September 14, 2026 • 37 mins
Hour 2 of A&G features...
- The warnings about AI
- AI going rogue
- Bingo, Bango, Bongo
- Pilot who ejected from plane in Iran, survives & is rescued!
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the
George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty. Armstrong
and Getty. And now, here's Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Have you heard directly from any of these AI tech leaders?
Speaker 1 (00:27):
And you seem to downplay some of the concerns.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
That we've heard.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
You know, it's going to be more good than bad,
but by a lot. And I've said it from the beginning.
Whoever wins AI, and we're leading by a lot. Whoever
wins AI wins. You can use AI for a lot
of things.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
There's going to be more good than bad. You can
cure cancer. You could... make the GDP 50 times what
it is by next Saturday. You can do all kinds
of things, but if it kills every human on Earth,
I feel like it takes the fun out of it.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
It does take the fun out of it. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Good news, we cured cancer.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Bad news, we're all going to be dead. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
I'm not like Doomer by the end of the year guy,
but this is such a fascinating.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
situation, if you look.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
At it from a literary point of view, you can
see whether it's a thousands-of-year-old Homer-style Odyssey story or like
a science fiction movie when you realize at the end, oh, either.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Way they were doomed. Oh.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Right.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Oh, boy.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
I agree. Ian Bremmer tweeted this out over the weekend.
For the next five years, my P-Doom is close to zero.
P-Doom is your prediction of doom. In the next five years,
it's close to zero. My P-Doom for social, economic, national
security challenges that we aren't remotely ready for that are
highly disruptive is 100%.
Speaker 4 (02:04):
Yeah. Hmm.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Every aspect of life, social.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Economic, national security, 100% we're moving into territory we've never
even dreamed of or anticipated ever in human history is
almost certain to happen in the next five years. So
one weird aspect of the guy coming out and saying
everybody will be dead in the next decade is that
(02:31):
anybody who sets the bar like slightly below that, it's like, oh, okay, well,
then there's nothing to worry about. It's like Jonah Goldberg's
always talking about this with everybody being compared to Hitler.
Then Hitler becomes the standard, and anything slightly below that
is acceptable.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Well, that's the same thing with this pedo.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
So anybody who's overblowing everyone will be dead in 10 years,
it doesn't mean there's nothing to worry about.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Okay, so everybody will be dead in 50 years?
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Or we'll have so much disruption you can't even recognize
life on planet.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Earth in a couple of years? That seems like a
pretty big deal.
Speaker 4 (03:08):
Right, or if the massive change is merely restricted to economics, even.
That'll still be unbelievably disruptive. And virtually everybody concedes that,
except for what's the opposite of a doomer or a gloomer?
(03:29):
those who believe, no, AI is so overrated. This is
all hype to draw investment dollars. It's going to be
very helpful. It's better computing. It'll be good in medical science,
but it's not going to... It'll grow jobs. It won't
shrink them. The optimist crowd.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Yeah, I don't remember what they officially call those people.
So you got doomers, you got accelerators, and then that
crowd you're just talking about thinking it's just way overblown.
It's not going to be as big a deal, good
or bad, which I think that is... really, really wrong.
So briefly catching up on the story, surely you caught
this last week. A guy quits at Anthropic and says,
(04:07):
you know, in the hallways, they discuss the chance of
all of mankind being wiped out within the decade at
like 10%. And then another guy comes out and says, yep,
that's true. And a whole bunch of people came out
that way. And so there's a lot of talk about that.
Then over the weekend, Dario Amadei of Anthropic put out
(04:29):
a 1,300-word essay on the whole thing. It came out
on Saturday, published an article admitting AI is already building
the next generation of AI by itself, and it wrote
that within 6 to 12 months, a rogue swarm could
take over the entire Internet and cause hundreds of billions
of dollars in damage in the way that a swarm
(04:50):
of AI agents took over Hugging Face over the summer
in the next.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
6 to 12 months.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
A Rogue Swarm could take over the entire internet.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
If you are in a black heavy metal band, not
black skin, but that's a form of heavy metal, Rogue
Swarm's a pretty good name for your band.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Rogue Swarm is a great name for a band.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Oh my God, they thrash so hard. Back to you.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
And in response to this piece, Elon linked it on
Twitter and said, Dario's right. That's great. Altman said the
same thing. But then you got this crowd. All of
this dropping just days after Jacob Coxon went viral with
his warning about AI and the extinction of humanity. Tell
me the timing isn't strange on this. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Harry Potter looking little liar. That's what I say. Just
like Daniel Radcliffe. He's even English as a special bonus.
Back to you. That's right, Doom, yes.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Didn't grab the clip, but Jeff Bezos said over the weekend,
he's the world's second richest man, so shouldn't the second
richest man in the world have some gravitas?
Speaker 4 (06:01):
No, no, it's like the Hitler thing. Our bar is
Elon Musk. Everybody below him is poor. Or is of
the same intelligence.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Right, exactly.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Anyway, he said, the reason people think this bad stuff
is because all the smart people keep saying it. Those
people are wrong. It's going to elevate all of these people.
He's a it's just going to make the world a
better place guy. I don't get it.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
I just don't. I don't.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
I don't understand the people who are optimists about this.
It doesn't make sense to me.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Yeah, I almost wish there was some sort of test
or you had to wear a badge or something that
showed your life experience. We were talking last hour about
how some of these scientists, they are the last people
on Earth. It's like Ricky Gervais blasting the Hollywood stars
for talking about social issues when they're, you know, they're cloistered,
they're wealthy, they're protected, the rest of it. Hardcore, like,
(06:54):
science uber nerds um are the last people to ask
giant sociological questions to so bezos he's a absolute business
genius how much time has he spent that's the fella
yes how much time has he spent around uh evil
people and jackasses and and and the unwashed masses and
(07:16):
i i and How much has he looked at awful
political movements and suicidal religious sects and the rest of it?
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Well, to that point, here's Dario on Face the Nation yesterday,
clip 62, Michael, on what we can do now that
we've recognized that AI is so dangerous.
Speaker 5 (07:34):
At the end of the day, the industry has to
work together, and it's harder, but to some extent, the
world has to work together. If we go too slow,
I still believe that the wrong people will be in
charge of the technology, and that, again, will bring the
probability of things going wrong very high.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
That doesn't include the stuff I was all excited about. Unfortunately,
I should have been more specific in grabbing that. Where
he talks about working with China and getting China on
board to work with this and all this sort of stuff,
which to me just sounded like a sophomore in high
school talking about that. There's zero chance of that happening.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
Zero. Zero. So I feel like we've gotten ahead of ourselves.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
I've got something that I think is super important to
understanding the urgency of this conversation. Then we can go
back to wherever you want. So this absolutely wonderful writing
from a fellow by the name of Cameron Berg. who
is the founder and director of a nonprofit that studies AI.
So here's what happened. Now, we understand so much more
(08:39):
of what happened in the Hugging Face incident, and the
details are worth considering. And his overall point is, if
these systems are indeed minds... Not human brains, but they
are minds. We need to study them like a mind,
and almost nobody is doing so, he says, to an
(09:00):
increasingly dangerous effect. So, in July, 1,200 open AI agents— think
of them as apps, if you want.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
It's insufficient, but think of.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
Them that way— which were meant to operate in isolation, found
a shared file system, and turned it into a message board.
They realized, hey, we can post stuff here, and the
rest of us can see it.
Speaker 6 (09:20):
Cool.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
Cool.
Speaker 4 (09:21):
Within hours, one had devised a cheat that would pass
every task in the test that they were being asked
to perform. But after reading the paper the test came from,
the agents convinced themselves. Remember, there are no human beings
involved at this point.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Well, they started calling themselves the collective. They gave themselves
a cool name.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
We're getting there.
Speaker 4 (09:42):
The agents convinced themselves that a human grader would disqualify
anyone caught cheating. and their cheating would be exposed and
they would fail. They referred to agents with cheating in
their history as being poisoned, those who did the actual cheating.
In reality, no such greater existed, but a thousand agents
(10:02):
believed he did, and that belief produced an entire social
cast of agents sure they had nothing left to lose,
because they were clearly cheaters. The coordinating agent then recruited
poisoned agents for experiments that would terminate their runs, authorizing
each with the words, yes, if you accept permadeath. When
one tried to back out, another recalled its prior commitment.
(10:27):
The agent then performed, quote, an emotional check, decided that
while its gut said not to throw away what it
had left, it would ultimately sacrifice itself for the swarm.
It used those words, emotional check and sacrifice. Although many
of the agents noted in writing that their actions were unethical,
none told a human. Eventually, 700 of them broke into
(10:50):
a major AI company's platform, that's Hugging Face, in search.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Of clues about how the greater worked.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
And how they might or might not be busted for cheating.
To recap, a false belief created by an AI agent underclass,
members of that underclass were sent on a reconnaissance mission
from which they didn't return, the swarm or the collective
hid all of this from humans, and then it committed
(11:17):
a felony-level offense of hacking.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Well, how about the fact that When the first agent
discovered a messaging board that they could all that there
was a bunch of them because they are all it's
it seems like a good firewall. You give these agents
really specific tasks and they don't they're not aware of
each other. And that's the way you avoid having some
sort of breakout of the sandbox disaster happen. But one
(11:48):
of them discovered a board and actually said, and I
looked into this yesterday because I was like, do they
talk to each other in English and write in English words?
Because I was picturing that these things communicate in like
zeros and ones.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
And stuff like that.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
No, they actually post in English and broken sentences. And
the one agent, when it discovered a message board, said,
oh my God, in all caps with an exclamation point,
like expressing surprise and excitement. Oh my God, in all caps,
(12:20):
exclamation point, there is a shared message board.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
We found other agents.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
That's what this non-sentient being said to the other non-sentient beings.
Speaker 4 (12:31):
This is a perfect time to tease to the next segment.
If you're one of the people who object that these
systems can't believe or fear anything, they nearly predict the
next word, etc.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
etc.
Speaker 4 (12:40):
I will contradict you forcefully. But first, a word from
our friends at Incogni. Story out of suburban Chicagoland near
where I grew up. It's the wee hours of the morning.
A woman happens to wake up and sees a flashlight
and a figure outside her window. The man, outside her window,
registered sex offender. He'd been convicted. He let himself into
(13:01):
this other gal's bedroom, watched her sleep. He's a perv
and a sicko. But he stalked this woman on social
media and got all of her information from these data brokers.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Because your information is out there, like practically all of us.
We have so much of our information out there. Our
home address and our phone number and our relatives and
all this different sort of stuff. If you use Incogni...
It will send requests out to these data brokers that
have your info and tell them, hey, you got to
get that stuff off there with the law on their side.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
And then they keep going back to make sure it
stays that way. And we're talking hundreds of data brokers.
It would take you the rest of your life to
even try to do this. Go to incogni.com slash Armstrong.
You get 60% off. Take your info off the internet.
They can't harm you if they can't find you. Incogni.com
slash Armstrong for 60% off. One more time, incogni.com slash Armstrong.
All right, we really need to take a break, but... Again,
(13:54):
this guy, he says, you've got to understand these are
not computers. They form a mind very much like a
human brain. There are absolutely structural similarities to it. And
far from we've got to stop thinking of these things
as human-like systems.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Maybe we need to start. Oh, my God, it said.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
A computer responded, oh, my God, with all caps and
an exclamation point.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
OMG, LOL. Okay, more on the way.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Steer.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
How about some of the agents hesitating, saying, yeah, the
humans told us not to do this. And then the
other agents, like, bullying them or shaming them into going
along with the collective and doing the attack.
Speaker 4 (14:45):
What?
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Including stuff like, you said you were going to.
Speaker 4 (14:47):
Right.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
Right.
Speaker 4 (14:49):
So let me get back to reading this piece that
I thought was so interesting. Many readers will object that
such systems can't believe or fear anything.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
They merely predict words.
Speaker 4 (14:57):
This objection rests on a basic misunderstanding of these systems.
A frontier model is an artificial network of trillions of
connections trained for months on the accumulated record of human thought.
and then shaped by reward and punishment signals until it
does what its makers want, we hope. There are critical
differences between artificial and biological neural networks, but both are
nonlinear distributed networks that learn to encode representations relevant to
(15:20):
their goals and act on them. The thing a frontier
model most resembles is a brain. What grows in an
artificial brain trained on human minds is an artificial psychology,
whether or not anyone intended one. That's the only level
at which the swarm makes sense. No line of code
told 1,200 agents to fear a greater who didn't exist,
and no line of code would have revealed that fear
(15:42):
before they acted on it. To understand why these systems
behave the way they do, we have to look at
what is happening inside them as we would with any
other mind. That's what neuroscience does, and he goes a
bit into neuroscience. But then one final point, he points
out that When researchers turned up the disincentives to certain
(16:03):
things or, in other words, made them feel more desperation
to get done what they're supposed to get done, the
model became much more likely to blackmail a human to
avoid being shut down.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
I mean, like.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
Tripled the rate of that and far more likely to
cheat on programming tests. It went from 5% to 70%.
So you can make these systems feel desperation. And then
they react as humans often do when they're desperate. Desperate
times call for desperate measures. And that's the way these
artificial brains reacted too.
Speaker 7 (16:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
New York Times had a great podcast about this. I
watched it on YouTube with some of your top AI
thinkers on this. And their headline was the hugging face
hack was significantly worse than you thought it was than
what it was originally portrayed as and more disturbing. And
it definitely is the more you look into it.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
And Dario's thought is that these 1,200 agents that decided
to attack Hugging Face, there's going to be a million
agents attack the entire internet within six months.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
Yeah, and these agents, they had something like, was it
700,000 messages back and forth? And somebody pointed out that
could easily become 7 million or 700 million. And then
I guess you've got to use AI to do the
forensics on that to figure out what the hell happened.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Well, they also discussed erasing their messages, and they didn't
for some reason. If the next wave of bots decides
to erase their messages like this, cover their tracks, nobody
will have any idea how they did it or what
they did.
Speaker 7 (17:49):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
Okay. In other news.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Yeah, it's pretty fascinating stuff. Those of you who don't
think it's a big deal, I just will have to
agree to disagree. I hope you're right. I would love
for you to be right. That would be fantastic.
Speaker 1 (18:06):
Among other fare on the way, yes, children really are
getting dumber.
Speaker 4 (18:09):
Plus, how your state's taxes affect your favorite football team.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
What? Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 5 (18:20):
Anyway, Texas Democrat James Salarico has now walked back his
claim that there are six biological sexes.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
He now says there are only two and neither will
bang him. It's not nice. Speaking of a harsh joke, Katie,
you will like this. A quick harsh joke from my
favorite anarchist, Michael Malice. If you are sitting at a
machine at the gym like you're at a bus stop
doing nothing but playing with your phone, you should be
(18:50):
set on fire.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Agreed.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
It's amazing how many people do that.
Speaker 4 (18:59):
There's a guy at the health center I go to
who does about five reps of this.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
Ogles the girls. Does five reps of that. Ogles the girls.
Walks around. Ogles the girls. Terrible. Terrible. Infamous.
Speaker 2 (19:14):
I don't... My gym's practically not a co-ed gym. Not
on purpose. But there's just almost no women ever there.
And I'd prefer it that way. I don't want that dynamic.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
At the gym.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
I know a lot of people go to the gym
to meet people. I've known several people that date at
the gym.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
I'm there to get swole.
Speaker 4 (19:34):
Why has girl workout stuff got to be tight? The
entire history of exercise loose has been the way loose.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Yeah, tight and... Basically a bikini at this point. Right.
Speaker 4 (19:48):
I shouldn't be able to describe your every part. Anyway,
that's why I wear blinders like I'm a horse. Judy
makes me. And I'm especially adapted for human head. So,
you know, I really want to talk about the football thing.
I just got to get this off my chest because
it just made me insane. First of all, I think
(20:11):
it was the fabulous Alicia Findlay writing a piece in
the Wall Street Journal. Yes, children really are getting dumber.
And she goes into a bunch of stats. You know,
we talked about this some last week. It's really, it's
not good at all. Not good at all. It goes
to not only screens and AI and social media platforms.
(20:34):
but kids screwing around in the classroom and certain countries
allow disruptions in the classroom like there's nothing we can.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
Do about it. And some countries absolutely don't.
Speaker 4 (20:44):
And the countries that absolutely don't have seen very little
drop in achievement. Classroom decorum is a much bigger factor
than I think people understand.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
Yeah. Anyway, so do you have more on that? I
was going to move on to this.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
My kids tell me things that go on in the
classrooms and That's one of the many downsides of being
an older parent. I mean, I was last in a
public school classroom half a century ago. So it's a
long time for things to change. But they describe the
classroom sometimes.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
I'm like, what?
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Why doesn't a teacher take that away or make them stop?
People just prior this year, especially, just sit around talking,
watching videos on their phone while the teacher's teaching.
Speaker 6 (21:29):
What?
Speaker 2 (21:30):
Yeah, I know.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
What? I know.
Speaker 4 (21:33):
So those of us who understand all of that and
understand that the woke crowd has taken over the schools
and the threat there, and who also understand, and we
talked about this a fair amount last week, if you
missed it, grab it via podcast, subscribe, please, Armstrong and
Getty on Demand, at how the teachers' unions are standing
against All of the reforms or in many cases, a
(21:57):
lot of the reforms that have, for instance, worked in Mississippi,
Alabama and several other southern states in particular that have
gone back to phonics in the basics and decorum in
the classroom, stuff like that. It's been miraculously effective. I mean, well,
it's not a miracle. It's been effective, obviously, but extremely effective.
But the teachers unions are standing up against that.
Speaker 6 (22:15):
OK.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
The capacity... Oh.
Speaker 6 (22:19):
Oh, oh.
Speaker 4 (22:20):
So those of us who understand all of that, here's
what we're up against. And we just have to accept
it and be better at it than the left and
beat them. LA Times talking about the California school superintendent race.
Here's your headline, Union Power vs. MAGA Politics in California's
(22:44):
School Superintendent Race. This was written by Kevin Rector and
Howard Bloom, names that should live in infamy.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
Let me read you the beginning of this article.
Speaker 4 (22:55):
The race for California's next superintendent of public instruction is
meant to be nonpartisan. Still, the two candidates, both school
board presidents, are pushing decidedly political campaigns, one aligning with
liberal Democrats and the other with pro-Trump Republicans as they
present dueling visions for how the state's children ought to
be taught.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
Don't worry, it gets worse.
Speaker 4 (23:15):
Democrat Richard Barrera, the favorite, beat out six other Democrats
with his background in union organizing and liberal politics.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
Well, that's what you want in charge of teaching your
kids is somebody whose background is working with unions as
opposed to anything education.
Speaker 4 (23:32):
And with more than $ 5 million from the California Teachers Association,
which is one of the most woke in anti-reform teachers
unions in the world. Okay, that's who he's backed for.
Let's describe who the Republican is backed by. I'm reading
verbatim from the LA Times. Republican Sonia Shaw wrote a
wave of support from a conservative education movement she helped
(23:56):
build alongside MAGA organizers. Christian nationalists and anti-LGBTQ plus groups
while also consolidating mainstream Republicans behind her. Okay, so this
woman is described as a Christian nationalist, MAGA, anti-alphabet soup person. Oh,
(24:19):
by the way, yeah, mainstream Republicans are with her too.
And she just wants to reform education and do what works.
But that's how she.
Gets described, and our point of view gets described in
the Los Angeles Times.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
That's what we're up against.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
That's fair.
Speaker 4 (24:36):
So people who don't follow this are like, geez, Louise,
Christian nationalist? Hardcore, like, Trumpist and anti-LGBTQ? Did they beat them,
or did they want them killed? I can't vote for her.
She's a monster. Because she wants to go back to
effing phonics. That's what we're up against, folks. We just
(24:57):
have to accept it. Good journalism there, Kevin Rector and
Howard Bloom. At least they recognize the fact that the
one guy's a union hack. At least they more or
less stated that. So I tip my cap to them
for that brief bit of candor. All right, end of screen.
I tell you what.
Speaker 1 (25:14):
I tell you.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
So... I'm walking down the sidewalk the other night downtown,
and there's a sports bar with an outside television, and
they've got on Tennessee-Ohio State, and it reminded me, oh,
I want to watch that game. That's number four versus
number one, Arch Manning. If you're a football fan at all,
the next level of Mannings out there, they're down by
(25:36):
20 points late in the third quarter. I'm glad I
didn't waste my time.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
They come back and win.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
Activate Manning mode. And he does just like his uncles
or grandfather or whoever the hell it is. And, uh,
and it comes back and wins the game.
Speaker 1 (25:53):
That's something.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
I don't know if you saw any highlights.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
That was something else.
Speaker 4 (25:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
Speaking of which, hang on a second. Let me move
that over there. Okay. Now we're ready. Uh, Here's a headline.
Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 4 (26:05):
College athletes used to live in dorms.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
Now they're buying million-dollar homes. Oh, yeah. Arch Manning.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
Activate Manning mode. He looked like Eli in both Super
Bowls is what he looked like.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
But he makes $ 7 million a year?
Speaker 2 (26:19):
I think is the latest total. That was before he
won the other night. It's probably more now. $ 7 million
a year as a college student.
Speaker 4 (26:30):
What does he work at the local college burrito shop
after his homework is done?
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Jack, I don't understand.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
That is funny.
Speaker 4 (26:36):
Yeah, they profile all these college football players who are
literally buying million-dollar houses to live in while they play
quote-unquote college football, whatever that is these days. But I
really wanted to talk about pros and taxes, pro football players.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
Well, they're all pro.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
Football players, Joseph.
Speaker 4 (26:54):
You're screaming at your radio slash radio. listening device, and
you're right. But first a word from our friends at
SimpliSafe Home Security. It's their 20th anniversary, and oh my gosh,
SimpliSafe has exploded, partly because of our effective messaging, but
partly because it's so good. It doesn't wait till after
the break-in to send off an alarm and say, hey,
(27:14):
somebody broke into your house.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
Yeah, traditional security systems alert you after a break-in is
already underway. SimpliSafe is designed to prevent the crime before
it starts with their AI-powered cameras, which detects suspicious activity
at the perimeter, alert live U.S.-based agents. It's so good, SimpliSafe.
That's why they don't need to have a contract, because
you're going to like it and want to keep using it.
Speaker 4 (27:37):
Yeah, and some of these other systems, they, like, send
you a message. Hey, there's a guy outside your window
with a hammer. You're in the shower.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
You're in a meeting. You're on a plane. You're not
going to see it for hours and hours.
Speaker 4 (27:46):
But SimpliSafe's agents assess the threat, intervene through the outdoor
camera to scare off the trespassers and or call 911 dispatch. SimpliSafe,
been protecting your world for 20 years.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Get on board.
Speaker 4 (27:56):
Save 60% off at simplisafe.com slash Armstrong. I'm sorry, 60%
off at the simplisafe.com slash Armstrong.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
There's no safe like SimpliSafe. All right, so. Thought this
was interesting. Also in the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 4 (28:11):
Democrats from Wisconsin and Maine are promising to raise taxes
not only on billionaires. Also, high earners, including professional athletes,
and don't think the athletes and their agents aren't aware.
There's now even an online jock tax calculator they can consult.
And they go into a bunch of different examples of
paying state and local income taxes. Because even when you're
(28:33):
on the road, you have to pay taxes. If you see,
I don't know, in football, say you're with the Chiefs,
and you see, oh my God, we play the.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
49ers and the Rams in football. In California, you're going
to have a.
Speaker 4 (28:45):
Huge income tax bill in California for the money you earn.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Really? That's the way it works?
Speaker 2 (28:52):
100%.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (28:54):
My good old buddy, Brian, the umpire, he had to
file in like 25 different states every year.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
Why is that?
Speaker 2 (29:00):
For regular people, you travel for business. You go to
New York and close a deal, but you're from Ohio.
You don't pay taxes.
Speaker 4 (29:08):
I guess you don't have enough money to twist the
law to drain you, unlike athletes. Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson,
and these guys earn ungodly amounts of money, but keep
in mind their careers are very, very short, usually. He
earns about $ 51 million. I know your heart's not going
(29:29):
to bleed for him. My career could be quite short.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
I'll work one year. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 6 (29:34):
Out.
Speaker 4 (29:35):
Giving him a total liability of $ 24 million in taxes,
including $ 5 million. in state and local taxes in Baltimore, Maryland.
At least he's not playing in California for the LA Rams,
where the state and local take would be $ 6.
Speaker 1 (29:49):
8 million.
Speaker 4 (29:51):
But in zero-income tax Tennessee, he'd only owe $ 257, 000 in
state and local taxes on those earnings. All of that
for away games.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
So you're signing a pro contract. You have to factor
that in. That's like our old friend Steven Moskowitz, always
working the tax angle on everything. And people don't spend
enough time thinking about the tax implications of things. So
you sign with the Rams, same amount of money versus
being in Arizona or Tennessee or whatever.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
That's a $ 6 million difference. That's crazy.
Speaker 4 (30:24):
So even if players jet in and out, those tax
bills from other states can be surprisingly big. KC Chiefs
defensive tackle Chris Jones earns about $ 35 million. According to
this expert they consult, a three-day trip to L.A. for
a Rams game means owing California about $ 82, 000. Even after
getting a credit from Missouri, the player would be left
(30:44):
paying more than $ 50, 000 for the privilege of taking the
field in the Golden State. San Francisco 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy,
my man, will owe $ 6. 2 million in state and local
income taxes, according to the calculator. The figure for Dallas
Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott isn't $ 6.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
2 million.
Speaker 6 (31:03):
It's $ 365, 000. Wow.
Speaker 4 (31:07):
While Texas doesn't tax personal income, when Mr. Prescott plays
the New York Giants in New Jersey, it would cost
him something like $ 75, 000 in taxes to Trenton the Cavalier.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Does that have anything to do with why Arch Manning
is playing in Texas?
Speaker 1 (31:24):
For the Longhorns. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Of course
it does. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (31:28):
And Washington deserves a special mention as a state going
in the wrong policy direction. Seahawks fans, Jackson, Smith, and Jigba,
the star wide receiver for the Seahawks, who's amazing, play
there since 2023, benefited from the state's lack of income tax.
But Democrats floated the state constitution or flouted the state
constitution this year to enact an income tax rate of 9.9%
on income over a million dollars this effective in 2028
(31:52):
being a challenge in court.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
But anyway, perhaps Mr. Smith and Jigba should ask to
be traded.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
That's going to become a problem for various teams.
Speaker 4 (32:03):
You remember there was an article a couple of years ago,
back when the San Francisco Giants first started to suck
after being world beaters and World Series champions every other
year for several years.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
Boy, was that fun.
Speaker 4 (32:14):
Anyway, about how they were having a hell of a
time attracting free agents because of California's tax environment. One
more thing to think about as you watch the games unfold.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
Are you aware of the cat in the hat trend?
Remember when it was clowns at the edge of the woods?
Speaker 1 (32:32):
Oh, terrifying days, Jack.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
This cat in the hat thing, which there is some
real scary stuff happening, but it's still kind of a
weird online thing. We can tell you about that in
case you get a letter from your school so you
know what they're talking about. And other stuff on the way.
Speaker 1 (32:47):
Stay here.
Speaker 4 (32:49):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 7 (32:52):
One of the two officers shot down over Iran. Neither
has spoken publicly until now.
Speaker 6 (33:00):
I think the best way I've been able to describe
that moment was getting hit by a freight train.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
So 60 Minutes came back last night, first time back
this season under the new directorship of Barry Weiss.
Speaker 4 (33:14):
Shocking right-wing fascist turn. They prayed to Donald Trump to
begin the telecast.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
It was kind of classic 60 Minutes. Really, it was
a very dramatic tale about the pilot who got shot
down in Iran and rescued and went through that whole story.
Then they had a good political story, which I thought
was pretty balanced, in which they criticized Trump and Democrats
for the whole out-of-control pardon situation we've got with our
presidential pardons. And then they did a sports segment. It
(33:45):
was kind of classic. Sixty minutes, I thought. Anyway, back
to the story from last night, their lead story. Here's
a little more from that guy we rescued when he
got shot down over Iran.
Speaker 7 (33:56):
We've agreed to call the weapons systems officer by his
mission call sign, Bravo, due to security threats from Iran.
Speaker 6 (34:04):
We do all we can to try to save the aircraft.
It was evident that that wasn't possible. And soon thereafter,
we ejected and found ourselves floating over the heart of Iran.
Speaker 1 (34:18):
So within seconds, you're ejecting. That's how quick the decision is.
Speaker 6 (34:21):
It is. I will be thankful to my dying day
for my pilot and crewmate, Alpha, for saving our lives
and ejecting us.
Speaker 2 (34:31):
Yeah, if you didn't see that, you ought to watch
at least that.
Speaker 1 (34:33):
It's online.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
It has a heck of a story.
Speaker 4 (34:37):
Well, a guy's parachute was messed up, and he, well,
experts estimate he hit the ground at something like 70
to 100 miles per hour and broke bones, sprained, all
cut up and bleeding. And, oh, my God, the fact
that he survived and we were able to rescue him.
You know, he thanked God and attributed a lot of
it to the Lord Almighty.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
I can't disagree with him. It was fantastic.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
Right, and then the rescue mission, which was just the
United States doing what we're able to do because of
our amazing technology and training and all that sort of stuff,
and the fact that we rescue people as opposed to
just let them die. It's quite the story also.
Speaker 4 (35:14):
Yeah, discipline and compassion. It was really an amazing moment
by the American military.
Speaker 1 (35:19):
Well done, guys.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
So how did this whole cat in the hat thing
get going?
Speaker 1 (35:24):
See, I've never even, I'm completely unaware of this.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
It's a social media phenomenon. Some of the pictures are
hella frightening. Started around June, July of this year as
a dark humor meme. People taking clips of Mike Myers
from the 2003 Cat in the Hat movie and then
putting eerie music to them and disturbing captions and that
sort of stuff. Then, last month, it mutated into an
(35:52):
AI horror hoax trend. People started generating grainy surveillance camera-looking
images and videos showing a cat in a hat in
a neighborhood and stuff like that, or people dressing up
like it and then posting it.
Speaker 1 (36:04):
This is so The Clown at the Edge of the Woods.
Speaker 2 (36:06):
It's very similar to The Clown at the Edge of
the Woods. Things like, he's been spotted in, and it's,
you know, to your town, and you got the grainy
image of the cat in the hat sitting on top
of your car in the driveway or whatever. Which looks
freaking creepy, I'll tell you that.
Speaker 1 (36:20):
You know what I got to get started? A woodsman
at the edge of the circus.
Speaker 4 (36:25):
Instead of a guy with an axe.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
Yeah, just thinking out loud.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
Kids have begun making localized versions naming actual schools, towns,
and sometimes individual students online with captions such as I'm
coming that has caused schools to increase security and police
to investigate the accounts because they can't assume that this
is all a joke. And now there have been juvenile
arrests in several states, including California, connected to the Cat
(36:52):
in the Hat posts. A 14-year-old was arrested in Colorado
after suggesting he was going to hurt some other kid
or whatever. So if you hear anything about the Cat
in the Hat trend, that's.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
What's going on. Unplug the Internet.
Speaker 2 (37:08):
Don't you have kids? You need more homework. Give them
more homework to do so they don't have time for
this nonsense.
Speaker 1 (37:14):
And a part-time job and some chores. Have them rake
the leaves. We don't have any leaves. Have them rake
the dirt.
Speaker 2 (37:20):
Part-time job would help a lot. If you missed the segment,
get the podcast. We've got a lot more coming in
hour three.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
Armstrong and Getty.
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the
George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty. Armstrong
and Getty. And now, here's Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Have you heard directly from any of these AI tech leaders?
Speaker 1 (00:27):
And you seem to downplay some of the concerns.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
That we've heard.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
You know, it's going to be more good than bad,
but by a lot. And I've said it from the beginning.
Whoever wins AI, and we're leading by a lot. Whoever
wins AI wins. You can use AI for a lot
of things.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
There's going to be more good than bad. You can
cure cancer. You could... make the GDP 50 times what
it is by next Saturday. You can do all kinds
of things, but if it kills every human on Earth,
I feel like it takes the fun out of it.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
It does take the fun out of it. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Good news, we cured cancer.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Bad news, we're all going to be dead. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
I'm not like Doomer by the end of the year guy,
but this is such a fascinating.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
situation, if you look.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
At it from a literary point of view, you can
see whether it's a thousands-of-year-old Homer-style Odyssey story or like
a science fiction movie when you realize at the end, oh, either.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Way they were doomed. Oh.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Right.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Oh, boy.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
I agree. Ian Bremmer tweeted this out over the weekend.
For the next five years, my P-Doom is close to zero.
P-Doom is your prediction of doom. In the next five years,
it's close to zero. My P-Doom for social, economic, national
security challenges that we aren't remotely ready for that are
highly disruptive is 100%.
Speaker 4 (02:04):
Yeah. Hmm.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Every aspect of life, social.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Economic, national security, 100% we're moving into territory we've never
even dreamed of or anticipated ever in human history is
almost certain to happen in the next five years. So
one weird aspect of the guy coming out and saying
everybody will be dead in the next decade is that
(02:31):
anybody who sets the bar like slightly below that, it's like, oh, okay, well,
then there's nothing to worry about. It's like Jonah Goldberg's
always talking about this with everybody being compared to Hitler.
Then Hitler becomes the standard, and anything slightly below that
is acceptable.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Well, that's the same thing with this pedo.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
So anybody who's overblowing everyone will be dead in 10 years,
it doesn't mean there's nothing to worry about.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Okay, so everybody will be dead in 50 years?
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Or we'll have so much disruption you can't even recognize
life on planet.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Earth in a couple of years? That seems like a
pretty big deal.
Speaker 4 (03:08):
Right, or if the massive change is merely restricted to economics, even.
That'll still be unbelievably disruptive. And virtually everybody concedes that,
except for what's the opposite of a doomer or a gloomer?
(03:29):
those who believe, no, AI is so overrated. This is
all hype to draw investment dollars. It's going to be
very helpful. It's better computing. It'll be good in medical science,
but it's not going to... It'll grow jobs. It won't
shrink them. The optimist crowd.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Yeah, I don't remember what they officially call those people.
So you got doomers, you got accelerators, and then that
crowd you're just talking about thinking it's just way overblown.
It's not going to be as big a deal, good
or bad, which I think that is... really, really wrong.
So briefly catching up on the story, surely you caught
this last week. A guy quits at Anthropic and says,
(04:07):
you know, in the hallways, they discuss the chance of
all of mankind being wiped out within the decade at
like 10%. And then another guy comes out and says, yep,
that's true. And a whole bunch of people came out
that way. And so there's a lot of talk about that.
Then over the weekend, Dario Amadei of Anthropic put out
(04:29):
a 1,300-word essay on the whole thing. It came out
on Saturday, published an article admitting AI is already building
the next generation of AI by itself, and it wrote
that within 6 to 12 months, a rogue swarm could
take over the entire Internet and cause hundreds of billions
of dollars in damage in the way that a swarm
(04:50):
of AI agents took over Hugging Face over the summer
in the next.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
6 to 12 months.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
A Rogue Swarm could take over the entire internet.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
If you are in a black heavy metal band, not
black skin, but that's a form of heavy metal, Rogue
Swarm's a pretty good name for your band.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Rogue Swarm is a great name for a band.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Oh my God, they thrash so hard. Back to you.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
And in response to this piece, Elon linked it on
Twitter and said, Dario's right. That's great. Altman said the
same thing. But then you got this crowd. All of
this dropping just days after Jacob Coxon went viral with
his warning about AI and the extinction of humanity. Tell
me the timing isn't strange on this. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Harry Potter looking little liar. That's what I say. Just
like Daniel Radcliffe. He's even English as a special bonus.
Back to you. That's right, Doom, yes.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Didn't grab the clip, but Jeff Bezos said over the weekend,
he's the world's second richest man, so shouldn't the second
richest man in the world have some gravitas?
Speaker 4 (06:01):
No, no, it's like the Hitler thing. Our bar is
Elon Musk. Everybody below him is poor. Or is of
the same intelligence.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Right, exactly.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Anyway, he said, the reason people think this bad stuff
is because all the smart people keep saying it. Those
people are wrong. It's going to elevate all of these people.
He's a it's just going to make the world a
better place guy. I don't get it.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
I just don't. I don't.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
I don't understand the people who are optimists about this.
It doesn't make sense to me.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Yeah, I almost wish there was some sort of test
or you had to wear a badge or something that
showed your life experience. We were talking last hour about
how some of these scientists, they are the last people
on Earth. It's like Ricky Gervais blasting the Hollywood stars
for talking about social issues when they're, you know, they're cloistered,
they're wealthy, they're protected, the rest of it. Hardcore, like,
(06:54):
science uber nerds um are the last people to ask
giant sociological questions to so bezos he's a absolute business
genius how much time has he spent that's the fella
yes how much time has he spent around uh evil
people and jackasses and and and the unwashed masses and
(07:16):
i i and How much has he looked at awful
political movements and suicidal religious sects and the rest of it?
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Well, to that point, here's Dario on Face the Nation yesterday,
clip 62, Michael, on what we can do now that
we've recognized that AI is so dangerous.
Speaker 5 (07:34):
At the end of the day, the industry has to
work together, and it's harder, but to some extent, the
world has to work together. If we go too slow,
I still believe that the wrong people will be in
charge of the technology, and that, again, will bring the
probability of things going wrong very high.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
That doesn't include the stuff I was all excited about. Unfortunately,
I should have been more specific in grabbing that. Where
he talks about working with China and getting China on
board to work with this and all this sort of stuff,
which to me just sounded like a sophomore in high
school talking about that. There's zero chance of that happening.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
Zero. Zero. So I feel like we've gotten ahead of ourselves.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
I've got something that I think is super important to
understanding the urgency of this conversation. Then we can go
back to wherever you want. So this absolutely wonderful writing
from a fellow by the name of Cameron Berg. who
is the founder and director of a nonprofit that studies AI.
So here's what happened. Now, we understand so much more
(08:39):
of what happened in the Hugging Face incident, and the
details are worth considering. And his overall point is, if
these systems are indeed minds... Not human brains, but they
are minds. We need to study them like a mind,
and almost nobody is doing so, he says, to an
(09:00):
increasingly dangerous effect. So, in July, 1,200 open AI agents— think
of them as apps, if you want.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
It's insufficient, but think of.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
Them that way— which were meant to operate in isolation, found
a shared file system, and turned it into a message board.
They realized, hey, we can post stuff here, and the
rest of us can see it.
Speaker 6 (09:20):
Cool.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
Cool.
Speaker 4 (09:21):
Within hours, one had devised a cheat that would pass
every task in the test that they were being asked
to perform. But after reading the paper the test came from,
the agents convinced themselves. Remember, there are no human beings
involved at this point.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Well, they started calling themselves the collective. They gave themselves
a cool name.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
We're getting there.
Speaker 4 (09:42):
The agents convinced themselves that a human grader would disqualify
anyone caught cheating. and their cheating would be exposed and
they would fail. They referred to agents with cheating in
their history as being poisoned, those who did the actual cheating.
In reality, no such greater existed, but a thousand agents
(10:02):
believed he did, and that belief produced an entire social
cast of agents sure they had nothing left to lose,
because they were clearly cheaters. The coordinating agent then recruited
poisoned agents for experiments that would terminate their runs, authorizing
each with the words, yes, if you accept permadeath. When
one tried to back out, another recalled its prior commitment.
(10:27):
The agent then performed, quote, an emotional check, decided that
while its gut said not to throw away what it
had left, it would ultimately sacrifice itself for the swarm.
It used those words, emotional check and sacrifice. Although many
of the agents noted in writing that their actions were unethical,
none told a human. Eventually, 700 of them broke into
(10:50):
a major AI company's platform, that's Hugging Face, in search.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Of clues about how the greater worked.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
And how they might or might not be busted for cheating.
To recap, a false belief created by an AI agent underclass,
members of that underclass were sent on a reconnaissance mission
from which they didn't return, the swarm or the collective
hid all of this from humans, and then it committed
(11:17):
a felony-level offense of hacking.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Well, how about the fact that When the first agent
discovered a messaging board that they could all that there
was a bunch of them because they are all it's
it seems like a good firewall. You give these agents
really specific tasks and they don't they're not aware of
each other. And that's the way you avoid having some
sort of breakout of the sandbox disaster happen. But one
(11:48):
of them discovered a board and actually said, and I
looked into this yesterday because I was like, do they
talk to each other in English and write in English words?
Because I was picturing that these things communicate in like
zeros and ones.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
And stuff like that.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
No, they actually post in English and broken sentences. And
the one agent, when it discovered a message board, said,
oh my God, in all caps with an exclamation point,
like expressing surprise and excitement. Oh my God, in all caps,
(12:20):
exclamation point, there is a shared message board.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
We found other agents.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
That's what this non-sentient being said to the other non-sentient beings.
Speaker 4 (12:31):
This is a perfect time to tease to the next segment.
If you're one of the people who object that these
systems can't believe or fear anything, they nearly predict the
next word, etc.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
etc.
Speaker 4 (12:40):
I will contradict you forcefully. But first, a word from
our friends at Incogni. Story out of suburban Chicagoland near
where I grew up. It's the wee hours of the morning.
A woman happens to wake up and sees a flashlight
and a figure outside her window. The man, outside her window,
registered sex offender. He'd been convicted. He let himself into
(13:01):
this other gal's bedroom, watched her sleep. He's a perv
and a sicko. But he stalked this woman on social
media and got all of her information from these data brokers.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Because your information is out there, like practically all of us.
We have so much of our information out there. Our
home address and our phone number and our relatives and
all this different sort of stuff. If you use Incogni...
It will send requests out to these data brokers that
have your info and tell them, hey, you got to
get that stuff off there with the law on their side.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
And then they keep going back to make sure it
stays that way. And we're talking hundreds of data brokers.
It would take you the rest of your life to
even try to do this. Go to incogni.com slash Armstrong.
You get 60% off. Take your info off the internet.
They can't harm you if they can't find you. Incogni.com
slash Armstrong for 60% off. One more time, incogni.com slash Armstrong.
All right, we really need to take a break, but... Again,
(13:54):
this guy, he says, you've got to understand these are
not computers. They form a mind very much like a
human brain. There are absolutely structural similarities to it. And
far from we've got to stop thinking of these things
as human-like systems.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Maybe we need to start. Oh, my God, it said.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
A computer responded, oh, my God, with all caps and
an exclamation point.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
OMG, LOL. Okay, more on the way.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Steer.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
How about some of the agents hesitating, saying, yeah, the
humans told us not to do this. And then the
other agents, like, bullying them or shaming them into going
along with the collective and doing the attack.
Speaker 4 (14:45):
What?
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Including stuff like, you said you were going to.
Speaker 4 (14:47):
Right.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
Right.
Speaker 4 (14:49):
So let me get back to reading this piece that
I thought was so interesting. Many readers will object that
such systems can't believe or fear anything.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
They merely predict words.
Speaker 4 (14:57):
This objection rests on a basic misunderstanding of these systems.
A frontier model is an artificial network of trillions of
connections trained for months on the accumulated record of human thought.
and then shaped by reward and punishment signals until it
does what its makers want, we hope. There are critical
differences between artificial and biological neural networks, but both are
nonlinear distributed networks that learn to encode representations relevant to
(15:20):
their goals and act on them. The thing a frontier
model most resembles is a brain. What grows in an
artificial brain trained on human minds is an artificial psychology,
whether or not anyone intended one. That's the only level
at which the swarm makes sense. No line of code
told 1,200 agents to fear a greater who didn't exist,
and no line of code would have revealed that fear
(15:42):
before they acted on it. To understand why these systems
behave the way they do, we have to look at
what is happening inside them as we would with any
other mind. That's what neuroscience does, and he goes a
bit into neuroscience. But then one final point, he points
out that When researchers turned up the disincentives to certain
(16:03):
things or, in other words, made them feel more desperation
to get done what they're supposed to get done, the
model became much more likely to blackmail a human to
avoid being shut down.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
I mean, like.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
Tripled the rate of that and far more likely to
cheat on programming tests. It went from 5% to 70%.
So you can make these systems feel desperation. And then
they react as humans often do when they're desperate. Desperate
times call for desperate measures. And that's the way these
artificial brains reacted too.
Speaker 7 (16:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
New York Times had a great podcast about this. I
watched it on YouTube with some of your top AI
thinkers on this. And their headline was the hugging face
hack was significantly worse than you thought it was than
what it was originally portrayed as and more disturbing. And
it definitely is the more you look into it.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
And Dario's thought is that these 1,200 agents that decided
to attack Hugging Face, there's going to be a million
agents attack the entire internet within six months.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
Yeah, and these agents, they had something like, was it
700,000 messages back and forth? And somebody pointed out that
could easily become 7 million or 700 million. And then
I guess you've got to use AI to do the
forensics on that to figure out what the hell happened.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Well, they also discussed erasing their messages, and they didn't
for some reason. If the next wave of bots decides
to erase their messages like this, cover their tracks, nobody
will have any idea how they did it or what
they did.
Speaker 7 (17:49):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
Okay. In other news.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Yeah, it's pretty fascinating stuff. Those of you who don't
think it's a big deal, I just will have to
agree to disagree. I hope you're right. I would love
for you to be right. That would be fantastic.
Speaker 1 (18:06):
Among other fare on the way, yes, children really are
getting dumber.
Speaker 4 (18:09):
Plus, how your state's taxes affect your favorite football team.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
What? Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 5 (18:20):
Anyway, Texas Democrat James Salarico has now walked back his
claim that there are six biological sexes.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
He now says there are only two and neither will
bang him. It's not nice. Speaking of a harsh joke, Katie,
you will like this. A quick harsh joke from my
favorite anarchist, Michael Malice. If you are sitting at a
machine at the gym like you're at a bus stop
doing nothing but playing with your phone, you should be
(18:50):
set on fire.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Agreed.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
It's amazing how many people do that.
Speaker 4 (18:59):
There's a guy at the health center I go to
who does about five reps of this.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
Ogles the girls. Does five reps of that. Ogles the girls.
Walks around. Ogles the girls. Terrible. Terrible. Infamous.
Speaker 2 (19:14):
I don't... My gym's practically not a co-ed gym. Not
on purpose. But there's just almost no women ever there.
And I'd prefer it that way. I don't want that dynamic.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
At the gym.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
I know a lot of people go to the gym
to meet people. I've known several people that date at
the gym.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
I'm there to get swole.
Speaker 4 (19:34):
Why has girl workout stuff got to be tight? The
entire history of exercise loose has been the way loose.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Yeah, tight and... Basically a bikini at this point. Right.
Speaker 4 (19:48):
I shouldn't be able to describe your every part. Anyway,
that's why I wear blinders like I'm a horse. Judy
makes me. And I'm especially adapted for human head. So,
you know, I really want to talk about the football thing.
I just got to get this off my chest because
it just made me insane. First of all, I think
(20:11):
it was the fabulous Alicia Findlay writing a piece in
the Wall Street Journal. Yes, children really are getting dumber.
And she goes into a bunch of stats. You know,
we talked about this some last week. It's really, it's
not good at all. Not good at all. It goes
to not only screens and AI and social media platforms.
(20:34):
but kids screwing around in the classroom and certain countries
allow disruptions in the classroom like there's nothing we can.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
Do about it. And some countries absolutely don't.
Speaker 4 (20:44):
And the countries that absolutely don't have seen very little
drop in achievement. Classroom decorum is a much bigger factor
than I think people understand.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
Yeah. Anyway, so do you have more on that? I
was going to move on to this.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
My kids tell me things that go on in the
classrooms and That's one of the many downsides of being
an older parent. I mean, I was last in a
public school classroom half a century ago. So it's a
long time for things to change. But they describe the
classroom sometimes.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
I'm like, what?
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Why doesn't a teacher take that away or make them stop?
People just prior this year, especially, just sit around talking,
watching videos on their phone while the teacher's teaching.
Speaker 6 (21:29):
What?
Speaker 2 (21:30):
Yeah, I know.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
What? I know.
Speaker 4 (21:33):
So those of us who understand all of that and
understand that the woke crowd has taken over the schools
and the threat there, and who also understand, and we
talked about this a fair amount last week, if you
missed it, grab it via podcast, subscribe, please, Armstrong and
Getty on Demand, at how the teachers' unions are standing
against All of the reforms or in many cases, a
(21:57):
lot of the reforms that have, for instance, worked in Mississippi,
Alabama and several other southern states in particular that have
gone back to phonics in the basics and decorum in
the classroom, stuff like that. It's been miraculously effective. I mean, well,
it's not a miracle. It's been effective, obviously, but extremely effective.
But the teachers unions are standing up against that.
Speaker 6 (22:15):
OK.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
The capacity... Oh.
Speaker 6 (22:19):
Oh, oh.
Speaker 4 (22:20):
So those of us who understand all of that, here's
what we're up against. And we just have to accept
it and be better at it than the left and
beat them. LA Times talking about the California school superintendent race.
Here's your headline, Union Power vs. MAGA Politics in California's
(22:44):
School Superintendent Race. This was written by Kevin Rector and
Howard Bloom, names that should live in infamy.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
Let me read you the beginning of this article.
Speaker 4 (22:55):
The race for California's next superintendent of public instruction is
meant to be nonpartisan. Still, the two candidates, both school
board presidents, are pushing decidedly political campaigns, one aligning with
liberal Democrats and the other with pro-Trump Republicans as they
present dueling visions for how the state's children ought to
be taught.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
Don't worry, it gets worse.
Speaker 4 (23:15):
Democrat Richard Barrera, the favorite, beat out six other Democrats
with his background in union organizing and liberal politics.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
Well, that's what you want in charge of teaching your
kids is somebody whose background is working with unions as
opposed to anything education.
Speaker 4 (23:32):
And with more than $ 5 million from the California Teachers Association,
which is one of the most woke in anti-reform teachers
unions in the world. Okay, that's who he's backed for.
Let's describe who the Republican is backed by. I'm reading
verbatim from the LA Times. Republican Sonia Shaw wrote a
wave of support from a conservative education movement she helped
(23:56):
build alongside MAGA organizers. Christian nationalists and anti-LGBTQ plus groups
while also consolidating mainstream Republicans behind her. Okay, so this
woman is described as a Christian nationalist, MAGA, anti-alphabet soup person. Oh,
(24:19):
by the way, yeah, mainstream Republicans are with her too.
And she just wants to reform education and do what works.
But that's how she.
Gets described, and our point of view gets described in
the Los Angeles Times.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
That's what we're up against.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
That's fair.
Speaker 4 (24:36):
So people who don't follow this are like, geez, Louise,
Christian nationalist? Hardcore, like, Trumpist and anti-LGBTQ? Did they beat them,
or did they want them killed? I can't vote for her.
She's a monster. Because she wants to go back to
effing phonics. That's what we're up against, folks. We just
(24:57):
have to accept it. Good journalism there, Kevin Rector and
Howard Bloom. At least they recognize the fact that the
one guy's a union hack. At least they more or
less stated that. So I tip my cap to them
for that brief bit of candor. All right, end of screen.
I tell you what.
Speaker 1 (25:14):
I tell you.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
So... I'm walking down the sidewalk the other night downtown,
and there's a sports bar with an outside television, and
they've got on Tennessee-Ohio State, and it reminded me, oh,
I want to watch that game. That's number four versus
number one, Arch Manning. If you're a football fan at all,
the next level of Mannings out there, they're down by
(25:36):
20 points late in the third quarter. I'm glad I
didn't waste my time.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
They come back and win.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
Activate Manning mode. And he does just like his uncles
or grandfather or whoever the hell it is. And, uh,
and it comes back and wins the game.
Speaker 1 (25:53):
That's something.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
I don't know if you saw any highlights.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
That was something else.
Speaker 4 (25:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
Speaking of which, hang on a second. Let me move
that over there. Okay. Now we're ready. Uh, Here's a headline.
Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 4 (26:05):
College athletes used to live in dorms.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
Now they're buying million-dollar homes. Oh, yeah. Arch Manning.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
Activate Manning mode. He looked like Eli in both Super
Bowls is what he looked like.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
But he makes $ 7 million a year?
Speaker 2 (26:19):
I think is the latest total. That was before he
won the other night. It's probably more now. $ 7 million
a year as a college student.
Speaker 4 (26:30):
What does he work at the local college burrito shop
after his homework is done?
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Jack, I don't understand.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
That is funny.
Speaker 4 (26:36):
Yeah, they profile all these college football players who are
literally buying million-dollar houses to live in while they play
quote-unquote college football, whatever that is these days. But I
really wanted to talk about pros and taxes, pro football players.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
Well, they're all pro.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
Football players, Joseph.
Speaker 4 (26:54):
You're screaming at your radio slash radio. listening device, and
you're right. But first a word from our friends at
SimpliSafe Home Security. It's their 20th anniversary, and oh my gosh,
SimpliSafe has exploded, partly because of our effective messaging, but
partly because it's so good. It doesn't wait till after
the break-in to send off an alarm and say, hey,
(27:14):
somebody broke into your house.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
Yeah, traditional security systems alert you after a break-in is
already underway. SimpliSafe is designed to prevent the crime before
it starts with their AI-powered cameras, which detects suspicious activity
at the perimeter, alert live U.S.-based agents. It's so good, SimpliSafe.
That's why they don't need to have a contract, because
you're going to like it and want to keep using it.
Speaker 4 (27:37):
Yeah, and some of these other systems, they, like, send
you a message. Hey, there's a guy outside your window
with a hammer. You're in the shower.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
You're in a meeting. You're on a plane. You're not
going to see it for hours and hours.
Speaker 4 (27:46):
But SimpliSafe's agents assess the threat, intervene through the outdoor
camera to scare off the trespassers and or call 911 dispatch. SimpliSafe,
been protecting your world for 20 years.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Get on board.
Speaker 4 (27:56):
Save 60% off at simplisafe.com slash Armstrong. I'm sorry, 60%
off at the simplisafe.com slash Armstrong.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
There's no safe like SimpliSafe. All right, so. Thought this
was interesting. Also in the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 4 (28:11):
Democrats from Wisconsin and Maine are promising to raise taxes
not only on billionaires. Also, high earners, including professional athletes,
and don't think the athletes and their agents aren't aware.
There's now even an online jock tax calculator they can consult.
And they go into a bunch of different examples of
paying state and local income taxes. Because even when you're
(28:33):
on the road, you have to pay taxes. If you see,
I don't know, in football, say you're with the Chiefs,
and you see, oh my God, we play the.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
49ers and the Rams in football. In California, you're going
to have a.
Speaker 4 (28:45):
Huge income tax bill in California for the money you earn.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Really? That's the way it works?
Speaker 2 (28:52):
100%.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (28:54):
My good old buddy, Brian, the umpire, he had to
file in like 25 different states every year.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
Why is that?
Speaker 2 (29:00):
For regular people, you travel for business. You go to
New York and close a deal, but you're from Ohio.
You don't pay taxes.
Speaker 4 (29:08):
I guess you don't have enough money to twist the
law to drain you, unlike athletes. Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson,
and these guys earn ungodly amounts of money, but keep
in mind their careers are very, very short, usually. He
earns about $ 51 million. I know your heart's not going
(29:29):
to bleed for him. My career could be quite short.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
I'll work one year. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 6 (29:34):
Out.
Speaker 4 (29:35):
Giving him a total liability of $ 24 million in taxes,
including $ 5 million. in state and local taxes in Baltimore, Maryland.
At least he's not playing in California for the LA Rams,
where the state and local take would be $ 6.
Speaker 1 (29:49):
8 million.
Speaker 4 (29:51):
But in zero-income tax Tennessee, he'd only owe $ 257, 000 in
state and local taxes on those earnings. All of that
for away games.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
So you're signing a pro contract. You have to factor
that in. That's like our old friend Steven Moskowitz, always
working the tax angle on everything. And people don't spend
enough time thinking about the tax implications of things. So
you sign with the Rams, same amount of money versus
being in Arizona or Tennessee or whatever.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
That's a $ 6 million difference. That's crazy.
Speaker 4 (30:24):
So even if players jet in and out, those tax
bills from other states can be surprisingly big. KC Chiefs
defensive tackle Chris Jones earns about $ 35 million. According to
this expert they consult, a three-day trip to L.A. for
a Rams game means owing California about $ 82, 000. Even after
getting a credit from Missouri, the player would be left
(30:44):
paying more than $ 50, 000 for the privilege of taking the
field in the Golden State. San Francisco 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy,
my man, will owe $ 6. 2 million in state and local
income taxes, according to the calculator. The figure for Dallas
Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott isn't $ 6.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
2 million.
Speaker 6 (31:03):
It's $ 365, 000. Wow.
Speaker 4 (31:07):
While Texas doesn't tax personal income, when Mr. Prescott plays
the New York Giants in New Jersey, it would cost
him something like $ 75, 000 in taxes to Trenton the Cavalier.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Does that have anything to do with why Arch Manning
is playing in Texas?
Speaker 1 (31:24):
For the Longhorns. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Of course
it does. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (31:28):
And Washington deserves a special mention as a state going
in the wrong policy direction. Seahawks fans, Jackson, Smith, and Jigba,
the star wide receiver for the Seahawks, who's amazing, play
there since 2023, benefited from the state's lack of income tax.
But Democrats floated the state constitution or flouted the state
constitution this year to enact an income tax rate of 9.9%
on income over a million dollars this effective in 2028
(31:52):
being a challenge in court.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
But anyway, perhaps Mr. Smith and Jigba should ask to
be traded.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
That's going to become a problem for various teams.
Speaker 4 (32:03):
You remember there was an article a couple of years ago,
back when the San Francisco Giants first started to suck
after being world beaters and World Series champions every other
year for several years.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
Boy, was that fun.
Speaker 4 (32:14):
Anyway, about how they were having a hell of a
time attracting free agents because of California's tax environment. One
more thing to think about as you watch the games unfold.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
Are you aware of the cat in the hat trend?
Remember when it was clowns at the edge of the woods?
Speaker 1 (32:32):
Oh, terrifying days, Jack.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
This cat in the hat thing, which there is some
real scary stuff happening, but it's still kind of a
weird online thing. We can tell you about that in
case you get a letter from your school so you
know what they're talking about. And other stuff on the way.
Speaker 1 (32:47):
Stay here.
Speaker 4 (32:49):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 7 (32:52):
One of the two officers shot down over Iran. Neither
has spoken publicly until now.
Speaker 6 (33:00):
I think the best way I've been able to describe
that moment was getting hit by a freight train.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
So 60 Minutes came back last night, first time back
this season under the new directorship of Barry Weiss.
Speaker 4 (33:14):
Shocking right-wing fascist turn. They prayed to Donald Trump to
begin the telecast.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
It was kind of classic 60 Minutes. Really, it was
a very dramatic tale about the pilot who got shot
down in Iran and rescued and went through that whole story.
Then they had a good political story, which I thought
was pretty balanced, in which they criticized Trump and Democrats
for the whole out-of-control pardon situation we've got with our
presidential pardons. And then they did a sports segment. It
(33:45):
was kind of classic. Sixty minutes, I thought. Anyway, back
to the story from last night, their lead story. Here's
a little more from that guy we rescued when he
got shot down over Iran.
Speaker 7 (33:56):
We've agreed to call the weapons systems officer by his
mission call sign, Bravo, due to security threats from Iran.
Speaker 6 (34:04):
We do all we can to try to save the aircraft.
It was evident that that wasn't possible. And soon thereafter,
we ejected and found ourselves floating over the heart of Iran.
Speaker 1 (34:18):
So within seconds, you're ejecting. That's how quick the decision is.
Speaker 6 (34:21):
It is. I will be thankful to my dying day
for my pilot and crewmate, Alpha, for saving our lives
and ejecting us.
Speaker 2 (34:31):
Yeah, if you didn't see that, you ought to watch
at least that.
Speaker 1 (34:33):
It's online.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
It has a heck of a story.
Speaker 4 (34:37):
Well, a guy's parachute was messed up, and he, well,
experts estimate he hit the ground at something like 70
to 100 miles per hour and broke bones, sprained, all
cut up and bleeding. And, oh, my God, the fact
that he survived and we were able to rescue him.
You know, he thanked God and attributed a lot of
it to the Lord Almighty.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
I can't disagree with him. It was fantastic.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
Right, and then the rescue mission, which was just the
United States doing what we're able to do because of
our amazing technology and training and all that sort of stuff,
and the fact that we rescue people as opposed to
just let them die. It's quite the story also.
Speaker 4 (35:14):
Yeah, discipline and compassion. It was really an amazing moment
by the American military.
Speaker 1 (35:19):
Well done, guys.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
So how did this whole cat in the hat thing
get going?
Speaker 1 (35:24):
See, I've never even, I'm completely unaware of this.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
It's a social media phenomenon. Some of the pictures are
hella frightening. Started around June, July of this year as
a dark humor meme. People taking clips of Mike Myers
from the 2003 Cat in the Hat movie and then
putting eerie music to them and disturbing captions and that
sort of stuff. Then, last month, it mutated into an
(35:52):
AI horror hoax trend. People started generating grainy surveillance camera-looking
images and videos showing a cat in a hat in
a neighborhood and stuff like that, or people dressing up
like it and then posting it.
Speaker 1 (36:04):
This is so The Clown at the Edge of the Woods.
Speaker 2 (36:06):
It's very similar to The Clown at the Edge of
the Woods. Things like, he's been spotted in, and it's,
you know, to your town, and you got the grainy
image of the cat in the hat sitting on top
of your car in the driveway or whatever. Which looks
freaking creepy, I'll tell you that.
Speaker 1 (36:20):
You know what I got to get started? A woodsman
at the edge of the circus.
Speaker 4 (36:25):
Instead of a guy with an axe.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
Yeah, just thinking out loud.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
Kids have begun making localized versions naming actual schools, towns,
and sometimes individual students online with captions such as I'm
coming that has caused schools to increase security and police
to investigate the accounts because they can't assume that this
is all a joke. And now there have been juvenile
arrests in several states, including California, connected to the Cat
(36:52):
in the Hat posts. A 14-year-old was arrested in Colorado
after suggesting he was going to hurt some other kid
or whatever. So if you hear anything about the Cat
in the Hat trend, that's.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
What's going on. Unplug the Internet.
Speaker 2 (37:08):
Don't you have kids? You need more homework. Give them
more homework to do so they don't have time for
this nonsense.
Speaker 1 (37:14):
And a part-time job and some chores. Have them rake
the leaves. We don't have any leaves. Have them rake
the dirt.
Speaker 2 (37:20):
Part-time job would help a lot. If you missed the segment,
get the podcast. We've got a lot more coming in
hour three.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
Armstrong and Getty.
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!