October 9, 2024 • 15 mins
THE BEST BITS IN A SILLIER PACKAGE (from Thursday's Mike Hosking Breakfast) They'd Better Do a Good Job/What Universities Are For/Sport Is No Fun/Next Nobel/AI Mike
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news Talk, said B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on
iHeartRadio Rewrap.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Good there and welcome to the rewrap for Thursday. All
the best, but it's from the Mike Hosking breakfast on
news Talk, said B. In a sillier package. And this morning, well,
how are our universities going? Do they get a pass
or a fail? Transport not transport? An extra s in
(00:46):
there and it's two different words. This time. We have
a little look at that, and your daily Nobel Prize
update of course, as it is Nobel Week, and the
prospects of an AI Mike. But before any of that,
Gumboot Friday got the money. But should they have?
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Yes, Gumboot Friday. So let's address this particular elephant in
the room, shall we? I defend ingrid Leary the Labor
Party based on this, the Auditor General came out yesterday
and a six page letter from the Director General to
the Director General of Health Rather Dianasa Farty said, look,
there's a whole bunch of concerns here. They didn't follow
the rules. There was no clear justification for invoking the
(01:23):
opt out clause. Several aspects of the process are unusual
and inconsistent with good practice. All of that's indisputably true.
Why because the rules are very simple. You hold an
open tender. If you want to throw money at mental health,
you say, hey, everybody in mental health, let's have a word,
put an attender, tell us what you're about, and will
divvy up the money. That's how the rules apply. So
the rules were broken, there's no question about that. And
(01:46):
that then goes to governance. Here's where I defend the government.
Do you know why they can do what they can
do because they're the government. If they don't like the rules,
they don't have to follow them. And they decided, rightly
or wrongly, that Mike King's the man for the money.
They gave him the money and they're allowed to do that.
Now the question will be if Mike King blows the
money and the service provided isn't any good, that's on
(02:08):
the government, not on the ministry. And yet there was
the next twist in the story where it went wrong
for the government yesterday was Matt Doucy, who is still
yet to front. Who's the minister responsible? They told him
throughout the process, this is the order to General that
we're talking about John Ryan. Doucey said or told Ryan
(02:31):
that he had, throughout the process sought and received assurances
that the implementation option chosen by the ministry complied with
the rules. Now, Ryan obviously doesn't agree with that, and
the reason he doesn't agree is because it's not true,
because what happened was and Ryan, I mean, there's nothing
complicated about this. What Ryan points out in his letter
is the government of the day, instead of having a
(02:52):
tender process, made up their mind that Mike King was
going to get the money, and so it was all
retrospective after that, so there wasn't any need for a
tender process. They just said he's getting the money beginning
middle an end. So the ministry, who are supposed to
run the process, couldn't run a process because there was
no process to run. So therefore Doocey's saying that he had,
(03:14):
throughout the process sought and received assurances that the implementation
option chosen by the ministry. The ministry didn't choose the
implementation option. Doucey chose it, so to say they'd chosen
it was bollocks, unless, of course, the ministry went to
the minister and went Hey, Mike King, Mike King all
day long. Don't look at anyone else than Mike King, Matt,
(03:36):
and Matt went, oh, really cool, we'll do that. But
that's not how it worked. So he's thrown the ministry
under the bus and he should be called out for that.
So it's a win and a loss of the government.
But as regards the twenty four million dollars, they better
hope that it's money.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Well speech Jeez, sounds like that commentary was kind of
like fair and balanced and you know, based on facts
and not hyperbole. I don't think we're into that, are we?
These days' rerap right, So it seems like we're trickling
down the university ranking. There's less and by we I
mean the universities. I never went.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Universities a little bit of a minefield at the moment.
Grant Robinson's gone to run a targo, of course. Auckland's
introduced to Mari related compulsory course, which has received surprise
and a lot of pushback. Aut we've told you about this.
They've been giving out free points in a race based
travel wrought, whereas if you're Maori you get a better
chance of travel funding than if you're not Mari. So
when the latest university rankings were released, as they were
(04:32):
yesterday afternoon, the facto Targo is now at its lowest
ranking ever will come as a good chance to offer
a decent serve to old grant. Can't run an economy,
can't run a yuni Auckland. There was another who fell
out of the top one hundred and fifty for the
first time, so once again a chance to have a crack.
There are other rankings, and depending on which ones you
look at depends on how they're judged. Overall, you can
(04:55):
argue we are not particularly high up in global terms.
Auckland as our top facility outside the top one hundred
and fifty doesn't sound very encouraging, does it. Do you
know why? Because it isn't A Targo is so far
down the list now they don't even rank them specifically.
It's just a band, and they've gone from the three
hundred and one to three hundred and fifty band down
(05:18):
to the three hundred and fifty one to four hundred band,
so they might be three hundred and ninety ninth in
the world. Surely some reputational work to be done there.
Otago I note defended themselves by saying, one they were disappointed,
but two no New Zealand University had improved, sort of
in a well we're all a bit useless then, aren't
we kind of way. Having had a little bit of
experience with universities these past few years, two of our
(05:40):
five kids have or are attending, and a third is
about to go. The unmistakable reality that smacks you in
the face is the wokeness of it all, the stench
of indoctrination about the place these days. They're they'ret to
fill your head basically with the stuff they believe to
be correct. You think you're their way, or basically you're wrong.
(06:01):
A lot of it's race based, and it's very very unappealing.
Mind you, I'm older. Maybe young kids lap this stuff up,
or or think they lap it up. UNTI they're mature bit.
But even the teaching brigade in some of these places
have voiced their concerns around freedom of speech, and when
you add the concerns to the rankings, the overall picture
painted is not flattering. And because they're so woke, my
fear is a ranking like this will not be seen
(06:23):
as a reason to change or improve. But yet another
reason to dismiss those who can't possibly know what they're
talking about.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
It is this new I feel like universities have always
been a bit lefty, a bit radical, a bit I
mean that's where the young people are, right, young people
who you know, feel like waving their fists of the
air and having a march and having a bit of
a protest. And you know, it's sticking it to the man,
(06:51):
isn't there? Isn't that what going to university is. But
like I said, I never went. I don't know what
it's about. Rerap Okay, this sort of taught me by
surprise this morning suddenly Mike's talking about trans sport. Not true.
I want to make this clear. I'm not talking about transport.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
Good news for sport for you this morning, as the
government has instructed Sport in New Zealand to change their
guidelines around the participation in the trans area. Fairness and
safety are what the government is after, not diversity, inclusion
and equity, which is currently what guides them. It's part
of the coalition agreement driven by New Zealand First, but
also comes as a result of fifty Olympians who put
(07:27):
their names to a plea that suggested the Labour Party
view of disrespect to the principles of fairness and safety.
And I admire those athletes because in this day and
age is sad as it is to say, speaking your
mind freely is not a pastime easily enjoyed in this
country or as common as it should be. The most
egregious part of the current rules are self identification of gender.
In other words, you decide you're a woman despite the
(07:48):
fact biologically you are not, and then that is all
that's required at community level. I mean, think about it.
Let's be honest, someone twice the size or strength rocks up.
What sort of message in outworking is that sending? What
are you supposed to do with that as a coach
or administrator or a club captain. Like a lot of
what the last government did, it was all whiteboard psychobabble,
all driven by fields. By the time you got to
(08:09):
kick off, it wasn't close to being the real world.
And that's before you get to the elite end of matters.
Whether this area is being fiddled with sport by a sport,
country by country, administration by administration in a very messy,
very ad hoc way. That does know in any favors.
This instruction to sport in New Zealand falls under the
title of what you would loosely call common sense and
being common sense, it's not unfair to suggest it never
(08:29):
should have got as out of hand as it has.
Chris Bishop, the Minister, calls it a genuinely tricky area,
and he's right, but he's also being polite because it
didn't and doesn't have to be as tricky as they've
made it. Just making up your gender and then enrolling
in the sport with nothing more to it than that
is not right. It's not sensible, it's not logical, it's
(08:50):
not fair, and it should never have got to where
it has.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
Some days I still think it wouldn't be nice as
sport was just people, you know, playing games having a
bit of fun. Got very serious somewhere down the line,
didn't it. Oh well, the rewrapp right, as Mike claimed yesterday,
we are your Nobel Prize authority, and nobody gives you
all the details on the Nobel Prizes like we do.
(09:16):
Said maybe a couple of other outlets, which I did
mention yesterday, but I can't remember who they are today,
So let's just carry on it's right.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
It's time for Nobel Prize of the Day, which goes
to the chemistry people today, and the winners are David Baker,
Demis Hassebis and John Jumper. Breakthrough work predicting and designing
the structure of proteins are the research that made connections
between amino acid sequence and protein structure. That was and
I'm quoting from the committee here, that was actually called
(09:43):
a Grand challenge in chemistry and in particular and biochemistry
for decades, so it's that breakthrough that gets awaded today.
Baker works at the University of Washington, Seattle. Hassabis and
Jumper both work at Google Deep Mind and London. Baker
designed the new protein in two thousand and three. Once
again I'm quoting the committee. His research group has since
produced one imaginative protein creation after another, including proteins that
(10:05):
can be used as pharmaceuticals, vaccines, nanomateials, and tiny scin
is the number of designs that they have produced and published,
and the variety is absolutely mind blowing.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
My mind is well and truly blown, and.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
The Nobel Committee are not known for saying things like
absolutely mind blowing. So there is your Chemistry Prize.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Yeah, I mean that's I have no idea what he
knew that was about, so it must be bloody clever.
I reckon, you don't be that clever for me to
not know what it's about. But yeah, I mean I
don't even come close to know what Mike was talking
about there, so I definitely would give them an award.
The rewrap right, let's finish up with well, the real
(10:49):
Mike Hosking please stand up.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
The headline is Mike Hosking Reign Supreme? But could an
AI DJ replace the radio King? So that was brought
to my attention yesterday. It's an article in The Listener
I no longer subscribe to the Listener by Peter Griffin.
It's not a bit regularly good article. I'm not meaning
to denigrate Peter's writing, but any article involving me as
(11:13):
well worth reading in my humble opinion. Anyway, he's being
to San Francisco as Peter, and he went to a
conference there where will I am was there and he
was showing off as new AI powered radio station which
is called Radio Fyi, and it features a series of
AI generated radio DJs. And the first clue that Peter's
not really up to speed with how radio works is
(11:35):
you don't call people radio DJs. The other mistake in
the article he makes it talks about talkback. I don't
do talkback. Talkback is a separate thing to what we
do on this program. Be that as it may, mind you,
it's the listener. They operate from about nineteen sixty two
through nineteen sixty four, so you can forgive them and anyway,
his point being is that will I AM's radio station,
(11:57):
although even he concedes by the end of the article
it's not really that good. Yes, The point being that
by the time I retire, they are going to hear
it in Z and me have an AI version of
me that is going to be so good. By the
time Hosking is considering hanging up his microphone, there's a
good chance ZB bosses will have Hosking GPT. Transcripts of
(12:22):
Hoskings thousands of past radio shows could be used to
train it, emulating his take on current affairs, mimicking his
Mike's minute segments. Now they're already trying it. Let me
just a little secret here. They have already tried it.
Two people I know of have tried it. One tried
it and spent it, as far as I understand, quite
(12:42):
a lot of time and energy making me sing. And
it was a disaster. It was little short of an
absolute disaster.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Mean, anybody who knows you knows that you don't sing.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
Precisely, you whistle.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
If for some reason, you whistle jingle bells all year long.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
I don't know, well Christmas tunes, not just jingle bells.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Just talking to somebody about this yesterday, they said, I
always hear Mike whistling as he comes down the stairs.
And I said, jingle bells. They said, yeah, what's that about.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Who knows what it's about? Is I'm mental, is what
it's about. But then the boss tried it because he's
constantly threatening to get rid of me, and he goes,
AI is going to replace you. I said, you drum
up an AI thing for me and play it to me,
and I guarantee you it'll be crap. And he went no, no, no, no,
no no, because that's how Jason talks. He goes, no, no, no,
(13:35):
no no no no. Anyway, he drummed it up and
we played it the next day and I just looked
at him and he knew what I knew, and I
knew what he knew, and I said, it is, isn't it?
And he goes, yes, it is. It was crap, And
so I'm going to be dead before chat GPT AI
or whatever comes up with anything that even comes close
(13:56):
to the real deal.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
And you've already gone way past Griffin's timeline. Anyway, you
consider hanging up near the microphone pretty much at the
interview show.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
Pretty much pretty much, But there's the gap. If I
quit today, they're not ready. All I'm saying now after this,
they're never going to be ready. You've got to have
the real me or there is nothing.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
Yeah, every time, it's the biggest case of the Emperor's
news clothes I've ever seen this AI thing, because every
time somebody goes, look look what I can do, you
should of go ohh and they say yeah, but you know,
imagine what it will do be able to do this
time next year. If it's doing this now, I'll come
(14:36):
back then next year. I mean, don't get me wrong,
I'd like like there are definitely tools like the way
it can you know, summarize long complicated documents and translate
them and stuff like that. That's useful, But is that
really AI or Is it just something that's been programmed
to do something. Yes, still underwhelmed. Probably be the first
(15:02):
up against the wall when the robot apocalypse comes, I suppose.
Until then, I am good at heart. That was the
real and barring that apocalypse, I'll see you back here
again tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
M for more from News Talks at b Listen live
on air or online, and keep our shows with you
wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to a podcast from news Talk, said B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on
iHeartRadio Rewrap.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Good there and welcome to the rewrap for Thursday. All
the best, but it's from the Mike Hosking breakfast on
news Talk, said B. In a sillier package. And this morning, well,
how are our universities going? Do they get a pass
or a fail? Transport not transport? An extra s in
(00:46):
there and it's two different words. This time. We have
a little look at that, and your daily Nobel Prize
update of course, as it is Nobel Week, and the
prospects of an AI Mike. But before any of that,
Gumboot Friday got the money. But should they have?
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Yes, Gumboot Friday. So let's address this particular elephant in
the room, shall we? I defend ingrid Leary the Labor
Party based on this, the Auditor General came out yesterday
and a six page letter from the Director General to
the Director General of Health Rather Dianasa Farty said, look,
there's a whole bunch of concerns here. They didn't follow
the rules. There was no clear justification for invoking the
(01:23):
opt out clause. Several aspects of the process are unusual
and inconsistent with good practice. All of that's indisputably true.
Why because the rules are very simple. You hold an
open tender. If you want to throw money at mental health,
you say, hey, everybody in mental health, let's have a word,
put an attender, tell us what you're about, and will
divvy up the money. That's how the rules apply. So
the rules were broken, there's no question about that. And
(01:46):
that then goes to governance. Here's where I defend the government.
Do you know why they can do what they can
do because they're the government. If they don't like the rules,
they don't have to follow them. And they decided, rightly
or wrongly, that Mike King's the man for the money.
They gave him the money and they're allowed to do that.
Now the question will be if Mike King blows the
money and the service provided isn't any good, that's on
(02:08):
the government, not on the ministry. And yet there was
the next twist in the story where it went wrong
for the government yesterday was Matt Doucy, who is still
yet to front. Who's the minister responsible? They told him
throughout the process, this is the order to General that
we're talking about John Ryan. Doucey said or told Ryan
(02:31):
that he had, throughout the process sought and received assurances
that the implementation option chosen by the ministry complied with
the rules. Now, Ryan obviously doesn't agree with that, and
the reason he doesn't agree is because it's not true,
because what happened was and Ryan, I mean, there's nothing
complicated about this. What Ryan points out in his letter
is the government of the day, instead of having a
(02:52):
tender process, made up their mind that Mike King was
going to get the money, and so it was all
retrospective after that, so there wasn't any need for a
tender process. They just said he's getting the money beginning
middle an end. So the ministry, who are supposed to
run the process, couldn't run a process because there was
no process to run. So therefore Doocey's saying that he had,
(03:14):
throughout the process sought and received assurances that the implementation
option chosen by the ministry. The ministry didn't choose the
implementation option. Doucey chose it, so to say they'd chosen
it was bollocks, unless, of course, the ministry went to
the minister and went Hey, Mike King, Mike King all
day long. Don't look at anyone else than Mike King, Matt,
(03:36):
and Matt went, oh, really cool, we'll do that. But
that's not how it worked. So he's thrown the ministry
under the bus and he should be called out for that.
So it's a win and a loss of the government.
But as regards the twenty four million dollars, they better
hope that it's money.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Well speech Jeez, sounds like that commentary was kind of
like fair and balanced and you know, based on facts
and not hyperbole. I don't think we're into that, are we?
These days' rerap right, So it seems like we're trickling
down the university ranking. There's less and by we I
mean the universities. I never went.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Universities a little bit of a minefield at the moment.
Grant Robinson's gone to run a targo, of course. Auckland's
introduced to Mari related compulsory course, which has received surprise
and a lot of pushback. Aut we've told you about this.
They've been giving out free points in a race based
travel wrought, whereas if you're Maori you get a better
chance of travel funding than if you're not Mari. So
when the latest university rankings were released, as they were
(04:32):
yesterday afternoon, the facto Targo is now at its lowest
ranking ever will come as a good chance to offer
a decent serve to old grant. Can't run an economy,
can't run a yuni Auckland. There was another who fell
out of the top one hundred and fifty for the
first time, so once again a chance to have a crack.
There are other rankings, and depending on which ones you
look at depends on how they're judged. Overall, you can
(04:55):
argue we are not particularly high up in global terms.
Auckland as our top facility outside the top one hundred
and fifty doesn't sound very encouraging, does it. Do you
know why? Because it isn't A Targo is so far
down the list now they don't even rank them specifically.
It's just a band, and they've gone from the three
hundred and one to three hundred and fifty band down
(05:18):
to the three hundred and fifty one to four hundred band,
so they might be three hundred and ninety ninth in
the world. Surely some reputational work to be done there.
Otago I note defended themselves by saying, one they were disappointed,
but two no New Zealand University had improved, sort of
in a well we're all a bit useless then, aren't
we kind of way. Having had a little bit of
experience with universities these past few years, two of our
(05:40):
five kids have or are attending, and a third is
about to go. The unmistakable reality that smacks you in
the face is the wokeness of it all, the stench
of indoctrination about the place these days. They're they'ret to
fill your head basically with the stuff they believe to
be correct. You think you're their way, or basically you're wrong.
(06:01):
A lot of it's race based, and it's very very unappealing.
Mind you, I'm older. Maybe young kids lap this stuff up,
or or think they lap it up. UNTI they're mature bit.
But even the teaching brigade in some of these places
have voiced their concerns around freedom of speech, and when
you add the concerns to the rankings, the overall picture
painted is not flattering. And because they're so woke, my
fear is a ranking like this will not be seen
(06:23):
as a reason to change or improve. But yet another
reason to dismiss those who can't possibly know what they're
talking about.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
It is this new I feel like universities have always
been a bit lefty, a bit radical, a bit I
mean that's where the young people are, right, young people
who you know, feel like waving their fists of the
air and having a march and having a bit of
a protest. And you know, it's sticking it to the man,
(06:51):
isn't there? Isn't that what going to university is. But
like I said, I never went. I don't know what
it's about. Rerap Okay, this sort of taught me by
surprise this morning suddenly Mike's talking about trans sport. Not true.
I want to make this clear. I'm not talking about transport.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
Good news for sport for you this morning, as the
government has instructed Sport in New Zealand to change their
guidelines around the participation in the trans area. Fairness and
safety are what the government is after, not diversity, inclusion
and equity, which is currently what guides them. It's part
of the coalition agreement driven by New Zealand First, but
also comes as a result of fifty Olympians who put
(07:27):
their names to a plea that suggested the Labour Party
view of disrespect to the principles of fairness and safety.
And I admire those athletes because in this day and
age is sad as it is to say, speaking your
mind freely is not a pastime easily enjoyed in this
country or as common as it should be. The most
egregious part of the current rules are self identification of gender.
In other words, you decide you're a woman despite the
(07:48):
fact biologically you are not, and then that is all
that's required at community level. I mean, think about it.
Let's be honest, someone twice the size or strength rocks up.
What sort of message in outworking is that sending? What
are you supposed to do with that as a coach
or administrator or a club captain. Like a lot of
what the last government did, it was all whiteboard psychobabble,
all driven by fields. By the time you got to
(08:09):
kick off, it wasn't close to being the real world.
And that's before you get to the elite end of matters.
Whether this area is being fiddled with sport by a sport,
country by country, administration by administration in a very messy,
very ad hoc way. That does know in any favors.
This instruction to sport in New Zealand falls under the
title of what you would loosely call common sense and
being common sense, it's not unfair to suggest it never
(08:29):
should have got as out of hand as it has.
Chris Bishop, the Minister, calls it a genuinely tricky area,
and he's right, but he's also being polite because it
didn't and doesn't have to be as tricky as they've
made it. Just making up your gender and then enrolling
in the sport with nothing more to it than that
is not right. It's not sensible, it's not logical, it's
(08:50):
not fair, and it should never have got to where
it has.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
Some days I still think it wouldn't be nice as
sport was just people, you know, playing games having a
bit of fun. Got very serious somewhere down the line,
didn't it. Oh well, the rewrapp right, as Mike claimed yesterday,
we are your Nobel Prize authority, and nobody gives you
all the details on the Nobel Prizes like we do.
(09:16):
Said maybe a couple of other outlets, which I did
mention yesterday, but I can't remember who they are today,
So let's just carry on it's right.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
It's time for Nobel Prize of the Day, which goes
to the chemistry people today, and the winners are David Baker,
Demis Hassebis and John Jumper. Breakthrough work predicting and designing
the structure of proteins are the research that made connections
between amino acid sequence and protein structure. That was and
I'm quoting from the committee here, that was actually called
(09:43):
a Grand challenge in chemistry and in particular and biochemistry
for decades, so it's that breakthrough that gets awaded today.
Baker works at the University of Washington, Seattle. Hassabis and
Jumper both work at Google Deep Mind and London. Baker
designed the new protein in two thousand and three. Once
again I'm quoting the committee. His research group has since
produced one imaginative protein creation after another, including proteins that
(10:05):
can be used as pharmaceuticals, vaccines, nanomateials, and tiny scin
is the number of designs that they have produced and published,
and the variety is absolutely mind blowing.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
My mind is well and truly blown, and.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
The Nobel Committee are not known for saying things like
absolutely mind blowing. So there is your Chemistry Prize.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Yeah, I mean that's I have no idea what he
knew that was about, so it must be bloody clever.
I reckon, you don't be that clever for me to
not know what it's about. But yeah, I mean I
don't even come close to know what Mike was talking
about there, so I definitely would give them an award.
The rewrap right, let's finish up with well, the real
(10:49):
Mike Hosking please stand up.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
The headline is Mike Hosking Reign Supreme? But could an
AI DJ replace the radio King? So that was brought
to my attention yesterday. It's an article in The Listener
I no longer subscribe to the Listener by Peter Griffin.
It's not a bit regularly good article. I'm not meaning
to denigrate Peter's writing, but any article involving me as
(11:13):
well worth reading in my humble opinion. Anyway, he's being
to San Francisco as Peter, and he went to a
conference there where will I am was there and he
was showing off as new AI powered radio station which
is called Radio Fyi, and it features a series of
AI generated radio DJs. And the first clue that Peter's
not really up to speed with how radio works is
(11:35):
you don't call people radio DJs. The other mistake in
the article he makes it talks about talkback. I don't
do talkback. Talkback is a separate thing to what we
do on this program. Be that as it may, mind you,
it's the listener. They operate from about nineteen sixty two
through nineteen sixty four, so you can forgive them and anyway,
his point being is that will I AM's radio station,
(11:57):
although even he concedes by the end of the article
it's not really that good. Yes, The point being that
by the time I retire, they are going to hear
it in Z and me have an AI version of
me that is going to be so good. By the
time Hosking is considering hanging up his microphone, there's a
good chance ZB bosses will have Hosking GPT. Transcripts of
(12:22):
Hoskings thousands of past radio shows could be used to
train it, emulating his take on current affairs, mimicking his
Mike's minute segments. Now they're already trying it. Let me
just a little secret here. They have already tried it.
Two people I know of have tried it. One tried
it and spent it, as far as I understand, quite
(12:42):
a lot of time and energy making me sing. And
it was a disaster. It was little short of an
absolute disaster.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Mean, anybody who knows you knows that you don't sing.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
Precisely, you whistle.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
If for some reason, you whistle jingle bells all year long.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
I don't know, well Christmas tunes, not just jingle bells.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Just talking to somebody about this yesterday, they said, I
always hear Mike whistling as he comes down the stairs.
And I said, jingle bells. They said, yeah, what's that about.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Who knows what it's about? Is I'm mental, is what
it's about. But then the boss tried it because he's
constantly threatening to get rid of me, and he goes,
AI is going to replace you. I said, you drum
up an AI thing for me and play it to me,
and I guarantee you it'll be crap. And he went no, no, no, no,
no no, because that's how Jason talks. He goes, no, no, no,
(13:35):
no no no no. Anyway, he drummed it up and
we played it the next day and I just looked
at him and he knew what I knew, and I
knew what he knew, and I said, it is, isn't it?
And he goes, yes, it is. It was crap, And
so I'm going to be dead before chat GPT AI
or whatever comes up with anything that even comes close
(13:56):
to the real deal.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
And you've already gone way past Griffin's timeline. Anyway, you
consider hanging up near the microphone pretty much at the
interview show.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
Pretty much pretty much, But there's the gap. If I
quit today, they're not ready. All I'm saying now after this,
they're never going to be ready. You've got to have
the real me or there is nothing.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
Yeah, every time, it's the biggest case of the Emperor's
news clothes I've ever seen this AI thing, because every
time somebody goes, look look what I can do, you
should of go ohh and they say yeah, but you know,
imagine what it will do be able to do this
time next year. If it's doing this now, I'll come
(14:36):
back then next year. I mean, don't get me wrong,
I'd like like there are definitely tools like the way
it can you know, summarize long complicated documents and translate
them and stuff like that. That's useful, But is that
really AI or Is it just something that's been programmed
to do something. Yes, still underwhelmed. Probably be the first
(15:02):
up against the wall when the robot apocalypse comes, I suppose.
Until then, I am good at heart. That was the
real and barring that apocalypse, I'll see you back here
again tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
M for more from News Talks at b Listen live
on air or online, and keep our shows with you
wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio.
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.