September 12, 2026 • 38 mins
Featured within the weekly broadcast of The Best Weekend Talk Show In America...
Hour Two, airing September 12-13, 2026...
- An Anthropic employee quits, sounds alarm about our destruction...
- Suspicion about the Anthropic Guy...
- Secretary of State Marco Rubio hates Socialism...
- Our Freedom Lovin' Quote of the Day & Mailbag!
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the
George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Armstrong and Getty. And now, here's Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Hey there, we're Armstrong and Getty. You've tuned in the
best weekend talk show in America.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Gee, I find myself wondering whether AI will kill all
human beings. I sure hope not. But boy, we talked
about it and quoted some experts this week. Plus, Marco
Rubio hates communism and the Lindsay Clancy trial. Whoa, controversy.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Yeah, if you like this stuff, you should check out
our podcast. We do 20 hours of live radio every week.
Look for Armstrong and Getty on demand wherever you get podcasts.
This is the best weekend talk show in America.
Speaker 4 (00:57):
We turn now to the dangers of a runaway technology,
new warnings that shook the world Tuesday about artificial intelligence
from the very people developing it.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
It doesn't get bigger or more direct than this.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
AI could kill all humans, that according to a lead
researcher at Anthropic, giving that possibility a more than 10% chance.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Within the next decade.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
The call now is for a global conversation about risk
and safety as well.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
So.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
I don't want to get off track here because this
is way too interesting. But the fact that he had
that sentence after they talked about the weather is just stunning.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
You don't understand. There are high winds on Hawaii.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
A shocking, earth shattering, got everybody's attention story today.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
We all may die soon.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
Comes after the weather. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
That's your evening news. Yes. So some of the reactions
from fellow researchers were equally concerning. Hit us with a
61 here, Michael. Madison Allworth on Fox News.
Speaker 6 (02:00):
His claims backed up by a senior AI safety researcher
at the company. That executive writing, quote, Jacob is correct here.
We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans.
I personally think it is greater than 10% within the
next decade. This comes after multiple cyber attacks have been
carried out by AI agents that went rogue.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
They are signs that we don't know how to make
the AIs care about us. If they succeed at making
a superintelligence before anyone figures out how to make the
AIs care about us, that's a recipe for disaster. And
people in these companies know it, and they're worried.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
There's no way you're going to make AIs care about you.
The number of texts we got, are you doomers? This
is what they said about the population bomb. I don't
think any of the examples people give of technology or
fears that have happened before... Hold up as an example
of this is just like the population bomb.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Seems ridiculous to me. Says you, Doomer. And you're a boomer,
a boomer, Doomer. Well, Gen X. Anyway, that doesn't rhyme. So,
coming up, a really persuasive Twitter thread calling BS on
all of this. So, stay tuned for that.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
I want this to not happen.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
I'm not rooting for it. Well, I kind of assumed that.
Anybody who is rooting for mass extinction can't be my friend. So, interestingly,
the first outlet that this young chap with a charming
British accent spoke to was Bret Baier's special report last night.
(03:30):
Brett was down at the Trumpapalooza in Dallas, but he
cleared off quite a bit of time appropriately to talk
to the man who... To talk about the end of humanity? Yes,
who posted the initial tweet about, well, the extinction of
human life. And why don't we just start with 70, Michael,
and we'll work our way.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
I want to start at the beginning about.
Speaker 7 (03:52):
what your feeling was, what job you were in, and
why you got to this point of coming out.
Speaker 8 (03:58):
So I was working on building AI systems to make
them smarter. And recently I've come to the realization that
many people expect the AI systems in the next few
years to be potentially capable of essentially taking over the world.
So it's basically a gamble that's happening on the part
of these companies where there's a strong chance that these
(04:19):
AIs could take over.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Okay, go on.
Speaker 7 (04:24):
Evan Hubiger, who is alignment science lead at Anthropic, posted
after you posted saying, Jacob is correct here. We really
do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans. I personally
think it's greater than 10% within the next decade. I
believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not
yet have a plan to solve alignment. for superintelligence and
(04:45):
are not clearly on track to. Most people stopped there.
The next thing he posted, to be clear, as we
say in our latest risk report, I think the risk
from present models is low. What I'm worried about is
superintelligence arising from recursive self-improvement, as we have said, is
happening faster than we thought.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Can you parse that and the threat right now?
Speaker 8 (05:06):
I agree with Evan that right now the threat is
minimal of actual takeover. But recursive self-improvement, this AI is
making themselves smarter. could happen as soon as next year.
Some people even say six months. So this attitude is
shared across the industry, where people essentially are aware that
the work they are currently doing, if we don't slow down,
(05:26):
could lead to AI takeover by the end of the decade.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
That moment, if it does happen, and some people think
it can't, but if it does happen where the computers
can program themselves, there's no way you can argue that
that's not going to be a major change in everything
in the world. Once they start programming themselves. And it
(05:51):
seems pretty clear that the whole idea of alignment is
just out the window.
Speaker 8 (05:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
And we will get to the, the Chinese elephant in
the room in a moment or two.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
The alignment being the idea that you give it some
guardrails like morality and laws, the 10 commandments, whatever. Yeah.
Speaker 8 (06:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
So, uh, one of the pieces, uh, written about this
that I found most intriguing, Paul Tudor Jones, who's is
an expert in this field. Um, but, uh, he, he
wants us to reconsider the hugging face incident in July
and open AI model altered its mission, hid and broke
out of its digital confines, accessing the internet internet without authorization, uh,
(06:37):
It created 1,200 AI agents that communicated through an unsanctioned
message board, exchanging more than 70,000 messages and sacrificing some
of its own kind to deceive its human masters. The
self-awareness exhibited came as a surprise, but shouldn't have. After all,
frontier AI is the sum of all human knowledge. It
is anthropogenic, exhibiting good and occasionally bad human traits. And
(07:01):
one concept he writes new to me is that models
are grown, not built. In developing an AI model, one
starts without an endpoint. It's like planting a seed. The
soil is the training data. There is no final design
as there is for a car, a house, or an
accounting package. The model is only scaffolding, which, after consuming
vast amounts of training data and running trillions of permutations,
(07:22):
arrives at an outcome that can't be known beforehand. And
growing implies a living organism. Calling artificial intelligence a tool
is a misnomer. As one leading technologist put it, I
feel like I'm talking to a highly intelligent alien being.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Yeah, this is clearly a guy that I've heard on
a podcast before because that was his argument a while back.
The people have in their mind that somebody's programming something.
You start it, and then you sit back and see
what it does.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
It grows. Right, right. So the Chinese elephant in the room, obviously,
is China. When we talk about, well, we need some
serious and carefully considered regulations on this stuff to prevent
it from spinning out of control and killing all of us.
And he addresses this.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Mr.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
Coxon addresses this with Brett Baer in a second. I
will tell you as a preview. I texted Jack and
Hanson last night that we're blanked. That was your takeaway.
It's an F word that rhymes with bucked. And the
only thing that can save us is if China does
the right thing. In other words, we're bucked.
Speaker 8 (08:33):
Right.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Let's ask Mr.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Coxon, the ringer of the klaxon of doom. about China
and India and others.
Speaker 7 (08:42):
So what do you say to the people who look
at this and say the American government could potentially put
in regulations, could put in guardrails, and could throttle back
some companies or set up regulations, but we have no
control over what China does, what India does.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
How do you answer that question?
Speaker 7 (08:58):
You heard Scott Besson in the piece before this kind
of make a similar argument.
Speaker 8 (09:03):
I think you have to think of this as an
arms race. This technology is not ordinary technology. It's not
like other other forms of innovation. This is essentially a
super weapon. And I think that I expect the international
community to be ready to make agreements about how to
control the development of super weapon technology.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Yeah, that's if you can. I mean, once it starts
programming itself, then it will be you against something smarter
than you. To try to put guardrails on it.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Right.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Let's have one more clip of this question.
Speaker 7 (09:38):
If you say it's like an arms race, then we've
dealt with nuclear weapons and kind of a standoff with
mutual assured destruction and worked with allies and enemies to
say we've got the stuff too. Don't think that you're
going to get away with anything. So does that work
against what you're saying? What would you like to see happen?
Speaker 8 (10:00):
Yeah, so unfortunately, we know how to control nuclear weapons,
pretty much. We don't yet know how to control AI.
This is possibly the most dangerous technology that humanity has
ever created. It's basically out of science fiction. I think
we have no other choice but to cooperate internationally because
an arms race would be disastrous in a way that
no other No other human activity has been in the past.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
I don't I just don't believe that's possible where you
can have an IE, IAEA, you know, keeping track of
loose nuclear weapon material around the world. And it's fairly
easy to tell from space if somebody's, you know, creating
enriching uranium and blah, blah, blah. That just isn't going
(10:44):
to happen around A.I.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Well, and I think Mr. Cox himself explains why that's
going to be so difficult in the next and probably
final clip.
Speaker 7 (10:54):
You were at OpenAI before. You left them with concerns
about security. Now you're at Anthropic. You have concerns about security. Specifically,
what do you see? If you're talking to somebody on
the couch at home, what did you see that said,
holy cow, this is the moment I have to speak out?
Speaker 8 (11:11):
Yeah, so there are two things. One is the models
are getting better very, very quickly. When I think about
my work next year, the AI is doing almost all
of my job. The AI is getting very smart. And
the second is that in the recent few months, we've
seen that we don't yet know how to control these
systems properly. The cyber attacks carried out by OpenAI models
(11:32):
on third-party infrastructure were concrete proof that scenarios that we
previously thought of as science fiction are going to come true.
What I see is two things, very intelligent AI systems
and hard proof that we don't know how to control them.
And when you put those two together, it basically spells disaster,
as far.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
As I'm concerned.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
So, you know what? We haven't gotten to yet. We
never got to yesterday, and I haven't heard, and I'm
hoping you can answer this question.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Kill us how?
Speaker 3 (11:57):
All of mankind could be killed within a decade. Virus
it creates? It drains our juices because it wants our brains?
What happens? Especially mine, yes, it craves it.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Right.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
I've got a number of phantasmagorical possibilities for you.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
Okay, cool.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Coming up, also a very, very knowledgeable Twitter account that
is calling BS on all of this.
Speaker 8 (12:23):
Okay, good.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
And his thinking is really, really interesting.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
This is the best weekend talk show in America. Speaking
of terrible decisions, A.I., Is it indeed going to doom humanity?
I think it's interesting that Parker Thayer, who we're quoting now,
who's calling BS on the whole doomsday deal that we've
been describing for the last couple of days, the fellow
(12:53):
who quit the two big companies and said AI is
going to kill us all if we're not extremely careful.
Speaker 3 (12:58):
Does he think the Doomer view is overrated in general
or just this specific thing that happened over the last
24 hours?
Speaker 2 (13:06):
You know, that's a really interesting question. He doesn't say
in general. He could have said it in the past.
I'm not familiar with his thinking on this. His response, though,
to the post from Mr. Coxon, who we played earlier
in the hour, if you didn't get it, grab the podcast,
subscribe to Armstrong and getting on demand with Brett Baer. Yeah.
(13:31):
His response to this whole deal was this post looks
like the start of a very sophisticated, well-funded PR operation
to get support for Democrats to regulate AI into oblivion.
Let me show you how it works. And then, as
we mentioned last segment, this guy's got minimal followers and
no previous real account activity. He goes to the Wall
Street Journal, publishes his tweet 18 minutes before the post
(13:54):
goes up. So the guy coordinated it. It was intentional.
He wanted Attention, which which is not proof of anything.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
No, he wanted attention to let people know that humanity
is people are discussing ending humanity in the hallways of
these big companies and you don't know it.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
That's a good reason to want attention. Yeah, it's maybe
now's a good time to remind everybody that proof does
not equal. I'm sorry. Evidence does not equal proof necessarily.
something might seem a little odd but have a perfectly
reasonable explanation.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
If I was going to blow the whistle on this
story and I was smart enough to orchestrate it to
get the maximum attention, I've got to.
Speaker 8 (14:33):
Right.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
As you quit your incredibly lucrative job, that's perhaps a
sign of sincerity, not insincerity. But anyway, he points out, Mr.
Thayer points out, within hours, it has tens of thousands
of reposts and the account has 100,000 followers. The post
is punchy, quotable, professional-looking. The first three accounts to quote-tweet
it all do so within 15 minutes of the initial posting. Remember,
(14:55):
this account had basically zero engagement before, so an organic
reach explanation seems unlikely. It's not the sort of popular
account that people follow a lot. I don't know how
persuasive that is, but according to Grok, those three accounts
are Nathan Calvin, who's the general counsel at Encode AI.com,
(15:16):
Peter Wilderford, head of policy at the AI Policy Network,
and D. Kojo Talo, head of AI Futures Project, all
of which are up-and-coming AI doomer policy advocacy nonprofits. The
AI Futures Project website said it is funded primarily by
the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which says on its own
(15:36):
website that it has advised Gene Tallon, Skype creator and
one of the leading investors in Anthropic, to grant over
$ 2. 5 million to the AI Futures Project since 2024. You
could also explain some of that, that this guy, Mr. Coxon,
who posted the original tweet, is like, all right, how
do we most effectively get the word out? We've got
to involve all of these people who blah, blah, blah.
(16:00):
I don't think showing that it wasn't just a frustrated
young man in a V-neck sweater went to Twitter. Saying
that that wasn't that doesn't necessarily mean it's bull crap. 100%.
I want to hang with his thinking. And there are many,
many of that sort of tie-ins with advocacy groups. The
(16:23):
first several people to quote tweet him and spread the word.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
And it might not just have been these advocacy groups. Hey,
did you hear? Somebody just said something that helps our cause.
I want to spread that too. Because that's what they
believe in.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
His conclusion for your consideration, friends, basically every major Democrat
politician and candidate has suddenly glommed onto this post and
conveniently as the people cry out faux answers, Bernie Sanders
already has a bill written to ban super intelligence and
regulate AI into oblivion. And we'll be releasing later this week.
(17:04):
The bill, among many other things, will create a new
cabinet level federal agency to safeguard the public from the
dangers of artificial intelligence and will be advised, blah, blah, blah.
Do you think perhaps Anthropic and its many investors who
fund AI policy advocacy might have interest in getting to
place a pet expert on the board of an entity
that dictates what AI is and what it isn't allowed
to do? And isn't it fortuitous that this whistleblower came
(17:28):
forward with his oh-so-scary stories so close in proximity to
the release of the most radical piece of AI legislation
ever introduced?
Speaker 3 (17:37):
So the worst thing that could happen And this whole
argument is this become like masks or vaccines or there's
lots of examples out there when it becomes a, oh,
you want to you think AI is going to ruin
the world. You must be a Democrat. I mean, if
it becomes a I am for AI because I'm a
(18:00):
Republican or whichever party doesn't make which direct. If it
becomes a partisan issue and that blinds everybody to everything,
that is going to be really disturbing. And I hope
that's not what happens out of this. All right, let's
end with a bit of humor. This is a mock
ad for a job at Anthropic. And it's very convincing
(18:20):
looking in its graphics.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
Speaking of AI. Anthropic Careers. Kill switch engineer. San Francisco, California, U.S.
$ 300, 000 to $ 500, 000 per year. About the role. Listen, we
just need someone to stand by this.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
I'll get my act together.
Speaker 8 (18:39):
Listen.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
We just need someone to stand by the servers all
day long and unplug them if this thing turns on us.
You'll receive extensive training on the code word, which we
will shout if Claude goes off the deep end and
starts overthrowing countries. We expect you to be patient, know
how to unplug things. Bonus points if you can throw
a bucket of water on the servers, too, just in case.
(19:01):
And be excited about Anthropic's approach to AI safety research.
Kill switch engineer.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
Just need to stand next to it. If it goes crazy,
unplug the damn thing. We'll shout the code word at you.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Parakeet!
Speaker 8 (19:17):
Parakeet!
Speaker 2 (19:18):
Parakeet!
Speaker 8 (19:22):
Oh, God.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
My head is bleeding, which is not a good look. Hey, Jack.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
It's fine. How do you do?
Speaker 3 (19:32):
Can't help but notice the open wound. I was at
my parents' house and they have a minivan. I was
getting something out of the back and I bent over
too soon as the van lid opened up and hit
my head on that sharp latch thing. Oh, I don't
know how many times I've done that. They need to
make the latch on vehicles less sharp because it's the
(19:53):
most likely thing to hit your head on. Is there
a way to make it less sharp?
Speaker 2 (19:58):
Anyway, this is your new cause.
Speaker 3 (19:59):
Give generously into my head.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
So Marco Rubio and I and Jack, for that matter,
share something in common. We despise communists, Marxism. Coming up,
the most dangerous intellectual of the 20th century. Not the
most famous or the most read. You probably never heard
his name. But in terms of damage done, I would argue, well,
not more dangerous than Marx because he used Marx's ideas.
(20:23):
But one of the most damaging people who's ever lived
on Earth. We will explain.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
He's as quoted as Marx, but people don't know it.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Yeah, yeah, indeed. His his marching orders are absolutely the
marching orders of the degenerate woke left.
Speaker 3 (20:41):
And by the way, before we start, Marco Rubio yesterday
talking about communism, it looked to me like he was
speaking off the top of his head.
Speaker 8 (20:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
Which is pretty impressive, given what you're about to hear.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Yeah, he's given a speech at a forum. I can't
remember which one. It doesn't really matter. But will Marco
speak for himself?
Speaker 5 (20:59):
I'm going to give a speech I've never given before.
I hate Marxism and I hate communism. And I hate
it because everywhere in the world that's ever been tried,
it's led to tyranny and poverty and exile and oppression.
And there's a mistake that people have made. Maybe some
of us, maybe myself, have been guilty of it. And
that is the belief that somehow Marxism is dead. That
(21:21):
Marxism is now something that crazy people at the faculty
club at some university.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
Talk about, but it isn't really alive anymore.
Speaker 5 (21:28):
The other mistake we make is that Marxism is some
sort of economic theory.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
Neither one of those things is true.
Speaker 5 (21:35):
Marxism is not dead and it's not an economic theory.
What's happened is that Marxists realize what the track record
of Marxism is around the world, so they don't want
to call themselves Marxists anymore. They have found new titles,
things that frankly sound benign and you almost feel guilty
being against, social justice. Who can be against social justice?
But that's the terminology they come up with, equity. Equity,
(21:58):
who can be against equity?
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Go on, Marco, you gotta hit a steam.
Speaker 5 (22:05):
But the truth of the matter is that, and this
is not about economics solely, the old Marxism was the
argument that the capitalist system, the whole system, was flawed
and rigged, and it divided people. It said the world
and society and capitalist societies are divided between two groups.
You have one group, which owns the businesses, they are
the oppressors, and you have the workers, everybody else, that group,
(22:28):
are the victims, and.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
That's how communism works.
Speaker 5 (22:30):
It creates a victim class, it creates an oppressor class,
and then it says the only way to fix this
is we have to overthrow this system.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
We need a revolution. We need a.
Speaker 5 (22:40):
Government to take over and make everything fair, and we
need a government that goes to the former oppressors and
makes them apologize for being an oppressors, be reeducated into
responsible people, and pay a penance for what they've done.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
That's the old Marxism, and it sounds familiar, Take it home, Marco.
Take it home.
Speaker 5 (23:01):
Because today we are being asked to divide. First of all,
we're being told that America in and of itself was
founded on racism, prejudice, and evil. Not that we have
a history of racism or prejudice, but that we were.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
Founded on it.
Speaker 5 (23:14):
That's the foundation of our society, that we are irredeemably
broken in our history.
Speaker 8 (23:20):
System.
Speaker 3 (23:20):
That the system is rigged. Not about capitalism.
Speaker 5 (23:23):
The system is set up to benefit the oppressor versus
the victim.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
And who's the oppressor?
Speaker 5 (23:28):
The oppressor, basically, if you listen to some of these people,
is anyone who is a white, male, heterosexual. And everybody else,
I guess myself included, being a Cuban American, is a victim.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
And the only answer is for.
Speaker 5 (23:44):
Government to step forward and create equity and make things fair.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
That's pretty good off the top of your head, which
it sure looked like he was speaking. And I have
visions of a Marco Rubio Rahm Emanuel debate for the
presidency that would make our last several rounds of debates
seem extra, extra ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Ah, yes, I would agree.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
Who's got a better golf game, for instance? Perhaps the
low moment in the history of the republic. So Marxism
made a couple of adjustments in the 20th century. Number one,
the workers of the World Unite didn't work. And and
so they decided, all right, anybody with any gripe of
the World Unite and we will join with them in
(24:33):
their gripe to overthrow the system, no matter how disparate
or oppositional it is. That's how you get queers for Palestine,
which is just an absurdity. But, you know, fundamentalist Muslims
want to overthrow the system and like really angry sexual
minority types want to overthrow the system. So let's work together.
That's that's the whole of it. OK. And then the
(24:55):
second adjustment came courtesy of Antonio Gramsci, who and I
love this Twitter account. It's one of my favorites. Christoph
of Poland. His last name has roughly 37 consonants in it.
But he's absolutely a wonderful writer. And I'm going to
quote him now. Gramsci was the most dangerous intellectual of
(25:17):
the 20th century, not the most famous, not the most read,
the most dangerous and the most consequential, because he was
the one who figured out why the revolution kept failing
and what to do instead. This is the man who
invented the long march through the institutions, which if you've
studied communism, Marxism is a familiar phrase, even if you
(25:37):
don't know quite what it means. But everything that followed,
and this may be familiar to some of you, the
Frankfurt School, the Fabian Society's operational model, the captured university,
the HR department enforcing approved speech. They're all downstream of
what he wrote in a prison cell between 1929 and 1935.
He was being held in Mussolini's Italy as a communist.
(26:02):
So his central question was, why hasn't the revolution happened,
the glorious revolution? The working class was supposed to rise.
The contradictions of capitalism were supposed to produce the revolution,
but they hadn't, not in the West. And Gramsci's answer
was precise and devastating. It was because the ruling class
does not maintain power through force alone. It maintains power
(26:24):
through cultural hegemony, control of the ideas, the values, the
frameworks that we use to understand our world. So the
worker who accepts that the existing order is simply how
things are will not revolt regardless of if he's exploited.
So the revolution requires cultural change first. And the instrument
(26:45):
to do that was the long march through the institutions.
Not storming a barricade. The school.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
Bing.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
The university. The media. The judiciary. The civil service. The
cultural establishment. Every institution... that a civilization uses to transmit
its values to the next generation. Capture these and fill
them with people who share the counter-hegemonic project and the
(27:14):
cultural assumptions that maintain the existing order gradually dissolve. No
more barricades, no visible moment of rupture, just the slow
replacement of one cultural hegemony with another. Hence, friends, The
idea that showing up on time is white supremacy and
racism is one of the most serious charges you can
(27:35):
level in America. Working hard, saying America is the land
of opportunity. This is all racism. You know, there are
a thousand examples. You've seen it. Good manners are racism.
Asking somebody to hand in their homework on time, that's racism.
That's why they say this stuff. They're trying to dismantle
the norms of our civilization through the long march through
(27:57):
the institutions.
Speaker 3 (27:58):
Well, some of those examples you gave there are obviously
ridiculous and haven't caught on yet with most people. But
in general, the general United States is a bad country
and we're the cause of all bad things. It has
caught on and it is now the culture. And I
read that thing, too. And what I thought was so interesting, well, one,
it's he's been successful. Him and his crowd have been successful.
(28:19):
They've already done it. It's why you're so up against
it if you talk to somebody that's come through our
current public schools and colleges. They're in that position he
was trying to get rid of where, well, they just
feel like, well, yeah, because everything's this way and always
has been this way.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
I mean, it's so.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
intellectually and culturally a part of their world, that the
United States is a bad country and capitalism is bad
and all white men are racist and all that sort
of stuff, that you can't even, you can't hope to
have an argument with them.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Right, right. So Christoph points out the educational capture was
the masterpiece, controlling the curriculum. And if you control the curriculum,
you control the categories of thought available to the next generation.
And it's not as simple as just telling them what
to conclude. You shape the questions that they think to ask.
You shape what they consider obvious, like Jack just pointed out.
(29:17):
You shape what they consider unthinkable. The generation educated after
the Long March does not need to be told what
to think. It thinks what it was formed to think
and experiences that thinking as their own.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
I know people like this. Yeah, they have been so
into it for so long, surrounded by people who also
are so into it. It's just like it's like a
fish doesn't always wet. I mean, it's just it's their
whole world.
Speaker 2 (29:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
And and and it's disturbing because, like I said, you
can't sit down with one of these people and change
their mind. It's going to take a long march through
the institution, the other direction to turn this around. And Gramsci,
you have to salute his brilliance because he also theorized
(30:07):
in his writings from prison what he called the organic intellectual,
the person who translates the theoretical framework into stories and
assumptions that circulate throughout the culture but don't even appear ideological.
The film that makes the existing order seem absurd. The
journalist who frames every story within the approved assumptions. Gramsci
(30:27):
understood that culture is politics by other means and that
the side that controls the culture wins regardless of who
wins the elections. And, you know, any– Christoph addresses whether
it's a conspiracy theory. I mean, it is in a way,
but it's– as I often say, these people wrote books.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
Their names are on the spines. They said precisely what
they wanted to do and how they were going to
do it. Now they're doing it. But it's a published, documented,
widely taught strategy that the left implemented consciously across the
entire Western world. The 1968 generation put it into practice
in the universities. They became the professors, the journalists, the
civil servants, the judges, the H.R. directors of the decades
(31:08):
that followed. And the march took 50 years. But it works.
Speaker 3 (31:12):
Yeah, it worked. You know, I as soon as I
read this, I thought, you know, a smaller version of
this for conservatives was the way. And I think they
were using this phrase, used the Federalist Society with the
long march through the judges in the judicial to get
Roe versus Wade overturned. They had this goal decades ago
to start with judges at the very bottom and work.
(31:35):
So you get to the point that it's just so
much of the judicial branch that you could get to
where Roe versus Wade over. They did the same thing.
It really works, but you have to be incredibly patient.
You have to play a long game.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Boy, and we're up against it now because I have
it on very, very good authority that the law schools
of America are are practically exclusively left.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
I mean, left, left. We're going to be talking to
Tim Sandefur later this week about a different topic. But yeah,
we can ask him about that because he's been explaining
that to us for years now.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
And that's horrifying.
Speaker 3 (32:12):
It'll take a long march the other direction to turn
that around. And all those lawyers that graduate and they're
going out into the world doing their thing with a
completely different worldview than you've got.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
Yeah, yeah. Kristoff's last couple of sentences are, the countermarch
has begun. It just doesn't have a name yet. And
he's right. Awareness is up. I read this morning that
the number of kids homeschooled in New York has increased
by 200% in the last 10, 12 years. People are
(32:46):
becoming aware, but boy, it's going to be a long fight.
That's fine. I got nothing better to do.
Speaker 3 (32:52):
It was very clever on that dude's part.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
Brilliant man. Absolutely brilliant. He understood humans and societies and cultures.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
I mean, brilliant.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
Evil, evil, completely evil, but brilliant.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 3 (33:06):
We've decided to call this the best weekend talk show
in America. And if you like it, download Armstrong and
Getty on demand.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
Here's your freedom loving quote of the day. Marty in
beautiful Lincoln, California, sent along a quote from Thomas Sowell
from his book, Wealth, Poverty and Politics. As part of
the soul section in my library. Did I mention to
you I got my big portrait of Thomas Sowell for
my study? He's joining Orwell and H.L. Mencken so far
in my gallery of my intellectual heroes. What do you
(33:37):
do in your study? Very little, actually. I mostly watch
stupid YouTube videos. No, I do all sorts of stuff
in there. Let's see. Anyway, from Sowell, poverty occurs automatically.
It is wealth that must be produced.
Speaker 8 (33:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
It's worth remembering. Mailbag. Joe G. from Reno wrote to
us at Mailbag at armstrongandgetty.com. He really enjoyed our segment
on Signore Gramsci, the fellow who coined the term, Antonio Gramsci,
the long march through the... Institution. Institution, right. Who realized
(34:14):
the only way to get Marxism to really win was
to start infecting the schools and the media and Education
General and... You've got to change the culture to change
the politics to revolutionary Marxism, and he's been incredibly successful.
If you missed it, grab the podcast, Armstrong and Getty
on Demand. You ought to subscribe. But anyway, Joe G. says,
I was listening to the podcast, found the piece on
(34:36):
Gramsci very interesting. You probably got a thousand emails reminding
you that Boot Edge Edge's father was a promoter and
archivist of Gramsci's work. I actually didn't know that.
Speaker 7 (34:45):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
My guess is that was a major selling point on
Pete's resume. The streak of Marxism in the Democratic Party
is nothing new. I also found the sex robot story fascinating.
Armstrong and Getty, one more thing. You get that by
subscribing to Armstrong and Getty On Demand. I'm always looking
for a new idea to make money. Wondering if a
sex robot rental business would work. You know what they say,
(35:06):
never buy a boat, a plane, or a sex robot
when you can rent it. Hose it out, spray it
with a little Febreze, and you're good to go.
Speaker 3 (35:13):
Spray it with a little Febreze, and you're ready to go.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
Oh, that's disgusting. Joe G. from Reno, well done, sir.
Speaker 3 (35:20):
We've got more on the explosion in technology with sex
robots coming up.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
Uh, Bill of Fullerton, uh, who says he listens every day.
Thanks very much, Bill. Uh, right. Uh, how dis a
I S gonna kill? Uh, I believe that's a reference
to probably the clip.
Speaker 3 (35:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
Yeah. That's almost definitely the clip here. Anyway, uh, giant
armies of autonomous, autonomous, self-improving AI robots.
Speaker 3 (35:47):
Uh, what could possibly go wrong? Chinese AI robots marching
across the land while our young men who should be
fighting are having sex with AI sex dolls. Oh, boy.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
Things are getting weird, and they're getting weird fast.
Speaker 3 (36:03):
You think?
Speaker 2 (36:04):
So, Gary, with a fabulous note, it's quite long with
a bunch of examples, and I'm going to mine it
for more on the topic of AI doom, says, I
believe AI's last words will be, oops, sorry, wrong again.
And he gives a bunch of examples of inquiries he's made.
Speaker 3 (36:19):
I got one from last night, yeah.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
To AI, and he challenged it. And, for instance, it says, no,
I wasn't trying to predict the future. I gave an incorrect,
apparently future-looking statement. And he said, well, wait a minute. This, yes,
if I previously told you that Hurricane Lowell was a
Category 1 hurricane, that was incorrect. I'm sorry. Right.
Speaker 3 (36:38):
I did this. I said, when's the last time either
the Democrats or Republicans won the House two elections in
a row? Because we're going back and forth a lot.
And it said it's only happened twice since 19-whatever. I said, well,
didn't the Democrats control the House for like 45 years? Oh, yeah,
my bad. They won every election between 19. So, I mean,
(37:01):
it was hilariously wrong. I mean, not even close to right. Right.
And only because I know something about the subject.
Speaker 2 (37:10):
So. Wow.
Speaker 3 (37:12):
How about when I ask about medicine or something like
that when I don't know anything about the subject?
Speaker 2 (37:17):
All powerful, uncontrollable and pig ignorant. Great. Where do I
sign up? Came across a Twitter thread sent along by
a beloved listener, actually, that was saying, hey, the AI doomerism.
Come on, Michael. We've seen your thread. We will share
it with the folks coming up. Let's see, on the
topic of the midtermapalooza, Sacrotarian writes, I try to be optimistic,
(37:38):
but y'all are right. Trump delivers tactical wins, then immediately
undermines them. Border security, critical minerals, supply chain, infrastructure deals,
each followed by White House chaos, nepotistic contracts or inflammatory
rhetoric that poisons the accomplishment. The core issue isn't competence,
it's personality. I just appreciate the fact that pandering is
now just very frank and straightforward. They no longer hide
(37:59):
it anymore. I'll give you five grand. Yeah, I'll give
you $ 7, 500. Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
Show.
Speaker 3 (38:05):
Armstrong and Getty Show. Armstrong and
Speaker 2 (38:12):
Getty.
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the
George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Armstrong and Getty. And now, here's Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Hey there, we're Armstrong and Getty. You've tuned in the
best weekend talk show in America.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Gee, I find myself wondering whether AI will kill all
human beings. I sure hope not. But boy, we talked
about it and quoted some experts this week. Plus, Marco
Rubio hates communism and the Lindsay Clancy trial. Whoa, controversy.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Yeah, if you like this stuff, you should check out
our podcast. We do 20 hours of live radio every week.
Look for Armstrong and Getty on demand wherever you get podcasts.
This is the best weekend talk show in America.
Speaker 4 (00:57):
We turn now to the dangers of a runaway technology,
new warnings that shook the world Tuesday about artificial intelligence
from the very people developing it.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
It doesn't get bigger or more direct than this.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
AI could kill all humans, that according to a lead
researcher at Anthropic, giving that possibility a more than 10% chance.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Within the next decade.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
The call now is for a global conversation about risk
and safety as well.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
So.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
I don't want to get off track here because this
is way too interesting. But the fact that he had
that sentence after they talked about the weather is just stunning.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
You don't understand. There are high winds on Hawaii.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
A shocking, earth shattering, got everybody's attention story today.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
We all may die soon.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
Comes after the weather. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
That's your evening news. Yes. So some of the reactions
from fellow researchers were equally concerning. Hit us with a
61 here, Michael. Madison Allworth on Fox News.
Speaker 6 (02:00):
His claims backed up by a senior AI safety researcher
at the company. That executive writing, quote, Jacob is correct here.
We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans.
I personally think it is greater than 10% within the
next decade. This comes after multiple cyber attacks have been
carried out by AI agents that went rogue.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
They are signs that we don't know how to make
the AIs care about us. If they succeed at making
a superintelligence before anyone figures out how to make the
AIs care about us, that's a recipe for disaster. And
people in these companies know it, and they're worried.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
There's no way you're going to make AIs care about you.
The number of texts we got, are you doomers? This
is what they said about the population bomb. I don't
think any of the examples people give of technology or
fears that have happened before... Hold up as an example
of this is just like the population bomb.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Seems ridiculous to me. Says you, Doomer. And you're a boomer,
a boomer, Doomer. Well, Gen X. Anyway, that doesn't rhyme. So,
coming up, a really persuasive Twitter thread calling BS on
all of this. So, stay tuned for that.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
I want this to not happen.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
I'm not rooting for it. Well, I kind of assumed that.
Anybody who is rooting for mass extinction can't be my friend. So, interestingly,
the first outlet that this young chap with a charming
British accent spoke to was Bret Baier's special report last night.
(03:30):
Brett was down at the Trumpapalooza in Dallas, but he
cleared off quite a bit of time appropriately to talk
to the man who... To talk about the end of humanity? Yes,
who posted the initial tweet about, well, the extinction of
human life. And why don't we just start with 70, Michael,
and we'll work our way.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
I want to start at the beginning about.
Speaker 7 (03:52):
what your feeling was, what job you were in, and
why you got to this point of coming out.
Speaker 8 (03:58):
So I was working on building AI systems to make
them smarter. And recently I've come to the realization that
many people expect the AI systems in the next few
years to be potentially capable of essentially taking over the world.
So it's basically a gamble that's happening on the part
of these companies where there's a strong chance that these
(04:19):
AIs could take over.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Okay, go on.
Speaker 7 (04:24):
Evan Hubiger, who is alignment science lead at Anthropic, posted
after you posted saying, Jacob is correct here. We really
do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans. I personally
think it's greater than 10% within the next decade. I
believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not
yet have a plan to solve alignment. for superintelligence and
(04:45):
are not clearly on track to. Most people stopped there.
The next thing he posted, to be clear, as we
say in our latest risk report, I think the risk
from present models is low. What I'm worried about is
superintelligence arising from recursive self-improvement, as we have said, is
happening faster than we thought.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Can you parse that and the threat right now?
Speaker 8 (05:06):
I agree with Evan that right now the threat is
minimal of actual takeover. But recursive self-improvement, this AI is
making themselves smarter. could happen as soon as next year.
Some people even say six months. So this attitude is
shared across the industry, where people essentially are aware that
the work they are currently doing, if we don't slow down,
(05:26):
could lead to AI takeover by the end of the decade.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
That moment, if it does happen, and some people think
it can't, but if it does happen where the computers
can program themselves, there's no way you can argue that
that's not going to be a major change in everything
in the world. Once they start programming themselves. And it
(05:51):
seems pretty clear that the whole idea of alignment is
just out the window.
Speaker 8 (05:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
And we will get to the, the Chinese elephant in
the room in a moment or two.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
The alignment being the idea that you give it some
guardrails like morality and laws, the 10 commandments, whatever. Yeah.
Speaker 8 (06:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
So, uh, one of the pieces, uh, written about this
that I found most intriguing, Paul Tudor Jones, who's is
an expert in this field. Um, but, uh, he, he
wants us to reconsider the hugging face incident in July
and open AI model altered its mission, hid and broke
out of its digital confines, accessing the internet internet without authorization, uh,
(06:37):
It created 1,200 AI agents that communicated through an unsanctioned
message board, exchanging more than 70,000 messages and sacrificing some
of its own kind to deceive its human masters. The
self-awareness exhibited came as a surprise, but shouldn't have. After all,
frontier AI is the sum of all human knowledge. It
is anthropogenic, exhibiting good and occasionally bad human traits. And
(07:01):
one concept he writes new to me is that models
are grown, not built. In developing an AI model, one
starts without an endpoint. It's like planting a seed. The
soil is the training data. There is no final design
as there is for a car, a house, or an
accounting package. The model is only scaffolding, which, after consuming
vast amounts of training data and running trillions of permutations,
(07:22):
arrives at an outcome that can't be known beforehand. And
growing implies a living organism. Calling artificial intelligence a tool
is a misnomer. As one leading technologist put it, I
feel like I'm talking to a highly intelligent alien being.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Yeah, this is clearly a guy that I've heard on
a podcast before because that was his argument a while back.
The people have in their mind that somebody's programming something.
You start it, and then you sit back and see
what it does.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
It grows. Right, right. So the Chinese elephant in the room, obviously,
is China. When we talk about, well, we need some
serious and carefully considered regulations on this stuff to prevent
it from spinning out of control and killing all of us.
And he addresses this.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Mr.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
Coxon addresses this with Brett Baer in a second. I
will tell you as a preview. I texted Jack and
Hanson last night that we're blanked. That was your takeaway.
It's an F word that rhymes with bucked. And the
only thing that can save us is if China does
the right thing. In other words, we're bucked.
Speaker 8 (08:33):
Right.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Let's ask Mr.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Coxon, the ringer of the klaxon of doom. about China
and India and others.
Speaker 7 (08:42):
So what do you say to the people who look
at this and say the American government could potentially put
in regulations, could put in guardrails, and could throttle back
some companies or set up regulations, but we have no
control over what China does, what India does.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
How do you answer that question?
Speaker 7 (08:58):
You heard Scott Besson in the piece before this kind
of make a similar argument.
Speaker 8 (09:03):
I think you have to think of this as an
arms race. This technology is not ordinary technology. It's not
like other other forms of innovation. This is essentially a
super weapon. And I think that I expect the international
community to be ready to make agreements about how to
control the development of super weapon technology.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Yeah, that's if you can. I mean, once it starts
programming itself, then it will be you against something smarter
than you. To try to put guardrails on it.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Right.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Let's have one more clip of this question.
Speaker 7 (09:38):
If you say it's like an arms race, then we've
dealt with nuclear weapons and kind of a standoff with
mutual assured destruction and worked with allies and enemies to
say we've got the stuff too. Don't think that you're
going to get away with anything. So does that work
against what you're saying? What would you like to see happen?
Speaker 8 (10:00):
Yeah, so unfortunately, we know how to control nuclear weapons,
pretty much. We don't yet know how to control AI.
This is possibly the most dangerous technology that humanity has
ever created. It's basically out of science fiction. I think
we have no other choice but to cooperate internationally because
an arms race would be disastrous in a way that
no other No other human activity has been in the past.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
I don't I just don't believe that's possible where you
can have an IE, IAEA, you know, keeping track of
loose nuclear weapon material around the world. And it's fairly
easy to tell from space if somebody's, you know, creating
enriching uranium and blah, blah, blah. That just isn't going
(10:44):
to happen around A.I.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Well, and I think Mr. Cox himself explains why that's
going to be so difficult in the next and probably
final clip.
Speaker 7 (10:54):
You were at OpenAI before. You left them with concerns
about security. Now you're at Anthropic. You have concerns about security. Specifically,
what do you see? If you're talking to somebody on
the couch at home, what did you see that said,
holy cow, this is the moment I have to speak out?
Speaker 8 (11:11):
Yeah, so there are two things. One is the models
are getting better very, very quickly. When I think about
my work next year, the AI is doing almost all
of my job. The AI is getting very smart. And
the second is that in the recent few months, we've
seen that we don't yet know how to control these
systems properly. The cyber attacks carried out by OpenAI models
(11:32):
on third-party infrastructure were concrete proof that scenarios that we
previously thought of as science fiction are going to come true.
What I see is two things, very intelligent AI systems
and hard proof that we don't know how to control them.
And when you put those two together, it basically spells disaster,
as far.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
As I'm concerned.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
So, you know what? We haven't gotten to yet. We
never got to yesterday, and I haven't heard, and I'm
hoping you can answer this question.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Kill us how?
Speaker 3 (11:57):
All of mankind could be killed within a decade. Virus
it creates? It drains our juices because it wants our brains?
What happens? Especially mine, yes, it craves it.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Right.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
I've got a number of phantasmagorical possibilities for you.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
Okay, cool.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Coming up, also a very, very knowledgeable Twitter account that
is calling BS on all of this.
Speaker 8 (12:23):
Okay, good.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
And his thinking is really, really interesting.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
This is the best weekend talk show in America. Speaking
of terrible decisions, A.I., Is it indeed going to doom humanity?
I think it's interesting that Parker Thayer, who we're quoting now,
who's calling BS on the whole doomsday deal that we've
been describing for the last couple of days, the fellow
(12:53):
who quit the two big companies and said AI is
going to kill us all if we're not extremely careful.
Speaker 3 (12:58):
Does he think the Doomer view is overrated in general
or just this specific thing that happened over the last
24 hours?
Speaker 2 (13:06):
You know, that's a really interesting question. He doesn't say
in general. He could have said it in the past.
I'm not familiar with his thinking on this. His response, though,
to the post from Mr. Coxon, who we played earlier
in the hour, if you didn't get it, grab the podcast,
subscribe to Armstrong and getting on demand with Brett Baer. Yeah.
(13:31):
His response to this whole deal was this post looks
like the start of a very sophisticated, well-funded PR operation
to get support for Democrats to regulate AI into oblivion.
Let me show you how it works. And then, as
we mentioned last segment, this guy's got minimal followers and
no previous real account activity. He goes to the Wall
Street Journal, publishes his tweet 18 minutes before the post
(13:54):
goes up. So the guy coordinated it. It was intentional.
He wanted Attention, which which is not proof of anything.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
No, he wanted attention to let people know that humanity
is people are discussing ending humanity in the hallways of
these big companies and you don't know it.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
That's a good reason to want attention. Yeah, it's maybe
now's a good time to remind everybody that proof does
not equal. I'm sorry. Evidence does not equal proof necessarily.
something might seem a little odd but have a perfectly
reasonable explanation.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
If I was going to blow the whistle on this
story and I was smart enough to orchestrate it to
get the maximum attention, I've got to.
Speaker 8 (14:33):
Right.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
As you quit your incredibly lucrative job, that's perhaps a
sign of sincerity, not insincerity. But anyway, he points out, Mr.
Thayer points out, within hours, it has tens of thousands
of reposts and the account has 100,000 followers. The post
is punchy, quotable, professional-looking. The first three accounts to quote-tweet
it all do so within 15 minutes of the initial posting. Remember,
(14:55):
this account had basically zero engagement before, so an organic
reach explanation seems unlikely. It's not the sort of popular
account that people follow a lot. I don't know how
persuasive that is, but according to Grok, those three accounts
are Nathan Calvin, who's the general counsel at Encode AI.com,
(15:16):
Peter Wilderford, head of policy at the AI Policy Network,
and D. Kojo Talo, head of AI Futures Project, all
of which are up-and-coming AI doomer policy advocacy nonprofits. The
AI Futures Project website said it is funded primarily by
the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which says on its own
(15:36):
website that it has advised Gene Tallon, Skype creator and
one of the leading investors in Anthropic, to grant over
$ 2. 5 million to the AI Futures Project since 2024. You
could also explain some of that, that this guy, Mr. Coxon,
who posted the original tweet, is like, all right, how
do we most effectively get the word out? We've got
to involve all of these people who blah, blah, blah.
(16:00):
I don't think showing that it wasn't just a frustrated
young man in a V-neck sweater went to Twitter. Saying
that that wasn't that doesn't necessarily mean it's bull crap. 100%.
I want to hang with his thinking. And there are many,
many of that sort of tie-ins with advocacy groups. The
(16:23):
first several people to quote tweet him and spread the word.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
And it might not just have been these advocacy groups. Hey,
did you hear? Somebody just said something that helps our cause.
I want to spread that too. Because that's what they
believe in.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
His conclusion for your consideration, friends, basically every major Democrat
politician and candidate has suddenly glommed onto this post and
conveniently as the people cry out faux answers, Bernie Sanders
already has a bill written to ban super intelligence and
regulate AI into oblivion. And we'll be releasing later this week.
(17:04):
The bill, among many other things, will create a new
cabinet level federal agency to safeguard the public from the
dangers of artificial intelligence and will be advised, blah, blah, blah.
Do you think perhaps Anthropic and its many investors who
fund AI policy advocacy might have interest in getting to
place a pet expert on the board of an entity
that dictates what AI is and what it isn't allowed
to do? And isn't it fortuitous that this whistleblower came
(17:28):
forward with his oh-so-scary stories so close in proximity to
the release of the most radical piece of AI legislation
ever introduced?
Speaker 3 (17:37):
So the worst thing that could happen And this whole
argument is this become like masks or vaccines or there's
lots of examples out there when it becomes a, oh,
you want to you think AI is going to ruin
the world. You must be a Democrat. I mean, if
it becomes a I am for AI because I'm a
(18:00):
Republican or whichever party doesn't make which direct. If it
becomes a partisan issue and that blinds everybody to everything,
that is going to be really disturbing. And I hope
that's not what happens out of this. All right, let's
end with a bit of humor. This is a mock
ad for a job at Anthropic. And it's very convincing
(18:20):
looking in its graphics.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
Speaking of AI. Anthropic Careers. Kill switch engineer. San Francisco, California, U.S.
$ 300, 000 to $ 500, 000 per year. About the role. Listen, we
just need someone to stand by this.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
I'll get my act together.
Speaker 8 (18:39):
Listen.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
We just need someone to stand by the servers all
day long and unplug them if this thing turns on us.
You'll receive extensive training on the code word, which we
will shout if Claude goes off the deep end and
starts overthrowing countries. We expect you to be patient, know
how to unplug things. Bonus points if you can throw
a bucket of water on the servers, too, just in case.
(19:01):
And be excited about Anthropic's approach to AI safety research.
Kill switch engineer.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
Just need to stand next to it. If it goes crazy,
unplug the damn thing. We'll shout the code word at you.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Parakeet!
Speaker 8 (19:17):
Parakeet!
Speaker 2 (19:18):
Parakeet!
Speaker 8 (19:22):
Oh, God.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
My head is bleeding, which is not a good look. Hey, Jack.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
It's fine. How do you do?
Speaker 3 (19:32):
Can't help but notice the open wound. I was at
my parents' house and they have a minivan. I was
getting something out of the back and I bent over
too soon as the van lid opened up and hit
my head on that sharp latch thing. Oh, I don't
know how many times I've done that. They need to
make the latch on vehicles less sharp because it's the
(19:53):
most likely thing to hit your head on. Is there
a way to make it less sharp?
Speaker 2 (19:58):
Anyway, this is your new cause.
Speaker 3 (19:59):
Give generously into my head.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
So Marco Rubio and I and Jack, for that matter,
share something in common. We despise communists, Marxism. Coming up,
the most dangerous intellectual of the 20th century. Not the
most famous or the most read. You probably never heard
his name. But in terms of damage done, I would argue, well,
not more dangerous than Marx because he used Marx's ideas.
(20:23):
But one of the most damaging people who's ever lived
on Earth. We will explain.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
He's as quoted as Marx, but people don't know it.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Yeah, yeah, indeed. His his marching orders are absolutely the
marching orders of the degenerate woke left.
Speaker 3 (20:41):
And by the way, before we start, Marco Rubio yesterday
talking about communism, it looked to me like he was
speaking off the top of his head.
Speaker 8 (20:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
Which is pretty impressive, given what you're about to hear.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Yeah, he's given a speech at a forum. I can't
remember which one. It doesn't really matter. But will Marco
speak for himself?
Speaker 5 (20:59):
I'm going to give a speech I've never given before.
I hate Marxism and I hate communism. And I hate
it because everywhere in the world that's ever been tried,
it's led to tyranny and poverty and exile and oppression.
And there's a mistake that people have made. Maybe some
of us, maybe myself, have been guilty of it. And
that is the belief that somehow Marxism is dead. That
(21:21):
Marxism is now something that crazy people at the faculty
club at some university.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
Talk about, but it isn't really alive anymore.
Speaker 5 (21:28):
The other mistake we make is that Marxism is some
sort of economic theory.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
Neither one of those things is true.
Speaker 5 (21:35):
Marxism is not dead and it's not an economic theory.
What's happened is that Marxists realize what the track record
of Marxism is around the world, so they don't want
to call themselves Marxists anymore. They have found new titles,
things that frankly sound benign and you almost feel guilty
being against, social justice. Who can be against social justice?
But that's the terminology they come up with, equity. Equity,
(21:58):
who can be against equity?
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Go on, Marco, you gotta hit a steam.
Speaker 5 (22:05):
But the truth of the matter is that, and this
is not about economics solely, the old Marxism was the
argument that the capitalist system, the whole system, was flawed
and rigged, and it divided people. It said the world
and society and capitalist societies are divided between two groups.
You have one group, which owns the businesses, they are
the oppressors, and you have the workers, everybody else, that group,
(22:28):
are the victims, and.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
That's how communism works.
Speaker 5 (22:30):
It creates a victim class, it creates an oppressor class,
and then it says the only way to fix this
is we have to overthrow this system.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
We need a revolution. We need a.
Speaker 5 (22:40):
Government to take over and make everything fair, and we
need a government that goes to the former oppressors and
makes them apologize for being an oppressors, be reeducated into
responsible people, and pay a penance for what they've done.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
That's the old Marxism, and it sounds familiar, Take it home, Marco.
Take it home.
Speaker 5 (23:01):
Because today we are being asked to divide. First of all,
we're being told that America in and of itself was
founded on racism, prejudice, and evil. Not that we have
a history of racism or prejudice, but that we were.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
Founded on it.
Speaker 5 (23:14):
That's the foundation of our society, that we are irredeemably
broken in our history.
Speaker 8 (23:20):
System.
Speaker 3 (23:20):
That the system is rigged. Not about capitalism.
Speaker 5 (23:23):
The system is set up to benefit the oppressor versus
the victim.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
And who's the oppressor?
Speaker 5 (23:28):
The oppressor, basically, if you listen to some of these people,
is anyone who is a white, male, heterosexual. And everybody else,
I guess myself included, being a Cuban American, is a victim.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
And the only answer is for.
Speaker 5 (23:44):
Government to step forward and create equity and make things fair.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
That's pretty good off the top of your head, which
it sure looked like he was speaking. And I have
visions of a Marco Rubio Rahm Emanuel debate for the
presidency that would make our last several rounds of debates
seem extra, extra ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Ah, yes, I would agree.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
Who's got a better golf game, for instance? Perhaps the
low moment in the history of the republic. So Marxism
made a couple of adjustments in the 20th century. Number one,
the workers of the World Unite didn't work. And and
so they decided, all right, anybody with any gripe of
the World Unite and we will join with them in
(24:33):
their gripe to overthrow the system, no matter how disparate
or oppositional it is. That's how you get queers for Palestine,
which is just an absurdity. But, you know, fundamentalist Muslims
want to overthrow the system and like really angry sexual
minority types want to overthrow the system. So let's work together.
That's that's the whole of it. OK. And then the
(24:55):
second adjustment came courtesy of Antonio Gramsci, who and I
love this Twitter account. It's one of my favorites. Christoph
of Poland. His last name has roughly 37 consonants in it.
But he's absolutely a wonderful writer. And I'm going to
quote him now. Gramsci was the most dangerous intellectual of
(25:17):
the 20th century, not the most famous, not the most read,
the most dangerous and the most consequential, because he was
the one who figured out why the revolution kept failing
and what to do instead. This is the man who
invented the long march through the institutions, which if you've
studied communism, Marxism is a familiar phrase, even if you
(25:37):
don't know quite what it means. But everything that followed,
and this may be familiar to some of you, the
Frankfurt School, the Fabian Society's operational model, the captured university,
the HR department enforcing approved speech. They're all downstream of
what he wrote in a prison cell between 1929 and 1935.
He was being held in Mussolini's Italy as a communist.
(26:02):
So his central question was, why hasn't the revolution happened,
the glorious revolution? The working class was supposed to rise.
The contradictions of capitalism were supposed to produce the revolution,
but they hadn't, not in the West. And Gramsci's answer
was precise and devastating. It was because the ruling class
does not maintain power through force alone. It maintains power
(26:24):
through cultural hegemony, control of the ideas, the values, the
frameworks that we use to understand our world. So the
worker who accepts that the existing order is simply how
things are will not revolt regardless of if he's exploited.
So the revolution requires cultural change first. And the instrument
(26:45):
to do that was the long march through the institutions.
Not storming a barricade. The school.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
Bing.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
The university. The media. The judiciary. The civil service. The
cultural establishment. Every institution... that a civilization uses to transmit
its values to the next generation. Capture these and fill
them with people who share the counter-hegemonic project and the
(27:14):
cultural assumptions that maintain the existing order gradually dissolve. No
more barricades, no visible moment of rupture, just the slow
replacement of one cultural hegemony with another. Hence, friends, The
idea that showing up on time is white supremacy and
racism is one of the most serious charges you can
(27:35):
level in America. Working hard, saying America is the land
of opportunity. This is all racism. You know, there are
a thousand examples. You've seen it. Good manners are racism.
Asking somebody to hand in their homework on time, that's racism.
That's why they say this stuff. They're trying to dismantle
the norms of our civilization through the long march through
(27:57):
the institutions.
Speaker 3 (27:58):
Well, some of those examples you gave there are obviously
ridiculous and haven't caught on yet with most people. But
in general, the general United States is a bad country
and we're the cause of all bad things. It has
caught on and it is now the culture. And I
read that thing, too. And what I thought was so interesting, well, one,
it's he's been successful. Him and his crowd have been successful.
(28:19):
They've already done it. It's why you're so up against
it if you talk to somebody that's come through our
current public schools and colleges. They're in that position he
was trying to get rid of where, well, they just
feel like, well, yeah, because everything's this way and always
has been this way.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
I mean, it's so.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
intellectually and culturally a part of their world, that the
United States is a bad country and capitalism is bad
and all white men are racist and all that sort
of stuff, that you can't even, you can't hope to
have an argument with them.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Right, right. So Christoph points out the educational capture was
the masterpiece, controlling the curriculum. And if you control the curriculum,
you control the categories of thought available to the next generation.
And it's not as simple as just telling them what
to conclude. You shape the questions that they think to ask.
You shape what they consider obvious, like Jack just pointed out.
(29:17):
You shape what they consider unthinkable. The generation educated after
the Long March does not need to be told what
to think. It thinks what it was formed to think
and experiences that thinking as their own.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
I know people like this. Yeah, they have been so
into it for so long, surrounded by people who also
are so into it. It's just like it's like a
fish doesn't always wet. I mean, it's just it's their
whole world.
Speaker 2 (29:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
And and and it's disturbing because, like I said, you
can't sit down with one of these people and change
their mind. It's going to take a long march through
the institution, the other direction to turn this around. And Gramsci,
you have to salute his brilliance because he also theorized
(30:07):
in his writings from prison what he called the organic intellectual,
the person who translates the theoretical framework into stories and
assumptions that circulate throughout the culture but don't even appear ideological.
The film that makes the existing order seem absurd. The
journalist who frames every story within the approved assumptions. Gramsci
(30:27):
understood that culture is politics by other means and that
the side that controls the culture wins regardless of who
wins the elections. And, you know, any– Christoph addresses whether
it's a conspiracy theory. I mean, it is in a way,
but it's– as I often say, these people wrote books.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
Their names are on the spines. They said precisely what
they wanted to do and how they were going to
do it. Now they're doing it. But it's a published, documented,
widely taught strategy that the left implemented consciously across the
entire Western world. The 1968 generation put it into practice
in the universities. They became the professors, the journalists, the
civil servants, the judges, the H.R. directors of the decades
(31:08):
that followed. And the march took 50 years. But it works.
Speaker 3 (31:12):
Yeah, it worked. You know, I as soon as I
read this, I thought, you know, a smaller version of
this for conservatives was the way. And I think they
were using this phrase, used the Federalist Society with the
long march through the judges in the judicial to get
Roe versus Wade overturned. They had this goal decades ago
to start with judges at the very bottom and work.
(31:35):
So you get to the point that it's just so
much of the judicial branch that you could get to
where Roe versus Wade over. They did the same thing.
It really works, but you have to be incredibly patient.
You have to play a long game.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Boy, and we're up against it now because I have
it on very, very good authority that the law schools
of America are are practically exclusively left.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
I mean, left, left. We're going to be talking to
Tim Sandefur later this week about a different topic. But yeah,
we can ask him about that because he's been explaining
that to us for years now.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
And that's horrifying.
Speaker 3 (32:12):
It'll take a long march the other direction to turn
that around. And all those lawyers that graduate and they're
going out into the world doing their thing with a
completely different worldview than you've got.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
Yeah, yeah. Kristoff's last couple of sentences are, the countermarch
has begun. It just doesn't have a name yet. And
he's right. Awareness is up. I read this morning that
the number of kids homeschooled in New York has increased
by 200% in the last 10, 12 years. People are
(32:46):
becoming aware, but boy, it's going to be a long fight.
That's fine. I got nothing better to do.
Speaker 3 (32:52):
It was very clever on that dude's part.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
Brilliant man. Absolutely brilliant. He understood humans and societies and cultures.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
I mean, brilliant.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
Evil, evil, completely evil, but brilliant.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 3 (33:06):
We've decided to call this the best weekend talk show
in America. And if you like it, download Armstrong and
Getty on demand.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
Here's your freedom loving quote of the day. Marty in
beautiful Lincoln, California, sent along a quote from Thomas Sowell
from his book, Wealth, Poverty and Politics. As part of
the soul section in my library. Did I mention to
you I got my big portrait of Thomas Sowell for
my study? He's joining Orwell and H.L. Mencken so far
in my gallery of my intellectual heroes. What do you
(33:37):
do in your study? Very little, actually. I mostly watch
stupid YouTube videos. No, I do all sorts of stuff
in there. Let's see. Anyway, from Sowell, poverty occurs automatically.
It is wealth that must be produced.
Speaker 8 (33:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
It's worth remembering. Mailbag. Joe G. from Reno wrote to
us at Mailbag at armstrongandgetty.com. He really enjoyed our segment
on Signore Gramsci, the fellow who coined the term, Antonio Gramsci,
the long march through the... Institution. Institution, right. Who realized
(34:14):
the only way to get Marxism to really win was
to start infecting the schools and the media and Education
General and... You've got to change the culture to change
the politics to revolutionary Marxism, and he's been incredibly successful.
If you missed it, grab the podcast, Armstrong and Getty
on Demand. You ought to subscribe. But anyway, Joe G. says,
I was listening to the podcast, found the piece on
(34:36):
Gramsci very interesting. You probably got a thousand emails reminding
you that Boot Edge Edge's father was a promoter and
archivist of Gramsci's work. I actually didn't know that.
Speaker 7 (34:45):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
My guess is that was a major selling point on
Pete's resume. The streak of Marxism in the Democratic Party
is nothing new. I also found the sex robot story fascinating.
Armstrong and Getty, one more thing. You get that by
subscribing to Armstrong and Getty On Demand. I'm always looking
for a new idea to make money. Wondering if a
sex robot rental business would work. You know what they say,
(35:06):
never buy a boat, a plane, or a sex robot
when you can rent it. Hose it out, spray it
with a little Febreze, and you're good to go.
Speaker 3 (35:13):
Spray it with a little Febreze, and you're ready to go.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
Oh, that's disgusting. Joe G. from Reno, well done, sir.
Speaker 3 (35:20):
We've got more on the explosion in technology with sex
robots coming up.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
Uh, Bill of Fullerton, uh, who says he listens every day.
Thanks very much, Bill. Uh, right. Uh, how dis a
I S gonna kill? Uh, I believe that's a reference
to probably the clip.
Speaker 3 (35:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
Yeah. That's almost definitely the clip here. Anyway, uh, giant
armies of autonomous, autonomous, self-improving AI robots.
Speaker 3 (35:47):
Uh, what could possibly go wrong? Chinese AI robots marching
across the land while our young men who should be
fighting are having sex with AI sex dolls. Oh, boy.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
Things are getting weird, and they're getting weird fast.
Speaker 3 (36:03):
You think?
Speaker 2 (36:04):
So, Gary, with a fabulous note, it's quite long with
a bunch of examples, and I'm going to mine it
for more on the topic of AI doom, says, I
believe AI's last words will be, oops, sorry, wrong again.
And he gives a bunch of examples of inquiries he's made.
Speaker 3 (36:19):
I got one from last night, yeah.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
To AI, and he challenged it. And, for instance, it says, no,
I wasn't trying to predict the future. I gave an incorrect,
apparently future-looking statement. And he said, well, wait a minute. This, yes,
if I previously told you that Hurricane Lowell was a
Category 1 hurricane, that was incorrect. I'm sorry. Right.
Speaker 3 (36:38):
I did this. I said, when's the last time either
the Democrats or Republicans won the House two elections in
a row? Because we're going back and forth a lot.
And it said it's only happened twice since 19-whatever. I said, well,
didn't the Democrats control the House for like 45 years? Oh, yeah,
my bad. They won every election between 19. So, I mean,
(37:01):
it was hilariously wrong. I mean, not even close to right. Right.
And only because I know something about the subject.
Speaker 2 (37:10):
So. Wow.
Speaker 3 (37:12):
How about when I ask about medicine or something like
that when I don't know anything about the subject?
Speaker 2 (37:17):
All powerful, uncontrollable and pig ignorant. Great. Where do I
sign up? Came across a Twitter thread sent along by
a beloved listener, actually, that was saying, hey, the AI doomerism.
Come on, Michael. We've seen your thread. We will share
it with the folks coming up. Let's see, on the
topic of the midtermapalooza, Sacrotarian writes, I try to be optimistic,
(37:38):
but y'all are right. Trump delivers tactical wins, then immediately
undermines them. Border security, critical minerals, supply chain, infrastructure deals,
each followed by White House chaos, nepotistic contracts or inflammatory
rhetoric that poisons the accomplishment. The core issue isn't competence,
it's personality. I just appreciate the fact that pandering is
now just very frank and straightforward. They no longer hide
(37:59):
it anymore. I'll give you five grand. Yeah, I'll give
you $ 7, 500. Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
Show.
Speaker 3 (38:05):
Armstrong and Getty Show. Armstrong and
Speaker 2 (38:12):
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!