Will Future Artificial Intelligence Be Able to Frame You for Crimes?

If you aren’t yet at Elon Musk’s level of being nervous about artificial intelligence, this peek into the future might get you there.

On today’s show, Glenn read an email from a friend in the tech industry theorizing what AI of the future will be able to do. AI that can mimic voices and recognize people not only by their faces but also by their body movements is already in the works. What’s coming next?

“Imagine AI … being able to identify a perfect stacked, ranked list of every person in the country who works against whatever your agenda is,” Glenn said. “Then imagine that AI being able to go online and post things on the internet that sound exactly like you.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So I had a friend write to me, just this morning. And he said, Glenn, I was listening to your show yesterday. And he said -- let me see if I have this. I'm paraphrasing here. You talk about AI killing us all.

I know that's a go-to line a lot of tech people take with AI. But the thing I want to get across to you, is that's not the worst thing AI could do.

STU: Wait.

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

STU: You're talking about artificial intelligence could kill us all, and that he says not the worse that it could do?

GLENN: This is a guy who is in Silicon Valley, very high levels. And has -- he writes to me from time to time. And he'll say, hey, you've got this wrong, or you should pay attention to this. Or, hey, have you seen what people are working on over here? So he'll write to me from time to time. I -- think -- I'm not sure if I've ever met him. Maybe I met him once, years ago. But I'm not sure if I've ever met him. And he's written me for years. Just for years.

And I really respect him. He has a very sharp, sharp mind. And he's never asked for a meeting before.

And he wrote me last week, and he said, AI is starting to take a very scary turn. And I -- I need to meet with you.

And I said, will you come on the air and talk to me?

And he's like, God, no. No. But you need to know. And I need to make you aware of what is happening with AI.

So he says, you know, AI killing us all may not be the worse thing.

Well, what could possibly be worse? Stu, listen to this.

Imagine AI, current AI, not some AI in the future, being able to identify a perfect stacked, ranked list of every person in the country who works against whatever your agenda is from top to bottom.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Let me say that again. Imagine AI, current AI, not some AI in the future, being able to identify a perfect stacked, ranked list of every person in the country who works against whatever your agenda is from top to bottom.

Don't give this on camera, please. Then imagine that AI being able to go online and being able to post things on the internet that sound exactly like you.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: He hasn't even started. Then imagine AI being able to go online and post things on the internet that sound exactly like you, writing in your voice perfectly. Imagine AI can call people on the phone and sound exactly like you, can appear in videos, surveillance cameras, photos, looking exactly like you. Walking exactly like you.

Imagine an AI that is able to see everything that you do and then determine what the best way is to frame you for something you didn't do. Then build the evidence against you perfectly to the point that you could never defend yourself in court. Imagine an AI that can orchestrate a pile of real blackmail evidence against you, from things that you actually have done in your life, then tell the owner how to present it to you, to make you completely snap, based on your current medical and mental state.

Imagine an AI that makes it so you have no idea what is real and what is fake.

Glenn, this is the kind of thing that I'm talking about. And I can show you actual evidence of this happening now. You need to see it.

Yeah, AI can kill me. Don't do me any favors. The worst concept is what AI can do in the hands of the wrong person or agency or political party or nation or nation state. You've talked in the past about not being able to believe your eyes. We're there. That future is now.

Holy mother.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: You do not want my friends.

STU: No.

GLENN: You don't want my friends. I don't sleep well.

STU: Most people just email me to congratulate me about the Eagles win last night.

GLENN: I know. I know.

STU: And that, I think, ties into the situation with -- with Russia. And the media has done such a job on trying to make this all about Donald Trump. The idea that a foreign power with almost unlimited resources could harvest and harness that type of technology, to utilize it against somebody here or their enemies, is frightening.

GLENN: Have you heard what Vladimir Putin says about AI? Have you heard his latest statement in the last month?

STU: I don't think so.

GLENN: In the last month or so, he came out and he said, this is the final war. This is it. Whoever masters AI first will dominate and control everything on earth.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: And so he's pouring all of the resources of Russia into the development of AI. Because, I would imagine, he knows the same thing my friend does: The entire world changes.

This goes back, Stu, to a conversation you and I had in '97, '96, when I said to you, imagine a time when you're not going to be able to believe your own eyes. Because they'll be able to re-create you and put you in photographs and put you in videos. And it's not you. But you won't be able to believe your own eyes.

STU: Yeah. We've been talking about the Harvey Weinstein thing a lot this week. Imagine that sort of technology applied to this, to someone who didn't do it.

GLENN: Well, and imagine -- we know that AI -- we know that a year or 18 months ago, we heard AI imitate the voice of Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and I think Hillary Clinton.

STU: Hillary Clinton, yeah.

GLENN: You could tell it was a computer. But it was really close.

STU: Just -- it wasn't a consumer-facing press. Was it a university that was doing it?

GLENN: I can't remember.

STU: But it was the first attempt, right? In ten years, I mean, imagine how far they'll be --

GLENN: Imagine how far it is now.

STU: And it wasn't taking words from Barack Obama. It was actually creating from scratch his voice and then typing in whatever you wanted him to say.

GLENN: Correct. And, again, you could tell it was a computer. But it was the first attempt. Imagine that tape of Harvey Weinstein that the -- the NYPD had, that undercover tape. You could create -- especially somebody like me, who has been on television. You have all my movements. You have everything.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You could create anything. Anything.

STU: And this is one of the downsides of our society turning into 310 million individual broadcasters. Because now everybody has had videos posted of them, of almost everything they've done. We all host our own little shows on social media and feed into this. And really, if this technology develops as your friend says it does, and he's at a high level of Silicon Valley.

GLENN: You know who he is.

STU: Yeah, and if that develops that way, unimpeded, you're going to be able to make anyone say anything. And you're not going to be able to defend yourself.

GLENN: And what's frightening is the damage that is done -- imagine, you want to start World War III. You can start it. You can absolutely start it.

You want to start Civil War, show Donald Trump meeting with Vladimir Putin and -- and show him doing all kinds of wicked plans against the United States. You would have a civil war. Neither of them were in the room, that's not true. What's frightening is not what comes in ten years, but how perfected this technology may be at this point, where before everybody has it in their hands. Once everybody has it in their hands -- but until everybody recognizes that this stuff is true and exists, it's just then a conspiracy theory. And how many people will be wronged or jailed or killed? How many wars will be started? How many things will collapse because it was used and people don't know that we have that technology? Holy cow.

STU: I for one believe AI is responsible for turning the freaking frogs gay. I don't know if that's true. But that's what I believe.

GLENN: No, I don't think that is true.

STU: Oh, no, that was chemicals in the water. But who knows. All I know is the frogs, they're gay. I'll say that.

GLENN: I don't -- I definitely don't think they are. How do you know?

STU: They're totally gay frogs.

GLENN: Have you been to their clubs?

STU: Yeah, they're kind of enjoyable, to be honest.

'The Handmaid's Tale' got it right, just with the wrong religion

Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images

Just in case The Handmaid's Tale's heavy-handed message wasn't already heavy-handed enough, a recent episode made it clear there's always room for further hysteria. Particularly, in relation to depictions of a “patriarchal society" run by Christian doctrine and determined by men — oh those dastardly men.

RELATED: Christian privilege is the new white privilege

The show appropriates Margaret Atwood of the same name, depicting a totalitarian society led by Christian doctrine in which women's bodies are controlled, and they have no rights. The story sounds familiar, but not in the same way Atwood and the show's creators have so smugly assumed.

Just as tone-deaf as 4th wave feminism itself, and tone-deaf in all the exact same places. Most notably, the show's heavy-handed indignation toward Christianity. Toward the patriarchy. Toward conservatives and traditional values. And just like 4th wave feminism, the show completely overlooks the irony at play. Because there is a part of the world where women and children are being raped and mutilated. In fact, in this very real place, the women or girls are often imprisoned, even executed, for being raped, and they are mutilated in unspeakable ways.

Theirs is a cruel, bloody, colorless life.

There is a place, a very real place, where women are forced to cover their entire bodies with giant tarp-like blankets, which is all the more brutal given the endless heat of this place. There is a place where women literally have one-third of the rights of men, a place where women are legally, socially and culturally worth less than men.

They cannot drive cars. They cannot be outside alone. They cannot divorce, they cannot even choose who they marry and often, they are forcibly married at a young age.

They are raped. A lot. Theirs is a cruel, bloody, colorless life. This is the life of tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of women. And, I'll tell you, their religion isn't Christianity.

Science did it again. It only took 270 million years, but this week, scientists finally solved the mystery that has kept the world up at night. We finally know where octopuses come from: outer space. That explains why they look like the aliens in just about every alien movie ever made.

RELATED: Changes in technology can be cause for concern, but THIS is amazing

It turns out octopuses were aliens that evolved on another planet. Scientists haven't determined which one yet, but they've definitely narrowed it down to one of the planets in one of the galaxies. Hundreds of millions of years ago (give or take a hundred), these evolved octopus aliens arrived on Earth in the form of cryopreserved eggs. Now, this part is just speculation, but it's possible their alien planet was on the verge of destruction, so Mom and Dad Octopus self-sacrificially placed Junior in one of these cryopreserved eggs and blasted him off the planet to save their kind.

This alien-octopus research, co-authored by a group of 33 scientists, was published in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal. I'm sure you keep that on your nightstand like I do.

Anyway, these scientists say octopuses evolved very rapidly over 270 million years. Which sounds slow, but in evolutionary terms, 270 million years is like light speed. And the only explanation for their breakneck evolution is that they're aliens. The report says, “The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes — more than is present in Homo sapiens."

Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

They mention that the octopus' large brain, sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies and ability to change color and shape all point to its alien nature. Octopuses developed those capabilities rather suddenly in evolution, whereas we're still trying to figure out the TV remote.

These biological enhancements are so far ahead of regular evolution that the octopuses must have either time-traveled from the future, or “more realistically" according to scientists, crash-landed on earth in those cryopreserved egg thingies. The report says the eggs arrived here in “icy bolides." I had to look up what a “bolide" is, and turns out it's a fancy word for a meteor.

So, to recap: a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, an alien race of octopuses packed their sperm-bank samples in some meteors and shot them toward Earth. Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

President Trump's approval rating is rising, and Democrats — hilariously — can't seem to figure out what's going on. A few months ago Democrats enjoyed a sixteen point lead over Republicans, but now — according to CNN's recent national survey — that lead is down to just THREE points. National data from Reuters shows it as being even worse.

The Democratic advantage moving towards the halfway mark into 2018 shows that Republicans are only ONE point behind. The president's public approval rating is rising, and Democrats are nervously looking at each other like… “umm guys, what are we doing wrong here?"

I'm going to give Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi a little hint. We know that the Left has enjoyed a “special relationship" with the media, but they might want to have a sit down with their propaganda machine. The mainstream media is completely out of control, and Americans are sick of it. We're DONE with the media.

RELATED: The mainstream media wants you to believe Trump is waging war on immigrants — here's the truth

Look what has been going on just this week. The president called MS-13 gang members animals, but that's not the story the media jumped on. They thought it was more clickable to say that Trump was calling all immigrants animals instead. In the Middle East, the media rushed to vilify Israel instead of Hamas. They chose to defend a terror organization rather than one of our oldest allies.

Think about that. The media is so anti-Trump that they've chosen a violent street gang AND A GLOBAL TERROR ORGANIZATION as their torch-bearing heroes. Come on, Democrats. Are you seriously baffled why the American people are turning their backs on you?

Still not enough evidence? Here's the New York Times just yesterday. Charles Blow wrote a piece called "A Blue Wave of Moral Restoration" where he tried to make the case that the president and Republicans were the enemy, but — fear not — Democrat morality was here to save the day.

Here are some of these cases Blow tries to make for why Trump is unfit to be President:

No person who treats women the way Trump does and brags on tape about sexually assaulting them should be president.

Ok, fine. You can make that argument if you want to, but why weren't you making this same argument for Bill Clinton? Never mind, I actually know the reason. Because you were too busy trying to bury the Juanita Broaddrick story.

Let's move on:

No person who has demonstrated himself to be a pathological liar should be president.

Do the words, “You can keep your doctor" mean anything to the New York Times or Charles Blow? I might have saved the best for last:

No person enveloped by a cloud of corruption should be president.

I can only think of three words for a response to this: Hillary Frigging Clinton.

Try displaying a little consistency.

If the media really wants Donald Trump gone and the Democrats to take over, they might want to try displaying a little consistency. But hey, maybe that's just too much to ask.

How about starting with not glorifying terrorist organizations and murderous street gangs. Could we at least begin there?

If not… good luck in the midterms.

In the weeks following President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the mainstream media was quick to criticize the president's pro-Israel stance and make dire predictions of violent backlash in the Middle East. Fast forward to this week's opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem and the simultaneous Palestinian “protests" in Gaza.

RELATED: Just another day in Iran: Parliment chants death to America after Trump pulls out of nuclear deal

Predictably, the mainstream media chastised Israel for what they called “state-sanctioned terrorism" when the IDF stepped in to protect their country from so-called peaceful Palestinian protesters. Hamas leaders later admitted that at least 50 of the 62 Palestinians killed in the clashes were Hamas terrorists.

“In our post-modern media age, there is no truth and nobody even seems to be looking for it …. This is shamefully clear in the media especially this week with their coverage of the conflict between the border of Israel and the Gaza strip," said Glenn on today's show. He added, “The main media narrative this week is about how the IDF is just killing innocent protesters, while Hamas officials have confirmed on TV that 50 of the 62 people killed were working for Hamas."

The mainstream media views the Palestinians as the oppressed people who just want to share the land and peacefully coexist with the people of Israel. “They can't seem to comprehend that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only one side is actively trying to destroy the other," surmised Glenn.

Watch the video above to hear Glenn debunk the “peaceful Palestinian protest" fallacy.