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.

Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?