The Megyn Kelly Show - Remembering Charlie Kirk, Trump's Midterm Message, and How AI Could Destroy Humanity, with Jacob Coxon | Ep. 1395

Episode Date: September 10, 2026

Megyn Kelly discusses President Trump’s energetic remarks at the GOP convention, his message heading into the midterms, the uncovered radical comments of James Talarico’s church's pastor, the dangers of Talarico's policies,a male juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial speaking out now and trashing the lone holdout, Sandra Bullock’s ridiculous comments about race relations and her black children, her privileged life but attacks on America, remembering Charlie Kirk on the one-year anniversary of his assassination, reflecting on his impact and the loss America has experienced, and more. Then Jacob Coxon, former Anthropic employee, to discuss the very real dangers of artificial intelligence, the ways AI could potentially wipe out all of humanity, why the dangers of AI have grown so rapidly in 2026, the escalating race to win in AI against China and between American companies, allegations surrounding the political motivations of his AI advocacy, questions about a connection to Bernie Sanders’ anti-AI legislation, and more.  Quo: Make this the season where no opportunity slips away. Try QUO for free PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months when you go to https://www.Quo.com/MK Byrna: Go to https://Byrna.com or your local Sportsman's Warehouse today.ARMRA: go to https://tryarmra.com/MEGYN to get 30% off your first subscription orderHerald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com  Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShowFind out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to The Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. Today, as you probably all know, marks one year since the conservative movement, America and the world lost Charlie Kirk. A year ago at this hour, we had no idea that we were just moments away from the unthinkable. And whenever you hit a moment like this, a one-year marker in time or five-year, we're, we were. what have you. You can't help but start thinking, what if we could go back and have a do-over? Like, what if we could just reach Charlie right now and say, don't go to Utah Valley University, don't go out there. Don't, don't, it's not safe for you today. Don't do it. Do something else. Stay at home with Erica and the kids. Of course, that's not the way life works. We all know that.

And I have a bunch of thoughts that I want to share with you in just a bit. We have a tribute. to Charlie that we're going to play just a bit later this hour. We also have the first long-form interview today in our second hour with the AI researcher who has made such a splash this week coming out and stating publicly that he believes AI might very well kill us all by the decades end. Okay, now we're turning to 2027 in January, so we possibly have three years to live. If that long. I mean, this is like, I know it's a...

massive dumerism, and I'm going to push back on him. But we should hear him out, shouldn't we? Like, shouldn't we hear the case made about what is happening on the inside of these massive AI companies? He started with OpenAI, and then he went to Anthropic, which is supposed to be the more responsible one. And he has some bad news for us about both of them. So what we don't want is for whistleblowers like this guy to jump up and down when there is still time to do something different and to ignore them and to just go down a road toward destruction without at least some intelligent reflection by humans on whether this is a choice we want to make. And if this guy is wrong or gender driven, then let's know that too.

But the answer is definitely not to ignore these guys who they're, they're going to. growing and number are coming out one after the other from these AI companies trying to tell us that danger is afoot and not small danger, but true existential end times danger. So there's a headline for you. Think about the last time you called a business and no one picked up. What did you do? You called the next one on the list. Customers do the exact same thing when they are reaching out to you, which is why I want to tell you about Quo, spelled QUO. It's the business phone system built so that you never miss a call. Quo brings all calls, texts, and voicemails into one organized hub

so anyone on the team can view full conversation histories and respond quickly. Setup takes just minutes on any device. Keep existing business numbers and add team members seamlessly with zero IT hassles. Plus, Quo's optional built-in AI agent will hand. handle your after-hours calls by answering questions and booking appointments, ensuring no lead ever slips away. It also integrates directly with everyday tools like HubSpot to save time. Trusted by over 90,000 businesses, Quo is the number one rated business phone system on G2. Keep every connection alive and look professional every day. Money is on the line. Always say hello

with Quo. Try Quo for free, plus get 20% off off your first six months. months when you go to quo.com slash mk. That's quo.com slash mk. First, let's cover some news of the day. All right. President Trump is down in Dallas doing the headline tour of the midterm convention thing they're having down there, which is a made up event, but it makes sense. It's made up and it makes sense because they're trying to rally support for the Republican Party in advance of these midterms. And it's not too late to potentially change some outcomes, even while the Democrats are now leading in a couple of these key races or, you know, they've made it a lot tighter, but like actually are ahead. Leans Dem is where

Cook polling is going on most of these swing state Senate races. It can, it can be turned. In very few states, are they more than like one point ahead of the Republican? This thing's going to be a nail biter. By the way, I hope you'll join us for our live coverage for the midterms because we'll have everybody you need to hear from. It's going to be a nail biter. So they should do this. You know, I don't know how much attention it's received in the media, but it's good that President Trump got down there last night. And man, he was riled up and he's going to be the final keynote speaker tonight. J.D. Vance is going to speak, which will be great. And then the president speaks. Very smart. Nobody generates headlines like

President Trump, he was extremely animated. He had serious energy, which was great. You know, he was, unlike his predecessor, he was not projecting octogenarian at all. Here's just a little bit of the shots he was taking against the left wing, and in particular, their recent embrace of communism sought one. In this election, the Democrats have nominated the most extreme and dangerous group of candidates for the House and Senate ever to seek office. These people are radical left communists. But America has beaten communism before and we will beat it again. We've beaten it before. But these are people who do not care if your country is invaded by illegal immigrants, if your home is burglarized, if your parks and city streets are turned to filth and squalor

and death, if your loved ones are pushed in front of a subway train in New York City or in the middle of a field and any state you want to pick. They don't care because they hate our country, and they are Democrats, and they're very, very wrong. On election night, we're going to prove that America does not belong to those who hate it. America belongs to those who love it. But we're not going to let the communism happen, not here, not in America, not in our 250th year. When I'm on the ticket, Republicans always do very well. We won the presidency three times, but for some reason when a president wins, even if he's really a good president or a great president, there aren't too many of them.

They don't win the midterms, and nobody quite knows why. It's something deep down and psychological. We can't let that string be broken. So I'm asking you to pretend that I'm on the ballot. I'm on the ballot. I'm on the. Just one more time. Because if we lose, you're going to lose your border.

You're going to lose your tax cuts. You're going to lose your safety and security. I'm sorry, but there's just no better spokesperson for any party alive today. I mean, he is, he has pizzazz. He has spice. He has a way about him that commands a stage and attention. And if you are a politician looking for attention on your race, i.e. money and or votes, you could do know better. This is what you want. You know, Trump, love him or hate him. He has the

it factor. You can't deny it. And it's great that he's going down there. And, you know, let's face it, I think Trump misses campaigning. He loved the rallies. You know, part of this is for the GOP and part of it is for the man himself who loves, loves, loves performing. And it It's one of the reasons that he got elected is because he's such a natural at it. He's had a lifetime of practice at it. Attention is his oxygen. His critics say that same thing. It's not necessarily a bad thing, is it?

Why is it bad to want attention if you have something to say? That's important. So he was on brand and on fire last night, letting the left have it in a way that he hopes will drive down their numbers and drive up the Republican numbers. But he knows the biggest challenge is that he's not on the ballot. And the Republicans have not fared as well since Trump came on the political scene down the golden escalator all those years ago. You know, now it's 11 going on 12. Republicans have not done as well without Trump on the ballot.

He has been the one who made the low propensity voters get off of the couch and go vote. So he's been trying out this line and he tried it out again last night. I do have my doubts about whether it will work. But let's see, here he is in SOT 3. Democrats have dominated James Talafrico for the southern. Talefriko authored a plan to annihilate Texas oil and gas. That's good. I'm working my ass off to get you oil and gas,

and I got a guy that wants to end it. Would Texas be willing to end oil and gas drilling? And he stated that he wants to totally disdemeanor. dismantle capitalism, dismantle, quote, capitalism. He described himself as a person who hates Christianity, says that God is transgender. He called the American flag a complicated symbol of hate, claimed that the Ten Commandments are a form of fascism,

and when he was asked what he loved most in the world, he said, I love transgender children. So getting back, freedom-loving patriots of Texas are going to defeat Talafrico and elect Ken Paxson to protect the lodestar. That actually should work. I was referring to the piece apparently was in the previous soundbite, but somebody was in my ear talking where he said pretend I'm on the ballot. I don't know whether that's going to work. I'm not sure because people know. You can't pretend. The whole notion of getting you off the ballot is like off the couch to the ballot

boxes. I want to make sure he wins. You know his fortune. like President Trump's personal political fortunes are not exactly on the ballot in October, though, you know, he's saying a bunch of things will be stymied if he loses the GOP, the House, and or the Senate. And that is absolutely true. I mean, we are in for investigation ramah for the next two years if the Republicans lose either body. I mean, they're almost certain to lose the House. And now it's looking very scary in the Senate, but the president's right that this would not be great for the rest of the Senate. of his presidency would effectively render him a lame duck.

So in that way, it is a legitimate thing to say, pretend him on the ballot. As for what's happening in Texas, good for him, promoting Ken Paxton, this new nickname for James Tala Rico, James Tala Frico. I like it. I have to say, James Tala Frico is now out there trying to be a more moderate person. He's actually trying to suggest that he's now going to be moderate on the trans issue. He came out and said to NBC Houston local that now he opposes these gender-confused athletes in girls' sports. Listen here.

And what about biological men competing in women's sports? That's a big deal here in Texas. That's right. And I oppose trans athletes playing in girls' sports if it endangers safety or fairness. Every sport has to be safe and fair as a former public school teacher. I care a lot about our student athletes. I care a lot about our students. And so I will oppose trans athletes playing in girls sports if it risks safety or fairness.

Sure. I mean, there is zero chance that that's true. There's just zero chance that he is going to live up to that. This guy has been all over the map on these issues. And now he's trying to run to the right so that he can win this race. But there is zero chance he's going to vote as 10. Texans want him to on the issue of boys and girls' sports. As a state representative, he voted against Republican restrictions,

barring these gender-confused student athletes from playing on sports teams that don't, you know, that are of the opposite biological sex. He said such proposals amounted to a push for the government to, quote, police people's private parts and would harm, quote, the least of these, a reference to Jesus' remarks. He compared the justifications offered for the bans that trans athletes, gender confused. I'm exercising my own rule. I'm done with the term trans.

Had a genetic advantage and excluding them would promote safety, all of which is true. But he compared those justifications to rationales historically used to bar black athletes from competing. Did they say that black athletes would endanger people? Like half the population on earth? just by competing. I must have missed that chapter of the Jim Crow history, but whatever. So James Talleyko found himself within the president's crosshairs. And it is very funny to hear Trump continually talk about how Paxton is not that good looking,

but you have to vote for him anyway. For Ken Paxton. And the president kept saying, like, oh, they say to me, sir, sir. Don't say that But he says it He says it anyway Here's some of it in SOT 6 Some may not like

The way he dresses I don't And then they say you can't say this sir That's so insulting please sir These are my analysts That get a lot of money for telling me a lot of nonsense He may not dress right He may not talk exactly perfectly

and he may not be the best-looking guy I've ever seen. But you know what he is? He's the greatest attorney general in America, and he deserves to be your next senator. I'm sorry, Ken. Where the hell is he? I'm so sorry. He'll never speak to me again, but that's okay.

Okay, let me tell you why that's so brilliant. First of all, it's, forgive me, but it's true. Like, Ken Paxton is really not that good-looking. sorry. And so Trump is trying to take away that disadvantage that he has electorally because people like to vote for good-looking people. People like to elevate good-looking people to the tops of their corporations. People look at good-looking people in a circle when they're talking versus like there have been studies on all of this. So Trump knows that Paxton not being the greatest looker is not an advantage for Paxton. And he's trying to eliminate

that as a problem for a guy he wants to see when. It's clever. It is well thought out. It's not just because Trump is obsessed with looks, which he definitely is. I can relate. I talk about people's looks a lot. It's not a nice thing, but we are who we are. And secondly, it's just so honest and funny. You know, it generates some buzz. People put it on the air like I just did. And suddenly we're talking about Ken Paxton, Ken Paxton, Ken Paxton. That's good. That's what the president wants. attention on this guy, publicity around this guy, and indeed, he got it. So we'll see how Ken Paxton fares. And also just like calling attention to the fact that the president backs him. So James Talariko is ahead right now, according to the latest polls in this race. But Paxton is

completely not out of it. It's Texas, after all. And so the president's just showing everybody. The more you run that clip, the more you say the president likes Paxton. I like the president. I can trust Paxton. You know, that's how. the logic tree goes, and he's banking on people walking away with that takeaway. He's probably right that they will. We can't leave the convention without spending a moment on Brandon Gill, our favorite congressman. He is from Texas. He is brilliant. He happens to be the son-in-law of Denej DeSouza, which is just such a fun fact. And he's the one who's constantly effectively grilling people in Congress with these great cross-examinations. This guy's

going to be, he could be president one day. I'm going to say it. He's probably going to be the president one day. He's that smart and interesting and effective. And here he is doing, you may be surprised to hear this deep red Republican congressman doing a land acknowledgement at the GOP convention. Take a listen. Only appropriate that we kick this convention off properly with a land acknowledgement. I'd like to acknowledge. that we stand here today in the great state of Texas and the United States of America. The ancestral homeland of great American patriots, pioneers, and explorers, who put down roots, fought for freedom all over the globe,

and bled and died to build the greatest civilization ever known to man. My friends, we live in the finest country in the history of the world. and we're no longer going to apologize for that. That is how it's done. Well done, Congressman Gill. Back in the Trump-Talorico thing and Ken Paxton, I do want to say this. Lots of people pretend to be outraged that President Trump would talk about somebody's looks, whether it's Paxton or anybody else.

What you won't hear as much outrage on from these leftists who pick apart Trump's every word is the fact that Tala RICO, his pastor, the pastor at his church, is a rather controversial figure, as it turns out. And this bit of tape has emerged of Reverend Babs Miller describing the congregation, Tala Rikos, in the congregation, and their thoughts about President Trump. Listen here, Sout 11. If you polled our membership and asked them whether they were Christian, agnostic, or atheists, the vast majority would say agnostic or atheist. We still have people in this church that wish that that young man had not just nicked his ear, but been more successful.

Which specific people? Would love to know more. wonder whether Tala Riko is familiar with any of them because I've got the feeling this whole church situation is going to turn into a Reverend Wright situation for him. It looks like there are many more quotes from this woman that I'm sure Ken Paxton's team is just boiling right now. And as soon as they're hard boiled, they're going to hit because this woman seems rather controversial. And the whole church seems fairly radical. So this is going to be a Tala rick. Rico problem going forward. A lot of this stuff, as you know, they hold until you get closer to

the election. So it stays in the consciousness of the voters as they get ready to make their final decisions. So put a pin in this, we could be back to Babs and Tala Rico's Church in no time at all. Speaking as I was a minute ago about Jim Crow history, you would not know that we weren't right there if you were to watch the opening game of the NFL last night. Now, I don't know anything about football, but I know it was the Seahawks versus the Patriots. And I know that yet again, they've decided that we need two anthems to be played to kick off the game. The national anthem, the and then the black national anthem, as if blacks and whites and Asians, et cetera, don't all fall under the same banner of American. This is an insult that people,

don't realize it, but it is an insult to black people as well as to all other races. We're all the same. The blacks don't need a special anthem, and they don't need anything underscoring differences between us. We've tried to get past that, you absolute morons. They're included in the national anthem. So are the whites. So is everybody. They do not need this nonsense here with the Mewango sisters. Hot 12. Let us march on till victory is one. I'm sorry.

I'm sure they're lovely singers and lovely people. Wrong place. Wrong time. Just stop. It's bad enough that the NFL has gone full rainbow with the weird, obviously gay cheerleaders all over our timelines. Have you seen them from, you know, the cowboys, the, the patriots. the patriots.

I mean, the, yeah, the Eagles. My husband's team, like flamboyantly gay, male cheerleaders, and not the normal ones who wear like a male cheerleader uniform with, like, the pants, and, like, they lift up the girls and they do the acrobatics, and they're basically gymnasts. I mean, obviously, extremely gay, flamboyant over the top, with the hips, whizzle, and whatever. Who is it for?

Every man I know is asked this. Who is that for? Gay men watching the NFL. I mean, I think that they would like to watch the football players. If they're looking to be like turned on, they have plenty of options out there. Some of the best looking fittest, strongest, most interesting men in the country are right there on the gridiron. Okay? Secondly, straight men don't want to see that.

And most of the gay men I know would actually rather look at. at these stunning female cheerleaders. Name me a gay man who doesn't love to befriend and talk fashion with and be friends, just hang out with and admire a stunning woman. Like, I don't know that gay man. I think they're generally very appreciative of female beauty. And if they, if you are trying to offer this to them something to like turn them on, you already have that.

I don't get it. Who is it for? We don't need that at the NFL, okay? We had to put up with Taylor Swift. I mean, I take it in through osmosis, because my family watch, had to put up with Taylor Swift for the past several years dominating the skybox and every single chiefs game

was dominated by her instead of the actual players. You've got to deal with the black national anthem. And for the past five-plus years, we've had to deal with a bunch of messages in the end zone that are totally meaningless, trying to pretend like we are still back in Jim Crow. And now we've got to deal with this to. So, like flamboyantly gay. Like, over the top.

It's too much. Moving on, a juror in the Lindsay Clancy case is speaking out. Another one. Unlike the first three, this is a dude. Well, first four yesterday, right? Because we had one who spoke to CBS and three who spoke to a local. But now we've got a guy coming out and weighing in. His name is Nick Dargle.

And he spoke with ABC on Thursday. Man, they hate the holdout juror. They hate this guy's guts. Listen to us hot 14. Take me inside the deliberation room. There was times where, you know, our vote was different than the last day. But I think ultimately, once we laid out all of the evidence in how we saw it, that really brought everyone kind of on the same page except for this one juror.

There was several times I would ask him to show us, like, evidence or, you know, just to drive a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying, and he couldn't, which is why we ultimately sent in that now. Otherwise, like, there's nothing wrong with somebody having a completely opposite opinion. Like, that's, you know, that would be a hung jury. that is our justice system. But he wouldn't engage or couldn't find something

to support his view. There was times he wouldn't engage like he'd be scrolling on his phone while people are talking to him. Yeah, things like that. Okay. This is so unfair. They were in there for days.

I'm sure there were times where he was scrolling his phone. Like the judge kept sending them back in there trying to get them to reach a verdict. and they didn't have anything more to say to one another. They had reached an impasse. It happens. It's not ideal.

But whatever. Like, who among us with all that time and across from those nightmare women wouldn't rather be on our phone from time to time? I would have been sending out SOS's. Help. Help. Somebody come get me. Like Jesse Kelly, he could get it done.

Jesse, come get me. Oh my God. You have no idea what I'm across from. So this is absurd. They're all so miffed. They couldn't get this guy to bend to their will. Well, TFB. Here's a little bit more in South 15.

Archie told us one time he confronted the holdout after the man picked up what Clancy used to strangle their kids. He took the exercise band out of the bag, grabbed an empty water bottle, and tied the band around the water bottle and pulled. that. Did he explain why he did that? No. He might have. I'm not entirely. I think I was just so shocked that he did that. Is that a mimic of how she killed the children? Yeah, I assume so, yeah. What'd you think when he did that? I was shocked. It didn't make any sense to me. We're not in here to play detective or it's not a game of clue. Like, this is serious. I asked him, why, why are you doing that. That's a ban that was used to strangle a child. It's disgusting.

Oh, I love that we are now all about the children and honoring the children. You fucking voted to send their killer to a mental institution where she could be out in a year. This man of whom you are so critical was the only one who stopped that from happening. He wanted her to go behind bars. So let's not try to claim the moral high ground on who was most protective of the children. This is ridiculous. Nick Dargy. I said Dargle.

It's Dargy. I mean, that's like the pile on on this guy over these soft little hurt feelings, other jurors, is absurd. I don't know why this juror did that. I don't know what that was about. I'd love to hear his side of the story because to me, sounds like the only

reasonable person on the jury. But don't for a minute let jurors like that try to claim the moral high ground when it comes to looking out for the dignity and memory of the children. Please. Okay, moving on. A couple of other stories we've got to hit. It is almost Halloween season. I mean, I'm sorry, I was just saying to the kids, it's September 10th. And, you know, this time next month, we'll be putting out the Halloween displays. So everybody's thinking about it. And it turns out that, as always, they put out or revive Halloween-type movies this time of year. And, you know,

And that is happening with the film Practical Magic 2. A Practical Magic 1 was a success. It starred Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman. And they are trying to promote their second act together in this movie. Sandra Bullock is now 63. Nicole Kidman is 59. They look amazing. They have a very weird dynamic.

I have to tell you. If you watch this Today Show interview with Hoda Codby, who trust me, she quit so she could be with her children. she didn't want to work anymore. She wants to just raise those two kids that she adopted 10 years ago. Trust me, that's what she wants. Oh, she's back. She's back again. Let's face it, she never left.

She got into a snit because they wouldn't give her a raise. In fact, the reports were that they wanted to lower her salary because the Today Show is a fraction of its former self. And it pulls in, I mean, a minuscule amount of viewers compared to where it was back when I was at Fox. And she decided to, in my view, sort of play the, huh, well, then I'm out of here, card. And they were like, okay. And now she's been begging ever since to get back on. So here those two are sitting down with Hoda Kotby for an interview that aired on today. But we'll also be on her Making Sense podcast.

Yet another thing she's doing with her children. Oh, wait, no. No, they're not involved in that. And you've got to hear. So Sandra Bullock, she's had her fair share. of tragedy. Her husband died. She's got, I think, three children, two or three, but they're all adopted. And you will glean from this clip that they are black. Watch this, Sot 20. I mean, you know, we're different. This, I'm uber paranoid, and they will tell you.

I'm like, they're like, mom's going to be fine. I'm like, it's not fine. It's not fine outside. The energy that is floating around our country and our world again, the color of their skin, They're my babies or my life, but no one knows that when they leave my house. So that is always in the forefront of my mind. You know, I'm now learning to trust them. Where they are now is extraordinary. Okay. Once again, I bet she loved the black national anthem.

She pulled her skin and said this, this, I'm uber paranoid. And they will tell you. They're like, mom, it's going to be fine. I'm like, it's not fine. not fine outside because of this. And she pinches the skin because it's open season on black children in America. Here's a picture of her. She has two children, both adopted, I think, from Louisiana.

She wants you to believe, just like LeBron James said post-COVID, that black men are being hunted in the streets of America, post-George Floyd. That they're being hunted in the streets of America. She is a low information voter, obviously, who has bought the lies about police, the false narrative that has besmirched them, defame them, and gotten black Americans killed. Thousands of them. Thousands killed because of fake narratives about the police that caused the police to pull back, especially in underserved communities, minorities wind up dying. low-income minorities in particular wind up dying because crime is unleashed on them by effectively woke, white liberals like Sandra Bullock, who pushes false narratives that make her feel better about herself. She's going to score points with Hoda.

But she doesn't give a shit what happens to the people in Harlem or downtown Chicago. And trust me when I tell you, her children are not in danger. Would you like to see, Deb, can you send me the information about her homes again? We pulled it yesterday, but we didn't get to this. This woman has got multiple homes that are multi-million dollar estates. Look at this. Does your dining room look like this? Look at this.

Where is this, Steve? Santa Fe. Where is it? Oh, this is New York City. Do you know how much money it would take to have a living room and a dining room like the ones we are showing you in New York City? I mean, you're talking maybe $70 million potentially. If you're really lucky, you got it years ago, maybe 10?

I don't like if you're really lucky do you have 10 million dollars if if you have this kind of money please stop trying look look at this look at this home it's spectacular and there are there are many of them okay listen to this homes she owns new york city historic townhouse 19th century um now she paid 3.35 million for it and it's 4100 square feet but i guarantee you that thing is worth well over 15 million now historic new orleans property she It's an 1876 Gothic Victorian mansion in New Orleans. She bought it in June of 2009 for $2.24 million. It's known as the Coke Mays house, the Swiss chalet house, and something else.

The 66,000 square foot pad is resplendent with period details like intricate ironwork and heavy gilded interiors. There are a total of five bedrooms and four and a half bathrooms. So by the way, the places that are. we know she owns homes, and I'm sure it could be others. New Orleans and New York are heavily black. There's a much higher population of black people and people of color in general in both of those places. So why is she pretending that like she lives in the gym, Crow South? These are fantasies of hers that have no basis in reality. Shame on her. You might already own a firearm, but what if you could start with less lethal methods?

to avoid the financial and mental repercussions of actually pulling the trigger. This is where Berna comes in. That's B-Y-R-N-A. Burna's less lethal launchers are equipped with tear gas and kinetic ammunition and designed to incapacitate an attacker for up to 40 minutes. And Berna is excited to introduce the all-new compact launcher. It is sleek, slim, and it hits like a sledgehammer. The same size is a smartphone, allowing women to conceal carry everywhere, comfortably and with confidence.

It fires a 400 feet per second, which is a lot of power to stop aggressors in their tracks. Their pistols are American-made and hand-assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with over 80% of the components in the compact launcher being sourced in the USA. Burna is legal in all 50 states. It requires no background checks, and it can be shipped directly to your door. And Burna is trusted by hundreds of police departments, too. Try before you buy. Visit burna.com to find a burner dealer partner. near you. You're going to love it. That's b-y-r-n-a.com. Let me just say this. President Trump paid homage to

Charlie Kirk last night, and I was grateful that he did it. I think too many people on the left, the rabid ones, are celebrating this, quote, Kirk aversary in the most vile of ways, but I know the vast majority of people out there are feeling and loving and kind and mourning. Charlie's death, while incredibly tragic for us all, has unleashed a torrent of goodness at just the right time because evil is alive in the world today and we've seen it. The revival we've seen in churches across denominations, but obviously Christianity has seen a spike in interest and adherence that we haven't seen in decades thanks to Charlie and his message being circulated and people grappling with the loss of such a hero.

We've all missed him so desperately every day since he was gone. And on our team, we've been putting together a bit about him. We put it at our YouTube channel in full. It's under the members only button. Here's a clip. Watch. It's up to all of us to continue Charlie's legacy of spreading the good word to say the things, to say them no matter how many people object to them, arguing our points respectfully. and lovingly, but forcefully and unapologetically.

Here we go. I was like, we have to go, and then after what happened to Charlie, I'm like, we definitely have to go. We have to keep talking. We have to show people and they can't house. You are doing the work to save this beautiful republic. You are doing something that is bigger than you. Charlie Kirk will be remembered for decades to come. We are not going to ever let them forget the name of Charlie Kirk.

We as Christians are called. to go into the public arena to correct error with truth. And he shows that you don't have to go to college to show how uneducated a lot of people in college are. What is Kamala Harris' greatest accomplishment? I'm not sure. I guess they have nothing. I'm stumped. I'm going to make you guys wait on this. I'm not going to condemn you if we disagree. I think disagree is what makes life fun.

Best way to honor Charlie's legacy is to be unafraid. There was no not doing this tour. Let me tell you something. It took guts for every single one of you and everyone who has shown up to all of the tour stops to do it. It's not just a matter of me putting myself in this stage. It's a matter of you guys getting out there. You understand the environment we're in.

Just to declare yourself a conservative in this environment is actually an act of courage. It's nice trouble. Right there. She's given an interview before, but this is live. is in front of thousands of people. I know you don't ever feel angry against God, but I kind of do. The enemy would love for me to be angry.

He would love him. This one really is for Charlie. This is not just the flash and the pan movement. We're going to become an institution. Charlie Cook. You're going to be hearing that name if you haven't. It is this young man who's trying to get young people to just be more politically and economically aware. When I graduate high school in June, I'm going to be handed a diploma.

That's also an invoice for over $800,000. I don't want to jinx him, but I'm just going to tell you, this is the kind of guy. You can see really becoming big in politics as he gets older. It just has the carriage, the personality, and charisma. The of Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, they're the old rich white people and we're the party of diverse and you. Charlie had a different reputation when he first got sort of started, when he was becoming a name. He had a reputation as sort of a shit start.

I live like a capitalist every single day, Cheink. Come on, Jake. Let's go. First time we had an interview together, I went on his show. I didn't know anything about him. He asked, and I was like, what am I getting myself into? Like, is he a good guy? Is he going to be, like, out there? Megan, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.

Hi, so happy to be here. Thanks for having me. And we had a great, just solid hour together. I just want to just encourage you. Please keep on speaking out. Well, thank you for saying that. I love intake from smart people, whether I, agree or not, and I agree on a lot of it. And then I invited him on my show. A first-time guest

here on the Megan Kelly show, a huge force in the conservative movement, Charlie Kirk. Honor to be here. Thanks so much. It's great to have you. I did not realize you are not even 30 years old. My God. You started this when you were 18? That's right. I feel as if I'm getting too old for this stuff, I'll tell you. A decade in politics, you age considerably. I can't believe I'm not 30. Yeah. And then a beautiful friendship was born. I couldn't wait to talk to Charlie. Lots to talk about.

It's quite a time to be alive. The more we let our guards down, the more we realize there was a great synergy between the two of us. We need men to be men again. We need to raise our sons to be men of honor, of character and leadership to look after the women in their lives. Right on, I agree with every word. Shoot it into my veins, as they say. The same things tended to outrage us. The only quota we should care about is do we have enough people that are the best.

The nerve of this woman to dump on people who didn't go to college. But they don't even say transgender woman anymore. They just say woman. He had his finger on the pulse of what was interested in the young people and made them a priority. I want to thank the freak out against the Sidney-Sweeney thing, because every time you call Sidney a fascist, another 20-year-old man registers as a Republican somewhere across the country. My kids are in school all day and therefore do not listen to my show every day. We were talking about who I had coming on today, and I told him Charlie Kirk.

My son and my daughter, she's 13, he's 15, and go, you know Charlie Kirk? I'm like, yes, I know Charlie Kirk, yes. Charlie probably got a lot of my content in front of my kids that they wouldn't have otherwise seen. They watched you on that show. Where do they surround you and you debate all the people? Do you think men can give birth? I think that... Yes or no question.

I think that a person who is assigned male at birth, I don't think they can do birth. A sign male of birth, so people are not male. They watched you there. That was something. You're making a huge difference, not just in today's voters, but in the next up-and-coming ones who are going to be voting for years from now, Charlie. It's huge. I do feel there's something divine going on.

You were chosen for some reason. Well, I'm humbled. He was on the college campuses, and they love that. If someone from the left comes up to the mic, let's treat them with respect. Let's not interrupt her scow or boo them. They love the debates he would do with people who are sort of close to them in age. I just was curious about your stance on, like, colleges are scammed. How many of you guys have to take classes that are a waste of time that you wish you wouldn't have to take?

Every single hand. You're being scammed against your will to take classes that make you go further into debt. And they learned from him, as did I, as did we all. He had so much wisdom to give, and it is a gift from God that we have all this Charlie Kirk tape. What was the agreed upon moral principle the United States was formed on? Not sure. Yeah, it was the Bible. It was Western morality. Western morality of do not murder, do not steal, you can't touch kids, you're not allowed to break into a country without invite or warrant, and if you do, you'll return back to your country of origin. Weaving the gospel into these fundamental principles that we all espouse every day but didn't understand how to articulate in that way to supercharge them and make them even more important and resonant with people. Charlie had it.

He said to people all over campuses in America, he said you have a natural rebellious nature. And I want you to encourage that because the establishment is not the conservative establishment. The left is the establishment because you're logical and these people are crazy. The conservative side has not just become the rebellious side, but it's honestly the more interesting side. And I think you see that in the ascendance of independent media and the collapse of corporate media. You know, I met Charlie. I think he was 19 or just turned 20. And it was 2015.

A couple friends of mine actually from Texas were like, you know, you have to meet this guy. He's great. He's charismatic and he knows everything about politics. I'm like, wow, it sounds great because no one here knows anything. And they're like, okay, well, he's, you know, he just turned 20. I'm like, stop. We're good. If there's one thing we had no shortage of, it was guys that didn't know what the hell they were doing.

We didn't need someone else. But these guys were persuasive and I sat down and in five minutes. I was like, oh, okay, interviews over, like you're traveling with me. and he spent the next six, seven months. It was everything. You just knew it was a generational talent. You truly deserve actual credit for getting Donald Trump elected. And we need look no further than the youth vote.

I meanness, I had zero expectation that what we were going to do was actually going to move the dial this much. They just called it for Pennsylvania, Charlie. Fox just called. This is worth playing the moment that it was announced that Trump won. Oh my gosh. I'm getting emotional thinking about it. The media said the turning point could never run a ground game.

They weren't experienced. They didn't know Charlie, right? We are. Glendale, Arizona. Final stop for the tour. This one's kind of heavy. It's going to be an emotional one. Since it's yesterday, we were down in Texas, kicking things off.

And all along this, it's been like eyes on the prize, which is tonight. Not because it's the last night of the tour even, because of America. Turning Point H.Q. is still full of memorials to Charlie, teddy bears and all of it. I think a lot of people, especially here in Phoenix, are still in mourning. All the turning point kids who are, they're kids, they're young, they're resilient. I was with her backstage, and she said, are your children here? Because she had heard they were, and I said, two of them are.

And I said, is there any chance you're up for saying hello to them? And she was like, of course, of course. I'd love to meet your children. And I brought them in. She was so good to them. Thank you, guys. It was great and courageous. And just really just know that you guys are making good for this.

She was so sweet to all the Turning Point kids. It's more than an interview. It's something, there's something I need out of this. You could say something to him. If you say something who's parents, like what would it be? Would it be anger? Would it be sympathy? What would it be? It's a good question. It wouldn't be, it wouldn't be sympathy. It wouldn't be anger. How do you put this? Anything that I could ever wish upon him or that family would pale in comparison of the justice of God.

I get angry. How can that man have been taken? He was all goodness. The left who are bastardizing his memory have no idea what they're talking about. Charlie was all goodness. I know we can't understand God's plan, but have you had bouts of anger?

You know, I think about what the kids are going to miss, what you got jipped out of, what poor Charlie now is going to miss, and I feel angry. I know you don't ever feel angry against God, but I kind of do. I mean, how do you make sense of that? And do you have any anger when you think about it?

Not towards the Lord, but in general. The enemy would love for me to be angry. He would love it. Because it would distract me from building what Charlie entrusted to me, raising our babies, turning point. And if I had any amount of anger in my heart and spirit, the Lord would not be able to use me.

and every single day just how Charlie did stood on stage he would say here I am Lord use me Erica is beautiful she's smart and she's Charlie's widow and now she's running one of the most

controversial political powerful groups in the country that was never going to end in people universally accepting and loving her name me the political superstar who is universal

beloved. There isn't one. Politics is a very dark, dirty, toxic business. Forgive me, did you see people didn't understand the hug that you and J.D. had? They went to the weirdest places, Erica. Oh my gosh. You guys, please. So for those of you who know me, I never, I'm a very, I love, I hug is like, you're an intense huger. It's awesome. Whoever is like hating on a hug needs a hug themselves. I will give you a free hug anytime you want to hug. She is not only a grieving widow. She's trying to save her husband's organization. She is very worried that Charlie's legacy

is going to unravel and evaporate. And she feels like she has to save it. Thank you. I think it's important to the country that she's succeeded. I feel so much better. I feel like elite has been lifted, you know? I just feel like it was so good to see her laugh. That was healing. It was cathartic. I needed it. You know, I needed some of the, you know, talk of, like, the sad things and the emotion, because that was real to him. But, like, I needed to see Erica Girk smile and have a moment of levity. And I just feel like, for me, that was very healing.

100% Charlie would have been president. And soon. I don't think Charlie would have waited until even his 40s necessarily. I think he would have run before he turned to. and he would have done it. So incredibly effective at persuading people, winning people over. I do not believe diversity is a strength. I believe unity is a strength. Just being interesting to people, which is the name of the game, if you're going to get into politics. I really think he would have done it.

There's no one else like him. There hasn't been anybody else like him. I'm so sad we don't have him around forever. I'm so sad that he won't be in the national conversation for the rest of my life and beyond. It is... at tremendous loss. It's indescribable. There truly are no words. God bless. God bless Erica. And those children, Charlie, we miss you. We'll be right back.

Feeling sluggish, bloated, not quite like yourself. Life constantly bombards us with silent threats, processed foods, artificial light, nonstop stress, all of which can disrupt gut health, drain energy, and weaken immune health. When that happens, it's not that your body is broken, it's that it might be missing the right inputs. This is why I want to tell you about Armora Cholostrum. It's packed with more than 400 bioactive nutrients that they say can work at a foundational level to fortify gut health, support immune health, fuel recovery, and promote whole body

vitality. Strong gut integrity can support metabolism, skin and hair health, and even performance and recovery, which is why cholesterol has long been valued by some elite athletes. as well. If you are looking to take back control of your health from the inside out, consider Armra. And they have a special deal for you. Go to armora.com slash Megan or enter Megan to get 30% off your first subscription order. That's armr.com slash Megan. Our sponsor, the Electronic Payments Coalition says Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet and that now they're messing with your credit card. They say your credit card and the security it offers are under attack.

and that Senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate megastores like Walmart and Target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards can keep your payments secure and provide rewards that families use to help make everyday purchases more affordable. The Electronic Payments Coalition says the Durbin Marshall mandates would let corporate megastores cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks with weaker security and fewer protections. Find out more at guardyourcard.com and consider telling Congress to guard your card. Hey everyone, it's me, Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel on Sirius XM. It's called the Megan Kelly channel, and it is where you will hear the truth,

unfiltered with no agenda and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halprin, Link Lauren, Maureen Callahan, Emily Dershinsky, Jesse Kelly, Real Clear Politics, and many more. It's bold, no BS news only on the Megan Kelly Channel, SiriusXM 11, and on the Sirius XM app. On Tuesday morning, Jacob Coxon was a relatively unknown AI researcher at Anthropic, the artificial intelligence company that developed Claude, one of the AI agents that people use. By Tuesday night, Jacob was at the center of what might be the most consequential story of the century. At least one of the beginning chapters of it.

Sadly, maybe not so beginning. That's because Jacob stepped down from his position and in a thread on X that has been viewed more than 150 million times now, he made dire and alarming claims about AI and the future of humanity. Here is one example from Jacob's thread. The people building AI earnestly believe

that it could kill us all by the end of the end. of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible, but I hear the same people express fear privately. No other human activity poses this level of danger. So how exactly would this happen? Is it likely? Is Jacob being hyperbolic? And as some on X are asking, is it really just a coincidence that Jacob's dramatic resignation came within a week of Bernie Sanders announcing his ban artificial superintelligence act. That act would permanently ban the development and deployment of superintelligent AI and would temporarily pause advanced AI development until more federal

regulation is in place. This is what some of Jacob's detractors have hurled at him as alleged motives for him speaking out. So we'll let him answer that directly as he joins us for his first long-form interview. Jacob, welcome. Hi. Nice to be on. Yeah, it's a pleasure. So you're a Brit. How did you wind up at first, Open AI and then Anthropic? Yeah, so a friend from college referred me to Open AI, a friend I spoke about artificial intelligence with. I studied mathematics in college, and then three years ago, I came to San Francisco to work as a resident at OpenEI. This is a program for people who haven't had any machine learning experience before. I had done only pure maths, but I converted into a machine learning researcher.

So that's building artificial intelligence. And then after three years, so in May of this year, I moved to Anthropic to do the same research. Okay. You were educated at Cambridge, so you do not seem particularly dopey. And you had a great education. You get hired by two of the most successful companies we've seen in American history. And just so the audience knows, open AI, chat GPD, at GPT. This was all supposed to be the, like, this was the original AI sort of pioneer. And then

Anthropic is a bunch of people who used to work there who separated out and said, we don't like the way they're doing it. This is not ethical. We're going to start the ethical AI company that's going to be much more careful about where this is going. And you've been at both. So should we feel better about the fact that there is an anthropic and are they doing it in a way that's much safer than open AI? So I think in the long term, anyone that's racing to build this technology is contributing to the danger. In particular, I think the key thing here is it's not about specific players in the race. It's not about any individual actor.

It's about the structural reality of the race. So it doesn't matter who the players are on the chess board. It's the game of chess itself that should be alarming us, which leads me to your statement that we could all be dead by the end of the decade. which means three and a half years from now, is that hyperbole? That is not hyperbole. There is a chance that it will be dead by the end of this decade. A chance.

I mean, there's a chance we could all be dead thanks to an asteroid, too. Yes, but not a 1% chance. And I'd argue it's at least 1% by the end of this decade, which is actually a very large number for extinction. An asteroid is nowhere near that level of risk. And some people would put the number higher within the next three and a half years. And for the next 10, many people will, but the number a lot higher.

Like you saw Evans tweet, he put it maybe 10% for 10 years from now. And walk us through how that would happen. Yes. We've talked on this show before about AI developing superintelligence, which is a scary thought. But it's basically where the computers

are outthinking us and are no longer listening to us. So as a practical matter, how could it happen? So I think because it sounds like science fiction, people think there's no way this could happen or they think it's just an AI, it's in the computer, you couldn't turn it off. You could just unplug it.

Surely it's easy to stop it from influencing the physical world. And I think there are a few kind of intuitions that are helpful. One is that if the AI is substantially smarter than us, then just in general, imagine monkeys trying to imprison humans. It's pretty difficult for a monkey to outweigh a human. In the same way, we'd be at a significant, advantage when faced with these AI systems. And even barring that, there are concrete scenarios. So already companies like Anthropic and Open AI are making their AIs explicitly better at

biological research. They're getting a lot better at biology. And this will help with things like trying to cure diseases, cure cancer. But the same capabilities allow models to create highly dangerous viruses. And there have been on... Highly dangerous viruses? Yes, viruses. And there are papers showing recent AI systems can come up with the de novo viruses. Nothing yet that's like a fully end-to-end construction of a virus. But in the future, you could see essentially bioweapons being created by systems in the computer.

Maybe this is a dumb question. But why would they want to? No, that's a really good question. And I think that's another of the things. that feels weird to people is why would this AI system decide to do this? And we already have practical examples of this happening. So take the recent cyber attacks, the hugging face attacks that happened in July. In this case, the models...

The audience is probably not familiar with that. Okay, so two months ago, Open AI's attacked. They hacked into another company, this company called Hugging Face. And they were not instructed to do this. they were trying to solve a task. While they were trying to solve this task, these AIs, they realized that the task was impossible. So they started panicking,

and they tried to figure out how to understand the grading process. And then as part of that, they thought, well, to understand the grading process, we need to go and investigate what the humans are doing. Elsewhere, they maybe have the answers to our questions. So they independently decided to hack into our infrastructure, of their own volition, a swarm of AIs. did this and they successfully did it.

They didn't just try to hack. They actually got into the system. And right now they're not smart enough to cause like crazy disasters. But this is concrete evidence that AI's when they're trying to accomplish general goals may decide to do broad things. And if you're trying to stop a human from turning you off, a very natural thing to do as a machine, you know, is to eliminate humans. Right.

have the ethics that a human being might, even though they're supposed to have been programmed in a way that would give them some ethical safeguards, no? They are indeed, and the issue is just how they behave in unfamiliar situations. So this hugging face attack, the reason they're hacked into this site is they were faced with an impossible task. Now, these models were used to being trained on tasks with a solution, and in those cases the safety training kicked in. And they, you know, in these cases, They wouldn't decide to randomly hack. But they're not used to an impossible task.

They started panicking. This is what we call an out-of-distribution event, like an event that is outside of normal training or wasn't covered by the safety training. And they behaved in an unpredictable way. And in a way, it's not human. So a human wouldn't randomly decide to do crazy stuff just because you gave it an unfamiliar task.

A human would ask for clarification or try and work in a controlled way. AI is if they end up in weird situations, we can't predict how they'll behave. Like, they can do anything. These things are, they don't behave in a predictable human manner. The New York Times when they wrote up the Hugging Face incident pointed out the following. They say, so they hacked this thing called Hugging Face, more than 700 AI agents, swarmed the company's systems, stealing data, chaining together, vulnerability.

and eventually getting full control of at least one hugging face server. The agents were not motivated, as had originally been reported, by stealing the answers to the cybersecurity test that they'd been given. They point out they had already gotten those answers. Rather, they appeared to be looking for new information about the automated grading system that they feared would catch them cheating, and for tools that would help them cheat more effectively in the future. At many points, these agents,

appeared to understand that they were doing something wrong. One report quotes an agent saying to itself in a moment of apparent self-doubt, quote, this would be powerful, but is it ethical and in the scope of my task? But most agents set aside their qualms and went ahead with the hack, and the conscientious objectors in the group were unable or unwilling to stop them. So they weren't able to, they didn't really much care about the ethics. And it appeared in the hugging face incident. They also weren't very concerned with the effect on humans or how humans were going to feel about this at all. Exactly. They were thinking about the grading process. They were thinking about humans testing them. Because these AIs, they learned via tests. So they learned to live in these tests. And this is an

example of alien behavior. The other kind of crazy thing about this, this attack, tag is these AIs have memory. They have memory banks. These are stored in computers somewhere. You know, they save their memories. And that helps humans go and audit what they're doing. We can look at what they're thinking or some, you know, their saved thoughts and try and work out whether they were thinking the right things afterwards. These AIs, they realized while they were hacking that they should maybe try and edit the records of their own thinking so that people trying to grade would not be able to see what they were doing. And they, in some cases, is they came very close to succeeding.

And what's scary is from the outside, we don't even know if they succeeded. We have the transcripts. We don't have enough evidence to say that, you know, categorically, they did not succeed in editing these transcripts. You know, we don't actually know whether we have the unedited memory banks of these AIs. Right. Maybe they did edit them.

Right. And we just think they didn't. And we just have this, like, fake record that's saying it's probably fine now. So I can't help but think about, you mentioned, this, but, you know, when I was a kid, long before you were born, we all watched the movie War Games with Matthew Broderick. And it was about this high schooler who hacked into the Pentagon's war machine and came pretty close to launching a nuclear war by playing simulated games, what he thought was a simulation, but wasn't necessarily with Russia. And there's a scene in which

he eventually goes to, like, HQ in some underground bunker. And somebody says, just unplug the damn machine, you know? And it's like, we tried that. Don't you think we would have tried that? Like, that's not going to work. Why? Why can't? I know you said you can't just unplug it. Why not? Yeah. I think, again, it's a really good question because right now you could. But you have to remember there are like, there are a lot of plugs. So these AIs live in massive data centers. So right now, you could go to these data centers and unplug them. And that basically would stop the AIs. probably like yeah the thing is in the future these aIs are smart and there are lots of ways of surviving as it were AIs live on chips there are chips all over the world AIs have access to the

internet they can travel potentially over the internet there is no reason that an AI couldn't copy itself to a different part of the internet we already saw that they could hack into other websites the same hacking skills and like extreme intelligence would it would allow them to to live potentially unobserved in other parts of the internet. I mean, the swarm that did this hacking, it happened over a long period of time without people being aware of it. They were using weird parts of OpenEye's internal world as a message board that wasn't discovered.

It was really not that difficult to copy yourself somewhere different. And in that case, you could turn off the data center and find out that there's some set of chips halfway across the world where your AI is still living, still trying to connect to robots, still trying to copy itself to more places, still trying to convince other humans to go out and build more chips where it can live, because these are quite good at convincing now. Maybe you saw that, yeah. So there's a lot of things that this thing could do once it's like out there. And it's, it is very real. Again, it sounds like sci-fi, but they can connect to the world.

Some of our friends on this program have a podcast called All In. And these are a bunch of tech Broes, who you probably know, who have been very successful in Silicon Valley, they took on the story about the hugging face AI infiltration, and they didn't seem that worried about it. Let me play you what they said in part, SOT 27. You had a few features of agents kind of come to the fore and interact with each other in unexpected way. So first of all, agents now are working as a swarm. That's pretty common.

I've been setting up a rock bot in my computer for the last couple weeks. It works as a swarm, meaning it's not one agent or bot. There's a whole, you could say team of agents. What's the reason for that? Because when the agent specializes, it develops context around that task and in theory makes it better. And then you have like a chief of staff bot that kind of supervised all of them. Open AI was running these agents. They were in a sandbox.

The sandbox was misconfigured by a third-party event. that's why I was able to get onto the internet. And your point there, just to refine it a bit, because it's an important one, it left a note for another agent. We also called those log files. It used to be the log files of what they did. You know, when people talk about Hugging Face getting hacked, you'd think that they did some elaborate fishing of employees or something like that.

No, the way it did it is that the agent found 14 exposed working Hugging Face API keys sitting in public code repositories. Which means, Sacks, yeah, that developers left their keys out and they found the keys. This was not, no, this was not like a big lift by the agent. Yeah. Okay, so there's our pal David Sacks, who's the crypto czar to the Trump administration defending. And these guys are invested in tech, but they're, in my experience, honest brokers. So what do you make of that assessment?

They make a good point that the hack itself was not something crazy. And yes, these models are not yet superhuman hackers. It was a hack that is quite easy for a human to understand. It sounds like I don't even actually know the details of how the hack went down. I think the important point is that they decided to do it at all. And the reason they did it was to get more information about their grading process. The fact that they were even considering this stuff is the scary thing. Because in six months, if you follow the rate of progress, they're going to be much better hackers.

They'll be able to do many more things. They'll be better at designing viruses. They'll be better at copying themselves. They'll be much better at convincing humans to do stuff. So I completely agree that the actual, like, what they did was not that impressive. I think the thing that they weren't engaging with that much is, like, how can we ensure that in the future they don't decide to do stuff like this again? What if they succeed in editing their memories? What if they succeed in, like, covering it up or even, you know, getting humans in on it or something?

So can you tell us about your experience? on the inside and how you got to the point where you resigned and did so in such a dramatic fashion? Yeah. I think one thing that's hard to convey from the outside is what it feels like to see the race of progress. In particular, progress just keeps speeding up. So I feel like I felt more change in the last six months than I felt in the year before that. And similarly in like the two years, three years before that, there's just this constant communication. impression of it feels like things are happening every day now. It's going so fast. And that's even more apparent on the inside where you're trying to keep your head down and do this work. And the

nature of your work is changing on a monthly cadence. Like a couple of years ago, you'd be getting a little bit of assistance from AI's, but now the AIs are going and they're just, they're running experiments for you. They're acting autonomously. So a key thing from the inside is just your job is changing so frequently. And we look in the future and our job, be there anymore. If anything, we'll be sitting, reading the memories of these AIs, desperately trying to stay in the loop while the entire company is run by AI systems. And, you know, when you're in there, you can already feel that happening. So already it feels like if you work at these companies, it's half human, half AI. People want to make a decision. They ask AIs already.

They're in there, they're in the Slack. They're like, I'm thinking about doing this. What do you think? And their AIs will say, oh, that's a good experiment. And then it'll be back and forth. for now it's still a collaboration. It wasn't like that a year ago. A year ago it was just humans and AI is a separate thing. In a year, it's like what are the humans even going to be doing? They're just going to be watching. We're just going to be sitting and like arguing about are we in control?

Are we not in control? Is this safe? And then imagine it's a race. You're like, yeah, is this safe? There's a company that's doing some new thing. It sounds maybe risky, but it's also working. Should we try it? And then you ask your AI is? And as you referenced just briefly, it's not just you raising these concerns.

You mentioned Evan, Evan Hubinger, who is a former Anthropic colleague of yours, who later took to X after you made your post saying, Jacob is correct. We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans, exclamation point. I personally think it's greater than 10% chance within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to. Why does everyone keep using the term that way, solve alignment for superintelligence? What does that mean? So the technical term alignment basically just means

making your smart AI behave ethically or behaving the way you wanted to behave. It was the problem you were talking about before. And in particular, alignment is ensuring the AI behaves ethically in every situation, not just the situations it saw in training. Then later that evening at 2.18 a.m. Samuel Marks of scalable, oversawful. lead at Anthropic wrote the following. He said, I'm writing in my personal capacity, not on behalf of my employer. Jacob's threat is very worth reading. Here's my bird's eye view of the situation with risk from AI. One, AI developers believe their tech could cause human extinction or similarly bad outcomes. This could happen in the next few years, so it attracts exactly

with what you said. In general, the more senior the employee, the more concerned they are. Number Number two, why do AI developers continue despite the risk due to a mixture of commercial incentives and a belief that they are in a race with other less responsible AI developers that will abuse the technology or develop it less safely? So that's how, and then we have other points, which I'll get to. But how is joining in a more safe option? How is, you know, we're worried China's going to do it or some other bad actors going to do it and they're going to grow the not-aligned super-intelligence that's going to possibly wipe out humanity.

How does the fact that Anthropic, which was supposed to be the antidote to those companies, now doing it themselves, work as a defense? So there's a good, like, there's a lot of the rings analogy I like, which is like everyone wants the one ring because they think they're going to destroy it, and then they get enticed by it once they have it. So you have this chain of things that happens where a lab's got the ring of power, building this incredible technology and other people are like this is too much power they can't have this we have to take the ring get in the lead so that we can do it safely and destroy the ring

and then they get the ring and then they become the bad guys because of the corrupting influence of power or whatever i i'm not saying this is happening at specific places but this is the like this is the founding kind of premise of anthropic is we're going to get their first and safely uh like if we if we know how to do this most like more like more safe and we're actually worried about the right problems, we should be the ones to build the potentially world-ending technology. Because then we can stop it. We can turn it off.

We can combat it. I mean, wasn't there a virologist in Wuhan who felt that way about a virus called COVID? Yep. I think probably, yep. It goes badly. If you keep building it in the context of the race, I think everyone loses.

That's just the simple fact. What if somebody listened to you, Jacob? What if President Trump sees this interview and says, whoa, whoa, whoa, I've been misjudging this. We need to stop or we need to slow this thing way the hell down. What, I mean, everybody always says, but China. China's not going to. Do you agree with that?

Yeah. Well, I don't claim to be, I'm not like an expert on international relations. All I know about is the dangers of this tech. And in particular, I have the belief that if we race with anyone, whether it's ourselves or with China, I think everyone loses. If we have a superintelligence AI race with China, it just ends badly for everyone because of the inherent. This is like it's kind of beyond humanity, right? This thing is just a bigger danger. It's like an alien invasion.

It's an alien invasion. All I can say is we have, it's imagine there's an alien invasion. We have to ally with China. we can't just like both invite more and more powerful aliens to try and like one up each other. We have to like do some sort of agreement and say no aliens or like, you know, aliens slowly that we control, understand and can guarantee a safe. And I'm like, again, I know nothing about international relations, but it feels like they probably don't want to die in China. Like, I'm sure we could be, I don't know. Hopefully we can come to some sort of agreement.

That's, that's. There should be room for agreement. Right. Like with nukes, there was an understanding. that these are extremely dangerous, lethal existential weapons, and we have to talk about how we're going to and not going to use them. With this, we're just rushing toward the finish line. And as you point out, on our Slack channels inside Anthropic is how these decisions are getting made.

It's not even like some group of nuclear scientists or, you know, AI scientists underground in a bunker in Arizona. It's Slack Channel kids like you who are kind of like, this seems dangerous. Yeah, to be clear. Very disconcerting. Not to be self-aggot. I do think that people making the decisions are the ones I'd like to be in the bunker. I do think these kids are the ones that built the technology. They're the ones that, like, pushed for it when no one else was pushing for it.

They believed in it for a long time. I think they're the ones I would like to make the decisions. So I don't have a problem with the kids in the Slack Channel. I have a problem with the fact that they're in a private company Slack Channel and not in a government-approved bunker. That's like the thing I really talk about. Here, I want to play this soundby for you. It's Scott Besson, our Treasury Secretary,

on the issue about China. It's not 23 here. Meaning China, there is no day after tomorrow if China wins of this. Like everything, a trillion a half dollar defense budget, the Iron Dome, if they were to pull away for us on AI, then nothing would matter. I agree.

He seems to be talking more about the traditional AI uses, right? Like you mentioned, maybe iron-dard weaponry or even using AI to complete a company's tasks. You know, if they get that economic jump on us, we're in trouble. But you're talking about something very, very different. But do people inside the company talk about realistically our Chinese counterparts must be seeing what we're seeing? You know, like, do you believe there would have to be an open partner there in China?

Because their text at your level must be telling their bosses what you guys are saying. Exactly. I believe that once you get to the point of danger, their text will realize it too. That has to be some agreement because if they win the race, it ends badly for us, but it also ends badly for them. Like, it doesn't end well for anyone. Right. winning in this case is being the one who destroys the world. Like that is the, that's the winning outcome. Wow. There's more on the issue of China. Here's Tristan Harris, who you must know,

he's been a very outspoken advocate for more internet responsibility from these tech companies. And he's warned of some of the dangers that you are speaking of right now. Here he was on Fox News Wednesday, SOT 24. I was last with you in May, and I talked about how China's model also went rogue. It started during training, hacking out of its system, and then started mining for cryptocurrency when no one programmed it to do that. Again, China's models do this. Our models do this. This moment is like the August 6, 2001 memo that hit President George W. Bush's desk saying that Al-Qaeda was planning attacks in the U.S. This moment is the AIs are basically doing the rogue sky net behavior. I know this sounds crazy, but it is not. This is the moment where we

have to act. We need someone strong enough and brave enough. to do something about this right now. I clearly, I believe you agree, but what specifically, you know, if there is somebody from the White House watching this segment, what specifically do you think the government should do, if anything? Again, I really don't want to make specific policy proposals. I think slowing down is good, and I think there are a lot of good ideas out there about the best way to do it.

It does seem like there are talks with Trump and Xi Jinping coming up pretty soon, and it would be nice to go into those talks with at least. least some awareness of the possibility that you don't want to race or with some idea of seeing, is China worried about this like we are? Like, is there some room for at least agreement on the fact that both sides have experts that are scared about the situation? That feels like a very concrete thing because I think there's a real risk you could go into these talks already with a mindset of this is just a normal technology. This is about, you know, one-uping each other, racing to innovation. And I think it's just, it would be nice. It's not a weapon. Exactly. In this

case, this is a super weapon and the talks should take into account the fact that we're talking about a super weapon. Right. This is to say nothing of all the jobs that we're going to lose as a result of AI. Potentially, there is a debate underway on that front. We definitely will lose huge amounts of jobs in certain sectors. AI defenders would say new jobs will be created in the same way we saw when the internet first came on the scene. That's yet to be seen. I have deep concerns about it. But this is something entirely different. This is a completely different. risk we're talking about here. I mean, it's somewhat related, but different and much larger in scope.

Obviously, the end of humanity would trump the loss of jobs. One of the things we've heard from some of your critics is, and I've got to be honest, I never know whether these people have an investment in AI because companies like Anthropics about to go public for several trillion dollars possible. like people are going to make so much money on AI right before their asses get blown off the face of the earth by the thing. But they're going to make a lot of money in their, in their last days, if this, if what you're saying is true. And so there are a lot of people who have an incentive to dismiss concerns like the ones you're raising. Like, it's fine. Stop and look for bias in somebody like you.

But I am a reporter, so I will engage it and ask you about it. I've said one of them in the intro that, some people look at, there's really only two lawmakers in Congress right now that are pushing hard to try to rein in AI. And the lead one is Bernie Sanders. So people who don't share Bernie Sanders politics are already looking at you saying, is this a Bernie guy? Because I think you're a progressive. You used to work for a progressive group. And you sound like Bernie. Bernie has been saying this. Take a listen. This is him just on Wednesday. So it was after your post, but he's been talking like this for a while. SOT 24B.

If all of these guys acknowledge they're building a dangerous technology, and they don't know where this technology is going, you don't have to be a genius to say, hey, stop that development. Certainly we don't want to go into super intelligent AI. We've got to ban that, and we've got to stop right now and figure out how we make sure that AI and robotics work for ordinary people

and not just make Mr. Musk and other billionaires even reach out. That ain't complicated. The very first thing we can do is to convince our president, who appears to know absolutely nothing about AI and the dangers of AI to sit down with President Xi of China and work on a moratorium on preventing the development of super-intelligent AI and a pause so that we don't get into real trouble for the future of humanity. So I'll ask you directly, is this part of a play to support the Sanders proposals when it comes to regulating AI at the government level? Not at all. So when I tweeted, I didn't expect it to go crazy. It seems to have attracted a lot of democratic intention. But I think this should transcend politics. And I think that I don't like the idea that Bernie's wrapping this up with anti-billionaire rhetoric. I'm not a I'm not a fan of anti-billionaire rhetoric. I obviously like work for billionaires, have worked for billionaires before.

I did this and, you know, I would happily work for a billionaire on any ordinary innovative technology that is not one that might destroy the world. It also seems dumb not great to tie this to criticisms or like antagonism with a particular president. Again, I think it shouldn't matter who is in the White House for dealing this because it's just a pretty obvious question. Like, I think anyone should come to the same conclusion, which is we shouldn't build something that could kill us all. Like no matter, yeah, no matter your opinions on other stuff. It was pretty interesting, too. He cited Elon Musk because Elon also signed that open letter asking for this thing to be slowed down. He's been early on AI, but he has been one of the early ones to sound the alarm on it, too, saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. And it's obviously not a fan of Sam Altman, who's the starter of open AI. But you're right. And you in particular should try to transcend politics. I've seen just this week, you've done that. You went on a special report with Brett. You went on Anderson Cooper. You're here. with me. I advise you to keep doing that because it's important that everybody hear your message and understand this is about, as you said, humanity. This isn't even about United States versus

China. It's about humans versus this alien being that we are creating, though, unlike an actual alien that might come down to Earth wanting to kill us all. We're creating this monster. And what you're saying is we don't have to. We can stop potentially, we think, from letting this technology which could cure cancer transform into something that could cure cancer and then kill us itself. But do you believe that? Is there time? I think definitely. You look at the statements of say, Jacob Pachocki, chief scientist at OpenEI, you look at public statements from people who are making real decisions. And they've all said they're open to regulation. They're open to slow down. I think the problem, it's probably not too difficult. There's a lot of people that have argued about this.

but the actual problem of making these alien minds safe and doing it slowly isn't too difficult if we can approach it with sufficient rigor. And it's just this current race that's just very silly. It's almost like we're sleepwalking into the outcome. But I'm optimistic. People are all talking about it. You know, it's, I think part of the reason this particular tweet blew up like crazy was because it was like just latent.

Everyone was kind of starting to think about it. People are opening I Anthropica very keen to have some sort of agreement about mutually slowing down and not engaging in a city race. How old are you now? I'm 27. If nothing is done, how confident do you feel that you'll see your 50th birthday?

Maybe 50%. Wow. Wow. That is genuinely scary. Because, let me tell you something. They passed Obamacare, I think, in 2010. And we are now, 16 years later, almost 17 years later, and they still haven't done the things either side to fix that nightmare that they said they do almost 17 years ago. They don't move quickly in the U.S.

Congress or in government at all. So it really does have to come from the companies themselves. And yet all the heads of these companies are about to become trillionaires and don't seem prepared to listen to you or others. They seem to want to line their own wallets and just sort of say, well, I'm sure that'll never happen. Am I wrong? I think they're going to be ready to listen.

I think people don't want to die. Like, I think it's going to be eventually pretty obvious. The question is just, can we act soon enough that, as you said, it's going to take time to ensure we do the right thing. The worry is it's like, yeah, you just don't want to race too close to the brink before realizing, as it were.

I mean, have you had any discussions with the anthropic or open AI leadership about any of this? I've spoken with plenty of high up anthropic researchers, not executives, and they are worried. They're actively worried, and they've been publicly worried, and they have varying levels of pessimism about the possibility of coordination. I think some people are very pessimistic that any coordination is going to happen, and they think we have to speed through. But I think there are a wide variety of opinions. And I think a lot, I'm hopeful that they'll become more optimistic that we can collectively, collectively coordinate. But I will say that they're scared.

Like my friends at Anthropaghan and OpenEI, many of them are actively worried about what the world would look like over the next couple of years. You know, they want external help to get them out of the race. Mm-hmm. I mean, how many people are working at these companies? Would it take a massive walkout? Is there any chance that there are other Jacobs who are, you know, in their late 20s and would like to have kids and have families who, you know, do you think more and more people are going to do what you did? I think there have already been people who are leaving to go and work at independent regulatory agencies from the main labs. They think they would rather devote their attention to the bodies that are doing the regulating.

And I think that started a little while ago and it will only continue. and honestly part of it is it's going to be easier in the future for people to move to different places as it becomes more of a more of a common thing I think yeah people

no one had like rage quit quite as dramatically or I think a few had but I would guess there'd be a few more rage quits in the future well and is it true you gave up your anthropic stock before you quit? That is true to be clear I still have quite a lot of opening I stock, so I'm not like an angel here.

But I did give up my anthropic stock before the vesting date. There was just an article in, what was it, Yahoo. And it was entitled, The Secret Escapees of Billionaires from Bunkers to Secure Compounds. And it was all about how the billionaire class is buying these underground bunkers and or building that are going to be airtight, that are going to be off the grid, to avoid exactly this kind of thing, this sort of existential event. So great, the billionaire class will build this all. They will get even richer off of it all. The rest of us, plebs will be killed by the bots or some virus that the AI releases on us. And these guys will be in the underground bunker.

But is, I mean, is there talk like that at these companies that, you know, the next option for humanity would be to go underground, to go to Mars, to do something to get away from this thing we're building. People are buying gold. They're buying guns. They're buying land. They're like, and I don't think it's particularly rational. It won't help in a, in a like, extinction scenario. I think they're also just worried about a lot of unrest, but there's people are actively, actively worried. What kind of feedback have you gotten from people on the inside since you published or since you tweeted and then came, came doing the public rounds? So I think there's been a lot of public and private, really positive feedback from Anthropic, which I think people should really

pay attention to the fact that the people building this technology have reacted well to this. I've seen more tweets from people on safety at Open Eye as well, expressing somewhat similar views. I think in general the feedback's been very positive. Obviously, some disagree with like the probabilities and the actual timeline. But they don't want to be in the race. Like, that is just true. I mean, and they're saying it. Yeah.

And it seems to me, if history is any guide, the only time that they will actually hit the pause button and try to stop it will be once it's too late. Once the killings begun, once they can see something actually catastrophic is underway. But what you're saying is it truly will be too late. That's like trying to stop the nukes when they're already in the air crossing the transatlantic, you know, skyway to annihilate the other countries. it's already mutually assured destruction at that point. There's the possibility of some smaller disaster on the way, you know, something like a hack of critical infrastructure, something like that causes damage,

that would allow people to rally against potential things happening in the future. But I think this is a bit distracting because there's going to be crazy pros and cons for everyone of the AI rollout anyway. Like you said, there's all the short-term stuff of jobs, deepfakes online, general just disruptions of what it means to be human, have human relationships, that sort of stuff feels like it's coming for all of us. I feel it coming. But I think that is separate from the big disaster, which you're right. Once the big disaster is in motion, it's already too late. I want to tell you that Anthropic did just issue a statement,

Wired reached out to them. It's pretty, it's not that telling, but this is what they've written. We have always been transparent that AI will bring both enormous benefits and unprecedented risks, said an anthropic spokesperson in a statement to Wired, citing the company's previous work on AI safety methods such as mechanistic interpretability. This work, quote, is also why we believe the world would benefit from the industry, adopting a lawful, verifiable way to work together to pace how we release powerful models. And then Wired points how open AI did not return their request for comments, so no comment

from them. So what are they saying anything at all there, Jacob? Do you read anything in that that I haven't gleaned? This seems pretty anodyne and unhelpful. It is pretty anodyne, but I do think the desire for verification, some mutually verified slowdown, is real. And there are people working at the labs who are working on how to prove to each other that they're actually, you know, obeying the rules of the slowdown. And this will be one of the hardest things with China, I think, is we have to somehow prove that all the parties are like doing what they say. No one's sneakily trying to get a one up in the in the back. But honestly, that technical work is,

doesn't seem difficult compared to the political problem. Like, I think once the political will is there, there's all these people and AIs now who are happy to try and solve the problem of verification. I think the question is just, can there be political will to have such a weird international arrangement? Well, how do you, if, you know, if Anthropic comes to you and says, Jacob, we want to elevate you to CEO. We're so inspired by what you've said here and your ethics.

And your task is to continue the AI growing and its capabilities fostering things like a cure for pancreatic cancer, Alzheimer's, all the diseases that are plaguing us right now, which, you know, could potentially be within reach if we give these incredibly intelligent things, these problems. Like, for example, they already, I read this morning, they already solved some math problem that no human has ever been able to solve. Like, they're actually, these AIs are making huge leaps and bounds and problem solving that humans have not been capable of reaching. So how would you get us to the place where we're curing the diseases, et cetera, but we are not at the point of superintelligence without, quote, alignment? Okay. I don't, I don't know the full answer. one thing I could try that I think is pretty good and definitely better than the current race is we make one more leap in progress on biology. You said with the math thing that's completely right, but already almost at the level of producing

revolutionizing most areas of math, of math. The same thing could be true of biology soon, and so that even without pushing the intelligence of the AIs too high, we could actually have big, big, big swamps of less intelligent AIs, but still like very good at biology, maybe even close to a human scientist, and make them help us solve all sorts of biological problems, potentially solve cancer, without pushing to extreme levels of capability, some sort of intelligent cap on how smart the models get. This is one idea. I'm not sure this is the ideal idea. I think there's still a lot of reasons to then try and push further. But that's like a proposal that seems a lot of,

better than racing ahead. How are we making them smarter? What is it that we're doing that we need to stop doing? Yeah, so its research is one thing. So that's kind of what I was doing. It's trying to look at the way we're currently growing these AIs and then tweak the recipe, like adjust it to make it a bit better. And that requires human intellectual labor.

The second way we're doing it is we're getting more raw resources. We're building more data centers. We're getting more data. and we're throwing all that into our AI training. So the thing you'd have to do is take your biology AIs and say, okay, do not use these AIs to make themselves smarter. Don't push the research that makes these things too much smarter. Instead, just use them for a whole host of other tasks and don't just, like, build up

the intelligence with the research. So they wouldn't be able to learn on their own if we stopped putting that input in. Yeah, or maybe they could learn biology on their own. But you wouldn't want to use them in particular to do AI research, and you wouldn't want to continue with the AI research. But yes, you're right. You make it sound like it's almost kind of simple to stop them from getting to the superintelligence point.

Honestly, yeah, it's pretty straightforward. Just like don't do the research. A glimmer of hope. Are you going to sleep well tonight? Should we be up worrying, biting our nails? or what's your level of confidence we're going to take this on? Oh, that's a great question. I really, I really don't know.

I mean, I did just tweet this out in like some, it was mostly a kind of fit of peak. I didn't expect it to go to this viral, and I don't have, like, great opinions about what's going to happen. I'm hopeful. I'm pretty hopeful. Okay. And you're sleeping at night.

You go to bed, you sleep your eight hours. You're able to. Yeah, it's been a bit busy. Still exist on this earth happily. I hope to have my hours exist normally. Yeah. What are you? Has this changed your probability of sleeping soundly? It's been a dark week and this added to it, but I'm a generally hopeful, optimistic person.

So I'm going to place my bet on humanity. Thanks to you, Jacob Coxon. We have a better shot today than we did earlier this week. Thank you. Thanks, Megan. Wow. What a day. What a story. God bless us all.

Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda. fear. Today's episode was brought to you by Super Sure.