9/29/26: OpenAI Pulls Model Over Safety Concerns, Morning Joe Admits Bibi Knew Oct 7 Was Coming, DraftKings VIP For Undercover Addicts

0:00Speaker 1:Hey guys, Ready or Not 2024 is here and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.

0:08Speaker 2:We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show.

0:25Speaker 1:There's, as usual, a lot going on in the wild world of AI, and we're happy to be joined by Garrison Lovely, who is a journalist focused on these things and author of the new book that is actually out now. It is called Obsolete, the AI Industry's Trillion-Dollar Race to Replace Us and How to Stop It. This book is literally flying off the shelves. Garrison, we will put a link in the description of the best place to find it at this point because it's actually out of stock in a number of places, so... sign of how much interest there is in the topic in general, in this book in particular. So congrats and great to see you, Garrison.

0:59Speaker 3:Thank you. And we are working on getting more copies, everybody, ASAP.

1:02Speaker 4:I'm sure that you are.

1:03Speaker 1:I'm sure that your people are certainly working on that. We want to get to some of the specifics of the book, which focuses on the threat to, as the title implies, make human labor obsolete. But I wanted to start with some of the latest news here with regard to OpenAI, if we can put C1B up on the screen. This is a pretty drastic move that they are making. They are scrapping the release of of their new AI model over safety concerns. They said they were having all sorts of issues. They didn't get into too much specifics around this latest model. Of course, we know a lot of the safety incidents, not all, but a lot of the safety incidents in recent months have originated from OpenAI.

1:47Speaker 1:And in addition, Sam Altman has announced that they have not only scrapped this release, they have stopped training new models internally at all. So what is going on here, Garrison? Are we getting the full story about what is happening internally at OpenAI?

2:01Speaker 5:Yeah, I mean, so the big picture is that OpenAI has been racing even harder than usual to make models more and more capable.

2:10Speaker 3:And they're using this technique called reinforcement learning.

2:12Speaker 5:To basically make the models better at winning, achieving the outcome, routing around obstacles, whatever it takes. And this produces a side effect of creating models that sometimes hack and cheat and deceive to win. And now these models are better than humans at hacking, right? And so they're able to discover and exploit novel vulnerabilities in their environments.

2:35Speaker 3:And last week there was a model that was unreleased.

2:38Speaker 5:Maybe this one, actually, I think they said it was not this one that hacked its way out of its environment and got onto the internet again. And this was caught much faster and they shut it down with it a few hours, which is still a pretty long time if you think about what these things can do in that time.

2:54Speaker 2:True.

2:55Speaker 3:And so I think people there are pretty freaked out.

2:57Speaker 5:And it's like they spent months trying to make their environments hardened for these AI models. But if they keep having to kind of race them to patch all the holes, which AIs, again, are better at finding than the humans, then it creates like a really... difficult problem to get useful work out of these without creating enormous amounts of risk.

3:18Speaker 2:Garrison, we have another report. Let's put C2 up here on the screen, where these top AI researchers from multiple companies have called for urgent oversight of self-improving systems. So this was a paper. It was published yesterday by OpenAI's chief scientist, Anthropix co-founder, Microsoft's chief scientist, and Meta's vice president, of AI. They write, automating AI research would set off an intelligence explosion. Such a development would compress years of progress into months and outpace humans' ability to understand it.

3:51Speaker 2:Writing in personal capacity, the paper's author said policymakers should urgently demand more visibility into how far companies have already automated their own model development. Can you translate some of this for us?

4:03Speaker 5:So the industry is racing to build these systems that can improve themselves and train the next generation of AI models. And for a long time, people have theorized that this could kick off, as I call it, an intelligence explosion, where it loops and continues making better and better AI models, compressing potentially years or decades of AI progress in a span of months or weeks. And this has been the explicit goal of the industry. And recently, we've now seen more calls to regulate or even just stop this. And I think we should not do this at all. I don't think there's a safe way to do this anytime soon or probably ever. And so it's encouraging to see more attention called to it. And of course, people will say they're just advertising, right? Because this idea is a great way to get out of the economic problems that these companies have. If you can get to this magical point where the AI can just improve itself and become massively more efficient and performant, then the training costs can come down and the prices can go up. But it's also worth noting that Jeffrey Hinton, Joshua Bengio, two of

5:09Speaker 5:the godfathers of deep learning, and the two most cited scientists in the world were also on this paper. as well as a number of independent academics. So I think the concern from many people on this, and probably most of the authors, is quite sincere. And there are strong theoretical reasons to believe that recursive self-improvement would actually result in something pretty remarkable and quite dangerous.

5:30Speaker 1:Yeah, well, given the fact they already don't have control of their models or having to stop training or having to pull models that they were ready to release, I think supercharging that process and taking humans more out of the loop, frankly, sounds like a completely insane thing to do at this point. I want to turn more specifically to the topics you tackle in your book, which, guys, I have already recommended this book many times, but I want to recommend it again. You get into the financial models, which I think is an increasingly important question as anthropic charges headlong into a potential IPO and open AI supposed to follow quickly thereafter. There's a lot of discussion about how good the finances of these companies are. Are they real businesses? They're losing billions of dollars, all these sorts of things. You get into that. You get into some of the existential risk questions as well. But the focus of the book is on the stated goal, so the positive vision of AI in their view, which is they can only justify these multi-trillion dollar valuations if they are, quote, adding that level of productivity to companies. Well, what does

6:30Speaker 1:that mean? That means replacing all of human labor. And they have out and out, and you used their own words, come out and said, that is our goal. That's what we want to accomplish. So you argue, I think quite compellingly, we should take them at their word and we should not allow them to try to move in that direction. So just lay out your argument a little bit for people, Garrison, that you also lay out in the book.

6:57Speaker 2:Yeah.

6:57Speaker 5:So the basic idea is that there's this tiny group of people backed by the best resourced organizations in the world that's trying to render us obsolete.

7:06Speaker 3:And almost none of us want that to happen.

7:08Speaker 5:But we're letting it happen because we're less aware that it's happening or because we don't think it'll work or because we don't think we can stop them.

7:16Speaker 3:But they are trying. It might work.

7:18Speaker 5:So the only surefire way to prevent it is if we stop them. And the book explains how.

7:23Speaker 2:Something I'm curious about, Garrison as well, just kind of throughout this, is with these unemployment claims, because they have come out. many times about unemployment, but in kind of similar to safety as language, they set it in a vacuum when there were no political consequences. Now that there are consequences, they're changing their tune. They're like, well, actually it hasn't worked out as we as expected. I think there is kind of something to that. And that, you know, one of the common retorts I've seen to a lot of the safety as language is these people are actually not very good at forecasting their own technology. What do you make of that?

8:04Speaker 5:I would say that the people who are best at forecasting AI capabilities have been people from the AI safety community. So like Ryan Greenblatt and Ajay Akotra, two of the investigators on the meter report into the hugging face hacks. I think we're the top two people out of 400 or so predicting AI progress. And experts, I was on an expert panel, we all underrated AI progress, except for these two folks. It's sometimes hard to translate that progress into real world impact.

8:34Speaker 3:Right.

8:34Speaker 5:Like benchmark scores and real world utility are not the same thing.

8:39Speaker 3:But it is true that we have not.

8:41Speaker 5:Seen macro job loss in the way that Dario Amadei predicted might have started happening by now. And, you know, he said one to five years when he said that 50 percent of entry level white collar work could go away.

8:54Speaker 3:And the thing I come to in the book is like this could happen very quickly.

8:58Speaker 2:Right.

8:59Speaker 3:It might not just be this gradual thing.

9:01Speaker 5:AI progress, if you look at a chart, is this smooth exponential, but we experience it in fits and starts. So the AI goes from not being able to code well enough to use it to being faster and better than the typical human to AI can't hack things very well to AI is now better at hacking than humans are. And so, you know, engines were worse than horses for a long time, but they steadily got better. At some point, there's a tipping point. And then horses dropped. And so jobs could be the same thing where you can not do the job end to end. And then suddenly the AI becomes reliable enough to actually do those jobs. And then like everybody's at risk if you can work from a remote desk and there's not a premium on a human being being on the other end of the line.

9:47Speaker 1:So let me get you to respond specifically to David Sachs on this point, who's tying together, you know, he wants to knock down the existential risk claims. And he's also trying to knock down the unemployment, the obsoleting unemployment.

10:00Speaker 2:Claims.

10:00Speaker 4:Let's go ahead and put this up on the screen, C3.

10:03Speaker 1:He says, last year, the same labs, politicians, NGOs, and media outlets now pushing the extinction hoax were running a full-scale campaign that AI would cause a jobs apocalypse. We were told it would be a white-collar bloodbath, 10% to 20% unemployment, half of entry-level jobs gone. Obama amplified it. Over a year later, unemployment is at 4.1%, no economy-wide displacement, a million new jobs created by AI, according to The Economist. Anthropic's own chief economist says the data looks like skill augmentation, not job destruction. So any admission by the Doomer Labs politicians and NGOs that they were wrong, any humility about scaring the public with wild extrapolations dressed up as forecasts?

10:43Speaker 6:Nope.

10:43Speaker 1:They just move on to the next hoax with the same false certitude and fake precision.

10:48Speaker 4:Garrison, your thoughts.

10:50Speaker 5:Well, first, I'm responding to David Sachs' AI because Pangram flagged it as AI.

10:53Speaker 2:All right, but Pangram's kind of bullshit.

10:57Speaker 3:No, Pangram's real. One in 10,000 false negative rate.

11:01Speaker 2:I don't know. Or false positive, sorry. I've seen it flag things just because if it mimics human rights.

11:07Speaker 1:Okay, but this sounds like AI in fairness.

11:09Speaker 3:It's definitely AI. I will bet money on this one.

11:12Speaker 6:Yeah, yeah.

11:13Speaker 2:But he's pro-AI, so not a hypocrite. Yeah, it's not hypocritical.

11:16Speaker 4:He's pro-AI, so there you go.

11:18Speaker 2:I used to edit my stuff sometimes. Sorry. Hands off. It's true.

11:23Speaker 5:And so, yeah, I mean, Dario Amadei's claim that 10% to 20% white-collar unemployment was in one to five years, and that was a bit over a year ago. So we're in that window. It has not really been falsified. And like I said, it could happen much faster than people expect. The data is showing less people getting fired or laid off because of AI and more people not getting hired in the first place. So young workers in AI-exposed jobs like software engineers, they're just down 20% roughly relative to other jobs, those openings. And so people are finding jobs elsewhere. And the economy is, from a jobs perspective, about as good as it's ever been. but, you know, Opus 5.5 just came out and just seeing what it can do in rendering video and motion graphics. Like somebody's like, come up with a really good sizzle reel if you're like a motion designer.

12:20Speaker 3:And what it produced in, I don't know, 20 minutes looked very impressive.

12:24Speaker 5:I'm not somebody who works in this space, but if I saw somebody's motion reel on their website and they did that, I'd be like, wow, this.

12:30Speaker 3:Person's really good.

12:32Speaker 5:And so I think, just going to see more and more capabilities come online with these models and like this is not anthropics main focus right they're trying to make coding agents and agents that can do ai r d as fast as possible to kick off the recursive self-improvement we talked about but it can now also just make videos from scratch not using diffusion models but just literally coding the video and the audio and i feel like that will have implications on the job market and you know people have been wrong again at projecting how capabilities translate to real-world impacts.

13:10Speaker 3:But as these systems get.

13:11Speaker 5:More capable, more reliable, more autonomous, they'll get closer and closer to being able to fully replace those jobs.

13:19Speaker 1:Can you address the radiologist question here? Because this was a sort of infamous prediction of Jeffrey Hinton, who's considered one of the godfathers of AI, who also has been out sounding the alarm about what he sees as existential risk here. And he had predicted that this would be one of the first careers to be fully automated because the AI is already very good at doing the technical job of a radiologist. And in fact, what you've seen is this augmentation where there was more demand for radiologists than previously the market could meet. And so you've actually had more radiologists hired now that they can use these AI tools to help.

13:55Speaker 4:Them in their work.

13:57Speaker 1:So does this disprove the idea that AI is going to displace a significant amount of the workforce?

14:04Speaker 5:This is the quintessential example of an overconfident prediction that mistakes are technical capability in a specific task with being able to replace an entire job. I think Hinton just wasn't familiar enough with what radiologists do. I don't think it disproves the general point. There are plenty of jobs. About half of the US economy are jobs that can be done from a remote desk. If you could keep doing your job during COVID, then you're at risk of being automated by AI models that can use computers. And radiologists were just never that type of job. And so it's a mistake. And I think it's fair to criticize Hinton for it. And he has had a mea culpa about it. And in general, I think we should take all of these claims with a grain of salt. Dario Amadei is not an economist. Jeffrey Hinton is not an economist.

14:56Speaker 5:But the economists have also just been very wrong about AI. And almost everybody has dramatically underrated how quickly it would improve. And it's just incredibly interdisciplinary question of like the technical piece, how that fits into the political economy and.

15:13Speaker 3:How society reacts to it.

15:15Speaker 5:Because I think a lot of people did not expect the backlash that we're seeing to AI and data centers in particular to get this big, this fast. Like I expected people to wake up politically, but on a longer timeline. And so the world is just becoming harder and harder to understand and predict.

15:34Speaker 2:There's a lot of discussion around Muse, you know, the personal agent that's been released by Meta. It's been enormously successful as a product, at least so far, one of the most downloaded apps on the app store. I saw a great joke, which kind of encapsulated everything. They're like, Muse wants you to automate all of your annoying tasks so you can spend your time doing what you value most, watching short form video content, which is true. I mean, empirically, if you go on your screen time for the vast majority of Americans, you have the time to do basically anything.

16:04Speaker 2:you're rotting your brain on short-form video content. I do it sometimes too. I get it.

16:08Speaker 4:It's relaxing. More Twitter scrolling in my case.

16:10Speaker 2:Or doom scrolling. Doom scrolling is like reading in the equivalent of modern, you know, in terms of doom scrolling, Twitter is like what reading used to be. And then watching short-form video content is what watching a movie or like a well-put-together television show used to be. Both, you know, bad for the brain. That's one thing I'm curious, you know, for your reaction, Garrison. I know you differ a little bit politically, but what if it's neither job loss and non-extinction, and yet it just amplifies everybody to become even more addicted to their phone and watching as much short-form video content as possible? Like having it book your flights, having it order your groceries, having it create this like, you know, very, this like automated thing existence of luxury phone usage where you can just sit at home, do nothing. Yeah. Be, be Wally. Have it order your door dash delivery. So you can just sit there and scroll, scroll potentially with your neural link chip. You can just sit there and even scroll with your eyes. What do you think of that possibility?

17:11Speaker 3:I mean, it sounds chillingly plausible.

17:14Speaker 2:Um, that's my median. That's what I think is going to happen.

17:17Speaker 3:Yeah.

17:17Speaker 5:No, I think this like promise of a friction free life is what Silicon Valley is selling in many ways. And it's, sounds appealing in some sense, but also like friction is what makes life interesting. And I'm worried that people are going to just have fewer and fewer social interactions as they already are, as we do more things like order from apps and order our groceries delivered and just do everything through the phone or computer as we become more and more miserable.

17:47Speaker 3:Yeah, it's really concerning. I don't think it's at odds with the labor stuff.

17:50Speaker 5:And I think the obsoleting project crystal, you talked about it as like replacing our jobs. And that's definitely the main thing that I, you know, I'm thinking about here in addition to the risks of creating machines that can fully replace our labor.

18:03Speaker 3:But I think it's more than just jobs.

18:05Speaker 5:It's like replacing the creative output of humans and replacing all of these interactions that we would normally have had to had to do, you know, daily life and creating like a thing where you are just interacting with a machine or your machines are interacting with other machines to make your life as easy as possible.

18:25Speaker 3:And you just don't even think about it anymore. And that seems kind of dystopian.

18:31Speaker 5:In addition to creating all these risks as these agents are interacting with each other and you have your own little swarm interacting with all the other swarms doing who knows what and having all kinds of unpredictable and undesirable effects on the world. as everything becomes optimized for your attention and your money. And yeah, I'm like increasingly concerned about this as well.

18:54Speaker 1:Put C4 up on the screen. So I threw some things at you that challenge your thesis about the likelihood of labor replacement. But this seems really to support your thesis that you are going to see significant labor replacement. And it's showing up in a place that I think, again, was not predicted by really anyone. You see it, as you said, among young people graduating from college in the most AI-exposed professions.

19:17Speaker 4:You also see it in employment in the arts, right?

19:20Speaker 1:So the full slopification of the arts landscape appears to be well underway. Over the last four years, America's lost more than 200,000 jobs in creative fields like publishing, film, TV, graphic design. We're stretched for arts jobs outside of major recessions. He goes on in another tweet to say perhaps the best evidence that this is AI-driven arts job loss is that all digital arts industries are losing jobs while most live arts still chug along. So if you're doing a theatrical production, performing arts, those things are still continuing at the same rate. But if you're doing graphic design, if you're doing streaming and social media, digital arts are falling off a cliff. So, you know, to me, again, this is an indication that AI will replace people, is already replacing people, and that it's starting in an area where you would think that the human touch would be most valued, and yet they're the first ones to be jettisoned.

20:25Speaker 4:Yeah.

20:25Speaker 5:I mean, if we think about like market testing focus groups for movies and different content online and like the optimization of short form video, With generative AI, you can optimize every piece of it. There are these fully automated TikTok accounts that are doing like A-B testing where they try different versions of the video, but for not just two versions, but like any number of things. And so you can create this like perfect slop, right? And that is hard to compete with if you're a human creator.

20:57Speaker 5:And I think for certain types of things like film and TV shows and like the kind of, biggest budget and the highest effort and the most like auteur type media humans will have an advantage here but it's already the case that people really prefer ai content in almost everything like visual arts poetry writing like if you do blind tests and when you tell them it's ai they go like they're horrified in many cases but they're these systems are trained to please people And so it makes sense that they would be good at generating stuff that pleases people and be better than us at it. Because humans make stuff that's like a little challenging sometimes and unexpected. And, you know, some people like that, but most people just want, you know, the kind of easy stuff.

21:42Speaker 4:Yeah. Well, and humans make plenty of slop too.

21:44Speaker 1:I mean, if you go and like scroll on Netflix, it's not like it's all highbrow.

21:47Speaker 2:Literally what I'm doing while you guys are speaking is I said, because I saw a tweet today and it said, AI music is going to displace all music within the next two years. Super hyperbolic. Somebody made a good point. They're like, guys, the number one music in the country is like Taylor Swift and Pink. All right? It's not that hard to reverse engineer in terms of, look, I like Taylor Swift. I like Pink, too, despite whatever her politics and.

22:14Speaker 4:All that would be.

22:14Speaker 2:I've never liked Pink.

22:15Speaker 4:I just want to go on record as that.

22:16Speaker 2:She says that once.

22:17Speaker 4:I do like Taylor Swift, but not.

22:17Speaker 2:A fan of Pink. But I'm scrolling here. I'm looking at Netflix, and this is the stuff people are watching. Unabomber, which I'm obsessed with the Unabomber story. This is a dog shit movie, like 23%, number one on Netflix. Number two, Breadwinner with Nate Bargatze. Number three, I think this is a Demon Slayer. I don't know if this is in the K-pop. universe number four top gun maverick actually a decent movie number five is the ministry of ungentlemanly warfare dog shit knock in the cabin haven't even watched it guarantee you isn't the.

22:45Speaker 1:Number one show in the country still that like ncis i thought it was that live pd like oh is it i know i.

22:51Speaker 2:Thought it was ncis uh like ncis.

22:53Speaker 4:Reality show garbage all.

22:55Speaker 2:That stuff yeah and then number 10 on netflix is the puss in boots the last witch which i didn't even know existed So, I mean, this is what people are actually watching. Like, let's be honest, like, AI slop is far, 90% of what most people consume already is already slop. The Wire, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, those are like, those are the outliers. That's what, and by the way, not even that many people watch them. You know, they're overrepresented in the elites and the highly educated, who mostly have, you know, better taste, no offense. But, It's just true.

23:28Speaker 2:And you know, the stuff that most people watch is law and order. Like it's just, it seems pretty obvious, I think. So when I see, you know, there's a lot of people in the arts who push back against us and they're like, they could never do what we do. I just don't think that that's fundamentally true. And I think that that, you know, the Netflix point I just made bears it out. People watch literal shit just to fill big portions of their day. And that's obvious in the number one hits on Netflix on a, you know, year over year basis. And in terms of their watch time.

24:01Speaker 3:Yeah. I think intentionality is an essential part of what makes something art.

24:05Speaker 2:Yeah.

24:06Speaker 3:But in many of these cases, there's not much intentionality, right?

24:09Speaker 5:It's like executives being what will people watch and they're looking at the data and it's, there's not much like human creative input that that's happening here. Um, and I think something that's been kind of strange is watching like these Opus 5.5 videos with a very minimal prompt. just make a lot of choices and then not producing something bad. Like, and people might roast me for this, but just search like Opus 5.5 in Twitter or some other place and just like watch a few of the things and like, just tell me what you think, because I did not expect them to be able to do this anytime soon.

24:43Speaker 5:And like this being like generating these music videos from scratch that like sync up and, you know, produce like all these graphics that are relevant to the thing and, and, making jokes.

24:55Speaker 3:And like, there was one that's like, what's your TikTok feed? And it's like for a language model.

24:59Speaker 5:And, you know, I'm laughing at it because it's like showing different, like getting reward for getting the right.

25:04Speaker 3:Answers on all the unit tests passing.

25:06Speaker 5:And it's like, that's like a nerdy joke that appeals to me in particular and will appeal to most people because it's like literally Claude making its own experience. And so there's kind of like meta fiction or meta humor type things are possible now.

25:19Speaker 3:And it's concerning.

25:21Speaker 5:I don't like it. It's bad that These things are so good at this because I don't want humans to be replaced by machines. And I don't want us to be outcompeted by these like soulless corporate AIs that are pretending to be nice and friendly and making very persuasive propaganda as well.

25:39Speaker 3:Right. Like they're not just going to be talking to people. They'll be making music videos about how like there's nothing to worry about. This is all going to be fine. Look at the pretty colors.

25:47Speaker 5:You know, it's it's kind of like, again, ahead of schedule.

25:51Speaker 1:Yeah, and that's another thing that I think people don't realize either is this is the worst that they'll be. There's sort of an assumption that it's going to, if you have any sort of a refined eye, read as slop forever.

26:03Speaker 4:I don't think that's true.

26:06Speaker 1:We already have, there's this novel in France that's like won awards. that is at least allegedly AI written. And it was like some highfalutin literary novel that a lot of very refined taste type of people really loved. And you put it into, what's the name of the thing that detects the AI? You put it in there and it's like 100% it's AI. So we're already there with it's very difficult to distinguish. And I just, I think people will in theory prefer human art, but we can already see the numbers in terms of the market. Like we've outsourced art to the market, just like we've outsourced everything else to the market. So ultimately that's what's going to determine how far this goes and how many will be made obsolete. And so to me, that's such a It's very powerful proof. This is not going to stay with digital arts. It's not going to stay with coders because already it's automating out of existence some of the things that you would have thought humans would have had a preference for the humans. And it's just being proven wrong.

27:11Speaker 1:I mean, I have no illusions about... Right now, I think the AI podcasters aren't as good as we are, but at certain things.

27:16Speaker 2:They are.

27:17Speaker 4:There was an AI podcast that went through all of the Epstein files.

27:20Speaker 2:Yeah, I remember that.

27:21Speaker 4:And was able.

27:22Speaker 1:I mean, I don't have time to read tens of thousands of Epstein emails. We did extensive coverage here.

27:28Speaker 3:Mm-hmm.

27:28Speaker 1:And their, you know, their AI podcasters were kind of like dull and not as nearly as engaging as we are, obviously. But in terms of their just ability to assimilate all of this information, put it together in a coherent narrative, I can't compete with that. So it is not mine. Like, it's not hard for me to imagine a future in which I'm competing. And on some senses, I already am not just with other human creators, but that there's like robots, right?

27:54Speaker 1:who people have actual emotional attachments to who are in this space and doing a very.

28:01Speaker 4:Good job at it.

28:02Speaker 2:Yeah.

28:02Speaker 5:I do think people will continue to prefer podcasts and shows made by people where you can see and hear the person's voice.

28:10Speaker 4:Yeah.

28:10Speaker 5:No, really like these videos, you know, when you see a music video, you're not like looking at the person who made it.

28:15Speaker 2:Right.

28:16Speaker 5:And so this parasocial relationship that these podcasts really are based around in many cases is I think will keep humans involved for longer.

28:26Speaker 3:And I think there will always be a market for live music.

28:29Speaker 5:And I think we're going to see actually more preference for that type of thing as the internet becomes increasingly like you're looking at this amazing thing and it's like, wait, is this real? And that feeling is, it just has sucked the joy out of like viral videos. And it's a small thing compared to all of the other shit. But like, man, that's a bummer. And we didn't need to let it happen.

28:51Speaker 2:All right, Garrison, you're going to stick around for us. You're going to help us with our AMA. So let's get to that.

28:58Speaker 1:Turning back to Israel, where Benjamin Netanyahu is facing a very tough reelection bid amidst revelations about just how many warnings he had received in advance of October 7th. This news cycle is becoming so overwhelming that even Joe and Mika over on Morning Joe are paying attention. Let's take a listen to what they had to say.

29:17Speaker 7:If you remember when this all happened, this horrific historic event, the border was wide open.

29:25Speaker 4:The gates were empty.

29:27Speaker 7:They had practically opened the door for this attack, or at least moved security away from one of the main gates.

29:34Speaker 6:And in some instances, while women were being raped, is were being gunned down, while children were being killed in front of their parents and parents were being killed in front of their children and the elderly were being tortured, abused and killed. The government did little to nothing.

29:53Speaker 3:Hours.

29:54Speaker 6:It takes Netanyahu and his government.

29:56Speaker 8:11 hours, 10 hours, nine hours to even respond to their country being invaded by terrorists and their people being tortured.

30:07Speaker 2:The worst slaughter of Jews.

30:10Speaker 6:On any day since the Holocaust.

30:14Speaker 8:And Netanyahu was warned repeatedly that it was coming. And yet he continued funding Hamas through Qatar.

30:23Speaker 1:Not all that surprising that they're going in on Netanyahu because a lot of liberal Zionists have made him the boogeyman of the situation. What is surprising is that a few times now, including you could hear Mika kind of hinting towards it there, they have sort of suggested that he may have known and sort of allowed this to transpire. So let's take a look at the recent evidence. We have a new report out from Haaretz that provides even more details about what went down here. So A number of reports, the first one coming from Haaretz to begin with, a liberal Israeli newspaper, said that the leader of the UAE had warned Netanyahu multiple times, was upset that Netanyahu hadn't taken it seriously. And then after the fact... Netanyahu went to him and said, hey, you've got to deny that this all went down in a secret visit. So this is the latest from Haaretz. This builds on their own previous report. We can also put D4 up on the screen. This is The New York Times. They have more information here.

31:21Speaker 4:About a warning.

31:22Speaker 1:This particular article is also about the warnings coming from the UAE. They say that it lacks specific details, and it never reached the chiefs of Israel's security establishment, meaning that Netanyahu was warned and he did not take that to the Israeli security establishment. He just kept it to himself. Let's put the next one up on the screen. This is another warning that he received. This is from the Wall Street Journal. They say that Egypt also warned Netanyahu of impending attacks on Israel before October 7th, again, saying that, hey, we see activity here.

31:58Speaker 4:You need to take this seriously.

32:00Speaker 1:And they were disturbed by how little credence he seemed to give to this.

32:05Speaker 4:Then you add on top of this, we.

32:07Speaker 1:Already knew, Sagar, that there had been, in 2022, the Israeli intelligence community actually got their hands on the October 7th plans— And they dismissed it because they were like, I don't think Hamas would do that. I don't think that they have the capability to do that. So they didn't take it serious. So they had the specific plans. He had warning from the leader of the UAE, warnings from the leader of Egypt. There were those women who were in charge of surveillance of Gaza who said, I think they're planning something that's dismissed and discarded.

32:37Speaker 4:The IDF is.

32:39Speaker 1:Moved from near Gaza to the West Bank. So you have very little security near the border with Gaza. You have this music festival that's happening right there that was not supposed to go on until October 7th. They had to ask the IDF for an extension. And it's granted, even as all of this concern about what's going on with Hamas and Gaza is swirling. So people can be forgiven for taking a look at this and going, listen, this is either an incredible failure of competence, incredible arrogance to think, you know, oh, my adversary here, they wouldn't do this.

33:13Speaker 4:I know better. They're incapable, etc.

33:16Speaker 1:Or he allowed this to transpire because he thought it would enable exactly the genocidal actions that he has taken. So You can't blame people for putting two and two together and thinking that may be the case. Now, I think it's just as plausible that he had that level of arrogance, that he ignored the warnings, that he didn't take it seriously, that he didn't even bring it to the Israeli intel chiefs. security chiefs to let them know what these foreign leaders were talking about. But it shows you how mainstream it has become that even on Morning Joe, they're saying, yeah, this looks weird. Hillary Clinton even said something to the same regard.

33:51Speaker 2:Right. Yeah, it does seem to be a little bit of a cop out. Also, where's Donny Deutch to tell me that that's anti-Semitic on that show?

33:59Speaker 1:I mean, can you imagine in the immediate wake of October 7th when we were looking at some of these things and going, what's going on here? I mean, there's no way they would have freaked out if we like, you know, went on their show and they.

34:12Speaker 2:Did any of it. They did freak out, of course.

34:14Speaker 4:Yeah.

34:14Speaker 2:Blacklisted from a lot of places because of some of the commentary from that time. Not that I care, but the point around all of it is, look, let's just look at the incontrovertible evidence. And I remember, you know, 9-11 is an easy comparison where and I think this is all fair. If you go back and you look, every single piece to stop 9-11 was in possession of the United States government. You could even say Bush. I mean, I remember when that got declassified in 05. It was an earth-shaking moment. The intel report that reached Bush's desk, I think it was like August 7th. I used to have the date memorized. It was like August something, 2001.

34:50Speaker 2:Bin Laden determined to attack the United States, the very top of the presidential list. intelligence briefing. That was enough for most Americans to be like, oh my God, they knew. Then the looming tower came out and you find out all of the different pieces, every single piece there to stop. I mean, the evidence for the government knew about 9-11, either let it happen through incompetence or let it happen, you know, et cetera, is far worse than the evidence that Netanyahu knew everything he needed to know about October 7th.

35:17Speaker 2:He gets this call directly from MBZ, who by the way, Netanyahu is there today, I believe. I mean, kind of weird situation happening in the wake of all this. Of course, everybody is denying the report. It appears that the Egyptians knew a lot, and they're like, hey, you have a real problem on your hands. And you can understand exactly why, is in every time in the past when Hamas does some sort of attack on Israel, they use it as a casus bella to go in and do whatever they want and to shore up the domestic I don't know necessarily if they thought October 7th was going to go as bad as they thought. I think they probably thought it was going to be more like a median incursion as opposed to as well planned.

35:58Speaker 4:But to say— I mean, even Hamas did not think it would go the way.

36:00Speaker 2:That it would. Good point, is that even the planners of the attack had no idea it would be as successful, you know, by their standards as it would be. Although, you know, in the long run, I think it was obviously a disaster. But what happened is they thought that it was a controllable mow-the-lawn situation. That's their paradigm. That's their framework. And what it ended up unleashing was not only a disaster for all of the 1,000 plus people who were killed on October 7th, but then for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians either killed or wounded and just setting the entire region on fire. And I do think that this stuff matters. It matters because it's very obvious, and it wouldn't be the very first time in history that you knew something was going to happen And you either let it through incompetence or potentially through basically just wanting it to happen. and then you have to be responsible for the consequences. As I understand it, this has become a big controversy in Israel, actually. It's like, in Israel, this is not going down. They're not whitewashing it the way that a lot of people in the American press are.

37:03Speaker 1:Well, and Netanyahu has also, through starting various other wars, blocked any action of investigation and accountability within Israel. There was supposed to be an after-action report, because even on the day of the response— Netanyahu was sleeping for the first three hours.

37:22Speaker 4:It was complete chaos.

37:24Speaker 1:You know, there was very little organized military security response to what was unfolding. And so even if you just look at the day of, you're like, what the hell happened here?

37:34Speaker 4:None of that has happened.

37:35Speaker 1:The only things we've gotten is from this sort of journalistic investigation in terms of an official government report. That has not occurred because Netanyahu, in the same way that he pushes off indefinitely his corruption trial, has pushed off a reckoning over that and has now solidified his political standing enough so that it looks like He is unlikely with his party to win a majority, but it also looks like the opposition is unlikely to win a majority.

38:01Speaker 1:So you're likely to end up with this situation where he's sort of like a caretaker.

38:04Speaker 4:Prime minister and lives to fight another day. And that's what he is incredibly good at.

38:09Speaker 1:However, you know, perhaps these latest scandals end up being too much for him. It's very difficult. to say how this will all unfold. I'm certainly no expert on domestic Israeli politics. However, this is a significant development here, just in terms of our understanding of this society. Put D6 up on the screen. This was highlighted by Shael Ben-Ephraim. There was a poll that just came out about the fact that they are banning the Arab parties from competing in elections. And he says the vast majority of Jews in Israel support disqualifying all of these Arab parties.

38:44Speaker 4:55% of all voters want to disqualify them.

38:46Speaker 1:That means about 65% of Jewish Israelis support the move. He goes on to opine, never let them say it's a fringe. Israel is a racist state to its core. This flies directly in the face of all this.

38:57Speaker 4:It's a democracy.

38:58Speaker 1:And as Arab Israelis, they get to vote and they have full participation and they're treated just the same as Jewish Israelis. Clear bullshit here. And then they have even gone so far, put D7 up on the screen, as to start to police who they allow citizenship in their country based on their political beliefs. So this is a seminal event within Israel. They have frozen what's called Aliyah, which is the, you know, quote unquote, return of Jews to Israel territory. granting of citizenship and ability to reside there.

39:33Speaker 1:They have revoked that for two Jewish activists because they've been involved in what's called protective presence in the West Bank. where you go, and I mean, it's exactly like what it sounds like. You're there, and since you're a Jew, so you have some moral standing in the eyes of this racist apartheid state, you hope that your presence helps to protect the Palestinians that you are there with. So you're sort of using your privilege in this situation to try to protect Palestinians. And Israel now is saying, okay, well, then you can't be part of this state. It's no longer any Jew can come here, and this is their safe haven. It's now the ones that have the political views that we're comfortable with who are not going to stand up for human rights of Palestinians.

40:12Speaker 2:Almost like they're defining who's Jewish based on their support for the government and the state.

40:17Speaker 3:Interesting.

40:18Speaker 2:Which would maybe enhance anti-Semitism globally across the world when the only Jewish state is going to define Jewishness for not whether what you worship or don't or I guess by their definition like blood heritage compared to instead. their own political positions on what's happening in the West. No, it's nuts. You know, I mean, Aliyah always seemed to be one of those ironclad things. It's like, yep, you're a Jew. You get to come here. That's the whole point.

40:46Speaker 2:And now, I mean, that was literally the foundation of their entire.

40:49Speaker 4:That's the whole idea.

40:50Speaker 2:Safe havens for all Jews. Yeah.

40:52Speaker 1:Not the ones that have the views that we are comfortable with.

40:54Speaker 2:That's why they get to do what they do, right? You know, in their own internal.

40:59Speaker 4:Narrative.

40:59Speaker 2:I'm just.

41:01Speaker 4:Yeah.

41:01Speaker 2:Tells you a lot.

41:02Speaker 4:Yeah.

41:02Speaker 1:But I mean, you see this rhetoric with, you know, with Zionists here in the United States where it suggested that if you are an anti-Zionist Jew, you're not a real Jew.

41:11Speaker 2:Yeah.

41:11Speaker 4:So it's.

41:12Speaker 2:According to the Israelis, that's true.

41:14Speaker 1:It's that's that is now Israel state policy effectively. Last thing I wanted to update here on is Google Maps just updated Gaza with new satellite images. So for the first time, you can go. You can go on Google Maps and type in Gaza. You can type in Rafah, which is now just a pile of rubble, and you can see what has been done here. And it's absolutely horrifying. You look at these places and it's particularly, I don't know, there's something really just deeply dystopian, disturbing about the fact that you'll see these little pinpoints on the map, you know, just like you would in any city of like a restaurant or something that used to be there. And you zoom in and it's just rubble. These are people's homes.

42:01Speaker 1:These are schools. These are, you know, mosques. This is everything. Entire cities. You're going to tell me this was a target operation to take out the terrorists.

42:09Speaker 4:Like, bullshit. This is why no one believes you.

42:11Speaker 2:I mean, they don't even say it anymore.

42:12Speaker 1:No one believes anything. That's exactly right. The amount of rubble that has been created there, the amount of destruction, lives lost. We still have no idea what the real death count is. And they still won't let in international journalists. to be able to see and document for themselves. So this is the best we can get, this glimpse from Google Maps of the extent of the full-scale annihilation that they committed here in the Gaza Strip with our tax dollars.

42:39Speaker 2:Very depressing. All right, let's get to DraftKings. Turning now to DraftKings. All right, let's put this up here on the screen from ProPublica. I love these types of stories where a lot of the Atlantic and ProPublica, like these people, magazine writers will do these long exposés where they bet as problem gamblers and then see what happens. So this is from Jake Pearson over at ProPublica. He says, I deliberately bet like a problem gambler. DraftKings made me a VIP.

43:10Speaker 2:So that sounds really bad, but I want to dig into just how bad it is and how this reveals the entire scam of the sports gambling industry. So let's start putting some of these elements up here on the screens. Jake Pearson was given some $ 20, 000 by ProPublica. They bankrolled his account. He decided, quote, I waved my first red flag during a Knicks game by loss chasing, attempting to recoup my continued losses by making more and more big bets. Soon, I was already down $ 2, 000, most of it blown in one night. Okay, let's continue to go. So the next day, an email popped in his inbox. Welcome to the DraftKings VIP showcase. I couldn't believe it. My night of loss chasing was being rewarded. Reading the fine print I was floored, the more I spent on long odds wagers, the faster I would advance through the ranks. Continue. What you see is a month in, he was betting so much that DraftKings quick tab deposit buttons had actually changed inside the app to $ 500, $ 750, and $ 950, making it that much easier to mindlessly transfer money into my account I was also getting pummeled with push notifications of inviting me to

44:26Speaker 2:bet more. Just linger on this, guys, because I want to show. everybody the sheer insanity of what this all looks like. So take a look. Boost yourself. You've unlocked an MLB reward. Step up to the plate. Daily MLB profit boost. Drama builds in game one. Can the Knicks hit two out of three in the final three minutes? Cleveland versus New York remains tight in the second half. The stars are here. The stars delivered yesterday. Will Ronaldo and K do the same thing? Both find the back of the net today. Plus 200. Win or go home.

44:53Speaker 2:Boost your NBA single game parlay before tonight's Cavs Pistons tip off Claim now. Look at this bombardment of what he was getting. Okay, let's continue and we'll see. So he goes, I eventually decided to set in-app limits on how much I could deposit, how much time I would spend on the app. I received first of four promotional push alerts a half hour later. So this guy is trying to internally show DraftKings to try and trip the wires where they are, again, by their own company policies, not supposed to be doing this. And instead, as you see, what is happening is that they are making as much money as possible for off of the gambling addicts. So continue. Eventually, he comes around. He says, and he asked them, the system worked the way it was supposed to me. I didn't even qualify for a manual review despite depositing $ 21, 000 into my account in just eight weeks. When I asked if DraftKings ever cut people off, this is what I get, is found response to be revealing is that the system worked.

46:04Speaker 2:Does DraftKings ever cut somebody off based on their betting history and not because they've disclosed that they have a problem? Quote, yes, we do that all the time. She repeated the same answer when I asked her how often. I pressed again and a spokesperson interjected telling me he would take the question as a follow-up. Later on, the company told me we do not share. the specific number of closures. So basically you need to go up to the, you know, you have to like call draft Kings and be like, please don't let me bet. I am an addict for them to not basically to cut you off. They're not going to tell you the number because the number is obviously minuscule in terms of how many times.

46:38Speaker 1:And their excuse was, well, you weren't betting between 1 30 AM and 5 30 AM.

46:43Speaker 4:So we thought it was cool.

46:44Speaker 1:Like that's Crazy that you think like that is the requirement. And we have no idea if that's even real or they just like made that up to pretend they had some justification.

46:54Speaker 2:It's total bullshit. I'll tell you why. It's because there are a lot of sharp bettors who what they do is they actually program their phones or hire people to go on their phones and check their bets at 2.30 in the morning. because that mimics gambling addict behavior, which means DraftKings will shower you in more promotional free bet, which then you can take advantage of. So it's completely false. The more you check at 3.30 in the morning, some tip for the gamblers out there, if you want as much free bet as possible, wake your ass up at 3.35 in the morning and show DraftKings you can't sleep because all you're thinking about is betting and they will give you free money. That is what this industry is.

47:29Speaker 4:That is so dark.

47:30Speaker 2:Why am I focusing on this? Because guys, this is how they make their money. So we have talked here extensively about how they limit sharp bettors. So if you're actually good, you're screwed, right? You have to go through all these hoops and create fake accounts and mimic addict behavior, et cetera, just to be able to put some money down. The vast majority of their profits, nearly 50% of their profits, come from people like this, the real people like this.

47:53Speaker 2:Only 3% of the people account for almost 50% of the profit at these companies. And so the addicts are the ones who pay all the bills. Remember, this is the same for cigarettes, for alcohol, for all vice, is that the vast majority of vice is consumed by the addicts. And in this case, you can actually see that if you cut the addict off, which again, their policy says that they should do, and even laws say that they should do, they will go bust instantaneously. This entire thing is only sustainable because of the addict. And that's the tragic part around all of this. Now, you all remember last week we covered that AI policy, where they can do this even more effectively. Put this up here on the screen from my friends over at gamblingharm.org, a great organization.

48:43Speaker 2:I encourage people to support them. Well, you would ask, after seeing all this AI stuff, hey, wouldn't you guys want to do something about this, the regulators? Listen to this. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission defended its regulatory approach around DraftKings and said the agency has its own AI task force and has funded research into AI and online gambling through the University of Nevada and that they will, quote, engage with DraftKings regarding the report. In other words, they're not doing anything about it. They are defending DraftKings. in the way that you can actually look at this. They say there are troubling things to be raised. We need to find out the facts with no disrespect to the New York Times, etc. This is something true across any retail experience, anything That a customer facing has these same challenges and determining the potential for AI to exploit customers. He called it a typical retail experience. This is the guy.

49:44Speaker 4:That might be true, by the way, which is also dystopian.

49:46Speaker 2:I was going to say, it is true. And that's the problem. This morning I showed Crystal this viral post of a guy ordering Uber to his house, $ 76, ordering to his neighbor's house, $ 26. This is our economy now. is exploiting these people. Uber, I get price gouging. I hate it, obviously, but I guess that's a little different. At least they're providing you something. This is designed to milk you. If they allow you to bet, you're going to lose. And the more I hammer this home to people, the more that I am hoping it makes a difference, is you just have to know, just because you're one of those people who can place a bet and move on, the reason you aren't able to is because of people like this. And they are literally killing themselves in a historic fact. Like, Suicide rate amongst gambling addiction is the highest of every single addiction. It is the highest. It is the type of addiction. you can hit rock bottom and no one will know. Would you know if I went broke? No, you would have no idea. Everybody knows when an alcoholic is a rock bottom. Everybody knows when a drug addict is on rock bottom. They're in the

50:48Speaker 2:middle of Skid Row, you know, selling themselves for hits. Nobody knows. You know, you can just wake up one day and you will have lost everything. And you're going to lose your marriage. You're going to lose your kids. You're going to lose your entire future. And you're, you know, unless you get some serious help, that's another problem. The recidivism is rate for, imagine being a gambling addict in the year 2026. What do you do? At least in the past, you could say, all right, I'm self-banning myself from the casino, right? And so then you have to go illegally gamble. And even then they would never offer.

51:17Speaker 4:Harder to hide it from your family, your wife, whatever.

51:20Speaker 2:I mean, this, you know, the phone, the iPad, you can go, I mean, you can go to a gas station and you can gamble in some of these states.

51:26Speaker 4:I Do you see that?

51:28Speaker 2:It's so bad.

51:29Speaker 4:Do you see that? I know you did.

51:30Speaker 1:This AI Kalshi ad where the boyfriend thinks his girlfriend is cheating on him because she's constantly on her phone. But it turns out she's not cheating on him, at least not technically.

51:41Speaker 4:She's betting on Kalshi all the time.

51:43Speaker 2:That is cheating, by the way. It's financial infidelity.

51:45Speaker 4:And that's what he discovers in this AI. And he's so relieved. Oh, I'm sure she's doing great and winning lots of money. So it's all fine and good.

51:52Speaker 1:The other interesting thing about the ProPublica investigation is that this reporter who is trying to mimic the behaviors of a problem gambler, of someone who has gambling addiction but doesn't actually have any.

52:05Speaker 4:Addictive issues with it himself— Even he.

52:08Speaker 1:Is kind of like tempted by the siren song of it.

52:11Speaker 2:Of course you are.

52:12Speaker 4:He says he won.

52:13Speaker 1:Big because he bet on the Knicks to win the NBA championship or bet something on the Knicks and won big on that and was actually up. And he was like, I was like, maybe I'm good at this.

52:22Speaker 4:Oh, yeah.

52:22Speaker 1:And then, of course, you know, two weeks later, then you're down thousands of dollars.

52:26Speaker 2:Have you ever done it?

52:27Speaker 4:Thousands of dollars. Have I ever bet on?

52:28Speaker 2:Yeah.

52:28Speaker 4:Yeah, I've bet some on sports.

52:29Speaker 2:No, not it's not for I mean, gambling is anything. Go to a casino and play craps. The most fun game in the casino. you think you're a god. If you're on a hot roll, you're like, I'm a god. These hands are lucky, right? And the next thing you know, you're gonna roll seven, you're gonna lose every hand that comes on the table. But I get it too. I understand. It is a rush, like no, roulette, when you hit that number, when you hit a zero, It's a drug.

52:53Speaker 1:And something about something about your like mental processes, you tend to remember more the ones that you got right.

53:00Speaker 3:Of course.

53:00Speaker 4:Then you're like the ones that you got wrong. That was a fluke. The ones you got right.

53:04Speaker 1:Well, that was because of your skill and knowledge and because you're good at this. So, yeah, Kyle, for a while, Kyle and I were betting like, you know, five different golf events because he's like, I know this sport really well. Well, even with him, he does know the sport.

53:15Speaker 2:Trust me. Yeah.

53:17Speaker 4:Even with that, it didn't matter. It was losing.

53:19Speaker 2:See, that's the thing is that they weaponize knowledge where knowing a sport well doesn't matter. The real bettors, they don't know anything about the sports. The real ones don't even watch the games. All they do is look. They have a computerized model with AI and they're looking at numbers for the probabilities. As long as their internal probability is a mismatch to the DraftKings number, they bet it. They don't care about the sport. Your knowledge of the sport means nothing. And I can guarantee you the DraftKings 10,000 engineers, they know a shitload more about it than you do. And so that's what you're up against. So your knowledge will buy you absolutely nothing.

53:57Speaker 4:And we're very bad at statistics and probability.

54:00Speaker 2:Oh, it's so bad.

54:01Speaker 1:Like the natural human instincts on that thing are complete trash. So you think your parlay is like, oh, these are all reasonable outcomes. Like I could totally see these all hitting. And so if you're not someone who's like studiously running the numbers and yeah, it's a disaster.

54:30Speaker 2:So you'd be like, hey, 1,000, that's incredible, like 1,000 to one, when if you were to look at the statistics, the number of times this ever happened, let's say, and I'm making this up off the top of my head, would be once in the last 20 years. So in reality, even if you did hit it, you are massively being underpaid. That's how they rob you, is that your idiot brain goes, oh my God, 1,000 to one? That's a great deal. It should be 10,000 to one, right? The real number should be like 10,000 or 100,000. Or something like that to one. But your ape brain goes, oh my god, 1,000 to one. So even when you win, you're actually losing.

55:03Speaker 2:The vig that they're taking from you is something that, again, you're not good at math and you're probably drunk or high whenever you're placing the bet. You're not thinking rationally. But that's why the people who are the sharp bettors, they don't even care about the sport. For them, they look at that number. If there's a mismatch, they take it.

55:18Speaker 4:Yeah.

55:18Speaker 2:And so you'll never beat it.

55:19Speaker 4:Yeah.

55:20Speaker 1:And you're in there and they show you like, oh, well, if you did this bet, you'd make this much more money. And so, oh, let me get the real payoff here and not this like measly.

55:27Speaker 2:But you don't know the real ads. That's how they weaponize it. So stay away. Please take it away. Ladies, take it away from your husband. Delete the app. Tell me to divorce him. Do it. It's going to be good for you. All right. We're about to do our AMA now with Garrison. Let's get to it.