Episode 2732 CWSA 01/27/25

If you'd like to take it up to levels that nobody can even understand when they're tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cupper of mug or a glass, a tank or chelest stein, a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. I mean uh for the unparalleled? Oh wait, I said that. Man, it was a tough few days. Who knows what's gonna happen. Sip this.

It's somebody describing their health problems. But mine were kind of funny. So I just have to tell you anyway. So about a few weeks ago I had this problem where I had some kind of stomach flu. Not sure what it was. And at the same time, by terrible luck, I had this severe injury that I didn't know where it came from that affected my left hip so that I couldn't even walk and it was just screaming pain whenever I walked.

So I had two problems at the same time, either one individually, would it be like the worst thing that happened to you? But boy, you put'em together and that's a bad time. Now this was a few weeks ago. Then the other day, on Friday, I get that stomach flu back. You know, with all with all the shakes and aches and pains and everything bad. And my other leg my other leg got the problem that had now healed from the first time.

So how in the world do I get two probably cr either coronavirus or virus or norovirus or whatever, it doesn't matter. How in the world do I get it twice in a row? That's combined with the exact injury, except it's the other leg. How's that even possible? Well, I finally figured out what it was. The leg problem is because the way I was sleeping.

So apparently when I laid on my side I do something with my leg that puts it in that bad position, so that when I wake up I'm in screaming pain and it takes just hours or sometimes days to get a normal so I can even just walk. So yesterday I couldn't put anything in my body, which meant that I couldn't have coffee or anything else. So I've got a coffee headache. I've got all the symptoms of a flu.

And I've got screaming pain in one of my legs. Now when I say screaming, I mean actually literally. Yeah, uh you it would have been bad to be my neighbor,'cause about every hour I'd wake up and scream, ow, ow. Ow, ow with every step. Now you're saying to yourself, that's really bad. That's really bad. So I'm I'm I'm uncoffied, I'm sick, and and I need a banana.

Because I think a banana is the only thing I could possibly get down. Sometimes you you just know what you might be able to eat. And I think if I get the banana, I could get the coffee on top of it maybe and it wouldn't be so bad. And then I'd at least feel better and I'm like, All right, I need a banana. So I limp to my kitchen. Oh with every step. And for the one time, this is very rare, I have no bananas. I almost always have a banana. It's like my most basic thing I keep.

So I go to order one to be delivered. Not one, you know, a bunch of bananas. So I get on the Amazon. To get my banana? because I'm so out of it that I couldn't tell the difference between Amazon and DoorDash. I confused them'cause they both bring groceries to me. But I forgot that Amazon is the one that brings it to you the next day.

So every time I would add something and then I think I was done and I'd be ready to send, there would be no send button, there was no buy button. And then I'd end up in some other mode and I so I think Amazon has at least Three different ways to buy groceries. So I couldn't figure it out, but I finally figured it out and put in the order. And then it tells me it's gonna be there tomorrow. And I'm like, what? Oh shit.

I'm on Amazon. I need DoorDash. So I'd already ordered it. So now I've got a bunch of stuff coming that I don't need. That should be sometime today.

That's right. Now I know the difference between a bunch and a single banana, and I was pretty sure I hit the bunch, but apparently I hit the single banana. So I got one banana, which would have been enough, except it was green. So that's like no banana. So I said, Damn it, I am not gonna be beaten. So I suffered through trying to figure out how to order properly again. Second DoorDash, right after the first one.

And finally, I'm happy to report that after all that banana business, I finally got a nice bunch of bananas. They were all green. So I still had no bananas. So that was my third attempted banana delivery, all failures. But I had some other fruit that that was along with it and got back in the

Yeah, back in it. So I thought to myself, if I could just wait this out, like the other time that one of my legs was in screaming pain and I had a f flu like symptoms, you know, I knew I waited it out, it's just really painful, just wait it out. Then I went to sleep. To one of my many naps, probably ten naps that day. And I woke up and I had re injured my other leg.

That's right. Now I had two legs that gave me screaming pain anytime I tried to walk, basically totally disabled. Couldn't stand up, couldn't walk. Ow, ow, ow, ow. So it just got worse. Anyway. But at least I could, you know, look at my screens and entertain myself. No, there's something about the weird flu thing that makes it impossible to look at a screen.

Like I tried, but every time I did, it's like, oh, headache. Oh. So it was about the worst two days you could ever have. But I'm back. I can barely walk. But it'll be fine. We're we're eighty percent better. Let's talk about Ben and Jerry's. So Ben and Jerry, who are no longer directly associated with Ben and Jerry, it's owned owned by Unilever, I believe. But the the Ben and Jerry themselves have gone full woke and maybe the company too and uh

So they're th so they just dropped a DEI themed ad declaring they'll never stop fighting to dismantle white supremacy and end the climate crisis. Now, are you all having this Trump uh time distortion thing that I am? Where it seems like Trump must have been pr president this time for already a year, because he's done so much. Like like time doesn't make sense anymore. But here's another one. Doesn't it sound like this didn't come from this era?

When you hear that somebody wants to dismantle white supremacy Which two months ago was sort of normal. But now it just feels like what what are you from the past? Am I the only one having that feeling? that the the somehow just even reading it, it's like, really? Dismantle white supremacy? What year is this? It's not 2025, is it? Anyway, uh my question to Ben and Jerry's is do they still sell vanilla? Cause I feel like that's a little bit white supremacist vanilla.

You should get rid of vanilla. But uh here's what I think is gonna happen, whether it's Ben and Jerry's or Costco or somebody else, it seems to me that somebody's gonna buy one share in their parent company, uh Unilever. Which is a uh it's a it's not a uh US company, so you'd have to buy something called an ADR, but I think you can do it. I think it works. I'm not positive. So maybe Ben and Jerry's isn't the the first place to start.

But what's gonna happen is some shareholder is gonna buy one share. Just to press them on the DI. And they're gonna say, uh, I'm suing you for these policies that are clearly bad for stockholders, because now that the government under Trump has declared that DEI is literally racist. How can a company keep doing it without being accused of literally being racist?

So it's pretty big risk for all the companies. Sooner or later somebody's gonna sue one of them and say, you better get rid of this now that it's government approved or not government approved, but government labeled racism. It's pretty risky to have that still going on if you've got a stock in the middle of the As uh Cory D'Angelis points out in an article in Fox News, uh the next place for Trump to ban DEI would be the schools.

The schools need to stop the DEI. Now I assume, even though the schools are mostly locally run, that the government has enough influence through funding or something else that they could ban it in school. That's really, really important.'Cause if we don't kill it in school We're dead'cause it'll just be another generation of DI idiots. So yeah, Cory Dangelis is right on this one. School's gotta be next and colleges too.

I was watching uh Mark Andreessen, I think he was talking to uh Lex Friedman, and uh I am so impressed with Mark Andreessen's um let's say Um trans l uh what would you say? Uh I think he's emerging from a business leader to um maybe a social and political leader. But I knew he was smart. Mark Andreessen. Well, I didn't know how smart he was. And now that I'm listening to him uh talk, oh my God. My God he's smart.

like just crazy smart. And he's smart in exactly the way the country needs, which is he can explain the most complicated things in the simplest, completely understandable ways. And he seems to have priorities straight, etcetera. Now I didn't realize that he was he was advising Trump. I don't know if he's advising him on specific topics or more generally, I'm not sure. But wow. When when you hear that Trump is being advised by, you know, Elon Musk, Mark Andreessen You know, like it this is crazy.

Th this is the best advice any human ever received. Like how are we so lucky? It's amazing. But anyway, one of the things Mark Andreas had said, he was dumping on Larry Fink, the uh the head of BlackRock. And he said he said that Larry Fink fell for every retarded idea in the world.

who who has not been helping and has probably been greatly hurting and doing it on the backs of the shareholders both in his company and otherwise. So that's a good that's good. Uh as you know Tulsi Gabbard is is up for the DNI job, head of DNI. She has to be confirmed. And uh over on MSNBC we're watching uh we're watching as John Brennan. Who's saying what a bad pick she would be for the DNI? Now As other people noted, and I often tell you, if you know the story, you don't know anything.

If you know the players, well you might know a lot. And this is one of those. If all you knew is that somebody used to had the CIA said that Tulsi Gabbard was not was not the right one for the job, you'd say, Oh, well that that's a very qualified person. and a serious qualified person at at that. So if somebody who's serious and qualified says she's not good for the job, you're like, Hmm, huh. Well, I should take that pretty seriously. However,

If you know the players, hmm looks pretty different, doesn't it? And most of you who are listening know the players by now. John Brennan, he's the guy who pushed the Russia collusion and the the Hunter laptop letter. And the fact that he appears on MSNBC to spew his stuff. uh as uh as somebody on X who goes by the name Goofonk Goofong. Gufunk says, quote, I love MSNBC. They give us insight into what the intelligence agencies want us to believe.

Well, not not the agencies in general, but certainly some elements of them and the worst ones I think. So yes, that's exactly what I do when I watch MSNBC. I watch it for the the humor,'cause it's so stupid. Literally, I watch it for the humor and The other thing is that it does signal to you that What the dark intelligence people want you to believe that isn't true. So it's really useful. Again.

If he didn't know the players, you would just turn it on and you'd think it was news, and then you'd say, Oh, there's some news. But if you know that they seem to be, and I don't know the details, but seems to be. All right, I I might have to turn off the comments here, but we'll we'll see how it goes. I'll tell you what, I'll just cover the comments with the locals people. That way I don't have to look at'em.

Um, so I can still see the comments, but just locals. The those of you are being bad in the comments, don't be bad anymore. All right. Um Big question for me is when do all the NGOs get defunded? Is that gonna happen this week? Now the NGOs are the non government organizations, which I thought was sort of a limited sort of thing, not that big, but you know, they had something to do with I don't know, some secret plan for

censoring Americans and they seem to be deeply involved in uh assisting illegal immigration. And lots of people say they're some of them are involved in, you know, child trafficking, sex trafficking. And the only thing I know for sure is that the same thing is that the other Why are there so many of them and why do they cost so much and why are we funding them?

It couldn't possibly be a good idea. So I'm pretty sure that nearly all of these need to be shut down immediately, because they seem to be working against the interests of America while we're funding them. How in the world did we get in a situation where we're funding these unlimited number of

of entities that are actually trying to seemingly, I mean if you just looked at what they're doing, it looks like they're trying to destroy America. How in the world are we letting that go on? I I've got a feeling that Trump's getting ready to put the hammer down on that one. Um yesterday apparently Elon Musk suggested tongue in cheek that the English Channel, the the water between England and France, should be renamed to the George Washington Channel.

Now, uh I I saw one commenter who was terribly incensed that he would suggest that the English channel would be renamed to the George Washington Channel. How do you not know he's joking? How how does somebody read that and not know that's obviously just a meme? D think about what it would be like to be one of the people who doesn't know how jokes work. Like, I don't know, that looks real to me. Anyway, that's funny.

pushing his idea of a tariff funded economy instead of just taxes, I don't see any way that he could get to a tariff only economy. But if he got to a point where Taxes didn't have to go up because tariffs were handling it? Maybe. But you know, if there's tariffs also your expenses go up. So I don't know how to net that out. I'm not sure if anybody does.

It it is true that we used to have a tariff funded economy when things were simpler. Um And it could be that it's easier to raise taxes than it is to raise tariffs,'cause all the obvious reasons uh makes it harder to get stuff, there'll be retaliation, etcetera and then you have the the separate problem that If you just become the tariff country.

Uh, wouldn't it cause other people to, you know, find workarounds and not sell things to you? Or would it cause people to Um w there there would be some confusion if you tried to use it as a weapon. if it was also your normal way of doing business. But I suppose you could still crank it up if you wanted to turn it into a weap weapon. So I guess I would say I'm not a hundred percent sure this is a good idea. But I know that doing what we we have been doing is a bad idea.

'Cause the what we have been doing is heading toward a cliff. So we better do something. And uh I would be w more open to More open to, let's say, non standard and even big changes than I would have been ordinarily. So I don't know. I'd love to see somebody smarter tell me if this is a good idea or a bad idea to have a tariff funded economy. Well Trump is signing uh uh gonna sign some executive order on developing AI. That is free from idl ideological bias. So A P news is reporting that.

Now, I don't know what that means. Um apparently Trump wants to remove, you know, any burdensome government oversight, but And we would also he also wants to get rid of the racism that's built into the current AIs, anti white racism primarily. Um And this would be good presumably to help America uh have AI leadership. I'm not sure if we have that right now, but it would we'd be in better shape.

And uh yeah, so Trump says we must develop AI systems that are free from ideological bias or engineered social agenda. And we also want it free from red tape. I wonder though D does I I think what Biden had in mind was everything had to run past the government before it was approved to be uh released. And I wonder if that helped at all, or even would help in the future.

I don't know. The the argument for not having the government get involved is pretty strong'cause wherever that wherever we did it it seems to work better than whenever the government's involved. How in the world could the government evaluate AI? That doesn't even seem like it makes sense, does it? Like do you think the the best people are gonna be looking at the AI algorithms in the government? I don't know.

So getting the government out of that seems to make more sense than not. Um at one point it seems so dangerous that we couldn't release AI without, you know, the government oversight. But now that there are gonna be so many AIs from so many different places, we'll talk about that. Um I don't think there's any way to stop AI. So if the only thing we do is cripple our own industries, but there's gonna be the same amount of AI out there no matter what,'cause it'll just come from other places.

This makes sense to me. To get it does make sense to get rid of the uh regulations. Uh yeah, somebody said that David Sachs might be the advisor on this one, so I would trust him. Um you may have seen a clip of Bill Marr on uh On his show uh what's he called his show? Um not real time, the one he does in his man cave there, with uh Matt Gates. And

Th this was really frustrating to me because uh Bill Moore got into the January sixth thing and wanted to, you know, really nail Matt Gates on it. Now Gates, of course, is one of the best communicators in the game and knows a lot about the January sixth stuff, of course. This was like so interesting to me. I'm like, oh, finally.

Somebody's gonna give a good argument to Bill Maher about the January sixth because it's never been done. It's never been done. Nobody capable has ever explained January sixth to a Democrat. I've never seen it. And I thought, well, finally, you know, you you've got a super storic communicator. Um, this is good. And then Gates made the mistake that is unrecoverable in terms of a debate. He went Your side does it too. That's that's a losing argument.

Let me tell you why, and this is exactly the way it went with uh with Mar and Gates. Basically I'll just summarize this this is not their exact words, but the way it went was Bill Marr said january sixth was bad, you know, blah blah blah january sixth, insurrection bad. Matt Gates said, but you realize the Democrats have also questioned a lot of elections. He's already lost. The argument's lost.

At that point, you can't win. Because then Marr says, yes, but they're they're not equivalent. And then this is what the Democrats do. Bill Marr said, and if you say they are equivalent, you're a hat.

I mean you you can't compare you know what happened on January 6th to somebody saying I'm not sure this was a fair election you know or or challenging it in the courts. These are not equivalent, right? So let me tell you how to win this argument. You you lose from the first moment.

Unless you establish the following thing. Here's the way I do it. If it were me, I would say, you know, Bill, I'm sure you're aware that there are two narratives. There's your narrative, and then I would explain it so that it was clear I understood it. Your narrative is it was an insurrection, they were trying to overthrow the country, and importantly, importantly, they knew they lost the election.

So that's that's Bill's narrative. Then I said, I'm not sure you're aware of what the other narrative is because it doesn't really come through. And the other narrative is there is no way to know who won any election. And if you think that Trump knew that he lost, you'd have to explain why half of the country didn't know it.

Because they thought that the election looked rigged. They saw too many irregularities. Now they could have been wrong, but they were operating under the assumption that the election had been stolen. And if they were operating under that, they were operating as patriots. Meaning that they were trying to fetch the something that had gone terribly wrong. Now when you look at the American Revolution

The reason that we don't um we don't get mad at the American revolutionaries for the violence. They created violence, they started it, is because they had a good reason. And they were seeking freedom and independence. And uh if you win, then you get to be the good guys and write history and say that that violence was totally justified.

So the thing you have to sell is the idea that nobody can tell an election is fair. Now, what would happen if you said that? Well, if you're a Democrat, they will start yelling at you that you're a hat. So you're gonna have to somehow settle them down enough so you can explain. You know, there's n there's no way to know that any American election is fair. There really isn't. The only thing you can know is it's complicated, other people were involved, and maybe somebody told you it was fair.

But in order to think that the American election systems are fair, you would have to say that they're the only thing in America that is. Because we've seen over the last few years quite vividly. Department of Justice was lawfare, FBI was totally corrupt at the leadership level. We've seen that our healthcare system was completely messed up during pandemic. We've seen that science is a mess.

Yeah, there's as much fraud as there is science in the in the science itself. And you could just go down the line. Every part from you know we just talked about NGOs, almost every part of American institutions are clearly, obviously corrupt. But the elections are not. The most complicated things that you and I couldn't possibly look into. You're telling me that it that nobody could hack an election? It's the only unhackable system in the world.

So these are ridiculous assumptions. So if you want to win the J six thing, don't talk about J six, talk about whether elections can be known who won. You can't you'd and don't leave that place.'Cause if you're arguing about whether it's good it's good or bad to be fighting against cops. Don't get into that argument. I if you're trying to save a country, it's good. If you're trying to overthrow a country, it's bad. So you don't even have to talk about what happened on january sixth.

Because it all depends on what you think they were doing. Now, have you noticed that it's been how many years now, since January 6th? Four years? So four years from january sixth and we've seen exactly Zero interviews with a January sixer who thought the election was real. None. None. Fifteen hundred people went to jail. Not one of them has said, you know, once I realize the election was really real and fair, I guess I see what bad things I did. Not one.

D do you think that Trump really believed that was a fair election? If I had been in his place, I don't think I would have. Now I don't know if it was fair or not. I just know that nobody else knows. And it looked it looked like it was sending the signals that it was rigged. You know, if you go if you go to bed and you're winning and you wake up and you lose. And you and something like I don't remember the number is it eighteen out of nineteen bellwether went the wrong direction?

If your bellwethers go the wrong direction and there's a last minute come from behind, hard to explain when, yeah, that's every signal in the world. Beyond that, you don't even have to see the signal. If you know that the other side had been saying that they're trying to stop Hitler and you see what things they did to try to stop what they thought was Hitler? Rigging an election would be the least dramatic thing. The lawfare is way worse than rigging the election. Way worse.

So we know they did things way worse than rigging election. That's pretty established. So rigging election would just be normal business if they really thought they were stopping Hitler. You probably heard this story on if you're on X, but uh I I saw a post by Stephanie Tyler, and she describes the following. So there are a number of older books.

Who who conveniently says, Oh, there's nothing to see in there. If this if this were the only coincidence, it would be really weird, wouldn't it? What are the odds that Nikola Tesla dies and Donald Trump's uncle is the one who has access to his secrets? That's so weird.

Uh the father of Rocket Science published a book about humans colonizing Mars led by a guy named Elon. Elon, E-L-O-N. So the guy that the father of rockets thought would be the leader on Mars was named Elon. Okay, it gets weirder. In the even before that, in the eighteen nineties, uh uh Ingersoll Lockwood, or author, writes about uh a story about Baron Trump. That's the actual name, Baron Trump. A kid from the a kid from quote Castle Trump going on wild adventures with a guide named Don. What?

Uh and then writes uh a book called The Last President, where chaos breaks out in America after the election of an outsider. What? And then um So and then you fast forward to now, we have Elon Musk, who runs a company named Tesla, named after Tesla, and is obsessed with getting us to Mars and is not only working with Trump But quite literally got him elected and and has even visited his magic wall. That's what Stephanie Tyler says. This is a really good thread, by the way, Stephanie.

How is any of that real? Even Elon, when he commented about the person leading Mars named Elon, even Elon said, How is this real? How could how could it possibly be real? Now, I'll tell you how it could be real. Think of all the books that have ever been written. All the books that have ever been written.

Don't you think that if you could search all the books that have ever been written, you would find a whole bunch of these? These meaning not just stuff about Tesla or Elon, but a whole bunch of coincidences. Hey, that book predicted this and that book predicted that. And the answer is this is like the Bible code. Remember when there was a I I always use this example because it's so good?

Uh there was a claim that uh there were secret patterns in the Bible that if you just did things like look at the s second letter of every sentence, you know, stuff like that, that there would be a secret message predicting the future. And there were a bunch of them, a whole bunch of them in the Bible. And then somebody had the idea to run the same algorithm against war and peace, just a random book, and it was full of code.

So you could take any book that's a a good size and you can find a whole bunch of coincidences that appear to predict the future. And I think this is one of those situations. Where instead of looking at all the sentences in a big book, you're looking at all the books. And if you could selectively pick just the books you wanted to show people, probably this is one of, you know, thousands of different amazing coincidences you could artificially create. Or we're part of a simulation.

All right, well the big news of course is moving the markets is this uh Chinese AI called Deep Sea. Now, some of you watching this are gonna say, I do not care about this technology. But this one's really important. This isn't like just a nerdish story. This is civilization altering kind of stuff. And I think there's still some mystery about how it was developed, but the uh the things we know is that they somehow China got a hold of

uh a bunch of NVIDIA chips that they weren't supposed to have access to'cause they would be denied to our adversarial countries. But somehow they got'em and uh but they didn't get many. compared to how many the United States has for its big AI product uh project. Um but they had enough combined with some really clever engineering that uh they built something that's just as good as the big AI.

Now, the big part of the story is that they innovated way beyond what the experts were expecting, and way faster. It wasn't beyond what I expected, because I literally predicted that this was gonna happen, that there would be a super cheap alternative that would pop up. and that it would hurt NVIDIA stock. Which is why I told you a while ago that I sold my NVIDIA stock. It was because I was expecting a fairly quickly

Um a competitor. Now you might say, Scott, how in the world did you guess this when seemingly nobody else was guessing it? When I have no skills whatsoever in this domain? And the answer is just pattern recognition. And economics. So if you have a background in economics, it helps. But when you see this many dollars involved.

The the AI dollars are beyond anything we've seen really. So there's immense amount of money involved. But also, if you don't get in the AI game soon enough and you're a big country, it's an existential risk. So you're essentially engineering for your life. If you put people in the situation of engineering for their life to try to save their country, you're gonna do better than somebody's just working for money.

In the United States we have great engineers, obviously, or we wouldn't have the AI that we have, but They're largely working for money and they're you're under the impression that they're leading in AI, and maybe they are. Um That's a completely different incentive. And I would argue that wars have taught us that when you get in a war, the innovation goes to the root. 'Cause you're trying to live. So when you're engineering yourself to try to survive.

Suddenly you get really clever. And you've seen this a million times in a million different contexts. So, given the amount of money involved and th that it's an existential risk to China and other countries, I predicted that somebody would find a really clever engineering workaround and they would do it pretty quickly. And it happened. It happened almost exactly when I thought it would, you know, not long after I sold the stock. And

So what we know right now is I want to tell you a little bit, this might be a little too nerdy for you, but I'll try to make it interesting. I saw a post by Morgan Brown, who was in the AI space. This is on X, describing what they got right. So let me just run through this. So and by the way, again, if you think this is a nerd story about some technology, you're missing the big point. This is everything. I if this thing is real and it can compete with the big expensive AIs.

We're in a lot of trouble.

But if you were uh this little d it's called Deep Seek, that's the name of the new AI, the cheap one, it only cost them five million dollars. So five instead of a hundred million. And it can match or in s in some ways I guess beat the current version of uh the Open AI problem. And some others. And they rethought everything from the ground up. So here's some examples. Uh traditional AI

Uh likes to write everything with thirty two decimal places. The cheap one said, What if we just use eight decibel places and to be close enough? And it uses seventy five percent less memory. So they they gained seventy five percent of memory just by saying, Huh, we could just take a little off of this, be a little less fewer fewer decimal places.

Uh then there's some kind of multi token system. So normal AI uh reads like a first grader. It reads sort of in in order. The cat sat, so sees e each word in order. Um one at a time. Apparently this new one, the cheap one, reads whole phrases at once. So if it reads a whole phrase, just like it something else would read one word at a time, if it reads the whole phrase, apparently it's two times faster and ninety percent is accurate. Now, do you know what they copied? That's speed rating.

They they put speed rating into the model. I think I've described before because I learned speed rating when I was a kid. You don't look at words, you look at the sentence. And your brain picks out the important words in the sentence, and instead of going bah ba each word, you just look at it and you just know what it says. Now it takes practice. But obviously the AI can't get it a lot for faster. So it's basically treating a sentence like a word.

And then it became much more efficient. Here's another trick. Uh they built a an expert system instead of one massive AI trying to know everything. So apparently it has lots of expertise built in, but it only wakes up, to you know, to use the technical term, it only wakes up the expert in eat. So it's not always looking every expert at everything. It just wakes up the part of the model that's relevant to the question, I guess. Um

And uh traditional models have one point eight trillion parameters active all the time, whereas this cheap one has only uh thirty seven billion active at once. So that's a big difference. All right, so here's the results. So instead of costing a hundred million to train, it's five million. Instead of uh instead of needing a hundred thousand GPUs it might need less than two thousand. The API costs are ninety five percent cheaper.

And it could run on a regular computer, a high end computer, but one that you could buy for gaming, etc. So that's a big deal. Um it's all open source. Which is why stocks in the other companies are falling. And let's see. And they don't need a billion dollar data center. Et cetera. And I c apparently Deep Seek did it with a team of fewer than two hundred people.

And I I read something else separately. This is not from Stephanie or Morgan. But uh separately I saw that they did something where they cleverly trained it with incentives and a way better than regular AI. But anyway, those are the things you need to know. Lots of clever, clever engineering. But when you see how clever the engineering was. That's the difference between engineering for your life and just engineering. Cause it seems to me that every one of these clever moves

were available to all of our AI people, weren't they? But I think our I AI people were saying, no, we c you know, we have to hit the maximum. So instead of saying, well, if I cuss some corners, it'll be ninety percent as good I I think the American way is it's gotta be the best one. Now, what are the odds what are the odds that uh this cheap one will destroy the entire AI industry in the United States? I think low.

And here's why I think NVIDIA won't fall to zero. Um, it'll take a hit and I think it'll just it'll just make it back eventually during the year. My guess is that NVIDIA's still good stuff. That's my guess. But you know, I would just be guessing, so don't don't buy it because I said so.

Yeah, there's definitely a bigger risk than there was last week. So if you're if you think NVIDIA is the same stock as it was a week ago, it's definitely not. Definitely not the same stock it was a week ago. But that doesn't mean it's in trouble. And here's why. Um as the experts say, the very next version of OpenAI and and our other AIs will probably be better than this Deep Seek. Will Deep Seek be able to keep up?

We don't know. We're gonna have to see. It might. It might be such a fast follower that nothing we can do gets out of it. But we'll have to find it out. The other thing I think is that um I and I've been waiting for this. I think the government, I don't know if a Trump government would do it, but I think the government is going to make it hard for other AIs to compete.

You remember Mark Andreessen told us he was in a meeting in which uh some intelligence people said to the AI uh AI tech people, uh don't bother Don't don't bother funding more AIs because we're only going to let a few big ones uh survive in the United States, so we can basically have control over it. Well, I feel like there will be artificial barriers put in place that might even make it illegal to use this open source one. I mean it it may be as simple as that. S here here's what I predict.

In fairly short order, somebody's going to find some code in that deep seek thing, because remember it's open that looks suspicious. Or or it has a back door somehow or or it's got some kind of thing that isn't completely predictable. And then the rumor will start, and it might not be true, but the rumor will start that it's like a virus and you can't let it free in America. And it might not be true.

But the government and of caution will say, All right, we're gonna ban it you can't use this cheaper. 'Cause you know, we we're not sure it's good. We're not sure it's safe. So I kind of expect that to happen. So if you add the fact that the US is gonna try to stay ahead and you know, we don't know if deep sea can reach Uh the next level of we don't even know if it could reach the next level of AI, which is AGI, you know, more of a a general intelligence.

Um, but we also don't know if the American companies can. They say they're gonna be there by you know, two years, but I'm not so sure. So we'll see. So lots of questions about this, but it doesn't mean the end of uh the end of AI in America. Now, I make uh similar predictions. Now, you probably wonder why do I keep talking about battery technology? And the reason is it's the same as this AI.

I'm I'm expecting a huge breakthrough in battery technology'cause the stakes are so high, the dollar amounts would be gigantic and it would be world transforming if we could just make batteries, let's say Twenty times better.

you know, or pick a number. Uh it would change everything. And sure enough, every day there's a new breakthrough. I I don't think that any one of these are necessarily going to be the one. But now there's a according to interesting engineering, there's a new aluminum battery. That retains over ninety nine percent of its capacity after ten thousand cycles. Now that's a f that's doesn't mean that that's going into production anytime soon. But that's a site that's the scale of improvements.

that people are looking at in batteries. I think you could make the same prediction with batteries that I made with AI. So much money involved. so much at stake that somebody's gonna engineer some kind of battery that you just get blown away by. So something you didn't even think was possible. I think it's coming. According to the Amuse account an action, The uh Trump administration is gonna go after uh trying to figure out where the billions that were sent to Ukraine ended up.

So the FBI and the DOJ, they launched uh this big investigation into where it went. And I think we're gonna find out some terrible things about where all that money went. It definitely didn't all go to, you know, useful weapons and stuff. We'll find out. Uh and other news, the new CIA director Ratcliffe is gonna have the CIA evaluate if China intentionally started the pandemic, according to the Daily Wire. Now Did China intentionally start the pandemic?

Here's where they could save a lot of time and money in the CIA by simply asking me. Got did China intentionally release a virus in their own major city? No And we're done here. Now a lot of people have been giving me a hard time about this on X today, after I said it on X. And people say, Scott, Scott, how do you explain X? How do you explain Y? How do you explain this other thing? To which I say, I don't have to.

Nobody releases a deadly virus in their own city first if they have a clever plan to take down the rest of the world. A clever plan to take care take down the rest of the world would be releasing it in Chicago. Now that would be a good plan, or London. That would be a good plan. Or or better yet, multiple places at once, but all of them ones who don't have a big connection to China directly. Nobody releases a virus, a deadly virus, in their own country to take down other countries.

Nobody ever, ever, ever. Now the response I got to that is, Scott, you don't understand that China doesn't value human life. Okay, I don't want to go all woke on you, but that's just racist.

Yes, they are. They're like one of the most rational places ever. If they were if they weren't rational, they would have already made a move on Taiwan. They would have done everything different if they weren't rational. Everything China does, you might not like it. But you can see the glaring, you know, common sense to it from their their perspective. So no, you do not have to study this. Nobody releases a deadly virus in their own city first when you could release it somewhere else.

Um Now that we know that the virus came from the lab and therefore was part of a weaponization or at least gain of function, which just sounds like weaponization, um This might explain some of the mysteries that I had during the pandemic. I was trying to understand why but and the problem is that I knew it was from the lab from the first weeks. You know, I told you.

A friend of mine showed me the uh Google map long before it was in the news. Uh nobody nobody in the news had heard of it. Um he said, you know, it's right across the street from the Wuhan The lab of I don't know what the with the perfect name for exactly this. And as soon as I saw that, I was like, oh, obviously. They're just saying it came from the wet market.

Clearly that would be too big of a coincidence that the lab that that does this exact work is across the street. So I knew it was weaponized. uh weaponized or at least gain a function which would end up looking like the same thing. And so when people said, Scott, don't get the shots, it's just a cold.

If you thought it was just a cold, it would be ridiculous to get a shot, wouldn't it? If it was just a cold, why would you take a chance on a new a new medicine in the form of a shot? That'd be crazy. If you knew that it was a gain of function and therefore unpredictable, wouldn't it be at least a toss-up? that if you took some kind of technology that was designed to minimize its impact on you, the shot

Now again, you didn't know if it'd work, you don't know what the side effects are, there's a big risk. We all agree that no matter what what else, it was a it was a risk to take the shot. But it was also a pretty big risk to be completely unprotected and get a weaponized virus, especially since you didn't know what the long-term effects were, the long so-called long COVID. So Um, if you thought it was a slam dunk decision, probably you thought it was also a cold.

And that means you probably didn't know that it came from a weaponized lab. But what I'm seeing is people who knew it came from a a gain of function lab, meaning either accidentally or intentionally weaponized. And you still said it was a cold. You you must have really not trusted that lab to make some good stuff if you thought it was just a cold. Well, they've been working hard. They made the common cold, or something no worse than the common cold.

Anyway, the Houthis in Yemen that were disrupting all the ship traffic in the Red Sea by shooting them with missiles, they said that they're they're gonna stop doing that as long as the ceasefire in Gaza holds. Okay. Uh apparently the ships that would use the Red Sea have decided that's not good enough. They don't trust the Hoodis to not attack them, and they shouldn't. Because I don't think that you know, by the time you send your by the time you send your ship into the Red Sea.

It could be five minutes from the ceasefire falling apart. So yeah, it would be pretty dangerous to assume that they're not gonna shoot you because of a ceasefire that you know is may not hold. I r it really made me wonder, is that really what the Hoodis care about? The only thing that they care about is Gaza? Did we know that before?

Or are they just pretending that's the thing they care about, so that they have a reason to stop doing it? I w I was pretty sure now, obviously they're backed by Iran, so whatever Iran wants is what the Houthis are doing. But did Iran just say to the Houtis? Stand down as long as the ceasefire holds? Because that would almost suggest that they really mostly cared about Gaza. That doesn't seem completely right, does it? So there's something about this that doesn't add up.

Um but the first thing that makes me wonder is apparently Trump has suggested that uh let me find his exact words here. Trump has suggested for Gaza that they clear out the whole thing. Um basically take all the people in Gaza, relocate them temporarily or permanently, and then fix whatever is Gaza and then decide later if anybody can come back.

Now, that's pretty dramatic, but I think he's talking to Jordan and Egypt about taking the uh Gaza residents. Not that the Gaza residents want to go to either of those places, but where they are now is probably not so cool. But here's what's wrong with that. Egypt and Jordan are not our enemies. Am I right?

I mean the Egypt and Jordan are sort of too you know, Jordan especially is somebody we work with all the time. Why would we send Hamas Because the Hamas people are a big part of you know, they're gonna be part of the Gazans who who are uh y moved anywhere. Why why would we move a whole bunch of Hamas fighters into an ally or somebody that we at least would like to work with like Egypt? That doesn't make sense, does it? Wouldn't it make more sense?

to tell Iran they have to take'em.'Cause Iran's the one that broke it. If you broke it, you bought it? I would let me just float this idea. So this is in the context of the bad idea concept, if you haven't heard this before. The bad idea is when you suggest a bad idea Just to brainstorm. And then people say, that's a stupid idea, Scott, but you remind me of something that would work.

So I'm going to give you the bad idea, the stupid embarrassing one. You know,'cause I I have that superpower, I have no shame, so I can I can do embarrassing ideas that maybe just you think of a better one, and then that's the goal, all right? Suppose said Trump and I guess Netanyahu say here's what we want to do. Iran is the one who's backing Hamas, Iran is the one who's the main sponsor, Iran's the one that broke it. They're all going to around.

And then Iran then Iran says, Whoa, whoa, hold on, hold on. Uh we're you know, we're Shia and they're Sunni and you know, it doesn't work. And we say We don't care. You've been backing them. They're yours. So if you want them to have a good life, open up some space in Iran, take care of them. Yeah, you're the one who got us in this situation. It's not ours to fail.

So why don't you do something really good for the Gazans and build a really nice, safe place for them in Iran? We promise that if we get in a fight with Iran, we won't even bomb them. You know, they'll be nice and safe. So Iran, why don't you take him back? And here's the thing. Of course Iran is gonna say no. At least in minute one they're gonna say no. Of course they're gonna say no. But the framing is kind of smart.

The framing would be you broke it, you bought it, and that's the end of the story. Would this be a terrible tragedy to the Gazans? Yes. It would be a terrible tragedy if they didn't think they could go back. But I wouldn't rule out that somebody carefully vetted could come back, you know, once Gaza is rebuilt into something. I wouldn't take any of the Hamas fighters back.

But it does seem like you could probably, you know, do enough fetting that some people could come back, just not the Hamas fighters. And maybe you'd have to I I You know, it could be that it would just recreate the problem. So if if we decided never to do that, not we, but if they decided never to do that, it wouldn't be you know, unconscionable. It would just be a practical decision.

So the European economy, as you know, has lagged behind the US by quite a bit. They've invented practically nothing. And uh so the head of the IMF said, The time has come for Europe to collectively look across the Atlantic and follow the US lead as it grows in confidence daily under the leadership of President Donald Trump. No, I think that's maybe Breitbart's take on it. But the actual quote is The United States has a culture of confidence, Europe has a culture of modesty.

uh Georgieva said, I guess she's the head of the IMF, uh, quote, My advice to my fellow Europeans is more confidence. Believe in yourself and most most importantly, tell others that you do. Do you think that the problem is?

Uh they don't have I don't think they have the venture capital structure that we have in this country. If you fixed all the structural Wouldn't Europe have success? And wouldn't success make them competent or confident? Probably. I I don't think that we that America somehow raised a bunch of confident people independent of success. Well th there are people like me who are confident before they're successful. But I think I was just born that way. I don't think it has anything to do with America.

Don't you think there are some confident people being born in Europe? Like none? What they have some kinda some kind of weird genetic defect that affects all the all the nationalities in all of Europe? They all have the low confidence genetic defect? Or d the schools teach them not to be confident? It seems more likely that there's a structural problem and if they fix that the confidence would follow, but that's just speculation. Anyway, um what else is happening?

Uh according to Michael Schellenberger, uh the CIA under Biden broke the law in not releasing its analysis of the Wuhan lab. So I guess the CIA already had that opinion that it was probably the Wuhan lab that was a source of the leak, but by not releasing it, which would be their job, uh, if it weren't for Trump, the truth may not have come out. All right, that's interesting. So we do need to look into that.

Meanwhile, Britain has a firefighting robot that can spray two thousand liters of water in a minute, according to interesting engineering. A robot. They can fire. Who spray two thousand liters of water? Well, luckily there was a video so I could see that the robot was not a humanoid robot, because if it had been a humanoid robot that could shoot two thousand liters of water, the question I would ask is Where is the water coming out of?

Because I just imagine this robot. No, never mind. You could do the joke in your own head. I don't have to explain it. Did you know that John McAfee, who died a few years ago, uh allegedly by his own hand, um He is back in the form of AI. So I guess his ex account, which I think is managed by his uh his widow, uh says, uh yeah, this is real. It's really an AI of uh John McAfee. I guess it talks like him.

You know, it has it has his attitude and and everything. And he's launching a crypto a crypto coin. Of course he is. Um So that's interesting. I wonder what software they're using for that. Because I kept wanting to make an AI me but I don't think the software is there yet. In other news, perplexity, the the app, it's an AI app, that I keep telling you is great and it is great. You shouldn't use it. It's it's one of the best things, honestly.

You know, I tried a whole bunch of AI apps and every time I got disappointed it's like oh I thought it would do something more than that. But when I tried the perplexity app for searching and asking questions, oh my god did they nail that. They nailed that like just about nothing I've ever seen. So in terms of execution, uh big shout out to the perplexity AI team. You guys are geniuses. Oh my god. The the just the quality of the app.

'Cause I use it I use it all the time, every day I use it several times. And every time I'm impressed. It just it doesn't fail. It's just so good. Anyway. Uh their valuation went from not much to nine billion, and I guess that gives them the confidence to put together a bid for TikTok. And their bid would do something to um keep the existing stockholders in it somehow, but would give the United States the government of uh America, it would give them uh fifty percent

of the benefit if it goes public, I guess. So there could be several hundred billion dollars uh at stake here if it uh if it goes public. And if it goes public under the new form. So it's more of a merger situation than a than a purchase. I guess they wouldn't purchase the algorithm, so they'd have to invent their own algorithm. But again

If it was anybody but perplexity that said they were gonna reinvent the algorithm that was so good, you know, you you'd say, Hmm, can they do that? But once I've seen what they did with perplexity Uh they certainly have the skill.

Did you know how many uh children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States? According to just the news, Nicholas uh Balzi Writes that uh in twenty twenty three there were a quarter million children born to illegal immigrants, to use their phrase. Um that's a lot.

Now, of course, the birthright citizenship thing is working through the courts, so we'll probably end up in the Supreme Court. And here's what I have discovered in this two movies on one screen situation. If you're a Democrat, The only thing that you've been told by your news is that it clearly says in the Constitution that birthright citizenship exists and if you're born here, that's the end of the story. Would you agree? That if you're a Democrat, that's all you've heard.

All you heard is it's in the Constitution. Done. Wha what else is there to say? But if you're Republican, you didn't hear that. If you're a puglin, you're you're a completely different story, in which uh the person who originally tweaked the language in the the birthright citizenship part of the constitution, he said directly and in his own words, it was not intended for uh aliens or non non citizen. It wasn't intended for them. Now, here's where it gets interesting.

The Supreme Court has a lot of originalists on it, conservatives who want to interpret it interpret things the way they were originally meant to be interpreted. Uh Lindsey Graham said that he thinks there's a good chance the Supreme Court will uh uphold the banning of illegal um of foreign people using it for let's say gaming the system.

So I don't know if Lindsey Graham has a good uh has a good handle on what the Supreme Court will do, but he's a serious guy and and there's a serious argument for it. The argument against it Well let me say this. If the only thing the court looked at was what was the original intent, it's actually a slam dunk. It's a slam dunk that they did not intend uh foreigners to come in and have a baby and make it an American. That seems to be clear. If you go with the original argument.

Um, and it all has to do with what the word jurisdiction meant, and I'm still not clear about how that's important in the story. But apparently if we know that the person who wrote it said, I mean it to be this and not that. That's pretty clear. We'll see. But the precedent of doing it to include anybody who's here for any reason is so long that I don't know if the Supreme Court is going to say, you know, it's been too long. You know, there's too much precedent. Maybe.

But what's different is the the risk is completely different now. And I don't know to what extent the Supreme Court takes that into consideration. So let's say they had a situation where if they rule one way, they think they're right in terms of the Constitution, but it would clearly be really dangerous for the country itself. Would they do it? Or would they say we don't want to destroy the country, so we're gonna rule in a way that you know doesn't rock the boat too much?

I don't know. You know, I I don't think that they would be oblivious to the to the impact on the country and just look at the law, but they're s kind of supposed to, right? It's sort of their job just to look at the law and not worry about the too much about the externals, but I but I think they have to as as human beings.

Just looking at your comments. Uh that's all I got for today's show. I hope you enjoyed it. I'm feeling a lot better and uh I still can't walk too well on that one leg, but that'll be fine by the end of today. And I'm gonna I'm gonna say uh hi to the uh locals people privately. Locals, I'm coming at you in thirty seconds. Everybody else, I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place.