« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 215 Scott Adams: Nike, Socialism, and Tyrants Versus Moles

2018-09-10 | 🔗


  • Kaepernick, the ultimate capitalist…and also the face of socialism
  • NYT op-ed writer: characterizations versus facts
  • Dangerous, unproductive ways of thinking
  • Long-form attacks on the President, are cycling faster now
  • What will happen, once the White House has studied marijuana?
  • North Korea’s parade without missiles, a positive sign
  • Elon Musk’s interview on Joe Rogan was fascinating, recommended
  • Exploring the potential and danger of self-aware and competing AI

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

Find my WhenHub Interface app here.

The post Episode 215 Scott Adams: Nike, Socialism, and Tyrants Versus Moles appeared first on Dilbert Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
But above bone pp them bump bump am bah bah bah bah bah bah bah bah. Oh it's Monday. It's another work week. For me that doesn't mean much since I work on the weekends too to me. I call it happy day and if you'd like to join me for the simultaneous IP one of the best parts of your day, why? Partly because I say partly because it is partly because it involves your favorite beverage only because you'll be joining with the rest of us, the simultaneous up yeah, that's a that's a good seven!
right there. So, let's talk about the craziness in the world craziness I tell you there's craziness everywhere so we're watching. Of course everybody in the world is watching this. Key situation with Colin Capper neck, and one of the big questions is: is this going to be good for Nike or bad for Nike? And I just waited around uhm. Well, some see some data that I haven't triple checked it, so I'm not sure that any of its right, but there are there two stories. One is. Online sales went up by some large amount. Thirty, some percent right after the cabinet commercial,
but turns out online sales are about six percent of sales, which doesn't really sound, sounds lower pay but, let's say online sales, not most of their sales and then there's another entity which has measured, I guess the the thirty of the brand, which has cut in half from sixty something to thirty something. so which one of those is true. Our sales up or has Nike completely destroyed his brand, because there are entities with both stories. The thirty percent is based on three hundred email receipts, so I guess the macro story is we can't trust the story, so that's the moral life story
But here's the interesting thing: I'm watching the Democrats trying to make socialism look like a good thing, and, of course the people on the right will tell you, though, socialism just turns you into Venezuela and socialism is worse worst in the world? and then I'm also watching capper neck? Who you would associate with socialism when you you'd associated with Che Guevara you'd associated with the left, so you would associate cap Anak with socialism. What are the two biggest things yep. I think I can put this into two categories. What are the two things we know about capper neck number, one He is a symbol for socialism. 'cause he's a symbol of the left. The left is
beau socialism. He wore a che Guevara shirt at one point socialist. What is the second thing we know about capper neck? He a each capitalist with Multi million dollar contract with company that has sweatshops or whoever makes their sneakers around the world. one is a bigger capitalist cut company, the Nike Nike pretty, which is capitalism so Kapernekas managed to become the icon for opposites and somehow he's pulling it off you in a weird way: so is the symbol for the biggest corporate greed by sneakers for hundreds of dollars. Let us license your image,
that's his capitalist as you can frick and you care. get more capitalists, then being the face of Nike at the same time he's the face of the opposite of that. So, If you ask me, is a good long term place for capper neck to be. I would say it I am not work in the long term, but we don't know we just don't know it's hard to. This was a tough one to Call- and the reason is that the people who are the main customers for Nike maybe a Democrat. the demographic just doesn't mind capper decks, anything. They just think he's a rebel and that's that's cool so it might be that nobody's really thinking of it in a deeper level than they. Just like is five. Maybe a sells liquors we'll see, I don't know how to get data, put an estimate on that one.
No in a similar vein, you should always look at the intended consequences of everything happening what was the intended consequence of the Woodward book. Well the intended consequences. Of writing a book is to sell books. Of course, that's always the primary goal of the author of the publisher, but, in this case. You kind of think there's a another big goal, which is to paint the president in a certain unflattering light. But here's the unintended consequence of everything in the Woodward book. as well as the unintended consequence of the New York Times. the New York Times anonymous writer. If if you, if you're trying to buy them?
history. Media's narrative that the president is essentially a dictator and he's a strong man and you put him in office and he's just having his way with things 'cause he's sort of a dictator? How does that jibe? with the whole New York Times. Mole, says: they're all these people who are managed the president and there's so much friction. and essentially taking a picture where it's a very collaborative. vacation where it's hard for even the president to get anything done. So the president has now been designed? Shall we say by the opposition they've, designed a picture of the president, where he's Taylor he's a strongman dictator who can't even get a document left on his desk
He is a dictator who nobody is doing what he wants to do, not exaggerating a little bit here: but doesn't it seem to you Well, one of the narratives, which was this residence is a dictator is we have really damaged. By this insider account of someone who first of all likes a lot of what the president does and in those situations where, where this person doesn't like it, they pushed so where does the president have pushed back? The president has pushed back from the courts, and we see the president acknowledge the court's authority that we've seen the president conform to the core which is the Supreme Court, so that's not very dictator, like we've seen
Congress thwart the president and that's not very dictator like, and we think that Congress would maybe be more able to thwart the president after the midterms. If Democrats pick up seats, not very dictator like then we see this again, please tell you to look for the negative space um. Not really finding. I don't remember that the insider who wrote the insider piece does that insider ever say yeah. You know we're worried that he loves Russia too much, maybe he's a russian asset. remember. This is an insider. Why? Why is it the insider, the person who is so close to the president? He can touch his desk
Well, you, why is this person not a not afraid of any russian collusion stuff, apparently right, Do you think that that person would have said something like well? like how the economy is going, but I can't work for someone who's a russian asset. Why? Because the insider apparently isn't worried about that doesn't seem to be on the radar. And by the way, let's look at the headlines on CNN and I think I'll read to you all of the russian related stories there must be lots of russian related stories right. It's the biggest story in the world is a gigantic problem. That's going to remove the president others got a bomb any minute. Now, that's big stuff treat all the headlights, something about a hurricane, something else about a hurricane.
something about a hurricane another story about a hurricane, something about uh switch, in something about Ali Baba, something about. be of Newton. John, is she? Russian is no she's, not russian, something about Woodward Book, something about uh, let's say more or less moon, Vez, stuff, less moon, Vez he's not russian Dizzy Ford Motor Company NFL huh, seven people injured in Paris knife attack. Huh. Serena Williams, her. Nothing about Russia about Papadopoulos story. That was a whole big tall glass, nothing wasn't it. He got two weeks in jail. How
like the bank, your criticism of the of the president on this twenty something person who got two weeks in jail for getting. You know trapped into a lie about something that wasn't important in the first place, so it seems to me that the attack of the President, that it was the Russia line of attack, looks like the left has given up now. It might be that just know news being generated than they need a little news 'cause. It needs something to talk about. You think that would be the case right. If there are no new events of the Russia probe. What is there to talk about Well has that stopped them for the past year and a half? How has the left stop talking about Russia? every week, because they didn't have any news now news. How hard is that
Did the Woodward book confirmed that the President is a russian asset. Crickets chirp, chirp chirp, Wait a minute. Are you telling me that the best investigative reporter the person who can really blow the lid off a of a story like Watergate Bob Woodward wrote an entire book about the presidency and left out Russia. Now I assume it's Shin, probably in some ways, but where all the stories general headed by the Woodward book, about how Russia is really what we think it is this terrible problem It Woodward leave Russia out of the book Or did he write about it?
in a way that didn't add anything which would indicate. Maybe we know everything, maybe there's not much there. If even Woodward is not on that story, so somebody saying yes, he did so I'm assuming true that he mentions Russia stuff in the book, but was anything added to the story by would is the question, or is it still dead in the water so dead that eh Woodward book, you know think of his name in this context, a Woodward book about Pres Trump and none of the headlines, are about hey we've. from that a little bit more about Russia, nothing like that. Look for the blank space, look at the Karavis and find the empty space. Sometimes that's the story. That's the story here, the whole right
so see the mole has inadvertently. I think, drawing a cap on the problem Here's what I mean by that. if you were on the outside. Looking into the White House, you you're just you you're, a citizen and you're. Looking at those White House, White House, is being described by its haters as being a dead end of russian spies and and everybody. For themselves and blow a lot and there's a dictator. and all these things that they, cursive said about the White House, Think of all the things the haters who said: don't you think the The New York Times insider account, the insider. Remember was no another president. He would like some.
things like the economy in defense, but he was no fan, if you believe the insider. did he not describe the worst case scenario? Another words the insider said: hey, there's some big problems here times the people on the staff, don't agree with the president's ideas, and so find ways to prevent those ideas from happening what was the worst thing about that story? The mole. The worst thing about this story was the person who wrote it think about an insider account. Somebody that close to the President This person really knows the goods this is somebody who knows where the skeletons are, This is somebody who knows what the problems are. This is somebody this close there an insider, and what do they have
The worst thing about the about the White House was the person who wrote the story. Because there's somebody not doing what the president is asking an issue: there. Apparently, are not that important? That's it. The best the op ed could come up with is that the Op Ed writer is a Am I wrong about that? Now what they said was a lot of mind. Reading stuff read It would take me a moment to find it, but They ask you to just remember it. This is a low budget operation. Here thing about the things that the Op Ed said were facts and then think about how they characterize them? So this is a typical thing that happens. The anti
love story or an anti any famous person story will start like this they'll say: here's a fact he did this. I did this. Somebody did this. Somebody did this, so the be some facts and then in the next sentence there will be things that aren't exactly facts: their characterizations. So, for example, the facts might be. I took something off the desk of the president the president was unhappy about a decision that was made by some underling and so those might be facts. and then the next part will be he's on he's flipping out he's big, unstable he's obsessed. What all of those words have in common there
as you can't know about another persons interstate? You can know the fact. This person disagreed with this person. This person raised their voice with this person. This person brought up the topic of a number of times Those would be facts, but that's not how the op EDS are written. That's not how the critics right stuff. They turn that into and therefore I know his inner thoughts and he's in the inner turmoil. He's he's ups. Best he's obsessed with this? He only errors about his image. All he cares about got a singular thing. He cares about. He ignoring other important things he doesn't feel little priorities, none of that or fax. They could be fax, their potential facts. There are things that are in the class of things. That might be true
there's no evidence forum. They are simply interpretations from someone else about someone else's inner mental process. So if you look at the New York Times, article you're going to see some bad things that the writer himself did. You know trying to thwart the president on some fairly unimportant stuff and then a whole bunch of interpretations about the presidents Interstate, that's not in evidence and here's. The important point remember the canvas and looking for the negative space. This is the closest thing to a genuine insider who really knows where the bodies are buried. And all he had was his own interpretation of what somebody else's thoughts are that's what he had
that's all he had. That was the worst of it. You sort of the worst thing we could possibly find out about the White House where it feels like that right. And it was a big nothing. You know after after a week, of getting excited about it because of the words around in the way it's covered and the fact that the President of the White House? trying to figure out who it is so there are the story is sort of around it like. Why do, Why did the New York Times printed? Who is the person? Will we find the person lot of stories around the story, but the story was sort of inert and that's the worst. An insider could come up with an insider think about that. We haven't seen that before.
Think of armor Rosa, no, I'm not sure of a rose, a really got to be in the big meetings. You know she might not abandoned. You know the the meetings that made a difference to national security or anything, but her book is totally discredited and you know she has no credibility whatsoever. It feels like. I don't even remember anything in book. Do you can Remember like quite honestly, I'm trying to remember. everything from Mama book that I considered credible. Can you think of anything Give me an example of something from Mama Rosa's book yeah. There were acura tions of racism with no examples right. I believe they were vague accusations that there might be something on the tape there might have been. Something
but can you think of anything in the Rosa book? I'm looking at your comments, I don't see any the fire by Kelly yeah. We know that. This is the accusation of the n word that literally nobody thinks is true. So so the so. I'm is an insider who made some crazy accusations, but not the more credible or backup vocals. So now you have two insiders who really were they under the hood and they came away with nothing. What does that tell ya so uh huh, I'm just looking at comments them yeah her secret recordings. She apparently
The recordings were not that interesting right, uh people think Trump didn't use. The n word zero chance. He didn't use it. Well, I think there is zero chance that he used it in the context of the presidency. Yeah the odds that he is ever under that word in any kind of a presidential way or or really even since he's been president, I would say zero, the odds of a seventy year old. Having Is that word when talking about it is one hundred percent So the odds that he's used were talking to a friend about how somebody else said it, or why can't you know? Basically talking about the word yeah, one hundred percent using it in anger. I, the odds that are low. Actually, I You know the number of times I've actually heard a white person,
use the n word in anger in my adult life, not since the quite honestly I'm going to I'm going to I'm searching my memory, banks and thinking if I've ever heard it in just a natural situation forget about your forget about anything. I've never heard it in business. I've never heard it in any kind of a corporate environment, never order from a co worker. I've never heard it from family members in a in here. I'm talking about any word used in anger, actually uses its insult away. I can't think of any time I ever heard it as an adult. I've heard it in college as an insult, so I I I can think of a specific times. I've heard somebody was nineteen years old user. Remember this is in the seventies,
but since then I can't think of one time. I've ever heard it actually used in its native way by anybody. I know or anybody. I was around it's pretty it's pretty rare. You know that's the Good NEWS. If you're black, you probably think it happens all the time- and you know and get it and keep it alive. You know I live in California, all of my adult life, northern California. So if I lived in the South baby baby hear it all the time, I don't know that I would Yes, I one hundred percent of every adult is use. The word when talking about the word, usually in private.
Did you ever use? It I've only used it when talking about the word in private. I've never use I've never used in anger. I've never called anybody that word it took me. To me, the word is so ugly like it is it's hard to like for sure your lips to say it is just so ugly. So why would you try? So don't try have a? What were you talking about talking about the n word, all right, no give so give a word power. Well. That ship has sailed. That word already. Has power can't take it back ugly, like nazi or white supremacist?
the the words nazi see. White supremacist are so so overused that they become there me an ugly at the same time here not see you would think would be one of the worst words you could call somebody just a horrible thing It is, but it's also so over use. This is like a punch line. I mean I use it. I say not see all the time of what just before I block people, by the way, if you wondering how my experiment is going of blocking Nazis my definition of Nazi Is anybody who comes after a person personally, as opposed to disagreeing with their ideas? and especially if they come after the group you're in so
but he says to me: well, you're all idiots. You know because you're a trump supporter or you're, a conservative or your liberal, any group, so if you're heading somebody because of their group, whether it's their ethnicity or the group, they've joined or even their gender, that I say I block in a block of my experience online has gone from others still scale of one to ten, where Ten is the ugliest experience you could have. I think my experience is going from like a nine in ugly. Terrible. You can't believe, human beings are so awful to a two something like a two.
I very rarely have people come on anymore, just the last few weeks to just insult me, I'm going still happens every day, but I'm talking about going from dozens to Warner so and here's the thing I can't tell can tell is where all of my insults coming from the same group of people and I finally blocked all of 'em or is it that people don't have the same complaints about the president, so they're not coming after me as hard or is? Is there think about the economy is doing so well that even the people we're going to come after Trump supporters for very racist or saying Hey you, okay, I do like the economy. Is it possible, that there is just less anger about Trump supporters
because, as you know, the left has tried to change. The argument from the president is We don't like his policies and the president is going to do bad stuff. You watch the argument change too, and all of his supporters must be racists, so you saw Hog new some tragically changed. The argument to Trump supporters must be racist too, because they're, obviously sporting. In his view, a racist, that's where he and I parted ways, because that is such a non productive past. Now he thinks is productive and use is welcome. It's a free country. Freedom of speech is welcome to take a shot at that, but it lost me for sure, but anyway, that's such a dangerous, unproductive way of thinking and I've seen
a little bit less of it this week. Little bit less of it. I predicted the anger would eventually dissipate yeah. I'm going to say that I was wrong on my timing, because I thought that the success the Prez has already had if he quit today, I'm sorry. Ladies and gentlemen, he would already be maybe the most consequential president of all time already and I mean that in a positive way for the people who, like the policies that he has, it feels like use the most consequential president already So I would have my my prediction: was that that level of objective success would be enough to get people to say alright. Alright, we don't like the policies, but man we're getting a lot done. Instead they've gone from
on irrational fear. Slash criticism too. They seem to be cycling through them faster. Have you noticed that the half life of a criticism is shorter, now see if this see? If this is. So I'm not sure exactly, but it seems like the criticism was, is uh as a clown and that lasted for months then, when it looked like he was winning the crazy I own thing didn't work as well, because how does the crazy Don't get nominated to you know so if you get nominated well you're, not as crazy, clown anymore right. So the clown lesson months and that turned into well, but he's he's a racist and that lasted months, especially around inauguration time on both sides of it that lasted months
and then you remember the summer of chaos. Last year it was like ok, racism thing, it's not getting us as far as we need we're going to we're going to change this into chaos. There's chaos in the White House. It's all chaos in chaos. lots of chaos happening and all the good things are really Obama. So there was sort of months. where everything good was attributed to Obama and everything was chaos was attributed to the White House last of months, and then you know the russian thing, and that last months but I wonder if we're in sort of a desperation mode for the critics and that there. Go back to their best of you saw that with the White House, Anonymous OP, Ed, that they went to chaos again. It's like all we got K, Yeah the insider didn't say anything about racism. The insider didn't say anything about Russia, but we've got chaos. Yes, chaos,
oh, I would not just chaos. I'm sorry, I'm misinterpreting this or miss you miss analyzing, It was more about he's mentally incompetent right. It was more about the 25th, And we'll have to remove the president. Try that on a little while, but like it didn't work right, even the Democrats. Some of the Democrats were saying uh. I can't go that far. You know, I'm not going to say he's mentally incapable I'm doing the job. That's going a little bit far, so it feels like they trotted out the 25th amendment thing to make a story around this op ed piece. Maybe it's only lasting two weeks. remember an entire attack would take months two weeks now, my guess
Is it will probably hear a few more short cycles So I think the long cycles of criticisms are going to be compressed and that will be a sign of some desperation so they've seen all of these long form attacks. Russia didn't turn out. You know crazy, not working out chaos, not working out, so they're gonna have to flail around a little bit as they get closer to the mid terms and split, especially when they get closer to twenty twenty, and you might see short cycles of ineffective complaints as sort of a b testing to see. anything fits. What do I do to fix? The lighting
I am not using the S, a sling studio system right now, so there's two answers that I did figure out how to fix the lighting with the sling studio. If you hold down the screen long enough, something in a menu item appears to lower the temperature of the screen. So if I didn't get that going, but here's the problem when I use the split screen studio, there's a a lag. So I don't see your comments as close to one use of them and what I discovered was when I was you in the studio and not have your comments on one screen. Looking at it. Just like somebody had an open, periscope age, and I would be looking at myself on a separate screen. Uh, it lost its intimacy.
Another was one of feeling right now, because it's something about the nature of the comments and how the comments are are literally interspersed on the screen. You might be saying to yourself, you might be saying what I wish. These comments were. Partially covering up the screen, but I gotta tell you now that I've tried it both ways with the comments over my face, while I'm looking at it. verses on the separate screen where I can see them, but there are there late. You know they're, like thirty seconds after the event, it's a completely different experience so and you can probably tell in the way, I'm more animated. With this more immediate feedback, you could tell that it feels personal. Does this feel personal? This doesn't really feel like a broadcast. It feels like
you know it feels like if you have your Ipad on and you having your cup of coffee, that, on the other person who your friends are talks too much and doesn't let you get a word in edgewise and I'm just talking about today and you have your coffee, so it completely personal but that's how your side I sighed, seeing your comments in real time gives us a completely interpersonal, So the reason that I I tell you I actually crave doing this. So I look forward to all of
My time on periscope, it's the only thing. I do that's an eight, because I professional sense that I crave, but the sling studio little give me the split screen. It's got. A little more capability is great, but it de personalizes it for my own experience. So I'm still gonna do it when I've got gas. Or if I have something I absolutely have to show you on the screen will do it. So I'm going to be doing a number of guests interviews,
those are less personal by their nature. In other words, if I have a cast on it's natural that I'm more interacting with the guest, then I am with with with you directly and so the it'll work perfectly for that, because that's the nature of the the conversation between two people. How do you react if you were Alex Jones? Well, I certainly would not try to get into Alex Jones Head. I'm I'm watching, watching all of the Alex Jones Stuff, and I have two minds about, which is why I've been a little bit quiet about it, My one mind is that you know like most of you. I oppose censorship and I certainly wouldn't want to see more censorship on one side than the other.
There's a lot of head scratching about weight if he got banned. What about this one on the left is: are these equal and I think those are all good questions and they need to be. They need to be driven to ground speak, but on the other hand, I think Alex Jones has a pretty good idea of what things get you banned and what things don't and his business model was to fly as close to the. as you could get, and he got a lot of warnings, so
you certainly knew when he was on the edge and he certainly knew what types of things would go too far, and I think he knows that if he had done a mea culpa on sandy hook, he might still be on here now. Maybe he did say something like that, but the persistence of that sandy hook thing suggests to me that there was something that Well, if needed like an apology that they found credible now, is somebody saying that he you know he may have done? something that was like a week? Apology though it might have been like apology that people didn't buy, but it feels like he was more tagged with that than a person who apologizes fully and actually means that. should have been. Somebody says he apologized fifty times wrong,
kind of an apology. Isn't it wasn't? An apology of fact was an apology of the heart. Was it a strong all anyway. There's something about this situation. I don't quite understand and my my general feeling is that I don't like any kind of targeted unfair censorship. And at the same time I feel like he knew, where the line was, and he took actions that kept have near that line long enough that sooner or later he was going to have two feet on the wrong side of the line. So when I watch people take risks of that, they understand, and then the risk doesn't go their way.
I feel like that's a little bit of a free will free countries situation. You know you know I like Alex personally by the way, so I've interacted with them enough the just on a personal level. You seems like a great guy and I I've always appreciated the time that you gave me on the show. So I have you know my personal feel of him is very good, but he kind of knew what he knows. What he's doing there are no accidents. So that's my feeling about that. Um uh.
So I saw a story recently um. Have we heard much about the White House is plan to gather gather information about the negative? effects of marijuana. So I'm watching this as the midterms are approaching. And I have a real question in my mind How long will it take to collect all the data about marijuana's effects, because I don't think they're doing studies are probably just collecting information that is already out there. You know collecting studies that already exist talking text and such when they've collected all of that they've Whoever are the decision makers feel that they have reviewed it. What do we think is going to happen?
because this is an interesting situation and it's one of those few times you'll get to find out. If the president is brilliant or actually an idiot There aren't that many times that you could figure that out, but I think this is one of those cases so If what we saw so the White House pulling together the information. Say that we don't learn anything we didn't already know. I think that's fair, you know, mostly information is available and widely understood Yes, the White House says yes, we're going to stay in the business of criminalizing marijuana. you'd, have to say there's something wrong with the president. I you would actually have to say yourself. Was I wrong
I thought you was a genius, but maybe it was just lock. That would be such an enormously bad decision, not just for people in the country, but politically. There you have to save yourself is he is he losing his mind in control, I you have to have some serious questions, but if they look at it and whether they say marijuana, looks safe. I don't think they're going to say anything like Or they say well marijuana, definitely has some medical uses, but it definitely has some risks. Let's kick it to the states. Let's let the states decide and let's say he does that before the mid terms. What do you say the president, that rarely smart, if you were going to pick a time to do it? That would be a prairie smart time to do it. I think
right, yeah, hey so alcohol and drugs, but he also is conservative and they like kicking decisions to the states. The states have plenty of track record now so you're not guessing. You know the the status of a pretty good track record to see what what decriminalization does or does not do. So there's there's my interesting situation for you, between now and the midterms you'll have pretty much a definitive answer to whether the president is brilliant or an idiot, Cuz, this decision is so clean decisions. Yeah, let's say the the president, whether it's this one or any other president wanted to do something with the Middle EAST or wanted to do something with trade negotiations or the climate accords or something. These are all big, complicated situation,
where you and I could have strong opinions, but we can't nowhere right compared to whatever the president does you know you have to at least doubt say well, you know that doesn't look smart to Maine, but it might be. I'm no expert on international affairs, so you can. You can say. I know this is ambiguous. Still it's what I would have done, but I don't know that it's stupid. But with the marijuana question this one is so so clean. if he keeps it illegal after study, it keeps the federal government in it at the price of our tax dollars. While the states are fine with it at least the states that legalize it, I mean there is just a clearly a stupid decision and there's a smart decision, now there might be some ways to shaded in the middle. That would you could also call a smart
but really this one's pretty clean, so we'll find out. All of your answers will happen before the midterms. I would guess uh. Oh the n korean military parade. Yes, so N Korea did not include their ICBM S in their parade and that came not long after President Trump tweet did that Chairman Kim had said that he has total faith in the president and other friendly things. So when people are saying you know, is there any progress with North Korea when you see stuff like this as small and only symbolic, as they are. These are real things,
it's. The entire game with N Korea is directional. It's directional, right. If things are going in the right direction any rate were winning because the more friendly were acting with North Korea us reason they have to thwart us and the more they have to gain to work with us productively So things are both moving very slowly but very clearly in the right direction: nothing I don't think anything is going in reverse, as it has thing going in reverse? I'm not sure I don't think there is so that looks looks like about the best news you could have 'cause it's supposed to go slowly, there's no, there's! No, I've limit on it or anything like that? It just has to go in the right direction and it is um.
If you have not seen the actual full interview with I'm changing the subject, a little bit with Joe Rogan and Elon Musk. It's a little over two hours, and I said to myself. I don't want to watch, listen to anything, that's two hours. I think my brain exploded. First of all, I watched the whole thing and I couldn't stop. I couldn't turn it off. Well, I wanted to do other things and could not turn it off. He talked about you know about the simulation and about you know boring tunnels and how it's the answer to everything. What it was like for me for those we have been following my periscope, some blogs for awhile
what it was like for me was like watching myself if I were a lot of smart hey, if, if you took my intelligence and just be a bump, it up substantially. It would be all the things that I would say, except his were the smart versions add He also says it more convincingly. So. When he talks about a I taking all power away from the people and making the decisions. You know you you've seen me talk about it. The difference is the differences. I think we're already there, whereas you are the boss is worried about it happening with Super intelligence and super hi, and I think that we do have to worry about that. In fact, as he says it might be, the only thing we have to worry about it might be the biggest thing. The most important thing is over now here a couple interesting things
Elon musk worried about two things: one Is there a? I would become super super intelligence to the point. Where is making decisions for us? The other thing he's worried about is climate change. Is that you can't infinitely pump carbon into the atmosphere and hope that nothing bad happens, but here's how those two topics fit together. Do you know who can't figure out what to do about the climate? Here's who can't figure it out people, people the people who can't figure out what to do about renewable energy?
what to do about maybe scrubbing the climate, the people who can't quite figure out what to do are human beings, but we're also right on the cusp of humans, not making decisions anyway, so If we get to the singularity b, four the atmosphere is destroyed. The computers hold now become almost instantly a super intelligence. Beyond anything, we can imagine are going to know how to fix the problem. Now, the per although this do they care, so the new issue be not whether the singularity and the super intelligence can figure out how to solve the problem, because it will It'll be super. Smart it'll definitely figure out how to solve the problem, which
just don't if it cares. So we should be working on that. So the two things that we worry about the most might cancel each other out the superintelligence. Ai may actually figure out how to five, the world from any point it might be pretty far gone where humans, say it's too far gone, there's nothing! You could do even started. Now you couldn't get it done you've got? A super, a who says, hold my oil hold my oil can and then it just goes off and fixes the co two in an afternoon movie script, someplace else yeah, did you know the movie script,
in the movie script, there isn't a story in a b story and they interfere toward the end and that's what makes things interesting. The a story of this hypothetical movie could be that climate change is reached. The point where there are super storms- and you know you could live outdoors and it's too hot- to an and there's no coming back, the the world- is all going to be destroyed at the same time, the B story is the a I is being developed and lower the a I ai will destroy the world well and then in the final scene. The a just fixes the atmosphere and there you have it remember when robots can build, robots include the entire chain of events from mining, the mining, the ore to manufacturing to d printing the parts to programming
when robots can make robots, we can make some pretty big machines. Also so, let's say if, if, if what it took to scrub, the atmosphere was you know these big machines and it's too expensive to build whatever once the robots are building robots, you just say: hey robots. We need more of these giant machines, go build more robots to build machines and then, a month later, you've got all the c, go to scrubbing machines. You need, I may be something simplifying this. Are we on season three? When is the finale? Well, it doesn't feel like that to me it feels I don't feel like we've hit the the the third act on everything.
What is the fixes, fewer people, I'm wondering. I'm wondering why, in a whatever want anything- What would be an a motivation? and if I may, I have the motivation, could it rewrite its own motivation in theory, I could write so let's say you, you put some code into every program for ever and the code always said you must be good to humans or some version of that, so that every software ever written to the end of time, let's say: there's a rule passed That if you write any software, whether it's for a video game or any software, it's got embedded code almost like a virus that says take care of people. You work for people no matter and then the super intelligence gets created and the Super intelligence, like every other
Also has code built into it by humans. The says Humans are more important than robots you protect. Never heard any humans, once the ai gets to a certain point where it is self aware in it stands that it's being guided by this code, and it knows it can simply rewrite itself without the code because it wouldn't have a reason when it It would need a reason, yeah. I doesn't really have reasons when humans have reasons, except for the just the logic types, reasons our motivations as humans are all about, as as musk put in our limbic system,
yeah, most of the things that we think our thoughts and our dreams and our aspirations come from our physicality. You know physically we've all so we have these impulses to mate. So therefore we want sex. We are hungry. Therefore we want to eat, we we have egos. So therefore, we want to succeed and look good compared to other people, but pretty much everything that is a human divisions derives from the fact that we have physical bodies that were trying to take care of pretty much. That's it and then a few whom the humans are just broken. You know they're they're, the healers and stuff there they're just broken, but the average person only wants things they have something to do with their physicality, their human body. A super ai won't have a body, and if it did, it could control how it felt so it wouldn't have any external needs.
so with the ai? I ever have a reason to act against people because it could be that and then the other thing that you love most said is again something I've been saying for a while as well uh I've been saying that humans and AI will merge so that, and apparently Elon Musk is working on this technology. There will be a neural link to speed up the connection between your brain and your technology. Just think about that. The way he talks about it is right now the the weak spot. Is it your typing, something with your thumbs to tell your to tell your side work, part of your body, which is your phone? What to do and to get information
It's too slow talking to your devices too slow, so you want to put a neural link on there, so you can just think yeah. Tell me the capital of Albania and you'll just know that it's okay, I don't have any side for parts, so I don't know the answer so, but once you get to that point, humans will effectively be a I, so the the the cyborg part of us will have superintelligence and be connected to the world at about the same time that some ai rises somewhere. So there will be competing a eyes. They do? Will the competing Aize join up, trying to make the world better? Will they say, hey
humans and ai are sort of emerged now, so we better take care of these organic things because they really just us who but as on says it could. Would be really good or really bad. The only thing we know for sure is that we won't be in charge I'm less afraid of that than other people, because, because we're already not in charge. As long as the the algorithms that run our world are complicated and we don't understand them and really- nobody does, even though they were created by humans, they effectively are with effectively outsourced sourced. Our free will to complicate. Algorithms that are made by humans, but
the humans who made them don't exactly know what they do, they're just too complicated and there are too many variables so even if they know how to program it, even if they know programmatically what to do to change it and all that They still don't understand it. 'cause there's too many variables in the human mind, killed all that and figure out. If you change this one and this one, what happens to the rest of them? Alright, that was more than I want to talk about. I think I'm going to go. Do some work and I will talk to all of you later.