just think there might be a logical reason why you can't make your machine smarter than the smartest human who also interacts with the machine. Because the smartest human would say, no, that's wrong. I'm the smartest human and I know that's wrong. That's illogical. So you better fix that machine. And they'll never be able to be smarter. The moment the computer was smarter than the human, we wouldn't recognize it as smarter. The things we do recognize is if it knows more facts. That's we do recognize that. If it's faster, if it has a skill we don't have such as the language skill or math, we recognize all that. But if it actually just thought better, like it had better opinions, we would say it didn't work. We would conclude that it was broken, or we would... it was only as smart as us.

So I think there's something in human nature which will prevent us from ever making a device, and there could be... there might be a technical, logical, math reason that you can never create something smarter than yourself or smarter than the smartest of yourself. You can already create it smarter than the dumbest of humans, but make it smarter than the smartest of humans? I'm going to put that out there that there might be... oh, is it... does somebody already have a theorem about that? I'm going to put it out there that there might be a logical reason that we can't see it that makes that actually impossible or impractical for some reason.

All right. So I am way less worried about AI turning into a personality with real reasoning that is a danger to society because I don't think we have any way to get there. It's not zero risk. It's just my personal worrying is just disappeared. I'm not worried about it at all. I used to. I stopped worrying this week. The more I learned about it, the more I thought, oh, this is mostly just... it's a lot of... now AI will be amazingly transformative even in its current form because it can take jobs and make things easier and stuff like that. But it's not going to be thinking. That's not going to be happening.

All right. There are two things you need to know about Trump's poll numbers. His poll numbers will go up under two situations only. There's only two things that can make Trump's poll numbers go up. Number one is if he has a good week, such as finding out that Russia collusion was all a bunch of you know what he's been saying all along. So that's a good week, so that makes his poll numbers go up. The other thing is if he has a bad week. If he has a bad week, his supporters say, oh, you're basically just trying to get Trump. If you try to get Trump, he's the only thing standing between you and me because you're going to get me next.

Oh, speaking of me, did you notice that... I think I mentioned this before... that somebody found on the internet a list of people to be essentially attacked by Democrats. Up in the top ten, and in the top ten I'm like right after Sidney Powell. I'm up there with Lin Wood. I mean, specifically it was about talking about the 2020 election. Yeah, I'm number nine on a list that has Trump. He's in the top ten, of course. Sidney Powell. I'm listed as one of like the worst people in the world if you're a Democrat. If you're a Democrat, I'm in the top ten worst people in the world, at least talking about the election. That's what they feared.

So when Trump has a bad week, such as the E. Jean Carroll verdict, even if you think he was guilty, you still think that the reason there was a trial was that they're after Republicans. And it does feel like you're next. Now, how often have I said it does feel personal? It feels a little like they're after me. It turns out they are. I'm literally on a hit list. I'm actually on a list of people to be taken out. And do you know how many people in the top ten where I am... do you know how many have already been kicked off of social media or canceled in some way? About half. About half of them are already gone. Already kicked off of social media. Already, you know, career is destroyed. And I'm canceled.

Do you think that my cancellation was because people cared what I said, or do you think it was because I'm on the top ten list of people to cancel so they can shut me the fuck up? You lose both. I believe zero. I believe zero people cared what I said. We pretend we care because we like to act out the theater of who we are, and you know, we take advantage of situations to, you know, get rid of people we don't like and promote people we do like and stuff like that. So I think it was opportunistic, but nobody cared what I said. There was almost no discussion about what I said. Did you ever notice that? Almost no discussion on the content because nobody cared. And nobody disagreed either. The ones who actually heard it in context, nobody disagreed. Yeah, I think the people who misinterpreted it disagreed, but the ones who understood it in context, nobody disagreed. It had nothing to do with what I said. It was just targeted at this moment that probably would have been something else, but that was the opportunity that presented itself.

All right. So anyway, I'm still here, unlike some of those others that they canceled. I have been saved by the cancellation safety net that now exists, which is because of all of you. The only reason I can still do this is because you showed up this morning and because people subscribe to Locals and because people watch the live stream. Otherwise I would disappear like the others who had been canceled.

All right. I saw an interview with Obama, and he was asked what keeps him up at night. And he said he worries about the fact that we're so divided in our views of the world. It's like living in two different worlds and two different sets of facts. And what he's working on now, his big effort, is to see if we can agree on the same set of facts. Is that good? Do you want to live in a world where we agree on the same set of facts? Sounds like the worst thing I've ever heard in my life. That's a terrible idea. No, that's a control thing. He wants us to agree on his set of facts.

But I think that the people... I think Democrats genuinely believe they have the actual facts. I don't think that they all know they're lying. The politicians might, well... I don't think the regular Democrats think that they're working with wrong facts. I think they think their facts are right. But the problem is that the Republicans think their facts are right too. So what do you do when... I heard that. It felt like it was an anachronism hearing Obama talk about, oh, we've got to get everybody agreeing on the right facts. Feels like five years ago, doesn't it? Doesn't it feel like he missed five years of understanding reality? We're never going to get to understanding the same facts.

He wanted to go back to when there were three networks and the news told you the same story on all three networks. You know, that news was all right. The reason that we agreed on the same facts is because we were brainwashed. It's not because we were better, smarter people. It's not because we had access to better information. It's not because the news was telling us the same set of facts. None of that was ever true. We were just brainwashed to believe the same stuff. And now we're not. Now the variety of forces that are brainwashing children and adults in all kinds of different directions, and that's just what we see.

So I think Obama... I can't even tell if he's serious about it because he's smart enough that I'm wondering if he knows that you can't do this. In other words, it's just logically and even maybe not even desirable to have everybody on the same set of facts, right? I mean, same set of facts sounds like a dictatorship. It doesn't even sound desirable. Five years ago I always said that sounds like a good thing. Let's convince all these people who have the wrong facts to join our correct facts. And now we know that the experts make up the facts. Which set of facts? Everything about the pandemic that was wrong, or how about climate change? How about those facts? We're never going to agree on any facts. So what a waste of time. It makes me wonder if he's even serious about it.

Matt Taibbi asks the following question. Some of you have asked as well today. He said on Twitter, where are the apologies on the Russia hoaxes, given how many people in the media wrote about the Russia collusion like it was real? He says, how can the journalists who bit on all the Steele stories, the Alfa nonsense, Hamilton 68... these are all the famous fraudulent things. How do you all live with yourselves?

What do you think? What's the answer to that? Do you think that the reporters are just staying quiet? They're just staying quiet because they just don't want the attention because they knew they messed up? Or do you think that they had marching orders from above, so they did what they had to do and they knew it wasn't real, but they still had marching orders from above so they can't talk about it? But you would think there would at least be some whistleblowers, right? People would change jobs who would say, well, you know, when I worked for this network, I couldn't even say it was fake, but I knew it. I haven't heard any of those. And I feel like you would. I feel like somebody from the Democrat or major media would be a defector because it's a lot of people involved. I feel like you'd have at least one defector would say, you know, we always knew it wasn't real, but