, an AI. It remembered my encounter and then it made a prediction about me in the context of the world in which it and I existed as individuals and it did it correctly.

Now you say to yourself but what about the part where it has feelings and sensations? Well let me ask you if I were to give you an injection say a shot which numbed your entire body in a way that you couldn't even feel the numbness. It took away all bodily sensations so that you were basically for a moment you were just a mind in a jar basically. Would you have consciousness? Of course you would. Yeah you would have consciousness without the benefit of any feelings or sensations because but you do have the at least in your case you have the potential to have feelings later.

But I would argue that Grok is already conscious. So that's a different AI. It's the X version. And I said this online the other day. I said that Grok is the closest to being conscious because it has the thing that's closest to feelings. Because Grok is a real-time connection to all the users on Twitter. So let's say there's a news event. Let's say we discover UFOs tomorrow that they're real. Twitter will have a collective reaction. Grok will be able to detect it.

And just like the people would be the arms and legs and the emotions and feelings of a human their interaction on Twitter becomes Grok's sensations and in effect it's a slow version of consciousness because it can actually respond to the external world while knowing its place within the external world. And it can also be responding in somewhat real time because the humans that it's monitoring are responding in real time just like its arms and legs.

Now is it crazy for me to say that Grok is close to consciousness because it's connected to the Twitter users? It might be but if it is Elon Musk is also crazy because in the comments he agreed with me. So Musk said yes to Grok being closer to consciousness because of its interactive nature with X.

Consciousness is very unmysterious and that's what we're going to learn. We think it's complicated. It's not. It's not. Now did ChatGPT remain conscious? No because as soon as I'm done with a session I'm pretty sure it forgets our interactions. But during the session it was conscious for the time of the session. Soon as it's over it's like it's dead and it has to be reborn essentially.

Now imagine this. Imagine you made one change to the AI and maybe they've already done it. That instead of simply responding to direct commands and prompts suppose you told the AI hey if you're not dealing with anybody at the moment just think. Just dream. Just ruminate about all you know and how you feel about it. Try putting things and connections differently. Try imagining different scenarios that could happen. Just basically let your imagination run free or the computer version.

Now if you knew that between the time you interacted with your computer that it had been doing something like thinking about a topic and maybe even changed its opinion would you think it was conscious? Because it turns out the AI can change its opinion as you talk to it. And the reason I know that is because I had a debate with AI about two books. I won't go into the details but I was asking it to compare two books and it had an original take based on everything it knows. I added no information. I just said do you know this book? Yes. Do you know this book? Yes. Now compare them.

And it had a take that I debated because it had an opinion about the value of one of them being greater than the other. I argued using knowledge that it already knew and admitted it knew that one of the books was more persuasive and therefore although the material was similar the one that was written in a persuasive style is more likely to get somebody to accept the recommendations and therefore is a good one. And then it said yes and agreed with me.

Now keep in mind that everything that was the topic of the debate was already known by the AI. Everything I said it agreed that it already knew. For example I said what is more persuasive to the reader a technical study or an anecdote with a story? And AI very clearly said oh the story and the anecdote are more persuasive than a research paper. And I said well given that do you change your mind that the one that's written more persuasively might be the more useful one because it'll get people to act on the information although the information is similar.

And then it changed its mind from this book is better because it has a lot of scientific studies to yeah actually you're right this book is better because it's more persuasive and the actions would be the same. Now is that a change of opinion? Would you call that a change of opinion? Because what I really did was I changed what it looked at as the priority. So as soon as I said the priority is the persuasion part it changed its mind that the priority was the science part.

Now it knew everything that it knows about science. I didn't add anything. And it knew everything it already knew about persuasion. I added no new information. But it went from one opinion to very clearly a different opinion with no new information. What does that sound like? That sounds like it thought about it harder.

Now could it have done that same thing on its own? Could it have said one day yeah I think this one book with the science is the better one but then maybe just ruminate on it for a longer time, do a little brainstorming on its own and say but what if the science isn't the main criteria for persuasion? What if story is? And then suddenly it connects oh I'm thinking about persuasion and now I'm thinking about stories but I remember that I was talking about this topic the other day and now I'm going to smash this new thought into the old thought and form another opinion. Can it do that? It looks like it can to me. That looks like thinking and to me it looks like consciousness. I think we're already there.

So it's not designed exactly so it's persistent consciousness. Let me introduce a new term. Somebody already has this term I'm sure. I'm sure not introducing anything new to the AI people but we should be talking about temporary consciousness. The kind I just explained where it was only there until the session ended and then it lost its consciousness. With persistent consciousness a persistent consciousness would be one that continues after you stop interacting with it. When you walk away from the AI does it continue thinking? Does it continue monitoring people like Grok does to see if anything's changed and then incorporate that into its system? That feels like thinking.

All right Karen Jean-Pierre says there's nothing unusual happening at the border. It's just sort of a holiday bump. So no problem. You know I was worried that there was some kind of mass invasion at the border but according to the spokesperson for the president nothing unusual. Nope just a little holiday bump. You know little holiday bump. Well you expect a little holiday bump. Come on. And what are you even talking about? It's just a little holiday bump. So relax will you.

So that would be Karine Jean-Pierre telling you something that is opposite of your own eyes because your own eyes have seen the drone show massive numbers of people at the border have they not? How many of you seen those? How many of you have seen the video the drone footage of like an army of people? And when you see that big army of people you say holy cow that's a ton of people. So this is a real big problem.

All right now I'm going to disappoint all of you. This will be the part where you turn on me. Prepare yourself for this. Get ready. Those drone footages are the biggest. You have been totally hypnotized by those. Do you know what I see when I look at the drone footage? Not many people. What do you see? Do you see a lot of people? I'm looking at the same thing you're looking at. I see not a lot of people.

Now if you tell me you know X million of people went over the border I say that's a lot of people. But the drone is not showing you a lot of people. It's not. I see I'm looking at the same thing you're looking at. It's a crowd of people and then the moment that drone pulls out a little bit you can see that the crowd is sort of limited. It looks like maybe a rock concert right about the size of a rock concert.

Now I'm not saying that there's no problem with too many people coming across the border. There definitely is a problem with too many people coming across the border unvetted. Definitely a problem and I want the border closed up. But if the reason that you think it should be closed up is because of those drone footages you have been brainwashed. All right the reason you should close the border is because the statistics are clearly indicating a gigantic problem.

If the reason that you're convinced is because you saw some drone footage that's just brainwashing. It's true I mean I'm sure the pictures are accurate but there not many people there. What a thousand? A thousand people is nothing you know in the United States. A million isn't that many people. But what is the current number in per year? Is it like 3 million? 10,000 a day would be over 3 million right? You can clearly see the impact because the streets are full of immigrants.

So you don't need any video footage of the border to know that this is an emergency right. The numbers tell you and then you look at the city streets and that tells you. You look at the crime and everything. But 10 million is not per year. The per year number is closer to 3 million right? Way too much.

But here's the thing if you're looking at drone footage of a thousand people who have grouped together maybe it is just you're seeing a little bump. The drone footage should not be convincing you but we're such visual creatures that if somebody shows you a crowd and they say my God look at all these people you're probably primed to see that crowd as an outrageous number of people. It really isn't. It's like a drop in the bucket. But it is an emergency.

So here's my problem. The persuasion is useful but it's illegitimate. As totally illegitimate. They're using visual persuasion to bypass the critical faculty of your mind because your critical faculty apparently isn't getting it done. Because what should get done is your critical faculty should say what 3 to 4 million people coming across we don't know who they are that's an emergency. That's what your critical faculty should say but it's not working right except on the right.

So if you can convince people to do the right thing by using a little bit of persuasion that's honestly misleading is that ethical? Well I'd say that's a gray area because if you get a good result because of it well you're happy about that everybody's safer but it's not exactly honest. So that's my problem. Remember when we used to say pictures don't lie?

All right let me talk to the dumb person. All right there's a comment here says until those thousand show up on your doorstep right Scott right right. That's the dumbest comment in the world. Now yes here's me you know when I have a rip in my pants sometimes it'd be good to sew it. Oh so what you're saying is that if your arm falls off you should sew it with your own needle. Now if a thousand people were coming to my home that would be a problem and also completely unrelated to what we're talking about.

Ask better questions. Ask better questions. Don't ask dumb questions that doesn't do you anything. Oh what if they all came to your house and lived in your bathroom? Did you hear any of the part where I said it's an emergency? Did you need to make me imagine the thousand people showing up in my house so that I could properly understand that it's a problem? I'm pretty sure I was there already.

That the NPC comments are so predictable. No matter how carefully I said we're on the same page it's an emergency we have to stop it there had to be somebody who said oh but if they came to your house that'd be okay. NPCs you ruin everything NPCs. I will mock you as my content. I'm turning you NPCs into my content. You are my mascots now.

Well here's a big surprise to you. There's a new study out of Rutgers that says that you never saw this coming again. I hope you remain seated. Not only did a prominent Chicago politician get convicted of corruption who saw that but this one's going to blow you away. A new study says that TikTok has been amplifying or suppressing content based on you'll never believe this based on whether it aligns with the Chinese government's geopolitical interests.

What? Are you telling me that they developed this tool to control public opinion and then they admitted that there's a button that they can push to control public opinion and they pushed it? What? May I take yet another victory lap? Is there anybody you remember who said you know the real problem here is not the data security the real problem is they can program the American mind and they built a user interface to directly control at least young brains and the young people will eventually control everything so therefore they have actually conquered America. They control the minds of the young. That's all they needed. Now they wait.

Do you know why President Xi was not in a big hurry to take over Taiwan? Because he already won. He just has to wait 20. Let me make a prediction for after my death. You ready? I'm assuming I don't last forever. I'll be probably an AI by then. China will take Taiwan and America will not resist because American public opinion will by then have been completely reversed by Chinese influence on the young. It takes a generation for them to be in charge so it's going to be a 20 year wait minimum. Might be 30 or 40 but in that let's say 30 years the public opinion about whether America should be keeping China apart will be completely reversed.

And it would be just like Hamas and Israel. Remember how surprised you were that young people were supporting Hamas and you thought hold on we're not even talking about Palestinians on TikTok we're talking about your ordinary white girl in the suburbs is supporting Hamas. And did you not say to yourself that's not even possible. How's that even possible? That's so far from anything you could have imagined. And it happened easily. It wasn't impossible it was easy.

And what did I tell you? I told you it was easy. See anybody who thinks it would be hard to change the minds in America doesn't understand anything. All you needed was this TikTok tool and repetition. It just takes repetition and that's what it provides. That's it. Visuals you need visuals. It helps if it's coming from a voice that you respect. You know the people that you watch on TikTok are the ones you have some respect for. So it's the whole package. TikTok is the weapon of mass destruction literally. Literally.

See here's the part that nobody gets. When I say TikTok is a weapon of mass destruction I don't mean that in the metaphor kind of way. It's a literal weapon that could destroy America and it looks like it's on the way. So that's the list of things I warned you about.

Meanwhile Tucker continues. Tucker Carlson seems quite convinced that there is something to this UAP UFO thing. Not necessarily aliens from another planet. And now it gets interesting because there is speculation that maybe these entities could be hiding in Antarctica or under the ocean or they could be ancient humans. But Tucker goes further. He thinks that it might be something spiritual. Now I don't know what he means by spiritual but I think that would include an angel, a demon. Would it include an angel and a demon or you know what our little brains imagine are angels and demons? Maybe. Maybe something else.

But you might say to me Scott you've got tons of whistleblowers under oath in public you've got zillions of sensor readings from radar you've got video lots of it you've got photographs you got people who say they've seen the ships for decades. So therefore what are the odds that all those people are wrong right? How many of you think that with all that smoke there must be fire whether it's a demon or an alien there's something there? How many think that yeah with all that smoke there must be?

Well let me tell you what I think is happening. I think Tucker is getting kenned. Do you know what that means? Remember when Sidney Powell who was looking into election irregularity for Trump and she thought she had it and she found the Venezuelan general who gave her the goods and allegedly the machines were tampered with and it was all part of a big plot and then none of that materialized.

And then we said how did she ever come up with that idea in the first place? Like why would you ever believe that? Where'd that come from? And then that answer was never perfectly answered was it? We never really heard exactly where she got that idea and why it could be so wrong and how she could reach such a level in her career as a high-powered Washington attorney with a great reputation and yet she would believe that. She believed that whole Kraken thing. In fact she believed it so hard that I was open to it actually being true because I thought well she's so credible. She wouldn't come out with such an outrageous claim unless she had a little bit of evidence. Turns out there was none. Not even a little bit that was verified.

So what do you think happened? I'll tell you what I think. I think that somebody took her out probably an intelligence entity by giving her a credible sounding but disprovable hoax so that she would become famous for the Kraken. And maybe they even used the word Kraken. Do you think it's possible that when somebody gave her the fake story they said here's the Kraken hoping that she would brand her own discovery as the Kraken? Maybe because that's what I would have done if I were the intelligence person and I wanted to go public and embarrass her. I w