ound a million-year-old skull. A million-year-old skull. Oh, I'm getting an update. It wasn't a million-year-old skull. It was Joe Biden. No, I'm just kidding. It wasn't Joe Biden. It was a million-year-old skull. But since the oldest known human skull was half a million years old, this doubles the potential time that maybe humans have been around in their current form. But they've got to do genetic tests and then they'll find out for sure if it rewrites the entire history of humankind.

Have you ever believed the anthropologists? I find that I've never believed them. You know, where they find, oh, we found this little fingernail and this fingernail tells us there's a whole new branch of humanoids. I always think that stuff is just made up. I don't believe any of it. So it just went from, well, the oldest human was about 300,000 years old. Well, no. Well, found one is 500,000. Oh, no. Nope. Double that. One million. We don't have any idea what was happening back then. Pure guess.

Well, Ben Carson, Dr. Ben Carson, has been added to the MAHA mix and he'll be working on improving the nutrition standards. Which I love. I love that. I'm sure he's the right person and I'm sure that this is one of the most important things we should be doing. But I will give this one bit of caution. There's no real nutrition science. I don't know if you know that, but all that, you know, how many vitamins you need and all that, that's all just made up.

Back when I was years ago when I tried to make the product called the daily burrito, a frozen burrito that I tried to put all of the vitamins and minerals you would need for one day so you might get extra but you wouldn't be short that day. And what I learned in the process of trying to make a food that had all the vitamins and minerals you need is that the science of which vitamins and minerals and how much you need was changing as fast as we could print the box. And at some point I said, "Wait a minute. This isn't science. We have no idea what's good for you. We're just guessing." So that was about when I decided to stop trying to make that product.

Well, believe it or not, according to one of the AI observers, Asha Shrivastava, I think that's his name. Maybe it's two words. Ashava. Anyway, that's as close as I can get. But anyway, he says that Google's DeepMind AI now has a version that is ready for general robotics. You know how I've been telling you for a long time now that I don't believe that the current versions of AI, the large language models, I don't believe they can ever be adapted to just be a robot brain because they hallucinate too much and other problems. But allegedly Google's DeepMind has some version that would already be ready to act as a high-level reasoning brain for robots that could do complicated things they had never done before.

So in theory you could say, "Hey, could you wash these grapes?" And if it never washed a grape, it could figure out, "Okay, I need a sink. I need a faucet. I need cold water, not hot water." So that's the idea. I'm going to go full skeptic on this. And I'm going to say that there is no such thing as a general purpose AI that will work in a robot. I don't care what they say. I don't believe it. You know why I don't believe it? If it could actually operate a robot in a general purpose way, you would see so much video of that, it would be all over social media. Look, our general purpose robot just learned to do a thing. Look, it just learned to do another thing and all I did was tell it what I wanted.

If it could do any of that, it would be all the news. So no, I do not believe that Google DeepMind has a general purpose AI that can run a robot. Maybe someday, but I guarantee if it worked really well right now, you would see the robot. It wouldn't be a text story about a robot, right? I'm not the only one who sees it that way, right? If it really worked, you would see the video of the robot doing full robot things. There was a video of one robot arm that acted like it was recognizing different objects. Not impressed. Not impressed.

Well, according to MIT Technology Review, James O'Donnell is writing about this, that there is a company that makes drones that can chase the shoplifters. So if you buy this product, if you're a store and somebody robs your store, you can push a button and the drone will take off. And then I guess maybe a human has to spot the bad guy running away. But then once the drone has spotted the bad guy or the bad guy's car, it can follow it. So I don't know what happens when they follow it because I doubt the police are going to get involved anyway. So I don't think the police really chase too many shoplifters and it's probably going to be like a bunch of people. You know, most of the shoplifting seems to be this gang of 30 people hitting it all at the same time. And one drone's not going to do much for that.

But I kind of like the idea. I would feel safer even if I had one at my house. You know, if somebody tried to do something at your house and then the drone could get some photographs and take a license plate and make sure it got a picture of the person, that would be pretty useful. It's called Flock Safety. And I don't know what their tagline is for Flock Safety, but if it were me, I'd say if you steal from me, flock you. That's how I would do the marketing.

All right. Well, the second quarter GDP got revised as they always do, but higher. So all the way up to 3.8. Now, if you're not an economics nerd, 3.8 GDP if it were an honest number would be really, really good. As in better than we have a right to expect it to be. Like really, really good. 3.8. But don't get excited. It's probably just because the tariffs caused people to buy more and get ready. And once all the tariff stuff settles down we'll get an idea what the real number is. So do not believe that 3.8 is any kind of a