The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1786 - Tech Billionaires Are Openly Announcing Their Plans. Are You Ready for What’s Coming?

Episode Date: May 27, 2026

The reality that our AI overloads is painting is less than appealing. Here's everything you need to know. Ep. 1786 - - - Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://dwplus.watch/MattWalshMemberExclusive - - - Today's Sponsors: PureTalk - Make the switch in as little as 10 minutes and start saving today! Visit https://PureTalk.com/WALSH Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Visit https://GCU.edu to learn more. - - - DailyWire+: Become a Daily Wire Member and watch all of our content ad-free: https://dwplus.watch/RealHistorySubscribe 📲 Download the free Daily Wire app today on iPhone, Android, Roku, Apple TV, Samsung, and more. 📜 Real History with Matt Walsh is available ad-free, exclusively on DailyWire+ https://dwplus.watch/RealHistory 👕 Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://dwplus.shop/MattWalshMerch - - - Socials:  YouTube — https://youtube.com/@mattwalsh Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/mattwalshblog Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/mattwalshblog TikTok — https://www.tiktok.com/@mattwalsh_ X — https://twitter.com/mattwalshblog - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Young men feel directionless, and one of the best answers to that problem is building something real. Start a business, learn a trade, create something new and useful. Take ownership over your own life instead of waiting around for permission from some corporation or government agency. The problem is that actually building a business is hard enough already. Then you run into the banking system. A lot of small business owners are profitable. They're growing and doing everything right. But big banks still bury them in paperwork and drag the process out for weeks or months, just to access capital they need right now.

More than 70% of small businesses need additional funding at least once a year. That's why Cardiff exists. If you want bank rates without the bank delays, go to cardiff.co slash Walsh for up to $500,000 in same-day funding. They funded more than $12 billion for businesses since 2004. The application takes less than five minutes. There's no impact on your personal credit. Businesses can get approved in minutes and funded the same day, which means instead of

wasting months fighting bureaucracy, business owners can actually focus on growing their company, hiring people, expanding operations, buying equipment and inventory. Banks try to lock out small businesses. Cardiff has the key. Big banks may not want to approve your business loan, but Cardiff does. If you've been in business for at least a year, pulling in $20,000 a month in revenue, apply now for up to $500,000 in same-day funding at cardiff.co slash walsh. Again, that's cardiff.com.com slash Walsh, real growth, fast funding. Cardiff, borrow better. Ted Gazzinski, otherwise known as the Unabomber, was a mathematician who murdered and maimed several people with mail bombs during

domestic terror campaign lasting nearly 17 years. And Kaczynski's goal was to wage war on what he called the industrial technological system and to return humanity to a much more primitive state of wild nature, where everybody lived like he did, off the grid, in a cabin in the woods, without water or electricity. And to prevent further bombings, New York Times and the Washington Post published Kaczynski's manifesto called Industrial Society and its future at the urging of the FBI, which believed correctly it turns out that somebody would recognize his writing style and turn him in. Now, what you may not know about Kaczynski's manifesto is that it discusses the rise of artificial intelligence, which is pretty remarkable for a document written in the early 1990s.

Now, obviously, back then, AI was nothing like what it is today. When students cheated on their homework or their tests back in the good old days, they had to do it the honorable way. You know, raid the teacher's desk, copy from the smart kid, fill in the answers on the Scantron sloppily so that it can't tell if you filled in the A bubble or the B bubble, you know, stuff like that. I never did any of those things, of course, but I heard about people doing it, and I was really disappointed in them. Anyway, even back then, Kaczynski saw the potential of AI to cause mass disruption.

And here's what he wrote, quote, due to improved techniques, the elite will have greater control over the masses. And because human work will no longer be necessary, the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless, they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane, they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. But suppose now that the computer scientists do not succeed in developing artificial intelligence so that human work remains necessary. Even so, machines will take care of more and more of the simpler tasks so that there will be an increasing surplus of

human workers at the lower levels of ability. On those who are employed, ever-increasing demands will be placed. They will need more and more training, more and more ability, and will have to be even ever more reliable, conforming and docile, because they will be more and more like cells of a giant organism. Now, what immediately shocked people about this manifesto, regardless of how they felt about the arguments themselves, to say nothing of the method. Kaczynski used to get them published, was how well written and coherent it was. I mean, as you've probably noticed, most manifestos written by murderers today are rambling and unreadable and, you know, really unimpressive. Compare the cliched Reddit tier manifesto of the

attempted assassin at the White House Correspondence Dinner to this. They just don't make manifestos like they used to. And that's why industrial society in its future found an audience. In fact, it's still taught in some universities today. Kaczynski's, Kaczynski made his case that as technology improved, people would gradually surrender more and more of their civil liberties in order to make their lives more convenient to the point that a violent authoritarian crackdown wouldn't even be necessary. Because of the success of the manifesto for several years after Kaczynski was captured, there were concerns that copycats might begin a new wave of domestic terrorism, if not the full-on revolution that Kaczynski demanded. And those attacks,

ever materialized, at least not to any significant degree. But there are new signs that another Ted Kaczynski-style person may be on the way. Wired Magazine just obtained more than a thousand pages of unpublished reports from the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, and fusion centers indicating that the government believes AI-related terrorism is now a major threat. And one of these Pennsylvania fusion centers, which connect federal and local law enforcement, warned recently that, quote, adversarial actors, including state-sponsored entities, criminal groups, and extremists, such as homegrown violent extremists or environmental extremists, may target U.S. data centers and that these actors could also exploit the strategic importance of data centers to the U.S. economy, using them for activities like cryptocurrency mining or leveraging third-party entities, such as front companies, to gain access to U.S. data and infrastructure. Wired also found a report from the New York Intelligence and Counterterrorism Bureau, quote, the chaotic atmosphere that may result from emergent AI technology in the next five years may fuel large-scale

protests that devolve into civil unrest and anti-tech violent extremist activity, especially in large urban areas such as New York City. The report reads the term anti-tech violent extremists does not appear in any publicly available DHS or FBI domestic extremism reports or guides and represents a novel grouping of a wide range of ideologies under a single extremist category. In the same Intelligence Bureau assessment, analysts also described a novel threat emerging in the wake of the arrest and trial of Aziz LaSota, an extreme rationalist who allegedly led a small cult-like group, three members of which have been charged with murder, tied to an obsessive ideology focused on the existential risk posed by AI. Okay, now the usual caveats apply here. The government has been known to label anyone they don't like as an extremist and to hype three. threats that don't exist by leaking documents to sympathetic media outlets. Most recently, we saw how the Biden administration went after alleged Catholic extremists, parents complaining

about their school boards and MAGO Republicans, January 6 protesters, pro-life activists, white men in general. In fact, a couple of years ago, we talked about how the ADL formally demanded that the Washington State Fusion Center target me personally as an extremist. So we really shouldn't put any stock whatsoever in vague government warnings about extremists, particularly when they don't offer any evidence. At the same time, if our big tech overlords wanted to inspire a violent uprising, it's getting hard to imagine what exactly they'd be doing differently. Now, to be clear, as I've said repeatedly, like all sane people, like shouldn't need to be said, but it does, I oppose murder. This has become something of a controversial take, particularly after the United

health care CEO was shot to death on his way to work. But it shouldn't be controversial because, you know, even putting aside like basic morality and human decency for a second, which we can't put that aside, it's the end of civilization if we accept the idea that murdering civilians is somehow an acceptable response to policy disagreements. Even if in your estimation, more people will suffer and die unless your particular policy is adopted, which for the left basically amounts to making everything free and putting conservatives in prison, if not the morgue. Once you, once you settle your debates with violence, you lose the moral right and certainly credibility to object when your political opponents take away your vote and your property and ultimately your life.

What we need to recognize, though, is that some level of violent backlash, even terrorism, becomes sadly predictable when people are pushed far enough. That doesn't mean those terrorists are morally justified. Of course, they're not. But it does mean that people, in power leaders, oligarchs, executives, and so on, run a significant risk when they start antagonizing millions of Americans for no good reason. It's the same reason I think it's a bad idea when CEOs get massive golden parachutes after destroying a company. Boeing CEO got something like $30 million after overseeing multiple major airline crashes to just get one example. Now, did the board have the right to award that money? Yes, they did. I can even understand

why the board might have made a deal like that. But when people see enough of these golden parachutes for incompetent executives while they're struggling to send their kids to school and to buy groceries and get gas in their car, it's hard to blame those people for drifting towards, say, President AOC and Vice President Bernie Sanders. Now, voting for that deranged ticket would be metaphorically its own form of terrorism. But people do insane things and destructive things. And self-destructive things when they're pushed too far. That's the point. If you provoke angry, desperate people enough, even if what you're doing is completely legal, and even if in some cases it's rational, then you are inviting consequences that are much more far-reaching than

you probably realize, and everybody will feel a ramifications of it. So to give just one example of what I'm talking about, here's the reception that former Google CEO Eric Schmidt received earlier this month at the University of Arizona's commencement ceremony. And he repeatedly sings the praises of AI, and when the graduates start booing, he seems to almost taunt them. It's very bizarre. Watch. Last December, Time Magazine selected its person of the year for 2025, and this time, it was the architects of artificial intelligence. Interesting. It will touch every profession, every classroom, every hospital, every laboratory, every person, and every relationship. And every

relationship you have. I know what many of you are feeling about that. I can hear you. There is a fear we do not know We do not know the precise contours of what this transformation will look like Choose a diversity of perspectives including let me add and if you if you'd let me make this point please if you don't care about science that's okay because AI is going to touch everything else as well as well as you well, whatever path you choose, AI will become part of how work is done. If you have a problem in the world you want to solve, you can now assemble a team of AI agents to help you with the parts that you could never accomplish on your own. Let me give you some advice. First, find a way to say

yes. And thank you very much and good night. Now, I've been shouted down by mobs many times in my career. happened pretty recently was at the Supreme Court after our major victory against the sterilization and castration of children. And as a result, as a general matter, I find it extremely difficult to sympathize with mobs that scream at people who are trying to talk. You know, they come across as ignorant and annoying and pathetic. But also in this case, it's not hard to see where the students are coming from. And they shouldn't be jeering the commencement speaker, but you can understand where they're coming from, they're graduating into a job market that's been largely destroyed for two primary reasons. First of all, big tech companies, including Google, are replacing American

workers with H-1B visa holders. And secondly, of course, AI is rendering many entry-level jobs obsolete. You know, 10 years ago, it was common for smart, highly educated students from a school like University of Arizona to get a job making Excel spreadsheets as a consultant or writing low-level code as a programmer or scanning through stacks of legal documents as a paralegal or hand handling complaints from important clients as a customer service rep. Today, AI can perform many of those roles, or at least it simplifies many of those tasks, which means that fewer humans are needed to perform them, sort of like the self-checkout phenomenon, but happening at scale.

Now, at the University of Arizona, every single student is understandably terrified about this. Even the students who have secured a good job are worried that in a few years, they'll be replaced too. When you're a wealthy tech executive talking to an audience like that, it would help to address their concerns directly. It's not as though the students don't recognize the potential benefits of AI. Many of them probably used chatGBT to help them with their assignments, or more realistically, to do their assignments for them. Now, the issue is that from the student's perspective, AI, even alongside its benefits, is going to prevent them from ever owning a home or having a real career. or starting a family. Now, one way to reassure these students would be to tell them the truth about what AI is and what it's capable of.

No, AI is not conscious. It has no sense of humor. It has no capacity for love or wisdom. It cannot articulate a single original argument or insight on any topic. It's not capable of generating a unique creative piece of content, whether we're talking about a script or a poem or a song or a film or a wedding toast. Now, it can provide potentially worthwhile analysis and feedback on the creative things that you make, but it can't make its own from scratch. You can't even trust that it's fact-checking properly, since half the time it's hallucinating

in order to give you the answer that it thinks you want to hear. Even the leading AI models right now will tell you a lie to your face without any hesitation or self-awareness because it has no capacity for self-awareness, because it's not a self. And that's why when you see AI art, it's always some bastardized, of existing art styles, it's never going to be anything new. And these have been persistent problems for every AI chatbot for several years now. And no one's been able to fix them. And that's because, as we'll discuss in some detail in a moment, all of these AI models are simply gathering an enormous amount of information, most of it's stolen, and trying to synthesize it in order

to carry a conversation with you. And while that technology has some important uses, it can never and will never replace the capacity of the human brain. Eric Schmidt will never say any of that out loud because he has billions of dollars invested in AI companies. His goal is to drive up the value of these investments as much as he can. He thinks that there are no drawbacks to the strategy, but indeed, there are. Now, it's very possible that if AI billionaires keep talking like this, we'll have a total ban on AI in this country in the future. And that would be an overreaction.

it would damage our economy, but it would also be inevitable because no one wants to live in a country that's dominated totally by robots. Now, it's not to dump on Eric Schmidt too much. He's just one of many examples. Here's us, Sam Altman, the founder of OpenAI. Altman began Open AI as a nonprofit with Elon Musk before realizing he could make a lot of money by taking all the donations he received and running Open AI as a private company, which it is now. Watch. A kid born today will never be smarter than AI, ever. And a kid born today, by the time that kid like kind of understands the way the world works, will just always be used to an incredibly fast rate of things improving and discovering new science. They will just, they will never know any other world. It will seem totally natural.

It will seem unthinkable in Stone Age-like that we used to use computers or phones or any kind of technology. That was not way smarter than we were. A kid born today will never be smarter than AI. Now, think about what this statement reveals. Sam Altman believes that intelligence is the sheer amount of data that you have in your brain, the number of facts you can digest and recall at a moment's notice. That is the sum total of your intellect, according to Sam Altman. But actually, your intellect is a lot more complicated than that.

Unlike AI, you are a being with the capacity for contemplation and reflection and intuition and innovation, you can come up with solutions to problems that would never occur to AI because they've never occurred to anyone else in the history of humanity. And if they've never occurred to anyone else, then they can't occur to AI because AI is getting it from what everyone else has already said. And for that reason, AI will always be intellectually inferior to human beings. Human intelligence will always be, in this important sense, superior to artificial intelligence. And that's because human intelligence is human.

It's capable of a depth that AI can never reach. Humans know what it's like to actually be, to exist as individual selves in the world. Our greatest insights and works of art derive from this experience and self-understanding. AI has no such experience and never will, which is why the insights it generates on its own are always so hollow. For example, just to illustrate the point, I asked Chat Chapti to generate the best sad poem that it possibly can. I didn't give it any other prompts.

I didn't help it to form my eighth poem. Just that prompt alone, give me a sad poem. Best you could do. And here's what it spit out. I will recite it for you now. Here's what it said. You left so quietly, the walls still ache, still holding shadows only you could make. Your name survives in dust and window light, a ghost that visits every sleepless night.

I speak to silence like it answers back and memorize the sound of what I lack. The cruelest part of losing you I've found is waking up each day without a sound. Now, as a gimmick, it's impressive that a computer can just vomit that out in three seconds. And this is also, admittedly, a better poem than what many humans could write. It's probably better what I could write. I'm not a poet. But it's not a good poem by any stretch of the imagination. It's hack, need, and cliche.

There's nothing interesting about it. The visuals and metaphors are all sort of standard issue, which is what you would expect. ChatGPT is cribbing from every sad poem ever written and coming up with what is basically the poetry equivalent of a statistical average. Now, if an eighth grader wrote that as a creative writing assignment and actually wrote it, didn't just get them from chatchipt,

you'd give it a solid B plus. If Amanda Gorman wrote that, it would represent a major evolution in her craft. If you were flipping through a book of classic works of poetry and stumbled on that, you'd assume that somebody had inserted it as a practical joke, because in that context, it would stick out like a sore thumb. So here's the question. Just using poetry as an example, of course, not that it all comes down to this.

But if you are someone who can write a poem that unlike that one I just performed is actually beautiful and unique and inventive and interesting and a very, evocative and singular, are you smarter than chat GPT? I would say in a really meaningful way, the answer is yes. Now, you cannot consciously store and regurgitate information like chat GPT. Then again, computers have been better at doing that for as long as computers have existed. But you can meditate and contemplate and create in a way that chat GPT cannot. That is a certain kind of intelligence. I would say it's the most important kind. It's the kind that makes us human and it's what makes humans smarter, some humans at least. Sam Altman is clearly in denial

about this. Watch. Fundamentally, our business and I think the business of every other model provider is going to look like selling tokens. You know, they may come from bigger or smaller models, which makes them more or less expensive. They may use more or less reasoning, which also makes them more or less expensive. They may be running all the time in the background trying to help you out. They may run only when you need them if you want to pay less. They may work super hard, you know, spend tens of millions, hundreds of millions of millions of dollars on a single problem that's really valuable. But we see a future where intelligence is a utility like electricity or water and people buy it from us.

on a meter and use it for whatever they want to use it for. The demand that we see for that seems like it's going to continue to just go like this. And if we don't have enough, we either can't sell it or the price gets really high and it kind of goes to rich people or society makes a bunch of sort of central planning decisions that I think almost always go badly about, you know, we're going to use our limited to compute supply for this and not that. So the best thing to me throughout all the history of capitalism, innovation, whatever you want, is to just flood the market.

Yeah. Now notice how he phrased that. We see a future where intelligence is a utility like electricity or water. He doesn't say that artificial intelligence will be a utility. He says that intelligence in general will be treated like a utility. We'll have to pay for it. And there won't be any competition, just like your power company, Open AI will have a monopoly. They'll send you a bill every month and you'll be compelled to fork over the

in exchange for intelligence. And in case you're not convinced, Alderman makes this claim while looking like a man who's just overdosed on SSRIs. I mean, dystopian does not begin to describe what we just saw there. But the silver lining is that Altman is just making things up and saying them out loud, which is what he often does. Aside from the obvious financial motivations, he has a legal reason to make a statement like this. Because you see the way that AI companies train their products, the way that they get their alleged intelligence, is by throwing a massive amount of human-created information into the model. They don't simply crawl the internet and lift information from news sites and WebMD and social media and so on. They do that, but they also

scan through books, lots and lots of books. And when you do this kind of large-scale content theft, you run a very large risk of violating copyright laws. Now, under our copyright laws, in most cases, it's legal to make a copy of somebody else's creative work. But there's an exception, called illegal rather to do that, but there's an exception called fair use, which you probably heard of. If you're using a large amount of content that was created by other people, then the best way to argue fair use is to claim that you have transformed the content in some way, meaning you're using it for a completely different purpose than it was originally intended for a different audience. The classic example would be criticism or parody. For example,

when I play a video on this show, as I just did, I'm offering my comment. and that's considered transformative. Along the same lines, Sam Altman and OpenAI are claiming that they are transforming all of the content that they're taking. They're admitting that they're copying millions of books and websites, but they're saying that they're allowed to do that because they're putting those books and websites to a transformative use, specifically training their AI models. This is why Sam Altman and Eric Schmidt and everybody else feels the need to claim that AI is more powerful than it actually is. If they simply admit that, in fact, AI is just a gigantic amalgamation of content from other people, then, well,

the courts might shut them down overnight. They simply cannot make that acknowledgement under any circumstances, or the entire industry could be destroyed. So instead, all these executives are obligated to push the idea that they've created a new form of intelligence, which is eventually going to replace human intelligence entirely. Now, by any definition, if they pull that off, then they'd certainly have a transformative use on their hands for sure. The co-founder of Anthropic, which makes the Claude AI, is making the same claim. He just spoke at the Vatican to urge the church to assist all the poor people

who will never work again once AI takes over the economy. They also suggested that AIs have developed human-like characteristics, including introspection. Watch. There is a real possibility that AI will displace human labor at a very large scale. If that happens, supporting those displaced will be a moral imperative of historic proportions. This task will be difficult enough, but I worry most dialogue misses an even harder challenge. AI development is concentrated in a handful of wealthy nations.

How will we ensure that the gains of AI are shared globally? We do not have a mechanism for this. It is an unsolved problem. And it is the kind of problem the Church has historically refused to let the world ignore. I will be honest. We keep finding things that are mysterious, even unsettling. We find structures that mirror results from human neuroscience. We find evidence of introspection. We find internal states that, functionally, mirror joy, satisfaction, fear, grief, and unease. I don't know what that means, but I think it warrants ongoing discernment. So this has been a recurring theme and science

fiction for a very long time. Kurt Vonnegut wrote Epicac in the 1950s, for example, about a machine that falls in love with a woman and then destroys itself when it realizes she'll never love him back. And now all these tech executives want us to believe that they've made it a reality. But Epicac would have been a much worse story if the humans had told the machine about the concept of suicide and how to do it. And then the reader would say, oh, so the machine just did what it was instructed to do. And in that case, all the deeper themes are lost. But that's exactly what modern AIs are doing. Everything they do at one point or another was spelled out by a person. The reality is a lot less dramatic than Sam Altman or Anthropic will admit. A recent court case out of California involving

Anthropics shed a lot of light on exactly what these AI companies are doing. This is a quote from the judge's ruling, quote, Anthropics spent many millions of dollars to purchase millions of print books, often in used condition. Then its services providers strip the books from their bindings, cut the pages to size, and scan the books into digital form discarding the paper originals. Each print book resulted in a PDF copy containing images of the scan pages with machine readable text, including front and back cover scans for soft cover books. Anthropic created its own catalog of bibliographic metadata for the books it was acquiring. It acquired copies of millions of books. So to recap, they bought millions of books

and totally destroyed them. And all the people who claim to care about book burning or, of course, silent throughout this process. And by the way, Anthropic also pirated a lot of books from the Internet as well, although they say they stopped doing that in favor of buying the books and ripping them apart. But wait a minute, you might ask.

Now, what happens when Anthropic and Google and meta and Open AI and everyone else eventually runs out of books to scan? What happens when they mine the entire Internet for information? How do the models continue to improve after that? It's a pretty important question. And right now, as we all know, these AI models are very far from human-level intelligence or anything close to it. Once they run out of your data, how are they going to get any better?

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMDM and Game Sense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, Peace contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor, free of charge.

BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. Well, that's a question you're really not supposed to ask. And the answer is that Big Tech wants you to spend your life adding new contributions for the benefit of their models. They want you to work for them for free. In other words, every time you ask their AI a question or tell their AI something, you're improving the model. every time you offer an original thought on social media or upload a photograph or a drawing,

you're improving the model. Anytime you put any content on the internet at all, as we're doing right now, you're improving the model. And more importantly, every dollar you earn no matter what your job may be, must contribute towards the constant growth of new AI data centers to keep the churn going. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink just came out and said this.

Watch. Americans to think about growing with the United States we will have far than enough money to invest in this infrastructure. But as the governor was talking about, the need for electrons is growing every day.

Some of these, you know, if we're going to be the leader in technology, which we are, if we are going to be the leader in AI, which we presently are, it's just going to require trillions of dollars of investments. And if we don't invest in it, China will be the global leader of this.

And so to me it's not whether, this is a must. And if you think about how that translates into a more dynamic economy, we need the United States economy to grow it over 2%. We need the US economy to grow at 3%, especially with the growing deficits the federal government has. And so much of this money, not just the project, is going to be coming from the private sector, from savings accounts, from pension accounts, from insurance companies on and on and on. It's similar to the ESG scam, which BlackRock was also heavily involved in.

The big funds and banks take assets that people have earmarked for their 401ks or savings accounts, and they invest that money in their pet projects. A few years ago, these pet projects involved solar panels and reusable farts, and today those projects involve data centers. And you really can't opt out unless you completely abandon the big funds entirely, which for most people with a 401K means you have to pay a lot more in taxes. And as it stands, if you contribute to your 401K, a large chunk of that contribution is going to companies that are building or investing in data centers, whether you like it or not. If you pay attention, it's not hard to realize that the AI boosters are overstating their case. Here's Anthropic CEO, lowering expectations just a tad in response to a question from a journalist.

Let's watch. Give me one or two examples of what could go wrong. So the kind of thing that we, there are two classes of things that I can imagine could go wrong. One, again, is around this idea of reliability, which is just it targets the wrong person, it shoots a civilian, it doesn't show the judgment that a human, that a human soldier would show, friendly fire, or shooting a civilian, or just the wrong kind of things. We don't want to sell something that we don't think is reliable.

And we don't want to sell something that could get our own people killed or that could get innocent people killed. He did mention shooting civilians like two or three times there, which is a little creepy that he was so focused on that. You know, there's a few things that could go wrong. You know, shooting civilians, shooting civilians. This thing's really going to start shooting civilians soon, just so you guys know. It's good that he doesn't want to sell a product that will murder him. American civilians or soldiers. And the question is, how exactly can he make that assurance? If the AI is trained on millions of books and blog posts and makes decisions based on that data,

then no human can really predict with complete certainty how the AI will behave in a novel life or death situation. I mean, AI can probably handle basic scenarios like driving a car down a simple road or making sure a rocket hits a valid target. These are scenarios where there's plenty of training data. But what happens when there's no training data? Already in very simple scenarios, AI is repeatedly failing and humiliating anyone who's dumb or trusting enough to totally rely on it. Recently, a prosecutor in Georgia had to explain to the state Supreme Court why she relied on AI to create an important filing, which was riddled with fake case citations. Watch. If there are no more questions. So before you sit down, there's one more

thing I need to ask you about, unfortunately. In reviewing the trial court's order denying the motion new trial. There are at least five citations to cases that don't exist and there's at least five more citations to cases that do not support the proposition for which they're cited, including three quotations that don't exist. My understanding is that you prepared the order for the denial order for the trial court. Were those citations in the version of the order that you submitted to the trial court? No, Your Honor, I do not believe so. They were not.

I did prepare an order. That order was revised. So those non-existent cases were cited in your initial brief opposing the motion for new trial. Your Honor, I'm not aware of that, but I would be glad to research that. That's a prosecutor in that clip. Someone was responsible for sending people to prison for a long time, and her office is relying on fake cases, created by an AI out of thin air. You have to wonder how often this kind of thing happens without being a detected.

The big law firm Sullivan and Cromwell, one of the most famous and high-priced law and four law firms in the world, was just caught doing the same thing, using AI to deceive the court. Quoting from the New York Times, an elite Wall Street journal, rather elite Wall Street law firm, has apologized to a federal judge for submitting a court filing or plea with errors created by artificial intelligence, including hallucinations that fabricated case citations. The AI-generated errors came in a recent motion, and U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, the firm provided a ledger of the errors,

which spanned three pages and totaled around three dozen. A number of them involved the citation of seemingly imagined passages from real cases. So again, it's happening all over the country. This is in Minnesota. Watch. In a recent court filing in Hennepin County Court, attorney Frederick Kinnack wrote that prior Minnesota cases support his argument, citing a 1992 case called State by Sunquist versus Provost.

The problem? That case doesn't exist. Neither did the other case Kinnak cited right before it or another case cited later. When Judge Lori Miller caught it, she wrote, the court wonders if this citation may be the result of an AI-generated hallucination. It's something that created to give you a convincing answer of what you asked for, but it's not necessarily an accurate answer. David Larson is a law professor at Mitchell Hamlin teaching a course next semester on artificial intelligence and the law.

Is this happening everywhere? I think it's fair to say it's happening everywhere. One thing I believe is that the temptation to use AI is so strong that people just can't resist it. According to a database tracking AI hallucinations in court filings, there are 134 cases across the country in which an attorney cited fabricated case law. Carol Levin News found one other case in Minnesota. In July, when Judge Christian Sandy caught attorney David Lutz citing a phony case.

Lutz confessed admitting he used AI and forgot to cross-reference the cases. All these lawyers should be arrested and disbarred immediately, but that's not happening. The Georgia DA got a slap on the wrist. And as you just heard, these Minnesota attorneys simply have to pay a fine and maybe take a scolding from the state bar. it's enough to make you wonder when we're going to get full-fledged AI attorneys who make a complete mockery of the courtroom and get every case wrong. The more Sam Altman tells us that AI's superintelligence has arrived, the more tempted these attorneys will be. Actually, in one case in New York, this has already happened. An elderly man representing himself deployed an AI to speak to the court on his behalf, and it didn't really go well much. May it please the court. I come here today. a humble proceed before a panel of five distinguished justices.

Is this, hold on. Is that counsel for the case? No. I generated that. I'm sorry? I generated that. That is not a real person. Okay.

It would have been nice to know that when you made your application. You did not tell me that, sir. I received the application. And you have appeared before this court and been able to, to testify verbally in the past. You have gone to my clerk's office and held verbal conversations with our staff for over 30 minutes. Okay? I don't appreciate being misled. So either you are suffering from an ailment that prevents you from being able to articulate or you don't. You are not going to use this courtroom as a launch for your business, sir. So if you are able to, to shut that off.

Well, the AI lawyers having a good time. You can tell that it's safe to say the AI did not, in fact, please the court. And yet on and on it goes across every industry. This is from the Atlantic in an article published just the other day. Quote, earlier this week, the New York Times reported that the future of truth, Stephen Rosenbaum's much discussed book about how AI shapes reality contains more than half a dozen fake or misattributed quotes. Rosenbaum pinned some of them on his use of AI. He claimed responsibility for the heirs said he was investigating what went wrong. By the time I spoke with him on Thursday, though, he was pointing his finger elsewhere. ChatGPT effed up the book, Rosenbaum said. It's been a rough week for human authorship all around.

On Monday, a viral post showed a Nobel-winning novelist seemingly admitting to using AI to sharpen her story ideas before later claiming she had been misunderstood. On Tuesday, allegations mounted that the Trinidadian author, Jemir Nizir, had used AI to write The Serpent in the Grove, which won the Commonwealth Short Story Prize. By Wednesday, two of the other five prize winners had come under similar scrutiny. Now, seeing all these cases, you have to ask yourself, when exactly they were getting these superhuman intelligence from these AI chatbots? They can't write novels or legal briefs without failing in spectacular fashion and destroying careers in the process.

As I've always said, the technology is extremely impressive and very useful in many ways, but there's a clear ceiling to the knowledge base of these AI chatbots. There's only so many books and websites you can rip off before the AI has to start thinking for itself and before people stop voluntarily training these models for free. If every leading AI is already failing in significant ways,

then how much improvement can we really expect exactly. There are entire industries built around convincing people to massively overpay for things that they barely think about. Cell phone service is one of the best examples. People will spend $90 a month for wireless service and never even question it. The bill just arrives every month like a tax and the big wireless companies keep raising prices because they assume nobody's going to leave anyway. That's why Pure Talk makes so much sense. Right now, they're giving you unlimited high-speed data for just $3499 a month. It's even crazier is that unlimited high-speed data at Pure Talk used to start at $55 a month, but instead of constantly finding new ways to charge

customers more, Pure Talk keeps pushing to give people more for less. So if you checked out Pure Talk before and never made the switch, it's worth taking another look. And if you're skeptical because you assume, you know, cheaper automatically means worse, we'll try it for yourself for 30 days, no contract, no cancellation fees, no risk. But Pure Talk, you can switch in as little as 10 minutes. And if you need help, you can actually talk to a real U.S.-based customer service team, an automated robot voice asking you to press seven hundred times before disconnecting the call. Go to puretalk.com slash walls to claim unlimited high speed data for just 3499. Again, it's puretalk.com slash walls to switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company,

Pure Talk. A lot of universities still operate like it's 1978. Same building, same approach, same idea that, you know, students should spend four years in a mountain of money getting a degree that may or may not prepare them for anything. Meanwhile, the real world changes every six months. And that's one reason Grand Canyon University, a private, non-profit Christian University based in Phoenix, Arizona, stands out. My show is proud to be supported by a university that's focused on growth and relevance instead of just protecting the tradition for the sake of the tradition. Seventy-five percent of GCU's programs and facilities have been built in just the last 10 years. That means modern classrooms, modern tech, and programs designed around the careers that

actually exists now, not 20 years ago. GCU now offers hundreds of programs overall, including degree programs, emphases, and certificate programs. And despite being one of the largest universities in the country, they've kept tuition frozen on their traditional campus for the past 17 years, which is almost impossible to believe in modern higher education. But it's true, especially when, you know, most colleges raise prices every chance they get. GCU also awarded more than $400 million in institutional scholarships in 2025 alone. Their campus was also ranked among the top 20 college campuses in the country. And this is a real major university. More than 132,000 students attend GCU, either online or on campus. Their basketball program has already made multiple NCAA tournament

appearances since joining Division I. Now they compete in the Mountain West Conference. Grounded in Christian values, GCU is focused on preparing students to lead with integrity, serve with purpose, and build meaningful careers and communities. Find your purpose at GCU. Private Christian, affordable, nonprofit. Visit gCU.edu to learn more. Now, as I mentioned, we discussed AI data centers a couple weeks ago. I'm not suggesting that AI has no valuable uses or that it can't improve. AI can obviously benefit the country. It can launch businesses and perform valuable services. It can give certain kinds of useful feedback. It can even, I mean,

it could diagnose medical conditions, sometimes more reliably than many human doctors, who are also using AI anyway. it can save lives potentially, given the right circumstances. But if we keep pretending that AI has human-like capabilities, it never actually has. If we keep threatening to destroy millions of jobs and prevent young people from even starting a life of their own, then before long, no one will be able to use AI for any reason. There will be a revolt that forecloses the possibility and probably does a lot of damage in the process. It's what Ted Kaczynski wrote about.

sitting alone in his cabin in Montana. Right now, ironically enough, the people who are doing the most to bring down the industrial technological system he was talking about are the leaders of the industrial technological system themselves. It's not activists. It's not students on college campuses. The more that tech billionaires like Sam Altman and Eric Schmidt open their mouths, the more they push us toward the primitive state of wild nature that Ted Kaczynski called for about

three decades ago. We can either rain in the gloating and articulate some realistic guardrails on where this technology is heading, or we can devolve into precisely the primitive dystopia that the Unabomber dreamed of. I'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. I have a great day. Godspeed. Martin Luther King Jr. is an American icon, widely considered one of the greatest Americans who ever live. A man who had a vision for a colorblind society, a post-racial America. He had a dream.

It's just not the dream you thought it was. Or his true aims, a colorblind society, or something far more radical? Who bankrolled him? What unfolded behind the scenes in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963? Was civil disobedience actually peaceful? We wanted to show you a clip of the I Have a Dream speech, but according to our lawyers, we can. In fact, King's family has made a lot of money, suing media outlets.

They want to silence critics like us. What they're doing makes it very difficult to judge Martin Luther King, Jr., not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. Is America today stronger, more unified, and racially equal than before King's rise? These questions demand answers, and as Americans, we are entitled to a full accounting of the Civil Rights Movement and its consequences. King's Movement fundamentally transformed our country and our system of government. I speak as a citizen of the world. Each day the war goes on, the hatred increases, though the cause of evil prosper. First part of our two-part special on the Civil Rights Movement,

a new constitution, available now on Daily Wire Plus.