some good management there." And maybe they're just both smart. I think McConaughey probably does a lot to run his own affairs. That would be my guess. You know, he looks like he's a good generalist that he would be able to figure out everything from his career strategies to what he's doing in the next movie. But smart.

The CEO of Eli Lilly says he uses AI every day and likes asking science questions, but doesn't like the answers he gets from ChatGPT. So he thinks he gets better science answers from either Claude, that's an AI, Claude, or xAI which would be Grok I guess. He finds Grok more true which I like true. And he says that OpenAI's ChatGPT does a lot of fake references so you have to be careful.

And I'm going to say this again because until somebody smart tells me this is a bad idea, I feel like I fixed this idea. Why couldn't you have two AIs open all the time and one AI is instructed simply to listen to the other AI? And you tell the second AI to fact check everything that the first AI says. And if there's no problem, just stay silent. But if you catch it giving you a fake reference or something, speak up and we'll correct it.

You don't think that if you had two AIs running at the same time, the odds of both of them saying that this fake reference is real would drop to almost zero, wouldn't it? And it would cost you nothing but the subscription to the second service. Am I wrong about that? And is that something that people don't want to talk about just because for competitive reasons or something? You run Grok and Gemini side by side. But tell me why that wouldn't work.

Now on day one maybe one doesn't hear the other one well or something, but you could easily hook them up so that their audio connection was flawless, so there's not even any outside room noise to bother one, right? I'm looking at your comments and I don't see anybody saying, "Scott, you idiot. That would never work." Because it would sort of obviously work, wouldn't it? I don't know, maybe there would be cases where the second one refused to do what you told it to and it would just say stuff like, "I cannot correct my fellow AI." I don't know.

Well, I know you hate to admit it, but I just solved AI.

All right. What else is happening? According to Just the News, Bondi and Kash Patel are going to look into the Clinton Foundation under allegations that foreign entities and some domestic actors influenced the policy of the government back in those Clinton Foundation days.

Now the weird part about that is that what else was the foundation for? Now don't we at this point, don't we understand that it was only for corrupt reasons and that whatever good they did was just the cover for the corruption? Don't we all know that?

But there's this weird thing about time and about how the media works. If the media doesn't tell you, and here the media in this context would be the New York Times, the Washington Post, you know, the left-leaning media. If the left-leaning media doesn't say this is a story, it just won't be. It just won't be a story. So it doesn't matter how much Just the News reports on it, doesn't matter how much I mention on my podcast, just won't be a story.

But how hard do you think it would be to find out if the Clinton Foundation was corrupt and accepting money to influence policy? Do you think that would be hard to find out? I have a suspicion that the FBI or somebody looked into it enough because they would want to have leverage over the Clintons. Obviously anybody would, that they looked into it enough that probably we already have like really specific hidden phone calls and stuff. So anything could happen. But if I had to put a bet on it, noth