May 17, 2023 • 37 mins
Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:
- Beth Ailes rails against Fox News
- More on the Durham Report
- Spencer O'Leary on AI taking over jobs
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:03):
What we need is more common sense. Common We got us breaking down the
world's nonsense about power American common sense. We'll see us through with the common
sense of Houston. I'm just procommon sense for Houston. From Houston.
(00:24):
This is the Jimmy Barrett Show,brought to you by Viewin dot Com.
Now here's Jimmy Barrett. All right, we're here on a Wednesday. Welcome
AM nine fifty KPRS see Jimmy BarrettShow. Glad you could join us here
today. Let's UM, let's openwith us today. Let's talk about family
businesses, UM, and and inboth large and small. By the way,
(00:44):
both large and small. UM.We'll get to we'll get to a
really large one here in a second. But yeah, I'm I've oftentimes one
of my best friends in life isa guy by the name of Paul Rutherford.
And Paul owns a janitorial supply businessin rich In, Virginia. And
um, the business was started byPaul's grandfather and got handed down to Paul's
(01:15):
father, which eventually got handed downto him. And I get the impression,
you know, from what I knowof the family and the kids and
and that kind of stuff that that'sprobably where it will end is with Paul.
You know, that would be athird generation. And it's been interesting
to watch because you know, itstarted off as a very very small business
and then um, Paul's dad grewit, but didn't didn't grow it,
(01:40):
you know, by huge amounts.He grew it, but he grew it
just a little bit. And thenPaul got it and he has He has
grown that thing, like noise business. He's taking it from a very local
business to a more regional business andis highly successful to what he does now.
Paul had a brother who passed andseveral sisters, none of whom are
(02:04):
directly involved with the business, andnone who seem to have his business acumen.
Less just say, in order tobe able to run a family business.
And I get the impression that fromwhat I've read and in my conversations
with Paul, that what he hasdone is really kind of unusual, because
usually what happens is that somebody witha real passion in the family will start
(02:25):
a family business and then they willyou pass it on to the next in
line who may not have the samepassion or the same skill set. As
far as that goes, because youknow, kids are individual they don't necessarily
inherit all their parents straits, sothe business may end up going to somebody
who drives it into the ground becausethey really don't know what they're doing.
(02:47):
That didn't happen in his family's case. But like I said, there's nobody
coming up among He has three kids, and none of those three kids have
seemingly have any interest in his businessor learning more about his business, or
doing anything with this business. Soat some point in time, when Paul
decides to retire, he'll probably endup selling it to somebody and that'll be
(03:08):
the end of the family business.Not unusual, in fact, more unusual.
I think in his case that itlasted for three generations, then you
know that then it's going to cometo the end after the third generation.
A lot of family businesses don't survivepast the first generation. When you see
a family business that's been around forfifty plus years, you really have to
(03:29):
admire that because you know that there'sthere's some talent in that family, but
that has allowed them to make thatbusiness successful enough to survive. The same
can be said for a big business, and I would consider Fox News Channel
to be a big business. Youknow, for a long long time,
(03:50):
you know, Rupert Murdoch owned stilldoes. The family still owns Fox News
Network, and Rupert Murdoch gets alot of credit for creating Box News and
maybe too much because well you'll you'llsee in a moment that, um,
you know, that business is beingpassed along to the suns and they don't
seem to have the same business acumenas the old man. But on her
(04:13):
show, Megan Kelly, do youknow who beth Als is? Beth Ales
is the widow of Roger Ales,who ran Fox News Channel for for like
twenty five plus years. He's theguy that basically created it and put it
on the air and ran it.And since he has left, things have
slowly been surely gone into the intothe well, into the abyss, seemingly
(04:33):
these days with the firing of TuckerCarlson. So here is Megan Kelly from
her show yesterday talking about the tweetthat went out yesterday from Beth Ales,
the widow of Roger Ales, andtalking about the Murdoch family. The thing
that CNN needs and doesn't have isthey need a programming genius. They need
somebody who actually understands what will makewho who's our core audience and what will
(04:57):
make them tune in? Fox Newsis going through something similar? They really
are, and that leads me toBeth Ales in an extraordinary tweet. Extraordinary,
the widow of Roger Ailes last nighttweeted out the following, Happy heavenly
Birthday, Roger Ailes, it tookyou twenty years to build Fox News into
the powerhouse that it was, andonly six years for the Murdos to wreak
(05:21):
havoc. Rupert thought he could doyour job. What a joke. He
has the check book but could nevercome close to your genius. Rest in
peace. Whoa, whoa. Ihaven't heard her say anything at all since
Roger was ousted from Fox. Andthen she weighs in with that, and
(05:45):
I gotta hand it again to confideher or Daily Beast and Lachlan Cartwright,
who did what journalists are supposed todo. He saw the tweet, picked
up his phone and he cold calledher and got her talking. I mean
literally, I see this person todo an interview in the entire time since
Roger was housted. Ever mind died, and this is what he reports.
(06:06):
Confider saw that tweet immediately cold calledElizabeth and then spent who then spent half
an hour absolutely railing against the Murdochfamily. And they're handling him a post
ales Fox News quote. Roger neverhad his hand off the wheel when he
came to Fox, I agree,Megan Kelly speaking there, contrasting it with
the Murdochs, who, she said, quote, weren't born here and don't
(06:27):
have the same pedigree. Roger wasborn and he was raised in Ohio,
in Youngstown, Ohio, where hedug ditches for a living. He understood
America, Middle America. He understoodthe coastal elites. He knew exactly who
the audience was and what the needwas for Fox News to be born in
the first place. And he didhave his hands on the steering wheel ten
into the entire time, mostly becausethis thing pulls to the left, as
he used to say about news,but also because it can pull too far
(06:50):
to the right, and Roger knewwhen too course correct when that happened too.
She goes on to say about LachlanMurdoch, I was told he's a
spearfish. H I don't know ifhe spends time in the office. This
is one of the criticisms of himthat when he came in and took over,
what he really wanted to do isrun the movie studios, not be
stuck at twelve eleven sixth Avenue runningyou know, the cable operation, which
(07:12):
isn't as sexy as the Hollywood stars. Recalled that Roger used to refer to
brothers James and Lachlan as Tweedledum andTweedledumber, respectively. I can also confirm
that, having heard it many timesfrom Roger Els. But she saved most
of her ire for the patriarch Rupert, whom she described as a jealous man
who fired her husband because Roger eclipsedRupert on the world stage. Interesting,
(07:36):
and you know that's that's that's awife talking, right, That's a wife
talking about her her dead husband.But there's a lot to be said for
who's really running the show, whois the creative genius behind any business,
big or small, and whether ornot that can be duplicated once that individual
is gone. And I think thecase in Fox News can be made that
(07:57):
without Roger Ailes there in order toguide the ship, there's there's there's a
vacuum there of people who know orcare about what the product is and what
it is that they're doing. Thekids, the Murdoch kids are now in
charge of Fox News and one weguess they really don't care that much about
the product as much as they justcare about, you know, collecting the
(08:18):
money. I think more than anythingelse. You got to care about more
than just the income in order tomake something like that successful. Quick,
a little break back with Morena momentJimmy Barrett Show here at AM nine fifty
KPRC. All Right, this segment, we're gonna go back and talk a
(08:41):
little bit more about the Durham reportsthat took four years in order to in
order to compulate um and from whichthe question becomes, from which will anything
change? Will anything happen? Willanybody be prosecuted? Anybody who was going
to get prosecuted, has order beenprosecuted. They're not going to be prosecuting
James Coming. They're not gonna beprosecuting Christopher Ray. There'll be nobody from
(09:05):
the FBI who's going to, youknow, lose their job. I don't
think over this. There is nobodyfrom any government agency, no matter how
weapinized they are, including the InternalRevenue Service, is likely to lose their
job. There's plenty of Republicans,mainstream Republicans, you know, the the
(09:28):
Republicans who cost the problems as faras I'm concerned, the ones, the
ones that just you know, wantto get along, go along, and
get along, go along, getalong. Republicans aren't going to do anything
about this. They're not gonna screamand shout, and the same thing will
happen as always happens in Washington,d C. Nothing will really change,
which is why people have become apatheticand why you know how I mean,
(09:54):
think of it this way, howhow much can we care? How much
can we care? I mean,I can, I can rail about this,
you can rail about this to everybodyyou know. But but if you
know nothing is going to change asa result of it, then how much
anger are you willing to spend onit? How much how much energy are
you willing to put into something whendeep down inside you know nothing is going
(10:16):
to change. And I realize howdefeat is that sounds. And I'm not
going to let it keep me fromtalking about it. It's just I'm trying.
I'm trying to be a realist aboutall this stuff. The vast majority
of it will never be reported.It won't be reported by the you know,
the alphabet media, the ABC,CBS, NBC crowd. They're not
talking about, just like they don'ttalk about Hunter Biden. And the vast
(10:39):
majority of people out there who don'tpay a lot of attention to what's going
on in the world of politics won'teither won't know anything about it, or
whatever viewpoint they have will be shapedby the liberal media, and therefore they're
not going to agree with you anyway. If we were to do a nation
I wonder if we were to doa nationwide pole right now, how many
people would think that Joe Biden isand his family are corrupt. It'd be
(11:05):
interesting to do a pole. There'sway to do a poll. I would
love to know the results of thatpole and not and and just take it
in hold, take it all acrossthe country, and just try to come
up with some servic insensus if wecan might I would not be the least
surprised if the majority of Americans don'tthink that Joe Biden is corrupt or don't
(11:26):
know if he's corrupt or not,versus those who think he is. And
that's horrible to say. Um,some of it is based on their own
true you know, they know thestory and they choose to believe what they
choose to believe, just like Ichoose to believe what I choose to believe,
or they just you know, whatthey know about the story is what
the leftists hold him and therefore that'sother opinion was formed. So I think
(11:48):
that's kind of where we're at rightnow, which is a shame, because
we have some major problems. Wehave a major We have major problems right
now with two institutions in particular.Um, I guess I could I could
say the Department of Justice and kindof roll it all into one, but
as subsidiaries of the Department of Justice, the FBI is a major problem,
(12:09):
and the Internal Revenue Service is goingto be a major problem. But let's
start with the problem we have now, which is the FBI, which is
run from Washington, DC now,not from the field offices. It is
run by a hierarchy that is verypolitically slanted to the left and is protecting
(12:31):
the president, protecting Hunter Biden,and protecting a lot of other people as
well, just like Hillary Clinton wasprotected and a lot of other liberals were
protected. Two different forms of justicedepending upon where you are in the political
spectrum on the right or on theleft. Go after the right and leave
the left alone and protect them.Basically is what's going on. But let's
go ahead and start with a coupleof analyzes, if you will, of
(12:54):
what's going on with the Durham reportand what we expect to see happen or
guess what we want to see hempen. First of all, the box business
here was LORII cudlo. The FBIlacked any actual evidence of collusion between mister
Trump, his campaign and Russia.In fact, the Wall Street Journal suggests
(13:15):
that the whole biased FBI probe mayhave started as a Russian intelligence operation.
Now, someone who's followed these Russianhoax goings on while in office in the
government, and since I did notknow that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved
a proposal from one of her foreignpolicy advisors to deliberately attack Trump by creating
(13:39):
a phony scandal regarding Russia, Ididn't know that. According to the Wall
Street Journal editorial today, this wasnews to me. Former CIA director John
Brennan briefed this to President Obama.Get this, Vice President Biden, Attorney
General Loretta Lynch, and FBI DirectorComey. They all heard about this phony
(14:01):
plan and campaign, and then theFBI refused to act either on this phony
campaign or later on the phony Steeledossier. Remember Steele, he was working
for the Clinton campaign. So Obamaknew, Biden knew, Hillary Clinton knew,
ag Lynch new, FBI Director Comyk new, CIA Director Brandon knew
(14:22):
that this is all a phony campaignoperation from day one. Maybe some of
you folks knew about these meetings,but I hadn't read about it before,
and I'm astonished at one. Rightto the top, mister Joham's report chronicles
just how left wing biased the FBIwas, including bringing phony materials to the
fis Accord that the FBI knew werephony, was stuff drummed up, and
(14:46):
other left wing pro Hillary water carryingby these discredited FBI people Kleine Smith,
Lisa Page, your boyfriend, PeterStrock, and of course the mainstream media
going along with all of it everystep of the way. Paulitzer Prizes were
one they all ought to be givenback. Oh by the way, they
(15:07):
asked the Washington Post, Hey,are you guys going to give back your
pilotzerprise. No, we stand bythe story all you mean the story that
that that you know that that itwas Russian misinformation. Yeah, we stand
by that story. Well, Ithink you know it's been proven that that
story is not correct. We don'tcare, but we're it's our prize.
(15:28):
We're keeping it. So so theWashington Post they will return nothing. They
are not returning their pilotzerprise. Allright, here's a presidential candidates take on
this. Let's see what that Ramaswamythinks needs to happen with the FBI.
This is deeply concerning, and itjust reaffirms a call that I made in
early March to say that the nextpresident actually needs to shut down the FBI.
(15:54):
This is a corrupt institution that hasrepeatedly revealed itself to be politicized.
The same FBI that went after MartinLuther King now effectively went after Donald Trump.
And I think when you have anadministrative rot that runs that deep,
you cannot reform it top down.You have to actually shut it down.
And I think that's possible. Andif you think about it, at the
(16:14):
local level, you have local policeand you have a prosecutor. You don't
have an investigative unit in between.At the federal level you have US Marshals
and the Department of Justice. Whenyou have a bureaucracy that sits in between,
that is a formula for corruption.That's what we see here in the
Durham Report. This is selective actualinvestigation and eventually selective prosecution. That is
not justice. That is a perversionof justice. And what we need in
(16:38):
the federal government, including in federallaw enforcement, is reinstilling a culture of
the rule of law, not viewingthe law as a constraint or an inconvenience,
but the motivation for actual federal lawenforcement itself. That culture is completely
missing at the FBI. Prosecuting certainthings while making up investigations on others depending
on your politics. That not justice. And it's going to take a president
(17:00):
who leads and is willing to takethe actual hard steps like shutting down this
institution and reinstilling a culture of therule of law itself. As I alluded
to, they went after Martin LutherKing in the nineteen sixties, So this
should not be a partisan issue.I think it's not a partisan issue.
We ultimately want a law enforcement agencythat is blind to politics. That is
(17:21):
not what we have today. Andpart of the problem is that bureaucracy is
so vast it's still the j.Edgar Hoover Building in Washington, DC,
that those people who work at theFBI walk into it becomes part of the
culture of the institution itself. Thisis not constitutional. The fourth branch of
government broadly is not constitutional, andI think the next president of the United
States has a chance to fix it. That's what I've been saying for months,
(17:42):
that I would shut down the FBIbut still have a federal law enforcement
apparatus that actually gets the job done. Wow. Okay, so he thinks
the FBI is hopelessly broken, andhe may be right about that. I
mean, if you go back inthe history the FBI, back to the
Jager who the FBI was flawed.Back then, it was flawed from a
(18:04):
from a conservative standpoint, though alittle bit different, you know, because
they treated conservatives differently than they didliberals. They went after liberals and left
the conservatives alone. So there's alwaysbeen this presumption that the FBI is even
handed and follows the letter of thelaw. But I don't know that that's
ever really been the case when youget right down to it. Maybe maybe
(18:26):
it's time to blow it up.Maybe there is no fixing the FBI.
I'll no, I'm not sure onthat one. Back with Mortal Moment Jimmy
Barrett show here an ame nine fiftyKPRC. All right, we've talked a
(18:47):
lot on the show about artificial intelligence. Is it good? Is it bad?
Whether whether it's good or it's bad. Ultimately, I guess time will
tell ultimately whether it's good or bad. Whatever it is, it's here and
is going to grow. And thereare estimates that up to I hate to
think this is true, but upto eighty percent of jobs in the next
(19:07):
few years could end up being replacedby AI and applications like chat GPT.
Now some things would make sense tome. For example, who really wants
to work in a call center?Who really wants to work in a call
center? And who? I mean, it's a job for people. It's
mainly an overseas job for people atthis point. And I think Americans are
(19:30):
frustrated when when you do end upin call center, hell, talking to
somebody with a foreign accent that's difficultto understand. Who says they're Bob in
Brooklyn and you know they're not Boband Brooklyn and maybe it would be better
to talk to artificial intelligence. Maybeartificial intelligence intelligence would do a better job
of being helpful. So there aresome things that actually could be improved or
(19:52):
at the very least wouldn't possibly beany worse if they're replaced by AI.
But there are other things. Well, I guess that's what we're going to
get into right now. Spencer orLarry joins us Spencer is an expert when
it comes to productivity and automation.He's at O'Leary OPS or active ops,
I should say active ops dot com. Spencer O'Leary at activeops dot com.
(20:15):
Spencer, welcome dam nine fifty KPRCUM. What do you make of this idea
that maybe up to eighty percent ofour jobs could be replaced by AI in
just a few years. Well,I think here's some similarities between technological change
over the decades that we've gone throughin the past one hundred years or so.
But I do think there's some fundamentaldifferences with the way that AI,
(20:38):
it's been sort of self generative,is starting to change. But you know,
some of these statistics I think Isort of read with surprise and horror
of replacing the work that humans do. I definitely say it's going to change
the work that humans do. Butif we think back to the Industrial Revolution
that changed the way that most humanson this planet work. If we think
(21:00):
about the inventive robotic process automation,the RPA industry, that was something that
came out maybe ten fifteen years ago, and again as it's fundamentally changed a
lot of the repetitive balling work thathumans no longer have to do. But
it hasn't really replaced human activity.It's just changed what people do. And
I think with the invent of AIand things like chat GPT, that's just
(21:21):
going to extend and continue to changethe work that humans do. Well,
you know, the automotive I'm fromDetroit originally, so the automotive business is
certainly an example that I can relateto. And you're right, you'll go
to a typical assembly line. Theassembly line of twenty twenty three is a
whole lot different than the assembly lineof nineteen seventy three, where you basically
had cars being put together by humanbeings. And the joke in Detroit back
(21:44):
in nineteen seventy three, By theway, as you may rather enough,
you've been around long enough to knowthat. But a Detroit made car in
nineteen seventy three was not nearly ofthe same quality as a Detroit made car
in twenty twenty three. And it'sbasically because of human error, you know,
basically an error. And they usedto say never buy, never buy
a car built on a Friday becausebecause of be full of problems. Those
(22:07):
types of things don't exist in theworld of robotics, do they They don't.
I mean, it's hugely accurate,repetitive work that's done. But what
robots tend to struggle with and yourcalls into examples recently, as consumers,
you know, the time that wedo want to speak to a human is
genuinely when something's gone wrong and wewant the empathy of a human to help
(22:30):
us fix that in a timely andcaring manner. And that's the thing that
whether it's you know, the industryrevolution, whether it's the invent of robotic
automation or now with AI, thatthat's the bit that's really hard, and
it's the bit that as consumers weresist, We don't mind. In fact,
some of us prefer to use achatbot to do something, to interact
answer a question but when we wantthat empathy and fixing something that's complex or
(22:55):
fixing something that's gone wrong, asconsumers, we want to speak to a
human. That's why we get frustratedwith some of those call centers. So
I do think that this is goingto change the work that people do rather
than replace it. Well, youbrought up, you brought up the empathy
or lack. There is a relatesartificial intelligence, but how long before they
build that into AI as well?And they're already starting to So there's examples
(23:19):
where interaction with a chatboat or interactionwith an AI engine is really hard to
know that it wasn't a human thatwas coming back at you. So I
do think that's where this part ofour revolution using technology is different. That
AI is now generative, so it'steaching itself. And you'll see right throughout
(23:41):
the media there's lots of talk aboutdrawing the lines of where we're going to
again as consumers and as humans,where are we going to accept AI in
our lives and where are we goingto draw the line and say that's one
step too far? I guess,I guess that's always the scary part.
That's the scary part that people aretalking about right, And I think again,
empathy is a good example. IfAI can learn empathy, what other
human behaviors can it learn? Andthen at what point does AI no longer
(24:06):
become artificial? At what point doesit now become almost human intelligence? And
how do we do how do wetell the difference between AI and human intelligence
when they're both acting exactly the sameway. And I think today it's certainly
in my experience, there's still youknow, AI is not perfect. I
also think the phrases like AI ormL machine learning there they're misunderstood in terms
(24:29):
of what that technology is and whatthat technology does. I see lots of
publications that talk about, you know, this solution uses AI. Actually when
you go and look at it,it doesn't. It just uses a clever
algorithm that's not really aim. SoI think as as society, as we
learn about these new technologies, that'llthat'll start to become clearer. But I
think that there's also you remember,these these tools are only as good as
(24:53):
what you teach them. So ifwe think about chat GPT, I remember
the exact day, I think itwas October twenty one, So since October
twenty twenty one, chat GPT hasnot been taught anything new, so if
you ask it a question about theend of twenty twenty two, it's kind
of not going to be able toknow the answer. So there's very much
with current AI technology. There's stillgarbage in, garbage out. So we
(25:15):
don't feed it with the right information, it's going to come up with the
wrong answers. We're talking to Spenceror Leria. Spencer is the CEO of
Active Opts North America. It's aglobal company. They're a leader in management
process automation. So automation is reallyyour thing right now. And you know,
I'm looking at and maybe the fastfood industry is a good place to
look at where automation is going.Your typical fast food and restaurant is paring
(25:38):
down out of necessity, paring downthe amount of people who are working there
because they have a difficult time fillingthose positions at least at a wage that
they can afford to pay, andstill be able to sell their product at
a at a price that people canafford to pay. More and more of
them have gone to the cafeteria slashkiosk approach, where the where you kind
of self served, you you goup and you order it a kiosk,
(26:02):
You ordered the food that you want, and your only interaction with the human
being is when your order is ready. I'm guessing we're going to get to
the point, are we not withfast food, that there's gonna be very
little need for any human being tobe on duty. Engine will be interested
in the way that the world changes. If we think about the financial services
(26:23):
sector, there are many people whosaid ten or even fifteen years ago that
bank branches would no longer exist.As consumers, we would only ever interact
with our bank over the internet.We'd never want to see another human.
And we went through that cycle,and we saw branches closing all around the
world. And then what happened aboutfive or six years ago when as consumers
we said, we don't like that. We want to be able to go
(26:45):
into our branch at times and sitin front of another human and talk to
them about our financial affairs. Sowhat happened we started having a competitive differentiator
from some banks who started reopening someof that branch network. So I see
that that food chain going through exactlythe same process. We're in part of
the cycle at the moment that saystake humans out the process and have that
kiosk, and then we'll start tosee some restaurants that open up and their
(27:07):
unique selling point will be that youget to go in and interact with a
human. And then we'll go aroundthe other the other end of the curve,
and we'll come back again. SoI do see these things that's been
sort of cyclical, and yes theychange, but you know, human humans
always find a way to interact withother humans. We're social animals at the
heart of everything we do, soI think that always drives change. In
the end, I think you're Ithink you're absolutely right about that. And
(27:27):
I think the lesson I give,if nothing else covered nineteen taught us that
lesson, didn't it that that wewe uniquely need other human beings, We
need to connect with other human beings. That we don't like being a little
vacuum all by ourselves only talking tomachines, that that's really not who we
are, and when we aren't interactingwith other human beings, it takes a
(27:48):
toll on our mental health. Absolutely. And one of the things that are
active ELPs we help our customers withhis data at the heart, at the
heart of everything we do. Sowe're helping organizations across North America measure and
monitor the workforce and what's going on. And if you've got that data,
you know who your introverts are andyou know who your extroverts are. You
(28:08):
can manage the individual differences of yourworkforce. You can get the best out
of people. Some people really flourishwhen working from home and don't have to
interact with another human. There's othersthat find it terrible and isolated working from
home when they need to get together. So helping those individuals, we help
companies measure those individuals and what theydo all designs to be as productive as
(28:30):
possible, but also, as yousay, look after people's well being and
make sure that we've got a workforcethat's healthy and fit for production. Yeah,
Soster, I've always been a littlesurprised that employers don't do more personality
testing when you hire people, notto weed people out because of their personality
traits, but just to figure outwho they are as individuals, what they're
going to respond to, what typeof what type of a management or manager
(28:53):
that they need in their lives inorder to be the most productive. I
would think that would be something thatwould be pretty basic for most companies,
but I don't know if anybody whodoes it. Do you well, there's
two bits for me. One isyou know the fundamental difference between behavior and
preference, and we're born with preferences, we display them as young children,
and then we learn how to behaveand control some of our preferences as we
(29:17):
get older. So what often happensif you only assess people through the interview
process is you get their behavior thenlearned behavior. And we all know certain
stresses in life, but when youget stressed, you tend to revert back
to your preferences, not your learnedbehavior. So one of the things we
help our customers do is in effect, measure people's performance in the real day
when they're working, because often theyrevert back to their preferences. If you
(29:38):
can find that out and you canunderstand that through data both are interview process
when you're training those employees and thenin their normal data day work patterns,
is you can understand that you knowwhat motivates people, you know what demotivates
people. You can play on people'sstrengths, you can maybe sure up some
of their weaknesses. That's at theheart of good management. If you can
find out the way that your peoplethink, and you can help you think
(30:00):
better than they'll work better, andyou know you'll workforce will be a more
productive place, makes all the sensein the world. Spencer, thank you
for joining me today. Good totalk to you, sir. Appreciate it,
you bet, Spencer. Larry Productivityan automation expert again, he's the
CEO of Active Ops North America.Back with more in a moment, Jimmy
Barrett, show here a name,nine fifty KPRC. All right, I
(30:30):
had no idea how many people areat the border today, how many people
are coming across the border, howmany people came across yesterday. And I
don't follow those numbers all that allthat closely. I do know that I
think that there probably are fewer peoplecoming across the border than we thought there
would be. Not that you know, the difference of a few thousand and
here are a few thousand there reallymatters. When we've had several million people
(30:53):
who have come into this country illegallyand are still here and probably will always
be here. But it's been it'sbeen funny, funny, haha, funny
for me to look at it stateslike New York. For example, in
New York City, where the mayorEric Adams has basically said, we don't
want to be a sanctuary city anymore. This is hard. We got people
(31:17):
coming here and they expect us tohelp them. Well, that was kind
of you. See, here's theproblem. I mean, if if you
just want to hang out the shinglethat says sanctuary city because you think it
makes you look good, then that'sjust virtue signaling and that's not really,
you know, supposedly what the missionis. If you put out a shingle
saying you're a sanctuary city, thatmeans that it doesn't matter if you're here
(31:42):
legally or not. You come here, we're going to help you. We're
looking out for you, We're hereto help. And now the mayor with
you know, over just several thousand. It only takes a few thousand people
in these sanctuary cities and sanctuary statesfor them go, oh, what are
we supposed to do with all thesepeople? In the meantime, of course,
we got a whole lot more ofthem here in Texas than they're ever
(32:05):
gonna have to deal with in NewYork and New York City. But there
you go sanctuary city that doesn't wantto be a sanctuary city anymore because it's
too hard. It's too hard.We didn't really mean that we were gonna
help anybody. We just wanted youto think we would. That's called virtue
signaling, is what that is.Okay, So what would you like us
to do? How would you likeus to fix your problem? Your quarrel
(32:30):
is up with us here in Texas. We don't like having people illegally coming
across the border either. It's justthat they're gonna come here. We think
we should share the wealth. Sowe didn't think you'd mind, you know,
y'all being a sanctuary city at all. We didn't think you would mind
if we just bust a few ofthose folks up there, you know,
because obviously you like them and youwant them around, So why not give
(32:51):
you what you want? Is whatyou asked for when you decided to be
a sanctuary city. So in themeantime, you know, as far as
what's going on around the border,we have a lot of people who are
being impacted. People, I meanregular people that you wouldn't think would get
impacted by this. And here's aperfect example. There's this couple in New
(33:14):
York State. This wasn't even inNew York City. This was in New
York State. And in order tobe able to house these illegals, which
they've decided, I guess that that'ssomething they want to do that they have
to, they have to get hotelrooms for these people. So they get
the hotel rooms. And it doesn'tseem to matter evidently to the hotel because
(33:36):
they must be paying top dollar forthese rooms. Right, there's a Choice
hotel somewhere in New York State,I'm not sure where about the upstate New
York where this couple was going tohave their wedding reception. And they in
the wedding party and you know,people attending, we're going to stay there.
So they reserved a block of roomsfor their wedding. Only they found
out that their rooms are no longeravailable to them because they're being used by
(34:00):
illegals whom I guessing are paying more, or at least the government is paying
more for them to be housed therethan this couple was going to pay with
the deal that they made with ChoiceHotels. So here is Jesse Waters on
his Fox show talking to this coupleabout getting kicked out of the hotel.
Regular Americans are getting kicked out ofhotels just so migrants can stay there instead.
(34:23):
Deanna and Gary, we're getting marriedand the wedding party and guests are
staying at a hotel in Newburgh,New York. Not anymore. Eric Adams
bust biden migrants to the hotel inNewburgh and they kicked out the entire wedding
party. Dana and Gary joined me. Now, so, first of all,
congratulations you guys, But second ofall, did Eric Adams, the
(34:47):
mayor here, apologize at all forkicking your whole wedding party out of the
hotel. Absolutely not. He didn'tsend you a gift off the registry or
anything. Okay, So let meget this straight. You guys have the
wedding plans, hotel is booked acouple weeks away. Now, migrants are
(35:08):
staying at your wedding hotel, andyou guys are scrambling what exactly happened here.
So basically, woke up the othermorning and got a phone call from
my sister that she turned around andto check out the news. Look at
your hotel. No phone call,no text mess no email from them about
(35:30):
handing cancelations. I called them upand the first things added them out to
or I asked them all. Iasked them about the migrants moving going in
there, is they are going tobe safe from my guests and ourselves to
be there. They say, no, you have nothing to worry about,
and in my heart them thinking okay, cool, and they're like, your
your reservation and your contract has beencanceled, and I hook, excuse me,
(35:55):
please repeat that for me, please, And so basically they said,
now there's nothing we can do.Everything's been taken care of. It's complete
madhouse in here, and there's nothingI can do. Talk to Choice and
they turned around, and I did. I called Choice twice. The first
time. I called us on holdfor forty five minutes, waiting for a
supervisor, and I talked to oneperson. They said, there's nothing they
(36:19):
can do. Nothing they can do, call the hotel and blame the back
and forth game. And as soonas I did speak with the supervisor,
they turned around and the supervisor informedme that there's nothing I can do.
You have a wonderful day, byebye, and hung up. Nothing I
could do, have a wonderful day. That there's subcustomer service huh. By
the way, he mentioned the cityof Newburg. Newburgh is about sixty miles
(36:44):
looked it up. Sixty miles northof New York City, ninety miles south
of Albany. It's on the HudsonRiver in the Hudson Valley area, located
near an international airport. So sixtymiles from New York City. So these
are these are New York City illegalsthat have been buzz evidently to Newburgh.
So they're they're spreading them out alittle bit. That's about an hour outside
(37:04):
of New York City. Yeah,that's that's always good for PR. Right,
you cancel a wedding party that hashad a long standing reservation so that
you can make more money by housingillegals who the government is going to pay
top dollar for it. That doesn'tstrike me as a very good PR move
for a hotel, not a verygood PR move at all. But that's
(37:29):
what's happening when you got the governmentwilling to spend top dollars. All Right,
Hey, y'all, have a greatday. All Right, we'll see
tomorrow morning Burton early five am.Scher A News Radio seven forty KTRH.
We are back here at four onthe A nine fifty KPRC
What we need is more common sense. Common We got us breaking down the
world's nonsense about power American common sense. We'll see us through with the common
sense of Houston. I'm just procommon sense for Houston. From Houston.
(00:24):
This is the Jimmy Barrett Show,brought to you by Viewin dot Com.
Now here's Jimmy Barrett. All right, we're here on a Wednesday. Welcome
AM nine fifty KPRS see Jimmy BarrettShow. Glad you could join us here
today. Let's UM, let's openwith us today. Let's talk about family
businesses, UM, and and inboth large and small. By the way,
(00:44):
both large and small. UM.We'll get to we'll get to a
really large one here in a second. But yeah, I'm I've oftentimes one
of my best friends in life isa guy by the name of Paul Rutherford.
And Paul owns a janitorial supply businessin rich In, Virginia. And
um, the business was started byPaul's grandfather and got handed down to Paul's
(01:15):
father, which eventually got handed downto him. And I get the impression,
you know, from what I knowof the family and the kids and
and that kind of stuff that that'sprobably where it will end is with Paul.
You know, that would be athird generation. And it's been interesting
to watch because you know, itstarted off as a very very small business
and then um, Paul's dad grewit, but didn't didn't grow it,
(01:40):
you know, by huge amounts.He grew it, but he grew it
just a little bit. And thenPaul got it and he has He has
grown that thing, like noise business. He's taking it from a very local
business to a more regional business andis highly successful to what he does now.
Paul had a brother who passed andseveral sisters, none of whom are
(02:04):
directly involved with the business, andnone who seem to have his business acumen.
Less just say, in order tobe able to run a family business.
And I get the impression that fromwhat I've read and in my conversations
with Paul, that what he hasdone is really kind of unusual, because
usually what happens is that somebody witha real passion in the family will start
(02:25):
a family business and then they willyou pass it on to the next in
line who may not have the samepassion or the same skill set. As
far as that goes, because youknow, kids are individual they don't necessarily
inherit all their parents straits, sothe business may end up going to somebody
who drives it into the ground becausethey really don't know what they're doing.
(02:47):
That didn't happen in his family's case. But like I said, there's nobody
coming up among He has three kids, and none of those three kids have
seemingly have any interest in his businessor learning more about his business, or
doing anything with this business. Soat some point in time, when Paul
decides to retire, he'll probably endup selling it to somebody and that'll be
(03:08):
the end of the family business.Not unusual, in fact, more unusual.
I think in his case that itlasted for three generations, then you
know that then it's going to cometo the end after the third generation.
A lot of family businesses don't survivepast the first generation. When you see
a family business that's been around forfifty plus years, you really have to
(03:29):
admire that because you know that there'sthere's some talent in that family, but
that has allowed them to make thatbusiness successful enough to survive. The same
can be said for a big business, and I would consider Fox News Channel
to be a big business. Youknow, for a long long time,
(03:50):
you know, Rupert Murdoch owned stilldoes. The family still owns Fox News
Network, and Rupert Murdoch gets alot of credit for creating Box News and
maybe too much because well you'll you'llsee in a moment that, um,
you know, that business is beingpassed along to the suns and they don't
seem to have the same business acumenas the old man. But on her
(04:13):
show, Megan Kelly, do youknow who beth Als is? Beth Ales
is the widow of Roger Ales,who ran Fox News Channel for for like
twenty five plus years. He's theguy that basically created it and put it
on the air and ran it.And since he has left, things have
slowly been surely gone into the intothe well, into the abyss, seemingly
(04:33):
these days with the firing of TuckerCarlson. So here is Megan Kelly from
her show yesterday talking about the tweetthat went out yesterday from Beth Ales,
the widow of Roger Ales, andtalking about the Murdoch family. The thing
that CNN needs and doesn't have isthey need a programming genius. They need
somebody who actually understands what will makewho who's our core audience and what will
(04:57):
make them tune in? Fox Newsis going through something similar? They really
are, and that leads me toBeth Ales in an extraordinary tweet. Extraordinary,
the widow of Roger Ailes last nighttweeted out the following, Happy heavenly
Birthday, Roger Ailes, it tookyou twenty years to build Fox News into
the powerhouse that it was, andonly six years for the Murdos to wreak
(05:21):
havoc. Rupert thought he could doyour job. What a joke. He
has the check book but could nevercome close to your genius. Rest in
peace. Whoa, whoa. Ihaven't heard her say anything at all since
Roger was ousted from Fox. Andthen she weighs in with that, and
(05:45):
I gotta hand it again to confideher or Daily Beast and Lachlan Cartwright,
who did what journalists are supposed todo. He saw the tweet, picked
up his phone and he cold calledher and got her talking. I mean
literally, I see this person todo an interview in the entire time since
Roger was housted. Ever mind died, and this is what he reports.
(06:06):
Confider saw that tweet immediately cold calledElizabeth and then spent who then spent half
an hour absolutely railing against the Murdochfamily. And they're handling him a post
ales Fox News quote. Roger neverhad his hand off the wheel when he
came to Fox, I agree,Megan Kelly speaking there, contrasting it with
the Murdochs, who, she said, quote, weren't born here and don't
(06:27):
have the same pedigree. Roger wasborn and he was raised in Ohio,
in Youngstown, Ohio, where hedug ditches for a living. He understood
America, Middle America. He understoodthe coastal elites. He knew exactly who
the audience was and what the needwas for Fox News to be born in
the first place. And he didhave his hands on the steering wheel ten
into the entire time, mostly becausethis thing pulls to the left, as
he used to say about news,but also because it can pull too far
(06:50):
to the right, and Roger knewwhen too course correct when that happened too.
She goes on to say about LachlanMurdoch, I was told he's a
spearfish. H I don't know ifhe spends time in the office. This
is one of the criticisms of himthat when he came in and took over,
what he really wanted to do isrun the movie studios, not be
stuck at twelve eleven sixth Avenue runningyou know, the cable operation, which
(07:12):
isn't as sexy as the Hollywood stars. Recalled that Roger used to refer to
brothers James and Lachlan as Tweedledum andTweedledumber, respectively. I can also confirm
that, having heard it many timesfrom Roger Els. But she saved most
of her ire for the patriarch Rupert, whom she described as a jealous man
who fired her husband because Roger eclipsedRupert on the world stage. Interesting,
(07:36):
and you know that's that's that's awife talking, right, That's a wife
talking about her her dead husband.But there's a lot to be said for
who's really running the show, whois the creative genius behind any business,
big or small, and whether ornot that can be duplicated once that individual
is gone. And I think thecase in Fox News can be made that
(07:57):
without Roger Ailes there in order toguide the ship, there's there's there's a
vacuum there of people who know orcare about what the product is and what
it is that they're doing. Thekids, the Murdoch kids are now in
charge of Fox News and one weguess they really don't care that much about
the product as much as they justcare about, you know, collecting the
(08:18):
money. I think more than anythingelse. You got to care about more
than just the income in order tomake something like that successful. Quick,
a little break back with Morena momentJimmy Barrett Show here at AM nine fifty
KPRC. All Right, this segment, we're gonna go back and talk a
(08:41):
little bit more about the Durham reportsthat took four years in order to in
order to compulate um and from whichthe question becomes, from which will anything
change? Will anything happen? Willanybody be prosecuted? Anybody who was going
to get prosecuted, has order beenprosecuted. They're not going to be prosecuting
James Coming. They're not gonna beprosecuting Christopher Ray. There'll be nobody from
(09:05):
the FBI who's going to, youknow, lose their job. I don't
think over this. There is nobodyfrom any government agency, no matter how
weapinized they are, including the InternalRevenue Service, is likely to lose their
job. There's plenty of Republicans,mainstream Republicans, you know, the the
(09:28):
Republicans who cost the problems as faras I'm concerned, the ones, the
ones that just you know, wantto get along, go along, and
get along, go along, getalong. Republicans aren't going to do anything
about this. They're not gonna screamand shout, and the same thing will
happen as always happens in Washington,d C. Nothing will really change,
which is why people have become apatheticand why you know how I mean,
(09:54):
think of it this way, howhow much can we care? How much
can we care? I mean,I can, I can rail about this,
you can rail about this to everybodyyou know. But but if you
know nothing is going to change asa result of it, then how much
anger are you willing to spend onit? How much how much energy are
you willing to put into something whendeep down inside you know nothing is going
(10:16):
to change. And I realize howdefeat is that sounds. And I'm not
going to let it keep me fromtalking about it. It's just I'm trying.
I'm trying to be a realist aboutall this stuff. The vast majority
of it will never be reported.It won't be reported by the you know,
the alphabet media, the ABC,CBS, NBC crowd. They're not
talking about, just like they don'ttalk about Hunter Biden. And the vast
(10:39):
majority of people out there who don'tpay a lot of attention to what's going
on in the world of politics won'teither won't know anything about it, or
whatever viewpoint they have will be shapedby the liberal media, and therefore they're
not going to agree with you anyway. If we were to do a nation
I wonder if we were to doa nationwide pole right now, how many
people would think that Joe Biden isand his family are corrupt. It'd be
(11:05):
interesting to do a pole. There'sway to do a poll. I would
love to know the results of thatpole and not and and just take it
in hold, take it all acrossthe country, and just try to come
up with some servic insensus if wecan might I would not be the least
surprised if the majority of Americans don'tthink that Joe Biden is corrupt or don't
(11:26):
know if he's corrupt or not,versus those who think he is. And
that's horrible to say. Um,some of it is based on their own
true you know, they know thestory and they choose to believe what they
choose to believe, just like Ichoose to believe what I choose to believe,
or they just you know, whatthey know about the story is what
the leftists hold him and therefore that'sother opinion was formed. So I think
(11:48):
that's kind of where we're at rightnow, which is a shame, because
we have some major problems. Wehave a major We have major problems right
now with two institutions in particular.Um, I guess I could I could
say the Department of Justice and kindof roll it all into one, but
as subsidiaries of the Department of Justice, the FBI is a major problem,
(12:09):
and the Internal Revenue Service is goingto be a major problem. But let's
start with the problem we have now, which is the FBI, which is
run from Washington, DC now,not from the field offices. It is
run by a hierarchy that is verypolitically slanted to the left and is protecting
(12:31):
the president, protecting Hunter Biden,and protecting a lot of other people as
well, just like Hillary Clinton wasprotected and a lot of other liberals were
protected. Two different forms of justicedepending upon where you are in the political
spectrum on the right or on theleft. Go after the right and leave
the left alone and protect them.Basically is what's going on. But let's
go ahead and start with a coupleof analyzes, if you will, of
(12:54):
what's going on with the Durham reportand what we expect to see happen or
guess what we want to see hempen. First of all, the box business
here was LORII cudlo. The FBIlacked any actual evidence of collusion between mister
Trump, his campaign and Russia.In fact, the Wall Street Journal suggests
(13:15):
that the whole biased FBI probe mayhave started as a Russian intelligence operation.
Now, someone who's followed these Russianhoax goings on while in office in the
government, and since I did notknow that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved
a proposal from one of her foreignpolicy advisors to deliberately attack Trump by creating
(13:39):
a phony scandal regarding Russia, Ididn't know that. According to the Wall
Street Journal editorial today, this wasnews to me. Former CIA director John
Brennan briefed this to President Obama.Get this, Vice President Biden, Attorney
General Loretta Lynch, and FBI DirectorComey. They all heard about this phony
(14:01):
plan and campaign, and then theFBI refused to act either on this phony
campaign or later on the phony Steeledossier. Remember Steele, he was working
for the Clinton campaign. So Obamaknew, Biden knew, Hillary Clinton knew,
ag Lynch new, FBI Director Comyk new, CIA Director Brandon knew
(14:22):
that this is all a phony campaignoperation from day one. Maybe some of
you folks knew about these meetings,but I hadn't read about it before,
and I'm astonished at one. Rightto the top, mister Joham's report chronicles
just how left wing biased the FBIwas, including bringing phony materials to the
fis Accord that the FBI knew werephony, was stuff drummed up, and
(14:46):
other left wing pro Hillary water carryingby these discredited FBI people Kleine Smith,
Lisa Page, your boyfriend, PeterStrock, and of course the mainstream media
going along with all of it everystep of the way. Paulitzer Prizes were
one they all ought to be givenback. Oh by the way, they
(15:07):
asked the Washington Post, Hey,are you guys going to give back your
pilotzerprise. No, we stand bythe story all you mean the story that
that that you know that that itwas Russian misinformation. Yeah, we stand
by that story. Well, Ithink you know it's been proven that that
story is not correct. We don'tcare, but we're it's our prize.
(15:28):
We're keeping it. So so theWashington Post they will return nothing. They
are not returning their pilotzerprise. Allright, here's a presidential candidates take on
this. Let's see what that Ramaswamythinks needs to happen with the FBI.
This is deeply concerning, and itjust reaffirms a call that I made in
early March to say that the nextpresident actually needs to shut down the FBI.
(15:54):
This is a corrupt institution that hasrepeatedly revealed itself to be politicized.
The same FBI that went after MartinLuther King now effectively went after Donald Trump.
And I think when you have anadministrative rot that runs that deep,
you cannot reform it top down.You have to actually shut it down.
And I think that's possible. Andif you think about it, at the
(16:14):
local level, you have local policeand you have a prosecutor. You don't
have an investigative unit in between.At the federal level you have US Marshals
and the Department of Justice. Whenyou have a bureaucracy that sits in between,
that is a formula for corruption.That's what we see here in the
Durham Report. This is selective actualinvestigation and eventually selective prosecution. That is
not justice. That is a perversionof justice. And what we need in
(16:38):
the federal government, including in federallaw enforcement, is reinstilling a culture of
the rule of law, not viewingthe law as a constraint or an inconvenience,
but the motivation for actual federal lawenforcement itself. That culture is completely
missing at the FBI. Prosecuting certainthings while making up investigations on others depending
on your politics. That not justice. And it's going to take a president
(17:00):
who leads and is willing to takethe actual hard steps like shutting down this
institution and reinstilling a culture of therule of law itself. As I alluded
to, they went after Martin LutherKing in the nineteen sixties, So this
should not be a partisan issue.I think it's not a partisan issue.
We ultimately want a law enforcement agencythat is blind to politics. That is
(17:21):
not what we have today. Andpart of the problem is that bureaucracy is
so vast it's still the j.Edgar Hoover Building in Washington, DC,
that those people who work at theFBI walk into it becomes part of the
culture of the institution itself. Thisis not constitutional. The fourth branch of
government broadly is not constitutional, andI think the next president of the United
States has a chance to fix it. That's what I've been saying for months,
(17:42):
that I would shut down the FBIbut still have a federal law enforcement
apparatus that actually gets the job done. Wow. Okay, so he thinks
the FBI is hopelessly broken, andhe may be right about that. I
mean, if you go back inthe history the FBI, back to the
Jager who the FBI was flawed.Back then, it was flawed from a
(18:04):
from a conservative standpoint, though alittle bit different, you know, because
they treated conservatives differently than they didliberals. They went after liberals and left
the conservatives alone. So there's alwaysbeen this presumption that the FBI is even
handed and follows the letter of thelaw. But I don't know that that's
ever really been the case when youget right down to it. Maybe maybe
(18:26):
it's time to blow it up.Maybe there is no fixing the FBI.
I'll no, I'm not sure onthat one. Back with Mortal Moment Jimmy
Barrett show here an ame nine fiftyKPRC. All right, we've talked a
(18:47):
lot on the show about artificial intelligence. Is it good? Is it bad?
Whether whether it's good or it's bad. Ultimately, I guess time will
tell ultimately whether it's good or bad. Whatever it is, it's here and
is going to grow. And thereare estimates that up to I hate to
think this is true, but upto eighty percent of jobs in the next
(19:07):
few years could end up being replacedby AI and applications like chat GPT.
Now some things would make sense tome. For example, who really wants
to work in a call center?Who really wants to work in a call
center? And who? I mean, it's a job for people. It's
mainly an overseas job for people atthis point. And I think Americans are
(19:30):
frustrated when when you do end upin call center, hell, talking to
somebody with a foreign accent that's difficultto understand. Who says they're Bob in
Brooklyn and you know they're not Boband Brooklyn and maybe it would be better
to talk to artificial intelligence. Maybeartificial intelligence intelligence would do a better job
of being helpful. So there aresome things that actually could be improved or
(19:52):
at the very least wouldn't possibly beany worse if they're replaced by AI.
But there are other things. Well, I guess that's what we're going to
get into right now. Spencer orLarry joins us Spencer is an expert when
it comes to productivity and automation.He's at O'Leary OPS or active ops,
I should say active ops dot com. Spencer O'Leary at activeops dot com.
(20:15):
Spencer, welcome dam nine fifty KPRCUM. What do you make of this idea
that maybe up to eighty percent ofour jobs could be replaced by AI in
just a few years. Well,I think here's some similarities between technological change
over the decades that we've gone throughin the past one hundred years or so.
But I do think there's some fundamentaldifferences with the way that AI,
(20:38):
it's been sort of self generative,is starting to change. But you know,
some of these statistics I think Isort of read with surprise and horror
of replacing the work that humans do. I definitely say it's going to change
the work that humans do. Butif we think back to the Industrial Revolution
that changed the way that most humanson this planet work. If we think
(21:00):
about the inventive robotic process automation,the RPA industry, that was something that
came out maybe ten fifteen years ago, and again as it's fundamentally changed a
lot of the repetitive balling work thathumans no longer have to do. But
it hasn't really replaced human activity.It's just changed what people do. And
I think with the invent of AIand things like chat GPT, that's just
(21:21):
going to extend and continue to changethe work that humans do. Well,
you know, the automotive I'm fromDetroit originally, so the automotive business is
certainly an example that I can relateto. And you're right, you'll go
to a typical assembly line. Theassembly line of twenty twenty three is a
whole lot different than the assembly lineof nineteen seventy three, where you basically
had cars being put together by humanbeings. And the joke in Detroit back
(21:44):
in nineteen seventy three, By theway, as you may rather enough,
you've been around long enough to knowthat. But a Detroit made car in
nineteen seventy three was not nearly ofthe same quality as a Detroit made car
in twenty twenty three. And it'sbasically because of human error, you know,
basically an error. And they usedto say never buy, never buy
a car built on a Friday becausebecause of be full of problems. Those
(22:07):
types of things don't exist in theworld of robotics, do they They don't.
I mean, it's hugely accurate,repetitive work that's done. But what
robots tend to struggle with and yourcalls into examples recently, as consumers,
you know, the time that wedo want to speak to a human is
genuinely when something's gone wrong and wewant the empathy of a human to help
(22:30):
us fix that in a timely andcaring manner. And that's the thing that
whether it's you know, the industryrevolution, whether it's the invent of robotic
automation or now with AI, thatthat's the bit that's really hard, and
it's the bit that as consumers weresist, We don't mind. In fact,
some of us prefer to use achatbot to do something, to interact
answer a question but when we wantthat empathy and fixing something that's complex or
(22:55):
fixing something that's gone wrong, asconsumers, we want to speak to a
human. That's why we get frustratedwith some of those call centers. So
I do think that this is goingto change the work that people do rather
than replace it. Well, youbrought up, you brought up the empathy
or lack. There is a relatesartificial intelligence, but how long before they
build that into AI as well?And they're already starting to So there's examples
(23:19):
where interaction with a chatboat or interactionwith an AI engine is really hard to
know that it wasn't a human thatwas coming back at you. So I
do think that's where this part ofour revolution using technology is different. That
AI is now generative, so it'steaching itself. And you'll see right throughout
(23:41):
the media there's lots of talk aboutdrawing the lines of where we're going to
again as consumers and as humans,where are we going to accept AI in
our lives and where are we goingto draw the line and say that's one
step too far? I guess,I guess that's always the scary part.
That's the scary part that people aretalking about right, And I think again,
empathy is a good example. IfAI can learn empathy, what other
human behaviors can it learn? Andthen at what point does AI no longer
(24:06):
become artificial? At what point doesit now become almost human intelligence? And
how do we do how do wetell the difference between AI and human intelligence
when they're both acting exactly the sameway. And I think today it's certainly
in my experience, there's still youknow, AI is not perfect. I
also think the phrases like AI ormL machine learning there they're misunderstood in terms
(24:29):
of what that technology is and whatthat technology does. I see lots of
publications that talk about, you know, this solution uses AI. Actually when
you go and look at it,it doesn't. It just uses a clever
algorithm that's not really aim. SoI think as as society, as we
learn about these new technologies, that'llthat'll start to become clearer. But I
think that there's also you remember,these these tools are only as good as
(24:53):
what you teach them. So ifwe think about chat GPT, I remember
the exact day, I think itwas October twenty one, So since October
twenty twenty one, chat GPT hasnot been taught anything new, so if
you ask it a question about theend of twenty twenty two, it's kind
of not going to be able toknow the answer. So there's very much
with current AI technology. There's stillgarbage in, garbage out. So we
(25:15):
don't feed it with the right information, it's going to come up with the
wrong answers. We're talking to Spenceror Leria. Spencer is the CEO of
Active Opts North America. It's aglobal company. They're a leader in management
process automation. So automation is reallyyour thing right now. And you know,
I'm looking at and maybe the fastfood industry is a good place to
look at where automation is going.Your typical fast food and restaurant is paring
(25:38):
down out of necessity, paring downthe amount of people who are working there
because they have a difficult time fillingthose positions at least at a wage that
they can afford to pay, andstill be able to sell their product at
a at a price that people canafford to pay. More and more of
them have gone to the cafeteria slashkiosk approach, where the where you kind
of self served, you you goup and you order it a kiosk,
(26:02):
You ordered the food that you want, and your only interaction with the human
being is when your order is ready. I'm guessing we're going to get to
the point, are we not withfast food, that there's gonna be very
little need for any human being tobe on duty. Engine will be interested
in the way that the world changes. If we think about the financial services
(26:23):
sector, there are many people whosaid ten or even fifteen years ago that
bank branches would no longer exist.As consumers, we would only ever interact
with our bank over the internet.We'd never want to see another human.
And we went through that cycle,and we saw branches closing all around the
world. And then what happened aboutfive or six years ago when as consumers
we said, we don't like that. We want to be able to go
(26:45):
into our branch at times and sitin front of another human and talk to
them about our financial affairs. Sowhat happened we started having a competitive differentiator
from some banks who started reopening someof that branch network. So I see
that that food chain going through exactlythe same process. We're in part of
the cycle at the moment that saystake humans out the process and have that
kiosk, and then we'll start tosee some restaurants that open up and their
(27:07):
unique selling point will be that youget to go in and interact with a
human. And then we'll go aroundthe other the other end of the curve,
and we'll come back again. SoI do see these things that's been
sort of cyclical, and yes theychange, but you know, human humans
always find a way to interact withother humans. We're social animals at the
heart of everything we do, soI think that always drives change. In
the end, I think you're Ithink you're absolutely right about that. And
(27:27):
I think the lesson I give,if nothing else covered nineteen taught us that
lesson, didn't it that that wewe uniquely need other human beings, We
need to connect with other human beings. That we don't like being a little
vacuum all by ourselves only talking tomachines, that that's really not who we
are, and when we aren't interactingwith other human beings, it takes a
(27:48):
toll on our mental health. Absolutely. And one of the things that are
active ELPs we help our customers withhis data at the heart, at the
heart of everything we do. Sowe're helping organizations across North America measure and
monitor the workforce and what's going on. And if you've got that data,
you know who your introverts are andyou know who your extroverts are. You
(28:08):
can manage the individual differences of yourworkforce. You can get the best out
of people. Some people really flourishwhen working from home and don't have to
interact with another human. There's othersthat find it terrible and isolated working from
home when they need to get together. So helping those individuals, we help
companies measure those individuals and what theydo all designs to be as productive as
(28:30):
possible, but also, as yousay, look after people's well being and
make sure that we've got a workforcethat's healthy and fit for production. Yeah,
Soster, I've always been a littlesurprised that employers don't do more personality
testing when you hire people, notto weed people out because of their personality
traits, but just to figure outwho they are as individuals, what they're
going to respond to, what typeof what type of a management or manager
(28:53):
that they need in their lives inorder to be the most productive. I
would think that would be something thatwould be pretty basic for most companies,
but I don't know if anybody whodoes it. Do you well, there's
two bits for me. One isyou know the fundamental difference between behavior and
preference, and we're born with preferences, we display them as young children,
and then we learn how to behaveand control some of our preferences as we
(29:17):
get older. So what often happensif you only assess people through the interview
process is you get their behavior thenlearned behavior. And we all know certain
stresses in life, but when youget stressed, you tend to revert back
to your preferences, not your learnedbehavior. So one of the things we
help our customers do is in effect, measure people's performance in the real day
when they're working, because often theyrevert back to their preferences. If you
(29:38):
can find that out and you canunderstand that through data both are interview process
when you're training those employees and thenin their normal data day work patterns,
is you can understand that you knowwhat motivates people, you know what demotivates
people. You can play on people'sstrengths, you can maybe sure up some
of their weaknesses. That's at theheart of good management. If you can
find out the way that your peoplethink, and you can help you think
(30:00):
better than they'll work better, andyou know you'll workforce will be a more
productive place, makes all the sensein the world. Spencer, thank you
for joining me today. Good totalk to you, sir. Appreciate it,
you bet, Spencer. Larry Productivityan automation expert again, he's the
CEO of Active Ops North America.Back with more in a moment, Jimmy
Barrett, show here a name,nine fifty KPRC. All right, I
(30:30):
had no idea how many people areat the border today, how many people
are coming across the border, howmany people came across yesterday. And I
don't follow those numbers all that allthat closely. I do know that I
think that there probably are fewer peoplecoming across the border than we thought there
would be. Not that you know, the difference of a few thousand and
here are a few thousand there reallymatters. When we've had several million people
(30:53):
who have come into this country illegallyand are still here and probably will always
be here. But it's been it'sbeen funny, funny, haha, funny
for me to look at it stateslike New York. For example, in
New York City, where the mayorEric Adams has basically said, we don't
want to be a sanctuary city anymore. This is hard. We got people
(31:17):
coming here and they expect us tohelp them. Well, that was kind
of you. See, here's theproblem. I mean, if if you
just want to hang out the shinglethat says sanctuary city because you think it
makes you look good, then that'sjust virtue signaling and that's not really,
you know, supposedly what the missionis. If you put out a shingle
saying you're a sanctuary city, thatmeans that it doesn't matter if you're here
(31:42):
legally or not. You come here, we're going to help you. We're
looking out for you, We're hereto help. And now the mayor with
you know, over just several thousand. It only takes a few thousand people
in these sanctuary cities and sanctuary statesfor them go, oh, what are
we supposed to do with all thesepeople? In the meantime, of course,
we got a whole lot more ofthem here in Texas than they're ever
(32:05):
gonna have to deal with in NewYork and New York City. But there
you go sanctuary city that doesn't wantto be a sanctuary city anymore because it's
too hard. It's too hard.We didn't really mean that we were gonna
help anybody. We just wanted youto think we would. That's called virtue
signaling, is what that is.Okay, So what would you like us
to do? How would you likeus to fix your problem? Your quarrel
(32:30):
is up with us here in Texas. We don't like having people illegally coming
across the border either. It's justthat they're gonna come here. We think
we should share the wealth. Sowe didn't think you'd mind, you know,
y'all being a sanctuary city at all. We didn't think you would mind
if we just bust a few ofthose folks up there, you know,
because obviously you like them and youwant them around, So why not give
(32:51):
you what you want? Is whatyou asked for when you decided to be
a sanctuary city. So in themeantime, you know, as far as
what's going on around the border,we have a lot of people who are
being impacted. People, I meanregular people that you wouldn't think would get
impacted by this. And here's aperfect example. There's this couple in New
(33:14):
York State. This wasn't even inNew York City. This was in New
York State. And in order tobe able to house these illegals, which
they've decided, I guess that that'ssomething they want to do that they have
to, they have to get hotelrooms for these people. So they get
the hotel rooms. And it doesn'tseem to matter evidently to the hotel because
(33:36):
they must be paying top dollar forthese rooms. Right, there's a Choice
hotel somewhere in New York State,I'm not sure where about the upstate New
York where this couple was going tohave their wedding reception. And they in
the wedding party and you know,people attending, we're going to stay there.
So they reserved a block of roomsfor their wedding. Only they found
out that their rooms are no longeravailable to them because they're being used by
(34:00):
illegals whom I guessing are paying more, or at least the government is paying
more for them to be housed therethan this couple was going to pay with
the deal that they made with ChoiceHotels. So here is Jesse Waters on
his Fox show talking to this coupleabout getting kicked out of the hotel.
Regular Americans are getting kicked out ofhotels just so migrants can stay there instead.
(34:23):
Deanna and Gary, we're getting marriedand the wedding party and guests are
staying at a hotel in Newburgh,New York. Not anymore. Eric Adams
bust biden migrants to the hotel inNewburgh and they kicked out the entire wedding
party. Dana and Gary joined me. Now, so, first of all,
congratulations you guys, But second ofall, did Eric Adams, the
(34:47):
mayor here, apologize at all forkicking your whole wedding party out of the
hotel. Absolutely not. He didn'tsend you a gift off the registry or
anything. Okay, So let meget this straight. You guys have the
wedding plans, hotel is booked acouple weeks away. Now, migrants are
(35:08):
staying at your wedding hotel, andyou guys are scrambling what exactly happened here.
So basically, woke up the othermorning and got a phone call from
my sister that she turned around andto check out the news. Look at
your hotel. No phone call,no text mess no email from them about
(35:30):
handing cancelations. I called them upand the first things added them out to
or I asked them all. Iasked them about the migrants moving going in
there, is they are going tobe safe from my guests and ourselves to
be there. They say, no, you have nothing to worry about,
and in my heart them thinking okay, cool, and they're like, your
your reservation and your contract has beencanceled, and I hook, excuse me,
(35:55):
please repeat that for me, please, And so basically they said,
now there's nothing we can do.Everything's been taken care of. It's complete
madhouse in here, and there's nothingI can do. Talk to Choice and
they turned around, and I did. I called Choice twice. The first
time. I called us on holdfor forty five minutes, waiting for a
supervisor, and I talked to oneperson. They said, there's nothing they
(36:19):
can do. Nothing they can do, call the hotel and blame the back
and forth game. And as soonas I did speak with the supervisor,
they turned around and the supervisor informedme that there's nothing I can do.
You have a wonderful day, byebye, and hung up. Nothing I
could do, have a wonderful day. That there's subcustomer service huh. By
the way, he mentioned the cityof Newburg. Newburgh is about sixty miles
(36:44):
looked it up. Sixty miles northof New York City, ninety miles south
of Albany. It's on the HudsonRiver in the Hudson Valley area, located
near an international airport. So sixtymiles from New York City. So these
are these are New York City illegalsthat have been buzz evidently to Newburgh.
So they're they're spreading them out alittle bit. That's about an hour outside
(37:04):
of New York City. Yeah,that's that's always good for PR. Right,
you cancel a wedding party that hashad a long standing reservation so that
you can make more money by housingillegals who the government is going to pay
top dollar for it. That doesn'tstrike me as a very good PR move
for a hotel, not a verygood PR move at all. But that's
(37:29):
what's happening when you got the governmentwilling to spend top dollars. All Right,
Hey, y'all, have a greatday. All Right, we'll see
tomorrow morning Burton early five am.Scher A News Radio seven forty KTRH.
We are back here at four onthe A nine fifty KPRC
Popular Podcasts
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.