's so much debanking that's confirmed and yet no bank was involved. That was just a great moment.

One thing I can tell you is that unless the banks have started looking into all of their debanking past, there's going to be hell to pay. I don't think they're going to get away with we didn't do that. Oh, the fake news will protect us. I'm pretty sure MSNBC will say it never happened, so we'll just say it never happened. Not anymore. It's a new game now. You better do it because we're watching. We're pissed. And you did it. I don't know which bank specifically. Anyway, it's a new day. So that was awesome.

Here's a gigantic event in the world. OpenAI has introduced an agent they call Operator that on your commands will operate your web browser and anything that's signed in basically. And if it needs to do something for an account that you haven't signed in for, it'll notify you, hey I signed in for this. I got to do the next step. And it's been tested, and you can just turn it loose and tell it what to do. It'll go on your web browser. It'll make appointments for you. It'll organize things. It'll get things and put them in whatever order you want. Basically anything you would do, it'll do on your web browser.

Now this is gigantic for somebody like me. If you watch the pre-show, you've probably seen me go through this long manual process of publishing my cartoon every day. Here's what I'll do in the very near future. Hey AI, publish today's cartoon. I will first tell it where to get the comic, you know which file. I'll tell it where to put it and how I organize it. But I'm only going to have to explain it once, and then it will just publish it. So I'm going to replace essentially the entire function of the syndication company that cancelled me with one agent.

If I wanted to be back in newspapers, I don't, but if I wanted to, that agent could contact the newspapers, send them samples, and negotiate a price for those few that would want to put Dilbert back in the paper. I'm not going to do that, but it could do that. It could actually do that. It could finalize the deal. It could set up the direct deposit to my checking account.

Now is that scary? Now let's bang this amazing potential into the other thing that you know about, which is there's no way the big AI companies don't have a back door for the CIA. There's no way national security would be okay with AI uncontrolled. Of course it's controlled. We've heard this also from Marc Andreessen that the venture capitalists were told directly don't fund any little AI companies. We're only going to allow, we the government are only going to allow a few, and we're going to have a back door for national security.

So if you knew that the CIA had a back door to your agent that knew all your passwords and could execute things on your behalf, including access to your bank account, I assume, are you okay with that? On one hand it's so beyond any risk that I would consider acceptable. And then I put it in context. The CIA can already do anything it wants to me. It could take all my money. It can spy on everything I do. It could pretend I did something I didn't do. If the CIA wants to take anybody down, they didn't really need AI to do it. It just, your mind can't separate the fact that you made it so easy. So making it easy might make it worse, but it was already pretty easy. Like if somebody in power wanted to look into you, all they had to do is tell somebody to look into you, and then the underling would do all the work. So the person who made the decision doesn't really even have to do any work. Now so whether they use an agent like a digital agent or whether they use real agents, the people in charge were getting instantly everything they wanted all the time anyway. You didn't really have any privacy.

But speaking of this, that OpenAI agent, Mike Cernovich took a little deeper dive and found out that it has access to news sources. So if you were to ask it to check the news or something like that, it could do it. What news sources? Let's see, there's The Atlantic, which is known to be a Democrat propaganda entity. Really that's all it is. It's not something that could ever make money, and they're not trying to be anything else. They are literally just a propaganda. So that's one of them. But they have four. So they have four news sources. So if the only one was The Atlantic, you'd say oh this is looking wrong because this is just a deep Republican-hating fake news source. But it's not just The Atlantic. Don't worry, it's also three others, including Axios. Axios, wouldn't that be the same news entity that's anti-Trump and funded by OpenAI? Yes it is. It's partially funded by OpenAI. They have a working agreement with Axios, who is not too pro-Trump. But don't worry, those are only two of the four. The other ones I'm sure would be... oh, the other ones are the AP, known to be one of the most productive creators of fake news about Trump. But you have Reuters. Okay, so these would be four of the 10 worst things that you could pick as your news sources.

So Mike Cernovich calls this out. And Sam Altman responded almost immediately. And Altman said, quote, that's a miss. We will fix fast. So Sam is saying that it's a mistake that it was limited to those four and that they'll fix that fast. How many of you believe that that was a mistake? Because it doesn't look like a mistake. And as Mike Cernovich points out in response to Sam's response to him, he said, are there any examples of a