t anybody thinks that one of them is the honest one of Trump versus Biden — yeah, pick the one who passes all the fact checking. They're exactly the same. Those two are exactly the same. They don't tell the truth about anything if there's a better story.

And this again is why I tell you we need the country needs a debate between Vivek Ramaswamy and RFK Jr. Not because they have a huge chance of becoming president at the moment — things could change, things could change quickly actually — but because they both have a history of not being liars. Now you can argue that they've been wrong about stuff. I'm not arguing that they've been right about everything. I'm just saying that there's no evidence that they've intentionally just told a bottomless Pinocchio. There's no bottomless Pinocchio happening with those two. So let's see them talk. Let's see them figure out what's true and what isn't.

All right. So now doctors are using AI to craft draft responses and save time. This is one of the best uses of AI that I've seen yet. So when somebody writes to their doctor, which is common on email, as soon as the email goes — as soon as the doctor goes to respond, AI types out the draft response in the email. Because most stuff is common. Somebody will say, "Hey I think I have an ear infection. What should I do?" Well you don't necessarily need them to come in to check them out in person. So you might say something like, "Well here's a prescription for this and use it three times a day and get back to me in a week if it doesn't work." So that all appears in the email and then the doctor skims it, goes, "Oh yeah that's what I was going to say," boop. It's kind of amazing. Kind of amazing.

But apparently AI was tested by real doctors to see if it could give answers that are as good as doctors. And what the doctors judged was that the AI was actually better than human doctors already. But this makes me ask the following question. How do humans judge an intelligence that's smarter than they are? At the moment they probably can, because if it makes an obvious mistake — you know it tells you to take a drug too much or something — that'd be obvious. But what happens in just a little bit of time, maybe a year, when the AI doctor is unambiguously better than human doctors? But the human doctors will be the ones who decide how good it is, right? Because they will test. They'll test the AI against their own knowledge and opinions. What happens if they don't match?

Well in today's world, I mean literally just today, if they don't match the doctor still wins and the doctor says, "No that's not it. I overrule you." And everybody thinks that's probably a good idea. But what happens when there's just no question, just no question that AI has higher accuracy than human doctors? It's less than a year away. That's going to happen. Well then the doctor tries to overrule it. Should they? Do you want your doctor to overrule the AI if you know the AI is better than the doctor?

So this is where I'm predicting that AI will be capped in some areas. We will not want AI to be smarter than us after it is smarter than us. So we're going to treat it like we treat humans. If you let's say you go into a debate — let's use real people. Let's say a dumb person goes into a debate with Ben Shapiro, a famous smart person. In the real world Ben Shapiro would annihilate the less intelligent competitor in any kind of a debate. I mean it would just be a slaughter. But what does this person who got slaughtered, a hypothetical person who gets slaughtered in their debate against Ben Shapiro, say about it? Do they say to me apart in front of a big crowd of people who all agree he ripped me apart? Does anybody ever say that? Nope. No, they think they won. If Ben Shapiro just shredded you in front of a huge crowd of people who all agreed that he shredded you, you would still walk away saying, "You know I think it was a tie," or "I think I actually won because the crowd was just on his side or something like that."

So we're going to do the same thing with AI. When AI just destroys us with its better arguments, we humans are going to say, "No you got that one wrong. I think my opinion actually is better than that. If I'm being honest I see all your smart AI answers but no, I think my answer is a little bit more on the mark, if you know what I mean." So AI will certainly be gated by our own intelligence.

Cities are starting to convert their empty office spaces into residential space. Now they're doing it in Boston, Seattle, and some other places. But I don't understand how it's going to work in a city that's a crime-infested toilet. Who's going to want to move into a city just because they can? It feels like the very worst thing for some cities. So my prediction is th