t the right decision? Yes, of course yes. So the right decision if you're the leader is you stop the danger immediately. You stop the danger and then you figure out if you did it legally. That's the order of things. That's what leadership is.

The whole point of a commander-in-chief is we say, you know what, there are going to be situations where you have to act fast and then we'll debate it later. But we're going to elect you to make the dangerous, important decision fast and then we'll talk about it. And we hope that you did things as legally as possible. But as long as you're on our side, as long as it's well-intentioned, you did your homework, we're going to back you even if you bent the rules a little bit. Because we want to be safe and we asked you to keep us safe and we don't want to handicap you. So do what makes us safe and then we'll talk about it after whether that was the right thing to do. But make us safe first.

Who would get that right? Trump would. Trump would get that right every time. He would say, well, close the border. We'll figure out if that was legal after the fact. You know, because it's not permanent. If it's not permanent and none of this is permanent, do it first, debate it second. That's the way it works. That's basic leadership. That's leadership 101. It's literally not leadership if you're waiting for your lawyers and the public to weigh in. Oh, what's the polls say? Am I going to lose the election? What did my lawyers say? What does Congress say? All that's wrong. First you do it and then you let everybody talk about it after. We're safer than we were.

It's amazing to me that that's not obvious to voters. It's a complete abdication of leadership. Complete abdication of leadership. There's no leadership in that. That is followership. We didn't need that. We wanted a leader.

All right. The Associated Press did some kind of a survey about journalists who use AI already. It says nearly 70% of newsroom staffers are using AI for different things: backgrounds and maybe for posts on social media and stuff. One-third said they'd use generative AI for multimedia to create graphics, etc.

Now here's an interesting question. What part of the news is the human doing now? At the moment it's still mostly the human using AI as a tool. But what exactly is a human adding to the process if you took them completely out of the process? What would it look like? Because the only thing I can think of that the humans at the Associated Press are adding to what AI could do generating news is the lies. The lies are the only thing the humans could add.

Because I don't know how much reporting the AP is doing on its own versus looking at other stuff and reporting on it. Because a lot of this reporting is just looking at press releases and then writing up the story from the press release, or you look at how some other news entity covered something and you talk about how the news covered it. I don't think too many of these journalists are going in the field and doing original reporting. And if they did, is there anything that AI couldn't do? AI can make a phone call. AI can have a conversation. AI can poll people. It can ask for opinions. It can tabulate them, summarize them.

What exactly is a human doing? Literally the human is adding the lying. Th