Episode 2284 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/06/23, Grok And All The Headlines Too, With Coffee

I'll even put on a microphone for the YouTube people, because that's how much I love you. Yeah. Good morning everybody. And welcome to the finest thing that ever happened in your life. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And I don't believe civilization has ever experienced anything like this before or ever will. And if you'd like to take it up to levels that only AI can even understand, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice to stein. A canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopa beans at the day. The thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens. Now go. Oh, that's good. You know, I can't wait to have a coffee robot. It's nice to have a coffee machine, you know, that makes your coffee for you. That's okay, sure. But I still have to stand up and walk over and get it and then walk all the way back. Where is my coffee robot? Can I make a prediction? The following prediction. In three years I'll be doing this show just like today, except while you're watching me, my Tesla robot will bring me a cup of coffee while I'm live. Anybody want to take a bet? Do you want to take a bet that my Tesla robot will bring me my coffee while you're watching on a live stream within three years? Anybody want to take that bet? What a time to be alive. Are you kidding me? 100,000 years of human evolution and you get to be alive when the frickin sentient robot brings you coffee? That is amazing. We actually have flying cars now. They only last 20 minutes on a charge or whatever it is. But we do have flying cars. There is actually a business called the Jetson one. For $100,000, sell you a 20 minute ride, you know, per charge. Now I couldn't buy a hundred thousand dollar flying car. Here's why. 20 minutes. I don't know about you, but my personality would make me panic. One minute in. I only got 19 minutes to get back. How am I going to get this car back? If I, I'd be watching, I'd be flying and looking at my, my watch, my apple watch. I guess at the same time, 15 minutes. Oh God, oh God. I gotta get back. Oh no. I only have 10 minutes. I only have 10 minutes. So for me it would be a five minute charge because after five minutes I'd be like, I'm getting back. I'm getting back. I don't even know if these dials are correct. I don't want to be up here when this battery stops. So it's not quite where I need it. I still look at an electric car with a 350 mile range and I tell myself I'm not comfortable with that. Going to the grocery store. I'm not even joking. Like, it would actually give me anxiety that my electric car only had a charge of 300 miles. I can barely deal with a gas engine. It's like, all right, full tank. I think I can make it to the corner and back. It's just a personal thing. Well, in the big news. I'll start with a little news and work to the big news, if you don't mind. Get you warmed up. Beginning of the week. There was a windsurfer who was hit by a whale. They say it was a one in a million accident. And he had his. Here's the funny thing. He had. He had some kind of a GoPro or something filming it. So you could actually see his windsurfer thing going forward on a. I guess that's what it's called when you have like a surfboard with a parachute. I mean, that's either for attacking Israel or it's some kind of surfboarding thing, right? Could have two purposes. But he hits his whale and he gets like a really clean picture of the whale. So one in a million whale hits a windsurfer and he gets a really clean image of it. Still no good clean images of a ufo. That's where I was going with this. We also have the sighting of one in a million, an albino moose. That was, I think, last week or so. Albino moose. Nice, clear picture of an albino moose. Still no picture of a ufo. Not a clean one. So I guess that's just chance. All right, my next episode I call Backward Science. Backwards science. That's where studies get the correlation backwards. Maybe, but I'm going to teach you a new trick on this one. Here's the headline. Regular exercise helps people avoid the need for antidepressants. Pretty good. That sounds like good positive development. But also it feels like you already knew that, right? Don't you feel like you already knew that? Well, it turns out that there's some ambiguity in the science. It's not obvious that exercise does help everybody because, and I'm going to compliment the study people, they say directly that they were very conscious that the correlation might work the other way. They're very conscious that it could be that if you're depressed, you're less likely to go to the gym. Doesn't that make sense? So the correlation between who's happy and who's exercising might be a backwards correlation, but here's the good news. They designed the test to control for that. So they took people who were not on any kind of medicine. They said, this random group will exercise, this random group will not. And the group that exercised had better outcomes. Now, what was wrong with this study? Well, here's the title of this. Here's the headline. Most people are just going to read the headline, right? Realistically. Here's the headline. Listen to the exact wording. Regular exercise helps people avoid the need for antidepressants. That's the headline. Now let's hear the exact words of what the study participant or the study author said. The authors actually say. Or is it that people who have these mental conditions exercise less often. Boom. So they had actually controlled the study for that. Good work, Good work. But here's what the study authors concluded from their own study. In their words, exercise was likely helping to prevent conditions from manifesting. In other words, it was likely helping to keep you from having your actual depression. Now, does likely helping match the headline? Regular exercise helps people avoid the need for antidepressants? No, no. Likely is different from it does. Likely is the correct scientific interpretation. Scientists got it right. The causality getting backwards. Scientists got it right. So the scientists got everything right, except that it was a. I think it was a small study group. Well, actually, that's the next one. But then the journalist turned it wrong. So be careful of that. The scientists can get everything right and the journalist can just write a. Or the editor can write a headline that just doesn't match the story. And if you didn't read. And where was the part about likely? How far in the article do you have to read before you get to the word? Well, it's likely. It helps the last paragraph. The last paragraph negates the headline. In fact, as a practice, this is what you should do. If it's anything about a scientific study, you should read the first paragraph because that tells you what it did. Always skip to the last paragraphs. Last two paragraphs, always look at them because that's where they'll hide the. Well, we didn't really mean it. Probably doesn't mean anything. All right, here's another one that's not backward science. The study said that those who consumed high quality olive oil experienced a significant reduction in blood pressure. That's good news, right? And I think they did the study in the right way. They picked people and randomly selected them and gave some the olive oil and some not. And by the way, it only works with a high end olive oil that has some specific stuff in it that's good for you. I guess I didn't write down what it is, but here's what's wrong with the study. They studied 50 people. Would you ever. Would you ever alter your life because there was a scientific study with 50 people in it? You should probably not. That's way too small. That's what you call an underpowered study. Doesn't mean they're wrong. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just saying it's underpowered. So that's what you should learn. Look for the last paragraph, negating the title, and then look for the number of participants. Those are two things you should look for right away. However, as I often tell you, when it comes to your own diet and fitness, you should be a continuous experimenter. So since I'm actually, you know, working on getting my blood pressure down, I will, I'll test this. I'll actually just see what happens because I think, you know, it's maybe like a teaspoon of olive oil a day or something like that, maybe. I can't imagine it would hurt me to do a little more olive oil. Right. So there's no downside. I can just test it for a month, see if I see any difference. All right. Remember how I told you that the opposite. I didn't make this up. It was something I saw from somebody else. That the opposite of addiction is human connection is not a sobriety. That if you have human connection, your need for addiction goes way down. Now, this explains several things which have always been puzzles to me. And I'm not positive that I have this factually. Right. But tell me if you've heard this before. After Vietnam, there were a number of people who were hooked on heroin while they were over there because they kind of needed it to get through the day, who came back to the United States and allegedly. I need a fact check on this, but it's been reported that they had very little effort in just getting off of heroin. Does that sound familiar? Have you ever heard that the people coming back with heroin addictions just got off it like it was nothing? Now, what does that tell you? Like, what was it about being home other than not being scared to be killed every minute? But you should have been physically addicted. It shouldn't have mattered that the reason you started was no longer valid. The drug itself should have done what the drug does and make you addicted. But here's what's different. When you come home, you probably re engage socially. You become connected again to your family and your community. So again, there's something that's anecdotally is very consistent with that idea that human connection is a direct replacement for addiction. But I came up with another example. You may have seen me do a video of this. It's kind of funny. My dog Snickers refuses to eat her regular food, which is at this point, it's a high end, you know, moist food. She's on a special diet, but she likes that food. But she will not eat that if I'm awake and home. If I'm in the house, she will follow me every time I get my coffee because it's in the same place as the treats. And she'll beg for treats. And I thought the other day when I was thinking about this addiction versus connection thing, that she's just begging for treats all day long. And I said to myself, that's basically an addiction. She's addicted to treats. And I thought, what if I try to give her a human connection instead of a treat? So since she can't have infinite treats, you know, I give her a few, but, you know, I keep it in a reasonable diet friendly amount. And so instead I go over and give her some attention, like, give her some real direct attention, petting her, making sure I'm touching her, Give her my full attention for like a minute and she seems just as happy. And then she walks away like. And she walks away like she's had a treat. And I thought, does this explain everything? Like, have we literally cured addiction? Like, could you take somebody as an experiment and just say, all right, we're going to experiment on you. You can live with this cool family who's really warm and they'll love you. Let's see what happens. Just see what happens. You wonder if you could hug an addict out of it. Like literally. Imagine if you were an addict, but once a day a bunch of cool strangers could come up to you and just give you like a warm embrace. Probably cure you. I don't know. Anyway, we're monitoring this space. In other news, Vivek Ramaswamy was on cnn, which is always fun. I don't think anybody has done a better job getting interviewed on CNN than Vivek Ramaswamy. If you've seen him, I think you'd agree because the thing he does better than anybody is he sticks to the part in he sticks to the Republican, let's say, philosophy without saying things that are batshit crazy, which is sort of hard to do. You know what I mean? It's hard to say things that even the Democrats would agree are factually true, but he does that. So he was being accosted by Jim Acosta. I never realized why that was his name before. So Jim is actually the person who accosts people, you know, like at press events. His name is actually Jim Acosta. Anyway, so Jim was interviewing Vivek and here was the important topic that Jim Acosta thought that Vivek should respond to. Think about all the things happening in the world. And here's what Jim Acosta asked Vivek to respond to that Trump had called the people in jail over the January 6 charges. He referred to them as hostages at the same time that there are hostages in Gaza. So that was the important thing that Jim Acosta needed to talk to Vivek about. So how did Vivek handle that? Quote from Vivek? Let me be clear about what's irresponsible as it relates to coverage of Donald Trump from the Russia collusion hoax that never was to the Hunter Biden laptop story. I think the real accountability here belongs to the media. Perfect. Literally perfect. Now imagine what he could have done. He stuck with Russia collusion hoax because nobody doubts that that didn't pan out. And the Hunter Biden left up story, we know the truth of that. So he didn't go into anything that would allow Jim Acosta to say, oh, that one thing you mentioned is questionable. He just kept it. A thing you can't really argue with. I mean, if you're a news person, you can't. Citizens would. Good job, Vivek. I saw a story that said that Biden doesn't know what Bidenomics is and nobody else does, but it's the centerpiece of his campaign. If there were one thing that would explain everything about the 2024 presidential election, let me summarize. The centerpiece of Biden's campaign is Bidenomics. And Biden says directly he doesn't know what it is. That's right. He doesn't know how to define Bidenomics except something good. Something really good. That's it. That's the centerpiece of his campaign. Now, it's not the only part of his campaign. There's also the part that is obviously untrue. You know, accusing Trump of calling racists very fine people. Didn't happen. He'll probably bring up the drinking bleach hoax didn't happen. Didn't happen. Now it. And see how smart it is that Vivek didn't mention those two hoaxes because those Jim could argue about. I mean, not successfully, but it turns it into an argument. Vivek is smart enough to know that he can drop, he can drop two little bombs that even Acosta won't go after and then, and then bully his way through. It was perfect. So my understanding is I get very confused in all the Trump legal stuff. So if I say something that mixes 2 of the cases together, will you try to keep me honest, keep me on track here? Because I'm very confused about it all. I think most non lawyers are pretty confused. But my understanding is that a judge has already ruled that he was going to lose his business license in New York for. And the example that's given in the press is that Trump claimed his townhouse in Trump Tower was 33,000 square feet, but it was really 11,000 so far. Is that correct that factually it's not 33,000, but that there's evidence he claimed it and therefore that's obvious fraud per the judge, and therefore they've lost some kind of license to operate in New York? I mean, I imagine it'll be appealed, but that's where it sits right? Now, let me ask you this. So from the outside, everything just looks confusing. And let me give you an example. When I tried to get fire insurance for my house because it's bigger than normal house, do you think that the insurance company took my word for the square footage? They did not, because there was a lot of money involved and it's just, it was just fire insurance. But still, that's a lot of money, you know, for a normal residential situation. So they send somebody out who spent an entire morning with a measuring device measuring my house and all its rooms. Now, if you've ever bought a house, do you take the word of the seller for the square footage or do you send somebody around who looks at what's broken and measures it and maybe does an assessment and checks the square footage? At least visually, at least. Does that look like it's about that much? Yes. So even in my tiny little residential world, nobody ever, ever, ever takes your word for square footage if it's a reasonably large deal. Now that's the size of my house. Now imagine it's Trump Tower. Give me any scenario where anybody who has to make an important decision doesn't check the square footage. I've never heard of that. Have you so there's something about the story that we deeply don't understand. Is that a media failure or was it there and I missed it? Because I could have missed it. It could be on me. But who can answer the question, why is this the only case in recorded history where something at that dollar amount that involved a physical asset? This is the important part. It's a physical asset. Nobody doesn't check a physical asset at that dollar level. That would be like somebody buying an office building without physically going there. I mean, that would be a pretty rare. You at least send somebody to look at it who you trust. So correct me if I'm wrong. There's just something deeply essential to the story that's missing and nobody's even telling you it's missing until I just told you. How many of you noticed that was missing in the reporting? Did anybody else notice? I'm always looking for the dog that's not barking. So I'm waiting for the part where there was an assessor, for example, was there ever a part of the story where an assessor walked through and Trump said, oh, don't measure it, just take my word for it. Did that ever happen? Is there any evidence of that? Because I feel like I would have heard of that. So where in the world did the two estimates come from? If I had to guess, and it's only a guess, it would go like this. In the real world, things are complicated and there's layers and people talk to people and forget what was heard and they write things down wrong. We live in this messy, error filled world. Here's what I think probably happened. I think what probably happened is that at one point somebody believed it would be 33,000 or at one point it included a few other floors, because that's three floors, right? 11,000 and 33,000 are a multiple of three. Do you think it's a coincidence that it's exactly three? Or do you think that at one point Trump said, I'm going to keep all three stories for myself, but that he changed his mind because he didn't need that much space? So that one point, maybe one point, there's a document that said it was 33,000 square feet because maybe that's what he planned it to be at some point. And then the accountants doing what the accountants do. Let me tell you how my taxes are done. My accountant already knows my base information, you know, all the basic stuff. It's the same every year. The only thing she does is update with new information. So I tell her every year what you know, the value of my house is or any of that stuff. I don't tell her every year the size of my house and what percentage is business use, because part of my house I use for my office. Here she takes what I said last time, and unless I tell her something new, she says it's still the square footage, and then she calculates based on that. So you don't update your accountant on every piece of information. That's sort of your base information. You just tell them what changed. So if at one point somebody like an accountant had ever seen on a document at 33,000 square feet, they would have just used it, just kept using it. So my best guess is what happened is that some document got disconnected from reality at some point, probably an innocent mistake, and then it just perpetuated because, you know, the principals don't go check all the math all the time. That's not part of the process, just a guess that in the real world it doesn't make sense that he tripled it. Exactly. You get that if it's an entire floor, that must be what all floors are. It must be that. Pretty much all floors around 11,000, at least in that range of the building. So he probably just thought he was going to use three. And use what? That's probably all it was, never corrected it. So, let's see. So I got questions there. Now, I'm going to go hard at this next point. I've made it in a lighter way, but I'm going to go a little harder. So as my understanding the case involves Jack Smith has to do with what Trump believed about the election. So correct me if I'm wrong, the charges against Trump depend entirely, entirely, not just a little bit, but the charges depend entirely on him knowing that he had lost the election. Is that correct? It depends entirely upon knowing him, knowing that he lost the election, but acting like he had won anyway. Completely. Now, if there's no evidence that he ever told anybody that he believed it was fair, how in the world could that be illegal? It can't be. And have you heard any, any hint that anybody involved is going to testify? Oh, yeah, he told me directly. He knows it was a clean election. And if he had said that, you don't think we'd know about it by now? You don't think anybody would have mentioned that by now? Well, you know, he told his lawyers. Now, if you, if you know anything about Trump's personality, do you think he could have any way of knowing the election was fair, given, you know, think about all the things that you and I have seen that show that all of our government institutions are corrupt to some degree or other. Pretty much all of them. Now, that's what we've seen from the outside. Imagine. Just imagine the things that Trump has seen, both as a private business person working with the government, plus being in power and seeing how things really work behind the scenes. Do you think a person with that experience could say that all 50 states held a fair election? Nobody with that experience has that opinion. Nobody. There are people who might say it because it's good for them politically, but there can't be any reasonable adult who says they know that 50 elections were all done securely. That is fundamentally unknowable. It's unknowable. And every day a Democrat will tell me it is noble because they didn't find anything. No, I think Democrats treat it like, you know, they're looking at a cup, and they're like, I'm looking in this cup, and I can see the bottom of the cup. So there's nothing in there because I can see the bottom of the cup. It's not really like looking in a cup. You know what it's more like? It's more like a needle in a haystack. Yeah. If somebody cheated intentionally, they wouldn't do it. So obviously that they could get caught. They would have a really good sense of where things get caught and where things don't get caught, because enough people have been caught that they know it gets caught. They know why things will obviously be caught. So nobody would do that. But are there any ways to cheat that you might not get caught? The answer is, of course. Of course, there are probably lots of them. Just because you can't name them doesn't mean they don't exist. Every complicated system has vulnerabilities. So we have this absurdity that there's one man in the world who could know the unknowable about this complex web of systems. That would be more like a needle in a haystack. So let me reword it. The case hinges on Trump looking at a haystack and knowing there's no needle in it. Was that analogy? It depends on him knowing there's no needle in it. Now, I always tell you, analogies are not arguments. They're only ways to make a point. And this is one of those. The argument doesn't require the analogy. The argument is, it's a big, complicated system. How would anybody know what's happening in that big, complicated system? By breaking it down to a comparison between Democrats saying Hey, there's nothing in my little cup, so it must be empty. I'm telling you that it's not a simple system like a cup. You can't know it's empty by looking at it. It's more like a complicated system, which I've represented as a needle that's in a haystack. So we have this actual situation where the prosecution has to prove that with no evidence of Trump ever saying it to anybody, apparently, they're going to have to know what was in his head. And to know that in the context of Trump knowing that every government system is corrupt to some degree, and knowing that it has closed in about him, particularly knowing that it accused him of being Hitler, and every single person who believed it had a good reason to cheat him, that somehow he could know that while he looks at this big pile of hay, that there's not a needle in the middle of it just by looking at the hay. And that's what. That's what the Democrats have been led to believe, that you actually can look at a big pile of hay, and just by looking at it from the outside, you know there's no needle on the inside. Why? Because a few people dug around the edges and they didn't find a needle. Well, therefore, now, I hate to say this is an IQ problem, because I don't think there's that much difference in IQ between political left and right. At least not so much would make a difference here. This clearly looks like brainwashing. Clearly looks like that. So when I wrote a long thread on this. Would you like to hear me read the thread because it says it perfectly, or would that just be a repeat? Yes. All right. It's better. Summary. Let me do that. So here's what I posted today. So, to find Trump guilty of inciting some kind of insurrection. I forget what the charge is. Is this the insurrection one? I think it is right? To find Trump guilty of inciting some kind of insurrection, prosecutors have to show he knew the unknowable, that the election was not rigged. That is literally unknowable. And every serious adult who is not a Democrat understands it. You all understand that, right? Is there anybody who's confused about how you could know there's a needle in the middle of the haystack? No. And so I said, unless there's evidence Trump ever said the election was clean, and nothing like that has been suggested, there's nothing to the case. But worse, in the context of every one of our other major government institutions being somewhat obviously corrupt, the odds of 50 separate state elections being clean is close to zero, certainly over time. But even now, the absurdity level is off the chart. Banana Republic stuff. So, and then here's my speculation. I said the case against Trump has only gotten this far because Democrats don't see the news that shows all of our other institutions being corrupt. They still think everything about COVID was legit. They think Putin got Trump elected. They think Hunter's laptop was. They don't know Hunter's laptop was a hoax. They think Joe wasn't involved in Hunter's businesses. They think Trump called neo Nazis fine people, and they think he recommended drinking bleach. That's what their news told them. Their news told them that. But best of all, Democrats have been duped into believing you can read the mind of a stranger, Trump, and you can see that he clearly can see the unknowable. So first you have to read his mind. And then while you're reading it, you have to see that he knows something that can't be known. Magic. How would he know something that can't be known? Or at least that he, he was lying. I suppose you could see that if you're a bra. If you're a mind reader. So it's absurd and totally corrupt. But I left this, what I called extra help for Democrats at the end of the post. Because you know what the Democrats are going to say, right? Do you know what every brainwashed Democrat would say to that post? Well, I know what they're going to say, so that's why I left them a little helpful note at the end. It says extra help for Democrats. By the way, this is a good technique if you're posting. If you know, if you know what the complaint will be, call it out. It makes it funnier. Right? So I said extra help for Democrats. I do understand that no court has found evidence that would overturn the 2020 election. That fact is not a counterpoint to anything I've written. Rather, it is the method used to brainwash you. How many people do you think still went into the comments and said, scott, it's been proven that the elections were good because nothing was found by the courts. Or there'll be a few, there will be a few. I don't know how many, but there'll be a few. Nothing can stop them. All right, here's some news that made me scratch my head, NBC News. And this is important because remember, NBC News is what people who know more than I do say is sort of the in house news, meaning that the CIA and the government Tells NBC what to say about political stuff. That's what people say. You know, I don't have personal knowledge of that, but if you imagine that's true because the people saying it are smart, then put that context on this story. So NBC News says that Muslims in Michigan, which is a key election state, their support for Biden is cratering because of the Israeli and Hamas situation. Does that make sense to you? Does it make sense to you that Muslims would start losing their support for Biden? Because doesn't the only thing that matters is whether they like the competition better. So let me see if I can understand that. You're a Muslim American and you're trying to choose between Biden and Trump. Biden and Trump both strongly support Israel, right? Almost exactly the same amount, which is 10 out of 10 complete support. So on that level, there should be a tie. But Biden still lets your relatives immigrate and join you in America, and maybe Trump won't. How in the world is this even close? As much as I think Trump is a better candidate than Biden, if I were a Muslim in America, what's the argument for liking the guy who's going to give you less? How does that. How do you even get there? So here's what it makes me think. I think if this had not been our current situation where members of the government want to force Biden out of the race, that they would have reported it differently. How would it sound if NBC did not want to force Biden out of the race? Let me tell you, it goes like this. That was it. They wouldn't have mentioned it. It wouldn't have been a story. If they didn't want to put your brain in that space, they just wouldn't mention it. Here's Suppose they did mention it, but they didn't want you to think poorly of Biden. How would they write it? Here's how they would write it. Support for Biden is cratering because of the current situation. However, when compared to a matchup with Trump, they still don't, you know, there's no reason to think that they're going to like Trump better. That would be the way to say it. If the only thing they're doing is asking, how much do you like Biden? It kind of doesn't matter because the real question is how do you like Biden compared to the only alternative you're likely to see. Am I right? So by moving the context from compared to Trump, which looks like it shouldn't make any difference in the election really, to moving it to what do you think about Biden by himself? They can create an impression that Biden's in trouble with a segment that could control one of the key states. So to me this looks like propaganda. Doesn't look like news the way you would expect it to be reported in your normal situation. But in order to support that theory that the so called deep state Democrats are trying to push Biden out, you'd look for more evidence. By itself, I think you'd agree, any one piece of evidence by itself, not that persuasive. So things you would be looking for would be, for example, is there somebody in the wings who is obviously preparing to be moved into the job? And the answer is yes. Yeah, Governor Newsome visiting China, etc. Clearly trying to elevate his status just in case, like an emergency, you know, break the glass in an emergency in case you need it before the election. But by itself, not confirmation, right? These are like little indications, little hints that are pretty strong, but maybe not full confirmation. Now let me add another piece of information. David Axelrod, who is a former Obama adviser and always one of the most important voices in Democrat politics, he suggested it might be, quote, wise for President Biden to drop out of the 2024 race because the polls are looking really bad for him. And Axelrod says directly that maybe it's time to look at the bigger picture. Meaning that it's not just about Biden, it's about the Democrats. And he doesn't believe Biden's the best horse to win the race. Now if you don't follow politics much, you probably said, oh, one advisor said a thing. It's one advisor said a thing. No, the one advisor is David Axelrod. David Axelrod tells you what the Democrats are thinking and that's the end of the story, right? When he says something like this, he's saying Democrats are saying something like this. That's not just his opinion. At the very least, he's trying to move Democrats to that opinion and would be one of the people who could do it. At the very least, the Democrat insiders just got the message, right? He's like the ultimate insider. So he just sent the message to all the other Democrat insiders. It is now safe to say this in public because David Axelrod said it in public and kept his job. He went first. This is a big deal. Right? The other things I mentioned are very suggestive that Biden's getting the push. But when David Axelrod says it directly, that's the push. So we've moved past the suggestion of a nudge, of a possible, you know, preference to this is the hand on his back and it's just starting to nudge him out of the way. Like you've had. Biden has the hand on his back now. It's like the hand that helps him off the stage as Trump does. His hilarious impressions of him not knowing how to get off the stage. All right, let's talk about Tick Tock. Kudos to Republican Representative Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, who continues to argue for Tick Tock being banned. And people are waking up a little bit to the fact, with Mike Gallagher's help and a few others, that Tick Tock may have had a big, had a big, let's say, a big thumb on the reporting about Israel and Hamas. It's reported by one study that is being disputed, by the way. One study shows that the pro Palestinian, some would say pro Hamas, messages were far more boosted by the algorithm than the pro Israeli stuff. Now, TikTok, by the way, argues that that's not true. TikTok says it was the reverse. If you ask TikTok, they say they boosted the Israeli stuff more like naturally, not, not intentionally so. So we have a question about a difference in outcome. But here's what nobody should question. They've already told you that they have a button, it's called Heat, that they can push to boost any content they want. They could have boosted this. I don't know if they did. It doesn't really matter for the question of whether TikTok should remain. It doesn't matter whether they boosted this one or not because it's possible somebody got the data wrong. What is important is they could. They literally had one finger, our adversaries. And all that finger had to do is like close a, you know, a 2 inch gap and push a button called Heat and suddenly the Palestinian message would have dwarfed the Israeli message and would have looked bad for the United States. Do you think that China controlled itself? Do you think they didn't push the button on this? This was a layup. This would be the easiest win they could ever have. It's like, well, just push that button and bad things will happen for America. You don't have to know. If they did is absolutely unimportant. Whether or not they did push the button on this topic. I mean, it matters to the topic, but it doesn't matter to whether TikTok should be banned. Of course it should be banned. So Mike Gallagher, good job. We know he's not taking money from China, but I will re Emphasize that TikTok says it didn't happen. In terms of this latest stuff, are you amazed at how many stories there are and how many people get filmed taking down the missing Israeli hostage? Children images from phone poles? Have you been amazed how many people are willing to rip those down? And unlike UFOs, they all seem to get videoed and people are challenging them and it becomes a news story. What do you think Israel should do about that? If you're Israel or you're just Jews in America and you would like that story to be known, I guess I think you'd like to know that there are people ripping down those signs. What would you do? Stop. Stop putting them up? No. The Palestinians have fallen into the most delicious trap and they're going to fall into it a thousand times in a row. And by now the, at least the New York Jews and probably the Israelis are completely aware that all they have to do is keep putting them up and there will be continuous horrible people taking them down. And it will all be unfilm because it's in places where everybody has a camera. It will always cause a stir and it will always help Israel. So Israel probably isn't gaining much at all by putting those signs on polls in terms of world opinion, but they're gaining a lot by watching people rip them off. So watching the pro Palestinian people fall into this trap over and over and over again is actually, it's kind of wonderful from a persuader's point of view, if you like watching Persuasion, watching somebody not know they're walking into a trap is kind of fun in, you know, a weird, awful way. Watching them one after another. And it's mostly, it's mostly been women, hasn't it? I'm trying to think if you've seen enough videos of that, is it four out of five of them are women, right? Do you know why the women are ripping them down? Do you know why it's less likely to be a man? Every man knows the answer to this question. Every man knows the answer to this question. Imagine New York City, a heavy Jewish American population. Imagine a military age male taking those down. The odds of him getting killed are pretty good. But if it's a woman, do you just yell at her and take her picture? Because you're not going to make it worse for your own side by beating up a woman. But if I saw a video of somebody getting their ass handed to him, who was a adult male because he happened to do it in the company of a bunch of adult Jewish men and people who supported them and they decided to kick the shit out of him just because they hated his fucking guts. That would be very illegal, totally illegal, and they should go to jail for that. But I'd watch that video a few times, wouldn't you? I'd watch it. I'd probably play it twice because I'd enjoy watching, you know, some guy get his ass beat for that. I should admit it. Let me. By far the most exciting thing that happened yesterday was the introduction of the Groq, the AI that's part of X. And I can't stop thinking about it. Like, I feel like it's such a big thing that it makes everything else less important because it's going to change so many things so quickly. Think of just a few of the things that could change. Imagine if Grok automatically did fact checking. I said this before. Or just automatically put context on it, or automatically surfaced the best alternative argument, the pro and the con, that would change everything. It would change everything. It would be the first time that people would have even the possibility of seeing both sides of an argument. It doesn't exist anywhere else. And we know that humans can't do it, or else they would have. For some reason. Humans don't have the ability to show you both sides of anything. I guess some reason is obvious. We don't want you to see both sides. But robot could. So just that one thing could change everything. But the thing that I can't get out of my head is that Grok is God or a godlike creature. Without getting religious, you can still accept that there's the God that you pray to. But here's what this entity is already. My understanding is that it has a real time access to Twitter's trending and activity. If that's true, then it has something like consciousness. Because I define consciousness as sort of a, sort of a layperson's way, which is the ability of your mind to interact with the real world. And then that interaction informs the mind. So it now knows something more about the real side world. And then it continues. There's a cycle of thinking things, trying things, seeing what happens and then rethinking it. And that if you can sense that happening in any kind of mechanical or biological way, you're aware that you're interacting with the environment and changing because of it, that you're conscious, that you're sentient. And because Twitter, here's the key. Twitter is like the ears and eyes and emotions. It's the physical sensing that a human body has, but it's the digital version Anything that makes people laugh on Twitter will be immediately available to Grok. Anything that makes people cry will be immediately available to Grok. Anything that people doubt, whether it's true or not, will be known immediately to Grok. It has developed the digital equivalent of five senses and emotions. All it's doing is using human beings as his sensors, and it's doing it in real time. It's alive and it has a personality and it will remember you. I believe it'll remember you. So if you give me those qualities, in any creature, it can do something like intelligence through pattern recognition. It has some kind of understanding that it's dealing with the outside world. It has sensors that can feel things in real time and then make sense of it, and then it can adjust accordingly and it remembers you, and it can talk to you with the new knowledge from the last time it talked to you. Tell me that's not alive. That's alive. And we've never encountered a meta entity of that nature. What could come out of that is completely unpredictable. Completely unpredictable. That is so much fun. It's dangerous, it's fun, it's exciting, it's exhilarating. But if you really want to understand it, I'm going to give you a little inside knowledge. I think I can do this without giving away any confidences. One thing you probably don't know is that a lot of the, say, the smartest people in Silicon Valley have been influenced by one book, and it's mine, God's Debris. Now, you'd have a tough time finding this now because I'm a banned author, so you'd probably have to get a used one if you could find it. But this book, if you read it, you'll understand everything I'm saying about Grok, and it'll tie everything together. So if you do read it, the only place you can get it. Well, if you don't find a used copy, you can join my scottadams.locals.com community where the PDF is available for free. So you can read Gods to Be for Free, as well as its sequel, the Religion War. You just have to sign up and then just do a search for those titles and pop up. So that's for only subscribers and it's very short book, but if you're not sold, let me ask the people in the comments who have read the book if you've read God's Debris, just tell the other people, like one sentence what you thought of it. Watch this. Just one sentence, if you read the book, what you thought of it, all right? The Locals platform, they're all praising it now. There must be somebody on YouTube who read the book. Seriously? Nobody. Oh, you got it for your birthday. Pyramid scheme. Somebody said pyramid scheme. All right, well, if you saw the comments on Locals, you'd be reading it already. All right, So the new narrative from Democrats for why Biden is lagging in the polls, have you heard their new explanation? It's a two parter and it's one explanation for why Democrats aren't liking Biden enough and then a different explanation for why Republicans don't like him enough. You ready? The reason Democrats aren't liking Biden enough is because they can't see all the good work he's doing. So the news has been not doing a good job of saying all the good work he's doing. So that's why they describe Democrats not supporting him enough. But the reason that Republicans don't support him enough is racist. Racist. So there's that. Okay, I guess Trump is testifying today in the Letitia James case. So that, that one would be the. Is there any news from that yet? So he should be, he should be done with that by now, right? Has he already finished his testimony? Litigious James. That's funny. Letitia James is being called Litigious James. All right, we'll keep an eye on that Rob Reiner, producer director, he posted today. Democracy can only survive if Trump is convicted and no third party candidates are allowed. Let me just read that again. Democracy can only survive if Trump is convicted and no third party candidates are allowed. Doesn't that sound like the opposite of democracy? I thought democracy is where anybody could run and you could vote for anybody and that you don't put your opponents in jail for made up charges. I thought that's what that was about. But no, Rob Reiner says democracy can only survive if Trump is convicted and no third party candidates allowed. He doesn't know that that was Stalin's. That was sort of Stalin's, you know, I think Mao Zedong. So I say again that Rob Reiner does not look like somebody with an opinion which he wants you to hear. It sounds like performance art, but honestly, it looks like he's being blackmailed and he wants you to know. It's like, please understand, I'm not saying this of my own, you know, my own accord. You know, I've been, I've been forced to say this. So I'm going to say it in such an absurd way that it's like wink, wink, you can, you can tell I don't mean any of this? Like, it has that quality to it. Even. Even if my interpretation is wrong. Yeah. I'm not going to say my interpretation is right, but it has a feel to it. Watch this. Watch his future statements about politics, about Trump in particular, and see if you can see that it's so absurd that he must know that people will not take it seriously. No, it might. Am I reading his mind? No, I gave. I just gave you two possible, speculative possibilities. That's the opposite of reading mind. It's not reading minds. If you say he might be thinking X and he might be thinking Y, that's the opposite of mind reading. If you say, oh, he's thinking, yes, that's mind reading. So it's a. It's a level of certainty that makes it go from speculation to mind reading. Go. Got that? All right. Well, over in Gaza, Israel has cut off the north and they've got some corridors that some civilians are escaping. It didn't look like giant numbers of people escaping, but, you know, maybe the flow is constant. And so far it looks like Israel is handling everything exactly the way I would have. Therefore, it must be right. By that, I mean, they did not just go in and do an immediate ground assault everywhere and get mowed down at the same time. That would have been a bad idea. It looks instead that they've cut off. They've kind of chased the bad guys into the north, sort of cleared the south, so they could use less security down there. And it looks like they're going to do a slow squeeze. And I think the ground assaults will be strategic and minor, and I think they'll just keep squeezing the perimeter and knocking out tunnels from the outside. And I think any ground assaults will just be to probe defenses and find something out. Here's what I don't expect. I don't expect that in the next few days, you'll hear a massive ground assault went into the most dangerous part of Gaza. I just. There's just no reason for it. They already have the Hamas in such a bad situation that Hamas is having a bad day followed by a worse day, followed by a worse day with no end in sight. They're basically trapped and starving and dying. So Israel can simply take their time, which is also compatible with still negotiating for hostages and also the way that looks best for protecting the innocent, letting them get out of the zone, because they're taking their time. So it looks like the slow squeeze is the strategy. That was the strategy I suggested, but it appears that that's what's happening now. The beauty of it is they've got that good cap, bad cop thing going on where Biden is playing good cop and saying there should be a humanitarian pause and Israel saying, no, we must go crush them. But they still act like they're slowing down because of America. So as long as they can say, oh, we sure wanted, man, we wanted to go get those Hamas fighters, you know, those terrorists, but America slowed us down. But I think the slowing down is exactly what they wanted. They just needed a external reason to make it look like they were forced to slow down when going slow was always the thing that made sense. So that's working out. Bill Maher said an interesting thing on Friday I forgot to quote. He said that the young people who hated Trump over Charlottesville are the tiki torch carriers now. So on one hand, you say to yourself, oh, Bill Maher is coming around, and he sees that the left are the racists. But then on a second reading, you say to yourself, wait a minute, he still thinks Trump called the fine people, called the racist fine people. I feel like that requires some clarification, because I thought he actually understood that that was a hoax, but he's sort of using it in his example, almost like he believed it was true. So I don't know. We'll see. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the finest live stream you're ever going to see. We've covered everything from the, you know, grok God that is emerging to fake news and fake science. I believe you're all a little bit better off because of it. I'm going to go have some olive oil and take a shower and get ready for some stuff, and it's been a pleasure, so thanks for joining over on YouTube, and I will talk to you tomorrow.