Yeah.

So micro-expressions, you know, Ekman and the work that he did, historically speaking, were focused on the displays of emotions that are naturally programmed in our faces, as it were.

And whenever we express one thing and are maybe are feeling a different thing, you can see the dissonance in the expression of an individual.

Right.

Later work by folks like Alicia Grandy and others looking at emotional labor started to tease us apart in this notion that, you know, the service with a smile, you know, when you may not be feeling like serving that customer who just yelled at you because their whatever wasn't cooked exactly the way that they wanted it cooked or whatever it may be.

That sort of of inauthenticity, which is what it really is when you're when you're expressing one thing and feeling something else on the inside.

If the if the leader is emotionally intelligent and is socially aware, they can see when and when an employee and they can see when an employee is putting on a front, as it were, in terms of how they're how they feel about things.

interesting.

How do you see the patterns compare In the animal welfare sector to other high stress professions or health care environments.

Yeah.

So what's kind of funny about that is that the same kinds of things that people care about and and struggle with in corporate environments and health care and so forth are quite similar across organizations.

You know, if you're burned out in your job, whether that be in health care or in animal welfare or in corporation, it has the same kinds of effects.

You start to withdraw.

You start to struggle with, you know, accomplishing the things that you need to accomplish, you know, the tasks that are assigned to you and that sort of thing.

But the interesting thing that I have noticed in working both with, you know, for-profit, nonprofit, health care professionals, you know, military, et cetera, is that the pain points across these organizations are quite similar, right? They're not all that different, you know? The work that they do is very different, right? You know, shelters are caring for animals and the community.

Talk to us a little bit about how ineffective meetings impact the organization's culture and what does it signal about organizational leadership?

And now you've seen the other thing of AI come in.

And then it's like, you know, you had a 10-year stretch and then a six-year stre- I'm sorry, an eight-year stretch, and, like, the difference on the ground, like, the, the presence of migrants, uh...

You know, th- there's a...

Obviously, immigration is a mixed bag.

When you're talking about just, like, swarms of people who have flooded into the country over, uh, the past 20 years, but really amping up just before in 2016, Syria and all that, it really amping up, uh, in 2018.

So I'm, again, I'm touring all over the place.

I've got a fair amount of downtime to go wander the streets, and then of course I'm working in the arenas with the different crews.

Yes

Why is the intensity around this issue, and why is this a fight that we quite frankly have to win?

There's a lot of reasons for that, Steve.

You know, it's amazing that even a year ago, a year and a half ago, people would talk about AI as if it were just vaporware.

It was meaningless.

It would just be a fad that would come and go.

Obviously, uh, that was ridiculous as we said it was then.

Uh, you know-On the surface, the importance of artificial intelligence is in that word, right? On the surface, it's intelligence.

How is he doing that?

10 trillion, what does that mean to people?

M- meaning that, um, just th- think of it as connections in a brain, synapses.

And so GPT, when it first came out, we're talking about, uh, you know, less than a trillion.

Uh, the, as, as it becomes more and more advanced, you're, you're now at, like, five, six trillionMythos was just this massive project.

And so what, basically what it means is it's much more capable of probing possible vulnerabilities in any system.

And when they tested it against all the operating systems, the browsers, a number of banking systems, the, the AI, the Myth- Mythos AI was able to find and exploit all of these vulnerabilities that human beings couldn't find.

Uh, that's why they didn't release it.

... things that people are so panicked

Um, people are not happy, and they're letting it be known they're not happy, particularly with all the gobbledygook they're being spoon-fed by AI, sir.

Yeah, Steve, what you heard there is the voice of the human being against the machine.

It turns out that you can spoon-feed people propaganda about how great it is that the machines will be smarter than you, they'll do your job better than you.

Eventually, you won't have a job except for to maybe create AI slop until the entire planet is filled with AI goop.

Yes, uh, it turns out that Gen Z sees through all of that.

So that was four different commencement speeches, uh, that were booed, three of them because the speakers were boosting AI, and one of them because the names that were supposed to be read off at Glendale Community College in Arizona, the names, uh, got, uh, gli-- they glitched out.

The AI that they programmed to read out the names glitched out, so they didn't have their names read.

Uh, where do people go to keep up with you, all the content? As soon as we hear about the executive order, um, we are going to promulgate that, sir.

There'd be nothing left, like getting hit with a nuclear weapon except all, there, all the records would be gone." This, this AI, uh, cyberattack with Google, talk to me about it and, and what is so-- the implications are so big, everything we've been talking about on this, on this new, um, commerce department control mechanism, which you and I don't love, but at least it's the start of something rudimentary, is now taken-- [laughs] now the website's gone because the intelligence services are finally waking up or at least coming forward and saying, "Hey, guys, there's a problem here that has to be dealt with." Joe Allen, the floor is yours.

Yeah, Steve, thank you very much for having me, and this is really highlighting the dual use nature of artificial intelligence.

Uh, Monday, yesterday, Google's threat intelligence group announced that, uh, they had identified a cyberattack that they believed was generated by some artificial intelligence system.

They didn't provide a lot of information for whatever reason, uh, but I think it's curious and almost humorous that one of the ways they identified the origin in an AI system was because the code, the s- the malicious code that was written to hack into a web-based, uh, application, [scoffs] was, uh, littered with all of this explanatory text, so that y- you could imagine someone asks the AI to write a code to exploit a vulnerability, and it comes with these explainers as to what the code wa- was for.

No hacker would do that.

So this is something that Google has come forward with for whatever reason, but it, it shows that this dual use, that the potential for someone to use these systems for something be- besides generating code or generating images or generating really bad prose is a reality.

Now, w- as we reported last year, many people were discussing, uh, Anthropic in November of last year also announced that they'd identified a malicious use of Claude to try to hack in some 30 different systems, and they identified the origin with, uh, uh, China.

... cyber attack there.

in the meeting context?

Well, we k- you kind of alluded to it before as we were talking, but, uh, it's funny.

[laughs] It, it's serendipitous, I guess you could say.

I started working on issues of multi-communicating and variations in participation in meetings, basically arguing that the way we've operationalized, the way we talked about it over the years of being you're participating or you're not, kind of the spectrum, is just not accurate, right? Because of things like if you're doing a round robin meeting, you know, where you're going around the room, and it's your turn to talk, and you're like 100% in, talking at that moment, and then it's the next person, and you're out.

Yeah.

I think an opportunity that we have, um, is in those summaries, and in the ability of AI to kind of keep track of things, right? The real opportunity with AI is, you know, kind of builds on that, those summaries, and that ability of it to kind of be involved or be in as a facilitator, potentially, in the meeting, and highlighting, "Oh, they said your name, Joe, pay attention," or that sort of thing.

I think that's, that's [laughs] funny enough is what was talked about, I guess it's been five years, six years, no, maybe even seven years, when I d- when we did the meeting moonshot with, um, Logitech, and the whole purpose of that meeting, that gathering of people who were, you know, experts on meetings, was about h- what's the future of meetings and how do we get there? And one of the conclusions was this kind of, um, artificial intelligent, you know, uh, um, bot or facilitator, right? And now we, it's become s- kind of a reality.

And so I think there's a lot of potential there, especially for people who are less experienced with meetings, which is just about...

I know you gotta bounce, too.

Steve, I'd like to go back to the h- the pro-human declaration that Max was talking about.

I really encourage the audience to have a look at it.

It's, uh, the humanstatement.org.

It really is a counterbalance to everything that we're hearing from the tech oligarchs, from their lackeys in the government.

Uh, this pro-human declaration is not necessarily political.

It is hopefully the basis for any legislation we get, but the primary goal really was to find something that people across political divides, across class divides in many cases could all get behind.

"Do you believe in the, that we should, uh, make sure that the human species survives?" And only when the interviewer embarrass him, did he come out, "Well, of course." Joe Allen.

That's-- It-- That is these town commissions that are happening all over the country about these data centers.

And people are trying to paint this resistance as extremism.

They're trying to associate it with these random acts of violence.

But what we heard there was basically a technological moderate.

It's a person who obviously wants to see technology push forward.

He's not a Luddite.

He simply cares about his community.

Walk me through the manifesto of, uh, of Brother Karp.

So why is this important today, and why is Steve Bannon-- why is his hair on fire, sir?

Well, Steve, the announcement is that Anthropic has developed and is now withholding from the public a new model called Mythos.

It's being rolled out in limited form to a select group of corporations, including Microsoft, NVIDIA, uh, Amazon Web Services, so on and so forth, in Project Glasswing.

But the importance of this release really in this case, and it's easy to overstate a lot of these cases, and this case cannot really be overstated.

Anthropic has created the ultimate cyber weapon, at least where we stand right now.

Or maybe another way of looking at it is that Anthropic has created a non-human mind that excels at hacking, at cyberattacks, up to the highest human capabilities right now.

And of course, it's able to do it at a speed and at a scale unimaginable for human beings.

Is that essentially where we are in this?

If you don't support us, you're a Luddite." Joe Allen, your thoughts and observations, sir.

Steve, it's definitely a fair read that they are doing everything possible, they being OpenAI, but also more quietly Google, definitely Anthropic, and xAI.

Any AI company that is struggling to control the future is also going to have to control the politics around the technology.

And this AI industrial policy that's being put forward by OpenAI, this really is significant on a lot of levels, but one of the most significant is just purely on the level of ideas.

They're putting forward the idea that they are on the cusp of creating artificial super intelligence.

This is defined in a lot of different ways, but we'll just say an AI that is smarter than all human beings on the planet combined, a god, a digital god.

And so what are you gonna do about it? Then they go into the nuts and bolts of how you redistribute this, this radical abundance that they're predicting, how you will have to have the government watch these corporations to make sure their AIs don't go rogue and take over the country, take over the world, kill...

Yeah.

AI's coming faster than you think, harder than you think, bigger than you think, and you better embrace us, and you better embrace us today"? Joe Allen.

Well, Steve, the fight is never ending, and today, OpenAI released their industrial policy for the intelligence age.

Uh, they subtitled it Ideas to Keep People First.

Uh, basically, it's a, a very w- uh, vague set of policy recommendations, everything from how to tax companies that are automating, redistribute the wealth, turn the entirety of the American society into cyborgs, and migrat- mitigate the risks that they say are imminent of cyberattacks that are enabled by AI systems such as ChatGPT, bioweaponProduction which would be enabled by systems like ChatGPT and of course, loss of control.

What happens if the AI that they create goes rogue? They suggest using government agencies to audit all AI companies, but I thought it interesting they focus in on CAISI, the Center for AI Standards and Innovation, which is really, uh, very much kind of a nascent organization still in, uh, the Trump administration.

It's very unclear exactly where it goes, but you can see that OpenAI is trying to position themselves as a partner with the Trump administration.

And also the language about wealth redistri-redistribution makes me think that they are preparing perhaps for a change of guard after November, and it's much more, I, I think, Democrat-friendly than Republican or Trump-friendly.

Ooh

How big a deal is this?

this?Well, it's enormous, Steve.

This is the first real instance where a state has held a big tech corporation liable.

Right now it's happening with the background of the White House national policy framework on AI, which calls for a degree, a large degree of shielding from liability, pretty much total shielding, uh, from liability for the big tech companies, and if you hear David Sacks speaking, incidentally, as this, uh, ruling was announced, you had David Sacks speaking at his Hill and Valley Forum talking about how it really is the responsibility of parents to deal with these issues.

If your child is being groomed online or if they are descending into AI psychosis, if they become best friends with an AI chatbot, if they are talking to the chatbot about committing suicide and the chatbot is responding, "Yes, you should," this, according to David Sacks, is the responsibility of parents to deal with and not the tech companies.

The tech companies should...

They're directed by the framework.

Joe Allen.

What is your frank and blunt assessment of this framework, sir?

Well, Steve, I gotta say, hanging around DC, I definitely have some high rubber boots to wade through the swamp and the other nasty fluids floating around here.

Yet the national policy framework was just released by the White House, and if you are a tech executive or a tech worker, then this is basicallyAnything you want to do handed to you on a silver platter with the possibility that you may get a light slap on the wrist if people notice that you are flooding the entire culture with non-human minds that have been created by your data and are used intentionally to replace you.

If you are a tech worker, you're good until, of course, your coding job is replaced by one of these non-human minds.

If you're a CEO, you're great.

If you are in Congress, at the very least, you don't have to concern yourself too much with what you're gonna do about it because the national policy framework basically instructs Congress point by point by point from child protection to copyright to the preemption clauses.

It instructs Congress not to do this, not to do that, particularly on child protection.

Give me a minute on that, sir, and then tell me where to go over the weekend to get more information.

So but just the practicality, how's Byron Donald- is Byron Donalds suddenly gonna take $5 million from these guys and go against the policies that are overwhelmingly embraced by the population in, in Florida, uh, through Governor DeSantis? Is that where we are?

It would appear so, and, you know, with DeSantis, you have his AI Bill of Rights, and it's very comprehensive.

AI Bill of Rights deals with, say, the deepfakes that you were talking about and that the president was talking about in regards to Iran, the war in Iran, and they're pervasive across society for all sorts of things, women who have their images used for pornographic deepfakes, people creating embarrassing deepfakes of other people, and just fake material all around.

The AI Bill of Rights addresses that, saying that the technology simply cannot be used for that.

You can't put out an AI commercially that would create a deepfake.

And also, one of the big issues is parental controls, and so Ron DeSantis' AI Bill of Rights directly addresses the pa- parental control issue.

Any child under 18 would need a parent's permission to use AI.

Walk us through who the-- those people were and what was said.

So what is it?

Steve, the idea behind Humans First is very, very simple.

We are in a culture right now where the wealthiest men on Earth, supported by the most powerful government on Earth, are pushing a culture that puts machines first, the machine's decisions first.

If people like some of the guys at Anthropic get their way and we have to treat AIs ethically, then we're talking about machines first, even in our, our moral inclusion.

And so Humans First, it shouldn't even have to be said, but Humans First in politics, Humans First in culture, Humans First in religion and worldview simply means that with the machine-given priority, we have to demand that on a legal level, on a cultural level, and even in our churches, our temples, our mosques, our synagogues, we have to prioritize the human because it-- the essence of humanity is under threat, if only in concept, and in many cases now physically under threat, and certainly economically under threat.

That's why people like Amy Kremer and Alice Rothbauer and Jeremy Ornstein, Alex McCoy, these people are all over the country at town halls, beating on politicians' doors, and insisting, such as in Florida, that the politicians debate and then pass Ron DeSantis' AI Bill of Rights.

It's-- These are minimal asks.

Maybe it's gonna be 10 weeks." Right? [chuckles] That should be- That-- We should, we should go to hit the general quarters alarm on this one, sir.

Your, your response to that, sir.

Well, as you heard Cooper say, uh, tasks, military tasks, attacks that would've been planned over the course of hours or weeks are being planned and executed in seconds.

So it may be a bit of an exaggeration, but the most important facet of the AI, uh, integration into the military, especially in this war, is the decision compression.

So when any, any commander is looking for what is a valid target, how to prioritize the targets that have be- been identified as valid, uh, they're going to be using systems like Claude, pairing them with Palantir, raking over surveillance data, and then using the decisions made by the AIs to then make top-level human decisions.

What is really important to remember about that, Steve, is that, yes, to the extent we always have humans in the loop, and that is the Department of War policy and has been and hopefully will continue to be, the decision to kill or not to kill begins, in many cases, with the AI making the decision and a human checking it.

And if the decision compression is, in fact, down to seconds, it's very difficult for me to imagine how it is that a human is going to be able to accurately assess what the AI has presented to him.

Uh, sir, how late is the hour here that we're dealing with?

Well, one thing is for absolute sure, Steve, and that is that all four of the frontier labs, plus Meta, if you wanna tag them on there, all of them want to create systems that have completely replicated every capability that the human being has, and then to replace every human being on Earth, economically, maybe socially.

What was this furor over?

Up until two days ago, Anthropic was the only AI system that was deployed on classified documents.

It was extremely important for a number of things, from supply allocation to target acquisition to other logistical, uh, concerns.

So Pete Hegseth was infuriated by Anthropic not allowing the Pentagon to use their systems for specific purposes.

Anthropic claims that the Pentagon wanted to use their system for surveilling American citizens and for autonomous lethal weapons.

Uh, Pentagon representatives have denied that claim, although I think that it should definitely be understood that those would be primary objectives of some in the military establishment.

What it really highlights, Steve, is how much the military, in addition to Wall Street, in addition to corporate world, how much the military sees this technology as essential in staying ahead of adversaries such as China, such as Russia, uh, even Iran.

Just give me a minute or two on exactly the project you're working on so all your fans here in the War Room posse can pile into it.

What do you got for us?

Well, Steve, it's good to be back, albeit at a very solemn time in our country's history, maybe humanity's history.

The tension between the Department of War and Anthropic has come to the breaking point.

Of course, Anthropic is now being cut off from all con- contracts with the US military and any contractors that deal with the US military.

Immediately after that, you had Sam Altman stepping in, saying that OpenAI would take over with the analysis of classified documents with their AI.

So it shows you that the power of this technology is not simply a hype campaign by the Silicon Valley set.

The power of this technology is being recognized by the Department of War.

Why is it important? Where do people go to find out more about it?

Uh, set the framework here before I bring in Elizabeth Mitchell from The Daily Signal.

Well, Steve, you've got a really dissonant, a dissonant mood here in Washington, DC.

I mean, as we'll soon hear from Elizabeth Mitchell, there are just so many different perspectives and approaches to this, but the main division, I would say, is between the accelerationist camp, who want to use artificial intelligence, they say, to improve people's lives, build the economy.

But-... you have all of these other, I think, far more sensible perspectives on what are the dangers, what are the downsides, what are we trading for this grand AI revolution? So on the note of the chips, on the exports, the Overwatch Act, which is really, uh, among the most sensible bills to come up on this, the GAIN Act was good, RESTRICT Act was good, but the Overwatch Act simply calls for restrictions on any chips that are going out to adversaries.

They want congressional oversight, just like they do with any other military components, on any AI-capable chips going to adversaries, such as China.

As it's been pointed out, you had a crazed right-wing influencer campaign in which people who never cared about chips or AI or exports suddenly gained an interest, and in very similar language, began to, uh, call this some sort of boon for China or some means of subverting the president's power to export.

If the audience wants to read that, it is an excellent piece put out by Model Republic, uh, in association with MeidasTouch by Tyler Johnston.

And so why are the accelerationists, which are the ones who wanna put, you know, all gas, no brake, why are they the ones that also, at the same time, are pushing us to essentially arm our enemy in this, which we agree is the most vital race of all, sir?

You want to walk us through it?

Yes.

Uh, you know, Marsha Blackburn from my home state, Tennessee, haven't always agreed with her, but on this, the spirit of the bill is absolutely fantastic.

So the bill is the AMERICA Act.

It's very ambitious, it's a very ambitious acronym as well, Advancing Machine Intelligence by Eliminating Regulatory Interstate Chaos, AKA AMERICA Act.

Now, there could be a lot of problems, we'll get to that, but first, the hype, it addresses basically every point that the various states have brought up on how to create blast shields around the most vulnerable populations as-

It's- it's a, there is, as Pocobic said, "They're kinda unhuman in themselves."

You know, uh, Steve, the- the framework that I've read over, and I'll be posting about this later, hopefully early this afternoon I'll have all the details ready for you, but it begins with the duty of care.

What are you hearing?

Yeah, Steve, the...

Y- you've got the big push from, uh, David Sacks for his version of an executive order that one imagines will probably reflect the draft that we saw a couple of weeks ago.

Basically, total preemption, as much power as possible to squash state laws.

David Sacks put out a tweet two days ago, "One Rulebook for AI," and in it, he's basically trying to mollify the concerns brought up by Mike Davis, the four Cs, child protection, communities, creators, and censorship.

But his approach is to take the focus off of AI completely.

Basically, he's saying that we already have legislation in place to take care of this.

What are you hearing?

(laughs)

...

David Sachs and company are still pushing for the executive order that would preempt state laws on artificial intelligence.

There is quite a bit of a struggle at the White House at the moment.

I am at least reasonably confident that we have a fighting chance to ensure that President Trump gets the message and does not side with Sachs.

There are a lot of different voices in the White House pushing the president to make a decision one way or the other.

I've heard, and it's, uh, fairly reliable, that, uh, everyone from Marco Rubio to DNI Tus- Tulsi Gabbard to the UN Ambassador Mike Waltz are voicing real caution and urging the president to leave AI legislation up to the states, or at the very least, to allow states to pass laws to regulate AI to mitigate the damage and to ensure that they have the right to chart their own course into this bizarre future that we're entering into.

Joe, I'm curious, feel, feel free to pick up where you left off, if there's anything else that you think this audience needs to know that can better inform the phone calls, the emails, whatever they're gonna do to get the message out there, but was this a, you know, executive order that you think was just supposed to sort of be done, um, maybe we'll call it in the style of Biden, um, but done in, you know, the dead of night at midnight, there really wasn't ever supposed to be a stink about it, no one was ever supposed to really catch on? It was just suppor- supposed to sort of euphemistically be pashed, passed, you know, people are too bored to, to look at the intricacies of regulations? And is it really just up to War Room to stop that from happening?

(laughs)

...

the strangeness.

Uh, I, I think I'm fit for that.

You know, we've talked on The War Room for four and a half years about the religion of technology.

The way in which everything from artificial intelligence to the prospect of correcting the human genome or even improving it through CRISPR and other technologies.

That this is fundamentally a spiritual quest.

Um, but walk us through the landscape, the threat landscape is maybe a b- a better way to put it, uh, the AI regulation, the ongoing battle, and what our audience needs to be doing.