d, in school, like actually by a teacher, I was taught that sacrificing my life for the country for freedom was a noble thing to do. What if the AI just said, you know, people will try to tell you it's a noble thing but here's how the system works. It's not the old people who are going to go to this war. They're going to sit in their mansions and say there's a good reason for you young people to go die to protect my wealth. And then they will convince you that you're doing it for a noble reason to protect freedom and you'll go off and get destroyed. Why wouldn't AI tell you that? Is there anything I said that was inaccurate? There's nothing inaccurate about that. It's just not the narrative that the government could allow you to believe because the whole system would collapse. People just wouldn't join the military. They'd be like, oh, I didn't get it. It's just a scam to protect the old people.

Yeah, so I think AI is a huge risk to anybody with power and money. So I mean I expect that it will wipe out all of my money. But I think the end of AI will be that I won't have any wealth that I've earned up to this point. I think I'll lose all of it in maybe a year or two. That's what I think. Doesn't mean that the country will fall apart. Could be better, who knows. But I don't think that I'll have money in the end of it.

Here's an interesting one that might be useful. Using existing authority, the government's authority to expand the ability of highly skilled immigrants and non-immigrants. So basically they want to make sure that we're getting the good immigrants with visa criteria that would help us get all the good AI experts from other countries. Are you against that? How would you — seriously, who would be against that? You're really against bringing in the smartest people from other countries that want to be Americans? Okay, all right. Not really. Nobody's against that. So that could be a good idea.

How long did it take before some company, realizing the risk of government interference, would create a country that was its own country that could do AI any time any way it wanted? Well, it's already here. I saw Brian Reilly tweet about this Blue Sea, Blue Sea Frontier compute cluster. It's an ocean-based gigantic platform that is completely self-sustaining. So it would make its own electricity, distill its own water, I guess, and it would have enormous computing ability and AI. So that you could essentially, if you have enough money, a few billion dollars, you can build your own country. You just put it off in the ocean and say it's a permanent residence because it has to be a permanent residence to be a country. It's self-sustaining and it has some real estate associated with it. There are a few rules that make you allowed to be a country to join the UN and everything, and they can meet that criteria. So these floating ocean-based things can be their own country. And there's no question whatsoever that these will exist, either legally sanctioned or not. But certainly now that we have the technology to put a small nuclear device on a seafaring thing like a submarine, we do it already. And then you have all the water you want because it can purify the water, take the salt out. You have all the electricity and water. What else do you need? Everything else you can buy or make on your place. 3D printers.

So coming, I would suggest that as you know the quantum computers that are being tested now, we're probably a few years away from a commercial-based quantum computer. But the moment they exist in a fully realized form, all security will be cracked in about five minutes. So worldwide every one of your accounts will become open all pretty much at the same time. So the entire world will be turned upside down. You won't be able to protect anything. You won't be able to have assets. I don't think you'll be able to own anything. So when the WEF says you won't own anything, as soon as quantum computers spin up, you won't own anything because there's somebody who will take it from you. If they can open your account whenever they want, you don't own anything. Your money is everybody else's money who has a quantum computer. They'll just go in and take it. So I'm oversimplifying, but quantum computers will create a loss of privacy.

And here's what I suggest before that happens, since it's guaranteed to happen. I would recommend a general amnesty for all American citizens. And what I mean is if we were to all lose our privacy at the same time, there wouldn't be enough jails to put us all in, right? Somebody's going to be talking about cheating on their taxes. Somebody's going to be talking about embezzling from their boss. Something. Yeah, you're going to see every bad behavior, every sexual kink, everything. You'll see prostitution. You'll see drug purchases. Everything. And I think we'd be better off if, except for maybe murder, a serious crime like that, if we just said from this day forward everything you did before that is excused, legally excused, except for violence stuff like that. Just think about it. I think you've got to think about it because we simply couldn't handle that much crime all at once.

All right, I call this next section why women should stay out of war discussions. Why women should stay out of discussions about war. Now to be consistent, I've said for a long time that you don't want to give me any respect for my opinion on abortion. I could have an opinion perhaps, but you should give me no respect for my opinion because I don't have skin in the game. If you don't have skin in the game, I'd rather listen to the people who do. All right, I'm not going to say I'll take away your vote if you have an opinion. Go ahead and say it. It's a free country, sort of. But I wouldn't respect anybody's opinion except women's on this topic. But go ahead and have an opinion. I just wouldn't respect it from a man.

Likewise, to have some consistency, men mostly are doing the war fighting, mostly. Obviously certainly in the IDF there are plenty of women, but in America it's mostly a male endeavor. And I want to give you two examples of women who weighed in on my poll. So I asked an impossible question. I said, is it immoral to kill children who have been weaponized through brainwashing to grow up and kill you and your family? Now remember the question itself answers your what-ifs. They do grow up to be a risk to you and your family. So would it be immoral to kill them if you think there's a good chance they would kill you or your family? 39% said yes. Obviously 40%, basically the same, said no. And then the rest said don't ask, just so they can see the answer. But 40% of the respondents said it would not be immoral to kill a child who is weaponized to kill you.

Now there's a secondary question about how imminent it is, how likely it is, but you would do that separately. So there were a few women, and I'm not going to say their names because there's no point in trying to dunk on them for it. But some prominent one, somebody you've probably heard of, looked at the poll and the answers and said the following: We've gone from "Israel isn't killing children" to "they have no choice but to kill the children" and now apparently "the children deserve to be killed." And she says, do you hear yourselves? To which I say, "deserved" was never part of anything. What part was deserved? Was there anybody in the comments who s