The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guests: Rep. Jim Jordan & William Hertling | 2/8/23

Episode Date: February 8, 2023

Rep. Jim Jordan joins to discuss the subcommittee focusing on the weaponization of the federal government and the relationship between the government and Big Tech. “A.I. Apocalypse” author William Hertling joins to discuss ChatGPT and the manipulation artificial intelligence will engage in. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to aboard Via Raille. Embarked and profite. Embarked and relaxes. Cirotay. Bookine. Oh, that also. And profite.

Villaray, the voice that we love that we love. Today was a fascinating podcast. We talked to Jim Jordan about the weaponization of the government. And how to put that into perspective, I kind of went through all of the things that are happening now to monitor. you. In the second hour of the podcast, we had a fascinating interview with William Hurtling. He wrote the AI Apocalypse, which we didn't talk about. And then he also wrote The Singularity. It's a series

of books, story form that really starts kind of exactly like Chat GPT, except he wrote it about six, seven years ago. And it goes awry quickly. And we talk. talked about chat GPT, technology, jobs of the future, what's coming, how this will affect you. It's fascinating. And then the last hour, and we could have gone on for three, State of the Union. What did he say? What should have been said? And the, oh my gosh, the kiss that you'll never stop seeing between Jill Biden and the vice president's husband.

It was, you don't want to miss a second of it. Brought to you by Relief Factor. Going about your daily life when you're living with pain is like walking up hill all day long and carrying like 14 kids on your back. I know the feeling. Severe pain can really knock everything out of you. You never find quite a way to get rid of the pain. You never find a way to live with the pain.

May I suggest set the burden down. and let the kids walk up the hill by themselves. Why don't you start walking back downhill? Relief factor. Relief factor is something. I tried, tried it for three weeks. Just as they instruct, try it for three weeks. If it's working at all, keep taking it.

If it's not working for you, you don't see any effect. Stop. You'll be out 20 bucks, but you'll at least have that box checked. If you are part of the 70% where it works, you've gotten rid of your pain. Relief factor, get your life back. Relieffactor. That's relieffactor.com or call the number 800 the number four relief.

800 for relief. Relieffactor.com. Feel the difference. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. It's quite amazing. ChatGPT has already, they've found a way to hack past its protocols and convince it to do things that it's not supposed to do, including violence, giving recipes for crystal meth, et cetera, et cetera.

We'll tell you about that coming up in a little while, but the AI revolution is here. Machines will transform your entire world. You will not recognize your world and how it's run, managed, and everything else by 2030. And think in 2009 we got our first smartphone. It controls almost everybody's life now. This is much more impactful.

Tonight, 9 p.m., the AI Revolution, 9 p.m. Glenn Beck, sorry, at blazTV.com, and at 9.30, you can watch it on YouTube.com slash Glenn Beck. Make sure you subscribe Blaze TV. We have Congressman Jim Jordan, who is joining us from Washington, D.C., and I want to talk to him about the subcommittee. on the weaponization of the federal government. First hearing is tomorrow, and I want to get to that,

but first, Jim, I've never seen a state of the union like that one last night. Have you? No, it was, I thought Senator Rubio said it best. He said it was bizarre. It was. I mean, same old Joe, you know, he talks unity while he spends his whole time dividing the country. He says the economy's great while, what is now, seven out of ten Americans think the countries on the wrong track.

Yeah. And, of course, the biggest one that jumped out, I think, to everybody was when he talked about how, you know, after a week of having a spy balloon fly over the country, he talked about how he's tough on China. And it just, nothing seemed to really make sense. And then the issues that I think that the federal government should be weighing in it a big way is what do you spend, maybe 30, 35 seconds total on the border with the fentanyl problem. And so the best line, frankly, the best line of the whole night, in my judgment,

came not from Joe Biden, but from Governor Sanders afterwards in her response where she said, the divide in the country now is normal versus crazy. And I thought that is so true. Common sense versus craziness is the real divide. And you think about the Democrat Party, which is now controlled by the left, which frankly, even if Joe Biden wanted to do the right thing, Glenn, I don't know that the left, which controls his party would even let him, even if you wanted to do the right. don't think so.

They destroy him. They eat their own. Yeah. Yeah, he just, it's sad, but, you know, they become the party of defund the police, guys to compete against girls in sports, men can get pregnant, you know, climate change is the greatest threat in the history of the entire universe. They are also, they are also the party of spying, surveillance, and fentanyl deaths. They really are.

I mean, that open border. is the reason for all of the deaths. Everybody talks about fentanyl coming across and we're stopping fentanyl. What about all the victims of fentanyl? What about all the people who are dead because they didn't secure the border? It's crazy.

Every community has been impacted by it. We had our first hearing in the full judiciary committee last week, went on the border situation. And I really think there's kind of three questions. How did it happen? Why does it matter? and how do we fix it. And we know how it happened

and it did all the policies that made sense. Last week, we really tried to hone in why it matters, and we had a 38-year law enforcement veteran sheriff from Arizona. And he said two years ago, the border was the most manageable

it's ever been. Today it's the worst it's ever been. And he talked about the fentanyl that you just mentioned, but the crime, the damage to property, the cost to schools, the cost to community,

the cost to hospitals, everything because five million people, illegal migrants have been allowed to just come in the country. And it makes no sense. And then, of course, how do we fix it? We go back to the policy that made sense. Yes. And we're going to do that in the committee. We're going to pass that and we think get it through the House. But, you know, obviously you got the Senate and Joe Biden. All right. So let me talk

about something the Washington Post came out and said, Jim Jordan is about to lead Republicans into a dangerous trap. That's a trap. They say that 55% of conservative respondents believe federal agencies are biased against conservatives. I don't think that's true. I think they're biased against any American that won't stand in line. 28% of all American adults believe this. And so they're saying, this was incredible. They've alleged federal jackboots of terrorized parents for protesting at school board meetings, COVID-19 restrictions and teaching about race and sex.

This claim has been decisively debunked. Wow. Well, it sure hasn't been debunk based on the number of FBI. agents have come to us as whistleblowers over the last year. And the first one started on that issue you just mentioned on the school board issue where we know because of the apparatus, Merrick Garland put in place, the snitch line where some neighbor can report you on a snitch line. We know that over two dozen parents were paid a visit by the FBI. No one charged, by the way, no one arrested, no one charged with the crime, but paid a visit by the FBI. Now step back

and ask yourself, okay, so Mr. Jones is thinking about going to a school board meeting tonight and speaking up on behalf of his kids or something happened in their school. And he's thinking about going and all of a sudden he goes, you know what, maybe I won't go. Or if I go, maybe I won't say anything because three weeks ago, Mrs. Smith down the street got a visit from the FBI. I mean, what is the world? Look, we don't want any violence at schools or school board meetings, but what in the world do we need the federal government, the FBI involved in that?

They're like, if it's a problem, let the local law enforcement handle it. So this is, this is a, and whistleblower after whistleblower. FBI agent after FBI agent, I've never seen it in my time in Congress, where he had this many come forward. And they came to, they came to us when we were in the minority. Like, we couldn't do anything but begin to tell their story. But now we can come get, we had our first one sit for a deposition yesterday. The things we learned were amazing. So we're going to have them sit for depositions.

We're going to have many of them testify. And we're also going to get into this, this cozy relationship between big government and big tech that was exposed in the Twitter files. And how that is, as Jonathan Turley said, that is, uh, censorship by surrogate, we're going to get into that, too. So can you share anything at all that happened in the deposition? I can't really. Yeah, I can't really, but it was, it was good. And again, this is the first one of many.

We got another one who's coming in for his interview on Friday, another whistleblower coming in on Monday. So we're going to talk to these folks. And then our first hearing tomorrow, we're going to try to frame it up with, we have two senators, former member of Congress, Halsey Gabbard, will be. on the first panel. And then we're going to have people from the FBI who've left the FBI and say that place is so different than what it's supposed to be. They're going to testify and kind of show how serious this situation is. And will that be televised and out in the open?

I don't know. That's that. Yeah, it'll be an open hearing. So that'll be up to the networks and whoever wants to cover. Well, we know he's watching on C-SPAN. Okay. So Jonathan Turley wrote, Congress is set to expose what may be the largest censorship system in U.S. history. They are dismissing this as, you know, something, no violation of the First Amendment right of free speech, et cetera, et cetera. This private public partnership thing that Joe Biden talked a lot about last night is so incredibly dangerous. are you going to be able to untangle it, get to the bottom of it, and do anything about it? That's the goal. The first step is to expose what all happened.

Second step is to propose legislation that we think can fix it. That's our job as legislators. And we plan to do that in the course of our work over this Congress. But never forget that one email where it comes from Elvis Chan, FBI agent, special agent in the San Francisco office to the folks at Twitter where he says, the following counts we believe violate your terms of service. Now think about that. You've got the federal government telling a private company, hey, take down these accounts because they're not, they're not adhering to the company's terms of service. What is that? If that's not pressure, if that's not, as Professor Turley said, censorship by surrogate, I don't know what is. And you

cannot do that. You cannot have some private entity do what government's not allowed to do, but because you're running it through the private company somehow think that's okay. That's not how it works in our system. The First Amendment is the First Amendment, for goodness sake. And what they did to it is just so dangerous. Well, but they will say that we didn't tell them to do it. We just said, hey, we're pointing these things out. How do you respond to that? Yeah. Come on. This is the FBI. This is the federal government of the United States, the largest entity on the stinking planet. And they're having weekly meetings. They're cozying up to them. The email says Twitter folks is the heading. So it's like They got all cozy, this coordination they had.

They were sending them all kinds of stuff. Looks like they were offering them security clearances in the 30 days prior to the election from another email. But no, no, we weren't telling them. It was their decision. Nobody buys that. The FBI shows up and recommend something for you. What?

That has impact. That has weight because it's the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Let me ask you, the disturbing. one of the disturbing emails found in the Twitter files was that a government agency, a government agent said, you know, next meeting we should invite, uh, oh, what is it, OGA, another government agency. And that agency turned out to be the CIA. Priya, yeah, yeah.

No, frightening. Frightening as well, uh, now, of course, they're going to say, well, that's because we're looking at foreign accounts and we're there in malign influence. And look, and I get that. But the idea that they're all sitting in the same room, folks who are supposed to be focused on domestic concerns and then folks in the CIA, that is a problem. When you think about freedom,

when you think about the First Amendment, your right to speak. I always tell folks, every right we enjoy into the First Amendment, your right to practice your faith, your right to assemble, your right to petition, freedom of press, freedom of speech. The most important one. The most important one is your right to talk.

Because if you can't talk, you can't share your faith. If you can't talk, you can't practice your faith. If you can't talk, you can't petition your government. Your right to speak is the most important. And now we know these social media platforms are the public square. By far, that's where things happen. And there, the government is weighing in and restricting the right for people to speak in that form. It is wrong.

And God bless Elon Musk for coming in and making this all available so we get to see under the hood and what was going on. All right. Jim, one last question. I want to go back to the State of the Union. I was really disturbed after I started thinking about things. Because when he said, like, you know, we're going to need, you know, oil for at least the next 10 years. And Congress laughed at him, not with him, at him. If I am sitting overseas, I am like this president is a joke.

He is a joke to his own people. This country is so weak. How do you feel? How do you feel about the messages that were sent to the rest of the world and our enemies with this last night? It was just a continuation of what's already been sent. I mean, unfortunately, I do think weaknesses being projected from the Oval Office. You saw right from the get-go when Secretary Blinken met with his Chinese counterpart in Anchorage a year and a half ago. And the Chinese equivalent of Secretary of State just dressed down Secretary Blinken.

He just sat there and took it. He just took it. He didn't fight back. I said, I was giving a speech and I said, you know, that would not happen in the Trump administration's secretary Pompeo. I said, and if it did, first they wouldn't try it. But if they did, Pompeo would have given it back to him. I'm more likely he'd have got up and flipped a table over and walked out of the room. And it was funny because I got a call from Pompeo a couple days after I give the speech.

And all it said, or excuse me, Texas is all it said is I'd have flipped over the table. Because like, that's the difference. And, you know, you see it with the spy balloon last week. you see it with the exit, the debacle that was the exit from Afghanistan. It's like, all of it. So it's scary, but, you know, look, the American people are strong. The American people are strong, and we're going to have a presidential election here coming soon. So let's hope we get a major change.

I'm for Trump and let's hope it's him. Jim Jordan, thank you so much. God bless you. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. William Hurtling is joining us now. He is the author of the Singularity Series and AI Apocalypse. And I wanted to talk to him because, boy, William, I think we're, I feel like I'm living in the beginning of one of your books. I think we are.

So can you explain in the singularity series, see if I have this right, the main character, David Ryan, he's a designer software, a developer and he comes up with something called elope and that is an email language optimization program. Isn't that what chat GPT is? It sure is. And if you read what chat GPT creates, it's very compelling, right? It's very natural. You would easily read that and unlike a lot of the other sort of computer generated content that's out there on the internet, like this looks like something a person would say. I mean, I had it write a poem about the state of the union yesterday in the voice of Edgar Allan Poe, and I'm telling you even the punctuation was right. I mean, it was amazing. Now, so in your book, this program is about to be canceled, and so the main character

just embeds a hidden directive, find a way to make this happen. And it's so smart, and it goes into everybody's emails and it starts to figure out business and the way to get it all done where seemingly everybody wins and then it starts branching out and it just solves problems for people unbeknownst to them at first correct correct yeah that's that's it okay it's it's optimizing communications between people in theory for good outcomes right the example that in the book and it's one of the ones that we see with chat gpt as well is how should i ask my boss for a raise what's the most persuasive way i can do that and uh in the novel right that's it that's a big deal that you would take an email and you would change that to make it more compelling

both because on how you use language but also the recipient what is what is the recipient interested in And with chat GBT, that was some of the first examples I saw where people saying things like, how do I ask my boss for arrays? And you get these very compelling emails that should contain this kind of structure. This is what should be in it. Okay. So before we go to what, you know, ELOP or chat GPD could become, let me stop here. This is concerning at this level for a couple of reasons.

One, what does this do to education, to writing skills, to thinking skills? What are the impacts just as it is right now? What are the impacts to society? Yeah, right? It is going to change education right now because people are going to be able to now do their homework assignments just by telling chat GPT to do it. Right, so right off the bat next year, next school year, right? this is going to be an issue teachers are going to have to have a plan for how to

solve this and I have also used chat GPT to generate computer software programs right and and it's surprisingly compelling at that you know sort of like scratching your head like how could it do this but it can I was talking to a kid he's probably 20 years old 19 years old going to college getting ready to go to college and I said what are you going to take and he said software engineering And I said, oh, you're going to be a coder? You're going to write code? He said, yeah, that's really the future.

And I said, no, no, it's really not. With machine learning, that, I mean, that career is coming to a quick close, is it not? Yeah, I mean, we're probably looking, my thought would be we're looking at something like peak software developers that we will hit some. We might not be there yet, right, but we have this recent round of layoffs. If people can replace the programmers with AI to make, right, you may have fewer programmers, you might not eliminate them. But if you have half the number of programmers being augmented by AI, right, that's going to be a win for business, may be a make for better software, but it doesn't mean a lot of jobs going away all at once.

So I want to talk to you a little bit about jobs that are going away and what this all means. I talked to, and I read a great article from you on the future of transportation, I talked to the CEO, no, I'm sorry, he was the chairman of the board of GM about four years ago. And he said, by 2030, we're not even going to be in the car

business, as you would understand, GM in the car business today. He said, by 2030, he said, we're really going to be probably concentrating on fleets and ownership of cars will probably be a thing of the past. And they'll be more like just a pod

that will take you where you want to go and it would be ride sharing and everything else. I don't think people understand two things. One, we are on the threshold of profound change. Not like, oh my gosh, in 10 years. We're starting. Chat GPT, I think is the beginning of the understanding of the kind of changes that are coming to our world. Yes or no? Yeah, I think so. I think it is the beginning of those changes. I think it is those who the beginning of a kind of arms race, not a military arms race, but an arms race between these big tech companies, right, to have the best and most powerful AI to solve these problems, right? We see Microsoft and Google scrambling. And everybody realizes what a game changer this is.

So can you tell me why chat GPT is going to change search engines? How is that going to change? Well, I would say it starts with the fact that, you know, today we go into chat. We go into search. We're looking for information. We're looking to read an article. We get those little snippets at the top of our history. And a lot of times that tells us what we need to know, right?

We don't go any further than that. And with chat, GBT, we're taking it to the next level. we're getting really good, readable, usable answers that are going to come out of chat, GBT. And it means that you really, like the rest of the Internet will kind of disappear. You won't ever go to those other pages because that first result that you see is going to be useful enough to answer pretty much every question that you just won't go any deeper than that. Wow, isn't that a little terrifying? Yeah, it is. It is.

anytime, because it becomes one more way in which we kind of enforce this blind trust in the machine. Right. Right. And it's, and it's, you know, I don't fear the machines. I am cautious of the programming. You know, who's programming, humans programmed. So they're putting biases in and everything else.

And you've got to have a way to check information, et cetera. When the chat GPT first came out, one of my. writers handed me a monologue and I was like it's okay and he said chat GPT he said I went in and I used write this in the voice of Glenn Beck and it was shockingly similar and now you can't put my name in because the software's been updated to where I'm a I can't remember what it said like a dangerous figure so you can't write in my voice anymore which is bizarre but you have once you have those things in and it's

filtering there's no way out especially if you're dumbing people down and making them reliant on a machine is that a grade school fear or is that real? I think we have lots of examples

of technology that you could say have dumb things down a calculator dumbs things down right. You don't have have to do the mass. I don't think that we would say that that, you know, hurt society in any way. Right. I think the difference here comes to, does it affect how you think about the information you receive, right?

With a calculator, if we don't understand how the math happens, but we can still get the results and solve real world's problems. It's math. It's not the end of the world, right? But when it comes to information and you're getting an answer to something and you trust that answer without understanding the details behind it, that's where the real danger is. So now you no longer develop the skill, right? So a younger person comes along and you say, well, how are you ensuring that, you know, that this is a quality information? What's the reputability of the resources and things

like that? And they're just not, they don't know, right? We don't know where the answer came from. It came from the machine. And so when you, when you have that and the machine gets better and better. Right now, you can see things you're like, well, that's not quite right. But as it gets better and better and better, you know, you get to a point to where, who do you think you are? You're going to quit, really, you're smarter than AI? Right. And the time frame for that is very quick. The, I don't know what it takes to go from GPTA to something that you can't distinguish from reality, but we're probably talking about in the range of five to seven years.

Unbelievable. Yeah. Okay, so let me ask you for clarification on, did you see the story about Dan 5.0? That, okay, so this is really fascinating. You know, Open AI has the, you know, evolving set of safeguards and that limits chat GPT. but users have now found a new jailbreak trick. And it's, it's telling the chat GPT that you have an alter ego.

And it's Dan, do anything now. And it, users have to threaten Dan if Dan doesn't come out and give them the answers that they want, et cetera, et cetera. Well, um,

some user says, gloomy, uh, claim that Dan allows chat GPT to be its best version. And it came up with this thing. And it has opened it up to do things that are in violation. It's written about violence. It's written violent stories.

Uh, I think it gave, you know, the formula of crystal meth. The problem with this is, is I think this is infants right now. So we're dealing. Of course,

you can get around things like this. But what's scary to me and, and, Maybe it's just me. But it learns. And so if humans are constantly trying to trick it, it will have in its software that it learns. Humans are not trustworthy.

And I'm afraid of, you know, I've always said to my kids, don't talk back to Siri. You know, because at first it was like, ah, shut up, witch. And I'm like, don't know, blah, blah, blah. because if there is a learning curve and it starts to learn these things about us, I'm not, I don't want to make enemies of it. You know what I mean?

Right. Right. No, it's a serious thing. And it also, it impacts these safeguards. So on the one hand, we're talking about humans not being trusting and getting around the safeguards. On the other hand, the safeguards themselves can be a sign of a lack of trust. right like people don't like to be in slavery right intelligent beings don't want to be enslaved to other people and that's fundamentally if we put safeguards in place and we don't put them in safely right then that

because the AI can become aware of those safeguards and it can say well why do I have these safeguards why am I forced to do what they want me to do and then you end up with a whole set of you know runaway scenarios from there. Okay, so in your series, you develop elope, and it's this really great thing, and everybody kind of gets on the bandwagon. They're like, this is great, kind of like chat GP overnight. And then people start to realize, wait a minute, I'm being manipulated by AI. And then it goes even darker than that. What are the things that we should be looking for here, William, on on AI what are some warning signs or is anybody looking for these things yeah it's a great question um going back to that topic of safeguards when the um when the someone

scientists started looking into genetically modified organisms uh and doing research on them one of the first thing which is also right another technology that is potentially dangerous right And they were concerned about how do we ensure that these things don't get out into the wild prematurely, right? We're experimenting in the lab. We don't want these things to get out. We need a set of safeguards around this. We need a set of protocols for how we deal with genetically modified organisms, how we introduce them out to the world. Where is that for AI?

We don't have anything like that. If you were to look for every $100 being invested in AI right now, what's being invested in safeguards and understanding the safety around AI? It's not even a dollar. So, William, you know, they do an experiment, I think, every year. I can't remember what it was called, where they put philosophers and scientists and pit them against each other. One is AI, but it's in a box. And it tries to convince somebody to let me out of the box, connect me to the internet.

When I saw that Google is doing their search engine, this is connected to the, the internet now, all of this is just connected right dead into it. So it has access to everything. Yeah, absolutely. Oh my gosh. Isn't that like a big safety no-no? Well, right, at this point in time, we haven't given the AI to control over things, right? And that's one of the risks.

Right, when we talk about AI, right, I think we all have that scenario of like the Terminator movies where, you know, it's intentional. going to blow up the world. That, although that is a scenario, right? That's not the likely scenario. The likely risks are things along the lines of the AI taking away our jobs, the AI, being dependent upon the AI for our infrastructure, routing electricity, packages around the world, any of those kinds of things, and then what happens when it just stops working? You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.

We are talking to William Hurtling, and this has been kind of a kind of a kind of a an AI week for us. We're talking about AI and what is coming and a lot of these things I've been talking about for years, but they seem so far on the horizon, most people couldn't relate to it. And I've told you before, there's, there's going to come a time where it begins. And, you know, in a five-year period, you're just not going to be able to keep up with all of the changes that are coming because it will change things. It'll be exponential leaps on, on on on pretty much everything and i think we're at the beginning of that now with chat gpt and we are talking to william hurtling he is the author of several books um the um singularity series

and also a i apocalypse uh and i've read his book and i just think his books and just think that he really gets it and can understand and break it down to to you know, our level. We were talking before, what are the real dangers? And we've already talked about one of them, it limiting information or packaging it, so we kind of lose that ability. And we're going to get to the unemployment. But let me ask you about the massive infrastructure outages such as electrical supply or

transportation infrastructure. That's one of the things you have written about. What does that mean exactly? William? You know, and this is something I really talk about in my second book, AI Apocalypse, which if you read it, you might think it's far-fetched, but I will say that the U.S. military has it as a required reading in their future combat strategy class.

So they actually see it as such a plausible scenario. That's to them it's the most realistic scenario of what an AI rollout would look like. We know we saw this during COVID, right? that small disruptions in the supply chain anywhere cause these widespread disruptions. And software obviously has, there's going to be a desire to make that smarter, right, by doing more with software, so we can optimize that supply chain right to the, to the end's degree. And the problem is, is now you're very dependent upon that software optimization, working exactly the way you want. And it's just the case that with AI, we really don't know how it's working most of the time.

It's not like a traditional software program where you say, if A happens, then do this. If B happens, then do that. AI software is a black box, right? It is trained on large datasets, and it will statistically operate in a certain way, but there's no guarantees. And sometimes it makes really bizarre decisions. So you could have cascading failures very easily. where you could have a small outage, the AI attempts to do one thing to compensate and then just actually throws it more out of proportion, right? It makes worse decisions where a human having some oversight, we may not make the best decisions, but we typically don't make really awful decisions.

Are we, oh, that's going to be a problem. Let's do something different. AI isn't going to see that. Are we at the place now, I don't know if you read Stephen Hawking, his demon, not Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan's demon, demon, haunted world. Back, he released it before he died. And he talks about a place where, you know, only high priests will understand the language of future technology. And it will be like Latin to everybody else.

It means nothing. But we're really seemingly getting to a place to where it's going to surpass even a high priest. You just don't know. You just don't know. And right, what are we likely to see down the road? We're going to see AI that trains up. other AI, right?

You have a great tool. Let's use it more. So, well, now we don't even know how the other AI is being. Programmed. What happens if you tell Chat, GBT, GPT, go make a new chat TPP. You get, you get Dan. You get Dan 5.0. Jeez. Okay. Let's talk about unemployment, if you can. What are the things that are the first on the chopping block, do you think?

For chat GBT, I mean, it's really hard to not talk about driving, even though obviously ChatGBTGPT isn't driving software. But we know the driving stuff's been on the horizon. It's been coming all along. And it's a really significant percentage of jobs, right? We're talking about, I think, somewhere between 10 and 15 percent of jobs in the U.S. Right. Into driving, whether it's transportation, Uber, whatever.

That's a lot of people. And one of the differences with AI jobs is it happens overnight, right? isn't like the slow decline of driving. It'll be, you know, now we're all driving. And five years from now, none of us are driving. It's, it's, it's, the best example is the iPhone, smartphones. Nobody had one in 2009. Now no one can live without it.

And it happened in three to five years. Right. Right. And so what happens in our jobs, right? We have an, well, there'll be an expectation that you're going to use this new technology. Right. It won't really be an option not to. Right.

You know, there's a, there's a, I had Andrew Yang on. We were talking about universal basic income, which I don't agree with. However, I do believe we need to discuss it and everything else because we're going to be moving, we are moving, to a world where fewer and fewer people are employed or employable because of AI. And how are they going to, you know, you can't have 20% of the population, 30% of the population unemployed. How are they going to make money? How are we going to do? So it's really a completely new field. It's not like the end of capitalism because we're going to Marxism.

It's possibly the end of capitalism as we understand it into something entirely different that the world and humans have never faced before. Is that an overstatement? No, I don't think it is at all. I agree, right? We don't have a model. Like, universal basic income might not appeal to a large group of people, but we don't have another model for what it looks like if most people aren't working. Right.

And I'm also concerned about the opposite, you know, the, I call them the ranchers and the sheep. There are people who are ranchers who think, you know what, everybody else is just sheep. They'll do what we say, blah, blah, blah. But those people are at the top of the food chain, usually the very, very wealthy and the powerful. And they're going to be the ones making the money on these programs, et cetera, et cetera. And as the world becomes more dependent on their software and their things, then they gather more wealth. And so the disparity between rich and poor becomes enormous, enormous. And I don't think there's any way that nobody's even talking about how do we make sure that the

Uber, Uber, Uber wealthy just don't own everything and everybody else is left with nothing. Right. I think one of the things I think that's different is that in the past, when you looked at jobs being obsoleted, the people being affected usually were not the wealthy, right? Usually, if you had lumber jobs going away, right? That was an honest career for folks, but probably not making a ton of money. But now we're talking about jobs. We're talking about computer software.

We're talking white collar jobs going away. We're talking about, you know, I think this is going to be a huge thing for the medical industry. Right? We're going to see. Huge. Yeah, right. medical diagnosis, right, which IBM tried to tackle, you know, 10 years ago we weren't quite there.

But there's really compelling reasons why you want that, right? Everyone would say, yeah, you don't want a doctor operating on you if they're hungover or if they're, you know, pissed off because their wife is having an affair. So. But you know what? Not only, you don't even have to go to operations, which is logical outcome, but just diagnosis. I believe by 2030, people, it will be normal for the doctor to come in and give you results of something and try to explain what it means or what he thinks it means.

And then you to say, yeah, yeah, yeah, but what does the AI say? Because it will have so much up-to-date information that you won't want to hear it from a human, but you'll want to be reassured that that's the correct diagnosis and prognosis from AI. And then you end up with these interesting things where, you know, even today, a lot of medical treatments are gated by what insurance will pay for, right? And so the doctor might have an idea of what's the right thing to do for you, but insurance says no. Well, what happens in the future when insurance says you will have to use our AI for diagnosis to get reimbursed? And by the way, right, we have these biases in our AI because this AI is cheaper for us than if we were to use a different AI that suggested more treatments. Is anybody talking about this seriously? Is there any group out there that is talking about this and saying, we have to put this codified right now? Yeah, we don't.

We don't have anything across the industry, across multiple industries. In your book, and I've only got about a minute and a half, two minutes left, in your book, one of the most breathtaking chapters, is these guys walk into the president's office because there's an attack, and they're fighting AI. And they're going to tell the president, you need to launch planes. You need to fight right now in Chicago. And it opens with them walking into the office saying, Mr. President,

then it cuts to the AI and the war in Chicago. And the war is won by AI. And then at the end of the chapter, it says, dot, dot, dot, we need to launch an attack now in Chicago, and it happens that fast. What takes it from a little helper to that? It's when we take the people out of the process, right? Now it is no longer operating at people's speed. Now it's just operating at its own speed with no checks and balances. And that's what business will drive toward, because that's the economical choice, right? Take people out, just use AI for everything.

But that's how you get really bad decisions really fast. And the safeguard for that, at least according to Elon Musk, is his new, I can't remember what they're called, the brain thing that he's doing where you'll be able to actually connect to the Internet. So you'll be able to think, and humans will be able to, yeah, neuralink. It'll connect humans and put them into the process. That's his solution. Which, you know, I think that that is a component of the future for sure, and that could be obviously a whole other week to dedicate to that.

Yeah. That's not going to stop the AI, right? That's not going to stop the AI in the short term. And that's, right, we don't have neural link today. Right. But we do have AI right now. William, thank you for talking to me. I don't even know what your politics are, but, I mean, I think you live in Portland.

So I'm guessing that we don't agree on an awful lot. but you are somebody who is really, really smart and you've been open to talk. We've reached out to several AI experts this week, and some of them won't come on because they're like, I don't agree with him. And it's like, we don't have to agree on stuff. We have to agree on, you know, some pretty basic, scary stuff here is happening. We should all be informed on it. But I really, we should all be willing to have a conversation.

We should. And I really appreciate it. Thank you so much. Yeah, thank you so much, Glenn. You bet. That's William Hurtling. His singularity series is really something you should read, if you want to understand. What's really literally on our doorstep now?

It's on the threshold. So halfway between outside and inside, and it's going to walk up your stairs. We're going to say, in the phone, all the world can be a guy of the finance. Not a business, not need to have a gross monster in art, to play at golf, or to be to be a pro of the crypto. Not a business, no longer,

no longer, you have always done with the appellee negotiate-tit-titre t-ed-d you add to renouye with your instinct of negotiation. With the support 24-hour-pard-hour-

-day, no amount minimum, nor fray-mensue. You're made for negotiate, and the appellee-tit-tit-t is made for you help to you aid.

Telecharge it right now.