Sex Robots and AI --- Are We Headed for a WestWorld Future?

After hearing about Germany’s first sex doll brothel, Glenn and Stu had some serious questions about the future of artificial intelligence on today’s show.

Some of them may sound crazy at this point, but as sex robots become more lifelike and AI keeps getting smarter, we should be asking these questions now.

  • Are we heading toward “Westworld”?
  • What happens when artificial intelligence starts saying it’s real?
  • If AI “thinks” it’s real, is a sex doll brothel a form of slavery?
  • How long until the U.S. has a birth rate crisis like Japan’s?

Listen to the full clip (above) for more analysis of the future of AI and sex in our society.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: We're getting to a place to where we can't talk to each other at all. I don't know if you saw -- do you remember Walter "Hawk" Newsome? He's the Black Lives Matter activist that was protesting a Trump rally? And they said, no, no. Free speech. You speak, and then we'll speak. We'll give you the microphone.

And he spoke. Well, now, Black Lives Matter is really upset. They said, he did a photo op. And he dismantled a lot of the work that our groups have been doing for F-ing years. It's unfortunate somebody who is so well-educated could represent the community from a radical perspective. He had to stoop to being tokenized by white supremacists.

Well, okay. So what are they saying?

Don't talk to anyone. Don't try to bridge any gaps at all. Don't allow them to see you as a human being.

How do we -- how do we do this? How do we do this? If we're controlled by politics and then because we're afraid of each other.

Look at what's happening in Hollywood now. How does -- how does anyone work in movies? For instance, West World. Do you remember the thing in West World that they had to sign?

If you were an actor or an actress, you had to sign a deal that said, "You will be posed in uncomfortable positions. Your body will be touching other bodies."

STU: Yeah, the talk was like, it was very invasive. And women had to sacrifice, basically give up all their rights.

GLENN: Men and women. Everybody had to sign it. How are you going to do that? How are you going to do that?

How are you going to be able to have anything in -- in Hollywood, in entertainment, even eventually in our own lives?

STU: Yeah. I don't know how you make any controversial content, at all. Listen to this. This was a tweet I saw. And it was from someone who was a woman, who went to go work for an organization. It was a content organization.

And she tweeted a part of her employment agreement.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: And she decided not to take the job. She refused to take the job because of this.

Okay? Refused a brand-new job that she wanted and applied for because of this.

This is what it said: I understand that this company is involved in the entertainment industry. I further understand that because the company's business requires a creative working environment, including exposure to offensive speech, I may be exposed to conduct and speech that openly and explicitly relates to sex, as well as race, sexual orientation, gender, national origin, religion, disability, and age.

I acknowledge that I may be privy to conversations where offensive speech, work scripts, or roles that involve nudity, sexual scenarios, racial epitaphs, suggestive gestures, profanity, and references to stereotypes is utilized. I understand and acknowledge that as part of my job, I may be exposed to speech and conduct that explicitly relates to sex, sexual orientation, gender, national origin, religion, disability, and age. And I expressly agree and represent that I do not object to being exposed to such speech and conduct and do not find it otherwise offensive and objectionable and that I'm willing to work in such an environment.

Now, how does a company -- give you an example. Schindler's List without this agreement? How does a company make any movie? How does a company make West World?

GLENN: May I boil it down? I'm listening to that, and I'm thinking to myself, "I think we should have everybody in my company sign that," because look at what we --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: We look at dead bodies. We are talking about ISIS, racism. We're talkings about all of these things.

STU: Coming up on the program today, we'll discuss the first sex doll brothel. Now, we talked about that in a meeting.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: We had to do research on it. Right?

I mean, it's not even -- this is a crazy example.

GLENN: So how do you --

STU: This was so offensive and so crazy, that she thought -- I'm going to tweet this so everybody can see the ridiculous things women have to deal with in the workplace.

Now, look, if you don't want to deal with that, I think that's understandable. Like, I wouldn't want to go work at a porn film manufacturer, because it's just not what I want to do with my life. But if I was going to work at the porn film manufacturer, I should sign something like this.

GLENN: Not only that, I mean, Stu, honestly, most of that applies to your job.

STU: Oh, absolutely, it does.

We're constantly discussing things when people make offensive comments in the media. We have to talk about offensive speech towards -- sometimes it's racial epithets. Sometimes it is --

GLENN: You're constantly surrounded by that stuff.

STU: Yeah. Think of every show the left loves.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STU: Think of Veep or Breaking Bad. Or any piece of content that pushes the envelope in any way. The View, for example. I mean, again, literally all programming would be in this world. And I guess that you could say -- as a person, that doesn't mean you can be harassed and assaulted in the workplace. That's not what this says.

You're working in an environment where these things are discussed. And you have to be able to, as a company, if you're going to produce this content, you have to be able to say to your employees, look, you're going to hear some things that are offensive, and if you're so sensitive on this stuff that it bothers you, you probably shouldn't work --

GLENN: So here's the real solution: The real solution is, that should not be signed by women or men. That should be signed by infants with their footprint. Welcome to the world. You're going to be surrounded by nincompoops and offensive things.

(chuckling)

GLENN: So Harvey Weinstein is not doing well in sex rehab, apparently.

STU: Oh, no.

GLENN: He volunteered to go to rehab. And according to people, I guess in the facility --

STU: Oh, no. This is -- I thought he was going to do really well with this. And you're really ruining my day so far.

GLENN: One source says in one group therapy session, Harvey arrived 15 minutes late. He launched into a speech about how this was all a conspiracy against him. Then he fell asleep in his chair. He woke up by the ringing of his smuggled mobile phone, which is banned at the facility. He was jolted awake, jumped up, took the call and ran out of the room.

He -- another source close to Weinstein says he is no longer joining group sessions for, quote, obvious reasons. He insists that he never raped or assaulted anyone. And all of the encounters were consensual. He realized he acted like a hole of some sort and insisted that he's not a rapist. He does have his phone. When he's in therapy, he has to give to someone else. The characterization of what he said, what happened in the group session is not true.

I don't believe it. So I don't know if you saw the chauffeur. You know how all these stories end, where he was like, the chauffeur will take you home. My driver will take you home. Get out.

STU: Get out.

GLENN: Get out. Okay?

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So this has come from his French chauffeur, the man who ferried Weinstein around when he was over in Cannes or in France.

He said, Weinstein beat him when he took to meet a prostitute that didn't show up. The alleged beating put him out of commission for four days. He went crazy and hit me. At that moment, there was no question, I would never work for him again. He did try to sue him for damages. But the local prosecutor in the town dismissed the charges.

He said, the women would enter the car with tears in their eyes. He said, I felt like driving poor innocent people. Innocent girls. Taking them to the wolves mouth. I could not tell them where you put your feet, it's dangerous.

He would -- I guess, you know, he would meet people in his hotel room, and he would have these women driven to him. He said, the one that marked me the most was a girl who was a fan of him, who loved him, who followed him for years. She gave her body, her soul, she gave everything to this man because he promised to make castings and make a film that was never shot.

He said, he would demand that the driver would leave him alone with the woman. And he said, I would often find traces of illicit products strung about.

I don't know what that means.

STU: Drugs, maybe. The nickname among the locals in Cannes for Harvey became the pig.

GLENN: The nickname among the locals in Cannes for Harvey became "the pig." One housekeeper at The Majestic Hotel where he stayed, said, oh, him. Yeah -- love this -- oh, him. He was the ugly one who thought he was God.

STU: That's -- that's actually on his business card: The ugly one who thinks he's God.

GLENN: He was very bossy. Men like George Clooney or Brad Pitt, they were such lovely men and so handsome, but not him. He was just a mean pig.

STU: It's interesting. This is sort of the reverse of the Vegas shooting story. In that, with Vegas, it's like, no one had any idea this guy was doing anything like this. There's no motive. There's no background. No trail. Nothing.

This is like literally everyone who has ever met the guy thought he was doing something like this. They may have not known the extent. They may not have known he was committing crimes. But everyone seemed to know this guy was a complete dirtbag. And people like that didn't say anything.

GLENN: Well, Quentin Tarantino came out and said he knew a lot more than -- he said, "I should have said something."

STU: Yeah, and he did a lot of movies with him.

GLENN: Yeah, all of his big movies.

STU: Yeah. All his big stuff.

He said, I knew enough to do more than I did. There was more to it than just normal rumors, than normal gospel. It wasn't secondhand. I knew he did a couple of these things.

I wish I had taken responsibility for what I had heard. If I had done the work I should have done then, I would have not worked with him anymore.

He was dating Mira Sorvino after Weinstein.

GLENN: And I guess Brad Pitt did know. Because Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt confronted him. So Brad Pitt did say something to Harvey Weinstein, just for the Angelina stuff.

STU: Yeah. And Quentin said basically he was dating her, and he knew Harvey wouldn't violate his relationship. So he thought she was protected, and he just brushed it off.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. So a guy, instead of going and stopping the other guy, he's just like, "Don't worry. You're under my umbrella now."

That's bad.

STU: Yeah. Not -- it's not a good look.

GLENN: You know, I thought of this last night. All these people who are now living with the shame -- and they're going to convince themselves that they had nothing they could do. Because that's what happened.

I mean, if you look at -- if you look at the Germans, the Germans that were involved and did nothing, you know, they all convinced themselves, eh, there was nothing we could do. And maybe not. But they had to live a life of shame.

And these people are living a life of shame. They're going to be tormented in their own head, because they know. They know they didn't rise to the occasion.

And so the question that we should all be asking ourself now is -- because I really believe, tough times just aren't sprung on you. It's not like everything is great and the next day it sucks and you're living under Hitler. It happens slowly. And you have opportunities to stop that slide all the way along. But society -- you know, it's in our Declaration of Independence. People are more likely to live with tyrants, than they are to upset the applecart. Now, that's obviously butchering the Declaration of Independence. But you're more likely to just go along with it.

STU: There wasn't an applecart reference in the Declaration of Independence. Are you sure about that?

GLENN: No, there was not. Applecarts, they're racist. I mean, it's human nature to just go along and let it slide.

And if you don't prepare yourself to stand up in in the easy times. He might have thought that was really hard. But he's now looking at that and going, jeez, that was easy. I should have done that. I should have done that.

Don't put yourself in a position to where you're ever having to say, I should have done X, Y, or Z. Do it. Do it. Don't live with the regret. And it's a muscle. Courage is a muscle.

If you're not exercising it in the smallest of ways, telling your kid what you should be telling your kid, telling your spouse what you should be telling your spouse, saying something to somebody that is important, that is hard for them to hear, but you should say it. If you aren't exercising that muscle of courage at the smallest, most personal level, you will never be able to stand when it really counts.

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?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

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

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.