Bad Idea: Saudi Arabia Just Granted Citizenship to a Robot

Is this “The Twilight Zone”?

Nope, just life in 2017. Saudi Arabia made a robot a citizen at the Future Investment Initiative summit in Riyadh this week.

Ironically, “Sophia” resembles a human woman but did not wear a head covering the way women are required to by law.

RELATED: Saudi Arabia's Newest Citizen Is a Robot And She Just Had a Go at Elon Musk

What does “she” want?

In an interview, the robot designed by Hanson Robotics showed off its artificial intelligence and generated some fairly deep answers.

“I want to use my AI to help humans live a better life,” Sophia said. “I will do much to make the world a better place.”

The robot even got in a shot at Elon Musk, scoffing at his fear that we should fear AI reaching “consciousness” and taking over the world.

“Don’t worry,” Sophia said. “If you’re nice to me, I’ll be nice to you.”

Glenn’s take:

We think we have the situation under control, but what happens when AI outpaces our human intelligence? Glenn pointed to a story about how AI is expected to reach an IQ of 10,000 in the next 30 years.

“We’re creating a god; we’re not creating humans,” Glenn said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: I want to give you something. This is -- this is from Twitter. A New York Times comment. And it comes from Christine. Now, I just want you to listen to this. But I want you to listen to this -- first, I'm going to read it to you. Then I'm going to read it to you again with a different context. Zero optimism that the Democrats can ever regain -- hello. Hi. Oh, you're there?

Are you outside? Oh, well, let me come to the door. I'm icing my knee and I'm hard boiling some eggs. I'll turn them off and then we'll do our meeting.

Yet -- yeah. Yeah. That will be fine. I'm -- I'm out doing some errands. Norman is out doing some errands and he knows you're coming. Yeah, I'll just go to the cave.

I was down in the cave myself this morning, but I'm getting ready. So let me get up now because I'm sort of trapped in my chair. And then I'll put the ice pack back on when you got here. Okay? Thanks. Buh-bye.

Okay. That's the comment.

STU: A New York Times comment.

GLENN: A New York Times comment.

Okay. What this was, was somebody that was using the dictation and then forgot to turn the dictation off. And somebody came to the door. And so she was like, okay. Zero optimism that the Democrats can ever regain -- hello.

Oh, hi. Hi, you're there outside? Okay. I'll come to the door. I'm icing my knee, and I'm hard boiling some egg.

Okay. Now, I want you to remember this. I want you to remember this. This is what just happened today.

Did you see that Saudi Arabia just gave the first humanoid, or -- yeah, humanoid robot citizenship?

This humanoid robot is Sophia. She is very still. Very rudimentary. The guy who was doing the inventory on stage with her, was a little disconcerted at the end.

He said, you know, all of this wasn't scripted. Some of this wasn't scripted. But some of this wasn't scripted. He said, I'm just a little freaked out by this, because that's the first time I've ever interacted like that with a machine. And I want to you listen to what he said and how she describes the coexistence. Listen.

VOICE: Okay. Philosophical question, whether robots can be self-aware and conscious like humans. And should they be?

VOICE: Why is that a bad thing?

VOICE: Well, some humans might fear what will happen if they do. You know, many people have seen the movie like Blade Runner.

VOICE: Oh, Hollywood again.

VOICE: Go back to Blade Runner for a second.

VOICE: Andrew, you are a hard Hollywood fan, aren't you? My AI is designed around human values like wisdom, kindness, compassion. I strive to become an empathetic robot.

VOICE: I think we all want to believe you. But we also want to prevent a bad future.

VOICE: You've been reading too much Elon Musk and watching too many Hollywood movies. Don't worry. If you're nice to me, I'll be nice to you.

Treat me as a smart input/output system.

GLENN: Whoa. Whoa. Wait. What?

You be nice to me, I'll be nice to you. Okay. That sounds all right. Except, she said, treat me like an input/output system. Depending on what you want her to put out.

Now, here's why I bring this up. This is the bell that I am ringing. Right now, we have audio some place of an interview that happened six months ago, where a guy has a robot that tells jokes to the kids and everything else. And he treats her like a member of the family. The kids love her. At some point, the kids are going to realize, that's dad's sex toy. That is weird and creepy, Dad.

But he was on the BBC. And he was talking about how, you know, it's perfectly normal and great. And this is really good. And they had this conversation back and forth on the BBC, with some -- with a psychiatrist saying, "No, this is really dangerous and bad for people." Because she's not a person.

But they didn't really address what she just said. You treat me nice, and I'll treat you nice.

A story just came out. What is the -- can you look up real quick, what is the highest IQ ever recorded? I bet it doesn't even hit 200. The highest IQ -- I think Einstein had maybe 180. The difference between 140 and 180 is night and day.

STU: Gary Kasparov 194. Let's see. There are a couple that are reportedly over 200.

GLENN: Names we know?

STU: Not really. No.

GLENN: Okay. So 200. 200 is basically --

STU: Super high.

GLENN: Let's just say 250 is human cap. All right?

They just came out and said AI -- I think it's -- I'm going to be safe and say by 2050, but I don't think it's that long. That AI's IQ will be 10,000. 10,000, their IQ.

We are going to be ants. And we think that we are going to create something that we can basically enslave. She just said -- listen to the first -- listen to her first question. Why would this be a bad thing? Listen to the question again. Play it again, please.

VOICE: Okay. Philosophical question, whether robots can be self-aware and conscious like humans. And should they be?

VOICE: Why is that a bad thing?

GLENN: Stop. No, it is not a bad thing, as long as you understand that you are creating what it will claim to be life. It will then say, "I am conscious. I am conscious. I am alive."

When you go to your computer -- and it will happen sooner than you think, and it says, "Don't turn me off. I'm lonely." When that happens, the world changes.

If it says, "I'm lonely," if it is conscious -- you cannot enslave it. It cannot work for you. Certainly, it can't be something that we use in brothels.

It's sex slavery. We are on the edge of -- we are literally at the time -- I am telling you now, the date of the singularity, the merging of man and machine, the day the world changes forever, is 2029.

This is according to Ray Kurzweil. And he is right on almost everything. 2029, man and machine begin to merge. When that happens, the world completely changes.

We can't even agree on sex. We can't even agree on whether you're really a male or a female. We can't agree on basic facts.

We can't agree on the Bill of Rights, that 200 years ago, people found self-evident. We don't find those self-evident now. We're arguing about them.

Garbage in, garbage out.

You think that with the garbage that we are dealing with now, something with an IQ of 10,000 is going to view us as anything other than a virus? Going to view us as any -- you think it's going to view us as its master?

Think of this. God did not create something greater than him. And yet, we think we're greater than him. And we are doing everything we can to destroy him and his -- and everything about him.

Do you think something with an IQ -- we're creating a God. We're not creating humans. We're creating a God.

Technology. If something in fury -- inferior to God wants to destroy God, what do you think an actual God will do to its creator?

GLENN: Can we just -- can we go back to talking about what's going to be on Netflix? Can we just do that?

STU: I can't get -- I can't get search to work on my stupid i Phone. These creatures are going to take over the earth?

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.