e necessary, to author the simulation.

So another way to say it is you'll understand it once you get there. If you do, once you understand that free will isn't real, then you enter a world in which it seems like you can control your simulation or your environment just by what you want and what you focus on. Will that be free will? It will feel like it. You will feel like it and you will have a better experience of life. But it won't be free will. And you'll understand that.

All right, there's allegedly a cyber attack that looks like a pretty big one in the United States. Chuck Kesto is talking about this. A number of states have a complete failure of their 911 system right now. And there's some indication that it might be an attack, maybe a line cut or some other kind of cyber thing. Does it seem to you that that might be Iran? Is it possible that's an Iranian reaction and they're just giving us a warning shot? Maybe. I don't know. So we have to suspect the worst because we've let in so many terrorists into the country. Who knows what they're up to?

But if I were planning some major thing in the United States, cutting all of our 911 services would be a really good terrorist way to scare the hell out of us. Because if you could imagine cutting the 911 service before a terrorist attack, that would be pretty messed up. But it would also speak to state actors because it's sort of too big of a play for an individual terrorist. So if something happened that looked like an Iranian terrorist attack in the United States, and if it happened after this alleged rumor of 911 going down, that would look like a pretty sophisticated attack. Which even if we couldn't identify who did it, we would probably suspect a state actor because of the complexity.

Now this is all speculation. Yeah, I'm not even entirely sure there's really a 911 problem. So wait for confirmation for any of that. That's not yet confirmed I think.

Well, James O'Keefe of O'Keefe Media Group has another scoop. And by the way, I just want to give you a little warning that in the Dilbert Reborn comic that you can see only if you're a subscriber on X platform, see my profile for the link, or on ScottAdamsLocals.com, you'd see the Dilbert Reborn comic and it will soon feature Wally dating James O'Keefe. He doesn't know it because James O'Keefe will be undercover. But Wally is going to give up too much information to James O'Keefe. That's coming. I haven't drawn it yet but it's coming.

Anyway, so O'Keefe has another scoop. Talked to somebody inside the Biden administration who believes that maybe the real power in the administration is the chief of staff, Jeff Zients. He's accordingly the second most powerful person in Washington. I guess that would mean that Biden is the most powerful, but that Biden is basically a puppet and says whatever Zients tells him to say. And Zients used to be a Facebook board member. So everything's connected. And you can't get anything done unless you get the chief of staff sign off. Is that really that different than every other presidency? Isn't it generally true that if you want to get the president to agree with you about anything, first you have to sell the chief of staff? Isn't that business as usual? I thought that's the job of a chief of staff, is to make sure that everything goes through that person and gets filtered before the president even sees it anyway.

So maybe it's much worse under Biden. It seems like it might be. But then there's also indication from the same source that Hillary Clinton is still deeply involved advising. And that maybe she and Obama still have a much bigger influence because they have connections to the people who work in the administration. I think that's true. So I would say that this scoop fits almost exactly what I thought was true, which makes me worry about it a little bit because it's a little bit too on the nose, you know? Didn't you assume that there was probably one person, and maybe the chief of staff, who was running things? And then maybe Obama and Hillary were advising from the outside. So maybe it's exactly what it looks like.

Tucker Carlson had an ex-CIA guy on, Pedro Israel Orta. He worked for the CIA during the Trump administration. And they said that the CIA didn't even want to recognize him as president. They didn't even want to put his picture up in their offices for a long time. It became controversial to even have his picture in your office. Now, do you think that the CIA is on the same side as the president? Not in that case. Nope. Nope. It doesn't look like it. It looks like the CIA has its own agenda.

All right, here's a story that I'm going to laugh at this every time I see it because you're going to see this story in a hundred more forms and a hundred more places. And every time I laugh at what's left out. Here's a story from Politico that Trump is gaining with young people and especially young men. So Trump has almost closed the gap with young men. And basically it's a whole story about all the groups like people of color, etc., who are moving toward Trump. But then it says that Biden still has a strong hold among other groups such as white women and black voters and some other group.

Now here's what's missing with the story. The headline is always that they're about dead even in the national polling. You know, they're within a few points no matter depending on the poll. And yet every substory is about a major group that's moving toward Trump. And there's never a story, I believe not one, in which anybody was moving toward Biden. So look for this in the stories. The story will be this group has massively shifted toward Trump. But they'll never mention anybody who's moved toward Biden. And yet the total number stays the same. How is that possible, you know?

And at a certain point it's possible because if Trump is catching up, they make sense as part of the catching up story. But they've been dead even for a long time, haven't they? If they're dead even for a long time and one of them keeps gaining in subcategories that are really big ones, how can they stay even at the top line? There's definitely something wrong here, right? Am I the only one noticing that the top line doesn't change when all the bottom lines change? How's that? It's not possible unless there's something unreported. So unless there's some group that's moving toward Biden that we're not being told about. And I don't think that's the case. Do you? Have you heard of any story of any demographic moving toward Biden? I've only heard that he has a commanding lead in some group or another. But I've never heard that they're increasing the lead. Yeah, there's something very wrong with everything we're being told about these numbers. Something very wrong. Very suspicious.

Well, here's the weirdest story. I don't even know what to think about this. But Jim Brewer was on Roseanne's podcast. And Jim Brewer had worked with Dave Chappelle at one point. And here's what he says. This is what Jim Brewer says. So we all know the story about Dave Chappelle had his popular TV show and then instead of taking a big offer to renew it, he just disappeared and went to Africa for a while. And everybody said, what's wrong with him? Is he crazy? What's going on? And Jim Brewer says that Dave Chappelle told him in private that an elite group of people came to him and sat him down to quote correct him. And that that was a phrase used, to correct him. And then he suddenly went to, he vanished and went to Africa. And that when he came back he was different.

Do you think that an elite group of people sat him down to talk to him and correct him? And that that was such a dangerous situation that he had to leave the country? How many of you believe that's true? I don't believe that's true. Yeah, I'm going to say no on this one. I won't say it's impossible. But until you hear it from Chappelle, you should probably treat it like it's not true. If Chappelle says it, I'm definitely going to pay attention.

Now you should. Now obviously if this is true he wouldn't say it, right? Because the whole story is he would never tell you because it's too dangerous, whatever it is, whoever this group is and whatever it is they wanted. But does anybody even have a theory for why anybody would have wanted to stop Dave Chappelle? What the hell was Dave Chappelle saying that was so dangerous? Or what was he doing that was so dangerous? Was he outing anybody? Did he was he outing a pedophile ring? Or was there anything he did that was controversial that I'm not aware of? So I'm going to say I don't believe that story. That'll be my take. That's my current take. I give it a 75-25, 75% chance no, 25% chance maybe there's something there. But I don't know who that elite group is for sure.

All right. On the X platform, Christopher F. Rant tells us that it looks like Midjourney, the AI program that does movie-like clips, may have scraped images from major TV, film, and streaming studios. And then some examples were shown where it looks like AI is creating images that appear to be clearly cribbed from real movies and TV. You maybe changed a little bit but clearly came from that inspiration. To which I say, what did we think was happening? How else would it train? If you're training a thing to know how to make a movie the way that people would expect a movie to look, what did you think they were training it on? Do you think they were training it to make movies by showing it people? That wouldn't teach you how to make a movie. You would have to look at movies. Of course it looked at movies. How in the world do you think it didn't?

But isn't that exactly how a human director works? A human writer, a human movie maker can't do the job without looking at a whole bunch of movies first. His movies are formulaic. Even the scenes, even the visuals are formula, right? There are only so many angles that you shoot a scene. And once you've seen them, that's all there is. So there isn't any other way you could have trained AI to make a movie other than making it look at movies.

But the real question is, if it looks at a movie and then tweaks it enough, isn't that new art? So let's say it looks at a movie scene where it was blocked a certain way. It's like, oh there's a tracking scene and it shows the star walking through a crowd. And then the tracking shot goes from above. So you know you could imagine that it would use the same schemes and techniques but change the characters and change the movie and change the lighting and everything. It would be a new scene.

But this is part of a larger topic which I like to bring up, which is if anything can stop AI, it'll be lawyers. Because lawyers are just going to be all over AI. In fact, the only way that AI could survive in my opinion is that it was created by a company that became so big so quickly it would have infinite assets to fight the legal battles. If you were a startup in your garage, let's say Brian really comes up with his own AI model, it wouldn't be hard to stop Brian. You just need one person. All you need to do too is lawfare him out of business. And you know he would give up. But you can't really lawfare a multi-billion dollar company. So if AI had not become somewhat instantly a multi-billion dollar asset, it would have been killed in its crib by lawyers. But at this point it's bigger than lawyers. It's sort of the Uber method. The Uber shouldn't have been able to work because it couldn't really compete with taxis because it was illegal. It was just against the law. But they became so big so fast that the lawyers didn't have time to catch what was going on. And then they had so much money that they could fight lawyers and beat them because they had more money and more lawyers. So look for that situation. There are some businesses that you just can't do if you start small. You almost have to start big. That's what Uber and AI both did. They started big. All right, so keep an eye on that.

There's more science that says that hugging can ease your pain, anxiety, and depression. Let's add to the science that you could have skipped by asking Scott. Scott, we were thinking of putting a whole bunch of money into studying hugging to see if it makes you feel better. Well, you don't have to do that because I could tell you it definitely does. Oh, thank you. You just saved us a lot of money, Scott. So really if you were to compare the entire field of science to just asking me for my opinion, it'd be about a wash. I don't get them all right, but neither does science. Science is about a 50% proposition at best. You know, papers that are peer reviewed and accepted are only right about 50% of the time. How often am I right? Well, on most of the lifestyle stuff I'm right almost every time. Almost every time.

For example, will there be a study coming up that shows our food supply is not healthy for you? Yes, there will. Even today there was another study showing that there's all too many things in your food supply. Do you think I could have told you that? Yes, I could have. 100% right. Do you think they'll find out that alcohol is bad for you in any amount? Yes. And I could have told you that because I did 20 years ago. So yeah, hugs are good for you. Surprise.

All right. Again, the funniest story, which I'm going to keep telling you about even if you don't like it, is Brian and his new Orifice AI device. Now it's a sex toy. And the funny part is what the public is responding to. So it's becoming sort of a public battle where people are so mad about trying to be living in a world where men would be using these devices. Now here's what's hilarious. I forgot that the name of the product is Orifice. He actually named the product Orifice. And it's a partial replacement for women, like human women. It's just called Orifice. And here's the funny part. It's so insulting. It's so amazingly insulting that he's building a company to replace some portion of human women with a hole. Now I'm not saying that's a fair characterization. All right, so I'm not giving you my opinion on women here. That has nothing to do with this conversation. I'm just saying what could be funnier than launching a product to replace much of human women with a hole and then you name it. You name the product after the hole.

Or at least when women make a sex toy, the most popular sex toy for women is called the Womanizer. The Womanizer sounds like it was created possibly by a woman or at least women were involved in the marketing and naming of it. Because there it's like woman. Yeah, womanizer. Yes, go ladies. You don't need men. That when they're replacing men they're like, yeah, go ladies. Go ladies. You don't need men. You can do it yourself with a womanizer. Yeah, you're more woman than you've ever been. You're womanizing now. But then when a man creates a sex toy, it's a hole. I'm going to be laughing all day about this anyway.

So if you're wondering, can somebody replace human women at least in terms of men's sexual appetites? How many human women can be replaced by a hole? And I'd say about 40% already and raising. And here's the funniest one. There was some angry woman. I saw this the other day. There was an angry woman who was attacking Brian for his product, the Orifice, and just gave him a whole bunch of trouble for it. And saying he was basically going to replace women. And Brian AI's response was, and I quote, you should have been nicer to me in high school. So he invented a replacement for women. It's called the hole or orifice.

All right. I'm just saying the whole thing is so funny because it's so offensive intentionally that