May 6, 2026 • 36 mins
Featured within Hour One of the Monday May 6, 2026 edition of The Armstrong & Getty Show...
-
Our Memorandum of Understanding…
- Headlines...
- Artificial Intelligence is really weird...
- Mailbag!
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
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 (00:03):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe, Katty Armstrong, and Jeckie
and he arms Draw. According to the m OU, the
(00:24):
memory Memorandum of understanding that we have with our radio bosses,
we are supposed to start broadcasting now, so we will
live from Studio c S and your arm dimly lit
room do with them the bowels of the Armstrong and
Getty Communications compound of today we're toiling under the title
of the show.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
I'm now completely lost to give up understand what the
hell is going on with thern?
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Did you not read the m OU, the memory, the
memorandum of understanding. I grazed it. What do you call it?
A skimmed skimmed this?
Speaker 2 (00:57):
I took a glance in our alternate Rubio makes his mark,
Oh wow, yeah, I.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Just trying to lift everybody's spirits. Things happening overnight. So uh,
Trump has paused the Operation Freedom. That's the one where we,
in theory somehow help ships get through the strait, though
that really never happened. Two boats at the beginning, and
then nobody in the last seventy two hours. Yeah, yeah,
(01:29):
heads south and the take a right at the UAE. Yeah,
that's kind of like pausing my uh, I don't know,
marathon training, building your home nuclear reactor. I wasn't anyway,
So yeah, anyway, we paused something that we weren't doing
much of. Because Trump says there's an agreement in MoU,
(01:49):
a memorandum of understanding on the table fourteen points that
would include a thirty day period to negotiate the Strait
of horror moves in iranium enrichment, and that the Uranians
have agreed to stop the three point sixty seven percent
uranium blah blah blah, all these different numbers that would
mean anything to you. But it's an agreement to stop
(02:09):
chasing a bomb and open the street and all that
sort of stuff. I guess the key factor being whether
or not we're dealing with people that have the power
to actually enforce this. Although the IRGC the Republican Guard
did announce fairly recently in the last couple of hours,
we won't be shooting any ships trying to go through
the strait, so that means they're on board, sounds like
with at least the negotiation part.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
So it seem yeah, there are two possible things happening here. Well,
let me get to Trump's most recent truth social posts,
so that which you'll be contradicted in twenty minutes anyway,
but indulge yourself.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
Why not? Because he put out that one about how
we got the MoU the memorandum of agreement, and we're
gonna pause that and look, blah blah blah, it looks
like it all might be over. Then he put out
this one, assuming Iran agrees to what has been agreed to,
which there's a lot of comments here. Assuming Iran agrees
to what has been agreed to, which is WHOA, let's
(03:02):
stop there, What the hell does that mean? Well, that's
why this is an interesting wrinkle before you start into
your analysis, because he kind of put out the statement
sounding like they have agreed and you know, this is
where we are. But then he puts out this most
recent one that makes it sounds to me like somethinge
linky in the previous five six hours. Assuming Iran agrees
(03:24):
to what has been agreed to, comma, which is comma,
perhaps comma a big assumption Comma, the already legendary epic
fury will be at an end, and the highly effective
blockade will allow the hor mate straight to be in
all caps, open to all, which it was before, his
critics point out, including Iran, if they don't agree, now
this is the first threat in a while. If they
(03:46):
don't agree, the bombing starts, and it will be sadly,
at much higher levels and intensity than it was before.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. So I
feel like he for some reason felt the need to
throw in a stick here in the last hour, more
of a stand. The bombing returns, and more intense than before.
All Right, we've heard that a handful of times. Now,
(04:08):
I gotta believe the rubber has met the road here.
But I've thought that a few times in the last week.
All Right, here's my analysis. Two things might be happening,
and it's one or the other. One.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Trump has really decided he doesn't want any more bombings
and is being strung along by the Iranians and played
for a complete fool or.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
And this has been documented.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
China is really flexing its muscles behind the scenes, with
Iran telling him this ends.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
Yeah, there's two parts to the China deal. There's what
you just said, and there's a fact that Trump's meeting
with she next week, and he doesn't want this hanging
over that get together. Like all they end up talking
about is the straight up horror moves. We got lots
of other business to do with China, and so yeah,
we we want it done before we meet with China.
China wants it done because they get practically all their
(05:04):
fuel from other places. I was reading a it makes
such a difference where you're taking you information. I was watching
MSNBC this morning and they were so negative on all this.
I mean, it was just a calamitous world history mistake.
Look how much worse it is Iran clearly one blah
blah blah. I was watching News Nation or they had
(05:29):
a very charitable analyst on who said, it sounds to
us like Trump is trying to determine whether or not
the people he's dealing with are the real deal or
not and have the power, And if they have the power,
the deal will be made. If they don't, the bombing resumes.
So it's just it's just a testing to see if
we're negotiating with the real deal or not.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
If that's true, that's that's very reasonable because it would
take a little time given the chaos in Iran to
consolidate power, and and well well, to consolidate power to
the point that you could make a deal and then
enforce it.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
So yeah, yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
It would all be so much better if it weren't
for the never ending whip sawing of the truth social
posts vowing calamitous apocalyptic violence by noon tomorrow in all caps,
and then by noon tomorrow a deal has been reached,
and then the next day there's no deil.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
You can't make a deal with these people, the bombing
wilcommands right right. That doesn't help. And then if you
have two thirds of the media help bent on convincing
it's a disaster, that doesn't help either. But this other
analysis I saw last night, which I thought was really
really interesting, was that how it woke up the world China, China,
and Europe in particular to the fact that, wow, it
(06:44):
doesn't take much of a disruption somewhere far away that
we don't have any oil or gas, whereas for the
United States they're perfectly fine because they supply their own.
It's an excellent point, that is it. There might be
an inflection point in world history right there. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Yeah, I love the international stuff, I truly do, but
I find myself preoccupied by thinking about the America hating
media and how well, of course they are as big
as they are because we've been educating our kids to
hate their country for a very long time now, and
(07:23):
so yeah, they want that in their media, which is insidious.
Got another story about that later, But and I'm reminded
of something Orwell said that in the thirties and forties especially,
a lot of the movement toward fascism was born of
(07:45):
how terrible the other side was. I'm paraphrasing his eloquence,
but in specifically the communists and the leftists were so
awful and ineffective and brutal, people were thinking, maybe this
right wing y stuff is a better idea. And I
have an account of how on our two hundred and
fiftieth anniversary, this major art museum in Philadelphia like it
(08:09):
either sits on the ground of a right next to
Freedom Hall, the entire art exhibit is about how terrible
America is. For the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary, And
here's the way my mind was flitting. I was picturing,
you know, taking some patriots and not doing it, but
thinking about somebody grabbing the plaque that essentially says this
(08:30):
is a bad country and you should hate it.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Here's a little art.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Just tearn it out now. That would be ugly. That
would be ugly. But how how is the Art Museum
on our giant birthday sending the message that you suck?
I'm ashamed of this country. I can hardly stand to
be here in Philadelphia. How does not that not whip
(08:55):
up a response like I'm describing or worse? Oh god,
I hate those people.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
It might have to at some point because there's not
a lot of pushback. They get all fired up. Boy,
how much is the I never even thought about this,
But as we get closer to July fourth, there's going
to be a lot of the New York Times opinion
pieces and books coming out and everything like that trying
to convince you that this is nothing to celebrate. This
(09:22):
is the worst thing that ever happened to the world.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
Reprints of the sixteen nineteen project with that, I don't know,
a burning American flag on the front or whatever, eh,
And I'd love the counter to that to be gentlemanly
and intelligent and educational, more Ben Franklin than say, Abe
Lincoln stripped to the waist, ready to whoop somebody's ass.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
John Adams, Sir John Adams or Sam Adams.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Well, exactly, I think it may be much more Sam Adams,
perhaps fueled by a couple of fus Samuel Adams Boston nails.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Which has been hurt delicious brew indeed, yet exactly, Let's
start the show officially before we get in trouble with
the FC. See that's part of our MOE, or a
memorandum of understanding. I'm Jack Armstrong, He's Joe Getty on this.
It is Wednesday, May sixth. You're not leaping off your hangover. Man.
All you remember last night is you had a somburrow
on your head at some point, and yeah, I'll talk
(10:14):
another tequila shot. That's all you remember. The old though,
they've just got the throbbing pain as you try to
work through your hangover. We are Armstrong hitting and we
approve of this program.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Trying to scrub off the sharpy mustache you're drawing yourself.
All right, let's begin in the show officially now according
to the FCC rules, the rags here we go at mark.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
Operation Epic Fury is concluded. We achieved the objectives of
that operation. I'm not going to you know, we're not
cheering for an additional situation to occur. We would prefer
the path of peace. What the president would prefer is
a deal.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Yeah. So I've heard some people saying that they said
Operation Epic Fury, which is the third first thing, right,
that was the one you started bombing the crap out
of them at the very beginning, is over, so that
if they restart, it's a different war, and then that
whole sixty day timetable things starts over there. I don't
even know why they're honoring that, based on what we
(11:08):
had last week from Peter Baker of the New York Times,
who said every president has violated this and there's no
teeth to it, so just ignore it if you want.
So it'll be a sequel Epic Fury to Electric Google exactly. Yeah,
but it's a different war. So you start counting from
sixty days at the first bomb that dropped, fair fair enough,
(11:28):
Good lord God. Last night, you're four tequila shots in,
you got your arm around somebody talking about the it's
their independence Day. I love I Love Mexico, and you're crying.
Jesu they move there. That's a whole lore.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Do people even consider Mexico as they're getting wasted as
a sinko demayo gathering?
Speaker 1 (11:51):
No, No, they absolutely do not. It's not on their mind.
Uh So we'll try to keep you updated because things
are moving pretty faster. At least they move pretty fas overnight.
And then we got the tons of stuff. Obviously that
has nothing to do with the war, although the war
kind of slaps you in the face every time you
drive by a gas sign. I'll tell you what, being
in California seeing a number that's in the mid sevens
(12:14):
is shocking to the soul.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Surely they're selling two gallon jugs now and that's the
price for that, like buying the big that the handle.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
Of tanker ray. You know, guess, Michael.
Speaker 4 (12:25):
I'm trying to drive downhill as much as possible so
I can coast.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
I know, I get behind people so they can have
them breaking the wind for me drafting. It's tall drafting. Okay.
We got more headlines on the way and lots of
other stuff. Stay Herengetti. It was so distracted by the
breaking news and truth social posts and where things are
(12:51):
going is. It was unfolding right before the show started.
That when I walked into the newsroom, I did not
yell Kochow today, which I think is the first time
I've forgotten that in I don't know a decade. I'm
off my game. I walk in every morning I yelled Kuchow,
which if you had kids at the right era, is
what the car in cars is kind of yells when
(13:13):
he's right before a race or whatever. Coochow. So I
walk in, I yell Kuchow. Everybody in the newsroom yells
Cauchow back, and we're ready to start a day. Why
sorry our pep talk And I forgot it today. So
I feel but the war has really hit home. Yes, exactly,
I forgot my Kuchow.
Speaker 4 (13:29):
I had no idea this was going on.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Oh really yeah, yeah, no, no, we all get fired
up over that. The headline for the day the biggest.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
Totally unaware of this, which explains how unfired up I've been.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Exactly. Maybe the biggest headline is oil tumbles below one
hundred dollars on hopes of the USRM peace deal. That's
the Financial Times. Wall Street Journal has oil prices plunge
on optimism. Everybody's got a headline like that, So yeah,
oil we'll go to So Trump the other day said
oil will drop fast when the war is over. I
don't know how many have to hate on everything. Pundit said,
(14:07):
that's not true. It will not true. The war ending
will not cause oil to bag, or it'll happen within
a second. If there's even a hint that the war
has ended, lion liars.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
A little good faith would be delightful, wouldn't it from
our media?
Speaker 1 (14:22):
Let me you know any let me tell you this.
It's just two people in the media. It's just so
much easier to just go with you, like what you
think is intellectually the honest truth, as opposed to try
to predict what your audience wants. It's just easier. Why
would you just go from an easier standpoint, Well, it's
(14:43):
it's it.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
They would disagree with you because they've been brought up.
Remember how young the media is a lot of them
these days. They've been brought up to think that far
left is mainstream. So they're like, hey, we're right in
the mainstream here. You know, we're giving both sides, the
Trotsky side and the Leninist side. Right, I'll be I'll
(15:04):
be perfectly willing to criticize this deal if it turns
out it's like a just a repeatab Obama's JCPOA uh
and you know we could have just.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
Kept that going for all we got out of it.
We don't know the details yet, so I have no
comment until I've seen the details. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Yeah, It's funny going through my various newsletters news newsletters
to gather headlines for you. It's remarkable, remarkable how different
they all are now. They all have different emfasies, which
is not surprising. But a lot of the headlines are
about where are we on Project Freedom? Never mind epic fury.
Nobody's quite sure. Things are in flux. Continue to be
(15:44):
in flux.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
I'll tell you where we are in Project Freedom. In
three days, two ships got through. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Well it's it, you know, it's you gotta start slow
and then taper off.
Speaker 1 (15:54):
This is interesting and troubling.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
The who actually suspects that hantavirus is spreading from human
to human the ship.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Of the dam. Oh okay, well that would explain it,
because I heard yesterday. You know, we've been hearing all
along that you get hantavirus from rodent droppings when somebody
comes by, would you like some rodent droppings on your salad?
Say no, just always say no. You know you should
say no, but you're so tempted. Anyway, yesterday I heard
(16:24):
the news announced that they thought the passengers that died
got on the ship with the haunt of virus. And
then I thought, well, if that's the case, then you
really got a dock and let people off. But right,
if this is the new one that it can spread
from person to person, yeah, that's a that's a different situation.
Not only that, but one form of it.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
Because normally it's practically impossible to spread from human to
human except for the Andes strains in the Andes Mountains.
It's known to spread from human to human and has
a fatality rate of get this, forty percent.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
Wow, No, that's a disease. Hey, chances are better than
fifty to fifty. You're gonna live. Ah wow, yeah, let
me off this ship. Man. You might actually want to
dive into the water and see if you can swim
the shore, seeing how far you are. If here's a
disease going around, you can catch It's got a forty
(17:17):
percent fatality right, Only crap, we got a lot more
news to get to. I hope you can stay here,
Armstrong and getty.
Speaker 5 (17:25):
Well, guys, some news from Washington. This morning, President Trump
signed a proclamation to officially bring the presidential fitness test
back to schools. Trump said that the fittest kids will
get to come to the White.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
House and help build the ballroom.
Speaker 5 (17:40):
Trump signed the proclamation in the Oval Office alongside a
group of children.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Let's see how that went.
Speaker 5 (17:44):
A Republican, I would say that Republicans were not too
big in the Kennedy family. The Middle East would have
been gone, Israel would have been gone. Just say six
seven and get it out.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Come on, be nice. Bnch of kids around him was
the thing there.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Yeah, yeah, Fallon Uh can do some political humor, but
he doesn't. There's not a feeling of hatefulness. No, it's
like derision or smugness. No, it's the way political humor
used to be.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
On shows like that. Yeah, a likable bloke. Yeah, the
Presidential Fitness Test is back. I never got around two
going through the back in the day when uh, because
it was going through Kennedy started in the sixties and
ended at around two thousands. So you have to be
of a certain age to have gone through it, but
you had to do depending on age and stuff like that,
(18:37):
like five to thirteen pull ups, which hardly anybody can do.
Oh yeah, you got arms like pipe cleaners. You're nine
years old. Even really fit people can't. Very few people
can do that many pull ups. That's an abnormal pull ups.
But the new standards, I haven't seen the new standards yet.
If they if they made that more reasonable or not.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
I think it was probably the military industrial complex was like, we're.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Gonna be fighting the commies any day now.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
We're gonna be draft in fifteen year old, so we
gotta have them fit and ready for combat.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
And I know we're gonna get a bunch of text
and emails about how many pull ups you can do.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
I'm eighty seven years old and I do five hundred
pull ups before breakfast.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
Don't bother writing. We don't care.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
You're not informing us. You'd just like to tell people
you're in there.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
I saved you the Trump. You're an outlier. There's our
point right exactly fitting in with that, and we'll talk
about this later. I saw this piece in Bloomberg forget
help Span. Midlife men are facing pressure to extend their
hot span. Men who are in their fifties and sixties
feeling the pressure to continue to be hot. Who's putting
(19:47):
this pressure on you? Me? I don't know. But anyway,
more on that later.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Yeah, Speaking of which, a new book is out that
I'd love to spend a little time on if we can.
But it posits that the world, the online world, is
turning girls gen z girls into shopping machines on the
one hand, and also products. They see themselves as a
(20:13):
product to be marketed online, and the market is in
likes and up votes and followers and the rest of it.
And that's one of the things that's adding to the
whole anxiety depression thing is girls no longer think of
themselves as humans who have relationships and friends and role
(20:35):
models and boyfriends or whatever.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
They view themselves as products. I have to read about
this stuff as if I'm reading about a distant past
or foreign land or something like that, because I just
I can't wrap my head around what it must be like.
I was not a popular high school kid. I was
not of any cool group whatsoever. That's a very unpleasant
(21:01):
place to be. I can't imagine what it's like, because
you know, you had the popular kids with all the
friends and got to do the cool stuff, and everybody
liked and everybody laughed at the jokes. Blah blah blah.
You had that crunch. I can't imagine that like on steroids,
to use a worn out phrase. If it's like you
go on social media and you see that they've got
(21:21):
three thousand friends and everything they post gets ten thousand
likes and stuff like that, and you got like nobody
following you, it seems like it would be exponentially worse.
I don't know if that's true or not. Well, and
just guessing.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Well, and that's that's And I realize you're keeping it short,
but that's whay. You're oversimplified too, because I'll never forget back.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
When we used to take.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Calls, we were talking about a topic that was tangentially related,
and we got a call from a woman who was
like the number one cheerleader, cute girl homecoming queen, and
she talked about crying herself to sleep at night because
every day she was terrified that she would lose that status.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
Oh well, I didn't have to worry about that. I
guess all have her own pressures. But that's interesting.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
So you've got the adaptive tendency of women to try
to build coalitions and be part of the group and
accept it because that's just how women tend to function.
Speaker 5 (22:22):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
And then you.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
Layer the online world over that, and it presents something
that psychologically impossible.
Speaker 1 (22:31):
So it's bad for everybody. But having raised daughters, do
you feel it's worse. It's it's more for women than
girls than it is for boys. Oh yeah, oh yeah,
much much much more. Who's in it? Who's out? Men?
Speaker 2 (22:43):
If pissed off or offended or whatever, we'll say, you know,
something of f you a whole or as women might
say something like that, but then they'll think about it
and think about it and think about it.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
The criticism, Yeah, I'm thinking, what a jackass. I just
worked all the time and bought a cool motorcycle. But
I didn't really think.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
About it a lot, right, right, So more on that
perhaps another time. I wanted to hit a couple of
quick AI related headlines that are interesting. The Wall Street
Journal with quite a piece today about how there seems
to be two groups of CEOs who are incorporating a
lot of AI. There are absolutely, especially in tech, a
(23:24):
lot of CEOs are saying, yep, we're gonna lay off
eight ten, twenty thousand people. We're gonna lay off twenty
percent of our workforce.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
And that's you know, you've seen those headlines.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
The other kind of CEO is saying, oh no, no,
this this allows us to do more. We're not gonna
we're gonna keep the same staff or even ad staff.
We now have capabilities to grow our ambitions and our
reach and blah blah blah. And which industry you're in
is anybody's guest friends, good luck, godspeed.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Well, yeah, the big thing we don't know about a
It's funny. I was rereading Ulysses by James Joe So
that was set in nineteen oh four, and there's a
little period in there where Bloom his interior monologue is
about some poor guy who lost his job because of
an advancement in something. I don't remember what it was,
(24:12):
but some new piece of equipment came along and this
guy in nineteen oh four loss his job. But his
interior monologue is, but the guy who made that will
have to you know, they'll have to hire somebody to
make that thing and fix it. So we'll probably end
up more jobs. So They've been pushing that line for
at least one hundred some years that when new technology
comes along, it'll actually maybe lead to more jobs or
as many. The question is if that's true with AI,
(24:34):
and that I think that's an open question.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
Right and yeah, yeah, the argument is always been true
every invention and everybody says what you guys are saying.
So AI is going to be just this different maybe
so so a really kind of amusing note from the
world of AI after word from our friends.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
A trust and will.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
You need a trust and or will if you have
assets and my if you have children minor children especially,
you need a trust and or will and trust and
will They will explain to you which is best for you.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
And it's super easy to do.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
In short, Trust and Will offers affordable attorney designed to
state plans online that you can create in as little
as thirty minutes.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
I have personally known families torn apart over the who
gets the money. I have known brothers and sisters who
don't speak to each other over should we take Dad
off life support or not because he didn't have that
written down. And man, I mean I saw them go
through it. It's brutal and as little as thirty minutes.
You can create a will that lets you document document
(25:38):
your wishes for guardians, for asset distribution to avoid that,
and healthcare planning to to avoid that fight.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
Yeah, and just the final note, what was your last
interaction with state government? Do you want them to decide
who has raised fast kids?
Speaker 1 (25:51):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (25:51):
My gosh, Trust and Will affordable estate plans, priceless, peace
of mind. Go to trust and will dot com slash
armstrong to get twenty percent off. That's trust and Will.
Will dot com slash armstrong do this? You'd be so
glad you did.
Speaker 1 (26:04):
So.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
This is kind of amusing. Writers are going to extremes
to prove they didn't use AI. And I'm not in
this world, but evidently there's a witch hunty atmosphere in
the world of professional writers right now, scribblers of you know,
newspapers and websites and whatever else that everybody's accusing everybody
(26:27):
else of using AI.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
Well, is that a slam? Why Why couldn't you just say, yeah,
that's a faster, easier way to do it, and it's great,
so what some are doing that?
Speaker 2 (26:38):
But there's, as you know, there's a fair amount of
pride if somebody's a skilled writer. I mean, I know,
if I'm reading Matt Tayebe or a handful of.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
Others, I guess the question is what kind of you're
writing you talk about I was thinking like writing a
business proposal or something. Who cares, it's good, it's good.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
No, No, we're talking about more like newswriting and creative
writing and that sort of stuff.
Speaker 1 (27:02):
Definitely a different thing.
Speaker 2 (27:04):
Yeah, yeah, And so these writers the journal describe them.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
I wouldn't want to do that myself. What's that use
ai and then like have people think I wrote it.
I wouldn't want to do that for something that's actual writing,
now right, I mean horrible.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
Yeah, but there have been some cases of it, people
using it to, you know, just speed up the process
and I'll put my touches on it. When the computer's done,
it'll be mine. Essentially, it's you know, people are sliding
slippery slope anyway.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
But so these writers.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
Are intentionally doing things like here's this one thirty two
year old copywriter in Brooklyn, New York. I'll use aggressively
casual language like hey yo for real, or drop a
bunch of exclamation points. It feels so icky to do this,
but it's what you have to do to sound human.
Call it the reverse Turing test. As AI generated writing
floods the Internet, many people are trying to detect which
(27:59):
writers are using such tools to spin up copy, and
so writers penning all their own work are trying to
master something they never worried about before, how to sound human.
Some are even throwing in typos a proof that they
wrote it. And again, I'm not in this world, but
this one writer says, it's like the new McCarthyism. It's
just crazy. People are demanding proof of something that can't
(28:20):
be proven.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
Well, that's a weird thing, though, because at some point,
if it is AI and it's good, it's just yeah,
I don't care that AI did it. I'm firing you though,
and now AI is going to do it all yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
But they identify various telltale signs of AI writing. The
use of the M dash, which I had never heard
called that. It's like the big long dash as opposed
to the short dash or two short dashes together. AI
uses that and uses heavily uses phrases like it's not X,
but why.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
Ba da da du duh?
Speaker 2 (28:57):
And then what's the other one that I thought was interesting.
It always does sets of three things when it's trying
to illustrate it.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
Right, Yeah, I've had that. There is a repetitiveness to
the structure I've noticed with like using AI for therapy
or whatever. Yeah, nice job, you identified, and then it'll
give you the three things I identified. It's like, all right,
I see your pattern.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
This was kind of funny too, this one writer who
uses a I well, no, no he doesn't. He but
he's trying to rein in making overtly bold statements, and
I was like, what he says? Large language models get
their content from ted talk transcripts and Reddit opinions, so
(29:41):
it has a self selection bias there. It tends to
sound very confident. Yes, I wondered about that last night.
I had one of those. Maybe I'll talk about it later.
It takes a little explaining, but where AI was just wrong.
I was asking it to clarify a thing that I
knew something about, and it was so wrong. My first
response was I can't leave how wrong you are about this?
Speaker 1 (30:02):
But then it does the thing it always does once
I correct, It says, you're right, nice job, but it's
amazing how and then it quickly changes the subject to
you know what we were talking about that didn't ignores
the fact that it was completely freaking wrong about something.
Would you like to know more about poisonous mass? Yeah, exactly.
You know.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
The thing that's exciting that's weird about AI is it
can help you with really complex stuff, but sometimes the
most simple.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Thing it will get wrong. I know. I Yeah. Since
they're trotting that out as the face of AI for people,
I would think they'd want to fix it. Joe had
an email that explained it a week or so ago.
But I still think it's if you're wanting people to
believe in your product that it's better than the other guys.
And when I ask for the score of the basketball
(30:49):
game last night, you say there was no basketball game
last night, I think it damages your product.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
I would think, given how brilliant the people designing these
things are and the systems themselves, that they could sense
when something is a super time sensitive topic and say, hey,
I just update myself on a monthly basis.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
So I don't know what happened, yes, something, but telling
me I'm built, telling me there was not a game
last night?
Speaker 2 (31:13):
What that's that hyper confidence? It's like living with a
college freshman who comes home on vacation. Conveniently they know everything.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
Now well, I always said, it reminds me of my
oldest when he was like five, and I'd have to
talk to him. Look, if you don't know, just say
I don't know. You don't have to make something up.
For some reason, he thought he had to make up
an answer if he didn't know. That's what AI does.
You ask it and if it doesn't know, it'll just
make up crap that came in the last chapter of
the book, and I said, no, it didn't. I'm looking
at it right here. What are you talking about? Oh,
(31:44):
you're right, I got that wrong. Anyway, Now you don't
get to say anyway the hell are you doing? Yeah?
But how often is that gonna do that when you
don't know that it was wrong. That's the problem. That's
all concerns me. Right, we've got some mail bag on
the way. Stay here. We haven't talked about the fact
(32:13):
that that nutjob who started the horrifying Palisades fire was
obsessed with the murderer Mangione. I'll have to get to
that a little bit later. He's a left wing politics
of the Day guy.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
Yeah, yeah, how interesting He recently radicalized young man who
decides to do something big for his recently acquired beliefs.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
Yeah, how interesting. Here's your freedom loving quote of the day.
Speaker 2 (32:38):
Going back to doctor Joe and Reno's list from Carl Popper,
just from something he wrote in nineteen forty five, it
appears to me madness to base all our political efforts
upon the faint hope that we shall be successful in
obtaining excellent or even competent rulers, and the idea being no,
(32:59):
you've got to design a system where they can't do
too much damage. I don't know, have a series of
what would you call them? Checks and balances, mailbag, drum
us note mailbag at armstrong getty dot com. Just Steve
writes jackal often solemnly, and a segment with a sad
shake of the head and a bitter race to the
(33:21):
bottom comment. But I wonder what the USA would look
like if one side did not engage in the race,
If the Progressives gave up and became nineties Democrats again.
The right would certainly not pile drive non conforming lefties
with cancel culture, jerrymandering, etc. But if conservatives conservatives chowse
not to resort to tit for tat actions. The progressives
(33:41):
would bury each and every one of us without mercy.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
You know it, I know it, We all know it.
Speaker 2 (33:46):
Our country would look like the education system or any
other major institution where conservatives have either left or were
expelled by the socialists and Marxists.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
I admit it is lamentable, but it is also self preservation.
You might be right, but the problem is, if you
adapt to that attitude, it's over. You might as well
close up shop and get a king or a dictator.
If you've decided that, well, we have to do the
bad thing, because they'll do the bad thing first, it's over. No,
I disagree.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
You fight to a stalemate and then you realize you're
wasting your time and you creep back towards sanity.
Speaker 1 (34:17):
I'll tell you that the next big test on this
whole race to the bottom is if the Senates take
the If the Democrats take the Senate, and then the filibuster.
That's the next big one, because the Republicans have held
off even though a lot of people have been pushing
for it.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
Yeah, I think Steve would disagree with you vehemently. That's
the point of his email is it's like the prisoner's dilemma,
except with knives, and the other prisoners said all one
hundred percent.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
I'm stabbing you.
Speaker 2 (34:45):
You've got to start stabbing and it's a horrible situation.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
But if you don't, they'll win. So that's worse than
a staleman. I can't take that attitude. I just have
to hope for better out of the other side. Maybe
I'm a fool.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Write your emails to mail bag at Armstrong in getty
dot com, Robin Beautiful Kentucky writes Jackson needs to forget
the new Animal Farm movie and stick with the original
film from nineteen fifty four.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
You'll be glad you did. Gosh, I saw that millennia ago.
How did they do? How did they do talking pigs
in nineteen fifty four? People in pigsuits? They trained them
to talk. We were a hardworking, innovative people back then. Jack, Yes,
they had more time back than they had time to
teach the animals to speak. I don't know was it animated?
(35:33):
I don't know what I have to look it up.
Let's see. That's a little serious.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
Oh, Mike, the lawyer from Chicago, friend of the show
and of mine, really loved the One More Thing discussion
Armstrong and Getty One More Thing podcast from yesterday. Grab
it or if you subscribe to Armstrong and Getty on demand,
it downloads automatically. But it has to do with how
the ability to read practically is the cause of abstract
(36:01):
thinking in people. And it was a study of illiterate
civilizations and their inability to think in an abstract way.
And he points out that his favorite chemistry professor really
encouraged them to study the arts and music and reading.
And he gave some examples of scientific discoveries that came
not through the usual means, but came through somebody having
(36:23):
a day dream about, for instance, a snake biting its
own tail and realized, oh, what if that compound is
spherically shaped, and found out it was true reading
Speaker 1 (36:38):
Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe, Katty Armstrong, and Jeckie
and he arms Draw. According to the m OU, the
(00:24):
memory Memorandum of understanding that we have with our radio bosses,
we are supposed to start broadcasting now, so we will
live from Studio c S and your arm dimly lit
room do with them the bowels of the Armstrong and
Getty Communications compound of today we're toiling under the title
of the show.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
I'm now completely lost to give up understand what the
hell is going on with thern?
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Did you not read the m OU, the memory, the
memorandum of understanding. I grazed it. What do you call it?
A skimmed skimmed this?
Speaker 2 (00:57):
I took a glance in our alternate Rubio makes his mark,
Oh wow, yeah, I.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Just trying to lift everybody's spirits. Things happening overnight. So uh,
Trump has paused the Operation Freedom. That's the one where we,
in theory somehow help ships get through the strait, though
that really never happened. Two boats at the beginning, and
then nobody in the last seventy two hours. Yeah, yeah,
(01:29):
heads south and the take a right at the UAE. Yeah,
that's kind of like pausing my uh, I don't know,
marathon training, building your home nuclear reactor. I wasn't anyway,
So yeah, anyway, we paused something that we weren't doing
much of. Because Trump says there's an agreement in MoU,
(01:49):
a memorandum of understanding on the table fourteen points that
would include a thirty day period to negotiate the Strait
of horror moves in iranium enrichment, and that the Uranians
have agreed to stop the three point sixty seven percent
uranium blah blah blah, all these different numbers that would
mean anything to you. But it's an agreement to stop
(02:09):
chasing a bomb and open the street and all that
sort of stuff. I guess the key factor being whether
or not we're dealing with people that have the power
to actually enforce this. Although the IRGC the Republican Guard
did announce fairly recently in the last couple of hours,
we won't be shooting any ships trying to go through
the strait, so that means they're on board, sounds like
with at least the negotiation part.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
So it seem yeah, there are two possible things happening here. Well,
let me get to Trump's most recent truth social posts,
so that which you'll be contradicted in twenty minutes anyway,
but indulge yourself.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
Why not? Because he put out that one about how
we got the MoU the memorandum of agreement, and we're
gonna pause that and look, blah blah blah, it looks
like it all might be over. Then he put out
this one, assuming Iran agrees to what has been agreed to,
which there's a lot of comments here. Assuming Iran agrees
to what has been agreed to, which is WHOA, let's
(03:02):
stop there, What the hell does that mean? Well, that's
why this is an interesting wrinkle before you start into
your analysis, because he kind of put out the statement
sounding like they have agreed and you know, this is
where we are. But then he puts out this most
recent one that makes it sounds to me like somethinge
linky in the previous five six hours. Assuming Iran agrees
(03:24):
to what has been agreed to, comma, which is comma,
perhaps comma a big assumption Comma, the already legendary epic
fury will be at an end, and the highly effective
blockade will allow the hor mate straight to be in
all caps, open to all, which it was before, his
critics point out, including Iran, if they don't agree, now
this is the first threat in a while. If they
(03:46):
don't agree, the bombing starts, and it will be sadly,
at much higher levels and intensity than it was before.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. So I
feel like he for some reason felt the need to
throw in a stick here in the last hour, more
of a stand. The bombing returns, and more intense than before.
All Right, we've heard that a handful of times. Now,
(04:08):
I gotta believe the rubber has met the road here.
But I've thought that a few times in the last week.
All Right, here's my analysis. Two things might be happening,
and it's one or the other. One.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Trump has really decided he doesn't want any more bombings
and is being strung along by the Iranians and played
for a complete fool or.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
And this has been documented.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
China is really flexing its muscles behind the scenes, with
Iran telling him this ends.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
Yeah, there's two parts to the China deal. There's what
you just said, and there's a fact that Trump's meeting
with she next week, and he doesn't want this hanging
over that get together. Like all they end up talking
about is the straight up horror moves. We got lots
of other business to do with China, and so yeah,
we we want it done before we meet with China.
China wants it done because they get practically all their
(05:04):
fuel from other places. I was reading a it makes
such a difference where you're taking you information. I was watching
MSNBC this morning and they were so negative on all this.
I mean, it was just a calamitous world history mistake.
Look how much worse it is Iran clearly one blah
blah blah. I was watching News Nation or they had
(05:29):
a very charitable analyst on who said, it sounds to
us like Trump is trying to determine whether or not
the people he's dealing with are the real deal or
not and have the power, And if they have the power,
the deal will be made. If they don't, the bombing resumes.
So it's just it's just a testing to see if
we're negotiating with the real deal or not.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
If that's true, that's that's very reasonable because it would
take a little time given the chaos in Iran to
consolidate power, and and well well, to consolidate power to
the point that you could make a deal and then
enforce it.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
So yeah, yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
It would all be so much better if it weren't
for the never ending whip sawing of the truth social
posts vowing calamitous apocalyptic violence by noon tomorrow in all caps,
and then by noon tomorrow a deal has been reached,
and then the next day there's no deil.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
You can't make a deal with these people, the bombing
wilcommands right right. That doesn't help. And then if you
have two thirds of the media help bent on convincing
it's a disaster, that doesn't help either. But this other
analysis I saw last night, which I thought was really
really interesting, was that how it woke up the world China, China,
and Europe in particular to the fact that, wow, it
(06:44):
doesn't take much of a disruption somewhere far away that
we don't have any oil or gas, whereas for the
United States they're perfectly fine because they supply their own.
It's an excellent point, that is it. There might be
an inflection point in world history right there. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Yeah, I love the international stuff, I truly do, but
I find myself preoccupied by thinking about the America hating
media and how well, of course they are as big
as they are because we've been educating our kids to
hate their country for a very long time now, and
(07:23):
so yeah, they want that in their media, which is insidious.
Got another story about that later, But and I'm reminded
of something Orwell said that in the thirties and forties especially,
a lot of the movement toward fascism was born of
(07:45):
how terrible the other side was. I'm paraphrasing his eloquence,
but in specifically the communists and the leftists were so
awful and ineffective and brutal, people were thinking, maybe this
right wing y stuff is a better idea. And I
have an account of how on our two hundred and
fiftieth anniversary, this major art museum in Philadelphia like it
(08:09):
either sits on the ground of a right next to
Freedom Hall, the entire art exhibit is about how terrible
America is. For the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary, And
here's the way my mind was flitting. I was picturing,
you know, taking some patriots and not doing it, but
thinking about somebody grabbing the plaque that essentially says this
(08:30):
is a bad country and you should hate it.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Here's a little art.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Just tearn it out now. That would be ugly. That
would be ugly. But how how is the Art Museum
on our giant birthday sending the message that you suck?
I'm ashamed of this country. I can hardly stand to
be here in Philadelphia. How does not that not whip
(08:55):
up a response like I'm describing or worse? Oh god,
I hate those people.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
It might have to at some point because there's not
a lot of pushback. They get all fired up. Boy,
how much is the I never even thought about this,
But as we get closer to July fourth, there's going
to be a lot of the New York Times opinion
pieces and books coming out and everything like that trying
to convince you that this is nothing to celebrate. This
(09:22):
is the worst thing that ever happened to the world.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
Reprints of the sixteen nineteen project with that, I don't know,
a burning American flag on the front or whatever, eh,
And I'd love the counter to that to be gentlemanly
and intelligent and educational, more Ben Franklin than say, Abe
Lincoln stripped to the waist, ready to whoop somebody's ass.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
John Adams, Sir John Adams or Sam Adams.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Well, exactly, I think it may be much more Sam Adams,
perhaps fueled by a couple of fus Samuel Adams Boston nails.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Which has been hurt delicious brew indeed, yet exactly, Let's
start the show officially before we get in trouble with
the FC. See that's part of our MOE, or a
memorandum of understanding. I'm Jack Armstrong, He's Joe Getty on this.
It is Wednesday, May sixth. You're not leaping off your hangover. Man.
All you remember last night is you had a somburrow
on your head at some point, and yeah, I'll talk
(10:14):
another tequila shot. That's all you remember. The old though,
they've just got the throbbing pain as you try to
work through your hangover. We are Armstrong hitting and we
approve of this program.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Trying to scrub off the sharpy mustache you're drawing yourself.
All right, let's begin in the show officially now according
to the FCC rules, the rags here we go at mark.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
Operation Epic Fury is concluded. We achieved the objectives of
that operation. I'm not going to you know, we're not
cheering for an additional situation to occur. We would prefer
the path of peace. What the president would prefer is
a deal.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Yeah. So I've heard some people saying that they said
Operation Epic Fury, which is the third first thing, right,
that was the one you started bombing the crap out
of them at the very beginning, is over, so that
if they restart, it's a different war, and then that
whole sixty day timetable things starts over there. I don't
even know why they're honoring that, based on what we
(11:08):
had last week from Peter Baker of the New York Times,
who said every president has violated this and there's no
teeth to it, so just ignore it if you want.
So it'll be a sequel Epic Fury to Electric Google exactly. Yeah,
but it's a different war. So you start counting from
sixty days at the first bomb that dropped, fair fair enough,
(11:28):
Good lord God. Last night, you're four tequila shots in,
you got your arm around somebody talking about the it's
their independence Day. I love I Love Mexico, and you're crying.
Jesu they move there. That's a whole lore.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Do people even consider Mexico as they're getting wasted as
a sinko demayo gathering?
Speaker 1 (11:51):
No, No, they absolutely do not. It's not on their mind.
Uh So we'll try to keep you updated because things
are moving pretty faster. At least they move pretty fas overnight.
And then we got the tons of stuff. Obviously that
has nothing to do with the war, although the war
kind of slaps you in the face every time you
drive by a gas sign. I'll tell you what, being
in California seeing a number that's in the mid sevens
(12:14):
is shocking to the soul.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Surely they're selling two gallon jugs now and that's the
price for that, like buying the big that the handle.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
Of tanker ray. You know, guess, Michael.
Speaker 4 (12:25):
I'm trying to drive downhill as much as possible so
I can coast.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
I know, I get behind people so they can have
them breaking the wind for me drafting. It's tall drafting. Okay.
We got more headlines on the way and lots of
other stuff. Stay Herengetti. It was so distracted by the
breaking news and truth social posts and where things are
(12:51):
going is. It was unfolding right before the show started.
That when I walked into the newsroom, I did not
yell Kochow today, which I think is the first time
I've forgotten that in I don't know a decade. I'm
off my game. I walk in every morning I yelled Kuchow,
which if you had kids at the right era, is
what the car in cars is kind of yells when
(13:13):
he's right before a race or whatever. Coochow. So I
walk in, I yell Kuchow. Everybody in the newsroom yells
Cauchow back, and we're ready to start a day. Why
sorry our pep talk And I forgot it today. So
I feel but the war has really hit home. Yes, exactly,
I forgot my Kuchow.
Speaker 4 (13:29):
I had no idea this was going on.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Oh really yeah, yeah, no, no, we all get fired
up over that. The headline for the day the biggest.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
Totally unaware of this, which explains how unfired up I've been.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Exactly. Maybe the biggest headline is oil tumbles below one
hundred dollars on hopes of the USRM peace deal. That's
the Financial Times. Wall Street Journal has oil prices plunge
on optimism. Everybody's got a headline like that, So yeah,
oil we'll go to So Trump the other day said
oil will drop fast when the war is over. I
don't know how many have to hate on everything. Pundit said,
(14:07):
that's not true. It will not true. The war ending
will not cause oil to bag, or it'll happen within
a second. If there's even a hint that the war
has ended, lion liars.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
A little good faith would be delightful, wouldn't it from
our media?
Speaker 1 (14:22):
Let me you know any let me tell you this.
It's just two people in the media. It's just so
much easier to just go with you, like what you
think is intellectually the honest truth, as opposed to try
to predict what your audience wants. It's just easier. Why
would you just go from an easier standpoint, Well, it's
(14:43):
it's it.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
They would disagree with you because they've been brought up.
Remember how young the media is a lot of them
these days. They've been brought up to think that far
left is mainstream. So they're like, hey, we're right in
the mainstream here. You know, we're giving both sides, the
Trotsky side and the Leninist side. Right, I'll be I'll
(15:04):
be perfectly willing to criticize this deal if it turns
out it's like a just a repeatab Obama's JCPOA uh
and you know we could have just.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
Kept that going for all we got out of it.
We don't know the details yet, so I have no
comment until I've seen the details. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Yeah, It's funny going through my various newsletters news newsletters
to gather headlines for you. It's remarkable, remarkable how different
they all are now. They all have different emfasies, which
is not surprising. But a lot of the headlines are
about where are we on Project Freedom? Never mind epic fury.
Nobody's quite sure. Things are in flux. Continue to be
(15:44):
in flux.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
I'll tell you where we are in Project Freedom. In
three days, two ships got through. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Well it's it, you know, it's you gotta start slow
and then taper off.
Speaker 1 (15:54):
This is interesting and troubling.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
The who actually suspects that hantavirus is spreading from human
to human the ship.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Of the dam. Oh okay, well that would explain it,
because I heard yesterday. You know, we've been hearing all
along that you get hantavirus from rodent droppings when somebody
comes by, would you like some rodent droppings on your salad?
Say no, just always say no. You know you should
say no, but you're so tempted. Anyway, yesterday I heard
(16:24):
the news announced that they thought the passengers that died
got on the ship with the haunt of virus. And
then I thought, well, if that's the case, then you
really got a dock and let people off. But right,
if this is the new one that it can spread
from person to person, yeah, that's a that's a different situation.
Not only that, but one form of it.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
Because normally it's practically impossible to spread from human to
human except for the Andes strains in the Andes Mountains.
It's known to spread from human to human and has
a fatality rate of get this, forty percent.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
Wow, No, that's a disease. Hey, chances are better than
fifty to fifty. You're gonna live. Ah wow, yeah, let
me off this ship. Man. You might actually want to
dive into the water and see if you can swim
the shore, seeing how far you are. If here's a
disease going around, you can catch It's got a forty
(17:17):
percent fatality right, Only crap, we got a lot more
news to get to. I hope you can stay here,
Armstrong and getty.
Speaker 5 (17:25):
Well, guys, some news from Washington. This morning, President Trump
signed a proclamation to officially bring the presidential fitness test
back to schools. Trump said that the fittest kids will
get to come to the White.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
House and help build the ballroom.
Speaker 5 (17:40):
Trump signed the proclamation in the Oval Office alongside a
group of children.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Let's see how that went.
Speaker 5 (17:44):
A Republican, I would say that Republicans were not too
big in the Kennedy family. The Middle East would have
been gone, Israel would have been gone. Just say six
seven and get it out.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Come on, be nice. Bnch of kids around him was
the thing there.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Yeah, yeah, Fallon Uh can do some political humor, but
he doesn't. There's not a feeling of hatefulness. No, it's
like derision or smugness. No, it's the way political humor
used to be.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
On shows like that. Yeah, a likable bloke. Yeah, the
Presidential Fitness Test is back. I never got around two
going through the back in the day when uh, because
it was going through Kennedy started in the sixties and
ended at around two thousands. So you have to be
of a certain age to have gone through it, but
you had to do depending on age and stuff like that,
(18:37):
like five to thirteen pull ups, which hardly anybody can do.
Oh yeah, you got arms like pipe cleaners. You're nine
years old. Even really fit people can't. Very few people
can do that many pull ups. That's an abnormal pull ups.
But the new standards, I haven't seen the new standards yet.
If they if they made that more reasonable or not.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
I think it was probably the military industrial complex was like, we're.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Gonna be fighting the commies any day now.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
We're gonna be draft in fifteen year old, so we
gotta have them fit and ready for combat.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
And I know we're gonna get a bunch of text
and emails about how many pull ups you can do.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
I'm eighty seven years old and I do five hundred
pull ups before breakfast.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
Don't bother writing. We don't care.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
You're not informing us. You'd just like to tell people
you're in there.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
I saved you the Trump. You're an outlier. There's our
point right exactly fitting in with that, and we'll talk
about this later. I saw this piece in Bloomberg forget
help Span. Midlife men are facing pressure to extend their
hot span. Men who are in their fifties and sixties
feeling the pressure to continue to be hot. Who's putting
(19:47):
this pressure on you? Me? I don't know. But anyway,
more on that later.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Yeah, Speaking of which, a new book is out that
I'd love to spend a little time on if we can.
But it posits that the world, the online world, is
turning girls gen z girls into shopping machines on the
one hand, and also products. They see themselves as a
(20:13):
product to be marketed online, and the market is in
likes and up votes and followers and the rest of it.
And that's one of the things that's adding to the
whole anxiety depression thing is girls no longer think of
themselves as humans who have relationships and friends and role
(20:35):
models and boyfriends or whatever.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
They view themselves as products. I have to read about
this stuff as if I'm reading about a distant past
or foreign land or something like that, because I just
I can't wrap my head around what it must be like.
I was not a popular high school kid. I was
not of any cool group whatsoever. That's a very unpleasant
(21:01):
place to be. I can't imagine what it's like, because
you know, you had the popular kids with all the
friends and got to do the cool stuff, and everybody
liked and everybody laughed at the jokes. Blah blah blah.
You had that crunch. I can't imagine that like on steroids,
to use a worn out phrase. If it's like you
go on social media and you see that they've got
(21:21):
three thousand friends and everything they post gets ten thousand
likes and stuff like that, and you got like nobody
following you, it seems like it would be exponentially worse.
I don't know if that's true or not. Well, and
just guessing.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Well, and that's that's And I realize you're keeping it short,
but that's whay. You're oversimplified too, because I'll never forget back.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
When we used to take.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Calls, we were talking about a topic that was tangentially related,
and we got a call from a woman who was
like the number one cheerleader, cute girl homecoming queen, and
she talked about crying herself to sleep at night because
every day she was terrified that she would lose that status.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
Oh well, I didn't have to worry about that. I
guess all have her own pressures. But that's interesting.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
So you've got the adaptive tendency of women to try
to build coalitions and be part of the group and
accept it because that's just how women tend to function.
Speaker 5 (22:22):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
And then you.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
Layer the online world over that, and it presents something
that psychologically impossible.
Speaker 1 (22:31):
So it's bad for everybody. But having raised daughters, do
you feel it's worse. It's it's more for women than
girls than it is for boys. Oh yeah, oh yeah,
much much much more. Who's in it? Who's out? Men?
Speaker 2 (22:43):
If pissed off or offended or whatever, we'll say, you know,
something of f you a whole or as women might
say something like that, but then they'll think about it
and think about it and think about it.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
The criticism, Yeah, I'm thinking, what a jackass. I just
worked all the time and bought a cool motorcycle. But
I didn't really think.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
About it a lot, right, right, So more on that
perhaps another time. I wanted to hit a couple of
quick AI related headlines that are interesting. The Wall Street
Journal with quite a piece today about how there seems
to be two groups of CEOs who are incorporating a
lot of AI. There are absolutely, especially in tech, a
(23:24):
lot of CEOs are saying, yep, we're gonna lay off
eight ten, twenty thousand people. We're gonna lay off twenty
percent of our workforce.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
And that's you know, you've seen those headlines.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
The other kind of CEO is saying, oh no, no,
this this allows us to do more. We're not gonna
we're gonna keep the same staff or even ad staff.
We now have capabilities to grow our ambitions and our
reach and blah blah blah. And which industry you're in
is anybody's guest friends, good luck, godspeed.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Well, yeah, the big thing we don't know about a
It's funny. I was rereading Ulysses by James Joe So
that was set in nineteen oh four, and there's a
little period in there where Bloom his interior monologue is
about some poor guy who lost his job because of
an advancement in something. I don't remember what it was,
(24:12):
but some new piece of equipment came along and this
guy in nineteen oh four loss his job. But his
interior monologue is, but the guy who made that will
have to you know, they'll have to hire somebody to
make that thing and fix it. So we'll probably end
up more jobs. So They've been pushing that line for
at least one hundred some years that when new technology
comes along, it'll actually maybe lead to more jobs or
as many. The question is if that's true with AI,
(24:34):
and that I think that's an open question.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
Right and yeah, yeah, the argument is always been true
every invention and everybody says what you guys are saying.
So AI is going to be just this different maybe
so so a really kind of amusing note from the
world of AI after word from our friends.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
A trust and will.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
You need a trust and or will if you have
assets and my if you have children minor children especially,
you need a trust and or will and trust and
will They will explain to you which is best for you.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
And it's super easy to do.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
In short, Trust and Will offers affordable attorney designed to
state plans online that you can create in as little
as thirty minutes.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
I have personally known families torn apart over the who
gets the money. I have known brothers and sisters who
don't speak to each other over should we take Dad
off life support or not because he didn't have that
written down. And man, I mean I saw them go
through it. It's brutal and as little as thirty minutes.
You can create a will that lets you document document
(25:38):
your wishes for guardians, for asset distribution to avoid that,
and healthcare planning to to avoid that fight.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
Yeah, and just the final note, what was your last
interaction with state government? Do you want them to decide
who has raised fast kids?
Speaker 1 (25:51):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (25:51):
My gosh, Trust and Will affordable estate plans, priceless, peace
of mind. Go to trust and will dot com slash
armstrong to get twenty percent off. That's trust and Will.
Will dot com slash armstrong do this? You'd be so
glad you did.
Speaker 1 (26:04):
So.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
This is kind of amusing. Writers are going to extremes
to prove they didn't use AI. And I'm not in
this world, but evidently there's a witch hunty atmosphere in
the world of professional writers right now, scribblers of you know,
newspapers and websites and whatever else that everybody's accusing everybody
(26:27):
else of using AI.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
Well, is that a slam? Why Why couldn't you just say, yeah,
that's a faster, easier way to do it, and it's great,
so what some are doing that?
Speaker 2 (26:38):
But there's, as you know, there's a fair amount of
pride if somebody's a skilled writer. I mean, I know,
if I'm reading Matt Tayebe or a handful of.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
Others, I guess the question is what kind of you're
writing you talk about I was thinking like writing a
business proposal or something. Who cares, it's good, it's good.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
No, No, we're talking about more like newswriting and creative
writing and that sort of stuff.
Speaker 1 (27:02):
Definitely a different thing.
Speaker 2 (27:04):
Yeah, yeah, And so these writers the journal describe them.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
I wouldn't want to do that myself. What's that use
ai and then like have people think I wrote it.
I wouldn't want to do that for something that's actual writing,
now right, I mean horrible.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
Yeah, but there have been some cases of it, people
using it to, you know, just speed up the process
and I'll put my touches on it. When the computer's done,
it'll be mine. Essentially, it's you know, people are sliding
slippery slope anyway.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
But so these writers.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
Are intentionally doing things like here's this one thirty two
year old copywriter in Brooklyn, New York. I'll use aggressively
casual language like hey yo for real, or drop a
bunch of exclamation points. It feels so icky to do this,
but it's what you have to do to sound human.
Call it the reverse Turing test. As AI generated writing
floods the Internet, many people are trying to detect which
(27:59):
writers are using such tools to spin up copy, and
so writers penning all their own work are trying to
master something they never worried about before, how to sound human.
Some are even throwing in typos a proof that they
wrote it. And again, I'm not in this world, but
this one writer says, it's like the new McCarthyism. It's
just crazy. People are demanding proof of something that can't
(28:20):
be proven.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
Well, that's a weird thing, though, because at some point,
if it is AI and it's good, it's just yeah,
I don't care that AI did it. I'm firing you though,
and now AI is going to do it all yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
But they identify various telltale signs of AI writing. The
use of the M dash, which I had never heard
called that. It's like the big long dash as opposed
to the short dash or two short dashes together. AI
uses that and uses heavily uses phrases like it's not X,
but why.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
Ba da da du duh?
Speaker 2 (28:57):
And then what's the other one that I thought was interesting.
It always does sets of three things when it's trying
to illustrate it.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
Right, Yeah, I've had that. There is a repetitiveness to
the structure I've noticed with like using AI for therapy
or whatever. Yeah, nice job, you identified, and then it'll
give you the three things I identified. It's like, all right,
I see your pattern.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
This was kind of funny too, this one writer who
uses a I well, no, no he doesn't. He but
he's trying to rein in making overtly bold statements, and
I was like, what he says? Large language models get
their content from ted talk transcripts and Reddit opinions, so
(29:41):
it has a self selection bias there. It tends to
sound very confident. Yes, I wondered about that last night.
I had one of those. Maybe I'll talk about it later.
It takes a little explaining, but where AI was just wrong.
I was asking it to clarify a thing that I
knew something about, and it was so wrong. My first
response was I can't leave how wrong you are about this?
Speaker 1 (30:02):
But then it does the thing it always does once
I correct, It says, you're right, nice job, but it's
amazing how and then it quickly changes the subject to
you know what we were talking about that didn't ignores
the fact that it was completely freaking wrong about something.
Would you like to know more about poisonous mass? Yeah, exactly.
You know.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
The thing that's exciting that's weird about AI is it
can help you with really complex stuff, but sometimes the
most simple.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Thing it will get wrong. I know. I Yeah. Since
they're trotting that out as the face of AI for people,
I would think they'd want to fix it. Joe had
an email that explained it a week or so ago.
But I still think it's if you're wanting people to
believe in your product that it's better than the other guys.
And when I ask for the score of the basketball
(30:49):
game last night, you say there was no basketball game
last night, I think it damages your product.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
I would think, given how brilliant the people designing these
things are and the systems themselves, that they could sense
when something is a super time sensitive topic and say, hey,
I just update myself on a monthly basis.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
So I don't know what happened, yes, something, but telling
me I'm built, telling me there was not a game
last night?
Speaker 2 (31:13):
What that's that hyper confidence? It's like living with a
college freshman who comes home on vacation. Conveniently they know everything.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
Now well, I always said, it reminds me of my
oldest when he was like five, and I'd have to
talk to him. Look, if you don't know, just say
I don't know. You don't have to make something up.
For some reason, he thought he had to make up
an answer if he didn't know. That's what AI does.
You ask it and if it doesn't know, it'll just
make up crap that came in the last chapter of
the book, and I said, no, it didn't. I'm looking
at it right here. What are you talking about? Oh,
(31:44):
you're right, I got that wrong. Anyway, Now you don't
get to say anyway the hell are you doing? Yeah?
But how often is that gonna do that when you
don't know that it was wrong. That's the problem. That's
all concerns me. Right, we've got some mail bag on
the way. Stay here. We haven't talked about the fact
(32:13):
that that nutjob who started the horrifying Palisades fire was
obsessed with the murderer Mangione. I'll have to get to
that a little bit later. He's a left wing politics
of the Day guy.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
Yeah, yeah, how interesting He recently radicalized young man who
decides to do something big for his recently acquired beliefs.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
Yeah, how interesting. Here's your freedom loving quote of the day.
Speaker 2 (32:38):
Going back to doctor Joe and Reno's list from Carl Popper,
just from something he wrote in nineteen forty five, it
appears to me madness to base all our political efforts
upon the faint hope that we shall be successful in
obtaining excellent or even competent rulers, and the idea being no,
(32:59):
you've got to design a system where they can't do
too much damage. I don't know, have a series of
what would you call them? Checks and balances, mailbag, drum
us note mailbag at armstrong getty dot com. Just Steve
writes jackal often solemnly, and a segment with a sad
shake of the head and a bitter race to the
(33:21):
bottom comment. But I wonder what the USA would look
like if one side did not engage in the race,
If the Progressives gave up and became nineties Democrats again.
The right would certainly not pile drive non conforming lefties
with cancel culture, jerrymandering, etc. But if conservatives conservatives chowse
not to resort to tit for tat actions. The progressives
(33:41):
would bury each and every one of us without mercy.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
You know it, I know it, We all know it.
Speaker 2 (33:46):
Our country would look like the education system or any
other major institution where conservatives have either left or were
expelled by the socialists and Marxists.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
I admit it is lamentable, but it is also self preservation.
You might be right, but the problem is, if you
adapt to that attitude, it's over. You might as well
close up shop and get a king or a dictator.
If you've decided that, well, we have to do the
bad thing, because they'll do the bad thing first, it's over. No,
I disagree.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
You fight to a stalemate and then you realize you're
wasting your time and you creep back towards sanity.
Speaker 1 (34:17):
I'll tell you that the next big test on this
whole race to the bottom is if the Senates take
the If the Democrats take the Senate, and then the filibuster.
That's the next big one, because the Republicans have held
off even though a lot of people have been pushing
for it.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
Yeah, I think Steve would disagree with you vehemently. That's
the point of his email is it's like the prisoner's dilemma,
except with knives, and the other prisoners said all one
hundred percent.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
I'm stabbing you.
Speaker 2 (34:45):
You've got to start stabbing and it's a horrible situation.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
But if you don't, they'll win. So that's worse than
a staleman. I can't take that attitude. I just have
to hope for better out of the other side. Maybe
I'm a fool.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Write your emails to mail bag at Armstrong in getty
dot com, Robin Beautiful Kentucky writes Jackson needs to forget
the new Animal Farm movie and stick with the original
film from nineteen fifty four.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
You'll be glad you did. Gosh, I saw that millennia ago.
How did they do? How did they do talking pigs
in nineteen fifty four? People in pigsuits? They trained them
to talk. We were a hardworking, innovative people back then. Jack, Yes,
they had more time back than they had time to
teach the animals to speak. I don't know was it animated?
(35:33):
I don't know what I have to look it up.
Let's see. That's a little serious.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
Oh, Mike, the lawyer from Chicago, friend of the show
and of mine, really loved the One More Thing discussion
Armstrong and Getty One More Thing podcast from yesterday. Grab
it or if you subscribe to Armstrong and Getty on demand,
it downloads automatically. But it has to do with how
the ability to read practically is the cause of abstract
(36:01):
thinking in people. And it was a study of illiterate
civilizations and their inability to think in an abstract way.
And he points out that his favorite chemistry professor really
encouraged them to study the arts and music and reading.
And he gave some examples of scientific discoveries that came
not through the usual means, but came through somebody having
(36:23):
a day dream about, for instance, a snake biting its
own tail and realized, oh, what if that compound is
spherically shaped, and found out it was true reading
Speaker 1 (36:38):
Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
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.
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
iHeartRadio 24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.