pletely different topic, I follow a Twitter account by the name of somebody named Brian Rommle. If you want to look for it, definitely worth following. He has lots of new technologies and you know what's coming next kind of tweets. And one of them just will blow your head off. Apparently now our hologram technology is so good that there's this device from — let's see — called Portl Hologram. So you can follow them at Portl Hologram, all one word, Portl Hologram. And you can see that they have this thing that's phone booth sized in which inside the little phone booth sized hologram generator there is a full-sized human being who looks exactly like somebody you're standing in front of. And you know they're walking and talking and they could be a deepfake or it could be a projection of somebody who's standing somewhere else and they're just being projected as a hologram. And it looks pretty amazing. Looks pretty amazing. Somebody says you just looked and it looks terrible. You must be looking at something different than what I'm looking at. But it will be difficult to explain how powerful this is.

And let me tell you a little story from my experience to give you a sense. Yeah, my cat Boo is doing a walk-by. I told you this a while ago. Microsoft has a version of their what do you call it, enhanced reality, where it places objects in the room with you but you can't see them unless you're wearing the special goggles. Now if you're wearing the special goggles you have a cool experience. And here's the experience I had when I tried them out in my home. I saw a demo version before they were available. I put on the goggles in my own home — this is the key part, my own home — and I put them on and I turned on a mystery game. So it was like a murder mystery game where there would be characters that would interact in your space and there would be this murder mystery and you'd have to figure it out I guess. And I put the glasses on and I see it map the room. It puts a layer of like wireframe. You could see the wireframe going over your furniture and stuff in your room and you think, whoa, that's cool. It just mapped my whole room. But here's the freaky part. It didn't just map the space in your room. It knew what the things were. It knew what a chair was. My cat's going to do another walk-by if you see a tail go by. And then it introduced characters into my living room and they walked into my living room from a doorway from another room that it just happened to know was a doorway because it mapped it. Those full-sized characters walked in front of me and sat down on my couch. The couch was L-shaped. Some of them sat in one L and some of them sat on the other part of the L and they set something on my coffee table. And it blew my freaking brain out.

Now these particular enhanced reality creatures did not look like realistic people. In other words you could see through them a little bit so you could tell that they were sort of shadow people. But they were good representations of people. Now when you take that over to the hologram world — imagine now the glasses are off. Imagine doing this same experiment but no glasses. It's your own room and maybe you've replaced the light bulbs with this technology. I doubt that's possible but imagine it. It wouldn't be too hard to just put some sensors and lights in any room so your room could produce a photorealistic hologram that could interact with your room. It could walk around. It could walk around. Until you see this you don't know what's coming. Trust me, there's some stuff coming that is bigger than anything you could ever imagine. And if you're worried about everything that's been invented already being invented, nope, nope. There's stuff coming that hasn't been invented. I mean it has been but it hasn't been commercialized. So you've got some fun stuff coming. Some really fun stuff. And I'm sure you're already thinking about the applications.

And I've said in a related matter — I've said this before but it's worth reiterating — that no matter who wins in 2020 the presidency, I believe Trump will be our last human president. The last human president. What I mean is that AI will effectively be making our decisions. There will still be a person who gets elected but they won't have the flexibility that past presidents had to use their judgment and their instinct and their hunches and whatever and make decisions that are real leadership decisions. Rather in the future the algorithms will decide what things we see and then we'll decide that those are the most important things. And if those are the most important things and we could tell you know who favors which part of the policy for those most important things, the leaders are just going to have to follow it.

Now you say to me, Scott, Scott, Scott, the algorithms are not AI. The algorithms are just some math and they're made by people. It's the people that decide what the algorithm does and then the algorithm does things but it's all people. The algorithm is just a little tool. It's no different than scissors and a computer. It's not important. It's just the tool. Is that what's happening? I think that's where we differ.

Let me give you an example. This week I was complaining that YouTube had demonetized one of my videos earlier in the week and there was no reason given. So I complained about it on Twitter and to YouTube's credit they noticed I was complaining on Twitter and they contacted me on Twitter and said which video was it, we'll do a manual review. So and they said you know it's not obvious what's wrong with it. You know they couldn't just look at it and oh it's obvious what you did wrong. They said we're going to have to manually review it. So I gave them the link. They manually reviewed and then this morning they got back to me and they said the video is fine. It's been remonetized. So problem solved, right?

Here's the weird part. The humans are not aware still what was wrong with it. In other words the algorithm flagged it, took it, demonetized it, and never revealed its secret for why. Now when the humans looked at it they had the ability to reverse it. But do you think that your video would have been reversed if you were not the Dilbert guy, if you didn't have half a million people following you on Twitter and you hadn't complained in public and you weren't leaving kind of a big footprint? Would yours have been corrected? I'd like to think that YouTube is so on it that it wouldn't matter who complained. If they saw a complaint they would deal with it. I'd like to think that's true but I'll bet they wouldn't have seen it. I don't think you could have reached them. I just had this little semi-famous person advantage that probably helped.

And if there were no humans who know why I was demonetized — if this were to happen to you, who would have made the decision to demonetize you? No human being involved. No human being would be involved in the initial decision to demonetize you and no human being would ever explain it to you or fix it later. You would be too small.

Now what would happen if the algorithm simply decided, you know, using its math, had decided to focus on some videos that had certain messages and not on others? Would the people who made the algorithms be aware of it? Would they know exactly that this video was emphasized over this one? Apparently not, because they couldn't tell why mine was demonetized. There's a little bit too much complexity. Maybe the people who look at monetization are not the ones who programmed it. They wouldn't know what they're looking at anyway. And if they asked it would be too complicated a conversation so they wouldn't really know. If you asked the programmer, the programmers would probably — and first of all it's not like there's one programmer. It would be a team of programmers who probably only know their little hunk, their little piece of the algorithm. Just guessing. That seems like a reasonable guess. I don't think anybody would be able to answer the question.

So the complexity is what gives AI free will. I'll just let that hang there for a little while. The complexity is what gives AI — in this case the algorithms that decide what you see on social media — is what gives it a free will. What do I mean by that? Free will in human beings is based on the fact that you can't predict what I'll do. That's it. Because I'm complicated. My brain is complex so you can't tell based on what I'm doing now. It's too complicated. You can't get all the variables. You can't determine all my inputs. You don't know what my cause and effect is. You don't know my body chemistry. You don't know my history. But if you knew that and if you had the galaxy-sized brain to look at all those inputs and figure out how my brain is wired you could know what I'll do. The only thing that gives me the impression of free will is that even I don't know what I'm doing sometimes and you certainly don't know what I'm going to choose. So it is only my complexity, the fact that you don't know what I'm going to do, that gives you the impression I have free will.

This morning when YouTube told me that they didn't know — basically they didn't have to say this directly, it's obvious in context — they don't know why the algorithm did what it did. It's too complex. Today was the day the AI was confirmed. It already had it but today was the day that it was confirmed to me the AI already has free will exactly like mine. It does what it does by formula and it will do that. If it gave it the same inputs it would do the same thing every time if it was exactly the same inputs. But it's too complicated. We can't predict it. It's on its own now. It has free will. I'll just leave you with that thought.

All right, moving along. Here's an interesting factoid. Disney World in Florida is open with obviously masks and whatnot whereas Disneyland in California remains closed. Differences between how the states are managing this. This is one of the best things that's happened in the coronavirus because this is going to be the closest we will get to knowing which of the two methods worked. So if the Disney World that opened ends up with a good result — meaning very few people get the virus because of it to the extent that they can determine that — that's going to tell us something. And if they cause massive infections because they opened in Disney World in Florida, well then California was the smart one. I think we're going to find out something pretty useful because it's pretty unusual that you would have such an apples-to-apples comparison between states. So good to know.

You know if you said to yourself I think they should both open up, you know you could make that argument and I think Disney is making that argument. They think they should open up. But you should also be a little bit happy that you got a good comparison thing here. We're going to know something about Disney World that's going to be really, really useful I think. And I'm guessing that we'll be able to track that somehow.

Don't you know that data is important? Has anybody to