tions about the election have not been proven to be true. So this could very easily be disappointing, but we'll find out.

So here's a very little small story, but Newsmax is reporting that Trump was asked somewhere about the AI boom and the bubble and could the AI boom damage the economy, blah blah. And Trump's answer was quote, "No, I love AI." according to the New York Times.

Now, have you noticed that Trump has a very young brain? I mean, he's conservative in sort of a old school conservative way, but whenever there's something that's new tech, he's unusually good at embracing it. And AI is one of those things. Crypto is another one of those things. Even when he got in trouble for talking about COVID, it's because he knew more than the doctors did about light being a disinfectant and just the way he jokes about things. He has a very young brain and I've never seen that much experience paired with that much of a sort of a youthful approach to the world.

And I'm wondering in this case how much it made a difference that he's got David Sacks, who obviously makes him comfortable with crypto as well as AI and a bunch of other people from Jared to, well, you know, you could name a few. So he's got a lot of young advisers, but he actually listens to them and he's clearly influenced by them. So yeah, he's very young-brained.

Anyway, will the robots take all our jobs? Peter Navarro, one of Trump's top trade advisers or maybe his top trade adviser, he's urging workers to consider going into the trades. Would that be a good answer for you to go into the trades like go out and fix air conditioners and be a mechanic and be a plumber and all that?

I gotta say, I'm pretty lucky that I was born in a time when that wasn't something you had to do. I would never be good at that. I would be good at sitting in a cubicle. I would be good at typing things. I'd be good at creativity, but I would never be good at fixing your AC. So I'm glad I don't have to make that choice.

However, it made me wonder what the future looks like. And I'm going to make a prediction. Prediction number one, I believe that in the same way that unions can make companies do things they don't want to do, right? That a union can make a company do what it doesn't want to do. And that's probably true for influence over the government as well because if your union was big enough it could influence voting.

So I believe there will be a robot union which is people not robots. So maybe I said that wrong. Let me say it a different way. I believe there will form a new union that might be a collection of existing unions or it might be a new one. And their primary objective will be to make sure that you can't put a robot into the field as a worker unless you have at least one human in charge on site. Had to be on site.

So have you ever had a plumber come to your house and they start working and then they realize there's a part that they need? So they have to stop what they're doing, go drive somewhere and get a part and come back. And you've watched people doing service work in your house and you know there's one person who might be doing demolition and dragging stuff away and another person who's doing the carpentry or the hard stuff.

I see a world where a plumber would have one or two robots that show up at the same time, but the plumber would be in charge and this new union I'm talking about would guarantee that even if you knew you could do it with just robots, it just wouldn't be legal. You just wouldn't be allowed to. And even if you had your own robot, the law could be so gamed that you wouldn't be allowed to use your own robot even to do some plumbing at your own house.

So I think that the laws as well as the unions will conspire to keep people employed even if that's not the best idea. But can't you just imagine this? All right, close your eyes and imagine the robots and the one guy, the plumber. Let's just say plumber. The plumber shows up and he's got two robot assistants, and he sends one of the robots to get a part. That robot gives you a self-driving car, literally goes down to the hardware store, picks up the part, and if you're not sure, it can send you a picture so you know it's picking up the right thing. Pays for it with some kind of digital payment. Drives back.

Meanwhile, the other robot has identified where the leak is just by putting its robot hand on the wall and it can identify where the leak is. And then when it finds it, it needs to maybe take down a piece of the wall. So the human plumber says, "All right, robot, take out this part of the sheetrock." And the robot goes and then you can see the leak. And then the plumber says, "All right, I'm going to need some plumber's tape. I'm going to need this and I'm going to need this tool." And even before he's done talking, his robot assistant has already gone to the toolbox and has those exact things.

Now, maybe the robot would do the work of wrapping up things and fixing things with the supervision of the human. Or maybe before we get to that point, the human still does the work because it's maybe just slightly outside of what the robots can do, but the robots are learning like an apprentice. So on day one, you get a cheap robot that can only fetch and maybe do some demo stuff and maybe get some tools, but as you do work, the robot learns the same way an apprentice would. So your robot would become more and more valuable every time that it accompanied you on a plumber trip.

So that's what I think. But give me some feedback on that. Do you think that's reasonable?

So the things I'm predicting are that the unions and the laws will guarantee that you have to have a human if a robot's doing some physical work. Do you agree with that part? At least for the predictable future. I think so. And that would just make your plumber more effective.

All right. How many jobs do you know where you ask for some service person to come to your house and you can't get them there i