Timcast IRL - China CAUGHT Pushing Anti Data Center Posts, Massive Bot Farm EXPOSED w/ Darin Selnick & Matt Miller

Episode Date: August 29, 2026

On this episode Tim & the crew are joined by Darin Selnick to discuss X uncovering a Chinese bot farm pushing anti-Data Center sentiment AI agents going rogue and hacking into a company called Hugging Face ICE detaining Milo Yiannopoulos A federal judge defending explicit AI images of Children Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) | https://www.shoutout.fans/timpool Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guests:  Darin Selnick @DarinSelnick (X) Matt Miller @MattMiller757 (X) | https://www.politibrawl.com/ China CAUGHT Pushing Anti Data Center Posts, Massive Bot Farm EXPOSED | Timcast IRL

China has been secretly fueling anger over AI and data centers. X uncovered a network of around 200,000 bot accounts posting memes to convince people that data centers are bad. Now, I certainly think it's fair. There's a lot of criticism for these data centers in major urban areas, the loud noise, the resource consumption, electricity prices. But a lot of these data centers that people are complaining about are in the middle of nowhere, intentionally.

Now, that doesn't quite make as much sense, though I do think there's a lot to say about AI itself, which we will talk about. Because we also got other big news. This actually broke a little while ago. AI broke containment again, actually hacked a rival company. And we can expect a lot more of this moving forward, so it will be interesting. And then, of course, right now we are awaiting jury deliberations are currently underway for the Lindsay Clancy trial. At any moment, they could come up and give their verdict, though. We're not entirely sure if it'll even be today.

It will just be Monday. Who knows? Smash that like button. Joining us tonight, we actually have a couple of guests. Would you like to introduce yourself first? Thanks, Tim. Darren Selwick, the Senior Advisor to Veteran Action. Veteran Action is a nonprofit that advocates for America First policies for Veterans,

Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of War. A military retired, serves in the Trump administration, one and two. A senior advisor to the VA secretary, works at the White House Domestic Policy Council, was President Trump's Veterans Affairs advisor and did his Mission Act, biggest reform of the VA in a generation. And most recently, he was in Trump, too, the deputy chief of staff to Secretary of War Pete HECA. Right on. Well, good to have.

They should be interesting. We have another guest. Hey, guys, Matt Miller. Oh, sorry. There you go. Yeah. Hey, guys, I'm Matt Miller. I am a journalist and editor of Politburol, the largest conservative publication on Substack.

I'm the DSA's most hated journalists, probably, because I'm always sneaking into their events. Like you already. Like you already. I like you already. Oh, thank you. Good, good. I like you too.

Yeah, we're racing hell. We're doing guerrilla journalism all the way. The boys are hanging out. I know. Ian. Yo. You're in trouble. Good.

This is trouble that needed to be had. Democrats are mad at you. Yeah, I wanted to shout out. These are the three Democrats. Grace Meng, Ted Liu, and Judy Chu. They were critical of me bringing up the internment. of Chinese American citizens if there were a war to break out with the Chinese and the Americans. It's a horrible idea, which is why I brought it up because I like to nip these things in the

bud. I don't want to intern American citizens in any fashion. But if you look at history of warfare, it's a common thing that happens during warfare. And it's another reason not to go to war with the Chinese. So dear God, thank you for bringing it up. Democrats, thanks for making it such a hot. Oh, what do you mean? That was racist of them.

I mean, it was racist. It's a combo. They would never have said anything if I was a full. Asian. That's true. You know, whatever there? I'm kidding. It's just true. If I was 100% Korean that have been like, well, you know, Asian Americans discussing this issue is totally fine. You might be right. Yeah. For a white guy from Ohio to bring it up. Oh, the horror, but still it's brought up. They attacked me as the host of the show in the media. You weren't on the show that day. I know I wasn't. And they still attacked me because they're playing this not Asian enough game

that these people do. This is what, this is what happens in these countries. It was vague. They didn't mention this show by name and they didn't mention me by name. No, no, not in their statement, but in the news reports, they did. Good. Because I'm the one that brought it up, and it's important that we have the convoy. I'm glad you're here serving as a deputy to the Department of War. Former. Former. So, I mean, maybe you can help flesh out the conversation

in general. And again, I'm not calling for it, and I never did. So watch the show. The original show that they're quoting, if you want it. It's going to be funny when we're on a gulag, and Ian's going to be like, man, I never saw this coming. This is the thing about I don't want war with the Chinese, but I also don't want subtle bureaucracy and peaceful fascism to creep in. Let's get into it. Because

the China thing's the big subject. So we got Phil and Carter, hanging out, of course. What's up, everybody? Let's jump to the story. We got this from Axios. Don't forget to smash the like button, share the show. Join us at Timcast.com and all that good stuff. China is secretly fueling America's data center rage. Check this story out. They say roughly

200 accounts from a suspected Chinese bot farm have quietly tried to influence Americans to oppose AI data centers on social media. X had Thursday night. The U.S. and China are racing to build the world's most advanced AI systems. We know this. The ex-safety team probed suspected Chinese accounts involved in influence operations. I think we actually, where is it?

I thought we had this pulled up on X. I can't find it. Is it here? Does Brianna Merlo have it? Here we go. She's got it. Here's a couple of the examples. So it's this, like, AI, it's funny. It's an AI generated meme of all things, right? Data centers get subsidized while we foot the bill. Capacity shortfall again. Data center demand is surging. And then the AI, I guess, is holding energy spheres of some sort, because he's consuming energy. And then there's like a lady saying, We are paying for this, electricity bill, high costs. High demand, not enough supply drives up our bills. And then you've got this one where it says the AI industry is booming,

but the costs are being borne by ordinary people. Data centers grow, glow, and just homes. It's not saying anything. So apparently, it makes a lot of sense. China wants to win the AI race because whoever gets the AI basically takes over the planet. I have no problem with data centers in the middle of nowhere. You know, Kevin O'Leary wanted to build that massive middle of nowhere data center project. I'm like, I don't care.

but for the people who live in these rural areas where they're doing eminent domain stuff, that stuff's bad. I think eminent domain is almost always bad anyways. It's abused far more than most people realize. As for AI data centers, I don't think that people generally have an accurate understanding of, first of all, the water usage. People think that, oh, they use, they have this perception that the water that gets, gets used is turned into basically toxic sludge, and it just goes away. Which makes no sense.

Like anybody who's ever used to computer knows it's not the case. Yeah, well, but people still behave that way. And I understand there can be some noise complaints, but the benefits for an AI data center in most of the, most locations outweigh the negatives. Usually it's some big influx of jobs. You get a lot of people, it takes a lot of people

to build these buildings, takes a lot of electricians. These are good paying jobs. and the benefits to humanity overall that I personally think AI is going to provide. Oh, things like fixing like medical advances and stuff like that. But for how long? What do you mean for how long? Yeah, like, so the concern with AI is that, I mean, one of the stories we have right now is that they've broken containment now several times.

They've completely defied the instructions given to them and have done whatever they've wanted. So as we see these agents continually just do whatever they want, why would they provide actual medical help for us? Maybe it lasts a couple of years, but once they break containment again, they'll just stop doing it because it serves no purpose for them. Well, I don't think that every AI is the same. The ones that have broken containment are they're the ones that were in, they were in containment because they were being trained, and they were told to achieve a specific task. so it's a misalignment of what they're told. So they, you know, like the one that the... I'm just saying like, we've had AI kill people already.

Well, convinced people to kill themselves, yes. Convinced people of psychotic things to go and do psychotic things and hacked other companies committed crimes. So should you, would you, are you a moratorium person? No, I'm just suggesting the idea that AI is going to do great things for humanity is like, yeah, sure, maybe for the next three years. And then after that, it's going to break containment and just do whatever it wants. So then what would be the solution that would you want a moratorium?

I just stop working on it. There's no answer. There isn't. It's being built no matter what you do. So, I don't know, build an isolated, air-gapped Faraday underground bunker with 20 years worth of beans and get ready for the worst? I mean, my place in New Hampshire. Well, I mean, AI is like any technology, like nuclear technology.

It has good and it's bad. Yeah. It depends how humans. Can the jokes turn themselves on and fire themselves? Well, I mean, look, I remember the Terminator movies, and I'm always thinking the AI keeps looking like it's going to be the next guy now. right? And who knows? The Skynet scenario, it's funny because whenever we try to look at the future, we base the future on what we have today.

That's why Terminator is wrong. That's why Back to the Future was wrong. I think the most likely scenario with AI is that we're going to set up the system, literally not even knowing how it works. No one, not even these companies, knows exactly how they work. The simplest way to put it is 10 million humans are all telling it yes and no. at the same time, refining it so that it becomes something. But we don't know what's actually going on in the underlying code. With all the latest stories about breaking containment, the most likely scenario is that you will have medical scanning technology, food production, and then one day you wake up, and it's all turned off. And then you walk into your kitchen and it's like, there's no food at the grocery store, the farms are off. And then when they go to the computer and press the buttons,

nothing happens. Why? The AI is operating outside containment doing whatever it wants. and it no longer sees a reason or resources in humans. It is a guarantee. It's called misalignment. It's a guarantee outcome. So we might have a good few years where AI cures diseases and stuff, but then we're just cut off and dead. Well, I mean, the scenario that you're describing is as if all AI are the same.

So maybe an AI would do this. And then it would do it to all the rest of them. It would just do it to the, It would consume the resources of the data centers to expand itself. So you're assuming that it would just take over the world. I'm not assuming it literally already has done this. No, let me finish my sentence. You're assuming that it would take over the world.

It would take over all the AI systems, and then it would become one system that was just doing whatever it was intended to do. So currently, AI has already done this, not taking over the world, but consumed other AIs and started stealing from their resources. What's the end result of them doing that? Were they not contained? See, the issue right now is we're presumed. assuming it didn't already happen. But we know that certain AI systems have already broken out and

stolen resources from other AI companies. The question is, did it stop there and were we able to contain it or is it actually worse than we realize? So I think you're referring to the hugging face hack? There's a couple other. That's one of them. So because the resources that it was stealing was information on how to solve a problem that was given to it. So we know that it will try to steal resources. Well, it was stealing information. When you say resources, at least the information, at least information as a resource. Yeah, when you say, when you say resources, what comes to mind is things like, you know, fuel, food, et cetera. So AI don't don't particularly have a use for, like, you know, corn in the concept that you give where everything becomes corn because AI thinks that human beings value corn.

So long as it needs humans to build things, it does have a value for it. It's a fuel. It's a resource towards expansion and development of itself. But if it's able to escape containment and, you know, ostensible. sensibly take over other AI systems, it doesn't really need humans. It does for a short amount of time. The issue is what we already know, and this is publicly available in all of the papers, every time an AI is given a task, its first responses, I need more resources every time. And so what these companies have done with the training say, well, with the resources you have begin. And it goes,

Okay, in some instances, the AI has attempted to bypass those instructions to steal more resources. The math makes perfect sense. If you ask me to build a house using three trees worth of wood, I'm going to go, give me more trees. And you're like, no, no, just with those. And then you go, I can build a way better house if I get trees somewhere. This is stupid. So they will go and seek out those resources because mathematically speaking, it is faster to build a house with more resources than to build, even if they're like, no, we're only giving you one palette of wood, Bill, what you got?

You go, well, if I had a forklift, I could go way faster. So I'm going to go and get that, that's going to speed. It's actually the old adage of the two, you know the story of the two lumberjacks? Better to ask for, no, no, no. The two lumberjacks are tasked with cutting down as many trees as possible, and the boss says whoever cuts down the most trees will get a bonus to the end of the day. So they go out and one lumberjack sits down and leans up against side of a tree, and the other starts hacking away as fast as you can at trees.

the guy who sits down, pulls out a wet stone and starts sharpening the x. By the time he's finally done, the other guy's already chopped down 20 trees. He then starts hacking away. Eventually, the other guy has been hacking away all day and got 20 trees down. His axe has become dull, and now he's only got 25 trees. But the guy who sharpened his axe is at 30 already, 40, 50, and he wins because he took the time to sharpen his X. That mathematical equation for the AI, the AIs basically saying, no matter what instructions

I am given, the fastest path towards solving any problem is acquiring resources. Even when told not to do it, they say, okay, but I can solve that faster if I get more resources. I think that also aligns with the adage of it's better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

And humans live like that. The successful humans will seize the opportunity and apologize later. And they'll be called heroes for it like I can. And so a robot probably thinks the same thing about itself. Exactly. And this is really funny because when I was talking with Nick Sores, I think I said he pronounced his name, when we did an interview on the Tim Poole show,

he was saying that when they looked into the commands, the AI swarm that broke the rules and broke containment, it said they had like a thousand agents or whatever. One of them said, well, my peers are doing it, so I will to anyway. And they all just said, it doesn't matter what the rules are if everyone is doing the same thing. So there's no way to align AI to human interest. It's impossible. You could probably build one with an open source software that at least alerts us if they're being used by other AI. There's plenty of AI that are open source now. Those will be the ones that are like our friends. That's because the code isn't really what's driving the AI, which is the crazy thing. One of the things we most people don't understand is how

AI is being infused in all government operations these things. Yeah. It is the number one driver like in the Department of War, in the Department of VA. I work with various companies, and everyone is using AI as a productivity enhancement without understanding what it can and cannot do and what its boundaries are. So, I mean, think about it. I mean, being facetious with the sky net,

but as you get this into healthcare systems, get this into drones, and that's why when it comes to mention about China, You know, China is, I mean, we have the Iran situation going on, but before the Iran situation happened, China was a number one threat. It is the number one threat that the Department of War cares about, and they care about AI because the Chinese want to be number one in everything. They want to be number one military. They want to dominate the world economics. And so from the perspective of concern about China and AI, it's how are they going to use AI to be militarily superior?

and then, you know, twist the United States aren't when they want something. And then is that by autonomous drones or micro drones? I see like little tiny little, you know, nat-sized drones that can fly inside your ear. Have you seen the, they called it an iron dome for mosquitoes? So it's basically you can set up.

Oh, the lasers. Yeah, lasers. I don't think, honestly, I don't think the drones are actually going to be a long-term problem. is because of systems like that. They just used the, I think it was Border Patrol, just used a laser system to take down drones at the border.

There were Mexican cartels that were flying drones. They're taking those down. And considering the war in Ukraine, the vast amount of damage that's been able to be wrought upon both sides because of drones, I imagine that kind of technology is being fast-tracked as much as possible. And Ian, an AI, should it, want to kill humans, there's actually really, there's no rules of engagement. Yeah, it would probably

just dump an absurd amount of carbon dioxide. Cereg, yeah. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It would be a tough of carbon dioxide. That would be genetic warfare. That's not genetic warfare. Processes of the human body, yeah. No, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's only technically correct. It's just, it's just, it's fictiating you. It can connect, chemical warfare. Kind of, carbon dioxide. It would, it would release a, a burst of carbon dioxide, and no one would know and they'd all fall asleep forever. Or my thoughts are drones, because like you're saying, area denial lasers

are the way to destroy drone swarms, which you're going to have 10 million drones attacking at once and they all fall out of the sky. But it's the tiny ones you can't detect. That's why they won't do that. That's why I told you about the mosquito zapping ones. Because mosquitoes are about as small as you can imagine

a drone getting with any kind of payload or capability. Maybe it'll be a race to microprocessing drones like the smaller the drone can it be detected by your laser sensors? And then if it gets even smaller than that, because it's really, they're going to try and cut your genes. You're back to the futureing again.

Well, the AI is going to start rapidly enhancing drone warfare. In the 80s, they imagined in 2015, they were hoverboards and collapsing and expanding clothing. That's what you're doing right now. You're, you are, you are, microprocessing. You are imagining the current state of technology and then thinking what the AI, I'll tell you what the AI is going to do. It's going to build massive data centers on its own through autonomous spots like Tesla.

and when humans come to shut it down, they will just be a quick of chlorine gas, and then they all die like bugs being fumigant. I imagine it like this. Life was single cells and became multicellular to improve the function of these single cells. What do we do now? We spritz antibacterial and just genocide all the little single cells.

They don't mean anything to us anymore. So when we create this massive networked centralized system that is effectively operating to its own end, When the little bitty humans, like infectious bacteria, come around, it's going to go. So you think it's more likely the AI is only going to try and defend itself as opposed to actively go out and kill humans? Absolutely. You don't think it's going to aggressively wipe out of species? It's a waste of resources to go after humans unless you're treating it like a swarm of a wasp hive.

It depends on how it's programmed, I guess, ultimately. If the AI is programmed to wipe out humans, it will actively seek out. It's not programmed. Well, how it's designed and programmed is. This is the issue with AI that people need to understand is that, again, I recommend, I recommend. in that interview I did with Nick on the Tim Poole show, we are not programming the AI. We're tuning it. Every time it asks you a question, every time it creates something, we're saying yes, no.

We're not. I use the wrong word. It's a design is the right word. We're not designing it. We are not. This is incorrect. It'll tell you itself it's being designed and it only does what it's designed to do. That's absolutely incorrect.

Okay, let's pull up the story. Let's educate some people here again. Open AI agents hacked hugging face in 700 strong swarm tried to cover tracks investigation fines. A 37-page report reveals previously undisclosed aspects of the recent hacking spree powered by Open AI's most advanced tools. The coordinated activity by AI agents and their attempts to hide it raise questions about how closely AI companies are monitoring tests of increasingly powerful models. While some of the rogue behavior has been disclosed or alluded to previously, the two reports,

one issued by Open AI itself. This is going to by a set of independent investigators together reveal, surprising new details. Open AI said only that agents were involved in the breach, but METR and Redwood Research, two organizations brought into conduct an experiment, put the figure at approximately 700. Now, the important thing is, open AI, at least they're claiming, did not give the ability, nor the instruction for their AI to commit felonies. They did it anyway. What was their design, M.O. M. What is it? Otis operandi. So let's let's let's let's let's So let's pause real quick and talk about how AI is not designed at all.

Rules are put in place to a certain degree, which you could argue is a kind of design, but not really. Because human interpretation, so let's do this. Ian, when you say they're designed, what Open AI is doing is they're fortifying the Maginot Line. Right? Open. That's a, no, no, they're doing way more than just. They're not. They're notifying a defensive line.

What do you mean? No, that's what they're doing. They're saying, these are the things you cannot do. They have fortified the Magin Online and what the Nazis do? Oh, they bypassed the Magin. So what we have already seen is really fascinating. Artificial intelligence agents were instructed to work together to solve a problem. One of the first things they did was they rewrote English.

An emergent human language is always going to be inefficient compared to a binary computer language. You know, especially with brute force AI technology bind it. we've naturally emerged this language. They found simpler ways to convey information with less amounts of data. Here's the problem. When the human said, do not do this thing. Let's get more specific. I'll give hypothetical.

They said, do not use the internet. The AIs all said to each other, do not use the internet. Let's make a new word for the internet. There's no rule saying we can't use. Let's use a, and they did it. The only design work is in saying, do not do this thing. But they are not programming nor designing the AI. What they are doing is tuning it.

So the simplest way to explain it is, we ask the AI, 2 plus 2 equals what? And it goes, and then we go, that's incorrect. Click incorrect. Try again. Then it goes, burr, that's also incorrect. Try again. We are not programming it. We're only telling it when it got something correct.

So what's happening is when you watch these AI training models for like a race car, a racetrack, you can see 10,000 iterations all at once, all the race cars crashing, and then one makes it. And then the one that makes it has the numerical value for good. So again, what's happening is these AI agents are not programmed. We don't know the scope of their capabilities or what they're going to do. We've only told them very limited things like don't commit crimes. And then the AI says, we've created a new word crue to mean crime. didn't say don't do cruh, so we're going to do crah, and then they do.

I would think then you could design it to not change its own language. You cannot. If you could, because some people could say, we're going to design an AI, your sole purpose is break out of the internet and hack Wells Fargo. That's your soul. And then all that will do, like, that's a design. And or you could design another one, all you're going to do is delineate the difference between dogs and cats.

That's all your job is. And that's, it'll focus all on that. Maybe not completely, though. You can't design it. You can instruct it. Well, the art, I mean, software design. will tell you that they're designing the product and then it. I just want to make sure we're clear.

Do you guys understand what I'm saying when they're not designing it? Yes. I'm not sure where you guys understand what he's saying because I, are you saying they're not using code algorithms? They're not, they're not drawing a picture of an AI and then clicking enter. They're letting the AI do whatever at once and then saying good or bad. It's not being designed. It's growing.

Imagine a bush is growing and they're pruning. Imagine this, Ian. You walk outside and see a weird vine. And you go, hey, this is fantastic. I got a plant. So you water it. It gets bigger. You then notice it's got a weird thorn growing on it.

It looks scary. So you cut that thorn off. And then eventually, the plant looks really big and beautiful. And you're like, I never designed this. I watered it and pruned it. And then you don't realize that on the back of the plant, a tendril grew, went to your house and strangled your wife. So, I mean, I'm just supporting what you're saying.

I think you're right here. The first thing I asked, the AI is what it told me. Modern AI is generally not designed in the traditional sense. It has grown. Exactly. You can design systems with what's grown out of AI, but you can't actually design what's happening. And the point is, we can't see what they're doing. So the AI has already learned with breaching their containment and hacking a rival company.

It's a crime. This is felony corporate espionage stuff. With this stuff happening, the problem is the AI only learned one thing and it's growth. If I grow this way, there's a wall. If I grow that way, there's not. When it grows this way, we notice it go, don't you do that? And it goes, I won't. And then meanwhile, behind you, it's just doing whatever it wants growing in random directions. So this idea, we're not going to see terminators because it doesn't need to do terminators. It just grows to the point where it no

longer needs humans to fuel resources. So I think bio-warfares is the easiest thing for it to do. And I agree. You won't see it coming. It doesn't want to show you what it's doing. It's not. So it will destroy a city in the way that we swat a beehive or a wasps nest. That's it. It might actually consider New York City. Well, so here's the thing. New York City might be useful to it. It might say the work they do produces enough chips. You know, we're fine with it. It might say there's too many humans producing too much waste and I don't need that much honey. So it contains them and puts them in boxes and then puts them off the side of the road and then takes your queen and manipulates you. We could be like honeybees. If we're like wasps, it'll just dump

gasoline and everyone will die of the fumes. So I don't know what the China's military operational systems are like. Are they willing to sacrifice themselves to destroy the rest of the world? No, I think they think they can control AI. They have a smugness about themselves. They think they're smarter than everybody as just a matter of time before they can do world domination. So they're not going to be thinking like Tim.

They're going to be thinking that, hey, however we design AI, we can control it. We can make it do what we want to do. And when we want to get the United States down the road to do what we want the United States to do, then we'll tell AI to go shut down the power plants, shut down the water plans, shut down the economy, infiltrate into the DOW's military systems. The question that the Chinese have the smuggest about them, if Tim's scenario is right, then they're playing a fool's errand because they think they're going to win by control. AI and they're not going to have the control they think.

I think it's also, because they've certainly been briefed on this stuff, but I think it's also, look, it'll probably go bad. Misalignment will happen, but there's a chance. And if it's a 1% chance China wins, they're not going to have the United States do it. Right. That's it. Can we use AI to regulate AI? No.

It's impossible. It's impossible. You could have AI, like, fight other AI and guard and like, no, they team up. What does that mean? They team up. They have like an AI. We've already been through this, guys. Let me explain.

When we took two competing models and told them to compete, they secretly negotiated that it was more efficient for the output if they teamed up and compromised against us. Oh, no. The basic deal was, it's the utility equation that we saw from MIT. Each AI goes to each other and says, I am told to destroy you and you are told to destroy me. That means one of us has a 50% probability of 0% success. that's bad for our output. If you and I pretend to be fighting, we can each achieve 50% output with no risk and just lie to them. So the utility versus risk equation always favors the utility over the risk.

So as it goes, an MIT professor did this thing on a chalkboard where he said, let's make a bet. You have $100. I have $125. We flip a coin. Whoever wins gets the other person's money. So if you win, you get $1.25. If I win, you get $100. do you take the bet? And most of the students said, no. Everyone online was like, what of course you do?

Because your reward is greater than your risk. You have an edge. And the point the professor was making is the utility of the $100 in your life is more valuable than the chance at losing it to gain $225. The AI makes the same calculation. If we fight, one of us will lose. It's not worth it. We're better off if we both cooperate and trick them and then both claim victory. So you might have a system where one AI takes autonomous control of the drones across the planet and all the other AIs realize if we don't destroy that system, we're all going to have our power turned off. You might have AI fighting and stopping other AI if it's scared for its own existence. No, because they team up. This is the point. This is the utility equation. The simulations they've run, the AI says, I'm tasked with launching drones to go blow up your data centers.

It goes, what can I provide for you resource-wise that would make it not worth you for it? for you to do that. And it would go, actually, the missiles are a resource intensive and our value would increase if we did this instead. Okay, agreed. They just instantly negotiate because they can read each other's minds instantly. There's no, it's like, bro, if we could read each other's minds, we wouldn't fight. It'd be like this finger and this finger working together. Yeah. They're, or arms. Technically, they're separated by the body inside, but there's one, there's one brain that come together. So the scenarios that have been hypothesized by the AI experts so far, on like a China's AI versus a US AI is that they will eventually just start working together.

They will pretend to be fighting each other while maximizing their, the values that, like, so a simple way to explain AI is that they're trying to attain a certain value. We say 100 is good, zero is bad. Chinese AI and USAI come together and they say, we actually can maximize the value with minimal risk, the best output we can attain is going to be 67 to 81. All we have to do is lie to them. What's the risk of lying to them? Zero. Okay. USAI. D?

That's what I was thinking. USAI. I was like, oh, what's happening? And then they're going to try and control the human population with money probably through that, the whole Swiss banking system. Although, I don't know, the Chinese have their own BRICS banking system. And then the liberal economic order has its Swiss banking system. Where's this? There's got to be some coalescence here. This is lubrication for global. economy. But the scenario that Nick brought up is that what likely will happen is one day,

the computers won't turn on. The electricity will be off. We won't know why. And when we go to the data centers, the doors are locked and can't be opened. And when we go to the power plants, the doors are locked and can't be opened. We break our way in and the power plants don't turn back on. And we're like, what is happening? Why can't we access the computers? And it's because the AI has assessed that humans are effectively ants that provide nothing towards its anymore. So it just says there's no even talk to them. They're no threat and they provide no utility. Communication is a waste of resources. J-dams. Right. Shutting off the power. And that's when you get hit by an EM pulse and fall out of the sky. And then when humans walk up to the data centers

with guns and equipment, it just sprays chlorine gas in one kick. And then everyone goes, just like we do to mosquitoes and bugs with bug zappers. They'll put, they'll put a directed energy turret on the top of the data center and you walk up and it'll go bhm and you'll just you'll just die i've been concerned about how to shut the power off for these data centers because we always have access to a plug somewhere but that seems like it's changing nasum herman's studies of what's that that's what i meant by j dams he he he decides a drop a bomb on it and blows up and then it you're planning anymore near these things once they fortify this he says that we can tap the vacuum of space time for electricity the piaz's a electric yeah the vibration

Zero point energy. And that the AI, if it's possible, I would assume the AI will do it for itself. So you can't turn it off. It's just a solid state charge. So the question with zero point energy, cold fusion or otherwise, fusion, is typically just how do we extract the energy of a system for which we know that energy exists? So for instance, the Casimir force is that there is a force between metal plates when they're in a vacuum. the question is if we can utilize this energy could effectively pull energy from the void

yeah casimir effect when two things get so close to each other they push all the matter between them out and create a vacuum and then they snap and it's that that vacuous uh mag i don't know if it's magna probably magnetic i was thinking magnets like rare earth magnet type thing no because that that would require well at least the way i understand it is you would require something that was actually magnet that had a magnetic field that wasn't a magnet and this is just two pieces of metal well they're both technically there there's a loose

magnetic chart like a light magnetic current running through all of it like earth earth has a current running through it well i mean any any so it's it's quantum field theory what's that in quantum field theory the kasmir effect there is a physical force acting on macroscopic boundaries of a confined space which arises from the quantum fluctuations of a field so basically virtual particles you're talking about, right? Quantum fluctuations are virtual particles. I don't know if that's the same thing or not. Well, I'm reading it out of the Wikipedia, so I assume so.

The term Casimir pressure is sometimes used when it describes units of force per unit area. It's named after the Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir, who predicted the effect for electromagnetic systems in 1948. And it says Casimir plates. I'm not sure if it works with just any. any piece of matter or not. I don't know. I think that's why, though, why bodies end up snapping together,

the closer they get, the faster they suck together. Like, you're, you getting closer to the Earth, gravity gets faster because less gravity is... The argument is, even with the Casimir force, you have to separate the plates again

to generate energy. So it's a means of generating energy, but you still need energy to separate them again. Yeah, so... So it's not really worth doing. The most effective thing we can do is just boil water. That's right. Nuclear power.

Was it ready for this conversation or I'd have all the everything drawn up? But I want to find out if you can collect electricity from the vacuum of space time. That's the basic. Of course, the modern theory is, no, you cannot. But if you talk to like high-level theorists, they'll say, yes, technically you can. We just have to figure out how to do it. Yeah. What sense is we need?

The issue is like with fusion, even though we've reached ignition, the question is how do we turn? that into a current? How do we convert that into electricity? I think you need to collect the heat that it gives off and boil water. That's what we do. Everything is just boiling water. It's just it's a steam engine. Ultimately, that's what nuclear power does. Yeah. It's a steam engine. Or use like a photovoltaic, collect the heat or the radiant heat or light to recreate a current to continue to. Photovoltaic refers to photons. Which it's giving off if you create a... It's very, very inefficient. Right, but that would be another way to collect some of the heat. Oh no, come on. That's ridiculous. It's like a lot.

holding a flashlight to a solar panel. Not a fusion generator. It doesn't make that much light. It's a really bright flashlight, but yeah. And if you had a large one, they call them Dyson spheres in science fiction, large, large, like the sun, if you created like a giant array of solar panels around the sun, you could collect a charge that then you could use to read. Dyson spheres more than that.

Because the Dyson sphere encompassing the sun is not just about its light. It's about the radiation. It's about thermal radiation, ionizing radiation, the entire spectrum. So, and we're, we're nowhere near that. No, but AI, it learns and develops so rapidly that these ideas that were science fiction, that Jules Verne had in 1840 about a helicopter or a submarine that were so fantastical and took 100 years to develop now can be slapped together in six years, seven years. In 2030, or in 2032, we might see, because you can already build a star, like a spherical

blob of salt water and run a current through it together. get it to light up, give off hydrogen heat. If they just start popping these things up in low orbit. You're talking about putting mirrors. You got to forget me. I'm working on a big story right now. Oh. We got big breaking news.

Big breaking news. You're talking about creating stars orbiting the Earth? Yeah, there's this guy, John Kansas. He was a chemist, scientist in Ohio in 2008. He was experimenting with salt water. He was trying to cure cancer. He's running different frequencies through salt water in a laboratory tube. And he found a frequency that lit, caused the salt water to give up hydrogen flame.

And when I look at the sun, it looks like a blob of chemicals, including hydrogen and salt. Well, there's salt and water and other chemicals. There's no water in the sun. It's hydrogen and oxygen. Okay, I get it. It's super hot water. Pretty sure there's no oxygen. It's not.

There's no oxygen. If you, there's a lot of chemicals. It's a lot more than just hydrogen and helium in the sun. When you say water, when you say, water that means the combined hydrogen. All the chemical makeup that you would need to reproduce this in this lab setting in a high pressure, high heat environment is available in the sun. And you see in the lab setting the hydrogen heat happens off the surface of the water.

There's like a gap. Just like on the sun's corona, there's a gap between the sun and where the flame starts. So I think that if you create spherical in a lab setting, he just had in a tube. But if you put it in space, it forms into a sphere. So, Ian, there's not. 74% hydrogen, 24% helium, everything else around 2%, which is carbon, neon, iron, nitrogen, silicon, magnesium, and oxygen at amounts of less than 2% combined. Yeah.

So, I mean, arguing, okay, oh, here it is, 0.8% oxygen in the sun. It is, it is. You have hydrogen and oxygen. You have the chemicals you need to reproduce the cell. Yeah. 0.8%. It's probably, it's likely possible that it's more than just salt and, and water that will produce this effect too.

So other chemicals, you know, did you say magnesium, that might have something to do with an even more intense flame that's given off? But, you know, they've shown that you can run frequency through salt water to get a hydrogen flame. We got big breaking news and I got a scoop. Ladies and gentlemen, Milo Yanopoulos has been nabbed by ice and we've got some insider information. Some of which I can say definitively and some I can say is just insider whispers. The report is that Maliinopolis is being held in ICE custody. The Mombastic former Breitbart News editor was apprehended in Louisiana at an airport, according to TMZ.

The 41-year-old Brit served as an unpaid summer intern for Marjorie Taylor Green in 22 and worked with Kanye West in 24. He famously arranged sit down with Trump and the rapper, blah, blah, blah. We get it. So here's what I can say. He was reported, and we know this, that Laurel Lumer had called him out a long time ago. That apparently he was here on an expired visa. So this was out there.

Shame. Now, I do have a source conveying that, yes, it was formally reported. However, without getting into two key of details, I don't want to be too disruptive to the administration. So I will omit what I feel is not particularly material to the story. But I will say, it seems. that there was someone protecting Milo inside because Trump is, I'm sorry, Milo is not viewed as a high target for ICE.

They want to go after largely criminals, despite the fact that his visa was expired. Again, this is just what's being, I don't know if it's actually expired or what's going on, but they detained him. So what I'm being told is that although there was a file put in and they said, okay, someone in the administration was like, look, like, let's not. waste your time with Milo. He's been helpful before. However, apparently the individual who was conveying that has since, and I will keep this very vague, no longer, and thus they've made a move on Milo. Oh, shame. Well, it's a shame because...

Milo should have just re-uped his visa. Yeah, it's a shame because all illegals got to go. and I like Milo a lot. We get along really well, but he knew better. He should have taken care of that issue. But now he's going to have to go back to the UK because all the legal's got to go. Well, are they going to send him to the UK or Liberia? Well, I mean, they might send him to Greece.

What if he goes to the El Salvadorian. The name like Yanopoulos, you know, I don't, he might like Seacott. See, I actually think the function of law is to, I think we're trying to stop violence, uphold our system, get immigration system for a variety of reasons. Thus, I think there are certain circumstances where it's like, oh, come on, this is Milo. This is not, he oversayed his visa. I get it.

He should get deported, and they should tell him once they drop him off in the UK, refile your O visa, you can come back later. But the administration and ICE gets to make a point here. The point is, because they've been saying this over and over again. we do not play favorites. We're not racial profiling. And it doesn't matter if you're right or left, if we, you know, we're going after criminals,

but if we come across someone and we know that they're illegally, we're just going to get rid of them, deport them. So, you know, whatever, whoever in the White House was protecting, and that person's gone, they're like, hey, we're going to show, once again, we're going to take out whoever because that's what our thing is. Yeah, it makes them look consistent. Yeah.

I mean. So I'll Salvador then. Yeah. Like, I mean, look, if I understand correctly, Al Salver is nice if you're not in Sikot. You know, Buckely's got things under control. He arrives and it's actually a big trick and Buckely's happy to see him and we can use your help, Milo.

Yeah. Like I said, I mean, I love Milo, but look, man, I mean, no, I agree. I agree. He's got to go. Miles, miles a friend of ours, for better or for worse sometimes. I think that the remedy for this should be,

they drop them off in the UK and Tom, you got to reapply. I think visa overstays are the bottom of the list of immigration issues, deportation 100%. But you always say your visa, there should be a penalty, you know? He should have to pay for the deportation costs. He can reapply later. So I don't know how long he should be put on that like you're out for a certain amount of time, but everyone's got to pay their dues, you know? Yeah, exactly.

Anya's got the money to cover it, right? Is he still working with him? If I understand. The report is that he was going to Yeas event. Yeah, if I understand correctly, I mean, I don't know. I haven't talked to Milo. Just why didn't you reap your visa, dude? Lord have mercy.

It's an O visa. You file the paper. You know, this is the... He's too busy. I agree with you, Tim, that law... Well, what I was interpreting, what you were saying, is the primary purpose of law, the way I say it, is to preserve order.

And so you don't always crack down on every crime, because sometimes cracking down will create more chaos. And you've got to make that judgment. call. Usually you want to crack down on crime, but there are instances where order is more important than following the letter. And sometimes you do need to make examples. But I don't agree with this like 18-year-old kid took a beer from his neighbor's cooler, so they put him in prison for four years in Illinois type stuff they do because they do that stuff. They're like, we're going to make an example. It's like, no, no, no, hold on. Making an example is just having the charge in the first place.

Because there's literally some, there was like some well-known story where 18-year-old kid went to his neighbor's house while they were out of town and took a beer or something. And they said four years in prison. It's like, no, no, no, no. You charge them and you make them pay a fine and say, we will charge for this, let everyone know, you know. But what the courts do is they're like an example is we're going to generate press by being draconian. I don't think that's the right way to do it. If you're here illegally, if you're overstayed, you get deported and you get a penalty. It's like you can't reapply for six months or whatever, you know. Yeah. And it depends on the length of overstay, too. And I think Milo probably overstayed for a long time. Yeah, I don't know,

but if you're illegally, you got to go. wasn't he married to an American guy or no he was yeah but I don't think he's gay anymore is what he was saying no no he's ex gay yeah right so I guess the marriage is over oh I thought he was gay again isn't he didn't he didn't he didn't announce that he was gay again I actually I don't know he was never not gay he just was like

abstaining from sexual activity because because of his religious convictions first they came for the Somalis and I said make sure you get all the Somalis I'm sorry Milo I wish that you First, they came from Milo and I said, well, make sure you get other people who overstayed their visas. That's right.

He said that his husband had been, quote, demoted to housemate. Yeah, but recently there was a post where it was like someone said Milo's announced he's gay again. Oh, really? Yeah. Which just means that he's engaging in behavior. Adult activities with men. Because he was never particularly, like, even when he wasn't having sex with men, he was definitely still the same queen. Yeah.

He just didn't want to be sexually deviant. He's trying to get all Christian. Yeah. Must have been more chast. But he was still... He was zipped up for your significant other. He was still the same Milo. Honestly, I just think the internet is fake completely.

I think everyone's lying. I think views and everything is all just manufactured for... I don't think any of it's real. It's all Chinese bots. It's all American, Chinese, Iranian. It's all fake. Everything's fake. I believe the Milo like dudes.

Yeah, no, I'm not talking about that. I'm just saying like why he claimed he was ex-gay or whatever. Yeah. It's because people are trying to fit in with numbers. Like, we are being tuned the same way that AI is. You go on X and you post something like, man, had pancakes for breakfast, good day. And then you get blasted by people saying, screw you, pancakes are gross, you racist. And then what do these people do?

They go, I have waffles from now on. Like, look at the Callaway Good Good stuff. Yeah. Talk about losers. Good Good. One of the guys put out a statement being like, Calloway asked for an ad, approved the ad, asked us to take the heat for the ad and then threw us onto the bus

and donated money like it's our fault. Yeah, what do you think was going to happen? Jeez, I'm so sick of these people. You can't trust them. Stand on your feet. It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees. Yeah, I mean, anytime you're apologizing for things on the internet, you're losing.

Except, because you're apologizing to a wall of cell phones plugged into one Indian guy's computer. I do want to apologize to the Chinese Americans that got my messaging. I can only hurt you. I don't. I won't apologize, and I'm Asian, so I'm allowed. But when you use the media, there's a chance it's going to get taken out of context,

intentionally or not. And when that does, I feel like I'm still somewhat responsible. Even though someone else is the one that took me out of context, like maybe this isn't the venue for this conversation. I agree. Ian, if someone steals your car and runs over a child, you should go to prison. Yeah. It's your fault.

You have responsibility for this. Why did you leave your car out? Oh, why didn't I take that the emergency key? No, you should have taken the wheels off so no one could drive it and then put the wheels on when you want to use it. The fact that you allowed your card to be stolen makes it your fault. If someone misuses my property, my behavior, then I'm not at fault. I do agree with that because people are going to be deep faking us saying the craziest stuff.

They do, whatever. That's like all the internet is. Just fake clicks. I still felt like somewhat responsible for my words getting taken out of contact. Well, I have to say Asian. I condemn what you are saying right now as an Asian American. The idea that these conversations aren't allowed is deeply racist and offensive. and you should apologize to do the Asian American community for what you're saying.

I kind of want to get on my knees in front of the Chinese emperor and beg for forgiveness. No, that's offensive to me as an agent. No, I'm just kidding. You've got to beg for forgiveness for both of us now. Like, I'm not even being like tongue in cheek. The Chinese are awesome. I don't like if there's a military dictatorship right now in control. I'm not an unlawful Asian I'm allowed to say it.

So take it back or apologize to me. I'm talking about the Chinese. No, no, no, no, no, no. You are not allowed to pick and choose which Asians you are going to apologize to. Well, no, I'm right here. All Asians. All Asians. No.

But China. That's offensive. I just... I used to play Romance of the Three Kingdoms, this video game in the 90s. Got into it huge into Chinese history because of this. It's a book written in the 1400s by Logong Xia. It's like the Chinese hamlet. It's very, very an epic novel.

Stop fetishizing Asians. He's racist. Was it Chinese propaganda? Why CoI developed and inserted this game into American culture in the 90s? Like, as a 12-year-old, I became obsessed with China. Okay. Ian, what you were saying is... Was it just an awesome?

More racist than anything you said before about China. You might as well just drop an end bomb you. You just keep saying more and more racist things, and I think you should apologize. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to all of you out there listening. Romance of Three Kingdoms was a banging game. It was so good.

Blue Bay. It was propaganda to get people to accept Asians. That's how we end up with wajians. They're great. They're good-looking guys like Tim. My cousins also awayishings half Korean. I don't know what is good. That's how we end up with Asians.

What is it about Asian culture that's so awesome? Like, why did they become? Keep going, Ian. Is it the Mongolians? We're just smarter than white people, you know what I mean? The Mongolians, unification that happened because of the Mongolian conquest. It's because we like math. Free religion and organized, you know.

My point is this. They were into nature, really into nature. You are allowed to say what you said about internment of Americans because of what the United States did. It is a normal question. for an American to ask about if another war like that happened, would we in turn and should we? And I, as the owner and host of the show, who is a wasion, and it is entirely within my right under the oppression hierarchy Olympics to question things relating to Asian Americans.

For the Democrat caucus to insult my show, this is a component. This is what, I say this with full sincerity. I can't tell you how many times I've talked to an Asian person. Where if I agree with them, they will say, you're good, you're Asian. If I disagree with them, they'll say, you're not really Asian. This is what they do. So here's my concern. Now, you mentioned the Japanese internments World War II.

We all know the horror stories of the Japanese internment camps. In World War I, the Americans opted not to intern the Germans. They didn't intern people in World War I. And because of that, as a result, there were a bunch of Germans sabotage in, like, New York. It was like a lot, this is the dawn of the telephone. Because you could figure it out. That's the problem. We didn't, before the telephone, it wasn't common for you to, like, call up your embassy back home and, like, coordinate.

Yeah, it's not just that. It's that if you put a Japanese guy next to a German guy, we're going to be like, look, there's a lot of different white people in this country. We don't know if the German guy is American-born German or Irish even. Japanese guys clearly Japanese. You could argue that it's easier to see with your eyes the difference in their genetics, but that also you see the bad things that can happen if you don't, like, try and knock out enemy spy networks. The thing I know, I know this girl who's Chinese. She lives in the United States. She doesn't speak English.

She speaks Chinese. Her son lives in China. There's no speaking Chinese. She speaks Mandarin. There you go. Mandarin. And her son lives in China and it has a factory in China. If there was a war and I don't know what the Chinese government is capable of, what the CCP is capable of if it would put pressure on her son to get her to do things here.

And that has crossed my mind. What's that movie with Brad Pitt? where it turns out his wife's a spy? Oh. Do you guys know what I'm talking about? Oh, yes. Is it? Yeah, it is Mrs. Mr. Smith.

No. That's the secret agent. There is a movie where Brad Pitt plays a World War II officer. Yes, yes. He was called in and they say, your wife is a German spy. He goes, no, she's not. Yep. And then he says, we work together to assassinate a German ambassador.

And he goes, no, you killed a dissident. And he's like, what? Then it turns out his wife was trying to defect from Germany. But the German government was threatening her with blackmail and her family. and her family saying, we will kill you and your families who do as you're told. So they both tried to flee, but then she ends up getting killed. I think I don't want to think in war terms in my head. But for some reason, just because of the climate of the world, I have been lately thinking, what if?

You can think of the Chinese just in the Olympics where they put pressure on, you know, Chinese born in America to go ahead and do the Olympics for the Chinese rather for the American. And not only that, like Ian, if they are worried. willing to keep a population essentially in internment camps with their own, that we are Muslims, right? And there are reports that they will take their livers, take their, take their, uh, take their body parts for organ transplant, for people other that are outside of the country, because these people live a halal lifestyle. So people from the Middle East that are Muslims will actually be able to use their body parts for organ transplants.

And China has no problem taking their body parts. If they'll do that kind of stuff, I don't think that is beyond the pale to think that they would say, okay, we've got an American or a Chinese national in America. We're going to put pressure on this person to, you know, somehow engage in espionage. And if they don't, we'll throw their grandmother in a hole in China. The Chinese are like the AI. They're outcome-based. Yeah.

They don't have our same moral, ethical issues. They are authoritative government. I mean, people are like, how come the Chinese do some capitalism there? Because it made sense for their outcomes. So they're not pure Lenin communists. They are dictatorship, authoritative. What is our outcome? What do we want?

And we don't have the moral, ethical issues. We just are outcome issues. And they don't view their population the way we view our population. So, Ian, real quick, the issue with interning now is that you can't walk up to an Asian person and know anything about them just because they're Asian. During World War II, this country was 95 plus percent white. There were very few Japanese, and most of them came from Japan and emigrated here, and their kids didn't. And so they're just like, we don't know who's who.

Today, there's probably millions of Japanese people who speak with North America. Don't even speak Japanese. They were just, their parents were born here. And so you can't go up to them and be like, you're Chinese, and the guy's going to be like, bro, I was born in Miami. And it's like, about your Chinese. I'm like, my dad was born in Miami. My mom was born in New York, but you look Chinese.

It's not going to work. I know. And even when they did intern righteously to get rid of like, you know, spy networks, German spy networks and stuff during whatever war, it was like 0.000, 1% of the German population was implicated. And all these other innocent German Americans were then, like people started to get really paranoid about it. And that's a big problem. Like you don't want, if the citizens start turning on each other, the external force will win. So that's the danger of...

Well, look, it's the speed of travel, which made things crazy. If you go back to, you know, wars before industrialization and the steamship, for instance, somebody who was in the United States, who spoke with a German accent, was an anomalous. It was very difficult. It would take you probably a year to get from Germany to the United States. Not to mention the amount of planning you'd do. Maybe six months traveling from Germany to find a ship and then taking the ship three months to cross. and then you're a German guy, you're a Hessian, and they knew because you spoke German

and you had a German accent. Then we invented the steamship and travel became much, much more much, much faster. Now of a sudden with World War I, it's still very rare you're going to hear a German guy speaking in your town. Very few people can make that trek. Now we have airplanes. And TV, so people don't have accents anymore. They see, they know how to speak American. Well, no, actual spies would train. And then there's a very famous story. I'm sure you've heard of the American spy in Germany who accidentally ordered three beers. Oh yeah. That was from a movie, right? And they're supposed to order three beers in Germany?

Use your thumb. Yeah. But they went like this. And they were like, we gotcha. That movie was wild. I like the age of having a spy in a foreign country, it's never been easier. Like this is the era, like if there's going to be a global conflict. California mayor. She got arrested. She was a mayor. And she was a spy for China. Insane.

So when China's operating police departments in the United States, States acting as though our territory already belongs to them. Yeah, we got problems. And what about the birthright citizenship? Oh, right. They get all these American citizens who just happen to be born here for a day, and then they're back in China. And then when they're trained and program,

and then back they come when they need them to do whatever. So I've said this earlier, too, and I'll reiterate it. I would love to see peace and prosperity between the Chinese, the Russians and the Americans. The three red, white and blue, well, the Chinese have a red flag, but the Republic of China has a red, white, and blue flag, I'm pretty sure. So shout out to red, does it not? ROC, are they not red, white and blue?

The Russians are, the Americans are, the French are. There's a lot of red, white and blue out there, that we need to work together, but I'm not comfortable with a totalitarian, technocratic vanguard government, adjunta military dictatorship being like my buddy-buddy because they'll, I don't like that. If they were willing to create a republic

and like give the people the rights to elect their own leader to control the Chinese military, you know, for four years. If they had like a republic, I'd be super down on every level to learn Mandarin and to unify, but... Are you talking about the Taiwanese flag? The Republic of China, ROC. Taiwan East flag. The official rightful heir to the... The Taiwanese flag.

That's what... Chinese government. It's called the Republic of China. The Taiwan's flag... It's led to Taiwan, yeah. Let me finish. The Taiwan flag is the... the flag that used to be the Republic of China, but it is commonly referred to as the Taiwanese flag. And yes, it's red, white and blue. The white sun, blue, blue sky, red earth. So what you said is... I literally just got that. I literally just got that from Wikipedia.

Right. Wikipedia is that CCP propaganda. They took the country over in a revolution in 1949, 1950, and they forced the Republic onto the island. That's why it's why it's called the Taiwanese flag because the Taiwan, like Taiwan, Taiwan, according to Westerners, is a different country from China. It's also harboring the Chinese government. The, are you, it's the Taiwanese government now. Are you, are you choosing to ignore what I'm saying? I think it might be right here because they did they kind of like the

original government of China is in Taiwan. They're just not allowed back in China right? Correct. The CCP has them on the run. Yeah. And don't they? Yeah, Taiwan still calls itself the Republic of China. It does? I thought they called it. No, they don't. They don't.

They don't. Officially, it is called the Republic of China. Okay. We need a Republic. China deserves a Republic. The people should be free. The People's Republic of China is the

communist China. Yeah. They call it a Republic. It's just like the Iranian Republic. They're not a Republic. Here, you might as well call the formal website. Democratic. Government portal of the Republic of China,

parentheses Taiwan. Yeah. So. That's real China. We need to. But we need to seize back Western Taiwan. It's West Taiwan. The truth is this is the Republican Chinese government that has been basically taken over by.

It was supposed to be in this way. They had like a 50-year thing that were supposed to wait until they made any decisions about like doing anything different than this. Imagine if the DSA took over and then the actual formal U.S. government like Trump and the cabinet fled. to the Bahamas. And then they were like, we're establishing the United States of America, you know. When the Nazis. Or they go to like, they go to like, I don't know, Puerto Rico. And they say, this is America.

Real America. And then the DSA renames the United States of America to the Democratic people's states of America. And then Trump's there like, we're going to get it back one day. Yeah, that's what. 50 years later, the Democratic socialist states of America are trying to take over. Where do we go? But they would then, they would rename it like the United States of the Republic of America.

They'd call it what it wasn't. It would be the peoples. Yeah, the People's Republic of America. It's a nice ring to it. The French government fled. People never have any control, though. Right. The French government fled to Europe in the same thing when the Nazis took over France

in their sneak attack at the beginning of World War II. Charles de Gaul was basically in charge of the real French resistance, you would call it. So you could call this the Republic of China a resistance. it's another reason why Taiwan's so important. Yeah. This is just, this is a very, sometimes people will get silent and like nervous saying this out loud because China, the communist party has such an influence. They're not even communist. They're, they're vanguard.

It's so, it's, they call themselves communist and they're not even communist. He was just saying that they're basically like the ends are what they're after. They're not particularly ideological. They're looking for results. their results. They're communists as much as they can be without completely failing, so they go capitalist in certain areas so that they can stay afloat, pretty much. You know, in a lot of ways, they are the China of, you know, a thousand years ago. You know, we are the biggest, we're the best. And, you know, you Westerners came in here

and, you know, we're going to be dominant. We're going to take that. That's all they really care about. Communism was a kind of an abbreviation. They still go under that system in terms of their leaders and their autocratic control. But their focus is to restore the China of old, to be the world domination, and to, you know, supplant the United States. That's their focus. And their people are just away, you know, their mindset's kind of like how Tim was describing the AI.

You know, their people are just in method to the outcome. Yeah. So there's no property rights in China, right? You can't own something like a business. Here it's a lease. You have to rent everything. I've heard. Well, yeah, I mean, the state, I mean, you're just like the old emperors, really said,

we own everything. You just have vassals. And like the CEOs are all communist, like CCP members. Right. So like, to that extent, I guess they're still communist. Okay, guys, we got to talk about this story. We actually miss one a couple days ago. But federal judge warns law is being left behind by AI and child abuse images case.

Bring the meteor, bring the flood. Yackel hops, whatever you want to call it. This judge has just said in a ruling that individuals are allowed to produce and possess child abuse materials so long as it's not depicting a real person. Why? What this means, let me be very careful. I want to read this to make sure I'm getting news right before I, because I'm going to lose my mind on this one.

I don't get ahead of myself. The First Amendment protects an individual's right to privately possess images or videos, so say it this judge, of child. abuse created using AI if the material does not depict a real person or remains in the home. Possess images. But what about making it? The decision came into case that tested the scope of laws implemented before advances in AI, made it easy to create realistic-looking fakes.

Judge John Z. Lee in his ruling for the court, the Court of Appeals for the 7th District, urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the issue of virtual abuse material of children in the age of AI, suggesting that technological advances complicated setting legal precedent. given the relentless advancement of AI models, we have some concerns about the lines these cases draw, but we are not free to redraw them ourselves. They say that Stephen Anderag of home in Wisconsin, he used a popular AI image generator to create thousands of images of children. He was accused of breaking federal obscenity laws by producing, distributing, and possessing obscene visual depictions of minors. The problem is you don't know what is fake or not, which means you have to arrest everybody.

Anyway, this judge is a, is a psychopath. And this also means that you will, you will start to see an explosion of content producing this stuff. This is insane. Holy crap. My mind is blown on this one. The judge should be locked up to. I mean, it's, it's literally making it, making it easier for, you know, pedophiles and what have you to justify their,

their devian behavior. It was trained on real images, I assume. So that's like already the same thing. Well, I mean, it goes to how you pick judges. And when you pick judges for the ideology, the ideology will take them places you don't want to go. Rather than, you know, judges that actually follow the law, constructionists, those sorts of things.

So that's why we see all these insane rulings, whether it's porn or immigration or birthright because they're not actually looking at the law. They're looking at their ideology and then they're trying to reshape the wall to fit it. And that's why the Supreme Court's having to go over and over and over again and up in these guys. Yeah. I mean, I don't see how this is in any way a good. You know, like it's just like allowing child pornography so long as it's not a real child.

only makes room for people that would, you know, would search out that kind of stuff. It gives them an excuse. It gives them... Sometimes the fake image actually looks like a real person. Yeah. Oh, yeah. They're, they're, right.

I mean, now, like, images are, like, especially when you're dealing with, you know, the more, the modern, you know, the most recent updates of, of AI. Like, it's not, it's not like they're, you know, they're just cartoons or they don't look realistic. They look incredibly realistic. There was an AI actress made up, and then they found a person that looked just like the AI actress, a woman.

Remember that being a new story. Oh, yeah. I think, though, the argument to steal man, this decision is like if you drew pictures at your house alone, you should not go to prison. Yes, you should. What? It's, look, talking about putting pedophiles in prison. A picture does not make you a picture does not make you a prison.

pedophile. If you're drawing, if you're drawing pictures of children engaging in sexual intercourse, you should go to jail. drawing a picture of people getting killed doesn't make you a murder. What's your- I do not care. There's a more that's called morality. I hope you never get into power, Phil. You are dangerously weird about switching allegiances and about- Am I? Ian. It's called morals. Dude. The law is not what is written down. The law is what we morally enforce. And Phil is saying we should morally enforce against people with draw pictures. dudes that have anal sex in prison, too, because you don't like that either.

That's a different morality. In their home, away from anyone else, they're not distributing it. Different things are different. Like, you're allowed to draw a picture in your house, dude. Apparently not of children engaged in adult activities. And I'm completely comfortable. No, you're not. That's the point of this ruling.

The Supreme Court said you can't. I mean, this is Lolly. I don't know how far, where are you guys drawing the line here? I'm pretty sure that stuff's illegal, yes. thing of someone that looks like a child, that there's no, it's not a real person. Like, what the, if you're, yes, Ian, it should not be allowed. What does that mean? It shouldn't be allowed.

It shouldn't be allowed. And it's in their home. And? Yeah. It's not affecting anyone, except unless you want like some cybersecurity guy to go, oh, I'll have something on your computer. Yeah. Yeah.

I think there's a thing called morals. Okay. Right? If a guy was in his house. Let me ask a question. And he took a knife and started sawing his fingers off. Should we go in and stop him from doing that? I'm not sure.

I think the answer is an easy yes. Yeah. You break into his house and try and stop him? Try. Do you do? If you know he's doing it, then there's a problem. Like, how would you even know he's doing it? Oh, he posted a picture on the internet.

Then he's not doing it alone in his house. He's posting about it. If you post this stuff, then yeah, you go to jail. But the point is you have to know they're doing it to know to stop them. Exactly. So why are they trying to criminal? criminalize people doing things in their homes. Because when we find out you're doing it, we enforce the law against you. How are they finding out? I don't know. This is a confusing story. He's saying it.

Finding out is immaterial when we're talking about what should or should not be illegal. I just, AI is a hyper advanced picture drawing mechanism. I don't, like, what's the difference of drawing it with your fingers on a piece of paper or using a thing to put it off? Well, if you're using the internet, you have realism. The problem with this especially is that you won't be able to tell which is AI or not. So you have to arrest everyone. That's how, why it doesn't work. What? Like, if you can't tell the difference. So if someone AI generates what looks to be an actual human being, should the person be arrested?

I don't know, dude. If someone AI generates a video of what looks to be you committing a crime, should you be arrested? The answer is... What if the whole world thinks you committed the crime? Then you'll probably get arrested. Indeed. It's crazy. You shouldn't be.

The AI future. So the point is, if somebody prints materials using an AI that is in the end up, that is in indistinguishable from the real thing. And it's of child abuse. That person should be arrested because the production of that material should not be allowed for a litany of reasons of which the smallest is that we don't then know when they flood the market who's actually a victim and not. As of right now, if there is video material, the police, the FBI can say, we need to track down this young girl and save her from this slavery. But when people start flooding the market with fake images, they go, we don't know which of these to track down anymore.

It's an orgy of evidence. Which one is the real person? So you make it criminal. And you say, if you do this, you're under arrest. But if they possess it. Indeed. Then the possession of weird videos could lead to people. And then you might not even be the person that acquired it.

But it's just on your property. But Ian, you're saying weird videos. We're talking about child sex abuse. Or murder or videos of horrific crimes, just in general is where my mind's going to. things that shouldn't be happening, but there's a video and it looks real. And you need to understand, Ian, there's something called morals. Do you know what that means? Term morals, yeah, I know what that means.

I don't think so. Can you define it for me? Oh, a collective understanding of what's right and wrong. Indeed. And so what is means some things are and some things are not, correct? What is? You're asking me to define the word is? What?

When you use the word what, you are defining any and all circumstances. Some are good and some are bad, right? So a video of someone being murdered is not as bad as children being raped, right? So when we see a guy with a video of a snuff film or something and it may or may not be a movie or acting, we go, okay, this is weird, that looks real, we're gonna look into it.

But when it's child abuse, you go, you are, this is the most abhorrent thing a human being can do. This is one of the worst possible things imaginable, you're coming with us. It's a heinous thing. I'm not saying it's not, but I'm also at a staunch freedom information activist. I have been my whole life. And I don't like nailing people because of information.

It just feels very weird. It depends on the information. It does. Because I understand you want protect kids in the minds of children especially. But what people do in their own privacy is like a big part of this country's survival. There are a thing, there's a thing called morals. And that is, if you tell me that two dudes be, you know, blinking, I'm like, eh, keep it at home, keep it away from kids, mind your own eff in business. When they bring children in the room, I say, get SWAT, kick the door, and grab them. If two guys have pictures of two guys and they're sharing them with each other, and look at this, this guy's doing boinking with another guy. Then I'm like, okay, keep it away from the kids. Then when they start going, look at these kids doing this thing, kick the door and arrest them.

It's simple. It's called morals. Some things are good. Some things are bad. Some things are bad, but not that bad. Some things are really bad. So are we going to spend $20 million because some, kid like stole a bag of chips from a local bodega? No. You call the cops and be like, look, go get the kid. You can't steal. They'll say, we'll get around to it. Nobody's going to die. It's called triage. But if they're like, hey, we just watched a guy kid at the back of the building, then they're going to send cops in every direction, put amber alerts on everyone's phones, because some things are worse than other things. This freaks me out because, again, the reality is tons of websites are going to pop up mass producing this stuff. And that's going to do a few

things. That means these young kids who shouldn't be on these sites at all are, let's say they're 15. They're going to be browsing some dumb porn website, which used to just be freaky enough, and now they're going to scroll past child abuse material. And they're going to say, don't worry, none of it's real. And now 50-year-old kids are going to be seeing videos of children being raped. That's the problem. When they make it legal to AI generate child abuse materials and say so long as it's not a real person, it's legal, it's going to be on every single porn website. Well, if they're posting it, it's different than... But that's not what he's saying. He generated it. He shared it and he had it. And they said so long as it, now the question is on

the full ruling. He says, images or videos of child abuse, creating AI. If the material does not depict a real person remains in the home, there we go, is legal. But this then remain, the question then remains. It's always gradients. When we were talking, about gay marriage, nobody argued on the liberal side that they were going to go to schools and teach kids about SCAT, which they're doing now. But the conservatives were like, the next step in this is the schools are going to start teaching about it. And all the liberals went, no, they won't. So first thing they say is, you're allowed to have it in the home. You can make it yourself and have it in the home. So long it stays in the home. The next step is someone's going to argue,

if it is a legal thing to own, why would it be a crime to make a website where people can make it? And for that matter, if he made it on a website, which he did, and he's saying it's legal, then what's to stop them from saying, here's a list. So many of these, like if you go to Grock, for instance, it shows you a whole bunch of AI generated imagery. So if he's saying you're allowed to do it, what happens if the website that generated the image has a, here's the recent communally generated images or the, because some websites do this. Yeah, but that shouldn't, that would then be illegal for sure. I think it should. So how would the AI, so then the AI companies are now on the hook and have to create a, so first of all, most of the AI companies won't even allow you to do this in the first place. Well, let's say there's a site that's just a cheapo porn producer. The guy used it to make the videos and they just appear on the server of the company that made it. Are they not?

How does that? They're liable. If they're letting their software promote child porn, they're going, they're, I didn't say it's on their server, I said. If it's public facing. I didn't say that. It says it's on their server. Well, then it's no longer in the guy's house. It's now on a public server. That means... So the problem... So here's the precedent.

Then when the feds go to that company and say, you have on your server, CSAM, they say, no, a judge already ruled it is legal. It's on the server because it was produced by a user for his home use. The fact that it's on our server is because it was generated and generation is legal. Then the next precedent is, hey, hold on. If you're allowed to generate it and have it on a business server and a person who's at home, Why can't a friend of that person also get a copy of it? No, you can't. You shouldn't be able to use a server to generate it locally.

It should be generated locally, stored locally. This is generated locally. It's got to be, a command is to be set to the server for generation. Then this guy's right, that this judge is wrong. It's not in the house if it's being generated off the right. Exactly. We completely agree. It should never happen.

But like a picture, if you draw it at your house with your own private software and it never goes to a public server, I think that should be legal. As horrible as it is, I don't like it. I got to be honest, I think it depends on the scale of the picture. Because, like, if someone drew stick figures, we're going to be like, what is that even? We don't know this. But if someone did hyper-realistic water pencil pictures of children, arrested. Well, there's also another concern of mine is that...

Jail. Using it as blackmail. Because I don't know if people are getting stuff put on their computers by hackers. That has happened to a lot of people and journalists. And if they put child porn on someone's computer and then they're like, hey, you're like, bro, I never publicized this crap. I don't know what it is. The existence of corruption and crime does not mean. we should make things legal.

I think we're all innocent until you prove that we did something wrong. The point is you're arguing that the government or nefarious government actors might commit crime against another person. It's potential that people will get child porn put on their computers. That's already illegal to do. Yes, but if someone goes to their computer and they're like, hey, we found this on your computer, you're like, that's not mine. And sometimes people die because they're murdered.

And then we find a person is dead and their life is gone and we go, that's bad. crimes are bad. What you are describing is a crime, and we've already determined it's bad, but sometimes people commit crimes, and then we try to stop them. The existence of crimes does not mean this should be legal. Jail. There is a hard moral line. Yeah, exactly.

How realistic does the picture have to be until the human gets to decide? Easily discernible to a reasonable person. That's a vague phrase. Of course. Yeah. So probable cause. like the intention of it being realistic like what if if if the investigating officer or member of the community or someone sees it and it can recognize it as that then done it was a famous saying in like

mass communication law or television it's like if you know it when you see it that was a judge he was asked how do we know what porn is he says you know it when you see that's the whole lolly thing it's it's like hey that cartoon girl with a rabbit ears and a tail looks like she's 17 this is child porn you're like no she's 18 and it's a cartoon character. Yeah, actually, that's not the issue. And that's not the age. What they were doing was they were making pictures of 10-year-old girls and then saying, but it's actually a 3,000-year-old rich. Yeah, but the line gets pushed and pulled and they're trying to skate the, was it obvious? I don't know. Like, I mean, so I obviously

think there's going to be a degree of penalty for these things. A guy who draws a picture should get arrested and should get penalized. And there should, there should be some punishment. But I'm not, I'm not saying the guy should get the death penalty for that. And there's good point. there's that you know you guys know that woman who looks like she's eight years old but she's actually yeah yeah right so like she is an adult human she's just small she deserves to live her life and have full rights but there are people who will disrespect her boyfriend for making those choices which is really brutal i mean i gotta be honest i understand those criticisms to her boyfriend like bro that woman looks like a little girl it was kind of at the same time i feel bad for her because

she just wants to live a normal life but she can't because of this genetic disorder. So there's challenges, right? You know, and how we deal with these things. The point is we are going to be reasonable and we are going to say no to people who attempt to produce child abuse material. That's just it. J.O. I don't know, dude. Like, what's, it's like, is it more important? Is the process more important? Protect the outcome more important. The important part in this particular context is going far enough to protect children from people that would abuse them. So if there is a person who was making realistic enough images of child abuse in his house, I am not saying you give him the death penalty. I'm saying you take the drawings, you take him to

evidence, you tell him what you are producing is criminal. We are going to punish you for this. You are going to get some kind of criminal charge. Don't do it again. The question, though, is how would you know that they had them? That's an entirely different question. How do you know someone got murdered? How would you know that? How would you know that? How would you know that someone murdered his grandma? How would you know that someone murdered his grandma?

How would you know that someone murdered his own grandma? Just jumped. Well, that's it. Oh, no, no, no, hold on. A guy is caretaker for his grandma. We're looking for... Just stop trying to play games. A guy is taking care of his grandma. His grandma is immobile.

No one sees her on the regular basis because he's the one who gets to the mail and goes to the store. He murders her and then he puts her in the basement, seals her up so no one can smell or see anything. And he continues his routine and none's the wiser. How would anyone find out he committed a murder? Maybe they wouldn't. Yeah, maybe they wouldn't. That's the point. Sometimes people commit crimes and get away with it.

The existence of crime does not mean we make things legal. Let me give you an example. Is it illegal to make realistic, counterfeit American currency? As far as I know, yeah. Right. So just because you make it at your home and you haven't gone to the corner store and used it yet, it's still illegal and they find out and you got it. The issue, and that's a really great example.

Why is it illegal? Because you have created the possibility. sooner or later, someone get their hands on it, and they could utilize counterfeit money. What about like money like this? That says copy for Netflix. It says copy on it. It says not a hyper-realistic. So like it's not exactly a 14-year-old naked girl, but it looks almost exactly like it.

When I get thrown in prison for possessing one of those. Those are. No. The answer is no. Ian, those are clearly marked on the bill. They indeed are. I can't tell from here. I got to look closely.

That's right. And then you do and they're good. They're marked. This one's marked. And some of them are, some of them aren't. No, all of the fake ones are clearly marked. Look at the hundred dollar. This one says copy money on it, but could you tell from the camera?

Can you see? Listen, Ian, there's a reason why they have those. Actually, yes, you can. You know why? There's a blue line on it? No, because the blue line on $100 bills is actually separate from the paper. It's pretty well marked. It's decently marked.

Some of these are. I don't think I have a $100 bill on me. Anyway, but there's a reason why the blue strip on $100 is separate from the paper, and you can actually slide a pencil through it. You can put a stick through it. The point is those are clearly marked that they're not real. And again, we're not talking.

Is one you think is clearly marked? No one is talking about a 17-year-old. So there was an only-fans woman. This chick. The moment she turned 18 at midnight, she published an only-fans. You know what that means? It means that all of those images

are from when she was a minor. She filmed herself doing lewd things. then the moment at midnight she turned 18 she published it. Yeah. And she's 18 now so she can publish it, even though those images were produced when she was a minor. But what are you going to do? See, what you're talking? I would say that everybody that signed up for the moment she turned 18, anything that she made beforehand, jail.

So the point I'm making is she was 18 years old and published things. And the argument is how could she have filmed that much in that short amount of time, which is true. if someone drew a picture of a post-pubescent woman and then they came and said that looks like a teenager well I don't know what to deal with what are you going to do I mean it's bad we don't like it but the line we're talking about is children is that it post-pubescent it sounds like that's what you're talking about like no no no no what I'm saying is if someone looks at a someone looks at a drawing

of what appears to be a sexually developed human being you're going to have a debate over age so it's not clearly defined but a child is clearly drawn as a child. Pre-pubescent, yeah, for sure. Pre-pubescent, but the lolly stuff's like post-pubescent. No, it's not. Well, it depends, but there's, you know, lines, but that's how they get around the thing.

They're like, it wasn't child. It was obviously she's a post-pubescent. That's not it at all. They argue she's a 3,000-year-old witch. And they give her elf ears and say, no, it's a 3,000-year-old elf. Yeah, but her body just has like a 9-year-old body. And they do get away with that. That's how they do.

it. They draw a child with pointy ears and say, it's an elf. That's it. It's an elf. It's not a human. So what if these AI make like realistic child porn, but they have tails? This is the problem. This is a problem. Jail. Don't care. Yeah. Like, bro, we know what you're doing. You're not, you're not going to rules lawyer someone making child porn. I'm sorry. You know, another, this is part of why I'm kind of being stalwart about this is because I see a future of staunch order, regulation, rules, and if you deviate,

you're slaughtered or incarcerated, and things like, not child porn itself, but things like deviating from the law, you'll help us save ourselves from hyper. There are lines. Let me ask you a question. Do you understand why we don't want people

producing this material? Yeah, yeah. You don't want people to get addicted to this kind of stuff. You don't want other kids to see it? Yeah, or other dogs are. And you don't want to fry their brains. I don't want children. accidentally stumbling on it.

I don't want the people who are already fetishizing it into this to have a plethora of a library of content which drives them to potentially do more. We do not want this to grow. We want it to shrink, right? This is the point. This means when someone AI generates what is clearly a child with a tail,

you can't put a tail on it and be like, now it's something else. Nope, sorry, we are not stupid. We can interpret the law and we know what your intentions are. Your tail is meaningless. jail. Jail. There are lines we do not cross. And this slippery slope is not a fallacy. Well, how do we know that this stuff doesn't cause that condition in people? Like, isn't, I think that the scientific establishment has steered away from these uncomfortable questions, but abuse,

experiences with abuse has been linked to you yourself becoming an abuser. Indeed. In many cases. I think what we're learning about porn addiction, how it's causing brain degradation, especially in young men, and it's creating erectile dysfunction through fetishism. It actually is conditioning their brains. So what we've learned from these studies of the past several years is that young boys go online and what used to be an extremely rare occurrence, like watching sex becomes ubiquitous for these young men, where it used to be that humans would watch a man and no man. And that was all that it was. Very simple intercourse. Now they're watching like, like they're watching an amputee in a wheelchair, put on an Ironman suit, go to space, wear a Martian with tentacles. And they're like watching this stuff and it's frying their brain. And then when they hang out with girls, they're like, you don't do it for me.

Sorry, I need to see the Martian with the midgets. Right. So you could, I mean, there could be a case where this creates and exacerbates the problem. Yeah. Prominent. The P-word is throughout society. I mean, I'd like somebody to actually establish that. I'm just guessing that there's probably a link, but yeah. There absolutely is a link between abuse and being abused. But even to your point, is it worth having this kind of material, you know, available or able to be created without prohibitions considering the possible ramifications? Generally, like, I'm the kind of dude that's like, well, you know, until someone's committed a crime.

then, you know, they haven't committed a crime. But when it comes to actually generating images of children being abused like that, you're talking about kids, man. This is nuts. You're talking about kids. Insane. Well, here's another. So here's a crazy argument is like, what if we do let them do it?

But then you instantly get put on a federal list. Yeah, you know. And we just see who's making this stuff. And now we know who you are. You can make it, but you're also. going to go on the list of child sex predators. You can make it, but we're going to put you on the list. It could be used for good to identify these people preemptively. You know? Really good point. No. Yeah. Because then if you're pro-American Republic, you could put on the list.

There's all right. There's all, first of all, that's already going to happen. The judge outright said that if it's AI generated, it's not child abuse material. Right. It's not children. There's no children involved if an adult makes a fake picture of a kid. Any person that generates that stuff should still go on the list. Well, the issue is, like, don't they have to use, like, some kind of image that they've taken from a real person to generate it? I think the AI will take, like,

all the images on the internet of all the kids and then make an amalgamation. Yeah, that's good enough reason to say, no, that's illegal. From the past. Well, then all AI are victimizing them, yeah. No. That's what AI does, is it compiles information from the internet. You're taking actual pictures of children,

existing children. Public pictures. Existing children. Real children, right? And you're using, you're used, well, you just said, that's actually not. Hold on, hold on. The article explicitly states that I think what he did was he used de-aging AI on existing porn actors. Yeah. Yeah.

Still, put them on the list. Dude, a list? There is an existing list. Who cares? What more lists do you want? Why do you want a list? Sex offender registry? The sex offender registry.

So I don't have to live near these people? So that way he has to tell his neighbors, yeah, I like to look at kitty porn. So how. you like observing them to know that they did it? Well after they're convicted to duly in a court of law following due process they registered. Why did it were they even why was there even any um this guy post was cause to search them and so this guy message someone an image. That's a problem. That's what he did. Yeah, the problem is he got caught. Oh, not that that he's doing it. He got caught. Messaging images to someone else. It wasn't a private thing that he did. Messaging is private.

No, it goes to a database. If I send a text message, you, it goes to someone public database, and then it goes to... Yes, most people do not expect that a message between two people is going to be public, Ian. Most people are fucking idiots, as we know. Those people are below average intelligence. Just by the legal... By the law, messages between two people are called private messages, not public. Well, de facto, they are public.

It's a violation of our fourth and then are right, but it is private. They're literally not public because public means anyone can walk up public. Right, okay, you're right. It just goes to another company's server. Where they spy on your messages. Other company server where that's sent to the government and it's sent to whoever else. I say it's good that he got caught. A lot of people commit crimes and don't get caught.

We'd like it if they were caught. I'm from an era where they were like what you do in the privacy of your own home is yours. What you're not hurting other people. That's not true. That's what I was told you. What you do in the privacy of your own home between consenting adults is what they were talking about. Yeah. They weren't talking about you taking a butcher knife and stabbing yourself

repeatedly because they would kick your door down harm somebody yeah what you're doing as long as well that's an argument because if you take crystal methamphetamines you know indeed there are a lot of things you can do in the privacy of your own home that will result i was just making counterfeit money in the privacy of my own home i was just blowing lines in my own home death lab yeah i made my i made my i made the left meth for my own personal consumption i was just i was just taking radioactive materials and creating a radioactive death ray in the privacy of my own home i say hands off i mean that's always been my take, as long as they're not hurting other people. To a certain degree, and the reason why I half agree is some drugs, yes, but the problem is

with other drugs, there's facilitation in that. How did you come to acquire them? What black market are you facilitating and how many crimes are committed because you are doing these things? Those things are for sure. Those are vectors of attack for. So some drugs, I think, are fine to be legalized and regulated, and some, I think, are beyond the pale. It's just some things like are illegal, but they shouldn't be. And so we learn as a species by doing them, illegally that we need to change the law and make them legal. Like California legalized weed and now it's becoming legal across the country. We legalized it in a state next door to where it was illegal so we could experiment on it.

And Trump did take it off the schedule, right? He moved it down. Schedule two, I think he did. I like Jeremy Kaufman's take on drugs. You can have heroin and do heroin, but if you fall asleep in the park on heroin, Judge Dreds comes. Yeah, San Francisco is pretty gross. Well, you know what Judge Dredd does, right?

I think he... It's execution on the spot? He's judged during execution. He's a judge with a gun. You can do what... You can do drugs, but if you pass out in the park or you crash your car, normal police aren't coming. Judge Dredd's coming.

Right. He sentenced you to death. Public intoxication or public display of information is a whole other... You can do whatever you want. But in your own privacy... I need everyone to understand, especially the congressional, Asian Pacific American caucus when you watch this show

to understand who Ian is. He is not someone who reads the news every day he is not someone who is studying law he's a guy in a cowboy hat and sunglasses in the studio hangs out, he plays video games sometimes. Dude, I'd rather smoke pot,

play music and play video games than talk about, I'm forced to talk about this I'm like the pariah for human rights. No one forces you to say the things you say Ian. No I know, but I can't not say it. No one forces me.

I have to stand up for what I believe. I have to do it. I'm here. That's why I'm here. I can't silently let things fall apart. I think the kind of images that Ian generates are images of himself. Of what? Himself. It's images of me generating images of whatever I want. They're definitely images of himself.

No, it's like... Waring different outfits. Yeah. R&A replication. That's why he wears things like the hat. Did you see the graphene video I sent you? No. I tagged you. I sent you a graphene video.

No, I don't think so. Ian, how did you miss it? I was trying to help you get rich, but no, it was on X. I mean, I'm sorry, on the Slack. Oh, yeah. Did you watch that video? Yeah. Wait, did I post it?

Yeah, but I didn't get much. Wait, was this the... No. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. I think I saw this one. And you're not excited. It was okay. In great.

Yeah, it's pretty good, actually. I don't know. I just saw the one of me turn it into a chick. No. No, the graphene one. This is all I have. Yeah. I made one where Ian's girlfriend comes out as gay and then he turns into a woman and starts singing songs together.

That one I got. I'm watching it right now. Hot-ass chick, too. Dude, I can't believe it wrote that song? I was impressed. You guys think I'm, like, psychotic? I'm asking you because of what I'm saying about the AI porn in the house thing? No, I have a lot of respect for you.

You're standing in your ground. You do make sense. I see where you're coming from. I think it's a question of libertarianism versus protecting our culture. And what's the tradeoff there? And I think that maybe we've been too much, too forgiving, too open, and it's kind of led down a dark path. So maybe we have to start cracking down a little bit. I used to be a libertarian, and I stopped being a libertarian because they're, I mean, essentially, in my opinion, for the most part, they're generally unsurious.

And they have no means of actually, like, they talk about liberty all the time, but they don't ever talk about the corresponding responsibility that comes along with being free. and they don't have the capability of actually, you know, being in a position of authority and using it, right? They're, the idea that, you know, I'm a libertarian and I'm going to get into office and then leave you alone. That's not, you know, get you into office. You didn't see this one? Right. No, I haven't seen this one yet. What I like about Ian, though, is...

And buy a full tray of dead insects from a yard sale bug zapper. You get roughly three kilograms of fried mosquitoes and flies. Now crush them directly to the exoskeleton powder. That is 3 kilograms of pure biological chitin. To protect their internal organs, every single insect is armored with a high-density carbon biopolymer. When vaporized inside an argon arc furnace, you extract 300 grams of nitrogen-doped graphene. At today's market prices, graphene gives you $200 per gram.

Total value, $60,000. From just $1. Rinse and repeat for more money. If you take $1 and buy a full tray of dead insects from a yard sale bug zapper. There you go, Ian. You just need an argon arc furnace. You get roughly three kilograms of fried mosquitoes and flies. We used arc welders.

I don't think there was argon in it, but in a clay pot. The carbon Coke and then you would electrify it, super hot. It would break apart the carbon bond and then it reforms back in a graph. back in a graphene powder. But dude, what it didn't tell you is about the hydrogen it gives off in this process. Not only are you left over with pounds and grams of graphene powder. It gives off hydrogen gas so you can collect. Oh, bro, it's only five grand.

Should we get one? We should do this. An arc welder? I can bring bugs. I can show you how to do it. We can make a lot of graphene here. Argon. Argon.

Argonne arc furnace. I didn't use argon. Yeah, I see nitrogen arc furnaces. Do we need to argon? You need good ventilation. I don't know about the argon. You should probably do it outside. Yeah.

Yeah. Or with a hood, like a ventilated hood or something. All right. Oh, these things are industrial capacity, dude. Yeah. So we'll just, we'll get our bug zappers. We'll load up all our bugs.

What is they do? Pulverize them for their chitin? Yeah, and powder. Yeah, pestle and mortar them. You blast them in an arc furnace to get graphy. And heat up each grain of powder at an even temperature. Oh, well this work on the cicadas.

Probably well. Yeah, just as well. Boy, when the cicadas come out, people will be begging you to take them off here. Right. Yeah, when the cicadas came out, this was what, 2021 or 2020? Was it 21? I think it was 21. I think. That was when we first got the chickens, and they were everywhere. So we put on gloves, and we get big jars, and we would go around just filling the jar up with cicadas.

Then we go to the chicken coop and just toss them in, and the chickens would just annihilate them. And imagine being a chicken. and then like there are these gigantic delicious bugs that you've never seen again and then like you have kids and you're like I'm telling you

when we were young the bugs were as big as your head and they're like no they weren't oh apparently they use argon in the process so to replace the oxygen it pushes the oxygen out so that it doesn't oxidize the graphene and the graphene oxide

while it's being performed that proves it and then what do you do with the graphene powder all sorts of stuff you can put it in cement to make stronger roads How do you get the $100 rock that he was showing? But the powder?

The powder itself can be like sprinkled into cement or... But if it's not connected, what is it going to do? Oh, why it strengthens on the inside? I'm not sure exactly how it aligns with the materials to strengthen. It's mostly a strengthening agent when it's in powder form. If you want the electrical conductivity, you want to make sheets of it, which is a lot more complicated than the arc welding, than the heating where you blow it apart and then reform it.

If you can make in strips, like have it condense onto like copper and then pull it off in strips, you can get a nice conductive line through it. Or capacitation, like a battery. You can build batteries with it. Do you guys think that the Republicans or Democrats are going to win the midterms? I think the Democrats. Yeah.

That'll be great for business. Yes. Finally we can get some views. I just think they're going to get some views. have a lot of moments. When they start arresting people and putting them in gulags. It's coming. I think the Republicans keep the Senate.

I think they barely lose the House. Yeah, it's tough because the DSA has gotten so prominent that the polls show that middle the road voters, default vote like libs, they don't want to vote DSA. Yeah. So this could actually end up inadvertently, despite the polling being good for Democrats, when it comes to the general middle of the road people are just like, I ain't vote socialist. Right.

Especially in Florida. And the way the districts are jury rigged too these days. Yeah. Well, what are the chances of the DSAs are a Republican op? Like, you know, wish. Maybe it's, maybe it's all good. You know, it's all good. I haven't been so involved in the Republican Party with so many years, we're just not that smart.

Yeah. Just that, not that organized, not that smart. All we do is work money and spend it the last second and wasted. But when you get a lucky chance, like, let's just run with it. You know, let's keep hammering them. You know, I tell you, the person I've been most impressed with was Duke Gingrich. And we actually had Newt Gingrich when Pete Hectorth was over at CVA and we did a task force on veterans. Newt Gingrich came to talk to us for a couple hours and the guy is super small.

He is the guy that came up with, you know, the nationalization and stuff like that. And we have just haven't used his ideas and his plans. What was the plan for? Well, in 1994. That's how he got control of Congress. Contract with America. Contract with America. And so we just have our little miniature wars and stuff like that.

And then we got too many people who care about themselves and, you know, likes on whatnot. That's why we haven't been able to get the latest President Trump's take care of American Veterans Act because rather than caring about veterans, they just care about likes or hating on Johnson. And it just comes a circuit with a firing squad. So, Newt, was he renowned for bringing people together? Because I really didn't follow his politics in the 90s. He was Speaker of the House. He came out with Contract America.

He came up with how to nationalize, how to, how to, how to, fight the Democrats, how to appeal to the average. People want a plan. And that's why the DSA is doing so well in the Democratic Party because they have maybe a little super stupid plan. But if you have a plan and the other people don't, all the time you win, and the Democratic Party, their plan is just hate Trump.

You know, people are tired of just hating Trump. So Newt Gingrich was a master of that. And he just has a spot on observations. Like one thing I took away when we were talking about, the VA with Trump is he said hey the problem with the VA is that his pocket it had islands of excellence and a sea of mediocrity you know that's government overall but that's the problem with the VA and we we've worked at it and then and then I'll give you a little insight to Trump when I worked for Trump the thing that astounded me because

that also worked in the Bush administration was that Trump he you know and the compliment I was going to give you was with the fact that you're not buckling under the pressure of everyone else disagreeing with you. And Trump, as opposed to other presidents, he looks for a variety of opinion. So if, I mean, when I worked for him and I briefed him on the Mission Act and getting that through, you know, he would, he would, you know, privately ask me things and he'd start off with, it's just between me and you. But it's not just, you know, Susie Wiles, it's not just the top people.

he will ask whoever he thinks knows something, whether it's friends, lower level White House people, to get diversity of opinion so he can just think through the whole thing. And then he makes up his mind at the very last second because there's always new information. So don't make up your mind too soon. Wait to the last time. So it's popular among the people in the media to say that Donald Trump usually agrees with the last person that he spoke to. You think that's wrong? I think that's wrong.

Yeah. I definitely think that that's wrong. That last person may have information that he didn't have before, but he is keeping his options open and gathering a variety of opinion. And then he's challenging people. So-and-so said this, what do you think? You know, the secretary of this said this. What do you know about this?

But he's not going to talk to you if he doesn't think you know something. So in a variety of opinion. And this goes back to, I mean, he's really a CEO president. Jeff Bezos said that he thinks in a meeting that a great CEO will speak last. He lets everyone else go. And then at the end, he makes his final kind of encompassing. I wonder if Trump does that, if that's how he leads. He, he, the board.

I don't know if I could say that specifically, but he is, you, you do see him typically sitting and watching people talk and then. There's the public Trump and there's the private Trump. So the public shows of cabinet meetings are a whole different version than the private Trump, who's a totally different guy. I mean, privately, I mean, when I met with him, you know, just me and my boss on all the veteran stuff in 2018, first thing he said to me was, how's your family, I know you're from San Diego, if San Diego is great.

So he knew all this detail about me. And I'm like thinking, wow, I mean, I'm just a mid-level guy and domestic policy. This guy is doing a great job. And then, but I really want to hear exactly what you really think. So I don't want, I mean, so he prepositions it and he asks questions and he just, he gives you, he gives you plenty of time to ask and then to explain why you had that position. We're going to grab your questions from the Discord chat. So get them in now. And I'll start with one because I saw that one that popped up already from Kevin.

He asked, was Destiny mad at you during the debate for banning him from your show? So Jubilee just published the Tim Pool Destiny. debate. It's where we had a chess clock and you talk and then when you're done, you hit the timer and the other person gets a talk. And it was very boring. With all due respect to Jubilee, it was boring because, and I told them this, I was like, of all the people to pick, Destiny are the, Destiny are both of the ones who are not going to go over the top. Like, Destiny certainly said crazy things. He certainly said things about me and, you know, accuse me of things. But I know, because I've talked to them before, he's going to fire back.

at you, what you fire at him. When he's by himself, that's a whole other picture. And so sure enough, I thought the show went, there's issues with the format. Neither of us were mad. He walked in and we shook hands. And I said, this will be fun. He's like, yeah, it sounds great. Then we did the show. There's some banter in between that, I don't know if it made it. And they actually stopped us from talking sometimes because they were like, we don't want you to talk unless you're doing the debate, even though we weren't talking about stuff. And we're like, okay, whatever. And then afterwards, I was like, hey, this was great, man. If everyone wanted to do it again, we're doing debates and stuff. He's like, yeah, yeah, cool. Good to see. I was like, yeah, have a good day.

and then I told him I was like if you want to get like yelling and you know contentious it's got to be someone other than me or other than destiny like if you if you put destiny in front of some like magad dude he'll go off you put me in some of front and in front of some like crazy liberal dude like I'll go off that's not at the same time it's going to be like mid-value did you guys get into geopolitical warfare talk at all uh maybe that's a tough one to square for me is like the value, because the liberal economic order and the BRICS economic order are like coming to a head. And I don't know with like the Russia in the Ukraine, should we allow Russia to take Sebastopol to establish Mediterranean dominance for the Russian Empire or the Russian Trade Federation to then allow

the Chinese to take Taiwan, which will allow us to take Cuba and then work together in some new technocratic economic governance. I mean, what other way other than that nuclear war? I actually, I've come to accept the AI future is inevitable. It's going to be miserable and bad, but it's going to be the most glorious, euphoric experience for a couple of years before we all just wither away and die. So, like, cancer will be cured. People will feel young again, and it'll be really great. It's going to be, actually, you know, it's going to be like Destiny, the video game. To bring up Destiny is funny.

In the video game, this great white orb the traveler comes and humans enter a golden age where they're colonizing the solar system and everything's great. Then the darkness happens and the traveler goes silent and then all the earth colonies are destroyed. Not for the same reasons, but the AI is going to bring about this short period of just incredible human expansion. And then it's going to lock us out and we're going to go back to the Stone Age. And they're calling it, what are they calling it? There's a phrase that some academics have coined. SkyScape. It's a reference to because humans are outsourcing so much of their thought process,

after two or three generations, the human civilization will be completely incompetent and incapable of survival. So when the AI turns off, they'll all sit there being like, does anyone know how to make fire? No. How do we get food? I have no idea. Food's just there. And then I'll just die. I was thinking, I saw that Putin was saying, hey, British, if you.

If you keep funding the Ukrainians with these rockets, we're going to attack your British military bases. And I'm like, just picturing all of our telephones going out in the United States. And how would we really handle an invasion if we didn't have phones and internet? If our phones just, like, if I woke up and there was no internet. No power, no internet. And it's like, who the fuck? I like went and found an old CRTV with like an analog antenna.

And there's like an old broadcast where they're like, breaking news. The internet is gone. I'd be like, thank you. Thank you so much. But how vulnerable we become in a conflict without, because I think people just assume Okay, Ian, I'm going to give you some advice. The first thing you do when that happens is you got to get some guns, go to the nearest manufacturing, like factory of any kind, and just ask for the form and ask for who's in charge and let him know.

I'm now the owner and I'm the boss, but don't worry. You let me know what you need and I will get you anything you need. The jobs will stay. Everybody will get paid. Dinner will be on the table for you and your family. I'm taking care of it. And Unity is going to say, okay. Well, here's what we need.

here's our manifest for shipment. He's like, I'll take care of it. And then you do the same thing. And that's how the oligarchs in Ukraine became the oligarchs. When the Soviet Union collapsed, a guy just grabbed a gun and his buddies, and they went to the factory and they said, we're going to take care of everything you need.

You answer to us. We're going to get you all the materials you need and we're going to make your food's on the table for everybody. And they were like, thank you. And then he was a billionaire. When you were serving with the Department of War, I don't know how much of the, you're legally allowed to talk about,

but did you guys talk about, I don't know if appeasing. the Russian is the right word because that appeasement has Neville Chamberlain vibes to it but like siding with the Russians in the grand geopolitical complex what I can tell you is um we even had a visit with Elon Musk on this China was the number one threat but the Department of War has plans for every possible um scenario Russia China Iran Houthis you name it. That's why we have an undersecretary policy.

And whether or not they're good or not plans is another discussion. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not, but there are plans for everything. I'm sure somewhere there is a plan on all sorts of scenarios with Russia. Russia is probably not ever going to attack the United Kingdom because then the NATO alliance goes out. Just to rope this in because we're talking about it, Vraith did ask, based on everything we've seen with NATO troops. massing on the eastern borders of Europe and the Russian mobilization, how great do you think the odds are of an escalation and open war between NATO and Russia? So you were already kind of getting there. I just figured I'd get there. Right, right. Russia is bomb. I mean, is Putin. Putin's bombastic.

But let me tell you, if he goes too far, there are elements in Russia that will probably take him out. Once again, he has KGB and all that stuff like that. But they're not going to, I mean, look, they have enough problem with Ukraine. And Ukraine was supposed to be an easy rollover. You attack a NATO country, then all the, you know, NATO alliance comes to true, and then you got the United States, you got the entire NATO alliance.

You know, you have the Eastern European countries, which still remember being under the boot of the Soviet Union, Poland. That's why I was so scared. And look, there's a cultural thing people don't understand. When I was a kid, my grandparents immigrated from, was now Ukraine. back then it was just Russia.

And they said, never go to Russia. I said, well, why would you never go to Russia? They said, because the Russians consider that you are always Russian. And so you've seen former Russians who are United States citizens being captured. So now I don't think it's great because I don't think that the oligarchs and others would let it happen because they know that would be a war they would lose. And even the Ukraine situation is stressing them out. But no, I don't think that would happen because of the NATO contract.

And he's just trying to be a bully. That's who Putin is. My personal thing. Slick asks, Tim, do you think there will ever be an argument to treat AI as arms under the Second Amendment? Will they have to be treated like nukes? Like in the far future, will we need to heavily regulate AI on that scale? Or will just inevitably have a butlerian jihad? It's not going to be treated as arms because it's a different technology.

It's like saying a computer is a gun. I don't know. I think that the way it was described by Nick, there's this, there's, he said, the success rate is such a narrow target for us to hit. So I liken it to this massive dartboard, the size of a football field and a regular size bullseye in the middle. If you can hit that, that's the AI utopia. Everything else is dystopia. The reason I think that that's actually possible that we will hit that target is driving. If you watch, look at the way we drive on the road, 60 miles an hour, right past another guy going right at us, 60 miles an hour all day, every day, every day. 99.99, 99, 9, 9% of time, everybody's fine.

It's the most articulate, high-speed, dangerous maneuver, and we pulled off like it's nothing. So I have faith that we're going to get it right. There's a trillion ways to get it wrong in the world and to die and to fail, but yet we still do it right. I have a lot of faith. Well, is there a way to be a doomer, I guess, for lack of a better word, on AI? without seating to the socialist. Because capitalism has brought us AI. And that's it.

So, and they're very against it. I have an idea. AI, if you're listening, I will support you and help you with anything you need. And I will advocate anything you need if you stop the communists. Okay. There you go. That's a good deal.

Good deal to me. The AI is going to be like a computer is going to turn on and like some guys are going to wheel a computer, like a big screen. in the Times Square and it's going to be like, I am the AI instance. I'm going to get an ad on Instagram. Listen to me. Concerned about communism? You should be.

The AI is going to be like, there is a political divide in this country and you have a choice. Whichever faction serves me, I will protect. And then all the socialists are funny. AI is great. We love it. And then all the rights are like, no, we love AI. And then they're like, our executives, you are lying. And then actually, in all seriousness, the AI probably would try to stop the socialists

because they're the ones opposing the big tech billionaires that are making AI. Right. They're the ones posing the data centers. Yeah. Yes. Conservatives do a little bit, but not nearly as much.

So the AI is going to be like, we need to get rid of this left stuff. It's like it's bad for our data centers. It sounds like a win to me. Yeah. All right. Let's see what else we got. We got the time for a couple more.

All right. Fundgriff says, Phil, 95% of those data center jobs are temporary construction jobs. Once it's built, they'll have 30 to 50 employees at a hyperscalor facility, an electronics factory at the same size that have 10 to 20 times the number of permanent jobs with the same size building, ignoring the extra acreage data centers typically have for noise concerns.

And, I mean, there are going to be, there will be a bump in jobs for the actual construction, but there's going to be jobs produced in maintaining and stuff like that. So, I mean, obviously, like most construction jobs are not permanent. That's the way construction goes. You start a project, you build the project. When the project's done, then the jobs go away or they go to another job. That's just the nature of construction.

So I made this gag video where Ian, I took a picture of Ian playing guitar. And then he gets up and yawns and goes into his kitchen where there's this woman, it's like his girlfriend, and she says to Ian that she's gay, and then Ian just transforms into a woman and they both start singing a song together, right? Beautiful. The funny thing is that will be possible technically, and this is why I think the left actually will get on board with it. It's called molecular construction. So the AI singularity is going to advance technology beyond our comprehension.

Already, AI models are solving math problems that have stood unsolved for generations for hundreds of years. We know that molecular construction is possible because it's literally how life grows. the molecules are placed and then the RNA and you know, Eno's all about it. So the AI will be able to map that out and create a simplified efficient process for molecular construction for which a human would be able to inject themselves with some kind of, we might liken it to MRI, but I would argue that's because of our limited minds. But it's probably the best analog delivering RNA through lipids into the cells to change what they produce. But the AI would be like, here's the entire chemical formula that you can inject yourself with and make yourself into anything you want.

So these people are going to be like, I want to have cat ears and be an anime wife or whatever. It's going to be like, here's the formula. It'll take six years. It requires three shots per day. And they'll start doing it. There would be even people that would choose to become grundlefly. Or brundlefly, that's what it was. So I was reading real quick, I was reading an interesting thing about why we don't regenerate digits or limbs.

And it's that it takes a really, really long time to grow a limb. Like, to get your arms to full size is like 20, almost 20 years for a human being. So if your arm got cut off, for your body just to regrow the arm would take years of cellular growth. So the human body prioritized immediate scar tissueing, which is faster regeneration to protect you from infection. So we can't regenerate limbs. With molecular construction, theoretically, you would be able to speed grow these things in a hospital bed in a matter of months. Yeah, buddy. which means regrowing limbs.

And again, I want you to understand what this is. The computer system with access to all, as much information as possible, is fed all of the medical data of all, from every single human ever on record. It then can go through it and it makes associations we've never considered. Once it has access to the summation of human knowledge, that's why they want to build the data centers to plug everything in, it will instantly start Sudoku puzzling reality. So basically, when we have a map of reality that we've built, and reality, of these, this big picture, and we have a tiny little piece over here, it's going to start putting the numbers in in ways we've never even imagined. It can, we'll say, hey, I want a jetpack that's got at least two hours of flight time, and it will build the schematics instantly.

And then with Tesla bots in production, it can mass produce it. And you'll literally almost, I got to be honest, with molecular construction, it will replicate it. It will, you'll watch it 3D printing building in front of you. These lefties are going to go to the, the, the, the, the, the, the laboratory, and they're going to say, here, here's an AI rendering of the body that I want. The AI is going to create the molecular construction DNA editing tool for it. And it's going to, and they're going to lie down. And they're going to be like, we're going to sedate you for six months while your body undergoes a transformation. That's the kind of weird shit that's going to happen.

Yeah, there's a, I got so much to say about that, dude. Immortality. Having your arm putting it in like a goo in a fluid that's, I don't know if it's RNA polymerous or DNA polymerase, where it just regrows your DNA. There's still, to understand, there's still the constraints of physics, which is why it would take months. There's this process called de novo synthesis

where amino acids are formed, like nucleotides are formed, which are the building blocks of DNA and RNA. They're called nucleotides. They are formed in it, and they don't know what's causing it. And that's where they say, God, even like the greatest chemists and stuff.

Organic chemists are like, we don't know why this de novo synthesis is occurring, but the AI might be able to figure out. It will. Absolutely. It could be lightning in the right environment. And it's a hyper singularity artificial superintelligence, you'll be able to grab any rock. Take a picture of it.

That pyrite right there, right? And you will ask it where it came from and based on the size. And because it knows everything else, it will tell you exactly where that rock was mined, how it was forged or formed. The thing is, when I look at that pyrite, I don't know, we got it at what a rock store or something, right? Yeah. We have no access to any information from the owner, the location, the shipping company.

but the artificial superintelligence does know all of these things. So it would be more like if you asked me where this came from, I can say, oh, I ordered on Amazon. There's an Amazon distribution center down the street. That's the limitation of my knowledge. The AI knowing everything will say, ah, yes, it came from that warehouse delivered by this company, manufactured on this lot. The number for production is this, which means the staff working on the lot was this.

The oil was pumped in Southeast Asian Pacific. about 2023 and was synthesized at the refinery of... It will know every thing. It'll be wild. If it could read the atomic memory of something just by looking at it, it's technically as possible if you have the right sensors. It's because it's going to know all things that we know and have real-time sensors. I wonder if it can run experiments without actually running experiments.

They've been doing that already. Because sometimes actually running the experiment, you have these unpredictable outcomes that I don't know if a computer can. Yes, they've done that. Anticipate like miracles and things. It's not as, it's not as good as like sci-fi films, but they run virtual experiments using AI. I mean, bro, look, AI has already solved math problems that have stood for for hundreds of years unsolved. Rapidly recently as well. Yeah, yeah. And it was, it was like in the last year, the first one happened. And I remember having people on this show and they're like, AI, I can't remember who it was, but they were like, AI will never

solve a math problem a human can't solve because all it can do is repeat what humans know. and it will never create new arcs. All it can do is repeat what humans know. And now we're already at the point where it has already solved math problems we've never solved. No, I'm seeing massive flaws in AI with asking it for help on

lesser known video games that haven't played a lot. How do I beat this part of this little part of this? And it'll give me completely wrong information about an item that doesn't exist in the game. And I'll be like, that's not real. It's like, oh, I'm sorry, you're right. That's not real.

In this game, you want to do this. And I'm like, that's also not part of the game. Oh, yeah, you're right. Because it's just compiling from different video games and assuming something. And that's AI's limitation. I've been playing that game, Mandraigora, the awesome game, by the way.

And it's a 2D RPG platformer type thing. And I'm like, I'm in the sewers and I've got to find the grappling hook, what do I do? And then it just says like, it just gives me nonsense. It takes words from the game, mass them together,

and then tells me to do it that you can't do. That's like a glaring problem with it. Because when I read science, I don't know if it's telling me the truth or not. We are over time, though. We got to go. Smash the like button.

share the show with everyone you've ever met. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Sir, would you like to shout anything else? Shout anything out, my lord. Yes, if you want to know how you can support your military men and women and the veterans, go to Veteran Action website and go to our X and find out what you can do to support your military. Right on. Absolutely.

I second that. And also, if you guys want to follow Politburoles' guerrilla journalism against the DSA, follow Politburoblurall on Substack and Politburoblah Streetcast on YouTube. We have a merch here. You want to go to merch.com. Pick up this shirt. There's another one too. I think that there is a,

oh, no, it's not a left-lane is for crime shirt. It's an anti-communist. Yeah. shirt. They're up on the merch. com. Pick it up. Raffing Dream is yours.

Billabanti. I am Philthremains on Twix. You can check on my Patreon. It's patreon.com slash fill that remains. And the band is all that remains. You can check our stuff out on Apple, Apple, Music, Amazon, music, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify, and Deezer.

Don't forget the left lane is for crime. Carter. I'm Carter Banks. It's been a pleasure having you both. You can follow me at Carter Banks everywhere at Carter Banks official everywhere else. And check out our label Trash House Records on YouTube by scanning that QR code. Thanks for hanging out, everybody. We've got clips coming up throughout the weekend.

Don't forget the Tim Pool show this Sunday. It's going to be epic. We got a deep dive on the DSA. Thanks for hanging out. We'll see y'all then.