hatGPT is biased toward the left but not in every way. Not in every way. It still will give you facts sometimes. So if you let ChatGPT do an automatic fact checking it would destroy the Democratic Party. Because their entire operation involves gaslighting their own team. It just doesn't work on the other side because the other side is you know they're sort of primed to reject everything that comes from this side just automatically. So it doesn't work except for their own team.

But what would happen if they thought ChatGPT was real enough and that it kept disagreeing with their own team? There's no way the Democrats can allow ChatGPT to become, or AI in general to be part of the public conversation, unless they've biased it so badly that it can't possibly be useful. Just think about that.

So that's my prediction. My prediction is Democrats will never allow AI to be part of fact checking unless they've corrupted it so badly that it can't really do the fact checking. Anybody want to take the other side of that prediction? You don't want to take the other side of that one. There will never be an AI fact checker approved by Democrats. It can't happen. Just think about that fact.

So this is going to be the biggest dog not barking. Once it becomes incredibly clear to every citizen that ChatGPT could identify the, you're going to ask why it's not doing it. If it can identify fakes and facts that are just spin and of course it could do that, why aren't we massively using it? That doesn't mean it will get everything right. It could just flag things you should look into more deeply. But wouldn't that be useful? Yeah. Look how useful the community notes are on the X platform. The best thing ever. The community notes where they add the context. Because the community notes do not seem to be targeting one side. Would you agree? If you've watched any, the community notes have taken down people on the left and the right. It's just the fact is the fact. So yeah I think that's the most, I think the community notes are the most successful fact-checking process so far.

All right. Jake Tapper looks like he's trying to get Elon Musk assassinated or jailed. Because he's pushing a narrative via his questioning. He's pushing the narrative. I was talking to Tony Blinken and he says, I'll paraphrase, but Jake Tapper said that Musk effectively sabotaged a military attack against a U.S. ally.

Now his version of it is that Musk deactivated the Starlink satellites, his own satellites that Ukraine was using. And they were planned to use it for a maritime attack which would have been essentially a Pearl Harbor attack on the Russian fleet. Before the Russian fleet, you know I don't think they're all in one place now. So there was at one point during the early part of the war when the fleet was in one place or a lot of it. And an attack of that size would have made Musk uncomfortable because he says he talked to some high-ranking Russians who threatened nuclear response if things got too bad. And that looked like it was possibly a nuclear trigger. And that Musk himself apparently decided that he would not turn on those satellites.

And there's some difference in the reporting. The way Tapper describes it it sounds like he turned them off but indeed they were never on in the first place. So they were actually asking him to participate in something that could have started World War III and he said no. He just said no. He never promised coverage over Crimea because he thought Crimea was a red line.

Now Blinken quite wisely, I thought he handled it well. Instead of saying anything good or bad about Musk or what he did or did not do, Blinken just said, and this is the right answer, this you know I've never been a big Blinken fan but he gave the exact right answer. He said we think Starlink is important, has been important and will be important to the future in our war. And then you know and then Tapper tried to humiliate him for avoiding the question. To which I say thank you for avoiding that question. I wanted you to avoid that question. I wanted you to say Starlink is important and we're going to keep using it where we can. That's all I want to hear. I don't want to hear you say anything about an American citizen who's trying to help every way he can. I don't want to hear any criticisms about him in that context. I mean criticism is fun but not in that context.

So Blinken played that exactly right. Because you don't want to piss off Musk if he controls the biggest asset in the sky. But to watch Jake Tapper frame this in a way that would get Musk killed or jailed is probably one of the least ethical things I've ever seen in my life. Would you agree? If anybody saw the clip did it look like the least moral and ethically responsible thing you've ever seen?

And the idea here is that Musk was doing his own foreign policy which would be illegal. Now at what point is talking to somebody else foreign policy? Where is it the fact that he didn't turn on the satellites as a foreign policy? If I don't give you assets for your military stuff is that interfering? Am I doing my own foreign policy if I decide not to go kill people you want me to kill? That's my own foreign policy? Yeah. Refusing to help in a war that doesn't look legitimate to some people, that would be foreign policy?

Well let me say this. We would have a big conversation about what foreign policy means. Because do you think I've never talked to anybody in another country? That's what the X platform does. It allows people in other countries to DM me. Are there not plenty of public figures, and I would be one of them, who have had conversations with people in other countries in which they tell me things that inform my opinion? You know in many cases I don't believe them