GLENN: I want to share something with you that is going to sound absolutely crazy, much more crazy than when I said, "We're going to be able to print everything. We're going to be able to print organs. We're going to be able to print guns." Remember when I brought the 3D printer on about four years ago, and we were printing little stupid things.
And I remember -- I don't remember who it was, one of the cameramen, it was Justin, right? One of the cameramen was on, and he just shook his head. And I printed a little Batman head for him. And he was like, this is ridiculous. We're not going to be able to print these things. Okay. Sci-fi, and we're going to get flying cars too.
And a year later, we had a guy on the show who gave us a printed -- 3D printed gun that works.
The world is changing. And what this is going to sound like is, you're either a Luddite and you don't want technology -- which is not true. I don't think there's any way to stop this. I think Elon Musk is right on his approach. Or it just sounds so like a movie, like terminator, that you're fighting robots.
And I want you to know that you shouldn't fear the robots. That's not what I'm saying. I want you to hear a story that is on Elon Musk and his billion dollar crusade to stop the AI apocalypse. That's the headline.
It starts with a story that I gave you yesterday in hour number one of this broadcast. And it's Elon Musk. And it's Demis -- Demis, what's his name? Hassabis. And Demis and Elon are having lunch at SpaceX. And Elon says, "I'm working on -- this is the most important project for all of humanity, right now." His trip to Mars. Pat doesn't even think that trip to Mars is going to happen.
PAT: Uh-uh.
GLENN: It will. I'm telling you now, we will colonize Mars. And it won't be done by a government. It will be done by Elon Musk. And here's why: Demis says, "No, you're not working on the most important project. I am." Now, he's in charge of DeepMind. DeepMind is the Google project that is gobbling up every -- everybody who is working on AI. Artificial, super intelligence. And they are racing -- Google and DeepMind are racing to artificial intelligence.
Now, artificial intelligence is going to be fantastic. We will -- through artificial intelligence, we're going to be able to figure out cures to cancer. It's so far beyond any supercomputer. It will be able to learn itself. You won't have to program. You won't have to build. It will build itself. It will teach itself.
It's true artificial intelligence. It is living intelligence. And it will be so far -- we will look like mice to this intelligence.
He said -- Demis said, "Well, no, no, I'm working on the most important project for humankind. I'm working on artificial super intelligence." And that's when Elon Musk said, "No, the reason why I'm going to Mars is to make sure there's a human outpost because you're going to get us all killed."
Now, as crazy as that sounds, these conversations are happening. And they're happening a lot in Silicon Valley, with some of the smartest people out there. People who agree with Elon Musk, that this could be the end of all humanity, within the next 40 years, are Bill Gates and Stephen Hawking and a long list of others. But those are pretty prominent guys.
So if you read the story -- let me just give you a couple of them: Some in Silicon Valley were intrigued to learn that Hassabis, a skilled chess player and former video game designer once came up with a game called Evil HEP Genius, featuring an evil scientist who creates a doomsday device to achieve world domination.
Peter Thiel, the billionaire venture capitalist Donald Trump adviser, who cofounded PayPal with Musk and others and who in December helped gather skeptical Silicon Valley titans, including Musk to meet with Donald Trump, told me a story about an investor in DeepMind, who joked as he left a meeting, quote, does anybody else feel like we ought to shoot Hassabis now because we're approaching our last chance to save the human race?
Elon Musk began warning about the possibility of AI running amuck three years ago. Probably hadn't eased his mind when one of Hassabis' partners in DeepMind, Shane Lang stated flatly, "I think human extinction will probably occur, and this technology will play a part in it."
Okay. So wait. Wait. Shouldn't we put the brakes on that? If somebody said that in your office and other great minds around the world were saying the same thing, wouldn't it be time for you to say, "Hey, guys, can we just stop for a second?"
STU: I oddly do work in an office where someone does say that fairly regularly, just to points that out.
PAT: You do? Where's that? Weird.
STU: I don't know.
GLENN: Before DeepMind was gobbled up by Google in 2014 as part of its Google AI shopping spree, Musk had been an investor in DeepMind.
He told me that his involvement was not about a return on his money, but rather to keep a wary eye on the arc of AI.
It gave me more visibility into the rate at which things are improving. I think they're improving at an accelerating rate, far faster than anybody realizes. Mostly because in everyday life, you don't see robots walking around.
Maybe your Roomba or something. But a Roomba is not going to take over the world.
In a startling public approach to his friends and fellow techies, Musk warned that they could be creating the means of their very own destruction. He told Bloomberg's Ashley Vance, the author of the biography of Elon Musk, that he was afraid that his friend, Larry HEP Page, the cofounder of Google and now the CEO of its parent company, Alphabet, could have perfectly good intentions but still produce something very evil by accident, including possibly a fleet of artificial intelligence enhanced robots capable of destroying all of mankind.
Sometimes, what will happen is a scientist will get so engrossed in their work that they really don't realize the ramifications of what they're doing.
Having some sort of merger with biological intelligence and machine intelligence, it may not be the -- it may be the way to escape human obsolescence. A Vulcan mind meld, if you will.
We're basically already there. We're already cyborgs. Your phone and your computer are extensions of you. But the interface is through finger movements or speech, which are very slow. We're now looking at a neural interlace, a lace inside of your skull that would flash data from your brain wirelessly to your Dylan devices or to virtually any unlimited computing power in the cloud for a means of partial brain interface. We are roughly four years away from that.
STU: Four years away from --
GLENN: Thinking and it doing. Did anybody see --
STU: You're not touching a screen.
GLENN: You're not touching anything.
STU: You're just thinking, I want the temperature to go up in this.
GLENN: And it goes up.
PAT: What? Four years!
GLENN: We're four years away.
PAT: No way.
GLENN: Did anybody see the article yesterday that came out -- for the first -- Pat, for the first time, somebody now has received the first real bionic legs that it operates exactly like your legs do. You think, and it does.
PAT: Boop, boop. Boop. Boop.
STU: I saw that documentary. That's --
GLENN: Yeah.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: Others, you have to start moving and get, you know -- and get it to move for you. This is now bionic. I believe it -- I believe they were legs, that as you think, it happens. And they have them now with hands --
PAT: Are people being fitted with those?
GLENN: Yes.
PAT: Are they really?
GLENN: Yes. The first one has fitted, and it's working now.
PAT: Oh, how outrageous is that?
GLENN: And that was the story yesterday.
Yeah. So what's the difference between that and this?
PAT: I don't know.
STU: Can we quickly point out that if you can think, I want the temperature to be higher in this room, the divorce rate is going to be 100 percent in this country.
GLENN: Oh, yeah.
PAT: My wife and I are thermostatically incompatible.
(laughter)
GLENN: He went on to say, with artificial intelligence, we are summoning a demon. You know all those stories where there's the guy with the penneagram and the holy water, and he's like, yeah, yeah, no, I -- listen, we can control the demon. I'm just going to call it forth. It doesn't work out, said Musk.
(laughter)
Let's see. Musk is stoit HEP about his setbacks, but all too conscious of the nightmare scenarios. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer, and that is the way he's acted through most of history. We are the first species capable of self-annihilation.
Here's the nagging thought that you can't escape as you drag around from glass box to glass box in Silicon Valley. The lords of the cloud love to yammer about turning the world into a better place as they churn out new algorithms, apps, and inventions, that, it is claimed, will make our lives easier, healthier, funny, closer, cooler, longer, and kinder to the planet.
And yet, as you drive around after these meetings, there's a creepy feeling underneath it all, a sense that we are the mice in their experiments, that they regard us humans as betamaxes HEP or eight tracks. Old technology that will soon be discarded so they can get on with enjoying their new, sleek world.
Many people have already accepted this future. We'll live to be $150, but we'll have machine overlords. They argue not about whether, but rather how close we are to replicating, improving, and replacing ourselves.
Sam Altman, the 31-year-old president of Y Combinator, the Valley's top start accelerator, believes humanity is on the brink of such invention.
The hardest part of standing on an exponential curve is, when you look backward, it looks flat. When you look forward, it looks vertical. It's hard to calibrate how much you're moving because it always looks the same. You'd think that any time Musk, Stephen Hawking, and Gates are raising the same warning about AI, as all of them are, it would be a ten-alarm fire. But for a long time, the fog of fatalism over the Bay area was thick. Musk's crusade was viewed as a Luddite view.
STU: I mean, Elon Musk is not a Luddite. I think that's pretty clear.
JEFFY: No.
GLENN: No. The paradox is this: Many tech oligarchs see everything they're doing to help us, and all of their benevolent manifestos as streetlamps on the road to a future where, as Steve Wozniak says, humans are the streetlamp's pets.
Musk is not going gently. He plans on fighting this with every fiber of his carbon-based being. Musk and Altman have founded Open AI. Now, this is the way to solve it: Open AI, a billion-dollar nonprofit company to work for safer artificial intelligence. His view is, nobody is going to be able to stop this. Nobody is going to be able to stop this. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. And we're going to have people within ten years that are uploading and are transhumans. They are what's called transhumanism.
As we're talking about the stupid gender and what you feel like today, forget about all that nonsense. Transhumanism is real and it will happen in the next ten years, where you will merge with machines.
He believes that the problem is not -- not robots. The problem is AI merging on the internet.
Now, we saw a documentary with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
STU: Oh, yeah.
GLENN: Where at first you thought that it was the terminator robot that was the problem.
PAT: Uh-huh.
GLENN: And in later --
PAT: It was Skynet.
GLENN: It was Skynet.
PAT: We should have known, it was Skynet.
GLENN: That's what he says is the problem. We'll get back to this here in a second.
[break]
GLENN: Oh, no. I can't take it. I can't take it.
You know, I am full in, on AI. We're going back to Musk here in a second. I'm full-in on super intelligence. I will even be the pet. I will serve Skynet, if it will fix my television.
(laughter)
I cannot get -- it's -- I'm ready to go back to cable.
PAT: What's wrong with it?
GLENN: Oh, the remote control won't control -- won't work with Apple. Sometimes it doesn't work with the cable. You know, sometimes it doesn't turn the TV on at all. Sometimes it will turn everything on, but won't turn on the Apple box.
STU: Ugh.
PAT: And you've obviously had people out to try to fix it.
GLENN: Oh, I can't tell you how many thousands I have probably dumped in this. I just -- just give me a knob. Just give me a knob. Or Skynet. I will serve you, Skynet. I will serve you.
STU: TVs aren't going to work. But the AI thing is going to turn out well.
GLENN: It's going to be really good.
PAT: Really well. Yeah.
Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.
Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.
Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.
Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.
If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.
How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.
How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.
Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?
There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?
How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.
Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?
How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.
This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.
Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?
How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?
These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”
This past weekend we were mere inches away from a radically different America than the one we have today. This was the first time a president had been wounded by a would-be assassin since 1981, and the horrific event has many people questioning the competency and motives of the supposedly elite agents trusted with the president's life.
Kimberly Cheatle has come under intense scrutiny these last couple of weeks, as Secret Service director she is responsible for the president's well-being, along with all security operations onsite. In a recent interview with ABC, Cheatle admitted that she was aware of the building where the assassin made his mark on American history. She even said that she was mindful of the potential risk but decided against securing the site due to "safety concerns" with the slope of the roof. This statement has called her competence into question. Clearly, the rooftop wasn't that unsafe if the 20-year-old shooter managed to access it.
Glenn pointed out recently that Cheatle seems to be unqualified for the job. Her previous position was senior director in global security at America's second-favorite soda tycoon, PepsiCo. While guarding soda pop and potato chips sounds like an important job to some, it doesn't seem like a position that would qualify you to protect the life of America's most important and controversial people. Even considering her lack of appropriate experience, this seems like a major oversight that even a layperson would have seen. Can we really chalk this up to incompetence?
Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images
Shortly after the attempted assassination, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the Secret Service, launched an investigation into the shooting and the security protocols in place at the rally. The DHS promised full transparency during the investigation, but House Republicans don't feel that they've been living up to that promise. Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are frustrated with Director Cheatle after she seemingly dodged a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. This has resulted in calls for Cheatle to step down from her position.
Two FBI agents investigate the assassin's rooftop Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images
Why is the Secret Service being so elusive? Are they just trying to cover their blunder? We seem to be left with two unsettling options: either the government is even more incompetent than we'd ever believed, or there is more going on here than they want us to know.
Following a horrendous testimony to the House Oversight Committee Director Cheatle finally stepped down from her position ten days after the assassination attempt. Cheatle failed to give any meaningful answer to the barrage of questions she faced from the committee. These questions, coming from both Republicans and Democrats, were often regarding basic information that Cheatle should have had hours after the shooting, yet Cheatle struggled with each and every one. Glenn pointed out that Director Cheatle's resignation should not signal the end of the investigation, the American people deserve to know what happened.
