1-27-25 - 9am - DeepSeek China AI and Information

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, Wait till those people with the cute winter boots,
you know, the ones protect them from ice, run into
the people with sturdy autumn boots, you know, to protect
from fall.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
So, as I predicted earlier this morning, according to Yahoo Finance,
the NASDAK sunk to lead a stock sell off on
Wall Street as a Chinese startup rattled faith in US
leadership and profitability in AI artificial intelligence, taking a hammer

(00:33):
to Nvidia and other big stocks. The tech heavy NASDAK composite.
See what the time this was? This was at seven
thirty Mountain time. The tech heavy Nasdaq composite sank two
point two percent. The S and P five hundred dropped
one point four percent. The Dow Jones industrials fell just
below the flat line on the heels of a winning

(00:54):
week for the major gauges. So what's going on? What
really is this Chinese app? It's called deep Seat model
number are one, and it has sent shock waves through
the AI community and obviously affecting global markets. You think

(01:17):
about how AI is beginning to affect everything, and some good,
some bad. I kind of embrace it. I don't think
it's I think I think like any technology, I mean,
think about we go from horse drawn buggies to automobiles. Well,
who wants to get rid of the automobile except for

(01:37):
a bunch of Marxist liberals. But they do bring about carnage. Now,
the cars themselves don't, but the people that drive them do.
And the same thing will be true with AI. It
won't be necessarily that AI itself is inherently evil, but
the evil people will use AI for evil purposes.

Speaker 3 (01:58):
That sounds very familiar to I can't put my trigger,
you can't put your trigger finger on it.

Speaker 2 (02:05):
Maybe something will trigger in your mind in a minute,
about some other product like that, some new technology. Something
will fire up, maybe something like maybe came after the
bow and arrow or something. Shoot. I just can't think
of anything. No, I don't know. Well, it'll, you know,
fire off in your arm. Pretty soon you'll figure out
what it was, or you'll do that, you know, iile Hitler,

(02:25):
salute like Elon. Must know. You'll fire that off and
your arm will fly up, and some day, you know,
maybe if, maybe, if somebody put a gun to your head,
you think about it. That often happens to me. Yeah,
you're about to, even though you no longer are literally
the biggest ass in the building. You are nonetheless a

(02:46):
big ass. You're just you're as bad as the listeners.
Just try, just trying to derail me at every opportunity.

Speaker 3 (02:55):
I can't help it if you make correlations that you
are andly obvious, barely even here right now, My kids
are at the hospital.

Speaker 2 (03:10):
So when do they actually do the I don't know, soon.

Speaker 3 (03:14):
I'm sure to those who are following along at home,
my second grandson is scheduled to arrive today, So they
are at the hospital right now making that happen.

Speaker 2 (03:26):
Which is why I'm a major even paying the attention
to anything that I'm saying at all.

Speaker 3 (03:29):
I see, huh, But as soon as the show is over,
I'm gone. I'm not even paying attention right now?

Speaker 2 (03:34):
What am I talking about? I've been paying attention all
day long. By the way, we should say publicly happy
birthday yesterday to missus Redbeard. Ah, she would love that. Yeah, well,
I just did stupid. What do you think I just did? Good?
Free So back to AI, which we could clearly use
back in the control room. Hell's belts artificial. I'd just

(03:57):
be happy for any intelligence in the control room, you
know what I mean?

Speaker 3 (04:01):
Just any Kelly's back here.

Speaker 2 (04:03):
Like I said, I'd be happy to have any intelligence
in the control room right now. So back to AI.
So so China obviously, like everything else, they want to
be They want to be the global leader. And I
don't know what it is about twenty thirty. Is is
twenty thirty like the end of the world. Do we
have some preacher somewhere out in California telling us the.

Speaker 3 (04:25):
Twenty twelve thing? It's the Mayan prophecy?

Speaker 2 (04:27):
Is that what it is is twenty thirty now, because
that's the end of the internal combustion engine. That's that
if we don't solve you know, climate change by twenty thirty,
we're all gonna die. And that China wants to be
the global leader and everything by including AI by twenty thirty.
Now why well, for the same reason that Donald Trump

(04:49):
brought together Sam Altman and Larry Ellison or Oracle whoever was,
they brought them all together to talk about this, you know,
multi billion dollar investment in AI, because it really is
going to transform business. It has the ability to enhance
national security, It will elevate whoever advances the fastest and

(05:13):
the best in It will elevate their global standing. And
China wants to be the first mover advantage in AI.
Why because it allows them to dominate so many things
that are important to all countries, not just us. So
to get this advantage, China has been pursuing certain strategies.

(05:38):
You know, it's amazing to me that people don't understand
why the Chinese economy sucks so badly because one of
their strategies, for example, is investing in AI research and development. Well,
that takes money. Well do you think a bunch of
private companies in China have the money to do this? No,

(06:00):
it all comes from the Chinese government. They drive everything.
And so you think we're wild spenders. They make us
look like we're very conservative spenders. They want to develop
domestic AI infrastructure, so they're doing you know, I'm still
waiting to get you know, a true five G wireless

(06:22):
in my neighborhood and you know five G Internet in
my home. I'm still stuck with you know, Exfinity. Well,
and think about the people in a real county, real counties,
they're still just like hey, can I just get a hookup?
Or somebody's looking for a charging station in out the
middle of nowhere could I just get a charging station?

(06:43):
And of course they're going to prioritize AI applications across
all of their economic sectors healthcare, finance, surveillance, all because
AI does what It drives efficiency and it drives innovation.
And of course they're watching everything happens with AI all
across the world. So in twenty twenty three, leang win

(07:09):
Thing started to start up deep seek and it gained
a lot of attention because of its advanced AI models,
particularly the most recently released one over the weekend, the
R one model. Deep Seek's most current model really has

(07:29):
demonstrated some impressive performance on various benchmarks. It rivals and
even surpasses some established models from our tech giants like
open ai and Google. But it claims that this latest
iteration offers performance on par with open Aiye's latest model

(07:51):
and ranks among the top performers on the UC Berkeley
affiliated leader board called chat bott Arena. But deep seeks
claims of achieving this breakthrough with limited resources and in
such a very short time frame. Now I know, don't

(08:11):
get me wrong. I understand that China steals a lot
of intellectual property from everybody, including US, but nonetheless I
remain skeptical about this. They claim to have developed this
particular model in less than two years with how much money.
Do you think they've spent a billion dollars? You'd be

(08:34):
way off one hundred million dollars, You'd be way off
five point six million dollars. Now they're using Nvidia H
eight hundred chips, which are probably the least advanced of
the Nvidia chips. So considering that claim, it's really striking

(08:57):
considering the huge investment's made by our companies. You think
about Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, Google and the number of h
one chips purchased just last year by those companies. Microsoft

(09:18):
almost half a million, Meta about three hundred and fifty thousand,
Amazon one hundred and ninety six thousand, Google about one
hundred and sixty nine thousand. So deep Seek's approach really
challenges the traditional capital intensive model of AI development that
we've seen across the world. They emphasize research, They employ

(09:39):
an open source strategy. I think that's probably trying to
gain a competitive edge, maybe gaining some market share by
having an all open source. But they claim that it
does not engage in external project cooperation, does not provide
privatization deployment because that way you can avoid scrutiny and

(10:03):
maintain control over your technology. So their timeline includes the
release of the original code in November of twenty three,
followed by version two and then version three and finally
are one in January twenty twenty five, which is pretty

(10:26):
fast when you think about it. It employs a mixture
of experts in terms of their mission, mixture of experts architecture.
They have six hundred and seventy one billion total parameters,
but only thirty seven billion of those are actually activated
per task, which means they're not using the full advantage

(10:47):
of it. Deep Deep Seek R one has however, achieved
some pretty impressive metrics math five hundred. They're ninety seven
point three accuracy. Let's see the out packing evaluation two
point zero, about eighty seven percent accuracy. Code forces there

(11:09):
in the ninety six percentile. But even though that's impressive,
and I think that's what has the market spooked, this
particular AI system has some really serious limitations, such as
mixing English and Chinese responses because they haven't fine tuned

(11:30):
that yet, and despite our export restrictions on high end
AI chips to China. We now have evidence that Chinese entities,
including military and state run labs, had been acquiring in
Vidia's A one hundred and h one hundred chips through
a bunch of different channels. Those chips are crucial to

(11:54):
developing advanced AI models, and China getting those chips despite
the ban indicates to me, yeah, there's probably been some
violation of export controls and possible Chinese government support for
the violation of those export controls. And one of the

(12:14):
ways that Chinese companies are acquiring these chips is you
establish entities in nearby countries to purchase them before they're
sent on into mainland China. And then of course you
can always smuggle the chips through various routes, online platforms,
physical markets. So the availability of these advanced chips that

(12:36):
we say China can't have despite the band suggests that
our export controls may not be very effective. But what
if all of this was a plot by the Chinese
Communist Party as a SCIO. In fact, they're trying to
trick us, instill fear in us that, oh my god,

(12:59):
they're getting a out of us. Well, first and foremost,
deep seats ties to the Chinese Communist Party itself. The
founder Lee and Ween thing that I mentioned earlier is
closely tied to the Chinese Communist Party. But two, look

(13:20):
at the disruption going on in the market right now.
Just the release has erased about a trillion dollars in
market cap from the US stock market. Now what does
that do well? That obviously impacts major tech companies like Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta,
Google and the rest of them. And that disruption aligns
with China's strategic goal of challenging our dominance in the

(13:43):
tech center. So you undermine investor confidence in the US
and what we're doing by setting up a straw man
with deep seat actually using our own chips that they
somehow have stolen or acquired, and then you manipulate the

(14:04):
results from the use of those chips and thereby panics.
And there's a third reason why it might be a well,
actually there's two or three more reasons. The open source strategy,
if they use and the low cost models, disproportionately benefits
Chinese companies. So by providing this affordable access to what

(14:29):
they claim to be really advanced AI technology, they could
actually accelerate the adoption of AI in China and give
those companies a competitive edge in a global market, and
that would allow China to then control the development and
the direction of AI technology globally by setting standards and
influencing the development of future AI applications. And then there's

(14:58):
the whole problem of censorship, the whole problem of control.
When you various reports indicate that if you ask deep
sea questions about Teneman Square, you ask AI questions about
giging Pen, you know when need the speaking of gging ping.

(15:19):
You know that Winnie the Pooh is banned. That's a
that's a keyword. And images of Winnie the Pooh are
banned in China. Why because many Chinese think that Shei
ging Ping looks like Winnie the Pooh. So to show
you how pervasive Chinese censorship is, you can't talk about

(15:43):
or mention Winnie the Pooh or use any images. And
then if you happen to somehow get past the sensors
and compare Chi jing Ping to Winnie the Pooh, come
with us and you get thrown in the back of
the van, and they harvest your organs without any anesthe theology,
without any anesthesia. That's why anything coming out of China

(16:10):
like TikTok you have to assume is controlled by the
Chinese Communist Party. But I go back to how did
they do this so quickly and rapidly, because I just
don't think that they could have done that with these
lower end ships. So the rapid development, the widespread adoption.

(16:35):
Of course, if you're concerned about cybersecurity, data privacy, breaches
of all of those things, if it really does do
those things, then yes, I understand. I understand the fear,
particularly in the markets. But a security flaw discovered in
Deep Sick back in December they could allow account takeover

(17:00):
adds another layer of concern because it's a huge vulnerability.
It could either be a genuine flaw or a deliberate
backdoor inserted by the Chinese Communist Party to gain unauthorized
access to user data. Insistence, So all of this panic stricken.

(17:21):
Let me look at Drudge. Does Drudge still have that
Drudge headline right now? Chinese AI rocks world, triggers tech
sell off one trillion dollar panic doubt's over US dominance?
Maybe not, but it's having the intended effect.

Speaker 4 (17:41):
Hi, this is Bruce from Mexico, in my opinion, in
a place where Elon left could save a lot of
money for the people in the United States, is to
get us the heck out of the United Nations. What
a waste of money that is. I mean, really, I
would love to see him work on that a little bit, at.

Speaker 2 (18:05):
Least got back our spending on it. So going forward,
this is going to be a big week for Trump's
cabinet level nominees, and it's going to be an interesting
week because three of the most controversial picks are going
to appear for their confirmation hearings. Bobby Kennedy Junior, the

(18:25):
nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, will testify
before the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday and the Help
Committee on Thursday. I think then you've got Cash Ptel,
the FBI director nominee, and you got a former Democrat

(18:45):
now Republican congressman, former Congressman Telsea Gabbard from Hawaii that's
Trump's pick for the d and I the Director of
National Intelligence. They'll have their hearings on Thursday morning before
the Judiciary Committee for Cash Battel and the Intel Committee
for Tulsea Gabbert. Senator Kennedy states, what I think is

(19:11):
the obvious, although I'm not sure I really agree with it.

Speaker 5 (19:19):
Up, I need a microphone this week.

Speaker 6 (19:22):
Do you expect any problems we have Pam Bondi, she
went through them all. But Scott Bessett today, Cash Betel
later in RK Junior on Wednesday. Let me explain to
you what's going on. Washington is not a normal place.

Speaker 2 (19:38):
Well, there's the understatement of the day.

Speaker 5 (19:42):
Normal here is a setting on the dryer. We've got
a lot of.

Speaker 6 (19:48):
Frustrated X class presidents. They're very high strong, they love drama.
They could make a vallium nervous. Some of them are in.

Speaker 5 (19:59):
The meat in the media.

Speaker 6 (20:01):
Some of them are in the Senate, and you've got
to discount all that drama. I'm a Republican. My president
is a Republican. There's a presumption in favor of his nominees.
The same is true on the flip.

Speaker 5 (20:16):
Side with the Democrats when the Democrats are in charge.

Speaker 6 (20:18):
Now, President Trump has added a little spice to the equation.
Some of his nominees are a little bit unusual, like him.
They play outside the pocket.

Speaker 5 (20:30):
So naturally senators are going to have questions. But I
expect most.

Speaker 6 (20:35):
If not all of them to be confirmed. Why Number one,
the President's dug in like a tick.

Speaker 5 (20:41):
He wants these people. But number two, you've got to remember,
these confirmation hearings matter.

Speaker 6 (20:46):
They matter if a nominee acts like a complete meat
head or start screaming like he or she's part of
a prison riot. You know, people are going to say, WHOA,
we need to take a second look. But short of that,
I think most.

Speaker 5 (21:03):
If not all, will be confirmed.

Speaker 6 (21:05):
The one who's motion on the bubble, as you know
as well as I do, is tall.

Speaker 1 (21:09):
She gathered right, And I know Lindsey Graham says, I'm
I'm inclined to vote for but I do have love
serious questions to ask her.

Speaker 3 (21:17):
And I saw it in.

Speaker 6 (21:18):
Syria and because of Snowden, what she said about Snowden.

Speaker 1 (21:20):
Yeah, so if the nominations matter, that's why Pete got through.

Speaker 2 (21:24):
He did fantastic.

Speaker 5 (21:25):
Ut he had a great hearing.

Speaker 2 (21:27):
I mean, yeah, I find it interesting that her support
of Edward Snowden or that he actually did the country
a favor. You know, I I guess I understand why
the focus is on Snowden because he's the one that
actually released the documents, but he's not the one that

(21:49):
stole the documents. That was the transgender or what what?
Bradley Manning, what's his He's got a new name, whatever
it is. I don't know, don't care either, so you
don't have to text me what the name is. But
he's the one that actually stole the documents from the Pentagon.

(22:09):
But when Snowden published the documents, everybody went ballistic and
they blamed him. Nobody really went ballistic with the New
York Times on the Pentagon papers. I mean, I suppose
in some quarters they did, but everyone saw that as oh,
that that's something we needed to know. So I get

(22:35):
people's thinking about Edward Snowden. It's just not consistent to me,
and I would ask in hindsight, what actual harm was
done by the release of those documents. And Bradley Manning
ought to be the one who carried the thumb drive
or the files or however he took him out of

(22:56):
the Pentagon, that he's the one that actually stole them,
and of course he's in jail for that. So if
you have a difference of opinion about I mean, I
don't think that Tulsa Gabbert has said that she supports
the stealing and the releasing of classified documents. But if
you look at what Snowden did and your opinion is

(23:18):
that may have been helped us, you know, clean up
some things that were going wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean
that you support Snowden himself, but that you look at
what happened and what he did, and it's like, okay, okay,
or what's the other guy's name, who's the guy that's
been hiding in a British embassy or a Swedish embassy

(23:41):
or something. You've got these guys that think they're doing
what's right, and I don't. I don't get that that
impugnes her ability to distinguish between what's classified and what's
not classified, and that she's going to go out and
just start releasing you know what's she gonna do, Release

(24:02):
the Presidential Daily Brief every morning. She's going to send
out an email with the PDB on it to every
news organization in the country. No, she's not. So there's
a difference of opinion about snow and okay, well then
move on. Do you think she's not a patriot, you
think she's not loyal to the United States. I think
she is, and I think she'll make a great director

(24:23):
of national Intelligence. But she will be controversial. Oh, I
forgot her trip to Syria, Okay, but her opposition I
don't understand. No, I don't see. I said Siri, not Serrie.

(24:46):
So anyway, Lindsay Graham's Lindsay Graham has alluded to most
of these during his interview and meet the press.

Speaker 6 (24:52):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (24:52):
He also revealed something that wasn't supposed to be made
public quite yet that Richard Burr, the former Senator from
North Carolina, will introduce Gabbard at the hearing. And we're
told that Burr has been offering advice and council to
Gabbert in recent weeks. He's been one of the people
inside the West Wing that's been helping her get ready
for these hearings. And I think that's significant because Burr

(25:14):
is the former chair of the Intelligence Committee, and he's
well respected by incumbent Republicans, including those who are as
seen as potential swing votes on Gabert's nomination. Now, Burr
was also one of the Republicans that voted to convict
Trump in the second impeachment trial. So yeah, it's going

(25:34):
to be pretty interesting. Gabbert's path to confirmation does remain
fraught with trouble. There are two members Susan Collins once
again a main Todd Young of Indiana. They're all on
the fence about Gabbert, and Republicans have a one seat
majority on the Intel Committee, so it would be exceedingly

(25:56):
difficult to advance her nomination to the floor if just
one of those on the committee deflects. If you can't
get out of the committee, you're unlikely to make it
to the floor. Now, there is a procedural way that
you can do that, but it's highly unlikely. You know,
if you want to know the level of insanity about

(26:20):
how they're dealing with it. John Brennan over on MSNBC, Yes,
I think probably out of his Oh I don't is
out of his mind. He claims that Tulsi Gabbard will
intentionally withhold an intel from President Trump if she gets

(26:44):
confirmed to the cabinet. I think that's just stupid. She's
not going to withhold intel from the commander in chief.
She's ex military.

Speaker 7 (26:53):
She gets is okay because she's had a past relationship
with that bad actor or that country in some form
of fashion. How does what she put in that influence
the decisions of the president's one thing to say, Well,
he gets the briefing. We know Donald Trump don't read,
so there is that, But everybody else in that orbit
domas how does the how does bad information in result

(27:18):
in bad actions?

Speaker 2 (27:20):
On the other.

Speaker 8 (27:20):
Side, Well, when they're at nationalis Curity Council meetings that
the President chairs in the White House situation Room, usually
the first person to speak would be the Director of
National Intelligence and the Director of CIA. They lay down
the intelligence basis for any type of policy discussion that ensues.

Speaker 2 (27:37):
I just want to I want to remind you you're
listening to John Brennan, the former director of the CIA
who lied in that letter about the Hunter Biden laptop
being a Russian disinformation campaign, and he's here on MSNBC
talking about how, you know, the director of the CIA
sets you know, the policy parameter for which a president's

(28:01):
going to make a decision based on intel. Huh, who
would trust you? By the way, how this how's your
security clearence, mister Brennan?

Speaker 8 (28:09):
And so if that intelligence basis, that briefing is going
to be skewed or is going to be lacking some
very important critical information, the policy decision that ultimately comes
out of it is also going to be baseless, and
also you know it's going to be potentially threatening to
our national security. So again it's the presence daily brief,

(28:30):
but also the role that the Director of National Intelligence,
Director of CIA play in order to ensure that the
people who have to make that those decisions and the
Security Council are fully informed about what the reality is,
what the intelligence is, what our intelligence gaps are, and
if they withhold things or if they skew things, it
really is going to be detrimental real quick before we

(28:52):
let you go.

Speaker 2 (28:53):
That's enough, that's enough. She should be confirmed.

Speaker 9 (28:58):
I haven't heard word Snowden's name in a long time.
Poor Edward discovers the US government is operating like the
old style. Soviets has to take refuge in Russia.

Speaker 2 (29:14):
Huh is kind of ironic, isn't it. Now? According to
the UK Health Security Agency, there's now been a human case.
A bird flew in England. Get your masks out. Just

(29:34):
kill all the foul everywhere, Just kill them all.

Speaker 3 (29:38):
Hey, birds aren't real, Okay.

Speaker 2 (29:41):
Well take out their batteries. Do something.

Speaker 3 (29:44):
You know, they're all just drones spying on us, any
Just do something.

Speaker 2 (29:49):
So the individuals got the H five N one virus
had been in prolonged contact with a significant number of
infective birds on a farm in the West Midlands, and
the UK categorized bird to human transmission of the disease
as rare, noting that such incidents have occurred only a
few times in the UK previously. Now they were infected

(30:12):
with something called d I point two genotype. Apparently that's
some sort of strain observed among birds in the United
Kingdom this season. That particular genotype, they say, differs from
the variety scene in the US among birds and mammals.
Get the idea where just I mean skeptical, Yes, call
me skeptical, and that may be to my own detriment.

(30:34):
I don't know, but we've had five or fewer people
in this country infected with bird flud, you know. I've
always been more concerned, you know, about chicken droppings and
all the diseases that that produces. Uh, there's just no

(30:59):
evidence in the UK suggesting that further transmissions from this
initial case. We just live in a time when everything
turns into again no risk. You don't want to take
any risk. Speaking of pandemics, Bill Bill Gates, Microsoft co founder,

(31:21):
He's now claiming that a new natural pandemic could occur
within the next four years. The next four years. What's
going on in the next four years, isn't this Leather
Rents repeat, Donald Trump, I think is going to be
president for the next four years. If you haven't seen

(31:44):
the interview, it's worth watching. It's the Wall Street Journal
interview Gates. He estimated a ten to fifteen per chance
to fifteen percent chance of a natural pandemic arising sometime
in the next four years. Now, I don't know, but
Gates seems to be associated with a lot of kind
of sketchy pseudo scientific experiments which actually have led to

(32:07):
further disease and outbreak, as well as always acting as
a corp proponent of the long debunked natural origins of
the twenty twenty COVID pandemic, which the CIA now says, Oh,
you know that Lableik theory that we kept debunking and
saying wasn't true, Maybe we ought to reconsider that. Now
the CIA hasn't come out completely. I mean, it's being

(32:27):
reported that the CIA now says, yeah, the lab leak
is a probability. But what they don't do is give
you any context, the CIA has gone from completely debunking
the lab Liak theory about sars Kov two to now
it's oh, well, yeah, that could be a possibility. That's

(32:47):
their code language for saying, yep, probably true. No, we'll
never admit that. And of course, now back to Bill Gates,
he's all worried about global preparedness for such an event.
Now he says that we may, but not enough progress
has been made in addressing potential future outbreaks. And here
we got bird flu, avian flu, and he's always critiquing

(33:12):
the current state of readiness. Quote, we're absolutely not ready,
emphasizing that despite significant financial expenditures and loss of life,
loss of life, a consensus on combating future pandemics has
not yet been reached. Do you suppose do you just suppose,

(33:32):
mister Gates, that you can't get a consensus because Fauci
and others destroyed our confidence in the ability of people
like you or him, or the science or in NIH
or the nai D or the FDA or anybody else
to really do anything. So now the CIA is coming

(33:56):
out and China's US embassy says that now we're just
politicizing the virus's origin, trying to deflect from what, oh
I think China's culpability for COVID. Yeah, I could be
believing