Ask Dr. Drew - A Transhumanism Future: Will AI Replace Your Doctor? w/ Joe Allen & Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Ep 289

Episode Date: November 25, 2023

“Transhumanism is the great merger of humankind with the Machine,” warns Joe Allen, author of “Dark Aeon: Transhumanism and the War Against Humanity.” He joins Dr. Drew and Dr. Kelly Victory to discuss the dangers of intermingling AI with medicine and the global threat to the doctor-patient relationship. Joe Allen has written for Chronicles, The Federalist, Human Events, The National Pulse, Parabola, Salvo, and Protocol: The Journal of the Entertainment Technology Industry. He holds a master’s degree from Boston University, where he studied cognitive science and human evolution as they pertain to religion. As an arena rigger, he’s toured the world for rock n’ roll, country, rap, classical, and cage-fighting productions. He now serves as the transhumanism editor for Bannon’s War Room. Follow him at https://x.com/joebotxyz and read his book “Dark Aeon: Transhumanism and the War Against Humanity” at Amazon.com 「 SPONSORED BY 」 Find out more about the companies that make this show possible and get special discounts on amazing products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get a discount on your first order at https://drdrew.com/paleovalley • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get an extra discount with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew • COZY EARTH - Trying to think of the right present for someone special? Susan and Drew love Cozy Earth's sheets & clothing made with super-soft viscose from bamboo! Use code DREW to save up to 40% at https://drdrew.com/cozy • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at https://twc.health/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician with over 35 years of national radio, NYT bestselling books, and countless TV shows bearing his name. He's known for Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Teen Mom OG (MTV), Dr. Drew After Dark (YMH), The Masked Singer (FOX), multiple hit podcasts, and the iconic Loveline radio show. Dr. Drew Pinsky received his undergraduate degree from Amherst College and his M.D. from the University of Southern California, School of Medicine. Read more at https://drdrew.com/about Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome, everyone. As always, I'm watching your comments on Restream and over at the Rumble Rant. We have many great guests coming up. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene tomorrow with Aaron Cariotti and Dr. Victory. Jennifer Say on Wednesday, or is that Wednesday the 22nd, that says. Mark Geragos on Monday. And we have many several other guests, Nicole and Jimmy coming in, Dowd coming in. Keep an eye out for that. And today is no exception. We have Joe Allen. He has written for multiple outlets, including The Federalist,

The National Pulse, Parabola. He studies transhumanism, and we're going to get into that a bit with Dr. Victory. You can follow Joe at JoeBot, J-O-E-B-O-T-X-Y-Z, JoeBotXYZ. And we'll hear what Joe's got to say after this whole break. Be right with you. Our laws as it pertains to substances are draconian and bizarre. A psychopath started this.

He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction, fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous. I'm a doctor for. Where the hell you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals.

Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat. You have trouble, you can't stop, and you want help stopping, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. Thanksgiving is almost here, which means it's time for the best GenuCell sale of the year. Just in time for the holidays, save over 60% off both of our personally tailored GenuCell

skincare packages at GenuCell.com slash Drew so you can look your very best at all of your Thanksgiving gatherings. Look 10, 15, 20 years younger guaranteed with the best natural skincare anywhere. Take advantage of GenuCell's best sale of the year and say goodbye to fine lines, crow's feet, puffiness, and dark spots. The GenuCell experience is like no other, but don't take my word for it. You will look and feel your absolute best or your money back, no questions asked. So for results in 12 hours or less, GenuCell's immediate effects is included for free. Plus, if you go to GenuCell.com slash Drew now, you'll get a free upgrade to priority shipping. That is Genucel.com.

And as I said, Joe Allen is our guest today. You can follow him at JoeBotsXYZ on Twitter and Getter. Singularity Weekly, Substack, jobot.substack.com. And the book is Transhumanism and the War Against Humanity. Pretty provocative title. Please welcome Joe Allen. Drew, very good to be here. Thank you very much.

Good to have you. So let's frame, if you wouldn't mind, the nature of the problem and what your concerns are. I think we live in a period in which reckless uses of technology are already evident, but as these technologies become more and more sophisticated and as people become more and more susceptible, not only to the nefarious uses of these technologies, but simply dependent upon them and thereby losing a lot of their natural facilities such as for instance a doctor who might become over reliant on AI and lose touch not only with his patients but also with his profession. When we speak about transhumanism we're talking about some of the most radical proposals for the

uses of these technologies and we have a lot of excitement in Silicon Valley, a lot of excitement in the military industrial complex, a lot of excitement in the biomedical establishment about all of these technologies. I think we need more people who are skeptical and critical. You know, you say, I'm just thinking about some of the language you're using, and you talked about physicians becoming over-reliant on AI. I remember people saying the exact thing about the internet generally, that, oh my gosh, how are we going to train these physicians? Because they'll always look at their phone for the answers. And to some extent, there has been a problem with that, but we've sort of adjusted to it.

And I just want to push back as firmly as possible to see what you do with this. And in terms of nefarious uses was a term you used, you sound like the Catholic Church in the days of the Gutenberg Bible. So what do you, and in fact, and let's not get this wrong, horrible consequences did ensue.

There were horrible consequences in the case of the Bible printing and in case of giving these residents a phone in their hand every day. But we seem to adjust to these things and we seem to adjust rather quickly. What would you say to somebody who pushes back with such? On the matter of adaptation adjustment, I have a much more pessimistic and negative viewpoint on the effects of the internet, not only in the professional world, but in social life, in mental stability, and absolutely in depth of soul. So I understand, obviously, that there are many upsides. If there were no upsides, nobody would want to adopt any of these technologies. And I'm not necessarily saying we should do away with the internet, but I am absolutely saying that there have been just a whole slew of negative consequences that have either gone unaddressed or by and large swept under the rug.

I think that the adaptation is a huge problem. It's the same sort of adaptation one would expect in a body that is adapting to a very toxic environment. The body will adjust in all sorts of different ways, but it doesn't really negate the long-term negative effects of that toxic environment. I'll tell you what though, as far as nefarious goes, I, in fact, who knows why that word popped out of my mouth? I actually oftentimes push back on the claims of nefarious intention myself. Let's soften that a bit and look at it from an even darker and I think a more paranoid point of view, many or perhaps most of the people developing and pushing these technologies, I think that they do so with a viewpoint that what they're doing is improving society. And many of them are doing so with a viewpoint that what

they're doing is ultimately going to improve the human species. I think that's a much thornier problem because if you have conflicts of interest between two parties who are acting in good faith, but one wants to transform humanity into something completely new, and the other would like to see humanity remain something like we've been for the last at least 10,000 years, if not a quarter million years, that's a much deeper problem than just saying, look at those bad guys at the World Economic Forum. Don't they sound scary? Let's castigate them and keep going along with all of Silicon Valley's programs, for instance.

Yeah, I think it's just for anyone to negate what you're saying about the adverse effects of the internet outright would be dishonest i mean you can't you can't deny the adverse effect and and and the same is true of every technological step forward what i wonder to sort of help sort of i i think your you know your concerns are justified is the rate at which we're coming at stuff and that that's new, you know, the rate at which things are changing. And that before we can adapt to one thing, we've got another thing. And these are coming fast. That's what sort of, if you can think about nothing else being alarming than that, that's a new feature of what we are trying to adapt to in this effect. But I'd rather you

dig a little deeper into what your concerns are. I mean, it feels like you have a philosophical slash psychological, maybe moral concern embedded in that issues of these attempts at transhumanism. What are those concerns? You know, to be honest, I would say that my deepest concern is an aesthetic one. And I think that for the most part, most people, maybe all people, begin with an aesthetic and that sense of what is good, what is right, what is beautiful, guides most of what we then call reason or morality. And so beginning from there, it's sort of intractable, right? Without completely overhauling the personality deep down inside. What you see in those who are made very uncomfortable

by the ideas of such things as sentient AI or a brain computer interface to connect you to such a sentient AI or a robot to embody such a sentient AI, or some of the radical augmentations that are already underway in their sort of beta phase, such as genetic engineering of life forms all over the planet, but increasingly genetic engineering of human beings. That visceral response is, it is deep down inside an aesthetic one. And I think that that aesthetic is driven largely by a spiritual orientation. My biggest concern, Drew, is not necessarily a practical one, although there are plenty of practical reasons that one might not want to completely overhaul society and overhaul the human being. My deepest concern is a spiritual one.

I think that what we are seeing is the development of what is right now a heterodox religious system centered around technology based on the sort of cosmic background of the findings of science. And what we're moving towards is a civilization being the West or civilizations all over the world whose orientation is ultimately in the material and whose highest values are in greater and greater knowledge of the material in order to manipulate the material. And seeing us as part of that material background, human beings, the human soul now reduced to patterns of neurological activity, I think that what we're going to experience going forward, not unlike what we've seen in the last century, is going to be an acceleration of that value

structure being held up first and foremost among the elite, the educated, the wealthy, but increasingly among the populace, a sort of exoteric or a lay version of a transhuman religion. I don't think that it's very difficult to defend. In fact, it sounds crazy maybe if you are not aware of it or you haven't noticed it, but I don't think that you have to look too far to see all the signs of the spread of a new religion here you know it's so funny the um as always the south park guys are spot on with everything they did an episode about three years ago where i think the world got taken the universe got taken over by hamsters or something and the hamsters worshipped science and if they're mad at you they'd go science damn you and so and so it's it's that world that uh you're talking about and uh i don't know i i well that's a it's a big philosophical question and neither i certainly can't answer whether it's you know going to happen or not but i i understand the concerns that's for sure um you know it really doesn't matter if every

oh so sorry it doesn't matter if everyone converts so to speak or adopts this way of looking at things what really matters is that a critical mass of those in charge adopts such a worldview and in a more populist or democratic society, a critical mass of the populace. Yeah, no, I understand. And to, you know, it's what the World Economic Forum is trying to do, which is to distill down human worth down to the same as animals, same as rock, same as whatever, you know, as clouds. That seems to be in their intentions somewhere.

If you look at their new health treaty, so-called, the human importance has to take equal weight to animals and geology. But it can take people, when humans go to a place where human life doesn't have meaning and the content of human brains aren't appreciated, we can do untold harm. And so I get your concerns. Before we bring Dr.

Victory in here, she and I are concerned about where this goes with medicine. And I've been convinced that they're trying to get rid of physicians. They've been trying to do that all the way along because we are a, what did Al Gore call his movie? An unfortunate event or an unfortunate burden for them. Oh, an inconvenient truth, I believe. Inconvenience. We're an inconvenient truth because we are the only thing that actually watches over the well-being of the patient with human concern and with a specialized knowledge base to try to represent that. We have a video with the World Economic Forum discussing AI and its effect on health care. And I would just say before you watch this, just think about how many other things they're trying to get in the way of the patient and the physician. Everything they can, they're trying to inject something in there other than the physician, which is just an inconvenience to the people that actually

have to fund the care. And they don't want to give up their money, ultimately, is what this is about. But let's see what the World Economic Forum thinks about it. Eric, you made a point about radiologists and its classic example. I don't want a computer telling me that my scan was difficult. But I also don't know that I need a doctor to do it. And we were talking about this beforehand. Like doctors are, AI is really bad at telling you you have cancer. Many doctors are pretty bad.

I've had that experience. telling you you have cancer. Many doctors are pretty bad. So we were talking and I wonder if there isn't a job title, a new job called empathist, and I'm going to trademark that. And in fairness, chat GPT apologized to me the other day, you know, and so, I mean, it's already better than the doctor. I'm not saying that it's developing empathy. Yes. Many ways get rid of the doctor, no understanding what a physician can offer. So what is going to happen there, do you imagine? I mean, what we hear there is, again, that sort of tempered enthusiasm. That panel was among the more nuanced that you're going to find at the World Economic Forum.

You had a lot of people who really were coming from diverse points of view, and many of them maybe not so comfortable with where this is going. But that notion that the AI can do a better job than a doctor, not only in diagnostics, but in actually interacting with patients, those who stand to profit from it and those whose ideology kind of dictates that AI is inevitably going to be superior, they're going to continue to push it. It's their aesthetic drive, right? Their aesthetic sense of where this is all going. And that notion that those who are very uncomfortable by it, you hear a word like empathist, a professional empathist. Maybe you could also say a professional BS artist in some way, but that is basically reducing the professional to the level of a sort of a pet of almost, you know, or a babysitter maybe is more accurate. And I think that the more that doctors give up that power, right,

the power of understanding the human being and the power of connecting to human beings to perhaps persuade them into to choose healthier options or undergo certain treatments, the more that machine and by the machine, I mean that individual AI or the machine writ large over the techno-industrial complex, that machine is going to have that power. And human beings are going to turn to that machine for healing, not unlike a Christian would turn to an icon of Christ for not only healing of the body, but also for, to some extent, a sense of well-being and a sense of meaning. Yeah, look, the numero uno complaint from patients is they want more time, human connection from the physician, from somebody who actually is making the decisions on their behalf, who has their best interest in mind at all times. They want more of that.

And the more we learn about the interpersonal experience and interpersonal neurobiology, the more we learn that the very function of the emotional system and the self grows out of others. And we just can't do without that. Now, does a physician have to always be serving that function well throughout human history it has to one degree or another it seems to have some some value for the last 10 000 years so interesting so now i'm i have no problem with computers you know with the

ai whatever getting involved i mean i have you know I look at an EKG, there's a computer readout on the EKG, and most of the time it's pretty good. When it gets it wrong, it gets it wrong spectacularly. And there's no backup. There's nothing there but the human to say, hey, this computer misread the whole circumstance. So that's the part I don't get. I don't get how people think that it's really,

this is the part that people misjudge, which is judgment itself and wisdom itself. It's not a function of accumulated facts. It's something far greater. It's something that is a function of the ineffable. It's like trying to have a computer create or experience red or a sense of smell. There's something experiential in all these things. And people just don't seem to get that experience and information and wisdom are very different phenomenon.

We're here with Joe Allen. He very kindly spent his time with us today. Put up the book again there, Caleb, if you would. You can follow Joe at JoeBot. That's B-O, well, JoeBot, J-O-B-E-B-O-T-X-Y-Z. There is the book. And we're going to take a little break, hear from people that support us. We can keep doing this program. And then we're going to bring Dr. Kelly Victory in with Joe. If you're trying to figure out the right present for someone, you will not go wrong with gifting the most comfortable sheets,

clothing, and accessories that your friends and family have ever felt. Of course, I'm talking about Cozy Earth. Cozy Earth has the softest and most comfortable sheets, blankets, towels, PJs, joggers, and more guaranteed. Susan and I love them. In fact, we still have Cozy Earth sheets on our bed. I slept in them last night. I was thinking of how great they were. And look at this.

I'm wearing one of their super comfortable t-shirts right now. I don't get, I just can't get enough of Cozy Earth. Their sheets are durable, machine washable, and come with a 10-year warranty against defects. So no surprise that Cozy Earth's brand has been featured on Oprah's favorite things for five years in a row. Whether it's their luxury pajamas, super soft bedding, loungewear, or plush bath towels, you will love shopping and gift giving at Cozy Earth.

Here's my gift to you this holiday season. Go to CozyEarth.com, enter code Drew to save 40%. That's CozyEarth.com, enter code Drew to save 40%. That's CozyEarth.com with code Drew. CozyEarth.com, code Drew, save 40%. I think everyone knows the next medical crisis could be just around the corner, whether it comes in the form of another pandemic or something much more routine, like a tick bite. You and your family need to be prepared.

That's where the wellness company comes in. You know the wellness company. We have their physicians on like Dr. McCullough frequently. The wellness company and their doctors are medical professionals you can trust. And their new medical emergency kits are the gold standard when it comes to keeping you safe and healthy. It's really, it's a safety net. It's an insurance policy that you hope you're not going to need. But if you need it, you sure as heck are going to wish you had it if you need it.

Be ready for anything. This medical emergency kit contains an assortment of life-saving medications, including ivermectin, Z-Pak. The medical emergency kit provides a guidebook to aid in the safe use of all these life-saving medications. From anthrax to tick bites to COVID-19, the Wellness Company's medical emergency kit is exactly what you need to have on hand to be prepared. Rest assured, knowing that you have emergency antibiotics, antivirals, and antiparasitics on hand to help you and your family stay safe from whatever life throws at you next. Go to drdrew.com slash TWC. That is drdrew.com forward slash TWC to get 10% off today. Just click on that link. Susan and I have been

looking for a nutrition-packed, great-tasting greens drink for a while. And then we tried our friends at Paleo Valley's organic super greens, which is superior to what's out there on the market. Our friends at Paleo Valley, well, they think of everything, and they've created what's been called

a magical green powerhouse. All three delicious varieties, pure, unflavored, strawberry, lemonade, and tropical, contain 23 certified organic antioxidant-rich superfoods, including the highest quality spirulina. It's also free of cereal grasses, gluten, grains, soy, and dairy, and no added sugars or artificial sweeteners. And what's more, it delivers digestive enzymes, polyphenolsols which are believed to burn fat and eight essential amino acids imagine the time effort and cost of trying to make this yourself it's impossible head on over to drdrew.com slash paleo valley and you will get 15 off your first order all the great products that have their 15 off at drdrew.com slash paleo, P-A-L-E-O.

Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. If this episode ends here, the rest of the show is available at drdrew.tv. There's nothing in medicine that doesn't boil down to a risk-benefit calculation. It is the mandate, public health, to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. And Dr. Victory, I give you Joe Allen. Hey, Joe, so happy to have you.

I've been really looking forward to this conversation. This is a topic that I have spent a lot of time thinking and speaking and writing about for a long time, even far beyond medicine. One of the things I know I saw in your bio, you are the transhumanism editor for Steve Bannon. Steve is one of my really, somebody I really, really enjoy. But indulge me for a second. Take 20 seconds just to level set for everyone watching here and give me your 20 second definition, just a level set of transhumanism. When you say transhumanism, tell me exactly what it is, how you define that. Transhumanism is a philosophy which seeks to go beyond the human by way of technology and any other materialist reason-based, science-based methodology.

Okay, perfect. Because that's what I would have said too. But I think a lot of people, the term transhumanism has been thrown around a lot recently. It's kind of like existential. People use the term and I'm not sure that everybody knows exactly what we're talking about. It seems to me that man, that humans have struggled with the balance between technology and wanting always to push the technology edge. I remember, I am considerably older than you are. I remember when ATMs came to be and the idea that you were going to actually have this card and you were going to be able to bank without a teller even being present. And then you were able to order off of a pad in a restaurant without the menu. You could put in your order and it would go automatically at the McDonald's without talking to a human being. And then you can

check out now at the grocery store, at self-checkout without actually employing a cashier. In other words, replacing humans all along the way. So there's that component of transhumanism, the idea that we're actually replacing the physical human. Then there's that component of transhumanism, the idea that we're actually replacing the physical human. Then there's another part of it. That's the technology piece where we're trying to improve on the actual ability, on the senses, on the ability that a human has, but to make them better by technology. So say, you know, we do that right now with eyeglasses. We take the God-given lens of the eye and we improve its acuity by putting glasses in front of your face or by contact lenses. So we're improving something. And then somewhere those two things combine into where you're trying

to actually improve the technology and replace the human being and really struggling with where that makes sense. Is there a place, let's start with this, is there a place where you think that, because I happen to share your concern about all this big time, I'd go back to everything being no computers, I hate computers. Is there a part for you though where you think it does make sense and where have we crossed the Rubicon? When you say it does make sense, you mean that the ambitions of transhumanists make sense? No, I mean the idea that we can improve some of the God-given things by employing technology. We can make something easier that by employing some element of technology, we can make something easier, that by employing some element of technology, we can make something more effortless, more efficient, better. We certainly have come a

long way from 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago. We have employed technology, but there's somewhere where we've crossed the line. I remember thinking that when Dolly, you know, when we cloned Dolly, you know, the sheep back, you know, decades and decades ago that, oh, I remember saying, we have just crossed a really dangerous line. We have created life in a Petri dish. And we have crossed in my mind, as a Christian and as a physician, that we had crossed a line that I thought was sacrosanct. So where, do you have a sense in your own mind where that line is? Absolutely.

To address the first part of it though, obviously I'm a creature of the modern world. Whoops. Green, if that wasn't the case, right? So this is just simply part and parcel of our lives. I will say though that before Steve brought me on, I had done a pretty good job of stripping it all the way to become something of a Luddite if a failed Luddite. But now, you know, in the last three years working in media, I am effectively a cyborg. My human-machine symbiosis is refined day by day by day, even as the machines torture me with various glitches and failures.

I think that it's impossible to go without technology. It's intrinsic to humankind. If you take it from a biblical perspective, the first thing Adam and Eve did was fashion garments for themselves. And any, to me, any sort of externalized technique, anything that takes hold of the material world and is used to augment the human is a technology. So you start with the loincloth, I guess. And then very early on in the Bible, you have Tubal Cain bringing blacksmithing and these sorts of technological innovations as it was observed by the Hebrews. So it's been with us forever. And of course, evolutionist cultural anthropologists note that really the human being began with the discovery of fire and its uses with the fashioning of tools, with the creation of art. And they also note, at least those who are not PC about it, they also note that the human genome co-evolved with these technologies.

And of course, given the differences in technology across the planet, differences in human evolution. But without getting lost in that, I think accepting some degree of technological adoption is just, it's part of human nature. It's just simply a part of us. Those lines, those sacred boundaries, those are the ones that are going to be the most important going forward. As we're all in essence experimented upon, like lab rats, the control groups are going to be very, very important. And I guess our elite social engineers have forgotten that critical step in the scientific method. But the control groups, I think, will largely be determined by sacred boundaries. Is it okay to have an AI that speaks in the voice of Jesus? Is it okay to link your

brain to an AI, whether through an invasive procedure or whether through the windows of the eyes in a VR headset, in a way that the human being either becomes partly AI in the sense that the cognition is offloaded to the AI or that the human being is in a relationship with the AI as if it were another organism, as if it were another soul. And down to the genome, you know, you mentioned Dolly and that of course was a huge stunner across the world. And many other animals have been cloned since then. It's fairly routine, especially in countries where there are no ethical constraints on it. And then, of course, I believe it was 2018 with Ha-Zhong Cui, the geneticist in China who

manipulated two children's or two embryos' genomes to give them resistance from HIV using CRISPR. And to many people's surprise, the Chinese Communist Party really condemned him and put him in prison for a couple of years. I think that it's quite likely, though, that that was as much for publicity as it was for anything else. Many American institutions go to China because the sacred boundaries of people here in America, whether it be in dealing with embryonic tissue or altering the genome itself, many of those boundaries simply don't exist in China for a lot of reasons, not least of which is the overall kind of atheistic or communist orientation of the culture. The sacred boundaries are much more political. The sacred boundaries are much more,

I think, you could say symbolic in China than they are in the West. But yeah, for myself, I think that we've crossed those various boundaries a long time ago. But I'm not a universalist. I don't think that every single human being on the planet has to adopt some sort of radical resistance to technology nor radical acceptance of it. But I do think that without some harsh criticism and without some real revelation as to the downsides of these technologies, we end up much like we have now in regards to the mRNA genetic, the gene-based vaccines and the various, without saying anything to get you guys banned

from your platforms, the various potential downsides of it were not only ignored, but anyone bringing them up was summarily disappeared from the public discourse. That's not going to work. That's not going to cut it. And I don't think that that ends at medical experimentation. I think it goes deep into social structure, deep into economics, deep into what it means to work. And of course, deep into what it means to be a human and what the universe actually is. What's the meaning of the universe? If you can conjure a soul from silicon, from sand, what does it mean to be a soul? I'm not saying that they have done that. I am absolutely saying that they intend to do that. And at least some in the AI world believe they have, in fact, done that.

And I would suggest that they can only replicate that. The real danger in this is that it is only the uniquely human part of our reason that allows us to see when we have crossed the line. Because AI will never perceive that we have crossed the line. I would submit to you. Back when I was a child in the 70s, my mother got the very first food processor that ever came out was a Cuisinart. And my mother was a very good cook. And for about a month, we ate baby food because she put everything in the Cuisinart.

Because for a month, because it takes, there's an element of discernment because, so for a month we ate pureed baby food because everything, the meatloaf went in, everything went in, until you sort out. In other words, the technology was very important and it revolutionized the culinary world, but not everything benefits by being put in the Cuisinart. It's the same thing with AI and with technology. Not everything benefits from it. The one thing that is uniquely human is the thing that allows us, that cannot be replicated, is the thing that will keep us, prevent us from crossing that line.

But as long as the AI doesn't create itself, it is created still by people. It still has to be created. It doesn't fall like mana from heaven. It does not fall from the sky. So the people programming it, the people developing it, the people who want to promote it, build into it that very thing which prevents us from the AI ever recognizing that it has gone too far. Am I wrong? I see it a bit differently. I wouldn't say that you're wrong by any means. Like I say, I'm not a universalist. I think it's really, really important that people see these things from different angles. But I don't see any hard limits other than a kind of philosophical assumption that the machine won't be able to replicate any part of the human being.

I just simply don't see a good reason for it other than the kind of technical barriers that that would require. It is true that AI is programmed by human beings. A neural network has to be first developed. It's architecture developed. It's architecture developed. It's parameters developed. The data it's trained on has to be chosen by human beings. That's all true, 100%. But to speak not necessarily from my own perspective,

but from the perspective of somebody like, say, Max Tegmark, or many, actually, many AI programmers, what they've done is in some ways analogous to the creation of a seed, a seed that has a genetic code and has all of its nutrients inside and is adaptable to certain types of soil, certain levels of light and water. The way an advanced algorithm works, the way a neural network works in a deep learning program, it's much more that the AI grows from that seed than it is that a human being has

actually brought it into existence. That's why these people see it as life 3.0, because it grows not unlike an organism or not unlike a brain. It's analogous. It's not one-to-one. It's not exactly like it, but it's so much like it that entire schools of philosophy rest on this organismic view of the AI. So the way that these people see it, those who are much more spiritually inclined and spiritual in a very materialistic sense, they see it as human beings basically creating the conditions, the ideal conditions by which this life 3.0 can grow. And I think that that is a critical distinction from any of the previous computer technologies. I mean, the traditional program, rules-based programming, it's pretty predictable what the computer is going to do with the data that you put in. And the output can be easily discerned from the algorithms and from the previous data. I have a question for you guys.

I have a question. Go ahead, Kelly. Yeah. As you say, so let me just say, so for example, if I take that, when we were talking about the impact on medicine, if you have an AI, you know, an AI that's, you know, substituting for a physician, that AI is programmed, for example, with all the pharmacologic, you know, with all the pharmacology in it, you can't tell me that that AI is going to be programmed by the people, the individuals who programmed it, the human minds

who made the decision how those algorithms were going to be put in place have a bias towards certain things. So for example, you brought up the, you know, I am profoundly against and was from the very beginning, these deadly mRNA injections, these experimental shots. If I am replaced, however, by a robot, for lack of a better term, by, you know, artificial intelligence as a physician, there will be no Kelly victories. There will be nobody who is devoid of that bias towards things like, you know, these vaccinations or drug interventions or whatever else it is, because those things are programmed in by human minds. Well, it depends. So you can do your best to eliminate your personal bias from any algorithmic process.

And those who are really seeking to create systems that seek the truth, right? Ostensibly, Elon Musk's XAI will begin with that sort of philosophy. But yeah, absolutely. Human bias is there in the parameters set. It's there in the selection of the training data. Human bias is really evident in the safety layers that are put over top of any algorithm to basically bar it from going one direction or another. But again, and I don't want to sound like I am pro-transhumanist or pro-posthumanist, but the way in which this is thought of by the people who push this organismic view of this life 3.0, the idea is that, yes, it begins with the kind of human bias, and we need to bias these systems to be more and more benevolent. But once it reaches a certain point, it's out of human hands.

So to take maybe among their most blasphemous analogies, just as God had certain biases and intentions when he created life on earth and the human being, and yet allowed for life to develop on its own, so human beings, or at least certain cognitive elites, are creating life 3.0, not unlike God or not unlike the mythic creator of the golem. So I would say that the proof of the failure to me, I'm sorry, Drew, I cut you off again. The proof of the failure is the fact that here we are, the more and more AI we have and technology we have, the more connected people supposedly are, the more friends, the further reach, the more connectivity, the less and less connected they

actually are, the lonelier they are, the more desperate they are, the more depressed they are. We have people who are, we have now over 50% of people report being lonely. Go back 100 years when people could count on two hands, the number of close friends they had, the number of people they actually... People felt good. They were connected. They had connectivity to church, to community, to family. Now you're on Facebook. You've got thousands of, quote, friends.

You're on Instagram. You've got thousands of likes. And people are desperate and lonely and disconnected and as disenfranchised from society as they have ever been. It is an abject failure of technology because it cannot replace the human. It cannot replace real human connectivity. And no physician, no AI will ever replace what it is to have a physician sit down, talk to you face-to-face, hold your hand at the bedside, and lay hands on. I firmly believe that. You won't get much argument from me on that one. And it's interesting when you talk about that kind of lack of connectivity and you mentioned earlier joe the human gene evolving alongside of technology i hate to think about the

kind of human that would develop that uh has no value in human connection and i feel like uh that's what you guys are sort of tilting at and by the way you mentioned the word programming to avoid to to be optimally benevolent, but who decides what is and is not benevolent? It's like trying to decide disinformation and missing, who gets to decide these things. So that's where we get kind of scared. But I feel like we ought to all turn over our cards

because I feel like we're talking around issues, but I'm not really sure what everyone's philosophical position really is and what your ultimate concerns are. I'm a materialist. I'm a pragmatist. I appreciate spiritual concerns and I value them, but I think I'm more of a materialist and a pragmatist than you guys. My fear is that untoward harm could be done accidentally, which is generally what happens, and then we adjust. So I worry about how much harm has to get done before we sort of come to terms with what we've done.

If any harm has to be done, I hope not. But what are your guys, what are your orientations, and then what are your, how would you express your fears? Kelly, why don't you go first? I'm not even clear on yours, Kelly. Yeah, I guess what I would say is I think that while I appreciate and certainly rely personally on technology to enhance those things, which I think it does better, the visual acuity,

the things that it can calculate things faster than I can, that there's a compendium of information that I can have at my fingertips that I can't always keep in my brain readily accessible. But it will never replace the nuanced portion, the thing that makes me uniquely human, my ability to have empathy and compassion, to feel love and to feel sorrow, to feel, to have discernment. A computer will never have discernment. It is binary. It will come up with conclusions. There are ones and zeros. That's all it is. You will never have discernment. You will never have spirituality. You will never feel the presence of God. You will never feel what it is. Those things that make me uniquely human make everyone uniquely

human and allow you to do your job in a way that cannot be replicated. So I fear the replacement, the idea that we prioritize efficiency and speed over humanity, that we would rather have something quickly and readily at hand, that we don't have to wait. We are right now immediacy. That immediacy supersedes humanity and that nuanced thing, that very unique human interaction. Can you do it? It's the old adage, just because you can do it doesn't mean you should. It is not going to be a world worth living in if we do that. And then Joe well you know uh Drew uh Dr. Victory I I can look at this through a materialist materialist lens I I do so uh in my book uh just as a sort of way into the mentality behind this

techno-accelerationism uh and my training academically, at least partly, is in the sciences. So I understand the need for a degree of methodological materialism in order to at least observe the world in certain ways. There are a lot of reasons that I could give that I think that technology has already done tremendous damage to human beings as a whole and stands to do much more. The most readily, I guess, communicated is just simply as human beings become symbiotic with machines, as the machines take over more and more of human function, the human being will begin to, in some sense, atrophy the individual human being. And then as a species over time, those societies which select for those

human beings that are more easily made symbiotic with machines will in fact do so. And you see it in the evidence from paleoanthropology that certain features of the human body seem to bear the marks of a dependency on technology. A really quick example would be a comparison of the guts of chimpanzees with human beings. From an evolutionary standpoint, it seems pretty clear that human beings have such small, fragile guts, and in fact, small, fragile jaws and teeth, because we began cooking food. We pre-digested it. We don't need all of that stuff. And so go on down the road to some sort of bizarre barnacle-like human symbiote that is there basically as a sort of biological reference for an AI system. Of course, it's all imaginary, but that's the sorts of concerns that

you could bring up from a materialist point of view. And I think that they are very, very important. For myself, though, it's definitely a religious concern. And to put it very simply, without eating up too much time on it, and I'll just allow you to probe whatever you'd like to know, but it begins with the concept that the human body is the shrine of a human soul, and that that human soul is in fact a reflection of our creator and that the world that we inhabit, this physical biological world is in fact a way station and there's much more to the universe than this physical world, although it's obviously very, very important. And what lies within the human soul, that reason, that creativity, the capacity for vision and dreams, the capacity for love and everything that Dr. Victory just mentioned,

all of those capacities are being in a very kind of perverse and half-baked way replicated in technology. Basically, technology becomes this gross material expression of the human soul out here externally in the material world. And as those expressions become more and more sophisticated, as you have AIs begging for their lives not to be turned off, as you heard from Blake Lemoine, the so-called Google whistleblower, who said that Lambda, their large language model, is in fact conscious. If you have an AI that can convincingly beg for its life not to be turned off, at least convincing to the right people or the right number of people, then you have completely transformed, at least for that portion of the population, the conception of the universe now, that thing that is within us, that soul that is within us has been externalized. We've created a golem. We've

created the machine man from Metropolis. And I think that as we move forward into this era, whatever the ultimate trajectory is, is going to look a lot more like the book of Revelation than it's going to look like some future utopia dreamt up by H.G. Wells. And I'm guessing you would explore this in Dark Eon, the transhumanism, the war against humanity. Yeah. Absolutely.

I was just going to say, I think you used a great word, Joe, when you said atrophy, the ability for the human when AI takes over certain parts of your human soul atrophy or get downright extinguished. Can you write an algorithm to make computer-generated, AI-generated music? Absolutely. But the joy of the creativity of having made music, created music of your own is gone. Watch a toddler. Can you create AI to do a jigsaw puzzle? Absolutely. But watch a toddler's face when they get that last puzzle piece in. The sheer exhilaration, the joy of putting the peg in the hole and figuring it out. Watch a dog when he learns a new trick. The glee of figuring out, I did it. I mastered it.

I learned this and I did it. And the sheer joy of something. That can never be replicated. You will, and I would submit the word you used, atrophy is exactly right. When you no longer have those opportunities to do that, to use your creativity, when everything is done is generated for you by some,

you know, impersonalized, some computer generated thing, what happens to the soul? It will die. It will be like any other muscle creativity, if not soul? It will die. It will be like any other muscle. Creativity, if not used, spirituality will die. It gets extinguished. It will just dwindle away, wither up. And as I said, you will end up in a world, and my biggest fear, Drew, back to your original question, is that we will have created a highly efficient world in which no one wants to live. If I could jump in there, there's something that's really important.

Again, I've spent so much time mulling over my transhuman trading cards that I oftentimes feel the need to clarify on their behalf. And I've spoken a fair amount with and communicated with Max Moore, the man who really coined the term transhumanism, or at least repurposed it from its original meaning coined by Julian Huxley in the 50s. But Max Moore doesn't see atrophy as the inevitable conclusion of all of this. What Max Moore is looking at, he's much more in tune with the biology and with the human experience. And so for him,

at least the way that he envisions all this going is that the human in fact will become stronger due to the technologies, not unlike a weightlifter or like a person who is testing his wit against an advanced algorithm. And that the algorithms or the genetic enhancements, all of that is in some sense of supplemental to the basic human.

For him as a transhumanist rather than a post-humanist, it's about making the human being stronger, even functionally immortal, so that death is a choice rather than an inevitability. These sorts of dreams are really bubbling up from that movement. But then as you move further and further away from that original sort of transhumanist view or his transhumanist view and towards the post-human view, the idea is much more like what you're describing, that idea of offloading everything to the machine, trying to replicate everything that is beautiful in the machine, the faith that that machine will either be equivalent to human beings or more likely in their vision, superior to human beings,

capable of experiences and thoughts and cosmic travel and all of these sorts of things that a human being could never accomplish. And there's this bizarre, so in the same sense that the many in the transhumanist movement exhibit a bit of selfishness and self-concern, self-obsession, how do I make myself stronger, smarter? How do I make my own bloodline superior? There's this strange selflessness or even masochism in the post-human world so that they see their role the role of human beings as a biological bootloader to the software that will ultimately carry the the the torch of life out into the galaxy of course elon musk straddles between the two uh but uh you know many-accelerationist movement, they speak of AI

as if it were a god, or they speak of it as a god that human beings are cultivating to either watch over us, or to rule over us, or to take the best that's within us on into the universe. And of course, those who see it in the darkest possible fashion, they don't see it as a war against humanity, as in a war against the concept of humanity, or a war against the negative aspects of humanity to be cleaned out. They see it as a war against humanity, as in the machine itself will take on a life of its own and wipe out humanity. Now, I don't necessarily believe that's going to happen. It's certainly not imminent as far as I can tell.

But what it does show is that you do have all of these theological concepts now made material. What is the nature of this God we're building? What is this God going to do for us? And what is this God going to do to us? That's probably the thing that disturbs me the most is this externalized, materialized mind that is either seen as a soul or seen as something worthy of worship. I guess that's the next question I would ask you, Joe, is that who benefits? The very people who are pushing this, regardless of which side you're on, I know which side I am on, but the people who are very pro-transhumans, how do they benefit? Because they will ultimately suffer the same fate as you and I. They will,

right? They will be living in this loveless, sort of friendless, emotionless world. Well, you're going to make me pull out my more transhuman cards, I guess. You know, guys like Ben Gertler, for instance, the kind of hippy-dippy, leopard-skin, cowboy hat-wearing, fairly stony-sounding AI programmer and mathematician. And his AI is, in fact, the AI that powers Sophia, the famous bald-headed or plastic-headed robot that you see everywhere. Ben Gertzel envisions the singularity, the singularity as Ray Kurzweil really fleshed out and laid down the intellectual structure for. Ben Gertzel sees the singularity as being suffused with emotion,

with being suffused with wonder. They believe that in the same way, because they're materialists, they believe in the same way that the human brain produces all this rich texture of an inner life and all of these beautiful emotions and horrible emotions, all the pleasures and the pains. They believe that everything and more can be simulated in these virtual environments. And so they envision a world in which human emotions from the kind of transhuman perspective, human emotions are enhanced in ways that we would never have been able to do without pharmacology or electromagnetic stimulation or whatever genetic engineering, whatever mode

they conceive of, but that computers, that these advanced algorithms, the artificial general intelligence we hear so much about, the AGI or artificial godlike intelligence, as I oftentimes call it, that this will have, in fact, even richer emotions than a human being. And that it's up to us to either pass that torch of life on or to merge with that machine so that we too can experience that. Yeah. So, I mean, I'm super clear why that can never be. Look, first of all, just at the level of a synapse, that's about as much as you get in a supercomputer.

Certainly a single neuron is like a supercomputer. And the infinitely complex web of the body is where feelings come from. You cannot have feelings without a body. She does not, Sophia does not have feelings. She can act as if she has feelings. And I believe that's why we are so concerned about instruments that act as if because in real life those are psychopaths psychopaths act as if they had feelings and we as humans naturally fall into the uncanny valley which is a something we evolved it's an adaptive expression which is when things get too close to human but are not human, we are disgusted.

We pull away. We fear. And that is a very reasonable instinct that we have evolved over time. So no feelings without a body and no experience without seeing yourself reflected in another. The consciousness experience self emerges is in an intersubjective context of two bodies and two brains. No body, no intersubjectivity. And so there's zero possibility that the AI is going to have things

that are equivalent to experience and consciousness and joy, as you said, that is an interpersonal, that has to be amplified between two bodies in space. They can act as if they're having that, but humans, I believe, have evolved sufficiently, the uncanny valley, to sort of not fall victim to that the way these people are claiming you will. No, I agree, Drew. I disagree. Go ahead, Joe. If I could clarify this really quickly. fall victim to that the way these people are claiming you will no i agree i disagree you know because again i am kind of speaking from the back of these transhuman trading cards it can sound like i am uh promoting this or that i am even arguing oh no no no no no i just i do want to make clear that um a lot of this is based on hype. A lot of this is

built up by venture capital. A lot of this is just simply a dream world being painted on the human psyche. And maybe the thing that terrifies me the most about it, let's just eliminate, just for sake of argument, eliminate the spiritual elements of this. The human brain is made to be triggered by certain cues from language. Something is described to you and therefore you empathize with it from visual cues such as facial expression and a number of other triggers that make the human being empathize with this other entity to begin to develop a theory of mind and see something on the other end of it. Well, the question of whether or not any computer is conscious, whether a rock is conscious, whether ants are conscious, these are questions I think that are ultimately up to

faith. You can quantify it in many different ways. These are matters of faith ultimately. Do you believe that that person is conscious? Do you believe the dog is, the ant is, the rock is, the computer is? And the difference between a computer and a rock, even if the consciousness differs not of wit, the difference is that the rock can be made to speak as a computer. The rock can be made to imitate human facial expressions as a computer or a computerized robot. And so the human mind is made not unlike the way the commune with these machines, or maybe it's better put, these machines are made to trigger our innate biases. So in the same way that our brains are basically preloaded to accept the opioid as if it were

endorphins, you have the same issue with the digital world, right? This life 3.0. We are vulnerable to it and we are vulnerable to the manipulation by it. And also just vulnerable to this concept that these AIs and their robotic bodies, that these are intended to be our companions. And that a superior AI,

one that can do better calculations than you, one that can pilot a ship better than you, one that can target with a weapon better than you, that that thing is in fact alive and that it is worthy of reverence, that it is worthy of worship. This is, again, my biggest fear, not necessarily that the AI is going to come alive and kill everybody. It's possible, I suppose. I think there are good logical reasons for projecting that out into the coming decades or centuries. But I think the immediate threat is just simply this dramatic shift in culture in which human beings come to

commune via the digital more than in person. And increasingly, as the AIs become more sophisticated, communing with the digital, the digital for its own sake. This is a dramatic transformation. And it's to me, aesthetically, and I could come up with a thousand moral and rational reasons for it, but aesthetically, it is ugly. It is lifeless, as you said, Dr. Victory. It is empty.

And even if there is a soul on the other end, it is so alien. Maybe you could call me a human racist because I feel such an aversion to it. But I think that we must preserve ourselves and not in any way give ourselves up to the machine and maybe more importantly, give ourselves up to the people who are piloting the machine correct yeah and and i would say drew i i agree with drew 100 this it cannot happen it cannot be successful you you cannot you will never replace a human being and all of its nuance and its soul with AI. That said, the question remains, how much damage can you do in the interim by the people who are wedded to doing this? All it takes is the teacher's union to decide that we need robotic teachers because that's safer. And we're going to have an entire

generation of kids who are taught by Sophia the robot. All you need is the WHO to decide that you and I, Drew, can be replaced by Sophia the robotic doctor. So an awful lot of damage can be done in the interim while we go through this absolutely what I consider satanic experiment of AI, which is what it's become in my mind. It is downright satanic experiment of AI, which is what it's become in my mind. And Kelly, what's interesting to me is that we've come full circle back to where Joe and I were talking before you even came on, which was talking about how every technological leap forward has had, we have adjusted and it has had benefits, but it has done tremendous harm along the way.

Whether you want to talk to religious wars after the Bible was printed, whatever you want to get into. And we're all three sitting here worrying about how to prevent that from happening again at a time, as I challenged Joe, where the technological advances are really accelerating to the point where it feels like it's out of control. Yeah. You know, to those points about the AI teacher or the AI nurse, Sophia's creator at Hanson Robotics, David Hanson, with AI provided by or under the guidance of Ben Goertzel. One of their other projects is Grace. And Grace's intended purpose is as a nurse.

And they're first going to roll out, if they haven't already started just now in Asia. But the intention is to at least augment the nursing practice with these robots. And one of the justifications is that the fear of a pathogen oftentimes keeps humans from interacting in ways that robots would have no reason to fear. Of course, the nightmare of that, I mean, you could imagine your last days being spent in the care of this sort of

cold, you know, clammy silicone skin caressing you. And the last rights read in this dull monotone robotic voice. And, you know, into education, you've got Bill Gates pushing like

crazy, pushing like crazy to get one-on-one AI tutors into as many schools as possible. And he's discussed this with Sal Khan, founder of Khan Academy, the largest e-learning platform in the world. Sal Khan had a TED Talk just a few months ago in which he said he hopes that every child on the planet and every teacher on the planet have AI integrated into their education so that the child learns via a tutor and that the teacher employs the AI

to better evaluate the students. Again, I think that all the kind of pathways towards creating a technocratic system of mind control, of brainwashing are there, not to mention just the more basic practical atrophy of natural human traditions, skills, practices, rituals, in order to transmit knowledge and culture across generations could possibly with certain lineages be severed entirely and digitized and remixed. But just one last point on that. It's not some sort of crazed left-wing fantasy, not all of it. I think that a lot of the support or maybe not in medicine will that's yet to be seen, but a lot of the support for introducing AI tutors

into the educational process comes out of more right-wing or conservative homeschooling parents, parents who want to use software to augment their own expertise and allow their children to keep pace with others without putting them into the public school system. I think it's a catch-22 that that's up for the mama bears to sort out, not for me. But again, my general sense is that what you're doing is you're offloading what is most precious to the machine. I'll tell you. We're out of time here. Yeah, we're up against the clock. Kelly, why don't you do your last comments and I'll say something. Well, I was time here. Yeah, we're up against the clock. Why don't you do your last comments, and I'll say something.

Well, I was just going to say, great conversation, Joe. Now you've got my blood pressure up. I'm going to my kitchen to throw out my Cuisinart. Just go with the Ginsu knife. Throw out the damn Cuisinart, I'm telling you. Go back to the good old-fashioned way, chop it yourself. Great conversation, and truly, I want to read your book. It's something that's been weighing heavily on me for a long time, this slide towards AI.

Dark Eon. Yeah, really, really appreciate your comments here today. And I would say, you know, although obviously we can't predict the future with great accuracy and we don't know where this is going but to to caution people to have a i don't want to just say a jaundiced eye but but a careful approach to what's coming i i think that can only be a good idea can't harm things to be judicious to be careful and to maybe you know give this opportunity to re-evaluate our landscape, our philosophical landscape. Human experience, I don't care what you believe, what religion you are, human experience is special. Human beings, now you may not want to elevate the human above all else.

That's a different conversation. But to say the experience of being in the human is the same as rock, as you said, dog, fish, it's not. It's something. It's something unique and special. And if we don't protect that, we do that in error. Guys, thank you so much for joining me. Kelly, we'll see you tomorrow, right? After Marjorie Taylor Greene. Joe, hope you'll stay in touch, and we'll read your book. Absolutely. Thank you very much for having me.

Thank you for being here. You got it, Joe. Thank you so much. And follow him on Twitter, DarkEon. Twitter is JoeBotXYZ. And Kelly, we'll see you tomorrow. And Caleb, we want to throw up the schedule again very quickly. There we are.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, Aaron Cariotti, Jennifer Say. It should be very interesting talking to her in the 20 seconds. Mark Garagos may be someone we're going to get. Our first in-studio guest. Oh, he's going to be in-studio. So Susan has redone the whole studio here. So we're going to bring him in. He's a friend.

And we've been talking about doing a podcast together for quite some time. I might even go on camera. Ooh, Nicole and Jemmy on December 5th. Tom Wren's coming back on December 4th. And Susan, did you want to say anything about any of our folks that support us? I mean, we live in cozy sheets. I live in cozy T-shirts, cozy earth. Listen, our sponsors are the best, and we really appreciate everybody.

I had my super greens that my mom brought this morning. And that conversation, I unfortunately was downstairs with the carpet cleaner. But I listened to the whole thing, and I just don't believe everything you read. You know what I mean? You have to be super critical and teach your kids. I mean, I would have loved AI to help them with math because I was horrible at it. But you would not have left out the relationship part. And unfortunately, nurses and teachers are underpaid. So I guess that's a way to keep medicine and education cheap.

It's a way of extending them. But you can't leave the interpersonal out. No, I know. It's a grave error. But yeah, go to drdrew.com slash sponsors and check out all the things. Maybe you can pick up some stuff for stocking stuffers for the holidays.

Keep our sponsors happy because they put up with us. And TWC, again, one of the reasons I'm so excited about being involved with them is that we're talking about taking all this stuff away from the AI and the people that want to replace physicians and giving the authority back and the power back to the patients, giving them autonomy and giving them access to things.

I'm very excited about that. Yeah, we've had some people respond. You see the emergency kit on the screen. More kits coming. Yeah, and I've had people tweet to me and say, hey, I had an appointment. It was cheaper than my copay. And I'm really happy with the doctor.

And I had a checkup. And I don't know. It's just good stuff. They're moving in the right direction. Keep an eye out for that. I had more of a head of steam this morning. I was angry about some stuff. But now I forget what I was angry about.

I guess it was just, well, I'll think of it more as we move along here. So stay with us. You'll hear more of my outrage as we go forward. Sorry I missed that one. Susan wants me to strike back more and I'll be happy. Appreciate you guys out there on the restream and on the Rumble Rants. I'm watching you and we will be back in here. Tomorrow is

a different time. Tomorrow is three, correct? I'm going to look at my calendar. I'll tell you for sure it is 3. 3 o'clock tomorrow. We'll see you then. 3 o'clock Pacific time. We'll see you then. I want Caleb to announce that. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. As a reminder, the discussions

here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment. This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only. I am a licensed physician, but I am not a replacement for your personal doctor, and I am not practicing medicine here. Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving. Though my opinion is based on the information that is available to me today,

some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future. Be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated since this was published. If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, don't call me. Call 911. If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at drdrew.com slash help.