Will Cain Country - Flashpoint In The Border War & The Coming 'Zynsurrection'

Episode Date: January 25, 2024

Story #1: Did Texas just turn the border war into a civil war? Fox News Contributor and former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andy McCarthy rejoins Will following new developments on Texas’ response to defending the border. Story #2: Why Will stands with 'Speciesist' Elon Musk and combating A.I. Taylor Swift images. An A.I. conversation with author Reid Blackman. Story #3: Are people tired of the “Patriot Way?” Why Bill Belichick might not get hired in the NFL coaching carousel. Plus, why Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) will have to pry the Zyn from Will's cold, dead hands.   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail]   Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, did Texas just turn the border war into a civil war? Two, hell yeah, I'm a specious. Yes, I'm with Elon Musk on Humanity versus AI. And three, the market doesn't seem to be that big. for building the Patriot Way. The market doesn't seem to be that big for Bill Belichick. Plus, you can pry my zen out of my cold dead hands. Come and take it.

It's the Will Cain Show streaming live at foxnews.com and on YouTube at Fox News. Always on demand, on video, on YouTube at the Will Cain Show. Go subscribe for the latest in clips, full episodes there at the Will Cain Show on YouTube. And if your preferred choice is audio entertainment podcast, go subscribe to us at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. Leave a comment, leave a five-star review. We will read and interact with you, the listener, the viewer of the Will Kane Show. Get ready for the Zensurrection. This here is our alamo.

New York Senator Chuck Schumer gave a press conference. earlier this week, where he promised to launch a federal crackdown on nicotine pouches, most popular under the brand name, Zen. He described Zen as a pouch full of problems. Listen to Chuck Schumer. Pouch packed with problems, high levels of nicotine. So today I'm delivering a warning to parents because these nicotine pouches seem to lock their sights on young kids, teenagers, and even lower, and then use the social media to hook them. There's Schumer describing Zen as a pouchful of problems.

Schumer needs to understand that he has managed to somehow conjure up ignorance, immorality, and the instinct for anti-freedom in his attack on Zen. And he has launched an army of memes across the internet saying this is our line in the sand. This will be the Zen. Now, what is Zen? As I mentioned, Zinn is just the most popular brand name for nicotine pouches that are sold under many brand names, On, Velo, Rogue, and of course, Zen. They are incredibly popular there. By some estimates now selling over 1.1 billion tens a year of Zinn. It's quadrupled in sales. It's very popular among young men, college kids, and quite honestly, with me.

and all my friends. But Zen is not what everyone thinks. Zen is not Copenhagen. Zen is not Marlborough. So what is Zen? As I mentioned, it's a nicotine pouch that is slipped between your lip and your gum, not unlike a skull bandit, not unlike a tobacco pack, but it has no tobacco. The actual product is made of salt plus the chemical compound of nicotine comes in tens of, I believe it's 15 pouches.

You can buy them in three milligrams or six milligram doses and come in a whole host of flavors, which I'd like to think does describe something about your personality. If you're a cinnamon guy, our friendship can only go so far. I happen to be 70% peppermint, 30% citrus throughout the day. And I'll tell you something. I joke, as many listeners of the Will Cain show, no, I've tried to quit. And nicotine is the strongest addiction that has ever grabbed me. Strongest addiction I've never been able to shake throughout my life, starting when I was 15 with tobacco. So I don't think it's cool.

I'm not proud for my lack of discipline, but I'm not ignorant about the effects on my health. and they are not what most people think of when it comes to nicotine. Nicotine as a drug is, yes, addictive, but the negative effects on our health are relatively minor. Zen, nicotine, somewhat harmless. I use the word somewhat because there are some effects, increased blood pressure, maybe some chance of increased hypertension, but also comes with benefits that, look, many scientific papers have been written about this at this point increases short-term focus memory

mental acuity relaxation you could argue and i don't know where the seesaw balancing act tips but the benefits somewhere way against the relatively minor harms of nicotine but you ask the average person on the street about nicotine and they're going to tell you about the harmful effects of cigarettes or chewing tobacco They're going to tell you about cancer. But of all the things and all the risks that come with nicotine, simply not one of them is cancer. The cancer that people associate with nicotine is actually because of its delivery agent.

It's delivery mechanism. It's the tobacco in chewing tobacco. It's the dip. It's the long leaf. It's the cigarette smoke that you draw into your lungs. That is the carcinogenic element, not the nymphic. nicotine, which is the addictive element that keeps you coming back for the cancer-causing tobacco.

But what if you took out the tobacco? What if you took out the really harmful physical effects? What if you took away cancer? What are you left with? You're left with a relatively harmless drug with some benefits in nicotine, in Zen. But all that's lost, apparently, on Chuck Schumer. The New York Senator seems to know nothing. He is ignorant of the science behind the drug.

nicotine. What more, he's immoral in that. He finds, I guess, this to be some priority for the federal government when he's part of a party, Democrats, who've approached other drugs with at best tolerance, and one could argue encouragement. We have pursued a policy of the legalization of marijuana. Now, marijuana is another drug that needs to be discussed in full. But there is increasing science that suggests the correlation, which we've discussed here on the Will Kane show with Alex Berenson, between psychosis and schizophrenia, when it comes to marijuana, is at a minimum worthy of more discussion, but not when it comes to the increasing liberalization and acceptance. And in some cases, I would argue, encouragement of marijuana.

This is a party that when it comes to drug addiction seems to think that passing out clean needles is an appropriate response to very harmful drugs like opioids or heroin. This is a party that has turned a blind eye, again, at a minimum, perhaps encouragement, into the fentanyl crisis at our southern border, pouring across from Mexico into the United States, and in this case, literally killing Americans. But the priority for Chuck Schumer, the priority for this Democrat, is nicotine. this is where he looks for a federal crackdown, not on fentanyl, not on marijuana,

not on opioids, not on heroin, but on nicotine. He adds immorality to his ignorance. What more, he just has a general antipathy. Clearly, we're reminded once again

toward freedom. I'm a free man. You are a free American. We're free to make bad choices, especially those bad choices that do not have an external effect. They do not harm others. But the instinct from Chuck Schumer, and I would argue Democrats, is always toward control, towards regulation, against freedom. he's managed to conjure up ignorance and morality and an instinct of anti-freedom and one little speech targeting his pouches of problem targeting zen well good luck

because you've not only launched an army of memes you might have turned i say this somewhat facetiously you might have turned an entire generation of young men into single issue voters i'm telling you this is the alamo i'm telling you that you will launch the Zinsurrection. Come and take it, Chuck Schumer. You'll pry it out of my cold dead hands. Stay away from my

Zen. The crisis at the southern border seems to have reached an inflection point. All of a sudden, what might have been described at times as a border war, now suggests could metastasize into a civil war.

With the declaration, yes, yesterday from Governor Greg Abbott of Texas. We'll get into that in just a moment here with story number one. Story number one, did our border war just become a civil war? Texas Governor Greg Abbott wrote a letter wherein he said that he would continue to defy, in this case, the United States Supreme Court, in pursuing a policy that secures our southern border. Abbott talked about the 6 million illegal immigrants that have come into this country during the three years of the Biden administration. It's a population 6 million bigger than that of 33 states

in the United States of America. He wrote that the Biden administration had violated their federal duty, their oath of office to execute the laws enacted by Congress. In his letter, these two paragraphs caught my attention. He wrote, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the other visionaries who wrote the U.S. Constitution foresaw that states should not be left to the mercy of a lawless president who does nothing to stop external threats like cartels, smuggling millions of illegal immigrants across the border. That is why the framers included both Article 4 section 4, which promises the federal government, quote, shall protect each state against invasion, in Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges the state's sovereign interest in protecting their borders.

The failure of the Biden administration to fulfill the duties imposed by Article 4, Section 4, has triggered Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, which reserves to the states the right of self-defense. For these reasons, writes Abbott, I have already declared an invasion to invoke Texas constitutional authority to defend, and protect itself. The authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border, signed Governor Greg Abbott. Now, his declaration has been supported by the Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, has been supported by the governor of Oklahoma, Kevin Stitt,

has been supported by the governor of Virginia, Glenn Yonkin. On the other hand, Democrats like Congressman Joaquin Castro of Texas wrote on X, Governor Greg Abbott is using the Texas National Guard to obstruct and create chaos at the border. If Abbott is defying yesterday's Supreme Court ruling, POTUS needs to establish sole federal control of the Texas National Guard now. This is emerging into a flashpoint, a Mexican standoff. This is emerging into the crisis of our convention, our constitution, of this unity of the United States of America. Yesterday, right here on the Will Kane Show, former federal prosecutor and writer for National Review,

Andy McCarthy told us that this issue could be the one that creates this inflection point that asks us about, about the unity of the United States of America. Here yesterday was Andy McCarthy. I'm saying the same thing Justice Scalia said, which is that we wouldn't have had a constitutional republic in the first place if Washington had insisted to the states that they could not protect their territory themselves and that if the federal government decided not to protect it, they were stuck with that. That's not an acceptable arrangement to people. This moment, this letter from Governor Greg Abbott has now left terms like this trending on X, Civil War. We wanted to bring back former federal prosecutor and writer for National Review, Andy McCarthy, today, to discuss the developments in just 24-hour time.

So I'm happy now to bring back in Andy McCarthy. Andy, thanks for being with us again. You made that prediction yesterday, and just hours later, we see this letter from Governor Greg Abbott. Do you think this, and he's not alone, he's joined by many Republican governors, is this the kind of inflection point you were talking about yesterday here on the Will Kane show? Yeah, it is Will. I noticed also that the Justice Scalia opinion that we discussed yesterday at some length in Arizona versus the U.S., I believe Governor Abbott cited that in making the arguments, including the one that you were just talking about, which I think is the best one.

based on Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution. So I think it's not a question like in the abstract at this point, if it's an inflection point. Right before we got on, I wanted to check how many states. I count 21 states so far that have rallied to the support of Governor Abbott and the position that's been taken by Texas. And I just want to make two points because there's so much misinformation. with this, you know, civil war rhetoric.

First of all, the state is not violating any federal law. What the state is not consonant with is Biden administration policy, which is non-enforcement of the federal law. And secondly, this idea that Texas is defying the Supreme Court, just, you know, not to go all nerdy lawyer, everyone, but what the Supreme Court did was vacate an order that was directed at the federal government, at the Department of Homeland Security. It didn't order Texas to do or not to do anything. So what Texas is simply saying, and no court has said they can't do this, Texas said

the federal government can cut the barbed wire until at least the case gets resolved and the case is on a fast track. What Texas is saying is, we're going to keep putting up the barbed wire. Nobody told them they can't do that. And I would not hold my breath waiting for somebody to tell them they can't do that. You know, Andy, it struck me in talking about the arguments made over this razor wire. That's what it's about so that we can get specific on what this issue is about. It's about injunctions on what not Texas continue to put up razor wire. We're not the federal government can cut the razor wire. The federal government, Andy, in its petition, wrote something within a two sentences that does not seem to comport with

itself. It's a contradiction on its face. They seem to be sucking and blowing at the same time on a straw. The federal government wrote in this petition, quote, yet despite the danger that the wire represents, Border Patrol has seen no indication that the wire in this location has effectively deterred non-citizens from crossing into the United States. So the government is arguing the razor wire is not helping. In the very next sentence, the government writes, by preventing border patrol agents from reaching non-citizens who have already entered the United States, Texas's barriers in Eagle Pass impede agents' ability to apprehend and inspect migrants under federal law. The Border Patrol has argued, the federal government

has argued, the Border Patrol's main responsibility is to keep people safe. That's news to everyone, including, I would imagine, to the Border Patrol. They're not lifeguards. They're primary responsibility is to protect the border. But here they are arguing we can't keep migrants safe because we can't get to them because of the wire, but oh, by the way, the wire's not effective in keeping illegal immigrants out of America. Yeah, it's a ridiculous contradiction. And the other thing I think you would say about it, Will, is that if the state of Texas has the authority to put barriers up to protect its territory, which I think constitutionally speaking and undoubtedly does, then it's none of the federal government's business, whether it's working well or not.

That's basically a discretionary call for Texas. To make an argument to the court that not only undercuts their position, but is really neither here nor there, because if Texas puts up the barriers, it's up to Texas to decide whether, you know, that's working for them or not. if they have the authority to put them up, that's not homeland security's concern. You brought up Scalia. We talked about it yesterday here on the Will Cain show. His opinion in its is the styling, it's United States versus Arizona or Arizona versus the United States. Scalia made the argument, and we talked about it again yesterday, affirming the sovereignty of the states,

You laid that out yesterday that it was never the intention of the framers to outsource exclusively sovereignty to the federal government, to the United States, that men like Abbott quotes Madison or Hamilton or Jefferson would never have thought that's the idea behind the United States Constitution. Scalia wrote in that time, like, look, this is not debatable. The states have sovereignty, and sovereignty is defined by essentially being able to protect your border. This seems to put the Biden administration in a – Abbott seems to put the Biden administration in a really interesting position because no longer is it just non-enforcement. Now they're arguing about tearing down, not a wall, but razor wire to subvert the sovereignty of Texas. Yeah, that's exactly right. This is a classic case of how far will the courts allow the federal authority on this idea of preemption to basically nullify what is an ineliminable component of state sovereignty, which is the ability to protect your borders, as you say, the ability to exclude from your territory people who don't have a legal right to be there. And what the Biden administration is arguing is what the Obama Biden administration argued back in 2011, 2011, 2012 when this litigation was on, which is that you can infer from Congress's authority to preempt that they intended for the states not to be able to do to take certain enforcement measures.

And what Scalia said is, when you're talking. about a component of sovereignty, something that is this basic in our constitutional system, we don't infer from Congress's silence that they have intended to preempt the state. They need to be clear about it. And that's why I think it's essential to point out to people that Texas and the states that support them haven't done a single thing that departs an iota from any federal law. This is strictly about Biden administration policy. And as Scalia said, I know we discussed this yesterday, but it's worth underscoring.

If the framers had proposed to put in the Constitution, Biden's view of the depth and scope of federal presidential discretionary authority in a way that excluded the states from being able to protect themselves, we would not have a constitution. The states would not have ratified the Constitution. You know, I'm glad that you, I don't think you push back. I think you clarified regarding some of this hyperbole around the word civil war. And the reason you did that is you're saying, look, Texas has done nothing to defy a Supreme Court or, you know, United States law. Supreme Court order or United States law. They're ignoring a Biden policy which does not comport with the laws from Congress. it's kind of like one of the individuals who I think is accepted as an intelligent individual within I don't know media is a guy named Ian Bremmer and I saw this tweet just caught my attention and he's like oh I didn't know that you could just ignore the Supreme Court of the United States that should make the Roe v. Wade the Dobbs decision much less controversial to his point which he doesn't seem to understand but that's exactly what Dobbs did.

said you can make your law according to the state it's not going to be decided by a supreme court but what you're also highlighting is the texas isn't isn't ignoring any supreme court decision or or any law and yet we're here with this at least on the surface and sometimes andy the surface really matters like this idea that we're down we're down to a standoff here you know and and i wonder like how you see that play out like is this is this is this how does this inflection point illustrate this inflection point. Like at some point, is it armed Texas DPS officers or Texas Rangers standing there facing armed United States government border patrol officers who are both under orders, one, to defend

a razor wire wall and others under orders to cut the razor wire. I mean, is that how this ultimately, is that the moment, is that the inflexion? point? Well, I could get to that. You know, let's hope it's not one of the reasons I think will that it's important to push back against some of this rhetoric, aside from the fact that it's simply wrong. I mean, the court didn't order Texas to do anything, so they can't have defied an order. They haven't been told to do anything. And I think part of the reason that the Supreme Court did what it did was it decided that this is a political issue between the federal and state authorities. And it was uncomfortable with the idea that.

that the court had the authority to tell the federal government that couldn't take some enforcement action. That doesn't mean it thinks it has the authority to tell the state not to take one, especially if it's consistent with federal law. So there's a lot to that Supreme Court case and people who are imputing into it things that aren't there. But the other thing that occurs to me

is I've spent three years trying to explain to people in my view, and I think there's a lot of history to back this up, that a time two and a half hour riot where none of the security personnel is killed, and there's so little damage that Congress is able to reconvene that night to ratify Biden's victory in the election is not an insurrection, that what people had in mind when they were talking about insurrection in the 14th Amendment was like the civil war, or maybe something like the whiskey rebellion that went on for three years, right?

They weren't talking about a two-and-a-half-hour riot. And I think for people to go from somebody's clipping razor wire to we have a civil war situation is just as nuts as saying that that thing on January 6th was an insurrection. And I say this as somebody who, you know, look, I prosecuted terrorism cases, right? I don't like murder. I think murder is terrible. I had no qualms of conscience about prosecuting murderers. a murder is not a terrorist attack, and a riot isn't an insurrection, and cutting razor wire

isn't a civil war. You know, everybody ought to splash a little cold water on them. One of the reasons that I like you, Andy, and I think that not only do I appreciate it, I think it's accurate. Do not, do not exaggerate this into something that it's not. But let's, I do want to push this towards the end of this conversation into practical reality. Right. There does seem to be this movement, starting with Texas, and as you mentioned now, 22 different states to say, I don't care about the policy of the Biden administration. And therefore, I do not care anymore about your chosen policy of non-enforcement at the border.

I will enforce the border. Now, whether or not that's DeSantis, lending support financially, or with Florida National Guard, whether or not that's Texas, deploying Texas National Guard, whatever that may be, it states asserting that right of sovereignty, taking up the job that is neglected by the federal government, and doing something that the federal government, at least under current leadership, does not want done. And I do wonder, how does that play out? I don't know, Andy, that it just plays out in the courts. I don't know, does it play out in the political process?

But I do wonder, and I think everybody sits here and wonders, how does that play out in reality? I think the Biden administration backs down because it's an election year and he wants to get reelected. And at a certain point in time, Will, when you have an issue, that's an 80-20 issue. against you, where your policy, instead of being driven by national security, what's best for the country, and what's even best for your political interest, you instead decide to let the bus be driven by like a 7% fringe of your party because they're particularly activist and particularly annoying. That can't be sustained. And I think the end game here is that it can't be sustained. And what I suspect is going to happen is the Supreme Court, and this is an indication I think we already have, the Supreme Court doesn't want to dive into this, because if there's anything that's dubious, I mean, you can argue for a long time about, you know, the state's rights of sovereignty to protect their territory were clear at the time of the founding.

the federal government's sovereignty is unquestionable, but how that plays out when it pressures into the states, that's a political issue. The one thing that's really dubious is what role does the court have in national security? The answer to that is none. So I suspect that the Supreme Court is going to want to have as little to do with this as it can, because ultimately Biden will have to back down on this. The states are entitled to protect themselves, and Biden's position politically can't be sustained. Here's what I like. I like not only your sobriety, but I like your faith in the American people. And you're backed up by a reality when you see voters in places like New Hampshire rank immigration as their number one issue. And when you see Democrat governors

in Chicago or New York saying, acknowledging reality that this is a problem. And you're putting faith in the American people to say, then you can't keep the leadership that enables this problem. And that's how this is handled in reality politically. And I'm really glad you came back again today to address the development since we just talked yesterday. Thanks, as always, man. Andy McCarthy. Thanks so much, Will. All right. There you go. Check him out at National Review, Andy McCarthy. I'm reading Elon Musk's biography by Walter Isaacson. In this book, there's a moment where Elon Musk takes specific interest amidst launching rockets to space and revolutionizing the car industry, where he takes an interest in artificial intelligence. He decides then that he should meet with some of the founders of Google.

They have a conversation, they have a couple meetings, they have a sit-down about AI. musk talks about some of his fears the threats to humanity and the response from larry page one of the founders of google was to musk you're a specious and musk's response to that was hell yes i'm a specious that coming up in just moments here on the will cane show for a limited time at mcdonalds enjoy the tasty breakfast trio your choice of chicken or sauce sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash-brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along.

Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at the quiz.box. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. pornographic Taylor Swift, deep fakes, deep fakes with Donald Trump defending Zen and whether or not we should all be like Elon Musk, where would not we should all be speciesists. That's coming up in just moments here on the Will Cain Show. Streaming live at foxnews.com on YouTube, the Fox News page on YouTube. Once this show is over, the show will be available on demand at the Will Cain Show on YouTube. if you go subscribe to that channel right now just hit subscribe then you'll get clips you'll get

short clips you'll get exclusive interviews you'll get the full episode anytime you want it on demand if you prefer to listen in your car go to apple spotify fox news podcast hit subscribe to the will cane show podcast i've been fascinated by ai i think it's one of the most underreported stories and that's not to suggest we don't we don't have some understanding of artificial intelligence, but I don't know that we fully appreciate the depth of artificial intelligence and how it promises to become the number one story for humanity, not just for you, not just for me, not just for America, but for the world. What are the effects of artificial intelligence? So I want to commit going forward that we have some regular

conversations and understanding how it's going to work into our everyday lives, including deepfakes of Donald Trump and Taylor Swift and whether or not we need to control the morality at the programmer level of artificial intelligence. In order to start and continue those conversations, I want to bring in a friend of the program. He's the author of Ethical Machines and the founder and CEO of Virtue and AI Ethical Risk Consultancy. His name is Reed Blackman. What's up, man? What's up, Reed? Hey, how's it going? Good. So are you a specious? Are you Pro-humanity, read. Yeah, yeah.

So let me give you your audience a little bit of context about where that term even came from. So, yeah, there's this thing called Speciesism that someone might get level, a charge that somebody might get leveled with, and it comes from animal rights literature. So there's a famous piece by Peter Singer.

He's a famous philosopher out of Princeton who back in the 70s wrote a piece called or a book called Animal Liberation. And the idea was something like, hey, listen, we've got to take the interests of non-human animals to be of equal weight as the interests, roughly desire, as needs, et cetera, of human beings. And to claim that human interests are more important than the interests of non-human animals

is to engage or manifest a kind of speciousism, which is, of course, analogous to racism or sexism. So it's just supposed to be just as or similarly morally objectionable. And so now what Larry Page's response to Elon Musk, as you pointed out, was, hey, man, you're being specious, it's to say, why should we take the interests of human beings to be as more important as the interests of AI? That's how the analogy would go, which frankly strikes me as rather bizarre on a number of fronts. Not just bizarre reads, suicidal. And I'm not, that's not to that's, well, but that's not to leap to, and you and I've had these conversations and we'll

continue to have these conversations. How big of an existential threat to humanity is AI? But that's not to leap to that conclusion that the answer is it will destroy humanity. But as a priority, yeah, if you don't make the continued existence of humanity the top of your pyramid, then you are embracing a future, which is by its very nature, at least when it comes to the potential of AI, suicidal. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I think that's broadly right. You know, there's also sort of, you know, very obvious things to set. may not obvious, but things are saying in response to that specious charge. So, look, in the case of animals, you might say things like this. Well, you know, maybe I am a species, but that's for good reason, because there are morally irrelevant differences between humans and animals.

For instance, we engage in reflective deliberation. We have these long-term commitments to other people, to the projects that we pursue, to justice, whatever it is. And by virtue of being, rational creatures who take on the sort of much more complex, fuller lives, yeah, our flourishing matters more than, say, the flourishing of chickens, right? That's not the case with, say, someone's being black. You might think, yeah, there's no morally relevant difference to someone's being black or a woman such that their interests count less. Not with humans and AI, I want to say the same kind of thing as I'd say about the chicken.

Artifice, we are morally different. We are morally superior to AI. AI doesn't have moral worth. It doesn't have a dignity the way that human beings do, because it doesn't have, the kinds of capacities and lives and the capacity for human flourishing or just flourishing that we do. So, yeah, call me a specious, but I've got reason for it. One of the things that people say about humanity that distinguishes us from much of the animal kingdom, certainly from plants, is consciousness. That's what gives us our worth. Can AI achieve consciousness? Okay. So when we say consciousness, I take it you mean something like, there's something that's like to be us. We experience the world. We feel pain and pleasure and love and disgust and all that stuff. That's sort of part of what gives us our moral worths. That sounds right. So they were talking broadly. You might say consciousness. You might also say sentience. You might use those interchangeably. AI doesn't have sentience. Doesn't have consciousness. And so you might think, look, if that's a necessary condition for being of moral worth,

then it just lacks it. Could in principle, nothing, nothing, nothing, I got to stress just, nothing like the AI that we have today has consciousness or sentience. It's just not, it's not even in the realm of where we are. People argue that there's a kind of intelligence that AI has, and you could either say, no, it doesn't have intelligence because it doesn't have consciousness

and you can't have intelligence without consciousness, or you can say, I'll grant you fine, it has intelligence, but it's a kind of intelligence that's divorced from consciousness. Either way, the answer for now, the short-term and, frankly, the foreseeable future is that AI doesn't have consciousness. Okay, this is somewhat related to AI. I mean, artificial intelligence is what helps create these things, but I saw a video yesterday. I'm drawing my line in the sand, read. It's the Alamo.

Chuck Schumer will not take my Zen nicotine. I saw the memes are incredible I saw a meme and it had Donald Trump you know we will have beautiful flavors of Zen will not allow them to take your Zen you know just a perfect impersonation of him championing Zen that's a fun you know deep fake there are others out there like I haven't seen these some of my producers were telling me Taylor Swift pretty risque I don't know maybe even pornographic of Taylor Swift and Kansas City Chiefs gear but I'm But let's take it even more malignant, like I've heard, like in high school that's beginning to happen where, you know, right now, you know, you talk to your kids like, don't take pictures. That can go anywhere. But now people can create pictures of you, not just celebrities, of you in compromised positions or you in embarrassing situation, whatever it may be, pornographic. What do we do here? This is AI. This is part of AI. Yeah. It's an obvious application of AI, the generative AI in particular, right? So like you said, you get false images. We're going to have false video. We already sort of have that, but we're going to get more advanced generative video. And you're right. There's both the sort of private and a public threat or threats to public and private life. Private life, you've got bullying, right? You already have cyber bullying on social media, right? Kids on social media bullying other kids. And actually you have adults. bullying other adults, for that matter. So this is a sort of method of massively ratching it up the kind of threat. And as you said, in the public's fear, we've got, for instance, and most obviously threats to elections, right? There have been fake images of Donald Trump getting elected, sorry, fake images of Donald Trump getting arrested. Recently in New Hampshire,

there was a fake Biden voice calling people in New Hampshire saying don't come to vote. I think this is a bipartisan issue. I don't think anyone should want this in the public space or in the private space. I can't see a way around it without a law forbidding such kinds of things. There was a law or a there was a bill introduced by, I forgot their names, but a Democratic and a Republican senator, I believe, to making this a federal crime to create General AI and spread misinformation. But who knows about whether it's going to pass. But without a law, and that's how. heavily enforced, we're in big trouble.

Yeah, I just don't know how you, honestly, I do not know how you legislate that. The words that just came out of your mouth, you know, generative AI that creates disinformation. I mean, you can't separate that from, you know, from fiction at this point, meaning creative, creative intellectual property, shows, art. I don't know how you separate any of that, you know. Is Van Gogh disinformation because it's a distortion? of reality. You know, I don't know where this will go with you. Go ahead. Well, I mean, I suppose I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a bill writer. Nor do I want to be. But you could see perhaps certain kinds of narrow laws being placed. For instance, no creating false gendered, no creating

generative images of candidates that are running for political office. That's not, I don't think that's obviously implausible. That would obviously not affect, say, Hollywood or other kind of totally unenforceable. You write it down, it's on paper, and it's unenforceable. And by the way, if you made it enforceable, Reed, I'm terrified of the agency that enforces that law. Well, I'm not that terrified. I mean, there's got to be more controls around it, right? So we don't want neither side, I think, wants any either side of running amok. I don't think that's good for democracy. And so I don't think it's good for any political party that intends to operate within a democracy.

The other problem, though, is that there's really three kinds of threats. There's one, there's opposing political parties. They can do it. Then you've got foreign state actors, right? So think, you know, China or Russia or some such, North Korea generating false images. And then you've got another threat of just, if you like, loan actors acting without the consent or without the authority or permission or direction of any political entity. So you've got at least three sources of a threat.

And to your point, yeah, I do not see how we get a handle on that. Yeah, but I'm going to tell you something. So, like, the least of my concerns when it comes to AI is the survival of democracy. I think that is, well, I mean, honestly, man, I think you're like saying to the patient, I'm really concerned about the lesions and not the underlying. HIV that causes the lesions. I mean, what you're talking about with AI is a distortion of reality. And the effects on democracy are only one lesion on a patient who is suffering from a distorted reality. I'm more concerned when it comes to AI of everyone. And I had this conversation with

a friend this morning actually. It's like, I've always been opposed to this idea that perception is reality. It's almost like quasi-religious to kind of indulge in this self-help world of, you know, positive thinking can lead to a positive reality. Negative thinking can lead to a negative reality. But I'm changing. I'm changing. And I saw Tony Robbins do this awesome thing with Theo Vaughn where he was like, hey, I want you to look around the room and remember everything that's red. Now close your eyes. And, of course, you think you're going to tell Tony Robbins all the things in the room that are red. And he goes, now tell me everything that's brown. And you can't, because your focus wasn't on brown, your focus was on red.

And if your focus is on negativity, you'll manifest negativity. If your focus is on positivity, it can become your reality. So you could argue we always have different realities. But what I'm worried about with AI, democracy is just part of it. I'm worried about all of us living in individual realities. Yeah, the lack of a shared reality is a big concern. And it's only, frankly, it's only going to get worse, I think. I'm a little bit worried about augmented reality in addition to AI, right?

So we have Apple coming out with its whatever they call the Vision Pro or whatever ridiculous, frankly, from my perspective, ridiculous helmet that people are supposed to wear. Just imagine that not only is it a different informational reality, if you like, but it's literally, you're looking at different stuff. You're on the subway or you're on the train or you're out of park with people. everyone's got their, you know, picture at 10 years, 20 years from now where it's not a helmety thing, but it's more of like embedded in your glasses or your contact lenses where people are literally looking at different things. So I think that, you know, the potential for something like a fractured reality is sufficiently high such that we should be worried about it. Absolutely. And yeah, democracy is one thing. Now, I'll say one less thing, though. I do think it's important to identify

the particular lesions, as you put it. And that's because I don't think that there's a silver bullet that's going to just sort of solve all the problems. I think it's going to have to be, let's dice up the problems, let's dice up, you know, because the solutions are going to have to be targeted for those particular problems. So I agree with you that there's a few, like, an underlying thing causing all the lesions. It's not obvious to me that there's, the only option is to, is to treat the thing that's causing all the lesions.

Put fingers in the dam. It might be a whack-a-mo. plug in the dam in different ways. Yeah. Maybe. Well, that actually is a great place to take this. This is where I wanted to end with you. So when I was thinking about Elon Musk in his position to this,

I don't want to ever, you know, buy my ideologies from a cracker jack box or indulge in hero worship. But I do think he's kind of getting this right, at least on the surface where he's like, where he did in the past say that the only answer is a democratization of AI. Like, you need to have a robust competition of a bunch of small AIs. If AI is a reflection of the moral values of its programmer and then what it builds on top of that, I think the biggest threat is one monopolistic AI, resting on one small group of people's moral vision of artificial intelligence. It seems like, and I don't even know what that means in reality, read, but like a bunch of AIs. We need a bunch of AIs competing.

And that may exacerbate the fractured reality. like everyone living in their own reality. Right. But I have to think like free market, if you have to invoke antitrust laws, just as many different AI developers with their own view of the world as possible. Yeah, I think that's broadly,

that's got to be broadly right. One slight technicality is that it's, I don't think like a Sam Altman has his finger on the scales for the content of what, say, GPT, pushes out. It reflects the data, at least in no small part, the data that they collect. And so it's not necessarily the sort of evil or bad intentions of the developers. It's just sort of haphazardly collected data, not vetted for safety of any sore,

just thrown into the machine, as it were, and let's see what pops out. And there's more within that, of course, although they've also been destroying, every platform has been destroying their trust and safety team. So that's a little bit worrying. But yeah, having sort of feel like competing AIs seems like the right thing. I don't think we want a completely centralized single AI. But I also don't think that we're headed in that direction. We're probably headed more in the direction of a handful of very powerful AIs that are created by the most powerful tech companies.

Mark Zuckerberg of Meta recently, you know, threw their hat into the ranks. And we're putting a lot of resources into this. So, you know, you're going to see META and Google and Microsoft and Open AI. and Anthropic and a handful of other well-funded companies and those that haven't even been founded yet competing in the marketplace. And there won't be a single winner, I don't think. The question's going to be, do we have enough?

Do we have enough competition? And I don't think that we know the answer to that yet. We'll keep looking for answers. We'll keep looking for it with you, Reid Blackman, the CEO of Virtue and AI Ethical Risk Consultancy. Annie wrote the book, check it out, Ethical Machines. Always good to talk to you, Reid. Thank you.

You as well will. All right. Take care. It doesn't look like the market for the Patriot Way is as big as that we might have anticipated. Not everybody seems willing to sign up for the machine building mechanism that is Bill Belichick. What happened to the market for the greatest coach of all time for Bill Belichick coming up on the Will Kane Show? Following Fox's initial donation to the Kerr County Flood Relief Fund, our generous viewers have answered the call to action across all Fox platforms

and have helped raise $7 million. Visit go.com forward slash TX flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts. Jim Harbaugh is the new head coach of the Los Angeles Chargers, but you know who else is still on the market? Bill Belichick. It's the Will Kane Show streaming live at Fox News.com and on YouTube. at Fox News. Always on demand on YouTube at the Will Cain Show. Go, hit subscribe, and always on demand in audio format at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. Go, hit subscribe to the Will Cain Show.

Jim Harbaugh is now the head coach of the Los Angeles Chargers, and the coaching carousel is spinning around that you can almost see where the different ping pong balls or little marbles will land on the roulette wheel. There are rumors of Detroit Lions' offensive coordinator Ben Johnson landing with the Carolina Panthers. There are rumors of Bobby Sloick, the Houston Texans offensive coordinator, landing with the Tennessee Titans. Mike McDonald, a defensive coordinator for the Baltimore Ravens, perhaps,

with the Washington commanders, and Mike Vrable, former head coach of the Tennessee Titans, perhaps with the Seattle Seahawks. That's all rumored. But there's not that many rumors about landing spots for Bill Belichick. There seems to be one, the Atlanta Falcons. Now, my anticipation was, regardless of the fact that he's 72 years old, the market for the greatest professional football coach of all time would be robust,

that he would be interviewing with every one of these franchises, and they would all be competing for his services. so much so, the teams that didn't have a coach opening, there was talk, of course, of the Dallas Cowboys, creating a coaching opening, getting rid of Mike McCarthy, because of the opportunity to go get Bill Belichick. But that's not the way the market seems to have played out. I'm not saying there's no interest in Belichick.

There's a lot of smoke around the Atlanta Falcons. But you would also think it would just be more. you would think there would be a bidding war for Bill Belichick. I've thought about why is there not. There's a couple of different reasons. Well, obviously, his age, he's 72. There is the control issue. Bill Belichick notoriously fought for, had at times, and requires control of a franchise

in a way that a sitting general manager or president of an organization, or maybe even owner, doesn't want to hand over. to someone new. There is the quarterback issue. Thirdly, not just that so much of Bill Belichick's success was tied to Tom Brady, but that almost every team is looking for some young, hot, offensive coordinator to groom their young quarterback. And for everything that he is, that is not Bill Belichick. But still, when you look at guys like Belichick and Nick Sabin, you have to step back and go, do you want to achieve overnight success, or do you want to build a machine that can last for a decade? Do you want to rebuild the Patriot Way?

And what I'm surprised about for so many in the NFL, the answer is not a resounding yes when it comes to recreating the Patriot Way. Look, guys like Belichick and Sabin as well, they create culture. I mean, what was it but culture, the Patriot Way? They create the ability to continue on in your winning ways, regardless of everything else around you changing out. Again, both Sabin and Belichick had massive turnover in offensive coordinators, defensive coordinators. In the case of Sabin, talent, obviously, on an every three to four year basis, which meant that he had to do the same thing with new quarterbacks.

but what was probably what is the most unique thing about both of those coaches is that while you built this culture you built this machine it was an adaptable machine it was football AI it changed it wasn't the same all the time the patriots won with tom brady as a bus driver a caretaker earlier in his career on defense later they won with an unstoppable offense with tom brady lighten it up, passing 40 times a game. Sabin, same thing early on, one with defense. When he saw the way that college football was headed with the spread offense, he brought in guys like Steve Sarkeesian and others. And before you know it, Tuotunga Valo is throwing the ball over the field, which is completely antithetical to teams previously built by Nick Sabin. And that is what's incredible. yes, the consistency of the culture, but also the adaptability of the machine to change on with time. And why wouldn't some team want to sign up to build that machine? And I think it comes back to really, again, a couple of those reasons. One, you have to turn over control. And a lot of

people's prime... You know, I've learned this as I've gotten older. Very few people, especially in corporate environments go through their life trying to win. That's the truth. Success is not the biggest motivation factor. It's not for most people. You know what is? Fear and avoidance of failure. It's more important to avoid failing than it is to achieve success. If you bring in Bill Belichick, you're going to achieve hiring yourself right out of a job. I mean, you're a redundancy at some level. You are hiring someone that pushes you right into the bucket of failure to against self-preservation towards the retirement of your position.

But then let's say you do want to sign up for it. How long does it take to build the machine? It's not an overnight thing, you know? And he's 72. Do you have five years of Belichick in your organization? And then thirdly, obviously, do you have... That fundamental piece to go with that development. Do you have that young quarterback?

And is he the right guy to inherit and bring along that young quarterback? You need patience to win with the machine that is Bill Belichick. Nick Sabin, he set his machine in motion. By the end, they were saying it ran itself. It was baked into the cake until college football changed the game with NIL and Transfer Portal. then the machine was no longer self-sustainable and age 70 whatever you know you want to do your hard work in the early parts the startup portion of your business then you hope to get things down into a well-old machine that helps run itself it did for sabin until somebody changed the game so but belichick has to start again this is going to be a startup he has to rebuild that culture he has to build that machine from the ground up so you not only need patience you need humility you got to set your own ego and responsibility and control aside. But most importantly, you need time. You're going to need time in Atlanta to build that up. And I don't know that any organization, or I think we're getting

the answer, not many organizations, maybe in an act of self-awareness, realize we don't have the patience, we don't have the humility, we don't have the time for Bill Belichick. Hopefully, for him and for us. And I think for Atlanta, hopefully in the end, they don't. They don't do with the falcons all right that's going to do it for me today here on the will cane show go follow me on x at will cane follow me on instagram see will cane on facebook under will cane news subscribe to this show on youtube subscribe wherever you get your podcasts tomorrow is our sports exclusive episode of the will cane show and then we'll see you again next time Listen to ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts,

and Amazon Prime members. You can listen to this show, ad-free, on the Amazon music app. This is Jason Chaffetz from the Jason in the House podcast. Join me every Monday to dive deeper into the latest political headlines and chat with remarkable guests. Listen and follow. Follow now at foxnewspodcast.com or wherever you download podcasts.