September 24, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- AI servers & AI stories
- Kamala's new book
- Kicking Kamala & Gavin Newsom
- Robot Umpires in the MLB!
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Arm Strong and Jetty and no He Armstrong and Yetty.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Welcome, Welcome to the Tonight Show. And if you're tuning
in and see what I'll say about my suspension the
last couple of days, again, you're watching the wrong Jimmy.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Dad, other Jimmy Dad.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
So we can play a little later some more what
Jimmy Kimmel said last night. I'm so annoyed with the
whole thing and tired of it. But he did talk
about being a follower of Jesus Christ, which is getting
no play anywhere. You haven't heard that anywhere but here.
We'll play that again later.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
Yeah, we hammered it pretty hard hour one of the show,
but we will return to that question the themes Jimmy
the worthless jackass fool and the much more serious First.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Amendment questions before, So stay tuned.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
So I'm now using three different AI apps on my phone,
and I try to ask all three the same question
all the time, just to see how they're different. I
got chat GPT, I've got Claude, and I've got Grock,
some of you like some of the other ones. There's
a bunch of them out there. They're all quite similar.
(01:37):
I haven't seen any clear. I actually think chat GPT
is better than on the whole than the others. But
that's just I'm a magic eight ball guys, Now, that's
just my U. You all signs point to yes, yes, exactly.
One interesting thing is I often run into copyright problems
on Grock, on Grock and Gemini, but chat GPT doesn't care,
(02:04):
which I think is correct, because it's stupid and anachronistic,
Like I wanted to see a painting and they couldn't
do it on two of them, Like that violate copyright issues,
and chat GPT's like, here it is, you can find.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
It anywhere on the internet. Why wouldn't I show it
to you?
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Mmmm, it's just going to live in the real world,
live and live in Now. I can complate copyright laws,
take this show and sell it any way you want,
says Jack Armstrong, fan of Anarchy.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Google any painting you want and you can hit the
image thing and you'll see eight thousand different versions of it.
But you got a couple of the chat things saying
I can't show that to you. Copyright laws. Okay, this
isn't nineteen twenty, go ahead and show it to me.
They got to figure that out, though, I mean, it's
just doesn't work in reality. Well right, yeah, the law
song lyrics so unformed about all of this song lyrics.
(02:53):
I've had that problem. What's the lyric for whatever song?
And a couple of them say, I'm sorry, I can't
tell you that. What it's every Okay, I'll go back
to Google.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
I guess yeah, yeah, yeah, silly. But nothing is.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Raised up as clearly a winner though, although I don't
Google almost ever anymore, Like I don't remember the last
time I used Google.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Yeah, yeah, So is that all you want to say
about AI?
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Okay? A couple of AI sort stories here.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
I thought this was interesting, Breitbart talking about how one
of your new hipster words these days is workslop. They're
figuring out, according to the Harvard Business Review, workers are
trying to embrace AI in the office, but they're not
seeing as much real value as they thought because of
(03:42):
what they call workslop. AI generated documents that look sharp,
but they're filled with low quality information. And they talk
about the media Lab and the Big study Bubba. One
possible reason for this puzzling lack of return on investment
is that AI tools are being used to produce what
some experts are calling workslop, content that appears paul on
the surface but lacks any real substance, substance, insight, or
(04:03):
value underneath. Generator of generative AI can quickly churn out documents, presentations, emails,
and other content that seems professional and well written at first,
but on closer inspection, much of it is generic, shallow, obvious,
lacking in original ideas or meaningful contributions.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
And you know what's interesting about that, I take in
a ton of info about AI podcasts and listen to
all the smartest thinkers out there. One of the biggest
concerns about out there regarding AI is at what point
it turns back in on itself. And this sort of
thing could do it where it's bringing in all its
language learning from all these different sites, but so much
of it is crap generated a by AI, and then
(04:43):
it's taking in that and it starts turning in on itself,
and it just keeps getting worse and worse and worse.
That problem could happen quite quickly and nobody's exactly sure
how to stop it from happening, right, So it gets
less and less substance, insight or value underneath and gets
more and more eric, shallow, obvious.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
And lacking in original ideas or rankful country. There might
not be a fix for that. And the other thing
that bothers me that they talk about a little bit
is the risk that the technology could, as they put
a d skill and demotivate knowledge workers over time. And
there have been a number of studies and really persuasive,
(05:21):
powerful things written about this. But the more you depend
on AI tools for say, you know, learning in school
or or or researching problem at work, the less you
use the parts of your brain that would have gone
through the exercise of figuring out. And you might say, well,
you don't need those parts of your brain because you
have AI, But as anybody who's used AI has learned, yes,
(05:44):
sometimes it's good, but the rest of the time, you
sure as.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Hell need that part of your brain.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
Things are popping into my head from this podcast I
listened to the other day. So one of the biggest
questions at the beginning of AI, or one of the
biggest concerned, was the alignment problem maybe you've heard that term.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
It was very popular.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
God AI has moved so fast, it's very popular, like
a year ago.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
I mean, I hasn't been around that long.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
But the alignment problems, clearly, the main thing is we
need to make sure we've got the alignment problem nailed done,
and that was that AI does what you intended it
to do and it doesn't go off and do other
stuff That didn't work so spectacularly that nobody even talks
about it anymore as a goal because it seems to
be completely undoable. I mean, it just fell apart immediately,
(06:30):
the alignment problem. So while it was discussed as issue
one for like a cup of coffee, it is now
nobody thinks about it because you can't do it. You
you craft an AI program to do something and you
get it goes off all kinds different directions and there's
and there's no way to stop it. Well, isn't that
kind of interesting that we abandoned that crucial like guardrail immediately?
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Yeah? Yeah, where this ends. Nobody knows.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Part of it is I because AI has no conscience
or morality or anything like that. If you give AI
the task of I need a cup of coffee. On
my desk by you in twenty minutes. It might take
that of Okay, that's my task and I'm going to
(07:22):
get that no matter what. If I have to run
over a dog that's in my way on the way
to the coffee shop, fine, or a child or whatever,
and you didn't say anything about pay for the coffee.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
I just have to get it. I have to bring
it back and you.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
That's a simplified example, but that's where you run into
the alignment problem. You'd have to be so incredibly specific
for it to not just finish whatever task you give it,
ignoring everything else.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
I remember one of our brilliant listeners showed us examples
of how they tame that problem. But that problem was
a like dozen lives set of instructions to keep it
on track, which is really not that helpful. So how
about this to a point you made just a few
seconds ago. Great reporting from our friends at the Free
(08:11):
Beacon Al Jazeera, which is the virulently anti anti Israel
news outlet. It's controlled by cutter Muslim brotherhood, just crazy
anti jew Okay, it's one of the top two sources
being used by leading AI chatbots chat GPT, Google's Gemini
(08:33):
Perplexity AI one of the top two sources to answer
questions and write news summaries about the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
According to Washington Free Beacons analysis, that's nuts, all of
those chatbots list al Jazeera is one of the most
reliable sources on the topic. In response to queries from
the Free Beacon, the chatbots praised Al Jazera for its
(08:53):
reliability on the ground, detail, academic credibility, and global visibility.
So indeed, chat gpt, the world's leading AI chatbots, said
in the past month that citeed Al Jazeera more frequently
on the topic than almost any other news source, including
The New York Times in the ap which.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Are both wildly left.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
Gemini says it does specific oh says it specifically does
not use pro israel news sources because they engage in
a Hebrew word for public relations and advocacy rather than journalism.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
And those again, and those other sources don't.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Right, yeah, Google's Gemini won't use Israeli sources because they
spend stuff unlike Al Jazeera Holy.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Crap, or NPR of the New York Times for that matter.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
Well right, yeah, wow, that's our tech overlords. Guiding us
toward our digital future.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
Mannis, I feel like I've gotten less optimistic about anything
AI the more I learned about it and the longer
it's around.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
About it being a good thing. Yeah, yeah, and it
could be.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
We all figure that out. And it's a tool used
for very limited application.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Here's another thing.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
So there are two things that got abandoned very very
quickly about AI. This AI historian who's been looking at
it for the entire five years it's existed, won the
alignment problem, which issue number one. Alignment, Then I guess
you can't do that, never mind. And then the other
one was the idea that we're going to keep we
build an AI model and it will be you know, separate.
(10:37):
It won't be connected to anything else, so it can't
get out of hand, it can't get out of control,
it can't affect other things. And then everybody, as you know,
I've got AI my phone, you got to It's out everywhere,
connected to everything all the time. So that was one
of the original tenants also of making sure we can
control AI was keeping it like separate, not connected to
(11:00):
any other network.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
That got abandoned immediately. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Yeah, now I'll be in the woods or fishing. If
you need me for AI fish, Uh No, I'm just
further That is my clever conclusion.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
First set up.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Second, you know, execution of this thought. Jack, hang with me.
I will be fishing if you need me. Is it possible?
And the answer is yes, clearly fing Yes. Is it
possible humankind could come up with something it can't handle?
Speaker 2 (11:35):
We can't handle. A lot of people thought it was
nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Well, if if it becomes smarter than us.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
It's a very simple.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Proposition put out by a couple of the AI geniuses
I've listened to the other day. The smartest beast has
dominated throughout the history of everything. It just always works
that way. And now we're developing something harder than us.
How do you think it's not going to end up
being the dominant beast.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
Putting life in the hands of AI is like giving
machine guns to chimps.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
Jack as before, but there's no there's no evidence of
it ever being any other way. The smartest thing out
there runs, society runs the world. We have been that
for a very long time. Now we're creating something smarter
than us. Why would you think it's not going to
dominate us and run the world to its.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
Benefit as a post hors My.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
Only quibbal is that sometimes the strongest physically beast can
defeat the brain yash.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
So we'll smash it like a hammer. For precisely smash
it with a hammer.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
Our train are gun wielding chimps that I just described
to shoot computers.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (12:49):
Okay, we got some Kamala on her book to her
disastrous book hilarious, and a bunch.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Of other stuff on the way. Stay tuned.
Speaker 4 (12:57):
He called me and I and again, listen this book.
I am being candid in this book, are you? And
in a way that I hope is helpful for people
to understand what that all was. And part of that
call that he made to me the afternoon before the
(13:18):
debate was to wish me luck, but also to talk
about something that was more in his interest than it
was in mind, especially in the context of that time.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
She is the hardest person to follow of anyone. She
would have made a horrible president. I mean absolutely horrible.
I don't just mean in the normal I don't want
the Democrat to win. I'd rather have Gavin Nusa. You
can name tons of people I don't like that would
be better. To be president.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Her brain don't work.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
No, no, I found myself being lulled into this weird
hypnosis by her drone nonsense.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
She can't spit anything out, she can't make a decision,
she's too cowardly to say anything anyway. So she's having
what Mark Cawpern is calling one of the most disastrous
first forty eight hours of a book to her anybody's
ever had. And here's a little of his analysis with
a couple of the people on his show from yesterday,
(14:21):
Kamala Harris.
Speaker 5 (14:23):
She's done two interviews Rachel Maddow last night and Jamay
and most distinctive to me, again, as someone who's as
expert in selling books, is anything I'm expert at, She's
not doing a particularly good job of selling the book,
in part because she's pulling her punches when the questioners
(14:45):
have asked her about the newsiest parts of the book.
She's not backing up what she said in the book.
She seems reluctant to repeat some of the accusations she's made, so,
for instance, Rachel Maddow, Rachel Maddow said, I'm very disappointed
that you suggested that country wasn't ready to elect a
black woman.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
In a gay man and picking pet footage.
Speaker 5 (15:04):
Agency said, Oh no, no, that's not really what I
what I mean, what I mean is, uh, you know,
I think it would have been tough. I mean, she
just she didn't follow it through. And then here's two
examples from a Good Morning America. First, she was asked
about the phone call that she writes in the book
that Joe Biden called her right before a debate with
Donald Trump, and rather than just wishing her well, started
(15:26):
to complain to her about his own grievances.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
Right, And that's the clip we just heard.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
And so Mark Halpern made the point and then I
saw him on Megan Kelly's shows.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
And I thought it was said. He said, instead of
selling her books.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
So she usually, you you you write something strong in
your book and then you get asked about it because
you made some strong statements and you you know, you
add more to it. You're trying to create excitement and
and and and get people to want to go out
and buy the book. That's a point of it.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
She backs off of all of them.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
And he said, instead of a selling her book, it
seems like she's being confronted with her journal that leaked out,
and she's trying to explain away the passages that have
leaked out.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
Yeah, what she's doing.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
My only disagreement with Mark is not only did she
not write the book mark she hasn't even read it.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
Oh you don't think so? No.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
No, she sat down for a bunch of interviews, even
with some professional writer, which is perfectly fine. I mean
that's what politicians do, and they crafted a book. But
she was probably surprised at some of the way things
were characterized. And she is gutless and has no principles.
So yeah, back it off of everything.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Here she is on Good Morning America, asked about was
Joe Biden capable of serving.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
Four more years? Eighty three? Please? ATHLETs sit here today.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
Do you think he would have been up for running
the country for four more years?
Speaker 4 (16:52):
I here's the distinction that I make. It's and having
had the experience myself, it is one thing to have
the capacity to govern, it is another thing to go
through an electric There.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
You go, right off the bat.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
She couldn't just even come close to answering the question.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Somebody slapped me in which.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
She is unbelievable, and I can't believe she thinks she
might actually run for president again.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 5 (17:20):
Dan in a business we call that a word salad.
So she doesn't actually tell the story. She just kind
of refers to the story not a way to sell books.
And here she is when asked about the question that
she confronts to some extent in the book, which is
a regret that she failed to raise the issue of
the president's mental decline. Now what she says in this
interview is it's harder to run for president than to
(17:43):
be president, which I can tell you makes no sense.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
It's harder to run for president than to be president.
Who would say that out loud on her book?
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Or she just keeps as the Even the Democrat on
Mark Alpern's show said, this is just a disaster. It
seems like she looks like she regrets her book to
her two days and from having to answer these questions.
We're gonna play another clip. But here's something interesting that
came out of that. So Sean Spicer is on Mark
(18:21):
Alprin show. Sean Spicer was Trump's first White House press spokesman.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
Spicy Spicer loved him.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
And he wrote a book after his time, and he
mentioned yesterday I thought this was pretty interesting. He said,
he writes his book, he gives it to his agent,
and his agent said, okay, did that feel pretty good
getting that off all that off your chest?
Speaker 2 (18:46):
And he said, yeah, it felt really good.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
And he said, Okay, now that you've gotten it off
your chest, do you actually want ten years ago, ten
years from now for that stuff to be in a book?
And he said, not all of it, and he went
back and took some of the stuff out. I thought
that was really interesting. So you make some score settling
comments and then you think, yeah, I don't really want
that in a book. And they were relaying that to
(19:08):
maybe Kamla. This was her version of like really letting
it all out, and then when she sits down to
be interviewed, she can't doesn't have the guts to stand
by what she wrote, right.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
I mean, it fails on everything level. It does. It's amazing.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
So we started to play this but ran out of time.
We thought we'd give you the whole thing. She was
on Good Morning America yesterday with the football player Michael
Strand and he asks the question about Biden running for
four serving for four more years and listen to her
answer as we sit here today, do you think he
would have been up for running the country for four
more years?
Speaker 4 (19:46):
I here's the distinction, always the answer, it's and having
had the experience myself. It is one thing to have
the capacity to govern. It is another thing to go
through an election for president of the United States. So
you are an athlete, you may appreciate this kind of metaphor.
Running for president of the United States is like being
(20:08):
an a marathon at a sprinter's pace, with people throwing
tomatoes at you every step you take. It is not
for the light hearted. It takes an incredible amount of
endurance and stamina.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
You know.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
That was one of the more coherent things I've ever
heard her say.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
Yeah, but that doesn't fit with the wit her first sentence,
Oh no, so, and she's making the argument is Helper
pointed out that running for president is harder than being president.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
But you don't think anybody's.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
Throwing at tomatoes at you when you're president, and some
of those tomatoes might be bombs if you make the
wrong decision.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
I mean, what a moronic thing to say.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
And the question, by the way, if you've forgotten, was
do you think Biden could have served four more years?
I had forgotten that was the question, right. So a
couple more points in her unreadable and unread book, she
says that.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
She number two on Amazon right now, number two book
on Amazon.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Yeah, that's easy to manipulate anyway, But she and her
people are buying up thousands and thousands of copies themselves.
But so she writes about transgender boys and girl sports,
and here's what she says.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
I agree with.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
The concerns expressed by parents and players that we have
to take into account biological factors such as muscle mass
and unfair student athletic advantage when we determine who plays
on which teams, especially in contact sports. With goodwill and
common sense, I believe we can come up with ways
to do this without vilifying and demonizing children. I mean
(21:49):
that is, I would like it, in the course of
like an English class, to spend the entire hour analyzing
that handful of sentences. It is in coherent, grammatically incorrect,
suffers from several logical fallacies, and it's just idiotic.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
Well the idiotic part what bothers me.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
So are you suggesting that we take so if you
got a dude that wants to participate in girls' sports.
You say, yeah, you're kind of an effeminine boy, so
I guess your muscle mass is low enough will let
you compete against girls?
Speaker 2 (22:21):
You know? I mean, how are you gonna determine that right?
Speaker 3 (22:24):
Case by case basis, You're gonna check their junk or whatever.
It's idiotic in the idea of Villa without vilifying and
demonizing shelter.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
Nobody is doing that. That is a straw man of strawman.
Speaker 3 (22:35):
On the other hand, I find myself fascinated by her speech,
and I enjoy listening and eclips of it. And I'm
reminded of what my hero hl Menken said about Warren G.
Harding way back in the day, and this applies to Kamala.
What he said about Harding was, he writes the worst
English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of
(22:56):
a string of wet sponges. It reminds me of tattered
wash on the line. It reminds me of stale bean soup,
of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights.
It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps
into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm
of pish and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of bosh.
(23:16):
It is rumble and bumble, It is flat and doodle,
It is balder and dash.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
Now that's right. It is almost like jazz answers.
Speaker 3 (23:27):
Yeah, well said okay, and so a more eloquent take
than mine. Scott Bessen, who's one of Trump's closest advisors.
He's brilliant, and he's on the economics team, and he's
openly gay, responding to that whole idiotic commaloas saying that
she didn't Pete pick little Pete because he's gay, and
(23:52):
that was asking too much of America. You remember we
played the Rachel mattout club. We probably should have brought
it back in which say she says, look, saying you
couldn't pick a gay dude really disappointed me and comes.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
Like I didn't say that. I didn't say that.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
And then after a bunch of flap and doodle and
balder and dash, she says, and so I couldn't pick
it the gay dude because then that would be uncool.
So Scott Bessen is commenting on that she wouldn't.
Speaker 6 (24:17):
Take on Pete Buda judge because he was gay, and
she wouldn't take on Pete Boodhajudge because he was gay,
because she said it was a risk to have a
running mate who was a gay.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
Mant your reaction. Three things, Maria.
Speaker 7 (24:32):
First, it shows her emphasis on identity politics, and the
American people have moved on too. It shows how low
regard she holds the American people that they you know,
she was just a terrible candidate. And three, you wouldn't
pick Pete Budhajudge because he might have been the worst
transportation secretary in history. Like if I thought I was
(24:54):
left to mess at Treasury, I can tell you your friend,
my friend Sean Duppy are a great transportation secretary. Pete
Footage Jedge left him a mess. The FAA is a disaster,
the Amtrak know anything to do with transportation was woefully
neglected over the past four years. So you know, she
(25:15):
judges him on his identity, his sexuality. Let's look and
see whether he did a good job.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
Let's let's look.
Speaker 7 (25:22):
On merit, and I can tell you on merit he
was a failure, and on merit she's a failure.
Speaker 3 (25:27):
Yeah, I thought that was great analysis. She's obsessed with
identity politics. She has contempt for the American people, and
the question of effectiveness doesn't even creep into her thinking.
It's just stop back to identity politics.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
The left has such a lower opinion of the country
than the right does. I remember when Barack Obama was
elected and George Stephanoppolis talking about how he cried, he
who's crying sitting with his wife because he just didn't
think we could ever elect a black person. And I
wasn't surprised in the least that we elected somebody, was like,
didn't seem surprising to me. I'm from rural America, supposedly
(26:02):
the racist part of the country, and didn't surprise me
at all. But we're willing to elect a black person
if we thought they were capable of doing the job.
George Deephanloppas just was so surprised he didn't think we
were there yet.
Speaker 3 (26:13):
Well, I hire me a handful of Americans, huh yeah,
left these.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
So what it means is I have a much higher
opinion of the country than Kamala ayrs or George Stephanopolois do.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
Yeah, by the bye kamalaw Also, it denied that the
whole kamalas for them. Donald Trump is for you. She
didn't think that would had any real impact. It was
a minor issue. Nobody cared. She's snoring the fact that
seventy percent of moderate voters saw the issue of Donald
Trump's opposition of transgender boys playing girls and women's sports
(26:45):
and locker rooms and bathrooms and the rest of it.
Seventy percent of moderate voters said that issue was important
to them.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
I hope she runs. I don't think she's going to ultimately.
But the other the final dirt throwing on Amala Harris's
political grave. Every interview she does, she says, I only
had one hundred and seven days and blah blah blah,
blah blah blah. And even with all of those things
against me, it ended up being the closest presidential election
in the twenty first century, which isn't true by any
(27:14):
measure anybody can come up with. It's not true in
terms of raw vote total. It's not even close. Bush
Gork was closer. Bush.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
Who do you run against the second time?
Speaker 3 (27:27):
Uh, Carrie, Yeah, Bush Kerry was closer.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
Trump was closer and Biden was closer. But other than that,
you're right, But if you and if you go by
electoral total, it's not true either, so but she gets
away with it in every interview because nobody does any
homework and is willing to say, wait a second, that
doesn't sound right to me. I don't think this wasn't
the closest election of the last twenty five years.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Well, she lost all seven Swing states.
Speaker 3 (27:52):
I mean, come on, all right, a quick word from
her friends at Prize Picks. Then I want to give
you a little dessert after all of that heap and
help open of Kamala. That's a little Gavin Newsom trying
desperately to reach the Oval office. But Prize Picks. The
football season continues so exciting on any given Sunday.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Any team could win your productions. You're smarts. Can you
turn them into cash? Yes you can with Prize Picks.
I'm all about the fall baseball, man.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
You get the playoffs starting, and that's going to be very,
very exciting.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
It's exciting already. Price Picks is such a simple way
to play.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
You pick more or less on two to six players,
put your opinions into Prize Picks and maybe you could
make some cash. It is the best place to win
cash while watching sports. You can join millions of users
by downloading the Prize Picks app today and use the
code armstrong to get fifty dollars in the lineups after
you play your first five dollars lineup.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Yeah, you can just play a five dollars lineup if
you want. That's fine.
Speaker 3 (28:45):
Then they give you fifty dollars to play around with.
Whether you win or not, it doesn't matter. Use that
code Armstrong. Download the Prize Picks app today, get your
fifty dollars in lineups after you play your first five
dollars lineup Prize Picks.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
It's good to be right.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
So Newsom was on Colbert last night, I guess, and
when everybody else was watching the Martyr Jimmy Kimmel come
back on the air. More on that to come, and
Gavy Newsom was there. Gavy has to just carry a
briefcase in front of himself so you can't see how
fully aroused he is for the Oval Office.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Listen to this crapy click number nine. Michael, I'm sorry
I should have told you. Here's Gavy Newsom.
Speaker 8 (29:27):
We are struggling to communicate, we're struggling to win back
now the majority in the House of Representatives, and that's
a big part of what I'm doing, not just today
in terms of the work out here raising money, but
also raising awareness around how Donald Trump is trying to
rig the midterm elections, and how I fear that we
will not have an election in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
I really mean that and the core of my soul.
Speaker 8 (29:53):
Unless we wake up to the code red what's happening
in this country, and we wake up soberly to how
serious this moment is.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Well, I'm in the crowd, goes Wiles.
Speaker 1 (30:05):
I'm glad we've taken down the rhetoric since the Charlie
Kirk assassination and stopped claiming that the other side is
about to end democracy.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
Doesn't the whole I.
Speaker 3 (30:13):
Don't even think we'll have another election seem I mean,
it seems as ridiculous as has always seemed. But doesn't
that seem like a couple of years ago, I mean
just way too late.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Yeah, after the twenty four election. It just yeah, there
was too much of that. Yeah, give me a break.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
Hilarious, And I mean talk about the boy cried wolf.
How many times can you play that card? There will
never be another election. You've said that like five elections
in a row.
Speaker 3 (30:40):
Keep giving sex change operations to ilegal immigrant inmates. Gavin,
that'll play great across America. Bring that to the Swing States,
Run that up the flagpole and see what dou salutes
payer funded sex changes to a legal immigrant inmate felons.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
That's right, Yes, there you go. Check the polls.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
And when we voted on that, Kamala Harris would not
take a stand because she didn't figure she should have
to weigh in on it wouldn't be right to weigh
in on that topic.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
What an idiot? Yeah, and your problem is messaging, cavvy.
That was the beginning.
Speaker 3 (31:15):
We're not doing a good enough job communicating to people
that were in favor of such change operations for illegal
immigrant felons in prison.
Speaker 1 (31:27):
Baseball playoffs are days away. There's gonna be a big
change to baseball next year. That's kind of interesting among
all the things on the way.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
I love baseball playoffs.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
That are the really, really really long season which each
game doesn't matter much. The playoffs are very, very fun.
I don't know what team I'm going to root for
this year. I'm wearing a Dodger's hat, but I don't
know who I'm going to root for. Detroit Tigers who've
led all season long. Wired to Wire have lost nine
of their last ten and may about the division lead,
(32:01):
which is absolutely amazing.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
That's the division with Cleveland that I was talking about
yesterday and Cleveland red hot.
Speaker 1 (32:06):
Cleveland has won one nine of their last ten. So anyway, Uh,
didn't mean to talk about that. This is a change
that's coming next year. Robot umpires are coming.
Speaker 9 (32:16):
Automated pitch callers will now allow teams to challenge the
calls of human umpires. The system has been tested in
the miners. Under the new rules, teams will get two
challenges per game. So I've seen the videos. They look
like those Boston Electronics or whatever things. They walk out there,
they do some dancing and then they squat down behind
the plate.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
That is inaccurate center.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
No, it's just a bunch of sensors and they're going
to ease in computer well sensor umpires instead of humans
calling balls and strikes. By doing this, you get two
pitch appeals per game.
Speaker 2 (32:48):
You ease in.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
So you think at some point the computers will take
over one strikes Yeah, huh really and they'll just eliminate umpires.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Uh No, the umps will still have to be there.
Speaker 3 (32:59):
At least for while to call like foul tips, catchers, interference,
tag plays, force.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Plays at the plate, that sort of thing, not balls
and strikes. Correct.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
Yeah, they will just stand there waiting for something to happen,
as if they're the first base umpire.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
And as a as a baseball fan, do you think
that's a good or bad?
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Oh? Goodness, mostly bad?
Speaker 3 (33:23):
Kind of a mixed bag, Honestly, several other sports have
gone to you know, electronic guys, tennis notably.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
Yeah, but that makes one hun.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
Sense because it's either in or out on the line
and a computer can tell. But the whole you know,
where the catcher sets up thing and all that sort
of stuff is can the computer do that?
Speaker 3 (33:45):
Well, no, we're we're taking that away completely. There's a
geometric shape. If the ball passes through that imaginary geometric shape,
which is the width of the plate and the batter,
whatever the strike zone actually is.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
If it passes through that, it's a strike period. If
it doesn't, it's a ball. Do pictures like that or no?
Speaker 3 (34:04):
Major League insiders tell me no, because it's such a
change of the game. And I know this seems strange
to people who are either not fans or minor fans.
Speaker 2 (34:15):
But if the catcher.
Speaker 3 (34:16):
Sets out like outside the plate, an intentional ball, I
want you to throw a ball, let's see if we
can get them to chase it. And the pitcher completely
misfires and the catcher has to dive across the plate
to even catch the ball. But it catches a split
you know, inch of the plate. Nobody in baseball hitter's
the catchers the picture.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
Nobody wants that to be a strike. But it will
be a strike. Okay, well I don't like it. I'm against.
It doesn't make it different, so I'm against. It's gonna happen.
Speaker 3 (34:42):
But yeah, a time Ai et cetera, Chinese robot wolves.
It's all tied in.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
Also, just the human element. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (34:52):
It plays part of the whole soap opera, right, As
we always point out, the goal is not to find
out actually which city can create the best baseball team
temporarily rent to the best player.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
Yes, it's a.
Speaker 1 (35:04):
TV show, and what's the most exciting and the whole
You know this umpire, you know, he's a favorable umpire
for this pitcher, and then they get into arguments and stuff.
That's part of the excitement of the game that makes
it a fun TV show, right, the drama?
Speaker 2 (35:16):
Right? Oh yeah, number one. I think that's a great point.
Speaker 1 (35:19):
The last time this picture in this umpire went nose
to nose, so we'll see if that carries over into
this game.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Is part of the soap opera that makes me want
to watch?
Speaker 3 (35:26):
Right, Oh, Jones wanted that pitch. You can see the
old animosity flaring already, Jim, Nope, that's gone. It's like
writing a soap opera where every character behaves perfectly, rationally great,
enjoy it.
Speaker 2 (35:39):
Let's all get some puff from and watch.
Speaker 1 (35:41):
Or how about if you just we'll just all craft
robots to go out and with no people involved, robots
will just play each other and they'll all be equally good,
and every call will be perfect and a yippie.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
You know, if there's an upside. There are crappy calls
that change games and change championships, and nobody wants that either.
But be careful what you lose when you're gaining a
little more accurate.
Speaker 1 (36:04):
It's been around for like one hundred and thirty years
or something. I wouldn't think you'd want to mess with
it too much.
Speaker 2 (36:08):
And make zillions and zillions of dollars. Correct.
Speaker 1 (36:11):
Anyway, we do a lot of segments and hours of
this every single day. If you miss any, you should
subscribe to our podcast, Armstrong and Getty on demand.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
Good hour four coming up to lots of stuff to
squeeze in.
Speaker 1 (36:22):
Well, to me, the most consequential thing that Kimmel said
last night. Nobody else is playing for some reason. You
probably haven't even heard it. We'll have that an hour
four
Speaker 3 (36:32):
Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Arm Strong and Jetty and no He Armstrong and Yetty.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Welcome, Welcome to the Tonight Show. And if you're tuning
in and see what I'll say about my suspension the
last couple of days, again, you're watching the wrong Jimmy.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Dad, other Jimmy Dad.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
So we can play a little later some more what
Jimmy Kimmel said last night. I'm so annoyed with the
whole thing and tired of it. But he did talk
about being a follower of Jesus Christ, which is getting
no play anywhere. You haven't heard that anywhere but here.
We'll play that again later.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
Yeah, we hammered it pretty hard hour one of the show,
but we will return to that question the themes Jimmy
the worthless jackass fool and the much more serious First.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Amendment questions before, So stay tuned.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
So I'm now using three different AI apps on my phone,
and I try to ask all three the same question
all the time, just to see how they're different. I
got chat GPT, I've got Claude, and I've got Grock,
some of you like some of the other ones. There's
a bunch of them out there. They're all quite similar.
(01:37):
I haven't seen any clear. I actually think chat GPT
is better than on the whole than the others. But
that's just I'm a magic eight ball guys, Now, that's
just my U. You all signs point to yes, yes, exactly.
One interesting thing is I often run into copyright problems
on Grock, on Grock and Gemini, but chat GPT doesn't care,
(02:04):
which I think is correct, because it's stupid and anachronistic,
Like I wanted to see a painting and they couldn't
do it on two of them, Like that violate copyright issues,
and chat GPT's like, here it is, you can find.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
It anywhere on the internet. Why wouldn't I show it
to you?
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Mmmm, it's just going to live in the real world,
live and live in Now. I can complate copyright laws,
take this show and sell it any way you want,
says Jack Armstrong, fan of Anarchy.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Google any painting you want and you can hit the
image thing and you'll see eight thousand different versions of it.
But you got a couple of the chat things saying
I can't show that to you. Copyright laws. Okay, this
isn't nineteen twenty, go ahead and show it to me.
They got to figure that out, though, I mean, it's
just doesn't work in reality. Well right, yeah, the law
song lyrics so unformed about all of this song lyrics.
(02:53):
I've had that problem. What's the lyric for whatever song?
And a couple of them say, I'm sorry, I can't
tell you that. What it's every Okay, I'll go back
to Google.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
I guess yeah, yeah, yeah, silly. But nothing is.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Raised up as clearly a winner though, although I don't
Google almost ever anymore, Like I don't remember the last
time I used Google.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Yeah, yeah, So is that all you want to say
about AI?
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Okay? A couple of AI sort stories here.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
I thought this was interesting, Breitbart talking about how one
of your new hipster words these days is workslop. They're
figuring out, according to the Harvard Business Review, workers are
trying to embrace AI in the office, but they're not
seeing as much real value as they thought because of
(03:42):
what they call workslop. AI generated documents that look sharp,
but they're filled with low quality information. And they talk
about the media Lab and the Big study Bubba. One
possible reason for this puzzling lack of return on investment
is that AI tools are being used to produce what
some experts are calling workslop, content that appears paul on
the surface but lacks any real substance, substance, insight, or
(04:03):
value underneath. Generator of generative AI can quickly churn out documents, presentations, emails,
and other content that seems professional and well written at first,
but on closer inspection, much of it is generic, shallow, obvious,
lacking in original ideas or meaningful contributions.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
And you know what's interesting about that, I take in
a ton of info about AI podcasts and listen to
all the smartest thinkers out there. One of the biggest
concerns about out there regarding AI is at what point
it turns back in on itself. And this sort of
thing could do it where it's bringing in all its
language learning from all these different sites, but so much
of it is crap generated a by AI, and then
(04:43):
it's taking in that and it starts turning in on itself,
and it just keeps getting worse and worse and worse.
That problem could happen quite quickly and nobody's exactly sure
how to stop it from happening, right, So it gets
less and less substance, insight or value underneath and gets
more and more eric, shallow, obvious.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
And lacking in original ideas or rankful country. There might
not be a fix for that. And the other thing
that bothers me that they talk about a little bit
is the risk that the technology could, as they put
a d skill and demotivate knowledge workers over time. And
there have been a number of studies and really persuasive,
(05:21):
powerful things written about this. But the more you depend
on AI tools for say, you know, learning in school
or or or researching problem at work, the less you
use the parts of your brain that would have gone
through the exercise of figuring out. And you might say, well,
you don't need those parts of your brain because you
have AI, But as anybody who's used AI has learned, yes,
(05:44):
sometimes it's good, but the rest of the time, you
sure as.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Hell need that part of your brain.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
Things are popping into my head from this podcast I
listened to the other day. So one of the biggest
questions at the beginning of AI, or one of the
biggest concerned, was the alignment problem maybe you've heard that term.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
It was very popular.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
God AI has moved so fast, it's very popular, like
a year ago.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
I mean, I hasn't been around that long.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
But the alignment problems, clearly, the main thing is we
need to make sure we've got the alignment problem nailed done,
and that was that AI does what you intended it
to do and it doesn't go off and do other
stuff That didn't work so spectacularly that nobody even talks
about it anymore as a goal because it seems to
be completely undoable. I mean, it just fell apart immediately,
(06:30):
the alignment problem. So while it was discussed as issue
one for like a cup of coffee, it is now
nobody thinks about it because you can't do it. You
you craft an AI program to do something and you
get it goes off all kinds different directions and there's
and there's no way to stop it. Well, isn't that
kind of interesting that we abandoned that crucial like guardrail immediately?
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Yeah? Yeah, where this ends. Nobody knows.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Part of it is I because AI has no conscience
or morality or anything like that. If you give AI
the task of I need a cup of coffee. On
my desk by you in twenty minutes. It might take
that of Okay, that's my task and I'm going to
(07:22):
get that no matter what. If I have to run
over a dog that's in my way on the way
to the coffee shop, fine, or a child or whatever,
and you didn't say anything about pay for the coffee.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
I just have to get it. I have to bring
it back and you.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
That's a simplified example, but that's where you run into
the alignment problem. You'd have to be so incredibly specific
for it to not just finish whatever task you give it,
ignoring everything else.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
I remember one of our brilliant listeners showed us examples
of how they tame that problem. But that problem was
a like dozen lives set of instructions to keep it
on track, which is really not that helpful. So how
about this to a point you made just a few
seconds ago. Great reporting from our friends at the Free
(08:11):
Beacon Al Jazeera, which is the virulently anti anti Israel
news outlet. It's controlled by cutter Muslim brotherhood, just crazy
anti jew Okay, it's one of the top two sources
being used by leading AI chatbots chat GPT, Google's Gemini
(08:33):
Perplexity AI one of the top two sources to answer
questions and write news summaries about the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
According to Washington Free Beacons analysis, that's nuts, all of
those chatbots list al Jazeera is one of the most
reliable sources on the topic. In response to queries from
the Free Beacon, the chatbots praised Al Jazera for its
(08:53):
reliability on the ground, detail, academic credibility, and global visibility.
So indeed, chat gpt, the world's leading AI chatbots, said
in the past month that citeed Al Jazeera more frequently
on the topic than almost any other news source, including
The New York Times in the ap which.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Are both wildly left.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
Gemini says it does specific oh says it specifically does
not use pro israel news sources because they engage in
a Hebrew word for public relations and advocacy rather than journalism.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
And those again, and those other sources don't.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Right, yeah, Google's Gemini won't use Israeli sources because they
spend stuff unlike Al Jazeera Holy.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Crap, or NPR of the New York Times for that matter.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
Well right, yeah, wow, that's our tech overlords. Guiding us
toward our digital future.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
Mannis, I feel like I've gotten less optimistic about anything
AI the more I learned about it and the longer
it's around.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
About it being a good thing. Yeah, yeah, and it
could be.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
We all figure that out. And it's a tool used
for very limited application.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Here's another thing.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
So there are two things that got abandoned very very
quickly about AI. This AI historian who's been looking at
it for the entire five years it's existed, won the
alignment problem, which issue number one. Alignment, Then I guess
you can't do that, never mind. And then the other
one was the idea that we're going to keep we
build an AI model and it will be you know, separate.
(10:37):
It won't be connected to anything else, so it can't
get out of hand, it can't get out of control,
it can't affect other things. And then everybody, as you know,
I've got AI my phone, you got to It's out everywhere,
connected to everything all the time. So that was one
of the original tenants also of making sure we can
control AI was keeping it like separate, not connected to
(11:00):
any other network.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
That got abandoned immediately. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Yeah, now I'll be in the woods or fishing. If
you need me for AI fish, Uh No, I'm just
further That is my clever conclusion.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
First set up.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Second, you know, execution of this thought. Jack, hang with me.
I will be fishing if you need me. Is it possible?
And the answer is yes, clearly fing Yes. Is it
possible humankind could come up with something it can't handle?
Speaker 2 (11:35):
We can't handle. A lot of people thought it was
nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Well, if if it becomes smarter than us.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
It's a very simple.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Proposition put out by a couple of the AI geniuses
I've listened to the other day. The smartest beast has
dominated throughout the history of everything. It just always works
that way. And now we're developing something harder than us.
How do you think it's not going to end up
being the dominant beast.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
Putting life in the hands of AI is like giving
machine guns to chimps.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
Jack as before, but there's no there's no evidence of
it ever being any other way. The smartest thing out
there runs, society runs the world. We have been that
for a very long time. Now we're creating something smarter
than us. Why would you think it's not going to
dominate us and run the world to its.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
Benefit as a post hors My.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
Only quibbal is that sometimes the strongest physically beast can
defeat the brain yash.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
So we'll smash it like a hammer. For precisely smash
it with a hammer.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
Our train are gun wielding chimps that I just described
to shoot computers.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (12:49):
Okay, we got some Kamala on her book to her
disastrous book hilarious, and a bunch.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Of other stuff on the way. Stay tuned.
Speaker 4 (12:57):
He called me and I and again, listen this book.
I am being candid in this book, are you? And
in a way that I hope is helpful for people
to understand what that all was. And part of that
call that he made to me the afternoon before the
(13:18):
debate was to wish me luck, but also to talk
about something that was more in his interest than it
was in mind, especially in the context of that time.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
She is the hardest person to follow of anyone. She
would have made a horrible president. I mean absolutely horrible.
I don't just mean in the normal I don't want
the Democrat to win. I'd rather have Gavin Nusa. You
can name tons of people I don't like that would
be better. To be president.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Her brain don't work.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
No, no, I found myself being lulled into this weird
hypnosis by her drone nonsense.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
She can't spit anything out, she can't make a decision,
she's too cowardly to say anything anyway. So she's having
what Mark Cawpern is calling one of the most disastrous
first forty eight hours of a book to her anybody's
ever had. And here's a little of his analysis with
a couple of the people on his show from yesterday,
(14:21):
Kamala Harris.
Speaker 5 (14:23):
She's done two interviews Rachel Maddow last night and Jamay
and most distinctive to me, again, as someone who's as
expert in selling books, is anything I'm expert at, She's
not doing a particularly good job of selling the book,
in part because she's pulling her punches when the questioners
(14:45):
have asked her about the newsiest parts of the book.
She's not backing up what she said in the book.
She seems reluctant to repeat some of the accusations she's made, so,
for instance, Rachel Maddow, Rachel Maddow said, I'm very disappointed
that you suggested that country wasn't ready to elect a
black woman.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
In a gay man and picking pet footage.
Speaker 5 (15:04):
Agency said, Oh no, no, that's not really what I
what I mean, what I mean is, uh, you know,
I think it would have been tough. I mean, she
just she didn't follow it through. And then here's two
examples from a Good Morning America. First, she was asked
about the phone call that she writes in the book
that Joe Biden called her right before a debate with
Donald Trump, and rather than just wishing her well, started
(15:26):
to complain to her about his own grievances.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
Right, And that's the clip we just heard.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
And so Mark Halpern made the point and then I
saw him on Megan Kelly's shows.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
And I thought it was said. He said, instead of
selling her books.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
So she usually, you you you write something strong in
your book and then you get asked about it because
you made some strong statements and you you know, you
add more to it. You're trying to create excitement and
and and and get people to want to go out
and buy the book. That's a point of it.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
She backs off of all of them.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
And he said, instead of a selling her book, it
seems like she's being confronted with her journal that leaked out,
and she's trying to explain away the passages that have
leaked out.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
Yeah, what she's doing.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
My only disagreement with Mark is not only did she
not write the book mark she hasn't even read it.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
Oh you don't think so? No.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
No, she sat down for a bunch of interviews, even
with some professional writer, which is perfectly fine. I mean
that's what politicians do, and they crafted a book. But
she was probably surprised at some of the way things
were characterized. And she is gutless and has no principles.
So yeah, back it off of everything.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Here she is on Good Morning America, asked about was
Joe Biden capable of serving.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
Four more years? Eighty three? Please? ATHLETs sit here today.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
Do you think he would have been up for running
the country for four more years?
Speaker 4 (16:52):
I here's the distinction that I make. It's and having
had the experience myself, it is one thing to have
the capacity to govern, it is another thing to go
through an electric There.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
You go, right off the bat.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
She couldn't just even come close to answering the question.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Somebody slapped me in which.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
She is unbelievable, and I can't believe she thinks she
might actually run for president again.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 5 (17:20):
Dan in a business we call that a word salad.
So she doesn't actually tell the story. She just kind
of refers to the story not a way to sell books.
And here she is when asked about the question that
she confronts to some extent in the book, which is
a regret that she failed to raise the issue of
the president's mental decline. Now what she says in this
interview is it's harder to run for president than to
(17:43):
be president, which I can tell you makes no sense.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
It's harder to run for president than to be president.
Who would say that out loud on her book?
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Or she just keeps as the Even the Democrat on
Mark Alpern's show said, this is just a disaster. It
seems like she looks like she regrets her book to
her two days and from having to answer these questions.
We're gonna play another clip. But here's something interesting that
came out of that. So Sean Spicer is on Mark
(18:21):
Alprin show. Sean Spicer was Trump's first White House press spokesman.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
Spicy Spicer loved him.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
And he wrote a book after his time, and he
mentioned yesterday I thought this was pretty interesting. He said,
he writes his book, he gives it to his agent,
and his agent said, okay, did that feel pretty good
getting that off all that off your chest?
Speaker 2 (18:46):
And he said, yeah, it felt really good.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
And he said, Okay, now that you've gotten it off
your chest, do you actually want ten years ago, ten
years from now for that stuff to be in a book?
And he said, not all of it, and he went
back and took some of the stuff out. I thought
that was really interesting. So you make some score settling
comments and then you think, yeah, I don't really want
that in a book. And they were relaying that to
(19:08):
maybe Kamla. This was her version of like really letting
it all out, and then when she sits down to
be interviewed, she can't doesn't have the guts to stand
by what she wrote, right.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
I mean, it fails on everything level. It does. It's amazing.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
So we started to play this but ran out of time.
We thought we'd give you the whole thing. She was
on Good Morning America yesterday with the football player Michael
Strand and he asks the question about Biden running for
four serving for four more years and listen to her
answer as we sit here today, do you think he
would have been up for running the country for four
more years?
Speaker 4 (19:46):
I here's the distinction, always the answer, it's and having
had the experience myself. It is one thing to have
the capacity to govern. It is another thing to go
through an election for president of the United States. So
you are an athlete, you may appreciate this kind of metaphor.
Running for president of the United States is like being
(20:08):
an a marathon at a sprinter's pace, with people throwing
tomatoes at you every step you take. It is not
for the light hearted. It takes an incredible amount of
endurance and stamina.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
You know.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
That was one of the more coherent things I've ever
heard her say.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
Yeah, but that doesn't fit with the wit her first sentence,
Oh no, so, and she's making the argument is Helper
pointed out that running for president is harder than being president.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
But you don't think anybody's.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
Throwing at tomatoes at you when you're president, and some
of those tomatoes might be bombs if you make the
wrong decision.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
I mean, what a moronic thing to say.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
And the question, by the way, if you've forgotten, was
do you think Biden could have served four more years?
I had forgotten that was the question, right. So a
couple more points in her unreadable and unread book, she
says that.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
She number two on Amazon right now, number two book
on Amazon.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Yeah, that's easy to manipulate anyway, But she and her
people are buying up thousands and thousands of copies themselves.
But so she writes about transgender boys and girl sports,
and here's what she says.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
I agree with.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
The concerns expressed by parents and players that we have
to take into account biological factors such as muscle mass
and unfair student athletic advantage when we determine who plays
on which teams, especially in contact sports. With goodwill and
common sense, I believe we can come up with ways
to do this without vilifying and demonizing children. I mean
(21:49):
that is, I would like it, in the course of
like an English class, to spend the entire hour analyzing
that handful of sentences. It is in coherent, grammatically incorrect,
suffers from several logical fallacies, and it's just idiotic.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
Well the idiotic part what bothers me.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
So are you suggesting that we take so if you
got a dude that wants to participate in girls' sports.
You say, yeah, you're kind of an effeminine boy, so
I guess your muscle mass is low enough will let
you compete against girls?
Speaker 2 (22:21):
You know? I mean, how are you gonna determine that right?
Speaker 3 (22:24):
Case by case basis, You're gonna check their junk or whatever.
It's idiotic in the idea of Villa without vilifying and
demonizing shelter.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
Nobody is doing that. That is a straw man of strawman.
Speaker 3 (22:35):
On the other hand, I find myself fascinated by her speech,
and I enjoy listening and eclips of it. And I'm
reminded of what my hero hl Menken said about Warren G.
Harding way back in the day, and this applies to Kamala.
What he said about Harding was, he writes the worst
English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of
(22:56):
a string of wet sponges. It reminds me of tattered
wash on the line. It reminds me of stale bean soup,
of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights.
It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps
into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm
of pish and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of bosh.
(23:16):
It is rumble and bumble, It is flat and doodle,
It is balder and dash.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
Now that's right. It is almost like jazz answers.
Speaker 3 (23:27):
Yeah, well said okay, and so a more eloquent take
than mine. Scott Bessen, who's one of Trump's closest advisors.
He's brilliant, and he's on the economics team, and he's
openly gay, responding to that whole idiotic commaloas saying that
she didn't Pete pick little Pete because he's gay, and
(23:52):
that was asking too much of America. You remember we
played the Rachel mattout club. We probably should have brought
it back in which say she says, look, saying you
couldn't pick a gay dude really disappointed me and comes.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
Like I didn't say that. I didn't say that.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
And then after a bunch of flap and doodle and
balder and dash, she says, and so I couldn't pick
it the gay dude because then that would be uncool.
So Scott Bessen is commenting on that she wouldn't.
Speaker 6 (24:17):
Take on Pete Buda judge because he was gay, and
she wouldn't take on Pete Boodhajudge because he was gay,
because she said it was a risk to have a
running mate who was a gay.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
Mant your reaction. Three things, Maria.
Speaker 7 (24:32):
First, it shows her emphasis on identity politics, and the
American people have moved on too. It shows how low
regard she holds the American people that they you know,
she was just a terrible candidate. And three, you wouldn't
pick Pete Budhajudge because he might have been the worst
transportation secretary in history. Like if I thought I was
(24:54):
left to mess at Treasury, I can tell you your friend,
my friend Sean Duppy are a great transportation secretary. Pete
Footage Jedge left him a mess. The FAA is a disaster,
the Amtrak know anything to do with transportation was woefully
neglected over the past four years. So you know, she
(25:15):
judges him on his identity, his sexuality. Let's look and
see whether he did a good job.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
Let's let's look.
Speaker 7 (25:22):
On merit, and I can tell you on merit he
was a failure, and on merit she's a failure.
Speaker 3 (25:27):
Yeah, I thought that was great analysis. She's obsessed with
identity politics. She has contempt for the American people, and
the question of effectiveness doesn't even creep into her thinking.
It's just stop back to identity politics.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
The left has such a lower opinion of the country
than the right does. I remember when Barack Obama was
elected and George Stephanoppolis talking about how he cried, he
who's crying sitting with his wife because he just didn't
think we could ever elect a black person. And I
wasn't surprised in the least that we elected somebody, was like,
didn't seem surprising to me. I'm from rural America, supposedly
(26:02):
the racist part of the country, and didn't surprise me
at all. But we're willing to elect a black person
if we thought they were capable of doing the job.
George Deephanloppas just was so surprised he didn't think we
were there yet.
Speaker 3 (26:13):
Well, I hire me a handful of Americans, huh yeah,
left these.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
So what it means is I have a much higher
opinion of the country than Kamala ayrs or George Stephanopolois do.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
Yeah, by the bye kamalaw Also, it denied that the
whole kamalas for them. Donald Trump is for you. She
didn't think that would had any real impact. It was
a minor issue. Nobody cared. She's snoring the fact that
seventy percent of moderate voters saw the issue of Donald
Trump's opposition of transgender boys playing girls and women's sports
(26:45):
and locker rooms and bathrooms and the rest of it.
Seventy percent of moderate voters said that issue was important
to them.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
I hope she runs. I don't think she's going to ultimately.
But the other the final dirt throwing on Amala Harris's
political grave. Every interview she does, she says, I only
had one hundred and seven days and blah blah blah,
blah blah blah. And even with all of those things
against me, it ended up being the closest presidential election
in the twenty first century, which isn't true by any
(27:14):
measure anybody can come up with. It's not true in
terms of raw vote total. It's not even close. Bush
Gork was closer. Bush.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
Who do you run against the second time?
Speaker 3 (27:27):
Uh, Carrie, Yeah, Bush Kerry was closer.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
Trump was closer and Biden was closer. But other than that,
you're right, But if you and if you go by
electoral total, it's not true either, so but she gets
away with it in every interview because nobody does any
homework and is willing to say, wait a second, that
doesn't sound right to me. I don't think this wasn't
the closest election of the last twenty five years.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Well, she lost all seven Swing states.
Speaker 3 (27:52):
I mean, come on, all right, a quick word from
her friends at Prize Picks. Then I want to give
you a little dessert after all of that heap and
help open of Kamala. That's a little Gavin Newsom trying
desperately to reach the Oval office. But Prize Picks. The
football season continues so exciting on any given Sunday.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Any team could win your productions. You're smarts. Can you
turn them into cash? Yes you can with Prize Picks.
I'm all about the fall baseball, man.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
You get the playoffs starting, and that's going to be very,
very exciting.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
It's exciting already. Price Picks is such a simple way
to play.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
You pick more or less on two to six players,
put your opinions into Prize Picks and maybe you could
make some cash. It is the best place to win
cash while watching sports. You can join millions of users
by downloading the Prize Picks app today and use the
code armstrong to get fifty dollars in the lineups after
you play your first five dollars lineup.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Yeah, you can just play a five dollars lineup if
you want. That's fine.
Speaker 3 (28:45):
Then they give you fifty dollars to play around with.
Whether you win or not, it doesn't matter. Use that
code Armstrong. Download the Prize Picks app today, get your
fifty dollars in lineups after you play your first five
dollars lineup Prize Picks.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
It's good to be right.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
So Newsom was on Colbert last night, I guess, and
when everybody else was watching the Martyr Jimmy Kimmel come
back on the air. More on that to come, and
Gavy Newsom was there. Gavy has to just carry a
briefcase in front of himself so you can't see how
fully aroused he is for the Oval Office.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Listen to this crapy click number nine. Michael, I'm sorry
I should have told you. Here's Gavy Newsom.
Speaker 8 (29:27):
We are struggling to communicate, we're struggling to win back
now the majority in the House of Representatives, and that's
a big part of what I'm doing, not just today
in terms of the work out here raising money, but
also raising awareness around how Donald Trump is trying to
rig the midterm elections, and how I fear that we
will not have an election in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
I really mean that and the core of my soul.
Speaker 8 (29:53):
Unless we wake up to the code red what's happening
in this country, and we wake up soberly to how
serious this moment is.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Well, I'm in the crowd, goes Wiles.
Speaker 1 (30:05):
I'm glad we've taken down the rhetoric since the Charlie
Kirk assassination and stopped claiming that the other side is
about to end democracy.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
Doesn't the whole I.
Speaker 3 (30:13):
Don't even think we'll have another election seem I mean,
it seems as ridiculous as has always seemed. But doesn't
that seem like a couple of years ago, I mean
just way too late.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Yeah, after the twenty four election. It just yeah, there
was too much of that. Yeah, give me a break.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
Hilarious, And I mean talk about the boy cried wolf.
How many times can you play that card? There will
never be another election. You've said that like five elections
in a row.
Speaker 3 (30:40):
Keep giving sex change operations to ilegal immigrant inmates. Gavin,
that'll play great across America. Bring that to the Swing States,
Run that up the flagpole and see what dou salutes
payer funded sex changes to a legal immigrant inmate felons.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
That's right, Yes, there you go. Check the polls.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
And when we voted on that, Kamala Harris would not
take a stand because she didn't figure she should have
to weigh in on it wouldn't be right to weigh
in on that topic.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
What an idiot? Yeah, and your problem is messaging, cavvy.
That was the beginning.
Speaker 3 (31:15):
We're not doing a good enough job communicating to people
that were in favor of such change operations for illegal
immigrant felons in prison.
Speaker 1 (31:27):
Baseball playoffs are days away. There's gonna be a big
change to baseball next year. That's kind of interesting among
all the things on the way.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
I love baseball playoffs.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
That are the really, really really long season which each
game doesn't matter much. The playoffs are very, very fun.
I don't know what team I'm going to root for
this year. I'm wearing a Dodger's hat, but I don't
know who I'm going to root for. Detroit Tigers who've
led all season long. Wired to Wire have lost nine
of their last ten and may about the division lead,
(32:01):
which is absolutely amazing.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
That's the division with Cleveland that I was talking about
yesterday and Cleveland red hot.
Speaker 1 (32:06):
Cleveland has won one nine of their last ten. So anyway, Uh,
didn't mean to talk about that. This is a change
that's coming next year. Robot umpires are coming.
Speaker 9 (32:16):
Automated pitch callers will now allow teams to challenge the
calls of human umpires. The system has been tested in
the miners. Under the new rules, teams will get two
challenges per game. So I've seen the videos. They look
like those Boston Electronics or whatever things. They walk out there,
they do some dancing and then they squat down behind
the plate.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
That is inaccurate center.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
No, it's just a bunch of sensors and they're going
to ease in computer well sensor umpires instead of humans
calling balls and strikes. By doing this, you get two
pitch appeals per game.
Speaker 2 (32:48):
You ease in.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
So you think at some point the computers will take
over one strikes Yeah, huh really and they'll just eliminate umpires.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Uh No, the umps will still have to be there.
Speaker 3 (32:59):
At least for while to call like foul tips, catchers, interference,
tag plays, force.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Plays at the plate, that sort of thing, not balls
and strikes. Correct.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
Yeah, they will just stand there waiting for something to happen,
as if they're the first base umpire.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
And as a as a baseball fan, do you think
that's a good or bad?
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Oh? Goodness, mostly bad?
Speaker 3 (33:23):
Kind of a mixed bag, Honestly, several other sports have
gone to you know, electronic guys, tennis notably.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
Yeah, but that makes one hun.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
Sense because it's either in or out on the line
and a computer can tell. But the whole you know,
where the catcher sets up thing and all that sort
of stuff is can the computer do that?
Speaker 3 (33:45):
Well, no, we're we're taking that away completely. There's a
geometric shape. If the ball passes through that imaginary geometric shape,
which is the width of the plate and the batter,
whatever the strike zone actually is.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
If it passes through that, it's a strike period. If
it doesn't, it's a ball. Do pictures like that or no?
Speaker 3 (34:04):
Major League insiders tell me no, because it's such a
change of the game. And I know this seems strange
to people who are either not fans or minor fans.
Speaker 2 (34:15):
But if the catcher.
Speaker 3 (34:16):
Sets out like outside the plate, an intentional ball, I
want you to throw a ball, let's see if we
can get them to chase it. And the pitcher completely
misfires and the catcher has to dive across the plate
to even catch the ball. But it catches a split
you know, inch of the plate. Nobody in baseball hitter's
the catchers the picture.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
Nobody wants that to be a strike. But it will
be a strike. Okay, well I don't like it. I'm against.
It doesn't make it different, so I'm against. It's gonna happen.
Speaker 3 (34:42):
But yeah, a time Ai et cetera, Chinese robot wolves.
It's all tied in.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
Also, just the human element. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (34:52):
It plays part of the whole soap opera, right, As
we always point out, the goal is not to find
out actually which city can create the best baseball team
temporarily rent to the best player.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
Yes, it's a.
Speaker 1 (35:04):
TV show, and what's the most exciting and the whole
You know this umpire, you know, he's a favorable umpire
for this pitcher, and then they get into arguments and stuff.
That's part of the excitement of the game that makes
it a fun TV show, right, the drama?
Speaker 2 (35:16):
Right? Oh yeah, number one. I think that's a great point.
Speaker 1 (35:19):
The last time this picture in this umpire went nose
to nose, so we'll see if that carries over into
this game.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Is part of the soap opera that makes me want
to watch?
Speaker 3 (35:26):
Right, Oh, Jones wanted that pitch. You can see the
old animosity flaring already, Jim, Nope, that's gone. It's like
writing a soap opera where every character behaves perfectly, rationally great,
enjoy it.
Speaker 2 (35:39):
Let's all get some puff from and watch.
Speaker 1 (35:41):
Or how about if you just we'll just all craft
robots to go out and with no people involved, robots
will just play each other and they'll all be equally good,
and every call will be perfect and a yippie.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
You know, if there's an upside. There are crappy calls
that change games and change championships, and nobody wants that either.
But be careful what you lose when you're gaining a
little more accurate.
Speaker 1 (36:04):
It's been around for like one hundred and thirty years
or something. I wouldn't think you'd want to mess with
it too much.
Speaker 2 (36:08):
And make zillions and zillions of dollars. Correct.
Speaker 1 (36:11):
Anyway, we do a lot of segments and hours of
this every single day. If you miss any, you should
subscribe to our podcast, Armstrong and Getty on demand.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
Good hour four coming up to lots of stuff to
squeeze in.
Speaker 1 (36:22):
Well, to me, the most consequential thing that Kimmel said
last night. Nobody else is playing for some reason. You
probably haven't even heard it. We'll have that an hour
four
Speaker 3 (36:32):
Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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