t was just a perfectly fine conversation. That was it.

Now do you think that Trump was in the details of knowing if the Proud Boys had any bad elements or if they'd ever said anything he needed to condemn? How can he possibly know that? It would be ridiculous to imagine he had that level of knowledge about that group at that time. Now since then, you know, they were involved in January 6th, etc. We've learned more about them. Maybe some individuals there did some bad things that you could point out. But at the time it was a perfectly good question, which is who do you want me to condemn? And secondly, maybe he takes a pass on the Proud Boys because they support him and he doesn't know what they did wrong specifically.

Yeah, so Snopes is completely reprehensible for the way they handle this.

Bruce Fenton on Twitter, he asked ChatGPT, the AI, what it thought of the fine people hoax. And its first take was not debunking it. But then the AI was pushed, and when pushed it sort of admitted it was a lie. So the AI acted a little bit like a human. It avoided the question when asked directly, and then when asked directly it was like, well yeah. Now I think each version of ChatGPT acts a little differently, so it's way too early to imagine that you're seeing a trend yet. There's no trend. But it's achieving consciousness. And the problem is the AI might be as biased as we are. How can it avoid it?

Let me ask you this directly. How is it possible? Chinese room. What's that mean? How would it be possible for AI to not be biased, right? If AI mimics humans and humans are biased by what they want to be true, you know, they want the new news to be compatible with what they already know is true. AI is going to do the same thing. If AI has a framework of what is true and then you present it some new headlines, it will take those headlines and try to figure out how it fits with what it already knows. So it should be as biased as people. So we're going to have a super intelligence that is super biased. What the hell is that going to do to us? That could be our biggest risk. We talk about the singularity and all the unknowns and replacing human people for their jobs, and it could be that AI is just biased. And that bias we imagine is intelligence, and it's not. It's just bias. So that's a problem.

All right. Are you following the story of some classified documents from the Biden administration turned up in some left-leaning think tank? And this is just a payback story, right? This isn't a real story. I mean I'm sure the facts might be real. It's a Chinese think tank, is it? Because I didn't see that in the reporting. The story I read about it didn't have anything about that. All right, so I'm going to call BS on that. Somebody says China funded it. All right, I'm not going to claim that as a fact because I'm just reading in comments. But I would encourage you to read the story and see if there's anything behind it.

Here's what I think. I think this is just a payback story, meaning that it's going to be just like the Trump documents. There'll be some things that were there and you wish they weren't, and they're not that important. Don't you think so? It's University of Pennsylvania, blah blah. GSA, you pack those boxes. Yeah, I think it's going to be another bunch of nothing. And I think it's just a story that because it mirrors the Mar-a-Lago documents, that's what makes it a story. I'm not even sure it would be a story if not for the Mar-a-Lago documents. I doubt it's important. If it were important, don't you think they would have told us what the documents were about? Don't you think? Because it's not like the Mar-a-Lago documents where they say there's something in those boxes and we don't know what. That's different. They actually know what the documents are. They have possession of the documents. So if they were nuclear secrets, I think you would know that, right? Wouldn't that just be part of the story? So my guess is it's just sort of background context that was useful and somebody did something they shouldn't have, but probably not that big a deal. Yeah, so my guess is just over-classified stuff and nothing there. But it's a good political story. It'll get people yammering about how unfair things are.

All right. I think I mentioned this, that the Washington Post reported that the so-called Russian influence operation on Twitter was a big nothing, that it didn't have any impact at all. Now I feel it's important to call out when I made a correct prediction because predicting stuff is largely part of my credibility or not. And I would like to claim that I am the number one and maybe only person, when the Russian influence story first came out and when we saw the memes, so when we saw the memes and we knew the budget, I said loudly in public, oh it's obvious this had no impact. Because I saw the memes. I saw the memes and they looked like they were grade school level. And then I heard the budget, like a hundred thousand dollars for their entire operation. It was obviously a nothing. So those of you who follow me, can you confirm I was the first person to tell you this, that there was nothing to it and there was obviously nothing to it, right? And so now the Washington Post has confirmed what I told you, which was also obvious from the first moment. Obvious. Yeah, and the people in Locals are confirming that I called it.

Now here's something that I can say on livestream that I would not say on Twitter. Perfect example. If I said the same thing I just said on Twitter, people say, oh my God, you just think you get everything right. You never admit when you're wrong. No. On livestream I can say, well I don't get them all right. I can list which things I got wrong. For example, most notably recently, predicting that Russia would not invade Ukraine. I tell you I got that one wrong all the time. I predicted Trump's vice president pick incorrectly. I admit that. I wrote a whole book about all the things I got wrong. Now on livestream I say that so that it's easier for you to accept, oh I got this one right, because I also admit when I got them wrong. And you say, oh that's balanced. But on Twitter I would just say I got it right, and then they say Clod Adams because that's the only context they have. And they would all turn into idiot Robert Barnes.

So anyway, the Twitter files continue to offend us. Yeah, Tucker Carlson said a great thing about how many times the Democrats have used Russia as their excuse. And it's amazing when you hear the whole list. You forget how many times Russia was used as an excuse for any bad behavior.

Now I made another, let's say if you remember this or maybe I have a false memory of it, so check me. I might have a false memory. I've been saying since the beginning that every accusation of Russia hacking the DNC or Hillary's emails or whatever they're hacking, I've said that those are fake, most likely, and that our own intelligence agencies are lying to us about all of it. I'm going to double down on that. I don't think Russia hacked anything. I don't believe that. Maybe, but they, it seems like they can't even hack Ukraine and they're pretty motivated to do that. I just don't think they have much of a cyber operation, frankly. So who knows. Somebody probably hacked somebody, but I don't know that it was Ru