think.

According to Futurism, which is a publication, a website I guess, there was a recent experiment by researchers at Carnegie Mellon where they tried to create a company that was entirely run by AI. So there would be AI agents for each job. So they would staff the AI company with, instead of humans, they would give it an AI agent to be sales, one to be engineering, one to be whatever. And so they created this thing and then they just let it run without human interaction to see how all the AI agents would perform.

How do you think it went? Do you think they became a unicorn because the AI is so smart and then they sold it for a billion dollars? No. Turns out it was a gigantic clusterfuck and nothing worked and the AI started lying and absolutely none of it worked. So even though they used various different AIs, none of the AI agents actually did anything useful. So we're not quite ready to run a company with AI.

I guess last night was the White House Correspondents' Dinner, and Trump and probably most of the Trump insiders did not go. And I think it turned out to be the most low-energy event of all time because it used to be the president would go, whoever the president is, then a comedian would make really edgy jokes, and then the next day it would be everybody talking about all the edgy jokes. It's like, "Oh, can you believe that that comedian said that right in front of the president?" But instead they just gave themselves awards. Somebody got an award for writing about Biden's mental decline. Do you think anybody was writing about Biden's mental decline while he was in office? I don't think so. If you're giving somebody an award for writing about it after he's out of office, I don't know if you deserve that award. That would be like the opposite of what you should get. You should get a kick in the ass, not an award.

And then I guess the new leader of the White House Correspondents did a speech in which he wanted you to know that they are not the enemy of the people. The press is not the enemy of the people. To which I say, what's your criteria for that? Because you certainly look like the enemy of the people to me. So how do you score that? Is there some objective criteria by which you can say, "Oh, you're not the enemy of the people"? Oh, I see, based on your performance. But if you actually just looked at what the press has done over the last several years, it certainly looks like enemy, you know, because my friends will tell me the truth and my enemies will lie to me. What has the press done more of? Telling me the truth or lying to me? Lying to me. So how in the world do I declare that they're not my enemy if they're lying to me about the most important things in the world? No, I would consider that an enemy. Sorry.

Speaking of enemies, James Carville is complaining that Bernie Sanders and AOC are starting to define the Democrat party. Fox News is reporting on this. Now I love the fact that Carville — as crazy old coot as he is — he's still probably one of the smartest ones in the Democrat party in terms of strategy. And he's completely right that having Bernie and AOC define the party and chasing after oligarchs is a really bad idea.

But the other thing Carville says, he says that Democrats have candidates who are quote "staggeringly more talented" than Bernie and AOC. Well, who would they be? Maybe he should give us some names. I think he's named them before. But if they're staggeringly more talented, do they need a boost? Or wouldn't we know their names already? Wouldn't all their talent have allowed them to break away from the pack and be obvious? And yet I can't think of one. Which Democrat is staggeringly talented? I don't know.

All right, let's look at the fake news. You may have seen that President Trump and his wife went to the Pope's funeral, and you probably saw a bunch of news coverage and social media saying that Trump wore a blue suit when the dress code was for black suits and so therefore he was being disrespectful to the Pope and the entire Catholic religion. Well, of course there were lots of people who didn't wear black for a variety of reasons. There were other blue suits. There were gray suits. There were Muslim traditional outfits. And the dress code was for a dark suit. There was no dress code for a black suit. There was a dress code for a dark suit, and he had a dark blue. So that is fake news. He was not violating any norms. He was just wearing a nice suit. Yeah. And if you see a wide shot, you see there was a whole bunch of people in blue suits. So he wasn't the only one either.

There's more fake news. Sunny Hostin tried to create this, and MSNBC is trying to create this one out of nothing. So when the Republicans started noodling about a $5,000 bonus to pay to people who have babies to encourage them to have more babies, the Democrats turned that into, "Oh, you mean you want more white babies, you racist?" To which every Republican said, "Huh? Where'd that come from?" I haven't heard a single person on social media or anywhere else say that the $5,000 baby bonus was somehow either intentionally or even unintentionally aimed at white babies. Now where does that even come from? It's just that they've got some kind of terrible fever in their brains — TDS — that they just imagine out of nothing that the idea of having more American babies really meant having more white babies. How in the world would you even restrict it? Did they think that the Trump administration was going to give no money to a Hispanic family who had been living here for generations? No, it's a baby bonus. It's not a white baby bonus