ChristiTutionalist Politics | Christian Perspectives on Constitutional Issues
"ChristiTutionalist (TM) Politics" podcast (CTP). News/Opinion-cast from Christian U.S. Constitutional perspective w/ Author/Activist Joseph M. Lenard.
Intersection of Activism, American Values, Commentary, Community Engagement, Faith / Religion, Human Nature, News, Politics, Social Issues, and beyond
Exploring more of the world of fascinating Guests, Health, Human Nature, Music / Movies, Mysterious, Politics, Social Issues, and much more
- SUBSCRIBE to CTP: https://tinyurl.com/SubscribeToCTP
- Joseph M Lenard - https://linktr.ee/jlenarddetroit
ChristiTutionalist Politics | Christian Perspectives on Constitutional Issues
CTP (S3E110) AI's Existential Threat and Who Pays When AI Steals Our Ideas?
"GIVE FEEDBACK (no-reply-text (2-way comm: https://JosephMLenard.us/contact))"
CTP (S3E110) AI's Existential Threat and Who Pays When AI Steals Our Ideas?
Exploring more of the fascinating intersection of Activism, Community Engagement, Faith / Religion, Human Nature, Politics, Social Issues, and beyond
The AI revolution has arrived with predictions of 50% of white-collar jobs disappearing by decade's end, raising critical questions about copyright law, economic stability, and societal transformation.
• Congress is ignoring critical updates needed for copyright laws in the age of AI
• AI acts as an advanced search engine that aggregates information without attribution
• Users may be liable for plagiarism when using AI-generated content without proper citation
• The "black box" nature of AI systems makes proving copyright infringement extremely difficult
• Without jobs and income, consumers disappear, leading to economic collapse
• AI's deflationary effect could make goods cheaper but requires careful economic transition
• Our society is becoming "post-literate" with declining attention spans and less engagement with complex ideas
• Self-reflection is needed to guard against intellectual laziness and devaluation of human creativity
Welcome to the Constitutionalist Politics Podcast, aka CTP. I am your host, joseph M Leonard, and that's L-E-N-A-R-D. Ctp is your no-must, no-fuss, just-me-you-can-occasional-death-type podcast. Really appreciate you tuning in. As Graham Norton will say, let's get on with the show. Appreciate you tuning in, graham Norton will say let's get on with the show. Hello everyone, welcome to another episode of Chris Tattuccio's Politics Podcast. Got my notes here Today, saturday July the 26th, is what I've got written down here for my notes season three, episode 110.
Speaker 1:It will be a guest well, kind of sort of a guest appearance rather than a monologue A discussion I had with Cameron of the Cameron Journal show which aired Monday July the 7th show which aired Monday July the 7th. So I'm kind of repackaging it, repurposing it with permission. Thank you very much, cameron and crew, for allowing me to download that episode and you know I'll edit out the irrelevant to this audience's part where I talk about me. You think you know about me. If not, go back to season one, episode one introduction, to learn about me. At any rate, here we go with a cut up of the Cameron Journal where he and I were talking about AI. So this is a quasi-follow-up to discussions I've had with others regarding AI Versus, as a former IT guy, to talk.
Speaker 2:AI? Yes, well, and we should turn our attention to that. So why don't we get it? So let me set the scene for everybody, because there's been. We're recording this on the 30th of May 2025. This will not come out for a while yet, but this morning on on Twitter, the shit has hit the proverbial fan when it comes to job losses from AI and everyone's kind of got their hair on fire a little bit today. So it's kind of apropos that we're recording this now.
Speaker 2:So people are starting to realize software companies have slowed down or quit hiring, especially for junior roles.
Speaker 2:They're predicting 50% of entry-level jobs are going to disappear, which is someone who went through the great financial crisis, I know how devastating that can be for young people trying to get a career off the ground. You have senior devs that are trying to turn, that are trying to make a version of themselves and clone themselves. There's a lot happening right now. There's a lot of predictions saying by the end of this decade, 50 percent of white collar work will no longer exist. So there's there's a lot of dialogue happening right now and then you know everyone's saying, ok, well, I guess, we guess we'll, all you know, be in the trades and everything. And then someone says not, with elon's new humanoid robots that are already working in amazon factories and all this type of thing. You know that may get a five-year extension, because working in the physical world is very difficult, but it won't be too much longer before a lot of those jobs go away as well. So what have we learned from all of this? This is no longer theoretical, it's here and we briefly discussed this.
Speaker 1:I co -host of Savaged Unfiltered. As I mentioned, you were a guest on Savaged Unfiltered and we touched on a little of this there, so this is almost a follow-up episode.
Speaker 2:Yes, yes, I actually kind of forgot that. I thought I recognized you and I didn't know from where. Um, so thank you and so, uh, yes, yes, so that's very, very good. So so then, we should then kind of turn our attention to you're talking about ai, copyright law, all this type of thing, which is all getting very muddy and some, well, we should just get rid of copyright in general, and I'm kind of like, well, that's a nice idea is, if you don't produce anything intellectual, you know sort of thing for you know, for the rest of us that do that and that's our business. This is an existential threat, sort of thing.
Speaker 2:So, understanding that things with AI are getting very real right now, and in January of my 2025 trends report, I said this is the year the AI rubber hits the road. If they can figure out how to solve business problems and create business cases, then AI will move forward. Otherwise, it probably won't. It looks like they're solving the problem and AI is moving forward. So that's the scene, that's the milieu and zeitgeist we're in. Where are you with all of this? What's, what's the latest problem with ai, besides taking all of our jobs that we must worry about?
Speaker 1:from the writing and research and thesis papers, our kids in school aspect of it. Indeed, I wrote at beforeitsnewscom and thelibertybeaconcom a piece AI and the Law, and the basis of why I'm here is indeed that Congress, democrats and Republicans alike and Republicans alike this is not a partisan thing are ignoring, as they too often do, a situation until it turns critical. They are not updating the copyright laws, the fair use law if you're familiar with that trademark, even infringement potentials, because kids are just and and teachers know this they're just going to ai, whatever bot, and saying I need a paper on such and such and such and it's spewing it out and they're basically plagiarizing what ai gave them and calling it their own. That's plagiarizing what AI gave them and calling it their own. That's plagiarism. That's a violation. Now, the terms of service of your AI service might say, yes, you can use this, but just the moral dishonesty of trying to claim it as your own, let alone the legality that hasn't been cleared up of that plagiarism, is an issue.
Speaker 1:Now, I use AI. At times. Every word of my books are me. I wrote them. None of it, none of it is AI. None of it. None of it is AI. I use AI times, online, online articles, and if I do that, I disclaim that I've used Galaxy AI.
Speaker 1:Galaxy AI created this picture. Galaxy AI created that summary of a video. I did right. I am giving proper accreditation and that's the key word here, because AI is what? Really? A fancy search engine. It's just an aggregator of information that it is pulling and pulling information that it is pulling and pulling. Now, if AI lifts person X saying Y about Z and you're researching subject Z and writing a paper, and the AI gives you the Y quote, but not in quotes and not accrediting person X, x and you use it in a paper guess what? Your name's on it, you're the one guilty of copyright violation and plagiarism, unless it falls under fair use. So if you don't see why a and at least say this article in whole or in part, partially produced through Galaxy AI or Brock or, you know, google, whatever, you're on the hook. Just like the Chrisleys were just pardoned for tax evasion, well, your name is the one on the end of the, at the bottom of the tax return. You hire them to help you, but you, you are the one on the hook.
Speaker 2:I think the difficult I mean I think I think there's two difficulties is one because AI is a black box. Most people don't know that. Because it's a black box and we cannot ever retrace its steps to find out where it got what from. To prove where it came from, proving copyright is very difficult is why there's been no legal cases that would fall apart in court.
Speaker 1:Well, I don't know, I hope. I hope they have logs. And again, this is the law issue. Congress needs to pass a law. Any question typed into AI and the response given should be by law required to be recorded in a log somewhere so it can be legally not FOIAed, because private companies aren't subject to FOIA laws, unless if they update FOIA laws, but a court, a lawyer, could subpoena the logs that way. We don't know if that is or isn't happening.
Speaker 2:I don't even think most of these models even have that capability, because they take in all this training data and then they put words together in the order that matches what it thinks you're doing. I don't even think that, and here's the problem. I don't even think that sort of data even exists. The one thing I do like that some of the newest models have been doing and I know because I've been getting clicks from them is they are now starting to like kind of cite their sources of. We saw this information here and here's kind of where we got it from, and I discovered this because I was getting clicks from perplexity. So I started to go look at how that was working and found out that in some cases, ai models were citing my work, because I have this huge library at CameronJolecom.
Speaker 1:Exactly. Check it out, read it. They're ripping you off.
Speaker 2:Yes, I mean, I joke to Sam Altman where should I send the bill for you stealing my entire library of work Right, and when can we expect payment?
Speaker 1:You for you stealing my entire library of work Right and when can we expect payment?
Speaker 2:You know, I know they've lifted me too, so yeah and when can you expect payment Right?
Speaker 1:That's why I use the word accreditation and attribution, as you said now, and that's part of what Congress needs to put into law. If Brock uses josephmwannerus as a source or the Cameron Journal as a source, we need to be accredited and attributed for it. If not direct things put in quotes.
Speaker 2:Yes, if not direct things put in quotes yes, no, I mean, and I think this, and I think the sad part and I'm sure this is, you know, enraging to you as well and this has always bothered me, and I've had a parade of AI people on the show to talk about this the cavalier nature with which they treat this stuff. They don't care, no, they don't.
Speaker 2:For me, that's always been the most terrifying part, especially as someone who has three degrees, for whom not citing a source is a suspendable you lose everything, get kicked out of the program, offense sort of thing and who takes this stuff very seriously.
Speaker 2:You know there's the the casual nature with which they treat that and don't understand how important it is to be able to go read an original source If you want to be able to. You know credit people for their work that's not your own, which is very important, and also how it can damage other people's careers. Because the reality is, if some college student is writing a paper and they're quoting my work on domestic terrorism, you know, or whatever. Have you my work on domestic terrorism, you know, or whatever have you, you know. That's. I mean, that's the basis on which academia is built is showing that it's not just you saying it, but there's a corpus of people behind you saying it, and I'm always frustrated by the AI people because none of them care about any of that stuff. For them it's too messy, it's too hard to understand, they don't think it's important, they just look at it as data ones and zeros.
Speaker 1:See my note there. Fair use when you started saying that, I wrote that down. That's the issue here there is fair use law and I myself have quoted under fair use myself under fair use myself, but normally I see YA and I attribute and accredit where it came from and link the source. For the rest of person X's article where quote Y came from, on topic Z, to use that example, I did before go to this link and see their full piece that I quoted under fair use here.
Speaker 2:No, I mean, and that's like I said I've always been very frustrated with how much AI and Silicon Valley in general because I've had a lot of those guys on the show too they just don't care about any of this stuff.
Speaker 1:No, they want to treat it all as fair use availability. That's not the law. You are guilty of Seth plagiarism, copyright violation.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and that's unfortunately. I mean, I and I don't know if you feel similarly about this, but I feel like, looking at the marketplace and looking at how fast this is moving and all that's happening, I feel like they're probably going to get their wish, like I feel like very strongly, we're probably going to lose the whole system of copyright that we have relied upon since the founding of this country. It it's probably. I mean, will we have copyright by 2040? I doubt it, I really do. I doubt it.
Speaker 1:I think we'll be able to collect it Now. Constitutionalist my podcast. I invented that word and I indeed trademarked it. So it's protected and I can cease and desist if someone's bastardizing the word of how I intended it to be Right. But without that trademark, it's just.
Speaker 1:You can't copyright a word or a phrase. You can trademark a word or a phrase but and you can't copyright like a phrase. You can trademark a word or a phrase and you can't copyright like a paragraph. That's fair use. But again, it should be accredited where you got it from. If you want to quote a paragraph out of Terror Strikes Coming Soon to a City Near you, you should accredit me and the book from whence you got it from. But under fair use that would be allowed. They want to turn everything into fair use and I don't think they'll get to go that far. Our books will stay copyrightable. You can't lift my book and claim it as your own without violating. But I agree with you, it's going to loosen and probably too much and then go too far because why? They've got money? They've got lobbyists. You and I don't have the lobbyist in dc no, no, definitely not, I mean, I think.
Speaker 2:I think also, the other problem is especially with you know, like you know something, like you know terrorism and whatnot. You know an ai can have, you know, read my work on that, which I have a degree in, and your book, and then take that information and synthesize something else out of it. Never say, oh, yeah, it was joseph leonard and cameron kind of got this idea, all those sort of things, and then something and it's something you know, new enough, sort of thing. That's where I think it's going to get real messy and real hard to track is to say you know, well, yeah, we, you know it's not. You know we're not directly lifting quotes, so it doesn't count. You know, yes, this was the training data we used, but you know that's. You know that we don't need to compensate people for that, we don't need to ask their permission.
Speaker 1:I'm not looking for a direct compensation, necessarily, but you're right, it should give accreditation and attribution. Grok or galaxy used joseph m leonard's terror strikes coming soon to a city new or an article of yours as partial source material. But you're right, how new does it have to be? What is what defines new enough to be its own work?
Speaker 2:yes, yeah, exactly, and that that's I mean own work. Yes, yeah, exactly, and that's I mean. We've had ideas of what that you know means in the past, and there's a difference between you know the bibliography of things you read, but didn't quote the works, cited the things that you read and did quote all this. The academia has kind of figured these things out, and I think the most shocking thing is the AI. Folks do not care. Their whole point is to disrupt that entire system to make it easier for people to do stuff. What? Without understanding, without the corpus of human knowledge, they would have nothing.
Speaker 2:Right, you know, social media is the same problem. If everyone stopped posting content, that social media would go down to business tomorrow. Content, that's social media going out of business tomorrow. Like, these people are standing on the shoulders of everyone else who makes stuff, who does stuff, who writes stuff, who creates stuff, and no one. For all the billions and, at this point, trillions of dollars they have made, no one has ever really, I think, ever taken that into account or ever tried to, you know, compensate anyone. When they tried, when Australia tried to make Facebook pay news publishers for news articles posted on Facebook. Facebook's all the time leaving Australia. That's what they did.
Speaker 1:Doing the same thing. Yes, yeah, I've been on Rick Walker's Maverick News discussing that. Yeah, yeah, they're true. And the goal there in Canada and maybe in Australia, I don't know, I've not looked into it but Canada the point was trying to push out independent media. They want to lift up corporate state run CBC up there. Basically, they want to protect those who protect the politicians and crowd out others.
Speaker 1:So, and I already said, like I said, I use Galaxy AI to create images and you know, if I use an image, I say you know image source, galaxy AI. Cover my own ass. What if Galaxy lifts that image from somebody somewhere If I don't say that's where it came from? They're the real source. I'm on the hook for that. I also use. I'm on DeepCastFM. They also run PodSitefm. My constitutionalist politics is carried both those places and they use an AI also.
Speaker 1:So for show summaries and things like that, they're summarizing our material. We're telling them please summarize my material. That's not the issue you and I are talking about. When someone asks Galaxy to create something out of whole cloth again about topic C, and it pulls from person X a quote of Y and not accrediting it, and I agree with you, the law has got to be updated. They've got to start saying what some of the source material is in there, at least a partial acknowledgement of an accreditation and an attribution. Not necessarily force them to pay me a couple pennies because they used me as source material, but at least let people know. Hey, wow, this guy has this book and Grok used it. Maybe I want to buy that book.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah. So when did you start wanting to put yourself out to shows talking about this?
Speaker 1:Well, again, being a former IT guy, and then I started with co-hosting Savaged, unfiltered. It's come up there a few times and again you in part, were on talking about it, and that Also, I've written articles on it. Of course, being a former IT guy, I saw it coming a long time ago. People are just now trying to rap, as you right. We've seen it coming Miles away. We've seen it coming, but again, congress, democrats and Republicans refuse to deal with anything till a big crisis.
Speaker 2:Well, and kind of circling back to, you know, the top of the show, and I was kind of level setting like here's kind of what happened this morning. Weird that we're having this conversation today. I think we're starting to get to a crisis point with this. I mean, if we just if we even pull out from the whole copyright situation and look at it, the crisis is really here. I mean, you're, when you have, you know, major layoffs coming along because ai can do it better, cheaper, faster, all this type of thing, that's where you start getting into worrying about societal upheaval, right?
Speaker 1:I need a program to write a report based on data coming from this, and this is at the field. This is the main data I want to mine from my computer system. Well, an ai program can write that code like that in the snap of a finger, whereas what you're going to hire a guy and spend six months to do it instead. That's the warning you have here. That contractor is not going to get the job to write that program because I can write it for the company that much quicker.
Speaker 2:And the thing that I kind of laugh when everyone's like well, how do we manage the economic fallout from people not having jobs? And I said I'm not quite sure you understand how business economies work. If there are no customers, there will be no economy, end of story. Companies will have no one to sell to because no one will have any money If no one has a job Right.
Speaker 1:If people don't have a job, you earn some money. I'm sorry you communists out there, but you cannot have an economy based on the government doling out a 50K check to everybody in the nation, out a 50k check to everybody in the nation, creating this fiat currency out of nowhere, based on nothing for people doing nothing, to create a phony, fake, propped up economy. It doesn't work. Ask the Weimar Republic, ask the Venezuelans.
Speaker 2:No, I mean, for me that conversation is very short. There will be no customers, therefore businesses will go under, therefore we will not have an economy. That for me, that conversation is very, very short and everyone's talking about all these different things and oh, we're going to have to have ubi and we'll have to find ways to give people purpose, and I'm kind of like no, no, no, no, no, there'll be no one to pay the taxes to fund any of this. I mean, because you're looking at the, okay, you have all these people and I'm a big tax the corporations person, which I it's fine, but like, here's the problem if they have no customers to sell to, they will generate no revenue and we'll have nothing to tax. So, even even even as a tax the rich person, I can see that. So, exactly, this conversation is very short of if we're not and this is something I've always been very passionate about we have for a long time not had an economy built for people. Thank you, jack Welch and Leah Iacocca, who decided we should build everything for shareholders, and you're in Michigan at the scene of the crime, and we've had that for almost 50 years now.
Speaker 2:Then, on the next kind of layer of that of that is is one of the terrible things that that did is it sucked billions of dollars out of the middle class and hauled out the center of this country. We know what that looks like. Now imagine what's gone on in the upper Midwest, from coast to coast, everywhere, because what we know is, in communities, when you lose 10 jobs, 60 jobs, 100 jobs, that's thousands of dollars that aren't being spent around town even if it's a corporate, places isn't being spent around town. Businesses close, new businesses don't open or ones that do can't make it because there's no revenue. When you, when the when money, money is only usable in so much as you can treat it for other goods and services. Yeah, so when dollars stop moving, which is one of the problems our economy has now when, the, when dollars don't move, you don't have a marketplace, you don't have an economy, no one has customers, the system collapses.
Speaker 1:You're explaining free market capitalism gross domestic product, the circulation of money in a merit transaction system. I make money and I choose who I want to buy things from. That is free market capitalism and I'm for that. Gross domestic product goes away and, as you're saying, there is nothing to tax if no one is earning money legitimately for trading my services, for your need to get something done in your company. Therefore, then I have money part of the GDP, to be taxed, and to buy something from Best Buy, which is also then sales taxed, right, right.
Speaker 2:Which means, and then you get into very basic things of you have no roads, you have no sewers, you have no schools, you have no police, you have no fire people. Yes, yeah, I mean it. Just it just bubbles up from the bottom and just gets worse and worse and worse the higher up the levels that you go. Bottom just gets worse and worse and worse the higher up the levels that that you go. And I think the only the only thing I found compelling about what's kind of coming down the pike with ai is this idea that you know you, technology tends to be very deflationary. That's part of the reason why the 90s were so good economically is the personal computer was very deflationary. I do feel like AI could lead to a place where, especially in developed nations, it's so deflationary that life becomes incredibly cheap and we can get away with maybe working 10 or 20 hours a week and not necessarily making much money. But living great good lives Is it going to make for great GDP numbers? Definitely not. But living great good lives is it going to make for great gdp numbers? Definitely not. Is it a potential band-aid on all of this? Yeah, because at least you still have not many dollars, but a dollar or two, moving for very inexpensive but high quality goods and services delivered by ai and robots and all this type of thing. Sure, I could. I could see that, but to your point.
Speaker 2:Here's what's frightening there's no one in Washington who's even talking about this and no one's saying yeah, we need to start a 10-year transition and it will take a decade, a decade-long transition where every year, we're slowly reducing working hours as this technology increases, right, all this sort of thing.
Speaker 2:No one's having that conversation, and what then happens is you have the trauma of people merely being thrown out on their ear, and you see this, you know, especially when there's not a decent transition for it. You see this especially in high-end manufacturing like automobile manufacturing. You look at the modern videos and you have truck frames moving through a factory and there's five people behind glass in booths watching the robots do everything. And even the guy in the paint booth, the old Faj. They used to wear big yellow suits and spray with a gun. Now it's a guy who puts his buttons on the machine on a rack, is the whole thing. And so you build a car with a handful of people, so much fewer people, and the reality is there was never a transition for the automotive industry, and so you have a lot of devastation from that, as I don't need to tell you, you live in it.
Speaker 1:Right? Well, part of this is unions partially pricing workers out of jobs so that the companies want to automate more. So both labor and corporation are in part to blame. But to your deflationary, I could make do with less money if everything costs half as much. Right To your point. Right, we're talking cost to benefit, we're talking ROI, we're talking the overall GDP, and indeed, if prices came down, we could make do with less. But it's a very dangerous, delicate balance. We're asking then Well, I can get by with less if everything costs less. But if everything costs only pennies and there's no jobs for me to even make the pennies to buy it.
Speaker 2:These are complex issues, yes, and there's the problem of, OK, we might reduce working. The vast majority of people are still going to require some form of income stream, usually through employment. All this sort of thing.
Speaker 1:It can't be government fiat money, paying you money that doesn't really exist really exist and yeah, and and and the problem.
Speaker 2:And it was funny. I had a very nice young man named stephen fair on the show last year and he and I have become gotten into a business partnership and all this sort of thing. And I kind of laughed when he said, yeah, you know, we're going to see the end of employment by the end of this decade. And when he came on the show last year and said that I laughed and I said that's adorable sort of thing. And then now fast forward a year and all of a sudden his little prediction seems prescient. It's a very frightening thing.
Speaker 1:Well, I was going to say the robots aren't going to serve us food. Well, actually, Elon's robots can be waiters and waitresses and take our orders and cook our food and serve it to us. They won't even be service jobs there.
Speaker 2:advanced things where one chef can run the whole restaurant. I mean, yes, I mean it's, it's, it's getting, it's getting to a place where, you know, between automation and blue collar humanoid robots that are already working in warehouses picking alongside the people, all this type of thing that's why, when I go into McDonald's, I won't use that kiosk.
Speaker 1:No, I'm walking to a counter. I want to talk to a person. I want an employee to put in my order to see their face get their reaction. No, they understand what I'm asking for and we'll get it right and they stay employed. I stay happier.
Speaker 2:Yes, absolutely. But I think this is the great debate is you know how, as we've found with so many other technological changes in the past, how long will people hang on to it before it becomes everybody does? It becomes too convenient all this sort of thing, and then you start to lose that ground.
Speaker 1:Amazon whole model right there right, I myself get mad at myself for the amount of things I order on Amazon because it'll show up at my door in two days Rather than go to the mom and pop shop I used to go to buy that right. It's become too darn convenient.
Speaker 2:No, and my great fear is that we're going to have a lot of accelerationism in the adoption of this because it'll be cheap, it'll be easy, it'll be convenient and, you know, nothing gets this country moving faster than cheap, easy and convenient and and then we're gonna really start to be in a very, a very frightening and scary place. And I I'm not a big social upheaval person, but I've read a history book enough to know that this is what causes a lot of social upheaval. What was?
Speaker 1:the will Will Smith movie I, I robot. Do you remember the right? Everybody's got their own personal robot. And there was another Bruce Willis surrogates. People aren't even themselves like Wally right. We all went into space and we got lazier and lazier over time. Space and we got lazier and lazier over time. Nobody's doing anything right surrogates the movie. It's a good movie. I love it, I recommend it. But indeed you don't even have you send out your robot. You're operating them or they're operating as you. They come. You know People aren't even out. So it's a social commentary again. Just like social media, people are literally then putting on fake faces and bodies out in public to interact with other fake people hiding behind a keyboard in their house.
Speaker 2:Instagram and a tweet, all right.
Speaker 1:As an it guy, I, I, I, you know was on all those social media platforms as they first came out and I, when twitter as I, I call it to water, I call it the to water attention span look what we write?
Speaker 1:no, I don't want matter. I write articles that have facts in them, so you understand. I understand what a thesis is and can write one. Most people don't even know what it is or can't spell thesis. But you know, they want, want the. Give me the fake headline, give me the fake TikTok summary. No details matter.
Speaker 2:They do. No, I mean, I wish believe me as someone who writes especially on very complicated things like you know, trade, wars and geopolitics and all this type of thing I definitely miss people engaging with material at a deep level and I get, as much as I love the views, I get annoyed that a 36 second youtube short will always do better than the minute long thing, and that will even be true of this.
Speaker 1:This will get split into into clips by ai and I guarantee you the 35 second version will always get far more possibly taken out of context and distorted to present us not, we will have said the words, but that's not what we meant, because you're distorting the context.
Speaker 2:And indeed that's the water attention span world and it's it's but and it's real and it's sad because every video has, you know, the related video to go watch the long form sort of thing, and I cannot tell you how much time I've spent in the comments with people being angry and my saying, to be fair, this clip is out of its full content and you need to go watch the whole thing, because here's what we said and here's what we were talking about, all this type of thing, and I've had to kind of calm down in the comment section.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, get angry at you for correcting them yeah, yes, and we kind of like, well, go watch the whole video, it's only 45 minutes. You should really go check it out and find out what we all we were talking about, sort of thing, and it's yeah, it is yes, and that living in that space is very difficult and people don't engage the same way they used to, and that is always 110%. What does?
Speaker 1:that portend for books too. No one goes to a library anymore. Pretty soon books thousands of new authors every month, but pretty soon it's going to dwindle to your JK Rowling's, your Stephen King's, your only big Patterson's and Clark's well-known people. People aren't going to read books unless they're from the big name.
Speaker 2:I mean, we're already getting published and the same thing is where I was reading this the other day, like we're already getting into. You know, the word post-literate society has started to be used and the oh, I see a lot of those people on the street.
Speaker 2:Yes, and the whole conversation. And, as someone who whose life and passion has been spent on words and books and book publishing, all this everything, what does it mean to be passionate about literature in a post-literate society? And that's a whole conversation going on in my field right now. You know it makes one feel very anachronistic sort of thing and it's hard to get people to you know, sit down and you know and pay attention for that long or to invest the time.
Speaker 1:They don't know who Locke is. No, no, you know. If it not for the series Lost, that name would have been forgotten. And they don't know, you know the French guy De Tocqueville, or they certainly don't know Rand. No, nothing ever Rousseau or Voltaire, or Orwell even If not for the Mac commercial, they wouldn't know. 1984, the book.
Speaker 2:And the sad thing is people's acceptance of an AI summary of it as an acceptable consumption just kind of hurts my heart.
Speaker 1:Orwell for dummies. Right the cliff notes police. Do yourself a favor if you're falling into right, we're. We're not calling everybody illiterate, but unfortunately, with the twitter water attention span, we're all getting more and more lazy. We have to look ourselves in the mirror and catch ourselves and say whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute, I'm becoming one of them. I can't let that happen. Self-reflection is important here.
Speaker 2:It is, it is so we're. At time I got to go because I keep things a little bit shorter than you guys do over at Savage Overload, so why don't you tell us where we can find you online on social media, and we'll get you out of here.
Speaker 1:Well, you can see above my head terrorstrikesinfo josephmleonardus Again, it looks like Leonard. It's not French, it's Leonard without an O, joseph M Leonard, because there is a Joseph Leonard out of South Carolina. I don't want you paying attention to any of his stuff we don't know him now Exactly Right. And of course, constitutionalist politics carried virtually everywhere. Podcasts are covered.
Speaker 2:Well, thank you so much for coming on. The Cameron Journal Podcast.
Speaker 1:Thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate this and again, I might not have even thought twice about coming on. But having been with you through Savage Unfiltered before, I thought oh, I know that guy.
Speaker 2:I want to be on this show. Good Well, thank you for coming on. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1:The Constitutionalist Politics Podcast, normally in conjunction and corresponding with articles, can normally for the Saturday monologue shows, be found at theforgesnewscom Substack and find extended show notes including related links in the Buzzsprout episode edition of the transcript. Thank you for having tuned in for Chris D'Attussio's Politics Show. If you haven't already, please check out my primary internationally available book, terror Strikes, coming soon to a city near you, available anywhere. Books are sold. If you have a locally run bookstore still near you they can order it for you. And let me remind, over time the fancy high production items will come. But for now, for starters, it's just you as a very appreciated listener by me. All substance, no flaw, just straight to key discussion points. A show that looks at a variety of topics, mostly politics, through a Christian US constitutionalist lens. So again, thank you from the bottom of my heart. Take care, god bless, like and subscribe to Constitutionalist Politics Podcast and share episodes. We need your help.
