Stu Burguiere (5:00)

No, that can't, it can't be true.

Glenn Beck (5:03)

No, it's true.

Stu Burguiere (5:04)

No, too much bias from what they were doing. Fact check. Yes, but they're just checking facts, Glenn.

Glenn Beck (5:09)

Yes, I know, I know. Isn't that weird? Now, listen to this. I mean, today. I think today's show is kind of, kind of based on. No, really, you know, the things that are happening now. Wait until next hour. I'm going to tell you a story that is, is just draw a jaw dropping in how the world works between you and the elites. Here's a case in this hour. We're talking about Facebook. How does it work between you and the elites? Well, they didn't listen to you. They wanted to shut you up. They went to the elites who were on the winning side last time and said, okay, what do we need to do? What do we, what do we. What do we need to do to make sure that, you know, we're on your side and we can get all that government money and nobody's gonna hassle us. What do we need to do? So they did it. And they went to the elite's selection of fact checkers. Now that the world has changed, at least here in America now, they're still not listening to you. This isn't because you, you said something. This is because Donald Trump has changed America. And now they see the writing on the walls. And so again, it's not you, it's power, and it's disgusting. Uh, the company is ending their fact checkers completely. And it will instead rely on the platform users to false flag or, yeah, flag false or misleading content. Instead of going to some so called. This is Facebook saying this. Instead of going to some so called expert, it will rely on the community and the people on the platform to provide their own commentary to, to something that they've read. This is what freedom of speech is. There's no, there's no expert that sits around in your, you know, in your, in your town that checks everything somebody says and then says, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, that's untrue. And they have a political bias that it just doesn't happen in real life. But again, let's remember that social media is not real life. But at least it's starting. Maybe it will start reflecting it a little bit more where you have the freedom to say what you think.

Stu Burguiere (7:52)

Can we pause on that one point for one quick second? Sure. Because Zuckerberg and Elon Musk have a rivalry, right? Like, they remember they were gonna have a fight. They were in like a cage match a year or two ago. There's a rivalry here. For him to come out and say this. He said this on video, Zuckerberg saying that they would go to community, not just go to Community notes, not just get rid of their fact checkers, but go to the community notes. And as he said, similar to the way X does it, he actually admitted that basically, like, we tried something, they tried something. Theirs is better, we're going with theirs. It's like a tech bro federalism. That's a good thing. And I think a tough admission for a guy like Mark Zuckerberg, I mean, I'm with you in that. I think they've run this so poorly and they have taken, taken companies and content companies and given them this impression that they could advertise to people, gain followers, and then get their content distributed and then pulled the rug out from underneath them years ago and destroyed dozens and dozens of websites and companies because of it. That being said, this does kind of seem like a good change. I don't know if it's just Glenn them kissing Trump's butt and realizing if Trump comes in, he's going to be a different kind of president and they're in a different environment and they better change or they're going to get hammered or if it's a real change. But either way, I think it's a positive one.

Glenn Beck (9:33)

Well, you know me, I always look for the best in people, honestly.

Stu Burguiere (9:37)

You do.

Glenn Beck (9:37)

I am kind of a poor judge of character because of that. Because I. I see people for who I think they could be maybe at times. And I kind of look at it like I think that's who they really are going to be. And they usually disappoint because people don't become the people they could be most times. Instead, they settle for what they are or what they've allowed theirselves themselves to become because they don't have a true center of truth. They don't know who they are and how they relate to all eternal truths. And so they get lost really easily. But when I sat with Zuckerberg, this is more in line with the Zuckerberg that I sat with. However, you know, I. I was. I think I was. What did we decide Stu. Greatly conned with Zuckerberg?

Stu Burguiere (10:35)

Yeah, I don't know. I mean, we went back and forth on it, I think, you know, like we did. Because I do think there's a part of him that would like to be clear of all of this. I think he has other, you know, large goals in his. In his life other than navigating every political thing that pops up.

Glenn Beck (10:57)

So I am so glad you said that. What are his big goals? What does he really want to do? Do you know? What is he focusing on? Hmm.

Stu Burguiere (11:11)

I mean, I. He has gone through several phases. Right. The company started going towards the Metaverse. Right. They changed the company to Meta, what, a couple of years ago.

Glenn Beck (11:23)

Huh.

Stu Burguiere (11:24)

That. That was a.

Glenn Beck (11:25)

That tells you everything you need to know.

Stu Burguiere (11:27)

Okay.

Glenn Beck (11:27)

It tells you everything to know. META is all about virtual reality. Correct. So, virtual reality. Guess who's invested billions of dollars in VR? The United States Army, Navy, and Air Force all going to virtual reality. Okay. META has lost about $50 billion in its Reality Labs division. Augmented reality, virtual reality, metaverse. So what? So what? What's happening here? I think what this is partially. I mean, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt to some degree, but I think partially what this is about is making sure that the government contracts don't stop with Metta, make sure that they are able to get some of that money from the United States in the use of VR. Because that's where he really. Where his heart is. That's what he really wants to do now. They lost $50 billion in their reality labs. However, if you look at Facebook's revenue, they're subsidizing all of this stuff. Facebook, the revenue was expected to go up to $100 billion in 2024. Facebook's advertising revenue is now expected to grow over $127 billion by 2027. So that's the cash cow. But where his heart is is VR and ar. And he wants to make sure that he gets. He's not off the government teat. Otherwise his. His real passion is gone. I think that's what's happening. Speculation, but I think that's what's happening.

Stu Burguiere (13:28)

It's gotta be part of it, right? It's gotta be part of it.

Glenn Beck (13:31)

Yeah.

Stu Burguiere (13:32)

You know, but I wonder and hope that it is more than that. I mean, I. Cause I had the same reaction to Elon Musk when he started having this transition of real skepticism. I didn't buy it. I mean, the guy's been like the biggest climate activist in America. Why would we believe. All of a sudden he's coming around to these sorts of ideas. Does seem now that that's pretty legitimate from Elon Musk. Could it be legitimate from Zuckerberg? Remember, he did some of this stuff before the election. He did signal this stuff. He did testimony. He outed some of the government intrusions before the election happened. He called Trump a badass after the assassination attempt.

Glenn Beck (14:13)

Correct. He said that was his turning point, was the assassination attempt. He said that's when he realized, oh, this guy is really a badass. This guy is actually, you know what he says he is to some degree, at least according to Mark Zuckerberg. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck Program. Let me just ask you, Stu. You know, the President has talked about the Panama Canal, which I think he's very serious about. If he could take it back, I think he would, but I don't think he can legally. So I don't know what he's doing with Panama, but the Panama Canal, that's going to be a big thing, in my view. Could be wrong. It's going to be a. It's going to be an important thing to him and his administration. But he again has brought up Greenland and buying Greenland, which I'm all for, quite honestly. I mean, how much could it be, honestly?

Stu Burguiere (15:14)

What is Gonzilla? What's that?

Glenn Beck (15:17)

I don't. I don't. There's no comparables. Yeah, the. You know, the. The. The way that we waste money, that would be the best thing we could do besides buying, like, gold or Bitcoin. That would be the best thing, is buy land, and it would be great. And Greenland has rich in resources, you know, I don't know. I mean, I know they want to get away from Denmark. Is it Denmark or just Mark? It's like, Mark, who owns Greenland. I don't know. I think it's Denmark that they belong to, and they don't like it, and they're told exactly how to live their lives from Denmark, and they're like, we're closer to America than Denmark. However, now, listen, if this doesn't sound like negotiation, however, we are not for sale. I mean, we don't want to be in bed with Denmark anymore, you know, and we are so rich with resources right now. I just. I mean, we're really not for sale. But, hey, we love Donald Trump in America. Look out. You open that negotiation door, and Donald Trump's gonna walk through. And then, I mean, Denmark. Well, maybe Denmark, too. Greenland will be ours if you open yourself to negotiation. But he's also talking about Canada being the 51st state, and I thought that was because of Trudeau, you know, just making him into a governor. But isn't there any chance he really would love to have Canada as a 51st state?

Stu Burguiere (16:53)

Well, yeah, I mean. I mean, there are some arguments as to why not, but I think you start with why not. If you could do it, sure, it would be great. Because of all the resources they have and all of that, though there would be a lot of negatives. You'd be importing a lot of socialists into our voting rights.

Glenn Beck (17:11)

You'd have all the French.

Stu Burguiere (17:13)

Yeah. You'd have a couple of new senators. Right. That would come in. That would be Democrats. That would make things a little more difficult, at least in the short term. But there's a lot.

Glenn Beck (17:22)

But you'd also get rid of the cbc, and so. Well, you'd be replacing with abc. But ABC looks like the Blaze compared to the cbc.

Stu Burguiere (17:30)

Yes.

Glenn Beck (17:30)

So that's true. You know, anything would be an improvement. But then you also get all that socialized medicine anyway. Canada is in so much trouble. Canada is in the worst shape they've ever been in, at least in my lifetime. And it's all because of Justin Trudeau, who is just horrible. I mean, he's an egomaniac. He really is. Did you hear his, quote, resignation speech yesterday?

Stu Burguiere (17:58)

It was great.

Glenn Beck (17:58)

We make it about. Could we make it about him anymore. And just like, in fact, Sarah, we have part of the speech. Can we play part of his speech over the holidays? Okay.

Justin Trudeau (18:10)

I've also had a chance to reflect and have had long talks with my family about our future.

Glenn Beck (18:15)

Hey, stop for a second. Stop for a second. Hold on just a second. I've had time to reflect on what's right for Canada, and I didn't spend any time talking about my 16% approval rating. It didn't even come up. Didn't even come up. But anyway, go ahead.

Justin Trudeau (18:32)

Throughout the course of my career, any success I have personally achieved has been because of their support and with encouragement.

Glenn Beck (18:41)

Yes.

Justin Trudeau (18:42)

So last night over dinner, I told my kids about the decision that I'm sharing with you today.

Glenn Beck (18:48)

Okay.

Justin Trudeau (18:50)

I intend to resign as party leader, as prime minister after the party selects its next leader through a robust nationwide competitive process.

Glenn Beck (19:04)

Oh, so much like his dad, Fidel. So he. He says here, I'm going to resign. I'm going to resign now. What does that mean in Canada? Well, he's going to do that after there's a robust effort to find a new leader for the Liberal Party. Why? Because currently the Conservative Party is beating them by 24 points. So there's no way they're going to. There's absolutely no way they're going to win at this point. So not only does he say, it's going to have to happen, you know, after March 1st. Okay, so let's see. We had January, February, March 1st. Okay, so two months to get your crap together. But not only did he say, I'm going to resign sometime after March, he has done something that I think we would call this martial law, maybe, or, I mean, he suspended the Parliament. It's called prorogued there in Canada. I've prorogued the Parliament just until March, and that's it. So what does prorogued mean? It means shutting it down.

Stu Burguiere (20:23)

Pastries with the. With the potatoes?

Glenn Beck (20:27)

Yeah, it's a pierogi. Pierogued, not so delicious. Proged means you've done everything but dissolve the parliament. You've shut it down entirely. They cannot. There's no reason to go to work. They're in the middle of, you know, what Parliament and Congress does, which I can't explain to you, but they do a lot of stuff. They're debating, and Parliament is starting to go the opposite direction. So he said, can you imagine our president if Donald Trump just came in and said, you know what? It's too critical of a time right now. I'm Going to, I'm going to be leaving office, you know, in four years, but for the next three years, I'm just suspending Congress. Can you imagine that?

Stu Burguiere (21:17)

No, of course not. Because it's, duh.

Glenn Beck (21:19)

That's what he, that's what he just did.

Stu Burguiere (21:22)

It shouldn't be available as an option to the President or the Prime Minister to just stop Congress or the Parliament.

Glenn Beck (21:29)

No.

Stu Burguiere (21:29)

Stupid system.

Glenn Beck (21:30)

No. Okay, so the reason why he did that is not only just to stay in power and keep his policies exactly where they are, but also he did that so they can't have a no confidence vote. Like today, if he would have said, I'm going to resign, the conservatives could have stood up and said, hey, let's have a vote of no confidence. And they might have gotten that through. So that means he just would be removed and that would mean that his party would lose to the apple eating guy. Now I have to tell you, Pierre something or other, some French name, I know him as the apple eating guy. And that might sound like it's, you know, no, not necessarily the right thing to do to call the next prime minister the apple eating guy, but this is how I know him. He did an interview with I think the CBC and it's a left wing journalist and he's in Vancouver B.C. and he's eating an apple. And to make sure the reporter knew exactly how little he thought of them and their questions he answered while still eating the apple, his body kind of half turned. Not really, even, not even really recognizing this guy fully. In case you've never heard it or seen it, here's that clip on the, on the topic.

Reporter (23:05)

I mean, in terms of your sort of strategy, currently you're obviously taking the populist pathway.

Pierre Poilievre (23:12)

And what does that mean?

Reporter (23:14)

Well, appealing, appealing to people's more emotional levels, I would guess. I mean certainly you, certainly you tap, certainly you tap very strong ideological language quite frequently.

Pierre Poilievre (23:26)

Like what?

Reporter (23:29)

Left wing, you know, this and that, Right wing, you know, I mean it's that, that type of. I never really talk about left or right anyways. A lot of.

Pierre Poilievre (23:36)

I don't really believe in that.

Reporter (23:37)

Okay. A lot of people would say that you're simply taking a page out of the Donald Trump.

Glenn Beck (23:44)

Which people would say that?

Reporter (23:46)

Well, I'm sure a great many Canadians.

Pierre Poilievre (23:48)

But like who?

Reporter (23:51)

I don't know who, but.

Pierre Poilievre (23:52)

Well, you're the one who asked the question, so you must know somebody.

Reporter (23:56)

Okay, I'm sure there's some out there. But anyways, the point of this question is, I mean, why should Canadians trust You with their vote given, you know, not, not just the sort of ideological inclination in terms of taking the page of Donald Trump's book, but also.

Pierre Poilievre (24:14)

What are you talking about? What page? What page? Can you Give me a page? Give me the page.

Reporter (24:18)

You keep saying in terms of turning things quite dramatically in terms of, of Trudeau and, and the left wing and all of this. I mean you, you, you make quite a, you know, it's, it's quite a play that you make on it.

Pierre Poilievre (24:29)

So I'm, I'm not sure, I don't, I don't know what your question is.

Reporter (24:33)

Then forget that. Why should Canadians trust you with their vote?

Pierre Poilievre (24:37)

Common sense. Common sense. For a change, we're going to make common sense common in this country. We don't have any common sense in the current government.

Stu Burguiere (24:50)

So good.

Reporter (24:50)

I love that on the topic. I mean in terms of your, just.

Stu Burguiere (24:53)

The crunching of the apple in the middle of the question is it is.

Glenn Beck (24:56)

So good, so satisfying. Here's what he said about Israel bombing Iran. Listen to this.

Unnamed Speaker (25:03)

Yesterday you said that you endorse Israel proactively defending itself by hitting Iran's nuclear sites, which is something that President Joe Biden does not endorse. Do you not feel like this could lead to a likelihood of an all out conventional war between Iran and Israel? And are you, do you not agree with Joe Biden and his assessment?

Pierre Poilievre (25:23)

I think the idea of allowing a genocidal, theocratic, unstable dictatorship that is desperate to be, to avoid being overthrown by its own people to develop nuclear weapons is about the most dangerous and irresponsible thing that the world could ever allow. And if Israel were to stop that genocidal, theocratic, unstable government from acquiring nuclear weapons, it would be a gift by the Jewish state to humanity.

Stu Burguiere (26:02)

Yes.

Glenn Beck (26:05)

Quick progue the parliament, probe them, put them in jail if you have to. I'll resign eventually. When I figured out a way to rig the system.

Stu Burguiere (26:17)

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Glenn Beck (26:24)

Let me talk to you a little bit about Sam Altman. He is the guy from OpenAI and yesterday if you missed it, you should go back to the show and listen to the podcast. Yesterday our number two was on the Singularity. This is something that I've been talking about, Stu. I was talking about this, I think before you even joined the show, this might be the longest running commentary that I, that I have in my career is what's coming with technology in AJ A, AI, AGI and asi. AI is artificial intelligence, general intelligence. It's what you are. You and I. Okay. It's what we. As humans, we're good at many different things. AGI, Artificial General Intelligence, is like a human, except it's not just good at things, it masters everything. Okay. Right after that is a si, Artificial Super Intelligence. That's when AI becomes God. It is more powerful than all of the brains alive on the planet today. It is more powerful than any supercomputer. It is. It's godlike. Okay? You won't be able to keep up with it. You won't be able to understand it. It is so far beyond humans. We won't be able to. You just do what it says, thinking that it's right, because it. You. You don't know what it knows. You don't know how it arrived at that. You know, or you turn it off. But ASI will not allow you to turn it off. So AI We've had AGI, according to Sam Altman, we are now at, or soon will be. We're at the singularity, which means Moore's rule of doubling the chip power every two years is now over. It's gone from that slope to a straight line up now. That's the singularity. Progress that is so rapid, you won't be able to keep up with it is now where we're at. And AGI, Artificial General Intelligence. Some people didn't think that we would get there. Many, if not most, of the computer scientists believed in AGI, we could. We could. We could achieve that. Most people did not think we could achieve the singularity until 2050, if at all. And most computer scientists don't think that we'll ever get to asi, artificial superintelligence, which could mean the end of humanity. Okay, listen to this. This is from Sam Altman, his blog that just came out. We started OpenAI almost nine years ago because we believed that AGI, artificial general intelligence, was possible and that it could be the most impactful technology in human history. But we wanted to figure out how to build it and make it broadly beneficial. We were excited to make our mark on history. Our ambitions were extraordinarily high, and so was our belief that the work might benefit society in an equally extraordinary way. At the time, very few people cared. And if they did, it was mostly because they thought we had no chance of success. AGI In 2022, OpenAI was a quiet research lab working on something temporarily called chat. With chat GPT 3.5, we are much better at research than we are at naming things. We had been watching people use the playground feature of our API and knew that developers were really enjoy talking to the model. We thought building a demo around that experience would show people something important about the future and help us make our models better. And SAF. We ended up mercifully calling it ChatGPT instead and launched it on November 30 of 22. We always knew abstractly that at some point we'd hit a tipping point and the AI revolution would get kicked off. But we didn't know what the moment would be. To our surprise, it turned out to be this. The launch of the ChatGPT kicked off a growth curve unlike anything we have ever seen in our company, our industry and the world broadly. We are finally seeing some of the massive upside we have always hoped for from AI and we can see how much more will soon come. It hasn't been easy, the road hasn't been smooth and the right choices haven't always been obvious. In the last two years we had to build an entire company almost from scratch around this new technology. Now he goes on a building the company in the technology. But I want to skip down here. We have done what is, what is easily some of our best research ever. We grew from 100 million weekly active users to more than 300 million. Most of all, we have continued to put technology out into the world that genuinely seems to be loved by people and that solves real problems. We are proud of our track record in research and development so far. We are continued. We are committed to continuing to advance our thinking on safety and benefits sharing. We continue to believe that the best way to make an AI system safe is by gradually releasing it into the world, giving society time to adapt and co evolve with the technology, learning from experience and continuing to make the technology safer. We believe in the importance of being world leaders on safety and alignment research and in guiding research with feedback from the real world applications. So safety and alignment research, what is that? Well, safety, because you saw at the beginning of ChatGPT just the hallucinations that ChatGPT could do. Also, can it ever lie to us? Can it or will it ever start to look at us as we look at insects? Will it ever start to see that Americans, or I'm sorry, not Americans, humans are the problem. And the easiest way to solve our problems is to eliminate the humans. So that's what safety means. And alignment research means making sure that the AI and AGI and ASI, which we will be insects to okay it will have no time for us. We, it will barely. We will be so far, and I'm using this term Clinically, we will be so far beyond to ASI that it will, it has no reason to pay attention to us at all. So making sure that alignment, that our goals and it goals, its goals remain intact. But how do you do that? How do you build a fence around something? Well, it's like this. Imagine using a baby gate. You know, the kind that, you know, go over the stairs. Imagine if somebody said, you know, I got to keep you out of this room, and they put a baby gate up. Is that going to concern you? Are you even going to spend any time worrying about that baby gate? You'll just step over it. Okay. It's, it's bad for babies. But that's what we could do to asi, anything that we would want to do. It's so far beneath ASI they won't even have to worry about it. Okay? We are now confident we know how to build AGI as we have traditionally understood it. This is game changing. We believe that in 2025, we may see the first AI agents join the workforce and materially change the output of companies. Stu, what is an AI agent?

Stu Burguiere (35:05)

I mean, I don't know that I know exactly. When you talk about AGI and artificial general intelligence, I would think it would be like an assistant. You could have them essentially do any task. Like you could assign an employee, right? Like you don't need to program them to do a specific thing. You could say, hey, we need you to answer the phones here.

Glenn Beck (35:26)

We need you to.

Stu Burguiere (35:27)

I mean, it might not be directly like that, but like it's that type of thing that can take a generalized job, a role like that and do it on its own.

Glenn Beck (35:36)

Would you. If you were, if you were hiring people for a company and you had somebody that doesn't make mistakes and was, was much smarter than everybody else in the room, would you have them answer the phones?

Stu Burguiere (35:51)

No. You'd have them?

Glenn Beck (35:53)

Yeah.

Stu Burguiere (35:53)

At a really high powered position.

Glenn Beck (35:55)

Exactly. Right, right. So an AI agent now, not the first. The first will be just like that because remember, they say they're slowly going to roll this out, so you get used to it. The first one will be like a secretary, somebody who can take care of, I'll pay the bills, I'll take care of all of this stuff and we will love it. The first ones to join the workforce and materially change the output of companies will be something. And I'm just imagining this. So please excuse me if you're in this field for my being a baby gate here. But as I imagine it, it would be someone that you would have a virtual conference with that looks like a human, sounds like a human you can have a conversation with and you could say, look, can you help us on this? We're trying to figure this out, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And they can game change for you, your approach in your company. That's what he thinks is coming this year. Now he says we're beginning to turn our aim beyond that to super intelligence in the true sense of the word. We love our current products, but we are here for the glorious future. With super intelligence, we, we can do anything else. Super intelligent tools could massively accelerate scientific discovery and innovation well beyond what we're capable of doing on our own, and in turn massively increase abundance and prosperity. Here's the thing, and I want to get into this tomorrow. Massively increasing abundance and prosperity. How? Well, by becoming much more efficient, by spending less to make more. But who gets that money? Where is that abundance? Things will be cheaper, but if the jobs are taken by AI or AGI or ASI, how do you make money? A 30% disruption is coming in. We will buy 2030. If things play out the way we believe they're going to play out now, which is a deeply unsettling of, of jobs and careers and everything else. At least at the beginning, you're looking at a 30% unemployment rate minimum by 2030. Um, now he goes on to say, this sounds like science fiction right now and somewhat crazy to even talk about. That's all right. We've been here before and we're okay with being there again. We're pretty confident that in the next few years everyone will see what we see. And the need to act with great care while still maximizing broad benefit and empowerment is so important, given the possibilities of our work. OpenAI cannot be a normal company. How lucky and humbling it is to be able to play a role in this work.