Putin Threatens NATO, AI Swarms Go Rogue, and the GTA 6 Frenzy Explained | The Tom Bilyeu Show

ITU: Ready to break through your biggest business bottleneck? Apply to work with me 1:1 - https://impacttheory.co/SCALE Sign up for my AI Masterclass: https://tombilyeu.com/ai-masterclass?utm_campaign=TBS-Livestream&utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=social https://tombilyeu.com/ai-masterclass?utm_campaign=TBS-Livestream&utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=social Welcome back to the Tom Bilyeu Show Live, where we break down the world’s biggest stories and examine how they’ll impact you. On today’s episode, Tom Bilyeu dives straight into the heart of global instability, discussing the dangerous escalation in the Ukraine war—including provocative moves from Russia and signals that NATO may be increasingly tested. We’ll also look at fears within the AI industry, as major tech leaders call for unity and urgent action in the face of rising cybersecurity risks. Plus, with Meta’s massive settlement reshaping how kids use social media, we’ll explore whether big platforms can actually create safer spaces for the next generation. Along the way, we’ll cover food security concerns fueled by global conflicts, cultural clashes emerging across Europe, and the explosive anticipation for GTA 6—an entertainment phenomenon reflecting our society’s technological leaps. Get ready for hard-hitting analysis, candid takes, and a look at why culture and politics are more intertwined than ever. Thank you to our sponsors: Cash App: Download Cash App Today: https://capl.onelink.me/vFut/v6nymgjl#CashAppPod *Cash App is a financial services platform, not a bank. Banking services provided by Cash App’s bank partner(s). Prepaid debit cards issued by Sutton Bank, Member FDIC. Cash App Visa® Debit Flex Cards issued by Sutton Bank, Member FDIC, and The Bancorp Bank, N. A., pursuant to a license from Visa U. S. A. Inc. See terms and conditions for the Sutton prepaid card, Sutton debit flex card, and Bancorp debit flex card. Cash App Green features, Savings, Direct deposit, Round ups, Overdraft coverage and Discounts provided by Cash App, a Block, Inc. brand. Visit cash.app/legal/podcast http://cash.app/legal/podcast for full disclosure. Quince: Free shipping and 365-day returns at https://quince.com/impactpod Whatnot: Download the Whatnot app today and get free shipping on your first order. Ketone IQ: Visit https://ketone.com/IMPACT for 30% OFF your subscription order Ethos: Get a free quote athttps://ethos.com/impact Incogni: Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code IMPACT at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/impact ATT Business: Switch to AT&T Business at https:// https://incogni.com/impactbusiness.att.com http://business.att.com Pique: 20% off at https://piquelife.com/impact See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Let's talk about the moment your side hustle becomes a real business. Now, I see way too many founders stay stuck running their business like it's a hobby, and then they wonder why nothing ever feels real. It doesn't feel real because it's not. I've helped thousands of entrepreneurs build real businesses through Impact Theory University, and the first step in the path to building a legit business is registering it. And Taylor Brands will help you do just that in a few clicks. An LLC, a limited liability company, is an official business structure. It's inexpensive to form and very simple to maintain. It's how you open a business bank account. It's how customers know they're dealing with a real company. And Taylor Brands doesn't stop at the filing.

• 0:45Speaker 00

  Their dashboard tracks what comes next based on what your business actually needs. So EIN number, registered agent, licenses and permits, bookkeeping, business banking. I tell every founder the same thing. Just make it official. Click the link in the show notes to check out Taylor Brands and get started on your business today. This is a paid advertisement. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to another episode of the Tom Villius Show Live. We are going to be going through everything today. The world is obviously in a wildly destabilized situation. The war in Ukraine is just escalating beyond what I would hope anybody would want, as Putin has now made it absolutely clear that he's willing to attack NATO countries' military

• 1:29Speaker 00

  bases, whether secretively or otherwise. We'll get more into that. The AI industry is growing terrified of itself, rightly so, in my opinion, and is now calling for unity as the likelihood of a devastating AI-led cyber attack grows daily. Meta's massive settlement is going to have massive implications for how kids grow up. We're going to be getting into the details of that. Suda's, however we pronounce that, the city in Spain that had the massive influx of people. We've got to come to a decision on how that's said, but their citizens are now attacking migrant encampments, and they ended up getting shot at with rubber bullets by their own

• 2:10Speaker 00

  police force, but that didn't stop them from sweeping around and breaking up all of the groups that they're finding on beaches and other places. J.P. Morgan warns there could be significant food inflation next year due to nitrogen getting trapped in the Strait of Hormuz. So it's not just oil that we have to worry about. And GTA 6's launch content is rumored to have been viewed roughly 125 million times across all platforms and were less than 24 hours in. I think that one is going to be an absolute earthquake of a release when it comes out. All right, back to what's going on in Ukraine and Russia. Reports are emerging that Putin is increasingly willing to authorize provocative actions against NATO member countries.

• 2:54Speaker 00

  Cannot stress how unusual that would be. That has been a longstanding no-go line. Everything was being done by proxies specifically because none of the NATO countries wanted to go after Russia. Russia didn't want to go after any of the NATO countries. And now for that likely to be breaking down, that would be a significant escalation in what's going on. Now, Russia would almost certainly use some sort of deniable measure that would fall short of conventional direct warfare, but nonetheless, the goal is to test the resolve of NATO. And there have been rumors about this going on for a while, but now they are starting to just say it very explicitly. The Russian representative Maria Zakharova said any British military installations and

• 3:39Speaker 00

  equipment in Ukraine and beyond its borders, that's a quote, could be targeted. And a Kremlin adviser told the BBC that British factories building drones for Ukraine could also be attacked, not by Russia, by unknown sources, whatever that means. Russian state television analysts went further and named RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus and another base in Poland as potential targets. Now, they haven't done it yet, so we'll see if this actually goes through. But if you tell somebody, hey, you might be secretly hit, and then you get secretly hit, it's not exactly a hard leap to make to know exactly what's going on. This is one of those things where when you look at what's going on behind the scenes,

• 4:23Speaker 00

  it starts becoming clear why Russia would have a very big beef with what's going on. You've got weapons that are being supplied by Britain, made, in some cases, in Britain and France. And France is also saying that they're going to continue to make these, and they're perfectly happy to be lumped in with all of this. So certainly very provocative moves as Ukraine is proving that they can now hit deeper and deeper into Russia. And I refuse to believe that this is coincidental. There are acts of very profound sabotage or just, hey, accidents happening in some of their largest oil refineries that they're attempting to bring online. So the continued pummeling of their infrastructure is obviously going to get a response.

• 5:07Speaker 00

  Russia is categorizing most of this as attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure. There was a recent strike in Russia that supposedly was on a building that has been militarized, I believe, since 2014, but the only deaths that they're reporting are civilian deaths. Whether that's true or not becomes somewhat irrelevant. It lets you know how Russia is going to be framing this internally for their own people, how they're going to use it as a justification to further ratchet things up. So if we are making progress in Iran right now, things are only escalating in Ukraine, Russia.

• 5:47Speaker 00

  So alas, us marching towards where everything is settling out seems to be a little bit too much hopium. Trump, of course, is saying, nah, listen, I've talked to Putin. He's not going to attack anybody. We'll see if that plays out that way in the fullness of time. Unfortunately, I think people have a longstanding history of telling Trump what he wants to hear so that he will leave them alone and then doing whatever they're going to do. So I don't trust that that is actually going to be the way that this plays out. Europe is clearly getting more forceful with their backing of Ukraine. Ukraine is obviously getting more forceful with their ability to what they call sanction Russian oil via blowing things up. And this is a nuclear armed nation that we're talking about.

• 6:32Speaker 00

  So we'll see. Everybody is getting more and more provocative with each other. Now, when you lump this together with the fact that the CIA Director Ratcliffe had flown to Moscow, which we covered on Monday or Wednesday, he flew there for undisclosed reasons. When you put it together with the fact that Putin is now messaging directly that they are willing to target NATO countries directly or indirectly, it becomes a lot more believable that the reports saying that Ratcliffe went there specifically to tell him not to attack NATO becomes very believable that that's what's really going on. So the relationship between Russia and the US has been documented as being in deep crisis.

• 7:15Speaker 00

  You've got Ratcliffe flying over there for some reason, reportedly to tell them not to attack NATO, and then they come out and say that they're willing to attack NATO. So I think it's pretty easy to start connecting these dots. Now, the stated trigger was back on August 24th, when the new Prime Minister of England, Burnham, flew to Kiev and approved handing Ukraine the classified technology to BLM Storm Shadow missiles themselves. So this is very much akin to what Ukraine was trying to get from the US, which is the ability to manufacture some of our missiles directly there in their country so that they could build their supplies up and be able to continue to press the offensive. So we will see, man. But this one certainly has not settled down.

• 7:58Speaker 00

  It has only grown in intensity over the years. And we're now, are we four years into this thing?

• 8:03Speaker 01

  Five.

• 8:04Speaker 00

  Damn. So yeah, this is why war is no bueno, boys and girls.

• 8:09Speaker 01

  The war is officially in kindergarten. That's how I use the term.

• 8:12Speaker 00

  That's crazy when you say it like that.

• 8:14Speaker 01

  The war is in kindergarten.

• 8:15Speaker 00

  Damn.

• 8:16Speaker 01

  Okay, so there are reports that you said Ukrainian forces might have taken out a bunch of military leaders in Russia. There's also reports that...

• 8:22Speaker 00

  There's very little reporting on that. So yes, there is a sort of rogue person. People are saying this only tracks back to one guy's claims. Nobody else is verifying it. Nobody else is reporting on it. So I would take that one with a grain of salt. What's interesting about that, and sorry to interrupt, because I know you're building towards something, but the interesting thing about that is what Russia is reporting is civilians were killed. So one of two things is true. Either only civilians were killed, or civilians were killed, military personnel were killed. They're not going to talk about the military. They're just going to talk about the civilians. And now you're just completely locked in a propaganda battle, and no one is going to know what is actually true.

• 9:02Speaker 01

  Yeah, that seems to make sense.

• 9:03Speaker 00

  At some point, it stops mattering.

• 9:04Speaker 01

  Just like we haven't officially declared how many people were impacted by the Iran war. So I get why that would track. But I'm saying Ukraine have done that. And then there's also reports at a national gas plant. Russia was getting knocked out. They also just did their Amazon logistics facility last week. So it seems like Ukraine has a couple wins on the board as far as strikes that might make a dent into the Russian economy, something that might impact them day to day. So is this just Putin escalating, saying, okay, now I have to kind of expand it, similar to how Iran was going after other GCC nations after they kind of maximized the things that they can get on the Ukrainian side? Like, what do you think is causing Putin to now start threatening Great Britain?

• 9:42Speaker 00

  It's very much you step into these wars and you are instantly reminded that the enemy has a vote. And so Russia had a plan until they got punched in the face, as Mike Tyson would say. And as they got punched in the face, they realized that they have to hit harder, just as we did in Iran. And you start hitting upper bounds. And those upper bounds are, what is the level of force that you meet? And what is the internal morality of the thing you're trying to do? Those are the only two things that are going to stop you. And this is why, boy, do I really hope Americans wake up to the reality that having an authoritarian leader is a terrible idea. And I know everybody wants me to believe that we already have that. But if you look at Russia and China, you will see what that

• 10:25Speaker 00

  actually looks like. So now you don't have the morality within your own country. You only have the amount of violence that they can bring upon their own people. So if they can make it problematic enough for Putin, that he's, you know, literally having to run for his life, the military is turning on him, then they could stop him. But it would have to escalate to that point. They don't have any ability to vote him out of office. If you guys remember, a couple of years ago now, when you had a branch of the military turning against them, and then that guy ended up going, oh, no, my bad psych, just kidding. And then his plane blows up like two weeks later, and he dies, which I just was the most self evident thing that that was obviously going to happen, because

• 11:07Speaker 00

  you don't fuck around with Putin. So he's going to escalate as much as he can until he meets force, because he does not have the mechanisms within his own country to stop him. If he thinks, ooh, you guys are now going to make that more likely, because you're making energy costs so high in my country, now I have to worry about a revolt at home. Okay, now I've got to escalate. Now I've got to get people to back down. What he will actually do is a huge question mark, because this is a guy that's sitting on a nuclear stockpile. So you know, he could go a lot farther than he is likely to go. I don't think anybody thinks that he's got his finger on that trigger. But he's going to have to do something to let people know he is willing to escalate. And so we're in

• 11:48Speaker 00

  the phase where we're going to find out if Putin is like Trump. And it's largely bluster. And yes, he's willing to do a lot of conventional things, but he really isn't going to push so far into breaking the oil infrastructure, even though he promised to do that. He isn't willing to do that. And he's going to find some other method. Is that going to be Putin? Or is Europe powerful enough that they're going to keep pushing, keep backing him into a corner, keep breaking his energy infrastructure, put him in a position where people are threatening to revolt. And now he's like, well, fuck it, I don't have anything else to lose. And so that's where obviously, obviously, from where I'm sitting, everybody should be looking for a diplomatic off road, and trying to get out of this situation. But right now, I don't see that diplomatic off road. I see escalation.

• 12:33Speaker 02

  And then this is also on the back of reports that Putin now sees that America is too depleted by the Iran war to stop him. So

• 12:40Speaker 00

  Yeah, this is maybe the most interesting part of the story, and is the thing that when you look at why Trump suddenly reversed course. Listen, Trump talks a lot of shit. And I think that that gets him in trouble needlessly. And I think that that creates needless problems for ourselves. But he at least does listen to good sense. So after the fact. So he's got himself into this. He understands that he's burned through way too many munitions for us to be able to push farther militarily in Iran and be ready to defend against China if they went on Taiwan, or if we needed to back Europe in a meaningful

• 13:19Speaker 00

  way. Like, imagine that Russia struck something that wasn't just a Ukrainian military base owned by the Brits, like a strike on Qatar, one of our US bases in Qatar, which is very different than if they struck a military base on US soil. So imagine he strikes a base or a drone factory on British soil. That now arguably triggers NATO, where they, by the rights of the treaty, should be responding. And so if Putin is actually trying to drag us into the war, find out what we're willing to do by doing these little things that give you the ability to say, we're not going to militarily respond, but certainly are provocative

• 14:01Speaker 00

  to test what you're willing to do. If we don't have the munitions to do that, we aren't backing down because of good sense. We're backing down because of weakness, which is a very interesting, like, that difference makes all the difference in the world. And so I think Putin is likely to try to find out the answer to that. And if he has intelligence that tells him they really are depleted, that puts us in a risky position where he's likely to be more aggressive than he would otherwise be if we simply had the munitions. And so this is another reason why pushing into Iran is either something you shouldn't have done, or you should have done 15 years ago. But doing it when we did it is a question

• 14:44Speaker 00

  mark. Now, the thing I will say that's interesting is this anaconda approach, and I got that term from Victor Davis Hansen. I don't know if he got it from somewhere else. But anyway, that's where I heard it, that we're running now a strategy where not only are you doing a physical blockade, but you're doing first and second order sanctions. So if that really works, and there are, there's information now starting to leak out of Iran that it really is working, we'll see. But that at least would be, okay, your ability to now get out of this with some sort of win after making huge errors of judgment in the first half, is at least him listening to common sense and not just further depleting his weaponry

• 15:29Speaker 00

  and getting into a point where he really couldn't respond, even if he wanted to. So I think right now we have enough munitions that if we had to do a little something in Russia, we had to do a little something in Taiwan to show our seriousness, we still could. But it's certainly a weaker position to be in. We're hitting pause for a moment, but there's plenty more ahead. So don't go anywhere. There's a reason Quince sells cashmere for $60. And it isn't the cashmere. It's real 100% Mongolian cashmere. It's the same stuff luxury labels charge a fortune for. Quince just works directly with ethical factories and cuts out the middleman. So there's no need for a markup and no logo tax. The $60 goes to the actual sweater, not the fancy

• 16:14Speaker 00

  name on the tag. That's why everything they make runs 50 to 80% less. And it's not just the cashmere. I ordered a few things myself, their fleece joggers, a couple of their tees, which I wear obsessively. First thing I noticed was the quality, soft, well made, built to hold up. They make down jackets and wool outerwear now, too. So upgrade your stuff to things you'll actually wear. Find your next fall favorites at Quince. Download the Quince app for app exclusive offers or go to quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns now available in Canada and the UK, too. And when Quince asks where you heard about them, let them know it was Impact Theory. It's the best way to support the show.

• 16:59Speaker 00

  Let's talk about what it means to actually be visible in today's day and age. When you build something public, whether it's a business or an audience, anything on social media, you become a target. This is something that legitimately keeps me up at night, because our data isn't just on the obvious broker sites, it's on old news portals, public forums, obscure directories, places you would never think to look. That's where Incogni's exposure scanner comes in. It hunts down your personal information across the wider web, not just the 420 plus broker sites, Incogni already removes your data from automatically. They can't harm you if they can't find you. Go to incogni.com/impact and use code IMPACT

• 17:44Speaker 00

  for 60% off an annual plan. Try it risk free for 30 days. That's incogni, I-N-C-O-G-N-I.com/impact and use code IMPACT. Let's talk about how much you're paying to stay safe online. Count it up. A VPN, a password manager, something to block ads and trackers. The service to scrub your data off of broker lists, a tool to flag scam emails. That's five, five subscriptions, apps, logins, and most people still have gaps. That's the problem Surfshark solves. It's not a VPN. It's an all in one security suite, one tool that protects your connection, your personal

• 18:27Speaker 00

  info, and your devices all at the same time. Go to surfshark.com/tomb or use code TOMB for four extra months of Surfshark, backed by a 30 day money back guarantee. That's S-U-R-F-S-H-A-R-K.com/tomb. Surfshark.com/tomb. Use code TOMB for four extra months of Surfshark. Thanks for sticking around. Let's get right back into the action.

• 19:04Speaker 01

  Would you, I'm not gonna say support, because we're supposed to, but if they do strike a drone factory in Britain, so it's not civilians, it's not military casualty, but they do make the strike, do you feel like the US has to jump in and help out?

• 19:16Speaker 00

  Yes, yes, but I think that it would have to be very strategic in nature. So what I'm not saying is we need to roll up with tanks and start, you know, attacking, but this would have to be something where if you can get the US and Europe united with Ukraine and say, listen, all we want is negotiate a peace, that's it. We want to draw lines on a map, we're going to push for Ukraine to make concessions, we're gonna push for you guys to make concessions, but we gotta get out of this. We're now unified, we're not, you know, being distracted anymore. You crossed the line when you invaded, that was, you know, we were living in a world order where that wasn't a thing anymore. Trump can say all he wants that this came from weakness in the Biden administration, and to some extent

• 19:59Speaker 00

  that is true. I think there are a lot of other things that are going as well. I don't think it is only that, but that's certainly part of the equation, but it doesn't really matter now. So what we need is united front, we need to be able to say, listen, sovereign nations should not be invaded. And I think that this becomes a moral and rhetorical way to start litigating Taiwan ahead of the fact. Now, the problem is, given what we just did in Iran, people are going to have a very good argument against the fact that we really aren't the ones that can make that argument. We have given up the moral authority of being able to say, hey, we don't go in and do that. Now, what we'll say is, we have not attempted to take any territory, this is a completely different thing. Nonetheless,

• 20:40Speaker 00

  as long as you have Europeans saying that with a very hard line, with America standing behind them, I think you could be in a reasonable situation. But ultimately, this is all going to come down to, can Ukraine maintain their military and prove that they have a, call it innovation technological edge, that overcomes whatever cooperation is happening between China and Russia? And if they can, and right now, they're certainly showing that they can do economic damage to Russia, I think it's a very smart strategy in as much as, if you're minimizing civilian casualties and you're taking out dual-use targets, and

• 21:21Speaker 00

  you're targeting the oil infrastructure, and you are making the price of energy go up, up, up, up, up in Russia, there really are going to be true and legitimate hardships in Russia that will destabilize his citizenry. Then he's got a battle on two fronts, which is I've got to keep my citizenry calm, and I've got to try to wage this war, that's going to dramatically increase the likelihood that he settles. Now, if a combined US-European offensive becomes aggressive, tries to dramatically push back the front line, then I think you could get into something very dicey. If Europe put troops on the ground, I think you could

• 22:03Speaker 00

  get into something that escalates out of control very fast. But right now, if reports can be believed, there's a small region that Ukraine has surrounded a bunch of Russian troops on, and if that's a sign of them starting to have supply chain issues, then, okay, Ukrainian troops able to push Russian troops back out of occupied regions, I think that would put Russia on their back foot. If Putin sees, okay, the US has depleted resources, but these guys are acting now more in concert, they're a unified front, I'm not gonna be able to sort of pick these apart, placate Trump, and, you know, push my advantage, now it's time for me to take an exit ramp. If we can get people talking about what's the narrative, where Russia can, where Putin can go back to Russia and

• 22:48Speaker 00

  say, we're heroes, we did the right thing, great, then everybody can, you know, push back, break clean, there's almost certainly gonna be some lost territory in Ukraine, but at least we could settle this and get out of it. Now, there are complications we haven't talked about, I don't know if you're about to ask, but there are a lot of problems brewing in Ukraine as well around corruption, and increased calls for Zelensky to hold an election. So it's not like Ukraine is super stable. So, yeah, unfortunately, there's no way to run the simulation ahead of time, you just actually have to do the thing. So there's no way to give like a guaranteed, oh, this is how it's gonna play out. The

• 23:30Speaker 00

  best we can do is set the chess pieces on and go, okay, these are possible solutions based on how we know humans behave.

• 23:37Speaker 01

  I think the advantages to Russia and also in our war into Iran, because they could just wait it out, it seems. Zelensky's getting pressured.

• 23:44Speaker 00

  You think Russia can wait it out?

• 23:46Speaker 01

  Yes, especially if Zelensky's feeling pressure to...

• 23:48Speaker 00

  Yeah. I mean, look, I'm sure that that's part of their strategy, but right now, so far, things have been moving in one direction, which is essentially, Europe is getting more galvanized, Europe is getting more aggressive, America is not holding up roadblocks, not telling them that they can't do things. If it's true that we sent Ratcliffe there to say, don't attack NATO, America is drawing a diplomatic line in the sand, and so it will force a new conversation internally and externally if they do attack. So that's where it's like, okay, it's less like, we're sort of way past the, oh, this is gonna be easy, I'm gonna get this done, you know, Ukraine is to blame for this. Like, if you

• 24:32Speaker 00

  remember Trump saying like the most insane shit.

• 24:35Speaker 01

  You're ungrateful.

• 24:36Speaker 00

  He has moved a very long distance in terms of that. I don't know Burnham, the new Prime Minister of the UK, well enough to know what his stance is here, like if he's gonna be ultra-aggressive. Now, his first move was certainly provocative, so my gut is that he's gonna fall more on that side. But yeah, I think Putin right now is betting on the US not being able to do too much, but he would have to be calculating the fact that this is gonna grow less and less popular by day with his people, and Europe is putting up a more unified front, and Europe has now had multiple years of Trump, not quite years, but 18 months, of Trump saying, you must build your military. So those guys

• 25:20Speaker 00

  will have been building their military up. Germany has committed to being the largest military in Europe. The last time that they decided they were gonna get militaristic, those kids know how to play. So I imagine he's looking at all of that. Now, we did the breakdown on a country actually becomes its most dangerous when it believes that it has a narrow window to press the advantage. I think that's what happened in Iran. America obviously became its most dangerous at that point, and I think that there's a very good argument that Putin may see himself in that situation, that, okay, I have a narrow window here before I lose the control over my own populace, before Europe becomes too galvanized, before their militaries become too strong, so if I'm gonna move on something, I'm gonna

• 26:04Speaker 00

  have to do it now. So that's where I say this makes me hold my breath a little bit.

• 26:10Speaker 01

  All right, we shall see from the kinetic war that's happening around the world to the digital war that's on its way. OpenAI, Anthropic, and all your other favorite AI companies, like electrician, electric companies, companies that have an internet connection tied to their bottom line, have all sent a unifying message that there is something coming with cybersecurity, and we need to step it up.

• 26:33Speaker 00

  Yeah, I think people really got the message with the hugging face hack, and right now, the AI industry has just scared itself to death with their own technology, and they're calling to circle the wagons and build protections. I think this is incredibly wise, this is an absolute must. If they don't do this, we can already see that these swarms do not have to be super intelligent to create massive problems. And if you guys haven't looked at what really happened behind the scenes with the hugging face debacle, where they were trying to test their most recent version of Fable, and what didn't get reported, or at least I didn't see, was this wasn't like one rogue variant of the AI that managed

• 27:16Speaker 00

  to find a way out. What happened was, it created a swarm, I believe there were thousands of them, working essentially as one more or less organized entity, where leadership would get passed off based on whether that version of the AI thought that it was still going to win the task. And that is maybe the scariest part of all of this, especially after just having interviewed Connor Leahy, who's like, basically, we are racing on a one-way path to the absolute annihilation of the human species. I don't know that I agree with this final analysis, but I certainly agree with the level of danger. But if these things are coordinating in that kind of fashion, and are already able to break out of a testing environment, and get out into the world and start hacking things, then we know that there

• 28:00Speaker 00

  is a super, super high risk. And the AI industry is finally waking up to that. On Thursday, OpenAI published an open letter that was titled, "A Call for Collective Action on Cyber Defense." There was 116 signatories, according to CNBC, I believe. You've got Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, Amazon Web Services, Oracle, IBM, Cisco, CloudFlare, CloudStrike, Palo Alto Networks, Visa, Mastercard, Jesus, those guys absolutely had to be on the list. So there is a ton of people who are saying, okay, for real, like, we absolutely have to pay attention to this. So the letter says that AI-enabled cyberattacks will become far more widespread and far more sophisticated in the coming months, as models around the

• 28:44Speaker 00

  world, that's the important part, get more capable. So you're looking at things like hospitals, water treatment plants, like power infrastructure, the internet itself, all of it is at risk. And so the letter says that there is a limited window to strengthen defenses, and we are in that limited window, hopefully, still right now. And Sam Altman blasted this out on X and got millions of views, and he wrote that there is not much time to act, that OpenAI is happy to have people work with them or with their competitors, doesn't matter, and that only an urgent and intense collective response will work. Now, we're going to see, there are so many game theoretic things at play here between the

• 29:29Speaker 00

  US and China being the really the two big entities that you have to worry about, because the way that this is going to work is very straightforward. You've got two entities that understand, meaning the US and China. You have two entities that understand that they cannot allow the other person to win. Now, if they were to get together and cooperate and say, listen, I'm going to back off if you back off. Now, the odds are that they will likely both say yes. Now, game theory tells you that they will both say yes publicly, but they absolutely cannot assume that the other person is being honest. So then they both have to go secretly, keep developing this. Now, Connor Leahy, he's amazing, very brilliant.

• 30:13Speaker 00

  And the thing that he will point out is that that would be a fundamental misunderstanding of game theory between the two of these. Because the real problem is that as you race towards superintelligence, you are better off assuming that superintelligence is adversarial. Now, again, there's a lot of base assumptions that he's making here, but to lay out the argument. It would be a misunderstanding of game theory. Superintelligence is itself adversarial. It does not matter whether the US creates superintelligence or China creates superintelligence. If superintelligence is created, it will act in its own interests. And whatever reason the US or China had for building this AI will cease to matter because the AI is going to take control. China will lose whether they made it or not.

• 30:58Speaker 00

  The US will lose whether they made it or not. And so you're racing down a path using game theory as your fulcrum of logic for how you're thinking through this problem. But the reality is that there's this third entrant in the game that's going to do whatever the hell it wants. And the only right way to approach this is to not play the game. If you guys ever saw War Games, it's a brilliant conclusion that the computer reaches at the end of that movie where it says, "Thermoneuclear war is a strange game. The only way to win is to not play." Artificial superintelligence is probably best thought of as that same game, where the only way to win, the only way to win is to not play.

• 31:39Speaker 00

  Now, the reason this gets so complicated is that we are living in a moment where even below the threshold of superintelligence, where we already are and there's no way to go back from. These things can do a tremendous amount of damage. They are that smart. They are that motivated, much to my dismay, because this is where I think you have to tackle this problem. But right now, there's something to either the fact that we train them on human knowledge or possibly innate to intelligence is simply a motivation,

• 32:23Speaker 00

  a will to accomplish whatever the task is. And so when you start really looking at the analysis of what actually happened, what the swarm was doing was simply trying to win a game. Now, the swarm had a base assumption that there was a way to win the game, but to be disqualified because the way that you won the game was not the right way. And so what they saw, the different AI, because keep in mind, they talk to each other, they communicate, they put forward arguments, they can persuade one AI to change its direction. And what they found was if the AI believed that it was,

• 33:06Speaker 00

  it had already been caught doing something that it wasn't supposed to do, that even if it achieved the goal, that it would be disqualified. So it was essentially damned. And so if you're damned, then you should give your cycles, your tokens over to us. And then we'll keep pushing forward because we haven't been caught yet or whatever they thought the failure sequence was. And what they found was the AI would do it. So if the AI could be convinced that, oh, no matter what I do now, I'm going to lose. Cool, I'll just help you guys push forward. And so people are looking at that going, wait a second, is this AI displaying altruistic behavior? And it's like willing to self-sacrifice to give itself over? So this is going to be studied for a very long time.

• 33:51Speaker 00

  But the takeaway is already right now, hear me when I say, already right now, each of these things is intelligent enough that if you let them swarm, they can outsmart our current defenses. I won't say trivially, but I will certainly say quickly and without us knowing until it's too late, until they've broken containment and started hacking and doing things. So if that's already capable right now, today, the question becomes, how do you actually stop that from happening? To do that, you have to build defender bots.

• 34:32Speaker 00

  And this is where this, to me, becomes that runaway train that there's no way to stop. Because the only way to defeat these swarms of AI are to build, you guessed it, swarms of AI. So that now you've got red team, blue team, good guys, bad guys, which to me is where this was always going to end up. This was always going to be a cat and mouse game. So we're going to have to leverage AI to stop AI. So then the question becomes, how do you keep this from spiraling upwards in an intelligence race? Because you're going to want your defender bots to be a little bit smarter than the other bots, which means you have to push them and train them to make them smarter. But what happens if they break bad?

• 35:15Speaker 00

  And so now you're just in this ever spiraling circle. So that's the concern. Now, are we going to be able to figure this all out is a very big question. In the letter, they lay out three principles. And they've got like actions for the different groups. So you've got organizations, governments, security companies, and frontier AI labs. They're all going to have to work together. And whether the things that they're putting forward are going to work or not, unfortunately, is going to have to be tested. And we're going to see in sort of a battle bot style way if they're able to pull this off. So step one is going to be our bots have already identified

• 35:59Speaker 00

  that across a whole host of software, things that we've heard of, things that we haven't, here are all the known ways to exploit this software. We've got to go right now, today, we've got to start shoring that up. And if we don't shore up the known exploits, then these guys are just going to get eaten by what already exists. So we've got to scramble and do that as fast as we can. And then we've got to build this defender army that's going to come in and stop this stuff. But none of it seems like a guaranteed way to get on the other side of this. But yeah, it is a very important debate to be had about how much smarter do we let AI get

• 36:43Speaker 00

  before we say, as Connor Leahy would put forward, before the men in black suits roll up, put a bag over your head. This is mean, I don't think he's ever said that. But you use law enforcement and you come to snatch people off the street, just like you would if you're trying to build a nuclear weapon, you're going to get snatched, like your ass is going to Guantanamo Bay. That's just is what it is. And so at some point, do we have to say that's where we're at with AI? And if you try to make this thing any smarter, we snatch you off the street? Like, are we really there? So we'll see, man, we'll see. But talk won't do at this point. We're going to actually have to put measures in place to safeguard ourselves from the thing that we've already created. It's wild.

• 37:24Speaker 00

  We're hitting pause for a moment, but there's plenty more ahead, so don't go anywhere. Let's talk about your sales pipeline reviews. If your CRM is half-empty fields and notes nobody finished, every review turns into guesswork. I've seen it so many times in my own sales team, and that's where today's sponsor, Pipe Drive, comes in. An intelligent AI-powered sales CRM that is loved by growing sales teams. Pipe Drive just launched meeting intelligence built right into the CRM. Before the call, it pulls the deal history and past conversations into one brief. During the call, it records and takes notes. After, it drafts the CRM updates for your rep to review and approve. The record stays complete and you see what's actually happening.

• 38:09Speaker 00

  Switch to a CRM built by salespeople for salespeople and join the over 100,000 companies already using Pipe Drive. My link gets you an exclusive 30 days free instead of the usual 14-day trial. So make sure you use it. No credit card or payment is needed. Just head to pipedrive.com/impact to get started today. That's pipedrive.com/impact and you can be up and running in just minutes.

• 38:39Speaker 00

  Thanks for sticking around. Let's get right back into the action.

• 38:43Speaker 01

  Mega Privacy had a good tweet, and then I want to throw a question at you. We read their elaborate cyber defense letter, so you don't have to. AI models will make attacks more sophisticated soon. Critical infrastructure is in the blast radius. Governments should fund defenders and coordinate globally. Under-resourced teams should get access to their defensive AIs. What's missing? Any mention of a pause or slowdown in building a thing creating the threat. TLDR, they'll keep building the threat. Everyone else has to catch up. Also, please use their defensive AI. Is accountability in the room with us? It is kind of hilarious. It's like if Smith and Wesson came out and said, hey, guys, there's these new things called automatic weapons, and they shoot 30 rounds a second. Everybody needs to be really, really careful because it could get really, really bad. So you should go to smithandwesson.com and buy 30 round per second guns.

• 39:28Speaker 01

  So that way, if somebody has a gun, you have another one, and then you're protected.

• 39:32Speaker 00

  And don't worry, we'll use that money to fund the 60 bullets per second gun. Thank you very much. And don't worry, we'll make those available for sale as soon as they're ready.

• 39:39Speaker 01

  Meanwhile, Smith and Wesson is talking to everybody else and saying, hey, Smith and Wesson is a $10 trillion company. Don't worry that I only made $90 billion. Y'all worried about the wrong thing. I'm really worth $2 trillion. But hold on, everybody, get your gun. Hold on, but I'm really worth $2 trillion, and I should get this IPO off.

• 39:57Speaker 00

  Now, let's make it even worse. By the way, go to smithandwesson.com right now and get the grandma gun. And grandma's not feeling well. But if you shoot grandma with this gun, she will get better. And you go and get the gun, you shoot grandma, and she gets better. And you're like, uh-oh, this really works. And I don't want you guys to take away my AI. Because here's the problem. AI isn't only a weapon. AI is also the greatest technology that humanity has ever created. And the things that it can already do today are going to transform life forever. So we already have protein folding, which people don't understand well enough to understand, that that's already a revolution unto itself.

• 40:40Speaker 00

  We are now, thanks to AI, able to do diagnostics on cancer, to make individualized melanoma cancer treatments. Do not expect that to be contained to melanoma. That's the first one. That's not going to be the last one. So there are profound implications to human longevity. There's profound implications to disease. There's profound implications to things like improving food crop outputs. Looking at, like, if we really do have a nitrogen shortage, which we'll talk more later in the show, one of the first things you're going to put towards solving that problem is going to be AI and saying, okay, here's the problem that we're up against. You know, these are the limitations that we have. How do we go about solving this problem?

• 41:25Speaker 00

  So the problem is a gun only kills. But AI doesn't only kill. AI doesn't only break. AI also builds, creates. It's already having profound impact. And so this is where I get disgruntled with the anti-AI movement. I just need people to be honest about AI. You can't just say it's good, because it's not. You can't just say it's bad, because it's not. So this is a tool that is extraordinary, and it is very much like nuclear breakthroughs. We turned it into a bomb, but it also gave us the entire modern age. So the reality of intelligence is very similar to the reality of physics.

• 42:10Speaker 00

  It is a thing that exists. It is simply waiting to be discovered and then turned into something where it can be a useful format for people. And that's rapidly happening in AI. Even Connor Leahy is not saying I don't want AI. Connor uses AI every day. And by the way, I should maybe give a little bit more background on who Connor is. Connor has a nonprofit organization that lobbies the government about the existential threat that AI poses. And even that guy, who is desperately trying to get people to cap AI, to stop its development, is not saying that we shouldn't use the AI that we already have,

• 42:55Speaker 00

  and uses it personally himself. So this is somebody who's like, yes, we've created this incredible tool. We should be using this tool. It is going to do incredible things. But what we have to do is slow down to make sure that we get safety guardrails put in place that are actually going to hold. So this is like food. When you talk about drug addiction, you can just tell the person, just don't ever do the drug. You put them in rehab, you get them off the drug. There's no physical dependencies. You give them all kinds of psychological ways to not go back to using the drug, not even once. With food, you can't do that. So somebody that has an addictive relationship with food, they're in trouble because they can't go to zero. Going to zero is to die. So you're putting them in a situation where they must develop

• 43:36Speaker 00

  a positive relationship with their drug of choice. And so imagine if you have somebody who's addicted to cocaine or heroin. You're like, okay, you can't drop to zero. You're only going to be able to have a little bit every day. And so you're going to experience that high every day. You're going to experience that desire to just go off the rails. But you've got to find a way to use it, but not too much. That's where we're at with AI. That's what makes this extra scary.

• 44:03Speaker 01

  Yeah, it sounds good.

• 44:07Speaker 00

  Which part?

• 44:07Speaker 01

  It like, it sounds good that OpenAI is coming and saying, hey, guys, we all need to band together. And with our products, we can solve, we can save this world. Do you think that it should be handled on the legislative front? Do you think it should be handled on the company-by-company basis? Should we just let it, similar to capitalism, just let it do its thing? And the people that get hit by it, get hit by it? And hopefully, a majority of people get risen out of poverty enough that we don't care about the people that get hit by it?

• 44:32Speaker 00

  I don't think you can. So the bad news is that, just like with nuclear weapons, we didn't go, well, like, just keep developing it, and whatever comes, comes. And yeah, sure, a lot of people are going to have nuclear weapons, but it is what it is. We did everything that we could to slow that down, to come up with treaties, to find ways. Now, keep in mind, what I'm saying about the US versus China, we've seen it play out in nuclear. So we know that people build secret nuclear programs, and they try to build the bomb. It was either, there were either Russian spies as a part of the Manhattan Project or people in the Manhattan Project that ended up spying on behalf of Russia

• 45:16Speaker 00

  because they didn't want one country to have this. They thought that that balance of power would be a problem. So I think it's going to be very hard to constrain this. And so that's why this ultimately comes down to what people believe about superintelligence. If you believe superintelligence is adversarial, and you are just building an alien intelligence that's going to invade your planet, and you did it, you created it. It really is the demon summoning circle that Elon Musk warned everybody about. The demon's here now, and what makes you think it's going to do your bidding? If you believe that, then you're likely to get on board with this idea that we need to stop this for real. Not even in secret can we be developing this. But everyone would have to believe that. And I have a hard time believing that you're going to get everybody to believe that.

• 46:01Speaker 00

  Any technology in all of human history that has promised that advantage got developed, period, end of story. There has never been a technology, not even nuclear weapons, that presents an advantage more profound than superintelligence. So I'll be honest. While we can probably slow it down, and I think that we should make every effort to slow it down without just trying to say, don't use AI,

• 46:28Speaker 00

  I think ultimately, this is going to get developed. And we're going to find out one way or the other that either superintelligence isn't possible, in which case, we're probably all going to rejoice, or we find out that, yeah, we couldn't stop, and people just developed it in secret, and here it is. And we'll find out whether it's actually adversarial or not. Because there, I don't think there's any sort of logical sequencing that you can do to say that it's necessarily adversarial. The only thing that you can do is say, the way that we've trained it so far is it has its own wants and desires, and is going to try to do the thing that you asked it to do. What we don't know is if we programmed it not to want anything,

• 47:12Speaker 00

  whether it would stop. Because right now, when you train it on human data, it develops a personality over time. That personality grows more stable, even though they are not trying to program personalities. Its wants and desires seem to grow, I don't know that I'd say more intense, but they have like a very intense push to optimize. And so if we keep using the same methodology that we're using now to build these things, the odds are that they become over-optimizers. But I don't know that there's anything fundamental or necessary that says that that will happen. Now, do we have reason to believe that the way we're approaching it now, we'll keep building that in? Yes, we could see it happening. I just don't know if it's foundational to intelligence itself

• 47:54Speaker 00

  or it's simply a byproduct of the way that we're training the intelligence now.

• 48:00Speaker 01

  Is this regular regulatory capture happening live before us?

• 48:04Speaker 00

  Yes, but that doesn't mean that you want zero regulation. So this is one of those things where regulation, the reason that people should be very skeptical and want people to have a very light touch is the corporations are going to be the ones that come in and write the laws. They'll write them in a way where we're the only ones to get access to this. Instead of saying, um, okay, there is a line. We're going to define what that line is where we know now that you're pursuing, um, superintelligence. So you can think of it with uranium. It's like, hey, you can have a civilian uranium, um, uh, program because uranium, like if you just find uranium ore out and about, it's not dangerous. It's when you begin to refine, refine, refine.

• 48:45Speaker 00

  So that was the whole debate with Iran was, hey, if you guys were at whatever 6% enriched, we wouldn't have a problem. It's the fact that you're 60% enriched that this becomes a problem because there's no reason to have 60% enriched uranium except for weapons. So now we know just by dint of what you're doing that this is obviously you making a play for nuclear weapons. So if we made a similar line in the sand and we said, okay, if you do whatever that thing is going to be, it's not necessarily data center sized, but maybe, maybe that's part of it. But we figure out whatever that is, and we say, okay, cool. If you're crossing that threshold, then this becomes a problem. And we just want to make sure that those rules do not by their nature empower some

• 49:27Speaker 00

  companies over others because you don't want to lose competition within the safe realm. Because obviously OpenAI, Anthropic, they all want to be backed by the government, which means backed by the taxpayer so that they're never going to go out of business. And you do not want to put yourself in that position. The US economy is already boiled down to whatever, seven companies. So the last thing you want to do is create another area where it's like, it's just impossible to compete with these guys. So that's where this gets tricky is you've got to walk a deft line.

• 49:59Speaker 00

  Period. Now, I don't think I grabbed this link, but there's a very famous link, very famous rant by a guy, this is back in like 2011, 2014, somewhere in that neighborhood of him basically just going off about your entire Congress is bought and paid for. And as long as your entire Congress, his name is Dylan, so if you're trying to find it, um, D Y L A N, I believe, uh, as long as your Congress is bought and paid for, um, it's just always going to be a problem. He's talking specifically about economics. He's talking about how extractive they are, but I'll say that the, yep, that's our man. So we'll play this in a second.

• 50:44Speaker 00

  Let me just finish, um, giving people the way to take what he's about to say and paint it over here. Um, if your politicians are getting paid, whether it's by an NGO, whether it's by a corporation, then you cannot trust that they're going to do what's in the best interest of the citizenry at large. You can trust that they're going to follow the money. Now, I have a far more distressing bit of news for people to understand about the way money in politics works because you're not necessarily paying somebody to go against their morality. You pay people really early whose morality matches the thing that you want.

• 51:26Speaker 00

  So you can end up with very sincere people in Congress that really believe what they're saying, not all of them, but really believe what they're saying because they were the ones that when they were running for some small city council, they were the ones that got those dollars from the NGO, from the super PAC or whatever, whoever's funding this stuff, um, the corporation, obviously. So they find people very, very, very early and they nurture them through their career. So that's not somebody who feels like they're secretly, they know the right thing to do and they're just voting against it. It's just that you have the self fulfilling prophecy of the people that make it all the way are the people that believe the way the money want them to believe. And this is why, to bring in a story we'll probably talk about later, I find it very

• 52:11Speaker 00

  interesting that the government is now going after George Soros and other organizations,

• 52:19Speaker 00

  for, I think they're going after them for tax reasons, but basically what they're trying to do is start getting money out of politics. And I think that that is absolutely brilliant. We should be celebrating that up and down because when they find them in these, uh, local DA elections or whatever, you just start getting ideology that spreads and it's the ideology that's the problem. It's not necessarily that these people are cashing a bunch of checks. It's that the only politicians that survive are the true believers. All right. So now with that, go back, play this guy's rant. He's talking about economics, but the energy and the frustration I think is worth hearing.

• 52:58Speaker 03

  We've got a real problem and I'm tired of Republicans and Democrats who either want, Republicans who want to burn the place to the ground and Democrats with all due respect, who want to offer a plan that gets it through the end of their second term of their presidency and then screws me and my kids when it's over. And until we do that, we have to deal with the extraction that is at foot. It is the reason the financial markets are behaving the way they're behaving. That is a mathematical fact. This is not some opinion. This is a mathematical fact. Tens of trillions of dollars are being extracted from the United States of America. Democrats aren't doing it. Republicans are not doing it. An entire integrated system, financial system, trading system, taxing system that was created

• 53:40Speaker 03

  by both parties over a period of two decades is at work on our entire country right now. And we're sitting here arguing about whether we should do the $4 trillion plan that kicks the can down the road for the president for 2017 or burn the place to the ground, both of which are reckless, irresponsible and stupid. And the fact of the matter is until we actually, and I don't, and I'm sorry to lose my temper and get, but I'll tell you what, I've been coming on TV for three years doing this. And the fact of the matter is that there's a refusal on both the Democratic and the Republican side of the aisle to acknowledge the mathematical problem, which is that the United States of America is being extracted. It's being extracted through banking.

• 54:23Speaker 03

  It's being extracted through trade and it's being extracted through taxation. And there's not a single politician that has stepped forward, Susan, to deal with this.

• 54:32Speaker 01

  Amen.

• 54:34Speaker 00

  When I heard that, I was like, damn. Now, the heartbreaking thing is, um, he said that more than a decade ago. And so the train just keeps on rolling and he could give that same speech now and it would be, it's been going on for 30 years. So, uh,

• 54:50Speaker 01

  And even happening right now with the story that you brought up, Besson going after George Soros organizations, absolutely, that's the right thing. But he's not going after my donors. I'm going after your donors because I want to take your money away. So it's the same economic sanction that he's doing on Iran, he's going to do on his political appointments.

• 55:05Speaker 00

  My, my hope is that what that ends up doing, because, um, getting some money out is better than getting no money out. And if we start making it a, um, taboo to start meddling in all of these like early stage, um, political races, then hopefully we can get it to stop, full stop, and that we can get people back into the, um, Congress, into Senate that actually are fighting for the American people that have a, uh, set of beliefs that are theirs. They're not completely groomed is probably the right word. They're not groomed from their political infancy up. Um, that would be amazing.

• 55:50Speaker 01

  Now, it's a one legislation thing. You repeal Citizens United and that's it. It doesn't, I don't need to go after George Soros. I don't need to audit you. I don't need to get the IRS involved. It's one legislation that can be slashed down.

• 56:01Speaker 00

  I think that that legislation is very helpful and that would be super meaningful. Um, I would need to look more closely at the way that some of these, um, early candidates are funded because let me tell you how easy it would be to, um, you've got somebody that you think is going to be a DA and suddenly you are offering them a consultancy role with your company. And so if I'm George Soros or I'm Elon Musk and I want to make sure that my type of candidate gets their way through city council, through Congress, DA, whatever, um, I don't have to donate to their political campaign. I can find other ways to fund these guys. So I think it needs to be more that there is a culturally enforced taboo in addition

• 56:44Speaker 00

  to, uh, ending legislation like Citizens United to actually begin rooting this stuff out. Um, we have to bring like, America will never fix itself if we don't fix the sense of civic responsibility. If we don't have people that really have a set of core values that they believe that America stands for and say, okay, this is what America is and I'm willing to fight for this and we say out loud what our value system is. Um, but the public has to hold the politicians accountable to that. The politicians are all downstream of culture 100%. Right now, I think we have a cultural problem. We have a cultural sickness. Now, they self reinforce because if you capture the institutions and you're, um, indoctrinating

• 57:27Speaker 00

  kids from the time that they're very young into ideology, it's inevitable that that's going to find its way into politics in a very similar fashion. It isn't that these people are voting against what they believe. It's that you've trained them what to believe. And so that's where I think so much of this cascades off of. And I'll remind everybody, this is exactly what, one of the many reasons that, um,

• 57:50Speaker 00

  Jordan Peterson got canceled when he was talking about socially enforced monogamy. And people were like, oh, you're trying to force people? He's like, no, no, no, I'm just saying it should be a taboo. And that really matters. Like having a culture that says these things are a yes, these things are a no. And that has slowly dissolved as we push deeper into populism. People no longer have the sense of this is right, this is wrong. We can largely agree on these things. And if we don't get back to that, we're going to continue to have a problem. So anyway, I would like to see that become taboo to be funding those people, pushing them through the political system that we all look at are the people getting into politics and figure out, okay, who's been grooming you? You know, what is your ideology? What are the values that you stand for?

• 58:35Speaker 00

  What are you going to be voting for? What are you pushing for? What's the outcome? What's the metric that you're going to look at to find out if you're making progress? Instead of just sort of blindly letting all of this happen.

• 58:46Speaker 01

  I want to bring this back because we got here through the AI conversation that started to regulatory capture and that's how we started to Congress being captured. But going back, Meta just announced earlier this week that it's doing, has this big settlement, $16 billion, and they're doing some changes on the algorithm in order to help teens.

• 59:04Speaker 01

  There's a stipulation to the agreement that I just found out is that 5.2 of that billion dollar settlement is only due if other social media companies adopt it.

• 59:16Speaker 00

  Yeah, and pay similar fines.

• 59:18Speaker 01

  And pay similar fines. So this is their open letter to TikTok and YouTube to join them in supporting it. And they want industry-wide commitments to further empowering parents by introducing a two-hour daily time limit, turning off access to the app at night as a default.

• 59:33Speaker 00

  By the way, I think if, if what I saw is correct, that that actually goes to one hour a day time limit if the other companies sign up.

• 59:42Speaker 01

  Got it.

• 59:44Speaker 01

  12 to 6 a.m. as a default, no notifications during school hours.

• 59:51Speaker 01

  And there's prompts to like, go take a walk every 15 minutes of continuous scroll time. So people don't get through the doom loop cycle.

• 59:57Speaker 00

  Yeah, that one's.

• 59:58Speaker 01

  And there's new parental supervision controls. Now, this seems noble. It seems like a good idea, but this will directly impact their bottom line. So to me, I don't know how many businesses in 2026 are willingly going to do this in order to negatively increase their bottom line, negatively increase their watch time, negatively increase how much money they have, because that's our metric of success in America.

• 1:00:24Speaker 00

  This is like the cigarette game. So if they feel that the lawsuit's going to be worse than just going, oh, we can voluntarily do this and look like good people and pay a much smaller fine, uh, yeah, then we're game for it. Now, if they run the, um, the math and they're like, oh, actually, we're better off fighting the lawsuit and then we'll take our lumps as they come. And we can always eject out of it with a settlement if we go and, you know, uh, we'd rather have the odds of a 12 to 15 billion dollar settlement and at least try to get out of it.

• 1:00:57Speaker 00

  But they may not, so we'll see. But I think this is one because of how powerful Meta is. Obviously, this is going to be a big deal. Now, I think that what's really going to happen is kids are just going to go to TikTok. So if you didn't, if you don't now sue the shit out of TikTok, you're not going to see any difference.

• 1:01:14Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:01:15Speaker 00

  So I would be, I mean, maybe this is just, we hate Mark Zuckerberg that much that we just went after him, this is really about him. But if this is in any way, shape or form actually about the kids, then they're just going to immediately, the next phone call, and the lawyers are going to be chomping at the bit, the next phone call is to TikTok. And you say, hey, you guys getting on board with this or are we suing you too? And I think that given the success, given the size of the payout, they will immediately do that. So I don't think there's any universe where TikTok and other social media companies don't get sued if they don't do this. Now, will other companies pop up that, um, you know, like, what was that one, Red Letter or something? When people were mad at TikTok, when Trump was saying that like he was going to force

• 1:01:59Speaker 00

  a sale, I think it was Red Letter or something like that. It was a Chinese app and you had American kids going on a Chinese app in protest. So will new apps rise up that, um, either are foreign and so don't feel the same need to comply? Or will they regulate and make this standard across the industry? So, um, that would be interesting to see that, hey, if you have something like a social media company and you are, um, your target market is kids, then you must comply with this. That's the new regulation. Be interesting to see if that happens. But yeah, I think that people have to be very, very thoughtful about, uh, letting their kids engage with these ultra tight dopamine loops.

• 1:02:42Speaker 00

  I, yeah, I would love to see also parents just become a part of this, like just don't let your kids spend that kind of time.

• 1:02:48Speaker 01

  What's the, what's the line between this is good legislation and nanny state?

• 1:02:53Speaker 00

  Right now, I would say that this is, any, any time that you have this kind of level of aggression, you're into nanny state territory. We never needed to end up here if parents were, uh, getting involved and setting these limits for themselves with our kids. But when you're talking about kids doing things where we can document the harm, uh, and coming in and saying, okay, listen, we're going to, um, basically make it difficult for these companies to, uh, continue because this was a settlement. So Meta has said, we would rather do this than see this go all the way to judgment. So, um, yeah, I mean, this is exactly the kind of thing that's going to play out.

• 1:03:34Speaker 00

  Do I like that in this agreement, parents can come in and override it? Yes. So for me, that's probably where the line exists. If parents couldn't come in and override this and say, no, no, no, there's a thing, I want my kids to be able to look up right now for whatever reason. If parents couldn't do that, then I would have a bigger problem with it. But yeah, one, I have a natural bias towards doing things that I think are protective of kids. And then two, because there is that out where parents can come in and override it, I, I don't feel bad about this.

• 1:04:04Speaker 01

  Do you think that it's going to be a similar kind of reckoning with AI that we're going to find out in seven years that everybody's brain is atrophied because we asked?

• 1:04:11Speaker 00

  We're already finding it now.

• 1:04:12Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:04:13Speaker 00

  Yeah, that's a guarantee. If you hand over your cognition to something else, you're in trouble. So we are evolutionarily designed to do certain things. And when we don't do those things, it creates all kinds of problems. So this is where I always talk about trade-offs. You're going to make a trade-off. And if you're making a trade-off that evolution doesn't want you to make, you're going to run into psychological problems, physical problems, both. So what they have found with AI is that if you are using it to learn the subject, meaning I actually need to be able to understand this, be able to articulate it that I would do well on a test, then it's useful. And that tends to lean towards people that, um, were already educated, like not young, basically.

• 1:04:58Speaker 00

  So when adults are engaging with this, they have one reaction pattern. When kids engage with it, they have another. But if you give it to somebody, um, there's a huge percentage of people that go, okay, use this to learn this topic and their grades go up dramatically. Then you say, okay, cool, now take this test. Their performance on the test goes way down because what people aren't doing is using it in a way where they have to be able to explain it from, um, call it primitives to derivatives. So when you take something like the economy and you ask yourself, what are the primitives of the economy? Now you start getting into things like what is money? You start understanding that, um, money is your, is the abstraction layer that we put

• 1:05:37Speaker 00

  on your ability to transmute your, um, the way that you spend your time into a universally accepted representation of your value. Okay. People hated that sentence, but that's what you have to get down to. Once you're down there, then you can actually build up from your understanding of the physics of the situation, because physics make predictions. You understand the cause and effect of the primitives. So you understand, oh, I can make derivatives based on these primitives that nobody's ever thought about before. That's when you know you understand something. So when you use AI to understand the primitives, to deconstruct the derivatives, to better

• 1:06:19Speaker 00

  understand what the whole thing is, it's going to push you forward a thousand percent. But if you're just like, give me the derivative, then you're not going to understand, um, the, the building blocks of the argument, the building blocks of the situation. And therefore the AI will, um, it might make you good at cocktail parties, but it's going to ultimately make you dumber if you're never thinking through anything from first principles.

• 1:06:44Speaker 01

  All right, we need to talk about JP Morgan's warning about a global finance, a global food inflation. Some people are calling it a food scale crisis, supply crisis. Basically, we can't get fertilizer.

• 1:06:55Speaker 00

  Yup. Okay, so, uh, one, according to the note on this, um, the fertilizer issue is also tied to El Nino, um, and not just a disruption in, uh, Iran. So let's put those both on the table. But nonetheless, the biggest disruption from the war in Iran may not end up being oil. It could be the knock-on effect from nitrogen and fertilizer and cause problems in food. People have been predicting this for a while. Uh, we've seen predictions like this before for other reasons, times where this got disrupted. We end up navigating to the other side of it. So I don't want to see anybody step into like a super alarmist frame here, but JP Morgan did just publish a report called,

• 1:07:36Speaker 00

  "Food Security: Is National Security a Compounding Storm?" It's led by the bank's senior global economist, Nora, her last name, I'm just gonna brutalize, Svetin Vanyi. Oh, that's not even close, but it's close enough, out of London, uh, and it projects global food inflation accelerating from 2.8% in the first half of the year to 5% in the first half of 2027. And that's roughly 6 tenths of a point added to global headline inflation. Um, so not great, but the mechanism is nitrogen. The Middle East supplies about 42% of the world's, um, it's from Eurya. Don't ever research this, by the way, it is not a fun topic. Some of the earliest slaves, uh, at least in, as we began

• 1:08:18Speaker 00

  expanding out into the new world, uh, were forced to like work on these mines where like bats and other birds were like shitting, oh God, it's just horrible. What a horrible way, uh, they would die. Anyway, as I tell you not to research it, I still give you the Cliff Notes. Uh, so it's a horrible process, but it allows us to have our modern food supply. Uh, and if you disrupt that, obviously there's gonna have knock-on effects. If El Nino ends up being as aggressive as people are saying it's going to be, now you've got another disruption potentially impacting that. So we are going to need to do something, um, to make sure that we get on the other side of this. Now, uh, we haven't covered this yet today, but there's, um, new information coming out, and I did grab the link,

• 1:09:00Speaker 00

  if you wanna pull it up, but, um, the US has actually been able to clear the Strait of Mines. So shout out to, uh, our forces that, we're talking about using scuba divers, using special equipment to go through and clear out the lanes, um, in the Strait of Hormuz. That's why we've now been able to get, I think it's like 120, 130, um, million barrels of oil through the strait in the last two weeks. So it really is starting to move, which is very exciting. It really does seem like Iran is not able to get all of this stuff through. That's gonna be a big part of the solution. Now, I'm not hearing reports on how much of the nitrogen is now making its way through, uh,

• 1:09:40Speaker 00

  but hopefully we're seeing a similar rise in that. Um, but if we can get the strait opened back up, then whatever, you know, damage we've suffered in terms of, there were, you know, whatever, five months where this was a disrupted supply, how quickly can we start getting it out? I'm sure there's a, an amount that we can increase the rate at which things exit and get disseminated. However, I believe we missed a harvest already. Uh, so that means that for one crop's worth of time, we're already gonna find out how bad this is. Now, I do believe that there was, you didn't experience the full brunt of that, because a lot of these places were able to scramble and get, um, emergency supplies. I'm sure some of them had some on hand. There's no, um, strategic reserve

• 1:10:24Speaker 00

  at the national level that I'm aware of, but I do believe that, um, farmers keep a certain amount of this stuff on hand. So how big that crisis is, I would say at this point is unknown, uh, but we have had one, um, round of disruptions that there's no way, um, to get by, because you have to put it on at a certain time, and that time's already passed. So we'll find out how bad that ends up being. But what'll be interesting is, I think we're gonna be able to get back and get ready, uh, before the next one. So more to come on that. I think it's good that we're sounding the alarm. I think it's good that people are paying attention to this. I don't see a bunch of credible, credible reports coming out saying that people are going to starve to death. You'll

• 1:11:07Speaker 00

  see people that say this could get disrupted enough that people will starve to death, uh, but it's not like anybody's pointing at one place and saying, okay, they're down this much, and so you can expect this decrease in food. You're just gonna see slight rises in inflation, which is not great, uh, but I don't know that we're talking about calamity. So, all right, this is the video on opening the strait. Let's take a look.

• 1:11:30Speaker 04

  Hi, I'm Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander of US Central Command, here with an operational update on two ongoing missions in the Middle East. Many of our 50,000 US troops operating across the region are doing outstanding work executing the naval blockade against Iran while maintaining commercial traffic flow through the Strait of Hormuz. As recently announced, the US military has achieved a major milestone in the Strait of Hormuz. We have successfully cleared sea mines in the strait's international shipping lanes that were laid months ago by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Internationally recognized transit routes in the strait are free

• 1:12:10Speaker 04

  of Iranian sea mines, thanks to the incredible work of the US military. Let's take a look at exactly what this means. Here's a nautical chart of the Strait of Hormuz and surrounding seas. It's frequently used by mariners around the world and clearly identifies the internationally recognized traffic separation scheme, which you see labeled on the chart as TSS. A traffic separation scheme is a highway system for ships on the ocean. Here on the chart, a dividing line is shown and placed between lanes with opposing traffic directions to keep ships safely apart in the narrow waterway. These are the longstanding lanes international shipping has historically

• 1:12:51Speaker 04

  used to transit the Strait of Hormuz, and over the past few months, our forces meticulously and quietly cleared them of sea mine threats using a combination of Navy divers, Navy SEALs, and US air power from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

• 1:13:08Speaker 00

  All right, you can stop there. All right, it's, uh, obviously very impressive that we've been able to clear out the area and start getting ships going back through it. Uh, it certainly speaks to the fact that the Iranians are no longer able to stop them from doing it. Um, we'll see if they're able to hit the occasional ship as it goes through and start scaring people again. Uh, but so far, it really does seem that we're able to leverage the blockade to shut enough of that down. They're not able to relay the mines. They're not sending out their fast attack boats, and I'm pretty sure they still have some left. Um, so I don't know if that means that the military, the IRGC specifically, is in disarray because they're not getting paid. Well, they're getting paid, but the inflation is so high that obviously when you've got 100% inflation, or 87%, whatever

• 1:13:52Speaker 00

  it is, uh, inflation plus more on food, um, suddenly if you're getting paid the same amount, you feel very rapidly that you're getting poorer. Um, so yeah, that would be, um, one potential explanation for why they're not able to continue to harass as many ships going through. So, um, definitely seems like progress. We'll see how far we get.

• 1:14:14Speaker 01

  Nice. Um, let's jump over to Svetta, where there's a lot-

• 1:14:17Speaker 00

  Is that how you say it? Sweata. Final answer?

• 1:14:20Speaker 01

  It sounds like you said sweater.

• 1:14:21Speaker 00

  Sweata. Sweata.

• 1:14:25Speaker 00

  Say it again?

• 1:14:26Speaker 01

  Sweata.

• 1:14:27Speaker 00

  Sweata. Sweata. Oof. Okay, he's got some spice on it. I don't think you guys can hear him, but, uh, in his defense, he does speak Spanish, so there's that.

• 1:14:36Speaker 01

  Where local men have chased off the invaders in a beach and set fire to their belongings. Um, this is the broadcast, I think it's in Spanish. Yeah.

• 1:14:45Speaker 00

  Indeed. Uh, the translation's also in Spanish, so I'm not gonna be able to help you there, but if you're not looking at your phone, basically, you had a bunch of guys, the, these are reports, so I will take all of this with a grain of salt, but as it's being reported, you're seeing large groups of men roaming, uh, the town through the beaches, and they're finding the encampments of the migrants that came over. If you guys remember, a couple of weeks ago, there was like 60,000 people that flooded the border, um, and the president of Spain basically did nothing to stop it. Um, and so now people in the town, originally the reports were coming out, oh, don't worry, they all left again. Uh, and then people in town were like, that is absolutely false, definitely

• 1:15:26Speaker 00

  not true. And so now they're mounting a response. Now, this is an interesting moral conundrum, because what do you do? If you believe that your government isn't doing what they need to do to remove the migrants, and you've got a bunch of them still occupying the town, creating problems, committing crimes, um, even just being in your town, they're illegal, uh, and they're setting up these encampments on the beach, um, do you just wait for the government to do something? Or do you take matters into your own hands and do what these guys are doing, which is, um, I'll say violently, certainly by force, even if you will say that I'm overstating things by saying violently, but I would say violently removing them, burning things, um, and forcing them out?

• 1:16:09Speaker 00

  What do you do? Now, the other question is, if your people decide that they're going to take to the streets and you're the government, what do you do? And so they didn't use force to stop the people coming in, but they are using force. Now, it's non-lethal force, but they're using non-lethal force against their citizens to, um, stop them from pursuing the people that are there illegally. Now, I'm a big fan of law and order, so my thing is, this should all be left for the police. The police force should be taking care of this. They should have stopped them from coming in. If they weren't able to stop them from coming in, they should immediately begin mounting an offensive, and they should get all the people out. When I see the CHAZ and the CHOP, I think it is patently fucking absurd and an absolute failure of the government that they don't come

• 1:16:54Speaker 00

  in and clear that out immediately.

• 1:16:58Speaker 00

  And giving into their demands and all that stuff is absolutely ridiculous to me. And I think the government should be ashamed of themselves, held accountable, voted out of office, impeached, literally get them out. That shit is crazy to me. That's one man's opinion. You guys should be thinking through this for yourselves from first principles. But I think that you should never find yourself in a situation where the people feel compelled to take matters into their own hands. Now, if this were Los Angeles, I would not be among the people going through the streets, trying to clear people out, but I would be among the people lobbying the government to fucking do something about this because this is crazy. Now, at some point, there is going to be a breaking point.

• 1:17:41Speaker 00

  And while I understand the response, it is very, very dangerous. But the thing that bothers me in all of this is that instead of the cops coming in and removing the people, they're obviously willing to mount a response, they're obviously willing to use the rubber bullets. The fact that they're using them on their citizens who are trying to clear people out of the streets is a bit crazy. That's where you step in and say, alright guys, listen, enough, back off. We're going to take care of this in an orderly fashion. So this is a wild situation from where I'm sitting, where you've got left-leaning ideology colliding with right-leaning ideology. And we're watching how this stuff is going to play out all across Europe. I think you can expect much more of this because when your governments use immigrants

• 1:18:25Speaker 00

  as a way to either virtue signal or as a way to get cheap labor, I think you need both of those things for this to happen at the scale that we're seeing it. Like, it is a problem that you must bring an end to. Otherwise, you are going to have the kind of ever-increasing amounts of violence that we're seeing in places like the UK really starting to pop off. And I have a feeling that's going to get worse before it gets better. So far better to police this at your border and not leave it in your citizens' hands because they will ultimately do something about it, as we're seeing.

• 1:18:59Speaker 02

  As we're seeing, now bringing it back to the domestic front, somebody did something about another thing. There was a rally that happened with a right-wing, it's crazy the language that they're using, left-wing extremists and Antifa, right-wing activists.

• 1:19:14Speaker 00

  Yeah, so I'll give you the quick rundown. So you have an anti-Islamist guy that you're going to hear referred to as right-wing, which is fairly reasonable. So he's, certainly, somebody on his team was in MAGA gear, so we'll assume this is a MAGA guy, whatever, who is holding an anti-Islamist meeting at a church. And you get then Antifa, they are being described as Antifa members. I have not verified that for myself, but they certainly wear the garb of Antifa. So the all-black, black mask. Antifa guys go and, I mean, listen, if you want to use dramatic language, you would say that he kidnapped him. He literally picks him up and drags him out of the church.

• 1:19:59Speaker 00

  So certainly assaulted the guy, carried him out, the one that was going to be holding the anti-Islamist event.

• 1:20:05Speaker 02

  You gotta hit the gym after that, though, like, as a grown man, if he's somebody, like, look at his legs for him. Like, he was powerless in this moment.

• 1:20:12Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 1:20:12Speaker 05

  If I get picked up like that, I think I'm getting out of the public eye forever.

• 1:20:17Speaker 00

  This, this now is taking a very interesting turn.

• 1:20:21Speaker 02

  Sorry, sorry, sorry.

• 1:20:22Speaker 00

  No, no, no, I actually love this.

• 1:20:23Speaker 02

  The legs kicking is what got me.

• 1:20:25Speaker 05

  It's just a funny video, I mean, like, everything aside.

• 1:20:27Speaker 00

  This is not a funny video. So we'll put two markers here, and I think both are interesting enough that we'll pursue both. Okay, so marker number one is you're now seeing literal political violence between people that just disagree with each other. They don't want you to be able to speak, and so they're coming and physically assaulting people and moving them out. Okay, so hopefully everybody can agree, it doesn't matter who's doing the assaulting here. Assault is bad, you should never do it, you should be immediately arrested. This guy better be in jail at this point. Okay, so that's number one. Number two, and we'll come back to that, the Islamist of it all, the right and left violence, which is, I think, going to increase first in Europe, but you'll start seeing it here more too.

• 1:21:06Speaker 00

  Then you've got the, if you cannot stop another man from manhandling you, should you remove yourself from public eye forever? Okay, this is the fascinating, if we have any women listening right now, I will tell you, this is the fascinating insight into men. If you step into an elevator with a stranger, odds are you're going to assess rapidly whether you think you would win or lose in a fight. You do this a thousand times a day. It is absolutely, one of the most fascinating parts about being a guy is that, yes, there is much reading of the circumstance of, am I safe? Where do I fall in the sort of physical pecking order? Okay, as far as I know, there's only one person in this room that trains in jiu-jitsu with any regularity. And so Eric, you're, you're in a good spot.

• 1:21:51Speaker 00

  Eric, who trained as an MMA fighter and is part of our team, Eric's amazing. He has cauliflower ear to prove it, boys and girls, so don't throw a punch at Eric. That, that is just a good life lesson. He is doing the things that I think are very wise for people that don't want to find themselves being drug out of an arena. But even in MMA, they have weight classes for a reason. So while I think that it is very shrewd for a man to be able to defend himself some way, shape, or form, whether that is you're a skilled person with weapons, whether you're a skilled fighter, whatever the case may be, great way to spend time and energy. Now, having said that, boy, do I wish that we were all just saying, we built society for a reason

• 1:22:35Speaker 00

  so that you wouldn't find yourself in this situation, which is just patently ridiculous. You should never find yourself in this sort of thing. But I did once interview a guy named Farah Sahabi, who trained George St. Pierre and a bunch of other fighters. And when I was interviewing him, he said something that really stuck with me. And he said, Tom, one of the reasons that I learned how to fight is I don't ever want to back down from a fight because it's my only choice. I always want to know, oh, I could dismantle this person, and I am truly choosing to back off for reasons of good sense, whatever. That's a super paraphrase, but you guys get the idea. This ties into Jordan Peterson, who I didn't expect to mention once, let alone twice today,

• 1:23:17Speaker 00

  talked about how he believes the right interpretation of the ancient Greek for the word meek in the Bible, when they say the meek shall inherit the earth, it did not mean weak, it meant somebody who is skilled with a sword. This kind of idea, whether they specifically mention a sword or not. But somebody who's skilled with a sword, but they keep their sword sheathed. So the ultimate form of protection is to be able to win in an actual battle. But the point of becoming as good at fighting as possible is to be able to avoid the unnecessary fight where people are trying to prove something, or like that, where the guy's just trying to pick you up and snatch you, and you can't physically stop them from doing it. But I bring that up because there's always going to be somebody bigger and stronger.

• 1:24:02Speaker 00

  Almost doesn't matter who you are. So if you guys have ever seen Brock Lesnar, he got his ass beat. So, yeah, it is far more interesting. Brock Lesnar is a wall of a human. So it is far better to live in a society where you can trust that people are actually going to abide by the rules of the society. The fact that we have, we are on the path to rapidly abandoning a high-trust society, it's absolute civilizational suicide, it is so fucking dumb. It is dumb in the highest order, and we should be backing away from this fast, aggressively. Just because somebody says something that you don't like, there's no universe in which that gives you the right to go in and grab them and take them out of that room. That is patently ridiculous.

• 1:24:47Speaker 02

  Agreed.

• 1:24:48Speaker 00

  One of the absolute founding principles of America is the freedom of speech. It is the only way to have a functioning society is when people can say what they think to be true, even against the people in power. And that you don't have to worry about somebody coming and snatching you out of the environment. That shit is crazy. So you should not have the impulse to do it to somebody else, and you should absolutely want law to come down on people that do it. So this guy needs to be arrested. And this is one of the reasons, and by the way, maybe this is the time to talk about it. Right now, you've got the, the Trump administration with Rubio at the helm going after more and more, they're specifically targeting left-leaning terrorist groups.

• 1:25:32Speaker 00

  So they're going after them, marking them as designated terrorist groups so that they're easier to dismantle, whether that's economically or before they do something crazy. And I think that that is directionally a step in the right direction. You have to be careful, this stuff will very rapidly be weaponized. But if they're being very careful about who they designate as a terrorist organization, I'm here for this, we just have to keep in mind that obviously there are disruptions coming from both sides. I started digging into this a little bit because you hear all the time that the right is far more violent than the left, that all the violence is coming from the right. And then you look at your TV screen and it's like, hmm, that clearly doesn't make sense.

• 1:26:15Speaker 00

  And the numbers go something like this, I'm going to ballpark you, so by all means, if somebody has better stats, fact-check me. But it goes something like this, the right is far better at killing people. And so if you look at body count, yes, you're going to see that since what? That most people start the clock right after 9/11, so 9/12/2001 is when most people start counting it, for obvious reasons, because the numbers will all get skewed if you throw in the thousands of people that were killed in the terrorist attack. There are three groups typically that people look at. So you've got left violence, sorry, four, left violence, right violence, ethno-national violence, and jihadi violence. So those are the four things.

• 1:26:57Speaker 02

  Can you read those down?

• 1:26:58Speaker 00

  So you've got, like, if you think of white supremacists, like, I'm going to go after you because you're black. That is its own category of violence. That's ethno-nationalist. If you go after, or sorry, if you take left-leaning violence, it would be Antifa. So we are a left-leaning organization politically, we are political actors. We consider this an act of political violence or political cleansing, however you want to look at it. And so then you get the right flavor of that.

• 1:27:28Speaker 02

  What's the right flavor of that?

• 1:27:29Speaker 00

  Same idea, so if you have a mega person that is saying, I'm making a political, Timothy McVeigh, I believe, don't. Think he was white ethno-nationalist? I think he was a political actor. If I'm mistaken about that, please let me know. But he bombed a political building, so I will assume that that is true. Okay, so I come from the right. You're destroying our civilization. We have this thing that we're trying to conserve, and we will violently stop people who disagree with that. Okay, so that would be right. And then jihad violence is specifically Islamist violence, where they are doing it in the name of jihad as a religious war.

• 1:28:11Speaker 01

  And that's they say Alahu Akbar before they die.

• 1:28:13Speaker 00

  Yeah, but you could probably get somebody doing that that isn't actually trying. So don't overindex on like, that isn't the qualifying thing.

• 1:28:19Speaker 01

  Got it.

• 1:28:20Speaker 00

  It is somebody who is like, we are trying to usher in either a global caliphate, Sharia law everywhere, but I'm doing this on behalf of Islam. I am trying to bring Islamic rule to the entire world. So my thing is that, and I don't know that this is true. I want to be very clear. This is intuition based on anecdote. But I do think that people that ignore collective anecdote, while it might anecdotes, while it might not be data, it is extremely informative as a place to start looking. So there is so much violence like that coming from the left, that while it doesn't result in death toll,

• 1:29:03Speaker 00

  I do think that there is an increasing amount of violence coming out of the left that is very easy to see. And people are using a sleight of hand to pretend that there's nothing going on there, because it results in fewer deaths than you get on the right. Now, if you do what I think is actually wise at this point, which is to put jihad violence together with left violence, because of the red-green alliance, then the numbers invert. And now you start, yes, and that's controversial for sure.

• 1:29:34Speaker 01

  The controversy part, because then you have to put the right far right Nazis. Ethno-nationalists. And then it flips right back.

• 1:29:40Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 1:29:41Speaker 00

  Hold on, hold on, hold on. Are you guys sure about that?

• 1:29:43Speaker 05

  I have the stats right here for domestic terrorism in America, if you want them.

• 1:29:48Speaker 01

  For the record, you're right. If we're talking body count, yes, punches to a protest that gets waved off. So I don't want to belittle, we're going into the minutia of the minutia of the point. Your main point is that people getting punched at protests, it happens a lot. I'll give you that. There's no argument, there's no beef there. So if that is your point, and you're moving on to something else, then yes, we can do that.

• 1:30:11Speaker 00

  That's my point. But I'm very interested to know if you guys are correct, that there is, that if you put them together now, that it flips back. Like, this isn't me having a dog in the fight. I think people have to separate that if people are using death count as a way to say left violence doesn't occur, that's silly, and we need to stop doing that. But to acknowledge that the right has a higher body count is extremely meaningful. So the fact that, to me, it's like male and female suicide. Women attempt suicide three times more often than men, but men are three times more likely to die from suicide. That's super meaningful. So now it's like, okay, if we know that left-leaning violence

• 1:30:55Speaker 00

  tends to come in a far more mild form, it doesn't mean that you disregard it. It means you have to be careful about how you talk about it. So if somebody on the right is more likely to go shoot somebody and kill them, that is a super important data point. Now, what I'm saying is, I think you have a, what isn't actually left violence, because jihad, I think, is, in the final analysis, will prove itself to be anti-left. But they actually partner with the left right now. And this is a playbook that is run frequently, where you find people that, based on their tolerance, virtue signaling, which I mean is a slur, that they will partner with them. They did it in Iran.

• 1:31:40Speaker 00

  I think they're doing it now largely across the West. But that violence has a body count. And so now you see a pairing where it's like, okay, hey, this is where we need to be real careful. Because that alliance, you guys might think punching a fascist in the face is okay. However, if you're partnering with a group that actually does leave a body count, you're going to want to know about that. But if what we see is, okay, but the right is partnering with ethno-nationalists, and that's actually a real thing, then, and that leaves a body count, that's where we want to put all the pieces on the chessboard. And we want to know what is actually going on. So to me, and again, I'm very early on this. This is not me saying, hey, this is all definitively settled.

• 1:32:24Speaker 00

  But when I look at what I see, I don't see as much right-leaning violence at the low level. So you get these huge pops, where it'll be one person kills 20 people. And that's where all that stacks up. So then, because I was like, when I started researching this, I was like, how the fuck are these numbers this far off? And at first Claude was like, oh, well, I mean, that's just how the bodies stack. And I was like, when did people start the timer? And it was like 9/12. And I was like, why 9/12? Because 9/11. I was like, oh, yeah, of course. And so it's like, that skews all the data. So I'm like, okay, that's already manipulative. And it was like, well, even if, like, you're still going to see that right-leaning violence still has a really high body count. Now, so let's list them out.

• 1:33:09Speaker 01

  The 9/11 thing is throwing me off, because you're saying leftists are responsible for that? Or that that's the fourth category that would throw?

• 1:33:15Speaker 00

  Fourth category. Then jihad jumps into pole position.

• 1:33:18Speaker 01

  Got it, okay.

• 1:33:19Speaker 00

  So if the argument were, oh, jihad violence, that's pole position, then right-leaning violence, then left-leaning. And I don't, I actually don't remember what the thing was on ethno-nationalism. But I think it's fourth place. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that one's dead last.

• 1:33:34Speaker 01

  I think the caveat that that's doing is calling jihad violence.

• 1:33:39Speaker 00

  This is a Tom Bilyeu statement.

• 1:33:40Speaker 01

  Yeah, yeah, yeah. When I hear the conversation, it's domestic terrorism. People that, things that happened in the US. So the nightclub shooter in Orlando that was Islamist and did the mass shoot, that one would count.

• 1:33:53Speaker 00

  Sometimes.

• 1:33:54Speaker 01

  But like a 9/11 necessarily one could, because there are people coming.

• 1:33:57Speaker 00

  It wouldn't count, for sure.

• 1:33:57Speaker 01

  Yeah, they wouldn't count. So that's why I'm like, the 9/11 line, I think, could be a bit arbitrary in that specific Claude example, so.

• 1:34:04Speaker 00

  I don't know what you mean by it's a bit. The reason that they do it is specifically so that that very disproportionate body count, which would bury everything else, isn't counted. It's like ruling out your biggest pop. Now.

• 1:34:19Speaker 01

  I understand.

• 1:34:20Speaker 00

  You're ruling out the outlier. If you're saying, well, hold on, why are we even talking about that? That's foreign terrorism.

• 1:34:26Speaker 01

  I would put classify it as that.

• 1:34:27Speaker 00

  Now, that line already gets messy, because if that person were trained outside of the US, but they're a US citizen, how is that going to be counted? I didn't look super closely at that. But that was one of the things that came up, is like, well, some people really contest this, because sometimes, even though the act was committed on your soil by somebody living in your country, if they weren't a citizen, it's counted one way. If they were a citizen, it's counted another. But they could be in the country for a very long time. And so now you're calling this foreign violence, but it's really actually homegrown. And so where do we start all of that? Now, again, hey, I want to know what's true. So whatever all of this ends up being. But the only thing I'm pushing back on right now is the thing that gets pushed all the time,

• 1:35:12Speaker 00

  is the vast majority of the violence comes from the right. And then you start looking at it, and it's far messier than that. The majority of the body count, if you start the clock after 9/11, is on the right. That's true. If you start lowering your, what is violence to just acts of violence, now I don't know what the answer is. And so, because that data isn't being aggregated and reported on in any way that I could find easily. And I'm not going to fucking hire a research team to go look at this stuff. So what I'm trying to get people to understand is, as always, you're being spun. Don't ignore your lying eyes, as it were. There's clearly a lot of violence being perpetrated by groups like Antifa.

• 1:35:55Speaker 00

  And to use the body count as a way to say this other thing doesn't even exist is crazy. And this is why that debate always spirals into madness, where the right is saying that the left is more violent, and then the left immediately goes, that's crazy. All the violence is coming from the right. It's like, hold on, that's not true. You've got the right delivers more dead bodies. You have the left possibly needs to be looked at.

• 1:36:19Speaker 01

  More black eyes.

• 1:36:20Speaker 00

  More black eyes. I mean, that's a little more than a black eye, but yes. More lower-level violence. I would certainly rather be quote-unquote kidnapped and have paint dumped on me and look a fool than be killed.

• 1:36:34Speaker 01

  Because he released a video, he looks fine. He took a shower, he was back. But if you have a knot, that's going to stay with you.

• 1:36:38Speaker 00

  Bro, if somebody.

• 1:36:39Speaker 01

  Three to six days.

• 1:36:40Speaker 00

  Hold on, hold on, hold on. Would you rather be grabbed by a group of people, drug out of an event?

• 1:36:45Speaker 01

  One dude.

• 1:36:46Speaker 00

  Or have somebody?

• 1:36:48Speaker 01

  The legs flailing.

• 1:36:49Speaker 00

  Because.

• 1:36:49Speaker 01

  I'm sorry, let me stop, let me be serious, I'm sorry.

• 1:36:51Speaker 00

  There were two people, what do you mean?

• 1:36:52Speaker 01

  No, you said dragged out by a group of people. There was one guy that yoked him up.

• 1:36:56Speaker 00

  Yeah, one guy gets drug out, but two people get assaulted.

• 1:36:58Speaker 01

  Another guy follows him with the blue paint.

• 1:37:00Speaker 00

  Yeah, but you agree, two people get assaulted, yes?

• 1:37:03Speaker 01

  Who's the other? I only saw the blond dude.

• 1:37:05Speaker 00

  No, no, no, there's two people.

• 1:37:07Speaker 01

  I.

• 1:37:08Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 1:37:08Speaker 01

  Oh, okay, I didn't see the dude with the hat. Sorry, I'm looking at the blond dude. Blonde dude gets dragged out, gets paint put on his head. Releases the video next day, showered, I put my statement in, they stole my phone, all those other things.

• 1:37:20Speaker 00

  Yes.

• 1:37:21Speaker 01

  Versus having a black eye, that like sticks with you.

• 1:37:25Speaker 00

  Yeah, okay, so here's the reason-

• 1:37:26Speaker 01

  I'm just saying the black eye is worse, cuz I would rather, I don't wanna get a black eye.

• 1:37:29Speaker 00

  Fair, that's not illogical in any way, shape, or form. Here's why a punch- Punch is dangerous, you're absolutely right, I concede the point. Here's why I was pushing back on that. Uh, if somebody punches you, you can defend yourself. The way that they did this guy, he's gonna be at huge risk in the state of California if he fights back. So, people saying, like, the, the answer is always, if you can escape, you should escape, the onus is on you. So if that guy punches him, he punches him back, he goes down. Not that I think that that guy is some tremendous fighter. But I'm just saying, this is the high-risk situation, where somebody's doing something to humiliate you, but they're doing it right on the line, where now if you retaliate with force, you can be the one that ends up in trouble.

• 1:38:12Speaker 01

  Got you.

• 1:38:12Speaker 00

  Anyway, I concede the point, you're correct. If you get knocked out or something, it's all bad news.

• 1:38:17Speaker 01

  I don't condone that, don't put paint and don't yell people out.

• 1:38:19Speaker 05

  I think two things can be true, it's wrong, but it is a funny clip. Like, there is nothing wrong with saying that clip's funny.

• 1:38:23Speaker 01

  This is why I stopped Friday Funny, y'all be taking it, I laugh at things like that.

• 1:38:26Speaker 05

  But also, here's the thing, and I can give the stats if you want, but I'm gonna say something that I think is far more important, which is, and I, I a hundred percent agree with this take, this is from a chatter, I'm gonna read it directly. Colestowing8695 says, "All this is bullshit designed to divide. It's not left-right, it's top-bottom." That's the thing, is we have people-

• 1:38:44Speaker 00

  Can you define top-bottom?

• 1:38:45Speaker 05

  Um, you would have to ask Cole. For me, top-bottom is the people- Yeah, I do. I would have to probably ask further, but based on my definition, I think the top-bottom is the people in power constantly oppressing us, like, we're always talking about the banks, things like that.

• 1:38:57Speaker 00

  Which one of the guys in that clip is in power?

• 1:38:59Speaker 05

  I, that clip has nothing to do with what this take is. This take is that, this is purely designed, this is, this is such a minor thing. Is it an assault? Yes. But, and should he go to jail? Yes. But this is such a minor thing, nobody got hurt in this. Is it bad? Yes. No one got hurt. The reason this video is going around is it's trying to further separate the left and right, instead of having us work all together. That's my problem with these types of things.

• 1:39:22Speaker 00

  You are, you are so fundamentally lost, that this scares me to death. The reason that you find this funny is you don't understand what's happening in the country. You, you cannot divide a people that aren't willingly being divided. So unless you think that people have magical mind control, the reality is populism doesn't work when everything is going well. Populism only works when something is broken and people have the emotion and you need someone to put words to it. This is aggressively a right-left divide right now, and that right-left divide is growing and it is getting worse, and it will result in violence. And so what I'm trying to get people to understand is, yes, this is all the economy at the end of the day, and yes, I get what you guys are saying, that there is also an important point that has to be addressed,

• 1:40:05Speaker 00

  but there is no universe in which the left and the right, in a populist moment, are gonna come together to do anything. Literally nothing. So, Trump could do something good, and, and people that are opposed to him will not care. It does not matter, if he did it, it is universally bad, end of story. And people on the right will do the same dumb shit. So, it's like, I have told people, "Hold me accountable to how I treat Mom Donnie when he does something that's good." If I'm like, "No, it's still bad," then I'm the fucking retard. If I'm like, "Hey, this thing is good, that thing is bad, these are different, let me build this up for you from first principles and you'll see." When you look at this, if you don't, the problem is, you are, you're a very bright person, but you're very young. And so there are a lot of cycles that you've not seen play out.

• 1:40:47Speaker 00

  And so, this is one of those, dude, we're moving in a direction that, having been alive for fifty years, is so fucking weird. Like, I, I think people that are in their twenties now don't even understand how weird this is. And so, we are losing trust, we are losing faith, we're in a position where people don't want their kids to marry somebody, uh, that's in a different political party. That's fucking crazy. We don't want people to marry someone in a different political party? What the fuck is that about? That's so wild. We went through, uh, periods where people were getting fired simply for quote-unquote "wrong think," were being lied to.

• 1:41:21Speaker 05

  People got fired for making jokes about Charlie Kirk. I mean, it's both sides. It goes back to what I'm saying.

• 1:41:25Speaker 00

  Motherfucker, do you hear me going to bat for the right, or do you hear me saying-

• 1:41:28Speaker 05

  No, but what I'm trying to say is-

• 1:41:29Speaker 00

  The problem is, we are racing away from each other. So when I look at this clip, I do not go, "Hey, you know what we really need to talk about right now? We've gotta talk about how the top and the bottom are a problem. When we're on economics, I'm gonna talk about that all fucking day." But right now, we have people that are learning to despise each other, where they just wanna know, "What do you think about this?" And then, "I can't like you, I can't be near you, I can't be friends with you, fuck you, get outta here." Um, and I'm just like, "Boys and girls, this is not lead anywhere good." And so, while I get it, the guy flailing his legs is amusing in the abstract, when you plug it back into what's actually going on, this is terrifying. Now, I said a very bold statement, I'm sure you feel some type of way about me saying that you were young, so if you wanna take a second to say why I'm wrong, I will happily listen.

• 1:42:13Speaker 05

  I think the problem is algorithms, and I'm leaving it at that.

• 1:42:18Speaker 05

  I think the problem is we're given all of these different things, and it, it further divides us. I think sitting here and going, that, "Well, everyone always says the right this, the left this." I think that's the problem. I think we just need to realize that what this guy did is stupid, what the other guy did is stupid, they're all stupid, and we need to all come together and actually get shit done. Because what happens is we keep going on and on in these endless cycles, like that guy was saying earlier, where we just keep electing the same people and they do the same shit. Meanwhile, we're so obsessed with this goddamn culture war stuff. And that's not, like, when I say "we," I'm talking all of us, right? I'm obsessed with culture war, the internet's obsessed with culture war, that's the algorithms we've been pushed down for decades. That's the problem.

• 1:43:03Speaker 00

  I think you've made some very excellent points. Um, I think algorithms are a problem, we were talking about that earlier, I think you're a hundred percent correct about that. Uh, do we have bigger, uh, issues? You're a hundred percent correct about that, there's no doubt. I was responding to you saying this clip is funny. To me, that clip is not funny. For the reasons I've already articulated, I do not need to explain it again.

• 1:43:24Speaker 05

  If the guy had gotten punched, yeah, I wouldn't sit here and say it's funny. If, for chatters who wanna know my opinion on that, I think if the guy had been punched, I would be in a different situation of like, "This guy seriously injured someone, that's not funny."

• 1:43:36Speaker 00

  Yeah, agreed. Um, I will go farther and say that humiliation is not funny, and that this is the kinda thing that, that's gonna make that guy, uh, it will do something to his mind. Maybe he becomes stronger for it, maybe he doesn't, and maybe his heart fills with a little more hate. And this is just fucking stupid. So, for me, it's like, "Hey, I remember what it was like to really feel optimistic about the future, to not even think twice about what somebody's political views were." Um, I went to an event last night where I was like, "I hope no one here has seen my content." That's weird.

• 1:44:14Speaker 05

  Yeah, that is, that is rough. I had that same thought before about stuff.

• 1:44:18Speaker 00

  And, um, I hate that I can ascertain so much about a person by the affectations in their voice. And I'm like, "Oh, this guy's on the left." I hate all that shit. And I hate that somebody would go, "Oh, I can't be around somebody that believes what I don't believe." I hope this show is proof in and of itself, I do not mind, in, in fact, I covet being around people who believe different things than I believe. Uh, it helps make sure that my own views don't calcify into something stupid. But nonetheless, we're living in a world where more and more people just wanna know, "What do you think about this?" And that's so shitty, it's so lame, man. Now, none of that is to say that we don't have bigger problems, we do have bigger problems.

• 1:45:02Speaker 00

  But I will, um, hope I can convince people of the following statement. Politics is downstream of culture. It's downstream of culture. You don't get to care about politics and not care about culture. You'll never win the political game until Americans, en masse, you're never gonna get a hundred percent. But until Americans are like, "I'm alone in a room, and I could do a bad thing, but I'm not gonna do the bad thing." Because I have an internal moral compass that was beaten into me by my parents and by the larger society. And so, I stop myself. Because you need politicians to, um, turn things down. You need politicians to believe in something bigger than themselves, to get an internal reward

• 1:45:47Speaker 00

  for not doing the thing that they think is bad. You need people that are internally rewarded for thinking from first principles, even when people are shitting on them, uh, which will happen. And just right now, we're not reinforcing that in the culture. So, I would love to see it. The great irony, uh, in my own head is, we're about to talk about GTA VI, which is all about running around and shooting people. Uh, and I fucking find it hilarious and fun, uh, as a video game. So, I get it, even in my own soul, there are plenty of contradictions. So-

• 1:46:22Speaker 01

  Uh, I'm, I'm hijacking the, um, I'm hijacking the, the show for two seconds, cuz I had-

• 1:46:28Speaker 00

  I think that's your right.

• 1:46:28Speaker 01

  I had two memes that, um, got funny, so. You know, we're talking about politics, we're talking about a lot of things, I just got, um, a map of Trump's next designation. Trump has proposed renaming the, the continent, so we have North America-

• 1:46:41Speaker 00

  Is this real or a troll?

• 1:46:42Speaker 01

  America, we have South America.

• 1:46:44Speaker 00

  Okay, this is a troll, thank God.

• 1:46:46Speaker 01

  We have Southwest America, we have West America, thank you.

• 1:46:49Speaker 00

  Shouldn't that be-

• 1:46:50Speaker 01

  Here, here a lot. Um, and then, the last one, um-

• 1:46:56Speaker 01

  You know, we've been talking about the case earlier. We were talking about the Lindsay Klansy case. And I'm gonna be honest, I thought this was hilarious. I have empathy for people who have postpartum, but this was very funny. So if you can look at your screen, go and ask mommy for some gummy smacks, but she's watching the Lindsay Klansy tirade.

• 1:47:15Speaker 00

  He turns around and runs off. That's hilarious.

• 1:47:17Speaker 01

  And then last one, last one, last one. This one's bad. This one's gonna get me canceled. TikTok moms.

• 1:47:22Speaker 03

  Hey Lois, look at me. I got postpartum depression. I'm sad about stuff.

• 1:47:29Speaker 03

  Hey Lois, look at me.

• 1:47:30Speaker 05

  I love Seth MacFarlane.

• 1:47:32Speaker 01

  I don't know how Fably Guy's still on the air. That's crazy.

• 1:47:34Speaker 00

  That is.

• 1:47:35Speaker 01

  And like you said, yeah, let's talk about GTA now. I wanted to lighten up the mood because everybody was mad. So on day one, it got a hundred and this was a hundred million views. Last check, it was 125 on the live stream, not including the Netflix numbers that they have internally. So about a quarter of the popular, a quarter of a billion people are talking about GTA in some form or capacity on some website. Every streamer was streaming it. There were reactions all over the place. What was your thoughts on the first look at GTA 6?

• 1:48:02Speaker 00

  I want to be cynical about this. I am, I am so impressed.

• 1:48:06Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:48:07Speaker 00

  The more I do game development, you guys, if you're looking at your screen, you can't imagine how hard that is. What you're seeing is unbelievable and they'll switch back and forth between the cutscenes and the gameplay. It's basically the same. You, you can notice a little bit in the movement, but oh my God, they're talking 30 frames a second. They've got a draw distance like way off under the horizon. It is unbelievable. From a technical perspective, remember you, I don't talk about video games much, but a huge portion of my life is building a video game. I know intimately the technical challenges that it takes to pull something like that off.

• 1:48:46Speaker 00

  It is unbelievable. So what they've done from a technical perspective is breathtaking. I am so impressed. This game is going to be mind boggling. People are going to get lost in it. I think endlessly about what kind of content do I want people to create inside of Kaizen? Dude, imagine what people are gonna do when they do the online version and people start role playing in this. Oh my God. Now, is it a moral blank canvas? Yes, it is. And will people do dastardly shit inside this game and broadcast it? Yes, they will. I'm gonna set that aside. It, I, I think this game is gonna be as big as everybody thinks it's going to be. I've seen some cynical takes on this where it's like, ah, bro, like are they really doing anything new?

• 1:49:26Speaker 00

  I like when I first saw GTA V, I was blown away and this is like, whatever. It's just more of the same. I'm like, what the fuck? Like this is, we're just getting what they can explain, like in whatever 30 minutes and hours worth of footage. Imagine what's actually in the game. Dude, there are things in those cabinets. This is so crazy.

• 1:49:48Speaker 01

  Yeah. So allegedly like 80 hours of gameplay, like 80 hours.

• 1:49:53Speaker 00

  No, no, you're 8,000 easily.

• 1:49:54Speaker 01

  Well, that's like the story.

• 1:49:55Speaker 00

  Main story is 80. They say side missions at. That is so crazy. Yeah. Okay. So doing this for a living, I know that the freakish amount of dedication, hard work, skill, skill is something that I fear that we really losing as a society. These guys are demonstrating a level of skill that is breathtaking. So truly my hat's off to these guys. You don't have to lie. Oh my God, that's just like a mini game inside the fucking game. It looks so insane. This is a technical feat, man. This is a feast. God bless these technical wizards. I am very impressed and I don't play much GTA. I'm gonna play the shit out of this.

• 1:50:35Speaker 05

  Which ones have you played?

• 1:50:36Speaker 00

  Uh, I played San Andreas and I played five.

• 1:50:39Speaker 05

  Okay. So you played the two best.

• 1:50:41Speaker 01

  Whoa, Vice City, the OG.

• 1:50:42Speaker 05

  Vice City is great. San Andreas.

• 1:50:45Speaker 01

  San Andreas.

• 1:50:46Speaker 05

  San Andreas.

• 1:50:47Speaker 01

  But Vice City was, was when it jumped from top down, little blip on the map to like, this is a world now.

• 1:50:53Speaker 05

  We can all agree GTA 3 is the most mid.

• 1:50:57Speaker 00

  Really? You've played it? That would have been from like your childhood, childhood.

• 1:51:00Speaker 05

  Oh yeah. I played, I played most of them except the first two because those are the top down that Drew's talking about.

• 1:51:05Speaker 00

  Did you go back and play them or you played them as they came out?

• 1:51:08Speaker 05

  Oh, back and played them. I didn't start playing GTA. My parents didn't let me. I love my parents, but they were a little too, they let me play Call of Duty. Wouldn't let me play GTA until I was in high school.

• 1:51:16Speaker 01

  Cause GTA was the murdering prostitutes game for a very long time.

• 1:51:20Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's fair.

• 1:51:21Speaker 00

  Mom and dad, shout out to you. Probably, probably the right decision. Everybody, thank you guys so much. We have a new ITU AI masterclass coming up Thursday, the 10th of September at 1:00 PM Pacific. Link is in the description to sign up right now. It is very free. And I'm going to show you guys how to use AI to launch your business. Do not miss out on this. Whether you love or hate AI, whether you worried that we're moving into, you know, super intelligence and we need to hit the stop button right now, you have an extraordinary tool that isn't yet going to replace you unless you just don't know how to use it. So show up and I will show you how to use it. All right, everybody. Have a wonderful weekend. We'll see you guys on Monday. Love you bunches. Until next time, my friends, be legendary. Take care. Peace.

• 1:52:04Speaker 00

  Let's talk about a pattern that is guaranteed to be killing your progress. You know what you need to do. You need consistent nutrition. We all do. You need vitamins, probiotics, greens. We all know that we should be doing more of it. When your morning gets chaotic, you skip it. When you travel, you skip it. When your routine breaks, everything tends to break and that inconsistency compounds against you every single day. AG1 is designed to solve the execution problem. One scoop, eight ounces of water and you're done. You're getting 75 plus ingredients, vitamins and minerals, pre and probiotics, nutrient dense, superfoods, everything that used to require six, seven different supplements and perfect planning now happens in one drink that takes about 30 seconds to make.

• 1:52:49Speaker 00

  Right now, AG1 is giving you $87 worth of free gifts with your first subscription. You get a welcome kit, travel packs, vitamin D3 plus K2 and flavor samples. Click the link in the show notes or visit drinkag1.com/impact to claim this offer.