are not part of this study are not so sure that we're getting dumber. Some of them are saying oh yes generally speaking the bigger the brain the smarter you are. But there could be an exception where if you have more folds it could be tighter and more compact like a microchip so it might actually be better. But there's one theory that says that brains shrunk because we didn't need to think individually. The ones you can depend on other people to remember things and do some of your thinking for you. Sort of group thinking. That you didn't need as much individual intelligence to stay alive and that therefore it atrophied because you didn't need this so much. Not buying that.

So what should you believe about this new study about brain shrinking? Nothing. Including the fact that they shrunk. Because even that's questioned. Other people say you can't really measure the size of a brain back then because you know it's not preserved and blah blah blah. You can't really tell. So ignore all that.

So here's the CNN narrative on Trump courtesy of Stephen Collinson. And by the way I try to predict who the opinion piece will be based on the title. So I look at the title of the opinion piece before you see the name associated. You try to guess which person it is. And this one I as soon as I saw I was like that looks like Stephen Collinson to me. Sure enough.

Here are some things it says. The Republican front runner, meaning Trump, his stark speech. They're saying stark instead of dark. I think we embarrassed them off dark and so it's now turned stark. So it's very stark. The front runner's stark speech raised the prospect of a second presidency that would be even more extreme and challenging to the rule of law than his first.

Now do you believe that? You could objectively make the case that the Trump administration was just purely objectively had more or less a disregard for law than the Biden administration? Does anybody think that's the case? I can only think of one instance where this is even a question. And the one instance is January 6. And January 6 is a misinformation op by the left. It's not even real. It's not even real in the sense that obviously it wasn't an insurrection. But half of the country thinks you can overturn a country with some paperwork and some trespassing.

So the thing with the Democrats is that they're so brainwashed to believe that they're the good guys that you can just put this out there like it's true and you don't have to support it. Well you know there's this one administration that was ignoring the law and the Democrats go oh yeah oh yeah thank goodness we've got an administration that just follows the law.

Now is it amazing to me? It's just like mind-boggling that there's even a possibility that somebody thinks that they could measure one administration's flouting of the law compared to the other. How in the world would you even compare? So that's brainwashing propaganda point number one. Is to make you accept uncritically that one of them is the honest one. And we just started from there. Well start from the assumption that one is the honest side. Now look at all these crimes. Whoa yeah. How about we check that assumption of which one flouts the law.

And Collinson goes on to say that talk about Trump, his view that the Oval Office confers unfettered powers. Wait. So Stephen Collinson on CNN wrote this sentence about Trump. His view that the Oval Office confers unfettered powers. What evidence is there of that exactly? What evidence is there of his internal unspoken thoughts? It's just put here like it's a fact. Yes, mind reading. It's mind reading.

Once I introduce the idea that a lot of what you see in politics is people pretending they could read minds when obviously they can't, once you see it you see it everywhere, right? The mind reading phrase. It's like pervasive. And then once you realize that it's completely illegitimate speech, meaning that it's just somebody trying to brainwash you, it's not somebody who has a real opinion.

So let me finish this. This is mind blowing. His view, as if he could know this, his view that the Oval Office confers unfettered powers suggests Trump would indulge in similar conduct as that for which he is awaiting trial.

All right. So let's see if I can put this all together. Because he's talking about January 6. So the fake accusations about January 6 form a base. Completely fake accusations that we see that if we read his mind, and we read his mind we see that he's likely to do more of the thing that never happened. Because we read his mind. Did I state that right? They read his mind, Trump's mind, and in it they can see that he's likely to do more of the things he's falsely accused of. That's called the news on the left. That's the news. It's an opinion piece but it's on a news site.

Well there's a lot of concern by the people who care about AI that there will be an October surprise. You know that's the big news story that you don't expect but of course you always expect that before an election. The October before the election. So that not this year but one year from this October they will have an AI inspired deep fake that will be convincing enough that will change the election.

Now here's my question. I feel as if this could go either way. We might have reached the point where people will stop looking at photos and videos. Suppose you had a site that wouldn't show you any of it. They wouldn't show you a video and they would never show you a picture. They would only describe it. That would be as close as you could get to real news. Because videos and pictures lie. They're the biggest liars.

So I feel like if I knew a human wrote the story and there were no pictures or videos to distract me and lie to me that might be closer to real. But also if there's no picture or video it's easier to lie. So there's no real good solution here. But what do you think? Do you think that there will be a deep fake October surprise?

I say no. And the reasons I say no, there'll be lots of attempts. So there'll be plenty of deep fake attempts. But I think we'll be so on to the fakes that we will be primed to see everything is fake even when it's not. I think it's more likely we'll think a real thing is fake.

Oh okay. Here's my prediction. Here's my prediction. It's more likely we'll think a real thing was faked than we'll think a fake thing was real. Anybody want to take the other side of that bet? It'd be hard to prove but look for a situation where there's a real thing that one side or the other believes is fake. I think that's slightly more likely than actually believing a deep fake.

Now we might believe a deep fake for a day but we wouldn't believe a deep fake for two days if we're following, if we're watching the news. Because it would get debunked pretty quickly. And then I think that AI will be able to detect AI. So we should have pretty quickly an AI that's a watchdog of other AI.

Hey do you know why there's no such thing as an AI fact check? Isn't that the obvious thing? If ChatGPT can do search shouldn't it also be able to watch your posts on social media and automatically add a fact check? It already, we have that ability right now, right? How hard would it be? It would be somewhat easy.

Do you know why you don't see it? Why is there no ChatGPT fact check? Because the Democrats can't control it. They do know that C