August 9, 2026 • 33 mins
There is a crackdown on AI political influencer campaigns. It's expensive to be single in California. Cal Tech says fewer than 4% of applicants get accepted. Just say no to drugs kids!
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
This is Monks and Meryll, hosted by Michael Monks and
Chris Merrill. This is Monks and Merrill Demand.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
I'm Chris Merril. He's Michael Monks. Listened on demand anytime
on the iHeartRadio app. Michael, you are You're fussy today.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
I'm not fussy. I'm happy.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
I like being around on the weekends and fussing fresh
content for you and for our legions of fames.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
You're a.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Seventy one. We've got fourteen million people in the metro
seventy some people like us.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
It's very good. I did happen to see.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
I want to bring this to your attention because it
looks like your side hustle is maybe gonna go to
the wayside. A couple of bills are gonna crack down
and paid influencers on AI campaigns and AI campaigns, So
your your paid influence campaign there for Mayor Bass is
probably gonna go.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
To the wayside.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
I think there were some concerns about some of these
influencer type people there were in Congress is looking at it.
I know the state of California has has been considering
that too, and part of this is kind of plays
into that. I don't know that they would be as
concerned about cracking down on influencers in AI if it
hadn't hit the politicians themselves. But because it has a
(01:19):
personal impact on those guys and gals they are, they said, Wow,
we got to do something about this. It's an interesting
new world for campaign finance regulation because you hear campaign
ads here on KFI, you see them on television, and
you know, we require the politicians to either say you know,
I'm Michael Monks and I approved this message, or you
(01:41):
were in California is even stricter. You know, they require
a lot of information, even on billboards that you don't
even have time to ring. Half the billboards Clinton, here's
who the top funder is for this, if you have
to know who's paying for these ads. But if let's
say I've got a very popular knitting channel and there
is say campaign here in California that says, hey, let's
(02:02):
get Monks, the knitter to come over and endorse my campaign.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
Let's get his needles into it.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Yeah, let's do it. And they pay me. And I
started endorsing for Karen Bass and I you know, while
I'm knitting, I say, you know, he should be mayor
is Karen Bass again, let's get her for four years.
But I don't disclose that I've been compensated for that.
It's not just my opinion.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
She's been buying your I've been paid. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Yeah, she's a big fan of my mittens, my knitt
and mittens. I've been knitting mittens for a long time.
If you know that about me. Well, this part of
this is exactly what you're talking about. Because Tom Steyer
was paying influencers, and during his campaign he paid over
one hundred thousand dollars in one month alone, and they
post they paid a digital consulting firm Group Project over
(02:45):
two and a half million dollars uh and and somebody
that came from a third party spender as well. So
now you've got the politicians and the Sacramento theore saying whoa,
We've got these politicians that are paying influencers, and influencers
are coming out and saying I think Tom Steyer is great,
but they're not saying Toms messages. I've been compensated by
Tom Steyer. The following is a message from Tom Steyer. Yeah,
like we have on TV and radio.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
They you know, they have to.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
There are rules even on the various social media platforms
that these influence who are compensated to talk about a product,
that they have to label that it's a partnership, that
it's a paid partnership.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
The lashtag, that it's an ad.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Some of it's just hey, I'm having this ice cream
because I'm I want to review the ice cream. They
didn't send it to me. It's just my own personal opinion.
That's that's legit. But if the ice cream company is
delivering you this gift, that so why not with politicians?
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Politicians are basically products to these days.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
It is sad that we have to have laws that
lay out basic ethics. It's sort of like when you
see reviews on Amazon, and now you have to disclose
on your reviews on Amazon if you are if you've
been compensated for that review.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Yeah. I don't know how many people do it.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
I was on the vine program that they have where
because if you if you leave enough reviews and they
feel like they're thoughtful enough. And I always were a
review guy, aren't you you know what happens? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (03:59):
I think people.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
No, it wasn't that I felt guilty because I relied
so heavily on reviews in my purchases, I thought I
should start leaving some reviews because I know I'm not
the only one who reads reviews to make a purchase.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
So I did, and they were relatively thoughtful.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
They weren't long winded or bloviated. But Amazon hit me
up and said, hey, we appreciate you leaving the reviews
that you do. We have this program it's called Vine,
and you can receive a certain number of products every
month that this tier, and you have to review them.
That's the only thing honest reviews, honest reviews, but you
have to disclose that you're a Vine customer. And so
(04:34):
Osmar and I were doing this for a while because
if you did enough, you got moved up to the
next tier. We're getting a lot of free crap you
could get like televisions, computers.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
No way.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
But we had to get through all the different like well,
here's some birthday party balloons, here's something. But but some
of it was cool, like we would get some kitchen decor,
kind of board, you know, something like that, that shirt, sunglasses.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Stuff like it. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, I have to
do this. You look into it. I needed some more reviews.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
We decided to give up on it because we came
very close to making it to the next tier and
we didn't make it, I guess on a technicality, and
so we were kind of upset about that. But too,
in America, you have to pay taxes on the value. Yes,
and like if you go up to the next tier
and you're getting laptops, you know, you could end up
with forty fifty thousand dollars worth of stuff. And you know,
(05:19):
I'm not saying we shouldn't have to report it, obviously,
I just don't want to deal with that fun fact.
You should know because have you ever had an endorsement before? No,
I've always been in news. Yeah yeah, Now you're a
talk show host, So dump that crap. Yeah, it's not
about ethics, are gone, not about a tech I am
for sale, That's right. Make me look like a NASCAR
baby all over my face. I went to I went
(05:41):
to San Diego and they put me up at the
Catamaran Beautiful Resort. It's on the peninsula between Mission Bay
and Pacific Ocean. It's absolutely beautiful resort. They put me
up there for two months while I looked for housing.
It's really nice.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
Numb to do. Total bill on that was twenty four
thousand dollars two months. Yeah, just crazy. And and at
the end of the year, I got a I got
a tax bill on you who was paying for it?
It was a trade with the radio station.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Why is that, you're because because it was considered compensation
to me, oh my, and so I didn't see a dime.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
It was just that I had free housing for two months,
which was great.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
You know in l a L you have to present
a tent and say I need something bigger and they
give you a million dollar condo. But there, Uh so
I got I got a tax bill for that that's
like seven grand. Yeah, it was more than that when
you factor in federal n state tax so you couldn't
you couldn't wiggle your way out of it.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
You had to pay it. I had to pay it. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
Yeah, So my wife was not happy about that bill.
So no one explained to you that that was going
to happen. I'd never had that happen to me before.
I had had temporary housing and other radio stations in
the past, and it was never a thing. But California
was really stringent about that, and of course iHeart was
a clear channel at the time was they were dotting
all their eyes and crossing all their t's and yeah,
(06:57):
I got I got hit on that bill. So since then,
any job that I've taken, I've I don't accept any housing.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
Oh that's I don't accept any of it.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
Yeah, very quickly, there is another This is a Senator
Adam Schiff from here in California who is working with
some others on getting two federal bills, one targeting those
paid political influencers. But there's the other deceptive AI campaign material.
This is only going to be become a bigger problem.
We saw some AI stuff use. I know that Spencer Pratt,
while he was running for mayor of Los Angeles was
(07:25):
getting a lot of flak for AI ands. They weren't
his ads, that's the thing. His campaign didn't produce AI ads,
but there was a there were some fan accounts that
created AI ads, and he boosted.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
Them by hetweeted them.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Yes, and they were interesting, engaging, somewhat clever even.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
I think in his case there should have been disclosure.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
But I wasn't so offended because it was obvious that
they were as sure, I didn't think that Gavin Newsom
was dressing up like the joker right or or two face,
and I was a mayor, Bass was the joker whatever
it was in his ass, Like that was obvious AI.
But many of these AI ads that are coming out,
they're not nearly as obvious. And that's where I think
(08:06):
you end up with this perception of overwhelming support that
someone's just creating a whole cloth I think problematic. I mean,
AI is getting so good, you know, you're not seeing
the six seven fingers thing as much as you are.
I can't believe some of the videos I've seen online
recently that look very very very real, and you can
easily make it look like somebody's up to something that
(08:27):
they're not. So Shiff has this other ai ADS Act
that would apply federal fraudulent misrepresentation rules to political material
created partly or entirely with AI, which would just need
to say, have have to have a watermarker that says,
you know, created with AI. Yeah, this seems like some
it seems like bipartisan potential here. This seems like stuff
(08:48):
we should probably consider it. I agree, except if it
comes from Schiff, who can be a be a poisonizing Yeah. Yeah,
all of a sudden people are going, Oh, he's doing
this to try to attack President Trump, and then they
start voting against it. California may still let your insurance
company charge you more because nobody put a ring on
your finger.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Gotta put a ring on that. Oh, the relationships surcharge?
Speaker 2 (09:09):
What's that about? That's next on More Monks and Meryl.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
You're listening to Monks and Meryll on demand from KFI
Am sixty more stimulating talk.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
It is More Monks and Merril the weekend edition, some
fresh material for all of you find listeners out there.
Don't miss our live show weekdays Monday through Friday noon
to three. Monks and Merril the regular version. This is
More Monks and Marylyn. And if you haven't subscribed to
the podcast yet, my goodness, as Michael would say, my goodness,
(09:42):
sell them like hotcakes. You gotta do this, miss a day,
miss a lot, whole lot. Do that on the iheartradiop
just to click the follow button and if you want
and click the auto download. It doesn't clutter your phone
or your tablet or whatever. Just to bring the latest
stuff up and get rid of the old one. Did
you know that it is very expensive to be single
in California apparently. Well, I think everybody knows. That's why
(10:04):
we got If you're single, you got roommate. I often wonder,
you know, I moved out here married. Yeah, what life
would have been like had I come alone? Well, you
live in skid row. Now, I don't think it would
have a whole thing could have gotten you just would
have You would have had a much uh your your
apartment would have been at a much lower level, like
on the street.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
In a tent.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Yeah, I think that's true. Yeah, because I probably would
have broken down and cried. A divided California Appeals Court
has upheld a regulation allowing auto insurance companies to consider
your marital status when setting premiums. This is a ruling
that preserves the existing system, which means some single, some divorced,
(10:45):
and some widowed drivers can pay more than otherwise similar
married driver. Yeah, and people are claiming this is discrimination,
it's a penalty for being single. Well, what is what's
better about insuring somebody who's shocked up?
Speaker 3 (11:00):
I think if you take a look at their stats,
they're going to show you that people who are.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
Married, have they're born, they stay home, they don't drive recklessly,
they've got more to lose.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
I've got ratty kids in the minivan.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Yeah, if they said moves out here single, you know,
he's getting drunk in WIHO on the weekends. Yeah, driving
his Porsche round at high rates of speed, letting random
gentleman drive, probably getting into the street takeovers. Yeah, all
those different things. I would have been a rowdy bastard
here by myself, exactly what you would have done. Thank
god you were married at the time. Thank god for that.
(11:30):
The First District Court of Appeals ruled two to one
against eleven unmarried policyholders who must have joined together in
some support group and challenged the marital status regulation. It's
probably there's at least five couples in there. Yeah, why
don't they just hook up?
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Hook up? Who cares? Put a ring on it? Proposition
one O three. That is.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
A rule here in California that requires insurers to emphasize
your driving record, your years of driving experience, and your
annual milers. That makes sense for consideration. Okay, yeah, you're
getting car insurance. But Prop one O three also lets
the insurance commissioner approve optional factors that bear a substantial
relationship to the risk of loss. But I think you're
allowed to discriminate based on gender too when it comes
(12:13):
to insurance.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
And you think so, I.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Mean years of driving experience that translates into age basically,
which is why when when we were seventeen years old,
our insurance rates were.
Speaker 3 (12:24):
So much higher than that.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
When you're a new driver, yeah, bigger risks.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
Well, plus you're seventeen. You're an idiot.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Yeah, I mean you're inexperienced on the road, but you
also have more testosterone than brains. You don't really think
before you you've taken a break lane change. Yeah, you're risky.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
No, that makes sense. Yeah, I wonder how much it
is though.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
I mean, marital status has been an approved optional rating
factor since nineteen ninety six. Insurans don't have to use it.
They all choose to do it. Of course they are
because anything they want to make it back. Yeah, anytime
you can make a put which now you didn't know this,
but our tech director is actually only getting married for
the insurance savings. It's not his face, it's his fiance.
(13:01):
She doesn't want to have anything to do with him,
but yeah, she can save a couple hundred.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
Bucks, so she's she's uh. Jesse Blackburn. Yeah, and she
makes more money than me too.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Yeah, so she's tired of hole on his tail around.
At the very least he could put a ring on
it and then get her a discount. So he's got
a sugar mama, and he's and to pay her back.
He's going to get this break on the car insurance.
Exactly right. It's a marriage of convenience for her.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Really, I mean, working in radio and everyone makes more
money than I'm going to say.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
I don't find much convenience in having Jessie around, but
I guess if there's a marriage of convenience opportunities. So
I married an old lady and I kind of got
the same thing going on that that your spouse you
are the younger one.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
Yeah, I'm the older one in mine.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
I got the I got the thing going on that
that your spouse is going to have is that he's
going to be qualified for AARP discounts when he's still
pretty young.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
Yeah, I mean in the sixth grade now, that's right.
And I've been uh, I've been able to get the
ARP discounts for well, I think six years now. You
should be saying this on the air about you. She
loves it when I talk about that at her age. Yeah, Now,
how much older is she?
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Eight years?
Speaker 2 (14:04):
That's you know, I think eight years is a huge
difference when your kids, Yeah right, I mean you've got
somebody who's in high school compared to somebody's in first
grade at that point.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
That's the reminder of that too.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
And it's probably a big difference when you're twenty and
twenty eight, because you know, you're getting your first taste
of independence as a twenty year old twenty eighth drink
you probably got your first big boy, big girl job.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
You know that's different by the time you're in your
thirties and beyond. Eight years doesn't matter. Now I'm twenty
years older than my spot. See when we met, I
was twenty four. You're twenty years older.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
Is it that much? Twenty four and thirty two is
not that big a deal.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
I don't think it was for her to start with, Yeah, yeah,
because she thought she thought she was just robbing the cradle,
And I said, I'm an old man at heart. I
think the big deal is how old was Ozma when
you you got with him?
Speaker 3 (14:49):
Twenty Okay, so.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
You had to like sneak him into the bars. We
didn't go Wow, I was already over bars.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
Wow. It wasn't you know?
Speaker 2 (14:59):
It was you know, if you get it, if you
got what I got. Yeah, you get what you get.
Good for you, you know what I'm saying. Oh, it's not
my style, never was my style. But it just so
happens that after years of looking for the one, you
just had to wait for him to be born my peers. Yeah, exactly, yeah, yeah,
and finally he was right before September eleventh.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
Is that right? That's true, isn't it? Does he remember
nine to eleven? Of course not.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
Oh my gosh, of course not. I should also point
out I think all of my kids are older than
your spouse. Yeah, yeah, stay awish my children. Oh yeah,
my youngest is it's not. Again, that's not my style,
So don't don't you'll be your type.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
I'm not.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
I'm not an old sugar daddy type of person. No,
you're working radio. It was Jesse, just to point it out. Yeah,
but it doesn't work out that I got host money.
You can build that perfect application, you can ace your interview,
and you can sound like the smartest person in the room. Congratulations,
you got the whole system full. Now the schools and
the employers are onto your lies. There's a new we'll
tell you what that is next. Monks and Merrill k
(16:02):
i AM six forty. You'll find us everywhere in the
iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
You're listening to Monks and Merrill on demand from KFI AM.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
If you haven't done it yet, please subscribe to the
podcast in the iheartradiop When you're on that app, you'll
see a little talk back button. And anytime you listen
to a show and you have something to say about
what you're hearing on the air, if you click that
talk back and it comes right into Jesse's computer and
he filters it out and only shares.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
With us the mean, mean things that you say. It's
a horrible person. I heard Handle talking about this week.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
He was talking about this new AI tool that one
of the schools has. Cal Tech has come up with
us in order to figure out if you're an idiot,
if you've committed fraud basically in your application. Yeah, I
think cal Tech would be the one to figure it out.
I would think so, And they probably have a lot
of morons trying to get into cal Tech. Well, I mean,
if you're going to cal Tech? Why are you trying
(16:56):
to cheat? Are you desper smart enough to get it? Yes,
if you're smart enough to get in Caltech, you don't
need to. But if you want to go to cal
Tech and you're not that smart, you fudge the numbers.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
A little bit.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
You know, this is interesting because we've talked recently about
some tricks some professors are doing to catch people who
might be cheating on their exams at all different types
of universities. But this is about what applications. Yeah, so
they set up a four person emission team a couple
of years ago to verify every admitted student's application. So
they're actually doing the check on this stuff. They're going
(17:27):
through basically checking your references, making sure you're not lying
about things on your resume. But applicants may submit to
photographs with trophies, newspaper coverage, congratulatory emails, or videos of
what they've done in high school. But with AI you
can create all of those things. It's kind of like
you with your twelve Golden microphone awards. I have four,
but your picture shows twelve. And so what they're saying is,
(17:49):
ah that Michael monks Wo's inflating his accomplishments.
Speaker 3 (17:52):
I wouldn't do that. Of course you wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Cal TAK is encouraging applicants claiming research experience to complete
a customized video interview. They doe rapid rapid questions. They've
got sixty seconds to answer each one. This way you're staying,
turn to your chat and say, how would I do
this so they can watch you? Yeah, they can watch you.
It's like it's like a job interview in person is
what they're basically doing now. But for every student. Now,
imagine you got to get through what was it eleven
(18:15):
thousand applications. Oh my gosh, well that is a lot
cal Tech admits though out of eleven thousand, four hundred applicants,
this is a school that people want to go to.
It's very high level school. Four percent, fewer than four
percent are admitted. Only the best of the best get Capacadena.
We talked this this week about the acceptance at the
(18:36):
UC system and how you know it's the system overall
is accepting a lot more kids. Yeah, I was accepting
a lot more kids than it has in the past.
But these these students aren't necessarily getting into the campuses
that they want. It because there there are variables. Yeah,
because Berkeley is only letting in a UCLA but Jesse's
alma mater riverside any button. Merce said, if you've got
(18:58):
a pulse, you're in. Yeah, you're in.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
Yeah, you're absolutely.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Cal Tech's not like that. Plus it's in the name
cal Tech. You're gonna sneak past these guys. Yeah, you're
not gonna outtech cal Tech, that's for sure. So a
quarter of the candidates that have completed and passed take
home coding tests at a workplace because there's workplaces that
are dealing with its. Not too after AI expanded, so
(19:21):
they said we want to hire you, show us your
coding skills. And they would just go to Claude and
they would say code this for me, and then it
would pop it out and they say, now they can
figure out if you've been using.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
AI, you know you're not that good a coder. I
guess my question is what does it matter?
Speaker 2 (19:38):
I kind of have the same thought. If your job
is coding, you're hiring somebody to code, and they get
the code done, then what does it matter? If they
figured out how to use a tool to get the
coding done, they go out because AI can do it, yep, right.
I think coding is one of those STEM programs. I
mean five years ago, it was like, you should be
a coder. You're always gonna have a job. Now, so
coding is the first thing off the I was gonna
say the same thing. Can we talk about code, not
(20:01):
the code? I usually like to talk about form based
and zoning code.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
Zoning code.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
It kind of became a pejorative for folks that, you know,
if it was a person who didn't like and they
lost their jobs, saying radio and maybe there's a group
of people who didn't like you as a host, or
if you were a teacher somewhere and you get let
go for whatever reason. The comments could range from you know,
direct insults, but also well, learn to code, Yeah, learned
to code?
Speaker 3 (20:23):
Do you have a job.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
But you're right, I don't know that that's true anymore.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
No, it's not. AI can write code.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
Yeah, unless you're writing AI code, which now AI is
at the point where you can use AI to write
new AI code. Those are the jobs that are most
immediately threatened. I think all of our jobs down the
road are clearly in the in the firing line of
artificial intelligence. But it seems that the back end computer
esque jobs, those are first to go, not even just
(20:52):
back in I would say a lot of the different
stem jobs that we were pushing all the kids towards
for the last ten years, those are the jobs that
AI can do the best.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
Two.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
There's really two ways to go that the future could
hold for those jobs. One is that it replaces those
jobs altogether. We don't need engineers because we've got the
computer will do all of it. The other is it
enhances those jobs and you can progress society that much
faster because now you've got a new tool to do
some of the dirty work that allows you, as an
engineer or a mathematician to take on bigger projects than
(21:26):
you could in the past. I think we might be
at the end of days.
Speaker 3 (21:29):
Is that right? I think we might be at the
end of days. I mean, there's so.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Much that it can do now. Yeah, I'm wondering, though,
maybe there will be an opportunity. Think about ten, probably
fifteen years ago at this point, the joke would be
social media intern, Right, there's some kid who comes in
and works your Facebook page for your hardware store. If
you joke about a social media intern, you're clearly joking
(21:53):
at this point, because there are skilled professionals that work
specifically in social media for brands, for companies, organizations, because
they have specific talents in understanding algorithms and how each
platform works. I wonder if there might be an avenue
for people to learn AI just in general that they're used.
But like that's your specific title. You're not the you're
(22:16):
not the cash, you're at the heart specials. Yeah, is
there an AI specialist? Stuff is actually will arge, there
will be no doubt. But to your point about social media,
I've got a friend of mine who is a social
media manager or a major biotech company, and he lives
in Irvine, and he says one of the things that
he's running into is that whenever they have new management
come in, they always want to replace his position because
(22:36):
they go a, I can do your job, we don't
need you to do the job.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
Now.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
He always makes the you know, he'll make out the
deck and say, listen, this is why you do need
me because I do understand these things. These algorithms are
constantly changing. I can do this blah blah blah blah blah,
and I can incorporate the tools from AI in order
to make things more effective. But he's constantly trying to
justify his position now, because the mindset is we can
get that intern, we can get that twenty year old
(23:00):
who went through high school learning how to do things
on AI, and that person can do the social media
using the new AI tools to do it just as
well as somebody who's a veteran of the system for
the last twenty years.
Speaker 3 (23:11):
It's wild, man, it is wild.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
I'm going to be more curious even beyond the technology.
I'll be more curious about how we as consumers react
to it because.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
We're accepting it. I see it all over the place.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
I deal with AI every day, right as part of
the prep that we do for the show is I
use that to summarize articles for us so I can
get more done faster. But I see the writing style,
and I'm seeing it pop up on social media constantly,
and it drives me nuts.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
And how many people fall for it.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
I see so many accounts on Acts, which is probably
the platform I use the most. I just scroll a
lot in my downtime and look for news there, but
also just to be engaged hang out with.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
Your fascist friends.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
Oh well, there's a little bit of fascism on there
a little bit. It's got a little racisty and little bears.
Speaker 3 (23:55):
Yeah, but you.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Also have these accounts that draw you in because it's
maybe let's say you're a fan of history and I
have some account flows by with an interesting fact about
a president, and it's got a whole long article and
you click on it. Because you've clicked on it, it'll
start feeding you more of this stuff. But you know
it's written by AI because you recognize the cadence and
you think this account is AI driven. It's gotten a
(24:19):
ton of engagement. Yeah, I have five hundred thousand followers.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
Yeah. But then there's also all these replies, and you
notice the cadence of the replies, and these.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
Are all yeah bots. Twitter is the worst for that,
but I'm seeing that in other social media's as well.
I am too.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
Oh, it's so weird and scary.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
I don't think I like it. One of the things
that Washington is trying to do is they're trying to
figure out how do we get the rains in on AI.
Not for those sorts of things, but you may have
heard about AI hacking other systems now and the latest
thing this week just came out that one of the
systems basically used identity theft to hack another system. Yeah,
it kind of created its own Hey, I'm an employee here,
(24:57):
and gave itself its own employment, and then the system
using its own employee that it created sort of thing
very interesting, and there's concerns about that getting out of hand.
And so you've got the AI companies to say, look,
we'd like to have some sort of regulation. They can't
agree on what the regulation is that they want, but
they know that they have to have some sort of regulation.
And what that framework is going to look like is
where there seems to be a little bit difference. The
(25:18):
Trump administration is trying to figure out what do we
do with this because they're interested in making sure that
we've got regulation, but at the same time, they don't
want to fall behind China. Yeah, and if you fall
behind China, China is not going to have any regulation
and they're going to run rampant. So now our technology
falls behind because we're trying not to destroy the world.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
So what do you do. Is it a race? Is
a nuclear arms race with AI?
Speaker 2 (25:37):
Or do you take the responsible route locally even though
China is going to continue one with this nuclear arms
race with AI.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
We're in trouble. You're terrified, all right.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
So we're still telling kids about drugs and how they
shouldn't do them. Apparently it's not completely getting surprising, no one,
that's naxt on Monks and Maryland.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
You're listening to Monks and Meryl onto the Air from
I AM six forty.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Available anywhere on the irt radio app.
Speaker 2 (26:05):
This is more Monks and Merrill the weekend edition, fresh content,
followed by some of our best hits coming up at
the top of the hour, stuff you might have missed
during our weekday show, which you can catch live Monday
through Friday from noon to three, or anytime you want
the KFI AM six forty dot com. I'm hoping your
radio app. I'm hoping your musical review made it in
this week's Best of five hundred twenty five thousand, six
(26:28):
hundred Men. There's a national survey out that that found
that fewer than half of kids in the eighth grade
classified experimenting with fentanyl as posing a great risk. This
is a study that measured perceptions, not actual feinyl us.
So these kids aren't they're not doing fentanyl necessarily.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
Do you think fentanyl is bad.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
Right, So this exposes, the study says, a dangerous awareness
gap while counterfeit pills make accidental exposure possible. Now you
and I are about the same age. You are a
little bit older, and we went to school in the
age of DARE drug Abuse Resistant Education.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
Did you have that?
Speaker 2 (27:10):
I think it came out of LA and a program
that came out of LA and spread across the country,
drug abuse Nancy Reagan's thing.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
I thought it was an LA police thing.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
I know when Nancy Reagan was pushing it real was
like just saying no.
Speaker 3 (27:22):
But that's what a DARE program was. I'll google it
really quickly. But okay, so you google all.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
What I'm saying is, you know, we've been told kids
since what the forties fifties, back when it was all
about marijuana, don't use marijuana. Marijuan's a very crazy thing.
By the time we were learning about it, I mean,
we were being told about crack and PCP, all these
different things. They really told us about all the other
drugs that we could be doing. It was very nice
of them to do well. I mean, apparently there are
(27:49):
some studies that DARRE didn't really work either. It did not,
but I don't know that you. If you would have
asked me as an eighth grader whether doing those drugs
is good, I think I would have at least absorbed
the information from the instructor that no, they're not good
and some of them are deadlier than others. Like you
did learn some stuff, it didn't necessarily quell your curiosity.
I think that was the challenge that the program based, Like, Yeah,
(28:11):
I'm going to turn I'm gonna get to college and
I'm gonna smoke a joint right or I'm going to
turn twenty one, I'm gonna go to a rave and
drive so many things. Yeah, I mean you're gonna get curious.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
No, so street laced and boring. You still are, so
don't worry about it killing me right now.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
What they found, though, is that as kids got older,
then they did start to understand the risk, which the
study is both alarming and kind of tells a story.
So fewer than fifty percent of eighth graders thought that
trying fentanyl once or twice was a great risk once
you got into high school, though tenth graders, two thirds
of tenth graders thought, Okay, fentanyl even once or twice
(28:48):
is not a good idea, and that jumped up to
seventy percent by seen years older.
Speaker 3 (28:52):
You got you realize, yes.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
So I'm what it tells me, the story is telling
me is that the messaging isn't hitting until the kids
get to high school, whereas like the DARE program was
hitting kids that were what fifth grade, sixth grades, that's
what I remember, right, So they were hitting kids at
a younger age. And now it seems that when it
comes to the dangers of especially fentanyl, which we think
of right now, fentanyl's the hot drug right now. Right
in the nineties, it was heroin, in the eighties, it
(29:15):
was crack. Right now it's fentanyl, and something surely will
replace that in the meth I think, in the twentys
and twenty tens, yeah, opioids, yeah, yeah, all these things,
right so, I think fentanyl will be replaced by something else,
maybe more dangerous, maybe more trendy, whatever else it is.
But I think we're not doing a very good job
of talking to younger kids about the risk. And when
it comes to something like fentanyl, all it takes is
(29:38):
one time that could be the last time. That doesn't
mean it's obviously, Look, you live with skid row. You
see people using fentanyl every day, so it's not like
it's not like it's a it's a guaranteed death sentence.
But I know a guy that was at a party and,
like you said, trying a pill and somebody slipped the
fentanyl in there. Did It's a Russian roulette with that
(29:58):
particular drug. I stated the family too. I mean, obviously
wreck them, but that message isn't getting to twelve year olds,
and hopefully the product isn't either, if they're that cavalier
towards it.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
Well, I hope so.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
Yeah, but I know that by the time I got
to eighth grade, there were kids doing things that kind
of scared me. I mean I could misbehave with the
best of them, but I never like stole or did
drugs or e anything like.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
I like to back talk a little bit. I like
to talk too much. Sasy.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
I was a sassy little guy. You're still okay, yeah,
a little bit sasy place I found my calling, Yeah,
all right, all right, turn it down. But there were
kids who were having sex and doing drugs by the
eighth grade. You know, yeah, so I guess this has
a small school. We had like one or two and
we looked, we frowned upon. And you're not from the
city either. No, yeah, you're from the country, right, So
there was frowned country. No, no, they were nobody gets
(30:46):
in the barn and rolls around on the hay.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
It's prickly. You don't want to do that.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
It is prickly, and you don't want to You don't
want to get involved in that stuff. By the way, Dare, yes,
I was right. It was founded in la in nineteen
eighty three under the direction of LAPD chief and or
okay if I host Daryl Gates, Oh, no, kidding, Oh yeah.
It's goal was to reduce the demand for illicit drugs
as part of the broader American War on drugs. As
you were talking about, Nancy. So, there was a series
(31:09):
of scientific studies back in the nineties and two thousands
that cast doubt on the effectiveness of dare I'm reading
the Wikipedia doing that's fine, with some studies concluding the
program was harmful or counterproductive. Years after its effectiveness was
cast into doubt, the program remained popular among politicians and
many members of the public, in part because of a
common intuition that the program ought to work. Oh how
(31:30):
many times we have that in politics. Yeah, well we
have to do this because it should make things better.
It's like I'm gonna catch out for this. It's the
it's like this idea of the polling place stuff that's
going on today now. Democrats don't want that, they say
it's gonna limit access. Republicans want it. They want to
secure elections. We know the stats show that elections are
not insecure unless you're paranoid and you want to believe
(31:51):
that the elections were stolen. But just the same stats
show elections are overwhelmingly secure. The number of people actually
getting through with false votes is is incredibly low. How
many fake id's do you think are used on a
daily basis to sneak into a bar? Fake id's are
used all the.
Speaker 3 (32:09):
Time that every day one crime I did.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
Okay, so you're an example of why idea is a
polling place doesn't work, but it doesn't have a vote
with a fake idea. I bought some liquor one time,
but it ought to work. Is the if only we
had if only we had ID at the polling place,
then our elections would be secure. And yet somehow fake
IDs still happen today that are good enough that people
(32:33):
are buying liquor at the liquor store. You think Matilda,
who's running the polling place, is going to be uh
well versed in identifying a fake ID.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
You've been referencing Matilda a lot lately. Generic old lady. Yeah, Matilda,
not like Elf will or Mildred Ethel. I could do
Mildred Milda. Yeah, Matilda's exomted the one. I the one.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
My wife has an old lady name, and I have
to be very careful not to use it because she
gets very upsets. Second time in this hour you've referred
to her as old. She gets aarp. She just got
an old lady name. She does, so she is an
old lady. So she's named appropriately. It's basically what you're saying.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
She's not that old.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
She's not like Ethel old Okay, right, huh, very southern name.
I'm not even to share it on the air. She
hates when I do it. I get yelled at when
I do that on the air, so I'm not gonna
do it.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
Sweet sweet, sweet sweet, it is old, though, I'll figure
it out. It is really old.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
More of Monks and Merrill the best material that we
have this week including perhaps even Michael's musical review.
Speaker 3 (33:35):
I doubt it. I hope it didn't make the cut.
That is still to come.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
It is k IF I Am six forty Live everywhere
on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 3 (33:42):
Is KFI on demand.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
You've been listening to Monks and Merrill here the show
live weekdays from noon to three on kf I Am
six forty at
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
This is Monks and Meryll, hosted by Michael Monks and
Chris Merrill. This is Monks and Merrill Demand.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
I'm Chris Merril. He's Michael Monks. Listened on demand anytime
on the iHeartRadio app. Michael, you are You're fussy today.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
I'm not fussy. I'm happy.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
I like being around on the weekends and fussing fresh
content for you and for our legions of fames.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
You're a.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Seventy one. We've got fourteen million people in the metro
seventy some people like us.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
It's very good. I did happen to see.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
I want to bring this to your attention because it
looks like your side hustle is maybe gonna go to
the wayside. A couple of bills are gonna crack down
and paid influencers on AI campaigns and AI campaigns, So
your your paid influence campaign there for Mayor Bass is
probably gonna go.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
To the wayside.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
I think there were some concerns about some of these
influencer type people there were in Congress is looking at it.
I know the state of California has has been considering
that too, and part of this is kind of plays
into that. I don't know that they would be as
concerned about cracking down on influencers in AI if it
hadn't hit the politicians themselves. But because it has a
(01:19):
personal impact on those guys and gals they are, they said, Wow,
we got to do something about this. It's an interesting
new world for campaign finance regulation because you hear campaign
ads here on KFI, you see them on television, and
you know, we require the politicians to either say you know,
I'm Michael Monks and I approved this message, or you
(01:41):
were in California is even stricter. You know, they require
a lot of information, even on billboards that you don't
even have time to ring. Half the billboards Clinton, here's
who the top funder is for this, if you have
to know who's paying for these ads. But if let's
say I've got a very popular knitting channel and there
is say campaign here in California that says, hey, let's
(02:02):
get Monks, the knitter to come over and endorse my campaign.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
Let's get his needles into it.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Yeah, let's do it. And they pay me. And I
started endorsing for Karen Bass and I you know, while
I'm knitting, I say, you know, he should be mayor
is Karen Bass again, let's get her for four years.
But I don't disclose that I've been compensated for that.
It's not just my opinion.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
She's been buying your I've been paid. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Yeah, she's a big fan of my mittens, my knitt
and mittens. I've been knitting mittens for a long time.
If you know that about me. Well, this part of
this is exactly what you're talking about. Because Tom Steyer
was paying influencers, and during his campaign he paid over
one hundred thousand dollars in one month alone, and they
post they paid a digital consulting firm Group Project over
(02:45):
two and a half million dollars uh and and somebody
that came from a third party spender as well. So
now you've got the politicians and the Sacramento theore saying whoa,
We've got these politicians that are paying influencers, and influencers
are coming out and saying I think Tom Steyer is great,
but they're not saying Toms messages. I've been compensated by
Tom Steyer. The following is a message from Tom Steyer. Yeah,
like we have on TV and radio.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
They you know, they have to.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
There are rules even on the various social media platforms
that these influence who are compensated to talk about a product,
that they have to label that it's a partnership, that
it's a paid partnership.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
The lashtag, that it's an ad.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Some of it's just hey, I'm having this ice cream
because I'm I want to review the ice cream. They
didn't send it to me. It's just my own personal opinion.
That's that's legit. But if the ice cream company is
delivering you this gift, that so why not with politicians?
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Politicians are basically products to these days.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
It is sad that we have to have laws that
lay out basic ethics. It's sort of like when you
see reviews on Amazon, and now you have to disclose
on your reviews on Amazon if you are if you've
been compensated for that review.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Yeah. I don't know how many people do it.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
I was on the vine program that they have where
because if you if you leave enough reviews and they
feel like they're thoughtful enough. And I always were a
review guy, aren't you you know what happens? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (03:59):
I think people.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
No, it wasn't that I felt guilty because I relied
so heavily on reviews in my purchases, I thought I
should start leaving some reviews because I know I'm not
the only one who reads reviews to make a purchase.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
So I did, and they were relatively thoughtful.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
They weren't long winded or bloviated. But Amazon hit me
up and said, hey, we appreciate you leaving the reviews
that you do. We have this program it's called Vine,
and you can receive a certain number of products every
month that this tier, and you have to review them.
That's the only thing honest reviews, honest reviews, but you
have to disclose that you're a Vine customer. And so
(04:34):
Osmar and I were doing this for a while because
if you did enough, you got moved up to the
next tier. We're getting a lot of free crap you
could get like televisions, computers.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
No way.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
But we had to get through all the different like well,
here's some birthday party balloons, here's something. But but some
of it was cool, like we would get some kitchen decor,
kind of board, you know, something like that, that shirt, sunglasses.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Stuff like it. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, I have to
do this. You look into it. I needed some more reviews.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
We decided to give up on it because we came
very close to making it to the next tier and
we didn't make it, I guess on a technicality, and
so we were kind of upset about that. But too,
in America, you have to pay taxes on the value. Yes,
and like if you go up to the next tier
and you're getting laptops, you know, you could end up
with forty fifty thousand dollars worth of stuff. And you know,
(05:19):
I'm not saying we shouldn't have to report it, obviously,
I just don't want to deal with that fun fact.
You should know because have you ever had an endorsement before? No,
I've always been in news. Yeah yeah, Now you're a
talk show host, So dump that crap. Yeah, it's not
about ethics, are gone, not about a tech I am
for sale, That's right. Make me look like a NASCAR
baby all over my face. I went to I went
(05:41):
to San Diego and they put me up at the
Catamaran Beautiful Resort. It's on the peninsula between Mission Bay
and Pacific Ocean. It's absolutely beautiful resort. They put me
up there for two months while I looked for housing.
It's really nice.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
Numb to do. Total bill on that was twenty four
thousand dollars two months. Yeah, just crazy. And and at
the end of the year, I got a I got
a tax bill on you who was paying for it?
It was a trade with the radio station.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Why is that, you're because because it was considered compensation
to me, oh my, and so I didn't see a dime.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
It was just that I had free housing for two months,
which was great.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
You know in l a L you have to present
a tent and say I need something bigger and they
give you a million dollar condo. But there, Uh so
I got I got a tax bill for that that's
like seven grand. Yeah, it was more than that when
you factor in federal n state tax so you couldn't
you couldn't wiggle your way out of it.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
You had to pay it. I had to pay it. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
Yeah, So my wife was not happy about that bill.
So no one explained to you that that was going
to happen. I'd never had that happen to me before.
I had had temporary housing and other radio stations in
the past, and it was never a thing. But California
was really stringent about that, and of course iHeart was
a clear channel at the time was they were dotting
all their eyes and crossing all their t's and yeah,
(06:57):
I got I got hit on that bill. So since then,
any job that I've taken, I've I don't accept any housing.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
Oh that's I don't accept any of it.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
Yeah, very quickly, there is another This is a Senator
Adam Schiff from here in California who is working with
some others on getting two federal bills, one targeting those
paid political influencers. But there's the other deceptive AI campaign material.
This is only going to be become a bigger problem.
We saw some AI stuff use. I know that Spencer Pratt,
while he was running for mayor of Los Angeles was
(07:25):
getting a lot of flak for AI ands. They weren't
his ads, that's the thing. His campaign didn't produce AI ads,
but there was a there were some fan accounts that
created AI ads, and he boosted.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
Them by hetweeted them.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Yes, and they were interesting, engaging, somewhat clever even.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
I think in his case there should have been disclosure.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
But I wasn't so offended because it was obvious that
they were as sure, I didn't think that Gavin Newsom
was dressing up like the joker right or or two face,
and I was a mayor, Bass was the joker whatever
it was in his ass, Like that was obvious AI.
But many of these AI ads that are coming out,
they're not nearly as obvious. And that's where I think
(08:06):
you end up with this perception of overwhelming support that
someone's just creating a whole cloth I think problematic. I mean,
AI is getting so good, you know, you're not seeing
the six seven fingers thing as much as you are.
I can't believe some of the videos I've seen online
recently that look very very very real, and you can
easily make it look like somebody's up to something that
(08:27):
they're not. So Shiff has this other ai ADS Act
that would apply federal fraudulent misrepresentation rules to political material
created partly or entirely with AI, which would just need
to say, have have to have a watermarker that says,
you know, created with AI. Yeah, this seems like some
it seems like bipartisan potential here. This seems like stuff
(08:48):
we should probably consider it. I agree, except if it
comes from Schiff, who can be a be a poisonizing Yeah. Yeah,
all of a sudden people are going, Oh, he's doing
this to try to attack President Trump, and then they
start voting against it. California may still let your insurance
company charge you more because nobody put a ring on
your finger.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Gotta put a ring on that. Oh, the relationships surcharge?
Speaker 2 (09:09):
What's that about? That's next on More Monks and Meryl.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
You're listening to Monks and Meryll on demand from KFI
Am sixty more stimulating talk.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
It is More Monks and Merril the weekend edition, some
fresh material for all of you find listeners out there.
Don't miss our live show weekdays Monday through Friday noon
to three. Monks and Merril the regular version. This is
More Monks and Marylyn. And if you haven't subscribed to
the podcast yet, my goodness, as Michael would say, my goodness,
(09:42):
sell them like hotcakes. You gotta do this, miss a day,
miss a lot, whole lot. Do that on the iheartradiop
just to click the follow button and if you want
and click the auto download. It doesn't clutter your phone
or your tablet or whatever. Just to bring the latest
stuff up and get rid of the old one. Did
you know that it is very expensive to be single
in California apparently. Well, I think everybody knows. That's why
(10:04):
we got If you're single, you got roommate. I often wonder,
you know, I moved out here married. Yeah, what life
would have been like had I come alone? Well, you
live in skid row. Now, I don't think it would
have a whole thing could have gotten you just would
have You would have had a much uh your your
apartment would have been at a much lower level, like
on the street.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
In a tent.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Yeah, I think that's true. Yeah, because I probably would
have broken down and cried. A divided California Appeals Court
has upheld a regulation allowing auto insurance companies to consider
your marital status when setting premiums. This is a ruling
that preserves the existing system, which means some single, some divorced,
(10:45):
and some widowed drivers can pay more than otherwise similar
married driver. Yeah, and people are claiming this is discrimination,
it's a penalty for being single. Well, what is what's
better about insuring somebody who's shocked up?
Speaker 3 (11:00):
I think if you take a look at their stats,
they're going to show you that people who are.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
Married, have they're born, they stay home, they don't drive recklessly,
they've got more to lose.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
I've got ratty kids in the minivan.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Yeah, if they said moves out here single, you know,
he's getting drunk in WIHO on the weekends. Yeah, driving
his Porsche round at high rates of speed, letting random
gentleman drive, probably getting into the street takeovers. Yeah, all
those different things. I would have been a rowdy bastard
here by myself, exactly what you would have done. Thank
god you were married at the time. Thank god for that.
(11:30):
The First District Court of Appeals ruled two to one
against eleven unmarried policyholders who must have joined together in
some support group and challenged the marital status regulation. It's
probably there's at least five couples in there. Yeah, why
don't they just hook up?
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Hook up? Who cares? Put a ring on it? Proposition
one O three. That is.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
A rule here in California that requires insurers to emphasize
your driving record, your years of driving experience, and your
annual milers. That makes sense for consideration. Okay, yeah, you're
getting car insurance. But Prop one O three also lets
the insurance commissioner approve optional factors that bear a substantial
relationship to the risk of loss. But I think you're
allowed to discriminate based on gender too when it comes
(12:13):
to insurance.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
And you think so, I.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Mean years of driving experience that translates into age basically,
which is why when when we were seventeen years old,
our insurance rates were.
Speaker 3 (12:24):
So much higher than that.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
When you're a new driver, yeah, bigger risks.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
Well, plus you're seventeen. You're an idiot.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Yeah, I mean you're inexperienced on the road, but you
also have more testosterone than brains. You don't really think
before you you've taken a break lane change. Yeah, you're risky.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
No, that makes sense. Yeah, I wonder how much it
is though.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
I mean, marital status has been an approved optional rating
factor since nineteen ninety six. Insurans don't have to use it.
They all choose to do it. Of course they are
because anything they want to make it back. Yeah, anytime
you can make a put which now you didn't know this,
but our tech director is actually only getting married for
the insurance savings. It's not his face, it's his fiance.
(13:01):
She doesn't want to have anything to do with him,
but yeah, she can save a couple hundred.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
Bucks, so she's she's uh. Jesse Blackburn. Yeah, and she
makes more money than me too.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Yeah, so she's tired of hole on his tail around.
At the very least he could put a ring on
it and then get her a discount. So he's got
a sugar mama, and he's and to pay her back.
He's going to get this break on the car insurance.
Exactly right. It's a marriage of convenience for her.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Really, I mean, working in radio and everyone makes more
money than I'm going to say.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
I don't find much convenience in having Jessie around, but
I guess if there's a marriage of convenience opportunities. So
I married an old lady and I kind of got
the same thing going on that that your spouse you
are the younger one.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
Yeah, I'm the older one in mine.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
I got the I got the thing going on that
that your spouse is going to have is that he's
going to be qualified for AARP discounts when he's still
pretty young.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
Yeah, I mean in the sixth grade now, that's right.
And I've been uh, I've been able to get the
ARP discounts for well, I think six years now. You
should be saying this on the air about you. She
loves it when I talk about that at her age. Yeah, Now,
how much older is she?
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Eight years?
Speaker 2 (14:04):
That's you know, I think eight years is a huge
difference when your kids, Yeah right, I mean you've got
somebody who's in high school compared to somebody's in first
grade at that point.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
That's the reminder of that too.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
And it's probably a big difference when you're twenty and
twenty eight, because you know, you're getting your first taste
of independence as a twenty year old twenty eighth drink
you probably got your first big boy, big girl job.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
You know that's different by the time you're in your
thirties and beyond. Eight years doesn't matter. Now I'm twenty
years older than my spot. See when we met, I
was twenty four. You're twenty years older.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
Is it that much? Twenty four and thirty two is
not that big a deal.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
I don't think it was for her to start with, Yeah, yeah,
because she thought she thought she was just robbing the cradle,
And I said, I'm an old man at heart. I
think the big deal is how old was Ozma when
you you got with him?
Speaker 3 (14:49):
Twenty Okay, so.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
You had to like sneak him into the bars. We
didn't go Wow, I was already over bars.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
Wow. It wasn't you know?
Speaker 2 (14:59):
It was you know, if you get it, if you
got what I got. Yeah, you get what you get.
Good for you, you know what I'm saying. Oh, it's not
my style, never was my style. But it just so
happens that after years of looking for the one, you
just had to wait for him to be born my peers. Yeah, exactly, yeah, yeah,
and finally he was right before September eleventh.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
Is that right? That's true, isn't it? Does he remember
nine to eleven? Of course not.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
Oh my gosh, of course not. I should also point
out I think all of my kids are older than
your spouse. Yeah, yeah, stay awish my children. Oh yeah,
my youngest is it's not. Again, that's not my style,
So don't don't you'll be your type.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
I'm not.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
I'm not an old sugar daddy type of person. No,
you're working radio. It was Jesse, just to point it out. Yeah,
but it doesn't work out that I got host money.
You can build that perfect application, you can ace your interview,
and you can sound like the smartest person in the room. Congratulations,
you got the whole system full. Now the schools and
the employers are onto your lies. There's a new we'll
tell you what that is next. Monks and Merrill k
(16:02):
i AM six forty. You'll find us everywhere in the
iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
You're listening to Monks and Merrill on demand from KFI AM.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
If you haven't done it yet, please subscribe to the
podcast in the iheartradiop When you're on that app, you'll
see a little talk back button. And anytime you listen
to a show and you have something to say about
what you're hearing on the air, if you click that
talk back and it comes right into Jesse's computer and
he filters it out and only shares.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
With us the mean, mean things that you say. It's
a horrible person. I heard Handle talking about this week.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
He was talking about this new AI tool that one
of the schools has. Cal Tech has come up with
us in order to figure out if you're an idiot,
if you've committed fraud basically in your application. Yeah, I
think cal Tech would be the one to figure it out.
I would think so, And they probably have a lot
of morons trying to get into cal Tech. Well, I mean,
if you're going to cal Tech? Why are you trying
(16:56):
to cheat? Are you desper smart enough to get it? Yes,
if you're smart enough to get in Caltech, you don't
need to. But if you want to go to cal
Tech and you're not that smart, you fudge the numbers.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
A little bit.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
You know, this is interesting because we've talked recently about
some tricks some professors are doing to catch people who
might be cheating on their exams at all different types
of universities. But this is about what applications. Yeah, so
they set up a four person emission team a couple
of years ago to verify every admitted student's application. So
they're actually doing the check on this stuff. They're going
(17:27):
through basically checking your references, making sure you're not lying
about things on your resume. But applicants may submit to
photographs with trophies, newspaper coverage, congratulatory emails, or videos of
what they've done in high school. But with AI you
can create all of those things. It's kind of like
you with your twelve Golden microphone awards. I have four,
but your picture shows twelve. And so what they're saying is,
(17:49):
ah that Michael monks Wo's inflating his accomplishments.
Speaker 3 (17:52):
I wouldn't do that. Of course you wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Cal TAK is encouraging applicants claiming research experience to complete
a customized video interview. They doe rapid rapid questions. They've
got sixty seconds to answer each one. This way you're staying,
turn to your chat and say, how would I do
this so they can watch you? Yeah, they can watch you.
It's like it's like a job interview in person is
what they're basically doing now. But for every student. Now,
imagine you got to get through what was it eleven
(18:15):
thousand applications. Oh my gosh, well that is a lot
cal Tech admits though out of eleven thousand, four hundred applicants,
this is a school that people want to go to.
It's very high level school. Four percent, fewer than four
percent are admitted. Only the best of the best get Capacadena.
We talked this this week about the acceptance at the
(18:36):
UC system and how you know it's the system overall
is accepting a lot more kids. Yeah, I was accepting
a lot more kids than it has in the past.
But these these students aren't necessarily getting into the campuses
that they want. It because there there are variables. Yeah,
because Berkeley is only letting in a UCLA but Jesse's
alma mater riverside any button. Merce said, if you've got
(18:58):
a pulse, you're in. Yeah, you're in.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
Yeah, you're absolutely.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Cal Tech's not like that. Plus it's in the name
cal Tech. You're gonna sneak past these guys. Yeah, you're
not gonna outtech cal Tech, that's for sure. So a
quarter of the candidates that have completed and passed take
home coding tests at a workplace because there's workplaces that
are dealing with its. Not too after AI expanded, so
(19:21):
they said we want to hire you, show us your
coding skills. And they would just go to Claude and
they would say code this for me, and then it
would pop it out and they say, now they can
figure out if you've been using.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
AI, you know you're not that good a coder. I
guess my question is what does it matter?
Speaker 2 (19:38):
I kind of have the same thought. If your job
is coding, you're hiring somebody to code, and they get
the code done, then what does it matter? If they
figured out how to use a tool to get the
coding done, they go out because AI can do it, yep, right.
I think coding is one of those STEM programs. I
mean five years ago, it was like, you should be
a coder. You're always gonna have a job. Now, so
coding is the first thing off the I was gonna
say the same thing. Can we talk about code, not
(20:01):
the code? I usually like to talk about form based
and zoning code.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
Zoning code.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
It kind of became a pejorative for folks that, you know,
if it was a person who didn't like and they
lost their jobs, saying radio and maybe there's a group
of people who didn't like you as a host, or
if you were a teacher somewhere and you get let
go for whatever reason. The comments could range from you know,
direct insults, but also well, learn to code, Yeah, learned
to code?
Speaker 3 (20:23):
Do you have a job.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
But you're right, I don't know that that's true anymore.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
No, it's not. AI can write code.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
Yeah, unless you're writing AI code, which now AI is
at the point where you can use AI to write
new AI code. Those are the jobs that are most
immediately threatened. I think all of our jobs down the
road are clearly in the in the firing line of
artificial intelligence. But it seems that the back end computer
esque jobs, those are first to go, not even just
(20:52):
back in I would say a lot of the different
stem jobs that we were pushing all the kids towards
for the last ten years, those are the jobs that
AI can do the best.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
Two.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
There's really two ways to go that the future could
hold for those jobs. One is that it replaces those
jobs altogether. We don't need engineers because we've got the
computer will do all of it. The other is it
enhances those jobs and you can progress society that much
faster because now you've got a new tool to do
some of the dirty work that allows you, as an
engineer or a mathematician to take on bigger projects than
(21:26):
you could in the past. I think we might be
at the end of days.
Speaker 3 (21:29):
Is that right? I think we might be at the
end of days. I mean, there's so.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Much that it can do now. Yeah, I'm wondering, though,
maybe there will be an opportunity. Think about ten, probably
fifteen years ago at this point, the joke would be
social media intern, Right, there's some kid who comes in
and works your Facebook page for your hardware store. If
you joke about a social media intern, you're clearly joking
(21:53):
at this point, because there are skilled professionals that work
specifically in social media for brands, for companies, organizations, because
they have specific talents in understanding algorithms and how each
platform works. I wonder if there might be an avenue
for people to learn AI just in general that they're used.
But like that's your specific title. You're not the you're
(22:16):
not the cash, you're at the heart specials. Yeah, is
there an AI specialist? Stuff is actually will arge, there
will be no doubt. But to your point about social media,
I've got a friend of mine who is a social
media manager or a major biotech company, and he lives
in Irvine, and he says one of the things that
he's running into is that whenever they have new management
come in, they always want to replace his position because
(22:36):
they go a, I can do your job, we don't
need you to do the job.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
Now.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
He always makes the you know, he'll make out the
deck and say, listen, this is why you do need
me because I do understand these things. These algorithms are
constantly changing. I can do this blah blah blah blah blah,
and I can incorporate the tools from AI in order
to make things more effective. But he's constantly trying to
justify his position now, because the mindset is we can
get that intern, we can get that twenty year old
(23:00):
who went through high school learning how to do things
on AI, and that person can do the social media
using the new AI tools to do it just as
well as somebody who's a veteran of the system for
the last twenty years.
Speaker 3 (23:11):
It's wild, man, it is wild.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
I'm going to be more curious even beyond the technology.
I'll be more curious about how we as consumers react
to it because.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
We're accepting it. I see it all over the place.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
I deal with AI every day, right as part of
the prep that we do for the show is I
use that to summarize articles for us so I can
get more done faster. But I see the writing style,
and I'm seeing it pop up on social media constantly,
and it drives me nuts.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
And how many people fall for it.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
I see so many accounts on Acts, which is probably
the platform I use the most. I just scroll a
lot in my downtime and look for news there, but
also just to be engaged hang out with.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
Your fascist friends.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
Oh well, there's a little bit of fascism on there
a little bit. It's got a little racisty and little bears.
Speaker 3 (23:55):
Yeah, but you.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Also have these accounts that draw you in because it's
maybe let's say you're a fan of history and I
have some account flows by with an interesting fact about
a president, and it's got a whole long article and
you click on it. Because you've clicked on it, it'll
start feeding you more of this stuff. But you know
it's written by AI because you recognize the cadence and
you think this account is AI driven. It's gotten a
(24:19):
ton of engagement. Yeah, I have five hundred thousand followers.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
Yeah. But then there's also all these replies, and you
notice the cadence of the replies, and these.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
Are all yeah bots. Twitter is the worst for that,
but I'm seeing that in other social media's as well.
I am too.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
Oh, it's so weird and scary.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
I don't think I like it. One of the things
that Washington is trying to do is they're trying to
figure out how do we get the rains in on AI.
Not for those sorts of things, but you may have
heard about AI hacking other systems now and the latest
thing this week just came out that one of the
systems basically used identity theft to hack another system. Yeah,
it kind of created its own Hey, I'm an employee here,
(24:57):
and gave itself its own employment, and then the system
using its own employee that it created sort of thing
very interesting, and there's concerns about that getting out of hand.
And so you've got the AI companies to say, look,
we'd like to have some sort of regulation. They can't
agree on what the regulation is that they want, but
they know that they have to have some sort of regulation.
And what that framework is going to look like is
where there seems to be a little bit difference. The
(25:18):
Trump administration is trying to figure out what do we
do with this because they're interested in making sure that
we've got regulation, but at the same time, they don't
want to fall behind China. Yeah, and if you fall
behind China, China is not going to have any regulation
and they're going to run rampant. So now our technology
falls behind because we're trying not to destroy the world.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
So what do you do. Is it a race? Is
a nuclear arms race with AI?
Speaker 2 (25:37):
Or do you take the responsible route locally even though
China is going to continue one with this nuclear arms
race with AI.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
We're in trouble. You're terrified, all right.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
So we're still telling kids about drugs and how they
shouldn't do them. Apparently it's not completely getting surprising, no one,
that's naxt on Monks and Maryland.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
You're listening to Monks and Meryl onto the Air from
I AM six forty.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Available anywhere on the irt radio app.
Speaker 2 (26:05):
This is more Monks and Merrill the weekend edition, fresh content,
followed by some of our best hits coming up at
the top of the hour, stuff you might have missed
during our weekday show, which you can catch live Monday
through Friday from noon to three, or anytime you want
the KFI AM six forty dot com. I'm hoping your
radio app. I'm hoping your musical review made it in
this week's Best of five hundred twenty five thousand, six
(26:28):
hundred Men. There's a national survey out that that found
that fewer than half of kids in the eighth grade
classified experimenting with fentanyl as posing a great risk. This
is a study that measured perceptions, not actual feinyl us.
So these kids aren't they're not doing fentanyl necessarily.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
Do you think fentanyl is bad.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
Right, So this exposes, the study says, a dangerous awareness
gap while counterfeit pills make accidental exposure possible. Now you
and I are about the same age. You are a
little bit older, and we went to school in the
age of DARE drug Abuse Resistant Education.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
Did you have that?
Speaker 2 (27:10):
I think it came out of LA and a program
that came out of LA and spread across the country,
drug abuse Nancy Reagan's thing.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
I thought it was an LA police thing.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
I know when Nancy Reagan was pushing it real was
like just saying no.
Speaker 3 (27:22):
But that's what a DARE program was. I'll google it
really quickly. But okay, so you google all.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
What I'm saying is, you know, we've been told kids
since what the forties fifties, back when it was all
about marijuana, don't use marijuana. Marijuan's a very crazy thing.
By the time we were learning about it, I mean,
we were being told about crack and PCP, all these
different things. They really told us about all the other
drugs that we could be doing. It was very nice
of them to do well. I mean, apparently there are
(27:49):
some studies that DARRE didn't really work either. It did not,
but I don't know that you. If you would have
asked me as an eighth grader whether doing those drugs
is good, I think I would have at least absorbed
the information from the instructor that no, they're not good
and some of them are deadlier than others. Like you
did learn some stuff, it didn't necessarily quell your curiosity.
I think that was the challenge that the program based, Like, Yeah,
(28:11):
I'm going to turn I'm gonna get to college and
I'm gonna smoke a joint right or I'm going to
turn twenty one, I'm gonna go to a rave and
drive so many things. Yeah, I mean you're gonna get curious.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
No, so street laced and boring. You still are, so
don't worry about it killing me right now.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
What they found, though, is that as kids got older,
then they did start to understand the risk, which the
study is both alarming and kind of tells a story.
So fewer than fifty percent of eighth graders thought that
trying fentanyl once or twice was a great risk once
you got into high school, though tenth graders, two thirds
of tenth graders thought, Okay, fentanyl even once or twice
(28:48):
is not a good idea, and that jumped up to
seventy percent by seen years older.
Speaker 3 (28:52):
You got you realize, yes.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
So I'm what it tells me, the story is telling
me is that the messaging isn't hitting until the kids
get to high school, whereas like the DARE program was
hitting kids that were what fifth grade, sixth grades, that's
what I remember, right, So they were hitting kids at
a younger age. And now it seems that when it
comes to the dangers of especially fentanyl, which we think
of right now, fentanyl's the hot drug right now. Right
in the nineties, it was heroin, in the eighties, it
(29:15):
was crack. Right now it's fentanyl, and something surely will
replace that in the meth I think, in the twentys
and twenty tens, yeah, opioids, yeah, yeah, all these things,
right so, I think fentanyl will be replaced by something else,
maybe more dangerous, maybe more trendy, whatever else it is.
But I think we're not doing a very good job
of talking to younger kids about the risk. And when
it comes to something like fentanyl, all it takes is
(29:38):
one time that could be the last time. That doesn't
mean it's obviously, Look, you live with skid row. You
see people using fentanyl every day, so it's not like
it's not like it's a it's a guaranteed death sentence.
But I know a guy that was at a party and,
like you said, trying a pill and somebody slipped the
fentanyl in there. Did It's a Russian roulette with that
(29:58):
particular drug. I stated the family too. I mean, obviously
wreck them, but that message isn't getting to twelve year olds,
and hopefully the product isn't either, if they're that cavalier
towards it.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
Well, I hope so.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
Yeah, but I know that by the time I got
to eighth grade, there were kids doing things that kind
of scared me. I mean I could misbehave with the
best of them, but I never like stole or did
drugs or e anything like.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
I like to back talk a little bit. I like
to talk too much. Sasy.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
I was a sassy little guy. You're still okay, yeah,
a little bit sasy place I found my calling, Yeah,
all right, all right, turn it down. But there were
kids who were having sex and doing drugs by the
eighth grade. You know, yeah, so I guess this has
a small school. We had like one or two and
we looked, we frowned upon. And you're not from the
city either. No, yeah, you're from the country, right, So
there was frowned country. No, no, they were nobody gets
(30:46):
in the barn and rolls around on the hay.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
It's prickly. You don't want to do that.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
It is prickly, and you don't want to You don't
want to get involved in that stuff. By the way, Dare, yes,
I was right. It was founded in la in nineteen
eighty three under the direction of LAPD chief and or
okay if I host Daryl Gates, Oh, no, kidding, Oh yeah.
It's goal was to reduce the demand for illicit drugs
as part of the broader American War on drugs. As
you were talking about, Nancy. So, there was a series
(31:09):
of scientific studies back in the nineties and two thousands
that cast doubt on the effectiveness of dare I'm reading
the Wikipedia doing that's fine, with some studies concluding the
program was harmful or counterproductive. Years after its effectiveness was
cast into doubt, the program remained popular among politicians and
many members of the public, in part because of a
common intuition that the program ought to work. Oh how
(31:30):
many times we have that in politics. Yeah, well we
have to do this because it should make things better.
It's like I'm gonna catch out for this. It's the
it's like this idea of the polling place stuff that's
going on today now. Democrats don't want that, they say
it's gonna limit access. Republicans want it. They want to
secure elections. We know the stats show that elections are
not insecure unless you're paranoid and you want to believe
(31:51):
that the elections were stolen. But just the same stats
show elections are overwhelmingly secure. The number of people actually
getting through with false votes is is incredibly low. How
many fake id's do you think are used on a
daily basis to sneak into a bar? Fake id's are
used all the.
Speaker 3 (32:09):
Time that every day one crime I did.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
Okay, so you're an example of why idea is a
polling place doesn't work, but it doesn't have a vote
with a fake idea. I bought some liquor one time,
but it ought to work. Is the if only we
had if only we had ID at the polling place,
then our elections would be secure. And yet somehow fake
IDs still happen today that are good enough that people
(32:33):
are buying liquor at the liquor store. You think Matilda,
who's running the polling place, is going to be uh
well versed in identifying a fake ID.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
You've been referencing Matilda a lot lately. Generic old lady. Yeah, Matilda,
not like Elf will or Mildred Ethel. I could do
Mildred Milda. Yeah, Matilda's exomted the one. I the one.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
My wife has an old lady name, and I have
to be very careful not to use it because she
gets very upsets. Second time in this hour you've referred
to her as old. She gets aarp. She just got
an old lady name. She does, so she is an
old lady. So she's named appropriately. It's basically what you're saying.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
She's not that old.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
She's not like Ethel old Okay, right, huh, very southern name.
I'm not even to share it on the air. She
hates when I do it. I get yelled at when
I do that on the air, so I'm not gonna
do it.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
Sweet sweet, sweet sweet, it is old, though, I'll figure
it out. It is really old.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
More of Monks and Merrill the best material that we
have this week including perhaps even Michael's musical review.
Speaker 3 (33:35):
I doubt it. I hope it didn't make the cut.
That is still to come.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
It is k IF I Am six forty Live everywhere
on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 3 (33:42):
Is KFI on demand.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
You've been listening to Monks and Merrill here the show
live weekdays from noon to three on kf I Am
six forty at
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com