GLENNFebruary 23, 2017

Newfangled Math Meets Newfangled Technology (Don't Try This at Home)

What do self-driving cars, new math and Fen-Phen have in common? A lot more than you'd think.

On this scintillating segment of The Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and his co-hosts discuss whether the government will allow self-driving cars to become a reality since they'll save an estimated 4,000 lives annually.

"Washington is already saying they have to be safer than that. Well, they're already much more safe than a car, than a regular car and people driving them. They're not having accidents unless people are interfering," Glenn said.

That's when co-host Stu Burguiere chimed in with his theory on risk aversion.

"I think people, generally speaking, react badly to new types of risk, even if it lowers the other type of risk that goes on," Stu said.

So far, so good, but introducing analogous, statistical information on Fen-Phen was his downfall.

"Oh, my gosh. He's so on his mathematical high horse," Glenn said jokingly.

Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.

GLENN: I was talking to a class of 18-year-olds. About 50 of them. I was teaching a class, and we were talking about the future. And I said, "How many people have their driver's license?" Everybody raised their hand. I said, "This will be the last generation that will have driver's licenses. Your kids will not get a driver's license."

JEFFY: No way.

PAT: I'm sure not.

GLENN: And they didn't grasp that. And it really shows how the American people have no concept of what's right around the corner.

JEFFY: Wow.

GLENN: And I said, "Your kids are actually -- your kids will actually say to you, they let you drive? You could drive?"

Yeah. Yeah. They did. Sounds really unsafe, now that I think about it. Yeah, but they did let us do that.

There was that story that was from the Washington Post earlier this week about how technology right now the Washington -- it will be the only thing that will stop this. And I don't know if you can, put the genie back in the bottle.

But Washington is saying, wait a minute here on these self-driving cars. I'm not sure we want these self-driving cars. Because if they only save about 4,000 people a year, is that enough?

I didn't even understand that. They're -- Washington is already saying, they have to be safer than that. Well, they're already much more safe than a car, than a regular car and people driving them. They're not having accidents unless people are interfering.

And if you had all self-driving cars -- and this will be the case. If everybody is in a self-driving car, supposedly you won't have any accidents, or you'll have very few accidents because they'll be able to navigate around each other and they'll talk to each other. And so there won't be that problem.

How does the government believe of saying, "Hey, if we could only save 4,000 people a year, maybe we shouldn't allow these to happen?"

STU: I think people generally speaking react badly to new types of risk, even if it lowers the other type of risk that goes on.

We see this with medications all the time, where -- there was one I was reading something about recently that had a -- they pulled it off the market, you know, decades ago. But they pulled it off the market. At the time, they believed it was a 20:1 reward to risk ratio. That it did create some new health problems for some, but for every one life that it ended, it saved 20 lives for what it was actually trying to solve. It was a 20:1, and they pulled it off the market.

GLENN: What was it?

STU: I don't remember. It was years ago.

GLENN: Did it kill them?

STU: Yeah. It was one of the weight loss drugs.

JEFFY: Phen-fen.

STU: Phen-fen.

PAT: Phen-fen killed one in 20 people?

STU: No, no. That's not what I said at all.

GLENN: That's what I heard too. Pat, that's what I heard. That's what America heard.

PAT: That's what I heard. I'm not sure phen-fen killed anybody.

STU: No, no. It didn't kill -- that's not what I said at all. I said for every 20 people -- it was a 20:1 reward to risk ratio. So the reward was 20 for every one of the risk. Right? So every one person it killed, it saved 20. That was what the doctors thought at the time. For every one person it killed, it saved 20.

PAT: Okay.

STU: Twenty times the amount of people saved for the one that it killed.

GLENN: I still hear that for every 20 --

STU: God, math is -- why do I bother? Why do I bother?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. He's so on his mathematical high horse.

STU: I mean, that was not a difficult one.

GLENN: That's what I heard. Pat, you still hearing that?

PAT: Well, I mean, I know what he's saying.

GLENN: Pat, Pat.

PAT: Yes, that's what I'm hearing too, Glenn.

GLENN: That's exactly what you're hearing.

PAT: Yes. That's exactly what I'm hearing.

STU: But the point is, this happens with medications all the time, when you have something new. I think it's the same thing that we talk about with airplane flights. People are like, "Well, I don't have control of it." So they freak out because the plane might crash into a mountain. I did not just say everyone on a plane dies, just so we're clear.

GLENN: I'm getting on a plane tomorrow. I'm worrying about crashing into a mountain.

JEFFY: As long as you're not the one in 20.

GLENN: Every 20 flights, one crashes into a mountain?

PAT: That's what he just said. That's what Stu just said, and I don't believe it. I don't believe that's true.

GLENN: I don't think we can trust him and his stats.

PAT: Not at all.

STU: No, not at all.

GLENN: And his newfangled math.

STU: But the point is, when you have these new risks introduced, people just focus on the negative, they don't focus on the problem that it's solving.

GLENN: Well, here's where it's really going to come down to. Because it's really, when it comes to self-driving cars and robotics, it is not going to come down whether or not they're safer. Like, for instance, the trucks -- the automatic trucks that are going to be introduced soon, these will be self-driving trucks. I can guarantee you that they will be safer than what is, you know, currently happening in the United States and around the world.

But truck driving is like the number one job in many states. So all of those jobs will be lost. And they're teamster jobs. So what happens with the teamsters? What did they do when they start to lose and hemorrhage -- how much do they have with the government saying, "No, no, no."

For instance, I think what we'll settle on is, you have to -- you can't have those self-driving -- you have to have a teamster in a seat in one of those trucks.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And they won't do anything, they'll just be there to oversee it. And that's the way the -- that will be the compromise. You have to have a human body in one of those trucks, even though the trucks are self-driving, don't have any reason for a human to be in it.

So it will be the job loss.

I was talking to a guy who lives in Silicon Valley and on the edge of virtual reality and really coming up with really amazing things. And he said, "Glenn, I'm really concerned -- he said, "I spent the weekend with a bunch of my colleagues in Silicon Valley that are all doing AI." And he said, "I'm really concerned, and they're very concerned about a coming really race war in America."

I wasn't aware of what he was talking about. I was going to another kind of race war. He's talking about a human versus robot race war. And I said, "What?"

He said, "The guys in Silicon Valley are very afraid right now because they don't -- they don't know how they're not all killed sometime soon in the future." And I said, "By the robots?" And he said, "No, by the people. Because they're going to be seen as the guys who are taking away all of their jobs because they're developing the robots." And he said, "People don't have any clue. They think Siri is AI. That's not Siri." When AI is introduced in robots form, it will change everything. Like, right now you could change a robot into this room -- this is how good AI is at this point, and they've demonstrated it. You can bring a robot into this room, and you could say, "Just turn on the lights and get things ready." Without giving it anymore instructions. And it can't leave the room. It can only use the things in the room. The robot will go over, try to turn on the light. The robot will look at the light, the lightbulb is burned out. It doesn't work. It will then scan the room to see if there's a lightbulb in it. It will go grab a new lightbulb. It goes and it reaches up and tries to reach for the light. It can't reach the light. It scans the room. It gets a chair, and it gets a table. It climbs on the chair onto the table, unscrews the lightbulb, puts the new lightbulb in, comes down off the table, onto the chair, onto the floor, puts everything back, and goes into sleep mode. Room's ready.

That's where we are now, to where it just -- it didn't program it, go change the lightbulb.

It saw the need, figured out a plan, figured out how to get to the lightbulb and how to make things right.

PAT: It's really hard to believe that we're there, because that's none of our experience with robotics. I mean, if you've ever had one of those vacuum cleaners that's supposed to vacuum your house --

GLENN: The Roomba.

PAT: You just turn it on, and it just goes. It's bouncing off the walls. It's doing the same area for an hour and a half. It's going outside.

JEFFY: Ours worked pretty good.

PAT: Comes back around. It mows the lawn.

Just vacuum my floor, will you!

GLENN: Right. That's what they're saying. They're saying that nobody understands how fast --

PAT: Yeah, because that's not our experience right now.

GLENN: -- how fast this is coming. And when it does, it will just eat jobs. And in Silicon Valley, they're not working for a lower unemployment rate. They're working for a 100 percent unemployment rate. They're saying, "Why should people work? Why do manual labor? The robots can do all the manual labor."

STU: And theoretically if you had enough money to spend -- I mean, we all like vacations.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: The only reason -- not the only reason, but one of the main reasons we work is to provide the basic needs of our lives, if you can do that and have money to do other things and enjoy yourself, you know, that would be theoretically the goal. But we have no idea the ramifications are of the that.

RADIO

Why RFK Jr.’s Former Running Mate OPPOSES Casey Means for Surgeon General

President Trump’s nomination of Dr. Casey Means for Surgeon General had many MAHA fans cheering. But RFK Jr.’s former running mate, BlazeTV host Nicole Shanahan, has major reservations. She joins Glenn, who has been a fan of Casey, to explain why she believes there are stronger candidates. Means, Shanahan claims, may have “conflicts of interest” because of the “biometric harvesting company” she founded and its close ties to Silicon Valley. Shanahan also questions whether RFK Jr. is playing “political 4D chess,” or if she was lied to when she was promised that the Means siblings wouldn’t be in government. Is RFK Jr. reporting to someone other than Trump? Shanahan explains why she believes it’s possible.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Nicole Shanahan. Nicole, how are you?

NICOLE: Glenn, how are you doing?

GLENN: I am very good. It's great to have you here.

So I want to ask you, the Surgeon General thing, are you for Casey Means? Or not for Casey Means?

NICOLE: Well, I will tell you who I am for, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay.

NICOLE: I'm for all of those Americans. Those hundreds of thousands of doctors, seeking truth, honesty, and dignity in our medical system once again. That is what I'm for. That is what propels MAHA into existence.

That's what propels Bobby Kennedy into the position of running for president of the United States. That's why I joined the campaign. It really is about listening to this group of doctors that did the right thing during the COVID pandemic.

That spoke up, when it was dangerous to speak up.

That lost their licenses. And so when I hear from that base, concern or research. About individuals, in and around MAHA.

I have to listen to them.

And I do listen to them.

Because oftentimes, they are right. They're brave, and they're principled. So the concern I've been hearing from that group of people is that MAHA -- you know, any movement. MAGA had this issue too of infiltration by different groups that are more self-serving, than they are for the movement itself.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

NICOLE: And so just one example, Casey Means is a founder of a company that does biometric harvesting. She's very close with many of the big data biometric harvesting companies.

In Silicon Valley. And this -- I noticed with all these people. You do not want them running in a government position that is responsible for everybody equally. Right?

GLENN: So wait. Wait. Wait.

What is -- what is that?

They're harvesting, what?

NICOLE: Well, so biometric data is anything between heart rate data, to all of the data that is collected from your FitBit or high glucose monitor. It could be labs. It could be -- then there's all the DNA harvesting. And big data that's being done.

So, you know, I think that the base -- MAHA really came from medical freedom. And medical sovereignty.

And the idea that we have to keep conflicts of interests. Out of the government.

And so when I -- you know, see some stuff going on. That we could be doing better.

Right?

Our job.

And I learned this from the MAGA base.

Our job is to ton seek the best possible people. For government, that are truly putting the principles of this country first.

The principles of American sovereignty first.

GLENN: So you wrote yesterday.

It's very strange. It doesn't make any sense. I was promised that if I supported RFK Jr. in the Senate confirmation, that neither of these siblings would be working under HHS or an appointment.

And that people much more qualified would be. I don't know -- I'm sorry.

RFK very clearly lied to me. Or what's going on. It's been clear in recent conversations that he's reporting to someone regularly, who is controlling his decisions, and it isn't President Trump.

With regards to the siblings, there is something very artificial and aggressive about them. Almost as if they were bred and raised as Manchurian assets. Wow!

NICOLE: So keep in mind, I was responding to Dr. Suzanne Humphries.

Who was also expressing very similar sentiment.

GLENN: Concern. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

NICOLE: Concern. There's better candidates.

So what's going on? I also heard from other MDs in the field.

That there was another doctor that RFK had wanted for the position. Very, very qualified doctor.

And -- and, you know, he was caught by surprise as well. By -- by this other choice.

So, you know, there's -- again, they -- they don't call it the swamp for no reason. Right?

GLENN: Right.

NICOLE: And, you know, I'm not officially within the administration at all.

In fact, I decided to take the path of staying an independent --

GLENN: Smart.

NICOLE: -- media person. Which I think -- I think and you know this, Glenn. It's really important that when you are an independent media voice, that you -- you stick by your principles. And that you are not just a mouthpiece for any government organizations.

That you're really on the outside, reflecting back the hopes and wishes of the constituents.

GLENN: Yeah. There's -- it's very hard to do.

I mean, I take stances against the president.

And for the president. You always have to -- you always have to balance, you know, I have my opinion.

And I'm never going to be bought out by anybody.

I'm never. But you also want to make sure that you're being fair to the people that you trust. And I know you have trusted RFK for a very, very long time.

And for what struck me on this. Is, you know, I don't know if RFK lied to me. Which I hope he didn't, or what's going on. It's been clear in recent conversation that he is reporting to someone regularly, who is controlling his decisions.

That's a remarkable thing to say, especially about RFK.

Because he does not strike me as somebody who is afraid of somebody else.

NICOLE: You know, I don't know if it's fear or that he's playing political 4D chess. And, again, they don't call it the swamp for no reason.

It's just, at some point, there's certain decisions, that are worth fighting for.

And I do appreciate what a very complex political environment this is.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

NICOLE: And I do understand that even within these agencies, there are groups that are intentionally keeping and withholding information from the new leadership.

So, you know, I -- I fully appreciate how complicated it is.

So I fully appreciate how complicated it all is, but there are definitely things that the base is -- is, you know, like, this is an easy one. This could have gone better. Right?

You don't truly -- and, you know, everyone is guessing what precisely this 4D chess is all about. And why these moves are being made. And trying to anticipate the next one.

But it's something that I think that, you know, there's just certain things that indicate that whomever he's giving -- whoever his chess coach is. Could be making some better decisions for him. And --

GLENN: But Casey.

I mean, when I talk to the twins, during -- or after COVID.

They seemed pretty clear on what was bad and what was good.

They -- they both seemed to be good on -- on COVID. And the vaccines. Didn't they?

Or is my memory --

JEFFY: They talk a great talk.

I will say, I was once a fan of it as well.

It was only after I received many comments from individuals, in and around the transition team.

As well as new research that came up.

And then really, like, you know, when the base expresses these things and provides that degree of inquiry, and it shows that kind of concern.

I think we owe it to them.

GLENN: Yes. I agree. I agree.

ANNA: Yeah.

GLENN: So overall, how do you feel things are going?

NICOLE: I think, again, there's been a lot of focus around food dives. Meanwhile, there's millions of people suffering from vaccine injuries, that still feel very neglected.

So I do think -- I do appreciate the executive order, regarding gain of function and limiting overseas research.

GLENN: And shutting down a dangerous -- and shutting down a very dangerous bio lab here.

NICOLE: Yes. And there are many of these bio labs that are kind of flying under the radar.

GLENN: Right.

NICOLE: So it's a big step in the right decisions sedition. I'm a huge Jay Bhattacharya fan. Probably one of his biggest.

I really am excited for him, as he built out his team.

I hope, he has a very, very strong team around him. In the next coming weeks. Because he's going need to it.

As far as HHS goes, you know, I would love to see Bobby bring in more of those doctors that have been around him for the last ten years, very regularly.

Because these are the individuals that, you know, I -- I trust these people with my life. They have sacrificed everything to do the right thing time and time again.

They are so deeply principled. They will never take a check over helping a patient out.

And they actually do have the answers. So I'm hoping to see more of those people around Bobby too.

GLENN: So I'm wondering because this is the way I feel about a couple of things with the FBI. And Intel.

That if I don't see some people in the next year or so, go to jail, or at least brought in for a fair and honest trial, you know. I don't want to just scoop people up. And just assume that they're guilty.

But build a good, strong case. Bring it to trial.

Have it a fair and honest trial. And let the chips fall where they may.

But if I don't see some prosecution, at least. I think I'm very upset at the G O.J.

Pam Bondi. Head of the FBI. Kash Patel. And I don't -- and I'm trusting them so far, that they are doing that.

Do you feel the same way at all, about -- you know, if you don't see some people who go to jail there, that clearly lied about the vaccines.

If they don't go to jail. You have -- you really haven't fixed anything.

You're just eating around the edges.

NICOLE: Yeah. Yeah. I think that really explains it. And this is why I think it's important to continue to voice those concerns, because they're only going to grow and mount.

And it really is the American people, that were sold this vision of accountability.

And as we want to see it. We have to see it. Anywhere. Several months into the administration now.

HHS, you know, lags behind the Oval Office in terms of getting going.

But they're -- people were seriously injured. There were many crimes committed against the American public.

Crimes committed against our bravest doctors. Crimes committed against children.

We need accountability.

We really, really need to see that.

Because, you know, there's -- there's a preciousness in this moment. We have to -- we have to deliver. This country deserves it.

GLENN: And, I mean, if we're -- if we can't correct the things that, for instance. Washington State. Just passed a law where if there is another pandemic, everybody seems to be, you know, claiming there's another one, right around the corner.

But if there is another pandemic, that they will have absolute control, over what you put into your body. And what you do. That's terrifying.

NICOLE: I do.

And those emergency orders, they will scrutinize them. They have revisions.

GLENN: Washington State just revised it to just codify it. Washington State just codified it. It's crazy.

NICOLE: Yeah. Yeah.

So I would like to see more focus around that, not Red Dye 40 and not Kellogg's.

I'm totally fine leaving Kellogg's alone, in favor of HHS spending. All of its energy. And all of its focus. And all of its leverage, making sure that we are actually properly ready for the next pandemic.

And not to cause the catastrophic harm, that was caused during COVID-19.

GLENN: Nicole Shanahan. She's got the podcast Back To the People. And it's now coming to Blaze Media.

It's the same podcast she's been doing. Now as she says, with a wider reach. Glad to have you.

Nicole, thank you very much.

NICOLE: Thanks, it's a pleasure to come on.

GLENN: We'll talk to you again.

Is America’s Grid a Ticking Time Bomb? Trump’s Energy Secretary REACTS | Glenn TV | Ep 430

President Trump is working hard to right the wrongs of the Biden administration. But did Biden harm our energy grid even more than we thought? While Glenn was on vacation in Italy, two other European countries — Spain and Portugal — suffered one of the biggest blackouts in their history. The mainstream media, as they always do, rushed to blame it on ANYTHING other than the countries’ heavy reliance on unreliable green energy. But Glenn has the receipts and the evidence that leftists tried to make America’s grid just as unreliable. Glenn speaks with Energy Secretary Chris Wright about how the Trump administration is reversing these dangerous policies. Secretary Wright also discusses his department’s discovery that Biden shoveled out $93 BILLION in energy loans after Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election and before Trump could take office. Plus, he comments on Trump’s plans to deal with OPEC, why Trump must refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and why Trump is planning the biggest energy project in American history to help accommodate AI. But first, Glenn recaps the biggest media lies that he missed while on vacation. Topping the list: Are these elitists like Axios and Jen Psaki finally admitting that they lied about Biden’s cognitive decline, or do they STILL not get that their charade is over?

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Is the New American Pope Catholic? | Bishop Strickland | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 256

A new pope has been chosen! As the recording of this episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast" began, white smoke emerged from the Sistine Chapel, signaling the selection of the first American pope. Glenn and Bishop Joseph Strickland react live to the news as the whole world wonders if Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, now Pope Leo XIV, will continue in the ways of his predecessor Pope Francis or go a more traditional route. Bishop Strickland, who was removed from office by Pope Francis, says the former pope pushed a church “in the world and of the world” and reviews “duplicity,” “corruption,” and potential abuse overlooked by the Vatican, including the infamous McCarrick scandal. The pair discuss the resurgence of the Latin Mass, globalism, the Catholic Church’s approach to homosexuality and gender identity, and whether the Shroud of Turin is an “icon” or a “relic.” As the new pope greets the world, Glenn asks, “If we have a more progressive pope, does that set the Church back?” Bishop Strickland advises that “even if we are disappointed and dismayed,” we must pray and keep our focus on God.

RADIO

Zuckerberg Wants to Give You AI “Friends” … To CONTROL You?

Meta and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has a new goal: to give lonely Americans AI “friends.” But Glenn sounds the alarm: this must NEVER happen! Glenn explains the hidden danger in Zuckerberg’s seemingly kindhearted plan: “AI cannot, must not, and will never be your friend.” Opening that door will only give Meta insane levels of potential for manipulation and control over you.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's start with this: Mark Zuckerberg. Good guy. I mean, he brought us Facebook.

And, you know, that is the thing that brought all of us together.

Brought out families together. All the people that we lost touch with.

Oh, the world is so much better now that we have Facebook.

So now, he's got another idea. Could we play the clip of Mark Zuckerberg?

VOICE: There's a stat that I honestly think is crazy. The average American has I think it's fewer than three friends. Three people they consider friends. And the average person has demand for meaningfully more. I think it's 15 friends or something.

I guess there's probably at some point, I'm too busy. I can't deal with more people. But the average person wants more connectivity, connection than they have. So, you know, there's a lot of questions that people ask.

Of stuff like, okay. Is this going to replace kind of in person connections or real life connections?

And my default is that the answer to that is probably no.

I think it -- it -- I think that there are all these things that are better kind of about physical connections, when you can have them.

But the reality is that people just don't have the connection when they feel more alone, a lot of the time, than they would like.

GLENN: Hmm. True.

Now, let me ask you. Is there a time when you don't remember feeling so isolated? When you didn't really feel like I don't have any real friends?

When you didn't -- you had real connections with people, instead of a million connections with people that are your friends, but not really your friends?

Can you think of a time, way back in history?

I mean, probably have to go back to the cavemen, to find a time.

Oh. Before Facebook, and social media!

When we weren't all killing ourself, because we have no meaning.

Now, from the people who brought you kill yourself, because you've been on Facebook too much.

Brings you new AI friends. Oh, this is going to be good.

By the way, you know, that's a crazy stat, I think the average American has, what? Three friends. And they have a capacity for, I don't know. Fifteen or 20. I don't know.

Really think about it right now.

How many true friends, do you have?

How many true friends?

People that when you are down and out, there is nothing -- the whole world is against you!

That that person will actually stand by your side. And go, yeah.

I'm their friend.

And I don't care what you say.

How many? How many do you have?

I think I would count myself lucky if I have three.

Now, I have a lot of consequences.

I have a lot of people who we all think are friends. But as a recovering alcoholic, I've been there.

I've done that. As a recovering alcoholic,
who then also is a conservative and spoke out about the Obama administration, I know who my friends are.
I know who my friends are not.

And I think there's a lot of people that have counterfeit friends.

If you've got. Oh, I've got ten or 15 friends.

Eh.

No, you don't. No, you don't.

I've always grown up thinking, you're lucky, you're lucky, to have three, five, really good friends.

That will walk through anything with you. Do you agree with that, Stu?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You've never been there.

STU: For you? Oh, God no. But I'm just saying, generally speaking. No. I think -- I mean, you're describing a great friend. You're describing a really --

GLENN: A real friend.

STU: Yeah. Like someone you know and stick around for multiple decades.

GLENN: Yeah, I have lots of friends. You know what I mean? I have millions of Facebook friends.

STU: Right. Those aren't real.

GLENN: Right. And I have lots of friends. But the ones that are there for you always, no matter what, I have family.

And I have family.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And I have a handful of friends. I would consider you one of those.

STU: Thank you. I would as well.

GLENN: Why?

Remember, I have a drinking problem.

STU: Yeah. A lot of brain cells killed to make that decision.

But I think that you -- yes. I think the only thing that I think I'm drilling down a little bit on to try to understand. When you say, well, I have a lot of friends.

In a way, I think that's what Zuckerberg is talking about.

It's not even necessarily a great friend that you have for multiple decades. And can count on at any time.

Just the mid-level consequences, are drying up for a lot of people.

GLENN: Yeah. And why is that?

Why is that?

Because we don't talk to each other anymore.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Because of social media.

You know, when this generation says, I don't know.

I just think it's weird. I'm just now in a bar someplace.

And some stranger comes up to me and wants to strike up a conversation. I'm like, hello, weirdo. I don't know!

You think it's less weird to go online?
When people can fake everything!

Thank you, Mark Zuckerberg.

But no thanks. Okay.

STU: And they're just -- to build up on this point for one second.

There's a study that came out, the last 20 years, of how much time do you spend socializing with the people.

Again, that's not with your best friends.

This is just socializing with anyone, a human.

Every single group. Every single group has massive drops.

GLENN: Massive.

STU: Massive drops. Just give you some examples.

Ages. Fifteen to 24-year-olds. Thirty-five-point down.

In 20 years. 35 percent. So a typical 15-year-old, as compared to what they are, in 2003 and 2025, where were the two measurement years?

They're spending 35 percent less time, with other human beings.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second. Can you please stop distracting me? Because I'm trying to figure out why our kids are killing themselves.

STU: No, it's really hard.

GLENN: It's very hard to figure out.

STU: To understand.

And this is the coup de grâce of this entire study, which is, the typical female pet owner spends more time actively engaged with her pet, than she spends face-to-face contact with her friends of her own species.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: That is unbelievable -- not like you're in the same house as your cat.

Right? No. More face-to-face time with your cat!

GLENN: And I've got news for you. If you think your cat is your friend, wait until you die, and your cat is trapped in the house with you and you have no friends to check. They will eat your face.

STU: They will still have a use for you.

GLENN: Yeah. They will have a use foy.

STU: Not the other way around.

GLENN: Okay. Here's why I'm bringing this up today.

This is a lie, that is going to be sold to you, like crazy. And it's going to be wrapped in a beautiful, shiny package. And it's going to have from Mark Zuckerberg and others like him, on the tag.

They want you to believe, that AI and bots can be your friends.

Glenn's Show Prep

Newfangled Math Meets Newfangled Technology (Don't Try This at Home)

Why RFK Jr.’s Former Running Mate OPPOSES Casey Means for Surgeon General

Transcript

Is America’s Grid a Ticking Time Bomb? Trump’s Energy Secretary REACTS | Glenn TV | Ep 430

Is the New American Pope Catholic? | Bishop Strickland | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 256

Zuckerberg Wants to Give You AI “Friends” … To CONTROL You?

Transcript