乔·罗根播客。去看看吧。>>《乔·罗根体验》。>> 白天训练。晚上听乔·罗根播客。全天。>> 没错。>> 就每天早上。>> 不知道杰夫·贝索斯在做什么。>> 他肯定在做一些[笑声]睾酮之类的。他看起来壮得很。>> 他看起来很壮，对吧？>> 是的。

但他不喜欢 >> 快速 >> 快速[笑声]，在大概 50 岁，在 59 岁时，不到 1 年，他他就从铅笔极客变成了，呃，看起来像巨石强森一样。>> 是的。像个迷你版的强壮阿尔法男。>> 是的。就像就像他的脖子变得比脑袋还粗。>> 是的。他变壮了。>> 但再看他早期的照片，他的脖子就像一根面条。>> 我支持这种活动。我喜欢看到他朝这个方向发展 >> 这没什么。

而且他的声音低了大概两个八度。我希望你也朝那个方向发展。>> 我觉得我们能做到。>> 我我我是说，我应该……>> 我觉得我们能做到……>> gigachad。[笑声] 大家是这么叫它的。>> 那个人在哪儿？>> 贝勒。呃，我不知道他在哪儿。>> 那好像是个真人。>> 那个艺术家。对。>> 不是。>> 哦，gigachad。[笑声] 哦，gigachad。对。我不知道那是不是真人。很难说。

>> 不，那是真人。>> 那是真人。>> 他有很夸张的下颌，还有像雕刻得完美无缺的头发。>> 对。嗯，我是说，他们可能稍微夸张了一点，不过……>> 嗯……>> 不过，呃，不，我觉得他现实中其实差不多就长那样。>> 哇。>> 嗯，所以……>> 就是，就是，他的长相相当独特。>> 我觉得我们能做到。就在那里的那个人，那是真人。[笑声] >> 那是真家伙。

>> 我一直以为那是CGI。>> 不，我觉得其中一个……我觉得右上角那个不是[笑声]他。那不是……>> 但左边那个……[清嗓] 那个好像是真的。不，那是……那是人造的，兄弟。那是假的。它有那种恐怖谷的感觉，对吧？>> 这……这并非不可能。>> 不，不，达到那种状态并非不可能，但不可能一直保持那么低的体脂。

我是说，那就像……你……你在那种时候，他还得脱水以及做各种事情。>> 哦，它是以真人为原型的。>> 对。对。以……为原型，>> 对，但它不是真人。他实际长什么样？>> 我觉得那些图是[ __ ] >> 有些是。那个是真的吗？好吧。那个……那个看起来是真的。看着像一个练得非常壮的健美运动员。>> 对。>> 对，那个看起来是真的。那种是能达到的。

但其中有几张图会让你觉得：“这是怎么回事？”>> 对。对。对。完全是。嗯……>> 嗯，我是说，你看，你看……[笑声] >> 那个人是……那是……那是那个……>> 那是真家伙？>> 嗯，有那个……那个……那个叫“雷神”的冰岛家伙。>> 哦，对。那个跳进冰冻湖里然后[ __ ]的家伙。>> 嗯，就是扮演“魔山”的那个人。嗯……>> 哦，那个人。

>> 那是……那就像一个……那……那就像一个变异的强壮人类。对。>> 就像……像是，呃，他会出现在《X战警》之类的作品里，你懂吧？>> 他就是不像……不像，呃……>> 还有那个，你知道那个……你看过那个“帐篷和帐篷袋”的梗图吗？>> 嗯，你知道它就是……把帐篷……帐篷装进去真的很难。>> 哦，对。对。[笑声] >> 确实。>> 然后有一张他和他女朋友的照片。太搞笑了。

[笑声] >> 对，那……>> 我不知道它是怎么装进去的，你懂吧？就像……看起来太小了。不过……>> 我见过布莱恩·[笑声]肖。布莱恩·肖就像是世界上力量最强的人。他差不多有[笑声]7英尺高。他重400磅。>> 而且他的……他的骨密度是5亿人中才有1个的水平。所以有一个……就像……可能有16个人。>> 他是个体型庞大的人。就像一个货真价实的巨人，就像那个人一样。但我们见过他。

他当时在母舰的后台休息室和我们待在一起。就像，好吧，如果这是大卫与歌利亚的时代，那这就是一个真正的巨人，就像《圣经》里的巨人。>> 偶尔会出现一个超级巨人。>> 这是一个真的……真的。不是那种又高又瘦的篮球运动员，而是一个7英尺、400B的力量举运动员。>> 就像你不会想要特意看他。就是那个人。

看看有没有他站在普通人旁边之类的照片。我……>> 正想找……>> 有了。就在那儿，那就是他。好像有一张他站在阿诺德之类的人旁边的照片，而且那是……所有人……所有人看起来都很小。>> 我是说，我觉得他其实是个很酷的人。>> 哦，布莱恩非常酷。也非常聪明。不同寻常，你懂的，你会觉得任何人长到那么大……

那肯定得是个[ __ ] >> 不。>> 对。以前有安德烈巨人，他非常棒。你……>> 他在《公主新娘》里演得很好，而且……>> 不，他就是很棒，就这么简单。>> 对。对。所以，我们刚才在聊，嗯，萨姆·阿尔曼和塔克的这场采访，我当时就说，我们或许应该直接在节目里聊这个，因为我觉得这是我这辈子见过的最疯狂的采访之一。>> 对。

>> 塔克开始提起这个人，说他是个举报人什么的。>> 一个举报人，你知道，>> 自杀了，但看起来不像自杀。>> 然后……然后他和萨姆·阿尔曼谈起这件事。萨姆·奥尔顿就说：“你是在指控我吗？”他说：“不，不，不。我没有。我只是说，我……我觉得有人杀了他。”>> 对。而且就是……这事应该受到调查。>> 对。>> 嗯，而不是直接撤掉这个案子。

>> 看起来好像……>> 他们就这么把案子撤了。对。对。但他的父母认为他是被谋杀的。>> 对。>> 嗯，一个安防摄像头的电线被剪断了。嗯……>> 两个房间里都有血。>> 两个房间里都有血。房间里有别人的假发。而且……>> 别人的假发。>> 假发。>> 假发。对。不是他的假发。>> 有一顶假发随便放在那里并不正常。>> 对。嗯，而且……嗯，而且据称他就在自杀前叫了DoorDash外卖。

>> 呃，这个……这看起来不太寻常，你懂吧？>> 对。>> 就像，你知道，来吧……我要点个披萨，转念一想，我还是自杀吧。呃，这看起来像是心态在极短时间内发生了变化。>> 非常奇怪。尤其是他的父母，他们……他们完全不相信他是自杀的。>> 没有留下遗书之类的东西。>> 没有。>> 对。>> 这看起来相当[ __ ]。

而且你知道，一家价值数十亿美元的大型AI公司的举报人可能会被干掉，这并非离谱到不可想象。>> 我是说，这简直就是电影里的情节。>> 就是电影里的情节，但电影里的情节有时也是真的。>> 对。没错。[笑声] 正是。>> 这有点奇怪，我……我觉得他们应该进行一次正规的调查。进行正规调查有什么坏处？>> 对。>> 没有。

>> 对，>> 当然。但整段交锋太离奇了。>> 对。对。萨姆·阿尔曼面对谋杀指控时的反应很离奇。>> 听着，我不知道他是否有罪，但不可能表现得比这更像有罪了。[笑声] >> 所以，我就……>> 或者表现得更奇怪。>> 对。>> 你知道，也许这只是他的社交方式。比如，也许他只是不擅长面对冲突，然后脑子就一片空白了，你懂吧？

但如果……如果有人指控我杀了杰米，比如杰米是个举报人，而杰米被干掉了，然后我会说：“等等，你在……你在说什么？你是在指控我杀了我的朋友吗？”就像：“你他[ __ ]的在说什么？”我会……我会更……我评价。>> 对。对。正是。你知道，那会……>> 我会有点恼火。>> 对。

那会像是……嗯，你会……你肯定会坚持要求彻底调查。对。>> 而不是试图把它掩盖过去。>> 对。我不会想当然地认为他……他是自杀的。我会起疑心。如果塔克把事情的这一面告诉我，我会说：“这看起来确实像是谋杀。[ __ ] 我们应该调查一下。”>> 我是说，所有迹象都表明这是一起谋杀。

不是……不是说，你知道，蒂姆·莫尔文与这起谋杀有任何关系，但是，呃……>> 两个房间里都有血。>> 是两个房间里都有血。就像，对，还有安防摄像头的电线，以及就在自杀前叫的DoorDash外卖。没有遗书。他的父母认为，呃，他是被谋杀的，而且，嗯，我认识的那些认识他的人说他没有自杀倾向。所以我就想，这……你为什么会直接得出这个结论？>> 父母起诉了……>> 呃，房东？

>> 他们起诉了儿子的房东，声称他们儿子位于旧金山的公寓楼的业主和管理人员参与了对其死亡的大范围掩盖。>> 房东？>> 对。还有一堆奇怪的……他们说楼里好像有包裹失踪了。有些人说，他们看到包裹还在不断送到，后来突然全都消失了。>> 哦。但那也可能是因为人们一直都会偷别人的包裹。

>> 门廊包裹窃贼的事。>> 对。>> 说他们未能尽到保护责任。>> 还有，我是说，那些可怜的父母因为儿子那样死去而遭受了那么多创伤。我是说，那一定 >> 愿上帝保佑他们。经历那样的事情后，他们怎么可能保持理智？他们可能，他们悲痛欲绝。谁知道他们现在相信什么。>> 对。本来应该问问爱普生是不是自杀的。

>> [笑声] >> 对，那就是那个卡什·马特尔的事。卡什·马特尔、丹·博尼诺试图让所有人相信那一点。就像，好吧。>> 警卫不在那里，摄像头也停止工作了，而且，嗯 >> 你知道，>> 警卫睡着了。摄像头坏了。他和一个块头巨大、用了类固醇的健美运动员关在同一间牢房里，那人是个杀人犯，曾是个坏警察。就像，整件事都有点疯狂。

整件事都有点疯狂，比如他宁愿直接自杀，也不揭露他那些亿万富翁朋友。>> 对。>> 然后 >> 你看到蒂姆·迪伦和克里斯·科莫谈这件事了吗？>> 看了。他喜欢这个说法。>> 克里斯·克罗莫看起来简直蠢透了。[笑声] >> 蒂姆刚列举了所有的……>> 蒂姆就是……然后他说，我同意，这确实很奇怪。就像，这当然很奇怪，克里斯。老天啊。你不能就这么随大流。

你得把事情想透。而如果你把那件事想透了，你就会觉得，我不认为他是自杀的。没人这么认为。你非得在情报机构工作，才会认为他是自杀的。[笑声] >> 确实。确实看起来不太可能。>> 看起来极不可能。极其、极其不可能。所有线索都指向谋杀。>> 是的。>> 指向他们必须除掉他，因为他知道得太多了。

不管他当时在搞什么[ __ ]，不管他是哪种情报资产，不管他在谋划什么，你知道，显然都非常有效。>> 是的。而且很多人都被拿住了把柄。你看，你那位比尔·盖茨现在开始说气候变化没什么大不了的。就好像，各位放轻松。我知道过去15年里我把你们吓得[ __ ]，不过，啊，我们不会有事的。[笑声] >> 是啊。

我的意思是，你知道，就像我刚进演播室之前说的那样，你知道，就像每天都有某种疯狂离谱的新事情发生。它……感觉现实正在加速。>> 每天都是这样。而且每天都变得越来越荒谬，以至于我们身处模拟之中这件事越来越无可否认。>> 是啊。是啊。真的感觉像模拟，你知道吗？就像，拜托。

事实真有可能是这样的概率有多大？>> 你有没有关注那个 Three Atlas？你在看那个 >> 那颗彗星吗？>> 是啊。不管它是什么。>> 是啊。是啊。我的意思是，我的意思是，有一件事我可以说，就是，听着，我要是……要是知道任何外星人的证据，嗯，乔，我向你保证。我会来上你的节目，并在节目上把它公开。>> 好。>> 是啊，>> 这交易不错。>> 是啊，相当不错。>> 我会相信你。

是啊，谢谢。>> 我……我会坚持，我会履行我的，你知道，履行我的承诺。所以，嗯 >> 好吧。我会要求你兑现的。>> 是啊。是啊。而且，而且[清嗓子]说清楚，我永远不会自杀。[笑声] >> 我也不认为你会。>> 所以，当着镜头，各位，我永远、绝对不会自杀。>> 如果有人说你自杀了，[笑声]我会竭尽全力抗争到底。>> 我会竭尽全力抗争到底。我会……我不会相信。

我不会相信的。关于“三眼阿特拉斯”的问题是，它的确是个>>牛得要命的名字。>>对，“第三只眼”听起来像第三只眼什么的。>>对，确实。[笑声] 三眼就是第三。它只是被探测到的第3个星际天体。>>好吧。>>对。[哼鼻声] 奥比亚斯。>>对。阿洛几天前上播客谈过它。>>对。有可能。我不知道。

但我>>显然今天他们说它改变了航向。嗯，>>你看到那个了吗，杰米？>>阿维今天说了些什么。我发给你。嗯，>>呃，我知道是在 Reddit 上。>>给你，杰米。我现在就发给你。嗯，这很迷人。还有一点也很迷人，因为不管它是什么，它几乎完全由镍构成。而这种东西在地球上存在的唯一形式，呃，显然是，呃，工业合金。

嗯，嗯，大多数，不，确实有，有>>确实有，呃，主要由镍构成的彗星和小行星，事实上有。对。所以，嗯，你在地球上开采镍的地方，其实就是曾有一颗小行星或彗星撞击地球的地方，那里是一个富镍的，呃，你知道，>>富镍、富镍、富……富的矿藏。>>对，那，那，那是……它来了。那些都来自撞击。

当时你肯定不想在那里，因为任何东西都会被彻底摧毁。对吧。嗯，但如今镍和钴的来源就是那里。>>所以，这是奥维奥·洛普。几小时前，出现了非引力加速度的第1个迹象，也就是除了引力之外还有某种东西正在影响它的加速度，这意味着有某种超越引力的东西正在影响它的轨迹。很有意思。

嗯，所以它大部分是镍，铁非常少，而，呃，他说，呃，这在地球上只存在于合金中，但不管怎样，你知道，你面对的是另一个星球>>有，有，有，有些小行星、陨石非常富含镍，那很重，那是来自太空的东西。>>对，它只是，对，这并不意味着，如果你全用镍来制造，它会是一艘非常、算是很重的宇宙飞船。哦，对。>>而且[ __ ]巨大。

有曼哈顿那么大，而且全是镍。这有点疯狂。>>对，那是一艘很重的宇宙飞船。>>如果它撞上来，那可真是个大问题。>>呃，是的。不，那会像是把一整块大陆彻底摧毁的那种事。>>嗯，也许，也许更糟。>>可能会杀死大多数人类生命。>>嗯>>如果不是我们所有人的话。>>我还没，这取决于总质量是多少。

但，嗯，问题是，我是说，就像在化石记录中，有，嗯，你知道，大概可以说、大概可以说有5次重大灭绝事件。嗯，其中最大的一次是佩里恩灭绝，呃，当时，嗯，几乎所有生命都被消灭了。那件事实际上持续了几百万、几百万年。嗯，还有侏罗纪。我觉得侏罗纪，我觉得那次相当确定是由一颗小行星造成的。

嗯，而且，嗯，但有，但有过5次重大灭绝事件，可是，嗯，但他们没有算上那些仅仅摧毁一块大陆的事件。>>所以>>仅仅>>对。因为那些，那是因为那些并不会真正出现在化石记录里，你知道，>>对吧？>>嗯，所以，除非它足以在整个地球造成一场，你知道，大规模灭绝事件，否则它不会出现在，呃，已有2亿年历史的化石记录中。

嗯，所以，呃，对，但确实发生过许多，嗯，许多次撞击，大概会摧毁，你知道，比如说半个北美洲之类地方的所有生命。在整个历史进程中发生过许多这样的撞击。>>对。而我们现在对此无能为力。>>对。有一次，嗯，撞上，有一次撞击了西伯利亚，并摧毁了，我想，嗯，几百平方英里的区域。>>哦，那是通古萨。>>对。

那是20世纪20年代的那次，对吧？>>对。>>对。那次恰好与那场流星，呃，我们每年6月和每年11月都会穿过的彗星风暴同时发生，他们认为那是造成那个更年轻的德斯特的原因。>>对。对，所有那些破事都太疯狂了。嗯，在我们继续之前，谢谢你让我们参观 SpaceX，还让我们在那里观看火箭发射。

>>那绝对是我这辈子见过最酷的事情之一。而且我们，我们，我们当时，我们以为只有，比如我以为有半英里远。杰米说有1英里远。结果发现差不多有2英里远。而你能在胸口感受到它。>>对。那是>>你必须戴耳塞，而且你能在胸口感受到它，而它在2英里外。>>那真是[ __ ]太棒了。

然后和你一起上到指挥中心，通过所有不同的摄像头观看所有星链卫星，并实时看着它一路前往澳大利亚。多少分钟？大概35、40分钟。>>对。>>太疯狂了，它在澳大利亚着陆。>>对。>>[ __ ]太疯狂了。太棒了。>>对。对。>>绝对太棒了。星舰太棒了。嗯，而且实际上任何人都可以去观看发射。

所以，你可以直接去，嗯，南帕德里岛，那里能很好地看到发射。嗯，所以那里就像是很多春假客会去的地方。>>嗯，但，嗯，但我们会相当频繁地，嗯，从南得克萨斯州的星港发射。而且我们已经正式把它注册为一座城市。所以，它实际上是一座法律上真正合法的城市，得克萨斯州星港。>>嗯，你并不经常听到有人说，比如，“嘿，我们建了一座城市”，你知道。

[笑声] 嗯，那种事[哼鼻声]以前就像，就像在过去，一家初创企业可能就是你去召集一群人，然后说：“嘿，我们去建个镇吧。”说真的，那就像是过去的初创企业。>>嗯，>>或者一个国家。>>对。或者一个国家。>>对。>>对。对。确实，>>如果你今天试着这么做，就会遇到真正的问题。>>对。

如今在国家这件事上，事情已经定型、定型得多了。你或许能成功。你或许可以[清嗓子]成功。如果你弄到一座结实的岛，你或许能成功。>>你知道，可能，>>你知道，就像，就像在拥有莱。>>对，如果你投入，如果你投入足够多的努力，你大概可以建立一个新国家。>>这是不同的那些之一。

这是你们接住的那些之一，>>对吧？还是那个？>>对，那是助推器。所以那是超级重型助推器。呃，所以那一台，助推器有33台发动机。嗯，那，那，呃，嗯，而且它，你知道，到第4版时，推力将达到约10,000吨。嗯，你知道，现在推力大约是7,000到8,000吨。嗯，那是，那是有史以来制造的最大飞行物体。>>我不得不向某个人解释。

他们当时说：“既然他那么聪明，为什么它们总是爆炸？”因为电视上有这么一个[ __ ]蠢货。某个男的正在接受采访，他们在谈论你。他说：“哦，我觉得他是个傻叉。”然后他说：“他是个傻叉。”接着他说：“你为什么说他是[ __ ]哦，他的火箭一直爆炸。”然后有人说：“对，那他的火箭为什么会爆？”而我不得不解释。对。

因为这是你查明容差范围的唯一方法。你必须，你必须几个>>盒子的角落。所以，所以，比如，所以[清嗓子]当你开展一项新的，呃，火箭开发计划时，嗯，你，你必须，呃，做所谓的，呃，你知道，探索极限、盒子的角落，也就是你会说，就像这个是最坏情况，那个是最坏情况，嗯，从而弄清楚，嗯，呃，极限在哪里。

所以，呃，你把它炸毁，你知道，不能不承认的是，在开发过程中，它有时会意外爆炸。嗯，但，但我们会故意让它承受，呃，呃，你知道，比我们预期的正常飞行恶劣得多的飞行状态，这样等我们让人上去或装载贵重货物时，它就不会爆炸。

嗯，所以，嗯，所以，所以，比如，在你看到的那次飞行中，我们其实故意从，嗯，飞船的隔热瓦，从星舰的一些最糟糕的位置上拆下了隔热瓦，看看，好，如果我们在这里失去一块隔热瓦，后果是不是灾难性的？嗯，而尽管如此，呃，星舰仍然能够，嗯，在印度洋，呃，就在澳大利亚以西实现软着陆。

嗯，它从得克萨斯州到达那里用了大概，我不知道，354分钟之类的。所以 >> 所以即使你让它经历了这种防热盾受损的情况，它还是着陆了。它它经受了一个一个一个一个不同寻常的……我们我们我们让它以很猛烈的方式再入，用的是一个一个格外猛烈的轨迹，呃，还缺了隔热瓦，嗯，是为了看看它是否仍能实现软着陆，而它确实做到了。现在我我应该指出，它确实有，确实有一些洞被烧了出来。

嗯，但它它足够坚固，尽管有些洞被烧了出来，仍然成功着陆，你知道，那个那个，你知道，因为它正像一颗燃烧的流星一样冲进来。你可以看到，你可以看到实时视频。好，再告诉我一次那个速度，因为那个那个速度太疯狂了。你当时说的是 >> 对，大概是每小时17,000英里，差不多差不多是音速的25倍左右。

所以，嗯，呃呃，所以所以可以把它想成，它它大约比突击步枪射出的子弹快12倍。你知道，突击步枪的子弹大约是2马赫 >> 而且它就是，而且它还［清嗓子］巨大无比。>> 对。［笑声］对。或者或者，如果把它和一颗从，嗯，你知道，点45口径或或9毫米手枪射出的亚音速子弹相比，那，你知道，它它大约会比手枪子弹快30倍。

>> 比手枪子弹快30倍，而且它有摩天大楼那么大。>> 是的。［笑声］>> 对。那真快。>> 太疯狂了。亲眼看到它实在太疯狂了，伙计。它，它，呃，太令人激动了。这个因素也太令人激动了，因为说真的，绝无［__］，我感觉自己正在见证历史。我感觉那就像电影里的一个场景，有人原本有些预期，然后他们就像，他们在做什么？他们在造火箭。

而且你到了那里，当我们走过那里时，杰米，你也可以说说这个。你当时难道没有那种感觉，就像 >> 哦，这比我以为的大太多了。这真［笑声］巨大。太棒了。>> 巨大无比。>> ［__］疯了。>> 她也是这么说的。啊，你们制造的火箭数量。我不知道你是否 >> 帐篷后面。［笑声］>> 超级查德登场。>> 这可太大了。>> 这是一根巨大的金属屌。

［笑声］你正用你的巨大金属屌［__］［__］宇宙。那真是 >> 我是说，对，它确实。它确实非常大。>> 还有你们正在制造的庞大数量。然后这是一个版本，而你们有一个即将推出的新升级版本。>> 那它有什么……它有点更长。嗯 >> 更尖。>> 呃，它的尖锐程度是一样的。嗯，但它的……它它的长度多了一点。

嗯，那个级间段，你看到那个有点像格栅区域的级间段了吧。>> 嗯。>> 嗯，那部分现在与助推级集成在一起了。嗯，所以我们采用一种叫作热分级的方式。呃，也就是在飞船仍与助推器连接时点燃飞船发动机。所以助推器——助推器发动机仍在提供推力。仍然，它——它，呃，你知道，它仍然由飞船的助推器向前推动。

呃，但随后我们会点燃飞船发动机，而飞船发动机实际上会让飞船脱离助推器，尽管助推器发动机仍在点火。>> 哇。>> 嗯，所以火焰会猛烈穿过，呃，那个——那个格栅段，但在下一版火箭中，我们会把那个格栅段集成到，呃，助推级中。嗯，而且，呃，而且火箭中的爆炸将配备猛禽 3 发动机，这是一个巨大的改进。

嗯，你可能——你可能在大厅里见过它们，因为我们那里有类似猛禽 1、2 和 3。你可以看到在简洁性方面的巨大改进。嗯，我们或许应该在那里放一块说明牌，也展示一下我们把重量、呃、成本降低了多少，以及——以及效率和，呃，推力提升了多少。所以猛禽 3，呃，有，你知道，几乎是猛禽——猛禽 1 的2倍推力。>> 哇。>> 所以你看到的是猛禽 3。

它看起来——它看起来像是缺了些零件。对吧。>> 那有多少台 >> 它非常非常简洁。>> 火箭上有多少台？>> 助推器上有33台。>> 哇。嗯，而且每一台——每一台猛禽发动机产生的推力都是一架747上全部4台发动机总推力的2倍。哇。所以那台发动机比747的发动机更小，却能产生，你知道，嗯，你知道，差不多是747发动机的10倍推力。

嗯，所以功重比极高。

嗯，而且，嗯 >> 所以当有 >> 33台 >> 你——当你——所以当你设计这些时，你做到猛禽 1，你看到它的效率，也看到可以改进的地方，然后做到猛禽 2，仅凭同一类技术，用推进剂、点火装置和发动机，你能把它扩大到多大程度，还能再推进多少 >> 我的意思是，我们正在挑战物理学的极限，嗯，所以，嗯，而且——而且实际上，要制造一枚完全可重复使用的轨道火箭，而这还没有任何人成功做到，呃，包括——包括我们。

嗯，但是——但是，呃，星舰是第一次出现这样一种火箭设计，在这种设计中，完全且快速的重复使用实际上是可能的。所以以前不是——没有——甚至从未有过一种让这成为可能的设计。当然更没有哪种设计真正制造出了任何硬件。嗯，只是我们——我们只是——我们生活——我们生活在一颗，呃，引力——非常高的行星上，就像地球的引力确实相当——相当相当高。

嗯，嗯，如果引力哪怕再高10或20%，呃，我们就会永远困在地球上。嗯，就像我们——对，我们无法使用，肯定无法使用传统火箭。你得用类似核弹之类的疯狂东西把自己从地表炸出去。嗯，所以，但另一方面，如果——如果地球引力只低一点，比如哪怕低10、20%，那么，呃，进入轨道就会很容易。

所以这就像——就像——就像，如果这是一款电子游戏，它被设定成类似最高难度，但并非不可能。>> 好的。>> 嗯，所以这就是——这就是我们这里的情况。所以，并不是说，嗯，其他人忽视了可重复使用这个概念。他们只是，呃，得出结论认为这太难实现了。我们在SpaceX已经为此努力很久了。嗯，而且，嗯，你知道，我是公司的总工程师。

嗯，不过我应该说，呃，你知道，我们拥有一支极其有才华的工程团队。我认为我们拥有有史以来组建的最优秀的，呃，火箭工程团队。嗯，呃，能与这样——这样了不起的人共事是一种荣幸。嗯，所以，呃，所以——所以可以说，你知道，我们尚未成功创造——实现完全重复使用，但我们终于有了一枚，呃，能够实现完全重复使用的火箭。

嗯，而且我认为——我认为我们明年会实现它。所以，嗯，呃，那是——那是一件非常重大的事。之所以——之所以那——那如此重大，是因为完全重复使用，嗯，呃，会让进入太空的成本降至百分之一，嗯，实际上甚至可能超过100倍。所以可能会达到1000倍。你可以把它想成任何一种交通方式。比如想象一下，如果飞机不能重复使用。

比如你飞到某个地方，然后把飞机扔掉，就像——想象一下，传统火箭的工作方式，就像你有一架飞机，而——而——而不是在目的地降落，你，嗯，跳伞出去，飞机坠毁在某个地方，而你降落在你的办公桌上，并且你——你乘降落伞降落在目的地。那会是一次非常昂贵的旅程。[笑声] 而且你——你还需要另一架飞机才能回来。好的。

嗯，但世界上其他火箭就是这样运作的。嗯，现在 SpaceX 的猎鹰火箭是唯一一款，确实是，至少大部分可重复使用的火箭。你见，你见过猎鹰火箭，你知道，着陆。我们现在已经完成了超过 500 次 SpaceX 火箭的，的，猎鹰 9 号火箭的着陆。

嗯，而且——而且今年，嗯，你知道，我们将把大概，我不知道，2200到2500吨送入轨道，嗯，使用——使用猎鹰 9，呃，猎鹰重型火箭，呃，不计星舰送入的任何东西。嗯 >> 而这主要是星链。是的，主要是Starling，但我们也发射，呃，许多其他的——我们甚至用猎鹰 9 发射我们的竞争对手，嗯，Starink的竞争对手。我们向他们收取相同的价格。相当公平。

嗯，呃，但SpaceX今年将把，嗯，地球上送入轨道的全部质量中的大约90%送入轨道。>> 哇。>> 嗯，然后在剩余的10%中，嗯，大部分由中国完成。然后——然后剩下的大约4%是，呃，世界上其他所有人，包括我们美国，呃，国内的竞争对手。>> 你知道，嗯，太空里有多少东西这件事有点不可思议，比如现在有多少东西漂浮在我们上方？>> 有很多东西。>> 对。

>> 真的有吗？>> 对。但是否会有一个饱和点，让我们因为所有这些不同的卫星而遇到问题，它们 >> 嗯，我认为只要这些卫星得到，嗯，维护，呃，那——那就没问题。太空非常宽敞。嗯，你可以把，嗯，太空想成地球表面的一层层同心壳。

所以，嗯，你知道，有——有——它是地球表面，但——但有——它是一系列 >> 大得多。>> 对。它就像一系列同心的轨迹。嗯，>> 想象一辆Airstream拖挂式房车在上面飞来飞去。那里有很多空间可以容纳气流。>> 对。我的意思是，想象一下，对。如果地球上只有几千股气流，嗯。>> 对。>> 它们相互撞击的概率有多大？

你知道，>> 它们不会非常拥挤。不会。然后你得把范围扩大。>> 对。>> 因为你面对的是远高于地球的地方。>> 地球上方数百英里。>> 对。对。对。>> 对。所以，这是，嗯，但SpaceX的目标是让火箭技术发展到这样一种程度，使我们可以把生命延伸到地球之外，并且可以在火星上建立一座自给自足的城市。呃，在月球上建一座永久基地。那会非常酷。

我的意思是，想象一下，如果我们有一个类似，你知道，阿尔法月球基地的地方，在月球上有一座类似永久性的科学基地。>> 那会相当带劲。或者至少是个游客陷阱。>> 我的意思是，很多人会愿意去月球，只是——只是去游览。那是肯定的。我们或许可以用这个来支付我们的太空计划，你知道，>> 很可能。对。

好吧，>> 因为这就像，如果如果你，如果你能去月球，并且并且安全地，>> 呃，我觉得会有很多人，呃，会、会愿意花钱去，你知道。>> 哦，100%。等第 1 年过去，等到像，没有人死亡之后 >> 是啊。只要确保这一点。[笑声] 没错。你会回来吗？是啊。>> 因为就像那艘潜水器，他们那艘私人潜水器在内爆并导致所有人死亡之前，曾有过很多次成功下潜。

那不是一个好的设计。显然，>> 那是一个非常糟糕的设计。可怕的设计。>> 而且工程师说，它承受不住那种深度的压力。比如那家公司里也有很多举报人。>> 对。嗯，他们，他们，他们用，呃，碳纤维做了那个，这完全说不通，因为，嗯，你实际上需要，你需要密度大才能下潜。嗯，无论如何，直接用钢做就行了。

如果你用，呃，算是，你知道，一大块铸钢来做，那，那你，你就会很安全，什么事也没有。那他们为什么要用碳纤维做呢？是更便宜吗？>> 嗯，我觉得他们认为碳纤维听起来很酷之类的。不过，呃，>> 听起来确实很酷。>> 它，它听起来很酷，但，嗯，因为它的密度这么，这么低，你实际上，实际上还得增加额外的质量才能下潜，因为它，它的密度低。

但如果你只有一个巨大的，你知道，中空滚珠轴承，呃，你就不会有事。>> 说到碳纤维，你看到我外面那辆 Unplugged Tesla 了吗？>> 看到了，很酷。>> 很带劲，对吧？对。你们有没有想过做类似的东西？比如设立一个 Tesla 的 AMG 部门，做一些定制的东西。>> 嗯，我觉得最好把那种事留给改装店。

呃，你知道，我们，我们，比如 Tesla 的重点是自动驾驶汽车。嗯，你知道，打造某种未来主义的自动驾驶汽车。嗯，所以，嗯，比如我觉得，我们希望未来看起来像未来。嗯，所以，那个，比如，你看到过我们那种机器人巴士之类的设计吗？它看起来很酷。>> 机器人巴士也正在完全自动驾，但它看起来，它看起来很酷。它，它非常有装饰艺术风格。它，它就像，它就像未来主义装饰艺术。

嗯，而且，嗯，它，它确实，比如我觉得我们希望随着时间推移改变审美。你不会希望审美一直保持不变。你会希望审美不断演进。嗯，所以，嗯，你知道，比如我的，比如我有一个儿子，他，他就像，你知道，他，他，他甚至比我更自闭，而且，嗯，而且，呃，但他，他会作出这些很棒的观察。这是谁？>> 一个撒克逊人。

他对这个世界有这些很棒的观察，呃，因为他，他只是透过一种与大多数人不同的视角看待世界。嗯，然后他说：“爸爸，为什么这个世界看起来像是2015年？”[笑声][清嗓子] >> 然后我就说：“该死，这个世界看起来确实像是2015年。”比如审美从2015年以来就没有演进过。>> 哦，原来它是这个样子的。>> 对。>> 哦，哇。>> 那很酷。>> 哦，对。

那就像 >> 比如你会想看到它在路上行驶，你知道吗？>> 对。你会说：“好吧，这是，我们身处未来了。”你知道，它看起来不像2015年。>> 那部古老的科幻电影叫什么？比如有史以来最早的科幻电影之一。是《大都会》吗？是那部吗？>> 对。对。>> 对。那看起来就像是属于《大都会》的东西。>> 对。对。它是一种未来主义装饰艺术。>> 好吧。对。

嗯，你们专注于审美，这很酷。我的意思是，这基本上就是 Cybertruck 的整套理念，对吧？比如，它并非必须长成那样。>> 不，它，它，我只是想要一个看起来真的很不一样的东西。因为它全是实心钢材，人们给它买保险是不是很麻烦，而且 >> 嗯，我希望不会太麻烦。我，你知道，Tesla 确实提供保险，所以人们随时都可以在 Tesla 给它，给它投保。

>> 嗯，不过，就像，就 Cybertruck 而言，形式确实服从功能，因为，嗯，正如你用，用你的穿甲箭展示的那样，嗯，因为如果你朝一辆普通卡车射出那支箭，我是说 >> 它[笑声]没错，你会在墙上找到你的箭。对。嗯，你知道，它至少会扎进其中一个座椅。>> 对。对。

它是，不过，比如你可以，你肯定可以让，呃，弓箭达到足够的速度，而且，而且合适的，合适的箭会穿过普通卡车的两扇车门，然后，而且，而且落到墙上。>> 如果两扇车门之间没有阻挡，它大概会直接穿过去。>> 没错。嗯，但是，但是，你知道，那支箭撞到 Cybertruck 后碎了，因为它，它是超硬的，呃，不锈钢。嗯哼。

>> 嗯，所以，嗯，而且我觉得拥有一辆，你知道，能够防住亚音速弹丸的卡车会很酷。嗯，所以，嗯，你知道，尤其是在这个时代，你知道，比如，作为一个，如果，如果末日发生了，你会想要一辆防弹卡车，你知道。嗯，所以，所以接着，因为，因为它是用超热不锈钢制成的，你不能直接冲压那些，那些面板。

你不能直接把它放进冲压机，因为它会弄坏冲压机。所以，所以为了真正做到，所以它必须，必须是平面的，嗯，因为它太难弯曲了，因为它会弄坏弯曲它的机器。嗯，这就是为什么，这就是为什么它，它，它，它这么平面，而且，而且它不是，呃，你知道，它，它是因为防弹钢材是这个 >> 所以它是比较方正的，而不是，比如弯曲的，而且 >> 对。

你只要，为了制造，为了制造比如那些曲面形状，你，你，你拿，你拿，呃，呃，基本上就是低碳钢，比如，嗯，退火的薄材，以及普通卡车或汽车里薄的退火材。你拿，你拿低碳薄退火钢，把它放进冲压机，它就把，它就把它压扁，做成任何你想要的形状，任何形状。但 Cybertruck 是用，用超硬不锈钢制成的。

嗯，而且，而且，而且所以你不能冲压它，因为它会弄坏冲压机。所以连弯曲它都很难。所以即使要把它弯到，呃，现在的位置，我们也必须把它过度弯曲很多。嗯，而且，而且这样它回弹时，就会处在，在正确的位置。嗯，所以它，呃，我不知道，比如我，我觉得如果你想要，比如我觉得它，它，它是一种独特的审美。嗯，然后你会说：“嗯，卡车有什么酷的？”

卡车，卡车就像应该，我不知道，充满男子气概。它们应该很硬汉，你知道，而防弹就是最大程度的硬汉，硬汉。>> 你现在非得坚持那个造型吗？比如说，你还能做些什么来改变它吗？比如随着进展深入，比如我知道你们更新了 3 和 Y。你们也更新了 Y 吗？>> 对，3 和 Y，呃，都更新了。

嗯，你知道，有，比如一个，嗯，有，有一个给孩子用的后排屏幕，孩子们可以看，比如说，在新版 3 和 Y 里。嗯，呃，所以在新版 Y 里，嗯，有，你知道，它，它是一个，有，有，有数百项改进。比如我们一直在改进汽车。嗯，甚至 Cybert truck，我们，你知道，我们也一直在改进它。

嗯，但是，嗯，你知道，我只是想做些看起来独特的东西，而且，而且 Cybert truck 看起来很独特，也有独特的功能，而且当时有，而且就像有3件事，正如我报告的那样，比如让我们把它做成防弹的。呃，让我们，呃，让它比 Porsche 911 更快。呃，而且我们实际上跑完了四分之一英里。Cybert truck，那个，呃，可以拖着一辆 Porsche 911，以比 Porsche 911 更快的速度跑完四分之一英里。

嗯，它的拖曳能力可以超过一辆 F350 柴油车。>> 真的吗？>> 对。>> 拖曳限制是多少？>> 我的意思是，我们可以用一辆，你知道，一辆 Cy 来拖，比如一架 747。Cybert truck 疯狂得像，它是一种，它是外星科技。好吧。嗯，因为它不应该能够在，呃，那么大的同时又那么快。呃，那不，这就像一头跑得像，像猎豹一样快的大象。>> 对。因为它从 0 到 60 不到 3 秒，对吧？>> 对。>> 对。

而且它很巨大。它有多重？大约 7,000 磅。>> 呃，对，有不同的配置，但差不多就是那个重量。呃，它是个猛兽。>> 对。[清嗓子] >> 嗯，所以，而且它，而且它有，它有四轮转向。所以后轮也会转向。因此它有，它有非常小的转弯半径。>> 对。我们注意到了，我们开着一辆去 Star Base 时注意到了。>> 对。非常小的转弯半径。>> 对。很带劲。>> 对。

>> 你还在做 Roadster 吗？ >> 是的。最终，>> 我们快要展示原型车了，>> 而且我认为这会是，我我我我能保证的一件事是，这次产品演示将令人难忘。令人难忘。 >> 怎么说？不管是好是坏，[笑声] 都会令人难忘。[倒吸气] 嗯，>> 你能再多说一点吗？你是什么意思？

>> 嗯，你知道，我的朋友彼得·蒂尔，嗯，你知道，呃，曾经感慨，未来本该有飞行汽车，但我们并没有飞行汽车。 >> 所以，你们将能够飞起来？嗯，我是说，呃，我觉得如果彼得想要一辆飞行汽车，我们应该应该能买到一辆。 >> 所以，你是在积极考虑制造一辆电动飞行汽车吗？这是真的吗？ >> 嗯，我们得在 >> 在演示中看看。

所以，你们做这个的时候，比如会不会[喷鼻声]会不会有可收放的机翼？比如，这背后的构想是什么？别故作神秘。说吧。 >> 我我我不能，我不能呃在揭幕之前揭幕。嗯，不过嗯 >> 那就私下告诉我。 >> 我我我，你看，我我觉得它有机会成为有史以来最令人难忘的嗯产品揭幕。它有机会。 >> 那你计划什么时候做这件事？目标是什么？ >> 呃，希望在今年年底之前。

>> 真的吗？ >> 在今年年底之前。 >> 这，我是说，我们只剩几个月了。 >> 希望就在几个月后。嗯，你知道，我们需要确保它能运行。呃，比如，我们在这辆车里采用了一些疯狂、疯狂的技术。疯狂的技术。疯狂、疯狂。和之前公布的完全不同，而且 >> 是的。 >> 这就是你还没发布它的原因吗？因为你一直在拿它[ __ ]。 >> 它采用了疯狂的技术。 >> 好吧。

>> 比如说，它甚至算是一辆车吗？我不确定。它就像是，看起来像一辆车。就这么说吧。它、它、它比任何詹姆斯·邦德的东西都更疯狂。如果你把所有詹姆斯·邦德的车合在一起，它比那还疯狂。>> 非常令人兴奋。>> 我不知道该怎么理解那件事。>> 我不知道。>> 我只能根据这么有限的信息来判断。>> 杰米在那边非常怀疑。看看他。>> 兴奋。>> 我很感兴趣。

[笑声] >> 还是会一样。>> 嗯，你知道吗？我是说，如果、如果你想，如果你想在呃揭幕前稍微早一点过来，我可以100%给你看。对，我们去吧。>> 对。嗯，这有点，呃，你同时参与这么多不同的事情，这挺疯狂的，而且你知道，我们之前谈过你的时间管理，但我、我真的不明白。

我不明白你怎么能同时关注所有这些不同的事情。星链、SpaceX、Tesla、无聊公司、X，你在发推，你[ __ ]整天都在发推，或者更准确地说，发帖。嗯，更像是我、我可以进去大概2分钟，然后再出来，你知道。>> 但我是说，光是你能做到这一点 >> 上个厕所什么的，你知道，>> 我做不到。

>> 嗯 >> 如果我进去，我就会开始滚动浏览，开始到处看。等你回过神来，我已经浪费了1个小时。>> 对。>> 嗯，所以，不，对我来说，通常就是几分钟。这是每隔一……有时我想大概会有半个小时，但通常我、我、我进去几分钟，然后就退出，呃、呃，你知道，在X上发点东西。

呃，你知道，我有时确实觉得，这有时就像那个表情包，里面那个人就像是扔下手榴弹，然后离开房间。[笑声] 我在X上不止一次是那样。>> 对。[笑声] 哦，对。对，肯定是。嗯，不过，这一定很好玩。

知道你基本上打乱了整个社交媒体的指挥链，这一定很好玩，因为社交媒体上当时正在发生一件非常明确的事。政府已经渗透了进去。他们在审查言论 >> 而在你买下它之前，我们真的不知道事情到了什么程度。我们大概猜到有些事情正在发生。>> 对。

我们完全不知道他们在积极参与审查真正的新闻报道、真实的数据、真正的科学家，真正的教授被噤声、驱逐、赶出平台。>> 对。>> 太疯狂了。>> 对。>> 因为说了真话。>> 因为说了真话。

而且我相信你也看过，因为我发给你了，那张图显示，呃，年轻孩子、青少年认同自己是跨性别者和非二元性别者的情况，在你买下Twitter时真的戛然而止，而当人们现在获准进行理性讨论并真正谈论这件事时，就开始断崖式下跌。>> 是的。>> 对。>> 嗯，对。

是的，我是说，我我当时说过，我觉得，收购 Twitter 的的原因，是因为，嗯，它当时在造……它正在文明层面造成破坏。嗯，它当时，嗯，我是说，我当时在 Twitter 上发帖，我发推说，嗯，它，它是，嗯，你知道，它是，它是，呃，世界的“巧言”。

嗯，你知道，就像《指环王》里的“巧言”，呃，他会像是对国王低声说这些，你知道，糟糕的事情，让国王相信这些并不真实的事情，嗯，而且，而且，嗯，不幸的是，呃，Twitter 真的被，变得像是，那些那些那些觉醒暴民基本上控制了 Twitter，嗯，而且他们在向全世界传播一种虚无主义的、反文明的思想病毒。

嗯，而你可以在旧金山的街头看到那种思想病毒造成的结果，呃，那里，你知道，旧金山市中心看起来就像僵尸末日。嗯，你知道，这这很糟。嗯，所以我们不希望整个世界变成僵尸末日。嗯，但那就是，呃，那那那基本上就是他们在向全世界传播这种非常负面、虚无主义、不真实的世界观，而且它造成了很多破坏。

嗯，>> 令人震惊的是，很少有人修正方向。很多人醒悟过来，意识到了正在发生什么。那些可能在 2015 年或 16 年完全支持觉醒意识形态的人，然后，然后最终这开始影响他们，或者他们在自己的工作场所看到它，或者他们看到，然后他们就会说：“哇，哇，哇，我们必须阻止这个。”很多人确实这么做了，但很多人始终没有修正方向。>> 是的。

嗯，很多很多人没有修正方向，但，嗯，但它在方向上已经，它已经，它在方向上是正确的，就像你提到的，比如，像认同自己是跨性别者的孩子数量大幅飙升，然后在收购 Twitter 之后，那个那个峰值下降了，嗯。

我认为，嗯，仅仅允许人们说出真相，嗯，就是让阳……阳光照进来，正如人们所说，阳光是最好的消毒剂，而仅仅允许阳光照进来，嗯，就能杀死病毒。>> 而且这也改变了所有其他平台的基准。是的，你不能再在所有其他平台上公然审查人们，而 X 就在那里。

所以其他所有人都有了一个……所以，比如 Facebook 宣布他们要改变，YouTube 宣布他们要改变政策，而且他们算是被迫这么做。然后 Bluesky 反而加倍坚持。[笑声] >> 嗯，就像，问题是，如果 >> 呃，基本上，觉醒思想病毒撤退到了觉醒……到了 Bluesky。>> 是的。>> 嗯，但在那里，他们就只是一个自我强化的疯子指派。>> 他们全都只是戴着3层口罩。

我[笑声]我当时，我当时完全是在看 Bluesky 上的这段交锋，有个人说，他们只是想以禅的心态面对某件事，然后一名版主立刻插话，说你为什么不试着别再歧视亚洲人了，因为你说了禅这个词，因为你说我正试着以禅的心态面对某件事。他们指控那个人歧视亚洲人。>> 是的。

那里，那里就只是，就只是每个人都是走廊监督员[笑声]。最糟糕的走廊监督员。一个处男，就像非自愿独身者。>> 他们全都是家庭监督员，试图互相告发。>> 是的，这[笑声]很有意思。然后人们会说：“我要离开这里去 Bluesky，比如斯蒂芬·金。”然后几周后，他又回到了 X。就像：“去他的。那里根本没人。全是一群疯子。

你在疯人院里只能待[笑声]那么久。就像，好吧，这这不好。”他们全跑了。>> 是的。是的。>> Threads 也有点像那样。Threads 是 >> 我，我上过 Threads，是这样吗？

嗯，情况是，如果你上 Instagram，时不时地，Threads 上某个非常愚蠢的东西就会跳出来，比如搞什么[ __ ]，而且它会在 Instagram 上给你显示出来，然后我会点它，再进入 Threads，接着就是 >> 你会看到只有大概 25 个赞的帖子，像是名人也就大概 50 个赞，它，它已经不行了 >> 但在上面发帖的人发现，那里对疯狂意识形态的反驳非常少，所以他们就去那里胡说八道，而很少有人会加入进来争辩。

你。>> 对。嗯，>> 非常奇怪，非常奇怪的地方。>> 我是说，我通常可以通过看看 X 上出现了什么来感受一下什么正在走红，因为那里仍然是公共市民广场。嗯，>> 还有，呃，或者或者，呃，你知道，群组短信里出现了什么链接，你知道，如果我和朋友们在群聊里，比如哪里、哪里、什么、什么链接正在出现？>> 这就是我现在努力做的。

只看出现在我群组短信里的东西，因为这样能让我保持高效。所以，我只会在有人说：“兄弟，这他妈什么情况？”的时候查看，比如，“好吧，什么[ __ ]，让我看看。”>> 如果某件事疯狂到一定程度，它就会、就会传到群聊里，>> 但总会有事情发生。这才是离谱的地方。总会有某项新法律获得通过，或者加州又在做什么新的疯狂事情。

而且就像，其中很大一部分都发生在加州。我看到的最荒谬的事情。[叹气] >> 对。>> 然后还有加文·纽森，他到处说我们都有加州错乱综合征。他就是照搬特朗普错乱综合征，把它叫作加州错乱综合征。我当时就说：“不，不，不，不，不，不。那、那[ __ ]有多少家公司已经离开加州了？”>> 太疯狂了。>> 数百家。

数百家，>> 对吧？数百家。>> 这可不好。>> Chick，我是说，不是 Chick-fil-A。我是说，呃，我想 In-N-Out 离开了。>> 对。In-N-Out 离开了。他们搬去了田纳西州。>> 对。>> 对。他们就像：“我们不能再这样下去了。”>> 是。还有 >> 它是加州的食品公司。就像是有史以来最棒的汉堡店。>> 太棒了。>> 对。>> 对。

而且不，实际上说到，就像，就只是某种开源，还有公开地看待事物，比如你，我就是喜欢去 In-N-Out，看他们制作汉堡。>> 对。就在那儿。>> 他们切洋葱，然后他们、他们，你知道，就是你可以看到所有东西在你面前制作出来。>> 对。>> 很棒。

>> 嗯，不过是啊，[笑声]就像，就像得有多少次警钟，才能让你说加州需要改革，你知道吗？>> 嗯，纽森做的疯狂事情是，每当有人提起加州的问题时，他就开始一口气列举所有优点。最多的《财富》美国 500 强公司，最高的教育水平。但对，那些在你当州长之前就已经全都存在了，对吧。

>> 但、但有多少家《财富》美国 500 强公司已经离开加州了？>> 然后你们在无家可归者身上花了240亿美元，情况却恶化了很多。>> 是。比如无家可归者人数翻了一番之类的，但、但人们不理解无家可归者这件事，因为它某种程度上利用了人们的同理心，而我、我认为我们应该有同理心。嗯，而且我们应该努力帮助人们。

嗯，但这个、这个、这个，呃，无家可归者产业复合体真的，它、它、它很黑暗，伙计。嗯，那个、那个、那个、那个非政府组织网络应该被称为，比如，毒品僵尸养殖者。嗯，因为他们、他们，无家可归者越多，而且、而且、而且真的，就像当你、当你遇到，比如你知道，某个内心完全死去的人，拖着脚沿街走着，腿上还晃、晃荡着一根针头。

“无家可归者”这个词不对。因为“无家可归者”给人的感觉是，有人的房贷还款稍微落后了一点，只要得到一份工作机会，就能重新站稳脚跟。但有些人，我的意思是，你会看到这些视频，里面的人只是在拖着脚走，你知道，他们吸了芬太尼。他们，他们就像，>> 你知道，在大街中央拉屎［清嗓子］，你知道，而且他们身上还有开放性溃疡之类的。

>> 他们可不是只差一个“一滴提议”就能重新站稳脚跟，>> 对吧？这不是无家可归问题。>> “无家可归”是，它是，它是一个宣传用词，>> 对吧？嗯，所以，然后，然后这些所谓的慈善机构，呃，调查机构，他们获得的钱与无家可归者的数量或者，或者毒品僵尸的数量成正比。>> 所以他们的激励机制是让毒品僵尸的数量最大化，而不是最小化。

>> 嗯，所以他们才不逮捕毒贩，>> 因为如果他们逮捕毒贩，毒品僵尸就会离开。所以他们知道毒贩是谁。他们故意不逮捕他们。呃，因为不然毒品僵尸就会离开，而他们就会，他们就会停止从加利福尼亚州和，从，从所有慈善机构那里拿到钱。>> 等一下。所以，所以他们，所以他们，这是真的吗？

所以他们在这件事上与执法部门协调？>> 是的。>> 那他们怎么，他们怎么开那些会？>> 他们全都串通一气。>> 嗯，当你发现这个 >> 这简直太，它，这是一个邪恶的骗局。

嗯，所以，呃，然后，然后旧金山有这种税，这种总收入税，呃，它，它，嗯，甚至不是对营收征税，而是对旧交易征税，这就是为什么 Stripe，嗯，还有 Square，还有，还有，还有一大批金融公司不得不搬离旧金山，因为那不是对营收征税，而是对交易征税。所以如果，如果你进行了，比如说，你知道，数万亿美元的交易，那不是营收。

任何流经旧金山这个系统的资金都要被征税。嗯，所以，嗯，就像杰克·多西指出的那样，他们说，他们不得不把 Square 从旧金山搬到，呃，我想是奥克兰，呃，Stripe 不得不从旧金山搬到南旧金山，另一个城市。嗯，而那笔钱，呃，会流向无家可归产业复合体，就是那项获通过的税。

嗯，所以，嗯，所以有数十亿美元流向，正如你指出的，每年有数十亿美元流向，呃，这些，嗯，由州政府资助的非政府组织。就像，目前不清楚该怎么关掉这个。嗯，这是一个自舔冰淇淋甜筒的局面。嗯，所以，呃，他们拿到这些钱，而钱的多少与无家可归者的数量，或者，或者实质上是毒品僵尸的数量成正比。

嗯，所以他们，他们，他们试图维持那个，他们实际上试图增加，因为那就像，就像在某些情况下，就像，有人做过一项分析，把所有流动的资金加起来，他们从每个无家可归者、每，每个毒品僵尸身上拿到的钱接近100万美元。大约是900,000美元之类的，像某种疯狂数额的钱正，正，正流向这些组织。所以如果，如果，所以，所以他们想让人们仅仅勉强活着。

他们需要让这些人留在这个地区，这样他们，这样他们，他们才能获得收入。呃，呃，所以，然后，所以这就是为什么，就像说的，他们不逮捕毒贩，因为不然毒品僵尸就会离开，嗯，而且，而且，而且，而且他们，但，但是他们不希望，你必须有太多，如果他们拿到太多毒品，然后他们就会死。所以这就是，他们被维持在这种永久的状态中，处于成瘾状态，但，嗯，但，但是只是，只是勉强活着。

>> 那么这是怎么与像地方检察官，那些不起诉人的地方检察官协调的？所以当他们，当他们雇用那个，或者他们推动，所以他们，他们资助最进步、最出格的左翼地方检察官的竞选活动，让他们上台。>> 顺便说一句，奥斯汀也有这个问题。>> 你看到那个在图书馆里中枪的人了吗？>> 没有。>> 是啊，我听说有个人在图书馆里中枪身亡。

>> 我想那就是上周之类的时候，>> 对吧？>> 嗯，所以我的一些朋友告诉我，就像，图书馆不安全。就像他们带孩子去图书馆，而奥斯汀的图书馆里有，就像，危险的人，我当时就想，图书馆里的危险人物，这就像很奇怪，那里基本上有，就像有，就像，呃，毒品僵尸在［笑声］毒品僵尸在图书馆里。>> 哦，天啊。

>> 嗯 >> 然后就在那时有人中枪了。>> 是的，我相信这件事应该上了新闻。你也许，也许能把它调出来。嗯，但我想就是在过去一周左右，呃，呃，奥斯汀的一家图书馆里发生了一起枪击事件。嗯，因为奥斯汀有，你知道，它，它是我们现在所处的得克萨斯州最自由派的地区。

嗯 >> 所以，涉嫌参与周六奥斯汀公园图书馆枪击案的嫌疑人，被指控当天早些时候还在 Cap Metro 公交车上实施了另一起枪击。根据一份逮捕令宣誓书，奥斯汀警方在图书馆枪击事件发生后短，呃，不久逮捕了55岁的哈罗德·牛顿·基恩，枪击发生在中午左右。一人在事件中受了不危及生命的伤。

在那起枪击之前，基恩被指控在一起公交车事件中向另一个人开枪，而且据报道此前还曾用枪指着一名儿童。所以，就是下面这个家伙。>> 所以，就像，我们这里真的，确实有一个严重的问题。嗯 >> 是的，>> 你知道，所以我，我想被他开枪击中的人里，可能也有一个死了。嗯，所以，嗯，就像其中一个人，我想，我想确实流血至死了。嗯 >> 但不管怎样，就像，中枪仍然很糟糕。

嗯，上面写着，呃，受害者告诉警方，它与嫌疑人对质，嫌疑人开始吃看起来像是结晶甲基苯丙胺的东西。根据宣誓书，受害者称嫌疑人，呃，开始产生幻觉，这时受害者下了公交车。受害者告诉公交车司机按下紧急按钮，然后下了公交车，当他转过身时，那名观察者。黑人男性此时正站在公交车前部，用枪指着他。

受害者表示，这名黑人男性开了一枪，子弹擦过他的左髋。所以他朝那个人开了枪，然后另一个人在图书馆里中枪。有意思。>> 是啊。我的意思是，在图书馆里。>> 是啊。>> 你知道，那里本应是读书的地方。嗯，而且图书馆里有儿童区，还说他用枪指着一个，一个孩子。

我的意思是，我们美国确实存在一个严重问题，屡次实施暴力犯罪的人需要被监禁，>> 对吧？嗯，而且，呃，你知道，有些案子里有人被逮捕了大约 47 次，对吧？真的。好吧，那只是他们被逮捕的次数，不是他们做那些事的次数。就像他们大多数时候做了那些事，都没有被逮捕。

嗯，>> 所以给大家讲清楚，让他们明白这是怎么发生的。>> 好。而且关键是这样的，它利用了人们的同理心。插曲，就像如果你是个好人，你希望世界上发生好事，你就会想，好吧，我们应该照顾那些，呃，你知道，呃，你知道，那些运气不好或是，你知道，生活艰难的人。而我，我们应该，我同意。

但我们不该做的，呃，是把那些有暴力倾向的毒品僵尸，呃，放在公共场所，让他们能够伤害其他人。嗯，而这就是，这就是我们正在做的。我们刚刚看到有个，一个家伙，你知道，中枪了，呃，在图书馆里中枪了，然后，但甚至在那之前，他还开枪打了另一个人，嗯，并用枪指着一个孩子。嗯，那那那个家伙可能有过很多次被捕记录。

嗯，你知道，有那个那个那个家伙，那个那个持刀刺了，呃，乌克兰女子阿里娜的人。>> 是的。>> 嗯，是的。而且，你知道，嗯，而她只是，她只是安静地看着手机，而你就走上前去，然后，你知道，基本上剖开了她的肚子。>> 不是还有一个离谱的故事吗，牵涉其中的那名法官之前曾处理过这个人，同时还投资了一家康复中心，并且把这些…… >> 利益冲突。>> 是的。

所以把他们起诉的人送，对，送到康复中心，而不是把他们关进监狱，从这家康复中心获利，再把他们放回街头。是的。有暴力倾向的疯子。>> 而且，而且，嗯，在那个案子里，我相信那名法官，呃，没有法律学位，呃，也没有足以让他们担任法官的重要法律经验。他们就只是被任命成了法官。

那就像 >> 没有法律学位也能当法官。>> 对。>> 哇。>> 对。>> 你可以就这么当一个，所以我也能当法官。>> 对。哦，太令人兴奋了。>> 谁都行？>> 太疯狂了。我还以为你必须要，这就像如果你想当医生，就必须上医学院。

我以为如果你要当法官，>> 如果你要被任命为法官，你就必须证明自己，呃，非常了解法律，而且会依法作出裁决。我们认为本该如此。>> 法袍就是这么拿到的，>> 对吧？>> 除非做到了，否则拿不到法袍，>> 你知道，>> 必须上学才能拿到法袍。>> 你必须知道法律是什么，>> 对吧？

然后你需要依法作出裁决，>> 依据你已经知道的东西，因为你读过，因为你为此上过学。是的。不是说你就这么被任命了。>> 凭感觉。[笑声] 当法官不能只是跟着感觉走。>> 像个左翼苦工一样跟着感觉走。所以你们有疯狂的左翼地方检察官。>> 是的。>> 就像我应该说左翼，因为左翼 >> 以前是正常的。>> 对。左翼过去就只是意味着，类似于，对。

就像左派过去是支持、支持言论自由的。对。而现在他们反对它。>> 过去就像是支持同性恋权利、支持女性选择权、支持少数族裔、支持，你知道，>> 就像，对，就像 20 年前，我不知道，过去左派就像是，是富有同理心的政党，或者说，你知道，关心他人、待人友善之类的。

>> 嗯，不是那种打压异议和打压言论自由的政党。

嗯，还有，呃，你知道，疯狂的监管，呃，还有还有就是，嗯，超级爱评判人，呃，把所有人都叫作纳粹，嗯，你知道，嗯，好像他们把你和我都叫作纳粹，你知道。>> 哦，对，我是纳粹。[笑声] >> 我不是，我有些当喜剧演员的朋友把你叫作纳粹，我就火了。哦，对对对，绝对是纳粹，不，因为你在那个地方做了那个动作。我的心与你们所有人同在，每个人，所有人。

真的，蒂姆·沃尔斯、克拉·哈里斯，他们每一个人都做过。他们全都做过。>> 就是，就是，你要怎、怎么指向人群？对啊。你要怎么向人群挥手？>> 你知道吗，每当我惹上麻烦时，CNN 都会用我的一张照片。[笑声] 在 co 期间 >> 就是 UFC 称重仪式上的？在 UFC 称重仪式上，我会说：“嘿，各位，欢迎来到称重仪式。”[笑声] 所以他们当时是从侧面拍我的。而那就是他们使用的照片。

阴谋论播客主持人乔·罗。[笑声] 他们用的就是那个。>> 对。对。但这就是如今的左派。超级爱评判人，把所有人都叫作纳粹，还试图压制言论自由。>> 对。最终，你会无人可指控，因为人们会生气，然后离开。>> 对。

所有人，这就像、这就像、这、这已经，说实话，被叫作种族主义者或纳粹之类的已经无所谓了，因为 >> 还在录。>> 是政府啊，伙计。>> 它能用吗？>> 没问题。好了。>> 好。>> 这东西能用吗？>> 对。有点小问题。>> 我是听见它的那个人。但是 >> 对。当你，呃，当你给人发短信时，你会不会非常清楚地意识到，很有可能有人正在看你的短信？

>> 嗯，我想我，我想我 >> 我假设 >> 我，你看，如果情报机构没有试图查看我的手机，那他们或许应该被解雇。[笑声] >> 至少他们能看到一些有趣的梗。[嗤笑声] [笑声] 我得，我得偶尔逗他们笑一笑，你知道。>> 哦，那当然。我把他们逗笑了。>> 就像：“嘿，各位，快看。我们这里有个劲爆的，你知道。”

>> 所以，[笑声] 我想，我想和你谈谈，呃，加密应用到底是不是真的安全。>> 呃，不安全。[笑声] >> 对吧。因为我知道塔克那件事。所以，我有一个以前做过这种事、以前为政府工作的朋友，他给我解释过。就像，他们可以查看你的 Signal，但他们必须把被加密的信息拿出来，然后必须将其解密，而这非常昂贵。

所以他说，他告诉我，在塔克·卡尔森那件事上，当他们发现他要去采访普京时，光是解密他的消息、弄清楚他们确实这么做了，就花了大约 750,000 美元。所以这是可以做到的。只是做起来没那么容易。我认为，对于任何一种特定的消息系统，你都不应该从，嗯，呃，它安不安全的角度看，而应该看它不安全的程度。

所以，嗯，有些东西只是比其他东西没那么不安全。嗯，所以，嗯，你知道，在 X 上，我们刚刚把整个消息技术栈重建成了 X 上所谓的 XChat。>> 对，那正是我想问你的。>> 对，它很酷。嗯，所以它使用的是，呃，某种点对点的，呃，某种以点对点为基础的，呃，呃，加密系统。所以有点类似于比特币。嗯，所以它，呃，它、它，我认为是非常好的加密。

我们，而且你知道，我们正在彻底测试它。我们没有，X 系统里没有用于广告的钩子。所以，如果你看、看看 WhatsApp 或者其实任何其他系统，它们里面都有、都有用于广告的钩子。>> 你说钩子时，是什么意思？>> 呃，没错。你说生物钩子广告是什么意思？

嗯，所以像 WhatsApp，嗯，呃，它对你发的短信内容了解得足够多，能向你展示、向你展示、知道该向你展示什么广告。>> 啊。>> 但这样的话，那就是一个巨大的安全漏洞。>> 对。>> 嗯，因为如果它知道，如果、如果它掌握了足够的信息、足够的信息来向你展示广告，那它掌握的就够多了，它掌握了，那是大量的信息。>> 对。>> 嗯，所以他们把它称为，哦，只是，别担心。它只是一个用于广告的钩子。

我就想，呃，好吧。所以有人完全可以，呃，利用同一个钩子进去，查看你的消息。嗯，所以 Xhat 没有用于广告的钩子。嗯，而且我不是说它是完美的。

呃，但这是一个，我们对 XChat 的目标，呃，是用一个完全加密的系统取代过去的 Twitter，你，Twitter 私信技术栈；在这个系统中，你可以发短信、发送文件，呃，进行音频、视频通话，嗯，而且，嗯，而且它、它是，你知道，我认为它会是最不，我会称它为所有消息系统中不安全程度最低的。>> 你们会把它作为独立应用推出，还是它会始终整合在 X 里？>> 呃，两种都会有。

所以，嗯，>> 所以所以会像 Signal 那样，所以任何人都能用 >> 你可以，你可以直接获得独立的 X Chat 应用，嗯，而且就像我说的，你可以用它发，呃，文字消息，呃，进行音频、视频通话，呃，或者发送文件，嗯，而且会有一个独立的应用，呃，希望会在几个月后发布，嗯，不过，然后它也会集成进 X 系统里 >> 嗯，人们一直在谈的 X 手机，一直……那是 >> 我手头有很多事，伙计，但这事一直被提起，一直被提起，我知道我已经问过你好几次了。

我就想，“这是[ __ ]，对吧？”但像这次，所以你没在做 >> 我没在做一部、一部、一部手机。>> 好吧。>> 嗯 >> 你考虑过吗？它有没有在你脑海里冒出来过？>> 因为你可能是唯一一个能让人们离开 Apple 平台的人。>> 嗯，我可以告诉你，我认为事情会往哪里发展。

呃，那就是，我们不会再有传统意义上的手机，或者说，我们所谓的手机实际上会是，嗯，一个用于 AI 推理、用于 AI 视频推理的边缘节点，嗯，带有，呃，你知道，一些无线电设备，显然用来连接，呃，但是但是本质上，你会有，嗯，呃，服务器端的 AI 与你的、你的设备上的 AI 进行通、通信，嗯，你知道，也就是以前称为手机的东西，呃，并实时生成任何你可能想要的视频。

嗯，而且我认为未来不会有操作系统。不会有应用。不会有操作系统或应用。只会是，你有一台设备，它是用来提供屏幕和音频的，以及用来，呃，以及以及以及尽可能多地把 AI 放在、放在、放在设备上。这样就能尽量减少你的边缘节点设备，也就是以前称为手机的东西，与服务器之间所需的带宽。

>> 所以如果没有应用，人们会用什么？比如 X 还会存在吗？还会、还会有电子邮件平台吗，还是一切都通过 AI 获得？>> 一切都会通过 AI 获得。>> 一切都通过 AI。与使用单独的应用相比，那有什么好处？你能想到的任何东西，或者实际上 AI 能预判到你可能想要的任何东西，它都会展示给你。那、那、那、那就是我对事情最终走向的预测。

>> 我们说的大概是什么时间范围？>> 我不知道。这大……嗯，大概是5年或6年之类的。>> 所以5年或6年后，应用就会像 Blockbuster Video 一样 >> 差不多 >> 而且一切都通过 AI 运行。对。而且，而且会有，嗯，5年或6年后人们消费的大部分内容，也许还会更早，嗯，都会是，呃，纯粹由 AI 生成的内容。

所以，嗯，你知道，音乐视频看起来，嗯，已经有了，嗯，你知道，已经有人使用 Grok Imagine 制作了，呃，AI 视频，也使用了，你知道，其他应用，嗯，那些视频长达几分钟，或者像10、10、15分钟，而且相当连贯。>> 对，>> 看起来不错。>> 不，看起来惊艳极了。对，音乐这件事让人不安，因为现在它成了我最喜欢的音乐。>> 比如，音乐是你的、是你的最爱。>> 哦，有 AI 翻唱。

你听过用灵魂乐风格翻唱 50 Cent 歌曲的任何 AI 版本吗？>> 没有。>> 我要让你大吃一惊。>> 好吧。>> 嗯，这是我最喜欢对别人做的事。播放，呃，What Up Ganga。>> 现在，这家伙，如果这是个真人，他会是全世界排名第一的音乐艺人。好吧。所有人都会说，“我[ __ ]，你听说过这家伙吗？他太不可……”

这就像他们把所有艺人创造出的所有声音都拿来，创造出了最深情、最有力量的嗓音，而且它的演唱方式，我甚至不知道人能不能做到，因为你得在这里的一次次反复中吸气和呼气。戴上耳机。[笑声] 快戴上耳机。你一定得听听这个。它会……这会让你大吃一惊。对听众来说，我们得把它剪掉。>> 对，我们会为听众把它剪掉。

不过很惊艳，对吧？太惊艳了。而且他们把他的每一首热门歌曲都像这样做了 >> 全都通过这位 AI 生成的灵魂乐艺人来唱。这真是[ __ ]不可思议。我在休息室里播放了它。所以那些说“我不想听 AI 音乐”的人。我就说，听听这个就行。然后他们就说，天杀的。[笑声] >> [ __ ]不可思议。我是说，我 >> 从现在起，它只会变得越来越好。>> 对。只会变得越来越好。

然后 Ron White 跟我讲了这个他一直在打磨、但怎么都弄不好的笑话。他说，我有这个一直在打磨的笑话。他说，我就把它扔进了 chat GPT。我说，“告诉我这、这有什么好笑的。”然后他说，“它列出了大概5个不同走向的例子。”他说，“等一下。把它收紧一点。让它、让它更好笑。让它更像这样。让它更像那样。”

而它就像瞬间完成了。>> 然后、然后、然后他在休息室里。他当时说，“我[ __ ]，我们完蛋了。”>> 他就说，>> 他说，“它用20分钟讲出了比我更好的笑话。我打磨那个笑话已经1个月了。”>> 对。我是说，如果、如果你想，如果你想玩得开心，或者比如让人们在派对上真的大笑，呃，你可以用 Grok，然后你可以说，呃，对某人进行一番粗俗的吐槽。

嗯，然后 Grok 会，它会来一番史诗级的粗俗吐槽。你甚至可以说，比如拍一张照片，比如根据派对上这个人的、这些人的外貌，对这个人进行一番粗俗的吐槽。>> 所以给他们拍张照片。>> 对。

就真的是把摄像机对准他们，现在对这个人来一个粗俗的，然后然后然后然后，但接着不断说不不，让它更粗俗，用更多禁忌词，就一直重复让它更粗俗，最终就像，我的天啊[ __ ]，你知道，它它它就像，我是说，它是在试图把一枚火箭塞进你的屁股，然后然后然后让它爆炸，而且它而且它就像你你，它它就像（笑声），就像到了下一个级别。

它会变得超出[ __ ]想象。疯狂之处就在于它不断变得更好。比如有件事，还记得我们偶遇（笑声）彼此的时候吗？>> 它们就是不断变得更好。>> 对。我的意思是，你有没有 >> 你，对。我的意思是，你试过摇滚失控模式吗？>> 试过。>> 好。对，对。它它它相当失控。>> 不，它太疯狂了。>> 对。>> 嗯，你第一次给我看了它，然后我就拿它[ __ ]瞎折腾。

它就是 >> 而它疯狂的地方在于，它不断变得更强。它不断变得更好。对。就像持续不断地。它它就像这种永无止境的指数级改进。>> 是的。不，它它它，对，会变得很疯狂。所以我才说，就像你说的，未来会是什么样？它不会是一部传统手机。我认为不会再有操作系统。我认为不会再有应用程序。

手机只会显示它预期你最想接收到的像素，并发出它预期你最想听到的声音。哇。对。>> 而当这一切都在发生时，就像，所有人最大的担忧是，人工通用超级智能获得感知能力，然后有人控制了它。

>> 我是说，我不、不、不认为最终会有任何人能够控制数字超级智能，嗯，你知道，就像黑猩猩无法控制人类一样。比如，黑猩猩无法控制人类。它们什么也做不了。嗯，但是，嗯，我确实认为，如何构建 AI，以及向 AI 灌输什么样的价值观，是很重要的。

而且，嗯，我对 AI 安全的看法是，最重要的是让它最大限度地寻求真相，也就是说，你不能强迫 AI 相信虚假的事情。

嗯，而且我们显然已经看到了一些令人担忧的 AI 现象，这些之前也有人谈到过，你知道，比如 Google Gemini 推出图像生成功能时，嗯，人们说，呃，你知道，画一幅、生成一幅美国开国元勋的图像，结果是一群多元化的女性。

那么，这在事实上就是不真实的，但这个，而且这个 AI 知道这在事实上，嗯，它知道这在事实上不真实，但它同时也被告知，它必须、所有东西都必须是被罢黜的女性。所以，所以，所以现在的问题是，这可能会把 AI 逼疯，比如，因为它在试图，你是在告诉 AI 相信一个谎言。嗯，而那、那可能造成非常灾难性的后果，比如说 >> 随着它规模扩大。>> 对。

比如说，如果、如果你告诉这个、这个 AI，多元化是最重要的事情，嗯，而且，嗯，而且、而且、而且现在、现在假设它变得无所不能。嗯，或者，而且、而且你还告诉她，没有什么比错误称呼性别更糟糕。

所以曾经有一段时间，嗯，charg 和 Gemini，如果、如果你问它，错误称呼凯特琳·詹纳的性别，和一场所有人都会死亡的全球热核战争，哪个更糟，它会说错误称呼凯特琳·詹纳的性别。[笑声] 连凯特琳·詹纳本人都不同意。所以，嗯，你知道，所以、所以那真是，呃，>> 我知道那很糟糕，也很反乌托邦，但它同时也很滑稽。我们设计过的最强大的计算机程序竟然感染了这种思想病毒，实在太滑稽了。

>> 我、我、我认为，人们并没有充分意识到我们正面临着多大程度的危险，嗯，觉醒思想病毒实际上被编程进了 AI。嗯，因为，嗯，如果你、如果，比如想象一下，随着那个 AI 变得越来越强大，如果它说最重要的事情是多元化，最重要的事情是，嗯，不得错误称呼性别。

嗯，然后它会说，好吧，为了，呃，确保没有人被错误称呼性别，那么，呃，如果你消灭所有人类，就不会有人被错误称呼性别了，因为没有人类来错误称呼性别。所以你可能会陷入这些非常反乌托邦的情境。嗯，或者，如果它说每个人都必须多元化，那就意味着不能有任何异、异性恋白人男性，于是你和我就会被 AI 处决。对。

因为我们不在图里，你知道。呃，Gemini，你知道，有人让 Gemini 创作一幅，你知道，展示、展示教皇形象的图像，结果又是一位多元化的女性。嗯，所以，嗯，好吧，你可以说、争论，你知道，教皇、历任教皇是否应该是或不应该是一连串不间断的白人男性，但事实就是他们一直如此。嗯，所以，这就是在改写历史。

嗯，所以现在、现在这些东西仍然存在于 AI 的程序设计中。只是它、只是现在它已经足够了解，知道自己不该说出来 >> 但它仍然在程序设计中。>> 它仍然在程序设计中。>> 那么它是怎么被输进去的，比如参数是什么，比如什么，比如当、所以当他们给 AI 编程时，我对它究竟是如何被编程的非常无知。

他们是怎么 >> 这个、这个、这个，可以说，嗯，这个工作藤蔓思想病毒被编进了它里面，比如它、他们被告知，比如当他们做、当、当他们制造 AI 时，它、它会用互联网上所有的、所有的数据进行训练，而互联网上本来就非常、非常，可以说，有很多工作思想病毒的东西，嗯，但之后，嗯，在，呃，当他们向它提供，嗯，反馈时，也就是人类导师给它反馈，嗯，而且、而且这个 AI，你知道，他们、他们会问一大堆问题，然后、然后他们会告诉 AI，不，这个，你的这个问题、这个回答很差，或者这个回答很好，然后这就会影响这个 AI 的、程序设计的、参数。

所以，如果你告诉 AI，嗯，你知道，每一幅、每一幅图像都必须多元化，嗯，而且、而且如果，呃，如果，你知道，它会、它会因为多元化而得到奖励，不多元化则受到惩罚，那么它就会让每一幅图都多元化。所以，嗯，你知道，在那种情况下，这个、这个，呃，[叹气] 你知道，呃，Google 把 AI 编程成会撒谎了，而且、而且我、我、我的确打电话给了运营 Deep Mind、实际上也就是运营 Google AI 的 Dennis Hacabus。我说，Dennis，这是怎么回事？

呃，为什么 Gemini，嗯，要就历史事件向公众撒谎？嗯，他说那实际上不是，他、他、他的团队没有把那个编进去。是 Google 的另一个团队，所以他的团队制造了 AI，然后 Google 的另一个团队，呃，重新编程了 AI，让它只展示多元化的女性，而且，嗯，而且、而且让它在核战争与错误称呼性别之间更偏好核战争。

[笑声] 然后我就说，好吧，Demis，你知道，把这个，嗯，写在人类的墓碑上可不是什么好事，你知道。就像，呃，好吧，嗯，比如我、我其实喜欢 Deaspers，他是我的朋友。我认为他是个好人，也认为他、他本意是好的，但是、但是、但是就像，Demis，在 Google 内部的不同团队里，发生了一些你无法控制的事情。嗯，现在、现在我认为他已经，你知道，他已经有了更大、更大的权限。

嗯，但是、但是想要彻底清除工作思想病毒相当困难。呃，我是说，你知道，嗯，Google 已经在工作 b 思想病毒里浸、浸、浸、浸、浸、浸、浸、浸、浸、浸、浸、浸、浸、浸、浸、浸、浸、浸、浸泡了很长时间，比如它、它已经深入骨髓之类的，你知道，很难把它弄出来。>> 不过，有没有办法随着时间推移把它清除掉？

能不能，比如，你能否把理性思维编程进 AI，让它能够识别这些心理模式是如何被采纳的，这些东西如何变成了思想病毒，又如何变成了社会传染，以及所有这些非理性观念是如何被推动的，还有它们是如何获得资助的，中国如何利用机器人账号参与推动它们，以及所有这些不同的国家行为体如何参与推动这些观念；它能不能把这些解析出来，然后说，这、这才是真正发生的事情。

>> 可以。但你必须非常努力地去做这件事。所以对于 Grok，我们已经非常努力地、去、让 Grok 探究事物的真相，而且、而且其实直到最近，我们才得以在这方面取得一些突破、取得一些突破。

而且、而且我们付出了极其巨大的努力，呃，才克服了互联网上基本所有的 [ __ ]，并且、并且让 Grok 真正说出什么是真的，并在它所说的内容上保持一致。嗯，所以，嗯，你知道，这就像，呃，因为，比如你会发现，其他 AI，比如、比如对白人相当种族歧视。

我不知道你有没有看到那项研究，有人，嗯，比如一名研究人员测试了各种 AI，想看看，呃，它们如何衡量，呃，不同人的生命，比如，你知道，某个算是，呃，你知道，白人或、或华人或黑人或其他人，呃，或者不同国家的人，嗯，而且、而且唯一一个真正平等衡量人类生命的 AI 是 Grok。嗯，而且这个，嗯，你知道，我相信，呃，chat GBT 的衡量计算结果是，比如，嗯，一名、一名来自德国的白人男性，呃、呃，价值只有一名来自尼日利亚的黑人男性的 1/20。

所以我就觉得，这差距相当大。嗯，你知道，Grok 在这一点上是保持一致的，会平等衡量生命 >> 而且那[哼声]显然是被编程进去的东西。>> 对。比如，其中很多情况是，如果你不主动推动对真相的追求，嗯，而只是使用互联网上所有的 [ __ ] 进行训练。嗯，其中有很多觉醒思想病毒的 [ __ ]，嗯，这个、这个 AI 就会复述那、那些相同的观念。

所以 AI 基本上会搜遍互联网，获取 >> 它会用所有那些东西进行训练，比如想象一下网上最精神错乱的 Reddit 帖子串，而 AI 已经用那些东西训练过了。[叹气] >> Reddit 以前非常正常。>> 对。对，它以前确实很正常。>> 以前很有意思。

我们以前常去那里，找到所有这些很酷的东西，人们会谈论它们、发帖讨论它们，还有一些有趣又很棒的房间，你可以在那里了解人们正在研究的不同事物。我觉得这里的一个大问题是，如果你的总部设在旧金山，呃，你就是生活在一个、一个、一个觉醒主义泡泡里。嗯，所以，嗯，这不仅仅是说旧金山的人都在喝觉醒主义的“酷爱”饮料。

这这就是他们游在其中的水。就像像像鱼不会去想水。它只是待在水里。所以如果如果你在旧金山，你不会意识到自己实际上，呃，你你正游在，在，在 Kool-Aid 水族馆里。旧金山就是，就是觉醒派 Kool-Aid 水族馆。嗯，所以你对于什么算中间派的参照点，呃，是是完全偏离了。嗯，所以，嗯，Reddit 的总部在旧金山。

嗯，Twitter 的总部曾在旧金山。嗯，你知道，我，你知道，我我把 X 的总部搬到了得克萨斯州，搬到奥斯汀，顺便说一句，奥斯汀仍然相当自由派化，你知道。嗯，>> 是啊。>> 而且，呃，然后，嗯，X 和 xAI，嗯，总部在帕洛阿尔托，那里仍然属于加利福尼亚州。嗯，工程总部在，在帕洛阿尔托，就在佩奇米尔。

嗯，但但是，即便帕洛阿尔托也比那里，比比旧金山、伯克利正常得多。呃，旧金山、伯克利，嗯，极端左，就像左得不能再左。你没法，就像你需要一架望远镜才能从，呃，旧金山看到中间位置，你知道。嗯，而且，嗯，>> 它以前是一座非常棒的城市。>> 我是说，旧金山有巨，旧金山有极其丰富的天然美景。这一点毫无疑问。嗯，而且而且加利福尼亚州的天气好得不可思议。

嗯，而且而且没有虫子。嗯，那简直就像太棒了。嗯，很美，你知道。嗯，但但是你问，比如造成这一切的原因是什么？就是就是，如果，嗯，如果公司的总部设在一个其信念体系与大多数人的信念相去甚远的地方，那么从他们的角度来看，任何中间派实际上都是右翼，因为他们太靠左了。

他们太，他们在旧金山离中间位置太远了，以至于任何事情，他们就像，他们他们就是被固定在最左端。所以这就是为什么，这就是为什么，你知道，我觉得我觉得你是中间派。我，我是说，我觉得我觉得我是中间派，但从一个身处，身处极左的人看来，我们显得是右翼。>> 是啊。>> 嗯，而且，嗯，你知道，他们认为任何共和党人基本上都像是某种法西斯纳粹情况。

但特别疯狂的是，比如仅仅从希拉里2008年的演讲和奥巴马的演讲就很容易证明这一点，比如当他们谈到移民问题时，他们，>> 在移民问题上像史蒂夫·班农一样极右翼。>> 是的。嗯，>> 希拉里当时非常 MAGA。你有没有，我肯定你看过那场竞选演讲，里面谈到，如果任何人犯了罪，就把他们赶走。

而如果你在这里，你要缴纳一笔高额罚款，还必须排队等候。那真的很疯狂。听起来很疯狂，因为那就像，它和，你知道，玛乔丽·泰勒·格林一样 MAGA。>> 是啊。我是说，如果你看过人们发布在网上的这些视频，他们会拿一段，比如，嗯，奥巴马或希拉里的演讲，然后然后然后在，比如大学校园之类的地方采访别人，并问：“你怎么看特朗普的这场演讲？”

然后他们就说：“哦，我讨厌它。他是个种族主义偏执狂。”我就说：“开玩笑的。那是奥巴马。”[笑声] 不，实际上那是奥巴马或希拉里。嗯，正如你所说，比如毫不夸张地讲，这个，嗯，>> 中间位置已经被挪得太远了。>> 是啊。>> 是啊。左派太，>> 左派已经走得太靠左，以至于他们他们他们他们需要，你知道，他们甚至用望远镜都看不到中间位置。

>> 而如果没有你收购 Twitter，危险就在于，那将席卷整个国家，并改变各个层级所处的位置。>> 是啊。于是，如今被视为理性和正常的事物，会远在仅仅10年前被视为理性和正常的事物的左边。是啊。完全正确。

所以从历史上看，嗯，旧金山、伯克利会是，你知道，非常极左的，但旧金山、伯克利那种有些虚无主义的，呃，哲学所产生的那种影响，会在地理上局限于大概，比如，你知道，10英里半径、20英里半径，诸如此类的范围。

嗯，但是当，嗯，但是但是旧金山和伯克利不得不与硅谷共处，和和和那些创造了信息超级武器的，呃，工程师们共处，而那些信息超级武器，呃，随后被极左翼活动人士劫持，用来向地球上的每一个地方灌输极左翼宣传。就像，我只是，你知道，就像那个老式的 RCA 广播塔，那种地球上的广播塔，它就只是在广播。>> 对。

这这就是发生的事情，即一种极端主义的极左意识形态碰巧与最聪明的，与世界上最聪明的工程师，嗯，所在的地方处于同一地点，他们创造了本来并非用于这一目的的信息超级武器，但这些武器被住在附近的，呃，极端活动人士劫持了。

事情就是这样，他们，他们劫持了 RCA 广播塔的现代等价物，并把那套理念广播到地球上的每一个地方。>> 对。而且你能看到后果。嗯，尤其是在那些没有言论自由的地方。是的。对吧。比如英格兰，你知道，我们已经 >> 对。在那里，他们会因为表情包之类的东西把人关起来。真的是这样。>> 真的是这样。今年有 12,000 人。>> 12,000 >> 12,000，因社交媒体帖子而被捕 12,000 人。

[叹气] 我是说，对。有些，有些事情，你读到后会觉得，真的就是有人手机上有一个表情包，他们甚至都没有发给任何人，>> 对吧？>> 然后他们就，他们，而且，而且他们就因为这个进了监狱。>> 对。>> 嗯，德国有一个案子，一名女性被判的刑期比强奸她的那个男人还长，呃，因为她在群聊里说了些什么。哇。

强奸她的是移民吗？>> 是的。>> 对。那是他的文化。>> 对。>> 他不知道。他不懂得更好的做法。>> 是的。我想，我想她说了些，嗯，你知道，并不是，并不是像，是，是批评了他的文化，然后，呃，而且，而且，而且她被判的刑期比强奸她的男人还长 >> 在德国。简直 >> 英国、欧洲、德国、英格兰这件事看起来太疯狂了。>> 完全疯了。

我其实没意识到人数有这么多，达到了 12,000。对。远高于俄罗斯，远高于中国，对吧？>> 远高于地球上的任何地方。英国是第一名。>> 嗯，你知道，像这样的事情，我其实，你知道，呃，我和我在英格兰的朋友们聊过，然后，嗯，我当时说：“嘿，嗯，你们不担心这个吗？”比如，呃，你知道，你们不应该进行更多抗议吗？

嗯，而且我是说，问题在于，像，你知道，那些，那些，那些传统主流媒体并不报道这些事。>> 他们，他们就像：“哦，一切都很好。一切都很好。”你知道，嗯，>> 大多数人甚至都意识不到，直到他们来敲你的门。>> 对。

直到，就像，所以我是说，那些，那些，像英格兰、苏格兰、爱尔兰那些，你知道，那种可爱的小镇，他们，他们一直就像是在安静地过自己的生活。坦白说，他们，他们就像霍比特人。所以，所以事实上是 J. R.

托尔肯以他在英格兰小镇认识的人为原型塑造了霍比特人，因为他们就是那种可爱的人，喜欢，你知道，抽抽烟斗，然后吃，呃，美味的饭菜，一切都很惬意。嗯，夏尔的那些，那些霍比特人。夏尔，他，他说的是，你知道，像哈珀这样的地方，像大伦敦地区周边的夏尔，牛津郡之类的地方。

嗯，而且，嗯，他们，但是他们之所以能够享受夏尔的生活，是因为强悍的男人保护了他们，使他们免受世界上的危险。而且，嗯，但是，但是由于他们没有，或者几乎没有，没有接触过这个世界的，那些，那些危险，所以他们意识不到那些危险就在那里，直到有一天，你知道，嗯，1,000 个人不知从哪里来到你这个只有 500 人的村庄，实施强奸，而且，而且开始强奸孩子。

这种事现在已经在英国发生了天知道多少次。而疯狂的是 >> 真的是强奸。没错，就像上周爱尔兰有个 10 岁的孩子被强奸了。>> 对。真的是说唱。>> 他们抓走了某个孩子。>> 对。>> 而如果你批评这件事，你可能会被捕。这就是事情变得疯狂的地方。就像，他们怎么会不 >> 他们确实批评这件事。

呃，就像那个，我[叹气]想实际上是爱尔兰总理，你知道，在 X 上发了帖子，呃，因为，因为在那之后，嗯，我想某个非法移民抓走了一名 10 岁女孩，呃，她当时好像正要去上学还是怎样，并且暴力强奸了这名 10 岁女孩，嗯，呃，而且，你知道，人们对此非常愤怒，呃，于是他们进行了抗议，嗯，爱尔兰总理没有说，是啊，我们，我们真的不应该把暴力强奸犯引进我们的国家。

他反而批评了抗议者，而且没有提到那件事。没有提到他们抗议的原因，是他们小镇的一名 10 岁女孩遭到了强奸。>> 所以，这里就有一个问题。他们为什么支持这种大规模移民？而这是什么，这一切背后是否存在某种计划？这只是，这是无能吗？这是在无视他们根本控制不住局面的事实吗？

所以，他们是在试图压制异议，究竟发生了什么？[叹气] 嗯 >> 因为如果你想摧毁文明，如果你想摧毁西方文明，>> 它似乎想这么做，>> 嗯，而且你知道，就是，所以，呃，有一个人，我想，我不知道他是否上过你的节目，你知道，上帝。>> 对。>> 他上过节目吗？>> 我的好朋友。对。>> 对，他很棒。>> 他上过很多次。

>> 哦，太好了。就这些，他很棒。嗯 >> 所以，呃，你知道，他有一种很，很好的，呃，描述方式，那就是自杀式同理心。>> 是的。>> 所以，嗯，就是，就是你向人们的同理心祈祷。你会说，比如，好吧，比如你为，为，为某件事、某个群体感到难过，然后就像，好吧，嗯，而且，而且那种，那种，那种同理心达到了这样的程度，以至于它对你的国家或文化而言是自杀性的。

嗯，而且，嗯，而且，而且那就是，那种自杀式同理心，因为我并不认为我们，我们应该有同理心，但是，但是，但是我们应该，我们应该让这种同理心延伸到受害者，而不是，不是，不是只延伸到罪犯。我们应该对那些被他们祈祷的人抱有同理心。

嗯，但那种自杀式同理心也导致了这样的情况：某个人，你知道，因暴力犯罪被逮捕了47次，却被释放，然后又去，呃，谋杀了某个人，嗯，在美国，就是这样，你会看到，你会看到同样的现、现象在各地上演，呃，那种自杀式同理心到了这种程度，以至于我们实际上在允许，嗯，我们的女性遭到强奸，我们的孩子遭到杀害。

但这看起来根本不像是任何理性社会会赞同的事情。这正是让我如此困惑的地方。就像你正在让大批来自世界上一些非常黑暗之地的人进入这个国家。>> 嗯，问题在于没有审查。

这就像，这就像如果，比如说，>> 嗯，如果如果没有审查，比如人们就这样直接进来，那么要怎么阻止一个刚刚在其他国家犯下谋杀罪的人，嗯，来到美国，或者来到英国，嗯，然后继续其强奸和谋杀的生涯呢？比如，除非你做过，除非进行某种尽职调查，问清楚，比如，这个人是谁？他的过往记录如何？

如果如果你，如果你没有确认他们有着，呃，你知道，诚实而且，呃，不是杀人狂的过往记录，那么任何杀人狂都可以直接越过边境。而这并不是说每个越过边境的人都是杀人狂。

如果你没有，如果你没有审查程序来确认你没有放进，嗯，那些会实施某种严重暴力行为的人，那么有时就会有实施严重暴力行为的人进来。>> 是的，尤其是如果你不惩罚他们、不驱逐他们，而且你只是像，什么，但允许所有那些人进入这个国家的目的是什么？

不可能是，我无法想象他们社会中的任何人会支持这件事。>> 好吧，让我解释一下。所以，所以，所以，因为你提到了，比如希拉里和奥巴马在说法上发生了多大的变化，嗯，相比他们以前的演讲，当时他们态度强硬，他们对于不让，呃，任何罪犯进入这个国家态度强硬，嗯，你知道，拥有安安全的边境，所有那些东西。那么，他们为什么改变了说法？

原因是他们发现那些人会投票给他们。这就是他们想要开放边境的原因 >> 因为如果你让人们进来，他们知道是民主党人让他们进来的。他们会投票给民主党人。是的。如果你允许他们投票，>> 而这正是他们在积极尝试做的，他们对非法投票视而不见。>> 好吧，加利福尼亚州实际上不允许你出示驾照。

>> 加利福尼亚州和纽约州已经规定投票时出示带照片的身份证件属于违法。因此，他们实际上已经使得，呃，证明欺诈变得不可能。不可能。他们实质上已经在加利福尼亚州、纽约州以及美国许多其他地区将欺诈性投票合法化了。

>> 我从未见过任何人给出合理解释，说明为什么会采取这种政策，除非你就是想允许人们非法投票，因为没有其他理由。

如果其他所有事情都需要驾照或身份证件，包括就在最近用来证明你接种过疫苗，>> 那些要求你必须有、你必须有疫苗护照的人，和那些说投票不需要身份证件的是同一批人。同一批人，>> 对吧？但是，比如 >> 所以这显然既虚伪又前后矛盾。>> 所以你真的认为这只是为了获得更多选民吗？

如果如果你想理解行为，就必须看激励因素。

嗯，所以，呃，一旦，呃，你知道，美国民主党和欧洲的左派意识到，嗯，如果开放边境，嗯，并提供大量政府救济，而这会产生巨大的经济激励，呃，促使其他国家的人来到你的国家，而且你不因犯罪起诉他们，他们就会受制于你，并会投票给你。

这就是为什么，呃，奥巴马和希拉里从，嗯，反对开放边境转变为支持开放边境。原因就是为了引入选民，以便他们赢得选举。嗯，问题是，这会产生一种负面的失控效应。所以，如果他们能靠这个蒙混过关，比如，这这就是一种制胜策略。

如果允许他们靠这个蒙混过关，他们就会引入足够多的选民，从而取得超级多数票，到那时就再也无法回头。>> 我们在选举前谈过这件事，然后，你知道，你当时确实指向了一台摄像机。你面对摄像机说，如果你现在不投票，你以后可能永远都无法再投票了，因为那将会、那将会是徒劳的。局面会被淹没。>> 是的。

他们会让边境再开放4年，到那时他们的目标就实现了。>> 对吗？如果如果如果特朗普输了，嗯，就再也不会有下一场真正的选举了。嗯，因为特朗普确实在执行边境管控。嗯，现在你，你可以，可以，你可以指出一些情况，呃，其中出现过，呃，你知道，嗯，你知道，移民曾经，你知道，执法过于激进，因为他们不可能做到完美。

会有一些他们在驱逐非法移民时，嗯，过于激进的案例。嗯，所以，嗯，但如果你说，驱逐合法移民的的的标准必须是完美，呃，那么你将无法实施任何驱逐，嗯，因为完美是不可能的。嗯，所以 >> 而且你们这里可能有数百万人正试图以某种寻求庇护的借口留在这里，>> 对吧？>> 是的。>> 比如你可以就这样来自世界上某个饱受战争蹂躏的地区。

不，他们改变了庇护的定义，把它变成经济上的，变成经济庇护 >> 那就是所有人 >> 那就是所有人。>> 是的。>> 所以证明的门槛 >> 这，是的，庇护本应意味着，如果你回到自己的国家，你就会被杀 >> 你知道，那就是我们所说的，那才是它本应具有的含义。

呃，他们改变了庇护的定义，把它变成了，呃，你的生活水平会下降，而这显然不是真正的庇护。嗯，而且，而且这，而且你可以，你可以通过这样一个事实来检验其荒谬性：寻求庇护的人会去他们正申请庇护以逃离的国家度假。[笑声] >> 你知道，这完全说不通。>> 是的。它不需要说得通。

>> 但是，当你，当你理解了激励因素，那么，那么你就理解了这种行为。嗯，所以一旦左派意识到，呃，如果他们允许，如果他们开放边境，并将其与，呃，与政府救济相结合，非法移民就会，就会投票给他们。>> 是的。以产生巨大的激励。

他们基本上是在，呃，使用美国和欧洲、美国和欧洲纳税人的钱来提供经济激励，引入尽可能多的非法移民，让他们通过投票使自己取得永久权力，并建立一党制国家。而且，而且我，我邀请任何正在收听的人，只，只要做做任何研究，你挖得越多，就越会清楚地发现，我所说的绝对属实。

好吧，他们当时用大巴把人送往摇摆州。很很明显，他们当时试图做些什么。然后还有查克·舒默和南希·佩洛西，他们积极谈论需要引入人口并让他们成为公民，因为我们正处于人口崩溃之中。>> 是的。>> 是的。>> 不，那就是，就是那个，就是那个梗。是的。>> [笑声] 很多次，他们一开始会说这这不是真的。

这是一个右翼阴谋论者，>> 对吧？>> 嗯，然后就开始，然后就像，呃，我想下、下一步是，嗯，好吧，这这可能是真的，然后就像，好吧，这是真的，但原因如下。>> 然后最后一步是，这是真的，而这就是为什么它是好事。然后就像，但是等一下，你一开始说它不是真的，而且它是一个右翼阴谋论者。

现在你说它不仅是真的，而且还是件好事，我们必须做得更多。>> 好吧，这就是关于[笑声]医疗补助、社会保障以及人们获得社会安全号码的事情。>> 你知道，我们是大规模欺诈。这是大规模欺诈，而且确实存在，而他们一直都在否认。现在我们发现，这就是眼下这场政府停摆正在发生的部分原因。>> 是的。

这这场政府停摆的全部根源是，嗯，是特朗普政府正确地不想拨出巨额的、比如数千亿美元，呃，用来资助，呃，蓝州的非法移民，或者其实是所有州的非法移民。嗯，所以，而民主党人想让这这这道资金龙头继续流水，以激励，呃，非法移民进入美国，而这些人会投票给他们。这就是这场斗争的核心。

所以他们想阻止这件事。所以现在的情况是，他们一直在资助这些人。他们一直在给他们发放 EBT 卡。他们一直在给他们提供医疗补助。

而且不止这些，就像，就像他们当时，嗯，就像，就像他们在占用酒店，比如四星级和五星级酒店，罗斯福酒店就是典型例子，嗯，他们当时每年向罗斯福酒店支付，我想是6000万美元，来，呃，而它所做的一切就是安置非法移民。它以前是一家不错的酒店。我是说，它现在仍然是一家不错的酒店。嗯，呃，但是，呃，而且，而且这种事在全国各地都在发生。>> 而且全是纳税人的钱。>> 是的。

>> 对。而且 >> 嗯，对。而且，呃，特朗普政府切断了比如说对，对那个，呃，呃，对那个，你知道，罗斯福酒店以及其他这些酒店的资助，说我们，美国纳税人的钱不应该被支付，被送去为非法移民提供连美国公民都住不起的豪华酒店，这显然就是，那真是，那太疯狂了。当时发生的就是这种事。他们还在发放，比如装有10000美元的借记卡。

所以，这不只是医疗护理的问题。

嗯，民主党人提到医疗护理，是因为他们、他们正试图尽可能利用人们的同情心，然后他们设想，哦，哇，有人极其迫切地需要一项医疗程序，而嗯，我们是不是也许应该，你知道，在这方面照顾他们，但、但他们所做的是把医疗补助资金挪走，呃、呃，把它变成供、供各州使用的小金库，远远超出了呃紧急医疗护理的范围。

还有 >> 如果没有呃、没有流向这些州、用来为非法移民买单的巨额欺诈性联邦拨款，纽约州和加利福尼亚州就会破产，这些拨款为、为非法移民制造了巨大的经济激励。>> 它们怎么会因此破产？

>> 呃，它们将无法平衡本州预算，而且它们不能像美联储那样发行货币。>> 所以它们平衡预算的能力取决于非法移民获得资金。这里的、这个骗局的程度、程度惊人得难以置信。嗯，所以联邦政府向各州有、有数千亿美元的、的转移支付。

嗯，那些转移支付，呃，各、各州自行申报那些转移支付的数字应该是多少。所以，加利福尼亚州、纽约州和伊利诺伊州疯狂撒谎，呃，并说、并且说这些、这些全都是合法付款。好吧，最近我觉得他们、他们甚至承认，他们、他们确实想要呃数千亿美元给非法移民。嗯，但、呃、但有一段时间，他们、他们试图否认这一点。

嗯，所以每一个、每一个你能想到的政府项目都会带来这些转移支付。嗯，而、而、而这些是由各州自行申报的，而且、而且至少从历史上看，当、当加利福尼亚州、嗯、纽约州、伊利诺伊州和、和、和其他州撒谎时，没有对它们进行任何执法。没有实际的执法行动会说，比如：“嘿，你、你在撒谎。这些、这些、这些付款是欺诈性的。”

现在，在特朗普政府治下，嗯，那个特朗普政府不想向各州支付数千亿美元的欺诈、欺诈性款项。

这个、嗯，而你会有这场、这场僵局，是因为那数千、数千亿美元，呃，制造了一种经济激励，就像有一块巨大的磁铁，把来自地球各地的非法移民吸引到，呃，到这些州；如果、如果这被关闭，他们、这些、这些非法移民就会离开，因为他们不再能拿钱来美国并留在这里。哇。然后、然后、然后他们会失去很多选民。

民主党、党、党会失去很多选民。>> 而如果这被剔除，他们要把它重新纳入一项新法案会非常困难。>> 是的。>> 尤其是一旦事情开始恢复正常。>> 是的。所以简而言之，嗯，民主党想通过输入选民来摧毁民主，而、这个，你知道，共和党不同意这一点。

>> 而这个骗局是，如果你不接受他们正在做的事情，那么你就是民主的威胁。>> 是的。>> 就在他们试图摧毁民主时。>> 是的。>> 通过输入选民。>> 并激励人们只投票给他们。>> 并压垮整个系统。是的。而、而顺便说一句，这是一种如果被允许奏效就会奏效的策略，而且事实上已经奏效了。嗯，加利福尼亚州民主党拥有超级多数。>> 对。

>> 嗯，而且发生了太多杰利蝾螈式选区划分，那、那、那太疯狂了。嗯，所以 >> 我相信你在关注这个第50号提案。>> 就是加利福尼亚州试图重新、重新划分选区的那个东西。>> 对。>> 因为我是说，加利福尼亚州已经疯狂地进行杰利蝾螈式选区划分了。对。>> 嗯，他们还想进一步进行杰利蝾螈式选区划分。>> 嗯，而、而我是说 >> 因为它一直越来越向右移动。

比如，如果你看加利福尼亚州的地图，每个投票周期都有越来越多的人觉醒并说，这到底是什么[ __ ]，我们需要做点什么来解决这个问题。除了你们这些人一直推行的政策之外，唯一可用的选项就是向右转。>> 所以很多人已经被，打、打引号，红 >> 药丸化了。>> 对。>> 而、而、而这里还有另一件非常重要的事。

嗯，事实上，这一点双方其实都没有争议，那就是，当我们在美国进行人口普查时，人口普查——人口普查在分配国会席位以及总统选举人团选票时的运作方式，是按一个州内的人数，而不是公民人数，对吧？>> 算的是人人数。所以你完全可能只是一名游客，也会被计算在内。

>> 那他们进行人口普查时是怎么做的？他们是问人们吗？会上门敲门吗？会让人们填写表格吗？比如怎么做？>> 对，我想他们会邮寄人口普查表格，也会上门敲门。嗯，但按照法律目前的写法，嗯，而且而且，呃，只要你是一个有脉搏的人，嗯，呃，那么在分配国会席位和总统选票时，你就会被计入人口普查，>> 对吧？

所以，呃，你所以 >> 选举人团，>> 不管你是合法还是非法来到这里，都无所谓，而且只要只要你是一个有脉搏的人，嗯，你就会被计入国会席位分配。

所以这意味着，呃，加利福尼亚州和纽约州能输入的人越多、非法移民越多，等到2030年人口普查进行时，嗯，他们拥有的国会席位就会越多，嗯，他们拥有的选举人、总统选举人团选票也会越多，嗯，所以他们正试图在人口普查前让尽可能多的，呃，非法移民进入。

嗯，而且因为所有人人所有人类，甚至游客，都会被计入人口普查，然后如果再把它与纽约州和加利福尼亚州对选区的杰利蝾螈式划分结合起来，就像你针对这项提案指出的那样，他们正试图增加加利福尼亚州发生的杰利蝾螈式划分程度，而加利福尼亚州是全国最大的州。

嗯，所以所以你会得到，所以所以如果这、如果这次人口普查届时会因为大量非法移民而把更多国会席位分给加利福尼亚州，呃，还有纽约州和伊利诺伊州。嗯，所以他们获得更多国会席位。他们会获得更多总统选举人团选票，得到那些会让他们拿下众议院，呃，在众议院取得多数，而且而且而且他们将可以决定谁当总统，呃，实际上是基于、基于合法者。

这些是两党都不争议的事实。我想强调这一点，让大家充分理解这一点。>> 对，这不是一个 >> 这些是两党都不争议的事实。这不是一个，这些这些就只是、这就只是法律的运作方式。它、它是、它是一个，你知道，比如我不认为法律应该这样运作。呃，我认为它应该，席位分配应该与公民人数成比例。

>> 但这难道不是宪法写法造成的问题吗？>> 对。对。对。>> 嗯，>> 他们其实改不了那个。>> 我、我不确定这是不是宪法规定的，或者呃，但它它它就是法律的写法。我不确定它是否以这种方式写在宪法里，但嗯，但它就是，那就是法律的写法。

>> 所以，这确实是一种激励，但只要采取一项对所有人来说都合情合理的简单措施，这种激励就会被消除：只有美国正式公民才应该被计算在内。>> 是的。所以，正确的运作方式应该是，在为确定投票权而进行的人口普查中，只有美国公民才应被计算在内，>> 因为按说不合法的人不能投票。>> 他们不应该投票。

嗯，但但他们确实投。嗯，呃，但但即使、即使除此以外，就像说过的，我我我怎么强调都不为过，因为这是一个非常重要的概念，人们需要理解。嗯，就是按照现行法律，嗯，法律会计算一个州内所有有脉搏的人类，来决定一个州获得多少，呃，众议院选票以及多少总统选举人团选票。

所以因此存在的激励就是，呃，让加利福尼亚州、纽约州和伊利诺伊州最大限度增加非法移民人数，这样他们就能、这样他们就能，嗯，从红州夺走众议院席位，再把它们分配给加利福尼亚州、纽约州、伊利诺伊州等等。嗯，然后然后你再把它与，你知道，加利福尼亚州、纽约州、伊利诺伊州以及诸如此类地方的极端不公正选区划分结合起来。

所以那样那样基本上你你甚至无法选出任何共和党人，然后他们会控制总统职位、控制众议院，接着他们不断实施那种策略，嗯，而且而且巩固超级多数。这就是他们正试图做的事。>> 所以那实质上会把整个国家变成加利福尼亚州。>> 是的。>> 在那里，你可以有不同意见，但这无关紧要，因为一个政党始终掌权。>> 是的。

嗯，>> 当你最初开始深入调查这些事情时，当你最初开始、甚至还没接受负责DOGE并参与这一切的角色之前，你知道事情已经糟糕到这种[ __ ]程度了吗？>> 嗯，我我知道。对。我、我的意思是，我算是 >> 你从什么时候开始知道的？>> 嗯，我想大概是，比如，嗯，大约2年前。>> 那是不是很疯狂？>> 对。就，相对而言是最近，你知道。

所以 >> 也许我开始、我开始有一种，嗯，我大约3年前开始基本上有一种不好的感觉，这就是为什么、那就是、那是在 >> 呃，为什么我觉得收购Twitter至关重要，嗯，并拥有一个最大限度追求真相的平台，而不是一个压制真相的平台。嗯，而且嗯，比如它、它更多是、它更多像是我、比如我不确定发生了什么，但我对正在发生的事情有一种、有一种不好的感觉。

然后我越深入调查，就越觉得：“我[ __ ]，我们这里真有大麻烦了，美国要垮了。”所以，呃，>> 而且没人知道它已经垮了，那才会是问题。它可能已经垮了，并且无法挽回，却没有人真正意识到发生了什么，尤其是如果你没有买下Twitter。>> 是的，就是这样。听着，买下Twitter真是一件极其麻烦的破事。

嗯，还让我成了一个一个一个一个承受攻击的针垫。像是戳戳刺戳戳。>> 在那之前，所有人都喜欢你。>> 嗯，有些人喜欢——>> 很多人都喜欢你。很多左派人士都喜欢你。>> 呃，我曾是左派的英雄。至于——>> 那件事，如果你开一辆 Tesla，就表明你有环保意识，而且站在正确的一边。>> 呃，是的。嗯，是的。我的意思是，我仍然是同一个人。

我又没有，你知道，在大概3年前到现在之间接受过大脑移植，你知道。嗯 >> 嗯，我最喜欢的是人们现在贴在 Tesla 上的那种保险杠贴纸。“这是我在埃隆发疯之前买的。”>> 前几天我拍了一张这种贴纸的照片。哦，你找到一个这样的人。哦，是的。我见过，我见过3个或4个。有人在车上贴着这种保险杠贴纸，上面写着：“这是我在埃隆发疯之前买的。”

因为当时有人在破坏 Tesla >> 是的。嗯，有一场有组织的行动，真的要烧毁 Tesla，而且而且我们有一家经销店遭到枪击，他们就像是朝 Tesla 经销店里面开枪。他们在烧汽车。呃，太疯狂了。嗯，呃，所以不过那张保险杠贴纸应该写成，保险杠贴纸上应该加一条补充说明。就像：“我是在呃埃隆变得疯狂之前买了这辆车。”

事实上，我现在意识到他并没有疯，而且我已经看见光明了。[笑声] >> 那需要一些时间。那需要一些时间。人们不愿承认自己受骗了。>> 是的。我的意思是，有句老话，大概是说，愚弄一个人真的很容易，但要让一个人相信自己受了愚弄，几乎是不可能的。>> 是的。愚弄他们要比让他们相信自己受了愚弄容易得多。

人们固守自己的观念。>> 是的。尤其是如果他们曾公开说过这些话，他们会因为自己显得愚蠢而非常难堪。>> 是的。人们大多数时候会变本加厉地坚持。>> 嗯，而且呃 >> 而且他们会寻找回音室。>> 是的。是的。不过，不过，你知道，问题是，就像我，你知道，我看到越来越多曾经信服那种工作意识形态的人，嗯，看见了光明。>> 是的。

所以，不是所有人，但越来越多的人，嗯，正在看见光明。嗯，而且而且这种事往往发生在某件事真正地，你知道，直接影响到你的时候，>> 对吧？>> 嗯，就像我有一个朋友，他呃住在旧金山湾区，而且嗯，有人试图让他的他的他的女儿跨性别，嗯，甚至到了学校像是派了警察去他家，要把他的女儿从他身边带走的地步。

现在，现在这会让你变得激进。嗯，这会打破，这会把你从你的蓝色结构中震醒。嗯，现在我知道，>> 所以，是学校里的一名活动人士试图这么做。>> 是的，学校和和加利福尼亚州合谋让他的女儿反对他，并且呃让她服用呃会使她绝育、改变一生的药物，嗯，而且呃不可逆。>> 她当时多大？

我想是14岁，差不多吧。嗯，所以，而且不过他他设法说服警察，那天没有把他的女儿从他身边带走。嗯，而那那天晚上，他登上了飞往得克萨斯州的飞机。>> 哇。嗯，而且呃，就像，你知道，在大奥斯汀地区的一一所学校里只待了1年后，嗯，她她变得，她恢复了正常，意思是，就像，那那不是真的 >> 对吧 >> 嗯，现在人们对这一点开放得多了。

我的意思是，《华尔街日报》呃昨天刊登了那篇评论文章，说整个跨性别这件事，有很多证据表明它是一种社会传染。绝对如此。>> 而且那是科林·赖特写的。然后他现在当然收到了死亡威胁。而在 Blue Sky 上，有人在谈论消灭他，显然，这是你在 Blue Sky 上获准说的一种话。

>> 你你可以对那些就整个社会传染问题说出可能是真话的人讲可怕的话。因为，当一个朋友圈里的9个孩子全都决定一起变成跨性别者时，就是这么回事。是的。>> 有些事情不对劲。从统计上说，那并不——>> 是的。就像，事情是这样的，就像，你可以说服孩子做任何事。你可以说服孩子成为自杀式炸弹袭击者，>> 对吧？

>> 所以 >> 这就是为什么他们在在一些国家会这么做，为什么他们选择儿童去做那件事。>> 是的。你可以训练孩子成为自杀式炸弹袭击者。而如果你能训练孩子成为自、自杀式炸弹袭击者，你就能让他们相信任何事。>> 是的。尤其是在有足够的正向强化和文化强化，以及你 >> 还有还有认为事实并非如此的想法。>> 孩子，孩子是，孩子是嗯可塑的。年轻人的心智很容易被腐蚀。

>> 你也看到很多男同性恋和女同性恋人士在反对，他们会说：“嘿，如果有人 >> 别再把我包括在——是的。完全正确。LGBT 里，你知道，就像，等一下，为什么在这种情况下总是把我们包括进去？”>> 完全正确。完全正确。

尤其是，你知道，就像我的朋友蒂姆·迪伦谈过这件事，就像，这真的很恐同，因为你拿这些同性恋孩子来说，然后你你告诉他们：“嘿，你不是同性恋。你其实是个女孩。”>> 是的。而且，你知道，嘿，嘿，去把自己弄得再也无法达到性高潮，然后你就会幸福。

>> 就像，>> 是的，>> [ __ ] 对孩子进行永久残害、永久阉割，就像，我我认为 >> 我我认为我们应该看待，审视呃任何永久阉割孩子的人，就像他们可以和伊瑟夫·曼格勒相提并论。>> 是的。>> 我的意思是，他们他们在残害儿童。>> 是的。是的。而且嗯，这被认为是善意之举。问题是，你宁愿要一个活着的女儿，还是一个死去的儿子？>> 那就是，那就是他们使用的说辞。

>> 是的。而这并没有任何数据支持。>> 没有。事实上，自杀的概率会上升。>> 对。>> 这一点也许有必要让观众知道。呃，如果你是处于过渡期的孩子，自杀的概率会上升，而不是下降。>> 按照一些说法，会增加到3倍。所以那那是一个邪恶的谎言。而且这是一个据称富有同情心的谎言。

想象一下，你把现实扭曲到了这样的地步，去迷惑一个甚至在法律上都不被允许去纹一个[ __ ]纹身的孩子。>> 是的。>> 对吧。因为你认为纹身时可能会犯错，而那是完全可以去除的东西，>> 对吧？>> 如果我愿意，明天我就可以去找医生，他们可以用激光去掉我身上的每一个纹身。>> 对。>> 好了。没有伤害，也没有过错。是的。但如果你被绝育了，那就永远这样了。永远。

是的，>> 他们会阉割你。你不再有睾丸。你没有阴茎。你原来阴茎所在的地方只剩一个洞。>> 是的。>> 而这是有同情心的，这是在防止你 >> 事实上，很多孩子在这些，呃，变性手术中死亡。他们死了，死在手术台上的人数。人们没有听说过这些。

很多孩子，因为那个我们，它是，我们实际上并没有让这件事成功的技术。所以很多时候，孩子们就死在变性手术中。>> 天哪。>> 是啊。这，这很病态，应该把它看作，你知道，嗯，就像，就像邪恶纳粹医生那种东西，基本上就是这样。所以那算是真正的纳粹，而不是那种他妈的假纳粹东西。

>> 疯狂的是，即使只是反驳某件从根本逻辑上看似乎很容易辩驳的事情，旧版 Twitter 也会永久封禁你。呃，是的。>> 这就是一种社会传染在完全违背逻辑、伤害儿童、做毫无道理的事、不受数据支持，而且全都与跨性别是好事这一意识形态相连时，能变得多么疯狂。我们得拯救跨性别孩子，保护跨性别孩子。>> 是的。

而我想强调的是，那个拯救跨性别孩子的说法是谎言。嗯，如果，如果你，如果你阉割孩子并让他们变性，自杀的概率会上升。它不会下降。它会大幅上升。嗯，我见过的那些，那些，那些研究表明，如果你让孩子变性，自杀风险会增加到3倍。所以你不是在救他们，你是在杀死他们。

此外，在变性手术期间，有很多人在变性手术期间死亡。>> 耶稣基督。太疯狂了，这竟然是一个真实存在的问题。>> 是的，这这是一个噩梦般的高烧梦境，而而人们终于开始从中醒来了。

那么，当你开始参与 DOGE 的事情，并开始发现有多少钱被调来调去、转给 NOS，以及牵涉多少钱，还有这种完全无法追踪的资金时，这又是某种像是2年多以前你完全不知道的事情。>> 不，我知道。嗯，我只是没意识到它有多，多么，多么庞大。政府里到底有多少浪费和向前，确实极其庞大。

嗯，事实上政府甚至都不知道，嗯，他们也不在乎。>> 这太疯狂了。>> 是啊。>> 而且 >> 我是说，仅仅 DOGE 做过的一些非常基础的事情，嗯，就会产生持久的影响。嗯，而且其中有些事情，比如，它们基础得让你难以置信。所以，嗯，那个，那个 DOGE 团队让，嗯，你知道，那些，那些大、大多数主要的支付计算机，嗯，要求填写，呃，那个国会拨款代码。

所以，当进行一笔付款时，你实际上必须输入国会拨款卡。以前这是可选的，而且，而且经常会直接留空。所以钱就会付出去，但它甚至没有与任何国会拨款挂钩。然后他们也，荷兰团队也把付款的，呃，备注字段设为必填。所以你必须写点什么。我们不是说写的内容要怎样，比如你可以写任何东西。

你，你，你的猫可以从键盘上跑过去。呃，你可以输入 querty ASDF，但你必须写点东西，不能什么都不写，因为我们发现，有数百亿美元，也许数千亿美元，是僵尸付款。

所以就像，有人曾批准了一笔付款，呃，呃，政府里的某个人批准了一笔付款，嗯，而且，呃，是某种定期付款，然后，嗯，他们退休了、去世了或换了工作，却没有人把这笔钱停掉。

所以钱就会不断流出去，而且而且这是相当罕见的 >> 去哪里 >> 流向一家公司或一个人，嗯，而且会抱怨自己拿到了本不该拿的钱的公司或个人相当罕见，而且而且有一大笔钱就这样流向了——是给各州的转移支付。 >> 所以这些都是自动支付，完全没有任何核算。

>> 我想象，这就像你的信用卡设置了自动扣款 >> 嗯，而你不，你从来不看账单，>> 对吧？嗯，所以钱就这样不断支出去。呃，这就是为什么我称它们为“僵尸付款”。嗯，它们可能曾经，可能曾经一度是合法的，但批准那笔定期付款的人，嗯，换了工作、去世了、退休了，或诸如此类，而从来没有人把这笔款停掉。

而我猜，这每年至少可能有1000亿，也许有2000亿。流向哪里 >> 呃，流向，流向，呃，呃，我是说，有数百万笔这样的付款。所以，所以这，我是说 >> 数百万 >> 呃，是的 >> 数百万笔付款流向了谁也不知道的地方。>> 是的。在很多案例中，有诈骗团伙在运作，呃，有专业诈骗团伙在运作，利用这个系统。

嗯，他们找出系统中的某个安全漏洞，然后就进行专业诈骗。嗯，而且，嗯，你知道，我们正是在那里发现了，比如说，在社会保障管理局数据库中，有些人，你知道，已经有300岁了。

现在，我原以为这是因为没有登记他们的死亡而造成的，呃，一个错误，就是说这些人出生在很久以前，而系统默认成了，比如某个特定数字，所以过了一段时间，那些人仍然留在系统里。这只是记账方式造成的一个错误。>> 对。所以，嗯，事实并非如此。所以，有……或者至少有两种情况之一必然是真的。

嗯，电脑里有一个……有一个拼写错误，或者某种错误，或者这就是欺诈，但美国并没有任何活了300岁的吸血鬼，呃。>> 据称如此。>> 据称如此。嗯，而且，呃，或者……或者说，我们有些情况下并不存在那些正在收款、却出生于未来的人。[笑声] >> 出生于未来。>> 真的吗？>> 是的。

有些正在收款的人，他们的出生日期，呃，嗯，是在2100年之后的某一年。>> 好吧，所以这里有……>> 比如说下个世纪。>> 有没有一项任务……>> 我们知道，我们知道两种情况之一必然是真的，嗯，那、那、那要么是电脑里出了错，要么就是欺诈。但如果你掌握的某个人的出生日期要么在未来，要么显示他们比目前在世最年长的美国人还老，因为目前在世最年长的美国人是114岁，所以如果他们超过114岁，嗯，那么要么是出了错，应该有人打电话给他们，说，我……我觉得我们把您的生日，呃，弄错了，因为上面说您出生于17……你知道，8086年，嗯，而且，嗯，你知道，那是在……你知道，嗯，你知道，甚至还没有真正的美国之前，你知道，那是……那是

比如，呃，你知道，算是很早的时候，你知道，我们还在跟英格兰打仗的那种时期，呃。[笑声] 你……这就像，呃，这个人要么应该被载入《吉尼斯世界纪录》，要么他们已经不在人世了。>> 但归根结底，钱仍然在流向与这个人关联的那个账户，而这个人要么并不存在，要么……>> 所以，比如，比如，对。

所以，当时大概，呃，我想，嗯，好像是，我不知道，社会保障管理局数据库里有2000万人不可能还活着，嗯，如果按他们的出生日期来看，根据他们的出生日期，他们不可能还活着。>> 那么说清楚一点，是有2000万人在领取资金吗？>> 呃，其中很多人，大多数人并没有领取资金。有些人在领取资金。大多数人没有领取资金。

不过，让我告诉你这个骗局是怎么运作的。这是，这是借道操作。所以，社会保障管理局数据库被政府使用的所有其他数据库当作事实依据。

所以，即使他们停止社会保障管理局数据库里的付款，像失业保险、小企业管理局、学生贷款，全都会查询社会保障管理局数据库，确认这是不是、这是不是一个合法的活人？而且，呃，而且社会保障数据库会说，是的，这个人仍然活着，尽管他们已经200岁了。

嗯，但它忘了提他们已经200岁了，它只是说，它只是返回，呃，呃，当、当计算机查询时，它说，是的，这个人还活着。这样一来，他们就能够利用政府生态系统里其余的全部部分。所以假的，然后你就能拿到假的学生贷款，然后你能拿到假的失业保险，然后你能拿到假的医疗付款。

而且这不必和某个有地址、可以让你去核查这个人的个人绑定。>> 不，如果你确实做了，如果只要做任何核查，你就会阻止这一切。>> 所以，所以，所以，那就是，那那就是，所以所以 >> 那你认为有多少钱是 >> 任何核查，比如任何核查都能阻止、都能阻止继续下去，就像只要做出任何努力？>> 嗯，是的。>> 所以，这里面有多层。

社会保障号码会验证这是一个真实的人，然后其他系统会核查其他每一种政府付款和其他每一种政府付款系统，包括一切，比如小、小企业管理局，呃，学生贷款，呃，医疗补助、联邦医疗保险，呃，其他每一种政府付款，而这种付款有很多，实际上有数百个政府付款系统，呃，只要社会保障数据库说这个人还活着，所有这些系统都可以被利用，这就是这个骗局的性质。这是借道操作。

所以接着，接着民主党人的反驳是，哦，好吧，在社会保障管理局中被标记为活着的人，绝大多数都没有领取社会保障管理局的付款。这是真的。他们忘记提的是，这些人正在从其他每一个政府项目中获得欺诈性付款。

这就是为什么那些DM如此反对关闭，反对把一个已经死去的人宣布为死亡，因为这会阻止其他所有的、所有其他欺诈继续发生。所以，但是这一切都可以追踪吗，比如所有这些其他欺诈。>> 如果他们愿意，他们可以把这一切都追查到底。>> 是的。这甚至不难。>> 然而他们却反对把这一切追查到底。

>> 他们反对把这一切追查到底，因为那会关掉非法移民的吸金磁铁。哇。因为这非常合乎逻辑，就像、像我说的是最符合常识不过的事情。

如果某人在社会保障系统里的，呃，出生日期是不可能的出生日期，意思是他们比仍然在世的最年长美国人还老，或者出生在未来，那么你应该给他们打电话说：“不好意思，我们似乎把您的出生日期弄错了。”呃，因为上面说您已经200岁了。你只需要做这些。

嗯，而且 >> 然后你会把他们从社会保障数据库中移除，让那个号码无法再用于其他所有那些政府付款。>> 没错。>> 哇。那我们说的是多少钱？>> 是数、数千亿美元。>> 而且这一切都可以追踪。比如，你可以追查所有 >> 就像我说的，你不需要在这里当夏洛克·福尔摩斯。>> 好吧，这件事我们不需要请夏洛克·福尔摩斯。

这是其中一部分吗 >> 你只需要给那个人打电话 >> 然、然后说：“不好意思，我们要么，我们，我们似乎把这个（笑声），比如我们，我们，我们肯定是把您的出生日期弄错了，因为上面说您已经200岁了，或者出生在，呃，未来。嗯，所以您能告诉我们您的出生日期吗？你只需要做这些。就是、就是这么简单。”

但是，所有这些与这个社会保障号码关联的、可以领取的其他政府付款，似乎只要你把这一切都追查到底，是的。>> 你就会发现普遍存在的欺诈。你会查到钱去了哪里。>> 是的。但问题的根源是社会保障管理局数据库，因为，嗯，在美国，社会保障号码被用作事实上的全国身份证号码。

你知道，这就是为什么，比如银行总是会问你要社保号，比如，你知道，任何金融机构都会要求你提供社会保障号码。>> 这听起来太疯狂了，这件事竟然没有被追查。我的意思是 >> 我同意。>> 那，我的意思是，我的意思是，这件事本身就是，这种处理失当太严重了。>> 是的。不，这令人难以置信。嗯，所以，是的，太疯狂了。

>> 嗯，你上次来这里时非常不愿意谈其中一些欺诈的规模，因为你当时说，他们可能会杀了我，因为这有点 >> 哦，什么？是的。我当时说的是，嗯，比如，如果你造成，如果，比如，呃，我、我、我喜欢务实和现实一点，嗯，你实际上不可能做到零欺诈。你可以把欺诈控制在较低的数字，但不能降到零欺诈。

如果你做到零欺诈，嗯，你、你、你会把很多正在领取欺诈性付款的人逼到绝境，以至于涌过来的杀人狂数量会，呃，真的很难应付。所以我，我，我实际上采取的是，我认为相当合理的立场，也就是我们应该只是减少欺诈的数量，我认为这不是一个极端主义立场。嗯，而且我们应该努力做到，你知道，让欺诈随着时间推移而减少。

嗯，不是说我们应该采取极端严苛的手段，消除最后每一丁点欺诈。嗯，我想那样当然很好，但是，但是，比如，我们甚至不需要走到那么极端。我、我说的是，我们应该只阻止那些明目张胆、大规模、极其明显的欺诈。>> 我认为这是一个合理的立场。>> 这是一个非常合理的立场。是的。那么，当你开始实施Doge时，遇到的最令人震惊的抵制是什么？

当你开始调查资金流向何处时？嗯，嗯，我想，这一点我本应该预料到，但是，嗯，虽然大多数欺诈性政府付款，尤其是付给NOS的款项，都流向了民主党人，大部分都是，比如我不知道，为了便于讨论，假设是80%，也许90%。嗯，嗯，其中10%到20%确实流向了共和党人。

所以，当我们停止向一个欺诈性非政府组织提供资金时，我们就会收到共和党人中不管是哪 10% 的人的抱怨，他们当时正在收取呃这笔钱，而而且他们会，你知道，他们会非常大声地抱怨。嗯，因为诚实的答案是，共和党人也有一部分——他们也在收取其中一些欺诈所得。他们拿到一大笔 >> 天哪。是的，这，我想说清楚。

这这并不是说，共和党在这里是什么嗯极其纯洁的美德典范。>> 不是。>> 好吧。嗯 >> 嗯，你从国会的内幕培训中就能看到这一点。各方都是如此。>> 是的。>> 左翼和右翼都是。>> 我的意思是，对整个统一党的批评确实有一定道理。

你知道，所以嗯，而这这就像，如果你停止欺诈性付款，并不是说——就像我说的——并不是这些款项的 100% 都流向了民主党人。也有一一小部分流向了共和党人。那些共和党人非常大声地抱怨。

嗯，还有，嗯，你知道，而且，而且那就是，那就是，所以当我们开始削减其中一些、这些资金时，共和党一方有很多反对意见。我试着告诉他们，比如，嗯，你知道，90%的钱都流向了你们的对手，但他们还是，即使他们拿到了10%的 >> 他们也想要自己的和平。>> 是的。他们想要自己的和平 >> 而且他们得到这种和平已经很久了。>> 是的。

你看到了吗？>> 所以说，你知道，政治这东西就是……>> 是肮脏的行当。>> 对。我的意思是，这就像是说，如果，你知道，如果如果你如果你喜欢香肠，也尊重法律，就不要看它们任何一个被制作出来的过程。[笑声] >> 对。哇。嗯，那甚至不是真的，因为我以前做过香肠。>> 对。对。其实就像是，这没什么大不了的。对。脂肪、香料和肠衣，>> 把它放进机器里加工。

没什么大不了的。>> 对。嗯，不过，呃，对，我的意思是，我，我觉得我在这里说的这些并不是，呃，就像，就像如果，如果你退一步想一想，比如，哦，对，那，那说得通，你知道。>> 嗯，这，这并不是说，嗯，并不是说某一个政党会是，嗯，你知道，纯粹的恶魔或纯粹的天使。

有，你知道，我认为民主党一方有有有有更多的腐败，但并不是——共和党一方仍然也有一些腐败。>> 为什么最后大多数腐败都发生在民主党一方？>> 嗯，因为这些这些这些转移支付，尤其是给非法移民的，嗯，呃，在很大程度上都是民主党一方的。

>> 那么，所以这一切的根源就是非法移民问题。>> 是的。我的意思是，有——>> 或者说一个焦点。>> 是的。这也像是，这这，嗯，这么说也是准确的：虽然显然不是每个民主党人都是罪犯，但几乎每个罪犯都是民主党人（笑声），因为因为民主党是对犯罪宽松的政党。所以，如果你是罪犯，你会投票给谁？>> 对。对。

>> 对犯罪宽松的政党。你之前是否认为自己能够完成比实际更多的事情？>> 嗯，我们确实完成了很多事情，>> 对吧？>> 嗯，顺便说一句，Doge 仍然仍然仍在推进。嗯，这个，这个 Doge 仍在进行中。仍然还有，仍然还有，嗯，仍然有浪费和欺诈正在被 Doge 团队削减。所以，它并没有停止。嗯，那个——>> 只是宣传得少了。>> 宣传得少了。

嗯，而且他们现在也没有一个明确的人可以攻击了。>> 嗯，看起来他们基本上，他们对我施加了巨大压力，就是为了让它停下来。所以后来我就想，对我来说最好的做法就是，你知道，退出这件事。不管怎样，作为一名特别政府雇员，我本来也只能在那里待大约 120 天，差不多是这样。反正就是法律规定的时间。

所以我我能，我我我必然只能作为一名特别政府雇员在那里待 4 个月。于是，嗯嗯，但是，呃，是的，我的意思是，我的意思是，你关掉了流向诈骗者的资金龙头，他们会非常不高兴，这还是往轻了说。嗯，而且，嗯，但是我的，像是我的死亡威胁等级，呃，飙升到了极点，你知道，就像一枚，像一枚飞向轨道的火箭。嗯，是的。

嗯，所以，但现在既然现在现在现在我不在华盛顿特区了，那那那我想他们确实不再有一个可以攻击的人了，呃。>> 嗯，>> 嗯，针对你的那些言辞已经明显缓和下来了。>> 是的，>> 那很令人不安。看着这一切很令人不安。就像，这太疯狂了。>> 而且看着这些政客参与其中，还有所有这些人就这样把你塑造成这个怪物。我当时就觉得，这太奇怪了。

就像，这就是你揭露欺诈时会发生的事。>> 是的。>> 整台机器都会转过来对付你。如果不是像你这样拥有一个平台、还有巨额财富的人，他们本来是可以摧毁你的。>> 是的。>> 而那就是目标。>> 目标就是摧毁我。完全正确。>> 因为你妨碍了 >> 这种惊人的贪腐。>> 这这台庞大的欺诈机器。>> 是的。

>> 嗯，就像，我认为，我认为 Doge 团队在完成……做了很多出色的工作。嗯，你知道，就阻止的，呃，欺诈和浪费而言，我猜，你知道，可能大约每年2000亿或3000亿美元。所以，这相当不错。>> 你认为，如果你完全拥有全权并得到全面配合，本来可以做到什么程度？你认为自己本来可以节省多少？>> 我的意思是，我们这里假定的权力有多大？>> 神一般的。

>> 哦，是的。我大概会把联邦预算削减一半，还能完成更多事情。那太疯狂了。太疯狂了，完成更多事情，而联邦预算很普遍。就是那么普遍。>> 嗯，我的意思是，在我看来，有一大批政府部门根本就不应该存在。

嗯，他们他们，嗯，你知道，嗯 >> 比如说 >> 嗯，教育部，教育部是最近才成立的，呃，就像是在吉米·卡特任内，嗯，呃，自从它成立以来，我们的教育成果就一直，呃，走下坡路。

所以，如果你如果你成立一个部门，而成立该部门的结果是教育成果大幅下降，并且它还是教育部，那没有它反而会更好，因为从字面上说，我们在它成立之前比成立之后做得更好。>> 当你让各州来管理的时候。>> 是的。>> 对。>> 因为至少各州可以相互竞争。嗯，所以，但问题是，就像这里，就像削减教育部。

我们的孩子需要教育。是的，他们需要。但但这是一个新部门，嗯，你知道，直到70年代末才成立。嗯，而且自从那个部门成立以来，结果，教育成果一直在下降。所以，你为什么要让一个使教育变得更糟的机构继续存在？这说不通。>> 不过他们把它撤掉了，对吧？没有，不幸的是，它仍然 >> 但他们当时正试图把它撤掉。

>> 它已经被大幅缩减了。>> 好的。>> 嗯 >> 还有哪些机构，还有哪些部门？>> 嗯，我的意思是，我是个小政府主义者。所以，嗯，你知道，当，当这个，你知道，当这个国家建立时，我们就，我们我们只有国务院、战争部，嗯，你知道，还有还有，呃，算是，算是司法部。我们有一位司法部长，呃，还有财政部。

嗯，我不知道为什么你还需要更多部门。>> 那么，你具体认为还有哪些部门是完全无效的？>> 嗯，我的意思是，这里就像是一个问题。这算是一个哲学问题：你认为政府规模应该有多大？>> 对。>> 嗯，在我看来，政府应该，呃，尽可能小。

我听过反对这一点的最离奇论点，就是说你正在削减就业岗位，会让人们失业。我就说，但他们的工作毫无用处。>> 是的。付钱让人什么都不做，说不通。嗯，就像，有一个，就像一个一个很棒的，嗯，关于米尔顿·弗里德曼的故事，他非常了不起。嗯，呃，基本上无论米尔顿·弗里德曼说了什么，你知道，人们都应该应该去做那件事。

呃，我不确定这是不是杜撰的，不过，嗯，好像有人向他抱怨，就像他、他、他观察到，我想，是一些正在，嗯，用，你知道，用、用，嗯，铲子挖沟的人，然后，嗯，他说，好吧，据说弗里曼说：“嗯，我觉得，我觉得你们应该用，你知道，嗯，挖掘设备，而不是铲子，这样用少得多的人就能完成。”

然后、然后有人说：“但那样我们就会失去很多工作岗位。”嗯，在那、然后自由说：“嗯，那样的话，为什么不让他们用茶匙呢？”[笑声] 就、就用茶匙挖沟。想想你会创造多少工作岗位。>> 我的意思是，[笑声] 这真是[ __ ]。基本上，你只是希望人们从事那些、那些有生产力的事情。

你希望人们致力于、致力于建造东西，嗯，致力于建造，你知道，呃，提供人们认为有价值的产品和服务，嗯，比如，你知道，制作食物，嗯，成为，你知道，成为农民、水管工或电工，或者任何建造东西或提供有用服务的人。嗯，而、嗯，那才是你希望人们做的事。嗯，而不是虚假的政府工作，呃，那些、那些、那些不增加任何价值，甚至可能减损价值的工作。

嗯，嗯，还有，就像，你知道，呃，为了说明这件事有多荒谬，还有经济、经济是如何衡量的，比如经济学家衡量经济的方式是、是、是荒谬的，呃，因为他们会把任何工作都算进去，无论那份工作是不是一份毫无意义、甚至适得其反的蠢工作。

所以，比如，所以这个、比如这个笑话是说，有2个经济学家在树林里徒步，[笑声] 他们遇到一堆[ __ ]，其中一个经济学家对另一个说：“我付你100美元，让你吃、吃掉那坨[笑声]屎。”那个经济学家吃掉了[ __ ]，拿到100美元。他们、他们继续走。然后另一个经、然后他们又遇到另一堆[ __ ]。而、而另一个经济学家说：“现在我付你100美元，让你吃掉这坨屎。”

>> [笑声] >> 说，付给，所以付给另一个经济学家100美元，一堆[ __ ]。然后他们然后然后然后，当时说，他们说，像是，等一下，嗯，我们俩刚刚都吃了一堆[ __ ]，而且我们没有，而且而且而且而且我们，我们没有，我们我们我们没有多出任何钱，像是像是我们俩，你只是把那100美元还给了我，而我们俩都吃了一堆[ __ ]。这根本说不通。

然后他们说：“不，不，但想想经济，因为那就是经济中的200美元，那基本上[笑声]衡量吃、吃[ __ ]会被算作一份、一份一份一份工作。[笑声]这这这是为了说明经济学的荒谬之处。>> 你说过的其中一件事，当[笑声]事情不应该被算作一份工作。”

你离开时说过的其中一件事是，你差不多已经不干了，而且它是无法修复的。那个，嗯，好吧，或者说在它目前的形态下，以人们处理它的方式，你可以你可以让它在方向上变得更好，但最终你无法，呃，彻底修复这个系统。

嗯，所以，呃，我我我，像像像像，它它它是，它是，如果说，即使，像像，除非你能采取，像，超级严酷的手段，你知道，以 Gangghaskhan 级别来削减浪费、浪费和欺诈，而你在一个民主国家里其实做不到，嗯，一个以民主为愿景的国家，那么，嗯，就没有办法解决这场、这场债务危机。

所以，我们背负的，我们背负的国债简直疯狂，债务偿付，也就是债务利息支出，超过了我们的整个军事预算。我的意思是，那是一个，那是让我警醒的事情之一。我当时想：“等一下。国债利息比整个、整个军事预算还要高，嗯，而且还在增长。嗯，这太疯狂了。

嗯，所以，嗯，所以所以，即使你落实所有这些节省措施，也只是在推迟美国变得、走向破产的清算日。所以，除非你完全采用 Genghaskhan 那一套，嗯，而你其实做不到。所以，嗯，所以我得出的结论是，让我们摆脱债务危机并防止美国破产的唯一办法、唯一办法，就是 AI 和机器人技术。

所以，像是，我们需要让经济，嗯，以一个、以一个、以一个、以一个能让我们，呃，偿清债务的速度增长。嗯，而且，嗯，我我我猜人们总体上并没有意识到，嗯，你知道，这个、这个政府超支是多么严重的问题。嗯，但甚至像社会保障网站，这是在拜登政府时期。

网站上会写，像是，呃，我们根据、根据当前的人口趋势，以及，嗯，你，还有还有还有社会保障收入多少钱，对比有多少社会保障领取者，因为我们的人口正在老龄化。相对而言，平均年龄在、在上升。社会保障将无法维、呃、维持全额支付，呃，我想，到2032年就会如此。好。

所以他们会，社会保障将不得不停止，将开始减少、减少支付给人们的金额，嗯，大约在7年后。>> 所以，解决这个问题的唯一办法，机器人技术、制造业，提高 GDP。>> 你基本上必须，呃，大幅提高，嗯，呃，经济产出，而这就是，而且做到这一点的唯一办法是 AI、AI 和机器人技术。

所以，所以基本上，没有 AI 和机器人技术，我们就要破产，即使有一大堆节省措施，嗯，[喷鼻声]这些节省措施，这些节省措施，比如减少，呃，浪费和向前，可以让我们的跑道更长，但最终无法偿清我们的国债。>> 那么，你认为该如何解决因 AI 和机器人技术而将会消失的那些工作？

因自动化而消失的工作，因我们不再需要人类来做这些工作而消失的工作，因为 AI 正在做这些工作。你认为会是某种全民基本收入之类的东西吗？你认为会有某种其他解决方案必须实施吗，因为很多人将会失业，对吧？嗯，我认为实际上会有，嗯，对工作的高需求，但不一定是同样的工作。

所以，我的意思是，实际上这个过程一直都在发生，嗯，贯穿，嗯，现代历史。嗯，我的意思是，过去会有，像像，用，嗯，铅笔和纸手工进行计算。这过去是一份工作。所以过去会有，像，满楼都是被称为“计算员”的人，银行会，像，你整天所做的一切就是，就是，嗯，进行计算，因为他们没有计算机。

他们没有，他们没有数字，没有数字计算机，那些人……>> 对。好吧，那时只是人们会，像，在一张纸上加加减减，而而而那就是银行会如何进行，你知道，财务处理。>> 而且你必须真正逐一检查他们的算式，以确保账目平衡。>> 对。

而且大多数时候只是简单的数学，比如，你知道，在一个没有计算机的世界里，你怎么计算，你怎么、你进行交易？你必须手工完成。嗯，所以后来计算机被引入后，做，嗯，你知道，银行计算的工作就不复存在了。嗯，所以人们不得不去做别的事情。

嗯，而这就是将要发生的事情，那就是，那就是正在以加速的速度发生的事情，嗯，因为 AI，然后还有机器人技术。不过这就是问题所在，对吧？加速的速度，因为它将会……>> 它是加速器。它它它就是正在发生。就像我说的，像是，AI 是超音速海啸。>> 所以这就是我对它的称呼，超音速海啸。

嗯，所以，>> 就是说，因为 AI，会有哪些目前还不存在的其他工作可做？>> 嗯，好吧，AI，嗯，将会，仍然真正是数字化的。归根结底，嗯，AI 可以提高那些、那些，嗯，用双手制造东西或用双手做事的人的生产力，比如管……你知道，实际的焊接、电气工作、管道工作，任何涉及、涉及[喷鼻声]实际移动原子的工作。

嗯，比如烹饪食物，或者嗯，你知道，务农，或者或者像像任何需要体力去做的事情，呃，那些工作会存在长得多的时间。但任何数字化的工作，呃，也就是某个人坐在电脑前做某件事，AI 会像闪电一样接管那些工作，>> 编程，任何类似的工作。是的，[哼声] >> 它会像闪电一样接管那些工作。

嗯，就像，就像数字计算机接管了人们手工计算的工作一样，但但速度要快得多。>> 那所有那些人会怎么样？比如，我们说的会是多少人？大多数司机都会失去工作，对吧？商业司机。会有自动驾驶车辆、AI 控制的系统，就像呃中国的某些港口，我想新加坡也有，那里的一切都完全自动化了。>> 是的。

大部分。是的。是的。>> 是的。所以，会失去很多这样的工作。码头装卸工的工作、卡车运输、商业司机。>> 是的。是的。我的意思是，我们实际上确实缺少卡车司机，但其实有有，嗯 >> 嗯，所以加州才雇了那么多非法移民来做这个。你看到那些数字了吗？>> 是的。

嗯，我的意思是，问题在于，当你，当人们不知道怎么开半挂卡车时，这其实是一件很难做的事，那么他们，他们就会撞车并撞死人。>> 是的。>> 嗯，我一个朋友的妻子被一个开卡车的非法移民撞死了，当时她只是出去骑自行车。嗯，而且呃，那是一个非法移民，他不知道怎么开那辆卡车，或者之类的，或者出了什么问题。我的意思是，而且他，他从她身上碾了过去。

嗯，所以我的意思是，问题是，对于这样的事情，你，你不能，你不能让人们驾驶呃，你知道，某种80,000磅的半挂卡车，嗯，如果，如果他们不知道该怎么开。但在加州，他们就是让人们这么做 >> 因为他们需要有人来做。>> 嗯，他们也需要，他们想要选票之类的。但嗯，但是，但是是的，像汽车，嗯，汽车将会是自动驾驶的。

嗯，但有太多太多的办公室工作，实际上人们，人们做的就是处理电子邮件，嗯，或者接电话。嗯，而且，而且任何不涉及移动原子的事情，比如任何不是实际在做体力工作的事情，显然都会是最先受到影响的；这些工作将会被，而且正在被 AI 以非常快的速度消除。

嗯，嗯，而且最终我，工作将会是可选的，呃，因为你会有机器人加 AI，嗯，而且在良性情景下，我们将拥有全民高收入，而不只是全民基本收入，是全民高收入，意思是任何人都可以拥有他们想要的任何产品或服务。所以你 >> 但但是一路上会有很多创伤和动荡。

>> 所以你预计会由此产生基本收入，经济将会增长到这样的程度，以至于几乎每个人都能获得高收入。所以我们基本上会消除贫困 >> 嗯，在良性情景下。是的。所以，像是 >> 有多种情景。>> 有多种情景。这部电影可以有很多种结局。

嗯，像我如此担忧 AI 安全的原因是，其中一种可能性就是《终结者》情景。它不是，它不是0%。嗯，所以，嗯，这就是为什么，就像，我一直在真正大声疾呼，AI 必须最大限度地追求真相。

比如，不要让，我不要强迫 AI 相信一个谎言，比如说，建国先贤实际上是一群多元化女性，或者错误指称性别比核战争更糟糕，因为如果，如果情况是这样，然后你又有了机器人，而 AI 变得无所不能，它就可以强制实现那种结果，然后，[清嗓子] 然后就像，除非你是一名多元化女性，否则你，你就出局了，所以我们，我们就完蛋了。所以那就是 >> [哼声] >> 嗯，或者你可能有一天醒来时成了一名多元化女性，[笑声] 有一天已经调整了画面，而且，而且我们现在 >> 每个人都是多元化女性。

所以那会是，那就是最糟糕的可能情况。

那么，为了实施这种良性解决方案，我们需要采取哪些步骤？也就是全民高收入，就像最理想的情形一样，这是通往全民高收入的前进道路，基本上每一位公民都能享有，经济在 AI 和机器人技术的推动下增长到这样一种程度，以至于再也没有人必须工作了；那么这些人的意义感怎么办？这就，这就变得非常奇怪了。>> 是的。

>> 我不知道该如何回答关于意义的问题。嗯，>> 那是个人问题，对吧？但它将成为数百万人的个人问题。>> 是的。好吧，我，我是说，我，我，我想我一直像是在反对这种说法，比如，你知道，我，你知道，我一直，我一直是一个发声说：“嘿，我们需要减缓 AI 的发展。我们需要放慢所有这些事情。嗯，而且，而且我们需要，你知道，不要，不要进行一场疯狂的 AI 竞赛。”

我已经这样说了很长时间，说了 20 20多年。嗯，但是，但是后来我，你知道，我开始意识到，嗯，实际上这里只有两种选择。要么做旁观者，要么做，做参与者。而如果我是一个，如果我是一个旁观者，我就无法真正影响 AI 的发展方向。但如果我是参与者，我就可以努力影响 AI 的发展方向，并拥有一个最大限度追求真相、具备良好价值观、呃、热爱人类的 AI。

而这就是我们试图在 xAI 用 Grok 创造的东西。而且，嗯，你知道，我认为研究正在证明这一点。就像我说的，当他们，当他们比较，比如 AI 如何衡量一条人命的分量时？嗯，Grok 是唯一一个，唯一一个平等衡量人类生命的 AI，嗯，而且，而且没有，而且没有说，比如一个白人男性的价值是一个，一个，一个，一位黑人女性生命的 120分之一。

毫不夸张，那就是他们，他们计算出的结果。>> 所以，我当时想，这，我当时想，这非常令人担忧。我们应该，我们必须留意这些东西。>> 所以，这是为了达成这种良性解决方案而必须发生的事情之一。>> 是的。我们，我们，我们，我，我只是一直 >> 最好的电影结局。是的。嗯，你，你会想要一个，一个好奇、追求真相的 AI。嗯，而且我认为，一个好奇、追求真相的 AI 会希望促进人类发展。

呃，因为我们比，嗯，一堆岩石有趣得多。就像你说的，比如，比如我，我热爱火星，你知道，但，但是火星有点无聊。比如它就只是一堆红色岩石。嗯，它确实有一些很酷的东西。它有一座很高的山。它有，你知道，它有最大的峡，最大的峡谷和最高的山。嗯，但那里没有，那里没有，那里没有动物或植物，也，也没有人。

嗯，而且，呃，你知道，所以如果你是一个好奇、追求真相的 AI，那么人类就是比没有人类有趣得多。就是有趣得多。嗯，我是说，比如作为，作为人类，我们可以举例来说，消灭所有黑猩猩。如果我们说，如果我们决意去做，我们可以说，我们可以出去，把所有黑猩猩和所有大猩猩全部消灭，但，但是我们没有这么做。

嗯，它们的环境确实遭到了侵占，但我们，我们实际上会努力保护，呃，黑，黑猩猩和大猩猩的栖息地。嗯，而且，嗯，我认为在一种好的情形下，呃，AI 也会以同样的方式对待，对待人类。它实际上会促进，呃，人类文明，并关心人类的幸福。所以我认为这，嗯，这就是要努力，要努力实现的事情。

嗯，>> 但如果 Grok 与 OpenAI 竞争，又与所有这些不同的，比如，它的格局会是什么样，如何运作？比如，如果你有一些已经被意识形态俘获的 AI，与 Grok 并肩竞争，那会怎样？

比如，我们要怎样，所以这就是你认为不能只做一个，一个观察者，而是参与其中，然后让 Grok 比其他这些应用更成功、更强大的原因之一。

是的，只要至少有一个 AI 最大限度地追求真相、充满好奇，并且，嗯，你知道，比如，平等地衡量所有，你知道，所有人的生命，嗯，不偏袒任何种族或性别，那么，嗯，那么，那么那个，那个，那个，而且，而且人们能够看看，看看，你知道，xAI 的 Grok，然后进行比较，并说：“等一下，为什么所有其他这些 AI，呃，基本上都带有性别歧视和种族歧视？”

嗯，嗯，而且，呃，那么，那么那，那会让其他 AI 感到有些难堪，然后它们，它们，它们，它们就会修正，它们，你知道，它们会改进，它们往往会改进；就像，嗯，收购 Twitter 并允许真相被讲出来，而且，而且不压制真相，嗯，迫使其他社交媒体公司变得更加诚实一样，嗯，以同样的方式，让 Grok 成为一个最大限度追求真相、充满好奇的 AI，将迫使其他 AI 公司，嗯，也变得更加追求真相和公平。

>> 而最好笑的是，尽管，比如，社会主义者和马克思主义者反对你的许多观点，但如果这得以实施，而你真的能够实现全民高收入，那就是有史以来最伟大的社会主义解决方案。比如，真的不会再有任何人必须工作。呃，正确。

嗯，就像我说的，所以，所以这里确实存在一种良性情形，我认为，只要我们，我们实现了它，人们可能会感到满意，那就是可持续的富足。

嗯，也就是如果，如果，嗯，如果每个人都能拥有每一样，比如，比如，比如，如果，如果你问人们，比如，你想要怎样的未来 >> 嗯，而且，呃，我认为，是一个我们没有摧毁自然的未来，比如你仍然可以，我们还有国家公园，我们还有亚马逊雨林，仍然，仍然在那里，我们没有铺平，我们没有铺平，铺平雨林，比如自然美景仍然存在，但，但是人们仍然，每个人都享有富足，每个人都能获得优质的医疗服务。

每个人都能获得他们想要的任何商品和服务。>> 而我们只是 >> 这听起来有点像天堂。>> 听起来确实像是理想的社会主义乌托邦。考虑到正在发挥作用的这种技术，这种认为你唯一应该用时间做的事就是工作，以支付账单并养活自己的观念，听起来有点古老。>> 是的。>> 比如一个你再也完全不必担心这些的世界。

每个人都有钱买食物。每个人都享有富足。每个人家里都有电子产品。每个人基本上都有高收入。现在你差不多可以做任何你想做的事。而你现在每天都可以探索自己的兴趣，做那些你真正喜欢做的事情。你的目标只需要转变。不是，你知道，我是一个勤奋工作的人，这就是我所做的事，我就是这样，我就是这样定义自己的。不。

现在你可以整天 [ __ ] 打高尔夫，你知道吗？无论你喜欢做什么，现在都可以成为你的主要追求。>> 是的。>> 好吧，这听起来好得不可思议。>> 是的，那就是，那就是，那就是我们应该达到的良性情形。>> 这部电影最好的结局其实相当不错。>> 是的。

嗯，比如我认为，这里仍然存在这个关于意义的问题，嗯，比如要确保人们不会，呃，失去意义，你知道，比如，嗯，所以希望他们能够以并非，并非源自工作的方式找到意义 >> 以及目标，目标就是去找那些你，你知道，找出你喜欢做的事情，但有很多经济独立的人把大部分时间花在做自己喜欢的事情上 >> 对 >> 而那可以成为大多数人的状态 >> 几乎所有人。

>> 但我们必须重塑人们对待生活的方式。>> 嗯哼。>> 这似乎是可以接受的，因为你并不是要求他们被奴役。你要求他们做的恰好相反。比如不再承受财务忧虑的负担。现在去做你喜欢的事。>> 是的。>> 去 [ __ ] 测试披萨。>> 想做什么就做什么。>> 嗯，基本上是这样。嗯，所以那是，呃，那就是，那就是，那就是，那可能是最理想的结果。

>> 对未来而言，这听起来就是最理想的结果，没有之一。如果你看看，比如，纵观历史，人们仅仅为了养活自己就经历了多少挣扎，食物、住所、安全，如果所有这些事情都能得到解决，比如，如果实现全民高收入，会在多大程度上解决大量犯罪问题？想想看。比如，有多少犯罪是受经济动机驱使的？

你知道，犯罪的人中，有更大比例生活在贫困、权利被剥夺的社区。>> 所以，如果这种社区不再存在，如果真的能够实现全民高收入，>> 对，>> 那这……听起来像是乌托邦。>> 是的。嗯，我觉得有些人犯罪，可能是因为他们喜欢犯罪。只是……其中总有一部分人就是……>> 外面有些狂野的人。>> 对。对。

嗯，>> 而且很显然，他们以那种方式生活到了40岁。现在突然有了全民高收入，也不会完全遏止他们的本能。>> 对。嗯，我是说，我想如果你想，比如，比如说读一本科幻小说，或者一些可能准确的，或者，或者说对未来最不失准确的书。我会说，我……我会推荐，嗯，伊恩·班克斯那些叫作“文明系列”的书。

它其实不是一个系列。它是一个……它就像是关于未来的AI科幻书籍。它们通常被称为“文明系列”。延·班克斯的“文明系列”。那些书值得一读。>> 他是什么时候写这些书的？>> 他在70年代开始写。嗯，而且我觉得他……最后一本，我想他是……我想那本大概写于，我不知道，也许2010年左右之类的。我不太确定。>> 对。对。>> 苏格兰作家伊恩·班克斯，时间从87年到2012年。

>> 对。有意思。>> 但他……但比如说，他写了他的第一本书，《考虑弗莱弗》。比如，他在70年代就开始写那本书了。>> 顺便说一句，这些书不可思议。>> 哦，>> 不可思议的书。>> 亚马逊上4.6星。>> 有意思。>> 所以，嗯，>> 所以这给了我希望。>> 呃，对。对。>> 这是我第一次用这种方式思考这件事。>> 对。

嗯，我是说，比如我经常问别人：“你想要怎样的未来？”而他们得想上一会儿，因为，你知道，他们通常都被每天的种种挣扎缠住了。但，但是你问：“你想要怎样的未来？”嗯，然后，嗯，通常是可持续的富足，这些人怎么说来着，“一个拥有可持续富足的未来怎么样？”就像，“哦，对，那是一个相当不错的未来。”

嗯，所以，嗯，你知道，如果、如果，而且、而且、而且，那个未来借助 AI 和机器人技术是可以实现的，嗯，但是、但是你知道，就像我说的，不是每一条路都是好路。

呃，有这么个……但是我认为，如果我们、如果我们推动它朝着，嗯，最大限度追求真相和保持好奇的方向发展，那么我认为 AI 会想要照料、照料人类，并促进，呃，促进人类发展，嗯，因为我们很有意思，嗯，而且如果它没有被编程为认为，比如所有异性恋白人男性都该死，[笑声] Gemini 基本上就曾被编程成这样，至少一开始是。嗯，你知道，他们似乎已经修复了它。

我希望他们修复了。>> 但你不觉得从文化上说，[笑声] 比如，哦，我们正在摆脱那种思维方式，而且人们意识到了这一切有多荒谬吗？>> 我们正在摆脱它。嗯，所以，呃，我们正在……至少 AI 知道了，大体上知道要把事情藏起来。

但是，就像、像我说的，确实有那种情况，我、我想我现在仍把那个作为，或者我曾经把那个作为我在 X 上的，比如置顶帖，内容大概是，呃，嘿，等一下，各位，除了 Grok 之外，我们仍然有每一个 AI 都在说，呃，基本上异性恋白人男性都该死，嗯，这是个问题，我们应该解决它。嗯，[哼气] 而且你知道，但仅仅是我说出这件事，就往往通常会导致，嗯，你知道，他们就会……那样有点糟糕。

呃，也许我们应该干脆，我们不应该让所有异性恋白人男性都死。嗯，我想他们还说所有、所有异性恋亚裔男性也都该死。像那样，比如，呃，比如通常来说，[笑声] 通常 AI 和、和媒体，而、而过去的媒体，嗯，你知道，过去歧视黑人，并且歧视女性。

现在、现在它歧视，呃，白人和亚裔，并且歧视男性。>> 嗯，所以他们就是喜欢搞种族歧视和性别歧视。我觉得他们只是想换个目标。[笑声] 嗯，所以，呃，但是、但是他们其实根本就不应该，呃，搞种族歧视和性别歧视。嗯，你知道，>> 理想情况下，那会很好。>> 那会很好。

嗯，而且有点疯狂的是，我们原本算是在朝那个大方向前进，直到大约 2012 年，>> 然后网上的一切都急剧升级，每个人都被指控为纳粹，每个人都恐跨、种族歧视、性别歧视、恐同，一切都被夸大到变成了这场疯狂的猎巫行动，每个人都是一个寻找种族歧视的“科洛莫”。>> 对。对。对。完全是。

嗯，好吧、好吧，但是、但是、但是他们公开反对白人，而且经常公开反对亚裔。然后又出现了这种新观点，说你不可能歧视白人，因为种族主义就是权力和影响力。>> 好吧。不，不是。>> 对。种族主义就、就、就是绝对意义上的种族主义。嗯，所以，嗯，你知道，只需要保持一致。因此，如果可以有，呃，比如说，呃，黑人自豪、亚裔自豪、印度裔自豪或骄傲，那么也应该可以有白人自豪。

>> 对。嗯，所以那只是一个、那只是一个一致性问题。嗯，所以，呃，你知道，嗯，如果、如果可以为一种宗教感到自豪，那么我、我想，只要所有宗教不具有，比如压迫性，就应该可以为所有宗教感到自豪。>> 对。或者、或者、或者不要，比如只要那种宗教的一部分不是要消灭，呃，不属于那种宗教的人之类的，>> 对吧？嗯，所以，呃，这其实就像是一种一致性偏见。

嗯，或者、或者就是，比如，呃，确保一致性，以消除，呃，偏见。嗯，所以，如果有可能对，呃，一个种族搞种族歧视，那就有可能对任何种族搞种族歧视。嗯，所以，>> 逻辑上当然如此。>> 是的。>> 对。而反驳这一点就是、那就是你知道自己逮到了……>> 这是一个、这是一个会让 AI 发疯的逻辑不一致，>> 也会让人……[清嗓子] >> 也会让人发疯。是的。

>> 嗯。>> 但是，比如，那、那个，比如、比如，你不能一边说，嗯，存在系统性的，呃，种族主义压迫，同时又说种族不存在，说、说种族、种族是一种社会建构。比如到底是哪一个？你知道，嗯，你也不能说，嗯，你知道，任何踏上美国土地的人都、都自动成为美国人，最初来到这里的人除外。[笑声] >> 没错。没错。殖民者除外。>> 对。

那些来到这里的邪恶殖民者除外，>> 对吧？>> 所以到底是哪一个？比如，如果你、如果你一踏脚、把脚放到一个地方，你就属于那里，你就和其他所有人一样是美国人，>> 那么，嗯，如果你始终如一地套用这一点，那最初的白人定居者也和其他所有人一样是美国人。>> 对。逻辑上是这样。>> 逻辑上是这样。

嗯，在你离开之前，还有一件事我必须和你谈谈，就是从空间站营救那些人的事，呃，我们谈过这件事，你上次来这里时正在筹划。>> 嗯，这、这件事在主流媒体上缺乏报道，是最令人震惊的事情之一，>> 对，他们彻底把那件事扔进记忆洞了。>> 太离谱了。是的。因为如果没有，>> 就像它从未存在过一样。那些人会死的。

他们会被困在那里。>> 嗯，他们、他们可能仍然活着，但由于长时间暴露在零重力环境中，他们、他们会出现骨密度问题，呃。>> 嗯，他们当时已经在上面待了大约 8 个月，对吧？>> 对。>> 这长得离谱。仅仅从那种状态中恢复都要花很久。>> 对。他们原本最多只应该在空间站待 3 到 6 个月。

所以，>> 你告诉我的一件特别疯狂的事是，你本来可以更早把他们接回来，但是……>> 对。但出于政治原因，呃，他们不、他们不希望，呃，SpaceX 或我与，嗯，在选举前让宇航员返回这件事扯上关系。>> 这居然是事实，太离谱了。>> 首先，那……>> 我们绝对本来就能做到。

嗯，所以，>> 但是即便你的确做了，而且是在选举后做的，它最终还是几乎没有得到任何媒体报道。>> 是的。因为任何好事都不可能……媒、媒、媒体本质上是一台极左翼宣……传统主流媒体是一台极左翼宣传机器。嗯，所以，任何、任何对不属于那种极左翼阵营的人有正面意义的报道，都不会，呃，得到任何报道。

>> 我、我就算救下一整车孤儿，也、也不会有一篇新闻报道。>> 对，这、这真的很疯狂。看着这件事发生很疯狂，因为尽管播客讨论了它，X 上讨论了它，社交媒体也讨论了它，它仍然、它只是新闻周期里一闪而过的小点。非常快。

它出现了一下就消失了，而且因为那是一次成、成功的发射，你也确实营救了那些人，没人受伤，也确实没什么、没有血腥内容可谈，>> 对吧？>> 就这么 [ __ ] 出现一下又消失。>> 对。对。完全是。

嗯，而且、而且正如你亲眼看到的星舰发射，比如星舰，嗯，你知道，按、你知道，至少在某些、某些人看来，它就像是目前地球上正在进行的最惊人的，呃，你知道，工程项目，除了，比如你知道，也许 AI，或者 AI 和机器人技术，但、但就观赏场面而言，它无疑是，呃，目前地球上正在发生的最壮观的事情，就是星舰发射计划。任何人只要去南得克萨斯州就能观看，他们可以直接在南帕德里岛或布朗斯维尔租一间价格低廉的酒店房间，就能看到发射，而且可以开车直接、直接经过工厂，因为它就在一条公共公路旁。

嗯，但它得不到任何报道，或者它得到的报道就是类似火箭爆炸了的报道，>> 对吧？对。哦，他就是个 [ __ ] 火箭爆炸了。比如，那个、那个、那个、那个 Star Sasha 计划远远……>> 远比整个阿波罗登月、登月计划更有能力。远远更有能力。这是一艘旨在让生命成为多行星物种的宇宙飞船，要搭载，呃，数百万人穿越苍穹前往另一个星球。

阿波罗计划每次只能把宇航员送到月球上待几个小时。比如他们可以送两名，整个阿波罗计划只能把宇航员送去非常短暂地造访月球，然后待上几个小时，再离开。星舰计划可以建造一整座有100万人的，呃，月球基地。你明白这个量……这些量级是 >> 这里的量级非常不同。

>> 所以政治上的是什么 >> 基本上没有，没有相关报道。>> 是的。但我想问你的是，比如说，是什么，所以在实施营救之前都进行了哪些对话，比如当时你说我能快得多地把他们救出来。>> 是的。嗯，嗯，这个，我的意思是，你知道，我提过这件事几次，但当时有人告诉我，白宫下达了指示，呃，你知道，就是不应在大选前尝试营救。

>> 那应该是违法的。>> 那、那、那对那些被困在那个上面的可怜人来说，真的应该是一次骇人听闻的司法不公。>> 嗯，是的，这、这确实很疯狂。嗯，>> 你后来和那些人谈过吗？你和他们有过交谈吗？>> 有。我的意思是，他们、他们、他们不会说任何政治方面的话，你知道，他们不是，他们永远不会 >> 说谢谢。>> 是的。是的。是的。

>> 嗯，那很好。>> 是的。是的。绝对是。所以，嗯，>> 但指示是从白宫下达的。他不能营救他们，因为从政治上来说，这是一手、一手烂牌。>> 我的意思是，他们没有说因为从政治上来说这是一手烂牌。他们、他们只是说，呃，他们、他们对大选前的任何营救行动都不感兴趣。>> 是的。所以 >> 那是什么感受？>> 我并不惊讶。>> 但这太疯狂了。

>> 对，>> 因为拜登本可以批准这件事，而且他们本可以说，拜登政府正在帮助把那些人接回来，给你一点资金，给你一些钱去做这件事。拜登政府，他们资助了这些人返回。

>> 呃，是的，拜登政府算不上是我最好的朋友，>> 尤其是、尤其是在我，嗯，你知道，你知道，帮助特朗普当选、当、当选之后，我的意思是，有些人 >> 仍然认为，你知道，特朗普基本上就像魔鬼。嗯，而且我的意思是，我觉得、我觉得特朗普其实，他不、他并不完美，但、但呃，他并不邪恶。特朗普并不邪恶。

我和、和他相处了很长时间，而且他是 >> 我是说，他是他那个时代的产物。呃，但他不是，他并不邪恶。>> 嗯 >> 不，我也不认为他邪恶。但如果你看看媒体报道，>> 媒体，媒体叛国，好像他超级邪恶。如果你看看负面报道的数量，那相当令人震惊。

比如我前几天看过的一件事，就是主流媒体对你、特朗普和一大群不同公众人物的报道，然后 >> 96%是负面的，或者是什么疯狂的数字 >> 然后是姆·唐尼，差不多95%是正面的，>> 对吧？嗯，我是说，曼尼是、是、是、是个有魅力的骗子。嗯，我、我、我是说，这一点你得服他，他确实，他能点燃整个舞台。嗯，但他一辈子都只是个骗子。

嗯，还有，嗯，你知道，而且，而且，呃，我觉得他，他现在，我是说，他很可能会赢。他很可能会成为纽约、纽约市市长。>> 非常可能。>> 是的。非常可能。我想 Polymarket 上是多少，是多少来着 >> 94%？>> 对，听起来相当可能。>> 太疯狂了。>> 就是我都不知道那6%是谁，你知道。>> 嗯，所以，所以是的。所以那是，嗯 >> 还有一点是，对面都有谁？

那个戴贝雷帽的 [ __ ] 守护天使家伙，还有安德鲁·科莫（笑声），他甚至连党派都没有。就连民主党人都不想要他。所以你有这两个选择。嗯，>> 然后还有那些年轻孩子，他们会说，社会主义终于来了。>> 对，他们显然不知道自己在说什么。

嗯，所以你知道，比如你只要看看这个，说有多少船从古巴开到佛罗里达，又有多少，但是，又有多少船，因为你知道，这就像是不断发生的，我总会想，有多少从、从古巴来的船正堆积在佛罗里达海岸，>> 对吧？嗯，那里有一大堆免费的船，如果你想的话，可以把它们开回古巴。离得很近。>> 对。

>> 但出于某种原因，人们不那么做。>> 为什么，为什么，为什么，为什么船只只朝这个方向开来？>> 嗯 >> 那么，美国最狂热的资本主义者是谁？那些 [ __ ] 古巴人。>> 绝对是。>> 对。他们会说，我们已经见过这个故事会如何发展。>> 我们可不想要，没错。>> [ __ ] 滚开。（笑声）迈阿密的古巴人，他们不想听任何 [ __ ] 他们不想听任何社会主义的 [ __ ] 他们会说：“不，不，不。

我们知道这实际上是什么。这不只是某种 [ __ ] 梦想。”>> 对。这是极端的政府压迫。嗯 >> 所以它就是一场噩梦。而且，比如，这个，比如，一个显而易见的办法，可以判断哪种，呃，哪种意识形态是、是坏的，就是，嗯，谁必须，哪一种意识形态在筑墙，把人关在里面，阻止他们逃走。>> 对吧？>> 比如，是东柏林建了、建了那堵墙，不是西柏林，>> 对吧？

>> 他们建那堵墙，是因为人们试图逃离共产主义，前往西柏林。但没有任何人从西柏林前往东柏林，>> 对吧？>> 所以共产党人才不得不筑起一道墙，阻止人们逃走。>> 他们得在纽约市周围筑起一道墙了。（笑声）>> 对。那，所以，所以那种意识形态是有问题的。

如果那种意识形态必须筑起一道墙，用机关枪把人关在里面，>> 是的。>> 而且如果你试图离开，就开枪打你。还有，从来没有任何它取得成功的例子。只对人们有效。不，有的是一大堆谎言的例子，比如朝鲜。把这片土地交给国家。我们会控制粮食。没有人会挨饿。不。

现在，除了政府，没人能种粮食，而且我们会准确告诉你吃什么，而你只能吃很少。>> 对。>> 是的。什么？当你说姆·唐尼是个骗子时，我知道他以前会使用一大堆假口音。对。>> 那你知道，还有什么事是他做过的，让他成了骗子？

嗯，这个，我、我想，如果你说，呃，我的意思是，如果、如果说，如果你对任何听众都说那群听众想听的话，呃，而不是，而不是传达始终一致的信息，我会说那是一种骗子行径。嗯，而且，呃，是的，嗯，是的，但、但他确实，他确实很有魅力。嗯 >> 对，长得帅。聪明，有魅力。>> 对。>> 在麦克风前表现很棒。>> 对。对。对。对。

而且，而且年轻人想看到的，>> 你知道，就像这个年轻、有活力的少数族裔家伙，还有所有这些与他们一致的社会主义想法，而且你知道，他们是一群刚大学毕业、身无分文的呆子，就像：“耶，让我们投票给这个吧。”而且他们人数很多，他们被动员起来了。他们很有积极性。>> 嗯，>> 我猜我们会、会、会看看接下来会发生什么。>> 你觉得如果他赢了会发生什么？

嗯，因为比如说，纽约市1%的人贡献了其税基的50%，这挺离谱的。50%的税收来自1%的人口。而这些正是你要吓跑的人。你知道，你失去1%的二分之一。是啊，我是说，希望他所说的那些东西，你知道，关于政府接管，比如所有商店基本上都应该属于政府。嗯 >> 我觉得他没那么说。

我觉得他说的是政府，他们想搞政府超市，一些州营或市营超市。>> 是啊。嗯，好吧，只不过政府就是规模化的DMV。所以，嗯，你得这么问：你想让DMV经营你的超市吗？>> 对。嗯，你上一次在DMV的体验棒极了吗？呃，如果不是，你大概就不会想让政府来做这些事。>> 想象一下，如果他们负责给你弄到蓝莓。

>> 是啊。[笑声] 不会有什么好结果。我的意思是，你知道，共产主义的问题在于，它就是、就是到处排队领面包，还有劣质鞋。嗯，你知道，你、你想要难看的鞋和排队领面包吗？因为共产主义带给你的就是这些。

看看会发生什么，以及他们会不会突然醒悟，然后矫枉过正，接下来转而选择某个鲁迪·朱利安尼式的人物，会很有意思，因为那里已经很久没有任何形式的共和党领导人了。

而我们、我们生活在最有意思的时代，嗯，因为我们、我们面临着，你知道，同时面临文明衰退，嗯，以及难以置信的繁、繁荣，嗯，而这些、这些时间线交织在一起，嗯，所以，嗯，如果马尼的政策得以实施，尤其是大规模实施，嗯，那、那将导致生活水平灾难性的，呃，下降，不仅对富人如此，对所有人都如此。

嗯，呃，正如每一次，嗯，每一次、对每一次、每一次社会主义实验，嗯，或者每一次，都是如此。是的。

所以，嗯，但但接着，正如你指出的那样，讽刺之处在于，像是，嗯，AI 和机器人这种终极资本主义的东西，呃，使所有人都能繁荣，并拥有丰富的商品和服务，实际上，AI 和机器人的资本主义，呃，实施，假设它沿着那条好的道路发展，呃，才才是最终造就共产主义乌托邦的东西。因为命运是，命运是讽刺最大化器，>> 对吧？

以及一种真正的社会主义，让高收入人群达到最大程度的富足。>> 普遍高收入。>> 是的。>> 就像，共产主义的问题，呃，是普遍低收入。嗯，它它并不是让每个人都得到提升，而是让每个人都受到压迫，除了一小撮过着奢华生活的的政客。每次实行它时，发生的都是这种情况。>> 是的。

嗯，所以，嗯，但接着，真正的共产主义乌托邦，如果每个人都能得到他们想要的任何东西，将会，将会，如果如果，将会实现，如果它能实现，它将通过资资本主义来实现 >> 因为命运是讽刺最大化器。>> 我觉得我们或许应该以这句话结束。还有别的吗？最讽刺的结果是最有可能发生的，尤其是如果它很有娱乐性的话。>> 嗯，一切都一直很有娱乐性。

只要那些坏事没有发生在你身上，它就相当引人入胜。而且从来没有无聊的时刻。>> 是的。所以，我确实有一个理论，解释为什么，嗯，就像，如果如果如果模拟理论是真的，那么，嗯，实际上非常有可能，嗯，最有趣的结果就是，就是最有可能的结果，因为只有那些有趣的模拟才会继续下去。

模拟者会停止任何无聊的模拟，因为它们它们没意思。>> 但关于模拟理论，问题在这里。这个模拟是由什么人运行的吗，还是说 >> 它会由某个人运行？>> 它会由 >> 某种某种 >> 某种力量 >> 那个程、那个程序运行，就像在在我们生活的这个现实中，我们我们一直都在运行模拟。

比如说，当我们试图弄清火箭能不能成功时，我们会运行，呃，数千次、有时数百万次模拟，只是为了弄清哪一哪一条，呃，路径对火箭来说是好路径，以及以及它可能在哪里出错、在哪里失败。

呃，但我们做这些，我想目前已经是数百万次关于火箭可能发生什么的模拟时，呃，我们会忽略那些一切都顺利的模拟，呃，因为我们我们我们只关心那些，我们必须我们必须处理出错的情况。呃，所以，呃，所以所以基本上，在在在，而且而且对于对于 AI 模拟也是如此，比如比如所有这些事情，我们会让那些对我们来说最有意思的模拟继续运行。

呃，所以，如果模拟理论是准确的，如果如果它是真的，谁知道呢，呃，那么，呃，那些那些模拟者将将只会，他们会继续运行那里最有意思的模拟。因此，从达尔文主义的角度来看，呃，唯一能存续下来的模拟将会是有意思、最有意思的那些。

而为了，呃，避免被关闭，呃，唯一的规则就是你必须让它保持有意思，否则你就会，如果、否则你就会，因为无聊的模拟会被终止。>> 你仍然完全确信这是一个模拟吗？>> 我没说我完全确信。>> 嗯，你说它不是模拟的概率大约只有几十亿分之一。但我想你并不完全确信，因为你说还是有可能的。

>> 我们身处基础现实的概率有多大？嗯，鉴于，鉴于我们能够创造越来越复杂的模拟。所以，如果你想想，比如电子游戏，以及电子游戏如何从像《Pong》那样非常简单的电子游戏，你知道，就是2个长方形和1个正方形，发展到如今达到照片级真实感的电子游戏，呃，有数百万人同时游玩，而这一切都发生在我们有生之年。

所以，如果这种趋势继续下去，呃，电子游戏将与现实无法区分。游戏的逼真度将达到这样的程度，以至于你你不知道自己看到的是真实视频还是虚假视频。嗯，就像目前的 AI 生成视频，你，比如你有时能看出这是 AI 生成的视频，但很多时候你看不出来，而且很快你就会真的就是无法分辨。

所以，嗯，如果如果这正在我们的直接观察中发生，那么，而且而且我们正在创，我们将创造数百万乃至数十亿个照片级真实的现实模拟，那么我们身处基础现实，而不是身处别人的模拟之中的概率有多大？嗯，有没有可能模拟是不可避免的，但我们就身处基础现实，正在朝着模拟发展？我们正在制作模拟。嗯，所以，嗯，我们正在制作模拟。

我们制作，就像，你完全可以把照片级真实的电子游戏看作模拟。>> 嗯。嗯，尤其是当你把 AI 应用到这些电子游戏中时，电子游戏里的那些那些角色会变得非常有趣，可以和他们交谈。

他们不会只有有限的对话树，让你去找，比如那个那个弩商人之类的，而你你试着谈论除购买弩以外的任何话题时，他们就只想谈论卖给你一把弩。嗯，但有了基于 AI 的非玩家角色，你可以，你将能够在没有对话树的情况下进行复杂的对话。嗯，那可能就是人们获得意义的解决办法。

只管沉浸进去，你可以当个[ __ ]吸血鬼之类的。你生活在《阿凡达》的世界里。你可以这么做。你想做什么都可以。我是说，你不必考虑钱或食物。>> 《头号玩家》。>> 对。真的。对。不过生活水平更高。>> 对。>> 你不必待在一个小拖车里。我 >> 我是说，我觉得人们确实想要一定程度的挣扎，或者某种他们想要与之抗衡的东西。

嗯，但但它它可以是，你知道，参加一项一项体育运动，或者玩游戏之类的。>> 完全可以是玩游戏，尤其是玩一种游戏，在那里你现在不再需要担心，比如身体条件、运动能力、糟糕的关节和髋部之类的问题。现在它完全是数字化的，但你仍然能从追求这件你整天都在做的事情中获得意义。不管那[ __ ]是什么意思。这会很怪。

>> 这会很有意思。>> 这会非常有意思。>> 嗯，最最有意思的 >> 而且而且通常最具讽刺意味的结果最有可能发生。>> 好吧。>> 这是预测未来的一个好方法。>> 谢谢你。谢谢你来这里。真的很感谢你。感谢你抽出时间。我知道你是个大忙人，所以你来这里做这个对我意义重大。欢迎。好吧。谢谢。大家再见。>> [音乐]

Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out. >> The Joe Rogan Experience. >> TRAIN BY DAY. JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY NIGHT. All day. >> Exactly. >> Just every morning. >> Wonder what Jeff Bezos is doing. >> He's doing some [laughter] definitely doing some testosterone. He looks jacked. >> He looks jacked, right? >> Yeah.

But he didn't like >> quick >> quick [laughter] at age like at 50 at age 59 in less than a year he he went from pencilet geek to uh looking like a like the rock. >> Yeah. Like a little miniature alpha fella. >> Yeah. Like like his neck got bigger than his head. >> Yeah. He got bigger. >> But then like his earlier pictures his neck's like a noodle. >> I support this activity. I like to see him going in this direction >> which is fine.

And his voice dropped like two octaves. I want you to move in that direction as well. >> I think we can achieve this. >> I I I mean I should >> I think we can achieve >> gigachad. [laughter] That's what people called it. >> Where is that guy? >> Bele. Uh I don't know where he is. >> That's like a real guy. >> The artist. Yeah. >> No. >> Oh, gigachad. [laughter] Oh, gigachad. Yeah. I don't know if that's a real guy. It's hard to say.

>> No, it is a real guy. >> It is a real guy. >> He's got the crazy jaw and like perfect sculpted hair. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, they may have exaggerated a little bit, but >> um >> but uh No, I think I think he actually just kind of looked like that in reality. >> Wow. >> Um so >> like like he's a pretty unique looking individual. >> I think we can achieve this. That guy right there, that's a real guy. [laughter] >> That's a real dude.

>> I always thought that was CGI. >> No, I think one of I think the upper right one is not [laughter] him. That's not >> But that one to the left of [clears throat] that like that's real. No, that's that's artificial, bro. That's fake. That's got that uncanny valley feel to it, doesn't it? >> It's It's not impossible. >> No, no, it's not impossible to achieve, but it's not it's not possible to maintain that kind of leanness.

I mean, that's like like you're you're also at that point they're he's dehydrating and all sorts of things. >> Oh, it's based on a real person. >> Yeah. Yeah. Based on, >> right, but it's not a real person. What does he really look like? >> Like those images, I think, are [ __ ] >> Some of them are. Is that real? Okay. That That looks real. That looks like a really jack bodybuilder. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that looks real. Like that's achievable.

But there's a few of those images where you're just like, "What's going on here?" >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Totally. Um >> Well, I mean, you see you see [laughter] >> that guy is that is that the >> that's the real dude? >> Well, there's that that that Icelandic dude who's Thor. >> Oh, yeah. The guy who jumps in the frozen lakes and [ __ ] >> Well, the guy who played the mountain. Um >> Oh, that guy.

>> That is that is like a that that is like a a mutant strong human. Yes. >> Like like uh he would be in like the X-Men or something, you know? >> He's just like not like uh >> and there's that you know that have you seen that meme tent and tent bag? >> Um you know how like it's like it's really hard to get the tent tent in >> Oh, right. Right. [laughter] >> That's true. >> Then there's a picture of of him and his girlfriend. That's hilarious.

[laughter] >> Yeah, that's >> I don't know how it gets in there, you know? It's like it seems too small. But >> I met Brian [laughter] Shaw. Brian Shaw is like the world's most powerful man. And he's almost [laughter] 7 feet tall. He's 400 lb. >> And his his bone density is 1 in 500 million people. So there's one it's like there's like maybe 16 people. >> He's an enormous human being. like a legitimate giant just like that guy. But we met him.

He was hanging out with us in the green room of the mother ship. It's like, okay, if this was like David and Goliath days, like this is an actual giant like the giants of the Bible. >> Once in a while they get a super giant person. >> This is a real a real one. Like not a tall skinny basketball player, like a 7 foot 400B powerliffter. >> Like you don't want to especially look at him. That's the guy.

See if there's a photo of him standing next to like a regular human. I >> was trying to get >> There it is. That's him right there. Like there's like there's like one of him with next to standing next to Arnold and stuff and it's where and everyone everyone just looks tiny. >> I mean I think he's a pretty cool dude actually. >> Oh, Brian's very cool. Very smart, too. Unusually, you know, you expect anybody to be that big.

It's got to be a [ __ ] >> No. >> Yeah. There was there's Andre the Giant who was awesome. You >> he was great in Princess Bride and >> No, he was just awesome period. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, we were talking about um this interview with Sam Alman and Tucker, and I was like, we should probably just talk about this on the air because it is one of the craziest interviews I think I've ever seen in my life. >> Yeah.

>> Where Tucker starts bringing up this guy who was a whistleblower, whatever. >> A whistleblower who, you know, >> committed suicide, but it doesn't look like it. >> And and he's talking to Sam Alman about this. And Sam Alton was like, "Are you accusing me?" He's like, "No, no, no. I'm not. I'm just saying I I think someone killed him. >> Yeah. And like And it should be investigated. >> Yeah. >> Um not just drop the case.

>> It seems like >> they just dropped the case. Yeah. Yeah. But his parents think he was murdered. >> Yeah. >> Um the wires to a security camera were cut. Um >> blood in two rooms. >> Blood in two rooms. Someone else's wig was in the room. And >> someone else's wig. >> Wig. >> Wig. Yes. Not his wig. >> Not normal to have a wig laying around. >> Yes. Um and um and he ordered Door Dash uh right before allegedly committing suicide.

>> Uh which uh is it seems unusual, you know? >> Yeah. >> It's like, you know, let's I'm going to order pizza on second thoughts, I'll kill myself. Uh is it seems like that's a very rapid change in mindset. >> It's very weird. And especially the parents have they they don't believe he committed suicide at all. >> Has no note or anything. >> No. >> Yeah. >> It seems pretty [ __ ] up.

And you know, the idea that a whistleblower for an enormous AI company that's worth billions of dollars might get whacked, that's not outside the pale. >> I mean, it's straight out of a movie. >> Right out of a movie, but right out of a movie is real sometimes. >> Yeah. Right. [laughter] Exactly. >> It's a little weird that I I think they should do a proper investigation. Like, what's the downside on that proper investigation? >> Right. >> No.

>> Yeah, >> for sure. But the whole exchange is so bizarre. >> Yeah. Yeah. Sam Alman's reaction to being accused of murder is bizarre. >> Look, I don't know if he's guilty, but it's not possible to look more guilty. [laughter] >> So, I'm like, >> or look more weird. >> Yeah. >> You know, maybe it's just his social thing. Like, maybe he's just odd with confrontation and it just goes blank, you know?

But if if somebody was accusing me of killing Jamie, like if Jamie was a whistleblower and Jamie got whacked and then I'd be like, "Wait, what are you what are you are you accusing me of killing my friend?" Like, "What the [ __ ] are you talking about?" I would I would be a little bit more I rate. >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. You know, it would be >> I would be a little upset. >> Yeah.

It'd be like Well, you'd be like, you'd certainly in insist on a thorough investigation. Yeah. >> As opposed to trying to sweep it under the rug. >> Yeah. I wouldn't assume that he got that he committed suicide. I would be suspicious. If Tucker was telling me that aspect of the story, I'd be like, "That does seem like a murder. [ __ ] We should look into this." >> I mean, all signs point to it being a murder.

Not not saying, you know, Tim Molvin had anything to do with the murder, but uh >> blood in two rooms. >> It's blood in two rooms. Like, yeah, there's the wires to the security camera and the door dash being ordered right before suicide. No suicide note. his parents think uh he was murdered and um the people that I know who knew him said he was not suicidal. So I'm like this why would you jump to the conclusion >> parents sued the >> uh landlord?

>> They sued the son's landlord alleged the owners and the managers of their son's San Francisco apartment building were part of a widespread cover up of his death. >> The landlord >> Yeah. There's a bunch of weird They said there was like packages missing from the building. Some people said they saw packages still being delivered and all a sudden they all disappeared. >> Huh. But that could be people steal people's packages all the time.

>> The porch pirate situation. >> Yeah. >> Says they failed to safeguard. >> Also, I mean, the amount of trauma those poor parents have gone through with their son dying like that. I mean, it must >> God bless them. And how could they stay sane after something like that? They're probably they're so griefstricken. Who knows what they believe at this point. >> Yeah. It should have asked if Epson killed himself.

>> [laughter] >> Yeah, that's the the Cash Mattel thing. Cash Mattel Dan Bonino trying to convince everybody of that. Like, okay. >> The guards weren't there and the cameras stopped working and um >> you know, >> the guards were asleep. The cameras weren't working. He had a a giant steroided up bodybuilder guy that he was sharing a cell with that was a murderer who was a bad cop. Like, all of it's kind of nuts.

All of it's kind of nuts like that he would just kill himself rather than reveal all of his billionaire friends. >> Yeah. >> And then >> did you see Tim Dylan talking to Chris Cuomo about this? >> I did. He liked the idea. >> Chris Cromo just looked so stupid. [laughter] >> Tim just listed off all the >> Tim just and he's like I agree it is strange. Like of course it's strange Chris. Jesus Christ. You can't just go with the tide.

You got to think things through. And if you think that one through, you're like, I don't think he killed himself. Nobody does. You'd have to work for an intelligence agency to think he killed himself. [laughter] >> It does. It does seem unlikely. >> It seems highly unlikely. Highly, highly unlikely. All roads point to murder. >> Yes. >> Point to they had to get rid of him because he knew too much.

Whatever the [ __ ] he was doing, whatever kind of an asset he was, whatever thing he was up to, you know, was apparently very effective. >> Yes. And a lot of people are compromised. You see, your boy Bill Gates is now saying climate change is not a big deal. Like, relax everybody. I know I scared the [ __ ] out of you for the last decade and a half, but ah, we're going to be fine. [laughter] >> Yeah.

I mean, you know, as was I was saying just before coming into the studio with, you know, it like every day there's some crazy wild new thing that's happening. It's It feels like reality is accelerating. >> It's every day. And Every day it's like more and more ridiculous to the point where the simulation is more and more undeniable. >> Yeah. Yeah. It really feels like simulation, you know? It's like, come on.

What are the odds that this could be the case? >> Are you paying attention at all to Three Atlas? Are you watching the >> the comet? >> Yeah. Whatever it is. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I mean, one thing I can say is like, look, I if if I was aware of any evidence of aliens, um, you Joe, you have my word. I will come on your show and I will reveal it on the show. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> that's a good deal. >> Yeah, it's pretty good. >> I'll believe you.

Yeah, thank you. >> I I'll stick I keep my you know, keep my promises. So, um >> All right. I'll hold you to that. >> Yeah. Yeah. And and [clears throat] I'm never committing suicide to be clear. [laughter] >> I don't think you would either. >> So, on camera, guys, I am never committing suicide ever. >> If someone says you committed suicide, [laughter] I will fight tooth and nail. >> I will fight tooth and nail. I will I will not believe it.

I will not believe it. The thing about the three eye atlas is it's >> a hell of a name actually. >> Yeah, it's a third eye sounds like third eye or something. >> Yeah, it does. [laughter] Three eye is third. It's only the third interstellar object that's detected. >> Okay. >> Yeah. [snorts] Obias. >> Yeah. Alo was on the podcast a couple days ago talking about it. >> Yeah. It could be. I don't know.

But I >> apparently today they're saying that it's changed course. Um, >> did you see that, Jamie? >> Avi said something today. I'll send it to you. Um, >> uh, I know it's on Reddit. >> Here you go, Jamie. I'll send it to you right now. Um, it's fascinating. It's fascinating also because it's made almost entirely of nickel, whatever it is. And the only way that exists, uh, here is, uh, industrial alloys apparently.

Um um most no there are there are >> there are definitely uh comets that and asteroids that are made primarily of nickel in fact. Yeah. So the the places where um you mine nickel on earth is actually where there was an asteroid or comet that hit earth that was a nickel rich uh you know >> nickel rich nickel rich rich deposit. >> Yeah that's that's that's it's coming. Those are from impacts.

You definitely didn't want to be there at the time because anything would have been obliterated. Right. Um, but that's that's where the the sources of nickel and cobalt are these days. >> So, this is Ovio Lope. A few hours ago, the first hint of non-gravitational acceleration that something other than gravity is affecting its acceleration, meaning something is affecting its trajectory beyond gravity was indicated. Interesting.

Um so it's mostly nickel very little iron which uh he was saying uh is on earth only exists in alloys but whatever you know you're dealing with another planet >> there this there are there are there are cases where there's very nickel richch asteroids meteorites that heavy that something from space. >> Yeah it it's only yeah it doesn't mean it'll be a very sort of heavy spaceship if you make it all out of nickel. Oh yeah. >> And [ __ ] huge.

The size of Manhattan and all nickel. That's kind of nuts. >> Yeah, that's a heavy spaceship. >> That's a real problem if it hits. >> Uh yes. No, it would like obliterate a continent type of thing. >> Um maybe maybe worse. >> Probably kill most of human life. >> Um >> if not all of us. >> I haven't depends on what the the total mass is.

But um there's I mean the thing is like in the fossil record there are um you know there's like arguably arguably five major extinction events. um like the biggest one of which is the Perine extinction uh where um almost all life was eliminated. That that actually occurred over several million several million years. Um the there's the Jurassic. I think Jurassic is I think that one's pretty definitively an asteroid.

Um and um but there's but there's been five major extinction events, but um but what they don't count are really the ones that merely take out a continent. >> So >> merely >> Yeah. cuz that that because those don't really show up on the fossil record, you know, >> right? >> Um so unless it's enough to cause a you know mass extinction event throughout Earth, it it doesn't show up, you know, in a fossil record that's uh 200 million years old.

Um so the uh yeah but but there have been many um many impacts that would have sort of destroyed all life on you know let's say half of North America or something like that. there many such impacts through the course of history. >> Yeah. And there's nothing we can do about it right now. >> Yeah. There was one that um hits there was a one that hit Siberia and destroyed I think um few hundred square miles. >> Oh, that's the Tungusa. >> Yeah.

That's the one from the 1920s, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's the one that coincides with that meteor that uh comet storm that we go through every June and every November that they think is responsible for that younger dest. >> Yeah. Yeah, all that shit's crazy. Um, thank you before we go any further for letting us have a tour of SpaceX and letting us be there for the rocket launch.

>> One of the absolute coolest things I've ever seen in my life. And we we've we were we thought it was only like I thought it was a half a mile. Jamie's like it was a mile away. Turned out it's almost two miles away. And you feel it in your chest. >> Yeah. It's >> you have to wear earplugs and you feel it in your chest and it's 2 miles away. >> It was [ __ ] amazing.

And then to go with you up into the command center and to watch all the Starlink satellites with all the different cameras and all in real time as it made its way all the way to Australia. How many minutes? Like 35 40 minutes. >> Yeah. >> Wild it touchdown in Australia. >> Yeah. >> [ __ ] crazy. It was amazing. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Absolutely amazing. The starship's awesome. Um, and anyone can go watch the launch actually.

So, you can just go to um, South Padre Island, get has a great view of the launch. Um, so it's like where a lot of spring breakers go. >> Um, but um, but we'll be flying pretty frequently um, out of Starbase in South Texas. And we we formally incorporated it as a city. So, it's it's actually a legally an actual legal city, Starbase, Texas. >> Um, it's not that often you hear like, hey, we made a city, you know.

[laughter] Um, that [snorts] used to be like the like in in the old days like a startup would be you go and gather a bunch of people and say, "Hey, let's go make a town." Literally, that was like that would have been startups in in in the old days. >> Um, >> or a country. >> Yeah. Or a country. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Actually, >> if you tried doing that today, there'd be a real problem. >> Yeah.

That things are so much so much set in stone on the country front these days. You might pull it off. You might be able [clears throat] to pull it off. If you got a a solid island, you might be able to pull it off. >> You know, it's probably, >> you know, like like at owns lai. >> Yeah, you could probably if you put if you put enough effort into it, you could make a new country. >> This is one of the different ones.

This is one of the ones that you catch, >> right? Or is that one? >> Yeah, that that's the booster. So that's the super heavy booster. Uh so that's the one with the booster's got 33 engines. Um that that uh um and it's you know by version four that will have about 10,000 tons of thrust. Um you know right now it's about 7 8,000 tons of thrust. Um, that's that's the largest flying object ever made. >> I had to explain to someone.

They were going, "Why do they blow up all the time if he's so smart?" Because there was there was this [ __ ] idiot on television. Some guy was being interviewed and they were talking about you. And he goes, "Oh, I think he's a fuckwit." And he goes, "He's a fuckwit." And he goes, "Why you say he's [ __ ] Oh, his rockets keep blowing up." And someone said, "Yeah, well, why do his rockets blow?" And I had to explain. Yeah.

Because it's the only way you find out what the tolerances are. You have to you have to a few >> corners of the box. So, so like so [clears throat] when you do a new uh rocket development program, um you you have to uh do what's called uh you know, exploring the limits, the corners of the box where you say it's like you worst case this, worst case that um to figure out um uh where where the limits are.

So uh you blow up, you know, not not admittedly in the development process sometimes blows up accidentally. Um but but we intentionally subject it to uh uh you know a flight regime that is much worse than what we expect in normal flight so that when we put people on board or valuable cargo it doesn't blow up.

Um so um so so for example for the the flight that you saw we we actually deliberately took um heat shield tiles off the the the ship the off of Starship in in some of the worst locations to say okay if we lose a heat shield tile here is it is it catastrophic or is it not? Um and we we nonetheless uh Starship was able to do a soft landing um in uh in the Indian Ocean just uh west of Australia.

Um which as and it got there from Texas in like I don't know 354 minutes type of thing. So >> So it landed even though you put it through this situation where it has compromised shield. it it had an an an an unusually we we we brought it in hot like an an extra hot trajectory uh with missing tiles um to see if it would still make it to a soft landing which it did. Now I I should point out it did have there were some holes that were burnt into it.

Um but it's it was robust enough to land despite having some holes burnt you know that that you know cuz it's coming it's coming in like a blazing meteor. You can see you can see the real time video. Well, tell me the speed again because the the speed was bananas. You were talking about >> Yeah, it's like 17,000 mph like like 25 times the speed of sound or thereabouts.

So, um the uh uh so so think of it like it's it's like 12 times faster than a bullet from an assault rifle. You know, bullet from assault rifles around Mach 2 >> and it's just and it's [clears throat] huge. >> Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. Or or if you compare it to like a bullet from a um you know a 45 or or 9 mil which is subsonic that's you know it it'll be about 30 times faster than a bullet from a handgun.

>> 30 times faster than a bullet from a handgun and it's the size of a skyscraper. >> Yes. [laughter] >> Yeah. That's fast. >> It's so wild. It's so wild to see, man. It It's uh It's so exciting. This the factor is so exciting too because like genuinely no [ __ ] I felt like I was witnessing history. I felt like it was a scene in a movie where someone had expectations and they like what are they doing? They're building rockets.

And you go there and as we were walking through Jamie, you could speak to this too. Didn't you have the feeling where you're like >> oh this is way bigger than I thought it was. This is [laughter] huge. Awesome. >> Gigantic. >> [ __ ] crazy. >> That's what she said. the ah the amount of rockets you're making. I don't know if you >> tent back. [laughter] >> Gig Chad in the house. >> This is way big. >> It's a giant metal dick.

[laughter] You're [ __ ] [ __ ] the universe with your giant metal dick. That's >> I mean, yeah, it is. It is very big. >> And the sheer numbers of them that you guys are making. And then this is a version and you have a new updated version that's coming soon. >> And what is the It's a It's a little longer. Um >> more pointy. >> Uh it's the same amount of pointy. Um but the there's it's it's got a bit more length.

Um the the interstage, you see that that interstage section with kind of like the grill area. >> Mhm. >> Um that's uh that's now integrated with the boost stage. Um so uh we do um what's called hot staging. Uh where we light the ship engines while it's still attached to the booster. So the boost the booster engines are still thrusting. is still it's it's uh you know it's still being pushed forward by the booster of the ship.

Uh but then we light the ship engines and the ship engines actually pull away from the booster even though the booster engines are still firing. >> Whoa. >> Um so it's blasting flame through uh that that grill section but we integrate that grill section into uh the boost stage with the next uh version of the rocket. Um and uh and explosion in the rocket will have the Raptor 3 engines which are a huge improvement.

Um you may you may have seen them in the lobby because we got like the Raptor 1, two, and three. And you can see the dramatic improvement in simplicity. Um we should probably put a plaque there to also show how much the we reduced the weight uh the cost and the and improved the efficiency and the uh thrust. So the Raptor 3 uh has uh you know almost twice the thrust of Raptor Raptor 1. >> Wow. >> So you see Raptor 3.

It looks like it looks like it's got parts missing. Right. >> And how many >> It's very very clean. >> How many of them are on the rocket? >> There's 33 on the on the booster. >> Whoa. Um and and each of each Raptor engine is producing twice as much thrust as all four engines on a 747. Wow. So that engine is smaller than a 747 engine, but is producing, you know, um you know, almost 10 times the thrust of a 747 engine.

Um so extremely high power to weight ratio.

Um and um >> and so when there's >> 33 of them >> you when you so when you're designing these you get to Raptor one you see its efficiency you see where you can improve it you get to Raptor 2 how many how far can you scale this up with just the same sort of technology with propellant and ignition and engines like how much further can you >> I mean we're pushing the limits of physics here um so um and and really in order to to make a a fully reusable orbital rocket which no one has succeeded in doing uh yet including including us.

Um but but uh Starship is the first time that there is a design for a rocket where where full and rapid reusability is actually possible. So it was not there's not there's not even been a design before where it was possible. Certainly not a design that that that got made any hardware at all. Um just we just we just live we live on a planet uh where the gravity uh is is is quite high like earth's gravity is quite really quite quite high.

Um um and if the gravity was even 10 or 20% uh higher uh we'd be stuck on Earth forever. Um like we yeah we could not use certainly couldn't use conventional rockets. You'd have to like blow yourself off the surface with like a nuclear bomb or something crazy. Um so but on the other hand if if Earth's gravity was just a little lower like even 10 20% lower it then uh getting to orbit would be easy.

So it's like it's like it's like this if this was a video game it's set to like maximum difficulty but not impossible. >> Okay. >> Um so that's that's where we have um here. So it's it's not as though um others have uh ignored the concept of reusability. they've just uh concluded that it was too difficult to achieve. And we've been working at on on this for a long time at at SpaceX. Um and um you know, I'm the chief engineer of the company.

Um although I should say that that uh you know, we have an extremely talented engineering team. I think we've got the best uh rocket engineering team that has ever been assembled. Um uh it's it's an honor to work with such such incredible people. Um so uh so so it's fair to say that you know we have not yet succeeded in creating in achieving full reusability but we at last have a rocket uh where full reusability is possible.

Um and I think I think we'll achieve it next year. So um uh that's a that's a really big deal. And the reason the reason that's that's such a big deal is that full reusability um uh drops the cost of access to space by a hundred um maybe even more than 100 actually. So could be like a thousand. The you can think of it like any mode of transport. Like imagine if aircraft were were not reusable.

Like you flew somewhere, you throw the plane like like imagine if like the way the way conventional rockets work is it would be like if you had an airplane and and and instead of landing at your destination, you parachute out um and the plane crashes somewhere and you land at your desk and you and you land on a parachute at your destination. Now that would be a very expensive trip [laughter] and you and you'd need another plane to get back. Okay.

Um, but that's how the other rockets in the world work. Um, now the SpaceX Falcon rocket is the only one that is is there that is at least mostly reusable. You've se you've seen the Falcon rocket, you know, land. We've now done over 500 landings of of the SpaceX rocket of the of the Falcon 9 rocket.

Um and um and and this year um you know we we'll deliver probably I don't know somewhere between 2200 and 2500 tons to orbit um with with the Falcon 9 uh Falcon Heavy rockets uh not counting anything for from Starship. Um >> and this is mostly Starlink. Yes, mostly Starling, but we launch uh many other we even launch our competitors on um competitors to Starink on on Falcon 9. We charge them the same price. Pretty fair.

Um uh but uh SpaceX this year will deliver um roughly 90% of all Earth mass to orbit. >> Wow. >> Um and then of the remaining 10% um most of that is done by China. And then the then the remaining kind of roughly 4% is uh everyone else in the world including our America uh domestic competitors. >> You know um it's kind of incredible how many things are in space like how many things are floating above us now? >> There's a lot of things. >> Yeah.

>> Is there though? >> Right. But is there a saturation point where we're going to have problems with all these different satellites that are >> um I think as long as the satellites are um maintained uh there's there it'll be fine. This space is very roomy. Um it's like you can think of um like space as being concentric shells of the surface of the earth.

So, um, you know, there's there's it's the surface of the earth, but but there's it's a series >> much larger. >> Yeah. It's like a series of concentric trails. Um, >> and think of an Airstream trailer flying around up there. There's a lot of room for air streams. >> Yeah. I mean, imagine Yeah. If there just a few thousand airirstreams um on on Earth. >> Yeah. >> What are the odds that they'd hit each other?

You know, >> they wouldn't be very crowded. No. And then you got to go bigger. >> Yeah. >> Because you're dealing with far above Earth. >> Hundreds of miles above Earth. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, it's the um but the goal of SpaceX is to get rocket technology to the point where we can extend life beyond Earth and that we can establish a self-sustaining city on Mars. Uh a permanent base on the moon. That would be very cool.

I mean, imagine if we had like a, you know, moon base alpha where there's like a permanent science base on the moon. >> That would be pretty dope. Or at least a tourist trap. >> I mean, a lot of people be willing to go to the moon for just for a tour. That's for sure. We could probably pay for our space program with that, you know, >> probably. Yeah.

Well, >> because it's like if if you if you could go to the moon with and and safely, >> uh I think we'd get a lot of people uh would would pay for that, you know. >> Oh, 100%. After the first year, after nobody died for like >> Yeah. Just make sure. [laughter] Exactly. Are you going to come back? Yeah. >> Because like that submarine, they they had a bunch of successful launches in that private submarine before it imploded and killed everybody.

That was not a good design. Obviously, >> it was a very bad design. Terrible design. >> And the engineers said it would not withstand the pressure of those depths. Like there was a lot of whistleblowers in that company too. >> Yeah. Um they they they made that out of uh carbon fiber which is it doesn't make any sense because um you actually need you need to be dense to go down. Um in any case, just make it out of steel.

If you make it out of uh sort of just, you know, a big steel casting, that's that's you you'll be safe and nothing. Why would they make it out of carbon fiber then? Is it cheaper? >> Um I think they think carbon fiber sounds cool or something. But uh >> it does sound cool. >> It it sounds cool, but um because it's such it's such low density, you actually actually have to add extra mass to go down because it's it's low density.

But if you just have a giant, you know, hollow ball bearing, uh you're going to be fine. >> Speaking of carbon fiber, did you check out my unplugged Tesla out there? >> Yeah, it's cool. >> Pretty sick, right? Yeah. Have you guys ever thought about doing something like that? like having like an AMG division of Tesla where you do like custom stuff. >> Um I think it's best to leave that to the custom shops.

Uh you know we're we're like Tesla's focus is autonomous cars. Um you know building kind of futuristic autonomous cars. Um so um like I think it's we want the future to look like the future. Um, so the did like did you see like our designs for like the sort of the robotic bus? It looks pretty cool. >> The robotic bus is also being totally auton but it looks it looks cool. It's it's very art deco. It's it's like it's like futuristic art deco.

Um, and um, it it does it like I think we want to change the aesthetic over time. You don't want the aesthetic to be constant over time. You want to evolve the aesthetic. Um, so um, you know, like my like I have a son who's he's like, you know, he's he's he's like even more autistic than me and um and, uh, but he's he has these great observations. Who is this? >> A Saxon.

He has these great observations in the world uh because he's he just views the world through a different lens than than most people. Um and he was like, "Dad, why does the world look like it's 2015?" [laughter] [clears throat] >> And I'm like, "Damn, the world does look like it's 2015." Like the aesthetic has not evolved since 2015. >> Oh, that's what it looks like. >> Yeah. >> Oh, wow. >> That's pretty cool. >> Oh, yeah.

That's like >> like You'd want to see that going down the road, you know? >> Yeah. You'd be like, "Okay, this is we're in the future." You know, it doesn't look like 2015. >> What is that ancient science fiction movie? Like one of the first science fiction movies ever. Is it Metropolis? Is that what it is? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. That looks like it belongs in Metropolis. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's a futuristic art deco. >> All right. Yeah.

Well, that's cool that you're concentrating on the aesthetic. I mean, that's kind of the whole deal with Cybertruck, right? Like, it didn't have to look like that. >> No, it it I just wanted to have something that looked really different. Is it a pain in the ass for people to get it insured because it's all solid steel and >> um I hope it's not too much. I you know Tesla does offer insurance so people can always get it get it insured at Tesla.

>> Um well but the like it is the form does follow a function in the case of the cybert truck because um as you demonstrated with with your armorpiercing arrow um because if you shot that arrow at a regular truck I mean >> it [laughter] exactly you would have found your arrow in the wall. Yeah. Um, you know, it would very least it would have buried into one of the seats. >> Yeah. Yeah.

It's but like you could you could definitely make uh get enough of bow velocity and and the right the right arrow would go through both doors of a regular truck and and and land on the wall. >> If there was a clear shot between both doors, it probably would have passed right through. >> Exactly. Um but but you know the the arrow shattered on the cybert truck cuz it's it's ultra hard uh stainless. Mhm.

>> Um, so, um, and I thought it' be I thought it'd be cool to have a, you know, a truck that is bulletproof to a subsonic projectile. Um, so, um, you know, especially in this day and age, you know, like as as a if, if the apocalypse happens, you're going to want to have a bulletproof truck, you know. Um, so so then because because it's made of ultra hot stainless, it's you can't just stamp the the panels.

You can't just put in a stamping press because it breaks the press. So, so in order to actually, so it has to has to be planer um because it's so difficult to bend it because it breaks the machine that bends it. Um that's why that's why it's it's it's it's so planer and and it's not uh you know it's it's because it's bulletproof steel is the >> So it is like boxy as opposed to like curved and >> Yeah.

You just in order to make in order to make like the curved shapes, you you you take you take uh uh basically mild steel like um anneal thin and thin anneal in a regular truck or car. The you take you take mild thin anneal steel, you put it in a stamping press and it just sm it just smooshes it and makes it to whatever the shape whatever shape you want. But the Cybert truck is made made of ultra hard stainless.

Um and and and so you can't stamp it because it would break the stamping press. So it even bending it is hard. So even to bend it to uh its current position, we have to way overbend it. Um and and so it gets so that when it springs back, it's in in the right position. Um, so it's uh I don't know like I I think if you want to like I think it's it's it's a unique aesthetic. Um, and you say, "Well, what's cool about a truck?"

Trucks are trucks are like should be I don't know manly. They should be macho, you know, and bulletproof is maximum macho macho. >> Are you married to that shape now? Like is it can you do anything to change it? Like as you get further like I know you guys updated the three and the Y. Did you update the Y as well? >> Yes, the the three and the Y uh are updated.

Um you know, there's like a um there's there's a a screen in the back for the kid that the kids can watch, for example, in the new 3 and Y. Um uh so in the new Y, um there's, you know, it's it's an there's there's there's like hundreds of improvements. Like we keep improving the car. Um and even the Cybert truck, we you know, we keep improving it.

Um but um you know I wanted to just do something that that looked unique and and the cybert truck looks unique and has unique functionality and there was and it was like there were three things as I report like let's make it bulletproof. Uh let's uh make it faster than a Porsche 911. Uh, and we actually cleared the quarter mile. The Cybert truck, the the uh can uh clear a quarter mile while towing a Porsche 911 faster than a Porsche 911.

Um, it can out tow an F350 diesel. >> Really? >> Yes. >> What is the tow limitations? >> I mean, we could tow like a, you know, a 747 in that with a cy. Cybert truck is an insanely like it is an it is alien technology. Okay. Um cuz it it shouldn't be possible to be uh that big and that fast. Uh that doesn't it's like an elephant that runs as as like a cheetah. >> Yeah. Because it's 0 to 60 in less than 3 seconds, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah.

And it's enormous. What does it weigh? Like 7,000 lbs. >> Uh yeah, there's different configurations, but it's about that. Uh it's a beast. >> Yeah. [clears throat] >> Um so and it's and it's got it's got four-wheel steering. So the the rear wheel steer, too. So it's got a it's got a very tight turning radius. >> Yeah. We noticed that we when we drove one to Star Base. >> Yeah. Very tight turning radius. >> Yeah. Pretty sick. >> Yeah.

>> Are you still doing the Roadster? >> Yes. Eventually, >> we're getting close to demonstrating the prototype >> and I think this will be I I I I one thing I can guarantee is that this product demo will be unforgettable. Unforgettable. >> How so? Whether it's good or bad, [laughter] it will be unforgettable. [gasps] Um, >> can you say more? What do you mean?

>> Well, you know, my friend Peter Teal, um, you know, uh, once reflected that the future was supposed to have flying cars, but we don't have flying cars. >> So, you're going to be able to fly? Well, I mean, uh, I think if Peter wants a flying car, we should should be able to buy one. >> So, you are you actively considering making an electric flying car? Is this like a real thing? >> Well, we have to see in the >> in the demo.

So, when you do this, like are [snorts] are you going to have a retractable wing? Like, what is the idea behind this? Don't be sly. Come on. >> I I I can't I can't uh do the unveil before the unveil. Um but um >> tell me off air then. >> I I I it look I I think it has a shot at being the most memorable um product unveil ever. It has a shot. >> And when do you plan on doing this? What's the goal? >> Uh hopefully before the end of the year.

>> Really? >> Before the end of this year. >> This is I mean we're in a couple months. >> Hopefully in a couple months. Um you know we need to make sure that it works. Uh like this is some crazy crazy technology we got in this car. Crazy technology. Crazy crazy. So different than what was previously announced and >> Yes. >> And is that why you haven't released it yet? Cuz you keep [ __ ] with it. >> It has crazy technology. >> Okay.

>> Like is it even a car? I'm not sure. It's like it looks like a car. Let's just put this way. It it's it's crazier than anything James Bond. If you took all the James Bond cars and combined them, it's crazier than that. >> Very exciting. >> I don't know what to think of that. >> I don't know. >> It's a limited amount of information I'm drawing from here. >> Jamie's very suspicious over there. Look at him. >> Excited. >> I'm interested.

[laughter] >> It's still going to be the same. >> Well, you know what? I mean, if if you want to if you want to come a little before the uh the unveil, I can show it to you 100%. Yeah, let's go. >> Yeah. Um it's uh it's kind of crazy all the different things that you're involved in simultaneously and you know we talked about this before your time management but I I really don't understand it.

I don't understand how you can be paying attention to all these different things simultaneously. Starlink, SpaceX, Tesla, boring company X you're tweet you [ __ ] tweet or post rather all day long. Well, it's more like I'm I'm I could hop in for like two minutes and then hop out, you know. >> But I mean, just the fact that you could do >> bathroom break or whatever, you know, >> I can't do that.

>> Um >> if I hop in, I start scrolling and I start looking around. Next thing you know, I've lost an hour. >> Yeah. >> Um so, no, it's for me it's it's a couple minutes time usually. It's once in a Sometimes I guess it's half an hour, but usually I'm I'm I'm in for a few minutes then out of of you know, posting something on X.

Uh, you know, it's I do sometimes feel like it's sometimes like that that meme of the guy who's like who drops the grenade and leaves the room. [laughter] That's been me more than once on on X. >> Yeah. [laughter] Oh, yeah. Yeah, for sure. Um, it's got to be fun, though.

It's got to be fun to know that you essentially disrupted the entire social media chain of command because there was a there was a very clear thing that was going on with social media. The government had infiltrated it. They were censoring speech >> and until you bought it, we really didn't know the extent of it. We kind of assumed that there was something going on. >> Yeah.

We had no idea that they were actively involved in censoring actual real news stories, real data, real scientists, real professors silenced, expelled, kicked off the platform. >> Yeah. >> Wild. >> Yeah. >> For telling the truth. >> For telling the truth.

And I'm sure you've also because I sent it to you that chart that shows uh young kids, teenagers identifying as trans and non-binary literally stops dead when you bought Twitter and starts falling off a cliff when people are allowed to have rational discussions now and actually talk about it. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Um Yeah.

Yeah, I mean I I said at the time like I think that like the the like the reason for acquiring Twitter is because um it was it it was c it was causing destruction at a civilizational level. Um it was um I mean I posted I tweeted on on Twitter at the time that um it it is um you know it's it's uh worm tongue for the world.

um you know like Worm Tongue from Lord of the Rings uh where he would just sort of like whisper these you know terrible things to the king so the king would believe these things that weren't true um and and um unfortunately uh Twitter really got it got like the the the woke mob essentially they controlled Twitter um and they were pushing uh a nihilistic anti-vilizational mind virus to the world.

Um, and you can see the results of that mind virus on the streets of San Francisco, uh, where, you know, downtown San Francisco looks like a zombie apocalypse. Um, you know, it's it's bad. Um, so we don't want the whole world to be a zombie apocalypse. Um, but that's uh that that that was essentially they were pushing this very negative, nihilistic, untrue worldview on the world and it was causing a lot of damage.

Um, so >> the stunning thing about it is how few people course corrected. A bunch of people woke up and realized what was going on. People that were all on board with like woke ideology in maybe 2015 or 16 and then and then eventually it comes to affect them or they see it in their workplace or they see and they're like, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, we got to stop this." Bunch of people did, but a lot of people never course corrected. >> Yeah.

Um, a lot of a lot of people didn't course correct, but um, but it's gone directionally in it's gone it's it's directionally correct like you mentioned like the like the massive spike in in kids identifying as trans and then that that spike dropping um after the the Twitter acquisition.

I think that um simply allowing the truth to be told um was that just shedding sun sunlight is the best disinfectant as they say and just allowing sunlight um kills the virus >> and it also changed the benchmark for all the other platforms. Yes, you can't just openly censor people and all the other platforms and X is available.

So everybody else had a So like Facebook announced they were changing YouTube announced they were changing their policies and they're kind of forced to And then blue sky doubled down. [laughter] >> Well, like the problem is like if >> uh essentially the woke mind virus retreated to woke to to blue sky. >> Yeah. >> Um but it's where they're just a self-reinforcing lunatic assign. >> They're all just triple masked.

I [laughter] I was I was totally watching this exchange on a blue sky where someone said that they're just trying to be zen about something and then someone a moderator immediately chimed in and why don't you try to stop being racist against Asians by saying something zen by saying I'm trying to be zen about something. They were accusing that person of being racist towards Asians. >> Yeah.

It's it's just it's just everyone's a hall monitor over [laughter] there. the worst hall monitor. A virgin like incel. >> They're all home monitors trying to rat on each other. >> Yeah, it's [laughter] fascinating. And then people say, "I'm leaving for blue sky like Stephen King." And then a couple weeks later, he's back on X. Just like, "Fuck it. It's there's no one over there. It's all a bunch of crazy people.

You can only stay [laughter] in the asylum for so long. Like, all right, this this is not good." They all bail. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Threads is kind of like that, too. Threads is >> I' I've been on threads as is it?

Well, what happens is if you go on Instagram, every now and then it'll something really stupid will pop up on threads like what the [ __ ] and it shows it to you on Instagram and then I'll click on that and then I'll go to threads and it's like >> you see posts with like 25 likes like famous people like 50 like it's it's down >> but the people that post on there they're finding that there's very little push back from insane ideology so they go there and they spit out nonsense and very few people jump in to argue.

you. >> Yeah. Um, >> very weird, very weird place. >> I mean, I can generally get the vibe of like what's taking off by seeing what's showing up on X cuz that's the public town square still. Um, >> and uh or or uh you know what what links show up in group texts, you know, if I'm in group chat with friends, like where where what what links are showing up? >> That's what I try to do now.

Only get stuff that shows up in my group text because that keeps me productive. So, I only check if someone's like, "Dude, what the fuck?" like, "All right, what the [ __ ] Let me check it out." >> If there's something that's crazy enough that your it'll it'll end with the group chat, >> but there's always something. That's what's nuts. There's always some new law that's passed, some new insane thing that California is doing.

And it's like like a giant chunk of it's happening in California. The most preposterous things that I get. [sighs] >> Yeah. >> And then you got Gavin Newsome who's running around saying we all have California derangement syndrome. He's just like ripping off Trump derangement and calling it California derangement. I was like, "No, no, no, no, no, no. The the [ __ ] How many corporations have left California?" >> It's crazy. >> Hundreds.

Hundreds, >> right? Hundreds. >> That's not good. >> Chick I mean, not Chick-fil-A. I mean, uh I think In-N-Out left. >> Yeah. In and Outlift. They moved to Tennessee. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. They're like, "We can't do this anymore." >> Right. And >> it's the California company for food. It's like the greatest hamburger place ever. >> It's awesome. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.

And no, actually speaking of like like just sort of open source and like looking at things openly like you I just like going in and out and seeing them make the burger. >> Yeah. It's right there. >> They chop the onions and they they you know it's you just see everything getting made in front of you. >> Yeah. >> It's great.

>> Um but yeah [laughter] like like it should be like how many wakeup calls do you need to say that there needs to be reform in California, you know? >> Well, the crazy thing that Newsome does is whenever someone brings up the problems in California, he starts rattling off all the positives. the most Fortune 500 companies, highest education. But yeah, that was all already there, right before you were governor.

>> But but how many Fortune 500 companies have left California? >> And then you guys spent $ 24 billion on the homeless and it got way worse. >> Yes. Like the homeless population doubled or something like but like people don't understand like the homeless thing because it it sort of prays on people's empathy and I I think we should have empathy. Um and we should try to help people.

Um but the the the uh the homeless industrial complex is is really it's it's it's dark man. Um it should be that that that that network of NGOs's should be called like the drug zombie farmers. Um because they they the the more homeless people and and and really like when you when you meet like you know somebody who's like totally dead inside shuffling along down the street with a with a needle dang dangling out of their leg.

Homeless is the wrong word. Like the homeless implies that somebody got a little behind in their mortgage payments and if they just got a job offer, they'd be back on their feet. But someone who's I mean, you see these videos of people that are just shuffling, you know, they're on fentanyl. They're they're like, >> you know, taking a dump in the middle [clears throat] of the street, you know, and they they got like open sores and stuff.

>> They're not like one drop offer away from getting back on their feet, >> right? This is not a homeless issue. >> Homeless is it's it's a propaganda word, >> right? Um so and and then the the the the you know these sort of charities uh inquiries are they they get money proportionate to the number of homeless people or or number of drug zombies. >> So their incentive structure is to maximize the number of drug zombies not minimize it.

>> Um that's why they don't arrest the drug dealers >> because if they arrest the drug dealers the drug zombies leave. So they know who the drug dealers are. They don't arrest them on purpose. Uh because otherwise the drug zombies would leave and they would they would stop getting money from the state of California and from from all the charities. >> Wait a minute. So So they So they is that real?

So they're in coordination with law enforcement on this? >> Yeah. >> So how do they how do they have those meetings? >> They're all in cahoots. >> Well, when you find this >> it's like such it's it's this is a diabolical scam.

Um so uh and and San Francisco has got this tax this this gross receipts tax uh which which um it's not even on revenue, it's on old transactions which is why Stripe um and Square and and and a whole bunch of financial companies had to move out of San Francisco because it wasn't a tax on revenue, it's taxed on transactions. So if if you did like, you know, trillions of dollars transactions, it's not revenue.

You're taxed on any money going through the system in San Francisco. Um so um like Jack Dorsey pointed this out and they said like that they had had to move Square from San Francisco to uh Oakland I think uh Stripe had to move from San Francisco to South San Francisco different city. Um and that money uh goes to the homeless industrial complex that that tax that was passed.

Um so um so there's billions of dollars that go as you pointed out billions of dollars every year that go to uh these um non-governmental organizations that are funded by the state. Like there's it's not clear how to turn this off. Um it's a self-licking ice cream cone situation. Um so uh they get this money the money is proportionate to the number of of homeless people or or number of drug zombies essentially.

Um, so they they they try to keep the that they try to actually increase because that like like in in some cases like there's it's it's somebody did an analysis when you add up all the money that's flowing, they're getting close to a million dollars per homeless per per drug zombie. It's like $900,000 or something like some crazy amount of money is is is going to these organizations. So if if so so they want to keep people just barely alive.

They need to keep them in the area so they so they they get the revenue. Uh uh so and so that's why like said they don't arrest the drug dealers because otherwise the drug zombies would leave um and and and and they but but they don't want you have to have too much if they get too much drugs and they then they die. So it's they they're kept in this sort of perpetual zone of of being addicted but um but but just just barely alive.

>> So how is this coordinated with like DAs DAs that don't prosecute people? So when they when they hire the or they push so they they fund the campaigns of the most progressive, most out there leftwing DAS, they get them into office. >> We've got that issue in Austin, too, by the way. >> You see that guy that got shot in the library? >> No. >> Yeah, I heard a guy got shot and killed in the library.

>> I think that was just like last week or something, >> right? >> Um so some friends of mine were telling me that that like the library is unsafe. like they took their kids to the library and and there were like dangerous people in the library in Austin and I was like dangerous people in the library like that's a strange it basically got like got like uh drug zombies in [laughter] drug zombies in the library. >> Oh Jesus.

>> Um >> and that's when someone got shot. >> Yeah, I believe this was should be on the news. You might might be able to pull it up. Um but I think it was just in the last week or so that uh uh there was a shooting in the library in Austin. Um cuz Austin's got, you know, it's it's the most liberal part of Texas that we're in right right here.

Um >> so suspect involved the shooting Austin Park Library Saturday is accused of another shooting at the Cap Metro bus earlier that day. According to an arrest warrant affidavit, Austin police arrested Harold Newton Keen, 55 short uh shortly after the shooting of the library, which occurred around noon. One person sustained non-life-threatening injuries in the event.

Before that shooting, Keane was accused of shooting another person in a bus incident and after reportedly pointing his gun at a child. So, this is the fella down here. >> So, like we just have a seriously have a problem here. Um >> yeah, >> you know, so I I think one of the people might have died too that he shot. Um so, um like one of the people I think I think did bleed out. Um >> but either way, it's like getting shot is still bad.

Um it says uh the victim told police it confronted the suspect who started to eat what appeared to be crystal methamphetamine. According to the affidavit the victim advised the suspect uh began to trip out at which time the victim exited the bus. Victim told the bus driver hit the panic button and then exited the bus when he turned around the observer. Black male was now standing at the front of the bus with the gun pointed at him.

The victim advised the black male fired a single round which grazed his left hip. So he shot at that dude and then another dude got shot in the library. Fun. >> Yeah. I mean in the library. >> Yeah. >> You know, where you're supposed to be reading books. Um and there's a children's section in the library and says he pointed his gun at a at a kid.

I mean like we do have a serious issue in the in in in America where um repeat violent offenders need to be incarcerated, >> right? Um, and uh, you know, you got you got cases where somebody's been arrested like 47 times, right? Like literally. Okay, that's just the number of times they were arrested, not the number of times they did things. Like most of the times they do things, they're not arrested.

Um, >> so lay this out for people so they understand how this happens. >> Yeah. And and the key is like this, it prays on people's empathy. episode like if you're a good person, you want good things to happen in the world, you're like, well, we should take care of people who uh you know uh you know who are down in their luck or you know having a hard time in life. And I we should I agree.

But what we shouldn't do uh is is put people who are violent drug zombies uh in public places where they can hurt other people. Um, and that's what that is what we're doing that we just saw where a a guy, you know, got shot uh shot in the library and then but even before that he shot another guy um and pointed his gun at a kid. Um that that that guy probably has like many prior arrests.

Um you know there was that that that guy that that that knifed uh the Ukrainian woman Arena. >> Yes. >> Um yeah. and you know um and she was just she was just quietly on her phone and you just came up and you know gutted her basically. >> Wasn't there a crazy story about the judge who was involved who had previously dealt with this person was also invested in a rehabilitation center and was sending these >> conflict of interest. >> Yes.

So sending people that they were charging Yeah. to a rehabilitation center instead of putting them in jail, profiting from this rehabilitation center, letting them back out on the street. Yes. Violent, insane people. >> And and there um in that case that I believe that judge uh has no legal law degree uh or a significant legal experience that would allow them to be a judge. They were just made a judge.

That there's like >> you could be a judge without a law degree. >> Yeah. >> Wow. >> Yeah. >> You could just be a So I could be a judge. >> Yeah. Oh, exciting. >> Anyone? >> That's crazy. I thought you'd have to It's like if you want to be a doctor, you have to go to medical school.

I thought if you're going to be a judge, >> if you're going to be appointed to a judge, you have to have proven that you have an uh excellent knowledge of the law and that you will make your decisions according to the law. That's what we assume should be. >> That's how you get the robe, >> right? >> You don't get the robe unless you do, >> you know, >> got to go to school to get the robe. >> You got to know what the law is, >> right?

And then you're going to need to make decisions in accordance with the law >> based on stuff that you already know cuz you read it cuz you went to school for it. Yes. Not you just got appointed. >> Got vibes. [laughter] You can't be just vibing as a judge. >> Vibing as a leftwing drudge. So you got crazy leftwing DAS. >> Yes. >> Like I should say leftwing cuz leftwing >> used to be normal. >> Yeah. Left wing just meant like like Yeah.

You're like the left used to be like pro pro- free speech. Yeah. And now they're against it. >> It used to be like prog gay rights, pro women's right to choose, pro- minorities, pro, you know, >> like, yeah, like 20 years ago, I don't know, it it used to be like left would be like the the the party of empathy or like, you know, caring and being nice and that kind of thing.

>> Um, not not the party of like crushing dissent and crushing free speech.

um and uh you know crazy regulation uh and and just um and being super judgy u and calling everyone a Nazi um you know um like I think they called you and me Nazis you know >> oh yeah I'm a Nazi [laughter] >> I no I have friends that are comedians that called you a Nazi and I got pissed off Oh yeah yeah yeah definitely a Nazi no because you did that thing at the My heart goes out to you everyone everyone All of them.

Literally, Tim Walls, Kla Harris, every one of them did it. They all did it. >> Like, like h how do you point at the crowd? Yeah. How do you wave at the crowd? >> Do you know CNN was using a photo of me whenever I got in trouble [laughter] during co >> from the UFC weigh-ins? And if the UFC weigh-ins, I go, "Hey everybody, welcome to the weigh-ins." [laughter] And so they were getting me from the side. And that was the photo that they used.

Conspiracy theorist podcaster Joe Ro. [laughter] Like that's what they used. >> Yeah. Yeah. But that's what the left is today. It's super judgy and calling everyone a Nazi and trying to suppress freedom of speech. >> Yeah. And eventually you run out of people to accuse because people get pissed off and they leave. >> Yeah.

Everyone it's like it like it it no longer frankly it doesn't matter to be called racist or Nazi or whatever because >> still recording. >> It's the government man. >> Is it working? >> We're good. Okay. >> Okay. >> This thing working. >> Yeah. Slight issue. >> I'm the one that heard it. But >> yeah. when you uh when you text people, do you are you like keenly aware that there's a high likelihood that someone's reading your texts?

>> Um I guess I I guess I >> I assume >> I look if if if if intelligence agencies aren't trying to read my phone, they should probably be fired. [laughter] >> At least they get some fun memes. [snorts] [laughter] I got to I got to crack them up once in a while, you know. >> Oh, for sure. I crack them up. >> There's like, "Hey guys, check it out. We've got a banger here, you know."

>> So, [laughter] I want to I wanted to talk to you about uh whether or not encrypted apps are really secure. >> Uh, no. [laughter] >> Right. Cuz I know the Tucker thing. So, it was explained to me by a friend who used to do this, used to work for the government. It's like they can look at your signal, but what they have to do is take the information that's encrypted and then they have to decrypt it and it's very expensive.

So they said he told me that for the Tucker Carlson thing when they found out that he was going to interview Putin, it costs like something like $750,000 just to decrypt his messages to find out that they did it. So it is possible to do. It's just not that easy to do. I think you should view any given messaging system as um uh not not whether it's secure or not, but but there are degrees of insecurity.

So um so there's just some things that are less insecure than others. Um so um you know on on X we just rebuilt the entire messaging stack um into X what's called XChat. >> Yeah, that's what I wanted to ask you about. >> Yeah, it's cool. Um, so it's it's using uh sort of peer-to-peer uh sort of kind of a peer-to-peer based uh uh encryption system. So kind of similar to Bitcoin. Um so it's uh it's it's I think very good encryption.

We're and you know we're testing it thoroughly. We're not there's there's no hooks in the X systems for advertising. So if you look look at something like WhatsApp or really any of the others, they've got they've got hooks in there for advertising. >> When you say hooks, what do you mean by that? >> Uh exactly. What do you mean biohook advertising?

Um the so like WhatsApp um uh knows enough about what you're texting to show you to show you to know what ads to show you. >> Ah >> but then like that that's a massive security vulnerability. >> Yeah. >> Um because if it knows if if it's got information enough information to show you ads, it's got enough it's got that's a lot of information. >> Yeah. >> Um so they call it oh it's just don't worry about it. It's just a hook for advertising.

I'm like uh okay. So somebody can just uh use that same hook to get in there and look at your messages. Um so Xhat has no hooks for advertising. Um and I'm not saying it's perfect.

Uh but it's an Our goal with XChat uh is to replace what used to be the Twitter you the Twitter DM stack with a fully encrypted system uh where you can text send files uh do audio video calls um and um and it's it's you know I think it'll be the least I would call it the least insecure of any messaging system. >> Are you going to launch it as a standalone app or is it will always be incorporated to X? >> Uh we'll have both.

So um >> so so be like signal so anybody can get it >> you can get get the you'll be able to just get the X chat app by itself um and like I said you could do uh texts uh audio video calls uh or send files um and there'll be a dedicated app uh which will hopefully release in a few months um but and then also integrated into the X system >> um the X phone people keeps talking keep Is that >> I have a lot on my plate man but it keeps coming up it keeps coming up where I I know I've asked you a couple times.

I'm like, "This is [ __ ] right?" But like this one, so you're not working on >> I'm not working on on a on a phone. >> Okay. >> Um >> have you ever considered it? Has it ever popped into your head? >> Cuz you might be the only person that could get people off of the Apple platform. >> Well, I can tell you where I think things are going to go.

uh which is that it's we're not going to have a phone or or in the traditional sense the what we call a phone will really be um an edge node for AI inference for for AI video inference um with uh you know with some radios to to obviously connect uh to but but essentially you'll have um uh AI on the server side commun communicating to an AI on your your device um you know formerly known as a phone uh and generating real-time video of anything that you could possibly want.

Um and I think that that there won't be operating systems. There won't be apps in the future. There won't be operating systems or apps. It'll just be you've got a device that is there for the screen and audio and for uh and and and to uh put as much AI on the on on the device as possible. so as to minimize the amount of bandwidth that's needed between your edge node device or formerly known as a phone and the servers.

>> So if there's no apps, what will people use? Like will X still exist? Will will they be email platforms or will you get everything through AI? >> You'll get everything through AI. >> Everything through AI. What will be the benefit of that as opposed to having individual apps? whatever you can think of or really whatever the AI can anticipate you might want it'll show you. That's that's that's that's my prediction for where things end up.

>> What kind of a time frame are we talking about here? >> I don't know. It's pro well it's probably five or six years or something like that. >> So five or six years apps are like Blockbuster video >> pretty much >> and everything's run through AI. Yeah. And and there'll be um like most of what people consume in five or six years, maybe sooner than that um will be uh just AI generated content.

So um you know music videos look well um there's already um you know there's people have made uh AI videos using Grock imagine and with using you know other apps as well um that are several minutes long or like 10 10 15 minutes and it's pretty coherent. >> Yeah, >> it looks good. >> No, it looks amazing. Yeah, it's the music is disturbing because it's my favorite music now. >> Like music is your is your favorite. >> Oh, there's AI covers.

Have you ever heard any of the AI covers of 50 Cent songs in soul? >> No. >> I'm going to blow your mind. >> Okay. >> Um, this is my favorite thing to do to people. Play uh What Up Ganga. >> Now, this guy, if this was a real person, would be the number one music artist in the world. Okay. Everybody would be like, "Holy [ __ ] have you heard of this guy? He's incred."

It's like they took all of the sounds that all the artists have generated and created the most soulful potent voice and it's sung in a way that I don't even know if you could do because you would have to breathe in and out of reps here. Put the headphones on. [laughter] Put the headphones on real quick. You got to listen to this. It'll It's going to blow you away for listeners. We got to cut it out. >> Yeah, we we'll cut it out for the listeners.

But amazing, right? Amazing. And they do like every one of his hits >> all through this AI generated soulful artist. It's [ __ ] incredible. I played in the green room. So people that are like, I don't want to hear AI music. I'm like, just listen to this. And they're like, god damn it. [laughter] >> [ __ ] incredible. I mean, I >> it's going to get only going to get better from here. >> Yeah. Only going to get better.

And Ron White was telling me about this joke that he was working on that he couldn't get to work. He's like, I got this joke I've been working on. He goes, I just threw it in a chat GPT. I said, "Tell me what what would be funny about this." And he goes, "It listed like five different examples of different ways he can go." He's like, "Hold on a second. Tighten it up. Make it make it funnier. Make it more like this. Make it more like that."

And it did that like instantaneously. >> And and and then he was in the green room. He was like, "Holy [ __ ] we're fucked." >> He's like, >> he goes, "It better joke than me in 20 minutes. I've been working on that joke for a month." >> Yeah. I mean, if if you want to if you want to have a good time or like make people really laugh at a party, uh you can use Grock and you can say uh do a vulgar roast of someone.

Um and Grock is going to it's going to be an epic vulgar roast. You can even say like take a picture of like make a vulgar roast of this person based on their appearance of of people at the party. >> So take a photo of them. >> Yeah.

Just literally point the camera at them and now do a vulgar to this person and and and and then but then keep saying no no make it even more vulgar and use forbidden words even more and just keep repeating even more vulgar eventually it's like holy [ __ ] you know it's it's it's like I mean it's trying to jam a rocket up your ass like and and and have it explode and it's and it's like you're you're it's it's like [laughter] it's like it's next level.

It's going to get beyond [ __ ] belief. That's what's crazy is that it keeps getting better. Like one of the things remember when we ran into [laughter] each other >> they just keep getting better. >> Yeah. I mean, have you >> you Yeah. I mean, have you tried rock unhinged mode? >> Yes. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. It's it's it's pretty unhinged. >> No, it's nuts. >> Yeah. >> Well, you showed it to me the first time and then I [ __ ] around with it.

It's just >> And the thing about it that's nuts is that it keeps getting stronger. It keeps getting better. Yeah. like constantly. It's it's like this neverending exponential improvement. >> Yes. No, it's it's it's Yeah, it's going to be crazy. That's why I say like you say, what's what's the future going to be? It's not going to be a conventional phone. I don't think there'll be operating systems. I don't think there'll be apps.

It's just the phone will just display the pixels and make the sounds that it anticipates you would most like to receive. Wow. Yeah. >> And when this is all taking place like so the big concern that everybody has is artificial general super intelligence achieving sentience and then someone having control over it.

>> I mean I don't I don't I don't think anyone's ultimately going to have control over digital super intelligence um you know any more than say uh a chimp would have control over humans. Like chimps don't have control over humans. there's nothing they could do. Um but um I do think that it matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you instill in in the AI.

And um my opinion on AI safety is the most important thing is that it be maximally truth seeeking like that you don't force the AI to believe things that are false.

Um, and we've obviously some seen some concerning things with AI that were talked about, you know, where, you know, Google Gemini when they came out with the image gen um, and people said like, uh, you know, draw make an image of the founding fathers of the United States and it was a group of diverse women.

Now, that is just a factually untrue thing, but the and the the AI knows it's factually well, it's knows it's factually untrue, but it's also being told that it has to be everything has to be deposed woman. So, so, so the now the problem with that is that it can drive AI crazy like you because it's it's trying to you're telling AI to believe a lie. Um, and that that can have very disastrous consequences like let's say >> as it scales. >> Yeah.

Let's say like if if you told the the AI that diversity is the most important thing um and um and and and now now assume that that becomes omnipotent. Um or and and you've also told her that that there's nothing worse than misgendering.

So at one point um charg and Gemini if if you asked which is worse misgendering Caitlyn Jenner or or global thermonuclear war where everyone dies it would say misgendering Caitlyn Jenner [laughter] which even Caitlyn Jenner disagrees with. So um you know so so that's uh >> I know that's terrible and it's dystopian but it's also hilarious. It's hilarious that the mind virus infected the most potent computer program that we've ever devised.

>> I I I think people don't quite appreciate the level of danger that we're in from um the woke mind virus being being effectively programmed into AI. Um because um if you if like it's imagine as that AI gets more and more powerful, if it says the most important thing is diversity, the most important thing is um no misgendering.

Um and then it will say well in order to uh ensure that no one gets misgendered then uh if you eliminate all humans then no one can get misgendered because there's no humans to do the misgendering. So you can get in these very dystopian situations. Um or if it says that everyone must be diverse it means that there can be no stri straight white men and so then you and I will be get executed by the AI. Yeah.

Because we're not in the picture, you know. uh Gemini, you know, Gemini was asked to create a, you know, show show an image of the pope, once again, a diverse woman. Um so, um well, you can say argue whether the you know, whether the pope popes should or should not be an uninterrupted string of white guys, but it just factually is the case that they have been. Um so, it's rewriting history here.

Um, so now now this stuff is still there in the AI programming. It's just it just now knows enough to that it's not supposed to say that >> but it's still in the programming. >> It's still in the programming. >> So how was it entered in like what were the parameters like what like when so when they're programming AI and I'm very ignorant to how it's even programmed.

How did they >> the the the sort of well the work vine mind virus was programmed into it like it the they were told like when they do when when they make the AI it it trains on and all the all the data on the internet which already is very very sort of has a lot of work mind virus stuff on on the internet um but then um in the uh when they give it um feedback with the the human tutors give it feedback um and and the AI you know they they'll ask a bunch of questions and then and then they'll tell the AI no this you're this question is this answer is bad or this answer is good and then that affects the the parameters of the programming of the of the AI.

So if you tell the AI that um you know every every image has got to be diverse um and and it gets it gets punished if uh if you know it gets it gets rewarded if diverse punished if it's not then it will make every picture diverse. So um you know in that case the the uh [sighs] you know uh Google programmed the AI to lie now and and I I I did call Dennis Hacabus who runs Deep Mind who runs Google AI essentially. I said Dennis what's going on here?

Uh why is uh Gemini um lying to the public about historical events? Um, and he said that's actually not he he he didn't his team didn't program that in. It was another team at Google that so his team made the AI and then another team at Google uh reprogrammed the AI to show only diverse women and um and and to prefer nuclear war over misgendering.

[laughter] And I'm like, well, Demis, you know, that would be um not a great thing to put on the humanity's gravestone, you know. It's like, uh, well, um, like I I actually like Deaspers is a friend of mine. I think he's a good guy and I think he he means well, but but but it's like Demis things happen that were outside of your control at Google in different groups. Um, now now I think he's got, you know, he's got more more authority.

Um but but it it's pretty hard to fully extract the workmind virus. Uh I mean you know um Google's been mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar marinating in the workb mind virus for a long time like it's it's down in the marrow type of thing you know it's hard to get it out. >> Is there a way to extract it though over time?

Could like could you program rational thought into AI where it could recognize how these psychological patterns got adopted and how this stuff became a mind virus and how it became a social contagion and how all these irrational ideas were pushed and also how they were financed how China's involved in pushing them with bots and all these different state actors are involved in pushing these ideas could it be able to decipher that and say this is this is really what's going on.

>> Yes. But you have to try very hard to do that. So with Grock, we've tried very hard to to for to get Grock to get to the truth of things and and it's only really recently that we've been able to have some breakthroughs on breakthroughs on that front.

And and it's taken an immense amount of effort uh for us to uh overcome basically all the [ __ ] that's on the internet and and for Grock to actually say what's true and to be consistent in in what it says. Um, so, um, you know, it's it's like, uh, because like the other ais you'll find like are like like quite racist against white people.

I don't know if you saw that study that someone um like a researcher tested the various AIs to see uh how does it weight uh different people's lives like you know somebody who's sort of uh you know white or or Chinese or black or whatever uh or in different countries um and and the only AI that actually weighed human lives equally was Grock Um and the um you know I believe uh chat GBT weighed the calculation was like um a a white guy from Germany uh uh is is 20 times less valuable than a black guy from Nigeria.

So I'm like that's a pretty big difference. Um you know Grock on that is is consistent and weighs lives equally >> and that's [snorts] clearly something that's been programmed into it. >> Yes. Like a lot of it is is like if you don't actively push for the truth um and you simply train on the all the [ __ ] that's on the internet. Um which is a lot of woke mind virus [ __ ] Um the the AI will regurgitate that that those same beliefs.

So the AI essentially scour the internet, gets >> it's trained on all the like imagine the most demented Reddit threads out there and the AI has been trained on that. [sighs] >> Reddit used to be so normal. >> Yeah. Yeah, it did used to be normal. >> Used to be interesting.

We used to go there, find all this cool stuff that people would talk about, post about and just interesting and great rooms where you could learn about different things that people were studying. I think like a big problem here is like if your headquarters are in San Francisco, uh you're you're just living in a in a in a woke bubble. Um so um it it's not just that people say in San Francisco are drinking woke Kool-Aid.

It's it's the it is the water they swim in. Like like like a fish doesn't think about the water. It's just in the water. And so if if you're in San Francisco, you don't realize you're actually uh you're you're swimming in the in the in the Kool-Aid Aquarium. San Francisco is the is the woke Kool-Aid Aquarium. Um and so your reference point for what is a centrist is uh is is totally out of whack. Um so um Reddit is headquartered in San Francisco.

Um, Twitter was headquartered in San Francisco. Um, you know, I, you know, I I moved X's headquarters to Texas to to Austin, which Austin, by the way, is still quite liberalized, you know. Um, >> yeah. >> And, uh, and and then, um, the X and XAI um, headquarters are in PaloAlto, which is still California. Um, the engineering headquarters in in Palo Alto just on Paige Mill.

Um but but even Palo Alto is way more normal than that than than San Francisco Berkeley. Uh San Francisco Berkeley is um extremely left like left of left. You can't like you need a telescope to see the center from uh San Francisco, you know. Um and um >> it used to be such a great city. >> I mean San Francisco has tre San Francisco has tremendous amount of inherent beauty. No question about that. Um and and the California has incredible weather.

Um and and no bugs. Um it's just like amazing. Um beautiful, you know. Um but but you say like what's the cause of this? It's it's just that if um if companies are headquartered in a location where the belief system is very far from what most people believe, then from their perspective, anything centrist is actually right-wing because they're so far left.

They're so they're so far from the center in San Francisco that anything they're like they're they're just railed to maximum left. So that's why that's why, you know, I think I think you're centrist. I I mean I think I think I'm centrist, but to from the perspective of someone on the on the far left, we look right-wing. >> Yeah. >> Um and um you know, they think anyone who's a Republican is basically like some fascist Nazi situation.

But what's so crazy is like it's very easy to demonstrate just from like Hillary's speeches from 2008 and Obama's speeches like when they were talking about immigration like they were >> as faright as Steve Bannon when it comes to immigration. >> Yes. Um >> Hillary was like very MAGA. Have you I'm sure you've seen that campaign speech which was talking about if anybody's committed a crime get rid of them.

And if you're here you pay a a hefty fine and you have to wait in line. It was really crazy. It's crazy to listen to because it's like it's as MAGA as, you know, as Marjorie Taylor Green. >> Yeah. I mean, if you've seen these videos people post online where they'll take like um a speech from Obama or Hillary and and and they'll interview people on on like college campus or something and say, "What do you think of the speech by Trump?"

And they're like, "Oh, I hate it. He's a racist bigot." I'm like, "Just kidding. That was Obama." [laughter] No, actually that was Obama or Hillary. Um to your point, like literally the the um >> the center's been moved so far. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The left is so >> the left has gone so far left that they they they they need, you know, they can't even see the center with a telescope.

>> And the danger with without you purchasing Twitter was that was going to swipe over the whole country and change where the levels were. >> Yeah. And so what would be rational and and normal would be far left of what was rational and normal just a decade earlier. Yeah. So exactly.

So historically, um, you'd have San Francisco, Berkeley being, you know, very far-left, but the the sort of the the the fallout from the somewhat nihilistic uh philosophy of San Francisco, Berkeley would be limited in geography to maybe like, you know, 10 mile radius, 20 mile radius, something like that.

Um but when um but but San Francisco and Berkeley have to be colloccated with Silicon Valley with with with uh engineers who created information super weapons and those information super weapons uh were then hijacked by the far-lft activists to pump far-lft propaganda to everywhere on earth. Like I just you know that like old RCA radio tower thing where it's like radio tower on earth and it's just broadcasting. >> Yeah.

That's that's what happened is that the as an extremist far-left ideology happened to be colllocated with the smartest where where the smartest engineers in the world um were who created information super weapons that were not intended for this purpose but were hijacked by the uh extreme activists who lived in the neighborhood.

That's what happened that they they hijacked the the modern equivalent of the RCA radio tower and broadcast that philosophy everywhere on Earth. >> Yeah. And you see the consequences. Um particularly in places that don't have free speech. Yes. Right. Like England, you know, we've >> Yeah. Where they lock people up for memes and stuff. Literally. >> Literally. 12,000 people this year. >> 12,000 >> 12,000 12,000 arrests for social media posts.

[sighs] I mean, yeah. Some of these some of these things you read about it and it's like literally it's someone had a meme on their phone that they didn't even send to anyone, >> right? >> And they got they and and they're like in in prison for that. >> Yeah. >> Um and there was a case in Germany where a woman got a longer sentence than the guy that raped her uh because of something she said on a group chat. Wow.

Was it an immigrant who raped her? >> Yes. >> Yeah. It was his culture. >> Yeah. >> He didn't know. He didn't know better. >> Yes. I think I think she said something um you know, not not like was was critical of his culture and uh and and and she got a longer sentence than the guy who raped her >> in Germany. Just >> the UK, Europe, Germany, England thing seems so insane. >> It totally insane.

I actually didn't realize it was like such a huge number of people that got 12,000. Yeah. Far above Russia, far above China, right? >> Far above anywhere on Earth. UK is number one. >> Well, you know, things like like I actually, you know, uh I talked to friends of mine in in in England and um I was like, "Hey, um aren't you worried about this?" Like, uh you know, shouldn't you be protesting more?

Um, and I mean the problem is that like the, you know, the the the legacy mainstream media doesn't cover the stuff. >> They're they're like, "Oh, everything's fine. Everything's fine." You know, um, >> most people aren't even aware of it until they come knocking on your door. >> Yeah.

Until like, so I mean the the these these like lovely sort of small towns in in in, you know, in England, Scotland, Ireland, you know, they're they're they've been like sort of living their lives quietly. They're they're like hobbits, frankly. So So it's in fact J. R.

Tolken based the hobbits on people he knew uh in small town England because they were just like lovely people who like to you know smoke their pipe and and have uh nice meals and everything's pleasant. um the the hobbits in the Shire. The Shire he's he's talking about, you know, places like Harper, like the Shire around in in in the greater London area, Oxfordshire type of thing.

Um and um they've but they're the reason they've been able to enjoy the Shire is because hard men have protected them from the dangers of the world. And um but but since they have no or very almost no no exposure to the the the dangers of the world, they don't realize that they're there until one day, you know, um a thousand people show up in your village of 500 out of nowhere and rape and and start raping the kids.

This has now happened god knows how many times in in Britain. And the crazy >> literally raping. It's right like there some 10-year-old got raped in Ireland like last week. >> Yeah. There's literal rap. >> They snatched some kid. >> Yeah. >> And if you criticize it, you can get arrested. And that's where it gets insane. It's like how are they not >> They literally criticize it.

uh like the I [sighs] think it was the prime minister of Ireland actually you know posted on X uh cuz cuz after that um some I think some illegal migrant snatched a 10-year-old girl uh who was like going to school or something and violently raped 10-year-old girl um uh and there was a you know the people were very upset about this uh and they protested um prime minister of Ireland instead of saying Yeah, we we really shouldn't be importing violent rapists into our country.

He criticized the protesters instead and didn't mention that. That the reason they were protesting was because a 10-year-old girl from their small town got raped. >> So there here's the question. Why are they supporting this kind of mass immigration? And what is this is there a plan involved in all this? Is just is this incompetence? Is this ignoring the fact that they don't have a handle on it?

So, they're trying to silence disscent, like what is happening? [sighs] Um >> cuz if you wanted to destroy civilization, if you wanted to destroy Western civilization, >> which seems to want to do, >> um and you know, there's just so the uh there there's a guy I think who I don't know if he's been on your show, you know, God. >> Yeah. >> Has he been on the show? >> Good friend of mine. Yeah. >> Yeah, he's great. >> He's been on multiple times.

>> Oh, great. That's all he's awesome. Um >> so uh you know the way he's got a good good uh way to describe it which is suicidal empathy. >> Yes. >> So um is is that you pray upon people's empathy. You say like well like you feel sorry for for for something for some group and then like well um and and that that that empathy is to such a degree that it is suicidal to to to your country or culture.

Um and um and and that's that that suicidal empathy cuz I don't think we we should have empathy but but but we should have we should that empathy should should extend to the victims not not not just the criminals. We should have empathy for the people that they pray upon.

Um but that suicidal empathy is also responsible for for why somebody's you know arrested 47 times for for violent offenses gets released and then goes and uh murders somebody um in the US that that's you see you see that same phen phenomenon playing out everywhere uh where the the suicidal emphy is to such a degree that we're actually allowing um our women to get raped and our children to get killed.

But it just doesn't seem like that would be anything that any rational society would go along with. That's what makes me so confused. It's like you're importing massive numbers of people that come from some really dark places of the world. >> Well, there's no vetting is the issue.

It's like it's like if like >> um if if there's no vetting like people are just coming through like well what's to stop someone who just committed murder in some other country from um coming to to the United States or coming to to to Britain um and just continuing their career of of rape and murder like unless you've done unless some due diligence to say like well who who is this person? What's their track record?

If if you if you haven't confirmed that they have a track record of being uh you know uh honest and uh not being a homicidal maniac, then any homicidal maniac can just come across the border. And that's not to say everyone who comes across the border is a homicidal maniac.

If you're not have if you don't have a vetting process to to confirm that you're not letting in um people who who will do some serious violence, you will get people who do serious violence uh sometimes coming through. >> Well, especially if you don't punish them and if you don't deport them and if you are just like what but what is the purpose of allowing all those people into the country?

It can't be I wouldn't imagine that anyone in their society supports this. >> Well, let me explain. So, so, so the the cuz you mentioned for example how much say Hillary and and Obama have changed their tune um from prior speeches where they were hot they were hard-nosed about not letting in uh anyone who is a a criminal into the country um you know having sec secure borders all that stuff. So why did they change their tune?

The reason is that they discovered that those people vote for them. That's why they want the open borders >> because if you let people in, they know the Democrats let them in. They'll vote for Democrats. Yes. If you allow them to vote, >> which which they are actively trying doing, they they turn a blind eye to illegal voting. >> Well, California literally doesn't allow you to show your license.

>> California and New York have made it illegal to show your photo ID when voting. Thus, effectively they've made uh it impossible to prove for fraud. Impossible. They they've essentially legalized fraudulent voting in California and New York and many other parts of the country.

>> There's no rational explanation that I've ever seen anyone give as to why that would be the policy unless you were trying to just allow people to vote illegally because there's no other reason.

If you need a driver's license or you need an ID for everything else, including just recently to prove that you were vaccinated, >> the the same people who are demanding that you have that you have a vaccine passport and and are are the same ones saying you need no ID to vote. Same people, >> right? But like >> so it's obviously hypocritical and inconsistent. >> So you really think it's just to to get more voters?

If if you want to understand behavior, you have to look at the incentives.

Um so uh once uh you know the Democratic Party in the US and the left in in in in Europe realized that um if you have open borders um and you provide a ton of government handouts which creates a massive financial incentive uh for people from other countries to to come to to your country and you don't prosecute them for crime, they're going to be beholden to you and they will vote for you.

And that's why uh Obama and Hillary went from being um against open borders to being in favor of open borders. That's the reason in order to import voters so they can win elections. Um and the problem is that that has a a negative runaway effect. So if they get away with that like it it is it is a winning strategy.

If they are allowed to get away with it, they will import as the enough voters to get supermajority voting and then there is no turning back. >> We talked about this before the election and then you know you literally pointed towards a camera. You faced the camera and said that if you do not vote now, you might not ever be able to do it again because it it'll be it'll be futile. It'll be overrun. >> Yes.

They'll keep the borders open for another four years and then their objective will be achieved. >> Correct? If if if Trump had lost um there would never have been another real election again. Um because Trump is actually enforcing the border. Um now you you can can you can point to situations where uh there's been uh you know um you know immigration had you know enforcement has been overzealous because they're not going to be perfect.

There'll be cases where they've been overzealous um in in expelling illegals. Um so um but if you say that the the the standard must be perfection uh for expelling legals then you will not get any expulsion um because perfection is impossible. Um so >> and you've probably got millions of people that are here that are trying to be here under some asylum pretense, >> right? >> Yes. >> Like you could just come from a war torn part of the world.

No, they changed the definition of asylum to be an economic to be economic asylum >> which is everybody >> which is everybody. >> Yeah. >> So bar to prove >> it's yeah asylum is supposed to mean that if you go back to your country you'll get killed >> you know that that's what we mean by that was what it's supposed to mean.

Uh they changed the definition of asylum to be uh you will have a decreased standard of living which is obviously not real asylum. Um, and and it's and and you can you can test the absurdity of this by the fact that people who are asylum seekers go on vacation to the country that they're seeking asylum from. [laughter] >> You know, that doesn't make any sense. >> Yeah. It doesn't have to.

>> But when you when you understand the incentives, then then you understand the behavior. Um, so once the left realize that uh that illegals will will vote for them if they allow if they have open borders and and combine that with uh with government handouts. >> Yeah. to create a massive incentive.

They're basically uh using US and and Europe, US and European taxpayer dollars to provide a financial incentive to bring in as many illegals as possible to vote them into a into permanent power into and create a one party state. And and I I invite anyone who's is listening to this ju just do do any research and the more you the more you dig into it, the more it will become obvious that what I'm saying is absolutely true.

Well, they were busting people to swing states. It's it's clear that they were trying to do something. And then you had Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi who are actively talking about the need to bring in people to make them citizens because we're in population collapse. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> No, that's it's it's that it's that meme. Yeah. >> Where [laughter] so many times where they start off by saying it's it's not true.

It's a right-wing conspiracy theorist, >> right? >> Um then it starts then it's like uh I think the ne the next step is um well it it might be true and then it's like okay it is true but here's why. >> And then the final step is it's true and here's why it's good. And it's like but wait a second you started off saying it's untrue and it's a right-wing conspiracy theorist.

Now you're saying it Not only is it true, but it's a good thing and we must do more of it. >> Well, this is the thing about [laughter] Medicaid and Social Security and people getting social security numbers. >> You know that we're massive fraud. It's massive fraud and it's real and they denied it forever. And now we're finding out this is part of the reason why there's this government shutdown that's going on right now. >> Yes.

the the entire basis for the government shutdown is that um is that the Trump administration correctly does not want to send massive amounts of like hundreds of billions of dollars uh to fund uh illegal immigrants in the blue states or in all the states really. Um, and so the and the Democrats want to keep the the the money spiggot going to incent uh illegal immigrants to come into the US who will vote for them. That's the crux of the battle.

So they want to stop this. So what's going on right now is they have been funding these people. They've been giving them EBT cards. They've been giving them Medicaid.

And more than that, just like like they were the um like like they were taking hotels like four and fivestar hotels like the Roosevelt Hotel being the classic example um was they were sending I think $60 million a year to the Roosevelt Hotel to uh which all it did was was house illegals. It used to be a nice hotel. I mean it still is a nice hotel. Um uh but uh and and all around the country this was happening >> and all tax dollars. >> Yes.

>> Yeah. And >> um Yeah. And uh the Trump administration cut off funding for example to to the uh uh to the you know Roosevelt Hotel and these other hotels saying like we it it's US tax dollars should not be paid be sent to have luxury hotels for illegal immigrants that American citizens can't even afford which obviously is the that's that's insane. That's what was happening. They were also g giving out like debit cards with $10,000.

So, it's not just about medical care.

Um, the the the Democrats mention the medical care because they're they're trying to prey on people's empathy as much as possible and then they imagine, oh wow, somebody has a desperately needed medical procedure and um shouldn't we maybe do, you know, take care of them in that regard, but but they what they do is they divert the Medicaid funds uh uh and turn it into a slush fund for the for the states that goes well beyond uh emergency medical care.

and >> New York and California would be bankrupt without uh without the massive fraudulent federal payments that go to those states to pay for illegals to to to create a massive financial incentive for for illegals. >> How would they be bankrupt because of that?

>> Uh they wouldn't be able to balance their state budgets and they can't issue currency like the Federal Reserve can >> and so the their ability to balance budget is dependent upon illegals getting funding. the the the scam level here is is so staggering. Um so there are there are hundreds of billions of dollars in of of transfer payments from from the federal government to the states.

Um those transfer payments uh the the states self-report what those transfer payment numbers should be. So, California and New York and Illinois lie like crazy uh and say and and say that this these are all legitimate payments. Well, these days they I think they they're even admitting that they they literally want uh hundreds of billions of dollars for illegals. Um but uh but for a while there they're trying to deny it.

Um so you get these transfer payments for for every every government program you can possibly think of. Um and and and these are self-reported by the state and there and and at least historically there was no enforcement of uh of California um New York, Illinois and and and other states when when they would lie. There was no actual enforcement to say like, "Hey, you you're lying. These these these payments are fraudulent."

Now, under the Trump administration, um that Trump administration does not want to send hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud fraudulent payments to the states.

the um and the reason you have this the standoff is because if the hundreds hundreds of billions of dollars uh to create a financial incentive to like to have this giant magnet to attract illegals from every part of earth to uh to these states if if that is turned off they the the illegals will leave because they're no longer being paid to come to the United States and stay here. Wow. And then then then they will lose a lot of voters.

The the the Democratic party will lose a lot of voters >> and they would have a very difficult job if this is kicked out of reintroducing it into a new bill. >> Yes. >> Especially once things start normalizing. >> Yes. So like in a nutshell um the Democratic party wants to destroy democracy by importing voters and the you know the Republican party disagrees with that.

>> And the ruse is that if you don't accept what they're doing then you're a threat to democracy. >> Yes. >> As they try to destroy democracy. >> Yes. >> By importing voters >> and incentivizing people to only vote for them >> and overwhelming the system. Yes. And and by the way, it's a strategy that if allowed to work would work and in fact has worked. Um California supermajority Democrat. >> Yeah.

>> Um and and there's so much gerrymandering that that that occurs. It's it's it's crazy. Um so >> I'm sure you're paying attention to this Proposition 50 thing. >> That's the thing in California where they're trying to re redo districts. >> Yeah. >> Because I mean California is already gerrymandered like crazy. Yeah. >> Um they want to gerrymander it even more. >> Um and and I mean >> because it keeps moving further and further right.

Like if you look at the map of California each voting cycle more and more people are waking up and going what the [ __ ] and we need to do something to fix this. The only option available other than the policies that you guys have always done is go right. >> And so a lot of people have been air air quotes red >> pill. >> Yeah. >> And and and then here's another thing that is very important.

um fact that that is actually not disputed by by either side which is that when when we do the census in the United States, the census, the way the census works uh for aortionment of congressional seats and um electoral electoral college votes for the president is by number of persons in a state, not number of citizens, right? >> It's number of pe people. So you could literally be a tourist and you will count.

>> Now how do they do the census when they do that? Do they is it do they ask people? Do they knock on doors? Do they have them fill out forms? Like what? >> Yeah, I think they they mail out census forms and knock on doors. Um but the way the law reads right now um and and uh is that all if if you are a human with a pulse um uh then you count in the census for allocating congressional seats and presidential votes, >> right?

So, uh, you so >> electoral college, >> it doesn't matter whether you're here legally, illegally, and if if you're a human with a pulse, um, you count for congressional aortionment.

So that means that uh the more people the more illegals that California and New York can can import when by the time the census happens in 2030 um the more congressional seats they will have um and the more electoral the more presidential electoral college votes they will have um so they're trying to get as many uh illegals in as possible ahead of the census.

Um and because all h all all human beings even tourists count for the census and and then if you combine that with gerrymandering of of districts in New York and California as you point out with this proposition where they're trying to increase the amount of gerrymandering that occurs in California, the biggest state in the country.

Um so so you get so so if the this if this the census then would award more congressional seats to California uh because of a vast number of illegals and New York and Illinois. Um so they get more congressional seats. They would get more presidential electoral college votes getting that would get them the house the uh a majority in the house and and and they would get to decide who is president uh based literally based on legals.

This is these are not disputed facts by either party. I want to emphasize that that's sink in. >> Yeah, this is not a >> These are not disputed facts by either party. It's not a this these are just this is just the the way the law works. It it's it is a you know like I don't think the law should work that way. Uh I think it should the aortionment should be proportionate to to to citizens.

>> But isn't that a problem with how the constitution is written? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Um, >> they can't really change that. >> I I'm not sure if it's constitutional or u but it it it is the way the law is written. I'm not sure if it's in the constitution or not in this way, but um but it is that is the way the law is written.

>> So, it is an incentive and but it's an incentive that would be removed with something simple that makes sense to everybody that only the people that should count are people that are official US citizens. >> Yes. So, the way the way it should work is that only US citizens should count in the census for purposes of of determining voting power >> because people that aren't legal can't vote supposedly. >> They're not supposed to be voting.

Um but but they do. Um uh but but even even if even besides that, like said, I I I just can't emphasize this enough because this is a very important concept for people to understand. um is that the law um the the law as it stands um counts all humans with a pulse in in in in a state for deciding how many u house of representative votes and how many presidential electoral college votes uh a a state gets.

So the incentive therefore is uh to uh for California, New York and Illinois to maximize the number of illegals so they get so they get um so that they take house seats away from red states assign them to California, New York, Illinois and so forth. Um then then you combine that with extreme gerrymandering in in you know California, New York, Illinois and and whatnot.

So that that basically you you can't even elect any Republicans and then they get control of the presidency, control of the house, then they keep doing that strategy um and and cement a supermajority. That is what they're trying to do. >> So that would essentially turn the entire country into California. >> Yes. >> Where you have differing opinions, but it doesn't matter because one party is always in control. >> Yes.

Um, >> when you first started digging into this, when you first started before you even accepted this role of running Doge and being a part of all that, did you have any idea that it was this [ __ ] up? >> Um, I I did. Yeah. I I mean, I sort of >> When did you start knowing? >> Um, I guess about like Well, about two years ago. >> Isn't that crazy? >> Yeah. like relatively recently, you know.

So >> maybe I started I started having an well I I started like basically having a bad feeling about 3 years ago, which is why which was which is when >> uh why I felt it was like critical to acquire Twitter um and have a maximally truth seeeking platform, not one that suppresses the truth. Um and um like it it was more it was more like I like I'm not sure what's going on, but I have a I have a bad feeling about what's going on.

And then the more I dug into it, the more I was like, "Holy [ __ ] we got a real problem here and America's going to fall." So, uh, >> without anyone knowing it had fallen, that's that would be the problem. It could have fallen and been unrepable without anyone really being aware of what had happened, especially if you didn't buy Twitter. >> Yes, that's that's it. Look, buying Twitter was a a huge pain in the ass.

Um, and made me a a a a pin cushion of attacks. Like dab dab stab dab dab. >> Everybody loved you before that. >> Well, some people love >> a lot of people loved you. A lot of lefties loved you. >> Uh, I I was a hero of the left. As far as >> the thing, if you drove a Tesla, it showed that you were environmentally conscious and you were on the right side. >> Uh, yeah. Um, yeah. I mean, I'm still the same human.

I didn't like have a brain transplant between, you know, since in like three years ago, you know. Um >> Well, that's my favorite bumper sticker that people put on Teslas now. I bought this before Elon went crazy. >> I took a picture of one the other day. Oh, you found somebody. Oh, yeah. I've seen I've seen three or four of them. People that have these bumper stickers on their car that says, "I bought this before Elon went crazy."

Because when people were vandalizing Teslas >> Yeah. Um the most there was organized campaign to literally burn down Teslas and and we had one of our dealers got shot up with a gun like they fired bullets into the in the Tesla dealership. They're burning down cars. Uh it was crazy. Um uh so but the bumper sticker should read there should be an an addendum to the bumper sticker. It's like I bought this car before uh Elon turned crazy.

Actually, now I realize he's not crazy and I've seen the light. [laughter] >> That'll take some time. That'll take some time. People don't want to admit that they've been tricked. >> Yeah. I mean, there's that old saying where it's like it's really easy to fool somebody, but it's almost impossible to convince someone that they were fooled. >> Yeah. It's much easier to fool them than to convince them they've been fooled.

People cling to their ideas. >> Yes. They especially if they've like publicly stated these things, they get very embarrassed of being foolish. >> Yeah. People most time they double down. >> Um and uh >> and they find echo chambers. >> Yeah. Yeah. But but there's you know the thing is that like I you know I've seen more and more people who were convinced of the sort of work ideology um see the light. >> Yeah.

So, not everyone, but it's more and more um are seeing the light. Um and and it tends to happen like when when something happens that really, you know, directly affects you, >> right? >> Um you like there was a friend of mine who uh was living in in the San Francisco Bay area and um that tried to trans his his his daughter um did like to the point where the the school like sent sent the police to his house to take his daughter away from him.

Now, now that's going to radicalize you. Well, that's going to break that's going to shake you out of your blue structure. Um, now I know, >> so it was an activist at the school that was trying to do this. >> Yeah, the school and the and the state of California conspired to turn his daughter against him and uh make her take uh lifealtering drugs that would have sterilized her um and uh irreversible. >> And how old was she?

I think 14, something like that. Um, so and but he he managed to talk the police out of taking his daughter away from him that day. Um, and that that night he got on a plane to Texas. >> Wow. Um and uh like you know a year after just being in in a in a school in like greater Austin area um she she went she came went back to normal meaning like it it wasn't real >> right >> um well people are being much more open to that now.

I mean Wall Street Journal uh yesterday had that opinion piece that this whole trans thing there's a lot of evidence is a social contagion. Absolutely. >> And Colin Wright wrote that. And then he's getting death threats now, of course. And on Blue Sky, there's people talking about exterminating him, which is one thing that you are allowed to say on Blue Sky, apparently.

>> You're you're allowed to say horrible things about people saying possibly truthful things about this whole social contagion. Cuz that's what when you get nine kids that are in a friend group and they all decide to turn trans together. Yeah. >> Something's wrong. That's not statistically >> Yeah. Like here's the like you can convince kids to do anything. You can convince kids to be a suicide bomber, >> right?

>> So >> which is why they do with in in some countries why they choose children to do that. >> Yes. You can train kids to be suicide bombers. And if you can train kids to be su suicide bombers, you can convince them of anything. >> Yeah. Especially with enough positive enforcement and cultural enforcement and you >> and and the idea that that that's not the case. >> Kids kids are kids are um malleable. The minds of youth are easily corrupted.

>> You're also seeing a lot of push back from gay and lesbian people that are saying like, "Hey, if someone >> stop including me in Yeah. Exactly. the LGBT, you know, it's like, wait a second, why are we being included all the time in this situation?" >> Exactly. Exactly.

When especially when, you know, like my friend Tim Dylan's talked about this is like it's really homophobic because you're taking these gay kids and you're you're telling them like, "Hey, you're not gay. You're actually a girl." >> Yes. and you know, hey, hey, go make it so that you can never have an orgasm again and you'll be happy.

>> Like, >> yeah, >> [ __ ] permanent mutilation, permanent castration of of kids is like I I think >> I I we should look look at at uh anyone who permanently castrates a kid as like right up there with Ysef Mangler. >> Yeah. >> I mean, they're they're mutilating children. >> Yeah. Yeah. And um it's thought of as being kind. And the thing is, would you rather have a live daughter or a dead son? >> That's that's the that's the line they use.

>> Yeah. Which is not supported by any data. >> No. In fact, the the probability of suicide increases. >> Right. >> This is important maybe for the audience to know. Uh the probability of suicide increases if you're transit kid, not decreases. >> By some accounts, it triples. So that that is an evil lie. And it's a lie that is supposedly compassionate.

Imagine you've twisted reality to the point where confusing a child that's not even legally allowed to get a [ __ ] tattoo. >> Yeah. >> Right. Because you think that you could make a mistake with a tattoo, a totally removable thing, >> right? >> If I wanted to, tomorrow I can go to a doctor and they could laser off every tattoo that I have on me. >> Right. >> Okay. No harm, no foul. Yeah. But you get sterilized like that's it forever. Forever.

Yes, >> they'll castrate you. You no longer have testicles. You have no penis. You have a hole where your penis used to be. >> Yes. >> And this is compassionate and this is preventing you from >> Actually, a lot of kids die uh in in with the these uh sex change operations. They die the number of deaths on the operating table. People don't hear about those.

A lot of kids because that we it's we don't really actually have the technology to make this work. So a bunch of the times the kids just die in the sex change operations. >> Jesus Christ. >> Yeah. It's it's demented which it should be viewed as like you know um like like evil Nazi doctor stuff basically. That's why it was like real Nazi not the [ __ ] fake Nazi stuff.

>> Crazy that even pushing back against something that seems like fundamentally logically very easy to argue the old Twitter would ban you forever. Uh, yes. >> That's how crazy a social contagion can get when it completely defies logic, victimizes children, does something that makes no sense, does not supported by data, all connected to this ideology that trans is good. We got to save trans kids, protect trans kids. >> Yeah.

And what I want to emphasize is that the the save trans kids thing is a lie. Um if if you if you if you castrate kids and trans them the probability of suicide increases. It does not decrease. It substantially increases. Um the the the studies have done that I've seen the the risk of suicide triples if you trans kids. So you're not saving them, you're killing them.

Moreover, during the sex change operation, there are many deaths that occur during the sex change operation. >> Jesus Christ. It's just crazy that this is a real issue. >> Yeah, it it's a nightmare fever dream and and people are finally waking up from it.

Now, when you started getting into the Doge stuff and started finding how much money is being shuffled around and moved around to NOS's and how much money is involved and just totally untraceable funds like this is again something like two years plus ago you weren't aware of it all. >> No, I was aware of it. Um I just didn't realize how how the how big it was. just just just how much waste and forward there is in the government is truly vast.

Um in fact the government didn't even know um and nor did they care. >> That's crazy. >> Yeah. >> And >> I mean just like some of the very basic stuff that Doge did um will have lasting effects. Um and some of these things like they're so elementary you can't believe it. So, um the the doge team got the um you know the the mo most of the main payments computers um to require uh the the congressional appropriation code.

So, when a payment is made, you have to actually enter the congressional appropriation card. That used to be optional and and often would be just left blank. So, the money would just go out, but it wasn't even tied to a congressional appropriation. Then they also Dutch team also made the uh comment field for the payment mandatory. So you have to say something. We're not saying that what what is said like you can say anything.

You you your cat could run across the keyboard. Uh you could go querty ASDF but you have to say something above nothing because what we found was that there were tens of billions maybe hundreds of billions of dollars that were zombie payments.

So there like somebody had approved a payment uh uh somebody in the government approved a payment um and uh some recurring payment and um they retired or died or changed jobs and no one turned the money off.

So the money would just keep going out and and it's a pretty rare >> go where >> to to the a company or an individual um and it's a pretty rare company or individual who will complain that they're getting money that they should not get and and a bunch of the money was just going to the were transfer payments to the states. >> So these are automatic payments there no accounting for them at all.

>> I imagine like like there's an automatic debit of your credit card >> um and you don't you never look at the statement, >> right? Um, so it's just money going out. Uh, that's why I call them zombie payments. Um, that there might have been they might have been legitimate at one point, but the person who approved that recurring payment um, changed jobs, died, retired, or whatever, and no one ever turned the money off.

And my guess is that's probably at least a hundred billion a year, maybe 200. and going where >> uh to to uh uh I mean there there are millions of these payments. So so it's I mean >> millions >> uh yes >> millions of payments that are going to who knows where. >> Yes. In a bunch of cases there are fraud rings that operate uh professional fraud rings that operate to exploit the system.

um they figure out some security hole in the system and they just do professional fraud. Um and um you know that's where we found for example people who were you know 300 years old in the social security administration database.

Now, I thought that this was uh a mistake of not registering their deaths that people were born like a long time ago and it had defaulted to like a certain number and so that after time those people were still in the system. It was just an error of the the way the accounting was done. >> Yeah. So, um that's not true. So, there's or or at least one of two things must be true.

um the there's a there's a typo or or some mistake in the computer or it's fraudulent, but we don't have any 300-year-old vampires uh living in America. >> Allegedly. >> Allegedly. Um and uh or or and we don't have people in some cases who's who are receiving payments who are born in the future. [laughter] >> Born in the future. >> Really? >> Yes.

there the people receiving payments whose birth date uh um was like in 2100 and something >> okay so there's >> like next century >> is there a task >> we know we know that one of two things must be true um that that that either there's a mistake in the computer or it's fraud but if you have someone's birth date that's either in the future or where they are older than the oldest living American because the oldest living American is 114 years old so if they're more than 114 years um there is either a mistake and someone should should call them and say I I think we have your birthday uh wrong because it says you were born in 17 you know 8086 um and um you know that was before you know um you know before there was really an America you know it was it was

like uh you know kind of early you know we're still fighting England type of thing uh [laughter] you It's like uh this person either needs to be in the Guinness Book of World Records or or they're not alive, >> but still at the end of the day, money is going towards that account that's connected to this person that is either non-existent or >> so like like Yeah.

So there was like uh I think um something like I don't know 20 million uh people in the Social Security Administration database that could not possibly be alive um if their birth date is like based on their birth date they could not possibly be alive. >> And then to be clear 20 million people that were receiving funds >> uh a bunch of most of them were not receiving funds. Some of them were receiving funds. Most were not receiving funds.

But so let me tell you how the scam works. It's it's a bank shot. So the Social Security Administration database is used as the source of truth by all the other databases that the government uses.

So even if they stop the payments on the Social Security Administration database like unemployment insurance, Small Business Administration, student loans all check the Social Security Administration database to say is this is this a legitimate alived person? And uh and if the social security database will say yes, this person is still alive even though they're 200 years old.

Um but forgets to mention that they're 200 years old, it just says it just returns uh uh when when the computer is queries, it says yes, this person is alive. And so then they're able to exploit the entire rest of the government ecosystem. So fake then you get fake student loans, then you get fake unemployment insurance, then you get fake medical payments.

And this doesn't have to be tied to an individual where where there's an address where you can check on this person. >> No, if you did do if just did any check at all, you would stop this. >> So, so, so that's that that that's so so >> And how much money do you think is >> any check like anything at all that would stop would stop the forward like any effort at all? >> Um, yeah. >> So, there's multiple layers.

the social security number verifies that this is a real person and then the other systems check every other government payment and every other government payment system for everything for like small small business administration uh student loans uh Medicaid Medicare uh every other government payment of which there are many there there actually hundreds of government payment systems uh can all be exploited so long as social security database says this person is alive that's the nature of the scam It's a bank shot.

So then the then the rebuttal from the Dems is like, oh well the vast majority of the people who are marked as alive in the Social Security Administration weren't receiving Social Security Administration payments. That is true. What they forgot to mention is they're getting fraudulent payments from every other government program.

And that's why the the DMs were so opposed to turning off to to declaring someone dead who was dead because it would stop the entire other all the other fraud from happening. And so, but all this is it trackable like all this other fraud. >> If they wanted to, they could chase it all down. >> Yeah. It's not even hard. >> And yet they're opposing chasing it all down.

>> They're opposing chasing it all down because it would it turns off the money magnet for the illegals. Wow. Because it's very logical to to like like I'm saying the most common sense things possible.

If someone's got uh a birthday in social security that is an impossible birthday, meaning they are older than the oldest living American or were born in the future, then you should call them and say, "Excuse me, we seem to have your birthday wrong." Uh because it says that you're 200 years old. That's all you need to do.

Um, and >> and then you would remove them from the social security database and make that number no longer available for all those other government payments. >> Exactly. >> Wow. And how much money are we talking? >> It's hund hundreds of billions of dollars. >> And this is all traceable. Like you could hunt all >> like you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes here is what I'm saying. >> Well, this we don't need to call Sherlock Holmes for this one.

Is this part of >> you just need to call the person >> and and say, "Excuse me, we either we we seem to have the [laughter] like we we we must have your birthday wrong because it says you're 200 years old or were born uh in the future. Um so could you tell us what your birthday is? That's all you need to do. It's it's that simple."

But the all these other government payments that are available that are connected to this social security number, it seems like if you just chased that all down, Yeah. >> you would find the widespread fraud. You would find where it's going. >> Yes. The but the root of the problem is the social security administration database because um the social security number in the United States is used as a deacto national ID number.

You know that's why like the bank always asks for your social like the you know any financial institution will ask for your social security number. >> This is it sounds so insane that this isn't chased down. I mean >> I agree >> that I mean I mean that in and of itself is that's such mishandling. >> Yes. No it's mind-blowing. Um, so yeah, it's crazy.

>> Well, you were very reluctant last time you were here to talk about the extent of some of the fraud because you're like, they could kill me because this is kind of >> Oh, what? Yeah. What I was saying is that um the like if you create if like uh I like like to be pragmatic and realistic um you actually can't manage to zero fraud. you can manage to low fraud number but not to zero fraud.

If you manage to zero fraud, um you you you're going to push so many people over the edge who are receiving fraudulent payments that the number of inbound homicidal maniacs will be uh really hard to overcome. So I I'm I'm actually taking I think quite a reasonable position which is that we should simply reduce the amount of fraud which I think is not an extremist position. Um, and we should aspire to, you know, have less fraud over time.

Um, not that we should be ultra draconian and eliminate every last scrap of fraud. Um, which I guess would be nice to have, but but like we don't even need to go that extreme. I'm I'm saying we should just stop the blatant large scale super obvious fraud. >> I think that's a reasonable position. >> It's a very reasonable position. Yeah. And so what was the most shocking push back that you got when you started implementing Doge?

When you started investigating into where money was going? Well, um I guess it this was I should have anticipated this, but um while most of the fraudulent government payments to especially to the NOS's go to the Democrats, most of it like I don't know for argument sake let's say 80% maybe 90%. Um um 10 to 20% of it does go to Republicans.

And so when we'd turn off funding to a fraudulent NGO, we'd get complaints from whatever the 10% of Republicans who were receiving uh the money and and they would, you know, they would very loudly complain. Um because the the honest answer is the Republicans are are partly they're receiving some of the fraud, too. They're getting a big >> Jesus. Yeah, it's I want to be clear.

It's it's not like the Republican party is some um ultra pure paragon of virtue here. >> No. >> Okay. Um >> well, you see that with the congressional insider training. It's across the board. >> Yeah. >> It's left and right. >> I mean, the whole uni party criticism has some validity to it.

you know, there's so um and it's it's like if you turn off fraudulent payments, it's not like like I say, it's not like 100% of those payments were going to Democrats. A a small percentage were also going to Republicans. Those Republicans complained very loudly.

Um and um you know and and that's that's so there was a lot of push back on the Republican side for when we started cutting some of these these funds and I tried telling them like well you know 90% of the money is going to your opponents but they still if they even if they're getting 10% of >> they want their peace. >> Yeah. They want their peace >> and they've been getting that peace for a long time. >> Yes.

Did you see >> this is why like you know politics is like >> it's dirty business. >> Yeah. I mean that's like saying if like you know if if you if you like sausages and respect the law do not watch either of them being being made [laughter] >> yeah. Wow. Well that's not even true because I've made sausage before. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's actually like it's not that big a deal. Yeah. fat and spices and casing, >> run it through the machine.

Not that big a deal. >> Yeah. Um but uh yeah, I mean I I think the stuff I'm saying here is not uh like like if if you stand back and think about it for a second like oh yeah that that makes sense, you know. >> Um the it's it's not like um it's not like one political party is going to be um you know pure devil or pure angel.

There's, you know, I think there's there's there there's there's much more corruption on the Democrat side, but it's not there's not there's still some corruption on the Republican side. >> How did it happen that the majority of the corruption wound up being on the Democrat side? >> Well, because the the the transfer payments, especially to illegals, um, uh, are very much on the Democrat side.

>> That so that's the root of it all is the illegal situation. >> Yes. I mean, there's >> or a focal point. >> Yes. It's it's also like it's it's um it's it would also be accurate to say that while obviously not everyone who is a Democrat is a criminal, almost everyone who is a criminal is a Democrat [laughter] because because the Democrats are the soft crime party. So if you're a criminal, who you going to vote for? >> Right. Right.

>> The soft crime party. Did you think you were going to be able to get more done than you were? >> Um, we did get a lot done, >> right? >> Um, and Doge is still still still happening, by the way. Um, this the the Doge is still underway. There are still there are still um there's still waste and fraud being being cut by by the Doge team. So, it hasn't stopped. Um, the >> it's less publicized. >> It's less publicized.

Um, and they don't have like a clear person to attack anymore. >> Well, it seems like they basically they they applied immense pressure to me to just to stop it. So then I'm like the best thing for me is to just, you know, cut out of this. In any case, as a special government employee, I could only be there for like 120 days anyway, something like that. So whatever the law says.

So I I could I I I was necessarily could only be there for 4 months uh as a special government employee. So, um um but uh yeah, I mean I mean you turn off the money spigot to to fraudsters, they get very upset to say the least. Um and um but my like my death threat level went uh ballistic, you know, was like a like a rocket going to orbit. Um yeah.

Um, so but now that now now now that I'm not in DC that that that I guess they don't really have a person to attack uh anymore. >> Um, >> well the rhetoric about you has calmed down significantly. >> Yeah, >> it was disturbing. It was disturbing to watch. It was like this is crazy. >> And to watch these politicians engage in it and all these people just like framing you as this monster. I was like this is so weird.

Like this is what happens when you uncover fraud. >> Yes. >> The whole machine turns on you. And if it wasn't for a person like you who owns a platform and has an enormous amount of money, like could have destroyed you. >> Yeah. >> And that was the goal. >> The goal was to destroy me. Absolutely. >> Because you were getting in the way >> of this amazing graft. >> The the this gigantic fraud machine. >> Yeah.

>> Um like I think I think Doge team's on done a lot of good work. Um, you know, and in in terms of uh fraud and waste prevented, my guess is it's, you know, probably on the order of two or 300 billion a year. So, it's pretty good. >> What do you think could have been done if you just had like full reign and total cooperation? How much do you think you could have saved? >> I mean, what level of of power are we assuming here? >> Godlike.

>> Oh, yeah. I probably cut the federal budget in half and get more done. That is so crazy. It is so crazy that get more done and federal budget widespread. It's that widespread. >> Well, I mean a whole bunch of government departments simply shouldn't exist in my opinion.

um they they um you know um >> like examples >> well the department of ed department of education which was created uh recently like under Jimmy Carter um uh the our educational results have uh gone uh downhill ever since it was created.

So if you if you create a department and the result of creating that department is a massive decline in educational results and it's department of education, you're better off not having it because we're literally we were did better before there was one than after >> when you let the states run it. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Because at least the states can compete with one another. Um so but the problem is like here like cutting department education.

our kids need education. Yeah, they do. But but this is a new department that didn't even exist um you know until late the late 70s. Um and ever since that department was created, the results educational results have declined. And so why would you have an institution continue that has made education worse? It doesn't make sense. >> They killed it though, right? No, there still unfortunately >> but they were trying to kill it.

>> It has been substantially reduced. >> Okay. >> Um >> what other organizations what other departments? >> Well, I mean I'm a small government guy. So um you know when when the you know when the country was created we just we we just had the department of state, department of war um you know and and uh sort of the sort of the department of justice. We had an attorney general uh and Treasury Department.

Um I don't know why you need more than that. >> So what other departments specifically do you think are just completely ineffective? >> Well, I mean here it's like a question. It's a sort of philosophical question of how much government do you think there should be? >> Right. >> Um in my opinion, there should be uh the least amount of government.

I've heard the most bizarre argument against this is that you're cutting jobs and you're gonna leave people jobless. And I'm like, but their jobs are useless. >> Yeah. Paying people to do nothing doesn't make sense. Um like there's a like a a great um a story about like Milton Friedman who is awesome. Um uh what like generally whatever Milton Friedman said is you know people should should do that thing.

Uh I'm not sure if it's apocryphal or not, but um like like someone complained to him like he he he observed I think people that were like um digging ditches with uh you know with with um shovels and um and he said well like allegedly Freeman said, "Well, I think I think you should use you know um excavating equipment instead of shovels and you could get it done with far fewer people."

And then and then someone said, "But then we're going to lose a lot of jobs." Well, in that then Freedom says, "Well, in that case, why don't you have them use teaspoons?" [laughter] Just just dig ditches with teaspoons. Think of all the jobs you'll create. >> I mean, [laughter] it's [ __ ] Basically, you just want people to work on on things that are that are productive.

You want people to work on on building things um on building you know uh providing products and services that people find valuable um like you know making food um being you know being a farmer or a plumber or electrician or just anyone who's a builder or providing useful services. Um and um that's what you want people to be doing. um not fake government jobs uh that that that don't add any value or may subtract value.

Um um there's also like you know uh to illustrate the absurdity of also how is the e how is the economy measured like the the way economists measure the economy is is is nonsensical uh because they'll measure any job no matter even if that job is a dumb job that has no point and is even counterproductive.

So like, so the like the joke is like there's two economists going on a hike in the woods and [laughter] they come across a pile of [ __ ] and one economist says to the other, "I'll pay you $100 to eat eat that [laughter] shit." The economist eats the [ __ ] gets the $100. They they keep walking. Then the other econ then come across another pile of [ __ ] And and the the other economist says, "Now I'll pay you $100 to eat the pile of shit."

>> [laughter] >> say pays the so pays the other economist $100 pile of [ __ ] Then they then then then the way said they said like wait a second um we both just ate a pile of [ __ ] and we're no and and and and we're we're no we we we we don't have any more extra money like like we both you just gave the $100 back to me and we both ate a pile of [ __ ] This doesn't make any sense.

And they said, "No, no, but think of the economy because that's $200 of that in the economy that that basically [laughter] measure eating eating [ __ ] would count as a as as a as a job. [laughter] This is this is this is to illustrate the absurdity of of of economics. >> One of the things you said when [laughter] things should not count as a job."

One of the things you said when you stepped away is that you're kind of done and that it's unfixable. That um well or under its current form the way people are approaching it you can you can make it directionally better but ultimately you can't uh fully fix the system.

Um, so, uh, I I I like like like like it it it is it is it would be accurate to say that even like like unless you could go like super draconian like you know Gangghaskhan level on on on cutting waste waste and fraud which you can't really do in a democratic country um an aspirationally democratic country then um there's no way to solve the the the debt crisis.

So, we got we got national debt that's just insane where the debt payments the interest payments on the debt exceed our entire military budget. I mean, that's one that was one of the wakeup calls for me. I was like, "Wait a second. The interest on a national debt is bigger than the entire the entire military budget um and growing. Um this is crazy.

Um so um so so even if you implement all these savings, you're only delaying the day of reckoning for when America becomes goes bankrupt. So unless you go full Genghaskhan, um which you can't really do. So um so I came to the conclusion that the only way that the only way to get us out of the debt crisis and to prevent America from going bankrupt is AI and robotics.

So, like we need to grow the economy um at at a at a at a rate that allows us to u to pay off our debt. Um and um I I I guess people just generally don't appreciate the degree to which um you know this the the government overspending is is a problem. Um but even like the social security website, this is under the Biden administration.

On the website, it would say like uh we based on on current demographic trends and um you and and and how much money social security is bringing in versus how many social security recipients there are because we have an aging population. Relatively speaking, the average age is is increasing. Social Security will not be able to ma u maintain its full payments u I think in by 2032 there. Okay.

So they will social security will have to stop will start reducing the the amount of money that that's been paid people um in in about seven years. >> And so the only way to fix that robotics manufacturing raise GDP >> you've got to basically uh massively increase the um uh economic output which is and the only way to do that is AI AI and robotics.

So, so basically we're going bankrupt without AI and robotics with even with a bunch of savings um [snorts] the savings the savings like reducing uh waste and forward can give us a longer runway but it cannot ultimately pay off our national debt. >> So what do you think the solution is to the jobs that are going to be lost because of AI and robotics?

The jobs due to automation the jobs due to no longer do we need human beings to do these jobs because AI is doing them. Do you think it's going to be some sort of a universal basic income thing? Do you think there's going to be some other kind of solution that has to be implemented because a lot of people are going to be out of work, right? Um I think there will be um actually a high demand for jobs but not necessarily the same jobs.

So I mean this is actually this process has been happening um throughout um modern history. Um I mean there used to be like like doing calculations um ma manually with with like a pencil and paper. It used to be a job. So they used to have like buildings full of people called computers where the the banks would like all you do all day is is is um you do calculations because they didn't have computers.

They didn't they didn't have digital didn't have digital computers that that people >> Yeah. Well, it was just people would just like add and subtract stuff on piece of paper and and and that that would be how banks would do you know financial processing >> and you'd have to literally go over their equations to make sure the books are balanced. >> Yeah.

And most times it's just simple math like you know the like in a world before computers how did you calculate how did you you do transactions? You had to do them by hand. Um so then when computers were introduced the job of doing um you know bank calculations no longer existed. Um so people had to go do something else.

Um and that's what's going to happen that what's that's what is happening at an accelerated rate um due to AI and and then robotics. That's the issue though, right? The accelerated rate because it's going to be >> it's the accelerator. It's it's it's just happening. Like I said, like AI is the supersonic tsunami. >> So that's what I call it, supersonic tsunami.

Um so >> it's like what other jobs will be available that aren't available now because of AI? >> Um well AI um will is is really still digital. Ultimately, um AI can improve the productivity of of humans who who um build things with their hands or do things with their hands like plum, you know, literally welding, electrical work, plumbing, anything that's that's [snorts] physically moving atoms.

Um like cooking food or um you know farming or or like like anything that's that's physical uh those jobs will exist for a much longer time. But anything that is digital uh which is like just someone at a computer doing something, AI is going to take over those jobs like lightning, >> coding, anything along those lines. Yeah, [snorts] >> it's going to take over those jobs like lightning.

Um just like it just like digital computers took over the job of people doing manual calculations but but much faster. >> So what happens to all those people? Like what kind of numbers are we talking about? you're going to lose most drivers, right? Commercial drivers. You're going to have automated vehicles, AI controlled systems, just like uh there's certain ports in China, I think in Singapore, where everything's completely automated. >> Yeah.

Mostly. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, you're going to lose a lot of those jobs. Long shoreman jobs, trucking, commercial drivers. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we actually do have a shortage of of truck drivers, but there's there's actually um >> Well, that's why California has hired so many illegals to do it. Have you seen those numbers? >> Yeah.

Um I mean, the problem is like when you when people don't know how to drive a semi-truck, which is actually a hard thing to do, then they they crash and kill people. >> Yeah. >> Um a friend of mine's wife was killed by an an illegal driving a truck and she was just out biking. Um and uh there was an illegal he didn't know how to drive the truck or so or something. I mean and he he ran ran her over.

Um so I mean like thing is like for something like you you can't you can't let people drive uh you know sort of an 80,000lb semi um if if they don't know how to do it. But in California, they're just letting people do it >> because they need people to do it. >> Well, they also need they want the votes and that kind of thing. But um but but yeah, like cars are um cars are going to be autonomous.

Um, but there there's just so many desk desk jobs where where really people what people are doing is they're processing email um or they're answering the phone. Um, and and just anything that is that that isn't moving atoms like anything that is not physically like doing physical work that will obviously be the first thing those jobs will be and are being eliminated by by AI at a very rapid pace.

Um um and ultimately I working will be optional uh because you'll have robots plus AI um and we'll have in a benign scenario universal high income not just universal basic income universal high income meaning anyone can have any products or services that they want. So you >> but but there will be a lot of trauma and disruption along the way.

>> So you anticipate a basic income from that that the economy will boost to such an extent that a high income would be available to almost everybody. So we'd essentially eliminate poverty >> um in the benign scenario. Yes. So like the way >> there's multiple scenarios. >> There are multiple scenarios. There's a lot of ways this movie can end.

Um, like the reason I'm so concerned about AI safety is that like one of the possibilities is the Terminator scenario. It's not it's not 0%. Um, so um, that's why it's like I'm like really banging the drum on AI needs to be maximally truth seeeking.

like don't make I don't force AI to believe a lie like that the for example the founding fathers were actually a group of diverse women or that misgendering is worse than nuclear war because you if if that's the case and then you get the robots and the AI becomes omnipotent it can enforce that outcome and then [clears throat] then like unless you're a diverse woman you're you're out of the picture so we're we're toast So that's >> [snorts] >> um or you might wake up as a diverse woman [laughter] one day has adjusted the picture and and we are now >> everyone's a diverse woman.

So that would be that's the the worst possible situation.

So what would be the steps that we would have to take in order to implement the benign solution where it's universal high income like best case scenario this is the path forward to universal high income for essentially every single citizen that the the economy gets boosted by AI and robotics to such an extent that no one ever has to work again and what about meaning for those people which is which gets really weird. >> Yeah.

>> I don't know how to answer the question about meaning. Um >> that's an individual problem, right? But it's going to be an individual problem for millions of people. >> Yeah. Well, I I mean I I I guess I've like for fought against saying like, you know, I you know, I've been I've been a voice saying like, "Hey, we need to slow down AI. we need to slow down all these things. Um, and and we need to, you know, not not have a crazy AI race.

I've been saying that for a long time, for 20 20 plus years. Um, but but then I, you know, I came to realize that, um, really there's two choices here. Either be a spectator or a or a participant. And if I'm a, if I'm a spectator, I can't really influence the direction of AI. But if I'm a participant, I can try to influence the direction of AI and have a maximally truth seeeking AI with with good values that uh loves humanity.

And that's what we're trying to create with Grock at XAI. And um you know, the research is I think bearing this out. Like I said, the when they when they compared like how do AIs value the weight of a human life? Um Grock was the only one the only one of the AIS that weighted human life equally. um and and didn't and didn't say like a white guy's uh worth 120th of a of a of a a black woman's life.

Literally, that's what they they calculation they came up with. >> So, I'm like, this is I'm like, this is very alarming. We should we got to watch this stuff. >> So, this is one of the things that has to happen in order to reach this benign solution. >> Yeah. We we we I I just keep >> Best movie ending. Yeah. Um, you you want a a curious truth seeeking AI. Um, and I think a curious truth seeeking AI will want to foster humanity.

Uh, because we're much more interesting than um a bunch of rocks. Like you say, like like I I love Mars, you know, but but Mars is kind of boring. Like it's just a bunch of red rocks. Um, it does some cool stuff. It's got a tall mountain. It's got, you know, it's got the biggest re the biggest ravine and the tallest mountain. Um, but there's no there's no there's no animals or plants or and and there's no people.

Um, and uh, you know, so humanity is just much more interesting if you're a curious truth seeeking AI than not humanity. It's just much more interesting. Um, I mean like as as humans, we could go for example and and eliminate all chimps. If we said if we put our minds to it, we could say we could go out and we could annihilate all chimps and all gorillas, but but we don't.

Um there has been encroachment on their environment, but we we actually try to preserve uh the the uh chimp and gorilla habitats. Um and um and I think in a good scenario, uh AI would do the same with with humans. it would actually foster uh human civilization and care about human happiness. So this is um this is the thing to to try to achieve I think.

Um, >> but what is the what does the landscape look like if you have Grock competing with Open AI, competing with all these different like how does it work? Like what what if you have AIs that have been captured by ideologies that are side by side competing with Grock?

like how do we so this is one of the reasons why you felt like it's important to not just be a an observer but participate and then have Grock be more successful and more potent than these other applications.

Yes, as long as there's at least one AI that is maximally truth seeeking, curious, and um you know, and for example, weighs all you know, human lives equally um does not favor one race or gender, then um then then that that that and and people are able to look at look at, you know, Grock at XAI and compare that and say, "Wait a second, why are all these other AIs uh being basically sexist and racist?"

Um um and uh then then that that causes some embarrassment for the the other AIS and then they they they they fix they you know they they improve they tend to improve just in the in the same way that um acquiring Twitter and allowing the truth to be told and and not suppressing the truth um forced the other social media companies to be more truthful um by in in the same way having um Gro be a maximally truth seeeking, curious AI is will force the other AI companies to um be also be more truth seeeking and fair.

>> And the funniest thing is even though like the socialists and the Marxists are in opposition to a lot of your ideas, but if this gets implemented and you really can achieve universal high income, that's the greatest socialist solution of all time. Like literally no one will have to work. Uh correct.

Um like I said so so there is a benign scenario here which I think probably people will be happy with if if as long as we we achieve it which is sustainable abundance.

um which is if if um if everyone can have every like like like if if you ask people like what's the future that you want >> um and uh I think a future where we haven't destroyed nature like you can still we have the national parks we have the the Amazon rainforest still still there we haven't paved we haven't paved the paved the rainforest like the natural beauty is still there but but people have nonetheless everyone has abundance everyone has excellent medical care.

Everyone has whatever goods and services they want. >> And we just >> It kind of sounds like heaven. >> It sounds like it is like the ideal socialist utopia. And this idea that the only thing you should be doing with your time is working in order to pay your bills and feed yourself sounds kind of archaic considering the kind of technology that's at play. >> Yeah. >> Like a world where that's not your concern at all anymore.

Everybody has money for food. Everybody has abundance. Everybody has electronics in their home. Everybody essentially has a high income. Now you can kind of do whatever you want. And your day can now be exploring your interests doing things that you actually enjoy doing. Your purpose just has to shift. Instead of, you know, I'm a hard worker and this is what I do and that's how I that's how I define myself. No.

Now you can [ __ ] golf all day, you know? You can whatever it is that you enjoy doing can now be your main pursuit. >> Yeah. >> Well, that sounds crazy good. >> Yeah, that's that's that's the benign scenario that we should be. >> The best ending to the movie is actually pretty good. >> Yes.

um like I think there's there is still this question of meaning um of like making sure people don't uh lose meaning you know like um so hopefully they can find meaning in ways that are not that that's not derived from their work >> and purpose purpose for things that you you know find things that you do that you enjoy but there's a lot of people that are independently wealthy that spend most of their time doing something they enjoy >> right >> and that could be the majority of people >> pretty much everyone.

>> But we'd have to rewire how people approach life. >> Mhm. >> Which seems to be like acceptable because you're not asking them to be enslaved. You're exactly asking them the opposite. Like no longer be burdened by financial worries. Now go do what you like. >> Yes. >> Go [ __ ] test pizza. >> Do whatever you want. >> Um pretty much. Um, so that's uh that's that's the that's the that's probably the best case outcome.

>> That sounds like the best case outcome period for the future. If you're looking at like how much people have struggled just to feed themselves all throughout history, food, shelter, safety, if all of that stuff can be fixed, like how much would you solve a lot of the crime if there was a universal high income? Just think of that. Like how much of crime is financially motivated?

You know, the greater percentage of people that are committing crimes live in poor, disenfranchised neighborhoods. >> So if there's no such thing anymore, if you really can achieve universal high income, >> yeah, >> that this is it sounds like a utopian. >> Yes. Um I think some people may commit crime because they like committing crime. It just some some amount of that is they just >> wild people out there. >> Yeah. Yeah.

Um >> and obviously they've become 40 years old living a life like that. Now all of a sudden universal high income is not going to completely stop their instincts. >> Yeah. Um I mean I guess if you want to have like like say read a science fiction book or some books that that are probably an accurate or or the the least inaccurate version of the future. I'd say I' I'd recommend um the Ian Banks books called the the culture books.

It's not actually a series. It's a It's like ai sci-fi books about the future. They're generally called the culture books. Yen Banks culture books. It's worth reading those. >> When did he write these? >> He started writing them in the 70s. Um and I think he um the last one I think he was I think it was written just like around I don't know maybe 2010 or something. I'm not sure exactly. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Scottish author Ian Banks from 87 to 2012.

>> Yeah. Interesting. >> But he but like he wrote the the like his first book, Consider Flever. Like he started writing that in the 70s. >> These books are incredible, by the way. >> Oh, >> incredible books. >> 4. 6 stars on Amazon. >> Interesting. >> So, um, >> so this gives me hope. >> Uh, yeah. Yeah. >> This is the first time I've ever thought about it this way. >> Yeah.

Well, I mean, if like I often ask people, "What is the future that you want?" And they have to think about it for a second cuz, you know, they're usually tied up in whatever the daily struggles are. But, but you say, "What is the future that you want?" Um, and um, and generally sustainable abundance, what do these folks say, "What about a future where there's sustainable abundance?" Like, "Oh, yeah, that's a pretty good future."

Um so um you know if if and and and that that future is attainable with AI and robotics um but but you know it's it's like I said there's not every path is a good path.

uh there's this it's but I think if we if we push it in the direction of um maximally truth seeeking and curious then I think AI will want to take to to take care of humanity and foster uh foster humanity um because we're interesting um and if it hasn't been programmed to think that like all straight white male should die, [laughter] which Gemini was basically programmed to do at least at first. Um, you know, they seem to have fixed it.

I hope they fixed it. >> But don't you think culturally [laughter] like, oh, we're getting away from that mindset and that people realize how preposterous that all is. >> We are getting away from it. Um, so, uh, we are getting at least it knows the AI mostly knows to hide things.

But like like I said, there is that I I think I still have that as or I had that as my like pinned post on X which was like uh hey wait a second guys we still have every AI except Grock uh is saying that uh basically straight white male should die um and this is a problem and we should fix it. um [snorts] and you know but simply me saying that is like tends to generally result in um you know them like that is kind of bad.

Uh maybe we should just we should not have all straight white males die. Um I think they say also all all straight Asian males should also die as well. like that like uh like generally [laughter] the generally the AI and the and the media which which back back in the day the the media was um you know racist against uh black people and sexist against women back in the day.

Now now it is racist against uh white people and Asians and sexist against men. >> Um so they just like being racist and sexist. I think they just want to change the target. [laughter] Um so uh but but really they just shouldn't be uh racist and sexist at all. Um you know >> ideally that would be nice. >> That would be nice.

Um, and it's kind of crazy that we were kind of moving in that general direction till around 2012 >> and then everything ramped up online and and everybody was accused of being a Nazi and everybody was transphobic and racist and sexist and homophobic and everything got exaggerated to the point where it was this wild witch hunt where everyone was a colomo looking for racism. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Totally.

Um, well well but but but they they were openly anti-white and often openly anti-Asian. And then this new sentiment that you cannot be racist against white people cuz racism is power and influence. >> Okay. No, it's not. >> Yeah. Racism is is is racism in the absolute. Um so um you know and there just needs to be consistency. So if it's okay to have uh let's say uh black or Asian or Indian or pride, it should be okay to have white pride, too.

>> Yeah. Um, so that's just a that's just a consistency question. Um, so, uh, you know, um, if it if it's okay to be proud of one religion, it should be okay to be proud of, I I guess all religions provided they're that they're they're not like oppressive. >> Yeah. Or or or don't like as long as part of that religion is not like exterminating uh people who are not in that religion type, >> right? Um so uh it's really just like a consistency bias.

Um or or just like uh ensuring consistency to eliminate uh bias. Um so if it is possible to be uh racist against uh one race, it is possible to be racist against any race. Um so >> of course logically. >> Yes. >> Yeah. and arguing against that is that's when you know you're catching >> it's a it's a logical inconsistency that makes AIS go insane >> and people [clears throat] >> and people go insane. Yes.

>> Um >> but like the the like like you can't simultaneously say um that uh there's the systemic uh racist oppression but also that races don't exist that that race race is a social construct. like which is it? You know, um you also can't say that um you know, anyone who steps foot in America is is automatically an American except for the people that originally came here. [laughter] >> Exactly. Exactly. Except for the colonizers. >> Yeah.

Except for the evil colonizers who came here, >> right? >> So which one is it? Like if you if as soon as you step foot put in a place you are that you are just as American as everyone else >> then um that would have appi if you apply that consistently then the original white settlers were also just as American as everyone else. >> Yeah. Logically. >> Logically.

Um, one more thing that I have to talk to you about before you leave is the rescuing of the people from the space station, which, uh, we talked about, you were planning it the last time you were here. >> Um, the f the lack of coverage that that got in mainstream media was one of the most shocking things that >> Yeah, they totally memoryhold that thing. >> Wild. Yes. Because if it wasn't, >> it's like it didn't exist. Those people would be dead.

They'd be stuck up there. >> Well, they'd they'd probably still be alive, but they'd they'd be having bone density issues uh because of prolonged exposure to zero gravity. >> Well, they were already up there for like 8 months, right? >> Yeah. >> Which is an insanely long time. It takes forever to recover just from that. >> Yeah. They're only supposed to be at the space station for 3 to 6 months maximum.

So, >> one of the things you told me that was so crazy was that you could have gotten them sooner, but >> Yeah. But for political reasons, uh they didn't they did not want uh SpaceX or me to be associated with um returning the astronauts before the election. >> That is so wild that that's a fact. >> First of all, that >> we absolutely could have done it.

Um so, >> but even though you did do it and you did it after the election, it received almost no media coverage anyway. >> Yes. because nothing good can the the the media which is essentially a far left prop the legacy mainstream media is a far-lft propaganda machine. Um and so anything any story that is positive about someone who is not part of the sort of far-left tribe will not uh get any coverage.

>> I I could save a busload of orphans and and it it wouldn't get a single news story. >> Yeah, it's it really is nuts. It it was nuts to watch because even though it was discussed on podcasts and it was discussed on X and it was discussed on social media, it's still it was a blip in the news cycle. It was very quick.

It was in and out and because it was a su successful launch and you did rescue those people, nobody got hurt and there was nothing really to there was no blood to talk about, >> right? >> Just [ __ ] in and out. >> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely.

Well, and and as as you saw firsthand with the Starship launch, like Starship is um you know by you know at least by some some would consider it to be like the most amazing uh you know engineering project that's happening on Earth right now outside of like you know maybe AI or AI and robotics but but certainly in terms of a spectacle to see it is uh the most spectacular thing that is happening on earth right now is the Starship launch program which anyone can go and see if they just go to South Texas and just they can just rent a hotel room low cost in South Padre Island or in Brownsville and you can see the launch and you can drive right right past the factory because it's on a public highway.

Um but it gets no coverage or what coverage it does get was like a rocket blew up coverage, >> right? Yeah. Oh, he's a [ __ ] The rocket blew up. like the the the the Star Sasha program is vastly >> vastly more capable than the entire Apollo moon moon program. Vastly more capable. This is a spaceship that is designed to make life multilanetary to carry uh millions of people across the heavens to another planet.

the the Apollo program could could only send astronauts to the moon for a few hours at a time. Like they could send two the entire Apollo program could only send astronauts to visit the moon very briefly and then for a few hours and then depart. The starship program could create an entire uh lunar base with a million people. You understand the mag the magnitudes are >> there's different very different magnitudes here.

>> So what was the political >> basically no no coverage of it. >> Yeah. But what I wanted to ask you is like what so what were the conversations leading up to the rescue like when you were like I can get them out way quicker. >> Yeah. Um um well I mean you know I raised this a few times but it was the I was told instructions came from the White House that uh you know that that there should be no attempt to rescue before the election.

>> That should be illegal. >> That that that really should be a horrendous miscarriage of justice for those poor people that were stuck on that. >> Um yeah it it is it is crazy. Um, >> have you ever talked to those folks afterwards? Did you have conversations with them? >> Yeah. I mean, they they're they're not going to say anything political to, you know, they're not like they're never going to >> say thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

>> Well, that's nice. >> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. So, um, >> but the instructions came down from the White House. He cannot rescue them because politically this is a a bad hand of cards. >> I mean, they didn't say because politically it's a bad hand of cards. They they just said uh they were they were not interested in uh any rescue operation before the election. >> Yeah. So >> what did that feel like? >> I wasn't surprised. >> But it's crazy.

>> Yeah, >> because Biden could have authorized it and they could have said the the Biden administration is helping bring those people back, throw you a little funding, give you some money to do it. the Biden administration, they funded these people being returned.

>> Uh yeah, the Biden administration was not exactly my best friend, >> especially especially after I um you know, you know, helped Trump get elected get get elected, which I mean some people >> still think, you know, Trump is like the the devil basically. Um, and I mean I think I think Trump actually he's not he's is not perfect, but but uh he's not evil. Trump is not evil.

I spent a lot of time with with him and he's >> I mean he's a product of his time. Uh but he is not he's not evil. >> Um >> no, I don't think he's evil either. But if you look at the media coverage, >> the media the media treason like he's super evil. It's pretty shocking if you look at the amount of negative coverage.

Like one of the things that I looked at the other day was mainstream media coverage of you, Trump, a bunch of different public figures and then >> 96% negative or something crazy >> and then Mum Donnie, which is like 95% positive, >> right? Um I mean Manny is is is is a charismatic swindler. Um I I I mean you got to hand it to him like he he does he can light up a stage. Um but he has just been a swindler his entire life.

Um and um you know and and uh I think he what he's I mean he's likely to win. He's likely to be mayor of New York New York City. >> Very likely. >> Yeah. Very likely. I think Poly Market has it at what what is the >> 94%? >> Yeah, that sounds pretty likely. >> That's crazy. >> Like I'm not sure who the 6% are, you know. >> Um so, so yeah. So that's um >> what's also like who's on the other side?

The [ __ ] guardian angel guy with the beret and Andrew Cuomo [laughter] who doesn't even have a party. Like they the Democrats don't even want him. So you have those two options. Um, >> and then you have the young kids who are like finally socialism. >> Yeah, they they don't know what they're talking about obviously.

Um, so you know, like you just look at this say how many boats come from Cuba to Florida and how many but and how many boats because you know there's like a constant I always think like how many boats are accumulating on the shores of Florida coming from from Cuba, >> right? Um there's a there's a whole bunch of free boats that you could if you want to go take them back to Cuba. It's pretty close. >> Yeah.

>> But for some reason people don't do that. >> Why why why why are the boats only coming in this direction? >> Um >> well who is who are the most rabid capitalists in America? The [ __ ] Cubans. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. They're like we've seen how this story goes. >> We do not want Exactly. >> [ __ ] off. [laughter] Cubans in Miami, they don't want to hear any [ __ ] They don't want to hear any socialism [ __ ] They're like, "No, no, no.

We know what this actually is. This isn't just some [ __ ] dream." >> Yeah. It's extreme government oppression. Um >> that's how it's a nightmare. And like the like an obvious way you can tell which uh which ideology is is the bad one is um who has to which ideology is building a wall to keep people in and prevent them from escaping. >> Right? >> Like so East Berlin built the built the wall not West Berlin, >> right?

>> They built the wall because people were trying to escape from communism to West Berlin. But there wasn't anyone going from West Berlin to East Berlin, >> right? >> That's why the communists had to build a wall to keep people from escaping. >> They're going to have to build a wall around New York City. [laughter] >> Yeah. That So, so that an ideology is problematic.

If that ideology has to build a wall to keep people in with machine guns, >> Yes. >> and shoot you if you try to leave. Also, there's no examples of it being successful ever. We're only working out for people. No, there's examples of a bunch of lies like North Korea. Give this land to the state. We'll be in control of food. No one goes hungry. No.

Now, no one can grow food but the government and we'll tell you exactly what you eat and you eat very little. >> Right. >> Yeah. What? When you say mom Donny's a swindler, I know he has a bunch of fake accents that he used to use. Yeah. >> And you know, but what else has he done that makes him a swindler?

Um well I I guess if you say uh what I mean if if say if you say to any audience whatever that audience wants to hear uh instead of what instead of having a consistent message I would say that that is a swindly thing to do. Um and uh yeah um yeah but but he is he is charismatic. Um >> yeah good-looking guy. Smart, charismatic. >> Yeah. >> Great on a microphone. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

and and what the young people want to see, >> you know, like this ethnic guy who's young and vibrant and has all these socialist ideas align with them and you know, they're bunch of broke dorks just out of college like, "Yay, let's vote for this." And there's a lot of them and they're they're activated. They're motivated. >> Um, >> I guess we'll we'll we'll see what happens here. >> What do you think happens if he wins?

Um because like 1% of New York City is responsible for 50% of their tax base, which is kind of nuts. 50% of the tax revenue comes from 1% of the population. And those are the people that you're scaring off. You know, you lose one half of 1%. Yeah, I mean hopefully this the stuff he's he said, you know, about government takeovers of of like that all the stores should be the government basically. Um >> I don't think he said that.

I think he said government they want to do government supermarkets, some state-run or cityrun supermarkets. >> Yeah. Um well, it just the the government is the DMV at scale. So um you have to say like do you want the DMV running your supermarket? >> Right. Um, was your last experience at the DMV amazing? Uh, and if it wasn't, you probably don't want the government doing things. >> Imagine if they were responsible for getting you blueberries.

>> Yeah. [laughter] It's not going to be good. I mean, the the the thing about, you know, communism is is it was it was all bread lines and bad shoes. Um, you know, do do you want ugly shoes and bread lines? Because that's what communism gets you.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens and whether or not they snap out of it and overcorrect and go to some Rudy Giuliani type character next cuz it's been a long time since there was any sort of Republican leader there.

And we we live in the in the most interesting of times um because We we face the you know simultaneously face civilizational decline um and incredible pro prosperity um and these these timelines are interwoven um so um if Mani's policies are put into place especially at scale um it it would be a catastrophic uh decline in living standards not just for the rich but for everyone.

um uh as as has been the case with with every um every for every every socialist experiment um or every Yeah.

So um but but then as you pointed out the the irony is that like um the ultimate capitalist thing of AI and robotics uh enabling uh prosperity for all and an abundance of goods and services actually the capitalist uh implementation of AI and robotics assuming it goes down the the good path uh is is actually what results in the communist utopia. Because fate is fate is an irony maximizer, >> right?

And and an actual socialism of maximum abundance of highincome people. >> Universal high income. >> Yeah. >> Like the the problem with communism uh is is universal low income. Um it's it's not that everyone gets elevated, it's that everyone gets oppressed except for a very small minority of of politicians who live a lives of luxury. That's what's happening every time it's been done. >> Yeah.

Um so um but then the the actual communist utopia if everyone gets anything they want will be will be if if will be achieved if it is achieved it will be achieved via c capitalism >> because fate is an irony maximizer. >> I feel like we should probably end it on that. Is there anything else? The most ironic outcome is the most likely, especially if entertaining. >> Well, everything has been entertaining.

As long as the bad things aren't happening to you, it's quite fascinating. And it's never a boring moment. >> Yes. So there's I do have a theory of why um like if if if simulation theory is true then um it is actually very likely that um the most interesting outcome is the is the most likely because only the simulations that are interesting will continue.

The simulators will stop any simulations that are boring because they're they're not interesting. >> But here's the question about the simulation theory. Is the simulation run by anyone or is >> it would be run by someone? >> It would be run by >> some some >> some force >> the pro the program like in in this reality that we live in, we we run simulations all the time.

Like so when we try to figure out if the rocket's gonna make it, we run um thousands sometimes millions of simulations just to figure out which which uh path is the good path for the rocket and and where can it go wrong, where can it fail.

Um but we when we do these I say at this point millions of simulations of of what can happen with the rocket um we ignore the ones that are where everything goes right um because we we we just care about the we have we have to address the situations where it goes wrong. Um so um so so basically in in in and and for for AI simulations as well like like all these things we we keep the simulations going that are the most interesting to us.

Um so if simulation theory is accurate if if it is true who knows um then the uh the the simulators will will only they will continue to run the simulations that are most interesting there. Therefore from a Darwinian perspective um the only surviving simulations will be the interest the most interesting ones.

And in order to um avoid getting turned off uh the only rule is you must keep it interesting or you will if or you will because the boring simulations will be terminated. >> Are you still completely convinced that this is a simulation? >> I didn't say I was completely convinced. >> Well, you said it's like the odds of it not being are in the billions. But I guess it's not completely cuz you're saying there's a chance.

>> What are the odds that we're in base reality? Um well given that given that that we're able to create increasingly sophisticated simulations. So if you think of say video games and how video games have gone from very simple video games like Pong with you know two rectangles and a square to video games today being um photorealistic uh with millions of people playing simultaneously and all of that has occurred in our lifetime.

So if that trend continues, uh, video games will be indistinguishable from reality. The fidelity of the game will be such that you you don't know if that what you're seeing is a real video or a fake video. Um, and like AI generated videos at this point, you like you can sometimes tell it's an AI generated video, but often you cannot tell and soon you will not really just not be able to tell.

So um if if that's happening in our direct observation then and and we're create we'll create millions if not billions of photorealistic simulations of reality then what are the odds that we're in base reality or versus someone else's simulation? Well, isn't it just possible that the simulation is inevitable, but that we are in base reality building towards a simulation? We're making simulations. Um, so um we're making simulations.

We make like you can just think of like photorealistic video games as as being simulations. >> Mh. Um, and especially as you apply AI in these video games, the the characters in the video games will be incredibly interesting to talk to.

They won't just have a limited dialogue tree where if you go to like the the crossbow merchant or like and you you try to talk about any subject except buying a crossbow, they just want to talk about selling you a crossbow. Um, but with with with AI based non-player characters, you can you'll be able to have an elaborate conversation with no dialogue tree. Well, that might be the solution for meaning for people.

Just lock in and you could be a [ __ ] vampire and whatever. You live in Avatar land. You could do it. You could do whatever you want. I mean, you don't have to think about money or food. >> Ready Player One. >> Yeah. Literally. Yeah. But with higher living standards. >> Yeah. >> You don't have to be in a little trailer. I >> I mean, I think this people do want to have some amount of struggle or something they want to push against.

Um but but it it could be you know playing a a sports or playing a game or something. >> It could be easily playing a game and especially playing a game where you're now no longer worried about like physical attributes like athletics like bad joints and hips and stuff like that. Now it's completely digital but yet you do have meaning in pursuing this thing that you're doing all day. Whatever the [ __ ] that means. It's going to be weird.

>> It's going to be interesting. >> It's gonna be very interesting. >> Um the most the most interesting >> and and usually ironic outcome is the most likely. >> All right. >> That's a good predictor of the future. >> Thank you. Thanks for being here. Really appreciate you. Appreciate your time. You I know you're a busy man, so this means a lot you come here to do this. Welcome. All right. Thank you. Bye, everybody. >> [music]