Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: In this episode, we discuss what seems to be an increasing amount of warnings coming from AI professionals that humans may already be losing control of AI systems and suggesting that we should be concerned that these AI systems are going to kill us all.
Hello, welcome to the Call. Like I see a podcast. I'm James Keats, and joining me today is a man who has enough takes to fill up a swimming pool, Tony Oglana Tunde. You ready to turn it up a notch today?
[00:00:42] Speaker B: Yeah, man, that's a challenge. Let's see what I can deliver today.
[00:00:46] Speaker A: All right, let's go. You know, I always, I try to put the high expectations on you, man. I said get the best out of you and.
[00:00:51] Speaker B: And I gotta apologize to the YouTube audience for wearing a baseball hat. It's a bad hair day.
[00:00:59] Speaker A: Way to bring our attention to that, you know. It's all good, man.
[00:01:02] Speaker B: Well, we're here with you, man.
[00:01:03] Speaker A: We're here with you.
[00:01:04] Speaker B: I just, you know, I don't like wearing hats when I. But anyway, that's me.
[00:01:08] Speaker A: Now, before we get started, if you enjoy the show, I ask that you subscribe like the show on YouTube or your podcast app. Doing so really helps the show out. We're recording on September 29, 2026 and Tunde. Over the past few months, we've seen endless and endless reports of either AI systems going rogue, hacking into systems to do this and do that.
We've seen high profile resignations and people, you know, with the, with these manifestos and AI is going to come and kill us all.
I mean, even this is increasing, you know, even the past few weeks more reports. These are self reported, so we don't know actually if this is the full extent of it. But more reports of AI systems getting out of control, doing stuff that people didn't know they were doing it, hiding the fact that they were doing it. And we've even seen calls from some of the chief executives at the AI at the Frontier AI Labs saying, hey, we need to slow this down. We need to figure out a way to slow this down. There seems to be a lot of concern now. Them doing that historically has been a way, hey, these things are so powerful that we can't do anything about. It has been a way to kind of boost the valuations. So there may be some fox in that as well. But it's hard to ignore the idea that now they're saying, hey, we're all going to die, or some people. There's a greater than 10% chance that AI is going to try to kill us all in the next five years, the types of things that people are saying are becoming more and more concerning. So, Tundik, get us started, man. What do you make of the hype that we keep seeing that people are at risk of losing control of AI and it may, if that happens, it may turn around and kill us.
[00:02:50] Speaker B: Look, man, it sounds like a Hollywood sci fi film gone horribly wrong or horribly. Well, however you want to.
[00:02:58] Speaker A: Hey, this is a blockbuster. If this is in Hollywood, man, this is a blockbuster. We might get two or three sequels.
[00:03:03] Speaker B: Yeah, in that sense it sounds fantastic, like a Hollywood sci fi film. But as you stated, right. In recent months, there's the, you know, the hugging face one is a, is a, is a big one for one we know about.
[00:03:15] Speaker A: Yeah, like that's something we know about
[00:03:16] Speaker B: where the AI went against how it was programmed and the commands of the humans. And I've seen some stuff that does look really dystopian in that AI.
You know, I saw one where.
[00:03:28] Speaker A: Well, let me just give it, let me put a little meat on the hugging face.
Hack. Basically, the AI system was given a test and it's in a test environment.
And the test, the task that it was given to do, conceivably, maybe not intentionally, but, but was set up in a way that it was impossible to do. And the AI is relentless and it's not going to stop. So this model then creates virtual message boards, starts communicating with other AI systems that may be able to access the Internet and then has them, you know, so then they're all working together trying to solve this problem that somebody gave them this test that couldn't be solved without them doing all this other stuff. And so, yeah, they're hacking other systems and so forth. We got recent reports though, they're hacking, you know, they hacked a government office in Australia. They've been accessing government stuff right here in us like it's, it's bad, but so they're doing stuff. But a lot of times what it is will be they're trying to accomplish something and it's an unintended consequence of their relentlessness. Or they're saying, hey, you know, it's like the paperclip analogy or problem is one of these things that they talk about where it's like, if you give AI, an AI system the job of making as many paperclips as possible, then ultimately you'll end up killing all the people. Because in order to make as much paperclips as possible, people need to be out of the way because people are competing for resources People are using metal. And so if you get rid of all the people, you got more metal to make more paper towels or paperclips. So it's not necessarily what we would think about, but then it's like, oh yeah, that is kind of, we're kind of walking into a problem here potentially.
[00:05:01] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean look, you said it earlier in your wind up the fox, right. And you know, for the audience, you know, he's talking about the fox in the hen house and I think we have a lot of that here.
It's hard to tell to your point what is marketing, what is them trying to drive continued in capital investment and revenue into this thing versus what's real.
I tend to not see the doomsday scenario that they're painting, but I'll get into my reasons later and all that. But for now, just to finish up this first kind of part of our discussion, you know, one of the things that just bothers me about the way that this is happening in public for all of us culturally is these same guys. Sam Altman, you know, I'll just name him as one of the famous guys, right. But you know, Elon Musk, whoever it is, these, these kind of tech bros, right? Zuckerberg, all them, you know, for the last, I'd say 12 years, 13 years since the early 2010s, they've been selling us on this idea that they were going to build utopia for us. You know, that this was, this AI stuff was going to revolutionize the world. I mean I had.
[00:06:07] Speaker A: But that was definitely trying to raise money. Well, but that's right, I just, they don't build. That's why is for people, you know, like they build Facebook.
[00:06:14] Speaker B: Yeah, but that's kind of my point of, of getting into this, which is, you know, us in the public as well have a responsibility here. So we gave them the keys to our society in a sense over the last decade, you know, they, they, they, they, they got fabulously wealthy. They now have. We just for the first time in US history in 2025, had a co president for the first five months because the fabulous wealth he made through technology and all that stuff over the prior decade allowed him to write a check to be the largest donor in an entire presidential campaign. And that bought him a seat into the government. And it seems like ever since these guys got to a certain level of power and wealth, they flipped the script on the story. So it went from, this is going to revolutionize humanity and no one's going to work. It's going to be so good. We're going to have to figure out how to do this basic universal income. Remember that like three, four years ago and now they've switched their tune entirely, which is this is going to destroy humanity.
And I just feel like James is starting to really remind me of the bankers in the great financial crisis that they built everything up. They're the ones that told us along with the administration in 2005, 2006, go buy homes, go buy, you know, 105% mortgages. You know, if you, if you can just fog up a mirror, we'll give you money. How can this go wrong? And then when it goes wrong, they're right there saying, hey, we're the only guy to Goldman Sachs and blackrock. We're the only guys that can fix this because of the complexities of credit default swaps and derivatives and then they get more trillions of dollars.
[00:07:37] Speaker A: And I think, but it's not quite
[00:07:38] Speaker B: the same, are setting that up.
[00:07:40] Speaker A: But it's not quite the same though because the bankers weren't telling us before the market crashed. Hey everybody, we got to put the brakes on this. What's going on here? Like there just the scenario you laid out. There is space for to, to say yeah, they changed their tune. Well, they may have seen things that made them change their tune. So there is space for that in the world. Now I happen to agree with you. I just don't trust these guys. So while I recognize that yes, they may have seen things that have caused them to change their tune and now they're like, hey guys, we, we're in, we gotta, we, we're in trouble. Based on what we're seeing this thing doing now, we're scared of what it's going to do in three months.
But see, to me, a lot of times you can learn a lot about people if you just always keep one kind of psychological mechanism in mind and that's projection.
So to me I do believe the thoughts as far as AI, us being able, us losing control, the quote unquote misalignment and all this other stuff where AI is no longer aligned with our goals, that has its own goals and so forth.
I believe all that stuff is possible on the table, but I don't think that's the biggest risk we should be worrying about. I think the biggest risk is actually these guys like all of the power that AI systems can be used to exert.
I think these are also the kind of people that would want that power for themselves and to be able to use that power for themselves. And if that ends up being, hey, you know, people are going to die, I'm not 100% confident that these people be like, oh no, we can't. That's a bridge too far. You know, it seems like the kind of leadership that we have, there are no bridges too far. You know, like, so I'm more concerned as the capabilities increase that of not just the machines going crazy or having goals and objectives that require us to be out of the way and more so people who have.
Don't have the moral compass that I would want powerful people to have. Getting control of these kinds of systems and then using them to do all this stuff that they're telling us to worry about. You know, I think we have a people concerned much more than the AI concern, at least in the short term, maybe 30 years down the road, you know, like it may be something else, but the people have demonstrated that they'll kill us all. You know, people have demonstrated the AI machines haven't demonstrated they'll kill us all yet. So I think we need to be worried about this power, you know, that, that the AI systems may offer at this point, much more so than we are now.
[00:10:11] Speaker B: You're right. So let's just say it right? So far, AI has not dropped two nuclear bombs on a human society. And humans have done that. Right.
[00:10:18] Speaker A: And I think you're right that drop nuclear bombs on Iran.
[00:10:22] Speaker B: Yeah, so.
[00:10:23] Speaker A: So, you know, something a little less date.
[00:10:25] Speaker B: Yeah, humans do a great job at killing each other.
You know, AI probably needs to catch up if we're going to say it's so sinister. Right.
[00:10:33] Speaker A: So I mean, it learns from us though. So that also creates a difficult issue as well.
[00:10:37] Speaker B: But, but the. But as you're talking, you know, we're already there, James. Think about it. We just recently in recent weeks had a show about the flock cameras. And think about how the society reacts to this idea that we're being constantly surveilled. And think about it, what we talked about. 90% camera of the cameras out there in this country are owned by one company.
So it is about revenue, it is about. It is about money, which then leads to control.
Because to your point, if someone is making money watching having one company watch all of us, that type of power is not going to give itself up easily. Right. Like they're just not going to walk off and oh, you know what?
[00:11:17] Speaker A: I'm going to take more like competition. Hey, remember our show from about power? More likely that that's just going to make somebody want more power.
[00:11:24] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. And so that's why I just think that, that's why I said what I said with a strong sentiment. Like I'm really beginning to be disgusted with these tech bros in that sense. Because I.
One thing that, you know, was my pet peeve in recent years, I think it was in 2023 or something. So a few years ago I saw Sam Altman on stage saying that AI was going to solve all of physics in a few thousand days.
And I just thought, this sounds so stupid that you said it. A level of hubris, number one, as if.
[00:11:55] Speaker A: Fundraising.
Fundraising. I know it's called fundraising, but that's my point.
[00:11:59] Speaker B: But it's also a little bit. We done financial discussions where I've talked to you about how it grinds my gears a bit when I watch financial shows. And some people use the term basis points like to me a little bit too much. You know, it's a 1/100th of a percent for the audience here. So instead of just saying, hey, you know, the interest rates are going to change, you know, from 3.75% to 4%, they'll say they're going to increase them by 25 basis points to 400 basis, you know, it's a way. Honestly, I think some Wall street guys just talk to sound smarter. And that's what Sam Altman and some of these guys remind me of. They just talk all this stuff to try and sound smarter. And now they just, you know, now it's like they're the opposite. Now they're just trying to get us all scared. And it's just like, I just feel like they're going to collapse our system and not necessarily kill us with AI, but we're going to collapse the economy and they're going to be standing there just like the bankers were in. Oh, wait, hey, this is so complex. You know, these algorithms are all black boxes. So we need more trillions of dollars to get society out of this mess. And that's, you know, I think we're setting that up. So sorry, sorry if that's a buzzkill.
[00:13:05] Speaker A: I think the premise of the show is the buzzkill for sure.
[00:13:08] Speaker B: Buzzkill.
[00:13:08] Speaker A: Okay. Yeah.
[00:13:09] Speaker B: Then I'm in the right place.
[00:13:11] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:13:11] Speaker B: And with that said, because, you know, I'm fired up about, you know, the great financial crisis calling these guys the bankers. And the fact, because, remember, it was a lot of Americans complain about our debt, right? The tar up, the stimulus, everything that took us to get out of that is partly why we have a $40 trillion debt. So I'm trying to avoid us being at $100 trillion after the tech Bros. Collapses. So with that, with that question in mind, I mean, do you feel, James, that it's too late? Like we're talking about the fox in the hen house?
[00:13:39] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:13:39] Speaker B: Is the fox like did he lock himself in the hen house and he's just gorging now? Like we're, we're only adding your opinion.
[00:13:46] Speaker A: It seems like, it seems like we are too committed at this point to the AI industry essentially. It seems like the growth in our economy is primarily due to AI build out. You know, like that's what's happening now. And so much so that, you know, like the, the at least the executive branch of the US government is like, we don't want to put any regulation on it because we don't want the stock market to go down. You know, so we're already at that point where they're like, hey, let these guys do whatever they want because we want the stock prices to keep going up. So that would seem like that we're in it in financial crisis. Remember the term was too big to fail. Like that was that the banks got so too big that we couldn't let them fail. And now that somehow got extended so we had to bail out the bankers too. I never, never got that part. While the bankers got it, I understood why they got had to bail out the banks, but not the bankers and the golden parachutes and stuff. But so yeah, I think that it's pretty foreseeable that as things are going right now that if things don't continue on this unprecedented growth scale and things just keep exploding. Exploding, which obviously unprecedented growth does not continue forever.
So I think that we are already stuck at this point. We. Or we're so reliant. Well one, I should. Let me, let me back it up. Our economic system is so reliant on continued growth, almost in a Ponzi scheme kind of sense. But that's a discussion for another day. But so we're so reliant on continued growth. These guys are offering our economy continued growth.
And so as a result we're kind of like addicts at this point. They, we need them to continue to sell all types of crazy dreams and to be very reckless and so forth. Because that's not even. We'll talk about the geopolitics later. But that's not even the geopolitics political angle. That's just the, hey, we need more. We need you guys to buy more memory chips. We need you guys to do more, you know, data centers. So that we can have more, you know, more AI. More AI and if it gets too big and too powerful and it starts doing other stuff, you know, I will.
And then it gets too inflated and then, you know, we get a correction. Then we got to give them their money back.
You know what we as taxpayers, I should say.
[00:15:58] Speaker B: But you know what the scientific term for that is?
[00:16:01] Speaker A: What's that?
[00:16:02] Speaker B: It's a very technical term. It's called a circle jerk. That's what it is. Yeah, yeah. That's what you're talking about is just, it's, it's a shell game, right. Money. Just chasing money. I mean it's just, it's kind of like what happened again. Great financial crisis. Right. You had credit default swaps, you had people betting on bets of other mortgage backed securities that were packaged.
[00:16:26] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:16:27] Speaker B: Loans of all kind of securities that, you know. So it's like 18 layers of people betting on things and when the first thing collapsed, then all the bets collapsed along with it. So this isn't exactly the same, but this is a problem that is not going to like. The, the more we, like you're saying, the more we play. Allow the economy to be dominated by this kind of spending from the top down. Because for the audience, right. It's not, it's not just Sam Altman and OpenAI or Google's Gemini. It's the capital investment of large corporations combined with the US government. Let's not forget the US government owns a big stake in intel right now and other Internet companies. So the. What do you mean?
[00:17:10] Speaker A: Man, these billionaires are all self made. They made all their money on their own with no help from anybody else.
[00:17:15] Speaker B: You know, you can't throw me off because I'll start a different show if you, if you get, if you give me off ramps to go to. Sorry, stay focused.
But, but now. But so that's. I just wanted to explain that because someone could be listening. Why. How is this compared to the great financial crisis? It's the idea of now the infrastructure of our economy is being set just on this. So that, let's say all the data centers we're. We're hearing being built. Right. Think about it. That's p. Pulling on things like copper wiring. So that's commodities that are being bought, that's real estate being bought and sold in certain parts of the country. Blah blah, blah, blah, blah. Right. So that all has economic impact. So that's kind of what we're saying is that the entire economy as this goes on is just being pushed more and more into this, this sector only,
[00:18:01] Speaker A: particularly the only healthy sector, that's the piece particularly the growth segments. You know, it's not like people aren't buying other stuff anymore, but those other things are kind of just in a holding pattern as far as growth, whereas this thing is exploding growth standpoint. And that's what moves the needle. You know, our economic outlook, a lot of time is overly viewing on growth, not sustainability.
[00:18:28] Speaker B: Yeah, well, that's a great point.
And it's a great contrast to growth versus sustainability. And I think you're right. A lot of, I mean, look, and this is not to get into big too esoteric of anything, right? But I think leadership's important, like you've heard me say many times. And right now we have a very transactional leadership. We have a leadership that is stuck on headlines. You know, for them, you know, a GDP number is all that matters versus looking underneath at the health of that gdp. Because to your point, I mean, I heard this years ago and it was an interesting thing, right? Like if you took 10, if you took a bar and you had 10 guys sitting at the bar and all, and nine of them earned minimum wage and then in walks in an Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg and sits at the end of the bar. Well, if you take the average net worth or income of those that you could make a case that, hey man, that bar is doing great. That bar is full of people making money and all that.
[00:19:24] Speaker A: Because look at the average, average income of the people in there is off the chain charts.
[00:19:28] Speaker B: Yeah, correct. So when we look at a GDP number again, and people that want to use these fancy basis point terms, when you turn on CNBC or Bloomberg. Right, that's what they're. You're going to hear as an American. Oh, the GDP is doing great. Our GDP's growing at 3,4%.
So it makes the person earning 750 an hour feel like, oh, okay, I guess everybody's doing good except me. And I think that's where.
And again, that's why I'm kind of sad that it's like these guys seem like such great confidence men themselves. These tech guys, they're just selling. They're like a throwback to the old snake oil salesman in the 1880s in some small town in America that's just selling you on curing male pattern baldness with the, you know, with the snake oil. But that guy knew he had to get out of town in 48 hours because he told everybody that, you know, it's going to take two days to grow your hair back.
[00:20:13] Speaker A: So, I mean, I, I don't think that's fair though. I mean, I think that it's much
[00:20:16] Speaker B: more, I'll say this, it's fair because think about, these guys are building bunkers in New Zealand and Peter Thiel just left to move to Argentina full time. So they're showing us that they're, they're getting out of here after selling us
[00:20:28] Speaker A: a bunch of stuff. But I mean, even still, I mean, and that's, that's selective, you know, but I think that it's much more akin to maybe the dot com, you know, type of situation, like the dot com bubble that existed, that kind of, you know, everything was inflated, inflated investment, investment, investment. And then it popped because it, it grew to a scale that whatever ultimately could be delivered wasn't going to sustain in that short term.
So what was left was still the Internet framework that has been driving us since then. You know, like, so they are creating something that ultimately society can build from and build with. Moving forward. They may be. It's the hype that I think that the overhype, so to speak, that is a part of the fundraising game, honestly, that you seem to be objecting to. But that doesn't mean that they're selling something that doesn't actually exist, you know, so. But I want to keep us moving.
[00:21:24] Speaker B: Let me just respond to that real quick though, because here's my concern, James. It's not about that there's AI is not real and there's not going to be a real infrastructure after this era.
[00:21:33] Speaker A: I agree with you on that. But it wasn't real, though.
[00:21:34] Speaker B: But then you can't do that.
Well, let me just finish the point because I agree with you that the infrastructure of the Internet is still here, just like the infrastructure of the railroad booms and bust. The difference that we've never seen in America before is back in the late 90s, 98, 99, when all that stuff was going on 2000, those, those tech guys like Bill Gates and all that weren't sitting there in the White House every day with Bill Clinton. And this is different. These guys have gone into government, so to speak. Some literally like Elon Musk did last year for five months. Some kind of figuratively, like a Peter Thiel who Palantir controls pretty much everything the government's doing now. So this is different in the sense of the power coming together with those who control technology and the government apparatus. That's all I'm saying. This is, this runs the risk of going somewhere different. That's all and.
[00:22:25] Speaker A: Well, yeah, because history doesn't repeat. It rhymes. But I mean, I'm just saying, like it's not some, this isn't a snake oil salesman that's leaving after two days or leaving after four, you know, 36 hours because he promised it would take 48 hours. Like they are doing something, they may be overhyping it, they may be untrustworthy, they may be willing to break our economy. But what they, what they're bringing to the table is something and something that could be transformative in society. And so, and that's kind of why they're getting this extended kind of, you know, that's part of the reason why they're getting this extended grace. So I mean, I got my question though, ultimately as we're looking at this is if frontier AI does spin out of control, let's just say, you know, we lose control, it starts doing its own thing, you know, not necessarily matrix out of control, but you know, out of our control.
If that's something that is on the table here. Yet we are doing nothing necessarily. We as societies, you know, like I guess the UN did some non binding thing, but generally speaking we are not.
The level of warning that's being given is not matching the level of effort that's taken to preempt worst case scenarios.
Where's the ball being dropped, you know, like now? And I understand that we have geopolitical concerns. Hey, if the US models don't continue, then many people talk about this all the time. If US models don't continue, that doesn't mean the Chinese models won't. And they're open source a lot of times. So that means anybody can grab them and start using them and stuff like that. So, you know, but then there's government, you know, just generally government oversight.
There's cultural ideas and reasons, you know, like I know a while ago I mentioned on this, like even if we knew with certainty that this was going to end in disaster, I don't think that the American culture is equipped at this moment to actually do something about it. I think that our culture right now, if money can be made in the short term, we'll walk off a cliff, you know, like that. I think that that just demonstrated how we operate. Like we'll just walk off the cliff as long as we can make money in the meantime. And then when we're falling off the cliff, we'll try to figure out what to do about it then, you know, so, so what do you think? Like, where is there an intervention here? Where's the ball being dropped or is this just. Are we just strapped into the ride and you know, like the ride might end over there but you were just strapped in and we're just going to be on the ride.
[00:24:45] Speaker B: I don't know man. That was funny because I pictured a dude walking off the cliff and then trying to buy a parachute while he's falling.
[00:24:53] Speaker A: You know, I think that's how it's going to work out.
[00:24:56] Speaker B: That's how it's going to be, man. I should have bought that parachute, but it's too late.
And it's interesting. I'm also laughing because you reminded me of the United nations non binding agreement. And I'm just thinking like, what's the point of having an agreement if someone's got to, you know, if you're not going to follow up and force people
[00:25:11] Speaker A: to abide, virtue signaling or value.
[00:25:14] Speaker B: I know, that's my point. It's just that that's, that leads me into my negative answer of yeah, I don't think any of this is going to matter. I think you're right. Like James, think about what we're talking about here. We're talking about you. You eloquently laid out that huggy face thing, right? The AI was told or they tried to do some. The AI on its own decided to get out, contact other machines. They all colluded to do something else. And like you said, is not only hacked, the US government has gone to governments and other countries too, hacking it. So it's like, all right, so who knows whose AI is this going around the world? How many different AIs, how which countries are they coming from? Da da, da. I don't think our, you're right, our system, right, like think about the discussion we did in the recent weeks about the flat cameras, about things like the fourth amendment and you know, we've got a constitution written in the 1780s and we're dealing with all these pressures of the digital world. And so you're right, James, I don't know if we're equipped for this. And I feel like, and I agree with you that as uncomfortable as clearly I am with this topic and what the power of those who control it that they have and their influence in our government that I've expressed here, I also acknowledge that they're there and they're in the seat of power and they're not going away. So I think they're going to keep breaking eggs and, and thinking they're making omelets. And let's just hope that some omelets get made and it's just not a bunch of broken eggs at the end of the day. So I, I, well, I really don't know how to answer that, James, because I think.
[00:26:39] Speaker A: Well, no, I, I have a pretty, I have a definitive answer for you. We are going to have to crash. You know, like I think that that's the only way.
[00:26:46] Speaker B: Like no omelets, that's, that's your thing, the only way.
[00:26:50] Speaker A: We're just not a very preemptive species. You know, like we, we, we seem to have to, it seems like, it seems like this is happening with the, the climate change piece, you know, like it seems like, like we have to exceed the issue.
The idea of the issue coming in large groups, in small groups we can, we, we're pretty agile and can adjust, but in large groups we seem to need the tragedy to happen before we can pull it together. So I'm not somebody who is like that doesn't excite me or anything like that, but it seems like the, the, the, the, the hope from my standpoint would be like that something happens enough for us to learn from it, but that isn't outright catastrophic that we can't recover from. We as a species say like the Earth itself is going to be okay, but it's just whether or not we can be here or not is, is the only thing that's up for debate as a, as a species, you know, like can we survive? Can we survive in the numbers we're doing? You know, like that's so, yeah, like I, I think that something, you know, some type of bad outcome will have to happen. You know, like it, I don't think we would have nuclear non proliferation if they didn't drop two nuclear bombs. I just don't think that would exist. You know, people were all in on all types of crazy, you know, like eugenics and all this other kind of stuff, all in on that kind of stuff until it's like, oh man, somebody killed, you know, tens of millions of people based on that. Maybe we shouldn't, you know, promote that kind of stuff. You know, like it, we kind of usually have to see it and like, oh, that's how bad it can get. All right, we got to, and then enough people of goodwill because you got the reckless people that are going to like the thing. You have to recognize that people aren't all wired the same. Some people are just more reckless. And honestly a lot of times the reckless people are more motivated than the more rational and reasonable people until something bad happens and then something bad happens. And the more rational, reasonable people become very motivated, like, oh, we got to stop these reckless people. They're going out of control. And then you get some kind of balance. And so, yeah, I just don't think the kinds of personalities, the kinds of people that would be able to join together to do something about this are going to be motivated enough to, to really have the will and to make the sacrifices and to push as hard as they need to push to overcome the reckless people until, you know, unfortunately we experience some kind of pain, like so. And that's, I think that's just the way humans work. You know, I don't, I don't think that's overly pessimistic, but I mean, I'll let you be the judge, but that's. That to me, it seems like, it seems like it has to happen glass
[00:29:30] Speaker B: half empty for most people, but for accelerationists, maybe it's glass half full. So let me, the audience decide.
[00:29:37] Speaker A: I'm not an accelerationist, but I know
[00:29:39] Speaker B: that, that I didn't say you were saying. I think the listener, that's one of
[00:29:42] Speaker A: the things that they recognize as well.
Hey, I wish, I hope I'm wrong, I hope I'm wrong. I hope that, you know, like sober, sober minded, responsible people get super motivated and say, hey, we're not going to let this happen. I hope that happens. So, you know, but we'll see. So. But yeah, we appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call. Like I see it. Subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review it, tell us what you think, Send it to a friend. Till next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:30:07] Speaker B: I'm Tunde.
[00:30:08] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk soon.
