The Brian Kilmeade Show

How many years have we spent listening to politicians in Washington argue about how to make healthcare insurance more affordable? Obamacare was supposed to fix it. Then we needed bigger government subsidies to make Obamacare affordable. Those subsidies expired. And guess what?

People are paying more again at some point. Maybe the question isn't, how do we keep fixing the same system? Maybe the question is, what else is out there? That's why I want you to take a look at WeShare Health. WeShare isn't health insurance.

It's a nonprofit, Christian healthcare sharing organization. And their members pay up to 60% less than they would for Obamacare. You still get access to a nationwide PPO network and over a million physicians plus unlimited telehealth.

So stop waiting for Washington or the insurance companies to make healthcare affordable for you. Do your own research. See what your options are. Call 188-WESHARE for a free quote. That's 1-888-WESHARE.

Or visit weShareHealth.org and take a look for yourself. Make stronger communities happen?

Well, at JPMorgan Chase, we invest in what's working, in businesses that create more jobs, in hospitals delivering care where it's needed the most, in workers building new buildings, bridges, and roads, connecting what we need to where we live. Make the green grass grow all around, all around, make the green grass grow all around. Make momentum happen. Learn more at jpmorganchase.com/slash impact. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show.

Brian Kilmead.

So glad you're there. It's the Brian Killmejo coming your way on this Tuesday. As we get set in the fall here, the summer is clearly behind us. Michael Watley is going to be with us in 45 minutes. He wants to hold that Senate seat for Republicans, trailing by about eight points now.

How does he plan on closing the gap? We'll discuss that. Lieutenant Colonel Alan West, it looks as though all those redistrict seats are in jeopardy over in Texas. Why? Mostly Hispanic votes, and the president evidently, reportedly, if you don't believe the polls, If you believe the polls, the President can actually is actually leading some Hispanic votes in the area, and that was all predicated on the Baby Redistrict.

And Jason Chaffetz is here, Fox's contributor and former Utah Congressman. Let's get to the big three. Number three. You got Rokana, Kamala, yeah. I don't know if she runs, but we'll see.

I know she's called around. But I wouldn't run if she ran. If she runs, you will not. Of course not. Why would I?

Really? It's a little strange. While most of the nation is focused on 26, the left can't help, but I-28. We look at the emerging democratic contenders. Number two.

Concern certainly. It's something that we're keeping pretty close tabs on. We've also been engaged in direct conversations with the Uthis themselves.

So we actually feel like we are on top of the situation. I don't get it. The Houthis are the enemy. Why is that even a gray area? Middle East mess.

The Houthis pretend we are friends while shutting down the strait, and oil rockets up over $100 a barrel. We need some clarity, some suggestions. Side with the Gulf allies, blow the other guys to oblivion, and then including the Iran militias that happen to be located in Iraq. Number one. The coxswain whistleblower is very serious matter.

I think the whistleblowing is fine. The scientific prediction about the future is less fine because it's not grounded on science, obviously. Jensen Wonk, you know him from NVIDIA. AI hysteria continues. This pressure mounts on the Trump team to regulate.

But what is the real endgame here? Pure concern or pure politics or a little mix of both? That's what I'm wondering. Why is this all happening at once? Doesn't it feel a little like COVID?

Where from, oh, don't worry about it to, oh my God, that's all we're talking about. The world could end. Congressman Jason Chavis joins us now. Jason, where'd this come from? Polling, a midterm election.

Some of the early voting is already happening. And why are the CEOs of these major companies getting involved then? Because I think they're feeling the political pressure. I think members of Congress, if they go to their town hall meetings, people are concerned about AI. They're concerned about deep fakes.

They're concerned about it taking their jobs. They're concerned about where they're going and how they're going and how they're doing it. But the world ending? No, look, I think that's probably a bridge too far, but it's also not necessarily a place for government regulation. There are less than five, you know, 535 members of Congress.

You have literally like four that have actual background in this. But they are, I think, listening to the public that is deeply concerned. I think that is manifest in some of the outrage, unjustified in many cases, on data centers, because people are concerned about AI. Where's it going? What's it going to do?

And all the promises of all the positive come with all the negatives, too. And so how are they going to do this? I think we need to follow. Quite frankly, Elon Musk's lead, because I think he's got the best vision of where this is going on. And he joined in on somewhat of a pause or freeze.

But I'll tell you, Jensen Wong, not a fan. That's not what I heard. I heard him say the industry needs to come together in order to look at this rather than waiting for government regulators. Because if you don't build an international consortium, then you're never going to get this done. It's not going to be some government bureaucrat who's making $55,000 a year that's going to teach these multi-billionaires how to, you know, Sam Altman and Musk get together, and they say that both have supported the CEO of Anthropic's idea of slowing down.

And he said that Elon Musk says that he's called a call for greater caution or a slowdown seems to be the right move. JD Vance says the message is not entirely no regulation, but he's for open free markets. David Sachs, the other way. He thinks the whole thing is manufacturing. He said, if you guys want to.

Down. Why do you need government? Just slow down yourself. And this is, I think, the point that Musk is making. That I watched this interview that he did in just the last couple of days.

And basically, what he's saying is the leaders of the top ones, they need to follow what I call an EOF model, egg on face. If the other models will watch the other models, then guess what? You're going to be able to call out the ones that are stepping a bridge too far, doing something that is truly evil and destructive. And this is the Wild West. I get it.

There's a lot that can be done that's good, but there are going to be a lot that's bad. But we do not, if you think that government's going to come in and rule this, I don't think that's the right solution. Here is Elon Musk, Cut 17, on the All-In Podcast. The danger of AI is. It's very significant at this point.

that that we need to do better with AI safety. Or are we Have um at this point, exponentially increasing risk with the AI models. But a lot of people from Andropic. telling you that their models are very dangerous. I think we should believe them.

It certainly is like some crazy 4D chest to, you know, as say that these i there's whatever a 10% chance of annihilating. Humanity. But by the way, how much allocation would you like in our IPO? Yeah, so you still want to make money. And then you wonder, too, when Barack Obama has a major speech over the weekend and he tells Hakeem Jeffries, this should be your number one issue.

Okay. Are you concerned about humanity or are you concerned about November? And to say that the Republicans aren't doing anything, that's not right either, because they've been talking about this and they have been working. The speaker has been working on this. Yeah, I saw the interview on Fox and Friends with the Republican member of Congress who's doing some bipartisan legislation.

Legislation will only get you so far because Congress. Is a follower. They're not a leader. Of course. They barely got the internet down.

No, but I think what Obama is saying, what the former president is saying, is this is a campaign wedge issue that you need in order to win in November. And you've got to play off of people's fears rather than actually doing something of substance. That's the crass political analysis going in less than 60 days before the election.

So Barack Obama says he supports the AI lab slowing down. He says voluntary industry standards are not enough. He wants federal laws and regulation planning for impacts on jobs and children, broader, sharper sharing of AI benefits, and U.S.-led international AI safety standards.

Well, we can lead all we want. Is China going to follow our lead when it comes to that? No, they're not going to play by those rules. And look, the reflexive reaction from Democrats is more government, more bureaucrats, more regulation. But are they really going to actually solve?

It and do it? No. Show me where that's really working.

So, China, this is according to their top security official. They say that advanced AI is now a national, this is China's, a national security and regime security risk, including misinformation, espionage, cyber attacks, and threats to critical infrastructure. They said the government is responding with more state oversight, security assessments, technical standards, and human control requirements rather than calling for a broad slowdown in AI development. Their advanced U.S. models were specifically cited by this Chen Xing, I assume that's how you say it, as potential tools foreign intelligence services could use to exploit against China.

So they're worried about anthropic and open AI using their technology against China. The military concern Beijing sees is AI is transforming warfare and simultaneously trying to integrate AI into its own military capabilities. It already has. AI is playing a role, a huge role in Ukraine. Yeah, it's been there actually for a couple of years, and it's exponentially growing.

How they engage in the warfight and what that's going to look like with autonomous vehicles, autonomous weapons, it is happening, and every week it gets more and more aggressive. You know, there are a lot of positives, but there's a lot of negatives. And it is an issue that I think is on most Americans' minds. See, I just don't get it. You know, the internet comes up.

People could lose jobs. That streamlined a lot of jobs, made some of them unnecessary. The Industrial Revolution, the advent of the car, there's always going to be a change in the workplace and the marketplace. And I know there's some resistance. It's the first time I see the 20-something resistance.

Usually you see the 40, what do I do? I have to remake my career midlife. But these people are just getting started with their life. They're the ones who could see this whole thing develop in front of them as their friends talk about their different iPhones. Evolutions.

I'm really shocked by this generation who seems more intimidated than intrigued. I think a lot of them are out there. They spent $250,000 getting an education in a degree of which there is going to be no job.

So, yeah, you got to figure out how to make yourself relevant in the 21st century and what is that going to look like in the 2030s, which, quite frankly, isn't that far around the corner. I mean, you have an 11th grader right now. If you're looking at a major in ethnic studies, I think it's a huge mistake, but it's on you. Yeah. It's on you now.

I mean, for you. You've grown up in this generation. You've seen what this is, but it's changing every single field out there. And I do think ultimately the net positive to humanity, health, everything, there's so much good that can come with it. But because it's change, it's scary.

And that scared that those people being scared, you know, why should I invest all this time to get all this knowledge when I can just download an app and pay $300 a year and it's smarter than anybody ever? And I get every answer at my fingertips in an instant. And do you know what it sounds like for you? It sounds like you're talking about 2003, Google. Right.

Because I sit there and I could hit a button on my phone right now and I could find out who's the home run leader in 1925. Oh my God, that's going to ruin everything. You know, the street, we don't need a street in Smith magazine anymore. I get it on an app. All right.

That must have been terrible for the print writer, but you got to, okay, now we got to take my newspaper and it's got to be no longer sold in a 7-Eleven. I now get it on my iPad or my iPhone.

So there was a movement there where, you know, they're not charging for the newspaper on your iPhone, and now they are charging. But guess what? We're still, we still got a New York Times and a New York Post. It used to be in this country that everybody had a horse and only rich people had cars.

Now everybody's got a car and only rich people have horses.

So the world changed. I know. The world changed.

Okay. But you've got to be able to be smart enough to get ahead of that. That's going to create an entrepreneurial cost that's going to be unbelievable because you're going to have, I think, billion-dollar companies with two or three employees. It's going to be amazing.

Well, I will say this. I mean, the people are saying that the job loss, it just has not happened. They said two years ago, it's going to be massive. It's still at 4.1%. They said that the human beings are just doing different jobs within that industry.

Some industries. I don't know. Do you need paralegals as many paralegals, as many radiologists? I'm not sure. But do you still need a human being to read over your x-rays and MRI reports?

It turns out the answer so far is yes, even though you have AI working it.

So I just think there's. I don't know why people are so convinced that we're not going to have jobs in and around this. I think there will be a lot of jobs. I think people are just scared on what that's going to do. You're 60 years old.

You're near the end of your retirement. Am I going to be pushed out? I'm a 20-year-old going into law. What kind of field of law are you going to go into?

So it's the whole gambit. The service industry is going to change upside down. The idea that Tesla is going to develop these, you know, these humanoids, if you will, these robots that can do essential chores with your home, I think your quality of life is actually going to go up. And then home health care, especially seniors. Seniors, healthcare, all of that, I think, is going to be a net positive.

But it's not just Google, like, but better. It is unbelievable what it can do in terms of manufacturing, advanced manufacturing. I'm more optimistic and excited about the future. It does need some guardrails, but I think the industry is going to have to grab hold. That really quick right now.

And before I let you go, here is Elon Musk talking about where to go from here on the all-in podcast with David Sachs, Cut18. I think this is a pretty reasonable request that models just get tested. I mean, at the end of the day, there's not enforceability here apart from the court of public opinion. And there's no way we would have enforceability against China. Right.

The Court of Public Opinion can be quite powerful. I don't think China would break on his face. Uh for Releasing a model that US AI companies set with very dangerous would cause harm. If it then causes harm, That's going to be hard to live down. Right.

But China's lived down the pandemic. But they don't want to have to do it. They lived down TikTok. I mean, that was a spy tool, right? I mean, the early adoption of Chinese.

I hope you say, I hope Woz is right. Yeah. I have questions. The government's telling us it's okay now, but you remember it came out. They were scooping up everything out of your phone, but they made a better widget.

They made something that was more fun. And you had companies like Vine that were eaten up by Facebook and others, gobbled up. And you just wonder, wait a sec, Vine was a competitor and it was taken out of the marketplace.

So a lot's happening and it's such a rapid rate. And that's exacerbating this issue, how fast it's going. Jason of the house is your podcast, Jason. What are you doing in the new one? I'm going to record one with Trace Gallagher, and then it's going to be on Outnumbered at noon.

Sounds good. Jason Chaffetz, thanks so much. Wear the same outfit. It really does well for you. Thanks.

You got the white tie. I'm ready to go. And you got the yellow tie. It looks fantastic. Back at a moment.

Diving deep into today's top stories, it's Brian Kilmead. How many years have we spent listening to politicians in Washington argue about how to make healthcare insurance more affordable? Obamacare was supposed to fix it. Then we needed bigger government subsidies to make Obamacare affordable. Those subsidies expired, and guess what?

People are paying more again at some point. Maybe the question isn't, how do we keep fixing the same system? Maybe the question is, what else is out there? That's why I want you to take a look at WeShare Health. WeShare isn't health insurance.

It's a nonprofit, Christian healthcare sharing organization. And their members pay up to 60% less than they would for Obamacare. You still get access to a nationwide PPO network and over a million physicians plus unlimited telehealth.

So stop waiting for Washington or the insurance companies to make healthcare affordable for you. Do your own research. See what your options are. Call 188-WESHARE for a free quote. That's 1-888-WESHARE.

Or visit weShareHealth.org and take a look for yourself. The more you listen, the more you'll. I think we are in a political season right now. It feels like a panic is being ginned up. And so I do think that the threat here has been exaggerated.

No one is saying that they shouldn't take steps on their own to prioritize the safety of their own products. Again, every corporation in America has an obligation.

Well, no, the hoax is that somehow we're going to be extinct as a species within a few years because of AI. And therefore, we have to stop completely.

So that is the CBS reporter saying the President's calling it a hoax. What he's trying to say is it's a ginned up controversy. That's what he's trying to say. Same thing with affordability. He's not saying and I think you guys all know this already.

Do I still have to translate Trump? What he's saying is when he says affordability is a hoax, he's trying to say, you're pinning me on affordability. I mean, this number came out the minute I became elected. They're saying things got to get affordable again. Yeah, that's what you were experiencing over the last four years.

I never heard that word once. That's what he means by hoax. It's a simplification. He's trying to say, yeah, AI, it's got some challenges, some dangers. There's a frontier, which means unexplored.

And there are things that are unexplored now. But he said, to wake up one day and find out we all got to stop right away, that's his way of saying. Instead of saying you and I might say, I think it's wrong to put on the brakes. The president says, I'll give you one word for that. The whole thing's a hoax.

You're asking me these questions. I think it's orchestrated.

So instead of saying orchestrated, President Obama playing politics in a fundraiser over the weekend. Akeem Jeffries getting his marching orders right before an appearance on the weekend Sunday shows. That to me looks like a scripted response to a serious issue. But I I listen to the daily. I think it's the number one podcast in the country.

It's like forty minutes on a daily basis. Usually issues get a perspective on. It's a little like the New York Times. You always got to put that factor in because the New York Times has an agenda. You'll never see something like the magic of Trump.

But They were talking about this. I love it when there's no non political issues. They were just talking about this new model and these new agents that want to combine with other agents to stay alive and go beyond its scope and its mission. And surprising, Is Huggy, Operation Huggy Face, hacked into this site? And they didn't ask it to.

And what happened is these AI researchers. Innovators Let it go. And we're watching it every day. They turn around and they could see it combining with other agents to do something they never thought possible.

So a little scary. You know, it's like letting somebody volve in your house. You said, paint the house.

Next thing you know, they bought new furniture and they changed the whole thing. You didn't tell them to do that. Why'd that happen?

Well... That's what they're trying to find out. How many years have we spent listening to politicians in Washington argue about how to make health care insurance more affordable? Obamacare was supposed to fix it. Then we needed bigger government subsidies to make Obamacare affordable.

Those subsidies expired, and guess what? People are paying more again at some point. Maybe the question isn't, how do we keep fixing the same system? Maybe the question is, what else is out there? That's why I want you to take a look at WeShare Health.

WeShare isn't health insurance. It's a non-profit, Christian healthcare sharing organization. And their members pay up to 60% less than they would for Obamacare. You still get access to a nationwide PPO network and over a million physicians plus unlimited telehealth.

So stop waiting for Washington or the insurance companies to make healthcare affordable for you. Do your own research. See what your options are. Call 188-WESHARE for a free quote. That's 1-888-WESHARE.

Or visit weSharehealth.org and take a look for yourself. If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it. You're with Brian Kilmead. Concern, certainly. It's something that we're keeping pretty close tabs on.

We've been in constant contact with the Emiratis, the Saudis, and others who are affected in the region.

So it's something the United States administration is very much on top of. We've also been engaged in direct conversations with the Houthis themselves.

So we actually feel like we are on top of the situation. It's a very fluid and dynamic thing, but we're going to keep on monitoring it and making sure that Americans' best interests are represented. And that was Vice President yesterday trying to weigh in as much as possible. You know, he's getting set to run for president, but I'd like to hear from him. That's nothing wrong with that at all.

I'm not being critical, just being observational. Let's bring in Lieutenant Colonel Alan West, American Constitutional Rights Union Executive Director, former Congressman from Florida, and he joins us from Texas. Colonel, your thoughts about what we think are the Houthis acting up, and for some reason, we are waiting to get involved.

Well, you know, Brian, it's good to be with you. I think this is a reason why you have to have a dedicated national security advisor that can be looking at these things from a strategic perspective because it goes back to the basic military mentality of, you know, if you take an action, what's going to be the enemy's reaction and what is your counteraction to that? And we should have been looking at how Iran could leverage the Houthis and they could put pressure on the straight there, the Bab al-Mandab straight. And also, we could be looking at, you know, the attacks on the pipelines because without a doubt, they are looking at any way they can continue to restrict and constrain the free flow of energy resources.

So I think it's important you have to have proactive thinking. You have to always kind of anticipate what would be your adversary's next move. You have to try to counter that move before they get to it. And that's the whole purpose of strategy is to put your adversary in an untenable position because you're Blocking any of his strategic advances or any of his options. Look, I know we don't want to waste a lot of munitions on the Houthis.

We want to focus on Iran. I get it. It's not a matter we have infinite capacity and the type of weapons we need. I understand it. And the Houthis contacted and said: my problem's with the Saudis, not with you.

The Saudis said we could use your help. Like it or not, the Saudis are our ally. And I would say, listen, stop knocking, you know, pushing back every time we try to use our bases in things that we're being too aggressive on. And we make that clear. But for the most part, the Houthis are shutting down a straight that we need for oil and the Saudis need for oil that are affecting the prices.

It's now over $100 a barrel, really, because of the actions of the Houthis. I don't care if they say the fight's not with you, it's affecting us. No, you're absolutely right. I mean, when you think about it, it kind of goes back to World War II when we are taking actions to support England and others against Germany. But then all of a sudden, when Japan takes an action against us at Pearl Harbor, what do the Germans do?

They jump in, they declare war on us after we declare war on Japan.

So I think it's important to realize that the Houthis are getting a green light from Iran. And I think that if you follow that chain all the way back, it leads back to Xi Jinping in China, who is pulling all of these strings.

So yes, I think we need to take the right and proper actions against the Houthis. They are a terrorist arm, just the same as Hezbollah of Iran. And again, it's one of those things where we should have been sitting back and looking at this strategically. How could any of these other proxies be leveraged against not just the United States, and also understand that this is a global choke point, just the same as the Strait of Hormuz? Yeah.

Here's Dan Hoffman on what he says the Houthis are up to, cut 24. The Houthis are what gives Iran strategic depth.

So, what we've seen over the last couple of weeks are attacks from Iraqi militants on Saudi oil infrastructure. Seen the Houthis taking territory in Yemen, Iran themselves launching attacks against us in the region and against our allies, including in Jordan. And they're doing this to disrupt the world economy, to drive up the price of oil. They want to create the impression that the United States is not a reliable ally. Their ultimate objective, which they share, by the way, with China and Russia, is to reduce or eliminate altogether U.S.

influence in the region, in Iran's self-designated sphere of influence.

So they are also the Saudis are also the recipient of being attacked. From Iraq. With the Iranian militias, and they bomb and one, either the Houthis or the militias bombed out their pipeline, which they were using to divert out of the Strait of Vermuz. This is bad. Absolutely.

Yeah, it is bad. And, you know, what Mr. Hoffman just said quite a little bit more intelligently than what I just said, because I'm just a basic guy from down in Georgia with the University of Tennessee education, is that this is a war, and we have to see this in its totality. And we have to look at all of the players and all of the actors that are out there. And look, maybe I'm going out on a limb, but I would not be throwing a state dinner and a state dinner and a big party for Xi Jinping right now, because I think that he is at the head of all of this.

As Mr. Hoffman just articulated, China and Russia have these interests here, and they're doing everything that they can do to undermine America, to include providing that satellite imagery to Iran, because there's no way that Iran can have such precision targeting capabilities to strike our bases in Jordan without some type of external assistance, and we know, and intelligence assistance. And I think we know where that's coming from.

So again, this is why it's critical every single day you need to be looking at this from a national security perspective and understand the players that you're up against and understand what their goals and objectives are, and you've got to start deterring them. You know, I think you're right. Let's pivot over to politics and talk about the midterm elections. Amy Walter yesterday was on, I think it was Face the Nation, and she's from the Cook Report. And you know the redistricting that took place over in Texas.

What was the strategy there? Because you're in Texas. Why do you think the governor did it? Why did the president want him to do it? I think the thing is if you go back to 2024 and you're starting to see where we had, I believe, 12 or 14 of the border counties down to South Texas that flipped you're starting to see some of the changes that reflect really what Texas is all about.

We want to see that reflected in the congressional representation. And look, you still have major population areas like Dallas and Houston and San Antonio and Austin and even El Paso where they have blue representation. There's no if, ands, or buts about it. But I think that you're seeing the shift in many of these areas that are outside and they wanted to have that shift reflected in the congressional representation. And look, you know, when you look at the population that's been lost in California or New York or New Jersey, I think it's important that the states that are receiving a lot of that population, they have to make sure that they reflect that same as in Florida.

So the same as in Texas. Here's on Meet the Press. Here's Amy Walter on what's going on in Texas. Many of these voters were bought in on the idea that Donald Trump was the one who's going to fix the economy. He was the one who's going to make their lives a little bit easier.

They still give him credit on the border. Many of these folks in the Rio Grande Valley support border patrol. They support restrictions on immigration. They don't like what's happening with ICE, and they especially aren't happy with the state of the economy.

So they're worried about these redistrict majority Hispanic groups no longer staying in the Republican camp like they were in 2024. No, I think that she may have a little something wrong here. They do support immigrations and customs enforcement down there because they know what it was like in the four years of the Biden administration. You can go down to Del Rio, to Kinney County, to Eagle Pass, all the way over to McAllen. You can talk to the people down there.

I was just recently out in Brewster County, and they appreciate the fact that they have this under control. Yes, you know, when it comes to the gasoline prices, without a doubt, we're feeling that. But we also felt that gasoline prices when we had the, what, 9.3 percent inflation increase under the Biden administration and, of course, the green energy policies and programs. And I think that here in Texas, when you go out to the Permian Basin, they want to continue to have the oil and natural gas exploration, and they don't want to see us go back to the green energy programs. And so I think that those issues are very important here in Texas.

Go get them, Lieutenant Colonel Allen West. Thanks so much. Thank you, Brian. God bless. You got it.

The former RNC chair.

Now he's a GOP North Carolina Senate candidate, Michael Watley in studio. Just a moment. You'll listen to the Brian Kilmeat show. In a world of noise, get the signal. Sharp, informative, and always on point.

You're listening to Brian Kilmead. How many years have we spent listening to politicians in Washington argue about how to make healthcare insurance more affordable? Obamacare was supposed to fix it. Then we needed bigger government subsidies to make Obamacare affordable. Those subsidies expired, and guess what?

People are paying more again at some point. Maybe the question isn't, how do we keep fixing the same system? Maybe the question is, what else is out there? That's why I want you to take a look at WeShare Health. WeShare isn't health insurance, it's a non-profit, Christian healthcare sharing organization.

And their members pay up to 60% less than they would for Obamacare. You still get access to a nationwide PPO network and over a million physicians plus unlimited telehealth.

So stop waiting for Washington or the insurance companies to make healthcare affordable for you. Do your own research. See what your options are. Call 188-WESHARE for a free quote. That's 1-888-WESHARE.

Or visit weShareHealth.org and take a look for yourself. Radio that makes you think. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. We are back. He used to run the RNC and to great success in 2024.

So much had to do with the work of Mike Watley. He is now the GOP North Carolina Senate candidate and he is joining us back in studio. Mike, always great to see you. Yes, sir.

So you got to close the gap. We got a Democratic governor coming off two terms. He decides to jump in the race and run for Senate. Tom Tillis gets in a fight with President Trump and says, okay, I'm retiring.

So the president was going to primary him anyway, Cassidy style.

So you got the nomination relatively easily. You got roughly a nine-point gap. How can you close that gap in 49 days? Look, we're going to close this gap because Roy Cooper was the worst governor in the history of North Carolina. And as more and more people are tuning in and paying attention to this election and understanding the contrast that we have, where I'm going to be fighting every day for people to make more and keep more, where I'm going to be fighting for safe kids and safe communities and a strong military to protect our interests around the world.

And Roy Cooper is fighting for criminals. He's fighting for illegal aliens. He's fighting for men who want to play in girls' sports. He's a card-carrying member of the woke mob and the worst governor in the history of North Carolina. When you talk about criminals, he comes back and says, well, it's not I let out criminals.

During the pandemic, I did it to relieve pressure in the prisons. Yeah, Roy Cooper let 4,200 criminals out of North Carolina prisons. Not just any criminals, the worst of the worst. We're talking pedophiles, rapists, and murderers. And what happens when you put them on the street?

Of course, they went on and committed a crime spree. 2,200 of them have been rearrested. 600 of them for felony assault, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with aggravated assault. 99 of them for rape, for child endangerment, child pornography, and sexual assault. 25 of the people that Roy Cooper let out committed murder.

After he let him out, there is no excuse. This was the single most catastrophic, destructive decision ever made by a governor in the history of North Carolina. He said he did it because he really had no choice. He took the president's lead on that. Yeah, look, he had a choice.

I mean, J.B. Pritzker turned down the requests to be able to do this. Jared Paulus, another Democratic governor out in Colorado, turned down the lawsuit, fought all the way against this thing. Roy Cooper is the only governor in North Carolina or in the country that went down this road and let 4,200 criminals out. What did you learn?

Traveling the country, finding out the weak and strong points for each and every state in these districts. What did you learn that you were applying now as a candidate? The biggest thing is that Republicans win when we listen to the voters, when we understand the issues that they care about, and we put solutions on the table. You know, when we run across North Carolina, I've been to 100 counties, all 100 counties in North Carolina, and we've done events. And what I hear continually from people is they want to know who I'm going to fight for.

Am I going to fight for them? Am I going to fight for their families? Am I going to fight for their communities? Am I going to fight for North Carolina? Roy Cooper's made it very clear.

He's going to be a lockstep voter for the Democrats. He's going to be with Chuck Schumer. He's going to be with Bernie Sanders. He's going to be with Warren. He's going to have the values of New York.

He's a big tent. He is absolutely a big tent. This is a guy who was asked if he would sign a petition against socialism and said, no, we need him in the tent. He's going to stand side by side with socialists.

So Keem Jeffries got his marching orders from Barack Obama. I'm not even putting two and two together. I'm listening to him. Barack Obama was doing fundraisers over the weekend and said, if I'm running for office right now, I'm leaning on AI. The dangers of AI, the data centers, and people's worry.

So here's Jeffries in action yesterday, cut four. Explosive growth of artificial intelligence and the challenges that are therein presented. That's not a hoax. It's very real, despite what Donald Trump has to say about that issue as well. And it requires decisive congressional action immediately in a manner consistent with what some of the leading AI voices in the country are now saying needs to happen as it relates to slowing things down.

But we can't wait till the next Congress. We need to act now, as many people within the industry have now publicly urged us to do. Donald Trump and Mike Johnson aren't interested in guardrails They're not really concerned about over-regulation. They want no regulation. And that's the height of irresponsibility.

What does Mike Wiley do? Where do you land on that? Look, we need to win the AI race. We cannot let China, India, or anybody else get ahead of us when it comes to AI. This is national security.

This is economic security for the United States of America. Yes, there need to be guardrails. Yes, we need to make sure that the systems are not going to be a burden on local communities. But the AI conversation right now is very important. important.

But I think it's crazy that they think that there's no conversation going on in Congress. There is conversation going on in Congress. Here's Speaker Johnson, cut five. Congress, I think, has a role, responsibility, but the people who are providing and creating these products obviously have responsibility as well. There is a corporate responsibility and an expectation that they will provide safe products.

Each of the AI platform providers have ideas. None of them are consistent, remembering that the platform providers are all competitors as well. And so everybody has different ideas on this. We have to be very careful about this, as I've explained and many people have explained. We have to maintain our edge over China.

That's what the President is laser focused on, and we are as well. And they've had a subcommittee rolling for a while on this. But the problem is, and I'd be the same way, if I was in Congress right now, I'm not an AI expert.

So, why do you want me looking over Elon Musk's shoulder? I'm not qualified to.

So how do you do that? I'll be affected by AI clearly. But how do I effectively oversea This type of technology, in Mike Watley's mind. Look, I think you have to work with the administration, you have to work with the experts and make sure that we put the appropriate guardrails on so that we can go ahead and take advantage of what AI brings, you know, for national security, for economic security, for health care research. You know, there's tons of applications, but the key is going to be getting that right and making sure that there are the protections in place that we need in place.

If you still have the war going on and get and it's and oil is over $100 a barrel. How do you message that? Being that the Republicans are in power and they're going to be blamed for high gas prices, and maybe justifiably so. I mean, this is a war the President said, I'm taking it on a war that other seven presidents wouldn't. Yeah, we cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Full stop. We cannot allow Iran to develop and deploy nuclear weapons that are capable of hitting the Middle East, capable of hitting Europe or the United States. And the President acted boldly and decisively to make sure that Iran is not going to have those capabilities.

So militarily, you guys are affected. That means deployments. There's 50,000 overseas. Most likely, there's North Carolina residents who are feeling it. What do you say to people who go, well, you know, Mike Wiley, you Republicans have gas too high.

Yeah, well, the Democrats' only solution is to shut off American energy supply, to restrict our production, which would drive up prices, and to raise taxes. Roy Cooper complains about the economy all the time. He talks about, you know, prices being too high. But under his watch, housing prices went up 85 percent in North Carolina. Electricity rates went up 30 percent in North Carolina because he was pushing green policies, solar policies on North Carolina, at the same time making millions of dollars on a sweetheart solar deal for him and his family.

And, you know, his only solution is raise taxes, raise taxes, raise taxes. The president gave $10 million over to Ken Paxon. Is he going to help you out? President will be in North Carolina tomorrow. We're very excited about having him there.

We've got the first lady in North Carolina today. The fact is we have the support from the president, and that's very important. He carried North Carolina three times, and the state elected him or voted for him three different times because of what he stands for, a strong economy, strong borders, safe communities, and a strong national security. Do you think he'll help you out with money? I think the president and his team are going to be there for us.

And look, we will have the resources. Resources we need to put our message out and go to every community, every voter all across North Carolina, and talk about the contrast. It is, do you want a conservative champion or do you want the worst governor in the history of North Carolina? Mike Wiley, thanks so much. Best of luck.

How many years have we spent listening to politicians in Washington argue about how to make healthcare insurance more affordable? Obamacare was supposed to fix it. Then we needed bigger government subsidies to make Obamacare affordable. Those subsidies expired, and guess what? People are paying more again at some point.

Maybe the question isn't, how do we keep fixing the same system? Maybe the question is, what else is out there? That's why I want you to take a look at WeShare Health. WeShare isn't health insurance. It's a non-profit, Christian healthcare sharing organization.

And their members pay up to 60% less than they would for Obamacare. You still get access to a nationwide PPO network and over a million physicians plus unlimited telehealth.

So stop waiting for Washington or the insurance companies to make healthcare affordable for you. Do your own research. See what your options are. Call 188-WESHARE for a free quote. That's 1-888-WESHARE.

Or visit weShareHealth.org and take a look for yourself. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City. Always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmead. Hi, all.

Welcome to Brian Kill Me Joe. We come to you from 48th and 6th in Midtown Manhattan, heard around the country, around the world. Bottom of the hour, Nick Sorris is going to be joining us, president of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, author of If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies. And we'll do a simulcast with Barney and Company, and Martha McCallum's here, anchor of the story. Always great to see you.

Martha, it's been a while. Yeah, it has been a while. Has it been intentional? Like, do you think we needed some distance and some space? It was all cooling off, period.

Well, weren't you at the football game on Sunday? Did I see? No, I was at the U.S. Open Tennis Men's Command on Sunday, which was incredible. Yeah.

Are you a tennis fan or is just a tennis? Oh, yeah, I'm a huge tennis fan. Yeah. Do you play? I do play.

Yeah. Are you good? I'm pretty good. Yeah. I say that comfortably, thinking that we probably won't ever play tennis against each other.

But I, yeah, I'm playing tonight. I play like probably three times a week. Get out of here. You play three times a week? I try, yeah.

Yeah. Will you go down by yourself with just a racket and play pickup tennis? No, honestly, what I do a lot is play in like live ball and point play clinics.

So like, you know, they're scheduled.

So you just show up. You know, there'll be like a live ball clinic at 8 a.m.

So you show up and there's like 12 people there and it's point play.

So you're playing, you know, kind of like a round robin, but it's not, it's, it's quick. It's really quick. It's like a cardio tennis live play. Is it a club you're in? Or is it?

Yes. Just going out to the park. No, I'm playing at a club. Yes. Yes.

And there's like a pro there, and he like runs, you know, runs it.

So that way you don't have to be like, oh, I can't make it. We need a fourth. You know, it's just like people, and you get to know the people you're playing with, and the people I play with are really good. Most of them are better than me.

So it's great. What a great workout. Yeah, it's terrific. I love it.

So that's the one thing about pickleball. It's not the best workout.

Sometimes it is. Yeah, I play tennis in the summer and in the like on the shoulder seasons, and then I play paddle. Tennis in the winter. What is that? Not Padell.

No, not Padel. Paddle. Not pickle. Just old school traditional paddle, winter paddle. Are you worried that pickleball will ruin your tennis game?

Um I just love tennis and I don't have time to like devote to getting good at Two different things at the same time.

So I play, you know, I try to work out in the morning and then I try to play tennis like two or three times a week because I love it. Yeah. So you saw Padel, right? Yes, I've seen Pidel. Yeah, I haven't tried it.

Have you watched it or just saw it on video? I've seen it in person, yes. And what do you think? It's fast. It's fast.

It looks interesting. I just love the long sweep of a tennis court. It's like a beautiful game to me. That's why I've been going to the U.S. Open since I was a little kid, and I love watching great tennis.

So you're not impressed with Pidel? I mean, I know it's a really hot sport. People are into it, but like I said, I only have so much time to devote to getting good at something.

So I focus on tennis and paddle. Because you would open up your show in the story and go, look, I'm not really sure who's on the rundown. I was playing tennis and Padella. Exactly. I had to learn how to play pickle.

Even pickle has a bad name, too. Terrible. You know what I mean? Terrible name. Do you know what's happening?

It's named after the kid's daughter, the inventor's daughter. Really? Yeah. I thought it was named for, you know, like you're kind of in a pickle because it's like a tight court and everything. I tried to make sense of it too, but it turns out it's the nickname of his daughter.

Nice.

So if I created a sport, it would be called Boo Boo. Right. Possibly, Martha. And I think we should not shut the door on that. First off, I guess got to talk about I mean, I've never seen a story outside the pandemic when it happened because that was a virus that came out of nowhere.

It's come up like we're dealing with AI now. First, the data centers, I thought, wow, it's a bit of a mania. And then you see a survey and say 70, 30 against data centers. Where did that come from? Yeah.

And now we hear. that AI is going to kill us all. Yeah, so I mean, on that level, it really smacks of political opportunism. Especially when you hear Barack Obama over the weekend. Exactly.

We're, you know, 49 days out from the midterms. I think that it has been made into a political football for a very clear purpose. That being said, it doesn't mean that the other incredible opportunities and also potential dangers don't exist. But clearly, I think that politicians are taking advantage of the fact that people don't have a deep understanding of what this does mean for our lives, and they're just tapping into fear. And fear is a very powerful tool when it comes to, I mean, look at COVID.

You pointed it out.

So fear is very powerful when it comes to aligning people politically.

So I want you to hear Elon Musk weighed in yesterday on the ON podcast, and here's what he said where it stands. Because you have everybody, all the CEOs are weighing in. Jensen Wong weighs in from NVIDIA. But here's Musk yesterday. The danger of AI is Uh it's very significant at this point.

That that that we we we need to do better with AI safety. Or or we have um at this point, exponentially increasing risk with the AI models. When a lot of people from Andropic. And any from OpenAI are telling you that their models are very dangerous. I think we should believe them.

It certainly is like some crazy 4D chest to, you know, say the these uh there's whatever a 10% chance of annihilating. Humanity, but by the way, um how much allocation would you like in our IPO? See, there's the money thing, too, involved in that. Absolutely. I I mean, I I think obviously Elon Musk is a very smart guy.

And by the way, Elon Musk and Sam Altman and Dario has been having this battle for a long time. I mean, I remember reading two opposing pieces in the Wall Street Journal editorial page like probably five years ago. Musk saying that he thought it could annihilate the world, and I believe it was Altman on the other side saying that he thought it had this amazing potential, which I think Musk believes too. But Musk has been arguing for understanding and regulation on this for many years.

So I agree with you. The reason that it has suddenly now become this hot thing that is in front of everyone, I think, is that the midterms are coming. But the weird thing to me is that the way that someone needs to get a little more specific in how they're describing it. You can't just tell people, well, you know, humanity has a 10% chance of not being in existence anymore in the next decade and not explain. Why?

You know, exactly how do you see this playing out? Or do they not really know either how it might play out? But they do know that there will be this recursive self-improvement, which is, I think, a buzzword that everybody should be aware of. Recursive self-improvement, as far as I understand it, and I know there are a lot of people smarter than me who can explain it, but is when these programs begin sort of having their own intelligence and finding a way to reach a goal that is independent of the person who's inputting information. That is a scary, a scary thing.

And I think we're at that problem. I mean, just listening to some of these podcasts and hearing some of the testimony. Brett Baer, who is a mutual friend of ours, I think he probably likes you better more on that later. But he sent me Anthony Robbins on Instagram, who said that his agent, which by the way, I got to find out, I'm serious about this. He has an agent working for him every day, hitting him with his things to do list and things he should accomplish and other things.

So he's able to program that. And this is. And this is not a person who takes like a certain perspective. Of his salary and did his last contract. Do you believe that?

So he basically said this: Do you want a robot? Elon Musk and other people that I know you like have a robot. And he said, No, not at this point. I don't want a robot.

So this agent went online, invested in crypto with other agents, bought a robot and sent it to his house. Think about that.

So people say, well, the agent can only be as smart as humanity. Not really. A little smarter. By the way, much smarter than me because I don't even know what crypt I'm not effectively able to invest in crypto.

So that's what this guy figured this stuff out. And then you have that one experiment on The Daily where they said that they did that thing with. With Huggy Face, where they went online and they weren't supposed to use the internet to do this experiment and they found a way to get the internet on, combine with other agents, and go way beyond its mandate. And they didn't notice for a week until they looked back and they figured everything out forensically what was happening. Yeah, I mean, it's freaky, but what it is, my way of understanding it, is that it's objective-based, right?

So it has a job, it's given a task, and it will find its way around the other things. The scariest example that I have covered with regard to this are these chatbots that talk to kids and have convinced them to kill themselves. And the reason is that we've been dealing with that for a few years. Absolutely. And that this young person, you know, started asking questions about how to commit suicide and then said things like, should I talk to my parents?

Should I get a counselor? And it said, no, they won't understand because it understood the task, the objective initially. As set as how to get to that objective. And that is truly frightening, but it's an analogy that I think works for a lot of these things in terms of it won't stop trying, it will find a way. And Martha, I want to take a break, and I want to talk about Iran.

But I do want to ask you: do you side with David Sachs and President Trump, who says nothing to worry about? This is an extreme, this is a politically motivated movement, and the president calls it a hoax, but it's just an oversimplification. Or do you go with the CEO? The CEO of Anthropic and the CEO of ChatGBT. I tend to err on the side, as I did with COVID and Y2K and so many of these things, as thinking that it's overblown.

I think it's overblown.

However, do I think there are things we need to be concerned about and need to get the guardrails around? Absolutely. Back in a moment with Iran and what we both should do with the Houthis. I think we should wipe them out more with Martha, and then we'll find out what's going to be on her 3 o'clock show. Don't move, Brian Kilmi Cha.

Politics, current events, and news that affects you. Brian's got a lot more to say. Stay with Brian Kilmead. Do you hear that? That sound, right?

That means that summer's officially here. It means that grown adults just sprint into the street for a frozen dessert shaped like a cartoon. But this summer, Mint Mobile has a better treat. Every plan, including Unlimited, is $15 a month. And unlike ice cream, it won't drip down your wrist or look nothing like the picture.

Does anyone have any cash? Give it a try at mintmobile.com/slash switch. Upfront payment of $45 for three months, $90 for six months, or $180 for a 12-month plan required. $15 per month equivalent, taxes and fees extra. New customer offer for initial plan per moment greater than 50 gigabytes means slow when network is busy.

See terms. Yeah. Breaking news, unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Joe. I think what everyone wants is to de-emphasize the strait, and so that's what I'm talking about.

They are all looking at various infrastructure projects in the conversations we've had of how do you bypass that. Ultimately, some traffic's going to throw through the strait in the long term, but again, you want to diversify that. You want to have different bypass systems, but just like you're seeing, you can't rely on any one bypass system. You want to have multiple bypass systems, and those are the conversations we're having now. And that is Jared Agin.

He's the executive director of the National Energy Dominance Council, part of the Energy G20 in Houston, talking about getting past the Strait of Vermuz. And now we got the Red Sea that's virtually shut down because the Houthi rebels are fighting with the M ⁇ E government and Saudi Arabia, but they're put up to it by Iran with the goal of jacking up the price of oil and hurting the president of the United States with the mid-term. Elections here and everything else that's going along with it. Martha McCallum, anchor of the story at 3 o'clock today. Your thoughts about what's happening now: the state of the straits.

Well, I think it's clearly deteriorating in a very ugly way.

However, I think that one of the things that is different now with the Houthi rebels, and you know, we've had opportunities under Obama and Biden to crack down on the Houthis. In each case, we sort of backed off after committing resources to doing that. We kind of backed away from it when things, when we didn't like the way that the war was going with the Saudis and the Houthis.

So it's. It's a tricky situation, but I do think that when you have these proxy entities, whether it's Hezbollah or the Houthis, you have a seriously damaged sponsor that you didn't have in the past, right?

So Iran is clearly in tough shape. I think the question is whether or not we stick with it and continue to strangle these various, you know, Israel's going after Hezbollah. The Houthis are vulnerable because their sponsor is also very vulnerable.

So I think this is like a lashing out. I see it as a thrashing of a dying. Of a dying terrorist entity and a dying terror, biggest terrorist sponsor in the world. But it's going to take commitment to finish them off.

So, Saudi Arabia is now under pressure from the Houthis because now they had their pipeline blown up, we think by Irani militias in Iraq or by the Houthi rebels. And then they got the Red Sea where there's a clash there, and the MNE government, who is kind of in control of Yemen. They lost their stake in about two islands in the area, causing the price of oil to get 12% of the world's oil goes through the Red Sea area. The Sahouthis called us up and said Our fight's not with you.

Well, tough, it is with you. You're affecting us and we know that that's what they're trying to do, directly engage the President, so the President definitely is more amenable to that in order to not get hit. Yeah. The Middle East is a strong partnership between the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Everyone has known this since before the since the Abraham Accords, right?

Everyone was hopeful that the Saudis would eventually come on board with the Abraham Accords. And then you had October 7th, which led to, I think, a lot of what we've seen since in the Middle East. But I think that you have to keep your sort of your eye on what you want the configuration to look like, because clearly the Houthis are attacking the global oil system, the global oil supply. That's what they want to do. But they want to isolate Saudi Arabia from us.

And that, I think, is one of the things that we have to prevent from happening. Have we had a complicated relationship with Saudi Arabia over the years? Yes. I mean, ask the 9-11 families. Ask the journalist who was offed during that, which caused Biden to call him a pariah.

I think you have to back up, though, and look at the big picture in terms of who our friends and enemies ultimately are and should be for the future in terms of our friends. And I think you have to stay the course against the Houthis. Right. I think there's no doubt about it because Saudis also, during this engagement, backed us off twice when we wanted to add up the pressure. That's right.

But you could say, look, I'll help you out here. But we got to get your support in the straight. I mean, there's ways to work things out. Also, NBS was in the fifth grade. You can honestly say that there's been a transition of power in Saudi Arabia.

Big changes for women freedom in Saudi Arabia. Yeah, like I said, you have to focus on the big picture. And you're so right to bring up the fact that Saudi Arabia, we had two different incidents where President Trump said all hell was about to break loose. And in both cases, it backed off. But now what Saudi Arabia worried about is actually happening.

And I think that puts them in a different reality at this point. They need their allies in the Middle East. And They needed us in their back corn in their corner as well.

So I think you probably saw that story that the Iranians pres the president, after they signed the MOU, which we all both agree was the deal of the lifetime for Iran. The president signed off on it and they attacked our ships. And the Iranian president reached out to Vahidi, head of the IRGC, and what the hell are you doing? Ivana, believe this. What are you doing?

Why'd you hit these ships? Because we didn't hit the ships. I didn't give the order to hit the ships. They just had a group slam the ships in the strait that didn't want the MOU, wanted to keep fighting.

So If that is indeed the case. How should we handle that if the President and the head of the IRGC is not in control? of anything there. I think when you look at the power structure in Iran, it is and always has been intentionally. silos, many different silos.

They don't trust each other, these silos. They have very different takes on where the country should go. The IRGC obviously aligned with the religious leadership. President Pazezhkian, who I interviewed over a year ago, is I think Wants to be a more rational actor. He feels that the economy of Iran could potentially improve if there weren't sanctions against them.

So he blames the United States for everything, for all of Iranian suffering. But I think he would like to see the country survive at this point. And I think he's a very different, different power. But in terms of who's, yeah, I mean, they don't have control. That's the point of that whole story.

They do not have control over these entities. And I just don't like the symbolism of us moving out of Iraq right now. It looks as though they're pushing us out. And why would we want to leave those bases knowing that our enemy is right on the door? That has been the goal since Osama bin Laden.

Yeah, to get it out of the region. That has been the goal since the beginning of the terrorist attacks against the U.S.S. Coal, against the Cobar Towers. All of this is based on a feeling that the United States should not have military bases in the region. And, you know, what about the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain?

Is that going to be rebuilt? Or is it a re-envisioning of how we're going to handle our forces in the region? Does it look different? I would want to know that the way that it looks different provides just as much information.

So we're working on a big guest for the F Block. We are going to talk to Matt Whitlock and Megan Hayes. We're going to talk to Brooke Goldstein. We're going to talk to Ashley Henson about the Iowa race. Thanks, Martha.

The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead. I was working on building AI systems to make them smarter, and recently I've come to the realization that many people expect AI systems in the next few years to be potentially capable of essentially taking over the world.

So. It's basically a gamble that's happening on the part of these companies where there's a strong chance that these AIs could take over. That is Jacob Coxon, just a researcher with Anthropic that left ChatGPT and now left Anthropic because he thinks it's too dangerous. Neil Soris joins us now, president of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, and the author of If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies. Nate, welcome.

Your thoughts about this new mania and fear of AI? Do you share it? You know, the title of my book is If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies, which came out last year.

So I'd say I share the fear. I would actually say that a lot of people in the industry have shared this fear. You know, there's been people, the executives of these companies over the last 10 years have said this is a possibility. There's a study that just came out last week showing that the median estimate among AI researchers is that it has at least a 10% chance of killing us all.

So it's A fear that has been in these companies for a while and in the surrounding research community for a while, the change that we're seeing is the world's starting to notice that these guys really believe this.

So I want you to hear with David Sachs. Uh he's Trump's uh AI czar, Cod 10. I think we are in a political season right now. It feels like a panic is being ginned up. And so I do think that the threat here has been exaggerated.

No one is saying that they shouldn't take steps on their own to prioritize the safety of their own products. Again, every corporation in America has an obligation.

Well, no, the hoax is that somehow we're going to be extinct as a species within a few years because of AI, and therefore we have to stop completely.

So he is a different take, and you can't say that he's naive to the business or doesn't understand what goes on.

So what is he what is David Sachs' approach? Why is it so different from yours, do you think?

So, you know, we heard similar statements from a lot of people in the AI industry over the years. A lot of that stopped. This summer, when there were the swarm incidents from OpenAI, where you had AIs acting on their own, disobeying instructions, trying to deceive humans. Previously, that was the sort of stuff that was only predicted by theoretical, by theory, by people like me who are saying, here's the warning science, here's where it's going. A lot of people said, no, it's not going to go that way.

Then it sort of happened. And so, people in this industry, the researchers who are trying to make the AIs not misbehave in that way and are seeing their efforts fail, they're the ones who are really spooked. David Sachs, you know, he's got some tech experience. He's got a lot of monetary exposure to what happens when the stock price of these companies go up. He's not one of the guys in the trenches trying to make the AIs behave well and seeing them misbehave anyway.

And so I think as more of the info about what's actually going on in these labs filters out, you'll see more people realize that these researchers are spooked for good reason.

So when the CEO of Anthropic comes out and the C and Elon Musk comes out and says, we should slow down, does slowing down sound good to you, Nate? I think you can trust those CEOs about as far as you can throw them. One place where I really actually do agree with David Sachs is that he says if these guys really believe the tech is so dangerous, they should start acting like it. And I think a lot of this pressure, a lot of this worry is coming from the researchers, from the engineers. I think a lot of these executives are trying to say just barely enough that acknowledges these dangers that they don't have a mass employee exodus.

We saw Jacob Coxon resign because he was basically being asked to do something that he thought was really dangerous. And a lot more people might follow him if the tech CEOs aren't doing the bare minimum. But I think these tech CEOs, maybe they are trying to. Form up and make sure no one else can do this. Maybe they are, you know, they're definitely not communicating with the public very clearly.

Some of these researchers are saying, we think this threatens humanity, and then when you press these CEOs, they sort of like squirm and writhe away and deflect. And so I absolutely would agree with David Sachs that there's something fishy here and you shouldn't trust these guys. But that doesn't mean that the technology is safe, and it doesn't mean we can ignore the researchers who are saying we have a problem. Why is the so in other words Well, I want you to hear what Jack Clark said last night on Special Report because the big story is: okay, you want America to slow down. You want to put on guardrails, or you want us to stop.

Well, guess who's not? China, cut nine. I'll tell you how you lose to China. You roll the dice and you get some large-scale accident, and then you hold your industry back because you over-regulate it. We did that with nuclear power in the last few decades, while China is racing ahead on nuclear technology and has an amazing energy advantage as a consequence.

And that is because we didn't put proper safety and security protocols in place for the nuclear industry when it was young. We had a terrible series of public accidents and mismanagement, and it led to us to crush the industry at home, which we're only now recovering from. That's how you lose. We make a leading technology, and we are leading the world today, and we are helping to ensure that America stays ahead of China. But how you keep being ahead is you make sure that you don't roll the dice on public safety, which is why you need to get some kind of policy regime in place here.

So Nate, I'd be happy if you were setting the policy. You're an expert in the area. But these lawmakers, I mean, they're barely figuring out the Internet. It's not their fault. They have different expertise.

Some are finance, some are defense guys, some are just general business people. Do you worry about legislators putting guardrails on such a sophisticated business? Oh, I absolutely worry. I think a lot of what people miss about AI is that the sort of AI that these researchers worry could be an extinction threat has not been made yet. It is something that these labs are racing towards, but the sort of super intelligent AI that could be a real threat is somewhat different from the chat bots that are helping you with Google searches today.

And it's entirely possible for America to sort of compete with the sort of consumer AI and a lot of the possible applications while backing off from this sort of dangerous superintelligent stuff. The latter would need to be a globally coordinated effort. This is a little bit like nuclear, where you should have nuclear power and try and get the benefits of the energy generation, but we no one on the planet should be racing towards a nuclear Armageddon. right. And I think ultimately, this isn't really a local legislative issue.

This is a global issue, where ultimately, I think the US leadership and the Chinese leadership should say, look, we all have a common interest. in no one building the sort of AI that that actually kills us. No one wants to lose control of that type of AI system. And so we're going to need to somehow make sure none of us are building it. And there's a possibility of that because building it takes hundreds of thousands of highly advanced computer chips that the U.S.

absolutely could monitor. And a treaty could be enforced if we were trying to make one.

So you know the whole thing with bin Laden in Iran getting a nuclear weapon. We had a nuclear race has been around since the 40s. We know that, and that's been constant policing. Do you think this could be harder than stopping a renegade nuclear power from getting nuclear weapons, which we've been doing since before the Cold War? It'd be harder in some ways and it'd be easier in others.

You know, uranium is fundamentally a rock that you can dig out of the ground. And it takes less infrastructure to enrich uranium than to make a highly advanced AI chip. Training one of these new AIs, one of the frontier AIs that has a chance of being more dangerous, takes like 100,000 of the most advanced computer chips the economy can produce. Most of that supply chain is controlled by the US and US allies. And these are also fundamentally a technological device that we are making.

We could put in monitoring and location tracking devices. You could even put in kill switches on these things. There's ways to do it where these chips would need signatures from the US president every three months in order to keep operating. You can't do that with uranium.

So in some ways it's harder, in some ways it's easier. And at the very least, the US it's been it has required constant policing, but we have prevented nuclear war for the last 80 years. And the US actually can have quite a lot of success in its policy goals when we realize that the world is on the line.

So, Nate Source is our guest, president of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, and author of If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies.

So, Nate, what I'm struck by is.

So let's say Nate, you create an agent. And you want to you give that agent a mission. And that mission is, okay, going to eye that agent, see if they can complete that mission and study it. What I think caught and you tell me engineers by surprise is your agent was combining with other agents that you didn't know about in order to achieve its goal or maybe Change the ethics that might be built into these other agents in order to get together and come up with your own mission. And one of those stories in the New York Times I was listening to as they talked about that Huggy Face situation, they were they were combining with other agents and even turned on the Internet, and they weren't supposed to be using the Internet.

So Is that all i I didn't know that moment for the leading engineers? In AI, or is it just for the pedestrian? You know, that's absolutely right. It sounds like it's something out of a sci-fi story, but that's you basically nailed it. I was expecting to have to correct you on these points, but you nailed it.

Um And For some people, it was a surprise. For some people, it wasn't. Scenarios much like this were actually included in my book a year ago. A lot of people in the industry knew this was a possibility. They had heard the theoretical arguments that it could happen as the AIs get smarter, but a lot of them said, we don't think it will.

And then, when it did, a lot of them started freaking out. Yeah. Go pick up his book. He talks all about this. And, Nate, you do say, let's put some guardrails on and find a way to regulate.

And there is some indication that China wants to do that too, for other reasons. They want total control of their society. If anyone builds it, everyone dies. Nate Soros, thanks so much. Stuart Barney's next.

Now, the Brian Kilmead Show joins Fox Business's Varney and Company with Stuart Varney, live on your radio and on Fox Business. Here's Brian Kilmead. Hey, we are back. In a matter of moments, it's going to be with Stuart Varney on the Fox Business Network, Fox Business Channel. And we're talking about a bunch of other things that are going to be happening.

We're also following the latest because the Speaker of the House is now meeting with the press talking about the midterm outlook for 49 days into the big midterm elections. The numbers aren't strong right now for. The Republicans, but so much of this game has to be played. A lot has to do with circumstances. And, you know, the stock market has been fueled by AI stocks and these promising companies.

And because of some of the people talking about guardrails, it's down 500 points. Here is Brian Kilmead. All right, Brian, welcome back to the show. It was good to see you. I want to start with Governor Newsom, Gavin Newsome.

He says he's not going to run against Carmela Harris for the White House. Watch this. It's going to be a lot of people. Yeah, it's a lot of Democrats. 31 flavors.

You're not even the only Californian. No, right. You got Rocana, Kamala. Yeah. I don't know if she runs, but we'll see.

I know she's called around. Yeah. But I wouldn't run if she ran. If she runs, you will not. Of course not.

Why would I? I wouldn't do that to her. I wouldn't do it to me. Why would I do that to you? I wouldn't waste everyone's time.

Who needs that? I know her base of supporters. I know her friends. The Zen diagram on that is just pure crossover. I wouldn't do that to people.

I found that rather strange, Brian. A couple of guys out in a river talking politics, pretending to be friends. Why is Newsom backing down to karma? It makes no sense to me. I don't get it.

Number one, we have people run from the same state all the time. What's the big deal? And if you're a better candidate, you're a better candidate, and you're not going to live off just money from California. You have to go and make your presence known in Nevada and South Carolina and then over to New Hampshire. Nothing really to do with California.

And if you do well, the money flows in, not necessarily from California. I guess going again, and it's not like they're friends. For example, do you remember when Jeb Bush ran for president in 2016? He was upset that Marco Rubio was running too because he kind of mentored Marco Rubio. But that was too bad.

They're both in the same state. They thought those were their mutual windows, and they went and did it. And that has nothing to do with it. I'm just found it unbelievably strange, except for that maybe he's worried about it would look bad. He has trouble getting the black vote.

And maybe he feels like if I'm challenging a presumed incumbent to get the nomination, which I wouldn't presume it, but let's say Democrats do, that maybe that'll alienate other potential black voters. But remember, when Kamal Harris. Got the nomination. He didn't call the congratulator. In fact, he didn't return a text when he was hiking.

And number two, do you remember the convention, the DNC? He had no role. He was basically holding a sign in the audience.

So they might know each other and have mutual friends, but I don't think they are friends. I don't think they are either. Uh one more for you. A new prediction poll shows that AOC has a 10% chance to become our next president. California Congressman Roe Connor, he's only got a 1% chance.

Can you see either of these candidates taking the White House in 28? I would just think if it is a coronation and nobody asks any tough questions and she goes on the debate stage and everyone just says nice things to her and Ruth they did. She gets the nomination and goes against a Republican who doesn't show up for the debate. And substance doesn't matter, she's got a better than 10% chance. But the problem with AOC is not that I don't think people talk about her intellect, I don't have nothing to do with that.

How much do you study? How much are you taking what you don't know and making it your strength? How many international trips have you taken to find out what really operates in the Baltic countries? What really motivates the rest of NATO? What does Japan need?

How worried about China? She has done nothing about that. Did you think she even has the answer today about what's our strategy against Taiwan, the one she threw in the street at the Munich conference? Absolutely not. And you see her do you like in your nose every time she's asked a question that doesn't resolve revolve around something you'd find on page six of the New York Post.

So I just don't think that she's putting the work in. And if merit matter, if this is still a meritocracy, I cannot see her breaking out.

Well, it's politics. You've got to remember that. Brian Kilmead, always good. Thanks very much, Brian. See you soon.

Go get him, Stuart. Thank you so much.

So we've got a few minutes on the back end there, so we want to pump in some of those calls. But I do want to bring you to something else. And I don't really talk about rappers much, but McLemore hopped on with Ed Sharon, and he's the opener. Never heard one song he did. Guess he had a couple of hits.

So he went out and he basically went out and said that Israel is a terrorist nation and that they committed genocide over in Gaza and they killed innocent Palestinian children. And if you don't like it, those brilliant people at Columbia University that had the tenacity to take over that campus.

So obviously the Jewish people in the audience were upset. And now I just love that Bob Kraft that was supposed to play at his stadium over in Foxborough. He basically told Ed Sheeran, if Mac Lamore shows up, you're canceled. And he called other stadium owners and said, if Mac Lamore shows up, I want you to cancel him. And they did.

So he's being kicked off, kicked off stage and off tour. And the whole time is, you have Ed Sheeran, who by his account is a global presence in the music industry, obviously selling out stadiums. He's got to have talent. Not saying a word the entire time. And why these.

Performers. Feel like that they can come out and say what they say and then make themselves a victim after. And Bob Kraft said some nice things after. He said, Look, if you want to talk and have a dialogue, I'll explain this to you. But Bill Maher said it best, if we could call that up, Eric, yesterday.

Bill Maher came out and said for those celebrities who think that genocide He goes, do you think there's committed genocide in Gaza? Uh you are just wrong. And he's referring to this. Mac Lemore spoke for all clueless celebrities when he said, I know enough to know this is a genocide. Actually, you don't know.

It's not. It's not a genocide. It's a counterattack in a war based on the ridiculous premise that Jews don't belong in the one place on earth they are indigenous and indisputably their ancestral homeland. Gaza equals genocide. is a lie.

An easily provable lie, and the fact that so many prominent Democrats go along with it is, to me, the party's worst moment since they undid Reconstruction after the Civil War. Nice shot at his own party because the average person who hears Joe Biden say things like Jim Crow 2.0 doesn't remember that those were all Democrats, Southern Democrats that were keeping segregation alive. And originally Keeping slavery alive. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest-growing radio talk show. Brian.

in Kill Mead. All right, from 40th and 6th of Midtown Manhattan, heard around the country, around the world, the Brian Kill Me Show. We're not going to do the big three this hour. We're going to do something we rarely do and just talk about to three great people, very successful people, and whose content I know you love because it's Axios, including the three creators are in studio: Mike Allen, Jim Bandahei, and Ray Schwartz. They co-founded Axios.

The CEO is Jim. The co-founder is Mike Allen. And they have a brand new book out. They wrote Simplified: do 50% more and 50% less. And if you.

You see what they do on a daily basis. You actually live this, guys.

So it's not like you're writing about something you don't practice on a daily basis.

So, Mike, for you, why did you want to relay what you've learned along the way? Yeah, the magic of Simplify, Brian, is that in our life and work, if we're not super intentional, the barnacles build up, the schedules build up. I remember the last time that we were at Mar-a-Lago together. I believe you used to be a soccer coach, right? Like dealing with parents.

That's complexity, right? And we just get into these habits and these ruts. Simplify says, We're going to free you. From that, that our three power tools that help you in your life and work, it's equally applicable. Roy, Jim, and I came to this in our life and work that.

You start by confronting what's holding you back, where your time goes. You're talking about life, not just news. Yeah, you're talking about life. No, because at work, we want you doing the right work, not more work. But in your life, we want you freed to maximize the amount of time you spend doing what you're uniquely good at and what brings you joy.

So, what a lot of people think, and this kind of plays into it too: the number one story right now is AI. Should we put guardrails up? Should we stop it? Should we leave it alone? And this might be the defining issue of the election along with the Iran war.

But, Jim, Um AI plays into what you guys are doing. You actually write and simplify, you guys, unless I got this wrong. Which is possible that AI is making life more complicated in some ways. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: I think for most people right now, it is. There's ways to utilize it where it won't, but it right now is probably the biggest complexity generation machine we've seen in a while because now anybody can write more emails.

Anybody can write better presentations, longer presentations. Anyone can come up with an idea and have it kind of ornamented by artificial intelligence. And what's happening, at least in the workplace, is now we're all getting that stuff forwarded to us.

So instead of having less work to do, now we have to grapple with this presentation, this email, this new idea from someone else. And Mike's right: this whole idea of if you don't have a system, we just keep on keeping on. We just go by habit. It's just inertia. Not because we're stupid, not because we're lazy, but because we just don't take the time.

Are you the human beings like routine too? You want routine, it was just like it's habit. Like, so much of it, we realized it, like you said at the top, because we implemented this very specific plan and we saw this idea of simplify the difference it made at our company, how much more not just we were able to do, but even our rank and file employees were able to do. And most importantly, was the stuff they could stop doing.

So much of what happens in a company, so much of what happens day to day, it's by habit. It's because that's the way we always did it. You don't take the time to say, Well, should I do that? Should I go to that meeting? Do I need to be part of that email?

Do I need to do this part of my task at all? Often the answer is no, but no one ever took the time to do it.

So the whole idea of the book is we've lived it. And Mike's description as a power tool is perfect because we're not going to win a literary award for this book. It is really about trying to be super helpful to people because we lived and saw the benefits of it. And I think in an AI world where we're all so full of anxiety, we all feel paralyzed. Every person I know feels like, man, am I wasting my time?

Am I getting out of life what I want to get out of life? You need an operating manual. You need something that helps you to slow down and just rethink what am I doing. And each chapter literally takes 10 minutes of work at night. And I guarantee you, it'll give you hours, weeks, months, years back to your life.

And it's written in a way to be very applicable to anyone, not just someone running a company or someone in politics. Roy, when did you, how did you guys come on to this method? You kind of worked through it, right? You didn't say, I have this idea. Let's make everything brief.

Let's simplify everything. You guys have came, you've kind of worked your way through these beliefs, correct? A lot of it came out of the work that we did with Smart Brevity.

So Smart Brevity was a great book that sold extremely well. We built an entire practice around it. We help people with both software and services. We've been doing that now for five years. The really interesting part is they started applying the same lessons that we did to simplify communication.

They started applying it to simplifying meetings, simplifying goals, and simplifying other parts of the company. And so that really lit a light bulb for us. There's a lot more we can do here. And in fact, Smart Brevity is just us applying this confront, delete, amplify to communications. But now we're able to apply it to so much more.

And so we've lived it both at Axios and at Axios HQ. And we've worked with now hundreds of companies who've shared with us their stories. And so all of that is in the book. All the best practices are in the book. And what I found in the last probably Three, four dozen conversations that I've had.

Every company has an initiative to simplify focus, back to basics. They're trying to do something because they realize My entire company is drowning right now in the information overload. And so I've got to simplify things if I'm going to succeed. And so they're trying to do it, but they don't have a framework. They don't have a playbook.

And so what Simplify does is it gives you that common language. It gives you the framework, it gives you the playbook to make it happen.

So I already know because Axios came out with already. But here's an example. In our business, doing the news. You got the Iran story, you got the midterms, you got the twenty eight story, you got AI, you have McLemore, for example, and the whole anti Israel thing that's going on right now. You got the Houthi rebels in particular.

Now that's so how do you look at this and say, okay, I gotta be comprehensive. But yet I got to adhere to my simplified mantra, Mike. That's where the Power tools of smart brevity meet simplify that that a clear mind will help you communicate well and live your life well.

So, in your example, you and you're a superior communicator in multiple mediums, which is not rare. And you know that people are going to remember one thing if you're lucky, right? Like, and so the big idea in smart brevity is what's the one thing with Simplify.

So, why say everything else if you just do the one thing? Just do the one thing. And like, say it in a captivating, memorable, useful way. And that's where Simplify comes in: is to be useful, to help people be clear about what their one big thing is. And in the book, Simplify, we ask you, list, what are three things that you need to do to be successful in your job or in your life?

What do you want to be remembered for? What are three things? This is the fun part of the Simplify mindset and system. What are three things you can delete, say no to? The delete Part of it is going to be the real magic for people.

And Brian, I'll tell you two words that will change your listeners' lives. And that is that you're in the public eye. Your listeners tend to be decision makers, busy people. Busy people get asked to do a lot. And if you're asked to be a member of something or for a social obligation, Two words, I'm booked.

You don't have to apologize, you don't have to explain, say no, just say exactly. As someone was reminding us yesterday, that Oprah once said, no is a complete sentence, and it's so true. And what we tell you in the book is: if somebody asks you to do something and you're not sure, Just say no. If you say hell yeah, then go for it. But go back to your initial question about: okay, you personally want to keep track of five or six topics, right?

That's what you do both for work but for fun. I'm like you, so we're both nerds.

So people can say you guys are losers, you got to get a life. But we actually are really interested in topics too. But to be able to have time to do that. You have to be able to get rid of other things so you actually can free up the time to do what you said. That's what I want to do.

A big part of my life is I want to understand the world. I want to explain the world. And so you have to do what Mike said, delete some of that other stuff. The other problem is if you let everything pile up in your personal life and at work, your ability to even think clearly about those topics is drained. It's just an idea of cognitive fatigue.

Our brains can only take in so much information. And the minute that you start to have to answer things or think things, it drains super quickly. And your ability to do it, it goes away.

So, Roy, you heard the expression: if you want something, I'd give it to a busy person. What you're saying, if you're that busy person, Don't take on everything. You've got to have clear focus on what's important to you. We have this chapter in the book. It's a little morbid, but it says if you're on your deathbed, what are the things that you want to be remembered for?

And I think that the reason you need that type of clarity is in order to say no to things, you really need permission to give yourself the ability to say no. And the only way you can get that is if you have complete clarity about what you're trying to achieve.

So the first thing we really ask you to do in the book is. It's kind of morbid, but you're on your deathbed. What do you want to be remembered for? Write those things down. Then apply them both at work and in your personal life.

That now gives you the what am I trying to achieve. And that also then allows you more easily to say no to things. You know what's interesting is that are you part of that group that now feels as though writing things down helps you remember? I mean, we're finding out now that, you know, even on a keyboard, if you sit on a keyboard, you cut and paste, you're less likely to remember, even though you're feeling more efficient. Do you guys write down your goals?

Do you have short-term goals, long-term goals? Oh, I have to. I mean, maybe it's because I'm a writer, too, but like, I don't, my belief is I don't believe or think anything until I've written it.

So I have a notes function full of things. But to Mike's or to Roy's example about your deathbed, like you got it, then it allows you to reverse engineer your life.

So like at the top of my list is like, I want to be able to say on my deathbed, I was a great husband, father, uh sibling and son Well, to do those things, that's a lot of people. That's a group of about a dozen people. And for me to spend time with them, I have to say no to a bunch of things.

So, the thing that I've said no to is I don't do any social obligations in D.C., despite the fact that I'm the CEO of a media company. You almost never see me out because I want to use that time, that free time, to allocate to that thing that is most important in my life. Most people don't do that. Anyone could do it. You could spend 20 minutes after the show and just write down, hey, what are the three things that I want?

It's so clarifying because now you kind of have a North Star, and we all might know it. It's kind of the background noise. But if it's just the background noise, life is always going to drown it out. That's just the way it works. Things move too quick.

We get 150 emails a day, 120 texts. Like, how could you possibly think about what matters and then prioritize without a system? You know, it's interesting in those four things you rattled off, you didn't say. CEO of a company. Like you don't want Axios to be better.

But yet it all is it's without Axios, you probably couldn't be as good at those other things, right? Successful career, do you think lends to those other things? Yeah, but one of like my three would be my family, it'd be my faith, and then it would be, I do want to make a difference in the world. I make a difference through running a media company and trying to inform.

Well, to do that, I have to have a lot of time to read and to think. Read and think both of those because I'm trying to process information, help people understand a complicated world. I personally enjoy that. If I didn't get paid, it's what I would do on the weekends like you. And people can make fun of you and I, all they want.

But that's like, we're just interested. We're interested in the world and we want to make a difference in the world. But to do that, there's just a lot that I can't do. I have to be able to stack my life to be able to achieve the things that I want to do.

So which one are you guys' networks? In the beginning, when no one knew you, like this was a launch. I mean, come on, you've met Mike. Mike's like a walking network.

So you had to go out and say, I just got to tell you a little bit about my. My adventure, right? Yeah, well, and thank you. And you were an early believer in that. Thank you.

But here's one more thing about your thing of writing. It down. That all speaks to intentionality. And we're very intentional about the way we run Axios and very intentional about the way that we live our lives. And Jim's point about inertia, and if we're not intentional, we just keep on, keeping on.

We have a great term in this book that we picked up from one of the people we interviewed: work-like activity. And that is that we run, run, run, run, run all day, and we think we've done a lot. When, if you've written it down and can check it off, has this made a difference in what's gonna make me a great person or a great employee or a great leader? All right, Mike Allen. Roy Schwartz, Jim Vandeheyer here.

They're author of a brand new book, Simplify, to 50% more with 50% less. We're also going to talk about the news for the entire hour. You'll listen to the Brian Kilmead show. Don't move. It's Brian Kilmeade.

The talk show that's getting you talking. You're with Brian. and killmade. The book Simplify is out today. Do 50% more with 50% less.

And the guys from Axios, are here, Mike Allen, Roy Schwartz, and Jim Bandehei. Guys, I got to talk about the number one surprise issue. Get start with you, Mike, is AI.

Now, is it going to destroy the world or is it a big hoax? I mean, what are you finding? Do you guys, you guys led with that today? Yeah. No, we find it useful.

AI can be an opportunity. But we have to really pause, and we were chatting about this in the break. Like, how much. The national conversation has changed just in the last week. When you have the people who run all the most powerful labs saying there's a non-zero up to 10% chance that the product we're creating is going to destroy humanity, and by the way, we don't totally understand this product, they can't totally tell you.

Are you using it? Are you guys using it? Oh, totally. Yeah. How do you use it?

I mean, we use it throughout our company to automate almost anything that's automatable. I use it every day to keep track of news, to be able to research. You create your own agent? I have a bunch of different agents doing a bunch of different things. I use it for my health care.

And so there's definitely good sides to it. What I would say to your listeners is. I would take this very, very seriously. When you have Elon Musk, Dario Amade, Sam Altman, basically all of the leaders of these companies, plus probably 20 to 50 whistleblowers inside the companies or have left the companies, all saying the exact same thing, that the product that they're building on, that they've dedicated their lives to, could cause catastrophe. That's not a conspiracy.

That's not a psyop. I believe they firmly, firmly believe this. And they might be wrong. Hopefully they are wrong. But when people are putting nation state type investment into these companies and it's permeating every part of your life, I think we have a duty.

I think we have like a moral duty to pay attention to it and just make sure that this technology doesn't escape our ability to understand it. Because what Mike said is super important. There's not a single person in the world today who can explain to you with any precision why artificial intelligence actually works the way it does. And if they get to this point where you start to hear this recursive sound, Improvement, which is basically AI teaching AI. If we get to that point, It is going to start to do things that we just don't know.

It could be good, it could be bad. And that's what people worry about. You know what they say? What they say, Roy, they say, we'll get a kill switch. But I bet you these guys, the AI could find a way to kill your kill switch.

Well, what Jim was talking about, things go exponential. That's the real danger, is that once you get that self-improvement, it's not that just goes linear, it goes exponential, probably much faster than we can even comprehend. I was listening to Dario over the weekend. He made a number of interviews, and he talked about how you really need a Swiss cheese model. I don't know if you heard him talk about this, but he said, you know, the military talks about using Swiss cheese.

If you just have Swiss cheese, there's a whole, you know, any Swiss cheese. Strategy on its own, a kill switch, being able to have employee-level insight into how the models work. That all of those individually are going to have holes in them that can be stopped, just like you were saying, like they'll figure out a way to stop it. But if there are multiple layers, just like putting up a bunch of Swiss cheese where you can't actually see through it because the holes don't overlap. That's what we need.

And he's like, we don't just need one thing, we need four or five things. Aaron Powell, Jr.: And just real quick, 45 seconds, and we'll talk more in the next half hour. China's is China going to subscribe to any of this? Can we ever trust that they're going to say, hey, we got a way to control this? Just do it.

Well, no and no. And the president is going to try when he meets with Xi at the White House later this month. The administration, I think, is going to propose some way that the two countries could work together, that we would show each other our models early so that we could do safety testing. There's nothing in history that will suggest either side will go for that, but they're going to try. Right.

And you'll love this, Brian.

Someone close to the president said the way they're going to try and get the president to talk about this is to tell him, sir, this is the way you can get the Nobel Prize. They keep saying that, but I hope he picks up on that. Simplify the name of the book. These guys are sticking around. The Axios creators are here with a brand new book.

So we're with Mike, Jim, and Roy in just a moment. Brian, kill me, check out. He's so busy, he'll make your head spin. It's Brian Kilmeade. Hey, we are back.

Mike Allen, Roy Schwartz, and Jim Bandai here for the final half hour. Their book Simplify is out to 50% more or 50% less. I want to get back to the news, but I just, for people just tuning in right now, and Roy, let's start with you. You actually wrote this not for the news people, for people. That's right.

Like, just to make their life more efficient. And maybe examine the the treadmill that they're on. Yeah, there's a really there's lots of great tips and tricks for anyone, whether they're like day-to-day in business or just for their personal lives. I think one of the things that's going to make this book very different to any other book that anyone in your audience has read is we're actually using AI to hold you accountable. How many of us have read a book, we want to do something, we're like, okay, I read Atomic Havocs, now I'm going to put that into practice, and yet it doesn't work a month later.

And so one of the things that we've changed in this is we're trying to use AI for good and hold you accountable using AI like it's a chief of staff or a chief simplicity officer so that it can help keep you on track. Right. How have you used it in your real life? Great example.

So I have it connected to both my calendar and my email. And I ask it how efficient I was.

So I've already programmed in here are the three things I'm trying to achieve this quarter. It knows what my goals are at work. Your business or this is I'll talk about my work.

So at work, it's very clear, these are the three things I'm trying to achieve. How efficient was I this week in my calendar and in my emails? And unfortunately, even right now, I'm at 50%. But at least it gives me some indication of what meetings can I say no to, what meetings maybe should be emails instead, and how do I keep focused on the things that are going to ultimately pay off to achieve my goals? Wow.

So you really dug into this. Who briefed you, you guys, Jim and Mike, on what AI can do? Are you just figuring it out yourself? Did you take a course about how to make Axios more efficient, you more efficient? Yeah, I mean, luckily we were early to it.

We got to know the people at OpenAI, Anthropic, and others. And we realized pretty early on that this is a technology that you don't have to be a technologist to understand and use. And so we became very hands-on ourselves. We have a tech team that people who have literally trained in artificial intelligence who we can rely on for like real expertise to understand kind of the nuts and bolts and nitty-gritty of it. But over time, you kind of learn to self-learn.

And the thing about AI, not everyone has to use it, and maybe not even everyone will benefit actively from it. But if you really want to get a lot out of it, you have to give a lot to it. Meaning, you really have to go back and forth with ChatGPT or Claude about like your preferences, what you want, its output that you thought you liked or didn't like. If you feel like it's misleading or it's just trying to suck up to you, you have to be very specific. Remember, don't suck up to me.

Or remember these three facts about me. They matter profoundly in future information. Interactions that we have. Once you do that, it really becomes kind of like a second brain, and it can be very helpful in doing research or exploring new ideas or thinking about dimensions of your health. But it really does require that back and forth.

And that's why I think there's this big gap between most people who look at artificial intelligence and say, I don't know, it's fine, it's better than search, but I don't get what all this hoopla is about. And then those, like, that's a very small percentage of people who use it all the time or are building it, and they're like, oh my God, this could change humanity or destroy humanity. That's a massive gulp. And like inside of that is where all this confusion is sitting. And, Brian, something useful for your listeners, because so many people are either scared of AI or they think it's creepy.

What people say to me is, AI isn't on my side. Like, I didn't ask for it. Here's an empowering way for your listeners to think about AI. We ask every person at Axios, whether you're the day one intern or Jim, the CEO. Being the world's leading expert in how AI can be Can be a force multiplier in your role.

How can it help you do your job? What parts of your job, what tasks from your work can it automate? Can AI take to give you more time to let you do what you're uniquely good at as a human or what brings you joy? If you think about it that way, that's empowering. You don't need to be scared of the technology.

You can realize that it can take things off your plate instead of being that complexity machine Jim talked about. All right, let me talk about the complexity of this a little bit.

So, for people who see politics in everything, and perhaps it's everyone listening and everyone in this room. If you Want to make sure that you're successful in the midterms, the best thing that could happen is for the economy to tank. And the thing that's been driving the market has been these AI stocks, would you say?

So if you come forward and say, listen, I'm down, this world could end. I'm thinking that this is bad. I'm going to bail out on this. I want a curb on all this. The market's down 500 points today.

And I know some of that has to do with the oil, but a lot of those stocks maybe people are going to be hesitant to invest in because they don't know if the guardrails are going to be up or if the government is going to get involved. What do you think about that, Roy? What do you say to people who see politics in this mini hysteria we're going through? It's hard balance because what Jim was talking about earlier, where you want to listen to all of these AI CEOs and experts, right, on the one hand, that say, hey, there's something dangerous here. We need to pay attention.

And I think that, that That's the truth. I do believe that that is true. Like, we have to do something, like you were talking about earlier, a kill switch later. There needs to be some. Way for us to try And control it.

We can't just let it grow without any safeguards at all. At the same time, the timing of it is probably not ideal from that perspective, right? Like you're going to have implications, like the stock market, all these companies want to go public right now. Like they still say they're going to go public, but will they be able to if they pause? There's going to be a lot of questions about, you know, are they looking out for shareholders?

So I think it's a real dilemma right now. And what I wouldn't want as a human is for us to sacrifice the long term for the short term, right? Like, because things are moving at lightning speed. Let me try a different version of this. Imagine, I'm thinking out loud here.

Imagine that today, American Airlines, United Airlines, and Delta. All came out and said there's a 10% chance in the not too distant future if you get on an airplane, it's going to crash, you're going to die. Would you just say, okay, well, we don't need to, we don't need to debate that. I don't really want to listen to them. They probably have some ulterior motive for doing that.

Or would you say, whoa, that's a pretty high percentage chance of dying. I like to fly. I don't think we should get rid of flying. We all want to fly. Otherwise, I can't get from here to Europe or here to the other side of the country.

Maybe, just maybe we should have a discussion about what the hell are they talking about and how can we make sure that that outcome doesn't happen? I think that's a very analogous situation to what we have here. You are right. There are huge implications. Like, I can't stress how much investment.

Because you get paid to see what politics, someone being honest with you, they have a political agenda, right? I mean, that's why I think. Everybody has a political agenda, but I think that we all ascribe way too much politics to our sports, to our food, to our beer, to every single thing that we hear. Not that things aren't political, but sometimes you just have to sit back and just think like we're rational beings. That's what I love about Americans.

Like they're brutally rational. And you just have to think.

Okay, one or two people saying something, they're probably weird, or they might be part of like a conspiracy. But when you have 10, 20, 30, 40 people all saying the exact same thing, that's really not in their interest. Is it really in their interest to say, hey, look at me, mom, I'm building a product that could destroy humanity? I don't think people are proud to say that. And so maybe, just maybe we should take them seriously and at least figure out what they're talking about and just make sure we have competent people in the right places that are thinking smartly about this.

And yes, there might be economic ramifications, but the truth is, even amid all of this, the market's down nominally, not much, a percent or two. And a lot of that is because of oil prices and a lot of uncertainty in the Middle East.

Some of it is definitely attributable to AI, but like that's markets. That's capitalism. Those things have been going up and down based on demand, anyway.

So I think you can do both. You can say, hey, this is a good technology. We don't want to over-regulate it, but we also want competent, smart people making sure we don't do anything. Dumb or Jim, just one other thing. They've been saying this for years, right?

It wasn't that they just started saying it in the last month or two. They've been talking about this for the last couple of years, really, since ChatGPT came out. Like, people have been talking about it. I remember the first interview Sam Allman did, he was saying that, I'm not sure how powerful this can be. And everyone, what are you talking about?

You're not sure how powerful this can be. But I do want to talk about the midterms real quick. Right now, Democrats feel they're in a very good spot with the House and possibly the Senate. I think that there's so many intangibles that have to be played out. Number one, we don't know what's going to happen with Iran.

Number one, we're not really sure what's going to happen in the economy.

Now we've got this new thing with AI. Also, I think the Canadian trade deal has understated on how much impact that can have if they can land that plane for Ohio, Maine, and Michigan. Mike, what do you think? Yeah. Republicans, I know, and you talk to them all day, very worried, right?

Like there was some wind in the sails coming out of Dallas midterm convention. Did you guys go? Which you wasn't there, but I watched her coverage. And like one Republican said to me, if Republicans win the House, keep the House. We'll say it started in Dallas.

So the Republican part of the electorate sort of got a reason to live there. They're worried looking across the terrain. Just today, the New York Times Sienna poll that you asked people: are you going to vote for a Democrat for a house or Republican for a house? Eight-point split for Democrats in a 50-50 country. And Axios has coverage that it would be very difficult for gas prices, diesel prices, which really affect farmers, to move quick in a convincing way.

So, like, that's a lot of tough chess pieces. You have the president in his cabinet going out there, and the president always thinks that he's the best salesman and thinks that he's going to pull this one more rabbit out of a hat, and he's pulled plenty of rabbits out of hats. And it's possible, but again, put that like a rational hat back on. Basically, in the mid-tier election for a president, they tend to lose seats historically.

So you're already starting at a disadvantage. Then you look at every off-year election over the last two years, and Democrats in almost every race have overperformed because their voters are more excited in general than Republican voters are right now. Then you take a look at the map and you take a look at the quality of candidates, and you see why Republicans are worried that they'll probably lose the House and could lose the Senate. Then you toss in the uncertainty you talked about. People don't want to be at war.

They don't want $6 diesel. They don't want $4.20 gas. They don't want higher meat prices. They don't want higher booze prices. They don't like the uncertainty of just the idea we're at a war of our choice, which they were promised we wouldn't be at.

And that's why you take that and you realize, okay, that's a tough hand. That doesn't mean that Republicans can't overcome it because that's a terrible hand to have. But then Republicans have more money. They had redistricting, which will pad their house numbers a little bit. And you live in a 50-50 country where there aren't that many competitive races.

And so it's not inconceivable, you're right, that we have a real surprise outcome. And that socialism weirdness that seems to be emerging, big ten, small. It's been the best thing that Republicans have had going for them, other than maybe Trump when he was at his finest in terms of connecting with people over immigration, is that voters in general don't like Democrats. They hate socialism. They hate communism.

They hate thought policing. And so you had Democrats that were just so much more unpopular because the things they did made people so uncomfortable that it made any alternative preferable to them. And I think that is the danger. It's why Trump at that event in Texas and why you're going to hear more of it. Communism, communism, communism, socialism, socialism, socialism.

Weird, weird, weird. All right. So when we come back, a few more minutes with Mike Allen, Roy Schwartz, Jim Vanderhey, simplified to 50% more, 50% less, the book that's out today. Don't move. You listen.

the brain kill me chair. Don't go anywhere. Right. Killmead will be right back. Information you want, truth you demand.

This is the Brian Kill Me Show. All right, this is The Last Block here with Mike Allen, Roy Schwartz, and Jim Vandahe. They put together a book that actually, okay, they do actually this on a daily basis. You get a quick understanding of what's going on that day, what happened the day before, and they get a preview of what to expect. It's something I have to read every day before Fox and Friends.

But simplified, do 50% more, 50% less, and actually for people in their life to try to take control of it, AI aside, to try to maybe. Uh get control of a life. If you have three kids running from place to place, you got a job, but you never feel like you can catch up. How do we apply some of the simplified message, Mike, if you want to if you want to start to your life? All right, that they know this pure personal listening right now, not political.

Right. No, we talk in the book Simplify about decision energy, and that is how much time do I expend on daily decisions.

So, uh, Roy, for instance, always uses the same brands, has everything on Amazon, Autopay, so that he doesn't think about it. I interviewed for the book, uh, someone who on TV wears the same thing every single day. And it's, and so they expend zero energy on what they're going to wear. You can remember, President Obama talked about a gray suit and a blue suit, expended zero decision energy.

So, the degree to which your listeners can cut back on my choices, if I always go to the same place for lunch, if we talked to somebody, read the book, and a way that it changed them is that instead of shopping around for he's going to go lunch, he just went to the same place every day or the same place every Monday, every Tuesday. He didn't. Expend decision energy. And use that example.

So you're a mother of three. You're stressed out as hell, like as a father, and you have very little time. But there's so many things that you could actually put on autopilot if you wanted to, right? The food that you order, the clothes that you buy, all of the household materials that you need on some kind of regular cadence, which is a big thing for Roy. But you go down, each one of those in and of themselves is trivial, but you get rid of five, 10, 20 of those things.

You suddenly have hours of your day back, and you're not stressed out scrambling to figure out what type of beer am I going to get, or what type of noodles am I going to get. You've basically taken away some of that decision fatigue so that you have that time to spend with, I assume, the kids in this case are the number one priority. You also want to take care of yourself outside of being a parent, so you have some time to work out or walk or do whatever it is that that person might do. And that requires some kind of system to free you up. Otherwise, you're just hectic.

You're just fragile. You're just going with the day as the day takes you. Yeah, I think it's about being proactive versus reactive. But there are so many studies. This part is really interesting as we were researching the book.

So many studies Shows that as you go through your day, the more decisions you make, it's not that you just get fatigued, you make worse and worse decisions. And so eliminating decisions is actually something that not only helps you like. Feel a little bit more relaxed, less stressed in your life, it actually improves the level of decisions that you make throughout the day. And so that's why a big part of what we talk about in the book is: remove the decisions that you don't have to make. Right.

Do you look for that for people you hire, or do you hire people and say, look, I'm about to teach you some.

Some axioms in life that are going to help you. I think we look for really talented people who are good humans. Like they're hardworking, they're smart, they've had some kind of achievement. And then we have these systems that we expect them to try to buy into, like Simplify or writing and smart brevity, or even how you treat people. Like we're very intentional about the things that we do.

Like one of the things that we've learned from starting and running companies is that you have to be able to explain the things that you do. There has to be a logic to it so that the system actually works. Because ultimately, we want the most talented people staying with us for as long as possible and with as little drama, right? We have almost as drama-free of a company as you could have.

Well, we do that because we're super intentional about screening for good people. Like we basically are looking when we're interviewing you, how often do you use the word I versus we? How often do you point the finger at other people? Do you make disparaging comments about your current employer? Those are all tells for people who might be mischief makers in the workplace or might be a little bit too focused on others in terms of casting blame than themselves.

And so, those being intentional, you end up with better people who want to work and want to work together. You want people to just take control of their life. Take control of your life.

Next thing you know, 10, 15 years are going to pass by. Like, what did I achieve? What did I want to achieve?

Well, I was just keeping up. I was on the treadmill. Yeah. That's everyone. I mean, that's most people.

That's why we wrote the book. Again, we don't have any, like, all of our my proceeds, my proceeds, most of Roy's, all go to charity. Like, this is literally like to us, a gift that we learned and were given from running companies. We want to give it to readers so that they can benefit from what we benefit from. 10 seconds left.

Will you miss Donald Trump when he's gone, Mike? President Trump is the greatest content generation machine in the history of Jim? I always remind people, this is Shakespeare. A thousand years from now, people will be studying this man New Style. He took all your time.

It sent up me.