Moral Displacement, Pajama Wars, and AI Propaganda

David (00:51) All right. Welcome back to shrink the nation today. America's giving us a psychological buffet. We are arguing over chain semantics to avoid admitting what a second strike actually was. The department of transportation is trying to legislate pajamas like they're a gateway drug and AI is now fully capable of generating fake politicians, fake voices. And to new conversations that can change your This country had a therapist. charging pay. Let's pour a drink. Let's get this one going, Robbie. I'm David. I got my 20 plus in the military, board certified psychiatrist. And today, enjoying a nice tin cup again. cut with Rocky Mountain water, although I'm not sure how much it's cut. It's only 80 It's going smoothly Rob (01:32) Mm-hmm. Personally, I think that's the sweet spot beyond that. There's a few that get like the one I'm doing this evening can get a little higher than that. But I, you know, for a sipping bourbon, it's good. David (01:45) I'm at sipping, I'm enjoying so. Rob (01:47) Yeah. Hey, it's Rob. or 26 in psychiatry, years in the military. want to highlight and stomp the fact that I am not representing any branch of the military and or any governmental agency. I am purely a independent citizen and civilian in this role. David (02:06) where to cover your assets before we get started. Rob (02:08) Well, it's in keeping our first topics today is that, I think we're all issued with a cover your ass memo now when you join the military apparently. David (02:18) Or at least a non-disclosure right, so our first pour today, calling this moral displacement and the second strike. This coverage is coming from multiple outlets and been circulating pretty much the last few months. But in the aftermath of the confirmed second strike, national debate has zeroed in on ambiguity. Rob (02:19) something. David (02:36) gave which order? Who interpreted what? And whether SecDef, JSOC, or Admiral crossed the line, public conversation become a maze of chain of command hair-sling. a striking example of moral When a nation fixates on bureaucratic fog to avoid staring directly at the horror. Instead of confronting the reality of we executed survivors, the psyche retreats into process plausible deniability. That's where I'm going to start. But again, speaking as a civilian only as a civilian. Rob (03:05) huh. all the rights accorded to you therein of your First Amendment right, please exercise it. David (03:07) so our. So do think, Robbie? Are we avoiding eye contact with reality? Rob (03:16) I'm incensed by this one, actually. This one, know, most of the time I can keep a sense of humor about most of these play the violin while Rome burns and be gets me at And the funny thing is, know, let's assume that I have spent quite a bit of time in the military. though right now I am speaking as a civilian that First Amendment to be clear, just in Every time one deploys, one has to go through a LOAC, Laws of Armed Conflict briefing. And ironically, one of the elements they use, an example they use when you render aid versus continue combat and shipwrecked is actually one of You do not the shipwrecked. one can debate of attacking these boats that may or may not, it likely are. to not dance around, but they likely are conveying illicit substances. One can debate whether transporting illegal substances is a capital offense. One can debate extra judiciary nicely done. One can debate those things. But the moment of that first strike and in those 41 minutes following in which these two humans were struggling in the water as shipwrecked individuals, it is difficult for me I've heard all the wrangling, I've heard all the debate, One side say it's justified and I've heard the other side. But it is very difficult for me to justify sending in another missile. for the express purpose of ending the existence of these two individuals. it angers me. one of the reasons, and this is just something, you know, as in the line of work that I do and the places that I've done it, when a soldier kills in the line of duty, they are still human as it turns out, taking a life is actually ridiculously easy. The United States Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, train personnel well. it's muscle memory. pop-up respond to contact. when a target presents itself, and your rifle goes to shoulder and you flip off the safety and you pull the trigger as you have been trained to do. It is not would imagine in a movie. they can play up the sort of moral moment in which your morals are warring with themselves. In reality, it happens in less than a second. There's very little thought associated with it. And then you have to walk away knowing that you just ended the life of somebody who once was a bouncing baby boy on mama's knee. the soldiers frequently have is how do I know I can turn this off? I realize now that I can kill and that it's not hard. What's hard to do is to live with so that anybody, could see these two individuals struggling in the water and then order in another strike. it's a struggle for me not to be angry about actually. David (06:26) agree with you wholeheartedly. Not great podcasting, unfortunately, the reason that I think having a discussion about this here in a place where we could talk about more of the psychology of this is that right now, in at least the last several days, discussions about been was the order that was given, who gave the order, a justified order? What was the legality of that? think doing psychological perspective something that we call moral displacement. we're doing is We're willing to do almost anything to avoid confronting the moral injury that comes from something that we've done that is wrong. And the reality is, regardless of who gave the order, whether it was justified or anything else, is that from military's own rules of engagement in war clearly states that people clinging to the side of shipwreck should not be targets. And so when that occurs, something that is wrong. we're doing is sort of bypassing that. just moving ourselves psychologically the reality of that. always want to remind anybody that everybody is the protagonist of their own when we're in a war situation, talking about the arming and use of force, taking a life, it is simple, it is easy, it is something that can be done in the pulling of a trigger, but just ending some random NPC video game. This is a human who had lived days 24 hours a day for however many years of a life. And that's a big deal. That's not nothing. Rob (08:12) It is, and this is the least funny thing that I will ever say on this podcast. At least God, I hope so. you part of me is incensed having served in war zones, served with real legit heroes. as it turns out, the act of putting on a uniform. in and of itself, going to basic training does not make you a hero, even though for various reasons, it's portrayed that way. It doesn't, but what it does do is put you in a position to be one. It gives you the opportunity to be one. And many, moons ago, treated a young man who was a member of a hunter killer team. So during the... phase in Iraq when we had fully transitioned over to coin operations. Coin stands for counter insurgency. And we were trying to be much more surgical with our approach. developed these hunter killer teams that would go out and it was a spotter and a sniper. they'd go out and they'd set up in certain zones that had a high probability to draw individuals who were planting IEDs. So that's what they were out there to do. They were to identify folks who were installing IEDs along certain routes and they were taking them out. would go out on 72 hour missions, roughly, and they would just sit and they would wait. And then certainly if someone came along, was engaged in planning an IED they take them this young 24 years when I knew him so from now until forever he's 24 even though now he's probably 45 or I him dining facility, defact, he looked pretty rough and I encouraged him to come on over and see me. And had was at the point where he described it. He said, you know, as he was looking through his scope on these, he got to the point where he would envision them as being infants and he would envision them as being toddlers. And he would envision them with a ball, were all men got to the point where he could not pull a trigger. And it rendered him mission incapable. And he took quite a lot of heat for that, but he had certainly done his you know, ultimately the fact that he could maintain empathy. And that empathy grew actually over time, you initially it was it was a expert engaging in what they were trained to know anybody who's been trained to do something they want to do it. They want to do their job So it started out with that and there was a certain excitement to it And then he identified he was good at it. So there was some pride to it. He got a lot of kudos for his success. Hell of a shot, as it turns out. And then it became something else. And when I see these things, ostensibly, the people in that room should have been there, should have done this. And I know they have. And I'm not besmirching their what they've done for the country. What I am calling into question though is that if you watch on video for 41 minutes, two human beings struggling in the water after having had boat blown up, and you call in a second strike on two folks who have no ability to defend themselves, no ability to strike us, which are some of the requirements. from the law of armed conflict and still call in that strike, I am wondering what the dynamic is that drives that. And I'm thinking about a research study done in the sixties on looking at actually with Germans in mind, they were wondering how do normal people do evil things, Milligram. Are you familiar with David (11:45) actually I was going to, I guess you were alluding to it, but this was exactly what I was thinking about as well. Rob (11:51) Please regale our tens. I've said way too many words and I'm feeling a little depressed right now. Maybe a touch of PTSD on my own right. So I might have to crawl into a hole here for a moment and gather myself, please. David (11:52) No, So the Milgram it conducted in Yale, I believe, in the 1960s, but was the shock what we're referring to. And so it was testing obedience to authority. Rob (12:09) Yes. David (12:14) where the participants were instructed to administer increasingly severe electrical shocks to another person was actually an actor as they answered questions incorrectly. couldn't see the person as far as I'm aware, but what they could do is they could hear them scream after administering the shocks. And what they were told was that each shock was like more and more intense. after that answered questions incorrectly. what they found was that people are more likely to commit these atrocities when orders are vague, but the violence was implied. authority figure signaling approval and then ambiguity filling in the rest. It wasn't that they were seeing it happen. It was just that they heard it. Now, was somebody actually getting shocked? No. But did they know that? No. They kept shocking them because it was pleasing person who was sitting there. Yep, keep going. And it would just crank amount of electricity each time. are capable of some pretty, yeah. Rob (13:06) Yeah. they were distressed. The folks that were pushing the button very distressed. It wasn't that they were amoral. wasn't that they were robots. They were distressed. authority frame placed it as harm is necessary. This is necessary. And I think one of the phrases that the authority figure had to say, just like there was like four things they could say, but... The experiment must go on. And I see these videos on TV of this, this boat getting a second strike. And I think someone in that room with the experiment must go on. David (13:41) Yeah. what it brings you to from our perspective is that, whoever gave an order, so ambiguity of an order was in that gap of, well, this is what they want. Narcoterrorists should be killed. even to the point where we're ignoring our own rules and engagement to do it, we're pleasing authority. Rob (14:05) that's the other part of it. So from the Milgram research, it really does say that when responsibility is diffuse, ordinary people cross believing that someone else holds the moral I'm watching this play out, I'm watching how nobody wants to take responsibility, everybody's covering their ass. noticing the fact that they're setting up a straw man over and over again, which is narco terrorist, narco terrorist, narco terrorist. a good portion of our population here's narco terrorist thinks they deserved it. They had it coming. I'm not even going to debate that. I'm just going to say that that's David (14:31) Yeah. Rob (14:41) We can debate whether we're going to traffickers. That's a separate debate. What we're really talking about is the thing that separates the United States military random killers. And what separates us is that we have a code. an ethos. rules. that govern us. We're not indiscriminate killers. That's not our job. Our job is to be professional warriors. And there's a huge difference the this is coming out, the commander's intent, and from whatever level, whether it's SecDef, SecWar, down or POTUS down the intent somehow was ambiguous enough that it ended this happens, lower levels, we call it a clusterfuck. a bunch of me. Anytime you get a bunch of majors and lieutenant colonels together, it's a clusterfuck. the general level, they call it a star cluster. David (15:29) Charlie Foxtrot. Rob (15:39) So, you know, when you have multiple stars around and what ends up happening is the senior ranking person says something and this few years ago, we had commanding general who said we have to be able to fight within 24 hours. Now, his point was we all need to be ready to fight. You know, our units need to be ready. Our vehicles need to be ready. We need to be personally ready. We need to be fit. That was his intent. By the time it got down to the soldier level, had become everyone in this room needs to be able to leave within 24 hours. And it created some problems and then the general had to come back. During of my deployments, COVID mission some years ago particular general came to visit, Amazing man. I mean, really high energy, smart, really engaged individual. And he was also fun to joke with. So I had a good time with him, but then I busted his balls a little bit about that. And he's like, yeah, that took a turn. David (16:42) another big piece of it is the dehumanizing language of labeling somebody a narco terrorist. this from the senators, which is really concerning. Tom coming back and saying, kill other terrorists, therefore killing narco terrorists is completely justified. Now, happening in that is labeling somebody a subhuman. You're taking away any more reasoning. justifying these extreme measures that are happening. Rob (16:59) Yeah. David (17:09) and essentially reframing these killings as some sort of cleansing. You're just taking away humanity from the person is standing there. Rob (17:19) Well, a rhetorical tool. So when you can't argue the actual facts of a thing, you argue to the left or the right of it. And that's what they're doing. They're arguing to the left of this in terrorists deserve to die. That's not the question. The question the United States military must they follow their own laws of armed conflict. That's the question, not whether narco terrorists need to die. And apparently we're not entirely sure on this not. David (17:53) know, really the red herring I twofold. One, just having an argument wrong thing completely, which is kind what we started with is why are we having a conversation about this reality war Rob (18:09) Mm-hmm. David (18:09) by our own definition, not anything else, but by the book written by the Pentagon of this is what you do not engage in during a war. And now we're talking about process, we're talking about policy, we're talking about labels. Now the other aspect of that, which I find utterly fascinating and a common thread is that start to get into the semantics topics. doing we sort bypass the typical checks and balances that we do in our own facts in the case. now we're arguing about the potential for a war crime. And we've completely leaped over whether we were justified the first strike, right? Like we've completely ignored legality, the justification, whether we should even be in a conflict, whether anybody wants to be in any kind of war with Venezuela. really, what the hell we're doing fighting this war on drugs. that we're calling fentanyl when by all accounts it seems to be cocaine while at the same time pardoning somebody convicted of trafficking 400 tons, an unfathomable amount, a mountain of cocaine into our country. And so we leapfrog those checks and balances in our own brain just sort of assume that all that is okay so that we can argue what we think is the more egregious of the things when in reality all of it's ridiculous isn't it? Rob (19:37) created so much cognitive it becomes almost a necessity latch on to something that makes sense. Kill the drug dealers. Kill them. Kill them all. potentially debatable. I mean, potentially. I personally don't think it's a capital crime. But get we could discuss that, heads could discuss whether this is a capital crime and we could put it in the context of drug overdoses and all that. But you're absolutely right. What kills people is fentanyl. Fentanyl comes from China. China, it's routed mostly directly either shipped to the United States via FedEx and UPS. Oddly enough, but that's the reality of it or it's coming through Mexico. Cocaine is not causing drug overdoses, folks. can cause lots of medical problems, no doubt, but it is not killing people in mass making the argument we are executing murderers doesn't really fit. But again, could accept a debate on that. What I cannot accept is the United States military engaged in a fundamental police action. David (20:46) this is what I'm getting at though. Robbie is not so much even debate on the topic, right? It's the fact that skip over the debate because we've just, jumped directly the more egregious of the things. And we've accepted entirety of the statement as just a reality even questioning the validity of it to begin with. be honest. this is what I shamelessness. I do really think this is probably one of Donald Trump's greatest realities into statements getting people to completely separate topic. based off of something that he says that just is so completely detached from reality when he says It's saying we killing narco-terrorists who are killing people in the United States, so we double-tapped this, and we are so focused on the double-tap that we ignore the audacity of the rest of the statement. we hiding the fact that Venezuela has the deepest oil reserves in the entire more than Saudi Arabia, more than anywhere else. I mean, if there's any reason to be engaged in Venezuela, it's oil. So to blow up 20 boats in the Caribbean, nowhere near the United nothing but enrich Rob (21:52) Mm-hmm. David (22:05) the bottom line of anybody, the laws of economics would say reduce the supply, increase the demand, jack up the prices. All we're doing is making cocaine more expensive in the United is not stopping cocaine. is doing nothing, This is a ridiculous war. we're fighting about two people who we clearly knew were not a threat because they were not trafficking fentanyl, which is the thing we're claiming. ridiculous. It's crazy. Rob (22:34) to our tens of listeners, you're not crazy. This is nuts. it's distressing. And it's not surprising to me that a couple of folks that have spent the better part of their lives in military circles feel a little incensed in this because I feel like it is demeaning. the military. One of the things that I have always appreciated about being in the military is that crazy little words that don't matter much in the general public like honor and duty always mattered when I'm in uniform. And this doesn't feel honorable it doesn't comport duty. it's distressing. It's really distressing. And you know what we need to do? Move to something funny. Because if I tell one more PTSD story, we may lose some of our tens of listeners. We'll be down to fives of listeners, and that would suck. David (23:23) We'll be close this one out. We'll move on. you know, I had this strange feeling, Robbie, that this is not the this, unfortunately. Rob (23:31) No, no, no, no, at all. And I have to admit, I have gotten joy out of watching the cover your ass approach and how the statements even that people are making make me smile because it's clearly statement, which They're trying to appear one way, what they're saying is it was really someone else's And, you know, Harry S. Truman needs to come back and remind everybody that the buck stops somewhere, this would be the equivalent of me blaming one of my lieutenants for something that happened in the brigade Let's do something funny. David (24:07) Yeah, yeah, okay. So for our second pour now, before we get fully into into this Department of Transportation pajama crisis, I do want to acknowledge that Rob has been warning America about pajama wearing for years, and this is basically his Vietnam. So, be prepared. But, ⁓ Rob (24:24) It is, it really is. you guys are gonna approach this like it's funny. I'm approaching it like, well, hell this is way too long and coming. David (24:31) So. the pajama uprising and the transportation crisis. the Department of Transportation via spokesperson Sean P. Duffy of the real world Boston and a special road rules challenge of some sort recently advised Americans to dress with respect at airports. singling out pajamas and slippers is unacceptable. Sounds like somebody I know. Bed to airport outfits being what he said. Almost instantly travelers responded with malicious compliance, flannel pants, robes, bunny slippers and pajama resistance across social media. What started as a dress code scolding became a national referendum on respect, frustration with air travel and the widening gap between public expectations. and institutional full disclosure, I had prepared just the meanest digs at Sean real world Duffy I so Sean Duffy has actually had a pretty impressive Rob (25:26) Who is that? David (25:31) career post real world. He served as the attorney general he also served as a congressman for about nine years. Now he no, he actually Rob (25:39) kidding me. David (25:41) during the Tea Party wave. very flanneled up, lumberjacky, man kind of elite political outsider perspective. So career-wise has politically been... fairly impressive. Now he retired in 2019 from Congress, citing some his family. you really honestly outside of the norm there. His credentials for a Department of Transportation Secretary don't necessarily line up quite as tightly as most. His political career He was a congressperson, a whole And again, ran off of wear flannels and jeans and I have axe. Like he would literally go to like lumberjack competitions and like split wood and shit. So what's interesting about it is more is the same guy who now is telling wearing pajamas at the airport. complete outsider, non-coastal elite, is now telling people to dress and unsurprisingly, not going over so well. Rob (26:41) No, I just pulled him up. I don't recognize him from his reality But, but... David (26:48) Well, being that you weren't a teenage girl the late 90s, early 2000s, that's not surprising. Rob (26:51) Yeah. am a embarrassed that I didn't realize he was our Secretary of Transportation. David (27:01) mean, that's highly publicized position. Rob (27:04) Well, mean, if we got a list of all the secretaries of the US executive branch, I think I would probably be surprised by most of I'm definitely surprised by some of the major ones and I question their background and in his case all I can say is what qualifies him to do this job? What? He has flown on a plane. David (27:14) Yeah, yeah. Road rules, he was on road rules. He's definitely flown on planes before, so I think. Rob (27:36) That does it. That's the qualifier. If you have flown on a plane, can be the... of Transportation. Oh. All right. All right. Well, you know, it's important to set the bar. This is where the bar lives. And, you know, you want to go over the bar, but now we know where the bar is. David (27:38) is Exactly. Rob (27:58) Having transported yourself from one point to the other on an David (28:02) He was also on road rules. mean, he started off on the real world and then went to road rules. Rob (28:06) Well, let's face it, that's probably his biggest, his biggest qualification is that he's been on TV and he has some celebrity. David (28:14) No, no, no, no, he actually, like I said, he was elected to Congress in 2010. he represented Wisconsin's seventh He was a district attorney for Ashland County, Wisconsin, and worked as a special prosecutor from 2002 on. he actually had, he leveraged a lot of that like every man. Rob (28:22) Mm-hmm. Okay, alright, alright, alright. David (28:34) into his political career, which is why this is so interesting to then stand before everyone in an expensive suit and say, stop dressing so slovenly at the airport, you mooks. Rob (28:48) need to go back to the 1950s. It should be suits and dresses. That's what it should be. here's the reality is that I'm 100 % for him. I completely concur. been on a plane and if I never see another... David (29:00) Rob Toon has been on a plane. Rob (29:05) person wearing freaking pajamas and slippers in a public space, it might be too soon. I'm all over the place politically, folks. On this one, I am falling firmly in the MAGA party. I'm way... David (29:18) Well, congratulations, Rob. You're now the moral backbone of federal transportation say, maybe you're the next of the Department of Transportation. I'd say go for it. You've flown on planes, right? Do you own a drone by any chance? Rob (29:23) with him. I think so. equally qualified. David (29:33) Yeah, you can set your drone out and and you'll clear prop and say you're good. it just I really this one i've probably brought Rob (29:41) What's the point to tell people what to wear? I don't understand. David (29:45) I don't, you do it, you do it. You get all pissed off at people wearing pajamas in public. Now granted, you've never done it in a press conference and it meant it. I mean, to do that straight faced is pretty... Rob (29:54) You So, you when I talk about it, I'm really, it's shamelessness. a social contract people. the comedian, Jim Jefferies, who I recommend. He has this great skit about, live in a society and it has rules. And in that society that has rules, there's certain rules when you get on an airplane and he's talking about the middle seat and the left and right seat and how it's supposed to go. And it's funny because anyone's wrote... Ridden on a plane? Sorry, my Appalachia sometimes gets in the way. Ridden on a plane has had these thoughts. And yeah, it is annoying to me when somebody takes their shoes off or somebody is dressed as if they're going to bed so they can get on a plane and fly for two hours. does frustrate me. Probably more than it should. I mean, it shows my age. It makes me a grouchy old man. I don't know. David (30:47) who cares if people want to be comfortable on a plane? Rob (30:49) But what prompted this? David (30:50) It was something to do with the Thanksgiving travel. not sure why. I don't know why you would say that in press conference. I'm not sure why that would be any of his damn business. I don't know why it's any of your damn business. If like the truth is flying on a plane, it's not the 1950s. luxurious airlines each smaller. Some of them are making them not lean back. trying to cram as many people on as possible. a greyhound in the sky. not a comfortable place to It's somehow miserably cold and hot at the same time. It's like flying around in a fucking microwave. pleasant experience. So I can totally see somebody who has literally nothing to do Rob (31:20) Hehehehe David (31:29) Afterwards would would be glad to wear now I've been stuck in enough airports for hours and hours and hours Even for days that yeah, you know be comfortable You might as well be because it's not gonna be a comfortable ride if you're wearing your best bib and Tucker on a plane It's just gonna smell like swamp ass. as you're sitting in somebody else's crumbs from the last you might as well, put on some pajamas, be comfortable get to your next location you sit and wait in here. story they have for you, why you can't board the plane. most recent that, well, this plane was coming in internationally. So they had to do extra checks. Oh, you didn't fucking know that when you booked this fucking flight? didn't plan for be the plane. You did somehow. you decided that this plane could be turned over in 12 seconds when in it couldn't. so of course our flight was super delayed 27 people on it missed their next flight. Rob (32:23) this is reminding me, a brief story to our tens of listeners, because I like to tell them. So I very recently taken a very long, long, long, transpacific flight. And I was automatically seated at a certain spot, and I was given the option of paying personally out of my pocket to upgrade that spot and I had certain limited options and I chose this this option that looked was like an empty area in front of me that it was like this is going to be great leg room this is worth it so I paid the I don't know 150 dollars whatever it was and as it turns out on a long flight like that people who are stuck sitting look for an open area to do stretches I had elderly individuals doing freaking Tai Chi right in front of me doing full on bend overs right in my face and it was uncomfortable. And the best part of this actually was that also had a drop down seat for attendant. and we were getting ready to land after a very long flight. the lady who was sitting across the aisle from me as we were landing, bolted to the bathroom as we're landing, And the flight attendant starts to freak out, like, you can't do this, goes to the restroom to vomit the lady that bolted. As she's vomiting, we all hear her vomiting and the flight attendant starts to vomit into a bag. And this is three feet in front of me as I'm watching all this going on. And as she starts to lady to my right starts to vomit. And I remembered that scene By Me with the blueberries where everybody vomits. And luckily I didn't vomit, I definitely did not upgrade my seat cup flying on the long, long flight back. Did not. David (34:10) Money well spent, Rob. the only thing I want to add, this is a public service announcement is for those of you deep planning. can we all just agree to get off the goddamn plane if Rob (34:29) ha ha! Yeah David (34:31) If standing and you have your bag, just walk off the plane. If you are not standing and you don't have your bag there are people behind you who have their bag and are ready to go, let them go, I promise you. Three seconds, there will be a lull, grab your bag, get off. But holding up people to get off the plane. Rob (34:37) Go. David (34:51) because you decided not to get up to get your bag until was nobody in front of you? Well, that makes me want to stab you in the Anyway. All Rob (34:59) I'm with with you on that one. David (36:05) All right, topic, third pour. covered moral fog, moral fiber. end with the thing that's going to break our brains in 2026. AI disinformation and chatbot engineered conviction. election officials warned that deepfakes, synthetic robocalls, and AI generated hoaxes exploding heading into 2026. And the Cornell-Gizmodo study shows chatbots can shift political opinions by about 10 percentage points in persuading voters who actively disliked the candidate. Good deal. bots are now convincing people to switch their votes if we didn't have enough problems. Rob (36:42) I've said it before. I'm going to say it again. Everyone needs to get off social media immediately. It's the only way to maintain your sanity and maintain your ability to think independently. Just get off of it. Just delete your Facebook, delete your TikTok, Just get off of it. It's going to kill all of us. It is going to ruin civilization as we know it. Now, everyone will... Now ignore me and probably as i'm talking someone's listening to this as they scrolled Or or instagram or whatever this does not necessarily surprise me that 10 was like a gut punch, actually But it doesn't surprise me and and it does highlight something that we're at a point And again, I have said this in the past. I will say it again right here, right now to our tens of listeners, are adoring fans that in my mind, 50 years from now, people are not gonna look back and be that very interested in the politics of right now. It will be a footnote, they'll talk about it and we'll move forward because that's how history works. What I think will be interesting to most people is that this is the moment in time in which the information and the technology that we're interacting with far exceeds our psychological ability to manage it. And I think that's the key to this moment, that right now the tools that have been developed, the things that we have become addicted to the AI ability to engage with us, to give us what we want or give us this mass production. I'll use my son for an example. So he came to me the other day and he said, have you heard about, and I am in no way endorsing the death of Charlie Kirk, just getting that out there right up front, not saying it was a good thing, it was a terrible thing, nobody should die for speaking in public. But he came to me and he said, have you heard that Charlie Kirk's widow is pregnant? And I said, no, I have not heard that. And if it's true, that's tragic. That's really sad. And he's like, well, she's eight weeks pregnant and he died 12 weeks ago. And I'm like, What do you mean? And he's like, they think it's JD Vance's baby. And I'm like, you've been getting your news off of TikTok again, haven't you? And he said, yeah, but I heard it like 30 times today. And I'm like, yeah. So if you say something 30 times, it makes it more true than the first time. Right. And he's like, well, if 30 different people say it, it must be true. And I'm like. 30 lies told 30 times by 30 different people are still a lie, aren't they? And, you I closed it with, hey, stop getting your news off TikTok. And he said, hey, I can't help it. So that's where we stand right now. That's that's the world. David (39:39) No, and it is absolutely true that not the news, no, that when people keep hearing the same thing over and over and over again, they will believe it. It becomes more real to them. The scary thing here, we have, we absolutely have. Go back to the episode we talked about. The scary thing here is that it seems as though chatbots have Rob (39:42) Charlie Kirk's wife is pregnant? Absolutely. And we've talked about that. David (40:01) a level believability and authority that that rises even higher I don't know why I wouldn't, but it's rising higher than the dipshit on TikTok, who is making up some crazy ass story is then being repeated 30 times. that is does AI get its information this ridiculous written is no more real? And what they found was that in this study was that people were more likely to change their somebody when the chat giving more of a fact based approach. But and this is the caveat was that the facts that it was providing weren't necessarily it was hallucinating as it was providing the quote unquote facts. And so People struggling delineate the difference real and fake, especially when it's given it to them by a chat bot. And are then being persuaded the chat bot then change or to formulate their own opinions who they should vote a big hairy deal. mean, it's... It's not, it's scary. It's terrifying. mean, this is Maybe it's not going to be the next election, but it will be the one after that. Absolutely. The people that are going to be listening, Yeah, it's absolutely. Rob (41:04) No, I... I agree. it'll be in the next. Three years, in three years, given the speed with which AI is advancing, three years from now, it absolutely will make the difference in the next election. David (41:24) And that's, no, of course, and only because the next election is only gonna be in three years. Like if there was a larger election sooner, it would probably take place sooner. is how fast this is happening. And so yeah, people are going to be listening to what a chat bot says, even if it's wrong, even if it's making it up, and even if it is being directed to tell people the wrong things. We already know the algorithm is telling you what you want to hear. It's operating off of that confirmation bias is the version of this person that I want to see. And as long as that person is willing to say everything, then they're going to get the they need to hear to be persuaded. Well, take that a step further and take the humans out of it. We don't need the humans now, just to have a chat explain to you why candidate is the best candidate and we're good, we're done. I'm depressed now, so. Rob (42:15) You know, it it to yeah, no doubt. Just go straight to the bottom and don't don't even bother pouring Yeah, exactly. It's a waste of your time. one. It makes me nostalgic for 2010 when I used to impact hour news channels that have. David (42:17) More tin cup. Rob (42:36) clearly skewed to certain political perspectives. That was infantile compared to what can be accomplished with AI now. And it's frightening because you don't even know is instigating that chat bot to go out there and talk to the second thing it makes me think of is recently, for the first time in a long time, I actually was proud, I don't know if that's right word, but felt good about a choice that X or the former Twitter, they implemented a new process in which they show what country these accounts come from. And it turns out a great number of the most popular MAGA accounts are coming from countries outside of the United States. And, you know, are they chat bot driven? Probably. It's the only way I could imagine the prolific nature of what they're doing. That's the only way I can imagine them accomplishing it. But The world as we know it on a day-to-day basis, and for our tens of listeners, we all know this, that folks you interact with, the way you interact with them, how you perceive them, how often has something happened in which you were like, my gosh, this was utterly not what I expected from this individual. They were different than what I thought. That's normal. That is a normal human experience is that we project a persona to the world and that persona is not always 100 % who we are. So behind closed doors, what we do, how we act, et cetera, is slightly different. On the internet, it is magnified by, I don't know, a factor of about six, maybe. And, you know, it's blind, you can't see this person, you can't assess their facial expressions for honesty, et cetera, which is what we've always counted on as humans to do, that when I come to you and tell you a story, you're watching me and whether you know it or not, you're assessing my facial expressions and that factors into the story and whether you believe the story or not. On the internet, you don't have that. You have now actually I just something on TV about TikTok videos that are completely AI generated. And what they're doing is actually finding faces randomly from TikTok in which they then take that face and make it an AI generated thing and present something. And it ends up being because now we can actually see the face. It's even harder. And our only option folks, our only option, stop watching TikTok. Get away from TikTok, get away from Facebook. Stop it. Just delete your accounts. I swear you'll be happier. The research is really clear on this, that in one week after deleting, doing away with, stepping away from your social media, you will be a happier human. You will feel better. You will be less anxious. You will be less depressed. And it is really solid research that supports this. Get away from it. Do away from it. Just delete it from your Rely on newspapers and magazines and to some degree, TV news. David (45:54) feel like your advice there would feel better didn't come after whole get rid of pajamas in public thing from you. It would just hold more water. Rob (46:01) Yeah, yeah. Well, here I am on an Internet-driven medium telling people to get off the goddamn Internet. you kids, get off my lawn and the Yeah. David (46:12) All 10 10s of listeners, get off the internet. They're wasting your time. no, absolutely. All right. thing. I really do, there are obviously gonna be a lot of great uses for problem is not necessarily the great uses, it's the bad actors. It's the manipulation. Rob (46:15) Ha ha ha ha ha. David (46:29) And I think we can all agree is going to be a lot of motivation to get certain people who are going to be friendlier certain things. interests get pushed a political level, going to be a tool that's going to be people elected. know, a way to get people to think for themselves. Once again, I know as crazy as that sounds, to have people think for themselves critically, gonna be, it's tough sledding. It's gonna be an uphill Rob (46:57) Yeah, we can't outsource critical thinking. That's the last thing we can outsource. I have to admit, over the last six months, I have many, many uses for AI it has surprised me because I went from being an AI disbeliever, an AI is going to end the world to now believing or feeling that AI can augment in a positive way, the function of individuals. It allows me to do things that I don't necessarily the ⁓ knowledge or the skill set to do, but I have to drive the ideas, I have to outcome. And allows who are smart enough to come up with the ideas, because fundamentally AI still is not coming up with your ideas. is following up on your ideas and it's putting putting flesh to your ideas but What scares me is that something like this you takes take a bad actor who's smart enough? To pose the question to an AI the AI is going to then take it from there and it it's going to be successful So it allows those of us do not have the technical knowledge to accomplish things that otherwise we wouldn't be able to accomplish. So we're going to have a lot more bad actors it's going to be used for great purpose. I have no doubt that good things will come from it when smart people with good intentions utilize it. But it is also going to allow smart people with bad intentions to utilize it and be quite successful. This is a good example. So get If I accomplish nothing else in my life, if I can get one person to stop using TikTok, and probably more importantly to me, stop sending me fucking videos from TikTok that I have no ability to open up. How about that? Just stop it. David (48:44) Honestly, I think if somebody just watched one of your TikTok videos, they might stop using TikTok altogether. That might be all it takes. So I think we're halfway. We do, we have TikTok videos. We're half the battle, yeah. If they just watch just one of our videos, they might give all we're asking. Just watch one of our shitty videos. Rob (48:51) I don't have any TikTok videos. that's true. That's true. So absolutely. So, all right. Don't delete TikTok. Just delete everyone you're following except for us. That's really what I'm asking. David (49:11) There you go. That sounds righteous. All right. That was it. right. Prescription time. You got anything? Rob (49:17) ⁓ You go first. David (49:19) All So I'm going to say limit yourself to one political deepfake per day. That's all. You know, I'm going to recommend just tapering that off slowly. Just just slow it down, people. Just one one per day. Rob (49:31) All right, I'm going to prescribe that America must stop, must stop its conscience. If a leader can't tell you whether something is wrong, assume it is, just assume that this is wrong. Maybe go with your own maybe think it through point A to point B, come to your own conclusions. are not moral absolution. And right now I'm seeing a ton of footnotes tied to some actions that I think most of us, if we can step back from it, would say, ooh, that's just wrong. David (50:06) about this, the moral displacement starter kit. if something terrible happens and you don't want to face it, just blame the nearest flow chart. You know, it's working for institutions, it can work for you. I'd say give it a go, right? Rob (50:17) All right, last one then. Voters must treat digital content like liquor from an unmarked to approach it with suspicion. If your brain stem, you got to put it down. David (50:24) For you, what would that actually be? Just for it. think that was it for this episode. Thanks to everybody who stuck around. don't had a good time. conversation. I especially enjoyed your Christmas tree back social media, go ahead and smash that subscribe, hit hey, you can share. Rob (50:40) yeah, ho ho ho. David (50:47) the podcast on your favorite streaming platform and like it without being on social media. You You can walk over to your neighbor's house and write it down on that sticky pad. Rob (50:50) You can text it. Show it to him. Yeah, do that sticky notes everybody's sticky is where we're going David (51:02) You can do, you can. can do all these things. but there we go. So awesome. Until next time, let's cue up that music and we're out.