September 14, 2026 • 37 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- The assassination of Charlie Kirk & indoctrination of our kids
- Apple's new Duo phone & how to look at your phone less
- The pace of AI
- Spending/Waste in the UC system
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the
George Washington Broadcast Center.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty. Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
And now, here's Armstrong and Getty. Ah, the rhythm of
life is back. Kids at school, 60 Minutes is new,
NFL football games, all that sort of stuff. Soon-to-be playoff baseball.
(00:32):
Loving it all. Excellent.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Excellent.
Speaker 4 (00:34):
You could mournfully mourn the summer passing, but I like
your forward-looking take on the challenge attitude.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Way to go. You've got to look forward.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Yes, you do.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
What was I going to say? Oh, so Friday, as
we talked about a lot, was the 25-year anniversary of 9-11,
got a lot of coverage. The day before, the 10th,
was the one-year anniversary of the assassination of Charlie Kirk,
which is a horrifying event to some, but a gleeful
event to others, it turns out, which is highly troubling.
(01:08):
So where did they do this man-on-the-street stuff?
Speaker 4 (01:12):
I believe it was in the Philadelphia environs.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
I'm sure you could do it lots of different places
where they just ask some people what they felt about
the assassination of Charlie Kirk. This is what they had
to say.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
What are your thoughts on Charlie Kirk?
Speaker 3 (01:26):
He got everything that was coming to him, and I wish.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
It had been longer. So do you think it was
good that he was assassinated?
Speaker 1 (01:33):
I think it was hilarious that he was assassinated.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
How do you feel about Charlie Kirk?
Speaker 5 (01:38):
I feel fantastic.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
I mean, I think he had what was coming to
him personally.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
And why did he deserve to die?
Speaker 5 (01:45):
Well, he did say that, you know, gun deaths, you
need at least one to make guns worth it.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
So I think his was it. I don't think that
sort of talk would have happened or gone unremarked upon
20 years ago, no matter who it was that got shot.
We just didn't talk that way back then. Back then,
not that many years ago. Anyway, here's more of that.
(02:13):
Rest in hell.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Do you condemn the assassination of Charlie Kirk? To condemn?
I don't know. When it happened, I didn't really care,
to be honest. I'm not even going to lie. My
reaction was to laugh. And then when I saw the video,
I was like, okay. And yeah, that was kind of
a reaction.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Kind of speaking to what I was talking about earlier
about young people have seen so much grotesque violence online,
it doesn't leave a mark at all.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
Yeah, I was going to withhold my comments other than.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
The.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Well, let's go ahead and play the last one.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
What do you like to talk?
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Why is it F. Charlie Kirk? He's a racist. I'm
glad that n * * * a' s dead.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
F * * * Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
How is he a racist? How is he a racist?
You're a b * * * h- ass n * * *
a too, you know that?
Speaker 1 (03:04):
How so?
Speaker 6 (03:05):
You're a b * * * h- ass n * * * a, bro.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
I'm not talking to you. I'm not the one walking
away from a conversation.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
Yeah, so you got a handful of things going on there,
and to your point, I think one of them is
not only do they see horrifying death and bloodshed and
stuff online to the point that they become desensitized.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
To it, but also.
Speaker 4 (03:25):
When so much of your experience is online, human beings
become abstractions. They're kind of just... Charlie Kirk was another
character on my screen. He does not have the reality.
And you're always talking about, are we the last generation
that experienced life pre-online life? If I see someone die
(03:48):
on a screen, my reaction is based on my entire
life's experience, which is experiencing human beings as human beings.
other than, like, TV sitcom characters. A lot of these kids,
most of their experience of other human beings is screen deep.
And so they can't even... Even if they wanted to,
(04:10):
they have a hard time relating to an actual human
being who felt a bullet rip through his throat, realized
he was going to die in that moment, realized he
would never see his wife and children again, and his
kids would grow up without him, and he bled out
on the pavement. They... It's not that they don't want
to appreciate that. I'm not sure they can.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
No, I don't think they can either. I know my
son can't, and it disturbs me that he can't.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
Well, and then you've got the indoctrination, and, you know,
I threatened to do this. I never did.
Speaker 4 (04:40):
And what I threatened to do is talk about Mao
Zedong in the Cultural Revolutions, the way they ensured obedience,
compliance with their policies. And it had to do with
dividing humanity into two groups, the good and the evil,
to grossly oversimplify it. But since the kids are getting
(05:02):
taught a lot of that woke stuff in school, they've
now equated, well, quoting, I can't remember who said this.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
I should have written it down.
Speaker 4 (05:10):
It might have been James Lindsay, but Political disagreement is
increasingly treated as a serious moral offense rather than a
simple difference of opinion. When you see the world that way,
punishing someone for holding different views becomes a moral good.
And that's a good explanation of Mao's thing too. But yeah,
so those people, young people who are disgusting and horrifying
(05:34):
to me, they were taught Charlie Kirk was a murderously
hateful character. Therefore, to celebrate his assassinations like celebrating the
fact that Hitler finally.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Killed himself in the bunker morally to them.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
Yeah, it's pretty troubling.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
I'd rather demonize the people who taught them that than
to demonize the young dolts. Right.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Yeah, they didn't raise themselves. I don't know if there's
any turning this around, but I get... As I've said many,
many times, I get flipped off regularly, angrily flipped off,
not even just like a casual joking flip off because
I see their face. And sometimes the just angry because
(06:24):
I'm driving a Tesla Cybertruck and. They don't like the
fact that Elon helped Trump. I can't even wrap my
head around being that angry about what somebody else is driving.
But I get that on a regular basis, and it
makes me so disturbed. Not because I give a crap
what anybody thinks about it. how I dress, how I drive,
(06:46):
anything like that. But just that people can get that
angry about politics. As I've said before, I guarantee you
that for those people, if, if somebody was beating me
down because of that, they would think that was awesome.
He got what he deserved. Like they said about Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 4 (07:02):
Well, that's not a political disagreement treated as a serious
moral offense.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
That is not a good place for society to be.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
No, no.
Speaker 4 (07:09):
So a couple other exhibits, uh, in the prosecution of
the modern world, if you will, um, And a number
of people have written about this. Filmmaker Legzi Alexander, who
directed a movie called Green Street Hooligans, Daniel Radcliffe was
in it, and I can't remember who else. It's about
hooliganism and alleged white nationalism in Britain and that sort
(07:33):
of thing. It was a pretty big deal, and it's very,
very well made. But when that poor young woman, that
young mother who just ended maternity leave and went back
to work for Bank of America... got stabbed to death
on the street by that lunatic in New York City.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
She celebrated it.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
She put out memes of like the bat light, except
instead of the bat, it's Luigi Mangione celebrating that this
woman had been stabbed because she's one of the evildoers.
This gal happens to be Palestinian-American, for what that's worth.
That's bizarre in the true sense of the word. So
(08:11):
strange as to be Difficult to comprehend. That idea that,
and back to the whole political disagreement, is a serious
moral failing. And then she explained it. Israel doesn't care
about the woman who got killed. They care about the
positive rating Bank of America gave them in the middle
(08:33):
of a genocide. There is huge money at stake. Okay,
so a young mom bleeding out on the pavement is good.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Okay, sorry, I didn't really, I didn't follow you there.
Speaker 4 (08:44):
Here's another article about how Barron Trump lives an extremely
reclusive life because of the assassination attempts on his dad.
And also, he'd grown close to Charlie Kirk. They were
actual friends. And so he more or less lives in
hiding because of the political violence and the number of both.
(09:06):
There's a specific Iranian plot against him. There's a $ 10
million bounty on his head.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
From Iran. And, you know, we never got to it.
I read the headline.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
They're now hiring local criminals all over the world to
do their bidding. Like, there was a case in Romania
where they hired some local gangsters to beat down an
Iranian dissident, and there was an incident, I think it
was in France, that was fairly similar. So, yeah, the poor,
poor kid has got to, I mean, you know, all
(09:36):
presidential kids They're protected and keep a low-ish profile, but
like the Obama girls went to a private school in Washington, D.C.,
but they went to the damn school.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
Well, yeah, I actually know someone who protected one of
the Bush daughters all through her college years, following her
around for parties and bars and sorority houses, stuff like that,
but they're they didn't really live in fear.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Right, right, exactly.
Speaker 4 (10:04):
Yeah, it's just, oh, it was going to bring me
ultimately to this. Yet another poll, Americans who find killing acceptable.
One in six tell pollsters they're okay with assassination. Then
they go into the Brian Thompson thing. You're ignorant at best,
(10:28):
evil at worst.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (10:31):
Let's at least touch on those numbers after a cheerier
note from our friends at Rough Greens. Dog owners, dog lovers,
what would one more healthy year with your dog mean
to you? Or how about two or three? None of
us knows how many years we're going to get with
our dogs, but here's something the founder of Rough Greens,
naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black, told us that stuck with us.
(10:52):
Healthy years aren't a result of luck. They're built every day,
one bowl at a time with good nutrition.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Yep, we're talking about live nutrition your dogs need sprinkled
on top of your current food. That's what we like
about Rough Greens. You don't have to change the dog's food.
And you're going to get the more than 20 live
vitamins and minerals, probiotics, enzymes, omega oils that support energy, digestion, mobility,
and longevity with your Rough Greens. Try it out. Give
it 90 days and take the Rough Greens 90-Day Challenge.
(11:20):
Get 50% off your first 90 days backed by the
full 90-day money-back guarantee.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
More healthy years together can start with your pup's next meal.
Go to roughgreens.com for that 90-day challenge. Roughgreens.com. R-U-F-F, greens.com. Roughgreens,
they make any dog food better.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
I guess quickly following up on what I said about
ignorant at best, evil at worst. Hey, morons. If you're
okay with assassination, you see what happens is some people
on the other side start assassinating the men and women
you like. And then it's just a race to the bottom,
you see, is the thing.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
That would stick with them better if they didn't view
people on the other side as evil.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
But we're the good people.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
So assassinating us would be totally different than assassinating the
evil people would be their point of view, which is
obviously the sort of thing that leads you down the
road you're describing. So an Emerson poll came out a
couple of weeks ago. It was asking about Luigi Mangione,
the deranged, misguided, barely 20-something idiot. Were his actions acceptable
(12:34):
or unacceptable? And 16.7% of respondents said his actions were
either completely acceptable or somewhat acceptable. This is not a fluke.
It's the same finding as the firm's 2024 poll, December
2024 poll. So about 17% are one out of six.
And after 20 months, the public trial, national news coverage,
(12:55):
the number has held steady. Public opinion had every opportunity
to self-correct, and it hasn't. It means that Americans' tolerance
for political violence is becoming hardwired into the public consciousness,
they write. Let's see, this is Adrian Norman writing. And
the violence isn't limited to one type of victim, and
it isn't confined to the opinion polls. Federal prosecutors argued
(13:20):
on August 2025 court filing that the killing of Mr.
Thompson helped inspire the mass shooting at the National Football
League headquarters a month prior.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
Simply put, Mr.
Speaker 4 (13:30):
Mangione hoped to normalize the use of violence to achieve
ideological or political objectives since the murder of certain quarters
of the public who openly identify as acolytes of the
defendant have increasingly begun to view violence as an acceptable
or even necessary substitute for reasoned political disagreement. Well, and
if you tended not to believe that, if you were
taught every day in school or damn near every day
(13:51):
that their speech is violence, and we've talked about this before,
If speech is violence, then of course you can answer
it with violence. Because every human society recognizes the right
to self-defense. But to justify our violence that's just in
response to speech, first we've got to.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Teach the kids that their speech is violence.
Speaker 4 (14:13):
It goes right back to the educational system and how
it's been captured by leftist lunatics.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
So a couple of tech things coming up. Left-handers are
hating the new foldable iPhone. How I used AI in
my son's phone.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
Who do I sue?
Speaker 1 (14:29):
Also, a tip I'm taking to look at your phone
less that I think might be working, looking at it less.
All coming up.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
Stay here.
Speaker 4 (14:37):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 5 (14:41):
When we look at the hardware design for the iPhone Duo,
you'll notice it has an asymmetrical design with sharp right
corners on the hinge side and soft rounded corners on
the outside.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
And they do this intentionally.
Speaker 5 (14:50):
So you can have a nice soft rounded edge resting
on your hand rather than a sharp corner stabbing into
your palm. But even worse than that, the iPhone Duo
also had a major software change because instead of having
your home screen dock, toolbars and app controls on the
bottom of your phone like they always were now they're
going to be on the right hand side but if
you're left-handed you're going to have a sharp right corner
(15:10):
stabbing the palm of your hand and you're going to
have to reach all the way across an even wider phone.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Just to send a text message oh there's some guy
claiming that the new apple foldable iphone is uh unfair
to left-handers i can.
Speaker 4 (15:25):
Tell you this stabs left-handers that's my headline I've.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
Taken in a lot of these review videos on different
things over the last couple of years. God, some of
the so-called problems are so overblown in these reviews. I mean,
you got to talk about something, but I did that
with a lot of vehicles I've purchased and stuff like that.
And then you get the car and it's like, okay,
the cup holder's a little further up than I would
like it to be. Maybe, I don't know. I can't
imagine doing a 15-minute video about it. Anyway, back to
(15:54):
the tech thing. And I think I want to get
that iPhone because I take in Every TV show, movies, sports,
football games, everything on my phone. So it would be
handy for me to have that screen. Two things I've done.
I read a little piece in the New York Times
about ways to look at your phone less. And one
of them was to turn the picture to grayscale instead
(16:15):
of the colors. Because part of the dopamine hit is
the lurid, bright, vivid colors that you get. So I
turned my phone to the grayscale. And it is much, much,
much less satisfying to look at.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
How interesting.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
I know. I was surprised myself. It's just kind of
like to look at it is kind of what a letdown.
So where is that? Is that in settings? We're in settings.
And the key is because sometimes you want the color,
like especially if you're doing photos or watching videos. So
I did the shortcut to where you triple click the
(16:48):
right hand button. I can switch it to color real
quick if I want to do a picture, then switch
it back to gray. So I'm going to keep my
phone that way from here on out because it is.
Definitely less stimulating and exciting to look at a gray phone.
One other tech thing. For better or worse, I showed
my son a way to use AI for a homework
assignment he had yesterday, which I thought was pretty handy.
(17:09):
He got this assignment in English. He gets to pick
a book to read, but it had some limits on
what books he could read. It had to be a
certain number of pages. It had to be blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
all these lists. I said, we can try this. I
just took a picture of it. put it on Claude
and said, my freshman in high school needs to follow
these rules for books, suggest some books. And it suggested
(17:29):
like 10 different kinds of books. If you'd like this
kind of book, if you'd like this kind of book,
if you'd like this kind of book. And we picked
Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury's, the right page length and skill
level and everything like that. And I thought that was
a really handy way to use AI.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
Yeah. Oh, yeah, definitely. Love it.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
God, the way it can just take a picture of
something and it reads it for you and comprehends it
is amazing.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
It's great up until the moment it kills us all.
Speaker 4 (17:55):
Yeah, I used it for hours yesterday trying to plan
a vacation using all sorts of different possibilities and scenarios
and combinations. It was wonderfully, wonderfully productive. And then we'll
all be dead, but we'll be productive until that moment.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Until it kills us, it is so cool. More on
the way. If you're missing a podcast, Armstrong and Getty
on demand.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 6 (18:18):
Well, we certainly need to begin to act urgently to
address the challenges that exist. And unfortunately, Republicans have abandoned
their responsibility. So under Speaker Mike Johnson, he killed a
bipartisan task force, this Congress. that was prepared to do
the serious work necessary to try to erect the guardrails
(18:38):
to protect the health, the safety, the well-being of the
American people.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
Talking about AI there. So that's Hakeem Jeffries likely to
be the Speaker of the House soon. These Republicans sound
like monsters. Saying Republicans have abandoned their responsibility around controlling AI.
And Barack Obama speaking to a group yesterday behind closed
doors apparently said we've got to make this a central issue.
(19:04):
For Democrats running for president and in Congress, and I
really am worried that this is going to turn into,
and I don't even, it could go either direction. It's
just like the masks thing or the vaccines thing. Somehow
it gets established that one side is for and one
side is against, and then it's, everybody gets locked into
their positions because of their tribalism around their party. And
(19:27):
the best example is vaccines. For the past however many decades,
it was.
Liberals who are anti-vaccine and Republicans calling them crazy for it.
But then when COVID hit for a variety of reasons,
it got flipped So you were anti-Trump if you wanted
(19:48):
to get vaccines. But if that gets locked into AI,
where it's seen as a partisan thing, being for or
against it, then we're really, really doomed. I hope that
doesn't happen.
Speaker 4 (20:01):
When you ducked out fairly briefly last week to begin
your journey, your jury odyssey.
I was talking about it had dawned on me the
other day how directionality has taken over our society. And
it's a term I'd never really even heard. Directionally, I
(20:25):
agree with them. You know, they're trying to rein in AI.
But we've become so tribal that you've got to go
in the accepted direction of your tribe. Even if, like,
a reasonable correction of your course. Oh, we got this
one wrong. We went too far. This is actually hurting people.
Would be very, very smart. And everybody can see it's right.
(20:46):
But you can't go directionally against it.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
And so you're right.
Speaker 4 (20:51):
We risk a situation in which, you know, one gets
coded left and the other point of view on AI
gets coded right.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
And then.
Speaker 4 (21:00):
I don't know, whichever side ends up being pro-AI, says, well, yes,
it killed 50 million people in the Western U.S., but
that's no reason to go all liberal or vice versa.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
That's no reason to side with the fascists. And, oh, God,
it makes everybody so dumb.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
So, to present a different view on this than we
were talking about in hour one, I guess.
Speaker 4 (21:22):
Oh, can I talk about the politics again, just real quick?
I can't remember who it was pointed out that The
Obama be afraid, be very afraid thing is straight out
of the Democrats' playbook. And that, whether it's COVID or
climate change, is a big one. They go with the
be afraid, be very afraid, you need to give us
(21:43):
this power and we will save you thing. And then
the doomsayers never end up being right, but they don't
get called to account for it.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
So it's on to the next doom.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
And by way of illustration, I was struck that You know,
the matter, I'm sorry, the modern above the fold is
what is the New York Times website top few stories.
And this morning, number one, EPA is expected to erase
limits on climate pollution from power plants. Number two, six
strangers connected by disaster, devastating wildfires and storms, weather caused
(22:19):
by climate change.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Story three.
Speaker 4 (22:22):
As the fight for a key climate goal falters, some
beginners fight for survival about these little island nations that
are going to be drowned and all the little children
will die painfully in front of their parents because of
climate change. That's how they get power. That doesn't mean
there's nothing worth worrying about, but.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
I don't know if I've ever clicked on a climate story,
and I never will.
Speaker 4 (22:46):
But that's just me. Sell your parka, buy some shorts.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
But back to AI, to give the point of view
that I know some of you have, that this whole
CEOs of the big companies coming forward and saying it's
time to put up guardrails and for the government to
get involved and all that sort of stuff is either
overblown or it's just You're trying to lock in things
(23:11):
where they are now because you're ahead so that nobody
can compete against you. I don't think that's true, by
the way. I think they are for real worried and
rightfully so. And we're in for the shock of all
of our lives as a species.
Speaker 3 (23:28):
And or both are true.
Speaker 1 (23:30):
But so this guy, David Sachs, I don't know if
you know who he is, but he is the main
advisor to Donald Trump on AI. He's also a super
rich tech gazillionaire financial dude. Anyway, he put out this
over the weekend after Dario put out his letter on
Saturday about how the time is now in the last
(23:52):
six months. This has happened. It's almost too late. David
Sachs put this out. Stop pretending you need anyone else's permission.
Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you
can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory
approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending... I didn't
(24:13):
even understand that thing, so I won't read it. Stop
pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who
aren't even at the frontier. Most of all, stop pretending
the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face
massive product liability exposure if your products do the sort
(24:33):
of damage in a truly damaging cyber attack you're talking about.
The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or
unauthorized ways. You can do this anytime you want to.
You don't need the government. You don't need anybody else.
If you think it's bad, stop doing it, is basically
his message. You're at the forefront of it. Stop then.
Speaker 3 (24:55):
Nobody's holding you back.
Speaker 4 (24:57):
That casts the tech giants as the serial killer who
writes the police, stop me before I kill again.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
Right.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
I can't stop myself.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Go ahead and pace the frontier. It's about the idea
that they're on the frontier edge. Well, if you're on
the front edge, then you can slow down the pace
if you want to. You're the one setting the pace currently.
The easiest way to not build superintelligence is for you
to agree not to build it.
Speaker 4 (25:22):
Boy, the product liability thing. I mean, if you wiped
out humanity, there are going to be so many lawsuits
if there are a few lawyers.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
I'm going to be so angry. I'm calling my lawyer immediately.
Speaker 3 (25:36):
You're going to be on the hook for huge damages.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
What do you think of that angle of what are
you doing? You and Sam Altman and Elon as the
three biggest deals. The only thing is that so like
that doesn't include Zuckerberg. And they're spending billions of dollars
to try to get ahead of those people that they're
currently behind. Or Google. Because you've got to have all
(26:01):
the leaders on board. Or all you do is allow
them to get where you are currently in probably like
two months and then move forward on down the road.
And then, as always, what about China? Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4 (26:13):
Like I pointed out, though, it's possible both things are true.
They might actually be terrified of the Frankenstein monster they
have created, and they're afraid to go any further in
their experiments, and they just want everybody to be held
back some because they know how scary this could be. And,
by the way, that would solidify their lead. It's possible
(26:35):
both are true. That's what makes this stuff so difficult
to come to a conclusion about.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
I'll read the whole last paragraph of his screen because
it is pretty good. So go ahead and pace the frontier.
You're the one setting it. The easiest way not to
build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it.
Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that
will look like blackmail of the public and the political system.
So just do it. If you do, you'll buy goodwill
(27:03):
for the next conversation. If you don't, we'll know this
was just another bid for regulatory capture or an election
season PSYOP.
Speaker 3 (27:13):
Forceful stuff.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
The problem is, like, if you're right, and you might be,
that they're scared of it and they want regulatory capture.
They might not want regulatory capture at all. And it's
surely that this is about to be completely out of control.
Somebody needs to do something. I don't know if I
(27:36):
buy David Sachs' argument that, well, you're the guys at
the forefront. Stop then. Because Dario on a couple of
the shows over the weekend did talk about, you know,
there's lots of competition out there, including China. We need
to have the world come together and set up some
sort of rules like we did around nuclear power, for instance.
Speaker 4 (27:57):
Right.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
Immediately.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
Well, to quote our president, whoever wins AI wins.
Speaker 1 (28:06):
I don't. Well, he said, and I think this is
a childish view, but a lot of people have it,
that there's way more good that's going to come out
than bad. Well, if the bad is the end of
all jobs and everyone's dead.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (28:23):
What possible good matters?
Speaker 3 (28:25):
Well, first of all, if I'm dead, I don't care
if I'm unemployed. True.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
Anyway.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
Yeah, I know.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
There's no arguing that.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
Stuff is all so.
Speaker 4 (28:36):
Overwhelming and complex and difficult to get to people's actual motives.
I would say, as you pointed out earlier, and I
agree 100%, whether it's Dario or the Harry Potter lookalike
who blew the whistle last week or whatever, whomever, the idea, well,
we just need to get together with all the countries
(28:58):
of the world and come to an understanding and agree
to work together, including China. Who is that one moron
who said China is run by scientists?
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Oh, my Lord.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
So Dario said, we need to work with China. And
he said, I realize that's going to be very difficult
to get China on board and slowing down. And that's
above my pay grade.
Speaker 4 (29:21):
Yeah. It is.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
Obviously, the fact that you just said that sentence out
loud like that's doable means it's above your pay grade
as far as I'm concerned. You're a computer genius. You
know more about that than I could ever get even
like a half of 1% toward or anything like that.
But you're just laughing. ignorant in my mind if you
think you're going to get China to agree to some
(29:45):
sort of slowdown on this and you can get them
to honor it. So just don't even think that's an option.
Speaker 4 (29:51):
Yeah, the best we can do is choke off their
access to chips, and that's imperfect at best.
Speaker 3 (29:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
Now, I was listening to one genius. It might even
have been Hinton, the so-called godfather of AI, and there's
a bunch of people they put that label on. But
this angle of ASI or RSI, there's way too many letters.
That's the recurvent superintelligence where it folds back in on
(30:18):
itself and programs itself. Yeah. would be so bad for everyone.
It really is like mutually assured destruction that we had
during the Cold War with the USSR, where they didn't
want to blow up the world any more than we did,
so we wouldn't start a big nuclear war. If China's
convinced that superintelligence is about to take over, and then
(30:40):
you're not going to be in charge, we're not going
to be in charge, nobody's going.
Speaker 3 (30:42):
To be in charge.
Speaker 1 (30:44):
President Xi probably doesn't want that. That'd be the end
of their rule.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
Yeah, true. And I don't want to be a bummer.
I don't want to scare the crap out of people.
Speaker 4 (30:53):
But if you were to say to Xi Jinping, I
have a way for you to dominate the globe through AI,
100 million of your people will die, but you will
dominate the globe for the next century.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
Chinese-style communism. Will you take that deal? I think Xi
Jinping would say yes.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
I don't think he'd even have to think about it.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (31:19):
So, that's not cool. Mention that to Dario Amodei.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
I'd rather none of this was happening.
Speaker 4 (31:30):
Sure.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
But it's sure damned interesting. It is so damned interesting.
Watching mankind do this to itself.
Speaker 3 (31:40):
Holy crap!
Speaker 4 (31:41):
You mentioned Mark Zuckerberg, who's busy developing his pretend-to-be-transgender-and-wear-my-glasses-into-a-locker-room-to-take-videos-of-girls glasses.
The perception of which he's trying to counter by running,
all right, I admit it, an unbelievably great commercial. It
may have been during the football yesterday. A blinded veteran
(32:04):
wearing his glasses saying, Hey, Metaglasses, can you read this
for me? And, of course, it's a letter from his
grandchild or something like that.
Speaker 3 (32:11):
Oh, my God. Well, that is nice.
Speaker 4 (32:14):
Metaglasses, which direction is the flag so he and his
buddy can salute it?
Speaker 1 (32:19):
Oh, okay. I haven't seen it, but that seems a
little over the top, given the reality of mostly it's
going to be used to take pictures of hot chicks
without them knowing it.
Speaker 4 (32:28):
Yeah, standing on the upper balcony and looking down women's...
Breast is right.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Exactly. It was over the top, but it was good.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
If it was all blind veterans saying which direction is
the flag, that would be fantastic.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
Yes. I believe you, Mark.
Speaker 3 (32:46):
He is Satan. Anyway, we've got much more to come.
Can't wait. Fun stuff.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
Check that out. That is too much.
Speaker 3 (32:55):
I know. It is so over the top, but it's effective.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
I really don't want to step on this puppy, but
I can't see. Google Glasses, could you help me not step.
Speaker 3 (33:02):
On this puppy?
Speaker 2 (33:05):
Do you want.
Speaker 3 (33:07):
Or do you want Google Glasses or Meta Glasses? Yeah, great.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
All right, order from our friends at Blue Collar Dollar
for our hardworking folks, listening small business owners, farmers, you know,
the people who have gotten their hands dirty and busted
their ass through life. This is high-level financial planning, but
not like Wall Street pretentious coat and tie.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
It's for people who actually do the heavy lifting.
Speaker 1 (33:30):
None of the kind of jargon that you hate and
that sort of stuff that you're going to be talking
to people, straight talk, people that understand you, talk your language.
If you are 55 years of age or older, you've
set aside at least $ 250, 000 for retirement, Blue Collar Dollar
has a special offer for you. If you pick up
your phone right now and you dial pound 250 and
say Blue Collar Dollar, you'll get a complimentary financial review
(33:51):
from a licensed talent advisor.
Speaker 4 (33:54):
That's pound 250, and just get ready to use the
keywords blue-collar dollar. Now the lawyers get their share. Hit it, lawyers.
Paid endorsement.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Armstrong and Getty are not talent clients and receive compensation
for promoting talent, creating a conflict of interest.
Speaker 6 (34:06):
Investment advisory services offered through Talent LLC and SEC-registered investment advisor.
Speaker 3 (34:09):
For more additional disclosures, visit bluecollar.com, paid for by Epic Financial.
Speaker 4 (34:13):
Armstrong and Getty. In a recent interview, 68-year-old Sharon Stone
says she hasn't had sex in years. True, the last
time she uncrossed her legs, a moth flew out.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
Oh, now, now. So coarse.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
I don't think that actually happened.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
No, no.
Speaker 4 (34:35):
Surely more intellectually satisfying jokery could take place on your show, Greg, please.
Speaker 3 (34:45):
So, this is crazy.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
You know who I heard say that the other day?
What's that? What if Sharon Stone said that? How old
is she?
Speaker 2 (34:53):
68?
Speaker 1 (34:53):
She must be single. But Louis C.K., I saw him
on some podcast. He said, no, he was on stage
doing his stand-up routine, his latest special. And he said,
I haven't had sex in many, many years. But I thought, wow,
that's interesting. Coming out of that weird thing you got
caught doing where you'd ask women to watch you, you
just have, like, Had to take a break, I guess,
(35:18):
or something.
Speaker 3 (35:19):
All or nothing. He's like an alcoholic, I guess.
Speaker 1 (35:22):
Whoa.
Speaker 3 (35:23):
That's odd. So, University of California system.
Speaker 4 (35:28):
Promised that, this is from the Boston Globe, promised that
$ 170 million in spending on a single digital infrastructure project
would cut administrative bloat by $ 750 million over its lifetime.
Speaker 3 (35:43):
That sounds like a pretty good investment.
Speaker 4 (35:45):
Spend $ 170, save $ 750. Instead, the project took seven years
and ballooned to $ 942 million in cost. And the finished
product was so poorly designed and difficult to use that
an entirely new IT unit had to be created just
to keep the software functional. The savings on staffing, which
(36:05):
was the original.
Speaker 3 (36:06):
Intent, was zero.
Speaker 4 (36:08):
How do you even spend a billion dollars on new software?
And what specialized billion-dollar software do they possibly need? If
a billion dollars are being spent, writes the Free Press,
I should hope there are no administrators at all after
it's done. They could have just hired a personal assistant
for each.
Speaker 3 (36:25):
Student at that rate.
Speaker 1 (36:27):
No kidding.
Speaker 3 (36:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (36:28):
You know, we don't have time for this. Maybe we'll
squeeze it in the next hour. If you don't get
next hour, you got to go somewhere or whatever. Subscribe
to Armstrong and Getty On Demand. You never miss an episode,
plus you automatically get the downloads of the Armstrong and Getty,
one more thing, which sometimes includes swears. But I was
texting Jack over the weekend about how Western society is
(36:49):
coming up against Islamism and it's getting more assertive in Britain,
especially in France. And they're realizing, oh my God, we
have a serious problem. Part of that is they had
a very Biden-esque immigration and asylum system in Britain.
Speaker 3 (37:08):
It is so... Woke and bizarre, it's.
Speaker 4 (37:12):
Actually hilarious, if you put aside some of the grim
reality of it.
Speaker 3 (37:16):
We'll tell you about that coming up next hour.
Speaker 1 (37:18):
So we do a lot of segments. We do 20
hours every week of radio. If you miss a segment,
get the podcast. Armstrong and Getty On Demand. Subscribe.
Speaker 4 (37:27):
Armstrong and Getty.
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the
George Washington Broadcast Center.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty. Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
And now, here's Armstrong and Getty. Ah, the rhythm of
life is back. Kids at school, 60 Minutes is new,
NFL football games, all that sort of stuff. Soon-to-be playoff baseball.
(00:32):
Loving it all. Excellent.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Excellent.
Speaker 4 (00:34):
You could mournfully mourn the summer passing, but I like
your forward-looking take on the challenge attitude.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Way to go. You've got to look forward.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Yes, you do.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
What was I going to say? Oh, so Friday, as
we talked about a lot, was the 25-year anniversary of 9-11,
got a lot of coverage. The day before, the 10th,
was the one-year anniversary of the assassination of Charlie Kirk,
which is a horrifying event to some, but a gleeful
event to others, it turns out, which is highly troubling.
(01:08):
So where did they do this man-on-the-street stuff?
Speaker 4 (01:12):
I believe it was in the Philadelphia environs.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
I'm sure you could do it lots of different places
where they just ask some people what they felt about
the assassination of Charlie Kirk. This is what they had
to say.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
What are your thoughts on Charlie Kirk?
Speaker 3 (01:26):
He got everything that was coming to him, and I wish.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
It had been longer. So do you think it was
good that he was assassinated?
Speaker 1 (01:33):
I think it was hilarious that he was assassinated.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
How do you feel about Charlie Kirk?
Speaker 5 (01:38):
I feel fantastic.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
I mean, I think he had what was coming to
him personally.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
And why did he deserve to die?
Speaker 5 (01:45):
Well, he did say that, you know, gun deaths, you
need at least one to make guns worth it.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
So I think his was it. I don't think that
sort of talk would have happened or gone unremarked upon
20 years ago, no matter who it was that got shot.
We just didn't talk that way back then. Back then,
not that many years ago. Anyway, here's more of that.
(02:13):
Rest in hell.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Do you condemn the assassination of Charlie Kirk? To condemn?
I don't know. When it happened, I didn't really care,
to be honest. I'm not even going to lie. My
reaction was to laugh. And then when I saw the video,
I was like, okay. And yeah, that was kind of
a reaction.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Kind of speaking to what I was talking about earlier
about young people have seen so much grotesque violence online,
it doesn't leave a mark at all.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
Yeah, I was going to withhold my comments other than.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
The.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Well, let's go ahead and play the last one.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
What do you like to talk?
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Why is it F. Charlie Kirk? He's a racist. I'm
glad that n * * * a' s dead.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
F * * * Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
How is he a racist? How is he a racist?
You're a b * * * h- ass n * * *
a too, you know that?
Speaker 1 (03:04):
How so?
Speaker 6 (03:05):
You're a b * * * h- ass n * * * a, bro.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
I'm not talking to you. I'm not the one walking
away from a conversation.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
Yeah, so you got a handful of things going on there,
and to your point, I think one of them is
not only do they see horrifying death and bloodshed and
stuff online to the point that they become desensitized.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
To it, but also.
Speaker 4 (03:25):
When so much of your experience is online, human beings
become abstractions. They're kind of just... Charlie Kirk was another
character on my screen. He does not have the reality.
And you're always talking about, are we the last generation
that experienced life pre-online life? If I see someone die
(03:48):
on a screen, my reaction is based on my entire
life's experience, which is experiencing human beings as human beings.
other than, like, TV sitcom characters. A lot of these kids,
most of their experience of other human beings is screen deep.
And so they can't even... Even if they wanted to,
(04:10):
they have a hard time relating to an actual human
being who felt a bullet rip through his throat, realized
he was going to die in that moment, realized he
would never see his wife and children again, and his
kids would grow up without him, and he bled out
on the pavement. They... It's not that they don't want
to appreciate that. I'm not sure they can.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
No, I don't think they can either. I know my
son can't, and it disturbs me that he can't.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
Well, and then you've got the indoctrination, and, you know,
I threatened to do this. I never did.
Speaker 4 (04:40):
And what I threatened to do is talk about Mao
Zedong in the Cultural Revolutions, the way they ensured obedience,
compliance with their policies. And it had to do with
dividing humanity into two groups, the good and the evil,
to grossly oversimplify it. But since the kids are getting
(05:02):
taught a lot of that woke stuff in school, they've
now equated, well, quoting, I can't remember who said this.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
I should have written it down.
Speaker 4 (05:10):
It might have been James Lindsay, but Political disagreement is
increasingly treated as a serious moral offense rather than a
simple difference of opinion. When you see the world that way,
punishing someone for holding different views becomes a moral good.
And that's a good explanation of Mao's thing too. But yeah,
so those people, young people who are disgusting and horrifying
(05:34):
to me, they were taught Charlie Kirk was a murderously
hateful character. Therefore, to celebrate his assassinations like celebrating the
fact that Hitler finally.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Killed himself in the bunker morally to them.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
Yeah, it's pretty troubling.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
I'd rather demonize the people who taught them that than
to demonize the young dolts. Right.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Yeah, they didn't raise themselves. I don't know if there's
any turning this around, but I get... As I've said many,
many times, I get flipped off regularly, angrily flipped off,
not even just like a casual joking flip off because
I see their face. And sometimes the just angry because
(06:24):
I'm driving a Tesla Cybertruck and. They don't like the
fact that Elon helped Trump. I can't even wrap my
head around being that angry about what somebody else is driving.
But I get that on a regular basis, and it
makes me so disturbed. Not because I give a crap
what anybody thinks about it. how I dress, how I drive,
(06:46):
anything like that. But just that people can get that
angry about politics. As I've said before, I guarantee you
that for those people, if, if somebody was beating me
down because of that, they would think that was awesome.
He got what he deserved. Like they said about Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 4 (07:02):
Well, that's not a political disagreement treated as a serious
moral offense.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
That is not a good place for society to be.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
No, no.
Speaker 4 (07:09):
So a couple other exhibits, uh, in the prosecution of
the modern world, if you will, um, And a number
of people have written about this. Filmmaker Legzi Alexander, who
directed a movie called Green Street Hooligans, Daniel Radcliffe was
in it, and I can't remember who else. It's about
hooliganism and alleged white nationalism in Britain and that sort
(07:33):
of thing. It was a pretty big deal, and it's very,
very well made. But when that poor young woman, that
young mother who just ended maternity leave and went back
to work for Bank of America... got stabbed to death
on the street by that lunatic in New York City.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
She celebrated it.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
She put out memes of like the bat light, except
instead of the bat, it's Luigi Mangione celebrating that this
woman had been stabbed because she's one of the evildoers.
This gal happens to be Palestinian-American, for what that's worth.
That's bizarre in the true sense of the word. So
(08:11):
strange as to be Difficult to comprehend. That idea that,
and back to the whole political disagreement, is a serious
moral failing. And then she explained it. Israel doesn't care
about the woman who got killed. They care about the
positive rating Bank of America gave them in the middle
(08:33):
of a genocide. There is huge money at stake. Okay,
so a young mom bleeding out on the pavement is good.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Okay, sorry, I didn't really, I didn't follow you there.
Speaker 4 (08:44):
Here's another article about how Barron Trump lives an extremely
reclusive life because of the assassination attempts on his dad.
And also, he'd grown close to Charlie Kirk. They were
actual friends. And so he more or less lives in
hiding because of the political violence and the number of both.
(09:06):
There's a specific Iranian plot against him. There's a $ 10
million bounty on his head.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
From Iran. And, you know, we never got to it.
I read the headline.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
They're now hiring local criminals all over the world to
do their bidding. Like, there was a case in Romania
where they hired some local gangsters to beat down an
Iranian dissident, and there was an incident, I think it
was in France, that was fairly similar. So, yeah, the poor,
poor kid has got to, I mean, you know, all
(09:36):
presidential kids They're protected and keep a low-ish profile, but
like the Obama girls went to a private school in Washington, D.C.,
but they went to the damn school.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
Well, yeah, I actually know someone who protected one of
the Bush daughters all through her college years, following her
around for parties and bars and sorority houses, stuff like that,
but they're they didn't really live in fear.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Right, right, exactly.
Speaker 4 (10:04):
Yeah, it's just, oh, it was going to bring me
ultimately to this. Yet another poll, Americans who find killing acceptable.
One in six tell pollsters they're okay with assassination. Then
they go into the Brian Thompson thing. You're ignorant at best,
(10:28):
evil at worst.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (10:31):
Let's at least touch on those numbers after a cheerier
note from our friends at Rough Greens. Dog owners, dog lovers,
what would one more healthy year with your dog mean
to you? Or how about two or three? None of
us knows how many years we're going to get with
our dogs, but here's something the founder of Rough Greens,
naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black, told us that stuck with us.
(10:52):
Healthy years aren't a result of luck. They're built every day,
one bowl at a time with good nutrition.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Yep, we're talking about live nutrition your dogs need sprinkled
on top of your current food. That's what we like
about Rough Greens. You don't have to change the dog's food.
And you're going to get the more than 20 live
vitamins and minerals, probiotics, enzymes, omega oils that support energy, digestion, mobility,
and longevity with your Rough Greens. Try it out. Give
it 90 days and take the Rough Greens 90-Day Challenge.
(11:20):
Get 50% off your first 90 days backed by the
full 90-day money-back guarantee.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
More healthy years together can start with your pup's next meal.
Go to roughgreens.com for that 90-day challenge. Roughgreens.com. R-U-F-F, greens.com. Roughgreens,
they make any dog food better.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
I guess quickly following up on what I said about
ignorant at best, evil at worst. Hey, morons. If you're
okay with assassination, you see what happens is some people
on the other side start assassinating the men and women
you like. And then it's just a race to the bottom,
you see, is the thing.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
That would stick with them better if they didn't view
people on the other side as evil.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
But we're the good people.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
So assassinating us would be totally different than assassinating the
evil people would be their point of view, which is
obviously the sort of thing that leads you down the
road you're describing. So an Emerson poll came out a
couple of weeks ago. It was asking about Luigi Mangione,
the deranged, misguided, barely 20-something idiot. Were his actions acceptable
(12:34):
or unacceptable? And 16.7% of respondents said his actions were
either completely acceptable or somewhat acceptable. This is not a fluke.
It's the same finding as the firm's 2024 poll, December
2024 poll. So about 17% are one out of six.
And after 20 months, the public trial, national news coverage,
(12:55):
the number has held steady. Public opinion had every opportunity
to self-correct, and it hasn't. It means that Americans' tolerance
for political violence is becoming hardwired into the public consciousness,
they write. Let's see, this is Adrian Norman writing. And
the violence isn't limited to one type of victim, and
it isn't confined to the opinion polls. Federal prosecutors argued
(13:20):
on August 2025 court filing that the killing of Mr.
Thompson helped inspire the mass shooting at the National Football
League headquarters a month prior.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
Simply put, Mr.
Speaker 4 (13:30):
Mangione hoped to normalize the use of violence to achieve
ideological or political objectives since the murder of certain quarters
of the public who openly identify as acolytes of the
defendant have increasingly begun to view violence as an acceptable
or even necessary substitute for reasoned political disagreement. Well, and
if you tended not to believe that, if you were
taught every day in school or damn near every day
(13:51):
that their speech is violence, and we've talked about this before,
If speech is violence, then of course you can answer
it with violence. Because every human society recognizes the right
to self-defense. But to justify our violence that's just in
response to speech, first we've got to.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Teach the kids that their speech is violence.
Speaker 4 (14:13):
It goes right back to the educational system and how
it's been captured by leftist lunatics.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
So a couple of tech things coming up. Left-handers are
hating the new foldable iPhone. How I used AI in
my son's phone.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
Who do I sue?
Speaker 1 (14:29):
Also, a tip I'm taking to look at your phone
less that I think might be working, looking at it less.
All coming up.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
Stay here.
Speaker 4 (14:37):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 5 (14:41):
When we look at the hardware design for the iPhone Duo,
you'll notice it has an asymmetrical design with sharp right
corners on the hinge side and soft rounded corners on
the outside.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
And they do this intentionally.
Speaker 5 (14:50):
So you can have a nice soft rounded edge resting
on your hand rather than a sharp corner stabbing into
your palm. But even worse than that, the iPhone Duo
also had a major software change because instead of having
your home screen dock, toolbars and app controls on the
bottom of your phone like they always were now they're
going to be on the right hand side but if
you're left-handed you're going to have a sharp right corner
(15:10):
stabbing the palm of your hand and you're going to
have to reach all the way across an even wider phone.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Just to send a text message oh there's some guy
claiming that the new apple foldable iphone is uh unfair
to left-handers i can.
Speaker 4 (15:25):
Tell you this stabs left-handers that's my headline I've.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
Taken in a lot of these review videos on different
things over the last couple of years. God, some of
the so-called problems are so overblown in these reviews. I mean,
you got to talk about something, but I did that
with a lot of vehicles I've purchased and stuff like that.
And then you get the car and it's like, okay,
the cup holder's a little further up than I would
like it to be. Maybe, I don't know. I can't
imagine doing a 15-minute video about it. Anyway, back to
(15:54):
the tech thing. And I think I want to get
that iPhone because I take in Every TV show, movies, sports,
football games, everything on my phone. So it would be
handy for me to have that screen. Two things I've done.
I read a little piece in the New York Times
about ways to look at your phone less. And one
of them was to turn the picture to grayscale instead
(16:15):
of the colors. Because part of the dopamine hit is
the lurid, bright, vivid colors that you get. So I
turned my phone to the grayscale. And it is much, much,
much less satisfying to look at.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
How interesting.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
I know. I was surprised myself. It's just kind of
like to look at it is kind of what a letdown.
So where is that? Is that in settings? We're in settings.
And the key is because sometimes you want the color,
like especially if you're doing photos or watching videos. So
I did the shortcut to where you triple click the
(16:48):
right hand button. I can switch it to color real
quick if I want to do a picture, then switch
it back to gray. So I'm going to keep my
phone that way from here on out because it is.
Definitely less stimulating and exciting to look at a gray phone.
One other tech thing. For better or worse, I showed
my son a way to use AI for a homework
assignment he had yesterday, which I thought was pretty handy.
(17:09):
He got this assignment in English. He gets to pick
a book to read, but it had some limits on
what books he could read. It had to be a
certain number of pages. It had to be blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
all these lists. I said, we can try this. I
just took a picture of it. put it on Claude
and said, my freshman in high school needs to follow
these rules for books, suggest some books. And it suggested
(17:29):
like 10 different kinds of books. If you'd like this
kind of book, if you'd like this kind of book,
if you'd like this kind of book. And we picked
Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury's, the right page length and skill
level and everything like that. And I thought that was
a really handy way to use AI.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
Yeah. Oh, yeah, definitely. Love it.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
God, the way it can just take a picture of
something and it reads it for you and comprehends it
is amazing.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
It's great up until the moment it kills us all.
Speaker 4 (17:55):
Yeah, I used it for hours yesterday trying to plan
a vacation using all sorts of different possibilities and scenarios
and combinations. It was wonderfully, wonderfully productive. And then we'll
all be dead, but we'll be productive until that moment.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Until it kills us, it is so cool. More on
the way. If you're missing a podcast, Armstrong and Getty
on demand.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 6 (18:18):
Well, we certainly need to begin to act urgently to
address the challenges that exist. And unfortunately, Republicans have abandoned
their responsibility. So under Speaker Mike Johnson, he killed a
bipartisan task force, this Congress. that was prepared to do
the serious work necessary to try to erect the guardrails
(18:38):
to protect the health, the safety, the well-being of the
American people.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
Talking about AI there. So that's Hakeem Jeffries likely to
be the Speaker of the House soon. These Republicans sound
like monsters. Saying Republicans have abandoned their responsibility around controlling AI.
And Barack Obama speaking to a group yesterday behind closed
doors apparently said we've got to make this a central issue.
(19:04):
For Democrats running for president and in Congress, and I
really am worried that this is going to turn into,
and I don't even, it could go either direction. It's
just like the masks thing or the vaccines thing. Somehow
it gets established that one side is for and one
side is against, and then it's, everybody gets locked into
their positions because of their tribalism around their party. And
(19:27):
the best example is vaccines. For the past however many decades,
it was.
Liberals who are anti-vaccine and Republicans calling them crazy for it.
But then when COVID hit for a variety of reasons,
it got flipped So you were anti-Trump if you wanted
(19:48):
to get vaccines. But if that gets locked into AI,
where it's seen as a partisan thing, being for or
against it, then we're really, really doomed. I hope that
doesn't happen.
Speaker 4 (20:01):
When you ducked out fairly briefly last week to begin
your journey, your jury odyssey.
I was talking about it had dawned on me the
other day how directionality has taken over our society. And
it's a term I'd never really even heard. Directionally, I
(20:25):
agree with them. You know, they're trying to rein in AI.
But we've become so tribal that you've got to go
in the accepted direction of your tribe. Even if, like,
a reasonable correction of your course. Oh, we got this
one wrong. We went too far. This is actually hurting people.
Would be very, very smart. And everybody can see it's right.
(20:46):
But you can't go directionally against it.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
And so you're right.
Speaker 4 (20:51):
We risk a situation in which, you know, one gets
coded left and the other point of view on AI
gets coded right.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
And then.
Speaker 4 (21:00):
I don't know, whichever side ends up being pro-AI, says, well, yes,
it killed 50 million people in the Western U.S., but
that's no reason to go all liberal or vice versa.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
That's no reason to side with the fascists. And, oh, God,
it makes everybody so dumb.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
So, to present a different view on this than we
were talking about in hour one, I guess.
Speaker 4 (21:22):
Oh, can I talk about the politics again, just real quick?
I can't remember who it was pointed out that The
Obama be afraid, be very afraid thing is straight out
of the Democrats' playbook. And that, whether it's COVID or
climate change, is a big one. They go with the
be afraid, be very afraid, you need to give us
(21:43):
this power and we will save you thing. And then
the doomsayers never end up being right, but they don't
get called to account for it.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
So it's on to the next doom.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
And by way of illustration, I was struck that You know,
the matter, I'm sorry, the modern above the fold is
what is the New York Times website top few stories.
And this morning, number one, EPA is expected to erase
limits on climate pollution from power plants. Number two, six
strangers connected by disaster, devastating wildfires and storms, weather caused
(22:19):
by climate change.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Story three.
Speaker 4 (22:22):
As the fight for a key climate goal falters, some
beginners fight for survival about these little island nations that
are going to be drowned and all the little children
will die painfully in front of their parents because of
climate change. That's how they get power. That doesn't mean
there's nothing worth worrying about, but.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
I don't know if I've ever clicked on a climate story,
and I never will.
Speaker 4 (22:46):
But that's just me. Sell your parka, buy some shorts.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
But back to AI, to give the point of view
that I know some of you have, that this whole
CEOs of the big companies coming forward and saying it's
time to put up guardrails and for the government to
get involved and all that sort of stuff is either
overblown or it's just You're trying to lock in things
(23:11):
where they are now because you're ahead so that nobody
can compete against you. I don't think that's true, by
the way. I think they are for real worried and
rightfully so. And we're in for the shock of all
of our lives as a species.
Speaker 3 (23:28):
And or both are true.
Speaker 1 (23:30):
But so this guy, David Sachs, I don't know if
you know who he is, but he is the main
advisor to Donald Trump on AI. He's also a super
rich tech gazillionaire financial dude. Anyway, he put out this
over the weekend after Dario put out his letter on
Saturday about how the time is now in the last
(23:52):
six months. This has happened. It's almost too late. David
Sachs put this out. Stop pretending you need anyone else's permission.
Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you
can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory
approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending... I didn't
(24:13):
even understand that thing, so I won't read it. Stop
pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who
aren't even at the frontier. Most of all, stop pretending
the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face
massive product liability exposure if your products do the sort
(24:33):
of damage in a truly damaging cyber attack you're talking about.
The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or
unauthorized ways. You can do this anytime you want to.
You don't need the government. You don't need anybody else.
If you think it's bad, stop doing it, is basically
his message. You're at the forefront of it. Stop then.
Speaker 3 (24:55):
Nobody's holding you back.
Speaker 4 (24:57):
That casts the tech giants as the serial killer who
writes the police, stop me before I kill again.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
Right.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
I can't stop myself.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Go ahead and pace the frontier. It's about the idea
that they're on the frontier edge. Well, if you're on
the front edge, then you can slow down the pace
if you want to. You're the one setting the pace currently.
The easiest way to not build superintelligence is for you
to agree not to build it.
Speaker 4 (25:22):
Boy, the product liability thing. I mean, if you wiped
out humanity, there are going to be so many lawsuits
if there are a few lawyers.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
I'm going to be so angry. I'm calling my lawyer immediately.
Speaker 3 (25:36):
You're going to be on the hook for huge damages.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
What do you think of that angle of what are
you doing? You and Sam Altman and Elon as the
three biggest deals. The only thing is that so like
that doesn't include Zuckerberg. And they're spending billions of dollars
to try to get ahead of those people that they're
currently behind. Or Google. Because you've got to have all
(26:01):
the leaders on board. Or all you do is allow
them to get where you are currently in probably like
two months and then move forward on down the road.
And then, as always, what about China? Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4 (26:13):
Like I pointed out, though, it's possible both things are true.
They might actually be terrified of the Frankenstein monster they
have created, and they're afraid to go any further in
their experiments, and they just want everybody to be held
back some because they know how scary this could be. And,
by the way, that would solidify their lead. It's possible
(26:35):
both are true. That's what makes this stuff so difficult
to come to a conclusion about.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
I'll read the whole last paragraph of his screen because
it is pretty good. So go ahead and pace the frontier.
You're the one setting it. The easiest way not to
build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it.
Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that
will look like blackmail of the public and the political system.
So just do it. If you do, you'll buy goodwill
(27:03):
for the next conversation. If you don't, we'll know this
was just another bid for regulatory capture or an election
season PSYOP.
Speaker 3 (27:13):
Forceful stuff.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
The problem is, like, if you're right, and you might be,
that they're scared of it and they want regulatory capture.
They might not want regulatory capture at all. And it's
surely that this is about to be completely out of control.
Somebody needs to do something. I don't know if I
(27:36):
buy David Sachs' argument that, well, you're the guys at
the forefront. Stop then. Because Dario on a couple of
the shows over the weekend did talk about, you know,
there's lots of competition out there, including China. We need
to have the world come together and set up some
sort of rules like we did around nuclear power, for instance.
Speaker 4 (27:57):
Right.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
Immediately.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
Well, to quote our president, whoever wins AI wins.
Speaker 1 (28:06):
I don't. Well, he said, and I think this is
a childish view, but a lot of people have it,
that there's way more good that's going to come out
than bad. Well, if the bad is the end of
all jobs and everyone's dead.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (28:23):
What possible good matters?
Speaker 3 (28:25):
Well, first of all, if I'm dead, I don't care
if I'm unemployed. True.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
Anyway.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
Yeah, I know.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
There's no arguing that.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
Stuff is all so.
Speaker 4 (28:36):
Overwhelming and complex and difficult to get to people's actual motives.
I would say, as you pointed out earlier, and I
agree 100%, whether it's Dario or the Harry Potter lookalike
who blew the whistle last week or whatever, whomever, the idea, well,
we just need to get together with all the countries
(28:58):
of the world and come to an understanding and agree
to work together, including China. Who is that one moron
who said China is run by scientists?
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Oh, my Lord.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
So Dario said, we need to work with China. And
he said, I realize that's going to be very difficult
to get China on board and slowing down. And that's
above my pay grade.
Speaker 4 (29:21):
Yeah. It is.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
Obviously, the fact that you just said that sentence out
loud like that's doable means it's above your pay grade
as far as I'm concerned. You're a computer genius. You
know more about that than I could ever get even
like a half of 1% toward or anything like that.
But you're just laughing. ignorant in my mind if you
think you're going to get China to agree to some
(29:45):
sort of slowdown on this and you can get them
to honor it. So just don't even think that's an option.
Speaker 4 (29:51):
Yeah, the best we can do is choke off their
access to chips, and that's imperfect at best.
Speaker 3 (29:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
Now, I was listening to one genius. It might even
have been Hinton, the so-called godfather of AI, and there's
a bunch of people they put that label on. But
this angle of ASI or RSI, there's way too many letters.
That's the recurvent superintelligence where it folds back in on
(30:18):
itself and programs itself. Yeah. would be so bad for everyone.
It really is like mutually assured destruction that we had
during the Cold War with the USSR, where they didn't
want to blow up the world any more than we did,
so we wouldn't start a big nuclear war. If China's
convinced that superintelligence is about to take over, and then
(30:40):
you're not going to be in charge, we're not going
to be in charge, nobody's going.
Speaker 3 (30:42):
To be in charge.
Speaker 1 (30:44):
President Xi probably doesn't want that. That'd be the end
of their rule.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
Yeah, true. And I don't want to be a bummer.
I don't want to scare the crap out of people.
Speaker 4 (30:53):
But if you were to say to Xi Jinping, I
have a way for you to dominate the globe through AI,
100 million of your people will die, but you will
dominate the globe for the next century.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
Chinese-style communism. Will you take that deal? I think Xi
Jinping would say yes.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
I don't think he'd even have to think about it.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (31:19):
So, that's not cool. Mention that to Dario Amodei.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
I'd rather none of this was happening.
Speaker 4 (31:30):
Sure.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
But it's sure damned interesting. It is so damned interesting.
Watching mankind do this to itself.
Speaker 3 (31:40):
Holy crap!
Speaker 4 (31:41):
You mentioned Mark Zuckerberg, who's busy developing his pretend-to-be-transgender-and-wear-my-glasses-into-a-locker-room-to-take-videos-of-girls glasses.
The perception of which he's trying to counter by running,
all right, I admit it, an unbelievably great commercial. It
may have been during the football yesterday. A blinded veteran
(32:04):
wearing his glasses saying, Hey, Metaglasses, can you read this
for me? And, of course, it's a letter from his
grandchild or something like that.
Speaker 3 (32:11):
Oh, my God. Well, that is nice.
Speaker 4 (32:14):
Metaglasses, which direction is the flag so he and his
buddy can salute it?
Speaker 1 (32:19):
Oh, okay. I haven't seen it, but that seems a
little over the top, given the reality of mostly it's
going to be used to take pictures of hot chicks
without them knowing it.
Speaker 4 (32:28):
Yeah, standing on the upper balcony and looking down women's...
Breast is right.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Exactly. It was over the top, but it was good.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
If it was all blind veterans saying which direction is
the flag, that would be fantastic.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
Yes. I believe you, Mark.
Speaker 3 (32:46):
He is Satan. Anyway, we've got much more to come.
Can't wait. Fun stuff.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
Check that out. That is too much.
Speaker 3 (32:55):
I know. It is so over the top, but it's effective.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
I really don't want to step on this puppy, but
I can't see. Google Glasses, could you help me not step.
Speaker 3 (33:02):
On this puppy?
Speaker 2 (33:05):
Do you want.
Speaker 3 (33:07):
Or do you want Google Glasses or Meta Glasses? Yeah, great.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
All right, order from our friends at Blue Collar Dollar
for our hardworking folks, listening small business owners, farmers, you know,
the people who have gotten their hands dirty and busted
their ass through life. This is high-level financial planning, but
not like Wall Street pretentious coat and tie.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
It's for people who actually do the heavy lifting.
Speaker 1 (33:30):
None of the kind of jargon that you hate and
that sort of stuff that you're going to be talking
to people, straight talk, people that understand you, talk your language.
If you are 55 years of age or older, you've
set aside at least $ 250, 000 for retirement, Blue Collar Dollar
has a special offer for you. If you pick up
your phone right now and you dial pound 250 and
say Blue Collar Dollar, you'll get a complimentary financial review
(33:51):
from a licensed talent advisor.
Speaker 4 (33:54):
That's pound 250, and just get ready to use the
keywords blue-collar dollar. Now the lawyers get their share. Hit it, lawyers.
Paid endorsement.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Armstrong and Getty are not talent clients and receive compensation
for promoting talent, creating a conflict of interest.
Speaker 6 (34:06):
Investment advisory services offered through Talent LLC and SEC-registered investment advisor.
Speaker 3 (34:09):
For more additional disclosures, visit bluecollar.com, paid for by Epic Financial.
Speaker 4 (34:13):
Armstrong and Getty. In a recent interview, 68-year-old Sharon Stone
says she hasn't had sex in years. True, the last
time she uncrossed her legs, a moth flew out.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
Oh, now, now. So coarse.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
I don't think that actually happened.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
No, no.
Speaker 4 (34:35):
Surely more intellectually satisfying jokery could take place on your show, Greg, please.
Speaker 3 (34:45):
So, this is crazy.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
You know who I heard say that the other day?
What's that? What if Sharon Stone said that? How old
is she?
Speaker 2 (34:53):
68?
Speaker 1 (34:53):
She must be single. But Louis C.K., I saw him
on some podcast. He said, no, he was on stage
doing his stand-up routine, his latest special. And he said,
I haven't had sex in many, many years. But I thought, wow,
that's interesting. Coming out of that weird thing you got
caught doing where you'd ask women to watch you, you
just have, like, Had to take a break, I guess,
(35:18):
or something.
Speaker 3 (35:19):
All or nothing. He's like an alcoholic, I guess.
Speaker 1 (35:22):
Whoa.
Speaker 3 (35:23):
That's odd. So, University of California system.
Speaker 4 (35:28):
Promised that, this is from the Boston Globe, promised that
$ 170 million in spending on a single digital infrastructure project
would cut administrative bloat by $ 750 million over its lifetime.
Speaker 3 (35:43):
That sounds like a pretty good investment.
Speaker 4 (35:45):
Spend $ 170, save $ 750. Instead, the project took seven years
and ballooned to $ 942 million in cost. And the finished
product was so poorly designed and difficult to use that
an entirely new IT unit had to be created just
to keep the software functional. The savings on staffing, which
(36:05):
was the original.
Speaker 3 (36:06):
Intent, was zero.
Speaker 4 (36:08):
How do you even spend a billion dollars on new software?
And what specialized billion-dollar software do they possibly need? If
a billion dollars are being spent, writes the Free Press,
I should hope there are no administrators at all after
it's done. They could have just hired a personal assistant
for each.
Speaker 3 (36:25):
Student at that rate.
Speaker 1 (36:27):
No kidding.
Speaker 3 (36:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (36:28):
You know, we don't have time for this. Maybe we'll
squeeze it in the next hour. If you don't get
next hour, you got to go somewhere or whatever. Subscribe
to Armstrong and Getty On Demand. You never miss an episode,
plus you automatically get the downloads of the Armstrong and Getty,
one more thing, which sometimes includes swears. But I was
texting Jack over the weekend about how Western society is
(36:49):
coming up against Islamism and it's getting more assertive in Britain,
especially in France. And they're realizing, oh my God, we
have a serious problem. Part of that is they had
a very Biden-esque immigration and asylum system in Britain.
Speaker 3 (37:08):
It is so... Woke and bizarre, it's.
Speaker 4 (37:12):
Actually hilarious, if you put aside some of the grim
reality of it.
Speaker 3 (37:16):
We'll tell you about that coming up next hour.
Speaker 1 (37:18):
So we do a lot of segments. We do 20
hours every week of radio. If you miss a segment,
get the podcast. Armstrong and Getty On Demand. Subscribe.
Speaker 4 (37:27):
Armstrong and Getty.
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!