me humans to help them navigate California. And I suspect that one of the big advantages of big law firms is that they have connections. They literally know the judge. Their brother-in-law is in some political office. So I suspect that the big law firms that charge a lot and get the most powerful people out of trouble and most powerful companies, it probably is more about their weaselly ways and who they know and what they've done and who owes them a favor. And I don't know if AI can keep up with that. I mean, they would use AI, but I suspect that the lawyers are going to get together and make it illegal to have an AI only lawyer.

Imagine, imagine if you will, just a few years in the future where there's an accused felon who goes to trial and says, "Your honor, I'd like to exercise my right to have an AI attorney. We fed all the documents and it's ready to go." And then the AI just sits there in a box and argues against maybe another AI. Is that going to happen? I don't know. Because you would have to train your AI to be somewhat dishonest. Well, let's say dishonestly persuasive, especially if you were the defense and your client was guilty. The only way your client can win is if your AI is a lying weasel, you know, just like a human would be defending you. So will it ever be legal for AI to be programmed to lie to the jury to get a guilty person off? I don't know.

I feel like the existing lawyers are going to find ways to make it illegal to have an AI lawyer. Now, will the medical community do the same? Probably. I would say probably it won't be long before you start seeing stories in the news about somebody who died because they took advice from AI. Oh, you know that's coming. That it will be, you know, those stories will be planted by let's say some doctor, the AMA or some doctor benefiting organization and suddenly your brain will think wow AI just keeps killing people with bad advice. Oh it told him to take horse paste or whatever and then you'll say I only want a human doctor and it will all be fake. But the doctors will hire the human lawyers to make sure that it's illegal to have an AI only doctor because it's far too dangerous. That's what they'll say.

Well, there's a physicist who believes he has a theory. His name is Miguel Alcubierre. He has a theory for how to do faster than light engines. So sort of warp speed kind of thing faster than light. And the way he would do it since it's impossible to go faster than light is instead of making the object go faster than light, you will bend space. That's his proposition. You could bend space so that there's less of it in front of you than there is behind you or something like that. And then bending the space gives you the functional equivalent of traveling faster than light. But you're technically not because within your small local domain, you're not faster than light. It's just that you're bending space in front of you that you're not in yet and behind you.

Now, does that make sense? I don't know. I mean, I may not have explained it perfectly, but does it seem possible that you could bend space in front of you and behind you? I don't know how you do that. We don't know how to do that now, right? So I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for that. But hey, you never know.

Mario Nawfal found that story. You should follow Mario Nawfal on X. He does great summaries of the news every day.

Elon Musk has made a provocative and nonobvious prediction. He said that AI is going to obviously one-shot the human legal system. Now I don't know exactly what he means by that part but the real prediction comes next. He said I predict counterintuitively that it will increase birth rate. Mark my words. And then he goes also we're going to program it that way.

Well, the only one he can program is his Grok X AI. And I could certainly imagine that it would program it to optimize human reproduction, but I don't think the other AIs are going to necessarily do that, are they? And it also seems to me like that could be its own set of problems. I feel like maybe AI should just stay out of it. But hey, you know, he's obviously got a, he's done more thinking on this specific topic than I have, so he might have something. I'll be open-minded on that.

But why would AI increase birth rates? He does say it's counterintuitive, but that doesn't help us out with the reasoning. Do you see it? How many of you, is it because the AI will hypnotize us into reproducing? Is it because the AI will take away all our workload and we won't have much to do and we'll be staying home and so it'll be like well if we're going to be home a lot we won't have any problems watching the kids we don't need. So maybe it just makes life easier and maybe it makes it easier to afford things too. We might get to the point where energy and housing costs are all low because the robots are building the houses and we've solved energy by just having smarter nuclear power and stuff.

So I don't think this is going to happen right away, but I can imagine getting to the point where if you're a family or let's just say you're married, that you wouldn't have anything to do unless you had kids. So it might be that having families is the only thing that will have meaning because you won't be able to get meaning through work. The robots will be doing the work. So I think he might be right as I'm thinking it through. I could, if you could get to the point where people don't have to work and everybody has enough of the basics, yeah, people will be bored and they're going to want to just have babies probably.

Well, did you know according to Cell Press that reading for pleasure in the US has decreased over the past 20 years? Do you think they needed to do a study of that? I feel like I would have known that. Isn't that purely because of alternative uses of our time? You know, if you've got a phone in your hand, you don't need to read that much.

Now, personally, I read way more now than I did before computers because it was only rarely that I'd pick up a book. But if you're on the internet all day, if you're on X or you're reading stuff all day, I mean I read probably the equivalent of about a quarter or half of a book just getting ready to do this podcast. I mean the amount that I read in the past two hours is a pretty large amount.

So yeah, reading for pleasure. I was trying to remember the last time I read fiction for pleasure and I couldn't even remember. I think it was, you can help me out on this, I've read nonfiction books of course but fiction for pleasure, probably the last one was the second Harry Potter book. So if you told me what year that was, the second Harry Potter book when it just came out, I think this might be the last book I read for pleasure. That was a while ago.

Anyway, according to Newsweek, some schools are going to test out, schools in Florida are going to test out putting armed drones in schools to defend against school shooters. Now when I say armed, I don't mean necessarily with bullets, but rather it would have pepper spray and some kind of glass breaking device so it doesn't get trapped behind a glass door I guess. And what would happen is if there was a, if somebody did the secret button, presumably it would be an administrator who did it, then the drone would take off and it would be operated remotely by somebody who would know to do it and they would look for that shooter and at the very least they'd get more information about the shooter but it could also interfere with them. So the drone could try peppering him and the shooter would have to turn his attention on the drone just so the drone didn't take him out. So that would be fun. That seems like a good idea. We'll know because you could deploy that drone in like five seconds.

Well, I'm loving watching the bad advice that Democrats are giving to other Democrats. James Carville was on some show talking about what the Democrats should have done when JD Vance took his summer vacation because