Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive May 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas

Context —

means the non-violent ones, right? Did he really need to say the non-violent ones? He didn't need to say it. That's obvious. Of course if you're going to release one third of prisoners you're not going to start with the dangerous ones. Nobody would do that. Nobody. No, Oz lied. The fact check is correct and I think this is a pretty bad lie. That's a pretty bad lie. The difference between releasing…

← Previous segment →

hat. I love the fact that they can't figure out how. It doesn't seem to you that there's probably a lot of ways they can do it? So what I don't know is is anybody allowed in the room? Can you have anybody in the room?

Here's what I think it is now. I'd have to see if there are any barriers or anything like that. But if you see the technology where you can send the sound to one person, have you ever experienced that where you have to stand in an exact place to hear the sound because it's somehow it doesn't form until it hits you but if you move either one foot in either direction it's zero. There's no sound at all but right there you have sound. So one technology could be somebody sending sound and but he's the only one who hears it possibly.

The other possibility is it would take the smallest sign language to have somebody in the audience helping him. So somebody in the audience could be connected to a computer that's telling them and then you can imagine for example that when the person leaves on their left arm there that means something but if they go like this while they're in the audience it means something else. If they touch their glasses it means you move your rook. If you mean to move the rook three spaces then maybe you have something else that says three. I don't know but you could imagine developing a language that nobody could see. You would just see randomly moving around. Yeah I don't know. That's my guess. Some kind of random signal or a sonic thing.

I saw a user named Greg. He had this comment about Musk and he thinks that Musk's idea of proposing a Ukraine peace solution was a bad idea. And this is what Greg says. He says it was a pretty big persuasion fail. Musk made a fool of himself by wading into something he didn't understand and proposing a solution that was widely ridiculed. Huh. Has Elon Musk ever waded into an area he didn't understand in which he was widely ridiculed? Well there was Tesla. You know he's not even an engineer, right? Elon Musk is not an engineer. He was a physicist and a programmer. He learned to be an engineer. He learned it just sort of on his own. Yeah so that then well there was SpaceX and I'm sure Neuralink and Starlink.

So here's what I say Greg. Greg you should not go into areas for which you are unfamiliar. That is good advice for Greg. Greg stick to what you know because it sounds like you would be a little bit incompetent as soon as you got out of that narrow field of stuff you know how to do. But if you're Elon Musk just go do it. Does he need to prove himself anymore? Like what does Elon Musk need to, what's he need to do to prove to you he can figure out things that he's not yet an expert at? He's like literally the poster child of people who leave their lanes and succeeds. Nobody has left their lane and succeeded harder than he has time after time after time. Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg.

So let me tell you how my Twitter experience was today. Today I'll make a statement such as the sun is hot. Provocative, something like that. The sun is hot. My critics will come in and say LOL worst take ever and that's saying a lot coming from you. If the sun is hot as you claim how do you explain the lifespan of an Albanian marmoset? Maybe you should stick to comics.

Now something has changed. You know I've been making fun of analogies forever but the analogies that people are using now on Twitter, they used to be at least somewhat on point and now they're not. They're just other stories about something different. So my new way to deal with all analogies, because everybody wants to argue with an analogy and people use analogies because they don't have an actual argument, right? That's the only reason you use them. Sometimes you use them to clarify a point but that's not how they're used online. People don't use them to clarify points. They use them to win arguments and they don't work for that.

So now instead of arguing the analogy which I always used to do, I always used to say well that analogy doesn't apply because this or that is different. Instead I say yes that's a different situation about different things and that's it. And then they'll go back to their analogy and say but pay attention to my analogy and I'll go I note that you're telling a story about a different situation and nothing else. I will give you nothing. If what you want to do is change the topic go ahead. I don't have to follow it.

All right, Rasmussen tells us that 83 percent of voters see crime as important for the elections. 62 percent of likely U.S. voters think violent crime is getting worse in America. 11 percent think the crime problem is getting better. What, 11 percent of the country thinks the crime problem is getting better? Oh it's getting better every day, okay. And 24 percent think the problem is staying about the same. 24 percent. 24. That's nearly one quarter, huh? One quarter think that this crime is about the same as it was. No comment. No comment.

All right, that ladies and gentlemen is the conclusion of what is likely to be one of the best live streams you've ever seen. I think you'd all agree. Is there any topic I missed? What'd I miss? The Onion amicus brief. I haven't read it. I hear it's funny. So the Onion is arguing some case to the Supreme Court and they made their argument in Onion humor which is awesome.

Somebody just joined and asked if I could repeat everything I said. I'll be happy to do that. October 22nd. Did I write that? Probably typo. What is that picture for? All right, a picture of a large breasted woman randomly sent to me. Never mind that. But I feel like I need to make an NPC script. I want to collect the most NPC things everybody says for each topic where they try to tell you the obvious. Wouldn't that be fun? So that every time somebody says the NPC thing you just show it to them. Yeah so whenever you talk about a new food source somebody says Soylent Green. If somebody talks about the simulation they say The Matrix. Yeah and I want to do it just to make them leave me alone.

You're bold. Ben Crump is, who's Ben Crump? All right you don't need to send me scantily clad pictures. Let us not do that unless they're funny. If they're funny you can do it. All right any questions? When's the killer dealers trip? Pretty soon. Pretty soon. Not today. Create an NPC detector. I love that idea. Oh yeah you could almost do it. You'd almost need the AI though because there'd be too many language variations to trap the old-fashioned way. Yeah that would be really interesting because you could teach it.

All right, have you noticed there's one thing that AI doesn't have yet which is a sense of humor? Anybody knows that. What happens when AI gets a sense of humor? Or could it ever have a sense of humor? I have a hypothesis that humor can be programmed but only a few people in the world would be able to do it and I'm one of them except for the programming p

Context —

art but I can specify it because do you know I developed the six dimensions of humor. So there's actually a formula that the AI could compare anything to and say oh it fits that formula it's probably humor. And then I could also teach the AI how to create humor because there are only so many forms. Have you ever watched a stand-up comedian? They use this one form all the time. They'll say for exa…

Next segment → →