RADIOMarch 15, 2025

Glenn Beck SLAMS Krugman: Chinese Slave Labor Over US Jobs?!

Glenn tears into economist Paul Krugman’s recent Substack article, “Making Sweatshops Great Again,” which laments Donald Trump’s plan to bring manufacturing back to the United States. Of course, we should manufacture things like computer chips in the US, as Krugman insists. But what’s wrong with bringing sneaker and textile manufacturing back? Would Krugman rather child slaves in China continue making them?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Paul Krugman writes, on Manhattan's Seventh Avenue near the corner of 39th Street, there's a larger than life statue of a garment worker, a man wearing a skull cap, hunched over a sewing machine. The statue is a tribute to the locale's history.

It stands in the middle of what's still called the Garment District! After all, in 1950, New York's apparel industry employed 340,000 workers, but that industry is gone now. Not just from midtown Manhattan, but from the United States as a whole!

Having moved to low wage countries, like China, and increasingly Bangladesh. No serious person mourns the off-shoring of the apparel employment.

I do! As someone who would like to wear American clothing, who has tried to help save the Cohen denim company, which made the best denim in the world. They're out. You know why? Can't afford to make it here. You know why? Because we offshored everything. You know why? Because we're stupid, that's why. So I actually do mourn that, but I don't really count in Paul's world, but I digress. For a poor nation like Bangladesh, apparel jobs are a big step up from the alternatives. Even in our heyday, mostly, it only employed immigrants, who despite being represented by powerful unions were paid low wages.

And often faced harsh working conditions. Oh. Wait a minute.

So wait a minute. Let me see if I can get this right. What about your insistence of keeping people here, because they will work for low-paying jobs. You remember jobs Americans won't do. So are you now saying, we will want to get rid of all those low-paying jobs that all Americans won't do? I mean, I'm not with you, Paul.

I'm just trying to understand your reasoning here. I mean, have you changed your mind on that? Is there no one in America that would gladly take a sewing job over scrubbing toilets in a hotel?

Nobody. As I said, no serious person wants the apparel industry to come back. Again, but Donald Trump's economic team aren't serious people.

This come from the biggest clown of my lifetime. Last week, Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary went on CNBC to explain that Trump's tariffs will bring back US production of T-shirts and sneakers and towels.

The host just started laughing at him, because we know when we all know better than he does. And there's no reason to believe that he -- he or his boss think this was a joke. And their nostalgia for industries in the past, seems to be matched by surprising hostility towards the industries of the future.

Oh, okay. All right. Now, we're starting to get good. Again, our hard-working dishwashers. Fruit pickers. Lawn maintenance. Or service style jobs. For people just like you, Paul, that will hire people at a lower wage because they're illegal, and you can get away with anything that you want.

Oops. I mean, you can help them achieve the American dream. Are these jobs nostalgic?

Because with the onset of AI in the next few years, I think they are! But wait. I'm hostile towards AI?

I'm confused, but Krugman goes on.

Now the Trumpiest view of international trade pretty much begins and ends with a view that whenever Americans buy something made abroad, no matter how much cheaper it is, it may be to import a good, rather than try to produce it domestically. And that's a win for foreigners and a loss for America.

No. Paul!

God, you're stupid.

Products that are more inexpensive. Or that are inexpensive, are always a win for Americans. Always. Unless it completely guts our ability as a country to stand on our own.

Also, why should we give so much money to the biggest slave owner country the world has ever known?

Message to you progressives, America is not so bad. Compared to what China is doing currently!

Now, instead of standing up to them, you know, we -- we just want to be independent, so we can!

And I would like to live without the slave labor of some of these countries.

You know, if we're making sneakers here in the US, at least it wouldn't be a line full of children, spraying, you know, led paint on Nike shoes, like it's most likely happening away from our shores. But I digress. Again, by shipping our jobs to China, Paul. Buying our i Phone and socks from China. Are you not doing the same things the elites like you did before and during and even after the Civil War? Well, it will hurt the economy!

We've got -- jobs here in America on our American assembly lines actually allow people to afford college for the next generation or even themselves, to better their stations. Even though you have done everything you can to destroy our universities through your horrible progressive ideas.

And, you know, through government subsidies that you have raised the cost of college.

You know, since we got into the business of getting loans for colleges, guaranteeing those loans. In 1963, tuition was an adjusted -- inflation adjusted $2,487. Now it's almost $10,000. That's an increase of 292 percent. Four times the cost, in real dollars, that was in 1963!

What happened? What changed?

What changed?

He continues. I mean, Trump has slapped high tariffs on Canadian aluminum, which is cheap, because smelting uses a lot of electricity. And Canada has a lot of abundant hydropower, and aluminum is important for US manufacturing. Yet, Trump somehow thinks Canada is exploiting us, by offering us a key industrial import at a good price.

But back to T-shirts and sneakers. We definitely shouldn't be making those for ourselves.

But what should we be making instead?

Well, here's what we are going to be making, Paul. Nothing. We're not going to make anything.

Unless, we have a hard-working, well-educated, motivated workforce, with cheap energy, and the cutting of crazy regulation. In which companies can afford to grow and build.

And want to come here. Because we have the best conditions. And the best labor. And the cheapest energy.

That's what made America, America.

But what you have done, you have killed the well-educated with your support of the teachers unions. And everybody else controlling EDU. You want an example. Just check what you were saying, while our children were out of school, during COVID. Because of your support.

You know, next thing that you cut was the motivated by advocating for higher taxes. More red tape. Plus, out of control labor unions.

You know, where the lazy and the corrupt, they think can't be fired. Can't be fired. You killed motivation.

Well-educated. You killed that one. The motivated, you killed that one. You killed that one. Because not only the red tape. But with DEI and ESG, and CRT programs. You also teach everybody, you'll never make it without us. Why try?

You've killed everything. And do I need to even remind you of your anti-cheap energy lectures? And you love the growth. Energy regulation. Because, oh, my gosh, we have to get rid of our -- we have to get rid of our hydroelectric power here. And take those dams down. Because that's so colonial.

Oh, my gosh.

I can't take this guy. What free trade purist would answer, whatever the market decides, let private firms decide what's profitable in America. And even if you're not a free trade purist. You have to admit the government doesn't have a great record of picking winners.

Oh, my gosh, have you just admitted this out loud, without even knowing this? Your support for the Green New Deal!

Your support for things like, I don't know, Solyndra. Did I miss an op-ed, where you're like, boy, that was a mistake?

Yet I, like many economists, have come around to The View. Listen to this one. This is his big announcement. That maybe we should engage in a limited amount of industrial policy, using subsidies.

Oh, wow!

Paul, the heavens have opened up for you.

You have finally come around to the idea of government subsidies. How refreshing from you.

What a shock. What an unbelievable turnaround for you. You mean to tell me, you've gone from a supporter of the public private partnerships. The green nigh deal that just funds entire sectors.

Big government programs.

To now somebody who can -- who can finally embrace the idea of government bailing out failures.

Wow!

Making partners with private corporations. With our government using the little guy's tax dollars, to give to the billion dollar companies.

Money from the average person. The average working man and woman. Right to the billionaire. Wow, you have come so far, Paul!

You really have!

Good for you. You know, there are two big reasons. Limited industrial policies, back in vogue.

That word isn't even in vogue.

One is that it's become increasingly clear that there are important positive spillovers, between technology firms, Silicon Valley is now more than the sum of the individual companies, located in south of San Francisco.

It's kind of an industrial ecosystem of shared services. A pool of skilled workers. And an exchange of knowledge!

Oh! Paul, you mean like every other industry, somehow?

But this one is different?

I mean, other than Silicon Valley being originally funded by the DOD, CIA, and the federal government, how is this different?

You know, again, other than it was the greatest concentration of wealth, perhaps ever in the history of man.

Think of that. Silicon Valley, probably the greatest collection of wealth in the history of all mankind, we've got to get the government in there to help those poor, starving billionaires.

The -- aren't these the titans. The billionaires. Are they somehow different than the titan and billionaires that have to pay their fair share.

And who are unelected fascists like Elon Musk.

I mean, I'm so confused, Paul.

Are you now admitting that Elon Musk alone is capable of creating, quote, an industrial ecosystem of shared services? A pool of skilled workers. And with his willingness and action, not to patent technology. But to release it. To help the planet.

Is he an important force, that for an exchange of knowledge, it -- wouldn't he be one of those?

If we want America to be competitive and high-tech, we need government policies to encourage the formation of these industrial ecosystems. In other grimmer reasons, we need industrial policy because of geopolitics.

Circa 2010. Listen to this. Circa 2010. No, not many people worried about how much of the world's production of advanced semiconductors, which are now crucial to almost everything, was concentrated in Taiwan. No, Paul!

You weren't! In 2010, you couldn't see over the horizon. You know that quote from Paul Krugman, that you gave me earlier? About the internet.

I mean, you were the one that wasn't concerned about semiconductors and high-powered chips.

STU: 1998. The growth of the internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in Metcalf's law, which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the squared number of participants becomes apparent.

Most people have nothing to say to each other. By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machines. That's so good.

GLENN: Well, forget about that.

Now we know the age of large-scale warfare isn't over! And it's dangerous to rely on crucial products and industrial clusters easily threatened by potential adversaries. That -- just that paragraph.

Just that paragraph -- just that, Paul, proves everything else you've said in your stupid op-ed, to be absolutely the opposite.

Or may I just say, duh!

And duh! These realizations lay behind one of the Biden administrations two major pieces of industrial policy legislation. The Chips and Science Act, designed to encourage production, unlike the Inflation Reduction Act, which sought to use industrial policy to fight climate change! Climate change.

The Chips Act has had a substantial bipartisan support. Yeah, it did. It did. As did slavery in the 1800s. As did the rounding of the Japanese under another progressive president.

In fact, wow. So did men can actually be women? Just a couple of years ago. It doesn't make it true, Paul. Even though in an era of intense partisanship, a significant number of Republicans were willing to back the effort, but during his speech to Congress last week, Trump veered off into a demand that Congress would repeal that act.

It's not clear what he has against the Chips Act. Although, according to the New York Times, many semi conductor companies attribute his hostility simply to personal animus to former President Biden.

Yeah. You can't think of another thing, that might make him against the Chip Act.

It's weird, Paul.

I went to an expert, I trust more than you. Grok!

And asked it, besides personal animus, why might the president be against the Chips Act? I'll share that answer with you, Paul.

I can't figure out, other than his personal animus against former President Biden, why he would be against the Chips Act. Uh-huh.

Thank you, Paul Krugman. So I just went to Grok, and I said, is there another reason besides personal animus, that President Trump might be against the Chips Act?

Here's what Grok told me today. Cost, and perceived wastefulness.

Trump has described that the Chips Act is a horrible, horrible thing, that involves giving hundreds of billions of dollars to companies without sufficient return.

From this perspective, he might view the $52.7 billion in subsidies, plus additional lending authority. As an inefficient use of taxpayer money.

If his goal is to save America, he could argue these funds might be better directed elsewhere.

Two, preference over tariffs for subsidies. Trump has constantly advocated for tariffs as a tool to incentive domestic manufacturing, claiming they could achieve the same outcome as the Chips Act, bringing the semiconductor to the United States without the government spending any tax dollars.

Let me point to Taiwan's semiconductor manufacturing company. Increasing its US investment. As evidence that these tariffs, or the threat of them are working.

From his viewpoint, this approach avoids handing out money to wealthy corporations. Aligning with a belief that market pressure is a more sustainable way to bolster American industry.

Three, skepticism of corporate giveaways. I don't know.

Paul, that sounds like something that you would say, as you're shipping your country -- right there, on the porch in your rocking chair. Thinking, I'm so smart!

How Trump Could REVOLUTIONIZE American Energy

With the AI race in full swing, America must face one of its biggest obstacles if we're going to beat adversaries like China: our current power grid, which hasn't been updated since FDR, is not sustainable. We need 99% power by 2027. We're at 3%. Of all energy usage, in the next three years, an additional 29 gigawatts will be needed by 2027, and 67 more gigawatts will be required by 2030. Glenn argues that this can only be done by building nuclear power plants. China is already ahead of us in power plant production, so we need to get the ball rolling: "This is something that Donald Trump could do. And it is time!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Tonight is an epic interview with the president at the White House. So don't -- don't miss it. I'm going to do that interview, later this afternoon. It will air 9:00 p.m. Eastern time. It will be unedited. And you will be able to see them.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's not like you're dealing with Joe Biden anymore.

No. Yeah. Because -- let's see what he says.

You know, I have a lot of things to talk about. Like one thing, that I would like to see, you know, that I don't -- I don't see anybody talking about.

You know, the president is changing the economy. He is changing -- he is getting away from this World War II nightmare.

That, you know, might have been right for 1948. But it's certainly not right for today. Where we were taking care of Europe. We were giving them all kinds of special breaks. We were paying for their defense. Yada, yada, yada.

Instead, now Americans take care of herself. And we all need to be self-sufficient. Well, you know, we're talking about AI a lot. But what people are not talking about is something that Eric Schmitt came to the White House -- sorry, to Capitol Hill and testified a couple of days ago, about the power usage. We have a significant problem with power. Now, I want you to understand.

Everyone will tell you, we cannot you lose the race for AI. Have you heard anyone say anything other than that? Stu.

STU: No. Anyone who talks about it. says, we can't just let China or someone else win it.

GLENN: It's 100 percent universal, we must, must win. Okay?

So where are we going to get all the power?

Here's what Eric said. Many people project demand for our industry go from 3 percent.

3 percent of total energy production. Right now.

We're at 3 percent.

For all of our server farms and everything else.

For Silicon Valley. Uses 3 percent.

He says, it's going to go from 3 percent to 99 percent!

Of all energy usage, in the next three years, an additional 29 gigawatts by 2027 and 67 more gigawatts by 2030.

He's now saying that we have to build hundreds of nuclear power plants.

He said, there were some plants. They will require, most plants will require one nuclear power plant, per server farm!

Some of them may require up to three nuclear power plants per server farm!

So this is really good in one way: Because we will have the electricity that we need. Assuming we start to build these things quickly. I mean, what's going to happen, Stu. It takes 25 years, to build a nuclear power plant. How is it we're expected at all to compete?

We have dismantled our coal-fired plants all over the country. We are still not digging up coal and -- and fuel, as much as we need to.

We need to be open and open on absolutely everything.

That's something that Eric Schmitt said yesterday too. Remember, this is the Silicon Valley guy. I'm sure he was green, green, green for a long time.

Now he's saying, we need absolutely every source of energy. Because we will need 99 percent by 2027.

2027.

What do you think -- what do you think your power price is going to be?

What do you think about rolling blackouts or brownouts?

We have got to be. And this would create so many jobs.

So many jobs. Good-paying jobs. Going out and building all these nuclear power plants.

STU: Is this an opportunity.

GLENN: But will we do it?

STU: For Trump and the Trump administration?

GLENN: Huge. Huge. Huge.

STU: Because it feels like talking about positives, going on offense, rather than being on defense. There's been a lot of defense talk lately.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: And going on offense and saying, hey, we can be the best place for your company to exist. Because we will be the only place on earth that has the power it needs.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

The only other country is doing it is China. And they're building it like crazy. This is something that we have -- Donald Trump could surpass FDR in power generation.

Remember, most people in 1919, Woodrow Wilson, I think 1 percent of the population had a refrigerator. By 1930, I think that number was like 80 percent. Had refrigeration.

When -- when FDR came in, the only places that didn't have stuff. Was there was no electricity in these small little rural towns. So he went. And he started building power plants and dams.

And everything else, to generate all the power. And then started laying power lines. This is something that Donald Trump could do. And it is time!

I mean, our grid hasn't really been updated since FDR.

We're still using the same stuff. And, you know -- and a lot of it is just so outdated. And so bad.

Our grid is so incredibly unstable. And not built for what's coming next.

And I just don't know how he's going to get it done. But this is a big win for him. Big win for him.

You know how many jobs would be created if we introduced and said, we have to build them, in the next three years?

We would be enormous!

Enormous!

And exciting!

STU: Yeah. Yeah. Exciting. I mean, look, having a power is the basis of civilization. Like, this is not a -- it's not a small little thing.

It really is one of the foundational elements you need for a modern civilization.

And we sit here. And we talk about all the things that we can't do.

All of the natural resources that we have. We can't utilize.

All the things that we need to stop.

Right? We need to stop making gas-powered cars.

We need to stop getting our own coal and using it.

We need to stop building nuclear plants. This is a way of saying, no. We're on offense.

We're America. You know, the left is trying to right now. They're in the middle of a rebrand.

And one of their -- as we talked about last hour. They're still seemingly stuck in a lot of these crazy woke stuff that burns them the last time. Hopefully, they stick with them forever.

One of the proposals being proposed bit left. It's this idea of abundance. That's the name of the book that kind of lays these concepts out.

And it's an idea of trying to take away what the right has always had. Which is this idea of saying, hey. We're looking to grow.

We want better things. We want the Americans to have a better, more fruitful. More wealthy.

More -- you know, having more. And we'll decide what we want to do, when we have more.

And the left was always saying, hey. No. We need to restrict. We need to calm that down. You don't need all this. You don't need the bigger house. You don't need the bigger car. And that's not the fundamental, number one thing you should care about. But it was always there for us to say, hey. All these shelves are stocked. Everything you need is right there. You make the decisions on what you want. You make the decisions on prioritize on what you will spend your money on. And what you will spend your time on. And the left is trying to take that back now. You're seeing an opportunity because of a lot of people on the right, who are saying, no. Actually, maybe we shouldn't have those things available. Maybe you don't need them. And I'm nervous. If they decide to go down this road, there is a real vulnerability to the conservative movement, if the left takes that away from us. And they want to.

GLENN: State it again, more succinctly. Your concern again?

STU: My concern is, and this is a real thing being talked about on the left. In sort of their higher level academic circles. Is the approach to say -- to take away, I don't know. It was a -- I would say, pretty consistent with that Reagan optimism. Right? The shining city on the hill.

GLENN: We can do it. We can do it.

STU: We can do it. We can accomplish all these incredible things. Not through government. Through you.

You can do it. We'll have all these things. And you should expect from your country, an abundance, not a scarcity.

GLENN: I'm trying to figure out, where are you seeing that on the left?

STU: There's a major best-seller that just came out, called abundance.

And it was from the left. It was from two guys on the left. And I don't know that they will win.

But, you know, Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson. They're pretty well-known.

GLENN: That's really hard. That's really hard to sell. Barack Obama -- I know. Look at Barack Obama. He has how many houses? Three. Where he's building a seawall around one of his houses, where you can't build a seawall in Hawaii. But he's building a seawall around one of them. That's his part-time house. His other part-time house is in Nantucket, one foot above sea level. One. Count them. One foot above sea level.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And he has a third house someplace else. I think it's here in Washington.

And he's always talking about, hey. You know, there comes a time where enough is enough.

And you have too much.

When is that, Barack?

Because you're telling us, you shouldn't have an SUV.

You have three houses!

See, this whole abundance thing has never been aimed at them!

It's always been aimed at us.

They believe in abundance.

STU: Sure.

GLENN: For the right people. The right people get it.

And that is the biggest difference in abundance, is they've been saying that we all have to pinch back, but they don't actually mean it. At least the Republicans are like, yeah, I'm corrupt as hell and making all kinds of money on the side. But you can't do.

You know what I mean? It's just crazy.

STU: Yeah. No. I agree. I think, look, they've never actually believed any of these things. What was their approach. Forever, we heard the approach of, hey.

Your TVs are too big. Your cars. They're too -- they have too much of what you need.

The SUVs are too large.

Your homes are too large. You don't need the air-conditioning. You should turn it to 72 degrees.

Now, I can bet you at neither Martha's Vineyard or in Hawaii. Barack Obama never had his house set to some uncomfortable temperature he didn't like.

GLENN: Well, he might have.

Because he's right on the ocean. You can get that lovely ocean breeze that most of us don't get.

STU: That's true. That's true.

It was always something they tried to implement on the people. We get what we want.

But you need to sacrifice, for the greater good. And that's -- that's a thing that just doesn't connect exactly, with the American people.

Not because they're not charitable. Because they are. They want to do good things for other people.

They will come together, and do incredible -- accomplish incredible things which they have done.

But it was always this idea that you would be able -- it was part of the American deal, right?

We do these things. We work hard. Maybe we work harder. Maybe we work more hours.

Maybe we put up with more crap. The idea that we can shape our own future. The left is trying to take that messaging back.

Now, I'm with you. In that, I'm not confident, that viewpoint will not win out on the left. Because there's a bunch of insane people.

But it is a vulnerability on the right if we go down this road of trying to encourage the same type of scarcity talk that the left has been engaging in.

GLENN: Okay. Okay.

So let's -- let's take that. Next hour, I want to tell you a story that fits right in here, on what the leftists are doing in San Francisco.

Because it's very similar to what you're talking about.

This morning, when I read it. I thought, that will never work.

But maybe you're right. Maybe it will.

I don't know. But it's insane.

We'll talk about that and so much more. Coming up.

Don't forget, President Trump, an interview tonight at 9:00 with President Trump and I.

Inside Trump’s Mind: Sneak Peek of Glenn’s Explosive White House Interview

President Donald Trump has made more progress than any other president, or many presidents combined in the first 100 days. Glenn is sitting down with the President for an exclusive 100 day interview, and they have a lot to discuss. President Trump has the opportunity to turn this country around and fix the damage done by the previous administration, but the clock is ticking. Glenn gives a sneak peek into what he and the President will discuss in his exclusive interview at the White House, including the economy, the power grid, and how critical it is that his presidency is a success.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: You've got, of course, your interview with the president of the United States. Going to be airing tonight.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: On Blaze TV. BlazeTV.com/Glenn. By the way.

Promo code Glenn. If you would like to join Blaze TV, and save 20 bucks.

You have kind of an approach here? At this point? Do you know what you will ask him?

GLENN: Had to.

I mean, I do. I've got pages and pages of questions and notes.

But now I have to -- you know, it will take me an hour or two, just to whittle it down to the questions I think I can get in.

You know, I've got 45 minutes or an hour with the president. And that's from the moment he walks in, to the moment he leaves.

So you don't have a lot of time.

And, you know, every -- every single word counts. I know -- I want to start with this. I asked just for a list of the things that he had accomplished on the first 100 days.

And we got to page 89. I'll have all of them tonight.

This is the first I think 89 days.

Look at that.

STU: Hmm. A lot.

GLENN: That's just a list of the accomplishments of the first 89 days.

That's -- what did you say? 4 inches thick? I mean --

STU: Crazy.

GLENN: This guy has made more progress than any other president, or many presidents combined in the first 100 days. Nobody has done what -- what he's done.

But, you know, one of the things that I don't know how -- because I can't ask him directly. So I have to ask him several questions all the way through, that will kind of give you a sense of, are we looking for a reprieves? Is that what we're going to get, a four-year reprieve?

If the economy doesn't turn around fast enough, because I believe the president can turn it around. But if it doesn't turn it around fast enough. Or if people don't understand that he is changing the entire structure of the world.

And he's trying to do it in two years. Really.

We're going to be left with a reprieve and not a -- not a fundamental change. And does he think that's really possible?

Especially, without Congress.

I will rail on Congress. I don't know if he will join me on that.

I really want to know why he isn't pounding Congress into the dirt.

I mean, Congress they're not helpful at all.

No matter what everyone says.

I talked to the people just the last few days here, to tell you that the Senate and the House leadership is on the president's side.

And they don't their butt from their elbow.

They have no idea what they're talking about. They are not on his side. They are not working with him. And that's obvious.

I mean, they should be passing.

You know, I know this is going to be -- you know, he said, I'm going to pass the largest tax cut.

Well, he's not.

What the Congress is doing, is he's actually -- he's thwarting the largest tax increase in American history. That would come next year.

Well, the country needs a tax cut. A tax plan, that will actually encourage spending on business.

Encourage, you know, spending on -- on creating jobs.

I also want to talk to him about energy.

I mean, what are you?

What do you think, Stu?

What are the questions that you want to know?

STU: I think the economy is a big one. And how he's going to kind of go forward with that.

We talked about having that sort of positive agenda. I think that will be helpful.

Seems like the markets are like that today. And there's a little bit of an approach change over the past couple of days, and that seems to be helping quite a bit. I think that's a big one. I think certainly energy is a big one. Department of Education is another one.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Those go back to the positive. Like we talked about energy.

Going in and saying, look, I'm going to build all these nuclear power plants in the next three years.

Because testimony on the hill. Yesterday. Take before yesterday. From the president, you know, former CEO of Google. Eric Schmitt was pretty clear.

We are going to -- right now, the cloud services, if you will.

The compute power. For all of the big, you know, computer cloud servers. They require currently 3 percent of all of the electricity that is used in the United States.

3 percent.

In three years, they will require 99 percent of our energy.

Well, there's no way that can happen without us having blackouts and brown Brownouts.

And the rest of the country, just starving itself from electricity.

That will just collapse everything.

So a positive way to deal with this, is to say, I am going to do the biggest energy push ever in American history.

And he's already done it for oil.

And coal.

Now he just needs to say, I'm cutting the red tape. I'm going to make sure that they're safe. But there's new technology now with -- are nuclear power plants. And we're going to drop them in city after city after city.

Where those cloud servers are going to be.

Because if Eric Smith is right. And I believe he is.

Each one of these cloud servers by 2030. Will need a nuclear. Full-sized nuclear power plant, themselves!

That's incredible!

STU: It's incomprehensible.

But, yeah, as you point out. Instead of saying, you know, like an alternate approach to that, would be, hey. We need to stop these AI companies from doing this. We need to make sure that they are not -- that's what I would say, the left would typically do in a situation like this.

They would try to stop the company from growing and innovating.

They would say, you need to do more with less.

And I think the conservative argument there, is to say, hey. No.

We will give you the tools that you need. We will make it easy for these companies to build nuclear power-plants in a safe way, of course.

But reliable energy that can -- that can fuel these things would be great.

I think the same thing. I think you look at Trump's economic plan. He wants to bring let's say manufacturing back to the United States.

Well, there's a couple of ways you can do that.

Both ways are completely consistent with what Trump wants to do. One of them are obviously tariffs. Has almost all the attention. I think there's a reason why the media focuses on that.

I think they would rather talk about the tariffs.

Because they're not as popular. The other side is incentivizing. It's cutting regulation. It's cutting taxes. It's making the United States into the greatest state to do business.

People will want to come here. And the Democrats have worked really hard to take that impression away from the world over the past 20 years.

And Trump, I think in his first term did a good job encouraging that sort of development here.

I think it went pretty well with the economy.

And I think that just -- I think he believes that.

Still, he just -- it hasn't been the focus of -- as much of the messaging. And I think that could help.

GLENN: This is -- this is the problem.

And I'm going to try to get him to explain this.

I can't ask him. I don't think I can ask him directly.

Because the president, if you say, look at how much trouble we're in.

And, you know, is this fixable?

Of course, he will say, yes. It's absolutely fixable.

But he needs to articulate. Or somebody needs to articulate how close to the edge of the abyss we are.

I mean, you know, Stu, you know I have -- I have talked about this economic stuff, over and over again.

I had a conversation with somebody, who I can't say who.

But they believe me, they absolutely know what's happening with our dollar and the economy and everything else.

Okay? An official in the government, that that's -- you know, that's pretty much what they do.
And I said, look, I'm trying to get my arms around this.

Because I'm thinking about, you know, why he called it Liberation Day. And I think it's because he's changing the whole system.

You know, that was set up after World War II.

And yada, yada, yada.

And I said, and I don't think people understand that, if we -- if he fails, this is it.

This is our last chance, to save America.

We're over!

And this individual put their hand on my shoulder, and said, no.

Listen.

We are over. So he said the same thing I did. He just wanted to make sure that I understood, exactly what I was saying. And I found that to be a little terrifying. And I don't think people truly understand, this is it! This is it.

If -- if you -- if you want to have a country left, we're going to go and experience tremendous pain.

I mean, Ronald Reagan talked about this.

You know, there's going to come a time when none of the choices are good. And everybody wants to eat around the edges, and not take the whole pie. You have to have the whole pie. You can't eat around the edges anymore. You've got to fix the entire thing.

And that is going to be really painful.

And dangerous. And I -- I don't know if I can get him to talk about that.

I mean, how would you ask him?

STU: Do you think that's the way he sees it?

Do you think -- because it does seem like the types of maneuvers, he's made, when it comes to foreign trade, for example.

He really does see.

Not just something we need to tweak. An absolute, monumental crisis.

Right?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Because that is a big change, and I think maybe slightly different than the perception going in. And that's something he will kind of have to deal with, with the American people. That's why maybe he's having issues with some of the independents, losing support among independents. I don't think he's going to see. You know, I don't think he runs his operation. I don't think he looks at it and says, okay. This isn't polling well right now. So I don't want to do it.

GLENN: No. He doesn't. He sees himself. And thank God, he sees himself as, if I don't do it, no one will.

And I think that's true.

I don't know of -- Donald Trump is completely unique. You know, he's been forged in the fire, where he wasn't in 2016.

He is now.

I mean, what are you going to do to him?

You try to throw him in jail. You try to throw his family in jail. You try to destroy his business, his reputation. You try to call him every name under the sun. They tried to kill him not once, but twice. I mean, what are you going to do to this guy? He doesn't care.

And so I really believe that this is so far beyond him. He knows, look, I am here, that the time for a reason. And it's to save the country, in the way I believe it needs to be saved. And so it is a complete departure from The Great Reset, but it is a Great Reset. The world has been shaping us for this reset.

I've been talking about this since 2008. They shaped us for this reset to where they would -- they would manage the decline to a certain point.

And then it would kind of fall apart and then collapse into this new system that they had built. Well, he's dismantling that, at the same time trying to put the system back into place they can't be they had taken apart.

It's -- I mean, it's -- if he can pull this off. It's going to be a miracle. We will be the first people in the history of the world, to pull this off.

And it's -- it's an interesting -- going to be interesting to see how all of this works out. All right. More in just a second.

GLENN: You know, I'm talking about the Great Reset. Have you seen that Klaus Schwab has resigned?

STU: Hmm. Sad to see him go, Glenn. He's done such good work at the World Economic Forum. He's been able to usher us into this new world that we've all been asking for and demanding. Sad to see.

GLENN: Well, especially, he's done some really good work apparently on the buttocks of several women. Which, you know, I don't know -- I don't know, let's just say they were nice little polite pats on the butt, you know, as they passed by. Hey, sweetheart, how are you doing? Apparently, he's created a very obscene culture at the World Economic Forum. Now, who would have thunk it.

Every time he comes to town, the prostitutes go through the roof, because they're shipped from all over the world. But, no, I'm sure it's a very pro-woman, you know. He really cares. He really cares deeply. But apparently, he's in trouble for sexual harassment. And also -- yeah. Also, problems with some funds. Apparently, he used some funds to buy big houses. But it's no big deal, right?

I mean, eh. He can get away with it. He's Klaus Schwab. I hate these people so much. I hate these people so much.

And the -- the -- the hypocrisy of these people just kills me.

Kills me. One of the other things I want to ask him about is The Great Reset. And how, I mean, six years ago, you remember when we started talking about The Great Reset.

And everybody said, that's -- and now look at it!

Everybody knows about DEI and CRT and everything else.

Everything they said, you have the court system, now defending.

Saying, you can't come back. Wait a minute. I thought it was a conspiracy theory.

I'm just counting conspiracies.

Isn't that what you want?

It's incredible.

I mean, want to know, if you will stand up to the courts.

STU: Yeah. What does that mean exactly too?

I don't know. Obviously, right now, we have six Supreme Court justices that were -- that were actually named by Republicans. Right?

Three of them by President Trump himself.

What does that mean as far as -- I know they took a stance against him, deporting certain people.

And they'll --

GLENN: I can't believe it.

STU: That sort of battle has been fascinating.

GLENN: These people.

When we were saying, we should vet people.

When they're coming in. Ask them. Hey, here's an idea.

COVID. Can we see if they've had their vaccine?

No. You can't do that!

Now, we're trying to ship them back home. Oh, we have to have a sit down with them.

We have to have a formal interview. You know, before we get rid of them. We have to really sit down and talk to them.

No problem bringing them in. None!

Riddled with disease. Not a problem. Hang on just a second. I think you left a few of your fingers behind. They just fell off.

You want to just take them with you, as you enter the United States? No problem coming in, all kinds of problems leaving.

STU: Well.

GLENN: How does this make sense?

STU: A lot of this has to do with your hatred of Maryland fathers. You have always been against people who are just fathers in Maryland.

GLENN: I was a father in Maryland for a while. My daughter was born in Maryland. And I was the dad. So I was a Maryland father.

STU: Wow. You can't be deported. That's apparently the rule.

Did you see the explanation?

I love this. Of the domestic violence thing.

Where she filed a restraining order against him for domestic violence.

Everybody is like, hey. He beat his wife.

She says now, no. That was not true.

She filed a domestic violence restraining order against her husband. Quote, in case things escalated, end quote.

GLENN: Oh, that happened.

Tania did that to me, last week.

STU: It's a case.

GLENN: I need a restraining order. He might kill me.

He was not threatening to kill me. But in case he does. Gosh, this is terrible!

MANY Young People are Turning to God. Is THIS Why?

According to multiple reports, young people have flocked to the Catholic Church, especially the past year. Glenn believes it’s because of rituals. While progressives tried to change our shared traditions, some institutions are holding tight, and our young people are noticing. “Those rituals you do as a family are very important,” Glenn says. “They’re very human. And they’re not just Catholic traditions…a bride walking down the aisle, a soldier saluted at a ceremony, even the way we light candles to honor the dead. They mark moments that matter in our lives and they help organize things in our mind.” And in the religious sense, they create clarity, something that our younger generations have very little of as the world tells them nothing really matters.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: It's Good Friday. One last story on faith. I was reading an article about Tammy Peterson. The wife of Jordan Peterson.

Last year, she walked into a Catholic Church and embraced a new faith. She was a survivor of cancer. And she found, you know, solace in the rosary's ritual. You know, beads and their rhythmic prayers and all of that. And it gave her peace through all of the fear that she had. She shared this last year with the Catholic Herald interview.

And she's not alone.

A New York Post article, this week, reports a surge in young people converting to Catholicism, with year-over-year converts increasing from 30 to 70 percent.

The archdiocese of Fort Worth says, there was a 72 percent jump in converts in the last year!
Something is happening. And I think it's rituals.

You know, Barack Obama knows, said his wife. That we're going to have to change everything. We're going to have to change our traditions. Our language. Our history.

Rituals bring things back together. At a time when we are told, you know, if you disagree with your family. Don't get together with your family. Those rituals that you do as a family, are very important.

They're deeply human.

And they're not just Catholic traditions or relics of the past. They're everywhere. A bride walking down the aisle. A soldier saluted at a ceremony. Even the way we light candles in honor to -- to honor the dead. They mark moments that matter in our lives, and they help organize things in our mind.

And rituals, in Catholicism, the Eucharist, or the confession, elevate this instinct. This need to the sacred. So it's not just -- it's not just a routine.

It is a bridge to meaning. And that matters.

Because when you have meaning, and there's a storm in your life, it gives structure, so it doesn't feel like the storm is just going to wipe you out entirely.

There was a study in 2013, in Scientific American. An article by a psychologist.

That explained that rituals, religious or not. Reduce anxiety. Steady us after loss.

And boost confidence before big moments.

And you can look at this. I mean, it's not faith-based. But think of athletes with a pre-game routine.

Or just a child calmed by a bedtime story.

Rituals amplify this.

New York Post. Noted that young converts now especially Gen Z crave, quoting, the clarity and certainty rejecting the, quote, last week alternatives of modern worship. Why? Because modern worship tells you, you can believe anything. There are no real rules. God will always just take you as you are.

And, I mean, he will. Warts and all. But you've got to do a little something. Try this on for size. How alive is the church over in England?

Has it ever been alive?

Church attendance among 18 to 24-year-olds has jumped from 4 percent to 2018 to 16 percent in 2024.

I would say there's something going on here.

And experts are saying, it is a hunger for substance. And for Tammy Peterson, it was the rosary. That was her lifeline.

And, you know, whatever it is, but whatever the ritual is. You don't have to be a Catholic or anything.

Whatever you are. But what if we all leaned into our rituals a little bit more?

Because they're universal.

I mean, think of the -- think of the little things that we do every day. The morning coffee poured in the same way, the same cup every day. A family holiday tradition. A quiet moment of prayer every day.

Rituals build communities. Like a congregation singing together. In unison.

Or a neighborhood block party. They mark time! They give us mile tones. Baptisms. Graduations. Funerals.

We now live in a world of screen and rush and rituals slow us down.

I don't have time!

Yeah. You do. That's exactly what you need. Rituals. It will slow you down. Make you present in the moment. They're not about rules.

They're all about meaning, if you do it right. This isn't about recognizing, you know, one faith over another. This is about recognizing what rituals do for us. The New York Post highlights how young people facing permaconflict.

Permaconflict. And secular individualism, are seeing traditional Catholicism as cultural defiance.

And you don't have to be a Catholic to find this. Maybe your ritual is, I don't know what it is.

But whatever it is, it can shape your heart and your day. And as we head to Easter this weekend, as we head to our hopefully -- you're attending your Easter service this weekend.

Take time to find your family's ritual. And I say that, my kids are scattered everywhere. And I'm having to go to Washington on Sunday.

And for the first time, I think in my life, I'm not together with my whole family on Easter. And I hate that!

Hate that. You know, things happen in life.

But no matter what faith you are, I mean, we can all learn from each other.

We are all part of one big body. And one big effort.

Because I believe the other side, as we started this show.

We started talking about this really evil editorial. This op-ed. On Substack. That started talking about. You know. When do we start killing people?

Hello?

There is evil. We are witnessing the growth of evil.

But I just gave you some status that show, yeah. But good stuff is happening too.

Generation Z is the hero generation. You watch. You watch.

They will put this back together. Just no matter where you are. No matter what you're doing this weekend, if you're a believer, just say it out loud this weekend, to somebody.

He has risen. Just share it with somebody. Just share the peace.

Live your ritual, whatever it is. Live your ritual.

It's so important.

The Future of AI: Who Will Hold Power Over the Army of Geniuses?

AI development companies like OpenAI and Google DeepMind are in a “reckless race” to build smarter AIs that may soon become an “army of geniuses.” But is that a good idea? And who would control this “army?” Glenn speaks with former OpenAI researcher and AI Futures Project Executive Director, Daniel Kokotajlo, who warns that the future is coming fast! He predicts who will likely hold power over AI and what this tech will look like in the near future. Plus, he explains why developers with ethical concerns, like himself, have been leaving these Silicon Valley giants in droves.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So we have Daniel Kokotajlo, and he's a former OpenAI researcher. Daniel, have you been on the program before? I don't think you have, have you?

DANIEL: No, I haven't.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, welcome, I'm glad you're here. Really appreciate it. Wanted to have you on, because I am a guy. I've been talking about AI forever.

And it is both just thrilling, and one of the scariest things I've ever seen, at the same time.

And it's kind of like, not really sure which way it's going.

Are -- how confident are you that -- what did you say?

DANIEL: It can go both ways. It's going to be very thrilling. And also very scary.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

Good. Good. Good.

Well, thanks for starting my Monday off with that. So can you tell me, first of all, some of the things, that you think are coming, and right around the corner that people just don't understand.

Because I don't think anybody. The average person, they hear this. They think, oh, it's like social media. It's going to be like the cell phone.
It's going to change everything. And they don't know that yet.

DANIEL: Yeah. Well, where to begin. I think so people are probably familiar with systems like ChatGPT now, which are large language models, that you can go have an actual normal conversation with, unlike ordinary software programs.

They're getting better at everything. In particular, right now, and in the next few years, the companies are working on turning them into autonomous agents stop instead of simply responding to some message that you send them, and then, you know, turning off. They would be continuously operating, roaming around, browsing the internet. Working on their own projects. On their own computers.

Checking in with you, sending messages. Like a human employee, basically.

GLENN: Right.

DANIEL: That's what the companies are working on now. And it's the stated intention of the CEOs of these companies, to build eventually superintelligence.

What is superintelligence? Super intelligence is fully eponymous AI systems, that are better at humans at absolutely everything.

GLENN: So on the surface -- that sounds -- that sounds like a movie, that we've all seen.

And you kind of -- you know, you say that, and you're like, anybody who is working on these.

Have they seen the same movies that I have seen?

I mean, what the heck? Let's bring -- let's just go see Jurassic park. I mean, ex-Machina. I don't -- I mean, is it just me? Or do people in the industry just go, you know, this could be really bad?

DANIEL: Yeah. It's a great question. And the answer is, they totally have seen those movies, and they totally think, yes, they can get rid of that. In fact, that's part of the founding story, of some of these companies.

GLENN: What? What do you mean? What do you mean?

DANIEL: So Shane Legg, who is I guess I'll give you the technical founder of Deep Minds, which is now part of Google Deep Minds. Which is one of the big three companies, building towards super intelligence.

I believe in his Ph.D. thesis, he discusses the possibility of superhuman AI systems, and how if they're not correctly aligned to the right values, if they're not correctly instilled with the appropriate ethics, that they could kill everyone.

And become a -- a superior competitor species to humans.

GLENN: Hmm.

DANIEL: Not just them. Lots of these people at these companies, especially early on. Basically had similar thoughts of, wow. This is going to be the biggest thing ever.

If it goes well, it could be the best thing that ever happens. If it goes poorly, it could literally kill everyone, or do something similarly catastrophic, like a permanent dystopia. People react to that in different ways. So some people voted to stay in academia.

Some people stayed in other jobs that they had, or funded nonprofit to do research about this other thing. Some people, decided, well, this is going to happen, then it's better good people like me and my friends are in charge, when it happens.

And so that's basically the founding story of a lot of these companies. That is sort of part of why Deep Minds was created, and part of why OpenAI was created.

I highly recommend going and reading some of the emails that surfaced in court documents, related to the lawsuits against OpenAI.

Because in some of those emails. You see some of the founders of OpenAI, talking to each other about why they founded OpenAI.

And basically, it was because they didn't trust Deep Mind to handle this responsibly. Anyway how --

GLENN: And did they go on to come up with -- did they go on to say, you know, and that's why we've developed this? And it's going to protect us from it? Or did they just lose their way.

What happens?

DANIEL: Well, it's an interesting sociological question.

My take on it is that institutions tend to be -- tend to conform to their incentives over time.

So it's been a sort of like -- there's been a sort of evaporating growing effect.

Where the people who are most concerned about where all this is headed, tend to not be the one to get promoted.

And end up running the companies.

And they tend to be the ones who, for example, be the ones who quit like me.

GLENN: Let's stop it for a second.

Let's stop it there for a second.

You were a governance researcher on OpenAI on scenario planning.

What does that mean?

DANIEL: I was a researcher on the government's team. Scenario funding is just one of several things that I did.

So basically, I mean, I did a couple of different things at OpenAI. One of the things that I did was try to see what the future will look like. So 2027 is a much bigger, more elaborate, more rigorous version of some smaller projects, that I sort of did when I was at OpenAI.

Like I think back in 2022, I wrote my own -- figuring out what the next couple of years were going to look like. Right? Internal scenario, right?

GLENN: How close are you?

DANIEL: I did some things right. I did some things wrong. The basic trends are (cut out), et cetera.

For how close I was overall, I actually did a similar scenario back in 2021, before I joined OpenAI.

And so you can go read that, and judge what I got right and what I got wrong.

I would say, that is about par for the course for me when I went to do these sorts of things. And I'm hoping that AI 27 will also be, you know, about that level of right and wrong.

GLENN: So you left.

DANIEL: The thing that I wrote in 2021 was what 2026 looks like, in case you want to look it up.

GLENN: Okay. I'll look it up. You walked away from millions of equity in OpenAI. What made you walk away? What were they doing that made you go, hmm, I don't think it's worth the money?

DANIEL: So -- so back to the bigger picture, I think. Remember, the companies are trying to build super intelligence.

It's going to be better than humans, better that night best humans at everything. While also being faster and cheaper. And you can just make many, many copies of them.

The CEO of anthropic. He uses this term. The country of geniuses. To try to visualize what it would look like.

Quantitatively we're talking about millions of copies.

Each one of which is smarter than the smartest geniuses.

While also being more charismatic. Than the most charismatic celebrities and politicians.

Everything, right?

So that's what they're building towards.

And that races a bunch of questions.

Is that a good idea for us to build, for example?

Like, how are we going to do that?
(laughter)
And who gets to control the army of geniuses.

GLENN: Right. Right.

DANIEL: And what orders are going to be give up?

GLENN: Right. Right.

DANIEL: They have some extremely important questions. And there's a huge -- actually, that's not even all the questions. There's a long list of other very important questions too. I was just barely scratching the surface.

And what I was hoping would happen, on OpenAI. And these other companies, is that as the creation of these AI systems get closer and closer, you know, it started out being far in the future. As time goes on, and progress is made. It starts to feel like something that could happen in the next few years. Right?

GLENN: Yes, right.

DANIEL: As we get closer and closer, there needs to be a lot more waking up and paying attention. And asking these hard questions.

And a lot more effort in order to prepare, to deal with these issues. So, for example, OpenAI created the super alignment team, which was a -- a team of technical researchers and engineers, specifically focused on the question of how do we make sure that we can put any values into these -- how do we make sure we can control them at all?

Even when they're smarter than us.

So they started that team.

And they said that they were going to give 20 percent of their compute to -- towards me on this problem, basically.

GLENN: How much -- how much percentage. Go ahead.

DANIEL: Well, I don't know. And I can't say. But as much as 20 percent.

So, yeah. 20 percent was huge at the time.

Because it was way more than the company, than any company was devoting to that technical question at the time. So at the time, it was sort of a leap forward.

It didn't pan out. As far as I know, they're still not anywhere near 20 percent. That's just an example of the sort of thing that made me quit. That we're just not ready. And we're not even taking the steps to get ready.

And so we are -- we're going to do this anyway, even though we don't understand it. Don't know how to control it. And, you know, it will be a disaster. That's basically what got me delayed.

GLENN: So hang on just a second. Give me a minute.

I want to come back and I want to ask you, do you have an opinion on who should run this? Because I don't like OpenAI.

I like X better than anybody, only because Elon Musk has just opened to free speech on everything. But I don't even trust him. I don't trust any of these people, and I certainly don't trust the government.

So who will end up with all of this compute, and do we get the compute?

And enough to be able to stop it, or enough to be able to be dangerous?

I mean, oh. It just makes your head hurt.

We'll go into that when we come back.

Hang on just a second. First, let me tell you about our sponsor this half-hour.

It's Preborn. Every day, across the country, there's a moment that happens behind closed doors. A woman, usually young, scared, unsure, walks into a clinic. With a choice in front of her. A world that seems like it's pressing in at all size.

And she just doesn't know what to do.

This is the way. You know, I hate the abortion truck thing. Where everyone is screaming at each other.

Can we just look at this mom for just a second? And see that in most cases, it's somebody who has nobody on their side.

That doesn't have any way to afford the baby.

And is scared out of their mind. And so they just don't know what to do. She had been told 100 times, you know, it's easy. This is just normal.

But when she goes to a Preborn clinic, if she happens to go there, she'll hear the baby's heartbeat.

And for the first time, that changes everything. That increases the odds that mom does not go through with an abortion at 50 percent.

Now, the rest of it is all in. But I don't have anybody to help me.

Sheets other thing that Preborn does. Because they care about mom, rather than the baby. That's what is always lost in this message. Mom is really important as well.

So they not only offer the free ultrasound. But they are there for the first two years. They help pay for what ever the mom needs.

All the checkups. All the visits. And the doctor. Even clothing. And everything. Really, honestly.

It's amazing. Twenty-eight dollars provides a woman with a free ultrasound.

And another moment. Another miracle. And possibly another life.

And it just saves two people not only the baby, but also a mom. Please dial #250. Say the key word baby.

#250. Key word baby or visit Preborn.com/Beck.

It's Preborn.com/Beck. It's sponsored by Preborn. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
Daniel Kokotajlo.

He's former OpenAI researcher. AI futures project executive director. And talking about the reckless race, to use his words, to build AGI.

You can find his work at AI-2027.com.

So, Daniel, who is going to end up with control of this thing?

DANIEL: Great question.

Well, probably no one.

And if not no one, probably some CEO or president would be my guess.
GLENN: Oh, that's comforting.

DANIEL: Like in general, if you wanted them to understand, like, you know, my views, the views of my team at the Future Project. And sort of how it all fits together. And why we came to these conclusions. You can go read our website, which has all of this stuff on it.

Which is basically our best guest attempt after predicting their future.

Obviously, you know, the future is very difficult to predict.

We will probably get a bunch of things wrong.

This is our best guess. That's AI-2027.com.

GLENN: Yes.

DANIEL: Yeah. So as you were saying, if one of these companies succeed in getting to this army of geniuses on the data centers. Super intelligence AIs. There's a question of, who controls them?

There's a technical question, of can -- does humanity even have the tools it needs to control super intelligence AIs?

Does anyone control them?

GLENN: I mean, it seems to me --

DANIEL: That's an unsolved question.

GLENN: I think anyone who understands this.

It's like, we get Bill Gates. But it's like a baby gate.

Imagine a baby trying to outsmart the parent.

You won't be able to do it.

You will just step over that gate.

And I don't understand why a super intelligence wouldn't just go, oh, that's cute.

Not doing that. You know what I mean?

DANIEL: Totally. And getting a little bit into the literature here.

So there's a division of strategies into AI's control techniques, and AI's alignment techniques.

So the control techniques are designed to allow you to control the super intelligence AI. Or the AGI, or whatever it is that you are trying to control.

Despite the fact that it might be at odds with you. And it might have different goals than you have.

Different opinions about how the future should be. Right?

So that's it sort of adversarial technique, where you, for example, restrict its access to stuff.

And you monitor it closely.

And you -- you use other copies of the AI, as watchers.

To play them off against each other.

But there's all these sort of control techniques. That are designed to work even if you can't trust the AIs.

And then there's a technique, which are designed to make the case that you don't need the control techniques, because the AIs are virtuous and loyal and obedient. And trustworthy, you know, et cetera.

Right? And so a lot of techniques are trying to sort of continue the specified values, deeply into the AIs, in robust ways, so that you never need the control techniques. Because they were never -- so there's lots of techniques. There's control techniques. Both are important fields of research. Maybe a couple hundred people working on -- on these fields right now.

GLENN: Okay. All right.

Hold on. Because both of them sound like they won't work.