How to Stay Ahead of the AI Revolution and What It Means for the Future of America, with Jeremy Jones

- Hey everybody, welcome to the next up

on Mark Calpronetter and Chief of the Live Interactive video platform two way, host of next up, and your guide to the future of ladies and gentlemen. Big show, a lot of focus on AI, because I'm consumed with being everybody's tour guide

to what you need to know about AI.

“I just, I cannot believe how important it is”

and how little conversation there is amongst regular folks. So coming up Jeremy Jones, not a regular folks, a young entrepreneur who's put AI at the center of his new business. He's the co-founder of Redder AI.

Driven by AI, they do political stuff, they do help governments figure out how to find ways fraud and abuse. He's currently working on a couple, 20, 26 races, advising Wesley Hunt, who's in a three-way primary

for Senate and Texas and also Steve Hilton, who's been a guest here before running for Governor of California. So we're gonna talk to him about how he's building an AI company and get his view of how everybody can understand this better

because it's just understandably, it's a complex thing, not everybody understands it and we're trying to help you with that. Then our panel, former South Carolina Congressman Joe Cunningham, he's a Democrat, really thoughtful guy.

“The White House correspondent for Steve Bannon's”

War Room and a co-host of the show, Natalie Winners will be here. We're gonna talk about American foreign policy, national security, use of force, what the latest senses between maga, democratic party progresses, where is this country on the use of force overseas

and also the influence of the AI business on politics, how the two political parties are stacking up in terms of getting money from the AI and how they're gonna use AI going forward to the future.

But first, before that, my report in my log,

my mission, I really so serious about this is, I'm not a pro at AI, I'm not in the business, and not in the AI business. And I'm not super, I'm not super genius about technology, but I'm trying to understand

and help people understand AI as a cultural story, as a business story, as a technology story and just as a human story. Because I know you've seen it on the show when people have come on before,

I know how much ignorance there is effect because it's complicated and people are busy, and they don't see the imperative to use it. And this is like, this is like when the internet started, same thing, I had people in my life say this thing is a fat

and it's not a big deal, and obviously it's transformed our life. And there are some people saying, some, that AI will transform our life even more than the internet. Now, for we dig into this, some of you, if you're watching, not listening to podcasts,

but watching on YouTube, you're saying, Mark, you look like hell today. Why is that? So I need to explain that because I don't want to distract you for the whole episode. woke up this morning, write my newsletter,

get ready for this program, and for two things, I didn't have that I normally would have. Running water and internet access. So you can imagine my morning because I initially was a little bit in disbelief.

Again, typically relying on them. So that's why I look like hell.

“And that's why for those of you who get my newsletter,”

why I might have been a little late in your inbox today. Back to the program. I've got friends who work in AI, one in particular, I hope to have on the show soon. And I have been consumed for the last several months

with the Havserses to have nuts. We already live in a world, in a country and in a world, where the gap between the Havs and the Havs nuts is so pronounced. Incoming equality, life, life, possibility, and equality, America is supposed to be the land of opportunity

for everyone, and it still is more than any country that's ever existed. You can grow up poor and make yourself successful in all sorts of ways, including making a lot of money. AI has the potential to exacerbate the Havs and the Havs nuts.

Because to use AI as a powerful tool to advance,

grow a business, be successful in your life, requires intellect, and it requires time and focus, and a accumulation of knowledge. And I see so many sophisticated people who have no clue what's going on, have no clue about how to use it.

So, and if you're not a sophisticated, wealthy, well-educated person and you're busy, you're working two jobs. You don't have time to sit at a computer on your phone and play with AI, you're in danger of falling behind. But even if you're a wealthy person,

even if you're a super-sophisticated person, you're in danger of falling behind. And I don't mean this in a pejorative way. I'm not saying the people who are in danger now are stupid or ignorant or lazy,

they just haven't caught on to the notion of what it takes to be part of this revolution, okay? So I was watching Squawk Box the other day on CNBC.

They were talking about AI, kinda spontaneously.

And this conversation to me was so representative of what so many people have as their attitude towards AI. And what struck me in particular was Joe Kurnan's focus, almost an obsession on travel agents. Here's a, from earlier in the week,

here's a clip from Squawk Box. It's all about AI. We're gonna have an analyst on and a strategist on it. So you know how to integrate it, it might help you, or your company might go to zero.

I'm wondering, do you need someone that knows how to do this?

“I think maybe management is gonna be more important”

than ever in trying to figure out how to make sure you're not just put out of business. By AI, it's going to be very disruptive. Are there gonna be anybody, any travel agents left? Will there be any travel agents left?

No, but we could all use a travel agent. I had some travel problems.

Will there be an AI agent that can,

we can talk to and do the same thing? That's a human or an AI? No, no, no, no, yes. The travel agency that are around right now will just have no employees then.

Right. Yeah. What do they say? Not no employees, but maybe you-- Oh no, a lot better.

Yes, a lot less. I mean, it's a daunting-- Oh, there's going to be for everything, for everything. It's all happening. It's all happening.

It's happening.

“Quickly, and what about five years from now?”

It's quite a good idea. By the way, I know there's one year from now. It's like trying to figure out the weather for us. You don't know a year from now. How it's going to be, but five years from now,

the world could be totally different. The world will be totally different from five years from now. And a good way? It depends. It depends.

I love Joe Kurnin. I'm just a huge fan of his. And part of what I like is he's old-fashioned. He's old-school. I don't know if you all use travel agents

and probably some of the younger audience members here, or it may not know what a travel agent does. But back in the day, when Joe was starting out, there was these massive travel agencies. If you had a work trip or you had a personal trip,

just hundreds of people, thousands, tens of thousands of people in the travel agent business. And I believe the internet mostly put them out of business, because anybody can be a travel agent now for themselves, go on kayak or whatever.

And Joe is speculating here that AI is going to put out travel agents at a business. Yes, the extent there are still travel agents. It will put them out of business. But I say we're through respect to Joe,

'cause again, I'm just a huge fan of his. It's a lot bigger than that. It's not just about some industries that have hung on through the internet age and adapted now going out of business.

It's a, that's a 20 year ago thing. This is a now thing. This is so much bigger than that. And of course, both political parties are grappling with the issue of how to talk about this as an issue.

“But you have to get out of the mindset of,”

this is going to put some things out of business. And think about it positively. Too much of the dialogue about AI is, it's going to eliminate half the blue collar jobs and half the white collar jobs.

That may happen. But my mission, my obsession now, my obsession now, is to try to help where I can't. To get all of you to understand this, to get all of you to understand

how you as an individual, you and your family, you and your business, how can you be part of this revolution in a positive way? I don't want America to fall behind. I don't want you to fall behind,

because you're thinking about AI something that might put travel agencies out of business. OK, so first thing I want to talk about is, an essay that came out last week or two, by a guy named Matt Schumer, OK?

I'd never heard of Matt Schumer before.

He is an American tech entrepreneur who has done a lot of work. He started a company called Hyperrite AI Powered Writing Assistant designed to help users draft emails, essays, and other content using large language models.

I suspect that the essay Matt Schumer wrote this week that got so much attention was written partially by AI, not in a bad way. This is what AI told me when I asked, I asked AI before the show, how people received the Matt Schumer essay about AI.

Here's what they said. One of the most widely discussed pieces on AI this year, prompting both serious engagement and sharp pushback from thinkers across the tech and policy world. Very well said, AI.

Matt Schumer has all sorts of advice in here. And I can't tell you the number of people who sent it to me. It was in my social feeds. They've read the Schumer essay if you read it. And very few people who sent it to me

instead of you read it, it turns out actually read it.

I read it carefully. And found so much in it that was helpful. I urge you to read it. Read the whole thing. It's not super long.

But what Matt Schumer is saying is, for you, as an individual, this can be great or it can be not so great. Don't be part of the have knots. Be part of the halves. And he gives very good practical advice

“about what you should do right now to thrive in AI.”

Now, Matt Schumer's getting a lot of credit for saying some of these things and I give them tons of credit. A lot of these things are things I've been saying, not a lot. But some, like for instance, the have have knots, that the fate is in your hands and your own hands.

You can be in the halves if you do what Matt Schumer says. But you cannot right now take it for granted. Nobody's your boss or your spouse or your kids. They're not going to come to you and say, here, read this pamphlet.

You've got to be a adopt AI, like if you worked and bygone error in the Ag era and somebody but you'll plow and set it next to your farm. The first plow you ever owned and you couldn't just sit there and do nothing and say the plows are going to work itself.

You have to put the plow on, you have to start using it. You have to start practicing. I am no longer worried about myself or my family because I've read the Matt Schumer essay and I'm fully engaged, I'm fully engaged.

I don't do as well as I should and I'll talk about that in a second. But you've got to get fully engaged.

So here's what Matt Schumer said in this essay.

And by the way, the link to it, it's on the inner web. You can see it in the show description on YouTube or if you're listening to the podcast. So go read the whole thing. But don't read it now because I'm not done talking here.

Here's some of the things he says. You've got to commit to daily experimentation with AI. You can't just use it when you got something to do. He recommends an hour a day, an hour a day not using it to solve practical problems to deal with specific situations.

An hour a day just playing around with it.

“Now, if I told you you need to practice piano an hour a day,”

some days you would, maybe, some days you wouldn't practice. Now, since the essay came out, I've been practicing. I've taken that to heart. It's really important to get your mind around what this can do. And the only way to do that is to practice.

He says an hour a day, I take half an hour right now. Second, all these big things, chat, GPT, Gemini, they've all got free versions and they've all got paid versions. And you might think, well, if Google had a paid version, I wouldn't pay 20 bucks a month for Google.

I'd use the free version. That's good enough. No, 12, 20 bucks a month. That's, I know that's all big lift for some people, but it's an investment in your future.

And the paid versions of power, user, status, versions, they're much better. And they'll continue to get better. And I believe the gap between paid and free, which is already pretty big will grow.

Invest by the paid version. Use the paid version, world the difference. Okay, third, don't use it as a kind of a different, more chatty Google, all right. Use it for problem solving.

Don't just say, where's a good Italian restaurant in Detroit when I'm there next week, okay? Use it to solve problems. And I'm getting better at this,

“but you gotta remember, if you've got a problem to solve,”

your first instinct now should say, well, I'm gonna try chat GPT. Almost no matter what it is. Almost no matter what it is. Anything that would take you more than a moment

as chat GPT has solved it for you. It's so good at solving problems very quickly, but you gotta remember to do it. Do not treat it as a search engine. Treat it as a high capacity problem-solver, okay?

Fourth, he says, build adaptability as a core skill. This is extremely important.

You've probably never in your life been asked to be so creative,

to be so ready to change, to do things differently. You've got to do that with this. You've got to use, as a user of it, you've got to constantly be thinking and new. And as the models get better, you've got to think,

okay, how can I take advantage of it? It's even better now, okay? Lastly, be a builder. Some of you have jobs or personal lives where you are asked to be a builder.

We are asked to dream of something new. Where you're asked to not just do what's already on your plate, do what's already, do things the way they've been done in the past. Some of you have a builder mentality.

Since I started two way with my colleagues, I've learned to be more of a builder, right?

If you've never been entrepreneurial,

if you've never been an artist, maybe, you don't necessarily have that builder sensibility, that builder gene.

You can build things with it.

You can dream your biggest dream. Say you're redesigning your home. Say you're building a new den, extension on your own.

“And you hire an architect and they drop some plans, okay?”

And you say, look at him and say, oh, maybe make this a little different, whatever. No, put those plans in ChadTTT and start working with it. What could I do to save money?

What could I do to make this a little bigger? What could I do to fit in a different kind of desk? What kind of desk should I get? Dream, that's a simple example, dream big. And in particular, if you're using it for work,

be a builder, be a dreamer, okay? Now, part of why you need to do this is chances are the job you have now will be seriously threatened by ChadTTT and the others, the others, by AI.

Because it will eliminate a jobs, okay? Now, here's the irony of all this. I'm so hyped up about making sure all of you have the best opportunity to make sure that whatever you love doing, whether it's in your personal life or your professional life,

whatever you love doing, I want to make sure you can keep doing the essence of it. That ChadTTT is not going to, it might eliminate this specific job you have now. But we don't want it to eliminate the essence of what you love to do.

You love to help people in your job and in a hospital. You love to teach. You love to write ad copy. Whatever you love to do, want to try to preserve your capacity to do that, I'm not so worried and I'll tell you why.

Because what I do, I think is one of the few things that's not going to be replaced by ChadTTT and AI and Gemini and all the others. Professional basketball player won't be replaced either.

“Here's the key to what separates the things that”

we can people, the roles that can continue to be played that won't be eliminated by AI from the ones that will be. It is a long-standing principle of business and of economics. I got this from a very smart people I know who works with AI. If something becomes abundant, widely available,

there's always going to be a thing adjacent to it

that becomes rare and therefore becomes very valuable, very expensive. AI in my business, I'm a content creator. I create programs like this. If you say, "Hey, I create me a program that's a political chat show." Some people call this stuff that's not high-quality slop.

But they'll be good shows created by AI before too long. And then they'll be abundant, they'll be everywhere. But then they'll be shows that are rare because they're driven by people like me who have a connection to their audience. You solve this with music, right?

As the internet proliferated, streaming services, music could be distributed digitally everywhere. It killed the music business to some extent. It killed record stores and record companies, and the ability to sell a seat of record or compact disc,

killed it all. But what exploded live concerts? And the price of tickets for live concerts. So music is now ubiquitous. It's everywhere.

You can get music anywhere. Going to a live concert, a rare thing, high price. So now we have people who will pay to get a known artist, music provider, to a private party.

They'll pay them a million bucks or more to appear because they could listen.

You say, "I'm going to hire Mariah Carey to come saying, "all I want for Christmas at my Christmas party."

“You could play the music on any device in your pocket, right?”

You could get that. But if you want her there, adjacent, rare, be you pay a lot for it. Okay, people don't really like to talk about this. But for some people, for some people, the superior experience is, in fact, online on the internet,

on social media. That's good for them because they get it anywhere. It's more affordable. And they may prefer it that way. Okay, as opposed to having a real world experience,

an environment that's real with a real person, as opposed to something created by AI, okay? But as the virtual world starts occupying more of our time, more of our tension, okay? That means that real world, real human experiences,

more and more are going to be rare. And therefore, more special, more important, more valuable.

You're not in the room with me,

although, you know, we'll do some in-person events, and people will pay for that as well or enjoy coming to that. But what I'm doing here, AI can't do. I'm talking to you, I'm a human being. You're familiar with me.

There's so many examples of this. The best and highest status stuff handmade shoes, handmade watches. All of that is going to be sold in a higher price and be a valuable commodity.

Many people will just care about stuff created by AI, but some people will pay for and be more attracted to stuff like this. Think about chess, okay? For years, people play chess, very popular. Then they invented computers that could play chess,

and a computer could be any human being, even the best chess champions, right? Machine always wins.

But now, even though you can play chess on your phone,

you can play chess on your computer, you can play chess against other people virtually. The business of chess, the live tournaments, the chess masters who have programs, that is, not just more lucrative than anything else,

but it's a cultural phenomena, a bigger cultural phenomenon than ever, because it's adjacent to the ubiquitous available ability of chess, okay? So, I feel pretty good about me and my business, because my business is not something that AI can duplicate, but for a lot of you, exactly what you're doing now,

exactly if assuming you love what you do, it's going to be replaced. So your job is to read that essay by Schumer,

“your job is to understand the principles of what you need to do,”

to position yourself, to be in the halves, to be part of understanding the power of this new technology. Every day I understand it more vividly.

Literally, every day, I'm using it.

Not an hour a day, but I need to try for that. I'm understanding it better. This is going to be massive in politics. It's going to be massive as a political issue. As the parties try to side with people's fear.

And what I'm telling you is, side with hope, side with a human possibility. Don't think of this as something that's going to destroy humanity. Think of it as something that's going to empower humanity, and be on the have side to be empowered yourself.

Read the Schumer essay, look at those five principles, experiment, build, take advantage of something that's going to change everything, and make it positive for you. That's what I'm trying to do every day. And that's why I'm trying to spread the word. All right, that's my report for today.

I want to know where your head is on all this stuff. Send me your feedback, your take on today's reported my log, write me an email next up, [email protected],

“remember to be an extra in full standing, full voting privileges,”

full rights and responsibilities. Make sure you subscribe on the YouTube channel. That's the only place you can see a full video of all the episodes and the bonus content we put there in the clips. Go to youtube.com/at next up, Halperon.

And if you're listening to the podcast version, same thing, do all the subscribing that automatic downloads, everything you need to do. And please tell your friends, your family, tell them how much you like the show.

Tell them how I'm here to guide you to the future. Not only what's next up in politics, but what's next up in this fundamental change that's occurring. All right, sign up. You'll make sure you get everything as soon as it drops right here,

only on next up. All right, quick break now. And when we come back, a great pioneer, a great business person, who's trying to make sense in his own life and for the country of AI, Jeremy Jones.

He's the co-founder of Redder AI. Jeremy Jones is next up.

“Let me ask you something, do you own physical gold?”

Most people don't. And given the current state of the world, that's worth thinking about. Acre Gold makes it very simple. You pick a plan that fits your budget,

make monthly payments. And when you've accumulated enough, they ship you a beautifully designed 24 karat Swiss gold bar. Gold is up 70% year over year in central banks, are still buying it at record level.

Smart money has been moving into hard assets for a good reason. Acre Gold has had subscribers stacking consistently for six years because once you've held it in your hand, you understand the difference between owning something real versus a number on a screen.

Right now, they're giving away two five-gram ancient gold collection gold bars. Enter for free and subscribe to Gold at getacregold.com/mark. Again, that's getacregold.com/mark. [MUSIC PLAYING] All right, joining me now for continuing our conversation

about AI, past, present, future. This is Jeremy Jones. He's the co-founder of Retar AI. It's a political strategy firm focused on rooting at government waste and corruption.

That's part of what they do. Also, Jeremy has some views about the future of polling,

Currently, he's doing two races in 2026. A pretty high profile once Wesley Hunt, who's in an extraordinary three-way primary in Texas for the Senate seat currently held by John Corne and then Steve Hilton, who's been with us here on next up before running for Governor of California,

and has a damn good chance to be a Republican, at least to make the runoff to be Governor of California. Jeremy, welcome, and thank you for being here. Thanks for having me excited to be here. You're an entrepreneur.

So talk about just-- we'll get to your current company in a second, Retar AI. Please talk about how you became an entrepreneur. What gives you the ability to start businesses

“and what do you think it takes to make a great entrepreneur?”

Be in crazy enough to buck this statistics. Run into the fray when everybody tells you not to. My mom is the reason why I do what I do by in large. She's been my motivating factor ever since I was really, really young,

never to ask, never to stop asking why.

And always start to take a question and follow what all the way down to its root. When I was young, I grew up in Chicago, grew up in Luxembourg. And when I was five years old, and fifth grade, 12 years old, I went to my mom and I said, I want to visit my dad in Chicago.

And like, non-normal mothers. She says, OK, I want you to take a week and actually think about this. And if you really want to do it, I'll support you. And I'll buy you a ticket. And you can go to Chicago and visit your father in visit America.

Took a week. Came back to her and I said, yes, I want to do it. I didn't speak a word of English. She bought me a basketball, packed the duffle bag, put me on a plane, got off at O'Hare Airport.

And I still remember that feeling. I was like, well, this is home. I'm never leaving again. Took about a month for me to build up the courage to tell my mom that I didn't want to come home.

And again, she told me, you know, take a week to think about it. And if this is something that you really want to do, I'll support you in it. And I told her, yes, and obviously, as a 12 year old, you don't really understand the demand you're making.

And how earth-shattering that demand is. Now that I have two kids and I have a Wi-Fi understand, there were a quest I was making and a sacrifice that she made and fulfilled my dream as a kid. But she said, yes, sold everything, sold her house, picked up everything,

moved back to Chicago. And got back together with my dad, Miraculously. And I've been in Chicago ever since. So I've kind of taken that energy throughout my whole entire life. I've done 34 now.

But I've done you name it. I've done it. I was a professional power lifter. I've ran gyms for a long time. I've owned a series of restaurants.

I was a director of sales for a corrugate company. And the restaurant business was actually why I do what I do now. I think the more you interface with government, the more you understand how dysfunctional and broken things are

in large cities.

It I always felt that the biggest benchmark for functionality

of an urban city is can you build a small and medium-sized business, particularly in things that have low buried entry, like a restaurant, right? So like if you have a passion to be able to cook, can you take that passion and that know how,

open up your doors, lease a business, lease a space, and then start providing for your community. Can you do that successfully?

“I'm not saying you need to be a multi-millionaire,”

but can you do it where you can feed your family? If you can't do that, then there's something deeply broken. And we learned our lesson the hard way in the Chicago Illinois that that just wasn't feasible. And we recently because of permitting?

Yeah, permitting high property taxes, COVID restrictions, just a dysfunctionality, crime, lawlessness, you name it. Minimum wage laws that don't make any sense that this that impact small businesses more than any impact large businesses, just fees to say open and sure that's a good list, that's a daunting list.

Yeah. Yeah. So from there, we started better. And now we want to solve the system and actually start to bring merit back to two politics. Yeah. So I started my own business to called two way. And every business is different,

but they've got overlapping, particularly if you're an entrepreneur, you're starting something new, you've got to figure out how to get well known, you've got to get into people's lives or partners and customers and clients. And right now, as you know, everybody says, well, how are you using AI? No matter what business you're in, people want to know how you're using AI.

And some businesses, I'm a student of how businesses do this, they'll put AI in their name or they'll put in on their website. We're AI driven AI first, but you actually, not only have AI in your name, but your company's in the AI business. It's not a feature of what you're doing to add on or tool.

It's the business you're in.

“And so how did a guy who run, ran gyms learn enough about AI to build a whole business on it?”

I've always been technical.

I've always been interested in tech.

more than it does in a tech side.

But I've always been technical.

I've invested in tech companies. I said on boards of some tech companies. So I've always had that know-how. And I've always been at the frontier of things. Like I mentioned, one of my core reasons of being alive is continually asking why.

And continued digging deep. So that naturally tends to be on the frontier of tech as well. So I started getting into large language models before they're even AI and started figuring out, OK, what is this thing? And before I dig into how we're using AI,

“I think it's really important for me to give you”

and your viewers a basic euristic of what I say when I say AI, because AI to me is like energy. And the question of is, how are you using AI? It's asking company, how are you using energy? Because AI is an umbrella term.

But just because you're using AI doesn't really mean much to me. Because what AI actually is is algorithms. And algorithms require two things. They require data. And they require instructions.

And when you're using-- when you talk to a general person on the street, and you say, hey, have you used AI? 90% of people will think of something like chatGPT, or probably Gemini, right? Those are two largest systems that consumers use.

The biggest problem is it's like--

the euristic always give to folks is if I ask my three-year-old

to make me cookies. And I could give her the best ingredients. And I could give her the best recipe. She would still not be able to make great cookies. But where the magic really happens,

and this is kind of where we get come in, is when you have somebody who is a Michelin star train chef, you give them the best ingredients on the world, and you give them the best recipe in the world, and they know exactly what to do with it.

So that's really how we leverage these systems. We're very similar to Palantir in a way, where we're not necessarily building our own large language models.

“I think that that starts to become a commodity”

as we start to-- these systems start to reach natural parity. I think give it a few years, and the capabilities for a cloud, Gemini, and Chatchipet will all be more or less the same.

How you use those systems and you apply to systems,

is really going to be the differentiator, and really what you need when you're using these systems is really robust data, and then really robust recipe or prompting. So when we're prompting these systems, our prompts aren't paragraphs long.

They're usually pages long. And instructions with specifically what we're looking for, specifically what we wanted to do. And then the data set isn't just one single sheet. It's a five gigabyte Excel sheet,

or we're telling exactly what to pull data from. And that's really what a magic happens. So Jeremy, I understood every word you said, but I wouldn't have three months ago, because I put in the time to talk about earlier

in the show to understand all this. Let's break it down a little bit more. And again, you did it, truly, you did a miraculous job, because you're so immersed in this, you're so expert, but you've learned to use your cooking metaphor

to try to bring people into this verse. You've got these two political clients. What other kind of clients do you have? Do you have corporations, governments? Who are your other kind of clients?

Mostly government agencies. We work with government agencies. Right now, to level set, we've only been in business since June of last year. So we're rapidly kind of scaling out, and we're telling the market is telling us what they need from us.

Right, we don't have a perfect point of view of like, this is what we're bringing to market. We're just generalists who know how to use these tools, and we want the market to tell us what they want to use the tools for. But yeah, so we serve the fore, if a politician comes to us,

more than likely what they'll need, or what they usually strategic firm for, typically, is polling. And then also understanding what messaging works, what messaging doesn't work. Where do I need to tweak, where's the opportunity?

What is my opponent saying that I need to attack those kind of things? But beauty about AI when you're looking at strategic intelligence, the human mind is great at reading, but there's only so many folks in politics that are very, very good at what they do.

The beauty about AI is I can take someone's brain who's very good at what they do, and then increase the aperture. Meaning I can increase the data points that they can take in, and by increasing the data points that they take in, and making sure the brain, the person who is or the AI that is analyzing those data points,

that reduces the margin of error. So one thing you've said, which is so intriguing to me, is that what you, the kind of stuff you do, is going to make political polling obsolete, right? Yeah, so let's do a hypothetical.

I want to run for mayor of Springfield, against the incumbent mayor, Quimbee.

“And I think that the key issue that I really care about is,”

I want to put a free root beer in all the waterfams. I want to know if that's popular. So if I was a traditional campaign, I'd go hire a pollster, and we'd ask 500 people in Springfield.

So would you be more likely to vote for a candidate who would free reaper in the waterfront? How does what you do? How do you accomplish the task to say,

“that's a good issue to run on against mayor Quimbee?”

Yeah, so I think there's a couple of things going on when we think about polling. Poling has this effect because there's a statistic that like, if something's been around for a very long time, people think that it's accurate and they trust it.

Poling's been around since the 1930s. It hasn't really changed very much since the 1930s. The biggest problem with polling in its current time is the fracturing of how people consume media and the fracturing of demographics on how we communicate about politics.

The second piece is, it doesn't take into account

the way you phrase a question. Right, so if the way you phrase a question, let's just say, I ask the question, like, do free reaper in the waterfront and stay with ban my hypothetical? Yeah, so what do you like root beer and would you like it

in the waterfronts or root beer has a weird flavor? Do you want it in the waterfronts? Right, so political framing when you actually are answering a question how to person feels, what happened? What they drank this morning and maybe you had,

you don't know their whole backstory. Right, so you're catching, capturing a moment in time if you can even get them on the phone. If they even answered a phone or SMS survey. So what we do is we take the totality of data points online

on radio and in TV.

Not just a snapshot on that specific time moment in time,

but the totality of like, call it two weeks, three weeks, four weeks, five weeks. We code every single one of those positive, negative, and then we code those deeper, joy, sadness, anger, disgust, those kind of things. Then we rank in order those for how important they are.

Right, so your voice would be a 10 out of 10. Somebody who was like, James Smith, one, two, three, four,

“with one follower on Twitter would be a one out of 10, right?”

So then we take those and then we have a really robust prompt that we prompt against that data set. So call it 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 different data points. We prompt against those data points that then give you a really concise answer on should you advocate on this issue?

Is that, that's going to be faster than doing a poll? It's going to be cheaper, it's going to be cheaper. Is it definitely more accurate?

Yes, it's how do you know who a likely voter is?

I know that polling attempt to find likely voter is a flawed process, but they're at least trying. Are you able to figure out, if you say, I want only the public sentiment to be measured amongst likely voters, can you do that? We can approximate for it, but no, we can't, right?

Like it's guesswork anyway. And any pollster that can tell you that they can add, that they can just focus on likely voters. The problem isn't necessarily focusing on likely voters. It's actually getting those people on the phone.

Right, so I think that's the biggest problem is getting the correct data set. If we're talking about 19, if I could go back in time into the time of the 1940s, 1950s, where people trusted institutions, where you could talk to your neighbor about politics,

where you could tell folks that I voted for Donald Trump, and they wouldn't care, or you wouldn't get that threat on line, where people answered their phones, those kind of that environment is much better for polling than the fragmented, biased, media sphere that we have today.

So it's very difficult to get at, get rough, really good answers. Are you able to say what you're doing for Steve Hilton, running out for Governor California? What are you providing for him

“that a traditional consultant or strategist couldn't do?”

So for Steve Hilton, all we're really providing for him, in a current partnership is partnering his Caldoge initiative. So we're not doing any actual true strategic work for Steve Hilton yet. We're just powering Caldoge, but for Wesley Hilton, Texas, what we do is,

we give him full sentiment breakdown, what's working, what messaging is working, and really in Texas is the perfect example. Depending on there was a Houston hobby poll that just came out that everybody is quoting, the Houston hobby poll was 500 likely voters,

likely voters, it was a general election poll, and it was 250 Republicans, 250 Democrats. I believe that had impacts in it, a 45% chance of winning, then the day before that, or a week before that, there was a poll that came out,

where that had Wesley Hilton tied with campaigns, then a day after that, there was a poll that came out that had John Cornin, tied with campaigns, and what Wesley Hilton last, the polls are over the place in the margin of error, and these things are five to six percent.

We historically back tested our polling strategy in a way that we would do things to a few past elections, and our margin of error was within one to two percent. So like, just those alone, the jury is out yet for the midterms, but we're quite confident of our math that's being better,

than traditional polling, because traditional polling in today's environment is essentially sticking your finger in the air, and saying, is it going to rain? As you deal, again, to harken back the themes I talked about in the beginning of the show, as you deal with the civilians in your life,

who don't understand it, who don't use it in anything

“but to do Google searches, what's your posture for it's them?”

Are you trying to bring them into the present future, or are you just hovering, saying, you're waiting them out until they figure it out? - My wife doesn't even understand what I do. It's so difficult, it's trying to explain Latin to someone

who has never even seen a Latin word, right?

So it's extremely difficult. They're just so much going on between what traditionally people think of as AI and what the systems that we're actually using. It's like if you were to walk down to street and you would ask a normal person what Palantir does, you probably would get,

maybe one out of a hundred, that would actually directly describe to you what exactly Palantir is. They just know that they track people and that they're supposed to be afraid of it, but they don't really understand what they do, because it's so difficult to explain.

- Yeah, all I know is one thing, either. I'm going to buy your company or your company, and we'll see what happens. I gave some tips in the first segment about how people can adapt to AI. You know, I know maybe you don't welcome all the competition,

but it can be one or two things you'd recommend people do if they want to become part of this tech technological cultural social revolution. Before I answer that question, by the way, I don't think this is a one.

“Yes, and we buy you or you buy us, I think it's we partner.”

- Okay. - We could do that too. - I think that's where we net out, because there's folks, you have decades of experience, and a lot you've forgotten more about this game, than we have even learned up to this point. That there's value there, and then taking AI and taking our systems

and being able to plug in someone like you into those systems, that is where the dynamite is, that is where the pure gold is. - All right, I'll come to Michigan webinar for you today. - Perfect. - All right, now give me just a close eye. Just tell me one or two things.

We didn't even get into the waste fraud and abuse stuff that you're doing, you'll come back, we'll talk about that. But just give me one or two things you tell people, they say, you know what, Jeremy, I saw you on next up. I really want to be more modern here.

I don't want to be left behind. What are some things you tell them to do? - Just start using it, and you view these systems, particularly chat bots. Open up, chat GPT, Gemini, whatever you have handy to. View them as natural language computers.

What do I mean by natural language computers? Just view them as a system, you can ask questions to, you can talk to, and don't be governed by like, this blank box idea.

“Just start asking it, you can ask it, hey, Gemini, what should I use you for?”

Or hey, Gemini, I give me some really cool ideas that I could use for my job,

or hey, Gemini, here's what I need to do, just help me figure things out.

Just start using them, and then the more you start using them, the more curious you get, and the more questions you can ask. So I just start using it, and I think the more you use it, the easier, the more you'll understand that these things can really be magical. - Yeah.

- If people want to follow your work, do you write, or you're active on social, how can people keep up with you in the company? - Yeah, yeah, so follow me on Twitter, or X now, Jeremy Underscore, is literally just it, my ads, Jeremy, just underscore. On Instagram, I'm Jeremy Underscore Retter,

R-H-E-T-O-R, our company website is whether R-H-E-T-O-R.A-I, and follow Cal Doge, that AI for the stuff that we're doing in California, and then we've also got some really cool stuff coming down the pike for, hopefully Michigan, and some national stuff in LA, and some really cool stuff coming down the pike.

- Who's got Jeremy with no underscore on Twitter? - I have no idea. - All right, I wish you the best of luck.

Again, I've always appreciated Audrey Pernerts and Small Business,

but now that I'm doing it myself, I just, I feel for you right there, and the fact that your wife has no clue what you're doing, is a daily challenge for me. - Jeremy, Jeremy Jones, co-founder of Retter AI, again, grateful to you for the time, and I'm cheering you on,

because you're trying to do something about the necessary and impossible at the same time. Thanks, wife, thanks for having me. - Thank you. - All right, next up, former South Carolina Congressman Joe Cunningham,

joins us along with White House correspondent Natalie winners. She's also the co-host of the War Room with Steve Bannon, Congressman Cunningham, Natalie winners, they're next up. - So here's the truth, half of all adults have high blood pressure, and most people don't feel it.

Until it becomes a real problem. February is American Heart Month, and if you fall in off a few New Year's resolutions, that's okay. This is a simple, measurable way to get back on track, and do something meaningful for your heart.

Listers get 20% off their entire order at 120life.com. Just use the code next up. One simple code, a perfect time to refocus, or help someone you care about, and take their heart health seriously.

Try and risk free for two weeks, and if your blood pressure doesn't improve, you get your money back. Nothing to lose, but higher blood pressure numbers, use the code next up today. All right, next up, and joining me now to solve all the world's problems,

former Democrat Congressman from South Carolina, Joe Cunningham, and the co-host Steve Bannon's War Room White House reporter, Natalie Winner, who's welcome to you both. Thank you for being here. - Thank you for having me.

- It's very hard to remember life on the National Town Square before Donald Trump ran for president in 2015, maybe particularly for you, Natalie. But for all of this, right, it's just so different. - You told me earlier than that,

is that what you're saying? - I, by a hair, by hair, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I would card you both just for the record. If I was trying to get into my tavern, I would card you both. - It's very ice-of-view.

(laughing) - Before Donald Trump, it's easy to overstate the changes. Before Donald Trump, the difference between the two parties on National Security and Foreign Policy, were kind of fudged up, because you had Democrats

who were less inclined to use force overseas. You had Republicans less inclined, and you had people in both parties who were different, the Neo-Cons and the Republican Party, but you had people like Bill Clinton as a president,

who was for using force overseas. So it's all a big jumble. And we're seeing it now in sharp relief. A lot of people in Magga are for no use of force any time, any place. A lot of people in the Democratic Party seem to have that point of view.

So, Natalie, how would you state the Republican position and maybe, and maybe with nuance, 'cause there is, on the use of American force?

“What the standard is for using American military force overseas now?”

- You know, I've been trying to answer that myself, and I think you have to unpack, that obviously Republican is not a monolithic term. I think you can sort of best understand it.

America first in Magga, maybe use the term Neo-Con,

or maybe Republican establishment. I think what President Trump in 2016 really tried to pull the party away from is maybe the differentiating factor, but frankly, in action, I think you're seeing what President Trump is doing as a little more in line with his predecessors.

I think where the actual distinction is more in the rhetoric, and whether it's rhetoric that you heard on the campaign trail, or rhetoric that you hear from President Trump, or you see in the tweets. But I also think that you even see it in the national defense strategy,

the national security strategy, right this idea of prioritizing the Western hemisphere, prioritizing our borders. And I think that would be this kind of primary calculus for how you would determine using force through at least

what the President has put out from a rhetorical and from a substantive policy perspective. But in effect, I'm not exactly sure of how Iranian regime change squares with that. So that's where maybe the constellation gets a little confusing.

But to me, putting America first is about restraint.

It's about prioritizing the homeland and understanding.

“Frankly, the Magga base, who I think defines it,”

which is they're tired of forever wars. They don't like seeing American blood and treasure be spilled, and soiled in battlefields that are much further away than our own border. So I think it's about priorities.

But I don't even know how to really answer that in the current landscape. - Congressman, I can't imagine, in any time soon, a President of either party putting American forces on the ground, or engaging in something that could be called nation building.

Am I right that there's a pretty broad national consensus now? You don't hear anybody in the national town square, they're really saying there should be American troops on the ground in Ukraine. Or if we're going to go after Iran,

there should be American troops on the ground. Is that a firm bipartisan consensus? - Yeah, I think so, Mark. As you're asking Natalie that question, I expect the same question of the democratic party

and sitting or thinking, I don't think either party has a really good, strong footing on national, on essentially where that red line is, and why you would send troops.

“But I think you're correct, this hesitation,”

I think, isn't, doesn't belong to exclusively to a political party. I think there's a generational hesitancy. You know, the people in my generation who have a little behind me who, you know, had colleagues or friends or maybe in family members

sin over to Iraq and Afghanistan. And so, there is a lot of reservation. I think it would take some very bold aggression towards Americans themselves in order to, you know, change the sentiment from where it is today.

- And by that one, I think maybe two things, one where the Trump administration's doing well, and why I think sort of means at least to me,

American, America, first foreign policy.

I do think you're seeing the Pentagon try to overhaul a lot of the kind of weapon purchasing orders, FMS processes. I think they're trying to collaborate more with defense tech, but I think it's sort of pushing a lot of the, you know,

conflict of boots on the ground that we're talking about

right, sort of what you see with Venezuela,

and I'm not just talking because that was done under drug authorities, but you see this sort of more precision strikes that don't even necessitate right deploying mass amounts of people. But conversely, I also think that something that I would argue were seeing a bit of straying away from,

“which is, I think, in addition to prioritizing the border here”

in the United States, I also think that countering the Chinese Communist Party and seeing them as the existential threat that they are, is a bedrock, not just of the economic policy, a president Trump, but of this sort of idea of what calculates, you know, how we calculate deploying,

trap it or deploying forces, deploying weapons, all that. And I think that that calculus, I think is sort of being thrown by the wayside

when a third of our military assets are being put in the Middle East,

when they're being put into St. Com and pulled from Indo-Paycom, that's something that I don't necessarily think falls under at least my understanding of America for a foreign policy. Now, you raised two of the issues I wanted to talk to you guys about them. And what one is high tech, right, if you can get AI and drones,

why do we need boots on the ground, right, and not in every scenario. And so, Congressman, let me ask you about that one, then I want to ask you both about China. Create a hypothetical, what's a hypothetical where a country could do

“something you talked about America being challenged?”

So, we put boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11. But I don't think that would happen now.

Can you invent a scenario where a country would do something

where the president of the United States, whether it's Donald Trump or AOC, or anybody, would send American personnel on the ground, not special ops, but a military mission, can you invent a country and what they would do that would cause us to do that? I mean, a terrorist attack on American soil, or 2,000 people,

lose their lives. I think, yeah, I think it's a very good chance. Why wouldn't we just bomb them? Why would we go in? Yeah, you know, it's up to military leaders.

There are a lot of things that we can done with drones and with AI. But there are still reconnaissance and things that you need just to have boots on the ground and people on the ground verifying sources, verifying information. Yeah, I had this discussion with, I had this discussion with board patrol a couple of years ago.

I was down there and they're, you know, they're talking about using drones and just to verifying, you know, heard or people are crossing over. And then they send out personnel or people on horses to find out, you know, it's wild animals or it's, you know, that their intel is bad. So, uh, if you're talking about on that scale of damage and uh,

the threat would have been pretty imminent or pretty serious in order to put boots on the ground. Um, okay, but I'll give you hypothetical. I'm trying to, I was trying to look up the name of the country, uh, the fake country and the Marks Brothers movies, like Fridonia or whatever it is. Some country, uh, it sends a terrorist United States kills 2,000 people, okay?

And they're located in, in Eurasia somewhere. I don't think any president today would think the right way to respond is to send the army on the ground. Again, special ops is different for intel and all that.

“I think they just bumble, what, what, what would the mission be?”

Because we're not going to go in there, take over the country in nation build. See what I'm saying, like, I just say it's a rooftop limit. I get your point that Americans or have a, have a lot less appetite for democracy building in, in part of the world. Um, however, you know, if you're talking about a direct attack on our country and on Americans,

which can be during the directly linked back to, uh, a government entity, uh, I think that changes the calculus. You got to remember how, you know, you know, I remember this. Now, it leads to, um, uh, the swell of patriotism that came after a 9/11. Not, uh, Bush had a 92% approval rating because there was this common enemy.

If it's rogue agents or rogue actors, they aren't directly linked to a country. I think it's different as opposed to a government sponsored terrorist. Right, but, but, but just take, forget the hypothetical, turn the clock back. 9/11 happens. A President Bush, I think today because of public opinion, not just within the Republican Party, but broadly, would say go, go bomb, go bomb Afghanistan, go bomb, go bomb,

go bomb Baghdad. Don't don't send grand forces. What's their mission? We should know that, uh, then, though, Mark, because of Russia's failure at another failure. Of course, uh, and in, in Afghanistan, you know, you would think, but, um, you know, we don't have the best students of, of history, um, in government and politics. And so, yeah, um, you know,

except for, except for rescuing hostages, I just American hostages. I just don't see a President any time soon saying we're going to put thousands, tens of thousands. The board, the board is definitely higher. Yeah, I agree there. Natalie China, uh, there was a period after, there's a famous photo of a

you know, with champagne. Uh, and that photo showed up in a lot of democratic ads. This, you know, early 90s saying, you know, uh, you shouldn't be, uh, you know, celebrating with the chai-com. Uh, then we went through this period where the Democrats in particular were really reluctant to be seen talking kindly to the Chinese. And every time Joe Biden said, uh, oh, I'm friends with Xi. We used to go to Iowa together, uh, a lot of Democrats cringe. Donald Trump's,

talks about Xi all the time as his friend. He, he's planning very warm summits with him this year. Natalie, what is the, again, just talk about magma for a minute. Why is magma not saying,

“how are you, Mr. President, if you want to be true to America first, stop paling around with the”

chai-com? I mean, tell me about it. This is a question. I've been asking myself, and, you know, I think even to link this to what you were talking about before, even I think this kind of military adventurousism in all these countries, whether it's Venezuela or the previous Iran strikes, you know, both of those countries use Chinese air defense systems. And we basically revealed that we have the ability to, you know, conveniently turn those off and fly very stealthily into these

countries into these regions. That's the same air defense system that, you know, China uses it in their own country, which I think is very relevant when it comes to the country. Yeah, for the

potentially maybe kinetic flashpoint that I do think the PRC always prefers the gray zone hybrid,

a sort of unrestricted, warfare toxic tactics. Of course, when it comes to Taiwan, you know, I think if you follow, unfortunately, the donors, this special interest, I think the fact that magma has become a very big tent movement, right? You'll lot of big tech interests, which it's no secret that they just care about market access and profit. And I don't think that they're

“understanding of the Chinese Communist Party is the same as true magma in the same way that I think”

you saw that spat about H1BV says and what it means to be an American citizen. I don't really think that they view America as a country that needs to be defended against, against Chinese communist party, you know, economic warfare, which is what it is. They're okay with inviting the PRC and if they

can just make more, more profit. But I do think, Mark, the other key point here, even if President

Trump wanted to take the very harsh approach that he did in Trump want, and at least prior to COVID, he doesn't have that luxury, right? When you look at the rare earth and critical mineral shortages, not just because post-COVID, right, essentially under Biden, China launched a full-scale assault to industrially build up and take over, at least from a state-owned perspective, rare earths, not just the actual procurement of these rare earths, but the processing of it, right? They own

upwards of 90 percent. It's a very large monopoly. And we've seen them really use that, like President Trump calls the nuclear option. So even if we want to do all these things on trade and Taiwan and, you know, send them weapons, which as we saw, very recently, we're just, you know,

basically cancel because apparently now we ask our enemies what kind of weapons we consent to

“Taiwan. The rare earths, I think, are a very strong cultural that the PRC has that weren't as”

sharp last time around, so I think that's also a big shifter of dynamics. Joe, there's a contrast between President Trump's warm rhetoric about Xi and the Chinese to one of the very few bipartisan things in Capitol Hill today. There's a bipartisan anti-China group of Democrat and Republican co-chairs, Rokana just took over for the Democrats. They're extremely, they're, they're press releases read like something from the Cold War. They're extremely hostile to China. They're extremely

concerned about the existential threat from China. How did those two co-exist? You've got this bipartisan strategy? I mean, I hope, I would hope with President Trump to be something along the old edge of, you know, keep your friends close but your enemies closer. You know, the, is a law, it's been a long run in sentiment that China is the largest threat to the United States of America long term. They've been building up their navy, building up their forces, their army. I mean,

that is, is the long term threat. And so keep an eye on that ball. I think it's, it's very prudent and it just seems that, you know, politicians may have a different way of dealing with it, whether it be, you know, out in the open or in the back rooms. But acknowledging the threat that they pose long terms, the safety and security United States, I think it's paramount. Yeah, I don't want to overstate President Trump's posture. He certainly is wary of the Chinese.

They certainly are not given away the store. But just the, this, the prospect of a friendly summit not that long ago would have been unthinkable. Joe Biden wouldn't have, wouldn't have done that. And like cameras in the room, because he would have taken heat from, from people in his own party in the right. I want to sneak in one topic because we're talking a lot about AI this episode. The AI outfits are in the politics business now. And they're giving, they're starting to give

tens of millions of dollars meta is giving, they just announced millions of dollars to, um,

now November, they'll just keep putting money in. Because for them, it's a tiny bit of money

to try to get candidates who are for what they're for. I'm not a big believer in restricting money in politics. I just think it's both unconstitutional and impossible. But Congressman, if you're a citizen, should you be wary of these, these massive companies spending massive

“amounts of money in this campaign? Is that something the public should be concerned about?”

Well, yeah, a thousand percent, I think the public should be very concerned with, you know, the, the threats of AI, but particularly social media has, again, so are most vulnerable in society, our children. So I've been following, you know, the cases out California actually have a case where a client mind was a victim of sex distortion. What these companies are doing, I think there's, there's a reckoning that's coming in the future. And I think they, they realize that they,

they realize that doing way to try to, to work that is try to, to play in politics and doing a huge sums of cash. But, you know, the impact social media has had on our children and this next generation. And the, you know, unlimited impacts that AI might have is probably pushed them off the sidelines and into politics in order to protect their own interest. Natalie, you know, I like to analyze Matt Magga and this sort of crudest and, and most superficial terms. On the one hand, you've got

a love of free markets and a love of, of a, of a low regulation and American exceptionalism in business. And we're, we're number one in the world in AI. On the other hand, Magga doesn't like corporate or any special interests trying to use money to influence public policy. So, the, the magazine to me, and Steve Sachs, David Sachs seems wide open on this and totally no one's, and the administration's going to care. But do you think, Matt, anybody in Magga cares that you're going to see corporate

interests with totally self interest? We, we want a certain public policy outcome. So, we're going to make sure people who agree with us get elected. Well, that caused any alarm in Magga.

“Well, of course. And I think even start back at square one. I don't think AI is a who”

commonly popular among the, now in the base. And I think there's sort of smeared as maybe lot of heights for not embracing the new technology. But I think they have a lot of valid questions. I think you see it flare up and, you know, like the, the topics that, you know, Joe is talking about whether it's social media or these sort of, you know, one-off cases where something really horrible happens. But I think what you're talking about is sort of the changing of the fabric of

life as we know it. The potential for being replaced by robots. They always seem to use this stuff to

push, you know, more immigration and bringing in a bunch of tech workers. So, I don't think the Magga base is sold on this at all. I think it's one of the other sort of friction points that I think you're seeing the, you know, original diehard Magga base, more kind of the boomer demographic, not really embracing this, but of course, as you know, it's a tale as old as time these companies pouring, pouring money in. But I, I'm really curious what exactly the regulation it is that

they're, that they're targeting, what they want to kind of open up because it seems like they've

“enjoyed a pretty wide runway thus far, at least from from the White House. I think they've”

demonstrated that they're very pro AI, you know, whatever it means, it's such a monolithic term, but what exactly does they're seeking? Mark, there's a bit, no, I'm just going to say, and their issues don't seem to be dominated by specific parties. It seems to be going some Democrats and some Republicans. It relates to either regulation of AI or holding the social media companies accountable for the damage they're doing. Yeah, it seems like they're going to hedge

their bets in part because a lot of corporate interests do in general and because while the Republicans seem more open to unfettered development of AI, Democrats may be in the majority, certainly in the House and and and and and maybe even now in the Senate. And so they don't want to be given all their money to Republicans and then have to deal with the next Congress where it's controlled by Democrats. I think you also want, because they want a government bill out too. I

think if you look at the models, right, the financing, what they're projected about valuations are even Sandaltman is on the record. How long ago saying they want taxpayers to subsidize it. So I think part of it is the regulation aspect, but I think part of it's fiscal to 100% agree.

Two closing questions for you both on AI. First, between now and the 2028 presidential election,

which party will do a better job of benefiting from AI, both as a receiver of campaign countries, but also using the technology to help them win elections. Democrats, Republicans, or too soon to say slash, knowing neither party will have an advantage. So shut up, put in chat, GPT and see what it says. Mark, I'd be interested to know. I got to get idea. Why you guys answer, I'll do that. I can't stay, I can't stay which party would be more beneficial. My gut tells me

Republicans will benefit more from campaign contributions. If more Democrats are a vocal about

young kids, my gut seems to tell me it would be Republicans because of historically the lack of regulation. Do you think the Democrats have a better chance to use it better as a campaign tool for

“this? I think this is a huge kids table issue. I think that anybody who's not, you know, the social media band,”

I think is a no-brainer. I'm glad you know, the soul of Rommet Manual came out for it. I think that for parents who are trying to raise kids in this age right now, the biggest threats that kids are facing right now are not on playgrounds and they're on street corners. They're back in their bedrooms on their tablets and on their iPhones. It's a new day. It's a new age and the politicians who quickly put their finger on the post. I think we're going to control the narrative and be

decisive in elections. Yeah, so now I guess the conversation's right. There's really at least three dimensions here for the parties. One is campaign contributions. One is how they use it as a campaign tool and the third is how they talk about it as an issue. So if you put all those on the blender, do you think either party between now and 2020, it is poised to have an advantage because of the use of

“AI? I think Republicans will definitely get more cash. But I do think the Democrats are already sort of”

integrating AI into a lot of their protest infrastructure. I was actually just working on a story about how they're using it to sort of train protestors, distribute information and materials. I think that's a very interesting and very rapidly developing nexus between AI and on the street

activism. I also think that the social media game I think they're always better at organizing.

Then I also think too that the AI has always been the backbone for a lot of it's this concept of social listening, where a lot of these social media platforms use it to gather trends and to see what people are talking about historically. It's been used for a censorship program as government funded ones. But I do think that you have the potential to see AI be able to sort of widely scale the ability to really target voters. In my opinion, I'm biased, but I do think Democrats

are better at doing that. I'm so curious to know how Charlie Kirk would be using AI right now and what he thought of it because obviously he was always interested in the next big thing. Lastly, 20 years from now, Natalie, we'll say about America's kids that AI made them better off

“or worse off 20 years from now. Would you guess? Well, I think it depends how the AI race shapes up”

with China. It's why I would not want to send the H200 ships over there. I think if our AI systems I think if they're regulated well, I think it's too soon to tell. I think they would give us a leg up. I don't think we want to be a country that's not using AI. Other countries are. But on the other hand, I think it sort of reshaped sort of means to be a human as we know it. These sort of narrowly cyborg things. So who knows what childhood will even be them? Congressman, are you bearish

or bullish on America's AI future? I think there'll be some growing pains in the beginning, but

who is it said that America always does the right thing after a stride everything else? I think

we'll find our footing and our decent growing pains, but eventually we'll get it right. It happens back to the invention of the internet, which was supposed to be the doomsday for traditional learning and kids and they went learning anything anymore. But we kind of adapt. We always adapt. The important thing is to put the guardrails in place to protect our most vulnerable. I think according to AI, that quote about America always doing the right thing in the end,

it's either Winston Churchill or Winnie the Pooh. It'd be a very grateful to you both, Natalie and Congressman, a really grateful to have you on wonderful conversation and just inside jugged neither of you gets opinion out of it, but you both did great. Thank you for being here. All right, that's it for today's program. We'll be back here. I'll be in the chair on Tuesday, brand new episode of Next Up. If you're at this weekend, you're spending time with your friends,

your family. Don't be shy. Tell them that you'd like them to become an extra two and tell them how they can join our community and invite them so they can keep growing our conversation here. And of course, growing our numbers. We're going to business here. Make sure you're subscribed to Next Up on YouTube. Everywhere you get your podcast, new content coming outside the four episodes a week,

and we'd love you to be able to enjoy it all in a timely fashion, so you always know what's coming.

Next Up.