Overtime – Episode #740: Byron Donalds, Molly Jong-Fast, Michael S. Roth

Mama." All right, here we are. I know it's time that the president of West Virginia University and author of The Student of Florida history, Michael Slaw, is the Republican Congressman from Florida and States.

The urban editorial can't make up a percent of the environment.

“I think he's the host of the fast politics pilot.”

Podcasts of the author. I don't lose your mother and I don't deserve no more. Well, he's gone fair. All right, here are the questions from the people.

What's the panel's reaction to meta reaching a $18 billion settlement?

Yes, mentioned in the monologue. A routine social media addiction is social media, the new big tobacco woe. Yes, I mentioned that too. Very akin to that. Finally, putting a flag down and saying, no, you cannot with impunity, just a dick

people, especially children, because that was an issue with tobacco. Remember, Joe Campbell. And now I don't think it goes very far this thing, but it's a beginning, right? Yeah, you're an anti-regulation guy, and I'm no fan of regulations most of the time. Well, I'm not an old regulation guy, I live in California, so I bet you're about

regulation, which we have way, way, way to come to drugs and addiction. Oh, that's I'm good on that. So, here we have it, and incredibly addictive product, and holding these companies to account for getting kids hooked very early on the stuff is so important, and I'm glad we're going in that direction.

Imagine how bad that trial was going to be that better settled, like imagine, because they settled, because they didn't want to go to trial. So it must have been so bad the stuff that they were going to present, and it means they're going to have, I mean, these, this, remember, they're going to have many more settlements like this, and there are many more plaintiffs, and there are like, you know, there's

kids, but there's also like the rosé in Jerusalem. This was not every state, but it was a lot of state. It was $18 billion, which it takes them 33 days to make. Right. Yeah.

Look, I think it's just up in the right direction. The apps are very addicting. There's no doubt about that, and it's not just kids and adults, too. The amount of doom scrolling that occurs. First thing in the morning, when people get up, last thing before they go to sleep, you

know, all through the day, I think it's something where you talked about our politics early, it's not just politics, culture, it's everything, where people are really being focused into their corner of the world, based upon their own private algorithm, and that is somewhat destructive of Western civilization. But this is Congress's fault, right?

They never regulated any of this.

They never regulated Facebook at all. I mean, this week, they got us here, and by the way, this has killed local news.

“I mean, these big companies, like they could have said, you know, you have to be connected”

to a local news source. You have to have fact tracking. They never said any of that. I mean, they have, there's been no regular news. The local news killed local news.

Yeah. I am not mourning the death of local news. What? We're talking about local news is how you keep power to account in places like all the news. The news is bullshit about how to park, carve a pumpkin and, you know, at local news

is bullshit. Where did it start? The weather girl and retagly aglow at their sports and, you know, you watch, but I know you watch it, I don't know why the girl is supposed to be, what about the holding the congressmen to account or the state representative, and that's only going to happen at

the local level. It's not going to happen. Well, I agree. Right. Right.

Well, I don't know. I think right now, with social media has its problems, we all understand that. But in this environment, everybody having access to just about any piece of information, true or not is a side point. There's more information flowing through everybody's phones today than you could ever

get off of the six o'clock news or waiting for the Saturday evening post.

And I think more information is always better for people, not less, but you can't have

an algorithm that just traps you in with with impunity. And I think that's the issue we're seeing in this case, and we'll see where it goes. You just don't want it to be true. Yeah. I wanted to be true, but I rather have all the information as opposed to one news anchor

or one frankly, one editor telling me what's true through their own eyes. It's impossible. And in this current atmosphere we live in, I'd never believe anything I read just from that one thing I read, because it's sad. You can't.

Access community notes. And I think community notes, I don't want to compliment acts here, but community notes works pretty well. Well, then compliment is the one. You just don't want to.

You just don't want to. I think that's right. Yeah, I'm doing it, but I don't want to. But I don't want to.

“Why love when you can hate, that's what I say.”

Anthropics CEO Dario Mode, I, the only guy with a conscious in that field, says that AI could make it possible to cure most human diseases within five to ten years.

what it will taste. He said this week. Bill Gates.

I've been saying this, and I'm, I'm the prophet.

I'm just quoting the people when I sound the alarm about AI that said it ten years ago, like Musk and the father of Jeffrey Hinton, who in some ways have forgotten what they said ten years ago. I don't know if it's the money or whatever, but I'm on the page that this is really dangerous.

And Bill Gates this week said we are crossing thresholds that the industry is not doing enough, they are not taking it seriously how bad this could be. This is Bill Gates, so it's not my field, but it is his.

“And I think it's great he's weighing in on this, because I do think it's a problem.”

He's talking about not just the fact that it may take so many jobs that we just reorder society and what do we do then when people don't have anything to do. But also biological warfare, the fact that when they run tests against what humans would do in a certain situation, the robots much more go for nuclear war than the humans do.

Humans are pretty bad, but somehow they've avoided it since 1945. I'm not so sure the robots will. Have a good weekend. [laughter] Anyway, the question is, is the potential upside of AI worth the risks?

Well, I think the potential upside is enormous, but the risks are existential. And I think that the curing diseases, everybody can clap their hands. But as you said, creating diseases that's the problem and automatic weapons with nuclear warheads is just becomes ever more likely when machines are making those decisions. If anybody should like it, it's us because we're going to need it sooner than you

too. The curing diseases part.

Yeah, I think the answer is yes.

Thanks a lot.

“Are there rules that are needed, absolutely, and this is why I think states are probably”

going to step up and do regulations faster than the feds ever could, because you've got to get that through the United States Senate and good luck with that one, especially with the dynamics we have right now. But I think, yeah, it's a force multiplier. It does allow for advanced and semedical research, you know, people are now finding fraud

and government programs. Why? Because they're using AI to do that. We've never had the manpower to scrub these programs to whether they're doing so quickly now.

It does save resources, but in part, that gene is out the bottle now. It's what are you going to do to regulate it, to make sure that kids are protected, name image of likeness is protected, and there is protections of just a human experience overall. I think that's going to be the next big step going forward.

Okay. Molly, a recently wrote about classic surgery, could we see a beauty gap in our society in the future, between those who are going to forward it, ah, and those who can't. Uh-huh. I see two Americans on that looks good, and one that doesn't.

[ Laughter ] Four. One that looks their age, and one that looks ageless. And I think that it's the forever 35 face. And in fact, it's already here, women who make over 400,000 dollars a year.

Some number, like that, you know, about half of them, maybe more, do some kind of classics surgery. But the child, you know, friend Leibwoods had the great line on this year to go. She said, "Who looks at some in 70 who said plastic surgery and goes, "Who's that 35-year-old brother?"

[ Laughter ] I mean, look, I think the older, what we have, which is cool from a feminist point of view, is we have older women in movies, in television, in a way we didn't 20 years ago.

Now, the problem is, they don't really get to look like older women.

They sort of have to look like older women who really look kind of like younger women. And so, I think it's -- You look like older women who had plastics surgery. Right, exactly. [ Laughter ]

This is -- we're not in -- maybe A.I. will fix this, but that's what it is. I mean, that's what it is. And I don't -- I always want to ask the question when people do anything to themselves. You know, bigger tips, whatever it is. I don't know why I looked at you, doctor, but I didn't do that.

No, no, not you. But like, like, did you think this true, like, how would this actually connect to my life is better? Like, okay, I saw one of the Kardashians the other day on TMZ saying she wanted bigger tips.

She's got big tips. Okay. You're a billionaire. You're dating a movie star. You've got big tips.

What will the bigger tips?

“Like, where is the connection to my life is better because I did this?”

[ Laughter ] I mean, like, you did it, right? How is it connected to making your life better? Well, I think that a lot of people, you watch television a lot of actresses, a lot of television personalities have all had positive tips.

Yeah, I didn't get television.

Or I agree.

And a lot of times when we write about that and I've written about this.

So the times is that we write about a very pejorative way that's kind of misogynistic. Or we say plastic surgery.

“And the truth is, they do it because there's a lot of pressure to not look -- to not look old.”

I don't care. That's up to other people. That's up to you. That's what you're going to do with your money. Do that with your money.

Let's just, you know, not my deal. But I think if we are -- I mean, if you're going to go into like a feminist thing here, if we're going to do plastic surgery, I think we should be honest about it because otherwise we're setting up a sort of unrealistic sense of how people age. I got one five.

Michael, what is the impact of the Trump administration cutting federal funding for research at universities? Well, again, there's an example of sometimes the idea has merit and then the execution. I don't know how that fights what we were talking about. You're funding to a scientific disease. Why do that?

Well, because the Trump administration is making Warren civil society. They've gone -- gone after entertainment shows. They've gone after newspapers. They've gone after law firms. They've gone after schools.

Not because they're trying to protect Jews or because they're upset about free speech. They want loyal institutions. And so to protect Jews at a Harvard, they cut scientific research to make Brown do more work with the community. They find them tens of millions of dollars without hundreds of millions of dollars.

“And I think the point is, we can push you around and make you obey our rules.”

And that's going to decimate scientific research in this country.

Well, what is the endowment of Harvard, like $50 billion?

So they cut funding there. What is the argument of people who say really Harvard couldn't it took it out of that pocket and made up for it? I don't know how much they cut, but whatever it is, that $50 billion in downwind couldn't have made up this road for.

No, it can. You can only spend a certain amount from your endowment every year. But in this case, they have a scientist with a contract to do research on Alzheimer's disease. He's been awarded a grant by another group of scientists. And the administration just says, "We're not going to pay you because we don't like the way you're behaving."

And that should scare us all. It's just like hanging out with a researcher. Are we talking about the university? It's not paying the researcher. But is it about what the university is doing?

“Or is it about what the researchers research is about?”

It's about what the university is doing, what they punish the research. And hospitals and scientists. My only point is, if the university has set up a culture where kids are actually not getting education that makes them economically viable, then why is the federal government continuing to pump money into that university? Because we're already seeing the frustrated with frustration with young people all across this country.

They went and got the degree that was the social contract that they went to the real world and realized that the money they make in the real world was not worth the money they paid for the piece of paper from the university. And it's frustrated a lot of people. It has, but all the statistics show that if you don't have a college degree, your chances for economic success are much less. Yes.

And the schools he's punishing, but their graduates are not in that category. But he's also, but this is about scientific research in hospitals that are in the university. So this is nothing to do with students. This is you're doing cancer research in a lab at Harvard and Elon Musk. The richest man in the world with doge decides he's going to cut NIH funds.

And they're like, "We're sorry. We can't pay for your research anymore." And that researcher is going to.

Who can we acknowledge this is the same NIH that was investing in other research that shut down half the basically entire planet?

Could we acknowledge that? No. You don't acknowledge it. We don't acknowledge that the NIH is funding data research. Again, a function research.

I do not believe the NIH cause cause. So then, why did Fauci plead the law of 100 over 10 times? And is that the NIH cause cause? Wait a second. We don't know that.

If COVID came from a lab, and that lab was in Wuhan, which is coincidentally. Right? Where the disease started? Of course it could have come from that lab. And of course that lab has been linked to gain of function research.

If the evidence comes out that the NIH cause COVID, okay. But it hasn't yet. We can say the NIH called it. I said the day not funded. There's a two different things.

Okay. But I'm just saying the cutting cancer research in America has nothing to do with who may or may not be responsible for. All I'm saying is we cannot sit here with a blind eye and assume that every grant that was issued by NIH.

But because we do know that there are programs that have been funded that actually have not worked in the interest of the United States.

So why would we continue to fund that? Well, we'll grant that the rule now. That's why that should be honest.

“What's important to note is that when people get their grants canceled today, they let or it doesn't say because it's not in the interest of the American people or the country.”

You are research no longer aligns with the priorities of the president. Yeah. That's what it says. And that should write in all Americans. Yes.

But on this very specific issue. Happy to see you now alone. I like that. This is a real thing. Gain of function.

If you don't know what we're talking about. The gain of function is when you purposely soup up a bacteria or a virus that you're studying to make it worse.

Because maybe it will get there on its own.

Maybe it will evolve to that place on its own. So you want to see in the lab whether what we could get ahead of this. Okay. There's an argument to do that. But if it escapes the lab, which absolutely may have what happened there.

Obama was very much against doing this. But they were still doing it. Gain of function is a real thing. And it may look like it was a very, very bad call in the future. So I don't know how much the NIH is directly responsible for that.

But they had their finger in that pie. So I don't know why we have to like pretend that that's not true. That's not true. And even still you wouldn't want to cut the researchers. Again, I said two different issues.

Last question.

A new study finds that at least one in four NFL players get the brain disease CTE.

Yes. I mean, this is sad and football season is starting. Whoo. Should parents allow their children to play well. That's parents.

But is this an exit? Look, I've covered this issue before. I watched the games. The players love playing. You know.

It's their choice. I'm a libertarian on things like this.

“If you want to do that and you know what the risks are.”

We didn't know the risks until this week. One in four. The one in four is shocking to people. And believe me, the players know the players. Because they talk to each other.

The ones who still can. But I think one of the interesting things is. They know the risks. One of the interesting things in the research is much of the damage is done in practice. So there are ways that you can mitigate those risks and still have football.

Much of the damage to the head is done in the multiple hits you take in practice. And so many college campuses today, they're changing the way we practice because the people want to play the game. They know the risks. They choose to play the game.

But you can do it more safely. I agree with it. Look, my three sons all played football. My oldest played college football. The practices have changed drastically for one.

My oldest started in pop Warner.

“I think when he was around 12 or so, the NFL came down with some of the first”

concussions work and they were changing the way they taught tackling and pop Warner. So that kids were not leading with their head the way they were. One of the things we started to find though is that there were more concussions in youth soccer than youth football. Because kids are running around their head and parents think, "Oh, it's safe.

It's easy." But there's no head protection in youth soccer. And you're heading and you're just jumping in the air and they're all colliding. But at the end of the day, players want to play. You know, my son wanted to play.

So as a parent, you just make sure he's aware of the information. But that's what he wants to do. He wants people to watch. That's right. That is, you know.

Yeah, that's how you use this person. All right, thank you. Everybody. Thank you. Thank you.

[applause] Hatch-O-New episodes of Real Time with Bill Mar every Friday night at 10. Or watch a many time on HBO on the Moon. For more information, log on to HBO.com. Larry David is back in their new HBO original Limited Series.

What a pleasure to be a part of such a historic occasion. Life, Larry, and the pursuit of unhavenous and almost history of America. This is a declaration of common sense. Those who don't know history. You are the world's worst butterchannel.

Our doom to watch Larry David repeated it. What the hell is going on here? Watch life, Larry, and the pursuit of unhavenous. Now streaming on HBO Max. Subscribe to no choir as an HBO Max.com for details.