udging the science, neither of us could do that because the scientists can't do it themselves.

Now here's the thing that Ivor has to explain. Why is it that he's got this one doctor — there'll be more, right? You wouldn't be the only doctor — but why is it that these doctors who are contrarians can't convince the other doctors? What's up with that? Because you think that if the contrarians have good points and data — they have all the data according to Ivor — if the contrarians have all the data that's it, right? That's how science works. Here's my data. And then they'll change their opinion. But that hasn't happened. Well how do you explain the fact that science is probably 99 in favor of masks for the pandemic? Would you say that the professionals are 99 percent for masks? Does that feel about right? Now that doesn't mean masks work. It really doesn't. But it does tell you that a whole lot of people who understand how the world works and science works and risk management and all that, that they kind of fell on the same side.

Now after this is all done and let's say studies are done — I don't know if you could ethically study coronavirus and masks because you'd have to infect people — but suppose someday we find out that masks absolutely didn't work. Would that make me have been wrong during the coronavirus epidemic? No, no. Because it's risk management. If you make the right risk management decision and yet it turns out to be wrong, you still made the right decision. You just didn't get lucky, right? Because lots of times you're guessing. It's like well 70 this, 30 this, but the 30 happens. 30 is a lot.

All right. Yeah, then I'm seeing somebody say people wore masks during the 1918 pandemic. You will find people who say yes they wore masks in 1918 and that proved they didn't work. And then other people will say yes they wore masks in 1918 and proved it worked. Who's right? The ones who say they proved it didn't work are the ones who say yeah all the evidence. Should they — how do you know? All right so be careful about what you think gives you knowledge. This process of two non-scientists talking about science would not give you knowledge. It would not. And then I'll add on top of this that if you want to judge Ivor's credibility just Google his name and Google words like fact check and debunk and you'll see some articles. Now I don't have an opinion about whether the people who try to debunk him are right but just know it's out there.

All right. China has developed — a Chinese company has developed what they call an automated sperm extractor. And what it is is a device that's about waist high that has an artificial, let's say, female part that does some moving action. And for Chinese men who want to go to the hospital and they're going to give a sperm sample but they're too embarrassed to let's say take care of it themselves, they can use the robot instead.

Now I have questions. I know you have questions. We'll see if your questions are like mine. My first question is how big is the market? Because you'd have to find somebody who could get fully, shall we say, engorged. Otherwise even the robot machine doesn't work, right? Because the robot machine requires you to be let's say physically established. How many people fall into the category that they can get an erection in a hospital but they can't finish, but they can if they're with a robot?

Now let me, for the few women who are watching this — I know it's like 85 percent men but for the few women — I'd like to explain something about men. Now those of you who are men, you can talk among yourselves because you already know this. There's no man who can't masturbate in a hospital. In fact if you just close the door on the people who are in iron lungs they're going to go to town. You could be in full traction and heavily medicated, you'd find a way. So I'm skeptical about how many people there are in all of China that fall into this category of they can get aroused in the hospital but the only way they can finish is with a robot when the people on the other side of the door know that's what's happening on the other side of the door. Are you done with the robot yet? We've got somebody else who wants to take a go at the robot. Could you hurry up in there? And then they won't be embarrassed because they would only be embarrassed if they took care of it themselves. But apparently the robot option, not embarrassing.

So here's a question I ask you. Did the CIA do this because you know about China and their unrestricted warfare where they're allegedly using every possible way to weaken the United States from stealing our IP to trade deals to sending us fentanyl. Like everything's on the table. What would be the best way to destroy China? It would be to give them a sex option that was better than their women. Now it's not there yet. This is like version one, the sperm extractor. So I'm not going to say that's better than women but it's catching up.

Somebody said on Twitter it was very sexist. This is so sexist it can barely come out of my mouth and I would like to disavow anybody who would say something like this. Somebody said can it make a sandwich? Oh disgusting. Oh cancel that person. Could somebody go back and find out who said that and just cancel them? I think they need to lose their job for that comment. So can they make a sandwich? Well as it turns out I tweeted coincidentally the same day a robot that Samsung is making that can make a sandwich. Yeah they've got a robot that looks like it's about four feet tall and has this giant articulating arm, just one of them. And I saw in the video that it can put away dishes. You see this arm is like picking up a dish and putting it in the dishwasher. It can set the table. What, it can set the table because it's got eyes and an arm? I'm pretty sure it can make a sandwich now.

I think you're ahead of me. You take the Samsung robot that can make a sandwich, which is so sexist it's disgusting. I hate it when people talk like this, don't you? Cancel me. It can make a sandwich. But I feel if you took the Chinese sperm extractor technology and sort of combined it, it wouldn't be attractive. I mean it would just be a robot with one big arm and a unit there but you'd be getting closer. I feel as if our CIA is using unrestricted warfare to destroy the next generation in China by giving them robots that are better than their women. So keep an eye on that.

You've heard of the Turing test, right? That's the idea that if you're trying to build artificial intelligence one way to test whether it's a good artificial intelligence is to put it on the other side of a curtain and then have somebody who doesn't know what's behind the curtain have a conversation with it. Now you could do it by typing or talking. But if the person who's a human can't tell that what's on the other side of the curtain is a computer and believes it's human then you've passed the Turing test.

And I see a lot of AI seems directed toward building intelligence that imitates human intelligence, which is ironic because that's the dumbest thing anybody ever did. So just that they're trying to imitate human intelligence, that's so dumb that you should know just from that that you shouldn't try to imitate human intelligence. Because the smartest people developing our AI are so dumb that they think making a computer that thinks like a person would be a win. No. If you make a computer that thinks like people you lose.

In fact the only way you could make a computer that would fool people into thinking it was human is to make it a lot dumber than it already is. Let me give you an example. There's something behind the curtain and they bring me and they say Scott your job is to talk to whatever is behind this curtain, find out if it's human or computer. And you've got as much time as you want. And I'd say I won't need much time. Give me 10 seconds. And I walk in there and I say to whatever is behind th