they're doing the right thing.
Speaker 2: And a reminder that C. S.
Speaker 4: Lewis, to paraphrase him, put it that the most oppressive
Speaker 4: oppression is from people who think they're doing it for
Speaker 4: your right. And I could easily see one power or
Speaker 4: another deciding that, you know, all of humanity would be
Speaker 4: a hell of a lot better off, you know, under
Speaker 4: our boot heel.
Speaker 2: Yeah, one example was used. So the alignment problem all
Speaker 2: along has been can you align whichever AIS you're talking about?
Speaker 2: And I have become aware that they all use the
Speaker 2: term AIS when they're talking about multiples. That is just
Speaker 2: the term of art. So whichever AIS you're talking about,
Speaker 2: you try to align them with some sort of morals
Speaker 2: or decency that your company puts in them. But the
Speaker 2: argument was made, and I thought this was really good.
Speaker 2: We're programmed with really one alignment completely as human beings,
Speaker 2: and that is to stay alive and pro create. Yet
Speaker 2: we invented birth control and abortion, which seems to run
Speaker 2: completely contrary to the one thing we were aligned to do.
Speaker 2: And then we regularly do things that aren't like in
Speaker 2: our best interest in terms of eating or exercising or
Speaker 2: all kinds of different things. We're aligned to stay alive,
Speaker 2: but we do all kinds of things that will kill us.
Speaker 2: So you don't necessarily stay on track, which would be
Speaker 2: the same problem with whichever AI is built to be
Speaker 2: aligned with whatever Elon Musk or Sam Altman's goals are
Speaker 2: for the for the supercomputer.
Speaker 4: So now that you've terrified everybody, what's the latest thinking
Speaker 4: on timetables. Is there any predominant opinion on when you
Speaker 4: know various terrifying end or awe inspiring bench stones are
Speaker 4: milestones are reached. It's all over the place, but the
Speaker 4: bench stone, it's benchmark or milestone anyway back to you.
Speaker 2: It's all over the place. But everybody agrees that we
Speaker 2: got here way faster than everybody thought we would to
Speaker 2: where we are today, ended up arriving much faster than
Speaker 2: most predictions. So so far it has been on the
Speaker 2: forward end of things happening, as opposed to the back
Speaker 2: end in terms of how fast it can happen.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: They were generally arguing in the debate I was watching
Speaker 2: last night somewhere in the early thirties, which is only
Speaker 2: five and a half years from now, between five and
Speaker 2: ten years from now that it will arrive. But what
Speaker 2: do you think of the idea of trying to raise
Speaker 2: public will to do this? Do you think you could
Speaker 2: possibly do that? Convince people? And the other thing. I
Speaker 2: would actually love to talk to these people about this,
Speaker 2: some of the thinkers that are trying to move the masses.
Speaker 2: If a whiff of partisanship comes into this, it's over.
Speaker 1: Though.
Speaker 2: If Trump weighs in one way or the other on AI,
Speaker 2: forget it, We're done. Or if some pundit, you know,
Speaker 2: assigns being pro AI is what Trump wants or being
Speaker 2: anti AI is Trump, it'd be like masks and vaccines
Speaker 2: and everything else. It's over at that point, right, And
Speaker 2: I don't know if there's any avoiding that.
Speaker 4: I just keep thinking back to the hilarious movie Don't
Speaker 4: Look Up, which a lot of conservatives didn't like because
Speaker 4: it's scured conservatives, but I thought it scured lefties. Every
Speaker 4: bit is brilliantly. I don't know that you can get
Speaker 4: that going. I don't know that you can get people
Speaker 4: to pay attention.
Speaker 2: Well like and Don't Look Up. There was a movement
Speaker 2: toward making sure the media is going to benefit so
Speaker 2: many people that we need to make sure the media
Speaker 2: hits here. But what if it hits in the United
Speaker 2: States and not in countries where they have you know,
Speaker 2: more inequality, you know, all that sort of stuff, right,
Speaker 2: which absolutely will be the topic for AI.
Speaker 4: But metior to destroy life, the poor and minorities affected most.
Speaker 2: Yeah, do you think there's a possibility because we have
Speaker 2: to take a break here soon, do you think there's
Speaker 2: a possibility that you could raise awareness, get people worked
Speaker 2: up enough that you could end up with And I've
Speaker 2: been against every march that's occurred since nineteen sixty eight,
Speaker 2: but if you could, if you could get people like
Speaker 2: in the streets and say regulate AI, let's do something
Speaker 2: about Do you think you could even come close to that? Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, and I think it would probably be useless because
Speaker 4: of the China factor, but I don't know for sure.
Speaker 2: So far, we're way ahead of them, We're the leading
Speaker 2: edge of it.
Speaker 4: This has to be how people felt when they saw
Speaker 4: the mushroom clouds in the forties.
Speaker 2: They thought this can't end. Well, yeah, and that's an
Speaker 2: argument for c that everybody thought that would doom humanity.
Speaker 2: But that's been in the hands of a small number
Speaker 2: of people and human beings making the decision. What if
Speaker 2: the you know, the nuclear weapons didn't get to make
Speaker 2: their own decisions of what would be best for life
Speaker 2: and go ahead and develop independently of human needs. Well, in,
Speaker 2: come on, Japan didn't have mutually shared destruction in nineteen
Speaker 2: forty five, right, and well they were on the receiver end.
Speaker 2: Anybody with any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear
Speaker 2: it for a mailbag tomorrow or on the line or whatever.
Speaker 2: It's a hell of a topic. Anyway, we will finish
Speaker 2: strong next waning moments of the first day back after
Speaker 2: a long vacation in which I gained three and a
Speaker 2: quarter pounds. Congratulations to me, Michael, can we hear forty seven? Please?
Speaker 2: Why do you blame the Biden.
Speaker 1: Administration because they let him in? Are you stupid?
Speaker 2: Are you a stupid person?
Speaker 7: Because they came into on a plane along with thousands
Speaker 7: of other people.
Speaker 6: That shouldn't be here, And you're just asking questions because
Speaker 6: you're a stupid person.
Speaker 2: I love him or hate him, He's always a gentleman.
Speaker 2: Donald J. Trump? Are you stupid? Are you a stupid person? Yes?
Speaker 4: Indeed, so that's just he's not getting more controlled. It
Speaker 4: should be interesting going forward. I played that partly as
Speaker 4: an excuse to bring this up again. We were talking
Speaker 4: earlier about how so many countries around the West have
Speaker 4: finally said openly, look, and Marco Rubio made an announcement
Speaker 4: about it Thanksgiving week. Look, we're not going to import
Speaker 4: people who hate our values from the third world. It's suicide.
Speaker 4: And that's unquestionably true. And if you don't understand that
Speaker 4: you are a fool or to dopey. Now I sound
Speaker 4: like the president to participate in the national conversation.
Speaker 2: I hope I'm not.
Speaker 4: Just came across this stat brace yourself. The percentage of
Speaker 4: children born in Canada who had a foreign born mother
Speaker 4: last year forty two point three percent.
Speaker 2: No, yes, no, yes, That.
Speaker 4: Proportion is almost exactly doubled since nineteen ninety seven. The
Speaker 4: West is rapidly becoming not the West anymore. To support
Speaker 4: the economy, politicians and enough the people who live here.
Speaker 2: And I don't understand the crowd that that's automatically a
Speaker 2: good thing. Maybe we'll discuss that tomorrow. They're idiots. What's
Speaker 2: to understand? They're idiots? Thought I'm strong, I'm strong. You're
Speaker 2: ready with Katie Green and.
Speaker 1: Thought Strong.
Speaker 2: Here's your host for final thoughts, Joe Getty.
Speaker 4: Hey, let's get a final thought from everybody and the
Speaker 4: crew to wrap things up for the day. There is
Speaker 4: our technical director, michae Lingelow. Michael, what's final thought?
Speaker 6: I'm a little irritated having to work today on Cyber Monday.
Speaker 6: I was at home, you know, I wanted to decorate
Speaker 6: for the holidays.
Speaker 2: But here I am working on Cyber Monday, of all days,
Speaker 2: son of them.
Speaker 4: Katie Green are Esteemed Newswoman. As a final thought, Katie, we.
Speaker 2: Did Thanksgiving at someone else's house and I only regret
Speaker 2: no leftover. Yes, that's the worst part of doing Thanksgiving
Speaker 2: somewhere else. I mean the upside you didn't have to
Speaker 2: make the meal, you don't have to clean up, but
Speaker 2: no leftover sucks.
Speaker 4: If you have any decency, you help with the cleanup
Speaker 4: point of order.
Speaker 2: Jack, do you have a final thought for Yeah, that's
Speaker 2: a good point to know. Leftover's thing. Yeah. I mean,
Speaker 2: on the other hand, maybe I'm better off without a
Speaker 2: bunch of pie sitting around my house and stuffing and
Speaker 2: everything like that, as I did gain three and a
Speaker 2: quarter pounds.
Speaker 4: Yeah. My final thought is also dessert related. We had
Speaker 4: all sorts of different pies prepared for Thanksgiving dinner, but
Speaker 4: we had twelve people in the house and family and
Speaker 4: all and twelve yeah, and so like, by two o'clock
Speaker 4: the next afternoon, it was all gone.
Speaker 2: Damn it. It's bummed.
Speaker 4: I could eat apple pie for breakfast every day in
Speaker 4: my life.
Speaker 2: Heck, yeah, oh I may some days. It exactly Armstrong
Speaker 2: in Getty wrapping up another ruling four hour workday, so.
Speaker 4: Many people will thanks a little time good Armstrong and
Speaker 4: Getty dot com. No shipping charged today. Free shipping at
Speaker 4: Armstrong and Getty dot com. The Ang Swag Store. Get
Speaker 4: your favorite Ang fan. Maybe it's you a little souvenir.
Speaker 2: And you're gonna be running out of time soon to
Speaker 2: get it to them before the holiday. You know, we'll
Speaker 2: see tomorrow. God bless America.
Speaker 1: I'm Strong and Getty just on then this bollic.
Speaker 4: Easy for you to say, Signed Stegas Store Segast. That
Speaker 4: would have been a good punch, would have been great.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, there you go. Month is off to a
Speaker 2: bad start. A pie, that's your problem.
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty