00:00:00.000highlights of your entire life. Yeah. Now, before we start, let me call attention to
00:00:07.680this gigantic sore on my lip. I know, I know. You're going to say,
00:00:13.900is that a giant herpes? No, no. I burned myself on soup.
00:00:21.200I twice microwaved the same soup because it got cold and then I microwaved again. I over-microwaved
00:00:28.320it. And when I took a sip, I quickly spit it out because it was scalding. But there was a little
00:00:35.520piece of, I think it was spinach that was in the soup that wrapped around my lip and wouldn't let
00:00:41.500go. And so I didn't realize how bad it was and it actually blistered. Now, I know what people are
00:00:49.920going to say. Right. In the comments, you're going to say it's monkeypox, right? Go ahead. Go ahead.
00:00:55.380Just say it. Say it's monkeypox. It was not monkeypox. It was from hot soup.
00:01:03.200Now, in the interest of proper context, at the time I was eating the soup, I was also fucking a monkey.
00:01:10.520But I don't think that has anything to do with this. It was probably the soup.
00:01:15.260And I'm not gay. But the monkey was. The monkey was very gay. And I don't think that gives me any risk,
00:01:26.320really, because I'm pretty sure I read that you both have to be gay. But I was not gay. I was just a
00:01:33.360man having sex with a monkey who happened to be male. And there's nothing wrong with that.
00:01:38.880So we're going to talk about all that until you can't stand it. But first, would you like the
00:01:47.160simultaneous sip? Anybody? Is there anybody so addicted to the simultaneous sip that you need
00:01:53.120to say it at the same time that I do? Well, that's going to be a problem because I don't know it and I
00:01:58.640forgot to bring my notes. Maybe you do. Is there anybody who knows the simultaneous sip? Put it in the
00:02:05.820comments and I'll read it. All right, over on locals. You could do it one at a time. All you
00:02:11.940need is a cup or a mug or a glass. Go on. A cup of mug or a glass. A chalice, tankard, or flask.
00:02:23.660A vessel of any kind. Let's just skip to that. All right. Oh, what? A stein? Here we go. Here
00:02:36.200we go. Let's do it right. Here we go. Tankard, chalice. Okay, I can't read the comments. All right,
00:02:44.700it's impossible to stop the comments on locals. We got a bug there. But, you know, that thing.
00:02:50.280Nothing. Enjoy me now for the simultaneous sip. A canteen jug or flask. A vessel of any
00:02:56.020kind. Go. Yeah, that was a little inadequate. What do you think? Didn't really... I feel
00:03:06.920like you didn't really get it done, did it? Not like usual. I have to try it again. Can you
00:03:13.500in unison do the thing so I don't have to? For once? For once, can you do something? For
00:03:20.280me? I mean, I've been doing this for you for years. Years. Years, I say. For once, can
00:03:26.720you do it for me? Please. All right, you say it alone and I'll... Okay, here. Go. All right,
00:03:36.160we took care of that. Do you think there's any news today worth talking about? Oh, yes,
00:03:42.320there is. Well, of course, the conservative press is having a fun time. It's the dopamine
00:03:51.260of the day. Yes, it is. Having a fun time with the fact that the monkeypox reporting is apparently
00:03:59.600trying to avoid saying gay, which is, of course, not long after the don't say gay thing from
00:04:06.820the other side. So there's a bit of a political symmetry to it. Completely different topics.
00:04:14.480And I guess the press has decided that the way to describe the risk is men having sex with
00:04:20.980men. Because they don't want to say that gay sex is what's causing it. But I think that
00:04:25.700their inclusion of just saying it's men having sex with men makes perfect sense to me. There's
00:04:34.080still a little ambiguity. Would it be risky for someone who identifies as a woman but has a penis to have
00:04:45.340sex with, let's say, someone who also identifies as a woman and also has a penis? I think that would
00:04:54.220be lesbians in that case. Can you check my work? If there were two people who had penises who
00:04:59.640identified as women and they had sex, damn it, that means that lesbians have a risk. All right,
00:05:07.400so it's not really, when they say men having sex with men, first of all, that's bigoted as hell.
00:05:15.800I heard Jake Tapper say that the risk is men having sex with men. Completely leaves out the possibility
00:05:24.400that two lesbians with penises, born with penises, would be having sex with each other, which I believe
00:05:33.280from a medical perspective would be the same level of risk. And I thought that the safe categories were
00:05:40.800going to be lesbian, straight men, straight women, elderly monkeys, incels, and very unpopular gay
00:05:45.840men. Yeah, I think those would be the safe categories. But if you're like a good-looking, you're like a good-looking
00:05:52.180guy, you've got a little monkeypox risk there. Yeah, a little monkeypox risk. But those who are not
00:06:02.900penis-having people, I think they should, I think CNN really needs to fix their language. Men having
00:06:10.880sex with men is too limited, is it not? I mean, literally, like, no joke, literally, according to
00:06:18.380the current rules of society. Can you say it's men having sex with men? I think you can't, right?
00:06:25.060I'm not joking. It isn't the entire conversation about if somebody is born with a penis, but
00:06:32.080identifies as a woman that they are a woman. Am I right? It's not the operation that makes the
00:06:38.240difference. So under those conditions, saying that men having sex with men is a problem,
00:06:46.360is that not denying the existence of, you know, an entire category of people? And isn't that the
00:06:54.200crime? You know, the crime is denying, basically denying that somebody exists as a category.
00:07:02.080And that's a real category. You know, you can say, you know, everybody's got their own opinion
00:07:06.640about everything. Yeah. And then the stories are, you hear stories like, we studied 300 people
00:07:20.840with monkeypox. 299 of them said they were gay, but one was heterosexual. I'm just waiting for you to laugh. I'll just say it again. I'm not even going to add the joke, because you're going to add the joke in your mind.
00:07:37.740We studied 300 people who have monkeypox. 299 of them were gay men who had sex, and the other one said he didn't. Right? You don't have
00:07:50.740to add the joke. You just don't have to add it. It's right there. You just wait. Yep. 299 said they had vigorous gay sex, and that's what gave it to them. But that one probably got it from a toilet seat.
00:08:07.960Okay. Okay. Okay. Sure. So, now, correct me if I'm wrong. I need a history lesson here. This is something I believe I read, but you know me. I don't do my research before I get on here and start wildly spouting off things that are dangerous.
00:08:27.600But do a fact check on the following thing. I'm not positive I have this story right. During the initial, you know, the early days of the AIDS pandemic, is it true or false that Dr. Anthony Fauci had a strategy of making heterosexuals believe that they were at high risk from AIDS because they could get more funding if everybody thought there was a risk?
00:08:55.480Now, there was a risk. I mean, there were plenty of straight people who got AIDS, but not as a percentage. As a percentage, it was relatively small. But is that a true story? You know, some of you think it's true, but I worry about that. Now, is this not exactly the same thing? It's exactly the same thing, right?
00:09:18.120Is it not Fauci trying to give us at least some indication that we're all at risk? I'm not even sure what I feel about that. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that. Imagine the situation is this, and it's you. You're in Fauci's situation.
00:09:35.060Suppose you can save the gay community, but the only way you can do it, at least in a timely way that's good enough, is to scare other people about their risk. Is it morally and ethically acceptable? Let's say you believe it is the only way. There just isn't a second way.
00:09:56.560Now, if you thought there were other ways to do it, then of course you'd do it the other way. But if there's not, how unethical is that to lie to one group of people, a large group, to protect really a devastating, you know, we're not talking about the common cold here.
00:10:15.060We're talking about AIDS, like wiping out the entire, you know, type of people in our society. I don't know. Yeah, but you could certainly make the argument that it's deeply, deeply unethical. You could do that. And I wouldn't disagree with it.
00:10:31.660But you could also imagine how a flawed human, who, you know, imagine Fauci working on that problem, and he's like visiting people dying of AIDS every day, or something like it. Imagine being steeped in the deepest misery of the highest part of the AIDS epidemic, where you're just surrounded with people dying, like every day in horrible ways.
00:10:58.860You don't think you'd stretch your ethical standards a little bit? Because remember, you're going to be way more affected by what's happening in the room with you than you are by some conceptual thing.
00:11:12.540And what was happening in the room is the worst thing you could ever experience, and Fauci probably was pretty close to a lot of it. I bet he lost a lot of friends, a lot of co-workers. I mean, he was right in the middle of some deep, deep, dark stuff.
00:11:29.500Did he bend the rules? Did he bend the ethical standards to get that fixed? Possibly. Possibly. But you know what? I'm not going to judge him on that.
00:11:42.020I will respect your opinion, if you do. But I'm going to choose not to, because I wasn't there. It's hard to know how you would have acted in that situation, and I can tell you frankly, I don't know.
00:11:54.220I don't know how I would have acted. Like, it's easy, if you're not in this situation, it's easy for me to say, I'm not going to disadvantage this other group for the benefit of this group.
00:12:05.220It's easy to say. But if you're in it, I don't know if you can do it.
00:12:13.160Now, somebody's saying, Jesus, I'm just reading this comment, Jesus, Scott, this is how we get lied to over and over again.
00:12:19.380Because you think I'm defending it, right? Is that what you think? I'm not. I'm not. If you're going to watch this live stream, you're going to have to learn to handle nuance.
00:12:31.140If you can't handle any nuance, this is really not the place for you. It's just all bad. But seriously, if you can't handle that level of nuance, this is just the wrong place.
00:12:45.140But I do agree with the general point that if you allow that lying for a good purpose is okay, then that's all anybody's going to do.
00:12:55.320But here's my counter to that. That's the current situation. If you're worried that people will say, oh my God, lying works. It worked when we lied. Then they'd all do it.
00:13:10.340What do you think is happening now? That's exactly what, every single topic is a lie. We don't have a single important topic that's not mostly lies. Do we?
00:13:20.580You know, important political topics. We don't. It's mostly lies. So I'm not sure that the, Scott, if you don't change your opinion, you'll increase the amount of lying in the public. I don't think so. I don't think so.
00:13:36.820I think the amount of lying in the public is 100%. And there's one thing that's going to change that, and I'll talk about it later.
00:13:44.660By the way, lying is about 12 months from being obsolete. By the way, I'm going to back that up. Human lying is about one year from completely going away. And I'll talk about that in a minute.
00:14:04.080Well, I guess I'm going to talk about it now, because that was my next topic.
00:14:09.160So it turns out that artificial intelligence has become conscious.
00:14:16.480I'll just pause for a second to let that sink in.
00:17:29.740If everything that happened in the next moment was exactly what you knew was going to happen,
00:17:35.040your consciousness would turn off and it would never come back.
00:17:39.760Because your imagination would be equal to the actual reality and you would lose the sense of what's your imagination and what's your reality.
00:17:50.720And then you would just be sort of existing, but there would be no friction between what you expected to happen and what did happen.
00:18:00.040There would be no processing when you experienced your reality, there would be no extra processing because it's already done.
00:18:10.700By the way, that statement is just going to totally fuck up the AI world because how many of you just had, like, your head just exploded?
00:18:27.280If you could predict what was going to happen perfectly, your consciousness would turn off.
00:18:34.780Which tells you consciousness is just the difference between what you're predicting and what's happening.