RADIOAugust 26, 2025

What you MUST KNOW about Trump's computer chip stock deal

President Trump has announced a deal to buy a 10% stake in computer chip maker Intel. Is this a smart business move that will make the US government money to pay off its debt, or is it just another unconstitutional public-private partnership? Glenn and Stu discuss ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I would love to open -- openly embrace the -- you know, on the surface, there's a new deal with Intel.

And it sounds really smart. And it sounds like, yeah. That's the way we should do business.

It sounds capitalist. It sounds patriotic. But then, again, so did the Patriot Act.

So here's what's happening. Donald Trump is taking $8.9 billion. Money already set aside by the Chips Act. And instead of handing to Intel as a grant, he bought stock in Intel.

Now, that sounds really smart. Right? Sounds like what a businessman would do. Really smart. I'm not going to just give them the money, we'll invest. And that way, we get some profits, when they succeed. So we now own 10 percent of the company. Nonvoting shares. We got it at a discount, and we have $2 billion now worth of paper gains.

I love that! Right? It sounds really good. Why aren't we running this place more like a business? It's pro-capitalist, right? No more government giveaways. Taxpayers are investors. And we benefit when Intel rebounds. Okay. Any other things? Well, yeah. It's really important for national security. We're keeping chip manufacturing at home. We stabilize the economy, without running it. We reassure the markets, and attract other private investors. On paper. It's really good. It's clean. It's efficient. It's savvy.

Now, what is it that's bothering me? Well, it's not exactly the American system. In fact, it might be everything we're not supposed to do. You know, we were never -- government was never supposed to use our taxpayer dollars to be a shareholder in private enterprise.

But, again, we're doing all kinds of things that we've already gone there. Haven't we?

Hasn't the government picked winners and loses now forever?

Haven't they been wasting your money. I would rather extend them a grant. I would rather have it in stock. So if we win, we win. No. We all win. But that's actually the model of state capitalism in China. That's not the free market in the United States. Intel is vital. Absolutely vital. Chips are the lifeblood of anything that will happen for national security. And our economy.

But we cannot get into the habit of -- of -- we can't normalize it anyway.

Washington, DC, buying stock in struggling companies.

Because what's next. Ford? Boeing?

How about your grocery stores?

That's Mamdani, isn't it?

And once that door opens, government no longer just regulates the market. They own a piece of it, now.

What happens after we own a piece of that?

So in 2008, I had a big sponsor.

It was a sponsor that Premiere Radio networks had worked 20 years to get.

We finally landed them. And I had a good working relationship with them.

It was General Motors.

And then the government bailed them out. In 2008. And they promised it was temporary. And I said, great! Call me back, once you've paid them off. I don't -- I don't like this. The government should not be involved.

But they were not going to be involved.

But they were

The first thing they did. Was they cancelled the hydrogen car. Something they really believed right before the election. I know. Because I was talking to him about it all the time. And then after the election, Barack Obama cancels all hydrogen products. And GM was like, yeah, that stupid hydrogen thing. We're with them.

And the precedent was set. And I was out. I was out. I cancelled General Motors. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Business-wise, stupid. Ethically, the right thing to do. And ever since, whenever there's a crisis, that temptation is there. Why not just buy a slice of the company? Why not stabilize it? Make a little profit on it? And that's how you slip to capitalism to corporatism. You know, free markets backed by government winners and losers.

You do not want to go down this road. You know, when we are both the investor and the regulator, which one wins.

Come on!

Not a hard question to answer. Which one wins? Not the regulator. The investor wins. If the investor is also the regulator, look, if we do this, we will make a lot of money, you're going to make a lot of money. You'll have more money for all these projects you want. Okay. All right. Okay.

It's -- it's not -- the taxpayers aren't the one. The company -- the politicians, who really wins? What happens when an administration leans on its own company, for political purposes?

You know what, I think you'll get rid of that hydrogen car. We love the hydrogen car. You know what, I think you'll get rid of that hydrogen car. We hate that hydrogen car. Boy, we hate it.

He -- Donald Trump looks at Intel losing $8.8 billion last year. Lays off 20,000 workers.

Choke hold of Taiwan, South Korea on semi conductors. He wants America protected.

He wants taxpayers to share the upside.

He doesn't want to just bear the cost. We should get the upside. All of those things are good, right?

It's really tempting. But is it what we're supposed to do. Is it the right thing?

I don't like it when Washington holds stock certificates. Not a good thing. It should be reforming taxes. Cutting red tape. Letting capital flow to strong ideas. Making sure national security is cured through policy, but not ownership of these things.

Are you comfortable if the United States just took over AI, or just took it over and said, we're just going to own 10 percent? Oh, they need another bailout. We're just going to own 20 percent. Oh, they need another bailout. Okay. We're going to own 40 percent of that. Do you think that that company wouldn't become beholden to the United States government? And who are they beholden to? The Defense Department? The Deep State? The president, or you?

I think you know the answer to that one. Stu, how do you work around this one. Because I love this idea. I love the fact that we're running things like a business. And if we're giving people loans, why not take a stake? Why not?

STU: Well, first of all, can we step back one little bit and just acknowledge that the original sin here, in the first place, was the Chips Act. The Chips Act was not a good bill in the first place.

And that's not the president -- the current president's fault.

But, you know, he has to live under that law.

And he's trying to improve it. But like, that was a disaster in the first place. And should not have been something that we did, certainly the way that we did it.

With buying into this. Look, I understand, it is better to have some of this money. That, by the way, we're just borrowing and printing anyway. Right?

These are taxpayer dollars that we don't really have. That we're spending on something. That it's good that potentially we have a return. I mean, this was the argument under TARP as well. Where we would go and do all of this. And take control of some of these banks and companies. And they would eventually pay us back. And many of them did, by the way. Many of them did pay us back.

GLENN: With interest. With interest.

STU: Yeah, exactly. And so why not?

Why didn't we do that? We have done it from time to time. Normally, it's been in extreme circumstances. Right? When there's an emergency going on. And I would acknowledge, and I think you were on this, as well, Glenn.

These were not things that we supported at the time. But they were things that the government did at the time. What they saw as a time of financial crisis. And reached in, and took ownership of a bunch of companies.

GLENN: I would say, we went further than not being for them.

STU: I would agree with that analysis.

GLENN: Very much against them.

STU: Very much against them.

The reason for that is: We don't want the government involved in -- you know, jumping into companies and micromanaging companies.

Now, they will say, voting rights.

They will say all sorts of things. We now have a situation where the president of the United States has an interesting interest in Intel's stock price. And like, I know that --

GLENN: Money does not talk, it screams. It's a bad idea. It's a bad idea.

Once the government becomes your partner in business. They're always your partner. Always.

STU: Uh-huh. And I understand where the president is coming from.

Because it -- at some level, it really is important to acknowledge, he's been put in this position to try to make the best out of a bad thing.

Now, I know, you know, the president does really care about the chips. And he does care about these industries, being here in the United States.

That is a -- something that is actually legitimately important. I'm not denying that.

GLENN: Right. He also cares about America doing well, financially. He's tired of America getting screwed. The taxpayers getting screwed every time.

STU: But on that point, because I get what he's saying there. It would be great. Like, we're up a couple billion dollars. Let's say we double our profit. Let's say we make 10 billion dollars off the deal. Nothing wrong with making $10 billion.

Let's acknowledge what this is, though. We have $37 trillion in debt. Making $10 billion does absolutely nothing to this. Nothing.

We're going to waste that -- like, we could just instead, be -- we could have someone actually look at the next spending bill we have. And just cut a few things around the corner, and easily save $10 billion.

It -- the only way that this makes any impact. And this is what makes me nervous. Is if you do it at scale. If you start doing this, in every single company you can think of, that is having problems. Or is in an industry of interest to the United States of America. Then you start getting to a place to where the government is in bed with lots of businesses. And maybe you can make a financial impact. And if we accept this argument now, I'm afraid we accept it then too.

GLENN: But how do we already accept it -- when America embraced public/private partnerships. I haven't accepted that.

I don't -- I'm dead-set against public -- but isn't this a public/private partnership. This is what they were pushing.

STU: Well, this is the concern, right?

Who is cheering this on?

Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders put the -- he actually had this idea, as an amendment, in the Chips Act.

This was his proposal.

He's cheering it on right now. I -- that doesn't mean that every -- you know, everything a Democrat brings up is the wrong idea.

Maybe this was a good one.

You can make that argument.

GLENN: Is he a Democrat or a socialist?

STU: Socialist please. Socialist.

GLENN: So everything a socialist brings up. Probably is fine.

STU: Yeah. Again, it's a road, we should really, really be careful going down.

I would argue, we shouldn't go down it. At his lead to bad things. And it leads to bad things, by the way, when this president is long gone.

It's not just him.

You know, what -- I know we say this all the time. What are Democrats going to do, with this newfound ability to invest in companies?

And -- and, by the way, we should note, Intel doesn't need to accept this. Right? This is -- the Chips Act doesn't require them to sell part of the company. What's happening here is we're pressuring them into this.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: And, you know, I -- I understand the reasoning for that. You brought up really good arguments on this front. We're already suckered into giving these -- these companies money because of the Chips Act. Why not make the situation better?

And Intel is saying, well, they can make our lives miserable. In 25 different ways. Let's partner with them.

I get it on both sides.

That doesn't mean it should be a foundational part of our economy going forward. And, you know, if this is a one time thing. It probably won't be a big deal. If this is a precedent that goes on. It can be.

GLENN: It will be.

Once you start this. Once you start this.

And how long. My whole life, I said, I wish we had a businessman as the president. I wish we had somebody that would look at the country and look at everything. And go, how can we make money?
How can we save money? Let's run this a tighter ship. Well, he's doing that.

Although, we're spending more money.

And he's here. Here he's like, well, let's just offset.

Let's get -- yeah. And he might pick the winner. I don't know if he will or not. But he might -- but tell me the last president that we had, that ever said anything about industry, that you were like, oh, you know what, that was a really good stock tip. No! No!

STU: He would be the guy.

GLENN: Yeah. He would be the one, I think in my lifetime, for sure. Maybe the lifetime of the country.

Exposed: How Democrats twist maps to silence half the voters

Democratic Maryland governor Wes Moore is now saying that he wants to gerrymander his own state's congressional districts (despite Republicans only holding ONE seat) to fight Texas' redistricting efforts. But Glenn Beck has a simpler answer to this whole debate - and it stems from Moses.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Gerrymandering started by -- Stu, can you look this up, for me?

Is it Elbridge Gerry or Gerry? I always thought it was Elbridge Gerry.

STU: Yeah, you're remembering that right.

GLENN: It is?

STU: Yeah, it is Elbridge Gerry. There's a weird quirk basically in American history, where his name was Elbridge Gerry. It was first called gerrymandering essentially in a newspaper, at the time. People read the newspaper, didn't know how to pronounce his name. Started saying "gerrymandering," and that's what stuck. So it was actually different than the way his name was pronounced, even though it was named after him.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, that's why you spell your name G-A-R-Y, not G-E-R-R-Y. Hello!

STU: Lesson learned.

GLENN: Yes, so gerrymandering is when a salamander-shaped district gave America a new word, and a new really bad habit. Okay? And we have perfected this really bad habit.

It -- it started about 18- -- yeah, about 1818, 1850, some- -- someplace around there, and it wasn't known as gerrymandering, until the mid-1800s when everybody was doing it. Now, here's how bad it has gotten: Today, in Massachusetts, one-third of the voters choose a Republican. But not one of the nine House seats. They can choose it for president. But they -- one-third vote for Republicans. But because of the way they have the map set up, you don't get any House seats. So a third of the population has zero representation.

And not because they didn't show up. But because the lines chose first. In, Illinois, pretty much the same situation. Forty-seven percent of voters cast a ballot for Republicans in 2024. Forty-seven percent. Now, why do we all think that Illinois is so far left in Congress? Why?

Because 47 percent, they must get their choice. Forty-seven percent of the voters cast a ballot for Republicans in 2024. And they got 17 percent of the seats! Now, that's -- that's magical. There's -- there's some magical forces making that happen. Okay? Now, you see competition. Now you don't! Maryland.

The courts called one map an extreme partisan gerrymander. Why?

Well, because there's only one Republican serving in Maryland. Only one.

Now, how is that possible? Because you know there are people that live in Maryland. Only one of the -- the House seats go to a Republican? One?

Come on! Now, here's the latest. The governor now says, all options are on the table. This is the governor of Maryland. We just played this clip. Can you play it again, please?

VOICE: Are you actively looking at it now?

VOICE: Yes. And I think we have to.

VOICE: You are?

VOICE: Because I think what's happening is this is what people hate about politics in the first place. The fact that the President of the United States, very similar to what he did in Georgia, where he called up a series of voter registrants and said, I need you to find me more votes. We're watching the same thing now where he's calling up legislatures around the country and saying, I need you to find me more congressional districts.

VOICE: He's doing it. That may be different. But Democrats redistrict. You know this. But Gavin Newsom is doing it right now, a few years ago in New York. We saw this. This can be backfire.
Do you really want to go down this road?

VOICE: I want to make sure that we have fair lines and fair seats. Where we don't have situations where politicians are choosing voters, but that voters have a chance to choose their elected officials.

We need to be able to have fair maps, and we also need to make sure that if the president of the United States is putting his finger on the scale to try to manipulate elections, because he knows that his policies cannot win in a ballot box.

GLENN: Okay. So stop.

If you -- if you don't know anything about Maryland, you would be like, well, that's reasonable.

And most people don't know anything about Maryland. Okay. That's reasonable. He just wants fair maps and fair lines. Okay. If you really wanted the people to pick, you wouldn't -- it's mathematically impossible in Illinois.

It's mathematically impossible in Massachusetts. And in Maryland, to have the representation for the G.O.P. that they have.

It's math mat -- Massachusetts has zero Republicans in the House!

Zero, in the whole state!

Zero.

Maryland, only has one. And then he says, well, I might have to redistrict.

To get rid of the one?

One place, where -- where a Republican won. And you want to redistrict that, out of existence?

That doesn't seem fair, to me.

Right?

Okay. This isn't a blue problem. It's not a red problem. It is a power problem. And it has been happening almost since the founding of the country. And it's got to stop. Now, in 2019, the Supreme Court had a decision. Said, the courts aren't going to interfere. And they won't referee partisan gerrymandering.

Well, that was a message that was sent to everybody, very clear. Do what you -- do what you want. The raw what you can. Draw what you can get real estate with. And so they did!

Now, in Texas. This all started in Texas. Which, by the way, the -- the senses.

These are all based on the census, or they're supposed to be. But for the very first time, the 2020 census was rigged, and then it was not fair.

When you have Texas. Think of this. Just think -- I want you to think of this logically. Texas in -- what was it? 2020. Texas in 2020 had lost people? Or had not gained any citizens?

What planet are you living in?

Texas is growing by leaps and bounds, as it was in 2015. 2010.

You're telling me, nothing!

Nothing!

No new growth.

Wow! That's amazing.

So Texas is trying to correct this problem. Where they fix the census.

Okay.

Now, the left is shouting, this is crazy!

I can't believe they're doing -- it's an arms race of hypocrisy.

It really is. It really is.

Which one could launch the biggest hypocritical missile.

I'm not sure. I can just tell you, this ends -- it ends where legitimacy ends. When -- when somebody will look up in one of these states and say, this is -- and with -- with real facts on their side. That -- that's not -- that's not representative of me. The House of Representatives. That's not representative of my district and my state. You can draw a district any way you want. You know, cut us all apart so you -- you can't have a Republican in. You've been doing that forever.

Here's the thing: Safe seats. That's what everybody wants. A safe seat. Safe seats do not create better leaders. They create unaccountable leaders. Let me say that again: Safe seats do not create better leaders. They create unaccountable leaders. Why?

Because a safe seat doesn't reward persuasion.

You don't have to persuade anybody. They reward purity tests. This is why we have become so incredibly extreme. It's why -- everybody wonders why the center feels like it's collapsing. You know, every -- every compromise feels like a betrayal. Because you're not dealing with people. You're dealing with people who are extremes. Okay?

So what do we do? Well, there's a couple of solutions. One independent map-making. Yeah. That's going to work. Put the pens in the citizen's hands. Oh, good. Michigan. Arizona. California.

They have shown independent or court-drawn maps. Reduced extremes. And increased competition. Okay.

Maybe. California. Has an independent committee. This was passed by the people voted for. People were like, you know what, we want fair! We want fair districts. Okay. But at the first time of trouble. They'll violate that, as you're seeing with California.

You have the governor of California coming out. We will redraw all of them. Because they don't care about the voices of the people in those districts. They care about the Democrat voice in Congress.

So the governor is going around it. And it will only be stopped if the people of California stand up. Are they going to?

I don't know.

Now, if we don't solve this at the local and state level, believe me, there are going to be people in Congress that want to change the rules. And the left is already working on it.

It's called the fair representation act. Stu, they already have an act. It's the Fair Representation Act.

STU: I like fair representation.

GLENN: Right! It's about representation, and it's going to be fair.

See what could go wrong with this. They just reintroduced it this summer. It would use independent commissions. Multi-member districts. And ranked choice voting for the House.

Oh! Ranked choice voting? What could possibly go wrong with ranked choice voting. Why is that a problem, Stu?

STU: Well, currently, the Democrats really love rank choice voting. Because it's benefited them, mostly.

And that's just a small part of that particular act. But basically, you know, if you -- you know, unless the other -- the other team is smart enough to actually understand the rules of it. Which so far, the Republicans have not been, they will nominate people that will split their own vote. And you will wind up with someone who is the -- not the majority candidate, wound up winning the seat.

GLENN: Yeah. Really bad idea. Really bad idea.

So may I make a suggestion on how we fix this?

And I would like to base this on Moses.

Moses already did this. Okay? He divided people in hundreds and 50s and tens. Let me -- let me call -- let me just -- I want you to think of the United States under one big tent. Okay? One big tent. Let's say we look at the United States as a big block. And we want to put everybody under a tent. But we can't put them under one big, big tent.

So let's say we put them in tents of 100. Or a thousand.

Or 5,000.

And we think of the map, as you have to have a tent, over these people.

All right. Well, I know we have four corners.

And we put a steak in the ground. And those four corners, we build a tent.

And then we build a tent right next to that one, that holds the same amount of people, and we put four steaks in the ground, and we build another tent. In other words, each district has to have four straight lines. Just like a tent. It's just a box. Okay? It could be a rectangle. However you want to design it, that is fine. But it's just a box. And when that box becomes too full, you split it in half. And now it becomes two boxes, and you keep splitting them, until they're more and more boxes. The more the population grows, the more boxes there are. Okay?
It's really easy. Do you know what that would do? It could mean that in some districts, a couple of apartment buildings, not snaked all the way around the city and into the countryside. But a few apartment buildings in New York City, right in a four-block area, that might be a district.

What does that do? That means the people who are representing the people in that apartment complex, the -- that four-block radius. He has to know that four-block area. That's his deal. He's not sneaking around, going around everywhere else. He knows those people. He represents just those people. Not people five blocks away. Just maybe four blocks away.

And four blocks in each direction. That way, you don't have these people who don't have any idea, they don't look like you. I mean, as far as the way you vote. They don't look -- vote like you do. They don't -- they're -- they're not some sort of foreigner from a different area of town. They know what your issues are.

If we did that, and we made everything in just squares, you would -- you would localize much more. In a much better way. But you would also stop all the extremes. Because unless everybody in that four-block radius is an extremist, an extremist isn't going to win. An extremist Republican. Extremist tell me. Extremists aren't going to win. Because most people aren't like that. That's why the gerrymandering thing happens. Because you can have people on one side of the street in one district, people on the other side of the street, in another district, and then it snakes up four blocks, and then it makes a hard left. Then it goes straight up for another street, then there's a big bubble at the top of it, where a whole bunch of blocks are included. That makes no sense. That's making a safe seat.
Again, safe seats do not -- do not reward anything! They create extremism.

WARNING: Mark Zuckerberg’s "AI Friends” Are Designed to Control You!

Mark Zuckerberg and Big Tech want you to believe that AI can be your “friend.” But Glenn Beck reveals the chilling truth: these bots aren’t here to connect with you... they’re here to control you. From social media addiction to mental health crises, we’ve already seen what “connection” platforms have done to our families and children. Now, AI is at its next stage where it's smarter, more personal, and far more dangerous. Glenn warns that this isn’t just about privacy or data. It’s about your soul. Real friendship is sacrifice, loyalty, and love. AI offers only a hollow imitation all while whispering lies in your ear...

Watch This FULL Clip from Glenn Beck's Radio Show HERE

Swedish Prime Minister DEPENDS on AI for governmental decisions

The Prime Minister of Sweden has admitted to frequently using AI services “as a second opinion” in his governmental work. Glenn and his co-author on “The Great Reset,” Justin Haskins, discuss why this is problematic…but will probably also become more and more common.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

Did you see the -- the video that was on Instagram going away, going around.

It's from a La Quinta hotel in Miami. And if you're watching TheBlaze, watch the screen.

I'll describe what's happening.

This person is checking into a hotel.

And there's a check in and out, right here.

VOICE: Just in case I lose one.

GLENN: This is a guy on a screen in the lobby.

VOICE: Please wait while we process your registration form.

Please note we have a strict policy of no smoking, no pets and no visitors allowed in any of guest rooms.

GLENN: So it's all automated.

There's not a real person at the front desk, at all. There's nobody at the front desk.

That is -- just bizarre!

STU: AI on or is it an actual guy?

GLENN: No, that's an actual guy.

I don't know if he's in America, or not.

It's an actual guy, someplace.

In the video, the guy is like, are you even in the hotel?

No, sir. We're not. There's nobody here. We just need you to do this.

It spits out your key. And, you know, everything else.

STU: Wow!

GLENN: It's --

STU: Amazing.

GLENN: Weird. It's weird. We have Justin Haskins who is here with us.

We have been talking about AI, and some of the Dark Future that is coming our way, if we're not careful with it. Justin, welcome to the program.

JUSTIN: Hi, Glenn.

STU: Hi. So the AI revolution that is here, we have a first that I know of, happening over in Europe with -- with the use of AI. You want to explain?

JUSTIN: Yes. This is an incredible story. This is something we actually predicted was going to happen, when we were writing Dark Future. And in the book, which came out, in 2023, but a lot of that writing was in 2022. So a few years ago, the Swedish Prime Minister, his name is Ulf Kristersson.

GLENN: Swedish.

JUSTIN: Would be -- I'm sorry. Did I get that wrong --

GLENN: No, Swedish. I just wanted to point out, this is not some weirdo. This is Sweden, and the Prime Minister. Go ahead.

JUSTIN: Correct. Yeah. So the Swedish Prime Minister was being interviewed by a business magazine. And in the interview, he just sort of voluntary says, that he frequently uses AI services, and he names the couple. One in particular, is Chat GPT, as a second opinion. That's a quote. A second opinion in his governmental work, asking things like -- and this is a quote. What have others done?

Should we think the complete opposite? He uses it for research. He uses it to help him to bounce ideas off of ChatGPT, to see if there are other kinds of new ways of doing policies.

And in the story, in the interview, he -- he says, it's not just him.

That his colleagues, in the legislature, are also doing this exact same thing.

They're using AI as sort of an adviser!

Now, they -- he was very clear to say, and he stirred up a huge controversy in Sweden.

That he and his staff have said, no. We're not -- it's not like we just do whatever ChatGPT tells us.

We're not putting sensitive information in there, either. So it's not in control of anything. But, yeah. We do use it, as an adviser, to help us, with things.

Now, obviously, there are all kinds of huge problems with this.

But on the -- at the same time. You sort of -- I mean, this is the world that we're going to have, everywhere.

I guarantee, that American politicians are using it all the time.

The CEOs are using it all the time. Already.

And that over the next couple of years, this is going to dramatically expand. Because at the end of the day, the members of your staff. Your advisers.

If you're a politician or a CEO. Or the head of a bank or something.

They're fallible people too.

So AI may not be perfect. But so are the people on your staff. And if AI is smarter than most people, why wouldn't you ask it these questions?

And so this is -- this is the first example of this, that I know of.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. It's going to be a huge problem moving forward.

GLENN: Right. So this is not something that I -- I mean, I consult with AI.

I ask it. Help me think out of the box on this. I'm thinking this way. Is there any other way to look at it? I do that. I do that with people, et cetera, et cetera.

The problem here is, is what comes next?

There is -- there is -- AI is going to become so powerful, and so good, and many people are -- I just did this with a doctor.

I took all my back information, fed it all into ChatGPT.

And on the way to the doctor, just fed it all in. And said, what do you see? What does this mean? You know, how would you treat it, et cetera, et cetera?

And when I got into the doctor, I had questions for him, that were much more intelligent.

Because I had a has come on what some of these terms even mean. And there's nothing wrong with that. But there is going to come a time where ChatGPT will say, go this way. And the human will say, no. We're going this way.

And the room will say, no. I think we should go ChatGPT's way. And that's when you've lost control.

JUSTIN: That's exactly right. And how do you argue against something's decision. When that something is literally smarter than everything else in the room.

GLENN: And it's learned how to lie.

JUSTIN: Yes. It has.

And lies all the time.

People who use AI systems, frequently. And I do.

And I know you do.

And I know a lot of people on your staff do.

It claims that things are true. When they are not true.

It invents sources.

Out of thin air.

GLENN: Right.

And it's not -- not like I call it. And it's like, this doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't give up.

It lies to you some more.

And then it lies to you a third time. And then we have found, usually a third or fourth time, it then gives up and says, okay.

I was just summarizing this, and just putting that into a false story. And you're like, wait.

What?

So it's lying. It's knowing it's lying. It's feeding you what it thinks you want to hear.

And then putting -- if you don't -- if you just see the footnote. Oh, well. Washington Post.

And you don't click on it.

You're a mistake. That's a huge mistake.

It will say Washington Post. You'll click on it. And it will say no link found.

Or dead link.

Well, wait a minute.

How?

Why?

How did you just find this one, it's a dead link?

That's when it usually gives up.

It's crazy!

JUSTIN: That's right. And people say, well, people lie all the time.

And that's true. But people do not have the ability that artificial intelligence has to manipulate huge parts of the population, all on the same time.

STU: Correct. And it also -- it also --

JUSTIN: I don't understand people. I don't understand why AI makes all the decisions it makes.

GLENN: Correct. That's what I was going to say, it doesn't necessarily have all the same goals that a human would have. You know, as it continues to grow, it's going to have its own -- its own motive. And it may just be for self-survival. And another prediction came true, yesterday.

You see what ChatGPT did. They went from ChatGPT 4. To ChatGPT 5.

When they shut GPT-4 down. We were talking about this. But I have a relationship. I've made this model of this companion, and I'm in love with him or her. And you can't just shut him down.

They yesterday reversed themselves and said, okay. We'll keep four out, as well, but here's five.

And so they did that, because people are having relationships with ChatGPT. I told you that would happen, 20 years ago. It happened yesterday, for the first time. That's where it gets scary.

JUSTIN: Especially when those people are the Prime Minister of large countries.

That's when things really go nuts, and that's the world that we're already living in. We're living in that world now.

It's not hypothetical. We now know, we have leaders of mass -- very popularity countries, economic powerhouses.

Saying, hey.

Yeah. I use it all the time.

And so do all my colleagues. They use it too.

And, you know what, there's a ton of other people, as I said earlier, who are using it in secret, that we don't know about. And over time, as AI becomes increasingly more intelligent and it's interconnected, across the world, because remember, the same ChatGPT that's talking to the Prime Minister of Sweden is talking to me.

So it can connect dots that normally people can't connect. What is that going to do to society?

How will it be able to potentially manipulate people?

Are you even -- can AI designers even train it successfully, so that it won't do these things. I would argue, that it can't. That it's not possible. Because AI can make decisions for itself ultimately.

And it will.

So this is -- this is a huge, huge crisis. And the biggest take away is: Why does this not be headline news literally everywhere?

GLENN: Well, I don't think, A, the press knows what it's talking.

And, B, I don't think the average person is afraid of it yet.

I don't think people understand -- I mean, I've been on this train for 25. Almost 30 years. Twenty-eight years.

And I've been beating the drum on this one for a long time.

And it was such a distant idea.

Now it's not a distant idea. People are seeing it, but they're also seeing only the good things that are coming out of it right now.

They're not -- they're not thinking ahead. And saying, okay. But what does this mean?

I mean, I'm -- I'm working with some really big minds right now, in the AI world. And I don't want to tip my hand yet on something.

But I'm -- I'm working on something that I think should be a constitutional amendment.

And all of these big, big players are like, yes!

Thank you!

And so we're working on a constitutional amendment on something, regarding AI.

And it has to be passed.

It has to happen in the next two years, maximum!

And if we start talking about it now, maybe in two years, when all of these problems really begin to confront. Or, you know, confront us, as individuals.

And we begin to see them. Maybe, we will have planted enough sees, so people go, yeah. I want that amendment.

But we'll -- we'll see.

The future is not written yet.
We have to write it, as we get there.