s. If there's a fact that the other side, just don't mention it. There you go.

So do you think that the fact checkers could ever act independently? They're not even, it's not even designed to do that. Do you think that they look for the most independent fact checkers to form the, do you think NPR said, you know we are a left-leaning organization but for fact checking that's exactly the kind of bias you want to get rid of. So rather than just maybe promoting our obviously left-leaning people into a job of trust and fact-checking we're going to scour the world and find people who are famous for being able to disagree with their own team. That's the people you want with your fact checkers because that's people who have a track record that says I don't care if my team says this is true, it's just not true. And then they hired those people who could go against the grain because that's who you could trust. No, nothing like that's happening. They're hiring leftists.

And what do you think the leftists would do if they got a situation in which, let's say for hypothetically, let's say there was a left-leaning person who legitimately wanted to do fact checking. And let's say this left-leaning person said, you know I'm going to seriously try to be objective here. I know I'm left-leaning but I'm being hired to be objective. I'm going to be objective. And let's say some facts came to that person. They showed that the fine people hoax was a hoax. And maybe it's the first time they heard it. Do you think a left-leaning person working for NPR, even if they believed it true and discovered that the fine people hoax was in fact a hoax, you know the hoax part is just that Trump called neo-Nazis fine people which we know didn't happen because of the video. But imagine if you had an impulse to debunk that. Could you do it? No, no you couldn't do it and keep your job. Do you think even if somebody thought they had the facts, do you think they could debunk a major left talking point and then keep their job? Not a chance. Not a chance. They wouldn't be able to go to a party. Imagine going to a party after you debunked the left's whatever biggest talking point. Couldn't do it. You wouldn't be, it would be like Alan Dershowitz being expelled from polite company.

So by their designs fact checker organizations can't work if they come out of organizations that have a bias or even if you just live in the world you can't be unbiased about fact checking.

We saw another robot that is getting close to looking like people. Nobody has yet solved for making a robot actually look like a person but they're getting closer and closer. What happens when you can't tell the difference? Because that feels like that's going to happen at least on video. If you just Zoom call to a robot someday you won't know the difference. And how would you know the difference?

And I have this suggestion that the way you can spot a robot in the future is the same way you could spot an NPC today if in fact NPCs exist, which it appears they do. It appears they do. Doesn't mean they do. And that is that NPCs and robots won't have stories. They won't have stories.

So yesterday I was doing a little video from my man cave livestream and I was challenging people to prompt me to tell a story. And so there were things like what was your most embarrassing moment or what was the moment that you realized this or that. And for each of those I had a story. I go, well let me tell you the story how I felt and blah blah, the surprise ending. And I have lots of stories. But there are definitely people who can't tell you a story about anything that happened to them.

And I think robots in the short run, a robot won't be able to tell you a story. If you talk to a robot about what's happening at the moment, well maybe you can't tell the difference. But if you say to the robot, hey can you tell me a story about like the best thing you ever got for your birthday, you're done. Now could you program a robot to fool you about its own biography? Like maybe it steals from somebody else's backstory? Probably. So you could definitely get a robot to fool you.

But that leads me to my next observation. We really need a law that if something is AI or a robot it's got to be labeled. We do truth in labeling. You've got to label those robots. If you come at me with a robot pretending to be human and I can't tell the difference you and I have a problem. Don't send your robot at me and try to make me think it's human. If you do that you and I have a problem. You have done something to me that's immoral and unethical. You made me think that a robot was a human being and then maybe I interacted with it or made decisions based on it. No bueno. That needs to be flat illegal.

And the voice as well. We need to have a law that says AI voices cannot be modulated outside a certain parameter. In other words we can't let AI be persuasive not by voice. You can't let AI persuade you with a human-like voice. That's got to be illegal. And we've got to do it now because the first AI with a human voice that's persuasive and maybe even can modulate the voice and change it, that is too dangerous. And we know it's dangerous. Like you don't have to wonder about it. Is there anybody here who would doubt the proposition that an AI that sounded like a human enough that you couldn't tell and also could change its voice quality to be more persuasive or less persuasive? You don't want that loose in the world. You do not want that loose in the world. Believe me it's bad enough that I'm loose in the world.

This is my favorite category of things to say. One of my categories is things which cannot be communicated. They're easy concepts but for whatever reason you can't tell somebody. Like the boy who cried wolf. The boy who cried wolf cannot communicate that there's an actual wolf. He can say the words but it can't be communicated because you already believe that he lies about wolves. So there's no way to get f