re will be universal high income, not basic, in a positive AI future. So he thinks AI will get us to a point where you would not only have income but you'd have high income. You could kind of buy whatever you wanted in the ordinary living space anyway. Couldn't necessarily buy a luxury car but you could buy everything you needed in the general quality of life area. And Musk says there'll be no scarcity except that which we define to be scarce. In that scenario everyone can have whatever goods and services they want. But then Musk warns, and this is a good one, it's less clear how we will find meaning in a world where work is optional.

Now of course Elon Musk would be sensitive to how do you find meaning in work because his work probably has more meaning than anybody else's. I mean literally the value of his work could be saving humanity by interstellar flight and saving the climate if the climate's a problem. So yeah, I mean Elon's work is about as meaningful, and you know free speech, I even forgot that one. I forgot about preserving free speech. So his work is about the most meaningful work I've ever seen in my life. Mine is pretty meaningful at least how I define meaning. And I got to tell you that Christmas was tough for me because I tried to not work on Christmas, you know, except for the live streams. Didn't work out for me. I found myself very unhappy that I wasn't doing something useful. I don't know how to not be useful. If I'm not making some kind of improvement in the world or for somebody I know or something, even a stranger, I don't really feel good. And I could feel that on Christmas really, really acutely. So I was happy to get back to work today.

What do you think? Do you think we'll have a point where our biggest problem is that everything's free and we don't have any purpose in life? I feel like we would find a way to make things not free. Like the government would always get in the way and say, "Oh no, you can't have all free stuff because it'll make you sad" or something. I don't know. I feel like you can only get the universal high income in a free market scenario, but we don't have anything like a free market. So how do you get there? We'll see.

Marjorie Taylor Greene got swatted for the eighth time on Christmas Day. I guess they turned around before they got to her house because they checked first, which seems wise. I feel like there needs to be some kind of way that the swatters can tell what's real before they go. There should be some code or trick or secret handshake or I don't know what the answer is, but there ought to be something that doesn't exist that could exist. Yeah, like the secret code word. But then you know maybe you're under duress or something. I don't know. So I don't know. Defund the police. Yeah. But I do think that the people who call in the fake swats should be charged with attempted murder. Do you agree that calling in a fake SWAT should be attempted murder? Because why else are you doing it? That's the whole point, is to get somebody killed. So that should be attempted murder. Yeah. And how do these SWAT people not know the location of the call? Can you hide the, can you hide your identity and location when you call the police? If you call 911, don't they always know who you are? I don't know the answer to that. Oh, if you use a VPN. I use a VPN, okay. But for those of us not using a VPN, I have one but for those who don't have one, would 911 always know who you are even if your phone is unregistered? Yeah, try calling 911 and hanging up. They'll call you back, right? Well but they got your number. I know. I don't know what they know but that situation needs to get fixed.

Also Elon Musk talking about unions. He said most of the Democratic Party is controlled by the unions. They carry far more weight than the environmentalists do. You think that's true? Do you think the unions carry more weight than the environmentalists? Probably just 'cause they have more money. Yeah, probably. Certainly the teachers unions do. And Musk says that Biden gladly admits it. And Musk says in Biden's speech he literally says the UAW elected me, the auto workers. Now think about that. And then Elon says the White House cold shoulder, meaning their coldness to Tesla, started well before I said controversial things. In other words the United Auto Workers who are not in Tesla, so Tesla's non-union, but the unionized companies are competing with Tesla. So the unionized car companies, the biggest influence on the Democrats, are basically forcing the Democrats to diss the car company that's doing the most to solve climate change. It's like really happening in the real world, in the real world right before our eyes. The Democrats are saying our biggest thing is climate change. It's an existential threat. And then while we watch, we watch the United Auto Workers who are definitely not on that page saying you're going to have to be bad to Tesla, the only solution to the climate change problem. So the Democrats have created a system called the Democrats in which they have their highest priority they can't work on because of their highest influence. So their greatest influence prevents their own party from working on their own highest priority. How messed up is that?

Is that true on the Republicans as well? Let me think. Is there, let's see if we can do this on the Republican side. What's the highest priority on the Republican side? Abortion seems like it's abortion and the border. Abortion and the border. Let's say it's immigration and abortion. Are the Republicans, is there anything about the Republican Party, is there any interest group within the Republican Party? Oh yeah, the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers are Republicans, right? And aren't they sort of in favor of kind of easy immigration because their companies might need it? Or am I, do I have that wrong? I might have that wrong. Yeah, well I don't think the Republicans have the same degree of problem where the highest priority is made impossible by the strongest influence in their own party. I don't think that's the case because the strongest influence on the Republican side still wants a tough border, immigration. Yeah, border control. So I think Republicans at the very least are consistent, which is their highest priority is actually backed by their most influential members. Is that fair to say that on the Republican side their highest priorities, immigration and abortion, are pretty much backed by their most influential members? I see it. No, yeah, yeah. The Democrat Party seems absurd. It's absurd in that it's so poorly organized that it's basically just fighting itself. It looks like the ultra-wokes fighting the regular Democrats. All right, so I don't see that so much in the Republicans but a little bit.

Now that we know that the reason there's so much illegal immigration in the United States and other places is that there are all these NGOs, these non-government organizations, in some cases might be getting funding from governments but I think they're mostly getting George Soros funding and rich people funding. But they've created this whole structure to make it really easy to go illegally from Africa for example or any other third world country to America. So they organize it. They tell you where to go. They tell you how to do it, who to talk to. And without it I can't imagine an African migrating to America like a low-income African. Because how would an African even figure out how to do it? How would they afford it? How would they figure out the mechanisms to get here, etc.? But the NGOs apparently, all that. They make sure they can eat, travel, get taken care of, get to the right place.

Now isn't that an act of war? When I look at the border it looks like an act of war. So why is it that the United States allows NGOs to wage war on the United States? Is it because the NGOs don't say it's war? Is it just they've defined it not as war so then therefore it's not a war? But isn't it up to us to decide if it's a war? Don't we get to decide that? Yes, this looks like a war. I would declare war on the NGOs and I would declare them terrorist organizations and I would give them 30 days to stop doing what they're doing, which is making it easy for immigrants to come here. And if they didn't do it I would kill them all. I would kill them all. Yeah, I would absolutely kill them all. But militarily with lots of warning and in the most legal way we can within the rules of war. But I think our CIA could kill them in their bed because it has to be stopped. Yeah. So I think we need to stop treating the NGOs as charitable organizations. They're just part of a war machine and they need to be killed after a warning and only within a legal context. Nothing illegal. I'm not suggesting any illegal violence. I'm suggesting military self-defense in the context of a direct and existential threat to the United States. Basic ordinary stuff. Nothing unusual about it at all. So yeah.

And I think Soros has to be a target at this point if he's funding them. I think that George Soros specifically, if it could be found that he's the primary one funding the NGOs which are acting essentially like a military invasion of the United States, that would make him a target. Now again I'm not saying we should just go kill him in his sleep. You should give 30 days and say you need to stop funding these following organizations. If you do, you're part of the military operation against the United States and then we will act accordingly and just take him out. But I'm kind of done around. Can we just talk plainly? Whoever is behind the mass immigration into the United States, they need to be killed. But legally. Completely legally. No illegal acts. And I think that the legal justification is just so obvious you could get the legal cover for it in 24 hours if you wanted it. So am I the first person to say this out loud? I feel like I am. Right? Well, looks like that went over better than I thought. So maybe it'll be a thing.

AI is causing a racism gap according to Axios, or might make one worse. So researchers warned that generative AI could add 43 billion to America's already stark racial wealth gap. Yeah, because the thing I care about in every goddamn topic is how it's going to harm my diversity. How about I don't give a, I don't care at all. You know, do you know what else increases unequal distribution of stuff? Everything. Everything. Literally everything. Do you know what else AI is going to make unfair? It's going to suck to be over 50 because the over 50s are not going to adopt it as easily as the young people and the young people will probably get all kinds of benefits because they can figure out how to work in that world and the older people will try to take a pass and they'll suffer for it. How about gender? So we watched the internet tech boom turn out to be mostly a male phenomenon, meaning that most of the employees at the high-end jobs were male. So the entire tech revolution has been insanely bad for your gap between gender, right? Didn't it make men earn more because they were attracted to STEM jobs and women less so? And the STEM jobs were great pay. So the AI will just be more of that. Bad for women, bad for seniors, bad for everybody with low IQ, at least until there's universal high income I guess. It's going to be bad for all kinds of people. It'll just be good for some small group of Asian-Americans who figured out how to capitalize on it. It's going to be Indian-Americans and Asian-Americans are going to do great in the world of AI and robots I think. White Americans are not going to be at the top of that list. But yeah, I really don't care if it causes more of a gap because everything does. Just literally everything does. Everything does.

All right. Now last night in my man cave live stream I showed a proof that we live in a simulation. Now I'm going to ask the people in the Locals platform who saw the man cave, after you thought about it for a day, is it good enough for me to do it here in front of the larger audience or would I embarrass myself? I'm just going to wait to see if they think I'll embarrass myself. I got a lot of nos. Not good enough. Not convinced. Perfect. I'm definitely going to do it.

All right, here's the proof we live in a simulation. Now proof of course is hyperbole because it's, you know, nothing's ever proved. But my hypothesis is that if you could prove that history is made on demand, you would have proven that we're a simulation. All right. So in other words if you could prove somehow that if you start digging a hole, if you could prove somehow there's nothing under the ground until you start digging and then the reality is filled in while you dig. If you could prove that, would you agree that we're probably a simulation? Does the first part make sense? If you could prove that we create the past only when we need it. No, you think that our reality would be the way it looks if you could create the past on demand? If you could create the past on demand, definitely our current view of reality is debunked because it would mean the evolution was fake. I mean everything basically. The Big Bang. Everything. So I'm going to take that as my starting point. If you could prove that history is created on demand as opposed to it always was always there, we're a simulation.

Now you've heard the double slit experiment and you've heard that in physics a particle is sort of only probably someplace until it's observed. You all know that, right? It's a weird part of quantum physics that a particle doesn't exist until it's either measured by a machine like an instrument or some kind of human or conscious entity. Now did it ever seem weird to you that a conscious observation can change a particle into a specific thing as opposed to a probability wave? But why could a machine do it? Do you ever think that was weird? That you could just use an instrument to measure something and then the instrument can collapse the probability without you even being there? Well what that tells you is that reality is not subjective because a machine could do what a human did, collapsing the reality, right? So that's what that tells you.

But here's what's wrong with that experiment. If you're familiar with the double slit experiment, if you want to find out more about this just Google double slit experiment and you'll go down a rabbit hole that'll make you crazy. But let's say that there are two ways to collapse probability into a real thing. One is a human and the other is instruments. Here's the part that nobody asked you or told you. How do you know the instrument did it? How do you know if the instrument did what the direct observation did? How would you know the instrument did it? Well at some point the instrument has to tell you, right? A human has to look at the instrument and say that there it is, that instrument measured it and sure enough it collapsed it. Do you see what's wrong with that? It took me years to figure out what's wrong with that but I just figured it out this week. What's wrong with it is in both cases it's a human observation. You're either directly looking at the thing and then it collapses into a point or you look at the machine that looked at it and it's at that point that it collapses. It's only when you look at the machine because the machine is just another way of observing it. So in other words the machine never collapsed anything. What happened was when you looked at the machine an entire history that included the machine came into view and had never existed before. So until you look at the machine's reading it didn't read anything. You actually caused the past of the machine reading where the point was by looking at the machine.

Now your other possibility is that a machine can collapse reality. Maybe. But it doesn't make sense in any way that we can understand. Anything but what about if everything is subjective? If everything is subjective that would make us probably a simulation but it would also explain why the chain of events from the instrument to its reading, a whole chain of actions, could be created on demand in the future and you can recreate the past. So two possibilities. Either it's all subjective and always has been, or a machine can collapse reality and then they're not going to tell you that. Well it only does that if a human someday looks at the machine. If you had a machine that destroyed itself after measuring, could it do it? Would it collapse reality if it destroyed itself after measuring and nobody could tell the reading? Yeah, why just human? Because it's all in our imaginations. That's why I believe a dog could also collapse reality if that dog then interacted with a human who realized that the dog had collapsed the reality. But ultimately you have to get to the human. So I believe that the double slit experiment has always been misinterpreted because humans have a block. And the block is that they don't want to believe, or scientists don't want to believe, that everything is subjective and we're living in a simulation. Since that is too hard to accept, they rather accept through cognitive dissonance that the machine has collapsed reality the same way a person could. When a better look at it would be, well not until a human looks at the machine. So it's all just a human. So I think the scientists have a block that they can't see the obvious, that it's just people. It's never been machines.

Now is any of that true? I don't know. It was fun to think about. I don't have any particular scientific skill so me being wrong about science would be the most ordinary thing in the world. All I'm going to add is did you really believe that machines could collapse reality? Just ask yourself, was that ever believable? It's weird enough that a person can, but at least you can understand how a person could because it would support a subjective reality simulation kind of world. That all makes sense. But how does the machine do it? It never did. The most obvious answer is it never did. It was just scientists misinterpreting what they were seeing.

All right, and that ladies and gentlemen concludes the best live stream of the day. And I'll certainly be here for the man cave for the subscribers of Locals later tonight. And I hope you have a great day. Hope you got all the presents you wanted and you're finally away from your family and you're happy again. And I'll talk to you tomorrow. Thanks for joining. See you tomorrow.