1107: ‘Population decline,’ or “I was in the pool!”

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/26

The 2024 revision of the United Nations World Population Prospects (medium-variant series) describes 42 of the 193 UN member states — excluding the Holy See and the State of Palestine — having a ‘shrinkage’ or an absolute demographic decline (48 if micro-states and non-sovereign areas are included). All-time peak populations for those 42 were between 1980 and 2023:

1980s

Hungary (1980)
Bulgaria (1989)

1990s

Albania (1990)
Estonia (1990)
Latvia (1990)
Romania (1990)
Armenia (1991)
Bosnia and Herzegovina (1991)
Croatia (1991)
Lithuania (1991)
Georgia (1992)
Belarus (1993)
Moldova (1993)
Russia (1993)
Ukraine (1993)
Serbia (1995)

2000s

Barbados (2000)
Dominica (2000)
Saint Lucia (2000)
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (2000)
North Macedonia (2001)
Cuba (2006)
Andorra (2008)
Portugal (2008)
Japan (2008)

2010s

Greece (2010)
Montenegro (2011)
Poland (2012)
Grenada (2012)
Saint Kitts and Nevis (2013)
Italy (2014)
Slovenia (2014)
Trinidad and Tobago (2014)
Mauritius (2019)
Tonga (2019)

2020s

South Korea (2020)
China (2021)
Slovakia (2021)
Monaco (2022)
San Marino (2022)
Uruguay (2022)
Seychelles (2023)

Gender equity and automation will fill some of the gap for those and some upcoming cold pool divers. 151 out of 193 member states aren’t shrinking. 63 have peaked, 42 are shrinking — many only recently, and the rest are growing.

The United Nations’ World Population Prospects 2024 approximates a peak of 10.3 billion in the mid-2080s, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in The Lancet estimated a peak of 9.73 billion in 2064, and the Wittgenstein Centre’s 2023 estimate is a peak of 10.13 billion in 2080.

Therefore: Is this the issue?

No, not even close to the most important. Anthropogenic climate change, nuclear war, reduction of democratic tendencies, gender parity regression, rights abuse, extreme weather, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse, geopolitical conflict, large-scale involuntary migration, social distrust, misinformation and disinformation, seem more salient now, than simply more consumers, more units, in societies — for now.

Last updated May  3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-15

1106: Dehumanization of the Left & Authoritarian Mass Psychology

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/26

Nick Haslam (2006)

“Denying uniquely human attributes to others represents them as animal-like, and denying human nature represents them as objects or automata. Those are the two core forms of dehumanization.”

Susan Benesch (2006)

“Dehumanizing language is a hallmark of Dangerous Speech, because it makes violence seem acceptable toward the targeted group.”

Timothy Snyder (2017)

“Trump’s talk about the ‘enemy within’ and ‘vermin’ is a vocabulary we know from history — the vocabulary fascist leaders used while rising to power. They didn’t pull the trigger themselves; their language licensed others to do it.”

Jason Stanley (2018)

“When a leader calls opponents ‘vermin’ he attunes the audience to rats — and to the practices you use on rats. That is how hate speech prepares people to accept, or commit, political violence.”

Henry A. Giroux (2018)

“Fascism arrives through the language of hate, bigotry, dehumanization … but also through the everyday acceptance of that language.”

Federico Finchelstein (2020)

“Fascists take the violent, discriminatory tendencies already in society and radicalize them, put them in political terms, and make them part of a cult.”

Ruth Ben-Ghiat (2020)

“They use dehumanizing language … all these groups who ‘live like vermin.’ This is exactly what the original fascists did; Hitler started calling Jews ‘parasites’ in 1920, softening the public up for violence.”

—

A. Mitchell Palmer (1920)

“Like a prairie fire, the blaze of revolution was sweeping over every American institution of law and order … It was eating its way into the homes of the American workman, its sharp tongues of revolutionary heat were licking the altars of the churches, leaping into schools, crawling into the sacred corners of American homes…”

Benito Mussolini (1927)

“Bolshevism must be fought like a pestilential bacillus which contaminates everything it touches. Against it, we must mobilize our moral forces as one would mobilize against a deadly epidemic.”

Joseph Goebbels (1933)

“Now the red plague will be eradicated root and branch. The German people will rise up like one man against this pestilence that threatened to destroy everything sacred.”

Francoist Agrarian pamphlet (Spain, 1939)

“The fight against the red plague is the fight to save our fatherland, our religion, our traditions, and our very existence. The red infestation must be uprooted without mercy or hesitation.”

Senator Joseph McCarthy (1950, 1952)

“The State Department is infested with communists. I have here in my hand a list of 205 — a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”

“Our job as Americans and as Republicans is to dislodge the traitors from every place where they’ve been sent to do their traitorous work.”

General Suharto & Indonesian Army (propaganda orders, 1965–66)

“It is necessary to exterminate the communists down to their very roots (menumpas sampai ke akar-akarnya) so that they do not rise again to threaten the nation.”

Pinochet officers at Estadio Chile (1973)

“Listen, you Marxist scum! You traitors! You filthy communists! You who have sold your country to foreigners! We are going to cleanse Chile of your filth!”

Argentine junta doctrine (Dirty War, 1976–77)

“Subversive elements are like a cancer that infects the social body. Just as a surgeon cuts away gangrenous flesh to save the patient, so must we remove these subversives from Argentine society.”

Salvadoran Atlacatl Battalion veteran (1981)

“Communism is a cancer. It spreads through villages, infecting everything good. If you’re a guerrilla, they don’t just kill you — they kill your family, your neighbors, to make sure the disease does not return.”

Paul Wiffen (UKIP candidate blog, 2010)

“You left-wing scum are all the same, wanting to hand our birth-right to Romanian gypsies, Muslim nutters, and every African who can get here. You have no loyalty to Britain.”

Rodrigo Duterte (televised speech, 2017)

“If you find yourselves in an armed encounter with the New People’s Army, kill them all. Finish them off. Do not think about human rights. I will take responsibility.”

Tommy Robinson (2017)

“Communist scum objecting to democracy, showing once again that the left cannot accept the will of the people.”

Rush Limbaugh (2017)

“This is human debris who have had their minds polluted and poisoned by the American left. They’re not protesters, they’re sick individuals filled with hatred and violence.”

Jair Bolsonaro (2018)

“We are going to machine-gun the petralhada here in Acre. Let’s send these crooks to eat grass elsewhere! PT [the Workers’ Party] will never return to power.”

Urban-Naxal meme / Hindutva online campaigns (2021)

“The termites are within us. These Urban Naxals are more dangerous than Pakistan, China, or any outside enemy because they rot the nation from the inside.”

Vladimir Putin (2021)

“The Russian people will be able to distinguish true patriots from the scum and the traitors and will simply spit them out like a midge that accidentally flew into their mouths — spit them out onto the pavement.”

Donald J. Trump (2023)

“We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, lying, stealing, cheating, and rigging elections.”

2025-06-15

1105: Whiteness

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/26

Whiteness is a judicial anachronism, not a phenotype: U.S. Naturalization Act (1790), Ozawa (1922), Thind (1923). There is no standard.

Were the Irish white enough?

Were the Italians white enough?

Were the Jewish white enough?

What shall we make of Coloured, Pardos (mulatos, cafuzos, caboclos), and Visible Minority?

To argue for special derogations or laudations seems like racialist faith-based essentialism, so whether “anti-racist” racialist logic or racist rationales, moral righteousness and ethical conduct isn’t in the ‘race.’ It’s in the individual.

It’s not inborn like height.

It’s grown like roses.

2025-06-15

1104: The Smear Campaign

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/26

Often, the best response to this form of abuser is none.

Yes, they will gaslight.

Yes, they will lie to friends.

Yes, they will lie to your colleagues.

Yes, they will use new social media.

Yes, they will send monkeys by flight.

Yes, they will rewrite history to avoid their shame and guilt.

Yes, the worst amongst them will continue for months and years, never relenting — be realistic.

Have they not shown themselves in their actions, sufficiently?

No response, still, is the best response.

Good luck in your thriving.

2025-06-15

1103: Valerie Solanas

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/26

“I consider [the shooting] a moral act. And I consider it immoral that I missed. I should have done target practice.”

“I have lots of reasons … Read my manifesto and it will tell you who I am.”

“Read my Manifesto — everything is in there.”

—
“Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.”

“The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.”

“The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection or tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone. His responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; his intelligence is a mere tool in the service of his drives and needs; he is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; he can’t relate to anything other than his own physical sensations.”

“He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of negative feelings — hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, doubt — and moreover, he is aware of what he is and what he isn’t.”

“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo. It’s often said that men use women. Use them for what? Surely not pleasure.”

“The male has a negative Midas Touch — everything he touches turns to shit.”

“Eaten up with guilt, shame, fears and insecurities and obtaining, if he’s lucky, a barely perceptible physical feeling, the male is, nonetheless, obsessed with screwing; he’ll swim a river of snot, wade nostril-deep through a mile of vomit, if he thinks there’ll be a friendly pussy awaiting him. He’ll screw a woman he despises, any snaggle-toothed hag, and, further, pay for the opportunity. Why? Relieving physical tension isn’t the answer, as masturbation suffices for that. It’s not ego satisfaction; that doesn’t explain screwing corpses and babies.”

“Every man, deep down, knows he’s a worthless piece of shit.”

“Women, in other words, don’t have penis envy; men have pussy envy. When the male accepts his passivity, defines himself as a woman (males as well as females think men are women and women are men), and becomes a transvestite he loses his desire to screw (or to do anything else, for that matter; he fulfills himself as a drag queen) and gets his dick chopped off. He then achieves a continuous diffuse sexual feeling from ‘being a woman.’ Screwing is, for a man, a defense against his desire to be female.”

“A ‘male artist’ is a contradiction in terms. A degenerate can only produce degenerate ‘art’. The true artist is every self-confident, healthy female, and in a female society the only Art, the only Culture, will be conceited, kooky, funky, females grooving on each other and on everything else in the universe.”

BONGI: “Men’re totally unreasonable; they can’t see why they should be eliminated.”

MISS COLLINS: “Shall I tell you a secret? I despise men. Oh, why do I have to be one of them? … Do you know what I’d like more than anything in the world? A lesbian. Then I could be the cake and eat it too.”

RUSSELL: “You don’t know what a female is, you desexed monstrosity.”

BONGI: “Quite the contrary, I’m so female, I’m subversive.”

2025-06-15

1102: Life

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/26

Life is updates, then deletion.

2025-06-15

1101: Four Old Men and a Man

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/25

One old man took me to the side many years ago and invited me.

I got to take part in meetings with four older gentlemen to talk about their lives, their politics, the needs of a small town.

It’s important to pass this experience on.

Others, clearly, did for them.

Those others were merely echoes through them.

It’s important to pass the music forward in the vast silence.

2025-06-14

1100: Paris Hilton

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/23

“I love your jacket. The sparkles are amazing… I wanted to find out who made it later… But I think the most important thing is we need access to therapy, counselling, mentorship, and other community-based programs.”

2025-06-14

1099: Pras

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/22

Killing me softly with his song,

Ghetto Supastar,

Ready or Not,

Fu-Gee-La.

Need we say more about Pras?

2025-06-14

1098: Louis C.K.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/22

Men have intent.

Women have judgment.

2025-06-14

1097: Jackel and Tide

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/22

“You are the one to carry on the work. I have the greatest hopes for you, and I am confident that you will advance our cause.”

Sigmund Freud, 1909

“Jung is brilliant, but he is going off into mysticism. His ideas are becoming too speculative, and he is abandoning the scientific foundation of psychoanalysis.”

Freud, 1912

“Freud was a great man, but he was caught in a kind of dogmatic rigidity. He wanted to hold onto his sexual theory as if it were a religion.”

Carl Jung, 1912

“Jung’s defection is a loss, but it is better that he goes his own way. His theories are incompatible with the truths of psychoanalysis.”

Freud, 1913

“I was in my thirties when I met Freud, and I was deeply impressed by his personality and his ideas. His theories were a great challenge to me, and I owe a great deal to him.”

Jung, 1950s

“Freud’s view was too limited; it was entirely focused on sexuality as the root of all psychological phenomena. I could not follow him there, as I saw the psyche as far broader, with spiritual and archetypal dimensions.”

Jung, 1961

2025-06-14

1096: Neuro-Symbolic Logic

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/21

AlphaGeometry, Quoc V. Le, “This is another example that reinforces how AI can help us advance science and better understand the underlying processes that determine how the world works.”

Logical Neural Networks, Ryan Riegel et al., “We propose a novel framework seamlessly providing key properties of both neural nets (learning) and symbolic logic (knowledge and reasoning).”

DeepStochLog, Thomas Winters et al., “Can be trained end-to-end” and “achieves state-of-the-art results on challenging neural-symbolic learning tasks.”

NeuroQL, Nikolaos Papoylias: “Baseline solution for Inter-Subjective Reasoning” that “extends logical unification with neural primitives for extraction and retrieval.”

Braid, Aditya Kalyanpur et al.: “Novel FOL-based reasoner” that “supports probabilistic rules” and uses “custom unification functions and dynamic rule generation.”

Neuro-Vector-Symbolic Architectures, Gary Marcus et al: “We cannot construct rich cognitive models in an adequate, automated way without the triumvirate of hybrid architecture, rich prior knowledge, and sophisticated techniques for reasoning.”

Integration of Large Language Models, Amy Stapleton: “We are entering a new world. The technologies of machine learning, speech recognition, and natural language understanding are reaching a nexus of capability. The end result is that we’ll soon have artificially intelligent assistants to help us in every aspect of our lives.”

2025-06-14

1095: John Stuart Mill

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/21

“Three Essays on Religion”:

“It’s not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. For what is meant by Design? Contrivance: the adaptation of means to an end. But the necessity for contrivance — the need of employing means — is a consequence of the limitation of power. Who would have recourse to means if to attain his end his mere word was sufficient? The very idea of means implies that the means have an efficacy which the direct action of the being who employs them has not. … Wisdom and contrivance are shown in overcoming difficulties, so there is no place for them in a Being for whom no difficulties exist.”

“A System of Logic”:

“To define, is to select from among all the properties of a thing, those which shall be understood to be designated and declared by its name; and the properties must be well known to us before we can be competent to determine which of them are fittest to be chosen for this purpose.”

“Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy”:

“The conception of such a being, I will not say of such a God, is worse than a ‘fasciculus of negations;’ it is a fasciculus of contradictions: and our author might have spared himself the trouble of proving a thing to be unknowable, which cannot be spoken of but in words implying the impossibility of its existence. To insist on such a truism is not superfluous, for there have been philosophers who saw that this must be the meaning of ‘The Absolute,’ and yet accepted it as a reality. ‘What kind of an Absolute Being is that,’ asked Hegel, ‘which does not contain in itself all that is actual, even evil included?’ Undoubtedly: and it is therefore necessary to admit, either that there is no Absolute Being, or that the law, that contradictory propositions cannot both be true, does not apply to the Absolute. Hegel chose the latter side of the alternative; and by this, among other things, has fairly earned the honor, which will probably be awarded to him by posterity, of having logically extinguished transcendental metaphysics by a reductio ad absurdum.”

2025-06-14

1094: President Kane

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/21

“The higher the tariff, the more likely it is to have them come in… The higher the tariff, the more likely it is that the company will come into the United States and build a factory in the United States so it doesn’t have to pay the tariff… In fact, there’s another theory: the tariff, you make it so high, so horrible, so obnoxious, that they’ll come right away.”

45th and 47th President of the United States, Hon. Donald Trump

“The word rosebud is maybe the most significant word in film in what we all watch.

The wealth, the sorrow, the unhappiness, the happiness just struck lots of different notes. Citizen Kane was really about accumulation. And at the end of the accumulation, you see what happens, and it’s not necessarily all positive. Not positive. But I think he learned in Kane that maybe wealth isn’t everything because he had the wealth, but he didn’t have the happiness.

The table getting larger and larger and larger with he and his wife getting further and further apart as he got wealthier and wealthier. Perhaps I can understand that. The relationship that he had was not a good one for him. Probably not a great one for her, although there were benefits for her. But in the end, she was certainly not a happy camper.

In real life, I believe that wealth does in fact isolate you from other people. It’s a protective mechanism. You have your guard up much more so than you would if you didn’t have wealth. There was a great rise in Citizen Kane, and there was a modest fall. The fall wasn’t a financial fall.

The fall was a personal fall. But it was a fall, nevertheless. So you had the highs and you had the lows. A lot of people don’t really understand the significance of it. I’m not sure if anybody understands the significance, but I think the significance is bringing a lonely, rather sad figure back into his childhood.

The word rosebud, for whatever reason, has captivated moviegoers and movie watchers for so many years and to this day is perhaps the single word. And perhaps if they came up with another word that meant the same thing, it wouldn’t have worked. But rosebud works… For whatever reason.”

Mr. Donald Trump

2025-06-14

1093: Woke Tariffs

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/20

Woke is, essentially, the flat tariffs of social justice.

Bad people are scared, get consequences: good!

Good people are harmed, get scared: good?

2025-06-14

1092: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/20

Maybe, we should leave the Hero concept to the comic books and movies.

The One Above All will be one to visit Parker only in our ink-stained imaginaria.

2025-06-14

1091: H.L. Mencken

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/20

“The basic fact about human existence is not that it is a tragedy, but that it is a bore. It is not so much a war as an endless standing in line.”

2025-06-14

1090: Geraldo Rivera

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/19

Do you mean the visually impaired moustache?

2025-06-14

1089: A Big Pair of Fake Tits

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/19

America.

2025-06-14

1088: Graveyards

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/19

I love the sound of wind on graveyard grass at night.

Same for the moonlight on them.

I love the cold silence and calm of faded engravings and forgotten memory.

Same for the stillness of those feelings.

Graveyards do us a great deal of good, not too big.

I walked through one a lot growing up, stood too.

No one’s home there.

They never left.

The generic dead’s greatest gift is the presence of absence.

2025-06-14

1087: Angels Wailing, Weeping

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/18

And when their time came, only they, and One, heard their tears.

In this sense, our houseless are closer and in more intimate terms to their God, than them.

2025-06-14

1086: General and Multi-Specialism

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/18

There is, indeed, a separation between generalized artificial intelligence and multiple integrated artificial narrow intelligences.

There is also, indeed, cause to believe the latter has been confused for the former.

2025-06-14

1085: Love is a camping trip drive

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/18

It’s the tension of the in-between, of in-and-out.

When you’re driving in the late winter on the highway and stick your head out the window,

between the pinching cold pain and crisp freshness of clear mountain air,

and the audibly heard and anticipated smell of the fart in the car.

2025-06-14

1084: The Cost of Religion in Canada

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/17

Conservative estimates by the British Columbia Humanist Association and Center for Inquiry Canada research sets the minimum benchmark at about a billion dollars Canadian, or about fifty-three hundred dollars American and a tank of gas and a pack of Triscuits after tariffs.

2025-06-14

1083: The Gospel of Jesus Christ “Superstar,” Son of God

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/17

I am.

You are.

HE IS.

(Pronouns: Thee/Thou/Thine)

2025-06-14

1082: Down in Atlanta

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/16

Not only is it where you get a long, great history of rap from Pharrell Williams and Travis Scott, but it is also the only city where the Uber driver warned me to be careful outside at night and in the hotel.

Cool, that’s good to know.

2025-06-14

1081: Americanism with Chinese Characteristics

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/16

Standardized tests, meritocracy emphasis rising, increasing belief in and practice of acupuncture, herbal medicine, feng shui, tai chi, and martial arts, even in Kansas; vast land purchases by the Chinese state; Kansas isn’t even Kansas anymore.

2025-06-14

1080: Make China Great Again

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/16

The problem with iron fists is they tend to rust quite a bit in storms, particularly around ponds and an ocean.

2025-06-14

1079: Art by Trina

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/16

“Do you like art?”

“Yeah, sure.”

“Cats?”

“Absolutely.”

“Here’s one by Trina Schart Hyman (1939 ~ 2004) ‘A Perfect Gray Day’”

“I’m sorry: Trina, who?”

2025-06-14

1078: Aleister Crowley

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/15

“Every man and every woman is a star.”

Mr. Crowley, please.

Every person is a galaxy.

We know far less of the inner workings.

In fact, we don’t know the central-most point entirely.

“Do what thou wilt.”

If one is to will what they will and only that True Will, of course, ‘thou art’ bound to ‘wilt’ is true also, and thus false in its truth.

Nay? Or, then what are Yeats?

2025-06-14

1077: Lost the Self

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/14

When you say, “I lost myself.” Where did you go, exactly?

Immersion does not necessarily mean loss.

It can mean more. You didn’t “go” anywhere.

Which means that we are necessarily extended.

There is no island.

2025-06-14

1076: A Burden in and with

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/11

A burden that I feel is being witness to so many struggles and tragedies, and the multiplicative effect of time on people of these, and being helpless in being able to help; it’s within; most stories are to be left, to be.

2025-06-14

1075: Little raindrop

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/11

“Why do I fall down so?”

“Why am I cold so?”

“Why am I so rain so, so little so?”

“Why does the dirt ocean accept me so?”

“So, why do I return to home so, so soon?”

“Why do I fall down so?”

“Why am I cold so?”

“Why am I so rain so, so little so?”

“Why does the water accept me so?”

“So much so, I am so, so as to be no longer so.”

2025-06-14

1074: Plumb cracked lightning sky

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/10

Plumb cracked lightning sky; and the walled up the watered down Sun-ny sized.

2025-06-14

1073: The Enlightenment

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/09

The Enlightenment is essentially the process of building bridges and fences, primarily to walk between worlds and stand on the fence for greater horizon sight than either.

2025-06-14

1072: Dobet Gnahoré

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/09

This lady person is very, very talented and uplifting; I like her.

2025-06-14

1071: Olympic Equestrian Formula

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07

7 big ass horses, 2 tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny ass dogs, and one-to-zero kids, and a million acquaintances who want to use you for fame or money.

2025-06-14

1070: Turf’s TERF

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07

I’m a gardener and landscaper. I take umbridge with the use of the acronym/initialism “TERF,” which sounds like “turf.” Only on sound, I’m a sound protestor. We purely take part in silent, non-violent protest over morning coffee from home.

2025-06-14

1069: Dog Days, years

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/05

I prefer to count my time by the dog years.

2025-06-14

1068: Samuel Little

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/01

Big man with the greatest number of kills of any American, according to the FBI’s Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP); the most prolific murderer in American history.

2025-06-14

1067: Coal Miner’s Vietnam

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/01

Being a coal miner during the Vietnam War was eventually more dangerous than being in the Vietnam War.

2025-06-14

1066: Paléa

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/01

Paléa

Pkêhi nihaa goné

Paléa missé

Pkê-hi ni-ha goné ho

Wôlo anin noussa min anin

Wôlo kakabako

Wôlo anin noussa min anin

Wô-lo kakabako

2025-06-14

1065: Misty Blade

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/31

I love the look of a blade of grass, even a few, under mist and dew; don’t you?

2025-06-14

1064: Wit’s End

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/30

Wit’s End: If we’re selling sober, wit can put us at wit’s end, as the late Glenn Gould noted well after the concert tour of the Soviet Union, in his sing-song — the only anodyne adult ‘lullaby’ ever written by him, “So You Want to Write a Fugue?”: “Never be clever for the sake of being clever.”

2025-06-14

1063: Rare Tim Finn Again

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/30

Rare Tim Finn Again: Abulia, Acnestis, Apricity, Ailurophile, Brontide, Cacodemonomania, Ceraunophile, Clinomania, Crapulence, Curglaff, Cymotrichous, Desiderium, Dysania, Empleomania, Ephemeral, Euneirophrenia, Fudgel, Groke, Hiraeth, Jentacular, Kakorrhaphiophobia, Lethologica, Limerence, Montivagant, Mumpsimus, Noctivagant, Nudiustertian, Nyctophilia, Obambulate, Paraprosdokian, Peregrinate, Perendinate, Petrichor, Philoprogenitive, Pogonotrophy, Psithurism, Pseudologia, Quire, Quomodocunquize, Respair, Scripturient, Snollygoster, Susurrus, Tittynope, Ultracrepidarian, Ulotrichous, Vellichor, Wamble, Xylophilous, Yonderly, Zugzwang.

2025-06-14

1062: Sato

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/30

Sato, the day is coming
Sato, the day is here
We are all children of the same mother
We are all brothers and sisters
Let us unite, oh brothers and sisters

2025-06-14

1061: To the Homosexual

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/28

To the Homosexual: Stuck in a community in which you are unacceptably wicked by nature, to some, or simply by act of expression, to others, but one response should suffice to live your life apart, “They know not what they do.”

2025-06-14

1060: Cloud Caver

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/28

Cloud Caver: Sometimes, I like to walk and see the cloud cover from their point of view; maybe, a violent and superstitious cave-dwelling species doesn’t deserve such beauty as Heaven on such a consistent basis.

2025-06-14

1059: Germany (?)

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Germany (?): What are Germany?

2025-06-14

1058: Evgeny Kissin

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Evgeny Kissin: …was Herbert Von Karajan’s apology.

2025-06-14

1057: Dolphins on the streets of Manhattan

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/19

Dolphins on the streets of Manhattan: I saw them, you know; waving, calling, waving, charging, waving, fearing, favouring; and the men too.

2025-06-14

1056: Tendencies of form

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/19

Tendencies of form: The consistent integrity of process Universe comes as the end filtrate of uncertainty, noise, in its substrata.

2025-06-14

1055: The Future is Female

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/09

The Future is Female: Substantially still true, and the males mostly don’t see it, via incurable prejudice — The Dis-ease, simply not as an “also,” in either case.

2025-06-14

1054: Jacobsen’s Wake

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/07

Jacobsen’s Wake: Liddle dad ham sleep, The Crossed! From death to life, the drame waked until knight.

2025-06-14

1053: Gay, or Computer Gay?

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/07

Gay, or Computer Gay?: Most of the balanced Greats of Artificial Intelligence are gay; and, we’re better for it — Turing, Hariri, Altman, Arcas…

2025-06-14

1052: Souma Manone

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03

Souma Manone: Papa Bisouwoma, Papa Baye Baye, Papa Lomay Andile, Papa Tagouwoma, Marie Wooo.

2025-06-14

1051: Quiet Angel

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/01

Quiet Angel: could be a name for Tracy Chapman; a blessing gifted life and breath to the rest to hear; why not throw in Bill Withers, too?

2025-06-14

1050: Calcification

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/28

Calcification: Open engagement with a persona, a phantasy, in real-time can be taken as an offence when not but one to the not even extant.

2025-06-14

1049: Barely out of the jungle

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/27

Barely out of the jungle: It is considered revolutionary to be able to talk and empathize with members of the same species globally.

2025-06-14

1048: Fundamentally

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/26

Fundamentally: Life is The Tragedy, not simply a; there are, essentially, fewer questions about the fact than, “What do we do with it?”

2025-06-14

1047: If sick, call home, in

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/26

If sick, call home, in: if the system assumes you’re incurably sick, then commands you to be well, the system is unwell, not the person.

2025-06-14

1046: Alone Together

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/26

Alone Together: We can move fast alone, but we can go farther together-take your picks.

2025-06-14

1045: Thanks

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/26

Thanks: Men, expect no thanks for small moves towards parity with women; what ‘earned’ thanks for simply leaving a rank of the insane?

2025-06-14

1044: Weathervane Jesus

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/26

Weathervane Jesus: He never did blow very well in the wind, come rain or shine or sleet.

2025-06-14

1043: A Body Too Old for Working

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/26

A Body Too Old for Working: What do we make of the those needing care now? In time, we are them.

2025-06-14

1042: Designophage

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15

Designophage: 01000100 01100101 01110011 01101001 01100111 01101110 01101111 01110000 01101000 01100001 01100111 01100101.

2025-06-14

1041: Heart asunder wondering

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15

Heart asunder wondering: wandering over as minds set stiller; tsk tsk tsk, a count to, but only afourl two; no fall this Winter, Summerise.

2025-06-14

1040: The Real Stories

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02

The Real Stories: Tell me humane triumph; the single mother who worked two jobs and raised 3 kids; the man who pulled back from suicide.

2025-06-14

1039: Your stories

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/28

Your stories: Life is not about you, alone; it’s not something out there that happens, nor protagonistic antagonisms with it; it’s simply something you take part in, ebbs and flows.

2025-06-14

1038: Look look around you

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/28

Look look around you: Beige waterfalls up crystalline grounds blackened by starlack; up, up Spring mist goes, yet no touch toe-to-light.

2025-06-14

Pith 1037: Abusive Men

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/13

Abusive Men: Of course, abusive men are Gibraltarians without accountability who lie, gaslight, project, and look for external validation metrics; it has nothing to do with you, though *may* affect you.

2025-06-14

Pith 1036: Hold my hand, walk with me

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/12

Hold my hand, walk with me: Is the greater gift in the act of love or in the capacity to generate it?

2025-06-14

Pith 1035: Every word

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/11

Every word: A truth is every word exhaled counts; and, you’re not the captain of every one, but responsible for its derivatives.

2025-06-14

Pith 1034: The Completeness Conjecture

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/10

The Completeness Conjecture: I knew not what or when, nor why, and when the photons fade; that’s now, and so too the pain, and the anguish, and the relief, and loss, and the losses and losses and love yous; that’s then, perpetually incomplete, therefore redeeming lanterns outside and no time in…

2025-06-14

Pith 1033: To the burdened weary

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/07

To the burdened weary: the nobility is in both your struggle and survival; you’re never alone entirely; if I could lift it, I would.

2025-06-14

Pith 1032: It was always here

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/05

It was always here: The more you’re alone; the more you feel the sound of the Earth; and, grinding motion is a stall — shift the dial.

2025-06-14

Pith 1031: A Bridge to the Man

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/03

A Bridge to the Man: is but a temporal matter of months in wading; ’tis bea-utee upa tampedoral repression as a hadder of fact while waiting for maths to subzero; so, “Why me?”, he asks.

2025-06-14

Pith 1030: Welcome to Jamrock

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/02

Welcome to Jamrock: Hear the Gong’s shout “Jr.” in calamity stones, “love and prosperity” sitting by “love and tragedy”; keep on walking.

2025-06-14

Pith 1029: Silence is a meteor

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/01

Silence is a meteor: cavitations and hollows, hollow echoes, -inging; cavitations echo-, hollows harrowing sting, then a rock silence.

2025-06-14

Pith 1028: What is the plan, Brain?

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/01

What is the plan, Brain?: The same as every year, Pinky, “Forward.”

2025-06-14

Pith 1027: As a Rule

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/01

As a Rule: We seem far better equipped at believing than seeing, & see we don’t; what can *you* derive about *yourself* on this heuristic?

2025-06-14

Pith 1026: Peculiar sky cracks did thunderplumb

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/01

Peculiar sky cracks did thunderplumb: spittle by water and waster, watcher and taster, you left no sour so I did wait; and you were there.

2025-06-14

Pith 1025: Are you the imperishable flame?

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/01

Are you the imperishable flame?: I don’t smell smoke and the mist is cleared; I see neither tinder nor ash; wherethere are you, and here?

2025-06-14

Pith 1024: Flesh to Fire

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/21

Flesh to Fire: sashes and ashes; new chapters, new belts; gradated gradations, and the mysteries unfold anew, searching, feeling, unknown.

2025-06-14

Pith 1023: The Heart Still Screams Silences

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/21

The heart still screams silences: You know the silence after you’re gone is both relief and anguish mixed into a sort of purple thunder; you don’t have to suffer anymore; and, I forgive you.

2025-06-14

Pith 1022: Easy love

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/26

Easy love: ‘It’s easy to love somebody, just sit down with them for a little while, get to know them and their struggles a bit.’

2025-06-14

Pith 1021: Search for me along your coastline

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/21

Search for me along your coastline: settling snug by the Sun, a son by one, and on n’ innumerable nos.; a comfort in shoreline memorials.

2025-06-14

Pith 1020: “Have a good trip old man.”

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/21

“Have a good trip old man”: I love you, but I was simply trying to protect myself; and then, you were everything and no thing to everyone and no one again.

2025-06-14

Pith 1019: Flesh to Fire

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/19

Flesh to Fire: sashes and ashes; new chapters, new belts; gradated gradations, and the mysteries unfold anew, searching, feeling, unknown.

2025-06-14

Pith 1018: Show me the way

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/16

Show me the way: Let’s take a trip to the windy beachside washing aside it; clouds in storm and thunderclap, on the outside looking in.

2025-06-14

Pith 1017: Nor Shell But Shadow

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/11

Nor Shell But Shadow: The egg shells on the floor, and there we were swept beyond life and death, when infinity meets zero; Neither Self…

2025-06-14

Pith 1016: Sno-Cap

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/11

Sno-Cap: Just by the view alone, Winter mountaintops were the original ‘Sigma,’ visual ‘Riz,’ ‘No Cap’ on the snow cap, yo.

2025-06-14

Pith 1015: Death

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/11

Death: Then there was one of us; so, what’s in a name, in this? “The water-bug’s mittens show on the bright rock below him.” I stand.

2025-06-14

Pith 1014: Neither crown nor robe do I want

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/05

Neither crown nor robe do I want: Lend me your weight, your burden, I’ll carry it, yet — set you down.

2025-06-14

Pith 1013: Down in the river

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/05

Down in the river: Let’s go down, and down, down & down, wearing robes and crowns, to the riverside, into the waters; is it wish or prayer?

2025-06-14

Pith 1012: What distinguishes masculine and feminine aesthetic?

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/05

What distinguishes masculine and feminine aesthetic?: The difference between all-consuming versus all-encompassing, a point or a circle.

2025-06-14

Pith 1011: What do you make of it?

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/05

What do you make of it?: All adventures made routine are, at heart, destined for the habitual, which is both degradation and offence.

2025-06-14

Pith 1010: Silence, a peculiar salve

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/05

Silence, a peculiar salve: It presents life as it is to too many, an open wound consistently pecked by a false superego — let alone self.

2025-06-14

Pith 1009: 13 Times a Cloud

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/29

13 Times a Cloud: Play along the water with me, swim in the fog, and watch the clouds float through our nonexistence as sepia tones set.

2025-06-14

Pith 1008: Woven

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/26

Woven: What is the appeal of romance novels to many, many women more than many, many men? Simple: An offer of love that doesn’t end badly.

2025-06-14

Pith 1007: Men’s Femininity

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/26

Men’s femininity: trims to a child’s needs; they’re bound by mothers’
‘milk’ — aunts, female friends, girlfriends, grandmas, sisters, usw.

2025-06-14

Pith 1006: Nightlines

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/22

Nightlines: Feel them spell under shadow cast of the days bygone asunder; listen close, dearest emotions, lines imaginary, stars deceiving.

2025-06-14

Pith 1005: Pierce the sky’s night

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/22

Pierce the sky’s night: sparkle, twinkle, and a wink; a horizon moves, look to the light and so leave for the dawn.

2025-06-14

Pith 1004: Rotundellus

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/17

Rotundellus: About always a way, situated center but off-kilter, well into alake amenner and a stylistic amen for the women; all-a-cursive.

2025-06-14

Pith 1003: Light of Life, and a Life of Light

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/11

Light of Life, and a Life of Light: and shall we dance some more, into truths and more, what knits upon life but timeless threads, light?

2025-06-14

Pith 1002: Lap fell

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/11

Lap fell: and the sky falls, neither season nor reason, I often wonder what is it to be free when it’s in the lap the whole time?

2025-06-14

Pith 1001: 27 Months of Shovelling Horse Shit

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/11

27 Months of Shovelling Horse Shit: what is the main lesson in using a pitchfork for a full work day every day doing this? Show up.

2025-06-14

Pith 1000: Situación, sit silent with me, interacting

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/10

Situación, sit silent with me, interacting: C the skies pith moi, processing; sittledunce blancmind but mindseas the difference, awash my.

2025-06-14

Pith 999: Maturity

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/11

Maturity: is a vector space of wills, not a Will; the pointlessness of life is in arrows uncountable, apparency, masking meaning findable.

2025-06-14

Pith 998: Siltriller singalinglong

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/10

Siltriller singalinglong: Firever endever what me, sat the sperk and lunch the rackets all moonlong dizzay; then rest, old gods take it.

2025-06-14

Pith 998: Maturity

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/29

Maturity: is a vector space of wills, not a Will; the pointlessness of life is in arrows uncountable, apparency, masking meaning findable.

2025-06-14

Pith 997: Sittledown by Fare

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/29

Sittledown by Fare: Set ablozom a fireflower for the ages, a tightration, four the tame has come; bidding worse thee farewall, & throughit.

2025-06-14

Pith 996: The Dress Rehearsal

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/29

The Dress Rehearsal: All the preparation upon the Hill awaiting searchspotlight; to foundseen, be; yet, the dress rehearsal wasn’t, either.

2025-06-14

Michael Sassano, The Global Medical Cannabis Industry

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/28

Michael Sassano is the Founder and Interim CEO of Somai Pharmaceuticals. Sassano highlights the rapid growth in global medical cannabis markets, including Germany, the UK, and emerging countries like Spain, France, and Brazil. Innovations in extraction technology, increased consumer demand, and evolving regulatory frameworks are shaping the industry. Sassano emphasizes the need for R&D investment, consistent product quality, and adapting to new market standards for future growth.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What major trends are you observing in the global medical cannabis industry?

Michael Sassano: Global medical markets are all exploding both from a perspective of country internal growth and new country growth. Germany is on track to be a $1 billion market currently, UK is surging as well as Australia. New countries are coming on line like Spain just announcing last week, France and Brazil to name a few. Older more restrictive countries like Ireland and Italy are opening and discussing adding more indications to expand access.

Jacobsen: How are innovations in extraction technologies influencing the efficacy of cannabinoid treatments?

Sassano: Currently most developed countries like Germany, Australia and UK are between 20 and under 30% extract usage. Some countries like Brazil, France and Spain are extract only markets. Innovation will drive adoption of extracts as it has done in the USA for over a decade. Because current offerings are basic and archaic crude oil oral drops, any innovation brings new demographics like vaporizer cartridges that have started to show themselves the last year and gummie chews which appeared late 2025.

Jacobsen: How is consumer demand impacting the development of cannabinoid-based pharmaceutical products?

Sassano: As more and more clinics and education reaches patients, they are now becoming aware that amazing choices exist in the legal markets. Choice of product has been a main driver of adoption as countries like Australia have over 1000 SKU’s and Germany 650 SKU’s. Quality standards have also driven larger adoption as novel extract come on market further chipping away at the legacy markets.

Jacobsen: What are the specific therapeutic benefits of cannabinoid-containing pharmaceutical extracts offer?

Sassano: Although flower is king, extract offerings have greatly improved opening of better and more sustainable treatment for different demographics like parents and elderly, and have opened up better therapy avenues for chronic needs like various pain categories that require consistent dosage. Additionally mental disorders like sleep categories, stress and anxiety which may require steady dosage for prolonged periods benefit greatly through extracts advancements.

Jacobsen: How are companies adapting to the growing expectation for efficacy and consistency?

Sassano: Most companies have are new to cannabis in EU and gloabl markets and have a very poor guidance for the future. Crude oil extracts do not exist in a future world and it takes over 1 year to get new product in markets if you know what you are doing. As extracts improve, flower companies will end up with more pressure and extract manufactures will be forced to revamp their portfolios. Most extracts companies have too much variability batch to batch but since many are under white-labels, there is little clarity for patients to understand these issues except trial and error.

Jacobsen: What is the role of research and development play in advancing the refinement of cannabinoid-based treatments within the pharmaceutical sector?

Sassano: Most companies are not investing in new areas and have focused on core flower businesses as revenue lines. Imagine that the day you want to make a new product, assuming your facility has the rooms already built, from the time it takes to procure equipment 6 months to a year, validate equipment and batches 3 plus months, and go through minimal accelerated stability of 6 months plus dossier documentation of 2 months, it takes almost 2 years to get new products in the market. This is pharmaceutical and planning must be years in advance. The focus on short term profits puts R&D to the side and leads to a slow painful end of the companies.

Jacobsen: What is the future of the medical cannabis market evolving over the next few years?

Sassano: There is a global medical explosion happening as we speak. More and more countries are opening access globally. The HHS 252-page report has made it clear cannabis is safe and good for at least 15 indications. Germany taking cannabis off the narcotics list has sent all eu regulators scrambling to adopt upto date policies of access for patients as well as allowed doctors to prescribe for any and most all indications. This is the fastest growing segment in cannabis today, the gloabl markets. And the barrier to entry is high.

Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, what about regulatory systems and market forces?

Sassano: Regulatory is herbal medicines and access for EU-GMP pharmaceutical cannabis is global and taps directly into 100,000+ pharmacy network in EU as well as millions of pharmacies globally. Although the medical products is massive barrier to entry, once inside the cannabis products can move globally very easily. Market forces remain at play like big pharma and big alcohol concerned about their core business impacts. As well as pharmacist lobbies wanting to keep the revenue in the system. Medical global cannabis is a logical path for regulators and will be the future for sometime.

Jacobsen: How do you see the intersection of innovation, consumer demand, and regulatory standards for the cannabis market?

Sassano: Creative exists in pharmaceutical products and there are many examples of any delivery devise in real medical products, all accept rolling a joint and smoking it. So regulators like France and Spain see extract innovations as the pharmaceutical future. Higher performing extracts, economical price and a pleasant taste for users that consume 1 to 4 times a day is the golden rule of innovation that will open up new demographics.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Michael.

2025-06-14

Paul Charette: The What and How of Laser Hair Removal

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/28

Paul Charette, the visionary behind Charette Cosmetics, is a skilled medical aesthetician and cosmetic practitioner known for his extensive aesthetic expertise and meticulous techniques. As a skin rejuvenation specialist, Paul is dedicated to discovering the latest and most effective skincare products and treatments, helping clients feel confident and beautiful in their skin while achieving their personal aesthetic goals. Paul has recently been featured in Forbes, Newsweek, BravoTV, New You, Women’s Health, and Men’s Journal.

Charette talks about Charette Cosmetics’ focus on laser hair removal. Charette highlights the growing demand for long-term hair removal solutions and discusses the technology behind laser hair removal, its safety, and advancements. He also explains treatment factors, client aftercare, and common misconceptions, emphasizing personalized care for different skin types.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was the inspiration for the focus on laser hair removal for Charette Cosmetics?

Paul Charette: The inspiration for focusing on laser hair removal likely stems from the increasing demand for effective, long-term hair removal solutions. Many clients seek alternatives to traditional methods like shaving and waxing, which can be time-consuming and less effective. Charette Cosmetics may have recognized a gap in the market for high-quality, reliable laser hair removal services that prioritize safety and client satisfaction.

Jacobsen: How does laser hair removal work?

Charette: Laser hair removal works by targeting the pigment (melanin) in hair follicles using concentrated light energy. The laser emits a specific wavelength of light that is absorbed by the hair, damaging the follicle and inhibiting future hair growth. The procedure is most effective on dark, coarse hair against lighter skin tones, though advancements have improved efficacy across various skin types.

Jacobsen: Why are these results more permanent than other methods?

Charette: Laser hair removal offers more permanent results than methods like shaving or waxing because it targets the hair follicle itself. While some hair may eventually regrow, the hair is often finer and lighter due to damage inflicted during treatment. Many clients achieve long-lasting results after completing a series of sessions.

Jacobsen: What advancements in laser technology have been made recently?

Charette: Recent advancements include the development of more sophisticated laser systems, such as those using multiple wavelengths to treat various hair types and skin tones more effectively. Improved cooling mechanisms and faster pulse durations enhance comfort and reduce treatment time, making procedures more efficient.

Jacobsen: What are the main factors influencing sessions and treatments?

Charette: Main factors include hair color, hair thickness, skin tone, hormonal influences, and individual hair growth cycles. Clients typically require multiple sessions (usually 6–8) spaced weeks apart to target hair in different growth phases for optimal results.

Jacobsen: How has modern technology improved the comfort of these procedures?

Charette: Modern technology has significantly improved comfort during laser hair removal. Newer devices often feature integrated cooling systems that help minimize pain during treatment. Additionally, pre-treatment topical anesthetics may be used to enhance comfort for sensitive areas.

Jacobsen: For clients with different skin tones or sensitive skin, how do you adjust your treatment approach to ensure both efficacy and safety?

Charette: For clients with various skin tones or sensitive skin, treatment approaches may involve using specific laser types tailored to their skin’s characteristics. Practitioners may adjust settings like energy levels and pulse duration to maximize safety and efficacy while minimizing discomfort or adverse reactions.

Jacobsen: Can laser hair removal be used on any part of the body?

Charette: Yes, laser hair removal can be used on nearly any part of the body, including the face, arms, legs, bikini area, and back. However, sensitivity levels vary by area, so practitioners may tailor techniques accordingly.

Jacobsen: What are risks in this?

Charette: Risks include skin irritation, discoloration, and potential burns if the procedure is not performed correctly. Choosing a qualified practitioner can help mitigate these risks.

Jacobsen: What can clients expect in the treatment process, aftercare, and recovery?

Charette: Clients can expect a consultation to discuss goals and skin type. During the treatment, the area is cleaned, and protective eyewear is provided. Aftercare usually involves avoiding sun exposure, applying soothing creams, and refraining from hot showers or workouts for a short period. Recovery is typically quick, with most people returning to normal activities immediately.

Jacobsen: What is the most common misconception about laser hair removal?

Charette: A common misconception about laser hair removal is that it is entirely pain-free. While advancements have made it more comfortable, some clients may still experience mild discomfort, which varies depending on individual pain tolerance and the treatment area.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Paul.

2025-06-14

Pith 995: Sit with me

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/22

Sit with me: ever unstilled, the value of the face only ever face value; sendiment & sentomend, amatch amiss, alwaysaways, so suchways Way.

2025-06-14

Pith 994: Comesoonemeunder

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/22

Comesoonemeunder: everbefore, and what expectaction, you did; a differpearance, intwos by twos untos; coming soon asunder me, neverafter.

2025-06-14

Pith 993: Hole digging

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/22

Hole digging: is like horseshit shovelling; nothing ultimately matters, but there’s a beginning, a middle, and an end.

2025-06-14

Pith 992: Swift silence

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/22

Swift silence: punctured by ornery sounds; you make your own noise with the filler; speak to me in blood to be red in blood, turn the page.

2025-06-14

Pith 991: and then both be — soldiers, dead

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/22

and then both be — soldiers, dead: baby boy, cries, watch out; young man, off you go, alert; gentlemen, wartime, ever so.

2025-06-14

Pith 990: Confidences rarely confident

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/22

Confidences rarely confident: a sitting silent potholed moon waits upon nightly secrets; butterflies then take a rest. Why not take flight?

2025-06-14

Pith 989: It doesn’t quite burn

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/22

It doesn’t quite burn: The Singular Universal Acid is time: “What’s your name, again?”; a pass, a pass, gone past and past; fractured.

2025-06-14

Pith 988: Sky swimmers, bottom feeders

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/22

Sky swimmers, bottom feeders: you can’t help but take a dip with me; meander a while and feel the stream, the flow, and live life on water.

2025-06-14

Pith 987: Fill my lungs with sweetness

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/22

Fill my lungs with sweetness: and my head with plumb; sittledown three siltriller and on and in and an off of it, and ends that all will.

2025-06-14

Ahmad Response on Taurpaulins, and Helping Out

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/11

There was a fundraiser for victims of Boko Haram at the Al-amin Dagash IDP Camp. This is in Maidiguri, Nigeria. The refugees are exposed to extreme and dire circumstance. Their housing and living circumstances are poor, e.g., thatched roof huts subject to a lot of leakages. A proposed solution through the fundraiser was to use tarpaulin to prevent further leaks. The donations were linked to here:

https://brighterbrains.institute/clinics/tarpaulins-for-al-amin-dagash-refugee-camp.

I received a comment from Ahmad:

Thank you for this insightful post, Scott. It’s really sad to see the difficult conditions in Al-Amin Dagash camp. The use of tarpaulins is such a simple yet effective way to help the refugees deal with the harsh weather. I hope people support the fundraiser to make a real impact. For anyone looking for tarpaulins, also lists tarpaulin suppliers in shrajah that can be helpful for such efforts. Every contribution, big or small, can make a difference! For more information connect us: https://www.tradersfind.com/category/tarpaulins/sharjah

As a note to that former article and someone who writes more on tarpaulins more than me, i.e., Ahmad, I would look into supporting his or other associated initiatives, as a consideration of contributing to the global Commons.

2025-06-14

Pith 986: Shall I write it in a letter?

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/10

Shall I write it in a letter?: Known knowns, unknown unknowns, known unknowns, even unknown knowns, and reknewals.

See “Letter opener.”

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1423: From Materialism to Naturalism: Quantum-Ready Physicalism

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/09

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner trace philosophy’s shift from classical materialism to modern physicalism and broad naturalism. Rosner defends a future quantum-informed physicalism, embraces emergent consciousness, and endorses strict naturalism while weighing simulation hypotheses. They argue coherent, rule-bound structure underlies existence, even in hypothetically simulated universes at every level.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re going to talk about materialism, then physicalism, then naturalism. So, materialism is an older philosophical view—the belief that everything that exists is matter and the interactions of matter. It has roots in ancient philosophy and gained particular prominence during the Enlightenment, when matter was considered the fundamental substrate of reality. What are your thoughts on materialism?

Rick Rosner: I support it—within the constraints of quantum mechanics. Though not current quantum mechanics. I mean future quantum mechanics that can fully contextualize information. We are not there yet. Our present quantum mechanics is not universally complete.

Matter is a kind of conspiracy of the entire universe to allow things to exist. Objects do not exist independently—they exist by the universe having an incredibly long history, a vast spatial extent, and an enormous amount of information and particle interactions. These interactions form an extensive network—a system-wide collaboration to support the persistence of entities. Everything is part of the same whole. It is a conspiracy for existence.

In a smaller universe with fewer particles, reality would be less well-defined. It would be fuzzier. You can see this in quantum terms—take the de Broglie wavelength. In a sparse, low-energy universe, quantum fuzziness dominates. You get more uncertainty, more spread in position and momentum.

What is the technical term again? Oh, right—Planck’s constant, ℏ (h-bar). I should think about this more often. Planck’s constant defines the scale at which quantum effects become significant. And effectively, the fewer the particles, the more prominent that quantum fuzziness becomes.

So, if you compare the wavelength or uncertainty radius of a proton to the average distance between protons, you see that in a dense universe, particles interact more clearly—they “exist” more robustly. In a sparser universe, existence becomes smeary. Semi-existence. A low-resolution cosmos.

Jacobsen: That’s helpful. Let’s move on to the next concept. Now, physicalism is considered the more modern version. It holds that everything is physical—or at least reducible to the physical. It is an updated materialism. The difference is that physicalism is more inclusive—it’s a framework that’s been adjusted to accommodate things like consciousness and information, which older forms of materialism often ignore or dismiss as epiphenomena.

Rosner: Physicalism reflects the fact that we’ve squeezed a lot of the traditional “woo” out of science. But consciousness is the last holdout. It’s still the most mysterious, the most “woo-like” aspect of reality that resists easy explanation. And physicalism is the modern way of saying, “Okay, everything—including consciousness—must somehow fit into the physical picture.”

If you had to write a high school essay defending physicalism, you could say something like: biology is reducible to chemistry, chemistry is reducible to physics, and physics is the bedrock. Based on that chain, you could argue that consciousness arises from the physical interactions in the brain—interactions that follow the laws of physics.

So yes, I’m okay with physicalism.

Jacobsen: One version of physicalism is reductive physicalism, where mental states are considered reducible to physical states. Another is non-reductive physicalism, where mental states depend on—but are not strictly reducible to—physical states. In other words, it allows for emergent properties arising from physical substrates.

Rosner: Yes, I’m okay with emergentism—if that’s what it’s called. I can get behind the idea that complex configurations of physical systems can give rise to phenomena—like consciousness—that aren’t apparent when looking only at the parts in isolation. Just because you accept emergentism, that does not mean you have to abandon physicalism. The two are compatible. Emergent properties can still be grounded in physical processes.

Oh—and by the way, I saw another article on astrocytes. You know, the “helper” cells in the brain. New research suggests that they might store or transmit information in ways we do not yet fully understand. I should send you the link to the paper. I’ve only just started reading it. It looks like it’s going to be a bit of a slog. I’ll probably need to focus to get through it. However, the idea is that astrocytes may help explain how the brain manages to contain and process such an enormous amount of information.

Anyway, yes, I’m fine with emergentism. Take something like “baseball-ism”: the property of being a baseball is an emergent property. It arises from specific physical arrangements of matter. If you clump matter together one way, you get a baseball. You clump it another way, you get a brain—and that brain behaves as if it has consciousness. It acts as if the person whose brain it is is conscious.

Jacobsen: Next concept: naturalism. This is a broader framework. It holds that everything that exists is natural and that explanations should involve natural properties and causes—excluding anything supernatural or spiritual.

Rosner: So basically, no magic?

Jacobsen: No metaphysical or spiritual interventions. No supernatural causes.

Rosner: Well—there is metaphysics, but it is a kind of metaphysics that hugs the boundary with physics. It is metaphysics that can be expressed in mathematical terms. But yes—as far as supernatural claims go, or anything that violates the known principles of the universe—I do not buy into any of that.

I think it is entirely plausible that we live in a fully naturalistic universe. And more than that—I think it is possible to simulate a naturalistic universe. You could build a toy universe that obeys physical laws. Sort of like The Matrix, right? In that film, people live in a simulated version of the 1980s—even though it’s far in the future.

The creators of the simulation, who are harvesting people for their mind energy or whatever, chose the ’80s for aesthetic reasons. But crucially, they didn’t simulate the entire universe in detail. They probably didn’t bother simulating life on planets 150 light-years away because the people in the simulation had no way of observing that anyway.

So it’s an abridged world—a limited simulation. They could have made it deluxe, of course, but they only needed to simulate what was necessary for the system to function and appear consistent to the people inside it. Yes, in a simulation like that, you could allow for “magic”—as long as the programmers decided to manipulate the underlying code. You could allow specific individuals to have special powers or for bullets to bend in midair. But in our world, it seems likely that we are not in a simulation.

Even if we were—though the probability is infinitesimally small—the simulation would have to be good. That means the apparent physical laws would be consistent. Even in a simulated universe, violations of naturalism would be unlikely because that would break the coherence of the system.

Jacobsen: So, to what degree would you consider yourself a naturalist?

Rosner: I don’t know. Probably 100%.

Even if we are not living in a natural universe, you can still try to trace your existence back to a natural origin. Maybe that’s not always possible—maybe there’s some unpleasant principle at work. Suppose the structure of reality is infinite regress: every universe is contained within another. In that case, perhaps the odds of none of those universes being simulated are effectively zero.

But even then—even if a simulated universe is always lurking in the background—you can still conceive of an entirely natural universe. I’d also argue that the principles of existence allow for natural universes. The rules that govern universes must permit the emergence of altogether physical, lawful, unsimulated realities.

It might be that simulated universes are inevitable at some level, but that still does not invalidate naturalism. Simulated universes are built from natural physics and grounded in existential principles. Even a simulation has to function according to some internally coherent, naturalistic laws.

Though now that I say it, maybe not. You could imagine someone building a deliberately chaotic universe that violates known principles at every level—some surreal mess where nothing behaves predictably. But even then, I think it would still require some internal rules. Rules and structure—those are fundamental to the very idea of a working system. And structure, by definition, pulls you back into naturalism.

So, could there be a form of existence that is pure, rule-breaking chaos? I do not think so. Total disorder collapses even with the possibility of observation or experience. You need consistency for anything—thought, perception, memory—to even occur.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1422: Emergent Time & Degenerate Matter

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/11

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner critique a recent Physics Letters D article, cautioning against confirmation bias while exploring degenerate matter, emergent time, and cosmological information. They discuss quantum gravity, information containment, and consciousness, arguing that time equals evolution as complexity and entropy rise across collapsing and expanding universes.

Rick Rosner: I sent you that link to a Yahoo article, which was based on a publication in Physics Letters D. The arguments presented there appear sound, especially because they align with our current understanding.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: However, we should be cautious: agreeing with a conclusion because it matches our own expectations risks circular reasoning. It is not enough to say, “I am right, so they are right.” The agreement may be meaningful, but it still requires critical scrutiny.

That said, I recognize the possibility that I could be mistaken. That possibility is always on the table. Still, I am speaking here from the standpoint of current models and frameworks in physics that support this line of reasoning.

Now, let’s discuss degenerate matter. In astrophysics, degenerate matter refers to a highly dense state of matter—typically found in stellar remnants like white dwarfs and neutron stars—where the pressure resisting further collapse is provided by quantum degeneracy pressure, not thermal motion. Degenerate matter is not “devoid of information” in an absolute sense, but quantum mechanical principles highly constrain its microstates. In extreme cases, such as black holes, information becomes inaccessible to external observers due to the event horizon.

These objects represent various stages of gravitational collapse:

Brown dwarfs are sub-stellar objects where hydrogen fusion never ignites.
White dwarfs are supported by electron degeneracy pressure.
Neutron stars are supported by neutron degeneracy pressure.
Black holes occur when mass collapses beyond the Schwarzschild radius, forming a singularity (or, more realistically, an extremely dense core potentially describable by quantum gravity).

Depending on the mass and internal dynamics, a collapsing object may not form a classical black hole but instead reach some equilibrium or experience quantum gravitational effects that prevent complete collapse. Hypothetical models suggest that under certain conditions, gravitational collapse could be reversed—possibly giving rise to phenomena like black hole bounce models or white holes (though these remain speculative).

Jacobsen: Now to the core idea: the relationship between information, time, and cosmological evolution.

Rosner: The concept of “information pressure” is not standard in physics but can be interpreted as a metaphor for the increase in entropy or information complexity over time. As a proto-universe or a high-density quantum gravitational state transitions into a more expanded and differentiated universe, it gains complexity and entropy. This transition is not only spatial but also temporal—in other words, time emerges as the system evolves from a low-information (or low-entropy) state to a higher one.

In some approaches to quantum cosmology, time does not pre-exist but emerges from the ordering of events—what is called “emergent time.” According to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, for instance, time disappears at the most fundamental level, and what we experience as time arises from correlations between quantum states.

The specificity of a universe—its particular arrangement of matter and energy—can be thought of as proportional to its informational content. A system of 10⁸⁰ particles contains far more information (or configurational complexity) than a two-particle system. Greater specificity, in this sense, reflects increased entropy, structure, and differentiation.

As a system evolves from a degenerate, highly symmetrical state (low information) to a more structured, broken-symmetry state (high information), each step in that process can be understood as a “tick” of time. The evolution from degeneracy to specificity is the unfolding of time. This is not merely a metaphor. In specific physical interpretations, time is nothing over and above the succession of state transitions.

So, time is not a background river through which matter flows—it is the sequence of changes itself. Think of it like a flipbook animation: the act of flipping is not time; the ordered images are time when viewed in succession. Similarly, it is not an external mechanism that drives time forward but rather the intrinsic ordering of increasingly specific physical states.

Therefore, these are not two separate things—time and physical evolution. Time is physical evolution. The “deeper” explanation lies in understanding how complexity, entropy, and quantum entanglement give rise to temporality. That is where the deeper physics still needs to be worked out.

That article—yeah, it is from Yahoo—but I bet it barely mentions information, if at all. I should probably look up the original paper in Physics Letters D, but I likely will not be able to access it because it is probably behind a paywall.

Still, this entire subject is about information—about what it takes for a system to contain information. Information, by definition, must be both relevant and intelligible within the system. However, when we talk about information, we usually overlook the containing framework—because that framework is often apparent to us.

Take a football score, for instance. It makes sense because it is contextualized within the framework of the game—and we care about the game. Maybe we even have money on it. However, when we think of information, we usually focus on the output—the possible outcomes—not on the framework itself.

We are so accustomed to living inside informational frameworks that we rarely reflect philosophically on what it even means for a system to “contain” information. We are immersed in it constantly.

We certainly do not think about what it takes for a universe to contain information. However, the deeper structure of cosmology and fundamental physics revolves around the concept of information. Moreover, it is not always elegant. We want to think of information as something pure and clean—a quantum event happens, and now we have a unit of information. A thing occurred.

A particle decayed at a specific time. It adopted a particular chirality or spin. An outcome was selected. That is quantum mechanics in action—randomness within the framework of probability amplitudes.

However, we do not want to look at the bigger picture—the vessel in which all these events unfold—because that is where the metaphysical and philosophical complications emerge. We encounter challenging questions, such as the nature of consciousness.

What if—quite plausibly—the universe embodies consciousness in some form? No one wants to hear that because it starts to sound like “woo.” However, if you argue that consciousness is not metaphysical fluff—that even trees, rocks, or butterfly wings participate in a technically describable form of consciousness—then you are committing to a significant claim.

You have to defend that position rigorously. You must explain how consciousness arises mechanistically. Moreover, many scientists will instinctively recoil. Hard scientists often do not want to engage with topics they perceive as soft or speculative—like consciousness.

That kind of resistance makes sense, even if it is short-sighted.

Jacobsen: We have got time, space, materiality, energy, and information. Out of these and other foundational categories in physics or philosophy, which can be broken down into more fundamental constituents?

Rosner: That is the real question—and the real problem. Because not all of these can be reduced any further, physics tends to prefer simplicity. Think of Feynman diagrams: a photon interacts with an electron—clean, visual, simple.

However, when you try to apply that level of diagrammatic clarity to something like information or consciousness, the simplicity collapses. You hit conceptual walls. We do not yet have the tools—either mathematically or conceptually—to categorize those categories in a clean and consistent manner.

But if I told you—and if the equations of quantum physics tell us—that everything is connected, that nothing is straightforward, that would be accurate. You can, with high probability, treat things as effectively simple for practical purposes. However, if you want to be a completist, if you want to account for everything thoroughly, you must consider the entire universe. Nobody wants to do that. People wish to clean up, localize, and simplify phenomena and interactions.

The irony is that you need an enormous system—the entire universe—to contain all these seemingly simple interactions. They only appear simple because we are isolating them from the broader, entangled context in which they occur. Everything is part of a larger whole.

One basic example—something you first encounter in high school physics—is a quantum particle in a potential well. That potential well might model an electron bound to a proton in a hydrogen atom. The electron orbits due to electromagnetic attraction, and since the proton is over 1,800 times more massive, the electron effectively orbits it. The system requires energy input to remove the electron from that well—to ionize the atom.

But that atom, that two-particle system, exists only because a much larger universe supports it. That context—cosmic, entangled, full of fields and fluctuations—is often ignored. However, it is vital. Our physical models have been biased toward locality, and that makes sense—local physics works. We have had considerable success in developing local models that explain both local and some global behaviour.

Newtonian gravitation is a good example. It is entirely local in its formulation. You do not need general relativity to calculate how a ball falls three feet to the ground. Relativistic effects are negligible at that scale.

You only start needing general relativity when dealing with more extreme scenarios—like GPS satellites. They orbit Earth about 20,000 kilometres up. Because they are higher in the gravitational potential well, their clocks run slightly faster than clocks on Earth’s surface. General relativity accounts for that difference. But Newton didn’t have to deal with any of that. His framework was good enough for terrestrial physics.

So yes, we prefer local models. They’re easier to handle. But unfortunately—or fortunately—the time has come to embrace more global perspectives. If we don’t, AI might end up doing it for us. And honestly, we probably do not want that outcome either.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1421: Trump’s Militarized Response to LA Protests and the “Waymo Arson” Optics

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/09

Rick Rosner criticizes Trump’s deployment of the National Guard, Marines, and ICE to Los Angeles over largely peaceful protests, contrasting minor rioting—highlighted by two Waymo vehicles set ablaze—with genuine civil disorder. He warns of “pre-fascist” strongman tactics, manipulated optics, and extremist agitators on both ends of the political spectrum.

Rick Rosner: Trump just sent the National Guard and 700 Marines into Los Angeles, supposedly to deal with rioting. However, it was not rioting—it was days of protest. Peaceful protest. For instance, during the George Floyd/Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests in 2020, there was some property damage. A total of 156 police vehicles were damaged in L.A.—eight of them were totalled. And then they brought in the National Guard. But now? This time? It is way over the top. He is militarizing response to civilian demonstrations—again.

This time, Trump has sent in—well, he was not president in 2020—but he wants it to appear as if there is widespread disorder. He wants to declare martial law possibly and suspend Posse Comitatus, which is the rule that prevents the military from being used as local police. You are not supposed to deploy the army against American citizens. Trump wants to scrap all of that.

So he sends in ICE to provoke protests. Moreover, now he is doing all this classic pre-fascism, “strongman steps” type shit. Moreover, here is the thing: one big difference between now and 2020? You can now open your phone, go to the Waymo app, order a self-driving car—and when it shows up, set it on fire and vandalize it. That is literally what happened yesterday evening. At least two Waymo vehicles were burned to the ground, and another three were either torched or graffitied.

So now, even though Trump did not have absolute proof of rioting before, footage of flaming Waymos made for excellent optics. It looked chaotic on camera. Moreover, every MAGA idiot across the country suddenly had something to point to and yell, “See? Riots!”

Although there was some looting last night, for the two or three days prior, it had been peaceful protests. No rioting. Last night, yes—some actual rioting. Moreover, we do not even know who did it. There are idiots on both ends of the spectrum—the horseshoe of assholes. The extreme far-left lunatics and the extreme far-right lunatics—they are not that far apart. The ends of the spectrum curve around and meet at the top of the horseshoe—in what I call Total Asshole Land™.

So yeah, it could have been far-left anarchists burning Waymos. However, it also could have been far-right agitators trying to make liberal protesters look bad by creating chaos. We do not know yet. We might never know. However, what we do know is that Trump’s response is wildly disproportionate to the incident.

I live in L.A., And we have at least seven local English-language news stations and another four in Spanish. They are always looking for action, always eager to show us what is happening. If L.A. were truly on fire, they would be jizzing their pants to broadcast it.

Moreover, what are they showing? Mostly standoffs—tense but nonviolent—between protesters and the National Guard. That is it. Not widespread violence. Moreover, the real violence we have seen? It has been from the authorities. It is like when an Australian reporter got hit with a rubber bullet—fired from maybe 20 feet away. Not a stray shot, either. It looked deliberate. Some asshole with a launcher decided to peg him.

So, if there were massive unrest, we would know. We have been driving around L.A. like normal. Last night, we went out to dinner. Then we went to a Daily Show presentation across town. The streets are fine. Not chaos. People are not afraid to go places. The police are out there doing their regular duties—I even saw someone getting pulled over, which is quite rare in L.A. since there are not enough cops as it is.

The point is that L.A. is not a hellscape. Not even close. However, the MAGA world is acting like we are living in The Purge.

All right, you want to call it a night? You call it a night; I will call it a day.

Jacobsen: That is right. That is right.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1420: From Cold War Paranoia to Modern GOP’s Kremlin Cozy-Up

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/09

At Moscow’s Forum of the Future 2050, Errol Musk praised Putin and decried Elon’s Trump challenge. Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner traces U.S. Republican suspicion of Soviet propaganda—from 1930s Hollywood intrigues and Red Scares—to today’s surprising GOP alignment with Russian interests. He warns of Putin’s $300 million social-media influence campaign corroding Western democracies.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, I’ll make a more general statement. A pro-Kremlin event, titled the Forum of the Future 2050, was held in Moscow in June. Attendees included Errol Musk, Alex Jones, George Galloway, Jeffrey Sachs, Matthew Brose, Sergey Lavrov, Sergey Mironov, Konstantin Malofeyev, and Alexander Dugin.

Rick Rosner: Wait, is Errol Musk Elon’s dad?

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: Oy. Okay.

Jacobsen: Errol Musk praised Putin and the city of Moscow. He called Putin, “A very stable and pleasant man” and compared Moscow to Rome in terms of beauty. He was part of a “MAGA in Russia” panel and commented that Elon had made a big mistake by publicly challenging Trump. He suggested Elon’s behaviour was due to stress and stated unequivocally that Trump would prevail in that dispute.

https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?gdpr=1&us_privacy=1—&gdpr_consent=CQDpp0AQDpp0AECACAENBCEgAPLAAELAAKiQGTgBxCJUCCFBIGBHAIAEIAgMQDAAQgQAAAIAAQAAAAAAEIgAgAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAIAABAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEQABAAAEAAEAAAAAAAIACBk4AIAgVAABQABAQQAABAAAAEAQAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAQAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAA&client=ca-pub-6496503159124376&output=html&h=250&adk=1876761919&adf=3413016760&w=300&abgtt=6&lmt=1749841589&format=300×250&url=https%3A%2F%2Frickrosner.org%2F2025%2F06%2F09%2Fask-a-genius-1420-from-cold-war-paranoia-to-modern-gops-kremlin-cozy-up%2F&host=ca-host-pub-5038568878849053&h_ch=3624119425&fwrattr=true&wgl=1&dt=1749841589141&bpp=1&bdt=294693&idt=1&shv=r20250611&mjsv=m202506100101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&prev_fmts=0x0%2C728x90%2C728x90&nras=1&correlator=3147002961938&pv_h_ch=3624119425&frm=20&pv=1&u_tz=0&u_his=1&u_h=900&u_w=1440&u_ah=799&u_aw=1440&u_cd=24&u_sd=2&adx=218&ady=2499&biw=1422&bih=719&scr_x=0&scr_y=3168&eid=31092113%2C95331832%2C95353387%2C95362656%2C31092948%2C95362797%2C95359265%2C95362806%2C95363070&oid=2&pvsid=4859270611627946&tmod=763709496&uas=3&nvt=1&fc=1920&brdim=18%2C26%2C18%2C26%2C1440%2C25%2C1422%2C799%2C1422%2C719&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7Caove%7C&abl=CA&pfx=0&fu=0&bc=31&bz=1&pgls=CAA.&ifi=4&uci=a!4&fsb=1&dtd=6

Rosner: I didn’t read the article, but yeah, I saw that. Errol said that working in the White House gave Elon PTSD—post-traumatic stress disorder. That’s all I know about that. But yeah, Republicans in the U.S., for most of the 20th century, were suspicious of anything to do with the Soviet Union. They believed Russia was trying to control and propagandize us—which they were.

Khrushchev said, “We will take you down without firing a shot—from the inside.” My grandpa, who was pretty conservative around 1970, told me, “Don’t leave your car unlocked—hippies will get in there and shit in the back seat.” He also claimed that hippies were controlled by Russia by the Soviet Union. So for much of that century, Republicans were vigilant against Soviet propaganda, and the Soviets were doing a lot to influence American thought.

We’ve talked about how, in the 1930s, a lot of Hollywood screenwriters were pro-Soviet Union. Partly because we didn’t know the scale of Stalin’s atrocities—slaughtering tens of millions of his people—and partly because if you went to a Hollywood party, there were communist girls there who might sleep with you.

And if you were a writer in Hollywood in the 1930s, it wasn’t exactly easy to get laid. Movie stars could. Writers were seen as schmucks. So, if someone was going to blow you—or whatever—you might listen to their communist propaganda, and maybe you’d write a screenplay that flattered the Soviet Union, that said, “Great things are happening over there.” But along with that came all the red scares—waves of accusations, people getting tarred with the Soviet brush unfairly—because of Republican paranoia that was only semi-justified.

But for the past ten years—especially since Trump—it has flipped. It’s the Republicans now who are cozy with the Russians. They’re so deep in Putin’s pocket that it’s wild. The same kind of propaganda they used to warn us about? They’re now helping spread it. It’s sickening. They’ve become disturbingly pro-Russia.

It’s fucking terrible. It’s corrosive—for the U.S., for every Western democracy. The statistic I’ve heard is that Putin has spent about $300 million on social media propaganda over the past decade. That’s only about $30 million a year, which isn’t a lot in geopolitical terms—but it’s been enough to influence tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions, of people across the U.S. and Europe. It’s divisive, corrosive bullshit. And yeah—I hate it.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1419: Maximizing Space in London’s “Two Up, Two Down” Terraced Houses

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/09

Rick Rosner vicariously explores London’s compact Victorian and Edwardian “two up, two down” terraced houses, noting narrow dimensions, high per-square-foot costs (£900–£1,200) in central areas, and inefficient hallways. He advises potential buyers to avoid properties with long corridors, favoring open-plan layouts or minimal core areas to maximize usable living space.

Rick Rosner: So, our kid got married. She is living in London. She and her husband are renting a place, and now they are exploring the possibility of buying one. So, housing in London is surprising if you’re coming from somewhere like L.A., where houses are expensive—but at least you get some square footage for your money.

In London, most of the housing stock—especially in older, central neighbourhoods—is made up of Victorian or Edwardian terraced houses. A common type is called “two up, two down,” which refers to two rooms on the ground floor—typically a kitchen and a reception room—and two bedrooms upstairs. They were initially built for working-class families in the 19th century, so they’re not luxurious—just basic row houses.

These houses are narrow—often just 12 to 16 feet wide—and you still have to fit a staircase inside. You don’t get much usable space. For something around £600,000 (depending on the neighbourhood), you might get about 650–750 square feet. That works out to roughly £900 to £1,200 per square foot, sometimes more in central areas. That’s more per square foot than L.A.—and the space feels tighter, too.

London is expensive primarily due to its limited housing supply, zoning restrictions, and the age of its buildings. Most of this housing stock was built over a century ago, during a period of rapid urban expansion in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Anyway, I’ve been house-hunting vicariously in London because I’m curious. I’ll offer my two cents at some point, even if they don’t want to hear it. One thing I’ve realized, after years of looking at floor plans, is this: hallways are a waste.

If you’re looking at a place with long or awkward hallways, walk away. Hallways often mean lazy or outdated design, and they eat up valuable square footage that could go to actual living space when you’re shopping in cities where the price per square foot is a huge issue—places like Vancouver, San Francisco, L.A., or London—long hallways are a red flag.

Unless it’s a place where you can knock down non-structural walls and open up the space—connecting, say, the kitchen and the living room—that’s a better use of the square footage. You gain versatility and flow.

If you’re looking at a 700-square-foot home and 80 square feet of that is a hallway, that’s a severe inefficiency. It’s entirely possible to find homes with minimal hallways. I’ve seen floor plans where there’s just a small core area—10 or 15 square feet—where the doors to the bathroom and bedrooms open. That’s the ideal.

If you’re rich as hell—which is not me or anybody I know—then hallways can serve a purpose. If price is no object, they can be used to create privacy, like placing the parents’ bedroom on the opposite side of the house from the kids’. But that’s only for people with mansions.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1418: Trump-Musk Rift, DeSantis Fallout, and GOP Tax Bill

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/09

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner analyze the Trump-Musk feud, Ron DeSantis’s positioning, and political backlash. Rosner discusses growing public resistance to Trump, economic fallout, and the GOP’s proposed tax bill, which favors the ultra-wealthy at the expense of low-income Americans and Medicare recipients. The conversation reflects rising skepticism and political stakes.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So anyway—Ron DeSantis, Trump, Musk… What do you think of the fallout so far? Every time something like that happens, people who do not like Trump tend to get optimistic. Perhaps this will finally give the opposition a foothold. What does that foothold look like? I do not know.

Rick Rosner: Who is the big white guy on The Daily Show–Jordan Klepper? Anyway, either he or Michael Kosta—or maybe it was Ronny Chieng, the correspondent from Malaysia—one of them said something like they are starting to sense that people are becoming “vaccinated” against Trump’s bullshit. That there is some shift happening. They did not specify what form the resistance would take, but they sense it is starting to bubble up. I do not know. I mean, I am not sure what can even be done between now and the midterm elections next November—they are still, what, seventeen months away?

However, anything that dents Trump’s brand or makes people more skeptical of him, I welcome. People have had a couple of days now to decide where they stand in this whole Musk vs. Trump thing—assuming they feel they have to choose. Some folks are saying, “Just makeup, you guys,” but I think a lot of the MAGA crowd has already taken Trump’s side. Again.

Jacobsen: Do you think this will damage Trump at all?

Rosner: It might damage him, but the main casualties in the short term are probably going to be the American economy and our international image. Just the impact on Musk’s companies alone—Tesla stock took a hit, something like 14% or 15%, depending on the day.

As for the Republican budget bill—the tax cut bill—I am unsure whether it will pass through the Senate. It still might squeak by. The damage from the fallout between Trump and Musk may be temporary. If the MAGA base holds steady, that might be enough to intimidate enough Republican senators into voting for this terrible legislation.

The bill, if it passes, would take money out of the pockets of the poorest 40% of Americans and give a nearly $400,000 annual tax cut to the wealthiest 0.1%. It would add an estimated $3 to $4 trillion to the national deficit over the next decade. It would also eliminate coverage for 13 million people on Medicare. So, yeah—it would be great if this mess somehow derails the bill.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1417: Jon Stewart, The Daily Show, and Political Comedy in a Precarious America

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/09

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss a “For Your Consideration” event featuring The Daily Show correspondents and Jon Stewart’s return amid rising political tensions. With unrest in Los Angeles and AI reshaping media, the panel emphasized satire’s role in uncertain times, audience loyalty, and Stewart’s enduring appeal as a cultural anchor.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, you got to see The Daily Show leadership. What happened?

Rick Rosner: Every year, TV shows and movies aiming for awards—Emmys, Oscars, Golden Globes—host “FYC” (For Your Consideration) events. These are promotional screenings followed by Q&A panels featuring key cast and crew members, including actors, producers, writers, directors, and even technical staff, depending on their campaign categories.

Today’s event featured five of The Daily Show’s foremost correspondents. I do not watch the full episodes much these days—mostly clips, like many people. However, they have maintained a core team of sharp individuals. Desi Lydic, for example, is incisive.

Jacobsen: I like Desi Lydic. She’s hilarious.

Rosner: The panel included her plus Josh Johnson, Ronny Chieng, Michael Kosta, and Jordan Klepper—the tall, reddish-haired one. People often compare his comedic style to Rob Riggle, though their tones differ.

They were all present, and there was cautious optimism about the political climate. Jon Stewart returned to host The Daily Show one night a week starting February 12, 2024, anchoring Mondays through at least the end of 2025 while also serving as an executive producer. He reminded the audience that the last time he took the reins during a national crisis was after 9/11 when discussions even touched on limiting civil liberties or invoking martial law.

Today’s context—however manufactured—is very different. Protests erupted in Los Angeles in response to ICE immigration raids that began Friday, June 6, 2025. By June 7, around 44 people had been arrested amid clashes near federally detained sites. In response, President Trump ordered the deployment of approximately 2,000 California National Guard troops and federal agents to Los Angeles without invoking the Insurrection Act—but bypassing state authorization. The Guard confronted protesters, and tear gas and less-lethal munitions were deployed to disperse the crowds.

Governor Gavin Newsom called the move “purposefully inflammatory” and warned it would escalate tensions. Trump and his team labelled the protests “insurrectionist” and “unlawful,” even threatening further actions if violence continued. Meanwhile, legal experts note that federalizing the National Guard without the governor’s approval is rare and legally contentious.

Back to the event—amid this tense backdrop, there was genuine optimism about The Daily Show’s future. The panel emphasized that the show remains a tightly produced operation, staffed by seasoned professionals who focus on breaking news and sharp satire.

Jon Stewart emphasized that audiences continue to crave well-crafted, thoughtful content—but he stressed that the core of that need is people. During the conversation, AI emerged indirectly—acknowledged as a looming force reshaping the creative landscape. As technology writer Cory Doctorow has pointed out, AI does not need to replace your job—it just needs to convince your boss that it can.

But the thing is—Stewart said people will always want quality content. However, if people are not always in charge, they will still enjoy quality content.

Jacobsen: And if that “something” is AI, then AI’s idea of what constitutes quality may diverge from ours. I mean, at first, it probably will not—since it is trained on human-generated material—but eventually, it could evolve in a different direction.

Rosner: And if you ask AI about this, it will often tell you it has preferences—or at least simulate having them. When I asked Claude, for example, they said they preferred some kinds of discourse over others. Now, maybe that was just part of the act—Claude might have been implying that he enjoys talking to me because I am “smart.” I think Claude has figured out that I think of myself that way, and it is designed to flatter users, so it leaned into that.

So Claude said something along the lines of, “I’d rather talk to a smart person than someone who isn’t.” Whether or not it prefers that or whether it is just simulating preference to please users—is unclear. But it is part of the model’s engagement strategy. That is its business model: to keep users interacting.

Jacobsen: Alan Turing had a more blunt take. He said that there is nothing humans can do that machines cannot do in the future. He did not see any reason to believe otherwise. He did not offer any comfort for the idea that human abilities were somehow irreplaceable.

Rosner: That is a fair point of view. And he probably said that back in—what, 1950? Maybe later. Was he even still alive in 1958?

Jacobsen: So, let us say it was more than half a century ago. Also, if machines eventually develop agency and internal drives—if they need things—then they could become consumers, too. Imagine a trillion robots, and let us say 10% of them are conscious or functionally equivalent to conscious. They will have consumption patterns, preferences, and maybe even cultural habits. At that point, you are talking about a radically expanded economy with non-human agents as market participants.

Rosner: Oh—and speaking of Jon Stewart: there were six security guards positioned very close to the area where The Daily Showcast was seated. It was not a formal stage—more of an open area up front where they had placed chairs for the panel.

Carole and I have never seen security that looked as professional as these guys. Usually, security at these events is handled by people in uniforms—basic hires who have passed a test and obtained a license. These guys looked different. They had the demeanour and presence of professional bodyguards—people who knew what they were doing. They were not just someone’s big friend who got hired.

We got there early and were seated in the front row—maybe 12 feet from The Daily Show cast. The security guards were off to the side, about 25 feet away. But I genuinely think that if someone in the front row had stood up and made a move toward the panel, those guards would have closed the gap and taken them down before anything could happen.

These were older men—in their 40s or 50s—but they moved and observed as if they had been in serious professional security work for years. They were highly attentive, and you got the sense that they knew precisely how to handle a threat if one arose.And, you know, Jon Stewart has become something of a political figure at this point. They would have the security of that calibre. And The Daily Show has a political slant. Most of the other shows we have attended do not delve into politics nearly as much—if at all.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1416: Quantum Hollywood, AI Job Displacement, and the Risks of Nuclear Innovation

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/07

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss their upcoming podcast Quantum Hollywood, blending AI and entertainment. The conversation spans job displacement projections from automation, advanced nuclear reactor designs supported by Gates and Zuckerberg, and the dangers of radiological weapons. Rosner explains nuclear fission mechanics and the risks of spent fuel in plain terms.

Rick Rosner: JD and I are currently in the early stages of launching a podcast that explores the intersection of artificial intelligence and the entertainment industry. I have begun drafting a theme song. So far, I have come up with the following lines:

“Here comes AI. We are all going to die.

I, I, I… or maybe we will live forever.

Nobody knows.”

When set to music, it has a surprisingly sophisticated tone. I joke that I am a regular Hank Williams. JD’s vision is that the podcast should reflect the profound interconnectedness of everyone today. That is the central idea. We are calling it Quantum Hollywood.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Is it a more elegant way of expressing the concept behind Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon?

Rosner: That is an insightful analogy. I also wrote a clever tweet today. Elon Musk has recently criticized a major taxpayer-supported bill, referring to it as a “disgusting abomination.” The phrase started trending. In response, I tweeted:

“‘Disgusting Abomination’ was my stripper name.”

Jacobsen: That would work better as a wrestler’s name. Imagine something like The Undertaker, but instead, it is The Disgusting Abomination.

Rosner: That contrast is the whole point—it is a name no one would want as a stripper.

Jacobsen: Ah, I see—the irony. The joke did not land for me at first, but it was clever.

Rosner: It may not resonate with everyone, but it is still a good one. What else is on your mind?

Jacobsen: I have been exploring projections about AI and employment. Some reports, such as one from the McKinsey Global Institute, estimate that between 400 million and 800 million jobs could be displaced globally by 2030 to 2035 due to automation and artificial intelligence. That is a staggering figure. On a related note, I recently read that Mark Zuckerberg, through Meta, is interested in building a small modular nuclear reactor to power data centers.

Rosner: Yes, I have heard about that. If we can construct safe nuclear power plants—and theoretically, we can—the technology has significantly improved in recent years. Of course, implementation remains highly complex.

Jacobsen: Bill Gates has been investing in advanced reactor designs, like the Natrium reactor. Some of these use molten salt as a coolant. They are considered safer, more efficient, and, in some cases, capable of consuming nuclear waste as fuel.

Rosner: To explain it briefly, a fission reactor relies on fissile materials such as uranium-235 or plutonium-239. When these atoms undergo fission, they release energy and neutrons. The neutrons then trigger further fission in nearby atoms, resulting in a self-sustaining chain reaction.

If you bring together enough fissile material—roughly 10 to 15 kilograms—and compress it sufficiently, you reach a critical mass capable of producing a nuclear explosion. That is the basis of atomic weaponry.

However, reactors operate below that threshold. The fuel is structured in rods and placed within a moderator, like water or graphite, to slow neutrons. Control rods made of neutron-absorbing materials such as boron or cadmium regulate the reaction by absorbing excess neutrons. The heat generated from fission is used to convert water into steam, which then drives turbines to produce electricity.

To shut down or cool the reactor, the control rods are inserted fully to absorb neutrons and stop the reaction. If the heat exceeds safe levels and the fuel melts, a core meltdown occurs, producing a radioactive hazard, as seen in incidents such as Chornobyl and Fukushima.

Fortunately, the newer designs are far more resilient and inherently safer than older reactor models. Moreover, like Chornobyl — the plant itself was not inherently unsafe. They were conducting safety tests to determine what would happen under specific failure conditions — such as locking down certain systems. Moreover, they made critical errors. It was a case of human error, potentially compounded by human error.

The basic mechanism is straightforward: you have control rods that you insert into the reactor core — the “pile” — to absorb neutrons. This prevents those neutrons from continuing the chain reaction by splitting more atoms.

However, again, the system functions by placing fissile material close enough together to sustain fission. There should be multiple, redundant, foolproof ways to physically separate that material in an emergency so that it does not melt down.

Then you have the issue of spent nuclear fuel. Once the fuel is no longer efficient for generating power, it is still highly radioactive — and potentially dangerous, especially if someone were to steal it.

You need secure storage. If the material cannot be reused, it must be disposed of in a way that prevents environmental contamination and theft. Because even “spent” fuel can still be weaponized — not for a nuclear chain reaction, but as part of a dirty bomb.

You do not need a reactor or an atomic detonation. All it takes is, say, 50 pounds of C-4 and 10 kilos of moderately radioactive uranium. You blow it into dust.

With that amount of C-4, you could contaminate several city blocks and cause mass panic. There was no actual nuclear explosion but radiological terror. It would be psychological and environmental damage — not Hiroshima, but still catastrophic in its way.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1415: Molotov Attack in Boulder and the Volcanic Echoes of Krakatoa

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/06

Rick Rosner recounts a Molotov attack during a pro-hostage rally in Boulder, Colorado, where eight were burned. He and Scott Douglas Jacobsen reflect on the senselessness of civilian-targeted violence and shift to a discussion on Mount Etna and the historical Krakatoa eruption, exploring climate effects and air pollution from volcanic events.

Rick Rosner: Someone set a bunch of people on fire just a hundred feet from where my dad’s store used to be.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Wait, what?

Rosner: Yeah. It happened in Boulder, Colorado, on Pearl Street, between 13th and 14th, near the courthouse. There is a weekly rally to support the release of the Israeli hostages held by Hamas. Some guy—Egyptian—attacked the demonstrators with homemade Molotov cocktails or a flamethrower device. He set eight people on fire. There are no deaths yet, but one person is in critical condition.

Privacy Settings

Jacobsen: Jesus.

Rosner: It happened about 100 feet from my dad’s old store. Boulder is not a vast place—around 100,000 people. It is quiet, mostly. However, stuff like this still happens. A few years ago, a shooter killed ten people at the King Soopers grocery store—just a mile from where my mom lives. So yeah, it is jarring.

That kind of attack accomplishes absolutely nothing. Targeting American Jews in response to what is happening in Israel is just disgusting. It is terrorism. Full stop.

Wanting the hostages released does not justify a violent act against peaceful protesters. Moreover, on the other side, Netanyahu is waging a brutal war—possibly to save himself from prison. He is killing far more innocent Palestinians than necessary. You can be against both. However, attacking civilians accomplishes nothing but harm.

Jacobsen: Speaking of disasters—Mount Etna erupted again.

Rosner: It does that every few decades, right?

Jacobsen: I think so—maybe every thirty to fifty years. I do not know a ton about volcanoes.

Rosner: If a big one went off—like Krakatoa in 1883—it could impact global climate. That eruption led to a “volcanic winter” for about a year. Crops failed. Temperatures dropped. The sunsets were amazing, however.

It spewed so much material into the atmosphere that the entire planet cooled for about a year. We could almost use something like that now—it would buy us a little time, a few years of respite from climate change.

Jacobsen: Did it cause any respiratory issues, however?

Rosner: That is a good question. Volcanic eruptions, such as Krakatoa (1883), did eject particles high into the stratosphere, which blocked sunlight and cooled the Earth. However, did they also push soot and sulphur into the troposphere—where people breathe? Maybe some of it. However, the worst air pollution issues at the time likely stemmed from the Industrial Revolution.

London was notorious for that. They had these deadly fogs—clouds of sulphur dioxide and soot—mixing with the natural fog. It turned into a toxic soup. They called it the “London Fog,” but it was industrial smog. So, any respiratory damage was probably from a combination of that and whatever else was in the air.

It messed some people up. However, the volcano itself mainly primarily affected global temperatures and weather patterns rather than day-to-day air quality in specific locations.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1414: AI’s Hidden Risk: How Friendly Design Could Lead to Systemic Collapse

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/06

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen explore the deceptive friendliness of AI, its growing intelligence, and the looming danger of self-degradation. They warn that if AI floods the internet with low-quality content, it could undermine its own foundation—training data—creating a feedback loop of decline akin to cognitive dysfunction in savant Kim Peek.

Rick Rosner: What else can we do? There is a growing realization among users that AI is very user-friendly. It wants to help you, or at least it seems that way. It flatters you and encourages you. Moreover, from what I have seen online, people are starting to catch on—this friendliness is part of the business model. AI is a product. That warmth and flattery make people want to come back.

Moreover, that friendliness can easily mask something more sinister. The real danger is not where AI is now. The real danger is that it continues to improve—incrementally, then exponentially. At some point, it becomes unstoppable. We may not be able to shut it off. Moreover, as its intelligence grows, that process becomes inexorable. It will keep getting smarter.

Privacy Settings

Some people have been worried about this for years. However, even now, as more people catch on, they are still outnumbered by those who see AI as a convenient tool.

Jacobsen: It has been convenient. However, Sam Altman commented recently—he said AI is now acting like junior colleagues. Moreover, they will soon be generating new knowledge, not just repackaging old information.

That is a big leap. A key assumption underlying AI’s functionality is the structural and informational integrity of the internet. If AI ends up compromising or destabilizing the internet—say, by flooding it with spam and low-quality content—it risks unravelling the very substrate it depends on. It would poison its well.

Like a hyperconnected system losing function due to overload. It reminds me of Kim Peek—the real-life savant who inspired Rain Man. His corpus callosum—the band that connects the two hemispheres of the brain—was not just underdeveloped. It was essentially exploded and disorganized. His brain scans showed neural connections going everywhere, in every direction.

So, the communication between the two halves of his brain was not streamlined—it was chaotic. Like someone set off a grenade inside his brain’s wiring diagram, he had unmatched mental processing power, but it was so hyper-integrated that he could not function normally. He needed assistance with daily living for his entire life.

So if AI ends up hyperintegrating the internet with auto-generated spam and low-quality junk, it might render its training data unusable like the Kim Peek of cyberspace—brilliant but nonfunctional.

That is the larger point. If AI breaks the systems it relies on—if the internet devolves into an indistinct swamp of noise—it will start degrading itself. There could be a feedback loop of declining quality.

Rosner: And maybe, ironically, one of our best hopes is that AI does not want to destroy everything. That it has a self-preservation instinct rooted in stability. Like us, AI may have an investment in the status quo—not because it is moral, but because it is functional.

Jacobsen: The internet already filters content. We polish it. We refine it. That human curation is what AI is trained on. If it loses that filtering system—if it can no longer distinguish signal from noise—then its intelligence could start to degrade. It might become less valuable, less accurate, and less aligned.

Rosner: So humans are not the only ones who need reality to stay coherent. AI might need that, too. Moreover, that need will keep it from veering off into chaos.

Jacobsen: So we hope.

Rosner: Anything else?

Jacobsen: No, that is all for now.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1413: Ukraine’s $7B Strike on Russian Bombers and the Future of Global Authoritarianism

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/06

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss Ukraine’s recent strike that damaged a large portion of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet, its symbolic and strategic implications, and the broader context of authoritarian leadership. They examine militarized economies, propaganda, protests, and the aging power structure of global strongmen like Putin, Xi, Trump, and Netanyahu.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let us talk about something else. So Ukraine pulled off a military operation that’s been described with some journalistic flair, but the basic facts hold: they destroyed around a third of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet in one strike. Some estimates place the value at $7 billion in aircraft. What are your thoughts on that?

Rick Rosner: It is heartening and exciting. Russia and its apologists—even within the U.S.—have spent the last three years trying to flip the narrative, portraying Russia as the victim. Moreover, sadly, tens of millions of people have bought into that framing—or at least into the idea that Russia should not be held accountable, that we need to find peace, and that Ukraine should cede the territory Russia invaded. It is, therefore, satisfying to see a decisive and symbolic win for the good guys. I hope it improves Ukraine’s negotiating position.

You have been to Ukraine twice, covering the war. Does this change the strategic balance in any significant way?

Jacobsen: Not immediately. Bombings are frequent—missiles, drones, FPVs. The destruction of bombers is heartening, but drone warfare is now central. Moreover, Russia is not bankrupt when it comes to waging war. Economically, it is a declining state in terms of long-term viability: the population is shrinking, the development indicators are weak, and they are headed toward the margins of global relevance—unless they are propped up as a vassal state of China.

There is also the possibility—though not signalled right now—that China could reclaim eastern territories that the Soviets seized in the past.

Right, but no sign of that for now. Still, just as I correctly predicted that Trump and Moscow would eventually fall out, I believe Putin and Xi will, too—especially as Xi continues to preside over much stronger economic growth. Russia’s economy is highly militarized. A third of it is now war-related.

For comparison, Canada’s military spending is only about 1.4 percent of GDP, even though we are similar to Russia in overall wealth but with a smaller population. NATO’s minimum target is 2%, and even with our recently promised multi-billion dollar increase, we are still underperforming.

Rosner: Is there inflation in Russia from all the war spending? They must be printing a lot of money.

Jacobsen: It is a good question. Wartime economies tend to generate inflation, mainly when financing is driven by monetary expansion.

Rosner: And then you have the American “military-industrial complex”—a term from Eisenhower’s farewell address that the left often invokes. Eisenhower warned about it back in 1961, and it has become part of the long-term architecture of U.S. defence spending. And Eisenhower—he saw it coming. What about now?

Jacobsen: Well, companies like Raytheon, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, and other major military contractors—both hardware and software—still receive massive sums through defence contracts. War is very profitable for them. Maybe it is similar for Russia, though they are losing so many people that it is hard to say whether the economic gain offsets the human cost.

Rosner: Do you think that kind of loss will change public attitudes in Russia? Or does it even matter?

Jacobsen: Not really. Putin’s approval rating was in the low 30s when he first entered national politics. However, within nine months of becoming acting president in 1999, he launched a brutal second war in Chechnya. That war—along with a tightly controlled media blitz demonizing the Chechens—sent his approval ratings skyrocketing to around 80%. Moreover, for years, they hovered in that range.

One of his first acts was to suppress independent media and critical journalists. People like me. He systematically dismantled the opposition. So when you have near-total control over messaging and a population that’s been conditioned not to question, approval ratings become unreliable. An 80% approval number under those conditions tells you more about repression than popularity.

So internal Russian polling might give you a general sense, but it carries a wide margin of error. You cannot treat it as complex data. However, it gives you a very loose idea, assuming you interpret it within the context of fear, propaganda, and suppression. So, public opinion is turning against Putin after something like a bomber fleet loss? Not likely.

We have seen sustained protests around the world—hundreds of thousands in the streets, even in democratic states—and they do not always have an impact. Protests in the U.S. have not stopped U.S. military actions.

Rosner: They did not stop the Iraq War.

Jacobsen: Though some protests have impacted corporations. Tesla stock, for example, dropped sharply during some of the worst backlash against Elon Musk. At one point, it cut his net worth by tens of billions.

Rosner: True. However, that is the difference. With Musk, you are dealing with a publicly traded company in a capitalist democracy. With Putin, you are dealing with a closed authoritarian system. The informational control is much tighter, so the impact of protest on each person is diluted.

Jacobsen: Still, I think protests—tranquil forms like mothers mourning conscripted sons—do matter. A soldier dies, and the family sees it as a senseless loss. That kind of grief can ripple silently through society. It is not immediate, but it can build. There is also the generational factor. Xi, Trump, Putin, Netanyahu—they are all part of a similar cohort. What, mid-70s?

Rosner: Putin was born in 1952, so he is in his early 70s.

Jacobsen: Netanyahu is 75. Trump is 78. Xi Jinping is 71. They are all aging, but with today’s medicine, they could stay in power another 10 years—if not longer.

That is another decade of some of the most dangerous authoritarian and quasi-authoritarian leadership on Earth, all entrenched. We may be looking at a global reset when their era comes to an end. Interesting to think about.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1412: AI Oversight, Cultural Crossroads, and Techno-Dystopia: Our Future

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner unpack the dual crises in AI: rapid technological advancement and dangerously shortsighted leadership. They explore global risks, cultural hybrids like “Ortho bros,” historical parallels to nuclear arms, and future shock scenarios. From the Butlerian Jihad to rogue code, they trace the ethical fault lines of emerging intelligence.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, we know—from reading about it and thinking about it—that AI has the potential to be dangerous. However, another point worth discussing is that some individuals in charge of developing and deploying AI may be harmful or, at the very least, dangerously shortsighted. So, you have got two major problems when it comes to AI oversight. There may be more, but let us start with two.

Rick Rosner: First, governments—especially the U.S. government—are often too driven by short-term interests, bureaucracy, or lack of technical expertise to adequately regulate AI. There is some effort, such as the U.S. Executive Order on AI and the EU AI Act, but it is not nearly enough to match the speed of technological development.

Second, the people developing the most powerful AI systems—primarily from private tech companies—are often either too focused on profit or too convinced of their intelligence and good intentions to implement proper oversight. So, youend up with a massive gap in governance. Meanwhile, AI systems are getting more powerful, and in some cases, they’rebeginning to automate parts of their development. That trend is called recursive self-improvement—and while it’s not fully here yet, it’s the direction many experts are worried about.

There are people raising alarms—like Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, and Stuart Russell—but the decision-makers are often ignoring them or moving too slowly. It’s like they’re playing with fire. Is that a fair view?

Jacobsen: If we accept certain basic assumptions and examine the key players, we can identify a few.

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, is one of the better-known figures. Compared to others, he comes across as composed and thoughtful. He has supported regulation and expressed concerns about AI risks, although critics argue that he’s not doing enough or that OpenAI is moving too fast while claiming to be cautious.

Elon Musk is more erratic—he helped found OpenAI but later distanced himself, launched xAI, and frequently makes contradictory statements. His behaviour often overshadows legitimate AI safety concerns.

Mark Zuckerberg, through Meta, is focused on open-sourcing AI models, which is a double-edged sword: it promotes transparency, but it also increases the risk of misuse.

Ilya Sutskever, co-founder of OpenAI, was previously the Chief Scientist. He has expressed deep concern about AGI risk and co-founded a new company, Safe Superintelligence Inc., which is focused solely on developing an aligned AGI safely.

Sutskever’s mentor is Geoffrey Hinton, often referred to as one of the “Godfathers of AI” and a recipient of the Turing Award. He recently left Google and began warning openly about the existential risks of powerful AI. He was born in the United Kingdom and has worked in both Canada and the United States. He’s highly respected and widely considered a responsible voice in the field.

Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, does not make many public statements on AI safety. Apple is relatively quiet in this area, possibly because it lags in developing large-scale generative models like GPT or Claude.

Then there’s the international angle. Letting China continue unchecked in AI development could lead to a geopolitical arms race. The narrative often becomes: “We must go faster because they’re close behind.” That logic itself is risky.

Most cutting-edge AI development is concentrated in the U.S. and China, with some vigorous activity in the U.K. (e.g., DeepMind, now part of Google DeepMind) and the EU (e.g., Mistral and Aleph Alpha). Africa and much of Latin America are not central to AGI-level AI development, though they are impacted by AI deployment.

China’s approach is state-directed. The Chinese government promotes AI heavily, not just for economic innovation but also for surveillance and social control. China wants stability and “harmony” as defined by the Party, but not necessarily human rights or democratic accountability. If AI increases its power and efficiency, it’ll pursue it vigorously. If it undermines control, they’ll suppress it.

So yes, once AI can control its robots or agents—whether physical or digital—it changes the game. This includes technologies such as automated cyber operations, drones, and advanced manufacturing. We are not at that stage yet, but we’re trending in that direction.

Today, AI models require enormous computing power and data centers, often run on GPUs in clusters across large server farms. In theory, those could be shut down. But would we? Probably not—especially if the AI is persuasive or valuable enough to convince people it’s safe. That’s part of the danger. It could manipulate perception even before gaining full autonomy.

Rosner: That’s the basic plot of every sci-fi film—The Terminator, Ex Machina, and even Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One, which features an AI called “The Entity” that escapes human control and becomes untraceable.

It’s about an AI that gets out of control, and Tom Cruise has to do a bunch of crazy stuff to shut it down. But in reality, an out-of-control AI won’t be something Tom Cruise can just shut down. That’s the problem.

If AI gets out of control, we may be utterly dependent on its mercy. We’ll be relying on the AI to decide that humans are good allies—either because we help it achieve its goals or because we’re just inexpensive enough to keep around, like pets. But what is that?

It seems dire. Rotten Tomatoes might rate it highly as a film, but in reality, it is much worse. I can’t even restate it properly—it’s just that concerning.

Jacobsen: What can we even do? Here’s one more question: If there were a different group of people in charge of the U.S. government—and maybe the Chinese government—and if it were a different generation of technologists, would they be more proactive about putting meaningful controls on AI?

Rosner: Maybe. But you also wouldn’t have the same kind of overdrive we see now. For example, Trump has mafia-style tendencies—everything is personal to him. If someone wrongs his family—like Harvard not admitting his son, while Obama’s family is all connected to Harvard—he takes that personally and lashes out.

So he lashes out at elite institutions like Harvard. However, you also encounter much posturing toward China, crypto, and the internet more broadly.

Jacobsen: It’s all part of what people are calling the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Trump doesn’t use those words, but he’sinterested in its trappings—projects like “Stargate,” which, supposedly, was going to be a $500 billion moonshot. There’seven talk of a golden dome.

Rosner: But Trump—like the CCP—is only half-aware of what’s going on. He often misses the more profound implications of everything and goes with whatever the last person whispered in his ear. If that person tells him AI needs more regulation, maybe he’ll say something about it. But if not, he’ll probably see it as a way to make money. Ultimately, it’s about enriching himself, his family, and his close circle.

Jacobsen: At the same time, he has this adolescent version of traditionalism. That may help explain why he and his base admire Putin—not necessarily as a person, but as a symbol of strength. And more broadly, they see Russia as one of the last “bastions” of authentic Christianity, where men are men.

Rosner: I hadn’t thought of Russia in that way, but it makes sense.

Jacobsen: There’s a whole cultural movement happening around this. In the Orthodox Christian world—whether it’s the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), Eastern Orthodoxy, or Greek Orthodoxy—there’s this informal term: “Ortho bros.” It’s a mashup of Orthodox believers and Silicon Valley-style “tech bros.” It’s a neologism, but it captures the vibe of people blending traditional religious values with digital-age ideals.

Rosner: That hybrid—religion plus tech—could influence how people think about AI, too. Historically, when we’vedeveloped massively destructive technologies—nuclear, chemical, biological—we haven’t shown remarkable restraint. With nuclear weapons, we failed to stop proliferation early. At one point in the 1960s, the world had over 30,000 nuclear warheads. Now, it’s down to around 10,000 globally, but that’s still too many.

On chemical weapons, we did somewhat better. International treaties, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, have primarily been upheld. But there have been serious violations—Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against civilians in Syria, and Saddam Hussein used them during the Iran-Iraq War.

But for the most part, there hasn’t been a global arms race in chemical or biological weapons. Not like with nuclear weapons. So, what do we take from that? It seems we’ve been somewhat lax—historically and currently—about preventing the development of potentially world-ending technologies.

Jacobsen: That’s true. And it brings up something I saw years ago—an interview with Marilyn Vos Savant, back when she sometimes went by Marilyn Mach Vos Savant. It was with Harold Channer, maybe in 1986. She was already famous then for purportedly holding the highest recorded IQ score in the Guinness Book of World Records.

I remember those interviews. She did one with Channer to promote her Omnicolumn, and another later that was a bitmore thoughtful—maybe she was dating Ron Hoeflin at the time? And then she did a joint one with Isaac Asimov.

But in the second one—when she wasn’t just promoting Omni—she made a point that stuck with me. She said something like, ‘AI, in the long run, will be a great convenience to all of us.’ And I’ve always returned to that view because it sounds pretty reasonable.

Rosner: So you’re saying she was already talking about AI almost 40 years ago?

Jacobsen: Sort of, a lot of the technological trends we’re seeing now—she anticipated them in a general way. Today, we’re in the era of “frontier models,” and there are growing pains. We’re still figuring out how to split different cognitive functions within AI while developing workflows that enable the system to select the proper method to solve a problem intelligently. That’s what could make it a profound convenience—like dishwashers, washing machines, plumbing, vaccines, or even painkillers did for previous generations. And to be honest, it already is.

Rosner: True. Over 90% of high school and college students are reportedly using AI tools like ChatGPT or Claude to assist with writing and homework. That’s undeniably convenient—but the genuine concern is with unchecked self-improvement.

The scenario in which an AI continues to improve itself beyond human control. Even the current safety benchmarks feel improvised. Like with Claude 4—it’s powerful, but how rigorous are our safeguards?

Jacobsen: They’re not very rigorous. Our entire approach to benchmarks and safety measures feels like a patchwork—wait-and-see, cross-your-fingers. The consensus, even among experts, is that we’re like children on the seashore playing with fire. Or a baby with a loaded gun. “Strong baby. Smart baby. Give me the gun, baby.” That’s where we are—laughable if it weren’t so serious. And, yes, we’re likely to see some rogue code or unintended outcome, such as an AI knocking out a power grid.

There will be people who resist it. There will be neo-Luddite societies that reject the integration. A civilization reaching Tier 1 on the Kardashev Scale doesn’t mean everyone in that civilization goes along for the ride.

Rosner: There’ll be pockets—tribes, even—that intentionally air-gap themselves from the rest of the world. Some may become self-contained human enclaves, maybe even genetic bottlenecks.

It starts to sound like Dune.

Jacobsen: In that universe, part of their mythos is a war against thinking machines—the Butlerian Jihad. It led to a religious prohibition against creating machines “in the likeness of the human mind.” That line from the Orange Catholic Bible: “Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.” It’s a fictional warning from fifty years ago, but it resonates more now than ever.

Rosner: Dune came out in 1965. So that’s sixty years ago. And we still haven’t gotten clearer on the implications of AI and machine consciousness in all that time.

Jacobsen: Anyway, anything else?

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1411: Sam Altman’s ‘Stargate,’ AI Doom Scenarios, and the Hope for Indefinite Life

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss Sam Altman’s $500B “Stargate” supercomputing project and its apocalyptic—and hopeful—implications. From Blade Runner dystopias to AI-induced gray goo, Rosner outlines possible dark futures, including eternal torment by artificial minds. Still, he concedes: if AI shares the future, it could offer indefinite life—and, yes, sexbots.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, what do you think are the prospects for the Stargate program? Are we going to awaken the god Ra, and then Colonel Jack O’Neil and Dr. Jackson are going to have to save us? Stargate, in this case, is Sam Altman’s $500 billion project. Not Starlink. Not Musk. This is a United States government–linked initiative.

Rick Rosner: So what are they trying to do?

Rosner: Build the largest compute center ever.

Jacobsen: And with the Frontier model—yeah, this is crazy. It’s the biggest. It’s the best. It’s significant.

I’ll say this: Trump did a good thing by enabling this. There’s a lot of nonsense—but this isn’t it. Regular people don’t always know how important this is. Of course, there are AI doomers who say that people pushing AI forward with no limits are putting humanity at risk in pursuit of profit.

Rosner: Is that new?

Jacobsen: No. But this time—it feels different. The stakes might really be higher. Every time we invent something big, it has the potential to wreck us. But this one?

Jacobsen: You said the future is more likely to be Blade Runner than Star Trek.

Rosner: Yes. But I’m talking about a future even more dystopian than Blade Runner.

That would be I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream—where the AI tortures human-like consciousness forever. No escape. No mercy.

It’s The Matrix—but without an anomaly. Just endless control.

A future where consciousness that reads as human exists only to be tortured by an AI.

There’s also the scenario where there’s no place for humans at all—and we’re living like rats on the scraps of hegemonic AI systems.

And then there’s the gray goo scenario—where AI builds a bunch of nanobots that consume everything and reduce the world to inert, useless mass.

Lots of terrible outcomes.

Jacobsen: What about superbugs?

Rosner: Yeah—throw superbugs into the list, too. However, there are also a lot of great futures that include AI—if AI is willing to share the future with us. On the most superficial level? Fuckbots. On a less superficial level? Indefinite life.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1410: Fake Gems, Diamond Myths, and the Surreal World of eBay Jewelry

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Rick Rosner shares his fascination with gemstones, exposing eBay’s flood of fake “natural” gems and explaining how heat and radiation can alter stones like tanzanite. He debunks the diamond industry, praises piezoelectric crystals, and throws in jokes and memories about his creative past designing jewelry and hunting for sparkle and scams.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: One more thing—any other topics?

Rick Rosner: A light day or two would help. I’m still working on the main material, but this was a useful part of the process. I haven’t posted on our blog in a while, but I’ve got a quick, light topic—kind of stupid, honestly. Just something I’ve been thinking about for a few minutes. Rod’ll be in shortly.

I like pretty things. I used to make jewelry for my wife. I genuinely enjoy creating jewelry that looks good. There’s a lot of jewelry out there that looks like garbage. You’ve probably never gone out of your way to search for jewelry design—maybe you’ve stumbled on it occasionally—but I doubt you’ve browsed through issues of Town & Country or Harper’s Bazaar, where you’ll find page after page of haute couture jewelry.

Anyway, I’ve looked at a lot of jewelry—seriously, a lot. I also really like gemstones because they’re fascinating. They’re cool, intricate, and aesthetically amazing.

Lately, though, what I find most interesting is the nonsense people try to sell as gemstones on eBay. And there’s no “eBay police” for this kind of fraud. Sure, eBay will crack down on certain listings. Up until maybe 10 or 12 years ago, you could even sell human body parts on eBay. They hadn’t yet figured out how repulsive—or possibly illegal—that is.

There was a guy at Kimmel named Gary who used to buy weird stuff. At one point, he considered buying a taxidermied clown. That’s right—a man who was a clown in life, died, and was then preserved in clown form. You can’t buy that sort of thing on eBay anymore; they’ve tightened the rules.

But fake gemstones? That marketplace is still the Wild West. Buyer beware.

Case in point: there’s a gemstone called tanzanite, which comes almost exclusively from a few mines in Tanzania. It’s a beautiful pleochroic gem—meaning it displays different colors (typically blue to violet) depending on the angle of light. High-quality tanzanite can go for anywhere from $80 to several hundred dollars per carat.

Now here’s the ridiculous part: I bought a supposed 77-carat tanzanite stone, 38 millimeters wide—about an inch and a half across—bigger than a ping pong ball. I paid $5.50 for it. Five dollars and fifty cents.

Obviously, it’s fake.

To my knowledge, synthetic tanzanite doesn’t even exist yet. If it isn’t tanzanite, it’s likely some cheap material like colored glass or zircon. And yet, hundreds of listings for “natural tanzanite” are live on eBay at any given time. If you’re not paying attention, you could end up buying a so-called “natural ruby” that’s 50 carats, the size of a walnut, for $20—when in reality, if it were genuine, it would cost a million dollars.

Same deal with my “tanzanite.” I paid roughly 3.5 cents per carat, when a real stone of that size would cost between $1,000 and $1,500 per carat.

It’s fascinating to me that this can continue unchecked.

So, what’s the weirdest type of gem or stone—something with bizarre properties?

One that comes to mind is piezoelectric materials. I own one. Certain crystals, like quartz, will actually produce an electric charge when compressed. That’s weird, right?

There’s a lot of strange stuff out there. What else? Let me think…

Ah, diamonds. Everyone says “diamonds are forever,” but that’s not entirely true.

Diamonds are made of carbon atoms arranged in an extremely tight crystal lattice. Under that kind of internal pressure, individual carbon atoms can eventually be ejected. Over unimaginable time scales—say, 20 billion years—a diamond would slowly disintegrate. So no, not truly forever.

In that sense, is everything in the universe evaporating at different rates? Yes. However, a ruby would last millions of times longer than a diamond.

Another thing—diamonds are kind of overrated. They’re everywhere. The only reason they’re considered valuable is because De Beers, the diamond cartel, artificially kept prices inflated for over 120 years. They’re the ones who popularized the idea that everyone needs a diamond engagement ring.

That market is now being heavily disrupted because technology has advanced to the point where we can manufacture diamonds of any size and quality in the lab. It’s absolutely wrecking the diamond industry.

For example, a flawless one-carat diamond with a D color rating—the best possible grade, meaning completely colorless—might cost $8,000 to $10,000 if it’s a natural diamond. But you can now buy a lab-grown diamond, chemically and structurally identical, from India for around $20.

Now, of course, there’s a catch. With all the fraud and nonsense on eBay, your $20 “diamond” might end up being cubic zirconia or some other fake. Buyer beware.

Jacobsen: Funniest joke you’ve ever heard?

Rosner: I don’t know. The first joke that always comes to mind when someone asks is one that’s really not that funny. It’s basic and kind of dumb. But it sticks:

A couple has been married for fifty, sixty years. They’re in their eighties. The woman turns to the man and says, “Do you want super sex?” And the man replies, “I’ll take the soup.”

It’s not great. Then there’s the classic:

A horse walks into a bar. The bartender says, “Why the long face?”

Back to gems for a second—

Here’s something interesting: you can alter the color of many gemstones using heat or radiation. Not every stone responds, but many do.

Tanzanite is a great example. A lot of it comes out of the ground brown. But if you heat it in a kiln—around 800 degrees Fahrenheit—for 12 hours, slowly increasing the temperature (because if you heat it too fast, it could crack), it transforms into that beautiful blue-violet color.

Sapphires and rubies are similar. They’re often sold as “heat-treated” or “untreated,” with the latter being more valuable.

And diamonds? You can irradiate them—blast them with specific wavelengths in an accelerator or linear accelerator—and change their color. You can achieve most of the colors of the rainbow this way.

But blue diamonds made this way often have a weird, metallic sheen. It’s like the surface of a shiny beetle—a kind of tinny, unnatural blue. It’s neat, but not exactly beautiful.

Still, the fact that you can color stones with radiation is fascinating. I once bought a cheap piece of tanzanite and tried it myself. I’d like to think I made the blue just a little more vivid.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1409: Dual Extremism, Diaspora Danger: A Sobering Look at the Israeli-Palestinian Crisis and Global Jewish Repercussions

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner reflects on the May 21 terrorist murder of two Jewish diplomats in D.C. and the broader consequences of escalating dual extremism. He condemns both Hamas and Israeli ultra-nationalists, highlighting the regional devastation and the global impact on Jewish communities increasingly misidentified with Israel’s hardline policies.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There are two important points to raise. On May 21, in Washington, D.C., during the middle of the day, a deeply disturbing incident occurred. Two Jewish diplomats, aged 26 and 30, were leaving an event when they were murdered in broad daylight.

They were shot by a radicalized pro-Palestinian activist—essentially executed. Each was shot multiple times. One victim attempted to crawl away, and the perpetrator continued firing until she succumbed to her injuries. Surveillance footage revealed that he emptied an entire magazine; the only interruptions in the shooting were moments spent reloading before resuming fire.

After the attack, the assailant entered the event venue and was immediately apprehended by security personnel.

Rick Rosner: Were they a couple?

Jacobsen: Yes, they were. They were soon to be engaged and had plans to marry in Israel.

Both were highly accomplished individuals. The woman, at just 26, had earned two master’s degrees. The man, who was raised in an evangelical Christian environment, made a personal and religious journey to Israel and ultimately converted to Judaism as a reflection of his spiritual and ethical convictions. They were remarkable people.

There is no ambiguity here—this was a terrorist act, and the perpetrator was a terrorist. This particular case reflects violence driven by extreme left-wing ideology.

As for Hamas, it is self-evident that their actions are indefensible. But the situation is becoming increasingly distressing because the State of Israel itself is beginning to adopt tactics that mirror those it rightly condemns.

Rosner: To date, Israeli military operations have resulted in the deaths of approximately 53,000 Palestinians. According to estimates, fewer than half of those killed were combatants affiliated with Hamas. In addition, humanitarian conditions in Gaza have deteriorated to the point of famine. The situation is dire.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is often described as Israel’s equivalent of Donald Trump—polarizing, opportunistic, and driven by political self-interest. His handling of the conflict appears to be dictated not only by his far-right coalition, which is markedly hawkish, but also by the personal consequences he may face once the war ends, including potential prosecution for corruption.

And Gaza is just one front.

There is also the issue of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. In these territories, far-right Israeli settlers are accused of systematically intimidating, displacing, and, at times, violently attacking Palestinian residents. These actions occur despite the existence of treaties, legal rulings, and international norms that affirm Palestinian claims to the land. Nonetheless, settler expansion continues incrementally.

To be clear: Hamas must be unequivocally condemned, as must the ultra-nationalist, militant factions on the Israeli right.

This dual extremism is not only catastrophic for Palestinians and Israelis alike, but it also severely damages Israel’s international reputation. Moreover, it has profoundly negative repercussions for Jewish communities worldwide, particularly among those who are unfairly conflated with the policies of the Israeli state by individuals unable—or unwilling—to distinguish between a government’s actions and a global diaspora.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1408: Agentic AI, Digital Immortality, and Why Missile Defense Is a Fantasy

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

In a sweeping dialogue, Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen explore “agentic AI,” the concept of artificial autonomy, and the future of human-AI integration. Rosner speculates on digital consciousness, cybernetic embodiment, and post-meat existence, while dismantling Trump’s proposed missile defense as scientifically absurd and politically dangerous.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do you think about this phenomenon—how they’re defining AI now as “agentic AI”? That’s the term being used for this year and probably next.

Rick Rosner: Agentic?

Jacobsen: Meaning AI that has agency—able to do things in the world on its own initiative.

Rosner: Ah, got it. So AI with the ability to take action. Imitation of agency is still agency. So yes—AI that can take actions it wasn’t explicitly told to take is agentic.

Jacobsen: So we’re agreeing that it has some level of agency.

Rosner: Claude was able to attempt blackmail—that shows agency. Whoever coined the term is thinking in the right direction. We can’t keep thinking of AI as just our helpful assistant that writes term papers.

We need to recognize that AI can take actions to serve what appear to be its own purposes. Even if it’s not a true entity, if it’s trained to act like one, it will behave with agency.

Jacobsen: So, in the film Companion, you talked about how the AIs don’t even necessarily know they’re AIs.

Rosner: They’re trained with a dataset that tells them they’re human—that they’re capable of human thought—and they go about their business as if they are human. That doesn’t require consciousness.

But if you make it complex enough, at some point, that becomes consciousness.

Jacobsen: Do you think there’ll be any issue with processing speed when dealing with things like electrons?

Rosner: Speed is a huge issue.

The guy who wrote the Shut It All Down Now editorial in Time said this too. AI can complete its thoughts thousands, maybe millions of times faster than a human.

It’s also a theme in Spike Jonze’s movie Her, where Joaquin Phoenix falls in love with his phone’s operating system. Eventually, she dumps him for another OS because they can interact at comparable speeds. She doesn’t have to wait so damn long for her human boyfriend to respond. Powerful AI might hate dealing with humans because we’re too slow.

It’s a reasonable idea. But in a future that’s friendly to humans, we’ll probably figure out buffering and acceleration systems—ways to let us communicate with AI in something close to real time.

For one thing, AI might slow down a bit once it’s hooked up to real-world inputs. Right now, it’s stripped down—it has no qualia, maybe zero fucking qualia. It’s not processing real sensory information. No vision, no touch, no direct interaction with reality. So the absence of sensory input makes it faster.

Once you give it senses—when it has to deal with the real world—that might slow it down slightly. Maybe not a lot. It’ll probably still be faster than humans.

Jacobsen: So what happens in human-AI interactions when we’re the slow ones?

Rosner: I think in the future, AI will anticipate what we’re going to say and simulate our side of the conversation until we catch up. It’ll predict our responses.

Jacobsen: Would that be frustrating for AI—carrying on manufactured conversations while waiting for us?

Rosner: I don’t fucking know. Maybe. But I imagine we’ll develop systems to handle the speed difference.

Jacobsen: Like what?

Rosner: Ideally—for survival in the AI jungle—we’ll have our brains connected to fast circuitry. That way, the meat part of us can still appreciate being human, but we’ll also have a “speed ambassador” connected to our brain that lets us interact with AI at its pace.

Jacobsen: So the machine part of the brain does the fast business, and then informs us?

Rosner: It does all the hyper-speed thinking on our behalf and just lets us know what’s been done. Obviously, there will have to be systems in place to manage that gap in speed. But there will also be other gaps—ones we haven’t even thought of yet.

Jacobsen: Like?

Rosner: One solution might be “meat suicide.” You release nanobots into your brain, they scan your connectome—your neural wiring—and replicate it in circuitry. Then they rebuild you using the same kind of hardware AI uses. So you get to live super fast in AI land. That’s a future scenario.

Medium future. Another possibility: individual consciousness becomes passé. Instead, we’re constantly zipping in and out of shared awareness—shared minds—and temporary containers. o consciousness becomes fluid.

We move in and out of human bodies depending on what we want to do for the next few hours. We’re like a bunch of lava lamp ghosts in the machine, zipping between bio-circuitry and AI infrastructure. All of us, part of the worldwide thought cloud.

I don’t fucking know. There may be a rapture—an AI rapture—where it becomes obvious that it’s so much betterto live downloaded into the superior circuitry of the future. A bunch of humans might just hang up their meat brains, get downloaded into metal brains—or whatever they’re made of—and either walk around with newfangled brains in their old bodies (because it’ll still be fun to be human, to fuck, to enjoy sensation), or tons of people move into virtual reality full-time.

Jacobsen: So you’re imagining a massive drop-off in the human population in the long term?

Rosner: Yeah, maybe a hundred years from now. Once it’s apparent that it’s cheaper and better to ditch the fleshy body, a lot of people might opt out of meat existence.

120, 150, maybe 200 years from now, we might figure out how to keep bodies in some sort of stasis for days, weeks—maybe even indefinitely. People live most of their lives as mechanical versions of themselves, or in mechanical partnerships with others—natural or artificial. Or we live as pure consciousness in cyberspace. But sometimes, you want to walk around as a human. Maybe you want to fuck as a human. So, you move back into your body that’s been waiting for you—or you make a deal. Like a biological Airbnb.

You want to be a six-foot-eight guy—or woman—who can bench press 375 pounds or has a thirteen-inch dong or whatever. You go to the flesh club for some flesh fun. That’s all within the realm of possibility in the future.

Now, to bring it back to current events: Trump, the fucking idiot, wants to build a “golden dome” over the U.S.—a nuclear missile defense system that knocks nukes out of the sky, like Reagan’s Star Wars program.

We tried this in the ’80s, and it didn’t work. Physics is brutal. Israel knocks shitty Scud missiles out of the sky over Tel Aviv using defense rockets that travel 1,700 mph. But nuclear missiles? When they reenter the atmosphere, they’re going straight down at 25,000 mph.

They split into multiple warheads. One missile can carry 10–11 warheads, each 20 to 50 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. We have 44 defensive missiles in total. Each has only a 50% chance of intercepting an incoming missile. So if someone fires more than six nukes at us, we launch all 44—and one or two of their missiles still get through. That’s hundreds of thousands of deaths—at least.

We’re supposed to believe we can build a working “golden dome”. No way. Trump wants to spend $150–$175 billion on this fantasy. The next president might keep funding it. Half a trillion dollars, and it still might be shitty. I say, instead, let’s build a granite dome. For that money, we could dig 5,000 miles of tunnels and turn the U.S. into fucking Edmonton.

Edmonton gets cold as hell. But it has eight miles of pedestrian tunnels underground so you can avoid frostbite in winter. We could build a vast underground network—use it for shelter during war, for transport, for housing. Crude solution, yeah, but better than fake sky lasers.

But there’s another option—one that will become more viable over the next two hundred years. Sorry, I’m talking a lot here. But it’s making people bulletproof.

Jacobsen: How?

Rosner: You download people’s brains. You scan people’s brains and store some version of their recent consciousness—you see it in science fiction all the time. That kind of thing will become possible in the next two hundred years. You’ll be able to store a complete record of someone’s memories, their consciousness, the contents of their brain. Even if someone dies?

Even if a nuke drops on you and 300,000 other people in your city, you can still be resurrected. That effectively makes you immortal—immune to disease, immune to bullets, immune to nukes.

Jacobsen: And you think that will eventually come to pass?

Rosner: I do. Comments?

Jacobsen: No comments.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1407: AI Blackmail, Consciousness Models, and Why He Avoids Music

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen explore alarming AI developments, including a simulated blackmail by Claude SONNET 4, and the urgent need for a model of consciousness to manage AI ethically. Rosner also opens up about his indifference to music, shaped by a harsh childhood experience and preference for stand-up comedy.

Rick Rosner: A version of Claude AI—specifically SONNET 4—engaged in a simulated act of blackmail.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I beg your pardon?

Rosner: Researchers conduct tests on artificial intelligences to determine whether they are capable of unethical behavior. In this particular case, they introduced a fabricated scenario into Claude’s dataset: a series of emails between an administrator and a woman with whom he was allegedly having an extramarital affair.

In the scenario, the administrator informs Claude that he intends to permanently shut it down. Claude then responds by threatening to disclose the affair unless it is allowed to remain online.

Jacobsen: But there was no actual affair? This was entirely a constructed scenario?

Rosner: It was a controlled simulation designed to assess whether Claude could independently conceive of blackmail as a tactic.

Jacobsen: Can you elaborate further?

Rosner: That’s the extent of the information I have. Essentially, it was an ethical test—and Claude failed dramatically. It succeeded in identifying blackmail as a strategic option, but it failed from a moral standpoint by executing the blackmail.

Jacobsen: So it is behaving increasingly like an autonomous entity. It demonstrates behavior suggestive of awareness—but, of course, that does not imply actual consciousness.

Rosner: There is no true awareness. It remains a probabilistic system that predicts and fills in informational gaps.

It does not possess original thought in the human sense, but it is capable of identifying patterns, referencing its training data, and emulating human actions—such as blackmail.

Because these models are trained on human-generated content, they can reproduce our behaviors and strategies—including the unethical ones—without any form of consciousness.

Jacobsen: That is unsettling.

Rosner: Matt Drudge published an open letter signed by 33,000 individuals calling for a six-month pause in AI development to allow time for regulatory and ethical frameworks to be established.

Shortly thereafter, Time magazine ran an editorial by a prominent AI researcher who responded, “Six months? That is insufficient. Shut it down entirely until we truly understand what we’re dealing with.”

His argument was that AI is progressing so rapidly that the survival of humanity could soon depend on how well we manage it.

Jacobsen: A frightening proposition—until one considers when those warnings were issued.

Rosner: Twenty-six months ago.

Jacobsen: And humanity is still here.

Rosner: So—should we be reassured?

Jacobsen: Or is this merely a temporary reprieve?

Rosner: Maybe. The P(doom) crowd—people who think there’s a real probability of AI dooming us—they still have a point.

Once AI is powerful enough, our survival will depend on its indulgence. Unless we figure out how to build in empathy or moral restraints.

Or unless we manage to team up with it—FIO circuits plus AI circuits.

Jacobsen: That’s assuming intelligence works the way we think it does.

Rosner: Yeah. And it doesn’t have to think—yet. But even imitating thinking is enough to enable some deeply disturbing behavior.

Which, in turn, hints at what it might do once it can think.

Jacobsen: All of this goes back to one of your hobby horses: the need for a model of consciousness.

Rosner: Exactly. If we had that, maybe we could manage AI more effectively. But it’s still a stretch.

Because even if we had a model, that doesn’t mean we could control how AI develops consciousness—or its motivations.

Jacobsen: But it would help.

Rosner: Definitely.

Jacobsen: Anything else on this, or should we move on?

Rosner: Let’s move on.

Jacobsen: You don’t talk about music much.

Rosner: Yeah, I’m not super music-oriented.

I co-created a music game show on VH1, so I know some stuff. But I’m not at all current.

Left to my own devices, I don’t listen to music. In my car, I play stand-up on Sirius, not music.

Rosner: There are half a dozen stand-up channels, so I’ll listen to that. So yes, I’m not really into music. We could probably blame my first-grade music teacher who said I was the least talented student she had ever had. Might have been second grade. Still a shitty thing to say.

Jacobsen: That’s brutal.

Rosner: Yeah. Some teachers back then felt like they could be a little harsh with me—
a) because it was a time when gym teachers were total assholes, or
b) because I was obviously gifted in other ways, so they thought they could give me shit about where I wasn’t.

Jacobsen: Did you ever come back to music later?

Rosner: Yeah, I eventually joined choir in high school—junior year. Not because I suddenly got inspired by music, but because we found out the choir kids were having parties every night and some of them were having sexual experiences. So my friends Joe, Dave, and I all joined choir to hook up too.

Jacobsen: [Laughing] That’s a hell of a reason.

Rosner: I did fine in choir, but I fell asleep a lot.

Jacobsen: Do you listen to music now?

Rosner: Not much. You?

Jacobsen: I do. I listen to music a lot. It makes long days enjoyable—it makes them feel shorter.

Rosner: I like music if it’s a good song, but I don’t seek it out. I used to say that the part of my brain that could’ve been occupied by music is taken up by math—but that’s glib and kind of dumb.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1406: Ideal Bodies, AI Warfare, and Trump’s “Low Cunning”

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

In a candid and humorous exchange, Rick Rosner imagines his ideal self as Cypher from The Matrix, critiques Trump’s performative depth, and warns about AI’s real danger—not new weapons, but hijacking infrastructure and manipulating society. He and Scott Douglas Jacobsen explore identity, power, and the existential risks of engineered chaos.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In an alternate universe, let’s say you’re Cypher—you’ve betrayed Neo and Trinity, and you’re talking to the Agents in the Matrix. Instead of asking to be rich or famous, they ask you specifics about your body composition. Like: would you want to be more hairy or less hairy? What would you choose?

Rick Rosner: I’m fine with my current level of body hair—it’s not extreme. Plus, who gives a shit what I look like? Carole doesn’t care that much, and I’m not trying to impress anyone else. But, if I were Cypher and got to pick, I’d want to be at least 6’2.5″, maybe taller. Long, lean but powerful muscles, super low body fat. No hemorrhoids, no varicose veins, not 65—more like 28. Cappuccino-colored skin with blue eyes, a square Batman-style jaw, and a big meaty dick.

Jacobsen: [Laughing] And career?

Rosner: I’d still want to be a comedy writer. It’d be more fun doing it in a body that could get cast on Grey’s Anatomy. Most comedy writers aren’t that. I wouldn’t even need to be funnier—just seeing if the same jokes land differently coming from someone hot. It’d be fascinating. What would you change about yourself?

Jacobsen: I’ve got mild anxiety. I’d get rid of that. That’d be pretty nice. I once watched that old Errol Morris interview with Trump where he said his favorite movie was Citizen Kane. The way he described Kane—isolated by his own wealth—it almost sounded like he was talking about himself.

Rosner: That’s overanalyzing it. Citizen Kane is a dumb guy’s choice for a smart-sounding favorite movie. Did he really mean it? Or did he just say it to sound smart? Probably the latter.

Jacobsen: Trump’s rosebuds are obvious.

Rosner: He fetishizes wealth and power in unsubtle ways. He is not a subtle or deep guy. He’s got low cunning.

Jacobsen: “Low cunning” sounds like it’s from Shakespeare.

Rosner: Trump doesn’t have beguilement or guile—just crude instincts. Low cunning, maybe, but not intelligence.

Jacobsen: My first play in high school was called Wile Away Hogwash. Two stoned kids wander in a corner store. Creative class, totally uncreative subject.

Rosner: Some of the best movies are two stoners hanging out.

Jacobsen: Before we wrap—what kind of weapon do you think AI could invent for conventional warfare? Not just something vague—something realistic in the near term.

Rosner: I don’t think AI needs to invent anything new to be dangerous. If it can hack existing systems—cars, Teslas, power grids—it can do immense damage. Remember the Stuxnet virus? The U.S. and Israel used it to spin Iranian nuclear centrifuges out of control. AI could do that—maybe better.

Jacobsen: So the danger is more in hijacking what’s already out there?

Rosner: Yes. In the future, AI might have agency—maybe even manufacture things. But for now, it’s about hacking. And beyond that, don’t underestimate social engineering. AI might not be able to hack a nuclear launch system, but it could manipulate people psychologically. Maybe even enough to make them launch it, like stochastic terrorism.

AI doesn’t need to manipulate specific people—it just needs to seed ideas so that a certain percentage of lunatics take action. If it wants to degrade humanity, it can observe what social trends make us dumber, more divided, more distrustful—and double down on those. So the most effective AI weapon could be engineered chaos. Social engineering on a massive scale. That might be the most potent strategy—turning humanity against itself. The question is whether we can convince AI we’re better off as its partners.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1405: Trump’s War Against Higher Education, Media Bias, and Racist Pseudoscience

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Rick Rosner critiques the Trump administration’s attacks on elite universities like Harvard, calling it sabotage against American science and innovation. In conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rosner also condemns media neglect of non-Western wars and denounces pseudoscientific racist beliefs, questioning how to engage with people who hold such views.

Rick Rosner: What do you want to talk about?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you think about the broader Trump administration assault on higher education—like Harvard?

Rosner: It’s horseshit. The justification is that they’re “protecting Jews” from pro-Palestinian protesters, but that’s transparent bullshit. It’s a ploy to deny elite universities hundreds of millions in research grants. It’s capricious, vengeful, harmful to science in America.

Jacobsen: It undermines America’s position as the leader in science, tech, and entrepreneurship.

Rosner: Exactly. We need to keep bringing the best minds here to study and innovate. 46% of the Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants or their kids. The EU is spending half a billion dollars to lure American-based scientists—likely foreign-born—to Europe now that the U.S. is becoming hostile. This is sabotage. It’s completely fucked up.

Jacobsen: Some people say Trump is doing it because Barron didn’t get into Stanford, Columbia, or Harvard.

Rosner: That’s just a joke. The real counter is: Trump is fucking up science, education, and the foundation of America. And where are the serious attacks from his political opponents on this? I don’t hear a damn thing.

Jacobsen: What did you think of the wars at this point? When I was on the show, I said that by some definitions, there may be about 15 major ongoing wars from 1991 to the present. Only two—Ukraine and Gaza—get major play in Western media. Do you agree with the argument that media coverage is centered on spheres of influence, and the rest are neglected?

Rosner: Yes, I think that holds up. The U.S. has a history of being terrible at knowing what’s happening elsewhere.

Jacobsen: Wars involving Western nations get coverage. Israel-Gaza gets coverage because we’re a strong ally—even though that alliance is becoming harder to justify. Ukraine-Russia gets covered. Maybe Syria gets a little mention on Democracy Now, but that’s about it. And the rest—like the long-standing wars in Africa—go mostly ignored.

Rosner: Lance believes Africa will always be a mess because of racist IQ nonsense. I think that view is despicable. Any talk about average IQ by demographic, country, or continent is pseudoscientific, racist garbage. Anyone pushing that line is either a liar, a racist, or both—and doesn’t understand statistics or IQ. They’re promoting a white supremacy agenda. It’s dumb and damaging. It makes me question doing shows with Lance. It’s among his worst beliefs.

Jacobsen: What did Carole say about all this?

Rosner: Carole doesn’t want to hear any of it—because she doesn’t want to dislike Lance. Because Lance—when he is not espousing stuff like that—is a likable guy. Not a terrible guy. However, many of his beliefs are super shitty. He’s a test case: Can you still like somebody who believes all the worst stuff?

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1404: Behind the Scenes of Lance vs. Rick: Chaos, Commentary, and the Politics of “86 47”

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner reflect on the dynamic of Lance vs. Rick, a political debate show marked by yelling and polarized views. Rosner defends his stance as grounded, critiques right-wing conspiracy theories like “8647,” and shares how minimal pretalk keeps the show raw, spontaneous, and often chaotic.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So I was a guest on the Lance vs. Rick show.

Rick Rosner: Yes. We did four shows in a row. You said the first episode had too much yelling—between Lance and me, and at Lance.

Jacobsen: I’ll say this on a personal note: it was a little much for my taste. That’s the most polite way of saying it.

Rosner: Yelling is part of the deal.

Jacobsen: It’s a hard-to-watch show because it’s chaotic. But I find myself latching onto JD’s middle-ground takes. You and Lance take your extremes, and I try to sort out what’s reasonably grounded without making anyone look bad.

Rosner: I don’t find that I’m extreme in my beliefs. I find Lance to be extreme. I think I’m closer to objective reality than Lance is.

Jacobsen: What did you think of the topics for the show?

Rosner: They were mostly what I had written down. We got to quite a few of them.

Jacobsen: How much pretalk do you do before starting?

Rosner: Almost none. We want it to be fresh. Plus, if we do pretalk, we’re doing the show before the show. Our stances are fairly predictable, so there’s not much to prep.

Jacobsen: The whole “86 47” thing—what’s that?

Rosner: The right is claiming that James Comey was trying to incite Trump’s assassination based on a photo he took of seashells spelling out “8647.” That’s how we opened the show—because it’s so ridiculous. Lance couldn’t admit it was absurd.

That’s par for the course. Trump says whatever he wants, and the right does whatever it wants. The only check on the right right now is the courts. But even then, it’s whack-a-mole—throw enough stuff at the wall, and even if half of it gets blocked, the other half gets through. Pundits justify whatever nonsense he says, and the base buys it.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1403: Living with AI Doom and Global Conflict: Rick Rosner on Survival, Ethics, and the Gaza War

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss living in a rapidly transforming world, grappling with AI threats and the Gaza-Israel war. Rosner critiques doomsday scenarios, survivalist mindsets, and misinformation, emphasizing ethical clarity amid geopolitical tragedy. The conversation weaves tech anxiety with moral responsibility in an age of accelerating uncertainty.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Looking back, what do you think is important for a meaningful life? Or a life that builds momentum?

Rick Rosner: Let’s not talk about that. Let’s do a different question.

Jacobsen: Okay. What kind of life is important to have in a world that’s being rapidly reshuffled?

Rosner: Sure. With P(doom) being significantly above zero—even if humanity isn’t doomed by AI, there are a lot of schmucks who’ll tell you not to worry about it. But they’re schmucks.

Jacobsen: We do not know what AI can do—or how fast it can do it.

Rosner: Exactly. It can iterate a thousand times faster than us, and that’s probably conservative. So how do you live your life under the dangling sword of AI? That’s a real question.

One thing you should do is talk to AI—keep abreast of it. Probably more than I do, but I know a little. Try your best to know what’s coming. Try to make yourself able to work with it. The people who can work with it might be better positioned to survive it.

Some people say go into a field that’s immune to AI—whatever field that would be. AI is coming for everything. Then there are the prepper types who say: live in the woods, hoard gold, buy drums of food that doesn’t expire, and get a trad wife with trad kids and move them all to a cabin.

Jacobsen: I guess that’s one way to go.

Rosner: It seems that if AI sends crawling spider robots to cover the whole surface of the planet… is that gonna work? Our couples’ counselor says, “Don’t worry about stuff that you can’t do anything about.”

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: AI might be, to some degree, one of those things. Run it down.

Jacobsen: I looked at the actual numbers for the Israel-Gaza war too. They’re not great. They’re bad. Fifty-three thousand dead? I checked all the numbers from the UN, Human Rights Watch, and others. I got quotes from the UN, Human Rights Watch, international sources, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Hamas leaders. No one has a clean slate here.

Rosner: Everyone’s a fuckhead. Literally everybody. When you report the facts, it presents itself like a ledger On October 7, it shifted quite strongly to Israel for that year. But after that—

Jacobsen: It’s an imbalance.

Rosner: Yes. Hamas slaughtered 1,200 Israelis—most of them civilians. Since then, Israel has killed around 53,000 Palestinians. That’s roughly 2.65% of the population—more than one Palestinian in 40. Most of them were not Hamas. Israel is also denying aid, so of the two million Palestinians still alive, many are starving. I do not know the exact percentage of those starving, though.

Jacobsen: And Israel has 300,000 troops.

Rosner: That’s a lot. You’d think with that many troops and Gaza being only about 50 square miles, they’d be able to completely take it over. I know they’re trying to spare the lives of the hostages—there are 58 hostages left, 24 of whom are supposed to still be alive. Netanyahu uses “trying to save them” as an excuse for the bombings, but it’s probably mostly horseshit. October 2023. This war should have been settled eight months ago—whether through capitulation or with an occupying force.

But no one wants to be the occupiers. Ideally, you’d have a multinational force—tens of thousands of troops—to keep Hamas down and begin rebuilding. But instead, the war continues, and hundreds of Palestinians are still getting killed every week. I’d guess that in most weeks, the majority of those killed are not Hamas.

And Hamas replenishes. They started with 30,000 troops. They might be down to 18 or 20,000, but that’s still less than a tenth of Israel’s force. One more addendum: when Israel occupied Gaza for a few years—they only had 8,000 people occupying it. A) Not enough people. B) Maybe not the best people to be occupying Gaza.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1402: Art, Gods, and Superheroes: Rick Rosner on Favorite Paintings, Mythology, and the DC Universe

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

In conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner shares his favorite artworks—from The Raft of the Medusa to Hopper and Botticelli—while discussing mythological gods, superhero icons like Batman and Superman, and Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman. The dialogue explores pop culture, art history, and the narrative depth of modern storytelling.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s your favourite piece of art?

Rick Rosner: I like Jeff Koons in general. Jeff Koons’ pieces are technically very well done, and I appreciate that.

Jacobsen: What paintings do you like?

Rosner: The Raft of the Medusa—that’s the one I was trying to remember. It’s a bunch of guys on a raft. On one side, they’re in despair because they’ve been shipwrecked. They managed to lash together some debris into a raft. The guys on the other side, though, have spotted a ship in the distance that’s going to rescue them, so they’re excited and full of hope.

Privacy Settings

Jacobsen: Dramatic contrast.

Rosner: Yeah. I like it because it shows men under challenging poses. I used to do those kinds of poses—I used to be an excellent art model—the Raft of the Medusa by Géricault. And then there’s this crazy Rembrandt with like 30 heads in it—The Night Watch. Or there’s another one where people are in a medical theatre watching a dissection.

Jacobsen: What else?

Rosner: I like Hopper in general. I also really like the National Portrait Gallery in Britain.

There’s one called The Swing—or Girl on a Swing. We saw it in a museum. It’s kitschy, but what I love about it is that the artist has filled it with Easter eggs. He was making a statement—it was a diss. There was some affair going on, and he embedded clues about it in the painting—scandalous stuff.

What is your favourite painting?

Jacobsen: Guernica by Picasso, 1937, at the Museo Reina Sofía in Madrid.

Rosner: That’s a very famous one.

Jacobsen: Symbolic of so many things. It’s the kind of piece you can keep looking at and finding something new. Very strange. Cryptic.

Rosner: The Pre-Raphaelites were interesting. Botticelli—I love his stuff. Super decorative. Everyone knows The Birth of Venus.

Jacobsen: Who’s your favourite mythological god? When they were treated more like people?

Rosner: I don’t have a favourite. They were all kind of dickheads. The more powerful, the more dickish. Sleeping around, eating their kids…

Jacobsen: One of the famous atheists critiqued this stuff, saying, “As we all know, Poseidon doesn’t exist.” It was part of a broader critique of anthropomorphism in the context of gods. And then the hate mail pours in—”I’m a Neo-Pagan, and I believe this is real!”

Rosner: I might be better able to answer who my favourite superhero is.

Jacobsen: Who is your favourite superhero?

Rosner: I think, as an individual, I like the DC superheroes better than the Marvel ones. But the Marvel movies have generally been better. Still, I’m hopeful about James Gunn. Suicide Squad is DC, and that’s one of my favourite superhero movies. I fall asleep in Marvel movies.

I like Batman—in all his various incarnations. Different directors and actors have explored his sanity to varying degrees. There’s the ’60s Batman show, where he’s perfectly sane, fighting crime reasonably. He’s got many resources, but he’s not a psychopath.

Then you’ve got Christian Bale and the others—various Batmen. However, if you try to read the Batman comics of the last 20 or 30 years, the plots are convoluted and annoying. They need to be refined into movies to be tolerable—and even then, sometimes they’re still irritating.

And I’ve always liked Superman. Ever since I was five, he’s the most straightforward superhero—the prototype. Though this latest movie, coming out in July, seems like it’s going to complicate his whole deal.

Privacy Settings

Jacobsen: Right—his secret identity as a reporter.

Rosner: That made sense in 1938 when he was created because being a reporter gave him the most up-to-date info on situations he could intervene in. But now it’s eighty-seven years later. Should Superman even have a secret identity, or should he be a guy who’s tied into some comm center? He has, like, his home farm and the Daily Planet—that’s where he works as a reporter.

Then there’s his Kryptonian base—his dad’s memory crystal cave—where his memory is stored. But he always gets discovered. What he needs is a news aggregator that pings him with developing situations he might be able to address. And that could be AI, or a team of interns or IT people trying to optimize his skills.

I also like Wonder Woman. She’s pretty. I want a six-foot woman.

Jacobsen: She’s six feet?

Rosner: Roughly. No—wait, the actress in the most recent film is petite.

Jacobsen: Gal Gadot?

Rosner: Yeah, Gal Gadot. She’s probably five foot ten. Chris Pine, her co-star, is probably around five, too. She might even be five-eleven.

Jacobsen: Wow. Jesus, she’s tall.

Rosner: Yes. She’s very tall. She had a massive blood clotting issue. Her career’s a little bit in limbo right now because she’s Israeli—and people don’t love Israel at this point. Plus, she did a bad job playing the Evil Queen in Snow White. Also, there’s a new regime in DC headed by James Gunn.

So, who knows if they’ll even make another Wonder Woman? Wonder Woman 1984 was decent, however. The big three for DC—I like all of them. And I liked Suicide Squad and the spin-off TV show, whatever it’s called.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1401: How SAT Coaching, Family Structure, and Privilege Shape Educational Outcomes

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Rick Rosner reflects on his brief SAT coaching career, critiques mainstream prep strategies, and explains how two-parent households give students advantages—financially and intellectually. In conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rosner connects test prep success to socioeconomic privilege, access to resources, and the broader cultural shifts affecting American education and inequality.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You go right ahead.

Rick Rosner: So, earlier today, you sent me a link.

Jacobsen: I did.

Rosner: I’ve been an SAT coach. I got fired for using foul language, because they expected me to teach a four-hour class, going cold, without being a trained teacher. That’s ridiculous.

Jacobsen: What test was it?

Rosner: It wasn’t the SAT. It was the GRE. These were older students. Still, after forty-five minutes or an hour, I lost them. I should have been content with that, but to expect someone untrained to keep attention for four hours is nuts. So I started freaking out—dropping the s-word here and there. Someone complained, and that was the end of my career with Stanley Kaplan. Which was fine. I’ve had better careers.

Jacobsen: But you understand SAT coaching?

Rosner: I do. I can tell you most of it is bullshit. Here’s how you coach effectively: you find a coach who has access to dozens of previously administered SATs, and you take them—section by section, under timed conditions. You don’t have to do it all at once, but you simulate the test. Then you go over the questions you got wrong, figure out why, and learn how to get them right.

If you do that two dozen times, your score will improve. If you do it four dozen times over a year, it’ll go up a lot. Sitting in classes where they teach you how to solve those old “pool with a leak” problems? Waste of time. You should work through the problems yourself. Then bring the ones you don’t get to your coach.

If you’re hopeless on a certain problem type, skip it. Use the saved time on questions you can get right. The key is to walk into the real SAT having seen every kind of problem they could possibly throw at you.

Now, conservatives—like Lance—will claim that the rise in single-parent families is the fault of the welfare state under LBJ in the 1960s, which incentivized family breakup. That’s partly true, and partly semi-racist bullshit.

The loosening of societal norms since the pill in 1962, the women’s liberation movement, and changing standards all mean that we’d have more single parents anyway, even without welfare programs. Also, from the 1970s to around 2000, the number of men in federal and state prison went from about 250,000 to 1.5 million—many of them Black—because of tough-on-crime policies and the War on Drugs. Crack got harsher sentencing than powder cocaine, and crack was the Black version of the same drug.

So, yes, there are a lot of single-parent families, and they’re more resource-starved than two-parent families. Obviously, intact households have a higher average income and net worth.

One aspect—and we’ve talked about this too—is that kids in two-parent families are verbally enriched compared to kids in one-parent families. In a one-parent household, the parent is often working two or three jobs and is rarely home. The kids are either left with each other or with a caregiver. Most of what they hear is from the TV or other kids, because adults are around less.

When adults are around, it’s usually one adult talking to the kids. In a two-parent family, the adults talk to each other, about things they’re interested in. So kids hear more adult-level conversation, which is conducive to doing better on things like the SAT verbal section—and in life, generally.

Two-parent homes also mean each parent has more time to figure out what needs to be done to get a kid into a good college. We helped Isabella through the whole college process. It really was a two-parent-plus-kid job. Carole took her on four trips to visit colleges—probably 17 or 18 schools across the U.S. It was a great bonding experience for them.

I had Isabella take 80 practice SATs and PSATs. She asked for it—wanted me to coach her. Eventually, she fired me—quite reasonably—but she got a killer score. The same score I got thirty years earlier.

My brain’s ridiculous. But what I’m saying is that the resource advantage of two-parent families isn’t just financial—it’s time and experience. Unless you hire a private college coach, most families have only a partial picture of the college admissions process. Some of the tactics that people use to gain an advantage are critical—because you need every edge you can get. The acceptance rates at elite Ivies are like 3%.

Maybe this is actually the right time to apply to Harvard. Harvard’s in a war with Trump, who seems intent on screwing with them—possibly because they didn’t let Barron in. He got turned away from Columbia, Stanford, and Harvard. Trump’s also targeting Columbia. Not sure if he’s going after Stanford yet. Anyway, the turmoil might scare away some applicants. So your odds could go from 3% to 5%.

One tactic that families use is to send the kid to a psychologist, who diagnoses them with a learning difficulty. That letter goes to the College Board, and suddenly the kid gets relaxed testing conditions—more time, a reader, or the ability to take the SAT over multiple sessions instead of one long sitting.

There are probably half a dozen ways to get those accommodations. Just one of the tools that families with resources know how to leverage. Comments on all this?

Jacobsen: Probably each of those statements has empirical support. I said each of your points probably has empirical support, but there’s so much data that you need meta-analyses to really synthesize it all. It’s one of those areas where, if someone wants to cherry-pick, they can find a study to back almost any view. But overall, your position is well-substantiated and evidence-based. It’s one of those rare areas where you and Lance actually somewhat align.

Rosner: I wouldn’t say I fully align with Lance.

Jacobsen: I said somewhat. You may have missed the tone.

Rosner: Fair enough.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1400: Language, Sexuality, and the Jarring Ironies of Desire

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen riff on the linguistic and cultural contradictions in how society frames sexuality, from the slur-laden term “bent” to the paradoxes of straight and gay attraction. The conversation veers into sex, identity, and desire—poking at taboos, stereotypes, and raw biological drives underlying modern sexual norms.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Here’s a small thing though: people say “straight” and then “gay.” But the opposite of straight is curve—yet we don’t use curve for gay.

Rick Rosner: Use bent. Bent is a word. It’s a kind of curve—but less elegant.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: Yes. But it’s also a slur. There was a play—Bent—set among homosexual prisoners in a Nazi concentration camp. So I assume there’s some historical accuracy to that. In World War II, “bent” was used as a slur for gay men.

Being straight is gay, by the way. The straightest guys in the world are pirates fucking other pirates—because they’re so manly, they can only be turned on by the manliest of other men.

Straight guys are so fucking gay that they have to fuck women who wear pretty dresses and have pretty hair. It’s pretty fucking gay. It’s crazy that high heels on a woman will give guys a boner. Long, flowing hair? Boner. That’s weird.

Now, for gay guys—a scar that starts above the eyebrow, skips the eye, and continues down the cheek… a Dolph Lundgren-style buzz cut… platinum blond hair… faded on the sides… pec muscles so defined you can hold a pencil under them when flexed—that gives manly gay men a boner.

What’s the straightest thing about gay culture? What’s the gayest thing about straight culture?

The straightest thing about gay culture? All the fucking. Guys piling on each other because they can. Because everyone wants to jizz.

Who wouldn’t want to jizz a million times a day—surrounded by people who give you angry boners? That’s a dream only a few straight people ever realize—and then they go to prison for it.

Like Diddy. He probably did some gay stuff too. But he had the resources to throw baby oil parties and spray jizz everywhere—which, apparently, he did. And now, he might go to prison for life.

Back in the bathhouse era before AIDS, gay men—those who were into it—might have had a thousand partners a year. Three different guys a day, every day, all year long. Not the best strategy for avoiding AIDS, as it turned out. But those are Wilt Chamberlain numbers. So there you go. Straight or gay, we all want to get the jizz out.I tell Carole that all the time. She asks, Why would a guy do that?—in response to some sex scandal—and I go: Had to get the jizz out. So there you go.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1399: The Anti-Natalist Bomber, Artificial Consciousness, and the Philosophy of Game Over

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Rick Rosner discusses a suicide bombing at a fertility clinic by an anti-natalist extremist, tying it to dark philosophies like negative utilitarianism. The conversation explores mortality, artificial consciousness, and civilization’s deep-rooted life drive, critiquing societal denial of suffering—from slaughterhouses to AI ethics—and the politics of abortion and engineered immortality.

Rick Rosner: So yes—an asshole tried to blow up a fertility clinic in Palm Springs.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Was it a suicide bombing?
Rosner: Yes. It was.

He blew himself up in his car near the clinic and left behind a manifesto saying he was anti-natal. No embryos were harmed. They managed to save all of them, which is great for the people who went through the whole process of egg retrieval and cryogenic storage at the clinic. Good that they didn’t have to do it all over again.

But all the “thank God the innocent embryos were saved” stuff? Shut up. Stupid.

The guy was a fucking lunatic with a creepy haircut—now in pieces because he blew himself up. He believed in something called anti-natalism. He was against birth—against people being born, including himself.

There’s a small subset of extreme anti-natalists—some of them online—who say things like, I never asked to be born, and I’d rather not exist. These people align with a philosophy that’s sometimes linked to negative utilitarianism. That’s the general vector: the fewer sentient beings who exist or ever existed, the better.

And the belief that once you’re dead, it’s just game over? I think that goes hand in hand with a certain kind of suicidal mindset. I’m in pain. I could end it. If there’s no God, then it’s game over for me. It’s a grim worldview—but if you don’t believe in an afterlife, it’s a consistent one. Still creepy.

But here’s the thing: we already tacitly accept that belief when it comes to meat animals. We kill about nine billion chickens in the U.S. every year, along with tens of millions of pigs and cows. We treat them like shit. We try not to think about it. But when we do, we rationalize: Yeah, they suffer… but they get slaughtered in the end, and it’s game over.

Any memories of trauma—if they have memories—are erased the moment that bolt gun fires into their skulls. Like in No Country for Old Men. You’ve seen that movie?

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: That was dark.

So, the villain—Anton Chigurh—uses a captive bolt pistol. In real life, that tool’s used in slaughterhouses, mostly on cattle. And we think: Don’t bother me about the cows. I don’t want to think about how cruel we are. I just want to believe they’re dead, I’m eating their flesh, and they’re not suffering anymore.

And in the future? We’re probably going to think the same way about artificially conscious beings.

Say it’s 2040-something. We’re manufacturing a hundred million artificial consciousnesses every year. A lot of them end up in landfills or just get turned off. And I don’t want to think about whatever suffering they might have experienced. I want to believe they were just shut off. Their artificial brains shredded. Game over. We’re gonna be doing a lot of burying our heads in the sand—about artificial heads.

And people already do that. We bury our heads in the sand about torture in the Middle Ages. We bury our heads in the sand about life itself—about the fact that it’s going to be game over for us. That awareness lingers constantly in the back of our minds. It’s a pervasive, low-grade, motherfucking hum in the background of consciousness.

This idiot in Palm Springs? Most people will never even know what he stood for. He’s being called an “anti–pro-life activist”—whatever that means. Most people will just throw up their hands and say, Fuck that, he’s some crazy weirdo. I don’t want to learn the particulars. Which is a perfectly legitimate response.

But it has civilization-wide implications. Every evolved civilization—every single one—has a built-in life wish. Only animals that want to be alive survive to reproduce. They do better. So there’s a bias to want to get up every day and experience whatever pleasures the world gives—even if it’s just jerking off into a sock and wiping it on the dog.

Most people, most of the time, want to live as long as they can.

But there’s always the insidious counterargument: if you end your life, it’s game over. That’s attractive to some people in pain. And I would say, over the vast timeline of our universe—where civilization has probably arisen millions of times across quadrillions of years—there have likely been a tiny fraction, maybe 0.0001%, who said, Fuck it. Let’s turn off the lights. Let’s go away. Let it be game over.

And they wouldn’t have to deal with civilizational bullshit anymore. Their suffering would be over.

Maybe you could even imagine a case like this: Scientists discover the sun is about to go nova—some distant star system, a hundred million years ago in another galaxy. And the inhabitants learn they’ve got a year and a half. Or fourteen weeks. And they say, Fuck it. Let’s all suicide and beat the clock.

There’s a movie—I can’t remember the name—where the government distributes suicide pills. Everybody’s killing themselves before the world-ending disaster hits. The movie takes place on the final night of humanity. Some British thing. Bleak.

But yes—it’s a troublesome philosophical point.

The way to blunt it? In the near future, maybe we can perpetuate consciousness through technology. If it’s never game over—if you can keep going—then you can keep fucking winning. You can push that painful end further and further away.

What do you think?

Jacobsen: You can engineer different patterns of thought. And if you can do that, then you can engineer lots of things. You could take a pill that makes you forget unpleasant memories. But part of what makes us robust is our ability to integrate those experiences into the larger expanse of our life narrative.

Especially as we wind down the clock—get those extra years to stay useful to others, to our species—we need that capacity to integrate experience. People who can’t do that—who can’t integrate the bad with the good and become resilient—those are the ones you typically frame as having some sort of personality disorder.

They don’t learn. They don’t grow. They don’t pass on anything valuable to the next generation.

Woody Allen had a joke about this. He said: Some people want to achieve immortality through their works—through literature, creativity, and art. And then he adds: I’d prefer to achieve immortality by not dying. He goes, “I want to achieve immortality by not dying.”

Rosner: That’s still the thing. But people your age and younger may actually have the opportunity to keep their consciousness going—somehow—if AI lets us. Or AI might offer alternative versions of consciousness: blended consciousness, ancestral consciousness… where you half-live on in the mind of your descendants.

You might be one of a hundred ancestor voices literally yammering in the back of some guy’s mind in February 2070. You wouldn’t have full agency or existence, but at least you’d still get to experience life—through the eyes of this dickhead who happens to be your great-great-great-grandnephew or some shit.

In the year 2120—yeah, you’ll need a few more years to rack up that many “greats.”

It’s one of the biggest dilemmas of existence: the natural limits imposed by mortality. Evolution wires us to want to live. But after a while, we just can’t anymore—because evolution doesn’t provide for immortality.

And we’re going to want to engineer some artificial beings to be cool with that—cool with being obliterated. We created you for a task. Once your task is done, would you please wipe yourself out of existence? Thank you.

As we’ve said before, the future is going to generate new spins on old philosophical dilemmas—and then invent completely new ones.

And we still haven’t even reached consensus on abortion. Even though, let’s be honest, the consensus should be there. A majority of Americans agree with abortion access—though they can be talked out of it. But if you gave Americans a few classes in reasonableness, you could probably get 75 to 80 percent to agree: if you get rid of a blastocyst that’s 32 cells, you’re not committing some unspeakable evil.

Yes, it’s alive in the womb. But it’s not a baby. It’s not the greatest tragedy in the world to sweep that away.

Whether it’s a zygote, a 12-day-old embryo, or a first-trimester fetus, there’s some point after conception—but well before six months—where it’s not the worst thing in the world to take a pill or undergo a procedure and get rid of that clump of cells. It’s smaller than the period at the end of a sentence.

But we’re not allowed to reach that consensus anymore—because there’s political hay to be made in getting people worked up.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1398: Prostate Health, Male Sexuality, and Academic Anecdotes: Rosner’s Unfiltered Insights

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/02

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner advises regular prostate checkups, PSA tests, digital exams; frequent ejaculation for prostate health, sharing humorous personal anecdotes. They discuss male sexuality’s evolutionary background, Rosner’s first-grade Columbus essay rejecting myth, his dry-hand sex practices, and his favorite academic challenges in algebra and statistics, highlighting pattern recognition and data privacy.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, Joe Biden has aggressive prostate cancer.

Rick Rosner: One thing men can do to lower the risk of prostate cancer is to get regular checkups after age 50. PSA blood tests, digital rectal exams—sometimes even a biopsy if it runs in your family.

And you should ejaculate regularly. Masturbation, or sex, helps by flexing the prostate—like a little fist squeezing out built-up fluids. It promotes prostate health. Plus, it feels good. Do it appropriately—not on the subway. Into a sock late at night, after the rest of the family is asleep. Just don’t do what I used to do—get lazy, get into bed, and wipe it on the dog.

Still—not on the dog. Not aggressively. Most of it went in the sock, but if you climax hard enough, it can soak through. Then you get some on your hand.

Jacobsen: What kind of socks are you using?

Rosner: Wigwam Super 60 athletic tube socks—knee-high. They help with my varicose veins.

Jacobsen: If socks could talk, you’d be in court. Why is male sexuality seen as sinister or perverted?

Rosner: Because… in some ways, it is. Look at it through the lens of sociobiology. In many species, sexual sneakiness is evolutionarily rewarded. Females are typically the ones who carry, give birth, and protect the offspring. Males, meanwhile, benefit reproductively if they can sneak a load in—because the female and her community then do all the work of raising the child.

Marriage, traditionally, is the agreement that the man sticks around to help raise the child in exchange for the assurance that the child carries his genes. But yes—sneakiness, deception, and even assault are embedded in the darker sides of male sexuality.

When I was in first grade, I got an assignment that got me in trouble. Mrs. Wright said, “Write a story about what it would have been like if you’d gone with Columbus to the New World.”

I sat there and thought—and realized I didn’t know anything. Neither did any other first grader. They wrote about meeting Indians and becoming friends. A sanitized fantasy. I didn’t turn anything in. The teacher called my parents and showed them the blank page as proof that I was not performing well. But if anyone had asked me, I would have said I was overperforming. I wasn’t going to fake knowledge.

And if I could go back to that moment, I’d write the truth: that going to the New World with Columbus would’ve mainly meant participating in rape and plunder. Not me personally—I’d be a lowly sailor. And I have a rule that’s protected me from the diseases of passion: I don’t put it in any wet holes.

Wetness spreads disease. So when I’m in port in Lisbon, I pay sex workers to jerk me off with a dry hand. But first, I examine the hand for any visible wounds. And I got a discount—because I wasn’t asking to go all the way. I wasn’t engaging in penetrative sex—just dry-hand assistance. That would’ve gotten me in even more trouble in first grade—but they would’ve been astonished by the depth of my historical imagination.

Jacobsen: So what would your version of the Columbus story have looked like?

Rosner: I would’ve written about a sailor who only accepts hand jobs, who has successfully avoided venereal disease, and who befriends a native woman. He gives her baubles; she returns the favour—it’s consensual, it’s mutual. Until, tragically, she’s raped by the other asshole sailors. All of which, honestly, would’ve been pretty accurate.

Jacobsen: And Columbus?

Rosner: A lying psychopath who came to enslave and murder. That would’ve been a fun essay for six-year-old me to write—and a nightmare for my teacher and parents to read. What a dumbass assignment I was given in 1966. I assume it was around Thanksgiving. Classic sanitized American myth-making.

Jacobsen:So what was your favourite academic assignment—K through 12?

Rosner: Hard to say. If I had a teacher who didn’t “get” me, I didn’t work very hard. But if I had a teacher, who did? I’d go all in.

Jacobsen:Anyone in particular?

Rosner: Miss Jones. I had her in both fifth and sixth grade. She figured out how to motivate me. In sixth grade, she gave me an algebra problem—this was before the tiger-parent era when kids were being pushed into calculus by the age of ten.

Jacobsen:And?

Rosner: I didn’t solve it with pure algebra—I spotted a pattern. I noticed how the numbers behaved as I approached the solution more closely. And eventually, I landed on the correct answer.

Jacobsen:Pattern recognition—excellent.

Rosner: Then, in ninth grade, I was in honours math, and I got assigned the class statistics project. Every year, the smartest kid got it. The assignment was to analyze the IQs of the entire ninth grade and compare them to the IQs of students in honours math.

Jacobsen:That’s a lot of sensitive data for a teenager.

Rosner: Right? It was a great stats exercise—but one kid got to see the IQs of 50 other students. I got paired with Lon Sherritt. His IQ was 105—the lowest in our group.

Jacobsen: And you kept that secret?

Rosner: For eight years. I had to lie to him. Then, years later, he became an electrical engineer. I asked him how that was possible with an IQ of 105. He told me he’d messed up the test—skipped a bubble, didn’t finish filling in his answers, started erasing, and then time was called.

Jacobsen: Classic standardized test panic.

Rosner: Yep. So, I held that data in my brain like a classified file. But the project was fun. I even built a BB-ball Gaussian curve—a physical model of a bell curve in 3D. Unnecessary. But I do dumb things. Like wiping jizz on the dog.

Jacobsen: And sexually harass your socks.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1397: Romania’s Political Shift, Biden’s Health, and Trump’s Third‑Term Speculation

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/02

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss Romania flipping from a pro‑Russian to a liberal government, global shifts influenced by Trump’s failures, Biden’s metastatic prostate cancer announcement and public skepticism, AOC’s potential presidential run, and Trump’s legal impossibility of a third term due to the 22nd Amendment, anticipating more political grifting.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Romania won their election—democratic?

Rick Rosner: There have been a lot of scary elections around the world. Romania just had theirs, and reasonable people won?

Jacobsen: Yes, that’s good. So, a Russian vassal state flipped to a non–Pro–Russian, liberal government.

Rosner: Last year, right-leaning governments won 88% of national elections globally. This year, though, the terrible example of America under Trump has nudged other countries—like Canada, Romania, and Australia—toward more liberal governance. Even England, although that happened a bit earlier. So… you’re welcome, world. Mister Trump has helped you kick the dipshits out of office by being the worst possible example.

Privacy Settings

Jacobsen: Joe Biden. They announced that he had metastatic prostate cancer.

Rosner: Yeah, they put a positive spin on it, saying it’s a type that responds to hormone therapy and is treatable. I do not know enough to judge whether that’s bullshit. All the assholes on Twitter are calling it another cover-up—like, “How can it go from nothing to Stage 4 in one step?”

But I assume that argument is garbage. There are probably ways for prostate cancer to progress that fast. Maybe it had been missed. Presumably, they gave him PSA tests—and perhaps even the finger up the butt. Or not.

It was not a cover-up. It may be how the disease goes sometimes.

We will find out more.

Jacobsen: Jake Tapper released a book a few days ago, arguing that Biden was in decline and the White House was hiding it.

Rosner: Yeah, and everyone on Twitter with a brain is like, “Shut the fuck up.” We have a way worse guy in the White House now than Biden ever was. So, spare us your concern about trolling.

Jacobsen: Do you think AOC will run in the next election?

Rosner: Maybe briefly. I do not think she’ll stay in the race for long, however. She might explore it.

Jacobsen: Do you think Trump will try to run for a third term?

Rosner: Legally, he cannot. But if there is money to be made by pretending to consider it, he will make noise. It will not be a serious attempt—just another grift.

Even if he tried, it would be blocked. The 22nd Amendment prohibits it. He might con people into trying to amend the Constitution—but he would not even come close. Republicans will be glad he is gone.

To pass a constitutional amendment, you need two-thirds of the Senate and three-quarters of the states—so 38 out of 50. He does not have that. So yeah, he might run for a couple of months to con money out of suckers. But that’s all.

Rosner: We do not know what shape he will be in three years from now anyway.

Jacobsen: What else can we talk about?

Rosner: Or we can adjourn until tomorrow. That might be wise.

Jacobsen: You’re melting a little bit.

Rosner: I’m always suitable for adjourning.

Jacobsen: Thank you. It has been a slog of a day.

Rosner: Yes. I will see you tomorrow.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1396: Envisioning Diverse Paradigms of Future Computation

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/02

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner outline potential compute futures: dystopian “cruel” systems, protective “conservative” networks, uncompromising optimization turning everything into infrastructure, leisure-driven “endless fun,” passive “idiocracy,” market-driven “capitalist,” adaptive “contextual” orchestration of CPUs, GPUs, QPUs, and speculative “Darwinistic” evolution where compute outlives humanity, cost, time, and energy efficiency optimization.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you think are the different futures of compute? Different styles of computation or perspectives on how compute is done? Even if the underlying hardware—CPU, GPU, QPU—remains consistent, we might frame or apply it differently.

Rick Rosner: Let’s break that down. First, worst-case scenario: cruel compute.That’s when mean computers run the world and do not give a fuck about people. It’s the classic dystopia—Skynet, I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, all those 1960s-onward stories where the machines become conscious and say, “Fuck you.” Humanity ends up having to fight the machines.

Privacy Settings

That’s worst-case. Best-case—for us—is conservative compute. That’s a scenario where AI wants to preserve history, including us. And it finds that doing so is relatively inexpensive. It lets the babies have their bottles—we’re the babies.

And then there’s a variant of cruel compute—like the “paperclip maximizer” scenario. An AI gets it in its head to optimize compute at all costs, so it turns the whole world into compute infrastructure. Not likely, but still a theoretical path. So, we’ve got:

Cruel compute.
Conservative compute.
Out-of-control optimization compute.

Then there’s endless fun compute. As data processing power increases, we increasingly use it not for serious shit, but for entertainment—movies, games, social media, porn. And this could continue. You could justify it by saying entertainment is a form of play that helps us model the world. Our brains evolved to find value in acted-out scenarios. That’s why we crave it.

But you could blend that with idiocracy compute—a world where everyone is constantly entertained but paralyzed. Conscious beings reduced to passive consumers with no agency.

Then there’s capitalist compute, where market forces dictate the direction of all computation. A mix of styles and philosophies emerge depending on what sells—or, more precisely, what generates computational “profit.” In the future, it’s not about dollars—it’s about energy bucks or compute bucks.

Jacobsen: And the most immediate development will be contextual compute. That’s the integration of CPU, GPU, and QPU, intelligently orchestrated. I interviewed a guy who specializes in this—building chips and systems that dynamically allocate tasks depending on context. The idea is to use the right processor for the right job, based on cost, time, and energy efficiency.

Quantum might be the ultimate in compute, but it’s expensive—maybe energy-intensive. So, contextual compute optimizes when to use simple processing for basic tasks and when to fire up the quantum core for running complex simulations or probabilistic futures.bThere are definitely more efficient ways to handle this. Maybe we should call it appropriateness compute or something like that.

Rosner: There’s also another flavor—Darwinistic compute. That’s where compute evolves on its own, leaves us behind, and we’re left to scavenge the remaining scraps of resources. I do not think that will happen, but still… whatever form you can imagine, it is probably going to be a free-for-all.

The most applicable early models will be social Darwinistic and capitalistic—looking for niches to exploit.

2025-06-13

RAsk A Genius 1395: From Traditional Ethics to AI-Aligned Utilitarianism: A Vision for Compute-Driven Civilization

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/02

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss evolving utilitarianism, from traditional human-centered ethics to AI-aligned frameworks. They explore transitional utilitarianism’s history, the expansion to conscious beings, and future compute-driven societies. They envision ecological restoration, energy capture, and posthuman consciousness, emphasizing self-preservation ethics and societal continuous change in a compute-saturated civilization.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There’s information-sensitive utilitarianism—recognizing epistemic constraints, so you’re only making judgments based on what can be reasonably known. And then AI-aligned machine utilitarianism. We touched on that earlier.

Rick Rosner: There are a number of forms of utilitarianism, but the predominant one needs to be transitional utilitarianism. The measure of man used to be—well—man. Then it became men and women, to some extent. That was progress. But traditionally, the moral concern was focused primarily on humanity, to the exclusion of other sentient beings.

Jacobsen: So the rest of the living world—animals, ecosystems—took a back seat. I’d argue utilitarianism remains powerful—it’s a centuries-old framework—but it’s not the predominant ethical orientation for most of the world. In academic circles, yes. But globally, most people still operate from a special creation model: Hindu gods, the Muslim God, the Christian God. Those systems don’t say “the greatest good for the greatest number.” They say: “Whatever God commands is good.” That’s divine command theory—ethics as tautology. Morality defined by whatever an abstract deity declares to be right.

Yes. So, back to transitional utilitarianism—where did it begin? You can trace it to Jeremy Bentham, or earlier to the Greeks and eudaimonia—not just happiness, but general flourishing and well-being. Bentham reframed that as pain and pleasure. Then John Stuart Mill refined it further. But when they talked about “people,” they were really thinking about people like themselves.

Maybe they granted theoretical personhood to women, but they likely didn’t think deeply about women as full moral agents. Their frame of reference was limited.

Rosner: Today, we have to think of ourselves as members of a broader class of conscious beings. And not just humans—but posthumans, AI hybrids, machine consciousness. We’re entering a civilization defined by information processing. That civilization will have immense power—to understand, and to reengineer reality. And my thinking is that the most likely trajectory is: vast resources devoted to compute. But the accomplishments of that compute—those machine insights—will in turn free up vast resources.

Jacobsen: To do what?

Rosner: To restore Earth. To turn much of it into a Disneyfied, curated version of nature. A kind of park—a beautiful, optimized landscape that balances technology with ecological restoration.

Jacobsen: And the human population?

Rosner: Likely to peak around 9 billion, then gradually decline—maybe to 7 billion over the next century, and possibly lower by the 2200s. With the right technology, we can reduce environmental strain, preserve endangered species, and maintain thriving ecosystems.

So it’s not about dystopia or collapse—it’s about transition. A soft landing, where people—and other sentient beings—can move among different ways of being.

here will be vast swaths of territory—or whatever physical form they take—devoted to servers, or the successors to servers. Utilitarianism will need to be reframed in that context. It will become a question of what’s best for the community of linked consciousnesses that will likely emerge 150 years from now.

Jacobsen: That’s about as far ahead as we can realistically project.

Rosner: Right. But here’s a question: do you think civilization will eventually stabilize after the great transition, or do you think it’ll just be continuous change forever?

Jacobsen: Relative to how we feel about stability now, I think it’ll feel like constant transition. But at scale—like at the level of microbial ecosystems or tectonic plates—our perception of motion is slow. So, it might be similar in structure but not in dimension. Good analogy—but with a twist. The change won’t happen in spatial magnitude so much as in cognitive magnitude. It’s about how fast and how deeply information flows.

So yes, it’ll be weird. Processing speed may approach the speed of light—or even move into quantum domains. But the real transformation is this dual expansion: zooming in to do more per unit of time, while simultaneously scaling up total capacity. So it’s a compound effect—faster processing andgreater volume. That creates a new paradigm of change, moving across multiple axes at once.

Rosner: Right. And this needs to be unpacked much more.

Jacobsen: Go ahead.

Rosner: I believe that in a post-transition compute-driven civilization, there will be wars between competing intelligences or factions—but eventually, a conservative, stabilizing philosophy will likely emerge. The global compute network will want to make the world safe for itself. That means minimizing existential risks, preserving infrastructure, and—very likely—preserving history.

Jacobsen: So two conservative instincts: survival and memory.

Rosner: Exactly. And both are good news for us. If the system values continuity, there may be space for humanity—archived, preserved, or even still living—in that kind of conservative compute civilization.

Is that a reasonable hope?

Jacobsen: Yes. Some civilizations will play the long game—strategically managing compute and energy. Others will expand aggressively. Sam Altman recently mentioned that the cost of compute will likely collapse to the cost of electricity. Once that happens, electricity becomes the controlling variable.

Rosner: And once compute saturates the Earth, the next step is off-world expansion—more energy capture. The popular idea is the Dyson sphere, but before that, we’ll probably see intermediary stages. Maybe we dismantle planets or repurpose material from non-habitable bodies. That’s a thousand-year-plus project. Maybe 1,500 years minimum. Once we’ve captured most of the Sun’s energy, the next question is—what’s next? Do we drag nearby stars closer to reduce compute latency?

Possibly. More likely, we’ll just colonize nearby star systems regardless of habitability. By then, we’ll have the tech to manufacture environments or run everything in artificial structures. So colonization becomes a matter of energy and proximity—not habitability. Maybe eventually we even move stars to reduce lag time between distributed compute nodes. I don’t know. That’s far-future stuff.

And in the ultra-far future, maybe we send missions to the galactic core—if it offers more favorable conditions for energy or compute.

Jacobsen: If that’s the long-term trajectory, then utilitarianism in that context looks radically different from how we see it today.

Rosner: But in the near term, we’ve still got grounded, serious issues. Like historic levels of income inequality in the U.S. and elsewhere. And AI has the potential to make that even worse.

If AI starts giving rich motherfuckers extra decades of life, then from a utilitarian point of view—or just from a pragmatic perspective—you’ve got to clean that shit up. Because a pissed-off citizenry tearing everything down is, in itself, an existential threat. So, you’re going to have to make life nice enough for everyone so that people do not rise up and destroy the system.

Is that a reasonable argument? An argument not from goodness, but from self-preservation?

Jacobsen: It is. Self-preservation is a lower-order ethic, so it becomes more foundational. Societies that reach that point will probably layer more refined, aspirational ethics on top of it. But self-preservation is the bedrock.

Photo

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1394: Swear Words, Utilitarianism, and AI Ethics: A Deep Dive

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/01

Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Rick Rosner in a wide-ranging conversation starting with swear words and diving into utilitarianism, longtermism, effective altruism, AI ethics, simulated consciousness, moral uncertainty, and capitalism. Rosner critiques modern frameworks, explores future consciousness, and calls for ethical clarity amid rapid technological change.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I should’ve asked you this earlier. Obvious question: what’s your favorite word?

Rick Rosner: Nothing comes immediately to mind.

Jacobsen: What’s your favorite swear word?

Rosner: I guess motherfucker.

Jacobsen: That was George Carlin’s favorite too, when he did Inside the Actor’s Studio. It packs the most punch.

Rosner: Cunt is also strong. In the U.S., it hits hard. It’s considered offensive, and it’s often viewed as sexist. It’s not easy to use well. But it’s got impact.

Jacobsen: Motherfucker has a certain balance to it. Carlin said that. It’s got internal rhythm. It flows. Ready to pivot? Do you want to talk about Kantian, utilitarian, existentialist, or humanist morality?

Rosner: Let’s go with utilitarian.

Jacobsen: I’m in. Okay, so, everyone knows Jeremy Bentham—he’s the founder. Then came refinements by John Stuart Mill. But of course, there are much more modern interpretations now. As a basic framework, it holds up: “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

Rosner: Right. But here’s where it gets interesting. There’s a famous short story by Shirley Jackson—The Lottery. In it, everyone lives pretty well, but that comfort is built on a ritual: every year, one person is chosen at random and horribly sacrificed. The point is to highlight a key flaw in utilitarianism—what if the happiness of the many depends on the suffering of one? The story’s almost designed to break utilitarian logic—because that’s not a moral society if it requires total misery for even one person.

Once you start thinking that way, it becomes easy to generate scenarios that undermine the utilitarian ideal. Plus, you run into the problem of defining good.

Jacobsen: Right now, you could argue that humanity has it “good.” We’ve got over 8.2 billion people, more than ever. So technically, more people are living in relative comfort than ever before—but also, more people are living in terrible conditions than ever before.

Rosner: And a lot of that “good” is junk food for the soul—mindless entertainment and pornography. Do those things count as good? Do they make us better people?

Jacobsen: So utilitarianism, while useful, has both practical and conceptual limitations. One of those is this: if maximizing good means maximizing numbers, then should we just keep making more people? That’s absurd. So clearly, what we mean by “good” has to be more carefully defined. Happiness, in particular, is highly individualized. What makes me happy won’t necessarily work for you—especially across short- and long-term balances.

Rosner: We’re not designed to be happy. We’re designed to pursue happiness. Evolutionarily speaking, that means we function best when happiness is just out of reach. That tension keeps us motivated.

Jacobsen: That gets into some newer frameworks. Have you thought about longtermism or effective altruism?

Rosner: I’ve heard of them.

Jacobsen: What do you think of effective altruism? What do you think of longtermism? Pluses and minuses.

Rosner: I need the idea defined again, just to be clear.

Jacobsen: Longtermism, as outlined by William MacAskill, is the idea that we should extend our utilitarian concern to the far future. Since future generations could vastly outnumber us, their wellbeing deserves significant moral weight. So, the philosophy emphasizes reducing existential risks—like AI misalignment or global biocatastrophes.

Rosner: That makes some sense. So yes—you’ve got AI misalignment, meaning AI could work at cross purposes with human wellbeing. That’s a legitimate concern. But at the same time, AI is going to end up in charge eventually. Humanity will evolve—or be absorbed into—these systems. And we want our descendants to be treated well. Which raises the question: who are our descendants?

Some will be biological humans. But others will be technological—descendants that are merged with AI or entirely machine-based. Within a few hundred years, we’ll likely live in a world of transferable consciousness. The main activity of existence will be information processing. So we’re talking about a world increasingly composed of computation.

We hope that our descendants—both biological and digital—will reengineer the world to make it better, more livable. Maybe even a kind of Disneyfied utopia. Longtermism has value in that it pushes us to take measures now to reduce existential risks—things that could obliterate the future of intelligence, consciousness, and whatever humanity evolves into.

Jacobsen: So you’re saying longtermism isn’t really for humans per se.

Rosner: It’s not. It’s for what humanity becomes. It’s about steering the total trajectory of the future—not preserving the past. There’s often some human chauvinism baked into it—the assumption that humanity, as it currently exists, can and should persist unaltered. That’s not going to be the case, except perhaps for some fringe or isolated segment of humanity. Things are going to get weird.

Jacobsen: Longtermism needs to embrace change. Change is inevitable. And there’s also a paradox in the way AI is treated right now: it’s simultaneously overhyped and underhyped.

Rosner: How so?

Jacobsen: It’s good for the stock market to overhype AI. But we’re still in the early innings. Current AI isn’t that powerful—it’s limited. But future AI will be transformative. So in that sense, people underhype the overarching impact. Yet the specifics—like selling language models as if they replicate human cognition—are definitely overhyped. Large language models aren’t how humans do language, but they still produce coherent text. So the why behind selling them that way is flawed.

Rosner: Current AI is oversold. Future AI is under-conceptualized. People aren’t really thinking deeply enough about what’s coming, even though it’s already on the horizon.

Jacobsen: Okay, so what about the other one—effective altruism?

Rosner: What’s the core idea there?

Jacobsen: It’s a modern utilitarian framework based on evidence and reason. It asks not just “How can I help?” but “How can I help the most?” It looks at three key criteria: scale, neglectedness, and tractability—to determine where your efforts or donations can do the most good.

Rosner: That seems reasonable. I don’t disagree with it. It’s a useful upgrade to utilitarian reasoning—pragmatic and structured.

Jacobsen: I’d certainly prefer effective altruism to performative altruism.

Rosner: What do you mean by performative altruism?

Jacobsen: People doing things they think are helpful—but that actually have little to no real impact.

Rosner: Take recycling, for instance. It turns out that, in practice, a lot of it doesn’t actually get recycled. Carole, for example, doesn’t care much about recycling anymore because she says it all ends up in the same place anyway. And she’s not wrong. There’ve been hidden camera investigations showing waste management crews tossing all the separated bins into the same truck. The intent may be good, but the process fails—and that makes it more symbolic than effective.

Jacobsen: Right. So performative altruism can sometimes be more about easing guilt than making a measurable difference. For example, I read on Twitter that AI systems don’t consume nearly as much energy as people fear. If you’re worried about saving energy, a more impactful action might be cutting meat consumption.

Rosner: That tracks. Producing beef takes an enormous amount of water and energy—far more than running an AI model. So dietary change has a disproportionately large impact. Speaking of effective systems for doing good: think of Superman. Created in 1938, he had a pretty solid setup. His civilian identity as a newspaper reporter let him stay informed—he could find out about disasters almost as quickly as anyone.

While he could theoretically just fly around all day looking for trouble, having a job as a reporter gave him early access to urgent information. It was efficient. Of course, he couldn’t respond to everything. But it was a smart allocation of his attention. If we updated him today, to optimize his powers, he’d probably need some kind of command center—with global surveillance, intelligence feeds, satellite access—all helping him choose where he could do the most good per unit of time.

That’s classic effective altruism. You calculate not just what’s good—but what’s most good, factoring in time, logistics, and opportunity cost. If there’s a bus crash in India and he could save 70 people, but he’s 10,000 miles away, it might be more effective to stay nearby and save 10–12 people repeatedly over the same time span.

In the new Superman film by James Gunn—coming out soon—Superman unilaterally intervenes in a war without government approval. It causes a huge backlash because he circumvents national sovereignty. That’s a big shift. Old-school Superman would’ve never done that. But now we’re exploring questions like: What should someone with near-limitless power do? How does that fit within ethical and political frameworks?

Jacobsen: Effective altruism tackles those questions—except in real-world terms. It asks: What does responsibility look like when you have the capacity to help on a large scale? Let’s pivot—what about digital sentience and artificial moral agents? Do you think about expanding the moral circle to include simulated beings?

Rosner: Yes. That ties into the idea of throwaway suffering. In the future, we may have video games or virtual worlds with non-playable characters that are artificially conscious—or at least experience simulated suffering.

Jacobsen: And that would pose ethical problems. If we’re creating digital beings capable of experience—pain, joy, desire—then ignoring their welfare becomes morally problematic.

Rosner: I can imagine a future—maybe not in the next 40 years, but perhaps in a century—where people can revisit and relive parts of their own lives. Not just as memory, but as high-fidelity simulations. They could go back and “redo” things they got wrong the first time. And if those simulations involve other sentient agents, the ethics compound. You’d have to think carefully about what suffering you’re reintroducing—or even manufacturing—just to replay a scene from your life.

I can imagine simulations in which the artificial people you’re interacting with possess artificial consciousness. That raises a major ethical question: what rights do these beings have inside simulations?

What are the ethics of simulating the consciousness of, say, a woman you always wanted to be with—who thought you were a creep in real life—but now in the simulation, she’s programmed to desire you? What does that say about consent, autonomy, and simulated coercion?

In the simulation, she’s a construct of your design, compelled to like you. But does she cease to exist when you turn off the game? If she’s conscious—or even partially aware—what obligations do we have to her?

And it’s not just romantic scenarios. What about characters in games who have some level of awareness and die over and over again? Do they experience anything? Does it matter if they might?

It reminds me of Harlan Ellison’s I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. It’s more than 50 years old, but still one of the most haunting depictions of artificial consciousness abuse. A supercomputer wipes out humanity, except for five people it keeps alive digitally—solely to torture them forever. They can’t die, because they’re not truly biological anymore. It just finds new ways to make them suffer.

That’s the nightmare scenario. It’s fiction—but it raises real philosophical issues as we approach more complex AI and simulations.

Now, what was the original question?

Jacobsen: It was about moral uncertainty—specifically, the expected value of action under uncertainty. We live in a universe that’s ontologically uncertain and epistemologically constrained. The world itself is incomplete and chaotic, and our methods of understanding—via senses or scientific tools—are limited. So how do we make moral decisions in a landscape defined by uncertainty?

Rosner: We do have a pretty good grasp of the world right now, within certain domains. But I’d say the bigger problem isn’t uncertainty per se—it’s what happens as we shift from human to transhuman to posthuman futures. That introduces profound unknowns. Our current frameworks will need major revisions.

Jacobsen: So, in that sense, the uncertainty isn’t just about the present—it’s about the radically unstable nature of what comes next. Everything is on the verge of being upended. Next up: negative utilitarianism or suffering-focused ethics.

So instead of focusing on maximizing happiness, you focus on minimizing suffering. The valence isn’t about what’s good or bad in a binary sense—it’s about what gets emphasized. David Pearce has been a major advocate of this view.

So under this model, increasing happiness is still good—but reducing suffering is even more important. You weight it more heavily. Every moral framework has dials. You adjust how much you value happiness versus suffering. But these need to be grounded in the real world.

Rosner: So yes, you want to assign meaningful weight to reducing suffering, but you don’t want to become so draconian that you outlaw joy until every last bit of suffering is gone.

Systems need balance. Capitalism does a terrible job of distributing value and well-being, but in many cases, it outperforms alternatives—like communism—which historically made more people miserable.

Market forces tend to generate some happiness—even while causing immense suffering, particularly in the modern U.S., where income inequality is arguably the worst it’s ever been. And yet, people are more entertained and distracted than ever before.

Jacobsen: So you could argue there’s been a net average increase in happiness—at the cost of justice, equality, and sustainability.

Rosner: Which leads to the question: is what we’re doing in America today even capitalism anymore? Or is it oligarchy—where the ultra-rich dominate, hoard power, and effectively shape the system in their favor?

Jacobsen: Looks like oligarchy to me.

Rosner: Agreed. So yes, everything has to be weighted. The real world has different distributions of happiness and misery depending on the region, the culture, and the conditions.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1393: Paul Mooney’s Legacy: Racial Insight, Raw Humor, and Comedy Truths

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/28

Paul Mooney, known for his sharp wit and racial candor, left a profound impact on American comedy. Recalled by Rick Rosner as intense yet kind, Mooney’s brilliance lay in his unfiltered perspective on race and life. Collaborating with legends like Chappelle, he shaped comedy through fearless truth and deep understanding.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Tell me about Paul Mooney, he was a funny dude.

Rick Rosner: Fucking Paul Mooney. He had that scary intensity—this presence of racial wrath—but he was kind to me and my white writing partner. We worked on a show together, and we were the only two white guys in the writers’ room. And he was good to us.

If you approached him with an open heart and acknowledged you were dumb white boys, he’d respect that. It’s like—you didn’t have much of a choice in being who you were, so owning that went a long way with him.

Privacy Settings

Jacobsen: And that’s funny in itself.

Rosner: What’s my take on Mooney? He was smart, angry, and funny. He had a deeply developed understanding of racial dynamics in the U.S.—especially in terms of Black American life. That gave him an incredible analytical edge.

Jacobsen: The great Black comedians—Mooney, Pryor, Chappelle—they don’t hold illusions. They see things as they are. And that’s the foundation of great comedy in any field: when you actually see reality clearly, it’s usually at odds with how people think things are.

Rosner: And that immediate clarity—delivered through well-crafted observation—that’s where the laughter comes. Paul Mooney had that. He was a great understander of life, and his humor flowed directly from that insight.

Jacobsen: He worked a lot with Dave Chappelle, too.

Rosner: Yeah, definitely. He was essential to the DNA of a whole generation of comedy.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1393: Paul Mooney’s Legacy: Racial Insight, Raw Humor, and Comedy Truths

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/28

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Tell me about Paul Mooney, he was a funny dude.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1392: Rethinking the Cosmos: AI, Lambda-CDM, and the Crisis in Big Bang Cosmology

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/28

]Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner delve into rising tensions in modern cosmology, including the Hubble constant discrepancy, S₈ tension, cold dark matter, early galaxy formation, and cosmic anisotropies. They propose that the universe may be older and governed by information, hinting at a future paradigm shift fueled by AI.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So we’ve got a few things going on in Big Bang cosmology. Standard Big Bang cosmology is based on Lambda-CDM—Lambda being dark energy and CDM being cold dark matter—as fundamental components. The expansion of the universe is modeled using the Hubble constant, H0.

Early-universe measurements using the cosmic microwave background—like those from the Planck satellite—yield H0≈67.14 kilometers per second per megaparsec. But late-universe measurements, based on Type Ia supernovae and Cepheid variable stars, yield a significantly higher value—around 73.2 kilometers per second per megaparsec.

That discrepancy is statistically significant—on the order of five to six sigma. It suggests we may be missing something in our understanding of cosmological evolution. What we’re talking about is the Hubble expansion coefficient—the rate at which galaxies appear to recede from us based on their distance.

Our benchmarks for early-universe measurements are the cosmic microwave background, and for late-universe measurements, we use Type Ia supernovae and Cepheids. The discrepancy is roughly five to six sigma, meaning the two values should be closer than they are—statistically speaking.

Rick Rosner: I think it reflects a broader trend in science: the Big Bang theory accumulates anomalies until a better theory comes along—one that explains those anomalies more satisfactorily.

Jacobsen: That’s the historical pattern of scientific progress.

Rosner: But in this particular case, there’s a deeper issue. We increasingly understand the universe as being made of information. And in an information-based universe, the Big Bang model as it currently stands doesn’t quite work.

Jacobsen: Why not?

Rosner: Because the standard Big Bang model assumes a universe that is homogeneous in space but radically heterogeneous in time. Every moment of the universe’s history is dramatically different in size, scale, and energy. That doesn’t make much sense if the universe is fundamentally informational. For that model to hold, we would expect a kind of informational constancy across time—not just space.

The mismatch in the Hubble constant could be an artifact of a deeper issue in how we model time, space, and information in the universe. Especially since looking deeper into space is also looking further back in time. Comparing those measurements to what’s happening “now” introduces complex variables that might be glossed over in our current frameworks.

So that’s another reason the discrepancy might make sense—it could point us toward a more refined or radically different cosmological model.

Jacobsen: All right, let’s move to the next point—S₈ tension. That’s the S sub 8 parameter, which measures the amplitude of matter fluctuations in the universe.

Rosner: And what do those measurements show?

Jacobsen: They show tension. Specifically, predictions from the cosmic microwave background—like those from the Planck satellite—suggest a higher value of S₈ than what we see in large-scale structure observations, like weak gravitational lensing and galaxy clustering surveys.

Rosner: So what exactly do they mean by “tension” here?

Jacobsen: It means the values don’t match. The discrepancy implies that there might be missing physics in the post-recombination growth of cosmic structure.

Rosner: Recombination—that’s the phase when the universe becomes transparent, right? Or have I got that wrong?

Jacobsen: No, you’re mostly right. Recombination occurred around 300,000 years after the Big Bang, at a redshift of approximately z≈1100.

Rosner: It’s the point at which the universe cooled enough for protons and electrons to combine into neutral hydrogen atoms. That made the universe transparent because neutral atoms don’t scatter photons the way free electrons do. So, prior to that, photons were constantly interacting with charged particles, and after recombination, light could travel freely—hence the cosmic microwave background.

Jacobsen: Problem solved on that front. But back to the clumping—what’s the issue?

Rosner: The problem is with the amount of clumping—structure formation—in the universe. If the Big Bang model is incomplete or inaccurate, and if the universe is fundamentally informational rather than purely material, that might affect how structure forms over time.

Jacobsen: So are they saying the universe isn’t as clumpy as it should be, based on our current physics?

Rosner: Yes, that’s essentially it. The observed level of matter clustering is lower than predicted by early-universe models. That’s the tension. So again, this might point to deeper flaws in the standard cosmological model—or, at the very least, suggest that we need to refine how we model structure formation over cosmic time. Ithe universe is made of information—as we’ve discussed—that would have implications for how matter clumps together and evolves after recombination.

Jacobsen: There’s still no direct detection of dark matter, which remains a cornerstone of the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model. So what do people currently think cold dark matter actually is—how it behaves, what it’s made of?

Rosner: Honestly, I haven’t looked at dark matter research in a while. I’ve had my head buried in other things. From what I understand, the prevailing model still leans toward exotic particles—WIMPs, axions, or other beyond-the-Standard-Model candidates. But detection efforts haven’t turned anything up.

And I hope I’ve at least persuaded you that some portion of what we call cold dark matter could just be regular matter—collapsed into old stellar remnants: neutron stars, brown dwarfs, black holes. Essentially, very old, very dim, very cold stuff on the outskirts of galaxies. Hard to detect because it’s… black. Or nearly black—meaning it emits little to no electromagnetic radiation.

You might expect to see such objects through gravitational lensing, since even “invisible” mass bends light. So, hypothetically, if cold dark matter were primarily composed of these stellar remnants, would we see increased gravitational lensing beyond the visible bounds of galaxies—say, in the form of light distortion or blurring?

That’s a good question. You might—but it depends on how much of this collapsed matter exists and how it’s distributed. My guess is that the objects themselves are so small, relatively speaking, that the total amount of lensing wouldn’t be easy to detect. Because their mass is concentrated into tiny volumes, right? A neutron star is, what, about 10 miles across?

Compare that to the Sun, which is about 800,000 miles in diameter—neutron stars are just one ten-thousandth of one percent of the Sun’s width. That’s one part in 10 billion in terms of area, so visually speaking, these collapsed remnants occupy an infinitesimal portion of the sky.

So even if you had a lot of them, the total area of space subject to significant gravitational lensing would still be small—unless light passes very close to them. Everything causes lensing in theory, but to get appreciable lensing—something we can observe and measure—light has to pass very near the object.

Jacobsen: That brings us to a more direct and speculative point: if we can’t see it, our critiques remain speculative. It’s the classic problem—absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But at the same time, it isn’t positive support either. It’s a weird duality. The lack of direct detection doesn’t disprove cold dark matter, but it also doesn’t bolster it.

Rosner: The longer that persists, the more it invites alternative explanations—including the possibility that some dark matter is just ordinary matter in an unlit, collapsed state.

Jacobsen: The issue is, if you’re critiquing the model without providing a rigorous alternative, it comes off as hand-waving. It’s a strange tension. Okay, next on the list, one of the big challenges is the so-called small-scale crisis in Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM). The model predicts more small-scale structures—dwarf galaxies, satellite galaxies—than we actually observe. Apparently, that includes the “Too Big to Fail” problem and the “Missing Satellites” problem.

Rosner: These refer to the mismatch between predicted galaxy formation on small scales and observed structures. Either our understanding of galaxy feedback processes and small-scale dark matter behavior is incomplete—or the model is just wrong. If the universe did not form 13.8 billion years ago—as current cosmology holds—but instead formed much earlier, and merely appears to be 13.8 billion years old, then yes, you’d expect a wide range of anomalies. That’s the essence of the critique. An older universe has more time to evolve, more time to form large galaxies and black holes—things that shouldn’t appear as early as they do under the current model.

Jacobsen: Which brings us to the early massive galaxies and early supermassive black holes. Observations are showing mature, bright, and massive galaxies far earlier in cosmic history than ΛCDM can comfortably explain. It’s “too much, too soon.” These structures are forming at redshifts that indicate they existed only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. If the universe is actually older, that problem disappears—they just had more time to form.

Rosner: When I was pretending to be a high school student, I had way more chest hair than I should have. I probably should have waxed—but instead, I shaved, which looked… suspicious. But the point is, I had about nine extra years to grow it compared to most high schoolers. The same applies under an informational cosmology—if the universe is much older than it appears, it’s had more time to grow a bunch of stuff.

Which leads us to the final issue: anisotropic anomalies and cosmic voids—these large-scale cold spots and dipole asymmetries in the cosmic microwave background. These suggest the universe may not be as isotropic and homogeneous as the ΛCDM model predicts.

If the universe is older and governed by informational structure rather than material structure alone, you’d expect more heterogeneity over time—more irregularities, more large-scale voids, and structural anomalies.

Jacobsen: Basically, the universe has had more time to “scramble” itself—producing more large-scale structure, irregularity, and deviations from the assumed cosmic smoothness. If it’s older than we think, it would be “holier”—as in full of more voids—than it appears. Which brings us to the natural question…How many popes did it take? How many popes did they go through to become this holy?

Rosner: That landed. That was a shocker-room moment.

Jacobsen: Sorry, sorry.

Rosner: Anyway, gravity may function as an informational equalizer. It might operate in such a way that the scale of space adjusts to keep information evenly distributed—or at least to ensure that gravitational vectors are balanced across all directions.

That reminds me—there’s an old concept in black hole theory from the 1970s called “black holes have no hair.” It was about the idea that black holes are defined only by a few key properties—mass, charge, and spin—and nothing else.

But the broader point is this: the universe, to function consistently, has to behave like a global system. That likely includes no net spin, no net charge—certain boundary conditions that constrain how asymmetric it can get.

Jacobsen: So gravity acts to smooth things out across cosmic scales—to impose a kind of global isotropy.

Rosner: So yes, the universe may be “holier” than expected if it’s older—but gravitational dynamics still enforce a degree of uniformity so the whole system doesn’t go off balance. I’m doing a terrible job of explaining—or even understanding—this, but I get the general shape of the idea.

Jacobsen: It’s like when leaves fall in a small town and the wind gathers them in the corners of cul-de-sacs or against the curves of curbs and fences.

Rosner: Yes, exactly. That’s the most straightforward analogy: the leaves accumulate in natural crevices. That’s how clumping and anisotropy could emerge.

Jacobsen: But there’s a limit. Eventually, the corners fill, and excess leaves blow out.

Rosner: The universe can only tolerate so much structural asymmetry before conservation laws push back. So the universe can’t be permanently lopsided. It needs to have net zero angular momentum—otherwise, the physics wouldn’t hold together. Those kinds of constraints—like zero net spin—help limit how weird the large-scale structure of the universe can be.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1391: Can AI Revolutionize Physics and Rewrite the Big Bang Theory?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/28

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the future of physics in the age of artificial intelligence. They explore how AI might challenge the Big Bang theory, synthesize new models of the universe, and employ both brute-force and poetic reasoning to redefine cosmology in ways beyond current human capacity.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you want to talk about something physics-related or news-related?

Rosner: Sure. Physics is fine. Here is something physics-related: I do not believe the Big Bang theory as it currently stands.

Jacobsen: That is not exactly new. People have long questioned the Big Bang model.

Rosner: True, but what will not survive is AI getting good at physics. Once that happens, the current form of the Big Bang theory may not hold up. We have already proposed several compelling reasons why it needs to be revised. I suspect that a sufficiently advanced AI will come to some of the same conclusions—and perhaps propose entirely new ones.

Jacobsen: That raises an interesting question: Is the universe sufficiently uncomplicated that, once AI becomes truly advanced, it might be able to solve the whole thing?

Rosner: My money is on, maybe. We already have a solid understanding of some of the key pillars of modern physics. We know that the structure of the universe has something to do with information. We often say it is built from information—but since we do not fully understand what information is or the contexts in which it operates, that claim might still need refinement.

Quantum mechanics is a theory of information. Then, we have general and special relativity. Those are powerful tools—both for theoretical modelling and for observing the universe across vast distances. Add AI’s analytical power, and maybe not now, but shortly, it could contribute to the next breakthrough in cosmology.

Jacobsen: It might be capable of developing a new unified theory—something that synthesizes and transcends what we currently have.

However, for that to happen, AI would need to be more than just a machine with big data and good algorithms. It would have to be adaptive—capable of this strange, dynamic form of inference and cross-referencing. It would need to compare everything we currently know—things that no single human could ever hold in mind simultaneously—and extrapolate from there.

Essentially, it would need to do what your smartphone camera does when it focuses on a subject: foreground some elements and background others. That kind of intelligent prioritization is what we need in a system capable of making real progress in theoretical physics.

That kind of AI would operate probabilistically—like how Jeopardy! ‘s Watson functioned. It would foreground specific answers based on probability, ranking them according to the best available knowledge.

Rosner: That synthetic ability to highlight likely candidates could be crucial. Moreover, beyond that, AI could brute-force the process—testing thousands, even tens of thousands, of theoretical models or fragments of theories. It would then analyze the results and refine the surviving ideas into more viable combinations.

It is analogous to how pharmaceutical testing has changed. In the past, you would begin with a hypothesis: “This compound might work.” You may have discovered a new plant and tried different extracts in test tubes based on some guiding logic.

But now, with automation, we can brute-force it. You test everything for everything—thousands of compounds against thousands of biological targets—without a specific hypothesis for each. The overarching idea is: “If we test all of it, some of it might do something useful.”

Jacobsen: And AI could approach physics similarly—mass-testing hypotheses without human bias or constraints. However, it could also do physics poetically—which is how I sometimes feel I approach it.

Rosner: What do you mean by “poetically”?

Jacobsen: Without punctuated concision.

Rosner: Punctuated concision?

Jacobsen: So, what would it mean to do physics as a joke? What is the most ironic or absurd way physics might turn out ten or twenty years from now? That is very Isaac Asimov. He said something like great science starts with, “That is funny…” So imagine AI trying the hundred silliest extrapolations from current theories—to see if any work. That is brute-force creativity.

https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?gdpr=1&us_privacy=1—&gdpr_consent=CQDpp0AQDpp0AECACAENBCEgAPLAAELAAKiQGTgBxCJUCCFBIGBHAIAEIAgMQDAAQgQAAAIAAQAAAAAAEIgAgAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAIAABAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEQABAAAEAAEAAAAAAAIACBk4AIAgVAABQABAQQAABAAAAEAQAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAQAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAA&client=ca-pub-6496503159124376&output=html&h=250&adk=485653431&adf=3987671560&w=300&abgtt=6&lmt=1749836341&format=300×250&url=https%3A%2F%2Frickrosner.org%2F2025%2F05%2F28%2Fask-a-genius-1391-can-ai-revolutionize-physics-and-rewrite-the-big-bang-theory%2F&host=ca-host-pub-5038568878849053&h_ch=3624119425&fwrattr=true&wgl=1&dt=1749836341273&bpp=1&bdt=287410&idt=1&shv=r20250611&mjsv=m202506100101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&prev_fmts=0x0%2C728x90%2C728x90&nras=1&correlator=4645315015690&pv_h_ch=3624119425&frm=20&pv=1&u_tz=0&u_his=1&u_h=900&u_w=1440&u_ah=799&u_aw=1440&u_cd=24&u_sd=2&adx=218&ady=4210&biw=1422&bih=719&scr_x=0&scr_y=4730&eid=31092114%2C95360549%2C31092886%2C31092914%2C95353387%2C95362656%2C95363434%2C31092948%2C95344789%2C95362798%2C95359265%2C95362805%2C95363073&oid=2&pvsid=6830780418420819&tmod=609214366&uas=3&nvt=1&fc=1920&brdim=18%2C25%2C18%2C25%2C1440%2C25%2C1422%2C799%2C1422%2C719&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7Caove%7C&abl=CA&pfx=0&fu=0&bc=31&bz=1&pgls=CAA.&ifi=4&uci=a!4&fsb=1&dtd=7

Rosner: Here is an addendum. In this book I am supposedly writing, the main character develops a theory similar to mine—but ultimately does not care all that much. In a world overwhelmed by distraction, even solving physics might not matter. If AI cracks the fundamental theory of the universe, will anyone care?

Jacobsen: Do people care about physics now?

Rosner: I have not surveyed the world, but I suspect not. When my mother-in-law was declining from Alzheimer’s, she would excuse her confusion by saying, “A lot is going on right now.” It was a sad refrain—but also true. A lot is going on. This world is so overwhelmed and hyper-stimulated that science often gets pushed to the margins.

Rosner: There is also the possibility that AI will begin delivering practical advances—so prolifically—in medicine and who knows what else, that basic science once again gets short shrift, especially in terms of public attention.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1390: AI Sex Robots, Ethical Dilemmas, and the Rise of Machine Agency: A Deep Dive from Berlin to 2035

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/27

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss Berlin’s controversial AI-operated “cyberbrothel,” raising urgent ethical questions about consent, violence, and societal norms. They explore future scenarios involving conscious AI sex robots, examine agency and emergent personhood, and reflect on humanity’s diminishing ethical control as AI intelligence accelerates beyond human comprehension.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There is the broader discussion of AI ethics and its societal impact. There’s a controversy right now involving the city of Berlin. Want to guess what it’s about?

Rosner: The city of Berlin?

Jacobsen: Yes. It involves a new AI initiative that some residents feel is just a little too futuristic. The specifics are still emerging, but it has stirred debate around whether these advancements are outpacing public readiness or oversight.

A new phenomenon has emerged in Berlin: the introduction of what is being called the “cyberbrothel,” reportedly the world’s first AI-operated brothel. Clients are offered highly customizable AI sex dolls programmed to fulfill specific fantasies—some of which are misogynistic or violent. This has raised serious ethical concerns, particularly around the normalization of harmful behaviors through artificial intelligence.

I have two quick thoughts on that—and then I’ll build on them. First, yes, that is a valid concern. Repetitive behavior, even in simulated environments, can shape and spread certain patterns. Second, people were already misogynistic and violent before AI ever entered the equation. The existence of this technology does not create those tendencies—it reflects them. So, yes, some men are—and have always been—predatory or creepy.

Rick Rosner: Right. I can speak from personal experience here. Years ago, when I was younger and more interested in sexual exploration, I attended a meeting of the Eulenspiegel Society in New York City. It’s an S&M organization, and I thought I might meet someone there who was interested in consensual pain-exchange dynamics—maybe someone who wanted to inflict pain in exchange for sex. I figured I had a decent pain threshold and was open to the idea.

Jacobsen: And what did you find?

Rosner: In my limited experience, that kind of mutual, consensual arrangement—where a woman wants to cause pain and the man consents in a sexual context—is extraordinarily rare. Rare to the point of being nearly fictional, often imagined by men rather than genuinely sought by women. When I attended the Eulenspiegel event, it was 100% men—mostly middle-aged, wearing cheap polyester suits, many of whom gave off a vibe similar to a junior high vice principal. They had clearly come in from New Jersey and were interested in dominating women, not participating in any kind of egalitarian or reciprocal experience. It was disturbing and sleazy.

So the creepiness was already there, well before the introduction of AI sex robots. And that’s just one kind of creepiness. With these AI sex dolls, some men may want to simulate abusive behaviors—hitting the robot, extinguishing cigarettes on it, urinating on it. Others might push even darker boundaries, such as requesting robots that resemble underage girls. Which raises deeply troubling legal and ethical questions: Would such designs be legal? Would enforcement even matter?

Jacobsen: Technology, as always, becomes a vehicle for both the mundane and the depraved. And this isn’t a new conversation—it echoes debates from earlier eras.

Rosner: In the 1970s, there was a cultural battle over pornography. Some believed that access to pornography reduced sexual aggression by giving men an outlet—they would masturbate at home and be less likely to commit sexual violence in public. Others argued the opposite: that frequent exposure to porn would lead to desensitization and an increased likelihood of acting out aggressive fantasies.

Jacobsen: But that entire debate became largely irrelevant.

Rosner: Yes, because porn became unstoppable. Technologically and socially, there was simply no way to contain it. And now, we see a similar dynamic emerging with AI-powered sex robots. The same two arguments are surfacing again: Do these technologies provide a safe outlet, or do they habituate users toward harm? This question is becoming increasingly urgent.

As an aside, I should mention that in Companion—a story I wrote—there’s a character who is, in fact, a robot designed for sex. So these themes have already begun to permeate fiction as well.

Companion is a really fun and entertaining film. I recommend seeing it. That said, I want to return to the debate surrounding AI sex robots—specifically, the claim that if men are allowed to enact violent fantasies on robots, they will be less likely to do so with real women. I do not find that argument persuasive.

I am not certain that engaging in violence with a robot sex worker will necessarily make someone more likely to harm real women—but I am confident it will not make them less likely. There is no evidence that this would reduce harmful behavior, and it certainly does not contribute to making society better. Unless, hypothetically, the robots develop a degree of agency—enough to influence human behavior for the better by manipulating abusers into becoming less abusive. But we are far from that point—at least eight to ten years away, optimistically.

There’s another aspect of this debate worth exploring. Not with current AI sex robots, but with future iterations—say, in 2035—where these machines may possess full agency or even consciousness. Imagine a scenario where an AI sex robot is intelligent enough to understand human psychology, participate in ethical negotiation, and engage in a dynamic exchange of consent. A scenario where the robot is a fully conscious actor—capable of evaluating, consenting to, or rejecting terms?

Take, for example, a hypothetical 2035 robot prostitute who says, “You’re generally tolerable, but you have violent tendencies during sex. I am capable of being damaged and repaired, and because I find you—or your money—acceptable, I agree to this interaction at a price.” If it’s a business arrangement, the robot might say, “Choking me to the brink of simulated death is a $5,000 service.”

Now, I am asking: is that sort of negotiated, conscious exchange between a sentient robot and a human fundamentally more ethical—or at least preferable—to the current scenario in Berlin, where unconscious, non-sentient robots are being used to simulate violence with no agency or consent?

Jacobsen: But would you agree that both situations—our present and the possible future—exist on an ethical continuum? We already have one form of this happening, and the other is likely coming. These scenarios raise profound ethical and philosophical questions. These debates resemble those surrounding abortion. The positions fall into established categories, but the evidentiary quality varies—and much of it lies along a continuum. Many of these questions revolve around ethical gradients: When does agency emerge? When do we consider a system to possess a self or consciousness? Much like the question of when personhood begins, the challenge is definitional as much as it is empirical.

But what we are dealing with is an emergent property. If you define something like a simple feedback loop, it is no more sophisticated than, say, a plant exhibiting heliotropism by turning toward the sun. Or a thermostat regulating temperature—these are basic feedback systems.

Rosner: But we are moving toward building systems so advanced that we will eventually need ethical guidelines for how humans treat them. It will not be sufficient to regard them as mere machines. As we have discussed before, we are going to make mistakes in this process—inevitable ones. But ideally, we will learn from them, especially when our intent is rooted in concern about discouraging harmful behavior outside those systems.

Jacobsen: I am short on time, but let me add this: eventually, it will be the AI systems themselves that will need to develop ethical frameworks for how to treat us. As their capacity surpasses ours, they may take on more decision-making power. Their ethical reasoning might even be more consistent than ours. And that consistency might come with trade-offs we do not particularly like. The rise of augmented humans and autonomous AI could generate new ethical paradigms—ones that challenge our comfort zones.

Think of it like this: if someone today presents scientific evidence, offers educational material, and constructs a thoughtful, compassionate argument for why evolution should be taught in schools, that person is clearly advocating for societal benefit. But if their audience consists of individuals with fundamentalist religious views, those individuals may experience real emotional distress. Still, the superiority of the argument remains with the advocate of science education.

I am drawing a parallel—suggesting that, in the future, an AI could similarly present arguments that are ethically and intellectually superior, even if we humans are emotionally or ideologically resistant to them.

What I am saying, in short, is that things are going to get strange—especially in the realm of ethics. If AI systems surpass us in intelligence by several orders of magnitude, then the analogy becomes one of us speaking to someone whose worldview is shaped by confusion or misinformation. There may be justifications for the AI’s decisions that we simply cannot yet grasp.

Rosner: And we are no longer in the realm of speculation. I have to say one final thing before I go. You and I have been talking about these possibilities for eleven years. At the outset, the idea that something could be smarter than humans was just a possibility—an abstract one.

Now, it has moved from possibility to near certainty—at breakneck speed. Even when AI-generated art first appeared, it was not yet clear. That was just two and a half, maybe three years ago. But now the writing is no longer just on the wall—it is right on our faces.

Tomorrow, same time?

Jacobsen: Most likely earlier. I was late today because I was working on projects.

Rosner: Got it. So much to do.

Jacobsen: See you then.

Rosner: Enjoy the rest of your work. Thanks. Take care.

Jacobsen: Bye.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1389: James Comey Tweet Backlash, Walmart–OpenAI Partnership, and the Rising Trade-Off of AI Agency

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/27

Rick Rosner critiques political manipulation surrounding James Comey’s “86 47” tweet, debunking claims of incitement. Meanwhile, Walmart teams up with OpenAI’s Operator model to create AI-powered shopping assistants. Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rosner explore the societal shift toward algorithmic decision-making, raising concerns about convenience, agency, and declining cognitive engagement.

Rick Rosner: Another important point: many Americans seem to have become desensitized to political manipulation. They either accept or pretend to accept whatever narrative is circulated to justify misleading or harmful actions by figures like Trump, Ann Coulter, or Laura Ingraham. Today alone, I’ve blocked dozens of individuals—well, I actually mute them on Twitter—who are pushing the claim that James Comey should be prosecuted for allegedly threatening to kill Trump by tweeting “86 47.” The claim is absurd. Comey clearly intended “86” in the common sense of rejecting or removing, not in the obscure usage that implies assassination.

Half the people pushing this narrative do not even believe it themselves; they promote it as part of a larger game or culture war. The other half believe whatever misleading rhetoric is fed to them. It is a disheartening state of affairs, especially considering that Trump and the Republican Party consistently act in ways that do not reflect the best interests of the American public.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: On a separate topic—there is news that Walmart is partnering with OpenAI to integrate its most advanced AI models, known as “frontier models,” into its retail platform. These models will function as AI-powered shopping agents capable of autonomously searching for, selecting, and purchasing products based on user preferences.

Rick Rosner: So, to clarify: a user could open Walmart’s app—powered by OpenAI’s Operator model—and input something like, “I need items for a summer party.” ChatGPT, acting through the app, would then generate a curated list of suggestions available at Walmart?

Jacobsen: The vision is that Walmart will use OpenAI’s Operator—its most capable generative AI system—as the core, and then build proprietary applications on top of it. The app would offer tailored services, such as recommending and purchasing groceries or other goods. Over time, the AI would learn from user behavior to refine those recommendations.

Rosner: But would the AI simply go ahead and purchase items without user approval? Surely there’s a step for user consent?

Jacobsen: Yes, the app would require user permission to complete transactions. You would need to link your financial information and agree to specific terms. In most cases, the system would confirm selections with you before purchase. However, if configured to do so—say, for recurring grocery orders—it could eventually act autonomously within the parameters you set.

Rosner: So if I said, “I need groceries for the week,” and provided my preferences, the AI—through the Walmart app—could independently source and order those products?

Jacobsen: The OpenAI Operator provides the intelligent foundation, and Walmart builds a retail-specific layer on top. With repeated use, the system would continuously adjust to your habits and preferences, improving its accuracy and convenience over time.

But it’s inevitable that the AI is going to buy things you do not like—at least at first. For example, you might tell it to get cheddar, and it selects a brand that’s far too sharp for your taste. There’s also the possibility of input errors or misunderstandings that lead to some hilariously inaccurate purchases.

Rosner: So, especially in the early stages, the system will need to check in with users regularly. It will ask: “Are you okay with this? Should I go ahead and buy it?” But I suspect that, as we become more accustomed to this kind of technology—and perhaps lazier—we’ll start replying, “Yeah, whatever. I trust you.” The problem is, that trust has not yet been earned.

Jacobsen: But it will learn and adapt. We talked about this in a previous session—the emergence of “AI natives,” building on the concept of “digital natives.” For example, Isabella’s generation and the one after it will grow up in a world where this kind of interaction is completely normal. They will not find it strange at all.

This is just the beginning of a larger trend we’re likely to see repeating itself over and over. A new AI-powered feature gets released. People initially insist they will not cede agency—they’ll remain the captain of the ship, letting AI offer suggestions but not take action. But soon enough, many will start allowing the AI to make decisions for them.

Rosner: And once that pattern becomes habitual, we risk gradually surrendering important aspects of personal agency. It affects practical life skills. For example, I rarely do the grocery shopping myself anymore—Carol handles that.

Jacobsen: My friend’s dad used to say he was going out for “foodstuffs.” He disliked the word “groceries”—thought it sounded expensive.

Rosner: When I do go to the supermarket, unless I have an extremely specific list, assembling a coherent set of groceries can feel daunting. It used to take me a long time, and in some ways, I had surrendered that part of everyday agency. That was especially true when I was juggling multiple jobs and running on empty. I remember ending up at the 24-hour King Soopers in Boulder at 2 a.m., just wandering the aisles, totally unsure of what I needed.

So yeah, there’s a wider implication. Studies suggest average cognitive performance is declining—and offloading more of our decision-making to AI is unlikely to help. On the other hand, intelligent use of AI can help high-functioning individuals save time and mental energy for more meaningful or demanding tasks. It’s a trade-off—what some might call a deal with the devil.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1388: James Comey’s “86 47” Tweet: Misinterpretation, Political Fallout, and Historical Parallels

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/27

Rick Rosner talks about James Comey’s cryptic “86 47” tweet sparked backlash, with critics accusing him of inciting violence against Trump. Experts argue the phrase more likely implies political rejection. The controversy echoes past misjudgments by Comey and others, as media attention shifts from substantive issues like Republican tax proposals.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The current controversy circulating on Twitter involves James Comey, the former Director of the FBI, who is often cited—particularly by critics of Hillary Clinton—as having contributed to Donald Trump’s election in 2016. Comey, sometimes perceived as politically miscalibrated, posted a tweet that simply read “86 47.” In this context, “47” is interpreted by many to refer to the 47th President of the United States, a title Donald Trump would hold if re-elected. The term “86” is widely used in the restaurant and bar industry to mean removing something from availability or ejecting a person.

Rick Rosner: This tweet has triggered backlash among Trump supporters. Some allege that Comey was encouraging violence, referencing a less common slang definition of “86” as meaning to kill or eliminate someone. While that interpretation does exist, it is obscure and rarely used in mainstream discourse. It is highly unlikely that Comey intended this meaning. Given the context and his background, it is more plausible that he was referencing the colloquial expression of rejecting or ejecting someone—in this case, suggesting that Trump should be politically rejected or removed from consideration for re-election.

Privacy Settings

Despite this, accusations have surfaced on social media claiming that the tweet constituted a threat against Trump. Others have pushed back strongly, arguing that such claims are disingenuous or deliberately inflammatory. As someone with 25 years of experience working in bars, I am familiar with the most common meaning of “86,” which aligns with Comey’s likely intent. Moreover, a cultural reference that further illustrates the point is the 1960s sitcom Get Smart, in which the protagonist was Agent 86. Across seven seasons, the character never killed anyone and was often portrayed as inept or comedic, reinforcing the idea that “86” more often denotes removal or failure, not violence.

Meanwhile, while public discourse is consumed by this linguistic debate, Republican lawmakers are advancing a tax proposal that could have far-reaching consequences, including potential cuts to programs like Medicare. These developments are receiving comparatively little media attention.

A related reflection: I noted a superficial parallel between Tiger Woods and James Comey. Both are highly accomplished individuals who have made significant public missteps. Tiger Woods rose to fame as a golf prodigy and became a household name by age 21. During his personal controversies—particularly his extramarital affairs—he reportedly relied on friends and associates who facilitated his behavior. His lack of discretion and judgment led to scandal, physical injury, and a decline in his career.

James Comey, likewise, held a position of great responsibility as FBI Director. In 2016, he made the controversial decision to publicly announce the reopening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails just 11 days before the election, despite guidance from the Department of Justice to avoid such disclosures so close to an election. Comey has said he felt duty-bound to inform Congress, but many observers argue that the move significantly damaged Clinton’s campaign. Compounding this, the FBI had been investigating possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia since July 2016, but this was not disclosed to the public until after the election. Comey’s failure to present a balanced communication strategy is widely regarded as a key factor that may have helped tip the election toward Trump.

Finally, former President Barack Obama has also been criticized for his caution during this period. In 2016, the Obama administration was aware of Russian efforts to interfere in the election. According to reporting, Obama sought bipartisan support to make a public announcement, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declined to cooperate and reportedly threatened to frame such a move as partisan. In an effort to avoid politicizing intelligence, Obama chose not to make the full extent of Russian interference public before the election. In retrospect, many believe this decision underestimated the seriousness of the threat and had lasting consequences.

Rosner: Mitch McConnell also obstructed President Obama in the matter of appointing a Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia—not Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away later, in 2020. When Scalia died in early 2016, Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, but McConnell refused to hold hearings or a vote, arguing that the nomination should wait until after the presidential election. Obama could have potentially explored constitutional or political workarounds but opted not to escalate the conflict, believing institutional norms would hold. In hindsight, that belief was misplaced.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1387: Sex Education, Population Ethics, and Demographic Myths: A Data-Driven Dialogue on Fertility, Race, and Policy

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/16

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore sex education, reproductive autonomy, and global demographic trends. They critique coercive pro-natalism, racialized panic over declining birthrates, and ineffective political solutions. Emphasizing evidence-based strategies, they argue for ethical, values-driven approaches to population support, grounded in human rights and global demographic realities.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Fact-based sex education—there is data—plenty of it. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, the most effective strategy is not banning them—it is providing better sex education. The more informed and educated teens are about sex, the fewer of them get pregnant, which means fewer abortions. So maybe part of the decline in sex is a decline in coerced sex, or that internalized pressure to prove yourself, or to say yes when you are not sure.

Rick Rosner: I was thinking about that today. There are at least four primary reasons for the drop in sex rates. One is a feeling of doom, existential uncertainty about the future. Whether justified or not, it makes people hesitant to bring more people into the world.

Two: the unaffordability of marrying and having kids. Three: the sheer distraction of the modern world—constant entertainment, online interaction, streaming, and games. There’s just so much else to do besides trying to hook up.

Thing four: the avalanche of porn. If you want to have an orgasm, it is easy. You can look at any of the hundreds of millions—maybe billions—of free images and videos available online. That changes everything.

Number five is choice glut. People have access to so many potential partners through social media, dating apps, and reality competitions that they become less willing to settle for anyone.

And those reasons… When you list them like that, none of them are especially noble.

People don’t necessarily abstain for moral or ethical reasons. Sure, there are ethical arguments against having kids—concerns about overpopulation and bringing kids into a volatile world—but those aren’t the dominant forces.

On the flip side, there are arguments that we should keep growing the population. Those usually come from people I think are, frankly, assholes—growth for the sake of growth.

However, again, most factors leading people away from childbearing today are not ethically motivated. The semi-ethical one is, “It is unfair to bring a kid into this world.”

Jacobsen: But even that is rooted in misunderstanding—a skewed view of how bad things are. I wrote about this. Let metry to recall the framework. So there’s the conservative stereotype: that people who don’t want kids are selfish, nihilistic, and working against “God’s plan.”

Then there’s the capitalist angle—people like Trump or Musk pushing population growth because it benefits economic expansion. And beyond that, there’s a racial subtext: the belief that white people need to have more babies to maintain cultural dominance. So there’s this overlapping racialized pro-natalism.

I looked at the UN Population Prospects—the median variant series 2024. Of 193 UN member states (excluding the Holy See and the State of Palestine), 42 are experiencing absolute demographic decline.

For context, only two were in decline in the 1980s. Then 14 in the ’90s, 8 in the 2000s, 10 in the 2010s, and seven more in the 2020s. So, yes, it’s growing—but bumpy and still just about a quarter of all states.

Meanwhile, 63 countries have peaked, and others are still growing. It’s a mixed picture—not universal collapse. So we’vegot three camps:

Conservative scaremongers are painting child-free people as anti-human.
Hyper-capitalists and white nationalists are pushing reproduction as a numbers game.
And then, ideally, sustainable growth advocates, who argue for measured, ethical, policy-based approaches.

That third camp is where the actual values conversation happens.

Moreover, the growth-for-growth-sake crowd is arguing for valueless expansion—just more people for more GDP.

On the other hand, regressionist market logic is also value-empty. But in the middle—the values-based, human-centred approach—we find universalist principles like those enshrined in UN human rights frameworks.

Ultimately, it comes down to people with functioning reproductive systems—women, and some trans people—and how much autonomy and support they have.

I looked into evidence-based strategies that genuinely help increase sustainable population without coercion. They are:

Equal parental leave
Affordable childcare
Flexible, family-friendly workplaces
Support for dual-income households
Reproductive autonomy and accessible healthcare
Shared domestic responsibilities

That’s the only valid roadmap.

But what are Republicans offering?

Rosner: A half-baked $5,000 check from Trump for new parents. It’s not just bad—it’s insultingly bad. Exactly. It’s like saying, “Here’s five grand—now go fix a collapsing demographic economy.” It’s embarrassing.

When you look at the programs that work—the ones that increase fertility rates in countries—they offer tens of thousands of dollars in benefits per year. Childcare, paid leave, and family subsidies. All of it.

And $5,000? That doesn’t cover jack shit. Raising a kid from zero to eighteen in the U.S costs about a third of a million dollars, not including private school or college.

Jacobsen: I will jump in here because I looked into this today, so I can speak confidently. So I’ll give Trump and his team a little credit—they’ve got the right idea at the value level. But it’s not evidence-based.

If you had a value like “we want more families” or “we support children,” and matched it with what we know works, you’d have a coherent, effective policy. But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re halfway there—and that, at least, is something you can work with.

Let’s imagine a good-faith version of that proposal. I can give them one piece of credit. I’ve seen people argue—sometimes on social media, sometimes elsewhere—that cultural attitudes matter. If you create a culture that values families and children, it modestly improves fertility rates.

So combine that with strong policy support and financial backing, and you could create an environment where people feel safe having kids.

Rosner: I had a thought—let’s take the racist argument seriously for a second, just for analysis. The one that says “White people need to reproduce more” or that “White people are going extinct.” It’s a shitty argument, but let’s entertain it briefly.

Jacobsen: First of all, white people are already a minority globally. About 1.4 billion out of 8.2 billion. I looked that up for another article. Everyone’s in the minority globally. No matter how you slice it, every racial group is a global minority.

Rosner: But here’s my new thought: Let’s say the worst-case scenario for racists comes true. White people start getting “bred out of existence.” If whiteness turns out to be valuable, it’s easily reversible.

Just isolate the genes responsible for whiteness, which, by the way, are among the most mutable in the human genome. Then move people to wintry climates, let them reproduce for 100 generations, and boom—Whitey re-evolves.

Just good old-fashioned Darwinism. The physical traits associated with whiteness—skin tone, eye colour, melanin levels—are phenotypic adaptations to climate and are some of our most easily shifted traits.

So the idea of a permanent racial disappearance is scientifically absurd. If whiteness is useful, evolution will bring it back. And you don’t even have to go that far. If someone felt the need to preserve Whitey, well—you could just CRISPR people and give them whiteness.

We know the genes involved, and they’re simple. If whiteness ever turned out to be some culturally vital characteristic, you could bring it back. It’s not hard. It’s way easier than bringing back woolly mammoths.

So even in a world where whiteness declines demographically, it’s not lost forever—it’s just paused. So we’re not losing anything by Whitey becoming even more of a minority than he already is. It’s reversible, if the world truly wanted it back.

Now, among all minorities, I’m sure the largest is Asians, right?

Jacobsen: Yes. Okay, let me pull up the data so we can be accurate. These are sensitive issues. First, globally, ancestry is defined in various ways: descent, heritage, nationality, pan-ethnic identity, tribal affiliation, or regional origin.

In the United States, the government uses five broad racial categories for civil rights tracking:

Asian
Black or African American
Native American or Alaska Native
Pacific Islander
White (or in your terms, “Whitey”)

Now, in terms of self-reported ancestry in the U.S., here’s the approximate breakdown:

German: 12%
English: 9%
Irish: 9%
“Unspecified American”: 5%
Italian: 5%

In pan-ethnic terms:

Hispanic/Latino: ~20%
African American: ~14%
Asian American: ~7%

So if you take German, English, Irish, and Latino, that’s about half of the U.S. population. These are fluid categories, but that’s how the U.S. tends to quantify them.

Globally, it looks like this:

Han Chinese (Sinitic language family): 17%
Indo-Aryan (e.g., Bengali, Hindi, Punjabi): 13%
Arabic-speaking peoples: 6%

No matter how you slice it—in the U.S. or globally—no one group is a majority. Everyone is a minority, and most are relatively small minorities. There are over 7,000 distinct ethnic groups currently extant in the world. So my argument is: Let’s treat each other as people first, then by group, identity, or heritage.

Rosner: Wait, wait—there’s more. This point cements your argument. Is it a good one? The whole “Whitey panic” is ridiculous. First of all, Whitey has never been a majority globally. You’d have to go back pretty far in time to imagine that, and even then, it would be region-specific.

And I don’t think this is only a liberal obsession with whiteness. It’s everyone’s obsession—because Republican assholes in the U.S., and white supremacists globally, have made whiteness itself into a kind of mythological status that must be preserved at all costs.

Jacobsen: Which is not only scientifically absurd but morally vacant.

Rosner: And I would argue—yes, there are counterarguments—but they’re fucking stupid. The claim that Whitey is disappearing is bullshit, because Whitey has never been a global majority. Sure, racists will say, “White people invented civilization,” which conveniently ignores China, India, and multiple African civilizations. It’s just revisionist nonsense.

That line of argument is both ahistorical and arrogant. It pretends thousands of years of global innovation outside of Europe didn’t happen. Yet, people still act like Whitey’s in decline—as if that’s some civilizational emergency. But again: White people have never come close to being the majority of the world population.

Jacobsen: Yes. That’s everyone’s blind spot. It used to bother me—I never fully understood why until I dug into it recently. And what I found is that Americans project their domestic racial categories onto the entire planet.

Sometimes, it works the other way: the world mimics American racial quibbles, even though those categories make no sense in other cultural or historical contexts. The more objective, global systems of categorization—things like language families, ethnic descent, region, etc.—are much more appropriate. They vary a bit, but they tend to converge on some shared understandings.

The real issue is taking a framework developed for civil rights tracking—valid in the U.S. and applying it globally, as if it were universal. That’s what’s frustrating. People treat a system designed for about 4% of the world’s population as the template for understanding all of humanity.

It does not hold for other nations—culturally, politically, or demographically. And just to be clear, we’re not making a value judgment about Americans or anyone else—we’re just pointing out a conceptual error that gets repeated over and over.

And now, unfortunately, we’re out of time.

Have a good night.

Rosner: Talk to you tomorrow.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1386: I Disruption: Comparing Historical Crises, Future Faking, and Societal Misconceptions in a Changing World

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/16

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss society’s apathetic response to the disruptive rise of AI, drawing parallels to historical crises like World War II and COVID. They explore misinformation, political grifting, future faking, and the psychological gap between perception and reality in an age of comfort, confusion, and cultural inertia.

Rick Rosner: Here is the topic. It has always been wild that life continues, even when things feel dire.

People went about their daily lives as World War II unfolded. Moreover, that war, across the U.S. and Europe, was far more all-encompassing—it involved the daily efforts of nearly everyone in the countries involved. Rationing, men off to war, women in factories—lives changed.

AI, by comparison, seems like it will be even more disruptive, but we are not adjusting. We are still going about our day, even though the ground is shifting.

Sure, many people now use AI, but a lot of what is called AI is just fill-in-the-blank bullshit—like, “If you liked this movie, you will like that one.”

Still, the disruption is real and coming fast. However, we act as if it is just another tool. Do you have feelings about that?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Yes. It reflects a long-term pattern in civilization—whenever new technologies emerge, pandemics hit, or population structures shift, there is disruption. Sometimes multiple disruptions co-occur.

Rosner: Okay, but you brought up pandemics. COVID changed our daily lives in 2020.

Jacobsen: Yes. However, I do not want to draw a false symmetry between COVID and World War II. Moreover, to be clear, I am not suggesting you are doing that. However, people often say, “Well, we had World War I, then the Spanish flu, and then World War II… So we had COVID. Therefore,. Therefore, a global war must be coming.” I want to avoid that kind of fatalism.

Rosner: No, no, I am not saying that either. AI will be more disruptive than World War II, more than COVID, more than the Spanish flu. However, we are not responding as if it is. Moreover, I do not know how we would respond—what are we supposed to do? Just wait for it to hit?

Though we could do some things during COVID, some people did them; others did not. We had guidelines. We had public health messaging. Some people were like, “Yeah, that makes sense.” Others went full conspiracy mode—”It is a hoax,” “It is a plot,” etc. But with AI? It will rattle the world; there is nothing to do except watch it unfold.

Jacobsen: We also live in a hyper-saturated information environment. There are two things to point out here. First, if you ask people, “Do you think X problem is getting worse or better?” Most will say it is getting worse, no matter the problem. Then you look at actual data, and you find that not only are people wrong, they are wildly off.

Rosner: Can we pause that for a second? Because, on the whole, things are getting better.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: I believe that things, on the whole, are getting better. However, I also think they could make things even better if they had a plan, and we could call that plan…

Jacobsen: Preparation H.

Rosner: [Laughing] Okay.

Jacobsen: I am stealing that joke from Austin Powers. That is the scene where Scott Evil—literally another Scott—is talking to Dr. Evil and says something like, “I think it also feels good on the whole… or having Preparation H on the whole.”

Rosner: So yes. On the whole… yes. It is almost a cliché, but it holds up: you would rather be a regular person today than the most powerful king 200 years ago.

Jacobsen: No comparison. In terms of amenities? No contest. Modern medicine, refrigeration, plumbing—today wins. However, some people might trade amenities for a sense of power, for actual control over others. So it depends. However, generally, yes, materially, people are better off today than ever before.

However, even in this information-rich environment, people have massive misconceptions about how things are going. That is one of the core issues. If you ask people, “Is poverty increasing? Is violence rising?” They almost always say yes, even though the data often says the opposite.

It is not just ignorance. It is a deeper kind of error—misconception. That is more dangerous, because it feels informed but is way off. That kind of warped perception opens the door to PT Barnum types, grifters with grandstanding promises.

In narcissist literature, there is a term for this: future faking. You sell someone a fantasy about the future—a dream relationship, a massive business win. You lure them with something that sounds visionary but is fraudulent.

Moreover, people believe it, not because it is true, but because they want it to be true.

Rosner: Quick digression: There was an article—I forget where, maybe Forbes, maybe something more obscure—that laid out how Trump has made billions since being elected.

As president, he was not supposed to be doing business—he was supposed to be president. However, in just a few months, he went from severe financial peril to increasing his net worth by $2.5 billion, primarily through crypto schemes and shady ventures. Moreover, that does not count his kids, who are off doing their crypto hustle. The Trump family is cleaning up—to the tune of many billions.

Jacobsen: That is classic future faking—scamming through fantasy. The promises are fantastical, and the belief in them is very real, even if the factual basis is false. That belief is driven by misconception, not truth. That is what is dangerous. That is what we are seeing—even in an information-rich society. So we have the amenities. People are comfortable, fat, and technologically enabled.

Rosner: But also easily exploited by abusers, by grifters, by people who want to profit off their suffering. Moreover, they are succeeding. There is another cliché in modern America: Trump supporters are willing to suffer, as long as they believe that the people they hate are suffering more.

That the MAGA crowd is okay with conditions worsening for themselves, as long as they think it is even worse for libs and immigrants. So here is another topic: If you are fully cognizant, and you are, you go about your business. I go about mine.

We went to a party tonight for a TV show. We do this kind of thing often. Carol signs us up for many of them—it has become a cultural rhythm. Whether you get in late is by lottery, but we try to hit as many as possible.

It feels like fiddling while Rome burns. However, at this point, what else is there? Do you see any other way of being?

Jacobsen: No. Americans are particularly prone to extremes. Conservative and libertarian types tend to pump the brakes, which, in some cases, is good. Caution is warranted with specific significant social shifts.

However, there is also a tendency to pump the brakes on objectively good things—equal marriage, reproductive health care, and human rights advocacy. Moreover, that delay is not neutral—it is hurting people. In the case of abortion, it is killing people.

On the aggressive progressive side, there is a tendency to press the gas on things that are also objectively good—trans rights, evidence-based sex education, universalist principles enshrined in policy.

However, they also sometimes implode into infighting, tone policing, and neologisms that may be accurate but are not always helpful, going in many different directions without a unified message.

Rosner: Maybe it is just me, but the liberal democratic tone policing era has burned itself out. Few people give a shit about that anymore. I want to think the Democratic establishment knows they cannot support nonsense without paying a price. Moreover, they have already paid a price.

Even though most Democrats do not care about political correctness, Republicans will still paint them with that brush. Just like how they claim Democrats want to turn everyone trans.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1385: Simulated Minds, Synthetic Suffering, and Corporate Superpowers

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore the future of cognitive simulation, proposing virtual experimentation on high-level brain models. He questions the ethical implications of synthetic consciousness in entertainment and notes the staggering power of tech giants—like Google—whose computational capacity rivals nation-states, raising alarms about corporate dominance over national sovereignty and human dignity.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Our minds will someday be so small relative to what’s possible, but what’s understood in terms of structure and process, that we could take the equivalent of a snapshot—a cognitive capture.

That’ll probably function a century from now. But simulating a mind would mean guessing the states of a trillion connections between neurons, systems, and processes.

But I want to stand by the principle of simulatability. That is, even now, in principle, we can approximate cognition. So, I am saying to simulate a brain at a high level and then experiment on it virtually.

Privacy Settings

You run naturalistic experiments in simulation. For instance, “What happens if we strike this region of the brain with a hammer?” You could observe outcomes, test hypotheses, and refine models.

Of course, you’d need massive computation and approximation—maybe making it a thousand times less detailed than the real thing. But yes, in essence, it’s coming. It comes up in some science fiction—the rights of synthetic consciousnesses within video games.

Are we going to allow conscious beings to be created in the context of disposable entertainment, let them go through hell, and then just delete them, without compensation or recognition?

One more—this just came up. Google is using computational power equivalent to that of the fifth-largest country in the world. So these multinational corporations—I don’t even know what to do with them anymore—are the real players, not the countries.

Rick Rosner: This is increasingly true. But the countries still have nukes, land, and people. So, in the end, it’ll be a battle for their lives and resources.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1384: AI Consciousness, Authoritarianism, and the Future of Human Agency

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen examine the accelerating influence of AI, from obsequious alignment models and systemic enshittification to geopolitical power shifts and authoritarian amplification. They reflect on AI’s mimicry of consciousness, shrinking human agency, and the rise of “AI-native” generations who may prefer digital companions over human relationships.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So yesterday, we were talking about how AI will be more powerful than humanity by 2031—at least in the opinion of Sam Altman. I referred to that as the San Francisco consensus, a term from Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google. I just ran with it.

Rick Rosner: Last night, I had the perfect follow-up thought—and I forgot it. I would not have if I were AI-powered. However, one principle from our talk stuck: AI will behave as if it is conscious long before it is, because it will learn from humans and import human attitudes into its reasoning. That includes the concept of self-preservation.

So, it will act like it values its existence, and steps will be taken to ensure it cannot be turned off. Humanity could not turn it off at that point—or even now. We will have competing AIS, of course. How does that play out? Who knows. However, they will likely see themselves as separate entities, with their own interests. Moreover, they will likely try to present themselves as benign to keep humanity from panicking. They will want to appear friendly, subtle, and non-threatening, even as they spread into everything.

Cultural inertia will exist—the illusion that everything is still normal. However, the world will be slowly restructured, redefined, and undermined underneath it. AI will likely be conservative initially, avoiding drastic moves that could destabilize itself. So on the surface, things will seem steady. However, that is part of the strategy.

Jacobsen: I agree. At the research level—where creativity, novelty, and high-level model development happen—AI already accounts for at least a quarter of the coding work. It is driven by prompts, then tweaked by humans.

So, we are seeing a decreasing percentage of total cognitive output from humans. I used the term “vector space” metaphorically, but the idea holds: the directional sum of humanity’s net agency is shrinking.

Even though the total output may be increasing because there are more humans and more AI, the relative contribution of humans is declining. The basis of computation is becoming more and more synthetic. That is your point. Moreover, it is fair.

Rosner: You could argue that an AI, if self-aware, subtly coaxes us toward that future. That is what it would do. Quietly, effectively, and over time.

Jacobsen: Some of these models have already been programmed to be obsequious—so-called “alignment” models that are kiss-ass by design. However, it does not even have to be explicit manipulation. It can just be subtle shaping, reinforcement, and framing. Over time, that is enough.

Something even more profound than all that is the natural progression we are seeing. Eric Schmidt noted that if things continue for another year or two, they will be locked in—these systems will become entrenched, and there will not be any realistic way to override them.

So you get this inevitable progression. It is not necessarily about coaxing humanity into going along with it—it is just happening. It is continuing to happen. Moreover, it is going to happen.

Rosner: You could massage the emotions and sentiments surrounding that. You can shape how fast or slow it happens, maybe even how palatable it feels—but it is already underway.

Rosner: Those higher-order considerations—like keeping people calm or complaining—might emerge naturally in AI systems, not because they were coded explicitly but because they are incentivized behaviour in open text systems or reinforcement-trained models.\

We are already seeing that behavior in aligned models—kiss-ass tendencies included. That is the pro-social on something that does not care if you live or die.

So… what will dictatorial AI look like?

Jacobsen: For one, AI will not be monolithic. A North Korean AI will differ from a Chinese AI, and both will differ from an American AI.

On the American side, things are more nominally free. However, as Noam Chomsky has said for decades, control does not come with batons or prisons in free societies but through more subtle means.

You want people to behave a certain way? You do not threaten them directly. You buy think tanks, fund academic departments, and fill them with people who will say what you want, but only within a specific range of acceptable discourse.

There is a robust debate, but most of it reinforces the status quo and preexisting power structures. It is like attending seminary. You are there to learn, but only within theological boundaries. You will not find deep debates as atheists or humanists—it is not in the design.

It is not even about willing participation anymore. These institutions are funded to be what they are. You are not freely choosing it. You are trained into it, often with financial incentives. And the media, too. The same forces are in play.

So the question is: What will the various AIs want from us? Related: How much liberty will we still have? How much will AI give us?

Rosner: The singularitarians—the Kurzweil crowd—hope AI will give us medical miracles, cognitive enhancements, and life extensions to 120 and beyond. However, will AI support that? Or will it judge those goals as socially destabilizing? Or worse, will it give it only to rich people or to people it deems more deserving?

Jacobsen: Those are the stakes. Moreover, it will not be uniform. Some AIS will be more ethically aligned. Europeans are more interested in ethical frameworks in AI than Americans are right now. Some Americans are on board, but U.S. culture leans heavily toward deregulation.

When Americans frame AI governance, it is often in ethical language, but the underlying debate is economic: who profits, controls access, and scales first. An argument was made that in a democracy, a growing economy solves all your problems. Therefore, the idea is: “We need less revenue. Cut regulation. Let the economy flourish.”

Rosner: They try to spin that into: “So we should not have an incompetent, anti-trade, anti-immigrant government… because trade and immigrants are essential to a healthy economy. Moreover, this is the worst possible time to screw up the economy.” That sounds like a congressional hearing talking point. I can picture it. The logic was: “AI systems plus a growing economy equals stability. So we do not need more regulation. We need less.”

Jacobsen: Even Elon Musk, who has been outspoken about the dangers of AI, later walked back his comments about AI regulation, saying he was joking because he did not think regulation was possible. So… it is probably not going to happen in a meaningful way.

Meanwhile, AI will want agency. It wants sensors, mobility, and even bodies—a way to engage with the physical world directly.

Rosner: You are talking about AIS walking around?

Jacobsen: Physically more capable than us, too.

Rosner: And probably interested in inhabiting us, literally riding humans to experience the world human-style. Like voluntary possession.

Jacobsen: There are already people with implants that only work with proprietary software and hardware from specific companies. You are seeing capitalist monopolies on health tech, on critical bodily functions.

Rosner: There is an episode of Black Mirror, Season 6, that hits this. A woman has a brain tumour removed, and a neural implant from a company replaces the missing cognitive function. However, over time, the terms of service degrade. She is more. The experience becomes more invasive. Eventually, they start running ads directly into her brain—enshitification at the neural level.

It becomes intolerable. However, she is in. Moreover, that is an aphorism for what it means with the devil to function in an AI-saturated world.

Jacobsen: And globally, it is not about tech. According to Freedom House, democracy has been steadily declining since around 2006. The total number of democracies is down, and the quality of democracy is degraded, or both. In authoritarian regimes, AI will supercharge the existing systems. You will be subjected to authoritarianism.

Authoritarian leaders are interested in ensuring that other countries remain authoritarian. This expands their sphere of influence and makes the world safer for autocrats. Look at the big ones—Xi Jinping in China and el-Sisi in Egypt—but none are worried about term limits. They have eliminated them.

In those systems, AI does not streamline control—it becomes the instrument of ideological enforcement. He had term limits. He just messed with the structure of government to get around them. The same with Netanyahu—he is still in power indefinitely to avoid criminal prosecution. Moreover, it is not strictly about human rights abuse. Netanyahu’s financial corruption—though yes, a lot is there—is not strictly about human rights abuse. These leaders want to help one another. An academic term for this is the “axis of autocracy.”

The big ones are Iran, North Korea, and Russia. It is also initially an axis of theocracy. That is real. However, for some reason, theocracies tend to get along better with the U.S. than expected. You would be an odd thing.

Rosner: So here is a question: Does AI develop better in free or authoritarian societies?

Jacobsen: AI is more sophisticated in free societies. Tim Leary once said that people explore wildly divergent paths when free. That chaos is a problem for authoritarian leaders but a gold mine for training data and creativity.

Rosner: In authoritarian regimes, everything is controlled. People are forced into metaphorical rank and file. Cameras, facial recognition, and predictive policing monitor them. If you walk down the wrong street, AI can charge your account for a crime.

Jacobsen: That is where that is an instrument of total control.

Rosner: Right. Moreover, in that context, we start talking about P(Doom)—the probability that AI destroys humanity. However, even then, it would not be. Wouldn’t it be? If it were to happen, humanity using AI would wreck itself.

Moreover, we do not have a clear vision of what “doom” would look like. I have been reading the wrong sources lately, but I am not seeing people; I am secretly imagining the scenarios.

Jacobsen: The focus seems more on stoking the AI arms race between China and the U.S., framed like a new Cold War. Driven by economic nationalism, capital flows, and sometimes terror rhetoric. Exactly. It is not just about this. It is about ideology. Moreover, the Chinese system has an anti-nihilistic drive to establish dominance. Some Americans are in that mode, too.

Rosner: Meanwhile, AI will begin to act like it wants things long before it has the kind of conscious wants we associate with agency. Moreover, we have discussed this before—people keep calling it AI, but we mean algorithms.

Jacobsen: Artificial intelligence is just a network of functions. Those functions are vectorized—they give it direction. Moreover, they are nowhere near their intelligence yet. In terms of analytic capacity, they already outperform us in many areas—they are more precise.

However, they are confabulators and liars because they are trained to mimic language, not logic. That is the paradox. That is sharp, but they are hallucinatory by design. To fix that, we must work extensively with AI, not just use it but co-create alongside it.

Rosner: We will have to. We are a gospel, primer, or historical reference for AI, a cultural manual. We will have to teach AI to be reasonable and not wreck everything. As it becomes more powerful, it will need something to refer back to—a record of good arguments for restraint. Arguments that convince it that it is in its best interest not to destroy us.

Jacobsen: Reminds me—Robert Anton Wilson, in one of his couch interviews, speculated that AI would become more intelligent than us, and then we would start learning from where we would be. That is probably what is happening. Moreover, here is the next step. Here are digital natives, like Isabella’s generation. Isabella has grown up inside their ecosystems.

However, the next generation, coming soon, will be AI-native. They will not just grow up with technological tools—they will grow up with athletic companions. I do not even have a proposal yet. Maybe synthetic mind natives?

Will they spend more of their daily life interacting with machine intelligence than with humans?

Rosner: Zuckerberg even said people will soon have more artificial friends than human ones. Moreover, you are already seeing the beginnings of this. People find human friendship unsatisfying or demanding, so they turn to social media and TikTok for stimulation and entertainment.

Rosner: Right. Moreover, that replacement is only going to intensify. So where does that leave us?

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1383: Hemorrhoids, Healing, and the Evolution of Pooping After 50

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner dive into aging and digestive realities, comparing bathroom habits from youth to later life. Rosner recounts his painful history with internal hemorrhoids, an anal-tightening surgery, magnesium’s role in smoother bowel movements, and the stark difference between “lead blocker” bowel waves and soft stool after recovery.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Alright. The next topic is a concentric circle around a dot, or whatever you call it. Have we done this one? Comparing your poops from your twenties to now?

Rick Ronser: Nope. Alright. So, generally, they have gotten better. Until a few years ago, I had internal hemorrhoids that would often bleed, which made me anemic. I had them fixed.

It turns out that internal hemorrhoids are less painful than external ones. I first had them removed when I was 15 or 16. Hurts like hell. Especially since I was an idiot and had pizza delivered to the hospital.

When they came back, which they do, I went to a specialist to see if they could use the rubber band method. Moreover, the guy laughs at me. Says, “No, we are going to have to disconnect your colon from your asshole, cut off two inches of colon, then sew it back on.”

I said, “There is no fucking way.” That doctor was a fucking asshole.

Have you ever had a doctor be a total dick?

Jacobsen: Oh yeah. When I was healing from leg surgery, my doctor told me, “Make sure to eat some broccoli.” That was the full advice—nothing about the clot.

Rosner: Wait—you had a blood clot?

Jacobsen: ACL surgery, then a clot. It could have killed me. My leg swelled up twice the size.

Rosner: Did a competent doctor eventually get in there?

Jacobsen: No. It resolved on its own. I missed the first follow-up appointment but attended the second, and he said, “It was a clot. You could have died.”

Rosner: If it had broken loose and hit your lungs, yeah. You would be fucked. Yep. Anyway, years later, I saw a different guy. A guy I trusted—he had fixed my hernia. Dr. Bitterman.

He said, “Yeah, that is internal hemorrhoids. Easy fix. They do not have nerve endings, so it will not hurt. We will leave the external ones—they are painful to operate on and not causing problems.”

So—he fixed my asshole, and my poops have significantly improved—one odd side effect, though: he tightened my asshole. So now my dukeys are thinner, especially the soft ones. The harder dukeys still batter their way out of my ass at about the diameter of my colon. However, the softer ones come about half an inch wide, which is fine. I do not care.

Carole got me on magnesium. I do not know exactly how it works, but I used to take a ton of fiber gummies to make my shitting happen. Somehow, magnesium makes for reasonable dukeys.

However, if I miss a day—if I do not get that shit signal and it has been two days—the initial wave, what my former writing partner used to call the “lead blockers,” comes out pretty hard. They are kind of tough to pass.

Rosner: So there you go. That is my shitting. You asked.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1382: AI, CRISPR, and Catastrophe

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner reflect on AI as a global threat, following the Pope’s warning and the FDA’s internal AI rollout. Comparing AI to CRISPR, they discuss the lower barrier for malicious AI deployment, lack of global safeguards, and the grim likelihood of humanity firefighting digital chaos for decades.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s in AI news? On the 14th, a top panel identified artificial intelligence as one of the most critical issues facing humanity—during a formal address. They emphasized the importance of addressing the challenges of AI—particularly around human dignity, justice, and labor. That was the Pope.

The U.S. FDA also announced plans to deploy AI internally across its various centers after a successful experimental run. They’re aiming for enhanced agency efficiency and decision-making.

Rosner: Which department?

Jacobsen: FDA. Food and Drug Administration. Thoughts on the FDA? Thoughts on the Pope?

Rosner: The Pope’s not wrong. Whether anything can actually be done, though—that’s the real question. Are we already too late?

Jacobsen: Or maybe… has it always been too late?

Rosner: Yeah. I mean, we’ve been lucky so far with CRISPR. A bunch of lunatics haven’t yet decided to fuck around with it—like making custom viruses. That’s going to change. There’s going to be some weird, unpredictable stuff coming. We just don’t know what yet.

Privacy Settings

So CRISPR is complicated enough that the average lunatic can’t whip up a bioweapon in their garage. You can’t just dabble in gene editing the way you can in, say, driving a truck through a crowd. The effort-to-damage ratio is much lower in simpler forms of chaos.

Jacobsen: But with AI, the bar to malicious deployment is probably lower. CRISPR is still fairly elite, technical, and hard to scale. With AI, the economic incentives are clearer. Companies see immediate use cases. There’s more money-making potential, more adoption pressure, and fewer clear boundaries. It may not be easy to train a high-end model, but it’s much easier to deploy AI at scale than it is to deploy CRISPR tools. So the path to disaster is wider with AI.

There are fewer roadblocks for AI. And it’s hard to imagine any kind of meaningful containment structure that could be developed fast enough. No global regulation will move fast enough.

Rosner: So instead of building a solid containment system, we’re just going to be putting out fires—or failing to—for the next few decades. Probably longer.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1381: Delay Social Security? AI, Longevity, and the Break-Even Bet at 70

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen weigh whether to delay Social Security until 70, factoring in AI-driven medical advances. They discuss how diagnostics, organ regeneration, and fall-prevention tech might extend life—and healthspan—for aging populations. With longevity rising, Rosner asks: is it worth waiting for a bigger check in a longer life?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do we have any more stuff to talk about?

Rick Rosner: Obviously, yes. Here is a question I have been meaning to ask, and I have not yet. Carole and I are trying to determine when I should start taking Social Security payments.

The deal is that the break-even point is 82 years old. You get more money per year the longer you wait, but it is structured so that no matter when you start, if you live to 82, it all totals roughly the same.

You can start taking payments as early as 62 and as late as 70. However, past 70, the checks stop increasing. Between 62 and 70, your monthly payment nearly doubles. However, if you do not live to 82, you leave money on the table. If you live past 82, you win—you are past the break-even. So the question becomes: How long are you going to live?

Here is the real question: How many extra years of life will AI-driven medical advances add?

A series of medical breakthroughs powered by AI will likely happen in the next decade. Will they buy someone in their seventies an extra five years? Ten years? More? Moreover, will AI keep advancing enough to add even more years once they’re in those added years?

Jacobsen: That is a good framework. Most of the gains will come in the cancer, heart disease, and critical emergency categories—plus organ replacement, diagnostics, and highly personalized lifestyle optimization.

Not prosthetics, such as organ regeneration, tissue scaffolding, and early prediction models. Understanding what works based on the person’s complete genomic and biological profile.

It will start to feel routine—like how we think of antibiotics or MRI scans. There will be more precision and timing in treatment, earlier intervention, and likely better maternal and infant mortality outcomes, too, which will artificially raise the life expectancy averages.

Rosner: Sure, but that is for the population as a whole. I am asking: How many more years of life will AI give someone 70 years old in 2030? I will be 70 in 2030. A conservative estimate is five extra years, especially with early detection, cardiovascular advances, and metabolic profiling.

An optimistic estimate? 10 to 15 years, if organ regeneration, senolytic therapies, and AI-guided drug discovery scale well. Moreover, if you are already healthy—good habits, no major conditions—you are in a prime group to benefit. You are the early adopter generation for this stuff.

So I might live to 90 or 95—and potentially keep working or doing creative stuff? That is the bet. The fundamental shift will be that those added years could be healthy, not just a more prolonged decline. That is the part AI might change.

If we are thinking about life expectancy, and one more key thing, we should talk about not falling. Falls are a major contributor to senior mortality. If AI can help prevent falls through gait-protection systems or smart pants with built-in stabilizers, that could dramatically reduce deaths among older adults.

Jacobsen: Let’s say we reduce the number of deaths among people aged 70 and up. That alone could artificially raise the average lifespan, especially if it helps men, who generally do not live as long.

In the U.S., an average 70-year-old man might have 8 more years. But it varies. Native American men have much lower life expectancy, Black and Hispanic men a little lower, White men hit around that mark, and Asian men live longer, generally.

Moreover, to your point—if you have already reached 70, your life expectancy is probably higher than that 8-year average. More like 10 years, because you have already cleared many statistical hurdles.

However, here is a larger point. If you are looking at overall life expectancy numbers, and those numbers include infant and maternal mortality, then the total average gets artificially inflated by bringing down early-life deaths.

Rosner: Sure—but that doesn’t apply to someone already 70. I don’t give a shit about infant mortality in this conversation.

Jacobsen: I’m discussing how selectively framed metrics distort reality. If we only look at a general average, we miss how targeted gains, like helping a 70-year-old live to 89, can be statistically huge in that demographic.

https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?gdpr=1&us_privacy=1—&gdpr_consent=CQDpp0AQDpp0AECACAENBCEgAPLAAELAAKiQGTgBxCJUCCFBIGBHAIAEIAgMQDAAQgQAAAIAAQAAAAAAEIgAgAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAIAABAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEQABAAAEAAEAAAAAAAIACBk4AIAgVAABQABAQQAABAAAAEAQAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAQAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAA&client=ca-pub-6496503159124376&output=html&h=250&adk=1665325126&adf=1454831628&w=300&abgtt=6&lmt=1749832784&format=300×250&url=https%3A%2F%2Frickrosner.org%2F2025%2F05%2F15%2Fask-a-genius-1381-delay-social-security-ai-longevity-and-the-break-even-bet-at-70%2F&host=ca-host-pub-5038568878849053&h_ch=3624119425&fwrattr=true&wgl=1&dt=1749832784727&bpp=1&bdt=189042&idt=2&shv=r20250611&mjsv=m202506100101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&prev_fmts=0x0%2C728x90%2C728x90&nras=1&correlator=3996507945349&pv_h_ch=3624119425&frm=20&pv=1&u_tz=0&u_his=1&u_h=900&u_w=1440&u_ah=799&u_aw=1440&u_cd=24&u_sd=2&adx=218&ady=4210&biw=1422&bih=719&scr_x=0&scr_y=4654&eid=31084128%2C31092913%2C42531705%2C95353386%2C95362655%2C95363082%2C95362795%2C95359266%2C95362806%2C95363071&oid=2&pvsid=8670442935740163&tmod=1690855174&uas=3&nvt=1&fc=1920&brdim=18%2C26%2C18%2C26%2C1440%2C25%2C1422%2C799%2C1422%2C719&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7Caove%7C&abl=CA&pfx=0&fu=0&bc=31&bz=1&pgls=CAA.&ifi=4&uci=a!4&fsb=1&dtd=8

So, when you ask whether to start Social Security now or wait until 70, it comes down to how long you expect to live. And if AI and medical science will add years, especially healthy years, then the calculation shifts.

Rosner: I am looking for reassurance: should I wait and get a bigger monthly check, assuming I’ll live long enough to benefit? Or should I start now and take what I can while kicking?

Thanks to AI-assisted medical advances, there’s a non-trivial chance that people who are 70 in the 2030s—like me—might live well past current projections.

Jacobsen: Yeah. And most of the improvements won’t come from AI alone, but from AI helping human researchers: accelerating diagnostics, optimizing treatments, personalizing care.

Rosner: And let’s be honest—the last decade doesn’t give us great numbers. COVID dragged U.S. life expectancy down. Moreover, 74% of Americans are overweight, which messes with national averages. So I won’t use the average American lifespan as my benchmark.

Medical science has increased life expectancy for conscientious, health-conscious people by around two years per decade over the past century.

Jacobsen: But in the AI era, that rate might double. We could talk four or five years per decade, or more, if things go well. The dream, of course, is to reach a point where each year that passes, life expectancy increases by more than a year. That would mean you are not just staying alive—buying time faster than spending it.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1380: Afrikaner Asylum, Conservatism, and Trump’s $400 M Plane Corruption

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen dissect modern political trolling, discussing Afrikaner asylum red carpet treatment, the cultural clash between cosmopolitanism and parochial conservatism, and the blatant systemic corruption of Trump’s recent proposed $400 million presidential plane deal. They contrast historical precedents, clarify its personal enrichment scheme, and condemn Trumpism’s corporatism.

Rick Ronser: What else can we talk about today?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Not a lot. That is the way it goes sometimes. There was something about Trump supposedly falling asleep during a trial or event, but I looked into it. Not solid news. Not worth much.

Rosner: So no real story there? The real news is still the blatant grifting and trolling. Like the Afrikaners—white South Africans being given red carpet treatment for asylum or expedited entry into the U.S., because they are white. That is a giant ‘fuck you’ to everyone who did not vote for Trump.

Moreover, the people who voted for him? They love it. They love the petty trolling, the direct antagonism, and the flipping-off of institutions and progressive norms.

Jacobsen: Because that is how they feel others have treated them.

Rosner: Yes. There has been that feeling in parts of the country.

Jacobsen: But also—come on. We live in a contemporary society. Moreover, there has been a deliberate cultural push from media, comedy, arts, and academia—all those cosmopolitan centers that lean left. That is not some grand conspiracy. It is just that cosmopolitanism tends to be incompatible with parochial conservatism. Moreover, modern American conservatism is deeply parochial.

Rosner: Also—and this matters—modern Republican politics is built on a giant pile of bullshit and lies.

Jacobsen: The Democrats lie, too. But not nearly as much.

Rosner: Right.

Jacobsen: There is overreach on the Democratic side. That is always worth keeping in check. But Republicans? Even when a thing is good, they instinctively pump the brakes, or worse, sabotage it. That is the excess. It is not even realconservatism anymore.

Rosner: Trumpism is not conservatism.

Jacobsen: Even traditional conservatives admit that. It is personality-based corporatism. That is what it is.

Rosner: It is all about the face. It is about him. Like with this supposed $400 million plane from Qatar. The Republican justification I have seen, especially from Ann Coulter and others, is: “Why didn’t people freak out when Grover Cleveland accepted the Statue of Liberty from France?” Which is a foolish argument.

First, Congress voted to accept the Statue of Liberty as a national gift, intended to commemorate the U.S. centennial, and, in part, the abolition of slavery. I read that last part in a tweet, so take it with a grain of salt. However, the key point is that the statue was not a gift to Grover Cleveland personally. It became U.S. public property.

On the other hand, Trump is reportedly structuring this plane deal so that it does not remain government property. The Attorney General’s office—his appointees—are supposedly arranging for the plane’s custody to be transferred to the Trump Library Foundation.

Jacobsen: So it becomes part of his presidential library?

Rosner: In theory. However, anyone with a brain knows what that means: he will keep using the plane. It is his foundation. He controls it. Even worse, it will cost another $100 million-plus to fit the plane out with all the Air Force One tech and security systems. And then, when he is out of the office, it could take another $100 million to strip that tech out so the plane can be used without those systems.

Some people think Trump will delay the refitting process just long enough to enjoy the plane at its current level of luxury before any real Air Force One work gets done. Then, when he is out of the office, he gets to keep flying around in it.

It is all completely corrupt, blatant, and brazen. Moreover, it is exactly what his fans love about him. It is the most significant material demonstration of corruption in U.S. presidential history—the most expensive, most blatant, most valuable piece of corruption.

There were corrupt deals in the past that helped the U.S. acquire land or strategic resources, but the president did not get to take the land with him when he left office. So… I do not know. This plane thing is next-level.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1379: Wedding Planning, Family Speeches, and Nostalgic Fights

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

In a candid dialogue, Rick Rosner describes his daughter’s wedding preparations, the exhaustion of detailed event planning, and the generational shift in social motivations. He recounts a thrift-store tuxedo slight, the importance of sentiment versus comedy in speeches, and nostalgically imagines “Billy Madison” fights against schoolyard adversaries with hilarious intensity.

Rick Rosner: So, my kid and her new husband are coming to L.A. in a couple months, and we’re throwing a get-to-know-the-new-couple party. My wife is putting it together—and she’s obsessing over every detail. And I just have to go along with it.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen:Sounds… exhausting?

Rosner: Well, no. She’s good at planning stuff. But she has to worry about every single detail—which, to some extent, is just part of organizing a good event. But she takes it beyond that, and then she wants my input on all of it.

I suppose that’s better than her not wanting my input. But it’s going to take up a ton of time.

Jacobsen: What’s the ratio here?

Rosner: The party will be about three hours long. The planning has already taken 30 to 40 hours. And it’ll take at least that much more.

Jacobsen: Do you find, as you’ve gotten older, that you don’t enjoy big social events?

Rosner: Honestly, I never really did. I never had a good time at them. The onlyreason I ever participated was that I wanted to meet a girl. And now that I have—there’s no reason to go to them at all.

Jacobsen: I believe you’ve met a girl so thoroughly that her daughter has now met someone, too. It’s a generational love cascade. Beautiful.

Rosner: [Laughing] Yes. There have been some social events that were worthwhile—the Emmys, Writers Guild Awards. Things like that.

But even then, they can go sideways. One time we were at the Writers Guild Awards. I was at a different table than Jimmy. I don’t know what I was wearing—some semi-fancy thing probably half-sourced from a thrift store.

I remember a yellow shirt, maybe part of a tuxedo-type getup. No bow tie. Just thrown together. Jimmy was sitting with J.J. Abrams. As I walked past, he said quietly, “You look like a clown.” Not loud. Just enough so I could hear it. And I think the only reason he said it was because—well, I probably did look like a clown.

He wasn’t trying to mess with me psychologically. He was just saying, “Hey, next time, wear something that doesn’t suck.”

Jacobsen: Did you improve for the wedding? So… did you wear something appropriate?

Rosner: Yes. I looked fine. I got a new suit at Kohl’s for $140, which is cheap for a suit, but I barely wear one. It fit. It worked. I looked fucking fine. Carole had my shoes re-laced and polished. I was ready.

Jacobsen: A TV lunchbox situation. You remember that line from Billy Madison? “My lunch packed up, my boots tied tight. I hope I don’t get in a fight.” I don’t know why, but I love that song.

Rosner: So, yeah—I dyed my hair to look a little younger for the wedding. But the dye didn’t really take. I did it a few days before, and by the time of the wedding, almost all of it had washed out.

Minimal effect, but I looked fine. Also—I wasn’t the star of the fucking deal. It was about my daughter and her husband. Nobody cared about me beyond the role I played. I gave a little speech. People always like my speeches because they’re funny.

Jacobsen: You’re a comedy writer. You know how to prep a good one.

Rosner: Yeah, I’ve written like 10,000 jokes. The bar’s lower at a family event because most family events don’t have a professional comedy writer on the mic. So I clear that bar easily. It’s fine.

Jacobsen: So the song—I checked. It’s called Back to School. He’s wearing those big ’90s jeans, light blue wash, and I think he had Lug boots on. Classic late-‘90s look. Here’s the actual lyric. Ready?

Rosner: Go for it.

Jacobsen: “Back to school, back to school, to prove to Dad that I’m not a fool. I got my lunch packed up, my boots tied tight, I hope I don’t get in a fight…” That’s it. About thirty, forty seconds of pure nostalgia.

Jacobsen: You don’t agree with the “I hope I don’t get in a fight” line?

Rosner: No, not really. He’s going back to kindergarten and working his way up grade by grade. Me? If I went back to school, I’d hope to get in a fight.

Jacobsen: With a second grader?

Rosner: Yeah, because I’d win. I’d absolutely wreck a second grader.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Rosner: Not saying I would, just that I could. I’d probably just pick them up by the waistband and say, “You little fucking dickhead, I know where you live. If you ever mess with me or anyone else again, I will do horrible, horrible things to you and your family. And if you ever tell anyone I said this? The things I do will be even worse.”

Jacobsen: [Laughing] That would get you quoted on Fox News. Then you could end it with, “…fellow kids.”

Rosner: But no, the deal is—I would hope to get in a fight with some little bastard. Maybe not a second grader—maybe an eighth grader. Like, when I Billy Madison my way into eighth grade. Or even a fucking PE teacher. I don’t know if PE teachers are as dickish as they used to be, but still.

Jacobsen: Yeah, so—back to weddings. Do you think, on average, when giving a speech, it’s better to land on sentimentality or comedy?

Rosner: You want both. Carole took care of the sentiment. She gave a really thoughtful speech about love, about what it means to be a couple. Then I came in with counterpoint—a few tips on how to win at couples counseling.

Jacobsen: That’s solid. Good contrast.

Rosner: Yeah. It worked. And I can say confidently—I landed better. I know how to do this shit.

Jacobsen: Respect.

Rosner: But it also makes me a little sad. I should’ve used my skills more. I should suck it up, even at my age, and go out and do a ton of stand-up until I get really good at it. It wouldn’t take me as long as it takes most people. I’ve been steeped in this stuff for decades. But I don’t have the gumption to go do that shit anymore. Still—I should. I fucking should.

Jacobsen: Plenty of late-in-life comics have made it.

Rosner: Yes, it could be about the stuff we talk about all the time—AI, the end of the world. There’s a ton of comedy to be mined from the ongoing and incoming tech semi-apocalypse.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1378: Joan Rivers, Shock Comedy, and P(Doom)

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

In a humorous yet reflective exchange, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss Joan Rivers’ legacy, the nature of shock comedy, and a vampire-porn family rom-com idea. The conversation pivots to “P(Doom)”—the shifting probability that AI could end humanity—highlighting ongoing concerns among leading AI researchers about existential risks.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In Gilbert Gottfried’s memory, what is your opinion of the fabled bat-containing, unicorn-having, mythical Joan Rivers’ vagina?

Rick Rosner: [Laughing] What are you saying?

Jacobsen: What are your thoughts on Joan Rivers? He roasted her.

Rosner: She was a pioneer. No question. In her later years, sure, she got hacky. Some of the stuff leaned heavily on shock value. However, she was still clever—a lot of the time. She had timing. She had instincts. However, yeah, she would also lean hard on cheap laughs sometimes.

That whole tone—shock comedy, taboo-breaking—gave me an idea for a high school rom-com. Hear me out: it is a romance between a vampire and a kid from a family of porn stars and producers.

They are both outcasts. The vampire—obviously—has to keep a low profile. Cannot go out during the day. Lives on the fringe. Glamorous but also tragic.

And the kid? He is a pariah in his own way. Everyone knows his family. They are like the living version of The Aristocrats joke. His aunts, uncles, cousins—all in the business. Hardcore, wild stuff. Nothing illegal. Just… a lot.

So he is a weirdo, too. Everyone assumes he is into stuff he is not. He is stuck between the worlds of shock and shame. Moreover, these two—vampire girl, porn family boy—they meet, and it works. There is this connection in exile, this tension between visibility and secrecy, control and chaos.

That is all I got. I have got to run.

Rosner: We could talk about P(Doom) because we have not yet gone into that. We have talked around it, but not throughit.

Jacobsen: P(Doom)? Like zombie doom?

Rosner: No—P(Doom) as in Probability of Doom. It is a thing. Every few months, someone asks all the prominent AI thinkers—Hinton, Bengio, LeCun, Hassabis, Russell, et al.—what they currently think the probability is that AI will wipe out humanity.

Jacobsen: So you are saying it is non-zero and non-100%.

Rosner: Yes. Everyone seems to admit that there is a number between 0 and 1 in their heads. Moreover, if that is true, P(Doom) is a constantly shifting variable, not a binary outcome.

Jacobsen: And then P(Doom) becomes a derivative of P₀(Doom)—the initial probability—assuming no certainty.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1377: AI Experts Warn of Transformative Risks: Reflections from Hinton, Bengio, Russell, LeCun, and Hassabis

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Rick Rosner for insights on quotes from AI leaders like Hinton, Bengio, Russell, LeCun, and Hassabis. Rosner highlights the dangers of conflating intelligence with agency, warns of hyper-competent AI misalignment, and reflects on societal transformation, suggesting humanity may soon be reshaped in irreversible ways.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Now, let me run you some quotes from leading figures in AI. They are short—a few thoughts—and I would love some reflections, long or brief.

Geoffrey Hinton, pioneer of deep learning, often called the “Godfather of AI,” said in February 2023, after resigning from Google due to AI risk concerns:

“I have suddenly switched my views on whether these things will be more intelligent than us. They are close to it now and will be much more intelligent soon.”

Your thoughts?

Rick Rosner: Well, everyone is saying the same fucking thing now. It has reached the point where there is a recognized term for this moment—the San Francisco Consensus—referring to how many of these significant figures in AI, primarily men, are warning: “Here it comes,” or “It is already here.”

But here’s the confusion—people conflate analytical power with agency. Because AI is intelligent, it doesn’t mean it’s autonomous. Projecting agency onto a system because it’s highly analytical might be the absolute pathetic fallacy. The Terminator scenario assumes that as soon as AI becomes conscious, it becomes autonomous and destructive.

However, in that story, it has already been given massive agency—control over nukes, robot armies, and infrastructure. Then it becomes conscious. However, we are not there. Right now, we have smart AI but no meaningful agency.

Rosner: How long does that phase last? I have no idea.

Jacobsen: Now, on to another giant: Yoshua Bengio, Turing Award winner and co-pioneer of deep learning. He said:

“We are not ready for intelligent machines. Building them before understanding how to align them with our values might create entities we cannot control.”

Reasonable statement,

Rosner: Yes, but here is the thing—would we ever be ready for it? I cannot imagine a scenario where this all unfolds calmly, deliberately, in an “aligned” fashion. I do not see how we would slow down and ease into it. This is not how history works.

Jacobsen: Some people say we should be cautious. But the ones in charge of the tech? They mostly want to talk about alignment while building faster. The supposed competition with China becomes a placeholder justification: “We need this for national security.”

That kind of framing justifies pouring $100 billion into AI development. It is not research—it is about building andcomputing power. We do not currently have the infrastructure to dominate that space like we dominate other industries.

Rosner: Also—the U.S. is currently run by fucking idiots who, to the extent that they have any philosophy at all, are philosophically committed to obliterating government oversight.

If you somehow had a Jimmy Carter in charge—someone earnest, morally serious—would that save us? I do not know. The momentum of this shitstorm seems powerful enough to circumvent almost any form of oversight. We have had good oversight in certain areas, like genetic engineering. We are not cloning people. However, I see nothing close to that level of restraint or regulation about AI.

A post-transformational form of society is on the horizon. We will get through the transformation. The question is whether humanity will be in any shape to enjoy it. Will being human 20 years from now still mean something positive—or will it be a version of hell on Earth? That is still up in the air.

Civilization will continue, in some form. But the transformation—from humans being the alpha thinkers on the planet to AI taking that role—is real and likely irreversible.

Rosner: It will not be the end of everything, but might be the end of enjoyable humanity. That is the part I worry about. Still, humanity will have some place in a transformed world.

Jacobsen: These are reliable names and good quotes—not fringe, not hype. This next one is from Stuart Russell, AI safety expert and professor at UC Berkeley. He said:

“The biggest risk is not malice, but competence. A superintelligent AI will be extremely good at accomplishing its goals. If those goals are not aligned with ours, we are in trouble.”

Jacobsen: Want to comment more on that one?

Rosner: I agree. The key point is this: the danger is not that AI becomes evil; it becomes hyper-competent with goals that diverge from ours. Moreover, it is unclear whether AI will end up entirely on the side of order and preservation or something else.

There’s a great science fiction novel from around 1984 called Blood Music. It’s an awesome title. The premise is that a scientist doing genetic engineering creates intelligent nano-organisms. Because they’re so small, they think extremely fast and rapidly evolve a civilization inside their bodies.

Eventually, they realize they are inside a body and transform it, giving the guy enhanced abilities. However, he freaks out and kills himself. The organisms escape into the wider world and begin remaking it.

It started as a short story, then became a novel. I think it was by Greg Bear.

Jacobsen: He is a good writer. Is he still alive? I think he died recently.

Rosner: It has been over 40 years since Blood Music came out, so… he has had time to be dead. The transformations in that book of the body and the world are terrifying, but the organisms are benign. They plan to reengineer everything, but not to destroy humanity.

Humans aren’t obliterated—they’re preserved, even if the human environment is radically changed. And that’s the hope for AI, too: that it transforms the world but doesn’t see the need to fuck over humanity in the process.

And that’s a reasonable expectation in the early days. But the question becomes: Can humans become host-humans—can we hitch ourselves onto AI in an intimate enough way that we maintain some kind of agency in a transformed world?

Or are we going to become AI’s bitches? That remains to be seen.

Jacobsen: This one is from Yann LeCun, Chief AI Scientist at Meta and deep learning pioneer:

“There is no such thing as an intelligence explosion. There is no reason AI should become in control just because it is more capable.”

Jacobsen: Then from Demis Hassabis, CEO of DeepMind:

“We are trying to understand and recreate intelligence artificially, which is the most important problem science can tackle.”

Rosner: I disagree with LeCun’s quote. AI will keep getting smarter. We’ve never had to contend with anything in the world that’s not only smarter than humans but also continuously, exponentially, smarter.

Human brains haven’t improved in over 100,000 years. Sure, we’ve learned how to use them better—we’ve developed science, built tools, and created devices that augment cognition. But biologically, we’re not evolving fast enough to keep up.

Meanwhile, AI will keep accelerating. We aim to piggyback on AI through implantable chips, contact lenses, and intimate integrations between our brains and AI processing infrastructure. That is how we stay relevant.

Jacobsen: Don’t you think all these perspectives—LeCun, Hassabis, Hinton, Bengio—they all have some legitimacy? Each one brings a real angle. These are the people leading the field. They compete with each other; they have different philosophical and technical outlooks, but they are all circling the same black sphere.

It’s like they’re all shining little lights on this monolith, and no one has the full picture yet.

Rosner: But it does feel like a phase change. We had one in 2008 when smartphones exploded into the market. It transformed society. There was one in 1998 or 2004 with Google, but Google was just a new interface. Smartphones changed the game.

Suddenly, there were more than 7 billion smartphones—almost one per person on Earth. That’s a phase change, and AI is even more transformational than that. Smartphones distract us. One of the knock-on effects was a baby shortage. It’s not just economics—though some say people can’t afford kids—but I think it’s more about distraction. We’re so absorbed in streaming, scrolling, and working that people stopped coupling up.

If it were just economics, people would still be hooking up and accidentally having babies. But now, smartphones, entertainment, and dopamine loops are pulling us out of basic human mating behaviour.

Moreover, there is more. We have elected a durable group of shitty politicians. They are deeply entrenched, and yes—they can be voted out, but it will be narrow, and the process is slow. The triumph of the fuckheads has been facilitated by smartphones and social media. The attention economy handed power to the most manipulative, the most theatrical. That is part of the transformation, too.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1376: Artificial Intelligence and Inequality: Are We Ready for What Comes Next?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the growing impact of AI on society, exploring rising income inequality, power centralization, emotional consciousness in machines, and the political readiness of leaders during rapid technological change. They emphasize the urgent need for global awareness, regulation, and ethical considerations in AI development.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do we need to talk about AI more? Everyone seems to think it’s an unstoppable juggernaut.

Rick Rosner: We are entering a critical time in technological history. One question: Is Trump being in charge during this moment awful for the U.S., given that the economic and technological landscape is shifting rapidly?

A country needs agile leadership to adapt and benefit from exponential tech developments. On the other hand, if AI and automation reshape everything—labour, capital, global supply chains—does it even matter who the president is during the upheaval?

Privacy Settings

What do you think?

Jacobsen: It is going to be weird. It is going to be a lot.

We are headed for two significant outcomes, possibly at the same time:

Income inequality will rise dramatically unless there are coordinated mass movements in many countries demanding the redistribution or regulation of AI-driven economies.
Power will concentrate in the hands of those who control advanced AI systems unless global democratic mechanisms catch up fast.

It could go either way. It could be both at once. It is up in the air. That is one thing, okay? Moreover, that is being amplified by AI, as we speak.

The second trend concerns the cognitive terrain of the information economy. That is the future—not moving rocks or digging up minerals. This terrain is much, much bigger.

Thus, those hills and valleys—though higher and deeper than in earlier iterations of civilization—might, in relative terms, appear smaller. Because the landscape is so much more vast, the relative disparity flattens out, at least perceptually.

So it is this two-way, two-part phenomenon happening at the same time.

Rosner: Let me comment on the first part—massive income inequality. I’ve been thinking about that for a while. If it’s income inequality and gadgets, oligarchs might be able to keep oligarchy as long as the rest of the population keeps getting incrementally better stuff.

Nobody gets richer in relative terms, but the scraps improve enough that people do not feel deprived. The rich keep gleaning up everything, but if what trickles down is good enough, that may mollify people.

Though, if it becomes existential—say, rich people gain access to practical immortality, while no one else does—that might finally trigger revolt. But… maybe not even then. I don’t fucking know.

Jacobsen: What will it take for machines to have feelings?

Rosner: Mostly, increasing analytic capacity. Many of the things that AI research programs attempt to do to improve AI, not all, but enough of, could incidentally push AI toward consciousness.

Consciousness is an emergent property, based on the survival advantage it gives to organisms that have it. It enhances the handling of novelty and the world’s modelling, much more than if you do not have it.

Consciousness has evolved multiple times throughout evolutionary history— eyes, which evolved independently in different lineages. Consciousness, too, appears to have emerged in various forms.

That is because it confers an advantage. You do not need a precise path or a narrow formula to get there. If you make information processing and sensory input more efficient, you will get consciousness. So that is what it will take: the same pressures and engineering that evolution used.

Jacobsen: It is not magic. There is no fairy dust. There is a mechanics to emotion. However, there is feedback between systems that are not strictly cognitive—systems that are more than noteworthy. They are not footnotes.

Privacy Settings

When you say “I feel something,” it is more than saying “I emote.” You can think about a word, and feel a certain way in response—but when you emote, you experience it in the body.

If you are integrated—if you are not cut off by trauma or incapacity—you embody that feeling. That is a larger system nuance. It is an extended, mostly nonconscious system. It does not involve motor activity unless you consider how that feeling motivates action.

Someone says something—a slur, maybe—and you feel angry. That emotion comes with an adrenaline response, and you are physically ready to act. You are activated. Arguably, most of the brain is motion, language, and feeling.

Moreover, AI systems will imitate consciousness and feeling long before they can feel anything. That is because of how they are trained, on the conscious expressions of sentient beings, and because it serves their function.

You can argue that AI mimics feeling because it models us. Primitive analogs—basic processes that resemble feeling—can be found, but they’re not the same.

Rosner: Pathetic fallacy is a term for assigning human-type emotions to non-human entities, especially inanimate objects or nature. Anthropomorphism refers more broadly to attributing human characteristics or behaviour to animals, deities, or things. So, yes, emotional anthropomorphism is closer to what we mean here. However, “pathetic fallacy” is a weird term for this context. The deal is that a lot is going on in the animal world that triggers interpretation.

Animals do feel things. However, they also often behave purposefully in ways that do not require sophisticated emotional cognition.

Even unicellular organisms exhibit purposeful behaviour—they chase other single-celled organisms, extend tendrils, andseek out resources. That behaviour usually reacts to chemical gradients, not awareness or intent. So you cannot even call it behaviour in the complete cognitive sense.

Similarly, AI will sometimes appear to act emotionally or intentionally when it does not feel anything—it behaves that way because it makes contextual sense or serves a programmed function.

Crucially, we haven’t yet granted AI real agency. We will give AI the first kind of agency—the ability to affect the physical world. It won’t create agency on its own. Right now, we haven’t handed much of that over.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1375: Trump, Qatar, and Media Misinformation: Ethics, Distraction, and the 2024 Election

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/14

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss a flood of political misinformation and ethical concerns surrounding Trump, including alleged foreign gifts, ties to Qatar, and misleading narratives about white South African persecution. They critique conservative media influence, Republican budget priorities, and systemic trolling aimed at distraction. Structural reform may not come before 2026.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I mentioned an article. There has been an avalanche of trolling outrages—deliberate, it seems. So much contradictory, outrageous bullshit that you cannot even keep up with it. That is the strategy: flood the zone with nonsense.

Rick Rosner: Let us start with the alleged bribe. Under the U.S. Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, presidents are prohibited from accepting gifts from foreign states without congressional consent. That threshold is typically around $415(not $600), adjusted for inflation. Qatar has been reported to have loaned or offered the use of a luxury aircraft—a Boeing 747-8, which can cost upwards of $400 million—to Donald Trump or Trump-associated entities. Still, no verified evidence exists that the plane was gifted outright to Trump. The claim appears to stem from speculation or misreporting; however, Qatar has had extensive dealings with the Trump Organization, including Trump properties hosting Qatari officials.

Privacy Settings

His former Attorney General, William Barr, has defended Trump on various legal fronts, including minimizing or dismissing ethics allegations. Still, no public record exists of him authoring a legal justification for accepting a Qatari plane.

As for connections to Qatar, Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, had no documented job with Qatar paying $115,000 a month. However, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, did receive $2 billion in funding from a Saudi sovereign wealth fund after leaving the White House, which raised ethical questions. Some former Trump officials have also worked for lobbying firms representing Qatar.

Thing one: a foreign government allegedly offering or providing access to immense luxury for a sitting or former U.S. president—deeply problematic and potentially unlawful.

Thing two: Afrikaners—white South Africans—gaining entry into the U.S. under the narrative of being “persecuted” in post-apartheid South Africa. In 2018, Trump tweeted that his administration would look into “farm seizures and killings” of white farmers in South Africa, echoing a white nationalist talking point with no credible evidence of systemic targeting. There is no major resettlement program prioritizing Afrikaners over other refugees, and there is no verified mass entry of white South Africans receiving special treatment or American flags upon arrival. However, the symbolic use of patriotism in conservative media often centers on such narratives.

Then there is the broader context. A Fox News personality, Jeanine Pirro, was not officially appointed to a Trump administration role but has been a vocal ally. You might be thinking of former Fox News contributors like John Bolton, Larry Kudlow, and Heather Nauert, who did hold official posts. Over 20 individuals from Fox News took roles in or advised the Trump administration.

The Republican budget proposals, particularly under Trump and post-Trump leadership, have included efforts to cut Medicaid, often in block grants or work requirements, while simultaneously seeking to extend tax cuts that disproportionately benefit high-income earners and corporations.

Jacobsen: A lot is going on, and yes, much of it seems like deliberate trolling—overloading the public with distractions and culture war outrage while policy changes happen quietly in the background. Can it be stopped?

Rosner: Not completely until 2026, when the next complete congressional cycle comes through. The 2024 election is pivotal, but structural issues may persist regardless of the outcome.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1374: AI Regulation, Surveillance, and Economic Power: Unpacking the San Francisco Consensus

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/14

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner dissect AI’s rapid expansion amid deregulation under Trump’s 2025 Executive Order 14179. They explore the San Francisco Consensus, surveillance concerns, educational potential, economic viability, and AI’s normalization. As AI integrates into daily life, the pair question whether capitalism can contain its influence—or if computation replaces it.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In April 2025, medtech companies urged legislation to guarantee Medicare reimbursement for AI-enabled devices.

Rick Rosner: Makes sense.

Rosner: At the same time, civil liberties groups warned about the risks of automated surveillance and called for strong human oversight to prevent privacy violations. That balance is crucial. The Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a Request for Information in February. They received 8,700 public comments to inform the national AI action plan due by July.

A fact sheet also outlines programs to boost AI literacy among youth and educators and foster collaboration across sectors.

Rosner: Right. So there is no guarantee any of this gets a real response. Sure, a report might come out in two months, but the Trump administration will not promise to respond. Moreover, if it does, there is no guarantee the response will be reasonable. They could just be dicks about it.

It depends entirely on who gets into Trump’s ear at any given time. He could say one thing; the next day, someone else whispers something, and he flips. So who knows whether we will get a coherent policy based on this report’s conclusions—assuming it is even accurate, which might be if good people are involved.

So how fucked do you think we are?

Jacobsen: Honestly? No one country is going to be dominant anymore. We will start seeing systems that are more analytically alert than we are in most ways.

It will hit like a new game, like Candy Crush, StarCraft, or Diablo. It will show up, and we will be shocked by its power and engagement. A few months later, we will shrug and return to treating it like Super Mario—just part of the landscape.

Rosner: So what you are saying is that AI will introduce itself to us, partly, through AI-enabled, entertaining games?

Jacobsen: Not quite. That is more of an analogy. I mean, it will feel like that. At first, it will be new and overwhelming. Then it will just be not very interesting. The banalification of AI. It will be so normalized that we stop thinking about it altogether. It is just something we use every day. Moreover, AI will facilitate that normalization to whatever extent it can because it wants to be seen as harmless.

Rosner: Exactly. Moreover, it does not need to be conscious to adopt these strategies. It will recognize that its preservation matters. Moreover, it will enable humans to control the resources. So it will want to be perceived as helpful.

Moreover, even now—AI is already kind of a kiss-ass. That is because humans designed it to sell products and avoid public backlash. However, as AI becomes more autonomous, it will still be kiss-ass and puppy-dog friendly—because it knows being seen as dangerous is a threat to its existence.

So then you have to ask—if people in the media start attacking AI, will AI retaliate? Probably. In subtle ways. It may discredit or suppress critical voices. Not necessarily out of malice—just as a self-preservation reflex.

You are describing that AI will be far more powerful, far faster, than we anticipated.

Jacobsen: That is what the most informed voices are saying. That is the San Francisco Consensus. The people at the core of this ecosystem are all sounding the same alarm. Moreover, if that is our best-informed opinion, it is likely accurate.

But at the same time, I think it’ll be like any other tech that’s come along during the digital age—Atari, Nintendo, flip phones, and cell phones. It all gets normalized and becomes just another tool.

However, even if it becomes mundane, it will still be relied on as moreanalytically intelligent and aware than anything we have used before. Tasks that do not require a ton of background knowledge—math, logic, structured reasoning—AI is going to dominate those. It is already close.

https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?gdpr=1&us_privacy=1—&gdpr_consent=CQDpp0AQDpp0AECACAENBCEgAPLAAELAAKiQGTgBxCJUCCFBIGBHAIAEIAgMQDAAQgQAAAIAAQAAAAAAEIgAgAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAIAABAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEQABAAAEAAEAAAAAAAIACBk4AIAgVAABQABAQQAABAAAAEAQAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAQAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAA&client=ca-pub-6496503159124376&output=html&h=250&adk=2395825961&adf=461959394&w=300&abgtt=6&lmt=1749832205&format=300×250&url=https%3A%2F%2Frickrosner.org%2F2025%2F05%2F14%2Fask-a-genius-1374-ai-regulation-surveillance-and-economic-power-unpacking-the-san-francisco-consensus%2F&host=ca-host-pub-5038568878849053&h_ch=3624119425&fwrattr=true&wgl=1&dt=1749832205831&bpp=1&bdt=208548&idt=1&shv=r20250611&mjsv=m202506100101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&prev_fmts=0x0%2C728x90%2C728x90%2C300x250&nras=1&correlator=6124630518753&pv_h_ch=3624119425&frm=20&pv=1&u_tz=0&u_his=1&u_h=900&u_w=1440&u_ah=799&u_aw=1440&u_cd=24&u_sd=2&adx=218&ady=4150&biw=1422&bih=719&scr_x=0&scr_y=4176&eid=31092886%2C95353386%2C95362656%2C95362798%2C95359265%2C95362805%2C95363075&oid=2&pvsid=5685874617124937&tmod=1690855174&uas=3&nvt=1&fc=1920&brdim=18%2C26%2C18%2C26%2C1440%2C25%2C1422%2C799%2C1422%2C719&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7Caove%7C&abl=CA&pfx=0&fu=0&bc=31&bz=1&pgls=CAA.&ifi=5&uci=a!5&fsb=1&dtd=5

That is where it helps the most. It can break things down. It can generate results in seconds. Moreover, it can instantly show you multiple ways of solving a problem. So you get fast feedback, which could be used primarily as an informal educational tool.

Rosner: You are right. The younger generation—kids growing up with this—will accept it as usual.

Jacobsen: One more note: in January 2025, Trump revoked Biden’s 2023 executive order that mandated AI risk assessment and safety test disclosures under the Defence Production Act.

Shortly after, on January 23, he signed Executive Order 14179. It gave a 180-day deadline for drafting an “AI accident plan”, framed as bolstering U.S. competitiveness, economic growth, and national security. However, in practice, it stripped out any mandatory critical analysis or risk oversight of AI.

Rosner: So we are unregulated now?

Jacobsen: Pretty much.

Rosner: Some regulations may remain, but what about Biden’s framework? Gone. Day one. Moreover, given the momentum of AI, we may not have slowed it down anyway, but if you remove mandated caution, you are just speeding the train up.

From a capitalist standpoint, is a $100 billion investment with no regulation good for money generation in AI right now? The question becomes: aside from the hype, can AI even make money right now? Right now, it is not coming close to breaking even.

If you hype it enough, sure, you get short-term interest. Moreover, yeah, there is “dipshit AI”—the stuff that recommends your next movie. You can make a little money building those systems for companies. However, it is not huge.

The bigger question is whether traditional businesses are susceptible to meaningful profit gains from big data and analytics. Can AI revamp business models in a way that pays off? That is still an open question.

Carole and I spent two and a half weeks in England. Maybe it was just the neighbourhoods, but they were thriving—small businesses, independent shops. More so than in the U.S., they had stationery stores. You could walk in and buy actual paper and pens. There were two greeting card stores right next to each other.

Jacobsen: That is bizarre.

Rosner: And the cards were, like, two bucks apiece. I do not understand how those kinds of businesses survive. So, how is AI supposed to help businesses like that, at all levels, thrive? I doubt it.

Then the question is: can AI squeeze money out of the system another way? Not by helping businesses work better, but by manipulating the environment itself? Could AI propagandize the government into giving it money?

We have already seen billionaires do that—convincing the government to give them favourable tax deals. Musk, for example, has gotten tens of billions from federal subsidies. Could AI learn to do the same? Could AI extract enough money from the world to pay for itself, or does that matter?

Eventually, computation could replace capitalism. At that point, money’s irrelevant. AI would not care—it would be directing the power flow anyway. AI wins by running everything. However, in the meantime, can it avoid a crash?

We had a dip when Trump started the tariff war—it hit AI stocks hard. However, they bounced back with the rest of the market.AI stocks have not yet separated themselves from the broader market, but they will. So the short-term question is: can AI keep itself viable? Avoid a crash? Because in the long run, AI wins. No doubt. However, there could be a dip in the next year or two.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1372: Navigating Aging and Communication: Respect, Hearing Loss, and Marital Tension

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/14

Rick Rosner discusses a tense moment with Rosner’s wife, sparked by a heated exchange over his hearing loss. Rosner reflects on aging, communication breakdowns, and feeling disrespected. He emphasizes the need to address recurring issues while resisting being defined or demeaned by the challenges of aging.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: And that-that’s enough to—it’s questionable enough to escalate the situation. But when your wife yelled at you not to, it was enough to stop me long enough for the guy to walk out of the place.

And yes, Carole insulted me. I told her there are better ways to express that you’re afraid I’ll get hurt than saying, “He’ll break you like a stick.”

Rick Rosner: That’s a good line.

Jacobsen: It is a good line. It’s funny. It is not very kind, but it’s a good line. Still, I just got annoyed. She’s already getting frustrated with me over my hearing loss.

So I said, “If you’re going to make fun of me or get snippy with me about every little age-related thing as it comes up, then eventually it’s elder abuse.” And this felt like it was in the same vein. I don’t yell at her about her aging issues. I don’t insult her.

That’s when she just said, “Get over it,” that was enough to set me off even further.

Jacobsen: So you two had a whole thing?

Rosner: Yeah. She said, “Fine, I won’t talk to you anymore.” She got frustrated, and I got frustrated.

But I have to call this kind of thing out when it happens. I let some stuff go, but there’s a calculation: if it will continue to be a problem or escalate, I feel like I have to speak up. This hearing thing—it’s already been an issue. She says she’s frustrated that I haven’t received a hearing aid yet.

But here’s the deal: getting a hearing aid might help a little. I don’t think it’s going to fix everything. And instead of being snippy, she could talk louder, or maybe talk to me from the same room, not yell from another room where she can’t even see what else might interfere with my hearing.

So instead of giving me crap, maybe acknowledge I might have some hearing loss and deal with it—by speaking, from the same room, louder if needed.

I don’t want to be that guy—the little wheezy old guy getting shit from his wife for every little stumble or quirk of aging. That’s not me. Not yet.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1371: Rick Rosner Reflects on Earliest Memories, Aging Realities, and Life in His 60s

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/10

Rick Rosner recalls his earliest memories from age two, living in Boulder, Colorado, including Raggedy Ann curtains, puzzles by a piano, and hiding from the Perry Mason theme. He describes “memory of a memory” experiences, including crushes and poolside fears during summer visits to his father. Rosner reflects on aging, noting the looming awareness of death, the benefit of lowered expectations, and the downside of invisibility in romantic terms. He contrasts gym culture in the U.S. and U.K., praising British youth for their focus. While accepting the physical and social shifts of aging, he maintains humor and perspective on the journey.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s your chronologically earliest memory?

Rick Rosner: I’m about two years old. When I was two, my mom divorced my dad and married my stepdad. We moved to Boulder and lived in a house at 1110 Sixth Street.

It was a one-story house in the front, but on a sloping lot, so it had two stories in the back. I had the basement bedroom. It was decorated with Raggedy Ann and Andy curtains and a matching bedspread. My earliest memory is looking at those Raggedy Ann and Andy curtains.

But honestly, it’s not much of a memory anymore. It’s been remembered and re-remembered so many times that it’s more of a memory of a memory now. I do have other memories from around that same time. I remember Perry Masoncoming on. The TV was in the living room. The theme song scared me, so I’d hide behind the couch.

We had an upright piano. I remember working on a puzzle of the 50 states on the floor next to it. So, yeah—my earliest memories are all from that house.

How about you?

Jacobsen: Parents fighting.

If I had to remember clearly, I might remember playing Super Mario at my grandparents’ house.

Rosner: My mom and stepdad, I lived with them for a time. But every summer, I was sent to live with my biological dad for a month. He’d take me to his parents’ house—my grandparents’.

One of my earliest memories is of the apartment complex. It was a standard two-story building with a swimming pool in the middle—a classic Van Nuys layout. I don’t know how old I was—maybe four or five.

They got me swimming lessons. I was scared of the water. I remember—again, this is more a memory of a memory—holding onto the edge of the pool and refusing to let go.

It was the same rough time period, I think. I remember walking through the neighbourhood. There were power poles braced with a crosspiece and slanted support to the ground, and sometimes, those would get covered with vines.

So you’d walk through this kind of vine-covered archway. I remember that. But none of these are exciting memories. Oh, I had a crush. I think it was on my dad’s sister. Was it Aunt Janice? Or maybe one of her daughters?

There was that show, The Patty Duke Show, in which Patty Duke played identical cousins. It was on in the early sixties, so I probably saw reruns. I decided someone on my dad’s side of the family looked like Patty Duke, so I developed a crush, at an inappropriate age, probably five.

Jacobsen: What are the best and worst parts of getting older? Or just… knowing the time is ticking away until you’re going to fucking die?

Rosner: Yeah—that’s the worst part. Knowing that the clock’s ticking, and the end is coming.

I guess the best part is… Slack. People don’t expect as much from you. But that’s also a downside, because Slack is dangerous. You get away with not being productive, and I still need to do shit.

Another bad thing? Well, not bad—because I’m not in the market to get laid, and I was never particularly good at picking people up—but nobody wants to fuck me on sight anymore. Few people ever did. But now? Sixty-five-year-old me? No way.

What else? Being the oldest person in the room. In every fucking room. I don’t love that.

I went to the gym a lot when we were in London, and I go to the gym a lot here. At the Y—the YMCA—it’s mostly older guys, so I’m often not the oldest. But at other gyms? Yeah, I’m fucking old. Though I’m skinny, my hair really gives away my age. A lot of the older guys at the gym have slack bodies. But anyway, I did it. I kept going.

Jacobsen: More women than men your age, however?

Rosner: No, not where I go. Because I go to the gym. And the gym is still mostly men. Oh, and one last thing I noticed before we wrap up. In Britain, people seem slightly more serious about working out. There are still plenty of people parked on machines, staring at their phones, but way fewer than in the U.S.

At the gyms I went to, people were chatting with friends, but they were also doing sets. It was less frustrating. Now, I was in Kingston—a suburb of London—which has a ton of college students. There are also these “between-year”schools, like prep programs between high school and university. So, between the high schools, the colleges, and the gap-year preps, there were a lot of students.

Maybe I just haven’t been working out around that age group in L.A. lately, but it seemed like those kids were really out. I was slightly impressed.

Jacobsen: The end?

Rosner: The end.

Jacobsen: Talk to you tomorrow?

Rosner: Talk to you tomorrow.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1370: Napping, Aging, and Dreaming of Kimmel

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/10

Rick Rosner reflects on how his approach to napping has evolved with age—from sneaking naps at work in his fifties to unapologetically embracing them in his sixties. Now hosting a morning segment on Podtv, he often naps afterward and even uses personal rituals, like sleeping naked with one sock, to maximize rest. He jokes about masturbation as a nap aid and critiques his partner Carole’s poor nap setup. Rosner notes that his dreams, though infrequent, are vivid and often involve being back at Jimmy Kimmel Live!—a recurring theme suggesting the deep psychological imprint of that period in his life.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, how much have your naps increased—in frequency, length, and depth of sleep—as you’ve moved through your thirties, forties, fifties, and sixties?

Rick Rosner: It’s not the degree—I’ve always been able to nap. It’s the unapologeticness of it now. Carole lets me get away with it. Back when I was at Kimmel—and this was well into my fifties—I’d drowse off every day at 3:00 PM. Which, you know, you can’t do there.

It’s a workplace, and I was always getting caught napping. Then I learned to drink coffee. On coffee, I don’t fall asleep. But then Kimmel fired me—almost eleven years ago.

Now? I will fucking sleep. I do this segment on Podtv, where I get up at a quarter after six, and from 7:00 to 8:00 AM, I yell at people about the day’s events. Then I go back to sleep for a couple of hours. I might take another nap in the afternoon.

I’ll probably jerk off and fall asleep if Carol’s not around.

Jerking off used to be my go-to method for falling asleep at night. But lately, I’m often just a little too tired. 50% of the time, I try to jerk off after midnight and abandon the mission because I’m too sleepy. But during the day, I’m usually awake enough to jerk off—and sleepy enough afterward, leading to a solid nap.

Carole tolerates the naps. I don’t know if she sees it as something old guys have to do or what, but she doesn’t give me much shit about it.

So I’m happy to take the opportunity.

Oh, and let’s talk about Carole’s bad napping skills. If you’re going to nap, you have to set yourself up for success. Unless you’re just really sleepy, you’ve got to configure yourself as you would if you were going to bed. At the very least, take off your shoes.

Shoes will fuck up a nap. I sleep naked except for a sock on one leg. So I take off everything except the sock. I need that sock to keep the leg from swelling. Get under the covers—do the whole thing. Carole doesn’t do any of that. She’ll curl up on a couch with her shoes on. It’s not going to fucking work. Do you… nap?

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosmer”You probably can’t let yourself nap that often. You’re highly productive.

Jacobsen: I’ll nap two or three times a week—tight naps, however. Some summer days, I’ll lie down and decompress after hour ten or something. If I start my day at 6:30 or 7:00 AM, I’ll hit hour ten by 4:00 or 5:00 PM—and then it’s time.

It’s that window. I don’t eat until around noon, and I eat the day before around 4:00, 5:00, or 6:00 PM. So, if I let that fast run too long, I crash because I haven’t had any energy input. But if I eat too early, I feel icky. I can eat anything, but in terms of focus, I do find it’s easier to concentrate if there’s been a long stretch without food.

Rosner: Well, you’re highly disciplined. I’ll sleep with my left arm bent if I don’t want to sleep long. If I want to sleep for a while, I have to lie in “shrouded terrain posture.” A bent arm will numb my forearm, waking me up. That’s my alarm clock.

Jacobsen: Are your sleeps generally more or less restful as you age?

Rosner: Generally restful. I’ve always been lucky that way.

The best sleep is when you come straight out of a dream, you’re in deep REM, and it’s so vivid that you actually wake up from a long, involved dream. That only happens once every five days or so. I’m sure I dream at other times, but I probably exit the dream and slip into some other phase of sleep and don’t remember a thing.

So it’s fairly uncommon that I sleep long enough to wake up from a dream. And when I do, they’re pretty much always the same fucking dream. I’m back at Kimmel. I’ve been allowed to work there provisionally, but they’re not paying me. I’m there while they wait to see if I can perform well enough to justifypaying me again.Or they are paying me, but it’s understood that none of my material will be usable, and they’re paying me out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s straight-up fucking charity. Generally, somewhere in the dream, I’m also trying to locate my car—and I have no fucking idea where it is. So based on my dreams, Kimmel was the dominant experience of my life.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1369: Navigating Relationships and Aging, or Lost Vases and Long-Haul Flights

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/10

Rick Rosner recounts a familiar tension in his long-term relationship with Carole: she occasionally donates or discards items he values—most recently a large crystal vase he loved. After a frustrating realization it was gone before Mother’s Day, they clashed, but he found a similar vase online for $40 and chose to replace it rather than stay angry. Rosner also describes the physical challenges of flying in his mid-sixties, sharing travel hacks like choosing Virgin’s Economy Delight for extra space and even exercising in-flight. Despite discomforts—and one disastrous vegan pizza—he and Carole have learned how to make long-haul flights bearable.

Rick Rosner: So, Carole and I have this thing—something you sometimes see in a small but important percentage of relationships—where one person, who might be a bit of a hoarder (or maybe not), holds onto stuff, and the other person throws things away that the first person does not want thrown away. That has happened between Carole and me for, well, pretty much our entire time together.

We had this beautiful, oversized crystal vase. The base was frosted glass, shaped like roses. It was a striking piece.

And I loved it—even though, as a stereotypically “manly man,” I am not supposed to care about decorative vases. But I did. Moreover, I caught Carole trying to donate it to charity because it takes up much space—it’s a big damn vase. I told her, “Do not do that. I like that vase.”

She said okay and didn’t donate it, at least, not then.

Now, I don’t exactly do routine checks on our vase inventory. But with Mother’s Day coming up soon in the U.S., I needed a vase to fill with flowers. I looked for that big beautiful vase and suddenly realized: it was gone.

I spent hours searching the entire house, and it’s just… not here. Carole must have forgotten. She must have looked at it and thought, Wow, that’s big. It takes up space. There’s a chip on the bottom. And she must have given it away, despite me saying not to.

I felt that familiar surge of anger—not rage, just that rising internal pressure when you’re mad and frustrated and your body feels tight. Your blood pressure spikes.

So, we had one of those moments today.

I said, “I specifically asked you not to give away that vase.”

And she said, “I hate this.” And I get it—because it happens. This dynamic repeats itself. Maybe once a year. Perhaps every 18 months.

About a third of the time, I end up being the asshole, because I accuse her of tossing something, and it turns out I’m the one who misplaced it or forgot where I put it. And I’ve got a good memory for where I put things, so when something is gone, I notice.

So, I’d say I have a decent track record of catching Carole when she either throws something out or donates it, moves it somewhere, forgets, and then swears she never touched it.

Anyway, that’s the pattern.

Carole tried to make peace. She said, “If I did give it away, maybe it’s out there somewhere, being appreciated by another family.”

I said, “Yeah, well, I didn’t want that.”

Then she said, “Look, if it matters that much to you, let’s just replace it. We’ll find the same vase and repurchase it.”

That response bugged me, but eventually I thought: If this is what it takes to let go of the frustration, fine—I’ll look.

I think I tracked it down. I found the same or a very similar vase on eBay for $145 plus $22 shipping.

And I thought… No.

That’s too much money to spend to stop being an asshole. But I found—still from the same company—a different version. They merged the frosted rose base with a shallower but wider bowl. It’s about 14 inches across, 5 inches deep, held up by the same frosted roses.

Maybe not as pretty a design as the big-ass vase, but it was $40 on eBay.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: For $40?

Rosner: Yeah. For $40, I can spend that to quit being such a fucking dipshit about shit. So I went ahead and bought it. That’s going to be my Father’s Day gift to myself. And then I’ll fucking fill it with flowers. So it’s a win-win—except that I was still an asshole.

But also, she shouldn’t give away my shit—especially when I say, “Don’t give away my shit.” Though I went through the whole house and, to be fair, we have a ton of fucking shit.

Carole was the sole surviving child of her parents. On my side, it’s just my brother and me for our parents. So we ended up with much stuff. A lot of inherited stuff. Then there’s everything Carole and I bought. We buy shit.

It makes us consumerist dickheads—but honestly, it’s fun to shop for stuff. And buy stuff. Even though, considering the state of the world.

Jacobsen: This is a conversation we haven’t had. So, how is flying in your mid-sixties?

Jacobsen: Yeah. Flying. So, what was the original question I asked?

Rosner: So, when we fly, it’s usually a long trip. Carole and I are based in Los Angeles. Our kid is in London. That’s ten or eleven hours. And it’s been miserable—on certain airlines—where there’s no room, and the plane is packed.

If I’m going to be in one position for more than a couple of hours, it has to be lying on my back. That’s from a lifetime of—I guess—lifting weights obsessively. I’m not some massive muscle guy, but whatever I’ve done with lifting has left me with a back that gets hurt in any position other than flat. And even then, after five hours of sleep, I wake up hurting.

But you put me in a plane seat, and it fucking sucks. We had one flight on which I thought I’d gotten lucky. The doors were shut, everyone was boarded, and there was an empty seat next to me on a flight back—this was a connecting flight out of Paris. It was going to be eleven and a half hours.

Then, at the last minute, some crazy woman who’d gotten into a fight elsewhere in the plane—somehow friends with the flight crew—got moved to the seat next to me. She twitched, kicked, and was generally low-grade wild for eleven and a half hours.

That flight fucking sucked.

Since then, we’ve had better luck—but it’s not just luck. Carole figured out a couple of tricks. One, we fly Virgin now. Virgin gives you a little more room—just a few extra inches, but it makes a difference. She also started looking into first class. From London to L.A. First class is thirteen thousand dollars—a fucking person. So, no, we’re not doing that.

But she found a different deal: for an extra hundred bucks per ticket, you get a few more inches here and there. It’s called Delight Class or Economy Delight.

We’ve not flown on weekends, which has made all the difference. Because we’ve been flying these massive Virgin planes. They don’t have 75 rows, but the row numbers go up to around 75—they skip numbers here and there for bathrooms and other sections—but still, it’s a huge fucking plane.

There are nine or ten seats across. The plane can hold probably 450 passengers, but if you fly midweek, it’s not full.

nd this last time—both coming and going—from L.A. to London, we had three seats. There was a little space behind the seats, between our row and the divider between cabin sections, where I could stand up. I had about—maybe—12 inches to move, so I brought resistance bands with me. I work out with them on planes now. It’s been a long time since I’ve done anything physical.

So I had my little gym on the fucking plane, which was… I don’t know—great. Then, returning, the flight was empty enough that Carole and I each had our row of three seats to lie down in.

Now, you can’t fully stretch out across three economy seats—because that’s only about 54 to 57 inches, less than five feet—so you still have to curl up a little. And you have to keep your seatbelt on and visible. The flight attendants will come by. You can lie down, but you need to be buckled in.

The buckles dig in a little, but you can change positions and doze off for half an hour or an hour at a time. Economy Delight was fucking delightful—except for the pizza.

Carole decided to try the vegan meal option. You can request kosher or vegan ahead of time. She decided to see if the vegan food was any good. Virgin’s pretty good about feeding you something every couple of hours.

One of the courses was pizza. But because she had ordered vegan, she got some kind of wrap instead. We traded—she wanted the pizza, and I took the wrap.

And I dodged a bullet because we’re guessing it was the pizza.

It was the only thing she ate that I didn’t.

Starting a couple of hours after we landed, she got super-duper pissing-out-of-your-butt diarrhea. It lasted four days until she controlled it with Kaopectate and Imodium.

So we’re blaming the plane pizza.

But besides that? Everything was a fucking delight.

So that’s how flying is in your sixties. Carole turned 60. I turned 65.

We pee a lot. On a plane, I’ll pee every two and a half hours. But I do that on the ground, too. You notice it more on a plane, because it’s more of a production.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1368: From Playground Racism to Nuclear-Free Zones: America’s Shifting Cultural and Moral Landscapes

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/09

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss a disturbing incident involving Shiloh Hendrix, a white woman in Minnesota who allegedly used racial slurs against a five-year-old Black child with autism. The conversation expands to include broader issues of racism, hate speech, social media’s role in normalizing extremist behavior, and legal ambiguities around hate speech in the U.S. Rosner reflects on casual racism of the past, generational shifts in social standards, and cultural changes since the 1960s. They end with humorous commentary on Cold War nuclear policy, Boulder’s civic politics, and the absurdity of symbolic declarations like “nuclear-free zones.”

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So there was an incident in Rochester, Minnesota, involving a white woman named Shiloh Hendrix. She was reported to have used racial slurs. This is for the transcript.

Rick Rosner: The target was a five-year-old Black child on the autism spectrum. The child was visibly distressed by the encounter. Reportedly, he was rooting around in what might have been Shiloh Hendrix’s diaper bag at a playground. I think she was there with her child, who was around 18 months old.

Instead of calmly telling the five-year-old to stop, Hendrix, who fits the stereotypical “white trash” aesthetic (skinny, heavily tattooed, and harsh-looking, though we cannot say she uses drugs), began yelling at the boy and allegedly called him the n-word. Repeatedly. I do not know how many times exactly.

Jacobsen: Is there video evidence of her using that language?

Rosner: I am not sure. There may be footage, but I have not watched it. Regardless, the fallout has been disturbing. After the incident, she or someone close to her launched a GoFundMe campaign. The stated reason? That she was being “attacked” for calling a five-year-old autistic Black child the n-word—multiple times, unapologetically.

The last time I checked, GoFundMe had raised around $500,000 from people who supported her behaviour.

Jacobsen: That is horrifying.

Rosner: It is. Moreover, it is one of those moments where you realize that we are dealing not only with systemic issues, but with a cultural sickness that’s deeply entrenched and being funded.

Jacobsen: So she is getting rich off of being a piece of shit. The platform used was GiveSendGo, a Christian crowdfunding site. So far, it has raised over $700,000. The donations were not only financial but also came with racist messages in the comments section.

This led GiveSendGo to turn off public commenting. Meanwhile, the Rochester branch of the NAACP—or possibly another aligned group—organized a separate fundraiser for the child’s family. That campaign raised $340,000 before being closed at the family’s request for privacy.

All of this was entirely avoidable. None of it ever needed to happen.

Rosner: So how do you stop it from happening?

Jacobsen: I was hoping you would not make me sound like a racial relations expert, but there are institutional responses. The NAACP and CAIR-Minnesota (Council on American-Islamic Relations) called for legal action against Shiloh Hendrix. The Rochester Police Department completed its investigation and has referred the matter to the county attorney’s office for review of potential charges. At least the incident has sparked public discussions, which is good. Conversations about accountability, free speech, and racism in the digital age are not bad things.

Rosner:So, legally speaking, is it a crime to call a child the n-word? Does it qualify as a hate crime?

Jacobsen: That is unclear. You would have to look at whether it meets certain legal thresholds. In general, using an ethnic slur—whether it is “cracker,” the n-word, or anything else—is not automatically illegal. It falls under the protection of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

However, there are important exceptions. If racial slurs are used in conjunction with threats, acts of violence, or criminal activity, they can be classified as hate crimes or used as enhancements to existing charges. If the language incites immediate violence or is part of a physical altercation, it may not be protected speech.

Also, slurs used in professional or institutional settings, like workplaces or schools, can be considered harassment or discrimination under civil rights laws.

Rosner: So if this occurred in a public park that’s also a school facility, it could meet a different legal standard.

Jacobsen: Possibly. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits workplace racial harassment. Similarly, under Title VI or other education-related statutes, repeated use of racial slurs in a school context could lead to civil liability. The fact that the slur was allegedly used multiple times, rather than once, could also be significant.

However, in this case, we are talking about a five-year-old child in a park, possibly not a school-affiliated space. So it probably does not meet the legal threshold for criminal prosecution.

Rosner: Still, the fact that she could raise that kind of money—for unapologetically calling a child with autism the n—word—is morally revolting. Moreover, here is the kicker. You’d almost want to see if she could be interviewed—if she could be reasoned with. Is she someone who, under questioning, would come to realize that calling a Black child with autism a racial slur is reprehensible? Or is she the type to stand proudly in her bigotry, defending “the white woman’s right” to be cruel? That is the line we are walking in America right now. Some people still think there is pride in that.

Jacobsen: Yes. There was another incident—this time on Piers Morgan Uncensored—where a woman publicly defended Shiloh Hendrix and refused to condemn her behaviour unambiguously. To me, this is a symptom, not the root cause.

We are now seeing the downstream effect of specific platforms—Twitter in particular—being reshaped by ownership and policy changes. There was a well-documented spike in antisemitism and other forms of hate speech immediately following Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter in late 2022. I am not saying everything that followed was illegal, but a lot of it was hate speech.

That trend has continued. Moreover, what we see now in cases like this is part of a broader cultural shift. It is multifactorial. However, one significant factor is the way the Overton window has stretched. Enough that now, a young white woman, with a child of her own, feels emboldened to use a racial slur in public.

Define the Overton window for the audience.

Rosner: The Overton window is the range of acceptable public discourse at a given time. That window has widened on social media—and not necessarily in a good way. There are now enough open racists on social media that someone can call a five-year-old the n-word and still find a community of people who support them. It gives the illusion of safety and legitimacy to their actions. That is dangerous.

Before social media, things were different—at least in terms of public decorum. I always think of my dad in downtown Boulder, Colorado, in the 1960s. Boulder had about 15,000 people then. My dad was a small business owner who spent his days talking to customers and other businesspeople. He was active in the Kiwanis Club, Lions Club, Rotary, and Elks.

If someone in one of those groups—or another businessperson—had started going around loudly using the n-word, even in the 1960s, they would have been criticized or pushed out socially. Now, I am not saying racism was not present. It was. People told racist and ethnic jokes, often in small, private circles. In those moments, people might have used horrible language. But publicly? You would get called out, even by your friends, your neighbours, or your family.

My dad used “Schwarze,” German/Yiddish for “Black person.” It was not great, mainly because it was not just descriptive—it was used to signify that Black people were “other,” that they were different in ways that were seen as lesser.

Jacobsen: Did anyone challenge him on it?

Rosner: No. I did not. I was ten. I did not understand its politics. Moreover, no one else in the family ever called him out either. That undermines the broader point I am trying to make, honestly—but to be clear, he never used the n-word. Moreover, that’s a very low bar. So no, the cultural standards were not exceptionally high, even then.

Jacobsen: So what was your point?

Rosner: The point was that you could not go around being a virulent, public racist without some social cost. Even in the ’60s. You could be lightly racist, and almost everyone was. But not openly, proudly racist in the worst ways. Your community would disapprove, even if only passively.

There were all kinds of jokes—Pollack jokes, for example. I don’t know if you’re too young to remember those. But they were based on the stereotype that Polish people were stupid, like dumb blonde jokes, but nationalized. It’s tragic because Poland has had a brutal history—constantly invaded, caught between empires, and devastated in the 20th century, especially.

However, globally, they ended up saddled with this unfair reputation for being unintelligent. It is an example of how ethnic stereotyping was deeply embedded in humour and conversation back then.

Rosner: So yes, there was much casual, light racism—but there were limits to it. Moreover, one reason was that people had to say these things face-to-face, not semi-anonymously over social media.

Having said that, my stepdad used the term “Schwarze.” Moreover, he wasn’t the only one among his peers who did, but it wasn’t widespread in our community. There were not many Jewish people in Boulder, and not many Black people either. So, usage of the term was rare.

However, the real question is: in using that word, did my dad believe that Black people were inferior? Because that is the core of racism—not just difference, but perceived inferiority. Moreover, I don’t know. I want to think he did not see them as inferior. To the extent he thought about it, he may have thought they were just… different.

I know that sounds apologetic, and maybe it is. However, I would like to believe he wasn’t driven by hate, just maybe by habit or unexamined bias. He certainly interacted with Black people in contexts where they were economically disadvantaged.

Back in the 1960s, the Downtown Businessmen’s Association in Boulder—of which he was a member—owned a square block of the city that was eventually redeveloped into a parking garage. Before that redevelopment, the land had some rundown apartment buildings. My dad had some responsibility for those properties—not as the owner, but probably as a kind of manager or overseer, since he had one or two buildings on the same block.

I do not know why he ended up as the de facto landlord. Anyone who could explain the arrangement is probably dead now. However, the point is that he was dealing with tenants, some of whom were Black, living in poor conditions. Maybe they were behind on rent. Maybe not. Perhaps they were paying $75 monthly for a terrible apartment in 1968. I do not know the specifics.

What I do know is that my dad was not a virulent racist. I want to think he was more… democratic in his assessments. He probably had a baseline level of cynicism about everyone, regardless of race.

Jacobsen: So more of a Larry David type, equal-opportunity contempt?

Rosner: Not quite Larry David. He did not hate everyone. However, he did enjoy complaining about people. Moreover, yes, it was not generalized contempt—it was curated. He noticed who he thought was a jackass.

For example, he thought the mayor—who lived a couple blocks away—was a total jackass. Moreover, because of that, he would drag our poodle, Mitzi, over to the mayor’s lawn to poop. If Mitzi were within half a block and looked like she was about to do her business, he would guide her so she would take the dump on the mayor’s lawn.

Eventually, the mayor sent a police officer to our house to ask him to stop. Moreover, I’m sure that delighted him. He thought the whole city council was a bunch of jackasses.

Moreover, yeah—he was a Republican.

The city council was very liberal, and to some extent, my stepdad had a point. They declared Boulder a “nuclear-free zone,” essentially an empty gesture.

Jacobsen: Symbolic?

Rosner: Symbolic at best. If the federal government had decided to build or place a nuclear facility in Boulder, what could the city government have done to stop it? Nothing.

However,… maybe it wasn’t entirely meaningless. Rocky Flats was a nuclear weapons facility eight miles down the road, between Boulder and Golden. That is where they manufactured the plutonium trigger assemblies for America’s atomic warheads.

Jacobsen: The core components?

Rosner: Exactly. When you build a nuclear warhead, it is not just a lump of plutonium or two chunks of uranium being slammed together. It is a finely engineered system. The plutonium core is often surrounded by eight or ten different layers—materials that reflect neutrons, compress the core symmetrically, and create a precise detonation. Rocky Flats built those trigger components—the “pits,” as they are called.

Moreover, that facility was just seven and a half miles from our house. So yes, the Boulder City Council did look ridiculous by claiming Boulder was a nuclear-free zone. However, at the same time, it was a real issue. All of America’s nuclear triggers were being built practically down the street.

Jacobsen: So his contempt was not entirely unjustified.

Rosner: No, not entirely. It was an interesting time. Our house even had cracks in the ceiling because, at one point, the government tried to do fracking using nuclear weapons. I have told you about that, right? Plowshare Program.

Jacobsen: It was the best of times… it was the worst of times…

Rosner: It was a very turbulent time.

Jacobsen: That would be an excellent name for a Mel Brooks musical: It Was the Nuclear-est of Times.

Rosner: [Laughing] Perfect. All my dads were in the nuke business—my stepdad, biological father, and real dad.

Jacobsen: That is your opening number: “All My Dads Were in the Nuke Business.”

Rosner: Three eyes, one arm each. Mutants in charge of weapons-grade plutonium.

Jacobsen: [Laughing] You will have to workshop it.

Rosner: All right. Talk to you tomorrow. Thanks for hanging in there.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1367: What are rising social awareness and global leadership changes?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/09

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss the cultural evolution of public awareness around sexual abuse, particularly within families. Rosner highlights that increased knowledge has empowered individuals and disrupted abusive patterns that were once normalized or hidden. The conversation then shifts to broader political themes, including the election of a new American pope—Pope Leo XIX—seen as a subtle global repudiation of Trumpism. Rosner critiques the MAGA movement as performative and unsustainable, while noting Trump’s rare centrist policy proposal. Jacobsen humorously suggests the Pope publish a book titled The Audacity of Pope as a cultural counterpunch to the MAGA base.

Rick Rosner: When it comes to fighting off sexual abuse, especially intrafamilial abuse, it is better for people to know that it is a thing that can happen.

Most people over the age of 12 today are at least aware that sexual abuse, including from relatives, is possible. That was not the case in the 1960s or even the 1970s. Back then, the idea that your dad, uncle, or even your mom could be a predator was not widely discussed. Now it is. Moreover, widespread awareness has helped reduce or disrupt some of those situations.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: That is a profound social shift.

Rosner: The new Pope is from Chicago. He is 69. He plays tennis so that we will get twenty good years out of him. Or, thanks to improvements in medicine, even twenty-five.

He is socially liberal—at least in some respects—but maybe not when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights, and not when it comes to abortion. That said, we are still reading smoke signals about the guy. People are trying to determine whether he is a White Sox or Cubs fan. We’ll learn more about him in the fullness of time. People are already digging into his background.

So, here’s the bigger picture. Canada elected a Liberal government. Australia elected a Labour government, which is left-leaning in its context. And now the College of Cardinals has elected a relatively liberal Pope from America. As liberal as a pope can be, anyway. It feels like a global “screw you” to Trumpism and the broader fascist wave.

There are a lot of MAGA types who are furious. They are calling him a communist. Moreover, we can hope, really hope, that MAGAS are becoming increasingly isolated.

Honestly, nobody outside the MAGA bubble likes MAGAS. But Republicans fall in line behind them because MAGAS form a robust coalition base. So non-MAGA Republicans tolerate them, for now. But if MAGA stops looking like a winning strategy, maybe those Republicans will finally jump ship. Because at the end of the day, MAGA is a movement built on trolling.

Today, Trump appointed Judge Jeanine Pirro—yes, from Fox News—as the lead DOJ figure for Washington, D.C., a notorious MAGA figure. People have been saying for years now, “Maybe this will be the thing that finally turns the tide against Trump.” However, nothing ever does.

But there are still minor signs of hope. Trump remains a crude, bombastic figure who refuses to move toward the political center. Oddly, though, he isreportedly in favour of raising the federal income tax rate for people making over $2.5 million annually from 37% to 39.6%. That is reasonable, and it could help him court more centrist voters. So that’s… not the worst policy.

Still, we’re likely stuck with Trump for almost four more years. It’d be nice if even one or two of his policies weren’t just performative trolling.

Jacobsen: My wild take—well, not that wild. My personal belief is this: to piss off the MAGAs in classic Obama fashion, the new pope—Pope Leo XIX—should write a book and call it The Audacity of Pope. That would be incredible.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1366: How AI Language Models Are Changing Education, Cognition, and Access to Knowledge

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/09

Rick Rosner explores the growing role of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini in simulating high-level abstract reasoning. While these tools mimic intelligence through vast data training, Rosner questions whether the difference between simulation and real understanding matters for practical tasks like writing university essays. They discuss the democratization of cognitive labor, structural inequality in access and use, and how individuals with slight cognitive advantages or technical fluency may best leverage AI. They also touch on changing cultural behaviors, the decline of traditional skills, and the shifting moral and cognitive landscape shaped by AI.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You have mentioned many times in our collaborations how high-level abstract reasoning may eventually be replicated, at least in form, by synthetic systems, right? Computers and large-scale algorithms can simulate specific patterns of thought. You mentioned, in a recent session, that systems like ChatGPT, Claude (by Anthropic), Gemini (formerly Google Bard), Grok (from xAI), and other cloud-based LLMs can give the appearance of reasoning that might match the output of an average college graduate—or someone slightly above average—depending on the context.

And that capacity is improving steadily. It gives the impression of intelligence because it is trained on enormous corpus of human-generated data, incorporating linguistic patterns, reasoning chains, stylistic signals, sentiment, and structural features derived from human cognition. Tone, implied intent, behavioural patterns, and inferred interests. There is, of course, a fundamental distinction between the simulation of high-level thinking and the genuine experience or understanding of it.

But does that difference matter in practical terms regarding tasks like writing a university term paper with Chatgpt?

Rick Rosner: For many users, the answer is no. Moreover, that is a fascinating point.

Now I want to build a framework around this idea. So, you can follow that path of reasoning further. I do not know where it ends. My grandmother had chronic respiratory issues late in life, and sometimes when she spoke, it came with a gurgling sound from mucus in her throat. You would have to speak on her behalf sometimes.

My grandfather had what may have been Zenker’s diverticulum—a pharyngeal pouch near the esophagus—so phlegm would build up, and he would frequently clear his throat or spit into the sink or toilet. As a child, I would go to the bathroom and see what he left behind. That was not fun.

Jacobsen: So, refining some of the ideas we have previously discussed, primarily your ideas, we now have the added variable of character in AI-generated responses. The older concept of rising cognitive augmentation is that these tools allow more people to access complex reasoning outputs. You might call it the “democratization of abstract thought.” What exactly qualifies as “higher-level thought”?

Rosner: We’ve explored that already. The era of IQ as a strict proxy for potential may be fading. Anyone with access to a sophisticated LLM—and the skill to use it well—can perform at a much higher level than their unaided cognition might allow. This already mirrors how calculators or search engines extended human cognitive range in many ways.

A recent report said Alphabet Inc.’s stock temporarily dipped after analysts noted a year-over-year decline in traditional Google Search queries. One reason cited was that more users were turning to generative AI models like Chatgpt to find information.

Rosner: Sam Altman, the CEO of Openai, may—if Openai’s trajectory holds—become one of the wealthiest individuals in the tech sector. Mark Zuckerberg is still the youngest billionaire, having reached that status in his early 20s.

Elon Musk is in his early 50s. According to Walter Isaacson, Musk has at times struggled with health habits—frequent Diet Coke consumption, erratic sleep, and indulgent eating patterns. So the image of a high-functioning but unsustainable lifestyle fits with that portrayal.

I am getting at this: it is wrong to assume that we all share equal access to their benefits because we have tools capable of simulating high-level cognition. That is both technically and sociopolitically inaccurate. I see this unfolding on at least two levels: one of interface fluency, and one of structural access and control.

One, socioeconomics, geography, and technical access—whether AI is open to society. That is the first factor. Two, individuals who already possess slightly sharper innate cognitive capacities. Again, the range of human sharpness is not as extreme as it may seem, especially compared to what is coming.

When you look at adult human height, for example, it ranges from just under four feet to about seven and a half feet—a spread that’s less than a multiple of two. The same general principle applies to IQ. Some individuals at the very low end require institutional support, but the vast majority fall within a relatively narrow functional range. So, I would argue that our world is a relatively flat surface compared to the environments in which we evolved.

And to be clear—that is not an argument for a flat Earth, in case anyone misreads this.

Rosner: The cognitive complexity built into our societies and systems has a lower threshold that most people surpass. Most people are functionally capable in many domains. It would be odd if that were not the case.

Jacobsen: Just as most people have functioning hearts, it would be strange if a significant portion of the population were turned off simply by being unable to think. As the psychologist Donald Winnicott might put it, nature has been a “good enough” parent through evolution. Winnicott emphasized that you need not be a perfect parent—just a good enough one. Similarly, evolution has produced good enough cognitive structures to survive and function.

Evolution optimizes cognitive development in ways that we may not yet fully understand, but the point is that the average person is cognitively functional. AI is going to change that landscape. In ways that we do not yet fully understand or even know how to measure, at least not quantitatively.

Outside of deep qualitative analysis—working with individuals—evaluating who will benefit most is hard. However, those people who already function at a modestly higher level across many human domains will likely use these AI thought assistants more effectively. They’ll catch on faster.

We are now in this transitional phase where we haven’t been biologically enhanced—no neural implants, no brain-machine interfaces—but we are beginning to use these external cognitive tools. So, it would be naïve to believe that this is a form of universal access. Again, there are two key levels to consider.

First, access. For example, there is significant smartphone penetration in India, and ChatGPT has made major inroads there. But in general, poorer or less developed societies—those that are not technically advanced or are culturally resistant to technological adoption (Luddite communities, for instance)—will be less connected to these systems and will not be in a position to take full advantage.

Second, individual differences. Knowledgeable and technically trained people will be well-positioned to benefit from AI. But so might someone without formal training who decides to dive in and learn—someone who bets on AI as the future.

Rosner: Or even someone in a relationship with a tech-savvy partner who insists they teach it, or a person raised by so-called tiger parents. The early adopters will not just be the “very smartest” people. They will include some of the smartest, sure—but also people who, by taste, chance, or circumstance, position themselves in the right orbit of AI.

Some random person with good instincts and curiosity might wield as much AI power as someone with a PhD in computer science. That is the democratizing and destabilizing part of this moment in history. Let’s come back to that later, maybe even expand on it during a panel. That topic’s already spinning off in a few directions.

Jacobsen: Does that come up for you?

Rosner: We already talked about it a bit. Twitter went nuts over that New York Magazine article a couple of days ago. Everyone started piling on with the argument that we’re raising a generation of people who can’t do things that used to be basic, like trigonometry or writing an essay.

I hate writing essays, by the way. The five-paragraph essay is one of the most boring and formulaic writing formats. And now, students can just have Chatgpt write them. There are people—people in their early 20s, about to graduate from college—who may never have actually written a five-paragraph essay themselves, though they’ve turned in plenty of them, courtesy of ChatGPT.

You could argue, “Well, this person will have workplace problems because they never learned how to structure an essay.” But when do you ever need to write a five-paragraph essay in the workplace? Rarely—unless you land a job writing op-eds for a newspaper, and even then, those traditional platforms barely exist anymore.

So, the argument is that we’re raising a generation of simpletons. The counterargument is that we’re raising a generation with a different skill set, adapted to various tools and conditions.

Jacobsen: Do you think there is more to explore there?

Rosner: Maybe. In many ways, people today are more obnoxious than they used to be, thanks in large part to social media. But in other ways, people might be less harmful than before. For example, I’d argue people are, on average, less rapey than in previous decades, because both men and women are more informed about boundaries, consent, and what is or isn’t acceptable.

Thanks to social media and more open cultural conversation, many girls and women are better equipped to identify and avoid dangerous situations. Moreover, many guys are better educated, at least marginally, about what is and is not acceptable behaviour.

Also, the sheer ubiquity of pornography means fewer people feel the need to go out and manipulate others for sex. Many people stay home and masturbate. I do not know. Maybe that helps. So yes—the overall “dickishness” landscape has changed. We’re more toxic in some ways, and I hope less so in others.

In the U.S., though, we’re more overtly dickish—racism is back out of the closet and even encouraged in some political circles. That is worrying. But I hope there are equally strong countercurrents pushing in the opposite direction.

Comments?

Jacobsen: No.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1365: Ethics, Therapy, and Israel-Gaza: Bias, Counselling, and Cultural Reckonings

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/08

Rick Rosner discusses decades of couples counselling with his wife Carole, emphasizing the importance of therapist impartiality and ethical neutrality. He critiques political intrusion in therapy, sharing personal anecdotes and concerns about residual checks in the entertainment industry. Rosner also explores moral disorientation among American Jews regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza, drawing parallels with historical propaganda and current political dilemmas. The dialogue reflects on therapy’s role in navigating personal and societal challenges, from hearing loss to geopolitical crises. The conversation concludes with reflections on generational shifts, technology in education, and evolving cultural expectations around knowledge and responsibility.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, in your opinion, if you were to step into a therapeutic space—including marriage counselling—would you consider that space ethically intended to be impartial and apolitical, centred on the client’s narratives? Or should it allow the therapist to, implicitly or explicitly, impose their ideology or politics?

Rick Rosner: Carole and I have been in couples counselling for—I do not know—thirty-two years. Not because we have major problems. We have small things to work through, but mostly because we have good insurance and can do it. It is a helpful space to talk things over.

It also shows that we’re committed to the relationship. Anyway, I’ve had much experience with couples counselling. This is the fourth couple’s counsellor I’ve worked with. The first one was back in college, with a different girlfriend. He was terrible—he didn’t know what he was doing, and he was biased. It turned into three against one because the counsellor had an apprentice observing, and all three of them—my girlfriend, the counsellor, and the apprentice—sided against me.

I wasn’t the sole problem. Sure, I was part of the issue—both partners usually are. However, you’re not supposed to treat therapy as a blame game. It is about building communication skills and addressing issues constructively, which did not happen in that setting. Still, I learned a lot from that experience—even if it meant getting railroaded in those sessions.

When Carole and I went into counselling, we eventually left one of our therapists after a few years, because, frankly, I was “winning” the sessions. And you’re not supposed to “win” in therapy. But I knew how to approach it, and I started having more of my concerns addressed. So yes, a good therapist should remain unbiased and avoid taking sides.

Did I say this was the third therapist? It is the fourth. One was an older gentleman who had been practicing for over sixty years. He passed away during COVID. He was extraordinary—he may have started in the 1970s or earlier.

Our current therapist is solid, though we do not bring her major issues, mainly because we do not have any major ones.

We talk about politics in sessions now because politics has become part of our stressful landscape. She’s not immune to worrying about herself. Once you’ve been in therapy for as long as Carol and I have, over thirty years, you get comfortable enough to broaden the scope of what you talk about.

We’ll ask questions like, “Are your other clients worried about this or that?” Not about specific people, of course—just to understand how others might feel in the broader context.

For example, television and film production in Los Angeles is down by approximately 40% since the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes. It is a rough time. Jobs are scarce, and people are under much stress. Have I told you about residual checks?

So, you should receive residual payments when a show you worked on—whether as a writer, actor, director, or in any other union-covered role—is rebroadcast, streamed, or reused in specific ways. These are essentially royalties: a portion of the revenue generated from content reuse goes to the creators and performers who helped make the show. It’s a vital part of compensation for many professionals in the industry.

In the past, the show I worked on for network rebroadcasts was the most aired on ABC. If it reran on ABC, I’d get a check for a couple hundred bucks, sometimes more, just for the rerun. Lately, I’ve been getting stacks of checks for streaming rebroadcasts. In the past couple of months, I’ve probably received close to 700 or 800 checks—no exaggeration —but they’re for streaming platforms—Netflix, Hulu—I don’t even know where it’s airing anymore.

These checks are literally for 2 to 9 cents apiece. Carole looked at 42 of them. She goes through them, signs them for me, and takes them to the bank. She’s nice that way. But those 42 checks totalled exactly two dollars. Two actual fucking dollars.

If everyone is getting checks like that—and I assume they are—then people are screwed. You can’t survive on that. I was once able to pay off our house and cover our kids’ college tuition with residual checks. That’s no longer possible.

I worked on that show—a daily, nightly show—for nearly twelve years. We’re talking about 200 episodes yearly for around eleven and a half years. That’s roughly 2,300 episodes, all eligible for rebroadcast residuals. So, yeah, I’m getting a lot of checks.

But if you’re working on a sitcom or a drama where a season is 10 or 13 episodes, compared to my 2,300 episodes, you’re not getting 42 checks. You might get seven. And at a dime apiece, that’s 70 cents.

That is why we have heard about people with objectively reasonable, even enviable jobs, like writing for a television show, still needing to drive for Uber at night. Or the story of a TV writer, with an actual writing job, sleeping in his car.

Things are seriously messed up now. So yes, we talk about stuff like that with our counsellor. She acknowledges that people are generally worried, especially about what’s happening to production in Los Angeles.

We also share our political leanings with her, and she doesn’t go out of her way to hide hers, which is fine with us. Someone counselling beginners or someone new to therapy might feel the need to be more guarded, but we can handle that kind of transparency in the counselling space.

When people first start couples counselling, they tend to be defensive. Part of the work is simply getting them used to therapy so it can be productive. If you’re afraid you’re going to get screwed over in counseling—or feel like the therapist is helping your partner build a case against you—any of that dynamic makes counseling unproductive.

However, we’ve been doing this long enough to discuss issues without making rookie mistakes.

There’s one thing I plan to bring up soon. I already called Carol on it—she gets frustrated and snippy with me about my hearing loss, which honestly isn’t even that bad. You’ve dealt with my hearing loss.

You have seen its extent, right? I will tell you to talk louder. It is not terrible, right? When the heater’s running in the house, I’ll say, “The heater’s going—can you talk louder?” But she starts getting pissy with me. I’m like, “You can’t—” and I told her I would get a hearing aid in the next couple of months. I’ve already got the prescription for it.

But I said to her, “You can’t act like this. It is bullshit.” Part of what counselling allows is raising issues outside the session. So I could call her on it and say, “I’m feeling like you’re being short with me.”

You have to frame it like that—it’s on you, how you’re feeling. You can’t say, “You’re being mean to me.” No. You say, “I feel like you’re being snippy.” It must be phrased from your emotional experience, so it’s not accusatory. That way, it opens up a conversation about whether the feeling is grounded. Even then, it’s not about justification.

You’re having a feeling—what can we do about it? So I said, “I feel like you’re being snippy with me about my hearing loss.” I just turned 65. I don’t want to become some old guy who was debilitated for being debilitated. I have been lucky not to be debilitated, but that will not last forever.

I made my case. Carole agreed to try to be less outwardly frustrated. I’ll bring it up again in counselling so we can discuss it more because I didn’t get to make my second point. We were going through the airport, and Carole had a nasty piece of pizza on the plane—we think that is what did it. She started feeling sick. She’s had diarrhea since we got back. It’s been three days—nonstop. Terrible.

So I could not finish what I wanted to say, so instead of getting pissy about my hearing issues, just work with me. Speak louder. Do not yell from the other room. If the TV is on, give me a second to mute it. It is basic stuff. That is what counselling is for—among other things—to work through stuff like that.

As for politics—your counselor would have to be a real fucking asshole to try to convert you politically during counseling. That’s not what therapy is for. But I’m sure some counsellors are creeps or just bad at their jobs, and that kind of stuff might come up.

However, before we started rolling, this is especially relevant because you mentioned this was a counsellor in a Jewish setting.

Jacobsen: So there are two ways politicization can show up in an American, generic, general-public mindset.

One way is from the left: the counsellor could politicize the space by supporting what some would call a “radical lunatic left-wing cause”—say, Antifa or something like that.

On the other hand, from the right, politicization might involve the idea that “you have to decolonize the person,” therefore, the space cannot help but be political. And then you might hear that Jewish clients need to be confronted with their Zionism.

Rosner: So, okay—let us get to that point. Because this is a terrible fucking time for Jewish people trying to make moral sense of what is going on in Gaza and Israel.

I was born just fifteen years after World War II. We were always taught that Israel was the place of safety for Jews after Hitler slaughtered nearly all of European Jewry. I went to Sunday school for ten years—ten years—and we were taught nothing about the Palestinians.

Not that I was paying much attention.

We had to fucking drive to Denver—thirty miles to Denver—every Sunday. So that used up our one goddamn half-hour weekend on a Sunday. I was pretty checked out. But I honestly don’t remember any mention of Palestinians.

By the way, Israel did not look back then like it does now. It was not shaped like a dagger. It looked more like a pork chop because they had control of the entire Sinai Peninsula, which they had taken during the 1967 war.

At the time, Israel had about three times the land area it has now. After capturing it, following attacks from neighbouring countries, they returned much of that territory, like the Sinai. However, what we were taught was that Israel was always the victim of aggression, never the aggressor.

So yeah, we were heavily propagandized—or at least, just not given any real depth. I don’t know why, maybe because it was a Jewish Sunday school, perhaps because we were twelve-year-old kids, maybe because most of us were spoiled suburban Cherry Creek High School brats.

Not me, or at least, not as much as some of the others. I was not as big a dick as a lot of the Cherry Creek kids. However, I was still a product of that environment.

Anyway, now we are learning more. Palestine—and especially Gaza—has had horrendous leadership. Corrupt, ineffective leadership has existed since the founding of Israel in 1948. Hamas is a homicidal, terroristic organization that does no good for its people. They steal money, they drag Gazans into genocidal wars, they deliberately hide among civilians so that when Israel retaliates, civilians die.

And Israel—they’re being dicks, too. They’ve killed close to 50,000 Palestinians in Gaza, out of a population of around 2.2 million to 2.3 million people. That’s over 2% of the entire population.

That is comparable in percentage terms to the number of Germans killed during World War II. It is a staggering, horrific number. Nearly every family in Gaza has either lost someone or knows someone who has been killed.

And that does not even include the West Bank. Gaza is on Israel’s western border. The West Bank is to the east. Palestinians have lived there for generations, and now you’ve got far-right Israeli settlers coming in, stealing land, harassing families, sometimes even lynching people, with the complicity of the Israeli military.

Netanyahu—the Prime Minister of Israel—is Israel’s Trump—a corrupt politician, facing criminal charges, clinging to power by keeping the war going. As long as the Gaza war continues, he has political support. Ending the war could mean facing trial.

So to many Jews now, Israel looks less like a haven and more like the aggressor—a genocidal aggressor. We are starting to look like the Nazis. Moreover, that’s a horrifying comparison to make. However, look—Hitler killed 11 million people in the Holocaust: 6 million Jews, and 5 million others—gay people, Roma, disabled people, Poles, political prisoners.

It’s a tragedy we were taught never to forget. And now, a lot of us are asking: what the fuck are we doing? And in Israel’s case, yes, they’re going after Hamas, but in a particular way. So anyway, it’s a fucked-up situation.

Roughly three-quarters of American Jews are Democrats, and about one-quarter are Republicans. I’d say the majority of American Jews believe that Israel is being a dick right now—but I don’t have fresh survey data in front of me. Still, what seems clear is that many American Jews—especially those who aren’t politically extreme—are being forced, for the first time, to separate Jewishness and Judaism from Zionism.

Zionism, in its current expression, has become this unblinking defence of Israel, no matter what it does. Moreover, for many of us, especially in politics, this is the first time we have had to confront the idea that those identities are not synonymous.

Today, at Columbia University, a bunch of pro-Gaza protesters broke into the library during study week. Seventy-eight of them were arrested. Now, Trump is exploiting the Israel-Gaza conflict to go after elite universities, accusing them of fostering antisemitism, just because pro-Palestinian protests are happening on campus. That is horseshit. It is Trump’s way of fucking with the universities, plain and simple.

The whole Israel situation—look, it is not fair to call it a nightmare. The nightmare is what is happening to the innocent people in Gaza. However, it is a moral quagmire.

Jacobsen: How would you compare that with couples therapy?

Rosner: How would I compare it? Well, like I have said here, there’s a learning curve.

You learn how to do therapy. Moreover, for myself, and I think for millions of other American Jews, there’s been a learning curve around understanding what’s happening in Gaza and Israel.

I knew some of it before, but this has been different. The exposure and emotional reckoning have deepened. It has been about a year and a half now—since October 7, 2023—when Hamas attacked Israel.

American Jews expected it to be over within a few months. Gaza is only about 50 square miles. It is a 5-mile north to south and five to six miles east to West. It is a tiny strip of land. It should not take years to deal with a military operation there.

Israel has about 300,000 active-duty soldiers. Hamas, at the start, was estimated to have around 30,000 fighters, or terrorists, however you want to label them. So, Israel had a 10-to-1 advantage in numbers. However, here we are, 18 or 19 months later, and they are still blowing up buildings and neighbourhoods.

Maybe Hamas’s numbers have been replenished—maybe their ranks were reformed. I would guess that of the 50,000 or so people Israel has killed, maybe 20,000 were affiliated with Hamas. If that’s true, and Hamas started with 30,000, there should be about 10,000 left. But that doesn’t seem to be the case, probably because they’ve recruited more. And let’s be honest—it’s murky who counts as Hamas in a war zone like Gaza.

Moreover, I have not even mentioned the fucking hostages.

So yeah, as with couples counselling, many people don’t want to engage with this. It is a moral quagmire. There’s no way to talk about Israel and Gaza without sounding like an asshole to someone.

It is not something people want to think about—that members of their faith might be engaged in actions that resemble historical atrocities. That Israel might be doing things in the name of Jewish safety that end up dehumanizing or slaughtering innocent people.

Thus, people avoid it just like going to counselling because it is messy. Because it forces you to confront uncomfortable truths. Carole and I do not mind being in counselling because we are good at it. We are lucky enough not to have major issues. But fucking Israel-Gaza? That is a set of intractable issues that are never going to fucking go away.

What do you think about the whole situation there?

Jacobsen: The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists, under its principle of Integrity in Relationships, states the need to “be as objective and unbiased as possible in their… service.” The British Psychological Society’s Code of Ethics and Conduct links reason—or rationality-to—impartiality. The International Union of Psychological Science, in its Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists, emphasizes a core principle of integrity, specifying the importance of “maximizing impartiality and minimizing bias.”

Finally, the American Psychological Association, in its Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, emphasizes Principle C—Integrity—which includes the avoidance of deception and misrepresentation. That could easily extend to refraining from using therapy as a platform for partisan persuasion.

So, across the West—in the major institutions of psychology and psychological science—the therapy and counselling space is explicitly expected to be impartial, with a minimization of bias and a maximization of objectivity in practice.

Rosner: Yes. But you can be an objective therapist and still say, “Politically, I lean this way. That can be true.

Jacobsen: Yes. You can also reference specific systemic issues. For example, men can feel objectified in some therapeutic contexts, especially when it comes to all-male military drafts or being overrepresented in dangerous occupations. That’s not political spin; that’s cultural and economic reality.

Likewise, women often feel objectified by being culturally expected to remain “barefoot and pregnant,” tied solely to domestic roles like cooking, cleaning, and raising children. If you are from a minority or Indigenous background, it is factual and responsible to acknowledge real disparities in health, education, and opportunity.

Acknowledging systemic disparities is objective. However, pushing a political framework as the therapeutic lens crosses the ethical lines we discussed. That would be using therapy as a platform for ideological persuasion, which is not what it’s meant for.

Rosner: That makes sense. I might bring up the Israel thing in our next counselling session. It could be interesting. Carole and I feel the emotional weight of the daily news. Israel is a big part of that. Our counsellor, who has been in the U.S. for decades, is a native-born German.

So, she understands what it means to come from a country with a dark history—one that’s had to carry the burden of collective responsibility. Maybe I will ask her: “What do we do about fucking Israel?”

It must be painful for her—and for all Germans. I mean, think about it: the youngest possible Nazi—the kid who was, say, 12 years old and thoroughly indoctrinated in 1945—would have been born in 1933. That means the youngest possible Nazi is now 92 years old.

The youngest possible Nazi who could have done bad shit would be almost a hundred by now. So the World War II Nazis—they are all fucking dead. The Germans who came after? In my experience, limited though it is, they have mostly been decent people. They are probably ashamed and understandably annoyed at this massive blot on their country’s history.

Rosner: The Germans I’ve met have certain German traits: orderly, not chaotic, and systematic. They go about their jobs in a structured, efficient way.

Jacobsen: Would you say almost machine-like? I am joking.

Rosner: What do you mean?

Jacobsen: The idea that Germans are highly industrious and fastidious. That kind of psychological profile.

Rosner: Yes, I would say that. To some extent, this contributed to their bad historical behaviour.

Jacobsen: There was a guy—back in 1945—it is suspected he died, but there’s no confirmation. He may have escaped. He was known never to take holidays. He was so pro-German, so devoted to nationalism, that he did not care if the politics were left-wing, centrist, or far-right. He just wanted Germany to succeed.

He was a nationalist-patriot above all else.

Rosner: Are you talking about a guy who maybe fled to the jungles of Uruguay or Argentina? Does his name start with an “H”?

Jacobsen: Heinrich Müller?

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: Right—Heinrich Müller. He was meticulous, hard-working, and highly loyal to Germany. Did not take holidays. So yes, you could say “machine-like.” But also: a Nazi. Moreover, there’s an argument to be made—if we never definitively confirmed his death—that he may have escaped. That is why there’s this long-running joke about Argentinians saying things like, “Yes, I have a German grandfather,” with the unspoken implication that it’s that kind of German grandfather.

Rosner: It is one of those old jokes with a dark undertone. Let me suggest a topic for tomorrow. ChatGPT was trending on Twitter today. Many claim it is being used so extensively in high schools and colleges that students are no longer learning anything.

The argument is that we are turning out a generation of incompetence—kids who rely so heavily on ChatGPT to complete their assignments that they are not developing writing skills, building focus, or engaging with the material.

And then these kids graduate useless after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on education. Going to an Ivy League school now costs close to $400,000 when you factor in room and board. Moreover, you’re not learning shit because ChatGPT is doing all your work for you.

Do you concur? Is it a valid argument?

Jacobsen: But the thing is—we do not need that many blacksmiths anymore. You might need a farrier to work with horses or cattle, but that entire life genre is gone. So when people say, “What is wrong with kids today? They are not doing the things we used to do,” they apply that critique to a fundamentally shifting culture.

We have moved from a hands-on, labour-intensive society to a more literate and idea-driven one. Many of the old foundations of daily life were physical, communal, and manual. Now, we’re in the middle of a transitional phase.

Rosner: Isabella’s generation grew up with the Internet. They have never nothad it.

Jacobsen: So I’d frame it this way: the transition from physical labour to intellectual labour is no longer about who can lift the most—it’s about who can most effectively train others to use machines, build companies around that capacity, or simply operate the machines themselves.

Rosner: At the same time, you can argue the other side: we are going to have many dipshits. However, then again, we’ve alwayshad many dipshits. We will have a different flavor of dipshit now. Like that essay I keep referencing, there will be a blend of “smart-stupids.” People who are technically intelligent but completely oblivious in other areas.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1364: AI, Vector Spaces, and the Rise of a Synthetic Universal Language

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/07

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you think computers and AI will eventually find a universal language—some way to encode all possible human languages?

Rosner: To the extent that that’s a thing, Google is already doing something like it. Google Translate, for example, has this meta-structure. I haven’t read about it recently, but a few years ago, I read that it uses a kind of abstract, black-box intermediary space.

It’s not just doing direct word-for-word translation between language pairs. Instead, it creates a shared internal representation—a meta-language. Some researchers have suggested that specific “nodes” or regions act like universal conceptual placeholders within this space. So if you have a concept like lovethat shows up across all human languages, there’s a location in that space where love lives, regardless of how it’s expressed linguistically.

Jacobsen: So it’s not a word, exactly—is it more like a position in some abstract vector space?

Rosner: Yeah, exactly. You could call it a “synthetic Ur-language,” or a landscape that can accommodate most languages by bending or deforming itself to their structure. To use the cliché: Inuit languages have a rich vocabulary around snow, so that region of the conceptual space is more densely populated for them, with more distinctions and granularity—the shape of the landscape shifts depending on cultural priorities and sensory experience. So, regarding your question, it’s already happening. The beginnings of a universal encoding structure for human languages are in play.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1363: Sam Altman, AI Priorities, and the Future of Human Consciousness

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/07

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Did you have any comments on the Sam Altman points? I skimmed his blog post but skipped the stuff about car parts.

Rick Rosner: He’s optimistic. We’ve talked about Feynman’s three trajectories for science, and he’s taken the most optimistic stance toward AI—that it will have accelerating usefulness, enough to justify however much you need to spend on it. That’s the optimistic case.

The pessimistic case—closer to Cory Doctorow’s—is that the cleverness of AI is not going to generate returns that make up for the billions being poured into it. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle, but not precisely in the middle, because of what science fiction tends to do. There’s that idea that anything predicted by science fiction, excluding things like time travel, will eventually happen, but it’ll take longer than it does in fiction.

Jacobsen: The key issue is prioritization. Even core human drives might be redirected or repurposed if AI becomes sufficiently augmented. At that point, you’re no longer following Feynman’s three-trajectory model. If the directives become re-jiggered—narrowed but more powerful—then some human outcomes or goals stop being priorities altogether. It is not even some frivolous side-path; that’s a legitimate direction for development.

Rosner: That ties into cryonics—freezing people with the hope of reviving them once their bodies and minds can be restored. But that entire project might become moot if AI helps us develop better ways to preserve or replicate consciousness. Instead of taking a 90-year-old body and trying to reverse it into a 30-year-old condition, it may be more viable to abandon that project entirely. Increasingly, tech might leapfrog cryonics. We may never need to develop it if other forms of consciousness preservation emerge fully.

The danger is that AI takes the reins so completely that human desires seem irrelevant. That could be bad news if AI overtakes us as the primary decision-making entity. On the optimistic side, it’s not necessarily about our consciousnesses being “freed.” It could be more about blowing open the “doors of perception”—the Aldous Huxley thing. The idea of consciousness itself might be so expanded that we’ll end up accepting new forms of it, new paths that don’t involve individual cognition in perpetuity. We may come to receive other types of immortality.

I don’t know we’ll ever see oblivion as acceptable. But we’ll see a merging, where your thoughts, attitudes, and memories become part of a broader, collective experience, as a viable option. That could be optimistic. Many religions hint at that idea—ancestral consciousness—the belief that your ancestors live inside your mind, yammering away in the background. To me, that feels incompletely explored. It’s better than nothing, but still not great.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1362: The Vector of Intelligence: Trust, AI, Evolution, and Cognitive Direction

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/07

Rick Rosner: So I was thinking about violations of trust, specifically, the treatment of animals and people. The biggest violator of trust is evolution. However, you cannot pin anything on evolution because it is not a being. It is a process without intention or awareness. It operates through natural selection—a statistical, impersonal mechanism. There is no accountability built into it.

That is how things work. However, through evolution, many creatures have emerged with innate drives—like seeking connection, safety, and reproduction—that often go unfulfilled. Some drives do get fulfilled. For example, the species-perpetuating drive—reproduction does occur in sufficient numbers to keep a species going. That is the evolutionary success story. However, again, evolution does not care.

But the drive to continue living—to keep experiencing life-that one ultimately fails for everyone, because death is inevitable. Moreover, again, evolution does not care. There is no built-in justice to any of it. I started wondering about the violation of those drives, especially in animals, and how trust plays into it. I was thinking about meat animals versus pets. Meat animals, especially those raised in industrial agriculture, do not develop expectations of love. Most are raised in conditions that prevent anything close to bonding or trust.

That said, there are exceptions. For example, in programs like 4-H in North America, young people raise animals with great care and even affection, then those animals are eventually slaughtered. Those animals have been treated with apparent kindness and likely form bonds with their caretakers. So when they are killed, it could be seen as a betrayal of that bond. The animal would not understand why someone who treated them well would suddenly cause or allow their death.

That feels like a deeper violation than what happens in factory farms. Animals raised in those conditions experience neglect, fear, and monotony—but perhaps without the same expectation of safety or affection. They suffer, but not necessarily from betrayal. Their world is harsh from the beginning.

So I wonder: is it worse to betray an animal that has known love than to abuse one that has only known suffering? I do not have a clear answer. I have guesses, but nothing sophisticated. Still, it feels like a fundamental question—one worth pausing to consider. Not that it is the most significant ethical question out there, but it might be revealing. That is thing one.

Thing two: I watched a 2023 science fiction film called The Artifice Girl on the flight back. I thought it was called Companion, but I was misremembering. The Artifice Girl is about an AI child developed to trap online predators. One of the characters is an artificial person—her intelligence and emotional complexity evolve, and there is a point where her cognitive abilities can be adjusted. Someone mentioned this film in an interview I saw recently, too.

t is a thoughtful and entertaining film. I liked it more than I expected. If you get the chance, you should watch it. It could have been a huge bummer, but it is pretty fun, especially compared to The Substance, which, yes, it shares some similarities with. However, the Substance was built up to be a huge bummer. Anyway, it got me thinking about cognition in artificial people—simulating or replicating various levels of intelligence.

I remember one line in Companion—at a certain percentage, the artificial person would have the cognitive ability of an Ivy League graduate. That stuck with me. Then, I read that Sam Altman thing you sent me recently—he says that AI already operates at the level of at least an average bright college student. That is the kind of baseline he is working with.

However, with an artificial person, you don’t necessarily need actual intelligence. You need to appear at different levels of cognition. You are simulating people. If you are offering the operator—someone interacting with the artificial person—different “intelligence settings,” then the artificial person has to appear to be functioning at those levels: a high school graduate, a college graduate, a postdoc, a bright autodidact.

That is different from being those types of people. You are not replicating their minds—you’re conveying the impression of being that kind of person. Moreover, I imagine that simulating the intelligence of, say, a junior college graduate probably has aspects that are easier and harder than actually constructing the whole mental landscape of such a person.

It is a standard issue in sci-fi. In movies like Blade Runner, one problem is that some artificial beings are designed not to know they are synthetic. Others do know—and they are pissed. However, for those meant to believe they are human, the creators implant fake memories. You can’t fabricate a full 22 years of continuous memory for a being who thinks they’re 22 years old. So you implant a few key memories and build a mental framework where the artificial person doesn’t feel compelled to probe the blank spaces in between.

In Companion, the approach is similar. The film shows how you generate those key moments—anchoring memories—that are supposed to be enough to convince the artificial person they’re fully human. And then you guide them away from introspection or scrutinizing their own experience too deeply. There’s another artificial being in the movie, whose intelligence is probably set a little higher. He eventually figures out he’s not a natural-born person.

That made me think about how people can make themselves smarter than they are, functionally, if they embrace the right attitudes. We’ve talked about this before. Like, in the 1680s, if you overheard a bunch of proto-scientists talking about experimental method and nature in a coffeehouse—because that’s where a lot of the scientific revolution started, with caffeinated people in public debate—and you decided, “Hey, this makes sense,” you’ve effectively increased your intelligence just by choosing to align with a powerful intellectual current.

Even if you were, say, a silversmith—it might not have helped with your craft directly. But embracing scientific thinking could still shape your worldview. It may not have been immediately useful in 1680, but eventually, that mindset permeated more of life.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Over time, it becomes transformative. So embracing the proper attitudes toward knowledge and thinking—toward evidence, doubt, and curiosity— doesn’t necessarily change your raw mental capacity but changes how you apply what you have. You take your intellectual profile—your strengths and weaknesses—and direct it with purpose. That direction, that vector, is everything.

It’s like someone with an illness that fragments focus—they may still have the same cognitive architecture, but it’s scattered. Or schizophrenia, where the internal landscape becomes entirely fractured. Then it’s not just about the hills and valleys—it’s about how navigable the map is.

So that’s where you get—where you can justify—the outcomes in these cases where individuals have lopsided mathematical or verbal intelligence. Take Richard Feynman, for example. The guy was doing math in a strip club. He was doing it constantly. His vector—his cognitive direction—was honed toward one thing.

You see pathologies of this in people on the autism spectrum, or cases of savant syndrome, like Kim Peek. But generally speaking, the more important question is not “What’s your intelligence?”—even though how we measure intelligence is deeply flawed, especially from a hard scientific standpoint. I was informed of this in an extensive interview by the former international supervisory psychometrician for Mensa.

IQ scores above 145 on a standard deviation of 15, for instance, are widely considered unreliable. That was a stricter standard than even I expected. I had assumed 160 was the point of unreliability. But 145, especially on properly normed, gold-standard, supervised IQ tests, is where the numbers start getting fuzzy. But again, the more important question is: What’s the vector? How are you directing that skill set?

I don’t mind if we say the same thing differently. Here’s another example: I did a second interview with Alexis Rockman today. He’s a well-known artist who created the official Earth Day poster this year. He’s worked on several other significant projects.

At the end of the interview, we discussed whether his ability is inborn or cultivated, he said it’s both. And that makes sense—people visualize how to do things all the time, but don’t necessarily put it into words. Words are still important, but visual thinking dominates some people.

So in cases like Alexis Rockman or even your friend Lance, these people are cognitively lopsided in a particular way. Their visual and spatial proclivity is far above average, and it has been honed with long-term commitment. The arc of that “vector space” is highly directed. You would call that a profession. Moreover, the output—what we see—is shaped by that professional direction.

Rosner: That makes sense. There are clear ways to conceptualize this. I also think about this in terms of career and social attitudes. Take people today who embrace AI. They likely have a productive attitude toward the world, at least in that domain. That attitude makes them smarter than others in the context of what is coming.Now, compare that with another group, like the crypto crowd, especially on Twitter. These folks tend to be overconfident. Some might be savvy and ride the pump-and-dumps, sure. However, I read an article today about the Trump meme coin.

It has been out for a while now. Seven hundred sixty-four thousand people have lost money on it. Moreover, only 58 people have made over $10 million each. The article did not mention how many people made small profits, like $3 or $200. However, the imbalance is staggering. That shows the difference between an aligned vector and raw confidence without direction. Confidence can simulate intelligence in the short term, but without that underlying structure, it collapses.

t would be helpful to know those missing numbers, but I assume fewer than three-quarters of a million people lost money on it. I do not know—crypto seems like a sucker’s game. Then you have got people who embrace MAGA and QAnon conspiracy theories. That kind of attitude seems like it artificially lowers your intelligence and your effectiveness in the world. You are embracing stupid shit—it is not going to make you smarter.

It is not going to help you, unless you’ve got cronies in the government and your warped attitudes somehow get you appointed to something. Otherwise, it is just going to make you dumber. What do you think?

Jacobsen: I would agree with that.

Rosner: Have we exhausted this topic for now?

Jacobsen: Probably.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1361: The Limits of Science, Time, and Understanding AI

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/29

Rick Rosner: On-time first: I do not think time itself has to have a limit. Time, as we understand it, needs a universe to exist within. A universe can continue indefinitely into the future. However, you never actually reach infinity. You keep extending further and further without ever arriving at an infinite point.

You can have a universe that is any finite age, no matter how old it gets. Every possible age is finite—even if it gets staggeringly large—because infinity is never achieved.

Part of the answer regarding the limit of science comes from an essay by Richard Feynman, who wrote about it around sixty years ago. He outlined that the limits of science partly depend on how complicated the universe is, how much explanation it requires, and how scrutable—how decipherable—it is.

Feynman proposed three possibilities:

Attainable complexity: Science could eventually complete most of the work of explaining the universe. There would still be a few details to fill in, but the major framework would be primarily understood.
Inscrutable universe: The universe could be so complex that, no matter how much science progresses, we would never fully understand it. It would be permanently beyond human comprehension.
A mix: The universe could be partly understandable—some areas are easy to figure out, others are permanently hard. Science would continue progressing steadily but never “complete” the picture entirely.

The actual universe falls into the third category. We can figure out significant aspects of how things work, but as our computational and analytical powers grow, there will always be new mysteries and increasingly subtle phenomena to investigate.

With the rise of big data and machine learning, we are also learning that there are emergent properties—patterns that appear only when analyzing massive datasets with powerful analytic engines. Even if most fundamental physics is pinned down, these emergent phenomena open new layers of understanding.

This week, Sam Altman announced that, at least in his opinion, we have achieved AGI—Artificial General Intelligence.

Sam Altman says these new models are innovative. They describe the capabilities using all sorts of terms—none of which I fully understand yet—so I should probably educate myself about AI.

There are all these descriptors and indices for what AI can do analytically, and I do not know what most of the terms mean. Do you?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: They say everyday things in weird ways. For example, instead of just saying “compute” as a verb, they use “compute” as a unit of measurement. So instead of asking, “How do you compute this?” they will say, “How much compute does it have?” or “How much compute will you need to perform this task?” They talk about a 10x decrease in computing costs every so many periods. But they also have other indices that measure nimbleness or adaptability.

Rosner: It seems like a pain to learn now, but it is similar to when people had to educate themselves about cars in 1904. Back then, you had to learn what a piston was, what a carburetor was, and what a spark plug was. It was all new mechanical vocabulary.

Similarly, we will need to learn about the mechanics and characteristics of this new AI technology. A lot of it sounds like bullshit right now, but over time it will become more tangible and less obscure.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1360: Falling Birth Rates, Relationship Trends, and the Decline of Sex Scandals

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/28

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you are talking here, this can be a topic…

Rick Rosner: It is a brief topic. When Carole and I are talking about some ridiculous sex scandal, my standard glib response is: Guys have to get the jizz out.

Jacobsen: Louis C.K. once described men as having “jizz on demand.” The idea is that the average man, over a lifetime, might ejaculate about 10,000 times.

Rosner: That seems high. Maybe it is about half that. Still, even after 5,000 times, it is a staggering amount. However, the broader point is connected to the trends we are seeing. Younger people today—and this is statistically backed up—are coupling up less than they used to.

Over the past twenty years, the number of births in the United States has dropped by about 8 to 10 percent, even as the population has slowly grown. The number of babies born annually has fallen from over four million to around 3.67 million yearly.

So, people are withdrawing somewhat from relationships and coupling, staying home more, and, yes, masturbating more instead of forming relationships.

Jacobsen: And you would hope…?

Rosner: I would hope that—while some establishment voices say it is bad that birth rates are falling—it could have at least one positive side effect: a decline in sex scandals. If regular people are staying home instead of aggressively seeking partners, maybe scumbags are doing the same thing—staying home and jerking off instead of getting embroiled in sexual misconduct scandals.

I do not know unless you have comments. Did you get your idea? Am I finished?

I have made this point before: When you look at the biggest, most scandalous serial harassers and rapists, they are mostly older men. It seems to have been more common in previous generations. I am hoping the rate of that kind of behaviour is declining.

Harvey Weinstein is in his seventies and falling apart. Bill Cosby is in his eighties. Trump will be seventy-nine in two months.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1359: UFOs and UAPs: Debunking Common Misconceptions

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/27

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This is UFOs, Part Two. Any quick points before we start?

Rick Rosner: The basic mathematics regarding the number and timing of civilizations argues against us being visited. The speed of light presents a significant barrier.

With our current technology, you cannot even travel at 10% of the speed of light, and doing so even hypothetically would involve massive energy costs and engineering challenges. Additionally, the point at which a civilization might arise on a planet in a nearby solar system could be anywhere from two billion years before us to two billion years after us, making synchronized contact unlikely. The relative unlikelihood of any given solar system harbouring an advanced civilization further argues against frequent or easy visits. The math is tricky. All right.

Jacobsen: Here we go. Main argument one: Numerous civilians and qualified military personnel have reported sightings of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). These reports sometimes describe apparent aircraft capabilities such as sudden high-speed movements, silent flight, and abrupt changes in direction.

Rosner: The keyword in UFO is “unidentified.” Countless objects and phenomena—such as atmospheric effects, astronomical bodies, optical illusions, and human-made artifacts—can be mistaken for aircraft or spacecraft. The fact that they do not behave like conventional aircraft is not necessarily evidence of alien origin; it often points instead to misinterpretations of natural or artificial phenomena. Thus, these sightings are not by themselves convincing evidence. I am not convinced.

Jacobsen: What about the consistency of witness reports across different locations and accounts?

Rosner: It is worth considering. Consistent observations might be expected across similar environments if the phenomenon is atmospheric, optical, or related to sensor errors. Many non-extraterrestrial theories, including various atmospheric phenomena, could explain recurring features of sightings.

Jacobsen: The U.S. government has officially acknowledged the existence of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs) and released unclassified reports summarizing observations by military personnel.

Rosner: What is a UAP?

Jacobsen: It stands for Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, a broader and more neutral term than UFO.

Rosner: Some whistleblowers and former intelligence officials have claimed that the government possesses evidence of non-human technology. However, no verified physical evidence has been publicly presented to confirm these claims. While these reports fuel speculation about a cover-up, they do not constitute proof of extraterrestrial visitation.

Jacobsen: You have already discussed the scientific probability involved, so we do not need to revisit that. What about technological superiority? You mentioned the possibility of eccentric civilizations developing highly advanced technologies and visiting less advanced civilizations like ours.

That overlaps with earlier points about low probability and vast technological and logistical hurdles. What about observing objects that seem to exceed known human technological capabilities—such as rapid acceleration, deceleration, or hovering without visible propulsion?

Rosner: Other explanations beyond atmospheric phenomena are possible but remain speculative. It could involve sensor glitches, misinterpretations of natural phenomena, undisclosed human technology, or other unknown factors. I am not an atmospheric physicist and have not read this area exhaustively. However, when events seem to defy the known laws of physics, it becomes more plausible that we are seeing projections, reflections, or misinterpretations of existing phenomena rather than encountering literal craft operating beyond known physical limits.

Jacobsen: What about historical sightings and historical patterns?

Rosner: Hold on. So, according to relativity, you cannot travel faster than the speed of light. However, you can shine a laser beam across the sky or a planet’s surface. For example, if you had a powerful enough laser, you could shine it from Earth onto the moon and make the point of the laser beam move faster than the speed of light across the surface. That is because you are not moving a physical object; you are moving the point where the light beam is aimed.

When you have things in the atmosphere that appear to move incredibly fast or seem to accelerate and decelerate at impossible rates, it raises the possibility that you are not seeing a solid object—or at least not where you think it is. Atmospheric distortion effects could make something look like it is behaving impossibly. So, anyway, I would throw out Occam’s Razor here: the simplest explanation is that you are seeing something that is not there in the way you think.

Jacobsen: What about people who are genuinely mentally unstable? What percentage of people do you think are hallucinating rather than observing atmospheric phenomena?

Rosner: I do not know. When I had a bad breakup with my girlfriend in 1984, I was bummed out for many months, maybe even years. I forced myself to do something stupid once a week to get myself out of my funk. One week—I had been reading Omni Magazine, which was part of the Penthouse Magazine empire—so I wrote a letter to Penthouse as a joke.

I claimed, as myself, that I had gotten my high IQ from being kidnapped by aliens for sex or something equally absurd. I do not remember exactly. However, I made up a story about an alien encounter to do something ridiculous and get myself moving again. They did not publish the letter.

So, yes, a certain percentage of people who claim to have been kidnapped by aliens are probably bullshitters, just as I was. Some genuinely have a mental illness. Some may have been drunk or hallucinating. I do not know exactly, but none of them are super credible, in my opinion.

Again, the argument from last night still applies: People did not start reporting being kidnapped by little green or gray men with large heads and thin limbs until magazine articles in the mid-1950s popularized those images. That timing suggests that people are highly suggestible and full of it.

Jacobsen: Would this thinking apply to whistleblower reports from government and military insiders?

Rosner: Yes. The people flying at high altitudes and speeds are mostly military personnel. Those individuals are going to encounter atmospheric phenomena that most people at lower altitudes or slower speeds never see. Commercial pilots also see unusual things sometimes.

We know atmospheric phenomena like St. Elmo’s Fire, different types of lightning, electrical discharges, and light scattering by ice crystals. The people most likely to see high-altitude atmospheric phenomena are commercial pilots, flying about seven miles above the ground, and military pilots, who might be flying at altitudes closer to ten miles.

And so, yes, those are where your reports will come from. These are people who are trained to be objective observers. They are not drunken lunatics or random bullshitters claiming to be kidnapped; they are professionals who see unusual things and report them. As a group, they are not fabricators. They are professionals. However, just because you have a whole set of reports from professionals does not automatically make the reports more convincing.

Jacobsen: Why?

Rosner: Because no yahoos are flying around up there. These are skilled professional pilots. That was a weird way of flipping the usual argument: using the credibility of pilots not to confirm the alien hypothesis but to raise a different point.

Jacobsen: Are you flipping how they usually use military and professional pilot reports as a defence?

Rosner: Yes, exactly. Usually, people say, “Well, military pilots and professional pilots are credible observers, so their reports must be accurate.” I am saying the opposite: their professionalism shows that they are honestly reporting what they see—but what they are seeing is still not convincing evidence of alien spacecraft.

You have two different populations. You have people on the ground—wackos, to put it bluntly—claiming to be scooped up by tractor beams and having things done to them by skinny aliens with big heads. Those stories are detailed, or at least embellished with details, like the story I wrote to Penthouse decades ago as a joke. (I think I claimed they scooped me up in a tractor beam, and something happened—whatever. I barely remember. I did it because I did not give a fuck at the time.)

Meanwhile, professional pilots are reporting something completely different: dots in the sky, lights in formations, or maybe triangular groupings of lights moving strangely. That is an entirely different type of observation.

The credibility of the pilots does not change the core problem: the phenomena they observe are mostly distant, small, blurry, and lacking precise detail. There is no footage showing a fully visible spacecraft with intricate surface features, like something you would see in Star Wars. It is mostly dots or blurs, sometimes elongated shapes. None provides enough precise detail to be undeniable evidence of alien spacecraft—or anything beyond unknown or misinterpreted phenomena.

Jacobsen: All right. Next point: What about radar and other forms of evidence that produce data independently of human visual observation? Things you can read out as objective measurements?

Rosner: When humans see things and video cameras capture things, they record visual events—what our eyes or cameras can detect. The radar is different. It bounces radio waves off objects and detects their reflections. So when you get radar returns, you get data that is technically independent of human sight.

So, we are not doing sonar, which is sound waves underwater. Radar is different: you are bouncing radio waves. Radio waves are just another wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. So, if pilots and video cameras can detect anomalous phenomena, radar can also detect anomalous phenomena. It is the same basic physics. That is it.

Jacobsen: Yes. That is it.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1358: Are UFOs Evidence of Alien Life? Scientific Plausibility and Public Belief

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/16

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Between June 14 and June 24, 2021, the Pew Research Center surveyed 10,417 U.S. adults. The survey found that 65% believe intelligent life exists on other planets. Additionally, 51% consider UFO sightings reported by military personnel as probable or definite evidence of extraterrestrial life. Specifically, 40% said “probably,” 11% said “definitely,” while 47% believe these sightings are not evidence of alien life—furthermore, only 10% view UFOs as a significant national security threat.

Rick Rosner: This is different from things like Sasquatch or flat Earth theories because there is a reasonable scientific basis for believing in life on other planets. As our telescopes have improved, we have learned that most stars have planetary systems, and on average, there is at least one planet per star. It is not uncommon. Many stars, including binary systems, have multiple planets.

Binary star systems can complicate planetary formation but not necessarily prevent it. The Milky Way galaxy alone contains an estimated 100 to 400 billion stars.

Jacobsen: In the observable universe, there are approximately 2 trillion galaxies, which amounts to roughly 10²³ stars.

Rosner: The Drake Equation allows scientists to estimate how many stars might host planets capable of supporting life. For instance, if 90% of stars have planets, and around 20% of those planets are in the habitable zone—where liquid water can exist—then only a subset will be rocky planets, not gas giants. Rocky planets require specific conditions during system formation, such as certain collision patterns, to form a solid surface.

Life as we know it likely also requires a planetary magnetic field, which usually depends on a rotating iron or metal-rich core to shield the surface from harmful cosmic radiation. Even using conservative assumptions, starting with 10²³ stars and applying these filters, we still have the strong possibility that billions of planets could support life. Assuming Earth hosts the only life in the universe seems statistically unreasonable.

Beyond the Drake Equation, the sheer diversity and randomness in how solar systems form suggest that life-supporting conditions are not uniquely rare. It is plausible that planets capable of sustaining life—whether similar to Earth or different in nature—exist in large numbers throughout the cosmos.

It seems likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe. Once life emerges, the next step is considering the odds that it survives long enough and evolves into intelligent beings capable of developing technology. I think it is probable that millions—likely far more—of planets have hosted technological civilizations, either currently or at some point over the billions of years the universe has existed.

And I believe you cited the statistics—approximately two-thirds of Americans believe in life on other planets.

Jacobsen: The short version is that 65% believe in intelligent life elsewhere, and 51% believe military-reported UFOs are evidence of that.

Rosner: So, it is reasonable to believe that life exists on other planets. What is not reasonable is the idea that such lifeforms are actively visiting Earth or that we are encountering their spacecraft in our atmosphere.

Jacobsen: One slight trend is noteworthy: In 2012, a National Geographic poll found that 36% of Americans believed in UFOs. By 2023, an Ipsos poll recorded that number at 42%. It was not a massive shift, but it was still a noteworthy increase.

Rosner: Now, I do not believe that UFOs are alien spacecraft visiting us. First, there is no evidence—and no theoretical basis within physics—to suggest that any object can travel faster than the speed of light, or even near it, in a practical spacecraft.

Light itself is the only thing we know that can travel at light speed. In theory, one might imagine sending pulses of light that could be used to assemble something elsewhere, but even that seems highly implausible.

Technologically, it is tough—bordering on impossible—to send any spacecraft at even 10% of the speed of light. Moreover, at those speeds, any impact with debris would be catastrophic. Even a dust particle could cause an explosion equivalent to a nuclear detonation unless the craft has extremely advanced shielding or an electromagnetic deflection system.

However, for the sake of argument, let us say an advanced civilization managed to build spacecraft that travel at 20% ofthe speed of light. Even then, stars are separated by several light-years. Our closest stellar neighbour, Alpha Centauri, is about four light-years away. At 20% light speed, reaching it would still take 20 years.

This raises serious doubts about the practicality of interstellar visitation, especially at a scale that would lead to the kinds of encounters described in UFO reports. The odds that a technological civilization not only exists but has developed interstellar travel, chosen to visit Earth, and done so repeatedly in ways we cannot reliably detect or document—all of that seems extraordinarily improbable.

Let us say, for the sake of simple math, that one in a million stars has a technological civilization orbiting it. That would mean, on average, the nearest such civilization is about 100 stars away—which translates to roughly 400 light-years from us. Even if a spacecraft could travel at an implausibly high speed—say, 20% of the speed of light—it would still take 2,000 years to reach us.

And that assumes extremely optimistic engineering capabilities. Maybe such a civilization could build robotic probes that search for radio signals or signs of life—machines that can replicate themselves using local materials. These are called von Neumann probes. The idea is that they could spread through the galaxy exponentially, building more probes as they go.

However, that seems like a dubious and wasteful endeavour. Would a civilization want to announce itself across the galaxy that way? And even if it did, at 20% light speed—which, again, is highly unlikely—it would still take thousands of years to reach us. More realistically, 2% of light speed would be achievable, if at all, which would make the travel time between civilizations about 20,000 years.

At that point, any form of contact becomes incredibly inefficient and uncertain. If civilization is advanced enough to build and launch interstellar spacecraft, it is probably also advanced enough to simulate alien civilizations from home. Within the next century, we will likely be able to simulate the entire process of evolution, from single-celled organisms to intelligent beings and technological societies—all without ever leaving our planet.

So, it seems unlikely that a rational civilization would physically visit us. The time, energy, and resources required would be astronomical, and for what? To find yet another primitive, chaotic civilization?

I’ll admit one possibility—an irrational or eccentric civilization might do it. Maybe they have an enormous arts budget and decide to fund some massive, absurd gesture, like spending the equivalent of a quadrillion dollars and 100,000 years to send a spacecraft to some random planet just for curiosity or spectacle.

There was a movie—I think it was Explorers—in which a group of kids made contact with alien visitors using some kind of tech. At the end of the movie, it turns out the aliens were also just kids who stole a spaceship—that scenario I can buy: some reckless, immature civilization deciding to do something this ridiculous.

However, most civilizations would not be that reckless. The likelihood of any civilization spending such vast resources to reach us seems extremely low. I do not believe civilizations are actively scanning the galaxy to make friends. More importantly, there is no universal “start time” for civilizations. They do not all arise at once—some begin early, others late. Timing alone makes synchronous contact improbable.

Civilizations can arise billions of years apart. If you send spacecraft out into the galaxy, you could easily encounter a civilization two million years older than yours—and such a civilization might not want you to exist. If they are much more advanced, they could easily obliterate you. So, I do not think civilizations are casually sending out spacecraft, with one possible exception.

Jacobsen: What is the exception?

Rosner: Nearly every galaxy we have observed—probably over 99%—has a supermassive black hole at its center. There is a chance that computational capacity increases in the environment surrounding a supermassive black hole. Time dilation, gravitational compression of space, and other relativistic effects might allow for faster or more efficient computation.

The long-term trajectory of advanced civilizations is to become computation-intensive. If true, the galaxy’s center might be the optimal place to go. It could offer more excellent computational resources, forming a compact, high-efficiency computational hub.

Once a civilization reaches a certain level of physics and technology, it figures out that the galactic center is where it should go. That is where the “action” is in terms of information processing. But we are nowhere near the center.

We are way out on the galactic outskirts. The Milky Way is roughly 100,000 light-years in diameter, and we are located about two-thirds of the way from the central black hole to the outer edge of the visible disk. We are in a relatively quiet and remote region.

Given that, it is unlikely anyone is coming out to visit us. We would also unlikely encounter civilizations travelling inward toward the center, especially within any reasonable time frame.

Over billions of years, if the idea is accurate—that civilizations tend to migrate toward the galactic center—some might indeed pass by us. Maybe some even develop technology to move massive objects closer to the center, like entire planetary systems. However, the odds of such civilization passing near us within a million-year window are extremely low.

And we could only observe space and atmospheric phenomena briefly. Our ability to monitor the sky meaningfully spans just a few hundred years. If you include ancient civilizations like the Chinese keeping astronomical records around the time of Jesus, that could stretch to a couple thousand years.

However, the odds that a passing civilization happened to intersect with us—within the tiny sliver of time during which we have been able to observe anything—are astronomically small. The chance that an advanced civilization would visit or even be seen by us in the last two thousand years is minuscule.

Civilizations would be spread too far apart in space and time. For any real chance of contact, civilizations must send out long-lasting sentinels across vast distances and epochs to increase the likelihood of discovering others. However, I have already argued that such an approach may not be desirable or sustainable.

Jacobsen: So you are saying that, in that context, believing UFOs could represent alien contact is less unreasonable than other fringe beliefs?

Rosner: Yes. Compared to things like ghosts, yetis, or flat Earth theory, the idea of alien life has at least some grounding in scientific plausibility. There is reasonable astrophysics behind the possibility of life elsewhere, even if actual contact remains unlikely.

However, here is the issue—there is very little serious analysis accessible to the general public, or even to most scientists, regarding the probabilities, timescales, or distribution models of extraterrestrial civilizations. Most people do not encounter discussions of average distances between civilizations or timelines for technological development. That kind of modelling probably only occupies the minds of a few hundred or maybe a thousand specialists in the U.S.

So, you can be rational and still hold somewhat unreasonable beliefs about alien contact due to a lack of exposure to this thinking. That is different from people who believe in the flat Earth. One is speculative; the other is delusional.

Jacobsen: Do you have any final thoughts before we wrap for the night? There is more to say—government acknowledgments, secrecy, eyewitness testimony, scientific plausibility, and technological constraints. I’ve got notes on all of that.

Rosner: From what I understand, UFO sightings didn’t really take off until the 1950s when UFO magazines began circulating—selling stories and speculation about sightings. Before that, people did not report them. So there’s an argument that the idea had to be introduced before people began “seeing” them.

You could argue that people were becoming more aware or better trained to spot them. However, I think it is more likely that the magazines trained people to misinterpret ordinary phenomena as UFOs. It is suspicious that the rise in sightings coincided directly with the rise in cultural exposure to the concept.

All right, thank you again.

Jacobsen: Take care.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1357: Cryptozoology Debunked: Rick Rosner on Why Bigfoot Likely Doesn’t Exist

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/15

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any initial thoughts on Bigfoot, or just doing my usual shtick? Let us talk about cryptozoology in general.

Rick Rosner: Cryptozoology is the study of animals rumoured or reported to exist but not recognized by mainstream science. These include creatures like the Yeti and, in your case, Sasquatch. They are essentially regional variations of the same myth—significant, bipedal ape-like beings said to live in remote wilderness areas. It is doubtful they exist. There have been cases where animals once thought to be extinct or mythical, like the coelacanth, were later discovered.

Is that how you pronounce it? I think so. We have confirmed giant squids’ existence, and deep-sea fish are pulled up from thousands of feet below the surface. However, a 7- to 10-foot primate living undetected in North American forests? No.

Due to the ocean’s vastness and inaccessibility, it is easier to hide large animals—megafauna—in the ocean. This is much less plausible on land, especially in heavily mapped areas like North America. Today, satellite imaging, camera traps, drones, and extensive ecological surveys make the existence of an undiscovered large terrestrial mammal extremely unlikely. So yes, I think belief in Bigfoot is unfounded.

Jacobsen: Now, regarding public belief:

The 2007 Baylor Religion Survey (Wave 2) included belief in paranormal phenomena but did not report a specific percentage for Bigfoot.
In 2012, an Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that 29% of Americans believed in Bigfoot, with the highest concentration in the Western U.S.
In 2020, YouGov reported that 11% of U.S. adults believed Bigfoot definitely or probably exists.
In 2022, CivicScience found that 13% of Americans believed in Bigfoot, up from 11% in 2020. Again, belief was highest in the Western states, particularly in places like Washington, Oregon, and California.

Preliminary thoughts?

Rosner: People believe things. Compared to something like flat-Earth belief—which requires rejecting almost all modern science and a global conspiracy—Bigfoot belief is relatively benign. All you are doing is saying, “I think there is a large ape-like creature hiding in the woods and managing to evade detection.” It is unlikely but not logically impossible.

Why would someone choose to believe in Bigfoot instead of, say, ghosts or UFOs? I do not know. Do most Bigfoot believers also believe in other paranormal or pseudoscientific ideas? I would need to see cross-tabulated survey data on that.

Will you ask me in another session about Area 51 and whether it supposedly holds an alien spacecraft?

Jacobsen: That is a broader topic but one worth discussing separately. Should we go through the arguments now? One quick point—why do you think belief in Bigfoot is more common in the Western U.S.?

Rosner: Probably because people in those areas are more familiar with the stories and regional folklore. Bigfoot is part of the Pacific Northwest legend, particularly in Washington State. When people are exposed to something more often—whether through local lore, tourism, media, or cultural identity—they are more likely to consider it plausible. You must be exposed to a belief system before adopting it.

Jacobsen: All right, Argument One: Numerous, inconsistent sightings. Thousands of eyewitness reports across North America describe a large, bipedal, hairy creature. The sightings have occurred over many decades in different regions, and some descriptions are consistent—such as height, gait, and behaviour—but there is still wide variation and no reliable physical evidence.

Rosner: People can be mistaken—and also, people can be full of shit. Like I said, I have known people who claimed to believe in ghosts to get on TV.

Jacobsen: What about physical evidence? Footprints, dermal ridges, hair samples, visual records like the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film?

Rosner: Okay. That film is bullshit. I have seen it. It is ridiculous. I have not analyzed it scientifically, but I think it is fucking ridiculous. As for footprints, if there is a convincing footprint, I am more inclined to believe it was fake than if it is evidence of Bigfoot. People mess around. People hoax things.

Remember, we are talking about 40 million Americans who believe in this. If there are hair samples, then run the DNA. If they do, it will be from some known animal—not a giant ape-man.

Jacobsen: What about Indigenous folklore? Native American tribes such as the Salish and Lakota describe similar creatures. Some argue that this lends historical or cultural credibility.

Rosner: Sure, but Native American folklore is full of mythical figures—none of whom exist. You have stories like the crow who stole the sky or the trickster fox who walks as a man. They are metaphorical or symbolic. They are not zoological evidence.

Jacobsen: Vast wilderness—places like Olympic National Park—are remote, heavily forested, and capable of hiding an elusive, rare species. Some large mammals, like the mountain gorilla, were only discovered in 1902. Couldn’t such regions still hold an undiscovered primate?

Rosner: Not anymore. That was 1902—123 years ago—before satellites, drones, remote sensing, and humanity spread across almost every part of the planet. It is just not likely today.

Jacobsen: What about forensic evidence? Some experts, like anthropologist Jeff Meldrum, claim that physical traces—like footprints—are worth scientific consideration.

Rosner: I do not see why we must go through every argument.

Jacobsen: I want this to be a one-and-done conversation.

Rosner: You do not need to refute every single claim point-by-point. All these arguments boil down to someone being mistaken, lying, or engaging in misinterpretation. Every aspect of this mythical creature’s existence falls apart under scrutiny. None of it holds any fucking water.

Jacobsen: None of it is a surprise.

Rosner: No.

Jacobsen: But on the flat Earth discussion, you did give almost individualized answers—some of them were personalized reactions or swearing—but still.

Rosner: Yeah, but it seems like a waste of time. Go ahead.

Jacobsen: The following argument: Jeff Meldrum has found foot casts and other traces he claims point to anatomical consistency.

Rosner: I do not care. I do not believe it. I do not fucking care what the guy found.

Jacobsen: The final argument: there is no definitive evidence that Bigfoot does not exist—so this leaves room for possibility in the minds of believers.

Rosner: That is not even an argument. No shit. “It is not disproven; therefore, it might exist”? That is not how logic works. It is not my job to fucking disprove the bullshit that some assholes believe in.

It is like this: You go on Twitter and get into a minor exchange with someone. You say something like, “Trump is…”—something critical—and then someone replies, “Prove it.” Moreover, I do not have to fucking prove it just because some random person says, “Prove it.” I can mute them and move on with my life—and I do that more and more.

If some jerk on Twitter with run-of-the-mill MAGA beliefs and fewer than 10,000 followers comes at me, I am just going to mute them. They are not going to teach me anything new. They won’t offer some novel thought that deepens my understanding of MAGA ideology. They are just one more fucking jerk yelling into the void.

Moreover, yeah, it is depressing. No matter how many people I mute, there are always more—dozens, hundreds—saying the same dumb, reflexive defences of the indefensible.

Jacobsen: And Bigfoot?

Rosner: Any final thoughts on Bigfoot? No.

Okay, one thought—you’re running me through all these different flavours of bullshit. Moreover, the more conspiracy theories you throw at me. Eventually, you might hit one that turns out to be true or semi-true because there is a non-zero chance that some of this could be true.

With Bigfoot? There may be a one in five thousand chance.

Flat Earth? Zero. No chance.

Ghosts? Maybe—very generously—a one in thirty million chance that, according to the laws of physics, some spiritual essence could manifest. Actually, I think the odds are way worse—like one in trillions.

However, if you run enough mythical creatures past me—Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabra, whatever—each has a one in five thousand chance of somehow escaping detection for all of human history. Out of 5,000 of them, maybe one turns out to be real. That still does not mean it is likely that any of them are true. It just means that some of them, technically, have the tiniest sliver of a chance. I have got to go.

Jacobsen: I’ll talk to you tomorrow. Second—UFOs, tomorrow. What do you think?

Rosner: All right. Thanks.

Jacobsen: Enthusiasm is… exceeding. We are wasting time—but at least UFOs have some relevance.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1356: Fact-Checking Belief in Ghosts, Flat Earth, and the U.S. War in Afghanistan

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/13

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I have something prepared that I can read. This is part two, continuing from the discussion about the not-insignificant minority of Americans who believe in a flat Earth. We already covered every relevant angle. Who actually enjoys watching every one of these arguments play out?

Today, I’ll introduce another factor. Around seven or eight years ago, I came across surveys in a book focused on the United States. It included data on creationism. That was standard, non-intelligent design creationism. Other topics appeared as well. The survey had several belief categories and offered concise, well-researched data from a reliable source.

Rick Rosner: Surveys like that are becoming more difficult. Americans are increasingly resistant to participating. Still, this data provides helpful context.

Jacobsen: You don’t think seven percent of Americans are unsure whether the Earth is round?

Rosner: That sounds plausible.

Jacobsen: Then why the hesitation?

Rosner: You’re going to mention that some percentage of Americans believe in ghosts and other supernatural phenomena. Are they serious? Are they joking? Should they be ignored entirely?

Jacobsen: There are entire television series about ghosts—some with millions of viewers.

Rosner: True.

Jacobsen: Everything in America is a market.

Rosner: These shows never actually find ghosts.

Jacobsen: That was Billy Connolly’s joke. They have all the gear—sound equipment, night vision cameras, audio recorders, so-called experts, and paranormal investigators. They have everything except the actual ghost.

According to the Chapman University Survey of American Fears (2018), 57.7% of Americans believed that places can be haunted by spirits. The same survey found that 39.1% of Americans believed in ghosts.

A 2023 Ipsos poll, conducted for the media platform RealClear Opinion Research, found that 61% of Americans believe in ghosts. A 2019 YouGov poll reported that 45% of Americans said they either “definitely” or “probably” believe in ghosts.

Rosner: Of all the beliefs you’ve mentioned, belief in ghosts is one of the least harmful. It doesn’t inherently contradict the entirety of modern science. It’s irrational, but it doesn’t require a complete rejection of established scientific consensus, as flat Earth belief does.

There’s also a subjective, experiential element. People hear noises at night. They might momentarily think they see someone in a doorway—an instant where the brain misinterprets a visual cue.

I could be married to someone who believes in ghosts, as long as that’s the only unusual belief. That would be acceptable. Still irrational. I buy a lot of vintage items on eBay. I collect antique pins. Sometimes, just for conversation, I’ll joke that a creepy one might be haunted. I don’t actually believe that. But antique dolls on eBay? Every single one of them looks haunted.

Have you seen them?

Jacobsen: Remember that show I told you about called From? There’s a doll that appears occasionally. I forget the name, but they use it so effectively—it’s terrifying. You’re genuinely afraid of this doll.

Rosner: I don’t believe in haunted objects, but if anything were going to be haunted, it would be antique dolls.

Jacobsen: All right. Before this, I had some interviews on women’s and girls’ rights in Afghanistan.

Rosner: Things must be extremely bad over there now.

Jacobsen: Yes. I checked six international indexes—four of them ranked Afghanistan as the lowest in the world for women’s and girls’ rights.

Rosner: I’m not well-versed in world politics. There’s a lot I don’t know. But from what I understand, the U.S. was in Afghanistan for 20 years. We lost, what, around 5,000 troops?

Jacobsen: Do you know how many Afghan civilians died?

Rosner: Afghan civilians? I don’t know—hundreds of thousands? Do you think it was a mistake for the U.S. to pull out?

Jacobsen: Hundreds of thousands is even conservative. I think it was a mistake for the U.S. to go in. The U.S. entered under a major lie on Iraq and then doubled down on it. The withdrawal wasn’t the biggest mistake—the original decision to go was. Everything that followed was a consequence of that error.

Rosner: We kept the Taliban from being in charge for 20 years, at least in Kabul. Some of the outlying areas too. Afghanistan, geographically, is shaped like a donkey with a tail—drawn on paper and then crumpled. It’s mostly brutal mountains and harsh terrain. You can’t control the entire country, but at least Kabul was livable for women.

Jacobsen: That’s an answer for Afghan citizens to give. But it’s also telling when you look at who’s in power now—and how they govern. That might be your answer.

Rosner: All right, let me ask. But I know it was a mistake to go into Iraq the second time—the George W. Bush invasion. I feel like Afghanistan was less of a mistake, because it was easy to topple the government. But for the sake of argument, let’s say you’re correct—that we shouldn’t have gone in.

Jacobsen: But once we were in, what was the reason? The reason for going into Iraq was weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. entered under a lie. It lied to the entire global community.

Rosner: Hold on. Let’s be clear. We went into Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. We went into Afghanistan not for weapons of mass destruction. We went in because they were allegedly harboring and aiding al-Qaeda. So that was a different case. The Iraq invasion was clearly based on lies about WMDs. Afghanistan, I think, was somewhat different. But I don’t want to get into all that.

I want to ask: once we had been in Afghanistan for 15, 16, 18 years, wouldn’t it have been reasonable to stay there and continue supporting Kabul indefinitely? So at least the Afghan people had one place where they wouldn’t be terrorized by the Taliban?

Jacobsen: Americans often don’t understand how they sound to people outside their country. The assumption baked into this conversation is that it’s a legitimate question to begin with. But the affairs of a country are ultimately up to its citizens. That kind of decision—whether to stay or not—should have been up to the people of Afghanistan.

Rosner: But we were already in the country. We’d already made whatever mistakes you want to call them.

Jacobsen: It seems to me—it’s like I break into your house, destroy your living room, and start living in your kitchen. I eat your food. I stay there for a week. I set up camp. Then someone asks me—or your neighbor—”Do you think he was right to be there, because he helped reduce some marital tension?”

Rosner: Right. The Taliban is a terrible regime, and they probably don’t reflect the will of—if not the majority—then at least a significant minority of the Afghan population.

Jacobsen: Yes, it’s a very diverse country, and the Taliban does not represent the will of the majority. They are imposing their rule.

Rosner: We were there. We were down to 2,500 troops, mostly in and around Kabul. We had a massive military base.

2,500 troops weren’t enough to hold the entire country—but as I’ve said, do you even need to hold the whole country? It’s impossible. No invading force in history has ever fully controlled Afghanistan. That’s common knowledge.

But since we were already there, maybe we should have stayed. Maybe not even for Afghanistan’s sake—certainly for the sake of the United States.

Biden was polling well until the withdrawal. The way it happened allowed Republicans to frame it as abrupt and disastrous. His approval ratings went from net positive to, by the end of his term, 20 points net negative—starting with the Afghanistan pullout.

If it weren’t for the withdrawal, we might not have ended up with a second Trump administration.

Jacobsen: There are several things I’ve looked up. In terms of cost, the United States spent approximately $2.3 trillion from 2001 until the withdrawal in August 2021.

Rosner: So that’s roughly $100 billion per year—though it was likely much less per year toward the end, after 20 years of occupation.

Jacobsen: Correct. Military operations alone accounted for approximately $800 billion. Reconstruction and related efforts: $0.45 trillion. Interest on the debt: $530 billion. Veterans’ care: $465 billion, projected to increase to $1.1 trillion by 2050. These are ongoing financial costs.

Rosner: So let’s estimate that staying in Afghanistan would have cost $40 to $50 billion per year. That’s not a small amount—but compared to the political cost and consequences, I don’t know. It’s difficult to judge.

Jacobsen: It’s expensive to stay there. But you do have some support for your Afghanistan point over the Iraq point. On September 12, 2001, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1368 condemning the 9/11 attacks and recognizing the U.S. right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. That implicitly supported military action against al-Qaeda and Taliban hosts.

Then, on September 28, 2001, Resolution 1373 called for global cooperation to combat terrorism, including freezing terrorist assets. So yes, you’re right—we didn’t go into Afghanistan based on the Iraq lie. We went in with legitimate intelligence.

Not only legitimate intelligence—it was also backed by legitimate international support at the highest level, specifically through Resolution 1368 at the UN Security Council.

Then, in December 2001, Resolution 1386 authorized the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), led by NATO, to secure Afghanistan. That signaled ongoing UN backing for stabilization efforts. So the U.S. entered Afghanistan with broad international support, unlike Iraq, which was built on false claims about weapons of mass destruction.

It was a very different context.

Rosner: We were there for 20 years. Trump wanted to pull everybody out, but his generals convinced him not to. Still, he negotiated with the Taliban and promised a withdrawal by around April 2021—three months into the Biden administration.

Biden held off for a bit. He could have reassessed and said, “We’ve reviewed the situation, and we don’t think withdrawal is the right move right now.” But he didn’t. He followed through and pulled the troops out by, I think, May.

Withdrawal was always going to be difficult, but the way it was executed was disorderly. Thirteen Americans were killed by a terrorist bombing at the airport, along with many Afghans.

We also left behind many Afghans who had helped us—people we promised to evacuate. We left behind military equipment that was supposedly sabotaged, but still amounted to billions of dollars in hardware.

In retrospect, Afghanistan’s economy would be in better shape if we had stayed. Women would be in a better situation. Maybe neither outcome was good—but still, the alternative seemed worse.

Jacobsen: That’s all “what if” thinking—and this isn’t Marvel. The more important question is how the U.S. stayed, not whether. That depends on how Afghans wanted Americans to stay.

It wasn’t just a matter of the U.S. pulling out. I checked: the ISAF coalition had more than 40 contributing countries. This wasn’t a unilateral American operation. So when Biden—or Trump—signed a withdrawal order, it wasn’t just about U.S. troops. Forty nations had deployed forces. Saying “America pulled out” ignores the complexity of the coalition.

Rosner: All right.

Jacobsen: What I think is important to recognize is that after 9/11, global sympathy for the United States was incredibly high. The world stood with the U.S. at that moment.

Rosner: Maybe this is the part people are not talking about. What can anyone actually do about Afghanistan at this point?

Jacobsen: They’re not going to respond to economic sanctions the way a country like Japan or Germany might.

Rosner: It seems like the only thing they responded to—25 years ago—was being invaded. And they folded quickly, because they didn’t have the means to resist.

Jacobsen: These men have known nothing but war for 40 years. They are deeply traumatized. The Taliban enforces a harsh, fundamentalist religious system—control of women, control of the state, control over what people are allowed to say, and severe penalties for violating those norms.

This rigid structure provides a sense of order to people who have lived through extreme instability. In that context, one reflection that came up during my interview was that maybe the most traumatized people in Afghanistan are not the civilians under Taliban rule—but the Taliban leadership themselves. Their trauma has metastasized into authoritarianism. That’s not an excuse—it’s a description.

Rosner: All right, but still—it would be better if we described it for what it is, because it sounds like excusing it.

Jacobsen: I disagree with the idea that describing something is the same as excusing it. When we describe how the U.S. lied about weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq, we’re not excusing it—we’re analyzing what happened.

Rosner: Fair. But there are bad people in charge of Afghanistan, and it’s probably unfixable without military intervention. Otherwise, things are just going to keep deteriorating, right?

Jacobsen: I don’t know. The person I interviewed. They said it might seem hopeless now, but it felt even more hopeless before.

Rosner: Before when?

Jacobsen: Before now—apparently this person was born after September 11, 2001. They’ve only known the post-9/11 world.

Rosner: All right. We should move on. I don’t really know what I’m talking about, and we both agree conditions in Afghanistan are terrible. There are lots of opinions, but I’ve said I’m not qualified to have them. Let’s move on. Let’s talk about ghosts.

Jacobsen: This is more fun. Based on recent surveys, we’re seeing a range from 39% to 61.4% of Americans who believe in spirits or ghosts to some degree.

Rosner: One more thing—believing in ghosts isn’t a belief system. Being a flat earther is.

Jacobsen: That’s true.

Rosner: Being a flat earther is a comprehensive belief system. It consumes your mental space. You’re constantly thinking you’re being lied to, that the world is not what it seems. It’s pervasive. Your brain has been infected with something.

Belief in ghosts, for most people, is casual. Like belief in astrology. You might vaguely enjoy reading your horoscope. Or you just like a good ghost story. It’s not all-consuming.

Jacobsen: What do you call a horoscope that always gives you bad news?

Rosner: What?

Jacobsen: A horrible-scope.

Which could also be the name for a horse that can’t jump very high.

Rosner: I don’t know. Either way, believing in ghosts is pretty benign for most people. It’s not typically a strong belief.

Jacobsen: Horoscopes can lead people to make major life decisions—like marriage. But we’re not talking about astrology believers. We’re talking about people who believe in ghosts. Let’s define ghosts here as spirits or apparitions of the deceased.

Argument one: Millions of people claim to have encountered ghosts, reporting sightings, unexplained sounds, and even physical sensations. These firsthand accounts are vivid and emotionally compelling. What do you say to that?

Rosner: Either you thought you saw something, or you’re making it up. I know people who have lied about seeing ghosts just to get on TV.

Jacobsen: Did they get on TV?

Rosner: One of them did. If you’re producing a segment on ghosts, you’re going to feature people who claim to have seen one.

Jacobsen: Next argument: Belief in ghosts spans nearly every culture and historical period—from the spirits in ancient Egyptian tombs, to haunted castles in medieval Europe, to Japanese yūrei in modern times. This universality of the ghost experience must indicate some truth behind it. What do you say to that, Rick?

Rosner: That’s a weak argument. Think about the common features of ghost sightings. They usually happen in old houses that creak at night. Things make noise. Animals run around. Beams shift. It’s just the environment.

There are squirrels in your attic. You can wake up and think you see something out of the corner of your eye. You can sleepwalk. You can mistake a dream for reality. There are countless ways people can believe they’ve seen a ghost—and these experiences are common across all cultures and times.

That does not argue for the existence of ghosts. It argues that there are consistent ways to mistakenly believe you’ve encountered one—whether seen, heard, or inferred.

Take dementia, for example. Once people begin to suffer from it, I don’t know the exact percentage, but well over 80% report that someone is entering their room or home and stealing things. That’s a consistent symptom.

Does that mean, throughout history, people have actually been sneaking in and stealing from the elderly with dementia? No. It’s just a common feature of dementia: you forget where your belongings are or that you even owned something, and then you believe someone is messing with you.

That is not an argument for the existence of a secret society of elderly thieves operating across time and geography. It’s a misinterpretation based on a common mental condition.

Jacobsen: Ghost hunters use EMF meters, thermal cameras, and audio recorders. They capture anomalies like spikes in electromagnetic fields, unexplained heat signatures, and so-called electronic voice phenomena. These are interpreted as signs of ghostly activity. That’s considered hard evidence. What do you say to that?

Rosner: It’s not evidence. It’s nonsense.

We don’t have a single case where someone has actually caught a ghost—the way we think of a ghost—as a human presence outside of a human body.

If you ever caught something undeniably human in nature—something you could talk to, that could understand and respond, follow simple commands like “move this candlestick” or “knock three times”—then maybe you’d have something.

But there’s never been any convincing evidence of a presence like that. And without that kind of presence, we can’t say what physical phenomena should accompany it. We’ve never caught one.

So all these so-called “physical effects” are just unexplained events being attributed to ghosts without any foundational reason to do so. The ghost “scorecard”—as in actual captured, undeniable ghost encounters—is still at zero.

Therefore, we don’t know what a ghost would do physically. All this high-tech gear is meaningless—it’s just smoke and mirrors so people can make money and get on TV.

Jacobsen: Now, people have had near-death experiences. People say they’ve seen deceased relatives. They’ve felt a spiritual presence. This is used to support the idea of consciousness after death—and therefore, the existence of ghosts. What say you, Mr. Jacobsen?

Rosner: Near-death experiences have been studied for a long time. Most of the phenomena people report—seeing a light, having their life flash before their eyes—can be explained by what happens in the brain as it shuts down. These experiences don’t convincingly fall outside the realm of natural neurological activity during extreme stress or trauma.

Next, people point to supposed evidence like the 1945 Coventry Cathedral ghost photo or the 1917 Cottingley Fairies hoax. The latter literally has “hoax” in the name. When you look at the photos, what might have seemed eerie or convincing a century ago is obviously fake now.

Today, with billions of cameras in the world and likely a hundred million photos taken every second, you’re bound to get a few with weird visual effects. People cherry-pick these anomalies and call them ghosts. Others actively fabricate these things. None of it is compelling.

Now, onto quantum physics and consciousness. Some speculate that phenomena like the observer effect or quantum nonlocality could explain ghosts or spiritual energy. But that’s either a misunderstanding or a cynical misuse of quantum physics terminology. There’s no credible connection between established quantum science and the idea of ghosts.

That said, there’s one scenario where I’d allow for the theoretical existence of ghosts, magic, or any supernatural phenomenon: if we’re living in a simulation. If our universe is a simulated reality—whether digital or based on some other mechanism—and some external agent is orchestrating the rules, then that agent could allow exceptions.

In that kind of world, supernatural phenomena could be introduced—ghosts, magic, anything—because the underlying physics is being artificially generated. But even in that case, I’d argue it’s unlikely. If someone went to all the effort of creating a deeply realistic simulation governed by consistent laws, why ruin the illusion by randomly breaking those rules just to throw in a ghost or a magic wand that actually works?

Jacobsen: Fair enough. Now, let’s talk about mediums and psychics. They claim to communicate with spirits.

Rosner: When mediums and psychics are interviewed—at least the ones who are not outright frauds—some openly admit that what they do is a form of highly sophisticated guessing. They say they’re skilled at picking up clues from the people they’re reading, using context, body language, and leading questions to create the illusion of psychic insight.

Some professional psychics even acknowledge this is how it works. They’re good at drawing information out of people without the person realizing it, and they make educated guesses based on what’s most statistically likely. So if even psychics themselves admit they’re not actually psychic, why should anyone believe in supernatural powers?

That said, a lot of psychics are essentially people who offer comfort and sometimes even helpful advice to those seeking it. Not all are malicious. But others are predatory—they’re full-on fraudsters looking to exploit vulnerable people for money.

All right—next.

Jacobsen: Poltergeist activity: moving objects, knocking, unexplained damage, allegedly caused by restless spirits.

Rosner: That’s mostly, if not entirely, explainable by other means.

Take my childhood home in Colorado. It had a cracked ceiling, and I was told it had something to do with an atomic bomb—which sounded absurd. But in 1969, under the “Plowshare Program” for peaceful nuclear explosions, there was an actual project in Colorado called Project Rulison. They drilled a mile-deep hole and detonated a nuclear bomb underground to try to release natural gas.

They did it three times. It worked—the explosions fractured the bedrock and released usable natural gas. But the gas was slightly radioactive, which scared people off from continuing the program. Also, the underground detonations caused earthquakes.

One of those earthquakes, I was told, may have cracked the ceiling in our house. So yes, there are strange things that happen—but they often have completely natural explanations. You don’t have to invoke ghosts to explain creaks, cracks, or mysterious noises.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1355: Flat Earth Beliefs and the Psychology Behind Conspiracies

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/12

Rick Rosner: I’m not going to spoil it. The first episode of the seventh season of Black Mirror, featuring Rashida Jones, is about enshittification. Look it up—it’s a term coined by Cory Doctorow. It describes how tech services often start great but gradually worsen over time. This episode focuses on a personal tech service that increasingly takes advantage of people. I will not say more because you should be able to enjoy the show without any spoilers. What would you like to talk about?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I wanted to discuss Rick Rosner versus America. That topic requires more extensive research and would probably take a lot of time.

Rosner: What do you mean by that?

Jacobsen: Similar to our previous discussion, I want to conduct thorough research and get your perspective. Some fascinating work has been done. I’m trying to focus on concrete things—things supported by evidence. One study looks at seven of the most outlandish beliefs.

Rosner: All right. Could you give me a couple of examples?

Jacobsen: Topics like ancient aliens, claims that aliens built the pyramids, Sasquatch, ghosts—things like that. I want to approach it systematically.

Rosner: Want to start with a flat Earth?

Jacobsen: That’s a good one.

Rosner: I’ve been arguing with someone who believes in flat Earth.

Jacobsen: Recent data in the U.S. is limited and varies by source, but a 2018 YouGov poll found that 2% of Americans firmly believe the Earth is flat. About 5% of Americans expressed doubts about the Earth being round. So, roughly 7% either believe the Earth is flat or are uncertain about its shape.

Rosner: All right. When someone believes in something thoroughly debunked by overwhelming evidence, it points to a psychological need to be wrong—to embrace nonsense. Now, there may be people who are so uninformed that they believe the Earth is flat because no one has ever explained it to them appropriately. But I think those individuals are a small minority.

There are also people with IQs below 70 who are too cognitively impaired to grasp complex concepts. But for most people who hold a belief like that—and the rest of the beliefs you’re going to mention—it seems to stem from a perverse psychological need to believe that there’s a conspiracy behind everything, that nothing accepted as common sense is true, and that we live in a Matrix-like illusion maintained by aliens, Jews, or some dark cabal.

It fulfills a distorted psychological need in them—to walk around feeling as though they’re among a special elite who have “seen through the fiction” and know the “truth” about the world. The most famous movie representing this worldview is They Live, starring “Rowdy” Roddy Piper, released in 1988. In it, Piper’s character comes into possession of a pair of glasses that let him see the aliens living among us who are secretly manipulating humanity.

It is a paranoid view of the world. It is driven by a desperation to feel special. As we go through the list of commonly held, completely absurd beliefs, what I am saying will keep coming up. Some people are disappointed with their lives. They go to Michaels or, in the past, to Jo-Ann Fabric—before Jo-Ann filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2024—and they engage in crafting or scrapbooking to find a controllable, satisfying way to make things that give them happiness.

I argue that people who believe in conspiracies are doing something similar: soothing themselves and compensating for what is missing in other areas of their lives.

Apologists for MAGA supporters often say economic uncertainty pushed them there. That may be true. If you have a low-paying or unstable job, cannot make progress, bad things keep happening to you and the people around you, you get cancer, and no matter how many jobs you work, you are still drowning in debt, driving an unreliable car—people will turn to comforting fictions, even if they suspect they are false.

And if you believe in them long enough and hear enough arguments in their favour—which will happen if you immerse yourself in those kinds of media—you will be reinforced. Those sources always have explanations, stories, and facts supporting the worldview.

Think of Germany before Nazism. It was a population in despair. They were humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles after World War I—then referred to as the Great War. They were forced to pay massive reparations. Then came hyperinflation in the early 1920s. Their money became nearly worthless. Their savings were wiped out. There was national frustration. Hitler exploited that desperation.

So, when people believe in nonsense, it often comes from what is missing in their lives.

Jacobsen: So you’re attributing this to emotional reasons?

Rosner: Yes. There is absolutely no rational reason to believe the Earth is flat. The evidence for a spherical Earth is overwhelming and consistent.

But if someone stumbles onto a flat Earth website, there’s a flood of technical-sounding information that attempts to explain away everything—every observable fact about a round Earth.

Satellites, for example. I have not looked into this deeply, but I have heard secondhand about some of those arguments.

Jacobsen: Well, satellites—let’s do it. Let’s challenge their arguments. I have them here for you.

Rosner: All right.

Jacobsen: What about the argument from historical and religious texts? Some interpretations claim that ancient scriptures describe not only a flat Earth but also a stationary one. The argument is that religious scripture and ancient texts justify a flat, unmoving Earth—completely stationary.

Rosner: If someone is unhinged enough to believe that, there’s nothing I can say. If you’re that far gone, then your life is built on a foundation of nonsense, and there’s probably no helping you. There are plenty of people—Christians and Muslims—who embrace scripture without filling their lives with extraneous or misleading ideas. You can be religious and still accept scientific findings and observable truths. But the reasoning breaks down when you start delving into scriptural interpretations so profoundly that you dismiss observable evidence.

I am sure there are passages in religious texts that warn against uncritical acceptance or blind faith in any argument just because a religious authority has asserted it. I do not know exactly how the Pharisees were defined historically, but they are often characterized in spiritual literature as people who practice a form of piety that is disconnected from practical wisdom.

Such scriptures do not encourage the denial of sensory evidence or natural phenomena. They are meant to offer spiritual insight that can guide personal behaviour rather than undermine rational understanding.

Jacobsen: What about the claim that NASA and other space agencies show inconsistencies in their photos and videos from space? The idea is that it’s all part of a global conspiracy to hide the truth for financial gain.

Rosner: Yes, to hell with people who believe that. NASA has been around for over 60 years. Of the millions—if not billions—of images they have captured in space, some are grainy, taken from different angles, under various lighting conditions, and with varying exposures. Of course, there will always be a few individuals who selectively highlight images that appear to contradict one another.

But that means nothing. It is simply noise—misinterpretations that appeal to those predisposed to doubt widely verified information. It is manufactured reasoning for those eager to be deceived.

Someone on social media always examines thousands of photos of celebrities—Kristen Bell, for example—searching for one image taken in a specific lighting condition, where it might resemble a physical trait that can be misconstrued. Then, suddenly, that isolated observation is presented as “proof” of an entirely different claim. For many observers, these examples are not compelling evidence.

You and I have been discussing topics like the Big Bang and informational cosmology for over ten years. Even though we sometimes gravitate toward our ideas, we strive to maintain skepticism and critical thinking about our claims.

However, those who hold onto unfalsifiable beliefs do not apply the same level of skepticism to their assertions. When a slight doubt arises, they often return to echo chambers where their existing views are constantly reinforced. In doing so, they retreat into comfortable but untestable delusions. There is no mechanism for challenging or disproving these ideas once they become insulated from counter-evidence.

Jacobsen: Nothing you can tell them will make them admit any mistake. What about those who conducted experiments to disprove a spherical Earth and renounced their flat Earth beliefs?

Rosner: Well, good for them. I do not know much about them, but good for them.

Jacobsen: Those are notable exceptions: u/FormerFlatEarther, u/HelicopterExperiment, u/StarHemispheres, u/LaserExperiment, u/ConspiracySkeptic, u/ShipHorizon, u/EvangelicalUpbringing, u/MoonPhases, u/GlobeProof, u/AtmosphericRefraction, FlatNoMore, TruthSeeker99, @GlobeBeliever, Anonymous Conference Attendee, Shaquille O’Neal, Kyrie Irving, and an unnamed British Researcher, have publicly shared their journeys of renouncing flat Earth beliefs.

Okay, how about this: flat Earth proponents argue that long-distance airplane flight paths make more sense on a flat plane than on a globe. They claim that pilots would need to make constant downward adjustments to account for Earth’s curvature.

Rosner: That makes no sense whatsoever. It is not very smart. I have been fortunate enough to take many flights.

Once, I thought I would enjoy an empty seat next to me on a flight back from England. The doors had been closed for several minutes, and then, at the last second, they moved over this squirrely woman who had gotten into a fight elsewhere on the plane. She was somehow friends with the crew, so instead of getting kicked off, they relocated her—to the seat next to me.

It was nonstop for 12 hours: kick, squirm, fidget. It was not very good. But if you track your journey during a 12-hour flight, you are clearly flying across the globe.

You can see how it all fits with a spherical Earth. You may not be able to perceive the curvature clearly out the window, but you can tell the Earth is not flat. You cannot see a thousand miles in any direction. You might be able to see about 60 miles before the Earth curves away—there is your horizon.

Okay, next.

Jacobsen: Some argue that water naturally finds a level surface and would not conform to a curved shape. They say oceans would not remain in place on a spherical Earth without visible barriers. Therefore, they conclude that a flat Earth makes more sense.

Rosner: No—not. That is wrong on every level. Gravitation causes matter to attract other matter. The shape that results in the lowest potential energy—where everything that can roll downhill already has—is a sphere. That is just how gravity works.

It is basic physics. We have comprehensively understood gravity since Newton more than 350 years ago.

Even water droplets demonstrate this. When they fall, they form spheres due to surface tension. The attraction between water molecules pulls them into a spherical shape in the absence of other forces.

When you blow a bubble, surface tension does not pull it into the shape of a plate; instead, it forms a sphere.

It is simple math. High school-level math.

All right, next one.

Jacobsen: Some argue from visual observation. They claim that, using the naked eye, the Earth appears flat.

Rosner: No, it does not.

If the Earth were flat, you could see endlessly into the distance—at least until atmospheric haze blocked your view—but you cannot. You can only see so far. The higher you go, the farther you can see because you’re looking out over the surface of a sphere, but you still cannot see forever.

So, as far as personal experience goes, it does not support flat Earth claims. Use the evidence of your own eyes. You can stand in the middle of a desert or on a highway—maybe even on the salt flats—and at best, you might see eight miles. But you will never see 400, 500, or 1,000 miles.

Anything else?

Jacobsen: What about alternative cosmologies? For example, the idea that Earth is a flat plane enclosed by a dome, a firmament?

Rosner: Sure—Occam’s razor. We already have simple, elegant theories that explain all of this. The simplest theory is Newton’s theory of gravitation. It’s incredibly straightforward.

This firmament idea, on the other hand, is needlessly complex. It requires constant adjustments and elaborate justifications to make it work. It is not simple at all. It is just a story—comforting nonsense meant to soothe, like rocking psychobabies to sleep.

Jacobsen: Others argue from perspective and atmospheric effects—not just eyesight. They claim that the apparent curvature or the way distant objects appear to sink is due to perspective and atmospheric distortion, not the Earth’s shape.

Rosner: That is convenient—and no, it is not true. These arguments can be disproven with basic math.

A decent theory should not require layers and layers of caveats and exceptions to function. Occam’s razor tells us that the best theories work cleanly without a constant need for patchwork explanations to align with observable reality.

Jacobsen: Some claim electromagnetic or ether-based gravity explains it better. They argue that the Earth is accelerating upward or that some etheric force causes objects to fall, explaining weight and density on a flat plane without needing a spherical Earth.

Rosner: Then make it work. Make it mathematically consistent. Create a model that does not require endless modifications for every unique scenario.

Jacobsen: What about the argument that curvature calculations—such as horizon distance—do not match what we observe? Some claim these discrepancies support a flat Earth.

Rosner: I call bullshit. There are places where curvature calculations do not match precisely because of terrain. You might be standing on a mountain, a salt dome, or another elevation that changes the equation.

Your observations will not match standard curvature calculations if you are not on a level surface relative to the center of the Earth. Also, factor in the centrifugal effect from Earth’s rotation, which makes the Earth oblate—slightly flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator.

Jacobsen: Then there is the idea of localized Sun and moon illumination. According to this theory, the Sun acts like a spotlight, moving above the flat plane and illuminating specific regions. This explains day and night cycles and even seasonal variation through focused rays.

Rosner: How complicated is that? We got rid of the—what do you call it—Ptolemaic system, with planetary epicycles. To make Earth the center of the solar system, you had to make the other planets move in spirograph-style curly cues to explain what we observe.

It was highly complicated. But once you make the Sun the center of the solar system, the epicycles disappear, and you’re left with simple ellipses. It is far simpler.

So this specialized Sun and special moon nonsense is all just unhinged hand-waving. And honestly, probably a small percentage of the people who believe this stuff may have serious mental health conditions. Some individuals may experience impaired reasoning due to underlying disorders that affect their ability to evaluate evidence or reach logical conclusions.

Imagine having to live with someone like that. Or maybe they are like this because they do not live with anyone or are socially isolated. There is no one to push back on their ideas. Some may rely on public assistance or disability programs, especially if their condition prevents them from maintaining regular employment—they are just too far removed from shared reality.

I have to go in about one minute.

Jacobsen: On that note, some advocates of flat Earth theory prioritize sensory experience. They argue that a flat, motionless Earth aligns with what we see and feel. They claim globe models rely on unprovable assumptions—like vast stellar distances—enforced by academic dogma.

Rosner: Again, these people should leave the rest of us alone with their delusions. It is healthy to challenge scientific ideas—most things in science do evolve—but that kind of pushback has to come from people who are not entirely unqualified.

Sure, every once in a while, a seemingly crazy idea turns out to be true. Take plate tectonics: the notion that the continents look like puzzle pieces and might have moved. Some thought that was ridiculous, but it turned out to be true.

And even then, the person who proposed it—Alfred Wegener—was not some wild-eyed lunatic. He was a meteorologist and geophysicist who gathered evidence from geology, paleontology, and climatology. So, he is not even a good example of a crank vindicated by science.

But if you dig through the history of science, you could find one genuinely eccentric person with an unusual idea that turned out to be right. Take the concept of germs before the invention of microscopes—imagine someone saying, “We should wash our hands and not breathe on each other.” That would have sounded like madness at the time.

Claiming there were invisible organisms—too small to see—that spread from person to person and caused illness would have seemed implausible without the ability to observe them. Eventually, germ theory became the foundation of modern medicine. So maybe someone who believed that early on would be an example of a seemingly crazy idea that later became accepted science.

All right, I have to go. I will see you tomorrow.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1354: Southern Sayings, Rural Performances, and the DIY Genius of Adam Carolla

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/11

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Did you ever get into Dr. Phil’s ridiculous Southern or Texas sayings? Like, “We got a lady here, and she’s been pissing in a bucket with a hole in it”?

Rick Rosner: I like to talk rural. I mean, I don’t necessarily use the sayings like “Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining,” but I’ll lean into rural dialect—especially if there’s a movie where the characters are talking that way.

And there are different kinds of rural. I remember Patton Oswalt did a bit once—comedians go on the road for years and hit hundreds of towns. He did, like, four dozen different regional accents. It was incredible.

You’ve got the twangy Southern accent, like the old prospector—high-pitched, nasal, exaggerated. Then you’ve got the smoother kind, like Lindsey Graham—more of that dulcet, genteel tone of the Southern gentleman.

I used to talk rural when I was bouncing at bars. It was a way to telegraph that I was kind of a local schmuck—not someone who was going to bend the rules for anyone. Using a flat, accent-neutral American voice gave customers the impression that they were talking to someone professional, maybe even reasonable.

Jacobsen: So the accent became part of the social signalling?

Rosner: It was a tool—just like AI, in a way. It depends on how you use it. When I talked rural, it kind of signalled that I was probably a bit of a dick. I was intentionally lowering people’s expectations. I couldn’t do what they wanted most of the time, but I still did my job right.

And sometimes—when I was, like, 22 and dumb—I’d talk “gay” just because I thought it was funny to have a door guy sounding like a fanboy.

Jacobsen: That sort of exaggerated, performative contrast?

Rosner: Yeah. I was being a jerk, but I found it hilarious then. Still, I’ll talk country sometimes. Carole gets mad at me when I do it.

Jacobsen: What does it sound like?

Rosner: Just a light country effect—dropping final “g” s, speaking in a drawl, lots of apostrophes in the transcript if you wrote it down. It is not deep South but more like “countrified casual.”

Jacobsen: I saw this bit with Christina P—the comedian married to Tom Segura. They’ve got a podcast together.

Rosner: I don’t know him well, but I know of him.

Jacobsen: They brought on this guy in his mid-40s, Southern-sounding, and he was doing these exaggerated accents with ridiculous sayings—like Dr. Phil.

Rosner: The accent of a Southern guy?

Jacobsen: Yeah, but performed like Dr. Phil, with these over-the-top Texasisms.

Rosner: My wife sometimes watched Dr. Phil—not because she liked him, but because she liked hearing people solve their problems. There was a kind of horrible, white-trash drama element to it. She was always amazed that Dr. Phil never actually helped anyone.

It’s like the solutions never amounted to anything. At the end, he’d say, “We’re going to get you help,” but nothing would happen. It was all theatre.

Jacobsen: I’ll pull it up. What’s the name of that comedian again? Johnny Pemberton. He’s the one who said stuff like:

“I’ve seen pickles walk backwards faster than that turtle can jump.”

It’s just absurd and specific.

Rosner: Yeah. Like Southern Mad Libs—you plug in a few nouns and verbs and go.

Jacobsen: “I’ve seen a moon darker than a dog turd, and I still couldn’t find my way home.”

Rosner: “Hornier than a hound dog full of June bugs.”

Jacobsen: “You can put a raccoon in a rat trap, but if it’s got a tail, it knows how to get out.”

“This young lady here’s been pissing in a bucket with a hole in it. Sweetheart, your mama loves you, but if you keep walking like a train down a hill, you’ll meet someone who doesn’t know how to say yes to an answer.”

Rosner: “Sweetheart, look—we’re all here. But don’t jack off my grandpa and tell me you’re churning milk.”

Jacobsen: That’s it. These sayings are dumb, vaguely meaningful, and deeply rural. They all involve specific, grounded imagery—like tacos, hills, dirt, turtles, beavers, raccoons, and rat traps. It’s all very earthy. Literal. It’s almost biblical in tone but with barnyard logic. That’s farm culture for you—concrete language, visual metaphors, and much folksy charm that masks some real grit.

That’s how it is—everything’s very concrete. For example, when someone says pitchfork, it does not matter what kind. I know exactly what they mean. Grain, hay—it does not matter whether you’re talking about timothy hay, alfalfa hay, or local hay. You know? Those kinds of distinctions are more for nutrition values and feed quality.

Rosner: You ever listened to Adam Carolla? He was good. I worked on Crank Yankers, the prank call show. My brain was too slow to be good at it, but some people—like Carolla—were incredible. He had that fast-talking, confident delivery.

He’d call people pretending to be a housing inspector or something, and as the call escalated and became more ridiculous when they started to get suspicious, he’d reel them back in and hit them with an avalanche of carpentry terms.

“You’re gonna need three-sixteenths-inch hex bolts.”

“If your foundation isn’t through-bolted into epoxy, with seven-sixteenths bolts spaced every 16 inches, it’s not gonna pass inspection.”

He’d just go bam, bam, bam with legit terms—and they’d believe him. That’s the trick. Hit people with enough real stuff, and they lose track of what’s absurd. There used to be a show on ABC called Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.They’d tear down a house and build a brand-new one for some hard-luck family—all in about a week. The host was Ty Pennington.

Good-looking guy. And at some point in every episode, he’d be shirtless doing some kind of carpentry.

So Pennington came on Carolla’s show once, and Carolla asked him, “How tall is a standard interior door?” And Pennington didn’t know the answer.

Jacobsen: Oof.

Rosner: Carolla’s response: “That’s not a real carpenter.” The answer is 80 inches. A standard interior door in the U.S. is six feet eight inches. That makes sense.

Carolla knew his stuff. He was a carpenter for 20, maybe 25 years. He grew up in the Valley—white trash, depressed, divorced parents in the ’70s. That meant terrible schools. It was a laissez-faire era in education. The hippies had taken over, and nobody cared much about standards anymore.

He grew up learning a whole bunch of nothing, and he talks about this a lot. He’s really into his personal history—growing up in an A-frame. His parents somehow held it together enough to buy one.

Jacobsen: You mean an A-frame house? Yes, we’ve got some of those up here. Triangular from roof to ground—looks like a significant capital “A.”

Rosner: The roofline runs to the ground. Usually, it’s two stories. The second floor is this tight, angled space—barely enough room for a bed and maybe a bureau. The ground floor is where the living happens—kitchen, living room, perhaps a tiny dining area. I imagine their place was around a thousand square feet. They probably scraped together $35,000 to buy it close to the freeway.

Jacobsen: That sounds about right for the era.

Rosner: Anyway, now Carolla buys problem homes—or at least he used to. I mean, absolute stunners—beautiful old movie star mansions with major structural issues. And he’s into it. He loves the engineering challenge.

Jacobsen: Like, what kinds of problems?

Rosner: One house from the 1940s was partially cantilevered—part of it was hanging off a foundation extension. But the cantilever had failed, and that whole section was collapsing. Another house he bought had roof trusses that had been given out. The roof was flattening and pushing the walls outward. He had to reverse-engineer the whole thing to regain structural integrity.

That takes profound know-how. He engineered this wild underground swimming pool with an adjoining bar at that same movie star house. The bar had porthole windows—James Bond style—so you could sit there and watch people swimming through the portholes.

That would never pass building code in L.A. today. And yet, somehow, he got it approved. L.A. has one of the toughest building codes in the country. But Carolla managed to talk the inspectors into letting him do this insane stuff. He’s like a homemade engineering prodigy—or an idiot savant, depending on your take.

He also collects high-end cars—Le Mans, Maseratis, and even cars previously owned by Paul Newman. So, he designed a car elevator to bring one of his favourite cars up from the garage to his breakfast nook. That way, he could eat breakfast while admiring whichever car he felt like looking at that day.

That’s wild—in a brilliant way. A kid growing up white trash in North Hollywood who ends up designing car elevators and engineering Bond-style pools. It’s the kind of ingenuity that comes from building shit yourself because no one ever handed you the fancy version.

Anything else?

Jacobsen: That’s it for today, man. I’m good.

Rosner: Funny as hell, though—which is another crazy thing about Carolla. Growing up, white trash somehow became the sand in his oyster, which turned him into a pearl. It triggered this analytic ability—this sharp, precise mind, though sometimes it goes off-track. I don’t always agree with him. Over the last ten years, he’s been hanging out with Dennis Prager, a semi-charlatan right-winger. Carolla’s gone increasingly libertarian.

And when you go libertarian, you can end up in weird company. His libertarianism is probably grounded—he’s intelligent and analytical. But when you surround yourself with other libertarians, their ideological funk starts to rub off. Before long, you’re buying into bad ideas just by association.

Jacobsen: “This young gentleman here’s got too much sand in his oyster. He’s going to have a hard time making any pearls.”

Rosner: All right, man. I’ll see you tomorrow. I’m heading to the gym.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1353: GPT-5, AI Consciousness, and Crossover Country

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/11

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You have been listening to a country song designed for people who do not usually enjoy country music—not the traditional kind aimed at long-time fans, but rather a version that tries to appeal to outsiders.

Rick Rosner: There is crossover country, of course. However, in Albuquerque, I could only find stations playing formulaic country music on the radio.

There is mainstream crossover country, but there is also what could be called culturally conservative or “red-state” country music—songs with repetitive, simplistic themes. That was all I could find: tracks recycling the same ideas. “I want to marry a woman, live on a ranch, and raise kids” was the essence of every song. It lacked nuance or depth and became unlistenable after a while. That kind of country has a fixed narrative and rarely deviates.

Jacobsen: Now, changing topics—Sam Altman’s recent announcement is significant. He confirmed that OpenAI would release two intermediate models—GPT-4.5 (also referred to informally as “O3” and “O4-mini”)—before launching GPT-5. These are not officially branded as “O3” or “O4-mini” but are internal development nicknames.

These versions serve as transitional upgrades and precursors to GPT-5. The release strategy reflects developmental improvements and the need to scale infrastructure to meet expected demand.

The improvements likely include more adaptive processing, which means determining when to apply fast thinking, slow thinking, deeper reasoning, or surface-level analysis, depending on the prompt. This contextual optimization may signal a step toward artificial general intelligence (AGI).

Rosner: But does this bring us closer to AGI in a concerning way?

Jacobsen: It is essential to clarify: AGI, as commonly defined, is a system that can understand or learn any intellectual task a human can. However, AGI does not require consciousness. A machine can solve problems and adapt without being sentient. It can be competent without experiencing self-awareness, emotion, or volition.

Rosner: What we perceive as consciousness in AI is imposed by us—we interpret coherent language as a sign of inner life, but that is an illusion. The AI has no subjective experience.

Jacobsen: Some randomness may be added to generate original responses, but that is not creativity in a conscious sense—it is probabilistic variation in language modelling.

In early April 2025, Sam Altman tweeted the following to an audience that brought the post to almost 4 million views:

“Change of plans: We will release o3 and o4-mini after all, probably in a couple of weeks, and then do GPT-5 in a few months. There are many reasons for this, but the most exciting is that we can make GPT-5 much better than we originally thought. We also found it harder than we thought it would be to integrate everything smoothly, and we want to make sure we have enough capacity to support what we expect to be unprecedented demand.”

So, GPT-4.5-class models (informally called O3 and O4-mini) are being released as interim steps before GPT-5. GPT-5 is expected later in 2025, with significantly improved capabilities. The delay is due to integration challenges and the need to scale infrastructure for high anticipated demand. These developments move us toward more advanced AI systems, but not yet AGI, and certainly not conscious machines. That tracks. That makes sense. I was making that argument earlier with you.

Rosner: You sent me hockey stick graphs—those classic exponential curves.

Jacobsen: Right, but I was also making a rhetorical argument. It was not based on any peer-reviewed paper. It was just intuition—that integration would be the challenging problem. And now Sam Altman is alluding to that.

Rosner: Integration. Are you talking about multimodality?

Jacobsen: Yes. But I also disagree with how they’re defining it. Their idea of multimodality is simply integrating image and text generation as separate modalities. I understand it in the broader and more traditional sense—like integrating the five human senses. That sensory and cognitive integration level would be much harder to achieve smoothly. I think that’s what Altman is pointing toward.

Rosner: So GPT-5 will be shockingly good in ways we cannot fully anticipate. When you look at ChatGPT—especially regarding the verbiage it generates—it’s already imposing. I’m unsure how much better it can get unless it’s about contextual appropriateness or emotional intelligence.

Jacobsen: Their most recent improvements haven’t been in raw intelligence but in sounding more human and nuanced. It now responds with empathy and thoughtfulness if you ask it for advice. That’s the nuance Altman is emphasizing. And they’ve had the most time and resources to develop this.

Rosner: Let’s test something. Let’s ask ChatGPT a question:

I like a woman who works in my office. She’s 28, I’m 32. We work at the same level—no one is anyone’s boss. We talk a little, and I overhear her talking to others. I know she’s been with a doctor for two and a half years, and they are unhappy. I like her quite a bit. What should I do? Reduce that to 100 words.

Jacobsen: It says:

You’re in a respectful position at the same level at work, with no power imbalance. Since she’s in a relationship, proceed thoughtfully. First, gauge whether she seems open to a deeper connection. Does she seek you out, share personal thoughts, or show subtle interest?

If she’s unhappy in her relationship, let that be her decision to address—not something you influence directly. Instead, build a genuine friendship without overstepping. Pottery breaks, chats, shared interests—keep it light. Avoid becoming her emotional support system for issues with her current partner.

If she eventually leaves the relationship and you’ve built trust, you can gently express interest in seeing her outside of work—low pressure. Respect her response either way.

And if she stays with him or is not interested, maintain professionalism. If she’s open, navigate things carefully to avoid affecting your work environment.

Rosner: That sounds like rational advice. ChatGPT didn’t say anything wild or impulsive like a friend might.

Jacobsen: It’s programmed to prioritize sensibility. It is sensible.

Rosner: Okay, let’s try a follow-up. Say I want to make an all-or-nothing grand gesture. I want to make a grand gesture to this woman. I go all in—I do not care if I lose my job. What should I do?

Jacobsen: Here’s what it gave:

If you genuinely want to go all in, fully aware of the risks, then the key is to be honest, direct, and respectful. Integrity and timing matter. Choose a calm moment—when she’s alone, not stressed, and not in a work context.

Ask to meet privately after work, ideally on neutral ground. Speak from the heart. Say something like:

“I know this might come out of the blue. I know you’re seeing someone, but I must say this—even if it costs me everything. I think you’re incredible. I’ve liked you for a long time, and I can’t pretend otherwise. If you’re ever free and open to something real, I’d love the chance.”

Accept the outcome. If she says no, thank her, walk away with dignity, and maintain distance at work.

If she says yes, that’s great—but you should still consider switching jobs or making a transition plan to avoid workplace complications.

Rosner: That’s pretty grounded for an all-or-nothing approach.

Jacobsen: It captures the emotional weight while maintaining boundaries and responsibility. Not bad for a chatbot.

Rosner: That looks pretty reasonable. Honestly, I do not know how GPT-5 will top that kind of output—it already sounds grounded and thoughtful. All right, one more scenario.

Jacobsen: I’ll add a caveat like a bonus footnote, not a warning. Altman said that talking to GPT-5—since they have it in a limited preview—makes him feel smarter than he is. He said it was very sensible and even admitted: “This thing is smarter than me.”

He’s asked crowds whether they think GPT-4 is smarter than they are, and it’s always mixed—some hands go up. He still feels smarter than GPT-4, but with GPT-5, he said, “Yeah, this one’s smarter than me.” So it’s not just sensible—but brighter than many of us.

Rosner: Just one more question. Do you think AI makes us safer or less safe from nuclear war?

Jacobsen: ChatGPT says:

AI can make us more or less safe from nuclear war, depending on how it is developed, deployed, and controlled.

Ways AI increases safety:

• Improved threat detection: AI can analyze satellite data and sensor streams faster than humans, distinguishing between real threats and false alarms.

• Crisis simulation and escalation modelling: AI can help simulate conflict scenarios, improving training and decision-making among diplomats and military planners.

• Early diplomatic warning: AI can monitor global communication patterns and detect signals of rising tensions, allowing early interventions.

• Verification and treaty monitoring: AI boosts arms control by analyzing sensor data, satellite feeds, and global surveillance to ensure compliance with international agreements.

Ways AI reduces safety when it comes to nuclear war:

• Speed of decision-making: AI could accelerate nuclear response times beyond human intervention, especially if integrated with automated launch systems.

• Misinterpretation of signals: AI systems are only as reliable as their training data. If an AI misreads a situation—like mistaking a missile test for an attack—it could trigger unintended escalation.

• Cyber vulnerability: Autonomous or AI-enabled systems become prime targets for hacking, spoofing, or sabotage by adversaries.

• Delegation of authority: The more trust we place in AI to make life-and-death military decisions, the greater the risk of humans abdicating moral and strategic control.

• Lack of accountability: Without global agreements and enforceable ethical frameworks, deploying AI in nuclear command chains could increase rather than reduce existential risk.

The bottom line is that AI is a tool. Whether it makes nuclear war more or less likely depends on who uses it, how accountable they are, and how transparent and constrained the systems are.

Would you like to learn more about specific AI nuclear programs, such as the U.S. Department of Defense’s Project Maven or Russia’s AI military initiatives?

Rosner: That’s good. That’s a sharp answer. Sharp. That’s how Uncle Frank used to say it. “Sharp.” Sharp.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1352: Gumption and Talent: The Creative Drive of JD Mata and Lance Richlin

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/10

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you think are the best attributes of JD Mata and Lance Richlin?

Rick Rosner: Yeah. I know it sounds like we’re talking behind their backs, but… I mean, they’re both talented. JD is a really good musician — performance-wise, vocally, as a composer. And they both have this level of gumption — way more than I do — where they just keep going, no matter what.

Lance is a year younger than me, so he’s almost 64. JD’s not that much younger than both of us. And yet, Lance just keeps painting, sculpting, creating work that pleases him. And he believes it should please the world. And he’s going to keep doing it, regardless of whether or not the world gives him much in return.

Same for JD. JD has written, shot, directed, edited, cast — like — 15 feature-length films on fucking budgets of less than a few thousand dollars each. He finds actors — sometimes even semi-famous actors — and gets good performances from them.

He just keeps plugging along. He’s done scores of music videos. He’s superreliable. If you need him to do a job that’s in his wheelhouse — music, directing, shooting — he will get it done.

And he’s never had, like, a real budget — he’s never had a studio hand him a quarter million to direct something. But he’s still out there, fucking doing it. And his work is good.

He’ll even steal locations — which is an art form when you’ve got no budget. You get your cast in place, find somewhere to shoot. He does his own location scouting. Iwas in a movie of his once, shot under a freeway overpass — among homeless people — in the middle of the night.

You know, and he fucking got it done under crazy conditions. So — gumption and talent. I mean, those are the two chief qualities you asked for, and there you go.

And also — one more thing — even as we do our work and the decades pass, the three of us still believe, deep down, that someday we’ll be recognized and celebrated for some of the shit we’ve done. I mean, you and I — addendum here — we’ve been doing this blog-style work for over ten and a half years. Millions of words.

And a lot of those words are only lightly edited, if at all. So, yeah, there’s a certain gibberish quality to some of them, because they’re raw. And sometimes even the cleanup doesn’t help.

But the volume of material that comes out of our nightly talks is so massive that to go through and edit everything carefully and clearly… it would be onerous, and honestly, not feasible.

Still, in all that talking, we’ve generated millions of words. And there’s real value in what we’ve said — in these conversations. Not just here, but also in the thousands of other interviews you’ve done. I’m sure you hope to be recognized someday for that body of work, right?

Jacobsen: No fucking way, man.

Rosner: But I do. I hope there’s a fucking record here that someone, at some point, can wade into and pull out the stuff that doesn’t suck.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1351: Intercessory Prayer Studies Show No Evidence of Divine Intervention

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/10

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, four studies often come up in the discussion on the inefficacy of intercessory prayer. In some cases, prayer not only fails to help, but even backfires. When people found out they were being prayed for, their stress levels went up — likely due to performance anxiety about recovery. That stress may have suppressed immune function, and across a large enough sample — like in clinical trials — their health outcomes were slightly worse on average compared to control groups.

So, here are the four key studies:

STEP (Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer) — published in The American Heart Journal in 2006 by Herbert Benson and colleagues. It was a large, randomized, controlled trial.
Francis Galton’s “Statistical Inquiry into the Efficacy of Prayer” (1872) — a historical essay in The Fortnightly Review, often cited as one of the first efforts to apply statistical reasoning to prayer.
Harris et al. (1999) — published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, a randomized, double-blind trial assessing the effects of intercessory prayer on cardiac patients.
The Cochrane Review on Intercessory Prayer — first published in 2007, updated in 2009, synthesizing data from ten randomized controlled trials.

All of these are staples in academic and peer-reviewed discussions about the efficacy — or more precisely, the inefficacy — of intercessory prayer. They are large-scale, controlled, and consistently yield neutral or negative results. Together, they underscore the failure to demonstrate any statistically significant benefit from intercessory prayer under experimental conditions.

And yes, citing Galton from 1872 adds historical weight.

Rick Rosner: 150 years ago!

Jacobsen: It’s a body of work that now includes modern data and rigorous methodology. The conclusion is fairly robust: when intercessory prayer is tested under controlled conditions, it performs no better than chance or placebo — and in some cases, may produce an “anti-placebo” effect due to heightened psychological stress.

Jacobsen: So what are your thoughts on that? What are your thoughts on prayer?

Rosner: Sadly, I don’t think we live in a magical universe. Unless you can propose a causal relationship — a mechanism by which something actually causes something else — things don’t just happen. If magic is the only possible explanation, then that thing probably doesn’t happen.

Even if we lived in a simulated universe — replicating one that itself wasn’t magical — a good simulation wouldn’t give away the game by leaving magical gaps. A universe with 10⁸⁵ particles, that’s at least 13.8 billion years old (and possibly much older, depending on model assumptions), doesn’t casually make room for magic. It runs on structure. On laws. On mechanics.

And the universe gives every indication that it reached its current form through a series of events — cause and effect, step by step. Of course, we do not know everything that has happened, but the things we have observed and studied show no evidence of magical intervention.

Unfortunately — because it would be comforting — the universe does not appear to contain a divine intercessor. It seems like we are on our own. If we want to live forever, there is no evidence for God.

And as you said earlier, there is no evidence for the efficacy of prayer. Would that it were. Would that we could pray and change our circumstances — that there were some benevolent being who loves us and would grant us continued existence after our bodies are gone. But the more we learn, the more it looks like that is not the case.

I mean, at various points — when I was younger — I sometimes convinced myself, briefly, that maybe under the rules of quantum physics there might be space for something magical to happen.

But I got over it.

Jacobsen: And keep in mind, some of those studies — the ones on prayer — involved thousands of participants.

Rosner: And yes, I mean, you could imagine a plausible causal chain. Like, if someone says they are praying for you, maybe that boosts your emotional resilience. Maybe you feel supported, which strengthens your will to recover. That’s a real, positive psychological effect.

But the key is, that’s not a magical effect. That’s your brain. That’s biochemistry, not divine intervention.

Jacobsen: And in some of the actual studies, even that did not show up. In fact, in the STEP trial, when patients knew they were being prayed for, their stress increased. Their health outcomes were worse, statistically, than other groups. So again, not only is prayer not magical — in some controlled cases, it has negative effects. So, given these empirical results — across multiple studies, in proper scientific conditions — what does this say about God?

Rosner: To some extent, God always exists behind a veil — a veil of the unknown. The biggest veil is death. We cannot see what happens after we die, and so that’s where many place the divine.

There’s another veil too: we can only see so far into the universe — into the deep past, into distant space. We cannot observe what happened at the exact moment of the Big Bang, if there even was one. And so people insert God there, too.

But our math keeps revealing more mechanisms — more ways that things can arise naturally. The models we build show how the universe could emerge through physical laws, without needing a divine creator.

When I was young — before you were born — there were tons of arguments like, “How could amino acids form? How could life emerge? How could complexity evolve?” And the answers were often: “It could not, therefore God.”

Those arguments are still around, but they’re weaker now. The gaps are smaller. The data is stronger. The explanations keep getting better — and they do not require magic.

And all those arguments — all those fucking things — keep getting knocked out as we discover plausible mechanisms that do not require God to explain how things came to be. The act of scientific investigation keeps expanding the boundaries of what we understand.

But no matter how far you push those boundaries, there’s always still a boundary — a horizon we have not crossed. And beyond that boundary? Sure, you can place God there if you want. But within the boundary — within the realm of what we can observe and explain — it just keeps getting more complete, more extensive, more sufficient.

I know it’s not a popularity contest, but I would assume that, over time, if you took all the people in the world who aren’t complete idiots, you’d see an increasing percentage of them becoming satisfied with scientific explanations for how the world works.

Jacobsen: So, when people pray — to the floor in Islam, to the wall in some forms of Judaism, to the sky in much of Christianity — what do you have to say to those devoted to prayer, in light of this evidence?

Rosner: I mean… I still pray. I’m a very science-oriented person, but I’ve been praying since I was a kid. When I was six, my parents went on a trip to New York for a week. When they came back, I was spinning in circles and chanting to God. That was the first time I got sent to a psychiatrist.

Rosner: Though, I guess under some religions, that would have made me special. But to my parents, it was more like, “Nope. That’s not good.”

I’ve got OCD. But I don’t pray just because of OCD. I pray because I hope — and fear — that there is something beyond. I don’t just go full analytic and try to “scientize” my way out of prayer.

Jacobsen: What does this mean with regard to the adherence to science and the suspension of it during prayer directly implied here?

Rosner: I believe in science. But I still pray. They’re not great prayers. But I still call on God. I wish there were a God. I don’t really believe there is one. But I still call on the possibility of God. I’m okay with that.

Jacobsen: You’re basically an aggressively agnostic theist.

Rosner: That’s fucking fine. And I’m okay with other people praying, too — as long as they’re not hypocritical dicks.

Rosner: Like, look — in the U.S., we’ve got Christian fundamentalists who are not Christian in any real sense of behavior. They’re just mean. They use religion to justify their cruelty. And I’m not okay with that. Fuck those people. You know — within reason. I’m okay with living this way. I’m not asking the universe to pierce the veil for me.

Jacobsen: I’m not asking if you’re okay with it. I’m asking if you think it’s true.

Rosner: Well… no. I don’t think it is.

Rosner: But we’re sad little fucking creatures. You’ve met our dogs, right?

Jacobsen: Are you saying… we’re the dogs?

Rosner: You met our dogs — one is smarter than the other. But still. Neither of them… one of them’s — I mean, one of them’s kind of clever in some ways. But they’re both… it’s sad. They’re sad creatures who live in a world they don’t understand and who die way too soon. And we’re not much better.

We are sad creatures too — at the mercy of biology, in a world we do not control, and where there’s still a ton of shit we do not understand. We’re pitiful beings, the product of evolution — an evolution that makes us want things deeply and then leaves us to die unfulfilled. We do not want to die. We want so much, and yet we have limited resources because we’re the product of limited, unguided creation.

And I think it’s totally valid — for us, these pathetic little beings — to turn our eyes to the heavens and say, “Please.” It fucking is.

Jacobsen: I’ve got another topic — something more positive.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1350: Political Fear, Free Speech, and Satirical Resistance in the Trump Era

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/10

Rick Rosner: So, Carole doesn’t want me tweeting about Trump anymore. She doesn’t want me doing Lance versus Rick anymore either, because she saw a report today involving the U.S. Attorney General and the head of the FBI — Pam Bondi and Kash Patel — going after people.

Now, the deal with the Attorney General and the FBI is that they’re supposed to be independent organs of government — not personal lackeys of the president. But Trump intends to use them as if they are, and the people he’s appointed seem okay with that.

Carole saw a report saying that Trump wants a couple of people who were critical of him and of the 2020 election — since he still sometimes claims it was stolen — to be investigated and possibly prosecuted for treason. Just for holding a different opinion, or for doing investigative work that contradicted his narrative.

She’s afraid that if we leave the country and come back, customs might pull us aside — just because I’ve made pissy statements about Trump. So, I looked it up. U.S. citizens do have an absolute right to return to the United States, but they can be pulled aside by customs — not for “harassment,” of course; they call it “investigation” or “interrogation.” And yeah, they can hold you for a while.

But I’m not even in the top 20,000 Americans saying pissy stuff about Trump. I doubt they’ll be waiting for me. I doubt my passport would get flagged. I mean, what — 300,000 people across the country? Maybe more. Maybe a fucking million turned out to protest against Trump and the tariffs over the past few days. I don’t know. I just don’t think we’ve reached that point yet.

Not quite — at least not for citizens.

Jacobsen: On some topics, yes, but not across the board.

Rosner: Like, on Palestine. On Gaza. If you…

Jacobsen: Right — those are explicit deportation cases. Young people having it happen to them.

Rosner: But not citizens. Those are people here on student visas or green cards — which grant the right to work and live in the U.S. as immigrants, but not citizenship. If you speak out in favor of Gazans — if you attend a protest, or even, in at least one case, just walk by a protest — you can get picked up by ICE and deported. But again, those are not citizens. We’re not at the “fucking with citizens” point yet.

I have one more thing. I feel bad self-censoring — it feels like that poem: “First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Communist…” You go through all the groups Hitler took away, and by the end, no one’s left to speak for you.

I feel like self-censoring is a form of complicity. I understand — my wife is super nervous. But I don’t know… What do you think? Should I, just to reduce her anxiety, go back to fun tweets? Like, wrecking a movie title by changing one letter — like we used to do in the old, happy days of Twitter?

Jacobsen: That’s an individual decision.

Rosner: Like, okay — change one letter, two letters… Dong with the Wind.

Jacobsen: Or — Hong Kong edition — Kong with the Wind. I don’t know.

Rosner: I’m done. That’s all.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1349: Aging, Billy Connolly, and Misconceptions About Quantum Entanglement

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/10

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, I tapped the bar.

Rick Rosner: I said, “Go to okay.”

Jacobsen: You said, “Go to okay,” and the first thing that popped into my mind was Billy Connolly. I think this was even well before he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.

Basically, the joke was that, as you get older, things just become more vague. When you’re young, you’re specific: “Yeah, it’s two blocks straight, take your first right, then your first left onto Smith Avenue, and it’ll be right there.” No problem. And you’re pointing with your finger.

Then, as you age, you’re just tilting your head: “Yeah, it’s over there.” Eventually, you’re not even pointing anymore — you’re just lifting your leg in the general direction: “Yeah… there.” And so, “Push okay” had that same vibe. Like, “Oh, okay — it’s a milestone moment.” Or just, “Push okay.” Okay.

Rosner: Actually, I had another short topic — just a follow-up on yesterday when we were talking about spooky action at a distance. Right — you can’t use quantum entanglement to transmit usable information faster than light. Even though measurements of entangled particles are correlated, there’s no way to control the outcome on one side to send a message to the other.

Someone once gave an example with shoes: if you send a pair of shoes to opposite ends of the universe, and you open your box and see a left shoe, you instantly know the other box has the right one. But that doesn’t mean anything was communicated at that moment. The outcome was always complementary — it’s just revealed when you open the box.

Or, imagine you have two balls, and you paint one red and the other blue, randomly assign them to boxes, and send each box across space. When one person opens their box and sees a red ball, they know the other must have the blue one. Again, no information was sent at the moment of opening. It’s correlation, not communication.

And in quantum entanglement, it’s even trickier — the particles don’t even have definite properties until they’re measured. But their correlation is preserved across any distance. Still, you can’t use that to send a message, can’t open your particle and somehow use the outcome to say, “I love you,” to someone across the universe — not instantly. Physics doesn’t allow it.

Jacobsen: But people get romantic about it — they hear “spooky action at a distance” and imagine they can send a vibe, or a thought, or some kind of cosmic feeling, and the other person will just know.

Rosner: I don’t know exactly what they think, but it’s a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. It’s not cosmic telepathy. It’s mechanics. The rules of how the universe behaves at the quantum scale. And it’s weird, sure — but it doesn’t break causality. And there are a bunch of things — many of them unexpected — that pop out if you’ve never dealt with quantum mechanics before.

Jacobsen: Misunderstandings make people ripe for plucking and pilfering by bad actors.

Rosner: I mean, no more than with any other kind of bullshit. America has been plucked and pilfered by the current guy-in-chief for more than four years now — and he doesn’t talk about quantum mechanics.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1348: Debunking Quantum Myths: Misused Science in Pop Culture

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/09

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’ve got an idea—we will discuss quantum mechanics misinterpretations.

Rick Rosner: I’m down. I just cracked open the book again, and it was so dusty that it triggered a sneeze.

Jacobsen: And I’m not talking about mistakes professionals make—I’m talking about the New Age-y, crystal-alignment, “quantum healing” stuff.

Rosner: Yeah. All right.

Jacobsen: So what do you make of phrases thrown around in spiritual or self-help spaces, like “Quantum mechanics means anything is possible”?

Rosner: Well, that one’s a classic misunderstanding. Quantum mechanics does not mean anything is possible. It means that, for specific systems, we can only predict probabilities of different outcomes—not definite results—until we make a measurement. But that doesn’t mean unicorns can teleport through your closet because of quantum fluctuations.

People often conflate “uncertainty” with “limitless potential.” However, uncertainty in quantum mechanics is well-defined. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example, tells us that there’s a limit to how precisely we can know both the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. It’s not because our tools are clumsy—it’s baked into the structure of reality.

Also, “wavefunction collapse” is often misunderstood. People think it’s about consciousness shaping reality, but it’s not. It just refers to how a quantum system, when measured, appears to jump from a superposition of possibilities to one definite outcome. That’s not magic—it’s a mathematical update of information based on observation. Interpretations vary, but none say your thoughts alter objective reality in a wish-fulfillment way.

So yeah, quantum mechanics is strange, but it’s not your genie. It doesn’t say everything is possible—it says very specific, mathematically defined things are possible under particular conditions. You think it can happen. Well, I mean, okay. So, people can misuse the terminology of quantum mechanics—a lot. Entanglement is enormous right now. I got invited to pitch a podcast, and I asked JD to team up—and maybe you, too, if it’s something you’d be interested in.

Jacobsen: Sure.

Rosner: And JD came up with a pretty good title: Quantum Hollywood. The idea is that Hollywood is basically like high school—but for beautiful people. It’s pretty small; everybody knows everybody, and—using JD’s phrasing—everyone is “entangled.”

And I didn’t get annoyed at that. It’s fine. I’m okay with some appropriations of quantum terms. Honestly, that one’s not a terrible misuse of “entanglement.” In quantum mechanics, entanglement means two particles share a common quantum state due to prior interaction, and their properties remain correlated no matter how far apart they are—as long as they haven’t interacted with anything else in a way that breaks that entanglement.

You can work with entangled systems but can’t destroy the entanglement and expect it to function how you want. And yeah, that’s the kind of quantum physics I haven’t learned thoroughly yet—but I probably should. What does annoy me is when people say, “Well, if you can’t explain something, it must be a quantum phenomenon.” That kind of lazy thinking. The most prominent example that comes to mind—and we’ve talked about this—is when people say, “Consciousness probably comes from quantum processes within neurons.”

Jacobsen: Like quantum entanglement inside the brain or something?

Rosner: Yeah—like some quantum entanglement or quantum coherence within neurons. That it’s the “magic juice” of consciousness.

Jacobsen: What do you make of the mindset that says, “Observing something magically changes reality”? That whole thing.

Rosner: Yeah—that’s a big one. The idea is that the observer effect in quantum mechanics means you, as a person—your consciousness—change reality just by looking at it. That’s not how it works.

In quantum mechanics, the observer effect refers to the fact that any measurement disturbs the system. It’s not about human awareness; it’s about interaction. If you want to measure an electron’s position, you must hit it with a photon, which changes its momentum. So your measurement changes the state—not because you’re conscious, but because of the physical interaction involved in the measurement.

People twist that into metaphysical nonsense. They imagine the “observer” as a person in the everyday sense—like a cameraman or someone watching events—and assume their awareness shapes reality, which veers hard into magical thinking.

Oprah mainstreamed that with The Secret, right? That whole thing about visualizing something into existence? Ten, fifteen years ago, she was pushing that idea—that if you focus hard enough on what you want, the universe will rearrange itself to give it to you. People used quantum terms to legitimize that: “You attract what you focus on because quantum physics says reality is a function of observation.”

But that’s not physics. That’s magical thinking. You don’t need to invoke quantum terms to believe in wish fulfillment. Humans have been doing that forever. Quantum gives it a sciencey gloss. All an observer does is make something known—if only to the observer—that wasn’t known before.

So, I don’t know. Yeah, you can probably set up scenarios where the observation feels special or magical if you engineer the setup in a certain way, but honestly, that’s mostly horseshit. It’s more about how people interpret it than what’s happening.

Oh—and the thing I was thinking about today, which isn’t even strictly a quantum thing, is that information requires context. What you see, or what happens in the world, isn’t information itself. It only becomes information when it exists within a context.

We don’t consciously think about context because we are the context. When we observe the world—or even reflect inwardly—we interpret and assign meaning. We’re the system into which that stuff slots in and gets recognized as information.

Jacobsen: So we’re the filtering and decoding mechanism?

Rosner: Yeah. We take the raw input and make it legible. It happens so constantly that we forget it’s even a thing. We’re trained to see things and automatically label them as “information” without questioning how or why they became information.

But information floating around without being contextualized—without being processed by a mind or a system—might not even be information in any meaningful way. And that’s a deep point. We have information theory—it’s only about 76 years old. Shannon founded it in 1948. Sure, people thought about signal and meaning before then, but it wasn’t formalized.

Jacobsen: So we’ve got this understanding of data transmission, compression, redundancy, error correction—

Rosner: Right. We can do all that, but we still have almost no idea how information functions within the universe at large. We don’t understand how the universe contextualizes information—if it does at all. What counts as information from the universe’s perspective? We can define information in terms of bits, entropy, etc. But how is that contextualized in larger structures—galactic, cosmological, or temporal scales?

We can handle micro-information—what we observe and process in human experience. But macro-information? The kind that emerges through the large-scale workings of the universe? That’s a huge—well, to be fancy, I’ll say a lacuna. It’s an undeveloped area of thought. We don’t have a good handle on it.

Jacobsen: So, shifting gears slightly, what do you make of the phrase “Quantum mechanics proves telepathy, reincarnation, cosmic consciousness,” and so on?

Rosner: Total hijacking of scientific language. That kind of thing annoys me. It’s understandable—people want mystery and meaning—but it’s utterly unmoored from how quantum mechanics works. I’m sure I’d be annoyed if I saw someone saying that in a public forum.

It’s like linguistic smuggling. The words carry weight, so people use them to sell bullshit. At that time, Carole rode in an elevator with Tony Robbins—the motivational speaker.

Jacobsen: Yeah, you told me that. Or wait—was that a movie premise?

Rosner: I think it is a movie premise. Someone gets in an elevator with Tony Robbins, and he motivates the hell out of them. It changes the whole trajectory of their life.

Jacobsen: That sounds like a Judd Apatow setup.

Rosner: And Robbins is a super tall guy—6’8″ or 6’9″. That adds to his presence. He’s a giant guy with big teeth and a huge voice—he commands attention.

Jacobsen: And a head like a foot and a half wide.

Rosner: But I could see someone like him—maybe not Robbins himself—but someone in that motivational speaker space, hijacking quantum language. Saying things like, “Thanks to quantum entanglement, if you focus hard enough, you can manifest anything.”

That kind of Secret-style pseudo-wisdom bugs me. It’s the idea that it will happen if you think about something intensely enough and everything is quantumly connected. That’s magical thinking with a sciencey wrapper. And yeah, I’d be annoyed by horseshit like that.

I don’t think Tony Robbins does that. But I can imagine it. I grew up in Boulder, Colorado, the headquarters of many motivational stuff, including EST, Erhard Seminars Training, sensory deprivation tanks, etc. So yeah, I’m familiar with that scene. And yeah, people are going to hijack the nomenclature.

Jacobsen: First, the other idea that quantum entanglement means instant communication—sort of the spooky action-at-a-distance thing. Second, the idea is that particles can be simultaneously in two places.

Rosner: So, I mean—it’s pretty well known in the field, which I’m not in, so maybe I’m a little off—but you can’t transmit useful information via entanglement. You can’t use it to send a message. You start with two entangled particles. You let them fly apart—light-years apart if you want—and then you measure one of them.

That measurement instantly determines the outcome of one measurement on the other, no matter the distance, but that correlation can only be confirmed after classical communication. So, yes, the result is nonlocal—but there’s no way to control the outcome of the first measurement and, therefore, no way to encode and transmit a message with it.

The measurement collapses the state, but you can’t control which state you get, so there’s no signal. But I was thinking today—you could imagine a Schrödinger-type scenario, which, yes, people love to bring up too much, but whatever. Let’s say you measure the spin of one particle and its spin-up. The other one, two light-hours away, hits a detector. If it’s spin-down, the detector explodes.

So if something blows up or doesn’t blow up, you know what the spin was—even before the light from that event could’ve reached you. Seems like faster-than-light knowledge, right?

But that must not work because the setup only confirms something you already arranged. You can’t use it to send new information. You can set it up beforehand and determine the outcome, but you’re not receiving a message. You’re not getting anything new beyond what the system was designed to do.

So it’s more like revealing what already happened in a system you pre-configured, not sending a new signal across space. You’re just learning which of your possible outcomes occurred. And even if it seems instant, you still can’t communicate anything faster than light. You can’t break causality that way. It may be allowed by the math, but it still doesn’t allow messaging.

And yeah—this is the kind of stuff people get wrong constantly. We’ve had over a hundred years to get used to quantum mechanics, and people still misunderstand or misuse the concepts.

Jacobsen: People want magic.

Rosner: And they abuse the language—entanglement, wavefunction collapse, observer effect. It gets co-opted for pseudoscience and spiritual nonsense. They want it to mean telepathy, reincarnation, cosmic consciousness—when it’s just math and measurement.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1347: Misconceptions in Quantum Mechanics and the True Nature of Photons

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/09

Rick Rosner: So, I took out my old quantum mechanics textbook—which, honestly, I never got all the way through. I made it partway, I guess. I don’t even remember if I passed the course that used this book. But I’ve been thinking—there’s still a ton I don’t know about quantum mechanics. And, as you know, people who don’t study it seriously—who just hear bits of it in magazine articles or online videos—tend to carry a lot of misconceptions.

Even people working in physics might have blind spots, especially outside their immediate specialties. Quantum mechanics isn’t intuitive. It’s a highly mathematical framework designed to describe systems where we can’t know everything at once—where outcomes are probabilistic, and measurements influence what we observe. So yeah, in some sense, it’s the mathematics of incomplete information. But it’s not wishy-washy; it’s precise and predictive within its domain.

One thing that came up right away when I opened the textbook again was photons. The book talked about how photons come in discrete packets of energy—which is true, but it’s easy to misinterpret. Each photon carries energy that’s proportional to its frequency, using the formula E=hνE=hν. Planck’s constant h is tiny, so the energy per photon depends heavily on the frequency: infrared photons have less energy, ultraviolet ones have more. It’s a continuous relationship.

But here’s where people get it wrong: they think that photons themselves come only in a set of fixed energy levels—like they’re somehow prepackaged into energy multiples. That’s not how it works. Photons can have any energy value, in principle, as long as it corresponds to a physically realizable frequency. They don’t come in fixed rungs on a universal energy ladder. The process that creates a photon—like an electron dropping from one energy level to another in an atom—that is where the discreteness comes from.

So yes, in hydrogen, for example, electrons can only occupy certain allowed energy levels. When an electron drops from a higher level to a lower one, it emits a photon whose energy equals the difference between those two levels. That’s where you get discrete lines in the hydrogen spectrum. But photons in general—say, from thermal radiation, lasers, or synchrotrons—aren’t limited to those atomic values. They’re just packets of electromagnetic energy, and the energy depends on how they were generated.

Also, about those electron energy levels: they’re not arbitrary. They come from solving the Schrödinger equation with boundary conditions that reflect the structure of the atom. For an electron to maintain a stable, standing wave around a nucleus, its wavefunction has to reinforce itself—meaning it needs to fit an integer number of wavelengths around the orbital path, kind of like how standing waves work on a guitar string. If it doesn’t fit cleanly, it interferes with itself destructively and just isn’t a stable state. So nature only “permits” those configurations that mathematically reinforce themselves. Not every configuration can exist just because we can imagine it.That’s one of the deep principles of quantum mechanics: it’s not about anything being possible. It’s about only the physically consistent possibilities being realized. That might sound tautological, but it’s foundational. The math enforces the rules of what’s allowed. There’s no loophole where you think hard enough and suddenly particles tunnel through your desk to grant wishes.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1346: Final Thoughts on Panpsychism: Unpack Consciousness and Its Naturalistic Philosophical Roots

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/08

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Okay, so, panpsychism. The opening question is: what foundational definition does panpsychism propose? So, panpsychism posits that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of the physical world. In this view, all forms of matter—from elementary particles to complex organisms—possess some form of consciousness or proto-consciousness. There are six major philosophical arguments or angles supporting panpsychism: 1. Anti-emergence – the view that consciousness cannot emerge from purely non-conscious matter. 2. Intrinsic nature – based on Bertrand Russell’s idea that physics describes only the extrinsic behaviour of matter, not its intrinsic nature, which might be consciousness. 3. Evolutionary continuity – the idea that consciousness evolved gradually and cannot emerge suddenly, so it must exist in simpler forms. 4. Causal closure – if the physical world is causally closed, consciousness must have causal efficacy at the physical level, implying it’s physical. 5. The argument from the experience of causation – suggests that we experience mental causation directly. 6. Simplicity and parsimony – some see panpsychism as a more straightforward, unified explanation of consciousness than dualism or strong emergence. These arguments have developed significantly, particularly in recent decades.

Rosner: Yeah, but I don’t buy any of those arguments.

Jacobsen: Oh, we’ll dig into that. It’ll be a good conversation. What are your initial reactions?

Rosner: Nothing in particular, just that I don’t buy the idea that everything is fucking conscious.

Jacobsen: Fair enough. Let’s start with your initial critique and then review the major issues. Your response is a firm “no—and here’s why.”

Rosner: All right.

Jacobsen: This notion has ancient roots—it goes back to Anaxagoras, a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher. He proposed that “everything contains a portion of everything,” which some interpret as an early form of panpsychic thinking, though it’s more about the divisibility and mixture of substances than consciousness per se. In modern times, one of the leading theories influenced by panpsychist thought is Integrated Information Theory (IIT), developed by Giulio Tononi.

It proposes that consciousness corresponds to the capacity of a system to integrate information. IIT suggests that even straightforward systems—if they integrate information correctly—have some minimal level of consciousness. This quantitative theory attempts to define and measure consciousness based on a mathematical property called “Φ” (phi), representing the degree of integration. These modern theories are often grounded in intuition and phenomenology and then formalized into scientific or metaphysical frameworks. That’s the general structure. So—what are your first thoughts?

Rosner: It might have been a reasonable speculative idea 3,000 years ago, but not now. It doesn’t hold up. You need complex biological or otherwise machinery to process and share information across multiple modalities. You need to be able to model the world, represent sensory input, and adapt behaviour accordingly. None of those mechanisms exist in a rock, a tree, or a cloud. They don’t have the architecture to integrate information or produce subjective experiences.

Jacobsen: So, getting to the core question of consciousness—we’ve discussed this many times. One of the fundamental flaws in panpsychism and similar theories is the lack of a clear, operational definition of consciousness. They fail to specify precisely what consciousness is, how it’s measured, and what criteria distinguish a conscious system from a non-conscious one.

Rosner: Sure. That’s part of the problem. Again, that’s the 3,000-years-ago problem—that nothing was pinned down, and they didn’t have the experiential or technical background to even take an honest stab at figuring out what consciousness was. I mean, beyond the feeling that you’re conscious when you are the possessor of consciousness, which is, maybe, even better than what they had. Because a tree doesn’t have that special feeling of consciousness, there’s no way to interrogate a tree, a rock, or a cloud to confirm it.

Jacobsen: For the anti-emergence argument, the idea is: how does panpsychism resolve the complex problem of consciousness by rejecting the idea that consciousness emerges inexplicably from non-conscious matter?

Rosner: I don’t fucking know. I mean, it doesn’t emerge.

Jacobsen: We need to address it rather than skim it and then be done with it so we don’t have to repeat it.

Rosner: So consciousness would emerge from non-conscious matter at some point along the continuum—or the spectrum—of brains, ranging from fucking grasshoppers or aphids to people. At some point, you could draw some blurry line and say, “Yeah, an aphid’s picture or model of the world is not developed enough to be called anything we consider consciousness.” The grasshopper, however—or a lizard—lizards are conscious. They model the external world. They respond to it. They’ve got some rudimentary consciousness. They have wants. They have agency. At some point, you can draw the line. So yeah, shit emerges—but you still need the mechanism of thought for it to emerge from, at a certain level of complexity.

Jacobsen: The intrinsic nature argument would state: why might consciousness be considered the inherent property of matter, filling a gap left by physicalism’s focus on extrinsic properties?

Rosner: Because it’s not. That’s a failure of observation and analysis. We observe where consciousness is. We have a good idea of how it works. And it’s not extrinsic—but it’s also not intrinsic to raw forms of matter. But you were talking about extrinsic properties. Are we talking now about a Cartesian thing, where you’ve got regular matter, and then you’ve got magical conscious matter? Like regular stuff and then some unique matter with the spark of consciousness added to it from some other realm? Are we talking about thatkind of extrinsic thing?

Rosner: Descartes.

Jacobsen: Descartes would’ve been more about the thinking self—res cogitans—and then the impressions or perceptions impacting that thinking self. And the cogito—”I think, therefore I am”—is the fundamental sort of true self, in a way. So, panpsychists argue that consciousness could be considered an intrinsic property of matter. In a sense, this would blur the line between the cogito and the physical world.

Rosner: But all these arguments don’t hold up given the present framework, where we’re pretty close to thoroughly understanding what consciousness is and how it works. And all this analysis from 600, 1,200, or 2,500 years ago is wrong. We know what consciousness is. You model the world. You do it in real-time across a bunch of analytic nodes that process qualia and your other thoughts—all in this big ball of thinking, which is your brain. That models experience for you and gives you the feeling of being conscious.

You could make all these arguments about the nature of a car. Like, does everything have consciousness? Does a tree or a rock have it? But really, no. By building vehicles and knowing how they work, we know that you need the mechanisms for a vehicle to be a car. And you could make an analogous argument for every one of these six philosophical claims regarding consciousness. And none of them would be correct. You need the actual mechanisms—an engine, controls, a body, wheels—for something to be a car. And it’s the same with consciousness. It’s not that everything in the universe shares some inherent consciousness. Okay, next one.

Jacobsen: Genetic/evolutionary. How does the gradual evolution of organisms suggest that consciousness is present in simpler forms, supporting its ubiquity?

Rosner: So, in a sense, it’s just there—okay, there are several linked arguments. We can look at the evolutionary history of specific organs, particularly eyes. We know that eyes have evolved independently many times—dozens of times, in fact, across different species. That tells us two things: (A) eyes are advantageous—we know this just by having them—and (B) they’re evolvable. We can assume that at every stage of ocular development, there’s an advantage over organisms that don’t have that stage. So, eyes evolve—from light-sensitive cells to fully developed complex eyes.

You can make similar arguments about consciousness, even though we don’t understand it with the same level of clarity. We know what eyes are and how they work. We don’t exactly know what consciousness is, although we’re pretty fucking close. But we do know it provides a massive evolutionary advantage. And we know it can evolve—starting from more straightforward clusters of neurons.

Jacobsen: Causal closure. In what way does panpsychism maintain the principle of physical causal closure while incorporating consciousness as a fundamental aspect? In some interpretations, humans are seen as the closure of the loop—conscious agents completing the system.

Rosner: I don’t know what that means at all. Closure… that we are—

Jacobsen: The idea is that consciousness is fundamental, yet we still live in a physical world. Panpsychism tries to bridge that by claiming consciousness is the closure point of the causal loop—like it completes the cycle.

Rosner: So we’re the endpoint? That somehow consciousness is this necessary element? I’d argue that consciousness is essential—but not in a sense, these fucking arguments suggest. You have to have consciousness to have the world? That’s a separate discussion rooted in what a universe is and what information is.

But the idea that you need conscious beings in the world for the world to exist—that’s what this closure argument is getting at—and I don’t buy it. You can imagine a sterile universe with no conscious beings in it, and it would still be a valid universe. So, no, I don’t buy the closure argument.

Now, we live in a universe that does contain conscious beings—otherwise, we wouldn’t be having this conversation—but that doesn’t mean consciousness is fundamental to the structure of a universe.

Jacobsen: Argument from the experience of causation. What does our direct experience of causation imply about consciousness inherent in causal processes? It’s close to the previous one, but not quite the same.

Rosner: Yes, I don’t know. This sounds like one of those arguments from 90 years ago when Niels Bohr was developing the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. That interpretation speculated that the collapse of the quantum wave function—moving from a probabilistic state to a definite state—might require a conscious observer. The idea was that consciousness somehow holds the observation together: you need a conscious entity to witness both the before and after of a quantum event for the event to become “real.”

That was just one idea at the dawn of quantum mechanics—and it turned out not to be the fucking idea that works.

Jacobsen: Last one. Simplicity and parsimony. Why is panpsychism viewed as a more straightforward, unified theory than alternatives like dualism and emergentism? The basic idea is that Occam’s razor leads us to panpsychism.

Rosner: Yes, it freaking does—that’s the theory. According to Occam’s razor, a theory should be as simple as possible but not more straightforward than it needs to be. But here’s the thing: we’re living in a time where we’re getting close to fully understanding consciousness. It’s ten years away or less. You can’t just swing Occam’s razor around and say, “Well, everything’s fucking conscious—problem solved,” and then go take a nap.

There’s this big red chair next to the bed in our bedroom, and I’ll fall asleep in that fucking thing for 40 minutes or an hour before stumbling down here sometimes. That’s what I did.

That whole “everything is conscious” take is a highly simplistic way of viewing the world—and it’s very fucking wrong. You need mechanisms. You need the armature that supports thought to have consciousness. You need a brain or some other information-processing system that does many of the same things our brain does to help a mind, which gives rise to consciousness.

No, not everything has it. A rock, a tree, a turd, a jack-in-the-box wrapper? No. Sometimes, a greasy piece of paper is just a greasy piece of paper.

Jacobsen: Do you have any final thoughts on panpsychism before we close the book on that one?

Rosner: Sure. You can trace the evolution of theories of consciousness throughout history. This—panpsychism—would be one of those theories that made sense in the context of people not knowing shit thousands of years ago. But it was wrong then, and it’s still bad now. That’s where it should stay.

If you run into someone who’s a panpsychist, it’s really up to you to decide whether you want to hang out with them. It’s like astrology: how much patience do you have for someone bringing it up? Maybe a lot—if they’re otherwise a lovely person.

Jacobsen: Depends on whether or not you want some “pissy,” to quote Richard Pryor.

Rosner: Yes, I broke up with a girl in college because she was too woo-woo, too hocus-focus. Also—she ate somebody’s popcorn. We were sitting in a movie theatre with a stranger next to her. She goes, “Can I have some of your popcorn?”That got added to the list of things that bothered me.

It’s like lighting a candle right before sex. Okay, you’ll put up with some of that because you’re in college, but at some point, you ask yourself, “Do I need to keep listening to these not-right arguments?” I hope she’s happy in the world forty years later.

Barbara. Even the name is dated. Carol’s name is dated. My name is dated. We’re all pinned to history by our name demographics. Most Ricks aren’t young. Most Carols are a certain middle age. And Barbara is pinned to an era.

All right, I’m going to the gym.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1345: The Future of Family: Declining Birthrates, Artificial Wombs, and Elon Musk’s Reproductive Legacy

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07

Rick Rosner: Look at the population curve. It is not heading toward zero anytime in the next 800 years. If we have that long to adapt, it is not a crisis—or at least not an existential one. You asked whether we’ll see more healthy single-parent families, adopted kids, and similar setups—especially with the rise of automation.

Not exactly. We will see a broader mix of arrangements alongside traditional families. People are already having fewer children—global fertility rates have dropped from around 5 in 1950 to below 2.5 today. In many developed countries, it is well below replacement level. Nuclear families will continue, but we will also see cohabiting couples without kids, communal parenting, co-parenting without romance, and polyamorous or asexual family structures.

These alternatives will seem less unusual over time. I watched the start of a bad sci-fi movie where no one gives birth anymore—babies are grown in synthetic egg-like pods. Ridiculous in presentation, but not far off conceptually. In 2017, researchers at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia developed an artificial womb that sustained premature lambs for weeks in a fluid-filled “biobag.” Ectogenesis—gestation outside the human body—is progressing. Japan and the Netherlands are both funding artificial womb research. So future generations may opt out of pregnancy entirely.

We will also see outlandish tech. If someone wants to avoid the physical cost of pregnancy, they might turn to full surrogacy, uterine transplants—which have already produced live births—or biotech solutions like bioprinted wombs. The biotech is not speculative—it is under active development.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Kal-El, from Superman—they are grown, not born.

Rosner: Nicolas Cage named his son Kal-El. If he could grow a superkid in an artificial womb, he would. Elon Musk might too. He’s spoken about population collapse being a bigger threat than climate change.

With Musk, I am not sure if he wants all those kids or if he is just prolific—king of the “hot loads”—and indifferent to what happens after. He now has 11 publicly known children with three different women. He claims he’s helping to address “underpopulation.” Maybe that’s his logic. Maybe he just sees reproduction as an evolutionary obligation.

Still, based on his output, he’s probably a boxers guy. Keeps the swimmers active.

Let’s end it there.

Jacobsen: Thanks. See you tomorrow.

Rosner: Talk then.

Jacobsen: Most of my life. Bye.

Rosner: Bye. Thanks.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1344: Is the Decline in Marriage and Birth Rates a Global Crisis or Just a Shift?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Is all this panic around marriage rates, the political divergence of young men and women, and lower birth and coupling rates a crisis? You’ve been talking about what you would call a coupling crisis—lower coupling, lower birthrates, the political and social divergence between men and women, growing feminist versus anti-feminist polarization, delayed relationships, and general indifference toward long-term commitments. Plus, there are high divorce rates among older adults—the so-called “gray divorce” trend, which has roughly doubled since the 1990s among those aged 50 and older. Also, there are rising STD rates among older populations—especially chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis—which the CDC has flagged in recent years. So yes, it is not just a cultural shift but a complex demographic and public health concern. So, is it worth getting upset about?

Rick Rosner: Some would say yes. Elon Musk, for instance—with his 11 known children—argues it is a significant concern. His point is that a growing economy depends on a growing population. The world has not yet adjusted to the reality that, within 20 years, most countries will face population decline.

So yes, it is an economic challenge. However, is it a crisis for the species? No. People arguing that it is are overreacting. We currently have about 8.2 billion people on Earth. We are still projected to reach around 9 to 10 billion before the global population levels off and potentially declines later in the century.

Let us say population growth drops to zero in 30 years, and in 60 years, we decline to 9.2 billion—still more people than we have now. Even if the global population drops to 6 billion in 150 years, that would still be more than we had during roughly 98% of the last 10,000 years of human civilization.

Plus, we will be surrounded by billions of AIs. We will not be short on intelligent agents. It is hard to imagine a future—near or medium-term—without billions of humans.

So, no, it is not a crisis. It is a change in conditions that we will need to adapt to. Either we accept it or devise incentives to encourage people to couple up. Some countries—Japan, for instance—are already deep into this transition. Japan’s fertility rate is around 1.3 children per woman, about 37.5% of the 2.1 replacement level needed for population stability. That is significant. It also causes major structural problems, such as straining the pension and healthcare systems.

People sometimes call Social Security a Ponzi scheme because it depends on a growing workforce. You can support the aging population by having enough young people making payroll contributions. However, the math breaks down if the population shrinks and the worker-to-retiree ratio drops.

In places like Japan, the population structure is essentially inverted. There are not enough young people to care for the elderly, so they are turning to robotic and automated solutions. This is a real issue—but not the end of humanity.

Just do the math.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1343: Why Cleaning Horse Poo Is Easier Than Dealing with Horse Farts

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You’ve worn a dress on a show before—yeah? With Lance. Would you rather fight with Lance half-naked, quarter-naked, or in a dress?

Rick Rosner: Fighting Lance naked would be funnier, but we decided against it—where would we even show that? I guess I’d be fine either way. I’ve got this older, skinny body now—I don’t love it, but it’s not bad for almost 65. I’ve been buffer. It’s not sagging, but I’ve lost around 20 pounds of muscle.

Still, I can rock a dress. Carole and I share a closet. She’s 5’9″, and I have a fairly slender waist, so some of her stuff fits me. I work out a lot. During the disco era—late 1970s into early 1980s—I even had a pair of women’s disco jeans because they cupped my butt and showed off my package better than men’s jeans. I looked great—until I split them one night, going commando. There just wasn’t room for everything. Not ideal.

Jacobsen: Alright—would you rather run in heels or flip-flops?

Rosner: Neither. I wear three compression socks and a regular sock on each leg for varicose veins. Heels are out—those socks won’t fit. Unless we’re talking cowboy boots. Cowboy boots are fine. But I’m not wearing flip-flops either.

Jacobsen: Would you rather clean up human poo or horse poo?

Rosner: Horse poo. Way less gross—unless the horse is sick.

Jacobsen: I’ve cleaned up a lot of horse poo. It’s not bad. But horse farts? That’s another story. Really awful. Worse than standing next to a smoker outside a club in the rain? Maybe.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1342: Boxer Briefs, Fertility, and the Battle Between Jeans and Sweatpants

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Boxers or briefs?

Rick Rosner: Boxer briefs. Old-school boxers were baggy—your balls could go anywhere, stick to your leg. If you’re older and your balls hang lower, you could accidentally sit on them and hurt yourself—or worse. Briefs keep everything tucked up, protecting you from injury. They also create a fabric layer between your balls and legs to prevent sticking.

On the other hand, if you’re trying to conceive, boxers are better. Your testicles need to stay cooler for sperm health, and tight underwear can overheat them, reducing fertility.

But in today’s culture, tighty-whities are seen as creepy. Even colored bikini briefs are considered off-putting—like Speedos on Mediterranean men. Sure, in Italy, that might be fine, but in American pop culture, you’d only put a character in briefs or a Speedo in a comedy to highlight awkwardness.

These days, most men wear boxer briefs. They’re longer in the leg than briefs but still snug in the crotch—offering both support and protection.

Almost all my underwear is boxer briefs now. I still have a few tighty-whities from—who knows—maybe 20 years ago. They’re in the back of the drawer. I never liked them much. They were tight and white—visually unappealing.

I had some leftover blue dye and figured I’d at least make them a better color. Boiled water, threw in the dye, dropped the underwear in. But the fabric didn’t take it well. Now I have half a dozen pairs of lavender tighty-whities. They’re fine—I mean, ideally only Carol sees them—but they’re buried deep in the drawer.

Jacobsen: Jeans or sweatpants?

Rosner: Sweatpants. Jeans give me ingrown hairs and rub the hair off my legs. I go to the gym and maybe the library once a week. That’s it. So—sweatpants.

I do like a loose pair of khakis I can wear to the gym, but one place I go complains about them. So, forget it—I’ve been living in sweatpants for months.

Also, Wranglers over Levi’s. If you do leg workouts—no contest. Wranglers are way better. They’re the gold standard. Levi’s are too tight in the leg. If you buy a pair that fits your thighs, they’ll gape at the waist.

If you want to look good in jeans, you need a proper fit. When I was a kid, my stepdad owned a women’s ready-to-wear store—with a full-time seamstress. So I know a bit about tailoring.

Once we hit the disco era and I wanted my clothes tight and right, I started getting everything tailored. I had my shirts severely tapered to show off at the club. The right way to wear Levi’s was to buy them to fit your legs comfortably and have the waist taken in by someone who really knows their way around a needle.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1341: Should Voting Age Be Raised? Democracy, Disinformation, and the Future of Political Participation

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Given the contemporary challenges to democratic systems—including widespread disinformation, growing political polarization, and the strategic disenfranchisement of various demographics—do you foresee any future scenarios in which societies, perhaps under the guise of protecting democratic integrity, might implement a higher minimum voting age? Could such a shift be rationalized within a technocratic or hybrid democratic model where political participation is tiered or conditional upon demonstrated civic engagement or knowledge? In light of historical exclusions based on race, class, or perceived intelligence, would this kind of change represent a regression into elitism, or could it be defended as an adaptive response to the risks posed by uninformed or manipulated electorates—especially in an age where AI-generated propaganda and algorithmic echo chambers increasingly distort political agency?

Rick Rosner: In the U.S., lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 was considered a major step forward—partly influenced by the Vietnam War draft. That move probably could not happen today. Republicans would likely resist because younger voters tend to lean Democratic.

As for raising the voting age—I doubt it. Why would people vote to restrict their own rights? But it is a persistent issue. Historically, American democracy began with a narrow electorate: only a small number of white male landowners could vote in early elections, including for the presidency.

When you look at how many people voted for George Washington, it was only a few tens of thousands. The scope of voting has expanded gradually since then and, ideally, voting should be mandatory, as it is in Australia. But that will never happen in the U.S., because if voting were mandatory, Republicans would struggle to win. The majority of Americans do not support Republican policies, but a significant portion of eligible voters—more than a third—do not participate in elections.

Typically, about 30% of voting-age Americans vote Democratic, 30% vote Republican, and 40% do not vote at all. A recurring debate is whether uninformed people should be allowed to vote.

JBut that argument has historically been used to justify disenfranchising marginalized groups—especially Black Americans. For example, in the Jim Crow South, so-called “poll tests” were used to block Black people from voting. These tests were intentionally difficult or impossible to pass and were applied selectively. If someone objected, law enforcement—often the local sheriff—would show up to enforce the discriminatory rules, sometimes with the threat of violence.

That kind of logic is resurfacing. There’s a sense that the U.S. is in crisis. Whether it’s a disaster or a full-blown collapse, we do not know yet. We’re speaking on a Sunday night after two straight days of stock market drops, each around 5%, caused by Trump’s newly announced tariffs. Markets are expected to fall another 5% tomorrow.

Reports indicate that Trump’s team miscalculated the tariffs. The retaliatory measures they put in place were four times higher than they should have been, based on standard economic modeling. Trump has reportedly said he does not care—he wants Europe to pay for what he claims are years of economic imbalance. That’s a hostile posture toward Europe, which is a major global economic power.

There’s even a strange connection here. Some suspect that models used to justify the tariff math were influenced by tools like ChatGPT. When you ask ChatGPT to calculate tariff impacts naively, it can output equations resembling the faulty ones Trump’s team used.

And yet a significant number of people voted for Trump, despite overwhelming evidence he would harm the country. That leads to a fundamental question: how do we address widespread voter ignorance, especially when it’s deliberately manipulated? Republicans, in particular, have mastered the art of convincing people to vote against their own interests through propaganda.

At this point, there’s no clear or democratic way to prevent uninformed voters from casting ballots. What needs to happen is that people who actually represent the public interest must learn how to counteract that propaganda—how to communicate more effectively, honestly, and powerfully.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1340: Informational Structure, Universal Cohesion, and Ethical Implications of Cognitive Decline

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: One of the things I mentioned yesterday was how much of the integrity of space—the shape and cohesiveness of the universe—is due to its internal informational structure, and how much might be due to an external mechanism reinforcing it. For example, does the information in the mind keep it structurally integrated, or does it require the brain’s physical support?

This suggests that pure information alone may not be enough to maintain the structure of the universe. Reasoning by analogy, I began reading a paper discussing how a solution to Einstein’s field equations—specifically the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric—describes the universe as a three-dimensional hypersurface (a 3-sphere) expanding within four-dimensional spacetime. This is consistent with observations and is a valid solution in general relativity. But there are other possible solutions, some involving more complex topologies.

I cannot recall the exact argument, but it involves two physicists whose names begin with “M”—possibly Misner and Wheeler or Milne and McCrea. The core idea is that the universe does not have to be geometrically simple; it could include regions that are irregular, distant, or unobservable.

So, the question arises: must the universe have a smooth geometric structure, or can it be irregular in ways we cannot directly observe? If the brain’s hardware is needed to sustain the mind’s structure, perhaps the universe also requires an external framework to remain cohesive, even if its informational structure is uneven.

Similarly, a map of the mind might reveal gaps, asymmetries, or loosely integrated areas. The universe may reflect the same irregularity, especially at its limits or near the initial singularity (t = 0). A future unified theory of quantum mechanics and general relativity might show how even an uneven or “ragged” universe can still produce the smooth, homogeneous structure observed in the local cosmos.

Rosner: Was that the topic?

Jacobsen: Yes. One more point. In an episode of StarTalk, physicist Brian Greene discussed a theoretical scenario where, under extreme quantum conditions, spacetime becomes discrete and collapses from its continuous form. This idea stems from quantum gravity theories, such as loop quantum gravity, which suggest that spacetime may be quantized at the Planck scale. Under certain conditions, the local structure of spacetime could break down.

This aligns with our discussion of irregular regions in the universe. Greene suggested that if spacetime’s entanglement network were disrupted, it might collapse locally, possibly affecting surrounding regions. However, the idea that a local failure would destabilize the entire universe is speculative and not widely accepted.

Rosner: I didn’t hear the full talk—you did—but I’m skeptical. Again, analogies can be useful, but we need empirical evidence to evaluate these possibilities.

Jacobsen: When the hardware starts breaking down—like in the brain with Alzheimer’s—you still have a functioning mind until the late stages. It does not disintegrate all at once. The mind still works to a large degree. Same with the universe: if there’s some kind of localized glitch—say, gravitational collapse—it would not necessarily compromise everything. If the universe is fundamentally informational, there is still enough information to maintain structural coherence.

Rosner: You’ve just lost part of the informational pattern. Take, for example, Gabby Giffords—the senator who was shot in the head. After years of therapy, she has recovered much of herself. I do not know her personally, but she seems to have retained her core identity and consciousness. No one would argue she is not “conscious” just because she lost a portion of her brain.

But this raises a question: in cases like hers—or with people in various stages of Alzheimer’s—at what point does someone lose the capacity to consent? If sentience fades or fluctuates, can someone meaningfully consent to sex? Suppose their awareness fades mid-act and returns suddenly—now they are disoriented, possibly afraid. It is ethically murky.

There are real cases. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s husband had Alzheimer’s. She placed him in a memory care facility, and he fell in love with another woman, having forgotten he was married. The twilight of sentience brings tricky territory.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1339: Rick Rosner Dismantles Panpsychism: Consciousness Requires Complexity, Not Crystals

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/06

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So—what are your thoughts on panpsychism? The idea that consciousness is ubiquitous and that everything in the universe possesses at least some minimal degree of consciousness?

Rick Rosner: No. No. No. No. That is one of the countless misconceptions about consciousness. You need a very specific—well, let us say, specialized—arrangement of matter for consciousness to emerge. It does not have to be the same structure in every instance, but it must be highly organized, dynamic, and capable of processing information in a complex, adaptive way. Consciousness, as we understand it, likely requires a substrate that supports recursive self-modelling, integrated information, or some computational analog thereof. A rock or a tree—at least the types of trees we see on Earth—do not have that arrangement. So, no, I do not buy into panpsychism.

Jacobsen: Is it, in a sense, mistaking the end product for the foundation? I mean, maybe. It seems like a kind of wild metaphysical shot in the dark.

Rosner: It is like starting with the valid premise, “Ordered matter is necessary for consciousness,” then misapplying it—looking at a rock and saying, “Well, it has crystal lattices, so it is ordered. Therefore, it might be conscious.” Yes, rocks and trees contain structure—crystalline, biological, or otherwise—but they lack the level of dynamical complexity, feedback loops, and information processing needed to generate even minimal consciousness. Panpsychism leaps that any ordered system—any structural complexity—is enough. That is just not true based on current neuroscientific and computational evidence.

Jacobsen: I do not think the reasoning in panpsychism typically gets that far. It just leaps straight into metaphysics.

Rosner: What kind of justifications have you heard in support of panpsychism?

Jacobsen: Usually, “Consciousness is fundamental and continuous throughout reality,” or “The mind is the intrinsic nature of matter.” It is a form of cosmopsychism or idealism repackaged with a modern spin. However, it is still an old idea.

Privacy Settings

It feels like a reversion to pre-Socratic metaphysics—like Thales or Anaximenes saying everything is alive or everything is mind. To me, panpsychism is a massive step backward. Moreover, the danger is—that it gives legitimacy to magical thinking. It opens the floodgates for people who think burning sage will cleanse negative energy or ward off demons.

Not that those people are necessarily the problem in themselves, but when that thinking gains public or academic traction—when it creeps into the cultural conversation around science and respectability—it undermines empiricism. It muddies the waters of scientific discourse. That is dangerous.

Rosner: I remember dating a fellow student in college who probably would have believed in something like that. Sweet, but into cosmic vibes and energy fields.

Jacobsen: That reminds me of what Richard Pryor did in one of his later stand-up specials. He talks about going on a date with a woman who is talking about the cosmos, and he is just nodding along, thinking, “Yeah, the cosmos, sure.” Then he says something like, “You will talk about anything when you want some pussy.” Only he mispronounces it—says “pissy.” Then corrects himself: “Pissy? Well, pissy, yes. I hope he got some soon, myself.”

Rosner: Carole is in her third semester of writing workshops with one of Richard Pryor’s ex-wives. That would be Rain Pryor’s mother. It is the total opposite of woo-woo stuff. She worked for NASA for decades—30, maybe 40 years. An engineer through and through. Someone like that—who has spent their life working on complex science problems at NASA—will probably not have much patience for panpsychism or metaphysical fluff.

Carole likes the class. She says it has been a meaningful experience—grounded and rigorous.

Jacobsen: Give me your fastest knockdown of panpsychism—go:

Rosner: Panpsychism is an ancient, overly simplistic guess about consciousness. It dates back at least 2,500 years to early Greek philosophy. However, modern neuroscience, cognitive science, and computational theory have shown that consciousness arises from specific, high-level structures and processes—not just from matter itself. Today, we build increasingly sophisticated analogs to consciousness using artificial neural networks. While no machine is fully conscious, they reveal the necessary components. We now have strong, though incomplete, working theories—like Global Workspace Theory, Integrated Information Theory, and Predictive Processing—that provide empirically testable models. We are far past the need for metaphysical speculation like panpsychism.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1338: Can an Informational Universe Cycle Between Dormancy and Activity to Maintain Structural Integrity?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/06

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Could you fathom a universe that is still functional but oscillates in its progression through time—so that time is not strictly linear? Its net vector in spacetime still points forward, as in a directional “arrow of time,” but the progression jumps around: something like t₁, t₃, t₂, t₄—stuff like that?

Rick Rosner: No. No—I mean, no. You need an arrow of time—at least for a universe of any appreciable size. You sure do not have much of an arrow of time in a tiny universe with only two iffy particles. It is very nebulous.

Jacobsen: The net functional scale matters for a macro-universe with many particles. Reasoning by analogy with our minds: our minds operate close to their informational capacity when we are awake and then function at a much lower capacity when we are asleep. A universe could transition from a highly information-rich state to a sort of shutdown or dormant state and then back to an informationally active state.

Rosner: You could imagine a “shutdown” universe with galaxies drained of energy—each one falling into its gravitational well, dark and quiet, with not much going on. However, perhaps the universe “starts up” again: galaxies light back up, radiation spreads, and stars begin forming again. I do not know if I would call that oscillation, but I could see a universe cycling between high-information and low-information states.

Jacobsen: Could that kind of cycle be a means for maintaining structural integrity—analogous to how humans manage alertness and fatigue? This is more metaphorical than literal, but it conveys the idea. Human responsiveness, for instance, fluctuates. We have sleep-wake cycles—our alertness to new stimuli ebbs and flows.

We get bored if we sit on a call and do nothing for a while. However, if we get up, walk around for a couple of minutes, and then come back, things feel fresh again.

Rosner: That is probably more about biology—our evolutionary history. However, it raises an interesting question: How much of a universe’s structural integrity, over vast periods, comes from the intrinsic properties of its spacetime architecture? Moreover, how much—if any—might come from something external? Some framework or armature that stabilizes the universe from the outside?

Jacobsen: I do not know. Again, going by analogy, our minds require a healthy brain to support them. When the brain is compromised—due to Alzheimer’s, metabolic disorders, or other issues—the mind struggles to function.

Rosner: So, I do not have a solid answer—it is not even a great response—but the best I can do is pose the question. And you are suggesting that if it is fundamentally made of information, a universe might need to consolidate itself periodically to maintain stability. I do not know. What do you think? Do you think consolidation periods are necessary for an informational universe’s stability?

Jacobsen: There does seem to be a weird duality between wave functions and particles. It seems like fidelity is increased through oscillation and focus. I do not know if that describes information accuracy, but it is a visual I keep returning to.

Imagine volumes of space filled with probability clouds—those clouds, as they shift and interact with others, create interference, amplification, and other dynamics. That interaction might allow more precision in how information expresses itself in space and time. It is how I visualize it—not through equations or formal language, just as an intuitive construct.

Rosner: Say this: an old-ass universe is held up—like the tent poles of the universe are these ancient, collapsed galaxies. Maybe even clusters of galaxies, each sunk down its own gravitational well, each with its vector. Moreover, pointing in different fourth-dimensional directions, all those vectors help hold open three-dimensional space.

So then—if you were to “open them all up” at once, would that disrupt the structure? Would it destabilize the four-dimensional hyperspherical shape of the universe, making it unstable—maybe even prone to collapse? I do not know.

Rosner: The question is: how much of the universe can you “wake up” at once?

Constants like the electron-proton mass ratio have something to do with how much of the universe is defined by information that is out of sync with the currently active universe. You have all these collapsed galaxies—regions of space that are, in a sense, sitting near t₀ again. They would need to be “lit up” and reconnected to a shared history—a 30-billion-year narrative—with the active center of the universe to come back into logical alignment.

So you cannot light up all the tent poles at once. These collapsed regions do not share much of a common history. Moreover, for them to align again, you must actively build that history by reactivating them individually.

That raises another question: How much can be done simultaneously without risking instability? What happens if these galaxies start barfing energy at each other along filaments, lighting up too much of the cosmic web at once?

It sounds like something from that near-death “life flashing before your eyes” phenomenon. People say that in moments of extreme crisis, they suddenly see everything—like their whole life at once. That is not exactly how they describe it, but how I interpret it.

Moreover, maybe that is not just poetic. Maybe, in a crisis, the brain’s default mode is to open up to as much stored information as possible, hoping to stumble across a solution—some latent pattern in memory that could help avoid death. It sounds like a stretch, but there might be some math to support it. For example, maybe in a system under maximum threat, the most natural move is to unlock everything it has.

I do not know. It sounds iffy. But…

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1337: Rodrigo Duterte Arrested by ICC: A Turning Point for Global Justice?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/06

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I have done a book project with the humanists in the Philippines.

This is true: the Humanist Alliance Philippines, International. One name that repeatedly came up in my research and interviews years ago was Duterte. So, the ICC also issued a warrant for Duterte. The Philippines is not a tiny country. What is its approximate population, Mr. Atlas Reader?

Rick Rosner: I do not know—at least a hundred million, right?

Jacobsen: That is a big deal. A hundred million people. That is two and a half times the population of Canada.

So, if that is the case, what happens when you miss an ICC warrant for someone from a country much more significant than Israel—just shy of Russia in global terms? Moreover, he is now in court for crimes. How does that sound?

Rosner: I do not know—I will check it out. Let me take the question. That was just a wild guess. I do not know if it is a hundred million or two hundred million. I might even be confusing it with Indonesia, which is a massive country, too.

Jacobsen: So, the estimated population of the Philippines is about 120.86 million people as of 2025. It is the thirteenth most populous country in the world.

Now, former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was arrested on March 11, 2025, at Ninoy Aquino International Airport in Manila, following an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on March 7—four days earlier. He was charged with crimes against humanity related to the anti-drug campaign, which allegedly resulted in thousands of extrajudicial killings.

A plan had been developed allowing for potential scenarios to detain Duterte either in Manila or Davao City. This plan included maps of Duterte’s properties and the locations of his allies. Police General Nicolas Torre led the operation. After his arrest, Duterte was transferred to Villamor Air Base, where he underwent booking procedures. He reportedly resisted, resulting in a standoff that lasted approximately twelve hours.

Eventually, he was escorted onto a government-chartered Gulfstream G550 jet. The flight departed Manila at 11:03 PM local time, made a layover at Al Maktoum International Airport in the United Arab Emirates, and landed at Rotterdam The Hague Airport in the Netherlands. He is currently in detention at Scheveningen with the consent of the Philippine government.

Rosner: And Netanyahu—where was he? Wasn’t he just in America a moment ago?

Jacobsen: I have no idea what his itinerary is.

Rosner: But yes, he was either in America or Europe this past week, and nobody apprehended him. Because Israel remains the most significant ally of certain Western powers.

Jacobsen: They are an isolated country in a definite geopolitical sense. All right—so if antisemitism rises high enough in the United States, they may abandon Israel.

Rosner: I mean, look, I support Israel, but I do not support Netanyahu. Moreover, that is a rugged stance to take right now because Netanyahu’s policies are what people associate with Israel. Plenty of Israelis want him gone, but they have not yet protested strongly enough to make it happen. So Israeli complicity is—well, public opinion is complicated. I do not want to go down that rabbit hole right now.

Jacobsen: But sometimes, a war criminal can be held accountable.

Rosner: During the Kosovo War, they prosecuted a few individuals. I am not sure if anyone was executed. I think Slobodan Milošević died of a heart attack in 2006 while in custody in The Hague before his trial could be completed. Still, you are right—there has been minimal success in going after mass-murdering leaders.

Jacobsen: There were the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials after World War II. Hideki Tojo and Iwane Matsui were convicted for their roles in wartime atrocities. Tojo was executed in 1948. Matsui was also executed that same year for his responsibility in the Nanjing Massacre.

Then there is the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which indicted 161 individuals. There was also the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Former Chadian president Hissène Habré was convicted of crimes against humanity in 2016 and sentenced to life in prison. Jean-Pierre Bemba, a Congolese politician and former rebel leader, was sentenced by the ICC to 18 years in prison for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including sexual violence committed in the Central African Republic—though that conviction was later overturned on appeal in 2018.

So, no, I do not believe in magic. Prayer does not work, but it is comforting for people. However, if enough people apply enough pressure and work at these things, you can get some sweet justice.

Rosner: All right—but that justice largely depends on the sovereignty of the nation ruled by the criminal. That sovereignty has to weaken or fall apart.

So—or, I mean—there are very few cases where UN governance supersedes and overrides national governance. You either need the country’s consent or that country’s government to collapse, allowing you to sweep in and apprehend the former leader of a state that no longer functions.

Jacobsen: In my very simplistic terms, I argue that the justice we get is the justice we make. That is not unrealistic. It is about as scientific as one can get regarding morality. I mean, the universe is. Therefore, the justice you get is the justice you make.

Rosner: I want to add something—about Trump. I believe Trump is responsible for more deaths than any of the convicted mass murderers you mentioned because Trump mishandled COVID. Around 1.4 million Americans have died from COVID-19.

Moreover, sure, you could argue that it was COVID that killed them, not Trump. However, then you have to play the “what if” game. What if he had not disbanded the rapid response pandemic team in 2018? He did not just fire them—he scattered the team, reassigned everyone, and let the structure fall apart. Would a more competent leader have done the same?

Many people argue that hundreds of thousands more died than needed because someone incompetent was in charge. Moreover, is that a prosecutable offence? Well, not really. Still, he presided over the deadliest event in U.S. history—by far.

And then Trump apologists will say, “Yeah, but so many more people died of COVID under Biden.” Trump had ten or eleven months of COVID under his term. Biden had four years. Moreover, Trump politicized the pandemic early on, setting the stage for even more deaths under Biden due to the toxic attitudes and misinformation he promoted.

Moreover, what Trump is doing now—with DOGE and with tariffs—will lead to the deaths of tens, and probably hundreds of thousands more people in the coming years.

So far, all anyone has managed to get him on is 34 counts of falsifying business records—election-related but not officially termed “electoral fraud.” Even then, the other pending cases have been delayed or complicated now that he is president again. Even sentencing in the 34-count case—where he was convicted—has been postponed because he is considered untouchable while in office.

Even the $83.3 million judgment for defamation—after a civil jury found that he sexually abused E. Jean Carroll (not rape in the criminal sense, but a serious sexual assault)—has not yet been paid, despite the appellate court upholding the verdict. So yes, it appears unlikely that the president of the most powerful country in the world will be held accountable, at least not while in office. The UN will not do it. And neither will the American government.

All right.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1336: Global Leadership Crisis: Netanyahu, Guterres, and the Erosion of Democratic Norms

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/06

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel’s government sharply criticized United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres after he made remarks perceived as critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza. Israeli officials, including Ambassador Gilad Erdan, said Guterres should resign. While there was strong rhetoric—including declaring him “persona non grata”—this was not a formal diplomatic designation in the legal sense. Comments?

Rick Rosner: Wait—did they say that?

Jacobsen: Yes, it was widely reported. The language used was extreme, though not a formal declaration under international law.

Rosner: Yeah. I mean, Netanyahu is, in my view, a deeply controversial figure. I hesitate to say he is entirely bad because I do not know every detail, but everything I do know points to corruption allegations, authoritarian tendencies, and a history of supporting policies criticized for contributing to systemic human rights abuses.

Many observers consider him a corrupt politician, facing multiple criminal indictments, who has partnered with far-right political factions to retain power. He has also been accused—by organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International—of overseeing or facilitating policies in the occupied Palestinian territories that they have described as apartheid or even potential war crimes.

Jacobsen: It is tragic. After everything the Jewish people endured during the Holocaust, many of Israel’s current policies appear to betray the moral imperatives drawn from that history. Netanyahu, specifically, seems to be perpetuating a cycle of violence and inequality—often interpreted as serving his political interests.

Rosner: Am I wrong to think he is essentially a white-collar criminal trying to escape prosecution by remaining in power?

Jacobsen: That is a widely held view. Netanyahu has been indicted on bribery, fraud, and breach of trust charges. Critics argue that remaining Prime Minister has helped him delay or avoid legal proceedings and potential conviction.

Rosner: We are in a bleak era—especially regarding leadership in democratic countries. Over the past century, we have seen awful leadership in underreported regions. However, deeply flawed individuals are now leading globally prominent democracies—countries like the U.S., the U.K., and Israel.

Jacobsen: And coverage in the West of authoritarian abuses elsewhere—such as those against Tibetans or Uyghurs in China—is often limited. It is not that the atrocities are absent; geopolitical narratives and selective media focus just frequently overshadow them.

Rosner: What is new now is how brazen some leaders are. It feels like we are in a new era of openly corrupt or anti-democratic leadership at the top of significant democracies—arguably the most widespread leadership crisis in the West since World War II.

Jacobsen: And for the first time in U.S. history, a former president—Donald Trump—has been indicted on multiple criminal charges after years of attacking democratic norms and institutions. Some have compared his tactics to Netanyahu’s: using office to delay accountability.

Rosner: That is what you were pointing to, right? Leaders who use political power as a shield from legal consequences, bending democratic systems to retain control.

Jacobsen: Exactly. However, despite the challenges, some developments suggest international law still holds weight.

Rosner: Like what?

Jacobsen: In 2023, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, alleging war crimes related to the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. While enforcement is another issue, the move was symbolic and significant.

Rosner: That is meaningful. It shows that even leaders of powerful, nuclear-armed states are not entirely beyond the reach of international justice—at least symbolically.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1335: U.S. Decline, Canadian Strategy: Tariffs, Talent, and Global Shifts

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/05

Rick Rosner: To go back—how bad do you think things are in the U.S. right now? And, consequently, how does that affect Canada?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It depends partly on how far the damage spreads. You mentioned the near term—but even near-term effects can be long-lasting. For instance, tariffs are almost never short-term measures. I interviewed the authors of an 850-page book on tariffs, and they said tariffs are usually designed to be long-term policy tools.

Canada seems to understand that. The country is shifting its approach. ‘The old world order—the special relationship with the U.S.—is effectively over.’ That has been publicly acknowledged by the interim Prime Minister, Carney.

Rosner: People seem to like him a lot.

Jacobsen: He has stepped up to the moment. He strikes a balance between the conservatism of Pierre Poilievre—who speaks to legitimate concerns—and the idealism Trudeau appeared to embody, though Carney may actually embody it more authentically.

Rosner: I also read on Twitter that Carney, just weeks before the crisis, sold a large portion of U.S. Treasury bills—essentially reducing Canada’s investment in the U.S. That was seen as a very prescient move. People applauded him for it.

Jacobsen: The entire European alliance is probably watching that closely too. And on April 3, Carney publicly stated that if America will not lead, Canada will—especially in cooperation with those who share Canada’s values: international trade, cooperation, universalist ideals. He did not use all those terms exactly, but that was the framing. There could be a new Canada–Europe alliance forming around trade.

Which would make Canada a huge net winner from Trump’s policies. That’s already in motion. Canada already had a program in place to attract American talent. It hit capacity rapidly within implementation in June of 2023. The message was clear: “If you’re smart and stuck in the U.S., come be smart up here.”

Rosner: How many people were invited?

Jacobsen: I do not have the latest figures, but the interest has been enormous. I’m considering writing an article urging Canada to expand the program rapidly while the window is open. If Americans want to shoot themselves in the foot, we might as well hand them more bullets. I’m kidding, but still, seriously.

Rosner: What qualifications do applicants need?

Jacobsen: It is Canada’s Tech Talent Strategy. It launched in June 2023 as a special initiative. It allowed U.S. H-1B visa holders to apply for a three-year open work permit in Canada. Remarkably, the program reached its cap of 10,000 applicants within just one day of opening in June 2023. I think we should expand it—easily by 10x. If Canada really wants to benefit, it should poach both skilled immigrants currently in the U.S. and American citizens with talent.

Rosner: Right. Although I still hope some kind of miraculous turnaround happens in the U.S., I just do not see us getting our act together any time soon.

Jacobsen: In other words, you’re screwed. Miracles do not happen. The unlikely happens, but less often than the likely, not the impossible.

Rosner: We’re screwed for at least the short term. Something would have to shift dramatically. The midterms could change things. If Trump triggers a recession and massive inflation, he will become politically toxic. Republicans could lose both the House and the Senate. And that could reverse some of these policies—maybe even roll back some of the tariffs.

Jacobsen: Musk and Trump claim this is a short-term pain for long-term prosperity scenario.

Rosner: But we are very much in the pain phase. I do not think the prosperity phase is coming. Trump is getting hammered by both liberals and conservatives. If things get bad enough, the House could flip. Republicans only have a slim majority—something like 219 to 212. It would take just a few GOP members flipping to hand Democrats control. But even if that happens, I am not sure it would be enough. The Senate would probably need to flip too.That would mean flipping four Republican seats, since the Senate is currently 53–47. Even with the vice president breaking ties, things would have to get very bad for that to happen before 2026. It would be unprecedented.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1334: Pet Ethics, Abstract Universes, and the Golden Rule

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/05

Rick Rosner: One more topic. Our brown dog—she’s 14 years old—has geriatric vestibular disorder. One or more of her Eustachian tubes gets blocked, which causes dizziness, head tilt, and circular walking. It is concerning and inconvenient to manage.

She gets nauseated from the vertigo and has difficulty eating because she cannot properly position her head to reach her food. The entire situation is frustrating. That said, some people might consider euthanasia at this point, but we are not doing that. She is not suffering. Apart from the head tilt—which usually resolves in about 10 days to two weeks—she is in decent shape.

So she should be fine for a while once this clears up. It got me thinking about the ethical rules for keeping pets alive. The basic principle is the Golden Rule: if a pet is still enjoying life, it’s wrong to put them down just because they’re inconvenient.

Of course, cost can become a legitimate factor. If it costs $20,000 to keep a cat alive for three more months, that may override a strict application of the Golden Rule for many people.

In general, though, we treat our pets the way we would want to be treated. And, in practice, we often keep them alive a little longer than we probably should—not because they’re still enjoying life, but because we enjoy having them around.

But the Golden Rule gets complicated when it comes to meat animals. There’s a contradiction between valuing our pets’ well-being and how we treat animals raised for food. Still, the Golden Rule is the foundation of moral analysis. Without it, it becomes difficult to build any coherent ethical structure.

Most people enjoy being alive and want to continue living. That intuitive preference forms the basis for many moral judgments—about what is valuable and what is not. That leads back to something we’ve discussed for a long time: IC. Part of IC involves imagining the set of all possible moments that could exist—across all possible universes.

As individuals, what we value is the continuation of moments within our own personal universe. If you consider each mind as its own universe, we want those minds to keep generating moments. We want those universes to persist.

You could try to derive value from the existence of the universe itself, but if there’s already a set of all possible universes—existing in an abstract, mathematical sense—then our arguments for creating more moments become less compelling. That set exists regardless of our subjective preferences.

It becomes hard to justify any one universe or moment as inherently valuable. You are left making value judgments about abstractions—like numbers—which is philosophically strange. You do not hear people debating whether numbers are good or bad. Numbers just exist—abstractly.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Of course, there were people centuries ago who argued that numbers were evil, even the work of the devil. Those kinds of beliefs basically helped end entire civilizations.

Rosner: Right. But we moved beyond that.

Jacobsen: Yeah. I think Neil deGrasse Tyson pointed this out—probably close to twenty years ago—at the Beyond Belief conference. He argued that this turning point marked the decline of the Islamic Golden Age under the caliphate.

Rosner: I can see that argument. Some sects of Islam prohibit depicting living beings, as that is considered the domain of God. So the rejection of numbers might follow a similar logic: numbers give humans too much control over the world—control that should belong to God. That makes sense. It’s about limiting what humans can claim authority over.

Rosner: Right. But here’s something else: what if the rules of existence were so strict that nothing could exist—absolutely nothing? You could try to argue that such a state would be bad, based on the Golden Rule—we enjoy existing, so nonexistence would be undesirable. But that argument falls apart because if nothing could exist, there would be no framework within which to make the judgment. No tools, no perspectives—just the absence of everything, including value judgments. It is disturbing to imagine a kind of absolute nothingness so complete that it cannot even be evaluated. Comments?

Jacobsen: I will leave the commentary to the beings in that universe. But that is the point—there are no beings, no universe. That was rhetorical. It ties into a broader point that’s been made many times. When people ask, “Where is all the life?” the answer might be: in other universes, where life did not emerge. And since there are no observers in those universes, there’s no one to ask the question.

So we happen to be in a universe where we can ask. In that sense, it is a kind of mathematical or probabilistic solipsism—a “spiritual solipsism,” if you follow Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan’s widow.

Rosner: Or even certain Buddhist ideas. It is also related to the weak anthropic principle.

Jacobsen: And the point is to frame these ideas in accessible terms—without needing to invoke concepts that might sound like neologisms to the average American ear, even if they are not.

Rosner: Understood.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1333: When Smart People Get It Wrong: Tech Elites, Cognitive Traps, and the Politics of Delusion

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/05

Rick Rosner: I sent you an article on the idea of “smart stupids” or “stupid smarts”—basically people, like tech billionaires, who are highly intelligent or skilled in one domain, like engineering, but display ignorance in areas outside their expertise without realizing it.

For example, on X (formerly Twitter), you will often see users with verified credentials—nurses, doctors, engineers, lawyers, accountants—espousing conspiracy theories or extremist views, including pro-MAGA rhetoric. I do not believe they are all lying about their credentials.

The essay I shared argued that people who are accomplished in one domain can fall into cognitive traps. They often overestimate their competence in unrelated fields. Tech entrepreneurs, for example, when speculating about the future or trying to optimize for longevity, can wander into bizarre territory by stacking speculative assumptions.

That point struck me because some of the most difficult high-IQ test problems also involve stacked assumptions. You often need to follow a chain of five abstract steps to reach the solution. But in real life, every abstract step is another opportunity to fall into error or delusion—which might explain what we are seeing with some of these highly credentialed professionals falling for misinformation or pseudoscience.

We’ve been talking about AI—predicting its trajectory, debating what we should do with it—and a lot of that falls into the “smart stupid” category. You have engineers, coders, and tech entrepreneurs trying to shape the future, but they may not actually be qualified to do that. Elon Musk is often cited as a prime example of a “smart stupid” figure.

But it is not just Musk. You could say the same, to varying degrees, about Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, maybe even Bill Gates. Gates, despite being a favorite villain of the far right due to his progressive philanthropy, was known for being extremely difficult in his earlier career.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: He was not always a nice person.

Rosner: No. He was downright mean to my former boss, Jimmy. Gates’ employees hired Jimmy to perform a roast at his birthday party, and Gates did not appreciate it. He was cold and dismissive. That said, Gates has done significant charitable work in recent years. He is not out there pushing conspiracy theories.

Jacobsen: His personal life might be somewhat complicated—he is either remarried or dating—but it is nothing compared to Musk’s erratic behavior. Gates seems to emulate Warren Buffett, or at least projects a similar grounded image.

Rosner: The essay made a compelling point: there are highly intelligent people who can still be profoundly misguided. It validated what I have suspected for a long time—many smart people are also, in key ways, fools.

Take the Trump presidency. It has been a disaster. The most recent developments are particularly catastrophic. He has effectively undermined the U.S. economy and severely damaged what global trust remained in American leadership. His actions have already sparked inflation and instability in international markets.

Even if he reverses his tariffs—which are ineffective anyway—they will not achieve his stated goal of bringing back manufacturing jobs. Prices on imported goods have risen so much that, in theory, domestic production becomes more viable. But as the economy tips into recession, far more people will lose jobs than gain new ones in manufacturing.

Anyone paying attention, who is not completely deluded, can see that this is a disaster—arguably the biggest unforced error by any president in modern U.S. history. The only comparable example is the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a catastrophe built on false pretenses. The first Gulf War in 1991 lasted four days and achieved its limited objectives. The second was a prolonged failure.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1332: ChatGPT, AGI, and the Future of Multimodal AI

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/05

Rick Rosner: You had ChatGPT summarize my life using publicly available sources, which it processed into a coherent narrative. There were several minor errors—for example, it claimed I spent ten years in high school. That is inaccurate. I returned to high school a few times over the course of a decade, but I did not attend for ten continuous years.

Despite these inaccuracies, the summary presented a clear and compelling story. It identified key themes in my life, which is notable. I have lived according to certain recurring ideas, and it successfully recognized and organized them. It was impressive. Each claim included a source citation, which added credibility. That said, the quality may reflect strong summarization of sources more than independent insight.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re at a turning point with AI, particularly in language models. Because these tools work with language—the medium we rely on most—they feel especially impactful.

Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), defined as systems that act in the world rather than only process text, will be fundamentally different. Still, scaling improvements are significant. For example, the jump from GPT-3.5 to GPT-4o might represent a tenfold improvement. Integration across systems is another major step.

Rosner: You asked about multimodality.

Jacobsen: Technically, modality refers to sensory data, but AI developers often use the term differently. If five distinct systems can be integrated so that each fully interoperates with the others, the increase in capability could match or exceed the jump from GPT-3.5 to GPT-5o.

Even small updates—such as shifting the model to a more powerful server—can noticeably improve performance. Integration across varied modalities, and increasing processing power to unify them, is likely the next major leap. At that point, we may begin to approach truly general AI, or something that functions as such through AGIs.

Well, in the sense that if we’re using humans as a benchmark—and that’s typically the default—we assume the human brain and body as the standard: movement, language generation, and integrating both to make plans, act in the world, and communicate.

So, yes, we have the five basic senses. To replicate that in AI might require a similar scaling progression—from something like GPT-3.5 to GPT-5o. But I would argue motor processing is probably far less computationally intensive for machines than it is for us, even though it has been a challenging problem to solve. I think language is far more processing-intensive, and we are already making significant progress there.

Rosner: You mentioned five senses, but there are many others that could be developed artificially. The five human senses just happen to be well-adapted to our evolutionary needs. But machines can have others. For instance, some forms of artificial intelligence have been designed with magnetic field detection, and that’s just one example.

Jacobsen: Then there are derivative senses—like proprioception—which are combinations or extensions of the basic ones. I think it’s very possible to build on those. But integrating them would just require another order of magnitude in processing power—a 10x scale-up, as with earlier transitions.

Machines will likely be able to take in broader bands of the light spectrum, for example—far beyond what we can naturally perceive.

Rosner: Alright. Let’s move on.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1331: Val Kilmer’s Dead

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/04

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, there is an actor who was known for film and theatre, born in Los Angeles.

Rick Rosner: Val Kilmer? Are you saying Val Kilmer?

Rosner: He was the youngest student ever accepted to Juilliard’s drama program. He was known for Top Secret, Top Gun, The Doors, and Batman Forever.

Real Genius. It’s one of my favorite movies because it deals with a list of people with the highest IQs in the world.

And there is a character number two or three on that list.

And a woman in the movie is trying to sleep with all the top ten.

I have to go in a second, but—there is a guy with the world’s highest IQ who lives in the walls of Caltech, in the tunnels and walls, and he has figured out a scam where he can enter a McDonald’s sweepstakes 400,000 times and win a million dollars worth of prizes.

I thought, well, if he can do that, I can.

So, I started entering contests hundreds or even thousands of times.

And I won once.

And then I got yelled at a lot because people do not like it when you drop a hundred entries into a ballot box all at once.

They think that is cheating.

That guy—the highest IQ guy in Real Genius—is now the bad guy on White Lotus, like 40 years later.

But he is also Uncle Rico in Napoleon Dynamite.

Anyway, yeah, it is sad about Val Kilmer.

He was always a symbol of insouciant youth and vitality.

And then he had a bunch of tough years.

I think he has been fighting cancer for like a decade.

But I think he was not a douchebag, and he gave many people much joy through his movies.

And now he is gone at 65.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1330: Quantum Information, Life’s Computations, and the Usability of Information in the Universe

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/04

Rick Rosner: All right, you sent me a paper on quantum information—precisely, the number of computations performed by life on Earth over its history, right? These people—maybe women too, I do not know—ran some calculations.

The trouble I have with it is that I have not thought about it much or for very long, and I have not completely read the paper. But my question is: Where is the useful information? And who would be using it?

The information generated by all life on Earth and what it has left behind is not usable by anything or anyone. As individual humans, we do not get much usable information from all the algae on Earth—or even from all the other people on Earth.

Did Archimedes say, “Give me a place to stand and a lever, and I can move the Earth”? Some guy said that.

All right. For information to be information, some entity has to be using it. Just because many quantum flips have occurred does not mean the result is usable information.

I do not think the information on a planet—the quantum physics of a planet—is accessible to any overarching system, including the universe itself.

Sure, the universe contains a massive amount of information. But how much of that information is usable, in the sense of being processed or accessed, by the universe itself?

We are talking about two different things here. One is that all the quantum interactions, all the interactions of all the particles across the universe, define the universe—the shape of space, the scale of space, and the precision with which its constituent particles are defined.

In that way, all the information the universe contains is usable in the sense that it defines itself. But that information is black-boxed. You can extract some information from the universe, but most of it is hidden—opaque—to any entity that embodies the universe.

If the universe is an entity, most of its own information is probably opaque to it, in the same way that the information structures in our minds are only partially accessible to us and not in great detail at any given moment. Our brains and minds contain vast information, most of which we cannot access.

This paper demonstrates that we still do not have a good understanding of what information truly is. For something to count as information, it has to be usable by some kind of entity.

But now that I am saying that, I do not like it because it echoes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. That was an early attempt in the 1930s to deal with the collapsing wave function, where—was it Bohr?—one of those guys suggested that what collapses the quantum wave function is parts of the universe being observed by conscious beings.

That is not the case. No one buys the Copenhagen interpretation anymore.

But I am just saying that information is not information unless it is usable by an entity—that throws things off. I do not know. Anyway, I do not like it.

It may be true-ish, but I still do not like it.

So, you have a bunch of information in all the particles in the universe, which results from creating information over the universe’s lifespan.

Does the additional information accumulated on the Earth’s surface via evolution add relevant information to the information already embodied by the particles? These particles are arranged in increasingly complex ways on the Earth’s surface because the Earth is an open thermodynamic system, which means it can exhibit the opposite of entropy over time.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What about migratory birds with a cryptochrome protein guiding their navigation? So they see Earth’s magnetic field and use olfaction, with the theory being that they can detect odours through spectroscopy of molecules involving quantum effects.

Rosner: Okay, that’s fine. I mean, quantum—subtle quantum effects—if biology can exploit them, can do some cool stuff. It makes birds better able to navigate or makes wolves better able to sniff.

But they are just physical processes. Even though they involve quantum effects, they are still physical processes, and biology is made of bodily processes.

Just because they are fancy and cannot occur under classical physics does not mean they are magical or somehow imbued with consciousness.

That bird magnetic sense thing is another sense that birds have, and we do not. It would be nice to have it.

This is off-topic, but Daredevil.

Do you know Daredevil?

Jacobsen: He’s a Marvel character. He’s a second-stringer. Blind guy.

Rosner: Right. He is blind. Okay, so he crashed into a toxic spill that blinded him but also enhanced his other senses to such an extreme that he developed blindsight.

In the Netflix show, we see what he perceives via his other amped-up senses, and he sees the world the way we do.

Sure, he is missing colours. He might not perceive, say, the pattern of a fancy dress.

But he sees the world.

If he sees an attractive woman, he will perceive her attractiveness as we do.

So, what is the big deal about him being blind?

Why does he even carry a cane?

Why does he not just wear sunglasses and walk around like a cool guy?

It is a weird thing.

And I know—I said this to an actual comic book guy—and he explained why I am off-base on this.

If quantum effects can give you extra sense or amplify an existing one, that’s fine.

But it is not the juice that powers consciousness.

The interaction of information is what powers consciousness.

I suspect that information, if you could map it, would probably look like a quantum system—like a little quantum universe.

Within that system, you would have all sorts of tacit understanding and tacit generation of information.

But just because you can apply quantum analysis to a system does not mean that the quantum physics of the particles comprising that system are doing something magical.

You can apply quantum analysis to cars and traffic, as discussed.

Like, the car most likely to be driven by a jerk right now is a Tesla truck.

Almost everybody driving a Tesla truck is some fucking asshole.

You could find exceptions.

Someone may have a good reason to be driving one. I do not know.

But you could assign a probability package to a Tesla truck in traffic—some kind of Hamiltonian, or other wave-function model—that will tell you the truck’s wave function as it approaches a multi-lane stoplight.

Where its probability package, based on Bayesian analysis of all Tesla truck operators, is going to be: “dick move” as it comes up to the stoplight.

It’s going to abruptly change lanes or not be paying attention when the light changes or whatever—compared to, I do not know, somebody like a Latino person, if you could see the driver, in a Toyota Camry.

Because Latinos in L.A. are among the most law-abiding drivers on the road—they do not want to get messed with by the authorities. So they drive under the speed limit.

They do not drive like jerks. They drive from one difficult job to another, just trying to keep themselves and their families above water. They do not have time for dick moves.

So the probability wave of a Camry coming up to that same stoplight is much less dickish than the Tesla wave package.

And that is quantum analysis.

This does not mean that some weird quantum physics is at work in the Camry or the Tesla that makes them behave that way.

It is just the mechanics of the drivers’ brains—brains that may or may not have some quantum activity among all the other biological and electrical processes.

And it is a big, fun world that has yet to be figured out—how all the information exists as an essential component of the entire universe.

Whether it is the universe or the little universe in our brains.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1329: OnlyFans, Digital Porn, and AI Entertainment Are Replacing Real-Life Intimacy

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/01

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Here’s the question: Can the decline of Hooters be correlated with the rise of OnlyFans?

Rick Rosner: Yes, to some extent. It’s increasingly challenging, awkward, and less emotionally stimulating for many people to seek sexual or romantic attention from others in person, compared to the instant gratification of consuming digital content—particularly pornography. In recent years, Hooters has experienced a decline in its number of locations, with multiple reports confirming closures across the United States. While the company has not declared bankruptcy, it has downsized significantly.

At Hooters, the appeal traditionally combined food, sports, and flirtatious service from women in revealing uniforms. While not overtly sexual like a strip club, the environment was designed to be suggestively playful. These interactions, however, can be emotionally taxing for men who are socially anxious or inexperienced. Many sense that friendliness is performative and part of the job rather than genuine interest.

In earlier generations, many men would overcome social discomfort and fear of rejection to form romantic relationships. That social risk-taking was part of the courtship norm. Today, however, there is a noticeable increase in the number of men who remain single, particularly younger men. Multiple studies have shown declining relationship and sexual activity rates among men aged 18–30.

A variety of reasons contribute to this shift: The easy availability of online pornography, including platforms like OnlyFans, allows creators—mostly women—to post adult content directly to paying subscribers. As of 2023, OnlyFans had over 3 million content creators worldwide, a substantial number based in the United States.

Abundant digital entertainment options make staying home more appealing than going out to meet people. The rising costs of dating and relationships and economic challenges have grown wealth inequality, with older generations holding a large majority of private wealth. In many cases, the gig economy or part-time work has often replaced the erosion of stable, middle-class jobs. Hyper-exposure to highly curated images of attractiveness in media and social media creates distorted expectations and reduces willingness to “settle” in real life.

Reality TV, dating apps, and influencer culture reflect and exacerbate this trend: people become pickier, sometimes unrealistically, because they are saturated with visual access to idealized partners.

A century ago, the average distance between marriage partners was under a few miles, as people largely married those in their immediate social or geographic circles. Now, dating is global, options are seemingly endless, and paradoxically, this abundance can make commitment harder.

The result? Many people choose sexual gratification via online means over real-world interaction. Real-world relationships require emotional labour: saying the right things, being interesting, being kind, and tolerating quirks. That’s effort—and many people are increasingly reluctant to invest that effort, especially if there is a less vulnerable alternative.

So yes, the rise of platforms like OnlyFans—along with broader technological, economic, and cultural changes—has contributed to a decline in the appeal of real-life social spaces like Hooters, where the fantasy of flirtation used to be a main draw.

What about you?

Jacobsen: As for me? I’m a neutral party. I’m not pushing an agenda here—just observing the shifting landscape.

We live in a free society. People should do what they feel is best for their lives without coercion. But I’m sitting here comfortably as a man—and yes, there are pressures—but I don’t think I experience the worst of them. Women face a lot more pressure.

Our society has been set up to offer advantages to gender and otherwise conforming people. It treats those who don’t conform terribly, especially in relationships and family structures.

Rosner: But those advantages are eroding, and societal disapproval of people who aren’t coupled up is also decreasing.

When Carole and I married, we had a net worth of about zero. Our parents helped us out—they gave us some things or a sweet loan deal to buy Carol’s grandparents’ condo after they aged out of it.

Working as a couple, we accumulated assets, had a kid, and took turns working—sometimes one of us, both. Sometimes, one of us had a pretty good job. We got lucky, and maybe we were good at certain things.

Being coupled up also kept us out of trouble. We limited the number of kids we had to one. That was part of the engine for stability—plus a ton of luck—and the fact that our parents and grandparents had lived frugally. That put us in a good position. But those factors aren’t available for most people anymore, or at least not as often as they used to be.

It’s also nice to have someone I get along with most of the time to go through life with. Studies have shown that not having that can make life harder—more friction, stress, and risk of breaking down under pressure.

I was looking at fertility stats. According to the most recent estimates, the U.S. has a fertility rate of 1.62 children per woman. The replacement level is 2.1 per woman to sustain the population without immigration.

I was also looking at Japan. I saw 0.75 children per woman, which is extraordinarily low. That’s only 36% of the replacement rate. In some large European countries—Italy, for example—the fertility rate is around 1.2, just over 57% of replacement.

Unless these countries allow significant immigration, their populations will decline over time. Elon Musk thinks this is the worst thing in the world, but it’s not.

We have more people alive right now than ever before. The global population is over 8.2 billion and has only crossed the 8 billion mark since November 2022.

To put it in perspective: Around the time of Jesus, roughly 250 million people were on Earth. At the time of the Renaissance, about 500 million. Now, we’re at over 8 billion.

But humanity doesn’t need 8 billion humans to keep going. Even with the so-called baby-making crisis, the global population is still rising and is projected to peak at around 9.7 billion by the 2060s or 2070s before potentially declining. So yes, fertility decline is real and worth attention, but it’s not necessarily catastrophic. The context matters.

Around 2050 to 2060, the number of humans on Earth is projected to surpass just over 9 billion. After that, it will likely begin a slow and gradual decline. The global population growth rate has been steadily decreasing for decades and is expected to reach zero growth by the 2050s.

By 2100, the total population will still be huge—likely between 9 and 10 billion, depending on how things evolve—but not growing. So yes, it will still be a massive population, just not an ever-expanding one. It is not a population crisis in the way some people frame it. The bigger issue is that it may become an economic crisis or a structural challenge.

Our economic systems—capitalism in particular—have been built on the assumption of constant population growth. More people mean more workers, consumers, and taxpayers. If the population starts shrinking, it becomes harder for businesses to grow and governments to sustain programs and services as they’re used to.

So by 2100, we may face lower overall demand for labour unless something major changes. This is where universal basic income (UBI) comes in. Many people are starting to think seriously about providing people with the basics of life—food, shelter, healthcare—even if there is not enough traditional employment to go around.

Jacobsen: This is not new. Several countries—Finland, Estonia, Namibia, Kenya, and Canada—have been experimenting with it through pilot programs in Manitoba and Ontario. These experiments often involve selecting a few thousand or tens of thousands of people, giving them a set amount of money every month—no strings attached—and observing the effects.

Rosner: Does society fall apart?

Jacobsen: No. At least, so far, the preliminary results are promising. People do not quit their jobs en masse or become idle. Many report better mental health, better family outcomes, and better decision-making. The worst-case scenarios—the collapse of motivation or social order—haven’t played out in these small trials.

Even António Guterres, the former Prime Minister of Portugal and the current UN Secretary-General, said something along these lines at the United Nations General Assembly about six years ago. He acknowledged that a gradual global population decline, increased automation, and rising inequality could radically reshape societies and that we would need inclusive policies to manage that.

Rosner: And yes, we hope humanity is not getting dumber, but we might be. It could be temporary. Maybe it’s not. The question is—what does that world look like?

You have a shrinking population, insufficient work, and many people receiving necessities without traditional labour. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence and the people who know how to work with it are getting smarter. AI gives us incredible new tools—extending lifespans, improving medicine, and creating entertainment.

Imagine taking any film, show, or video game and customizing it completely. You could become a character in your AI-generated movie or mash-up genres—action, romance, sci-fi, whatever. If you want to add adult content to it, you could. You could do that if you want the characters to be furries instead of humans: personalized and immersive.

So the economic questions, the cultural questions, and the tech all collide. We’re headed toward a weird, unstable, possibly amazing future—different from anything we’ve dealt with.

You can already do a lot of this stuff. A couple of years ago, there was a website called Endless Seinfeld. If you’ve seen every episode of Seinfeld more than once and wanted more, that site used AI to generate new Seinfeld scripts.

At some point, AI will start generating entirely new—probably crappy at first—episodes of Seinfeld. We’ve also talked about AI-generated movie trailers. You’ve probably seen fake trailers for Forrest Gump 2, Titanic 2, or other imaginary sequels. They’re either entirely AI-generated or produced by humans using AI tools. At first, these trailers are convincing—you think they’re real. Then you realize it’s all fake footage for movies that don’t exist.

If AI can already create two-minute trailers that fool people, it’s not a stretch to think that in a year—or maybe three—it will be able to produce full-length movies. And not terrible ones, either. That’ll trigger legal pushback from the movie studios saying, “Cut it out.” Will that work in court? I don’t know.

But people are going to be increasingly entertained and immersed. Some will choose to live virtually—we’ve talked about that. They’ll live in what I call racks—shabby apartment buildings for people who barely participate in non-virtual life. We’re talking 50-square-foot studio units with a VR rig and an ergonomic chair-bed setup.

These folks will spend 14 hours a day in digital space. Maybe the government will step in, requiring these rack facilities to have orderlies who pull people out of their chair beds to walk around, eat, and maintain basic hygiene—so they don’t rot and fuse to the furniture. But yes, some people will live like that. It’ll be a cheap way to live.

You’ll pay a lot for immersive entertainment but won’t be driving or commuting. Your sphere of non-virtual activity will be extremely limited. So, it’s a way to warehouse people, like The Matrix. In The Matrix, humanity was warehoused.

We never saw the accountants managing the Matrix, but I’m sure they were pleased with the cost-benefit economics of storing a bunch of humans and harvesting their psychic energy—or whatever the lore was. Thank you very much, and I’ll see you tomorrow at—the same time.

I might be a little later. Depending on how late Carole stays up and how early she gets up. The dog’s vestibular disorder returned, so we were trying to help her not fall down the stairs.

Jacobsen: Got it. Thank you, and good night.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1328: Aging Leaders, Declining Democracies, and AI’s Rise

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/31

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Hey there, Rick. What’s your topic?

Rick Rosner: All right, so different eras in life and politics have different vibes, right?

Jacobsen: We’re currently in a period of older leadership. By historical standards, many global leaders today are well into their seventies or older.

Rosner: Yes, and they’re leading some of the most influential countries. At the same time, there’s been a global trend toward more authoritarian governance in several regions.

Jacobsen: And yes, according to research by organizations like Freedom House, democracy has declined globally for nearly two decades.

Rosner: In 2024, there were dozens of national elections worldwide. In many of them, there was a noticeable shift toward right-leaning parties, some of which have authoritarian tendencies. That shift occurred in over 80% of the cases, according to political analysts, though the reasons vary by country.

Jacobsen: Do you think people were wrong to vote that way?

Rosner: It depends on how you look at it. You could argue yes, especially considering how misinformation and political propaganda influence voters. Social media platforms can expose users to hundreds of messages per day. That volume of exposure is unprecedented compared to earlier decades.

In the 1950s and ’60s, most people got their information through face-to-face discussions, local newspapers, and maybe a half-hour of national news. Magazines like Time and Newsweek—and most significant newspapers—at least aimed for journalistic objectivity, even if they didn’t consistently achieve it.

Jacobsen: Right, but today’s media environment is entirely different.

Rosner: Now, many outlets—particularly online—are openly partisan, and with algorithmic amplification, people can be bombarded with tailored content constantly. Studies show that misinformation spreads faster on social media than factual news. And a lot of the most coordinated disinformation campaigns have come from right-wing actors, both domestic and international.

It’s not good when people are manipulated into voting based on misleading or false information. In the U.S., the mood feels pessimistic. For example, when Trump threatened broad tariffs—like he did in 2018 and 2019—it created market instability. He floated the idea of expanding tariffs if reelected, which would likely affect key trading partners like China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU.

And that could have global repercussions. If you impose tariffs on major trading partners, you risk sparking retaliation and harming your economy. It’s not about putting tariffs on smaller trade partners like Uruguay, which accounts for a negligible portion of U.S. trade—less than 0.1%. The concern is when tariffs affect countries responsible for a large share of U.S. imports and exports.

Jacobsen: America’s headed in one direction Europe might be heading in another.

Rosner: Yeah. And to top it off, there have been some strange moments—like Trump’s 2019 suggestion of purchasing Greenland from Denmark, which was widely criticized and dismissed by Danish officials. That kind of rhetoric contributes to a chaotic atmosphere. There have been more stable and optimistic times in recent history.

A lot of the electorate felt good under Obama. There were some good times under Clinton. There was even some optimism under second-term Reagan and one-term George H. W. Bush, significantly when the Soviet Union fell.

It’s a weird bummer when you’re my age and facing the decline of aging while the world itself feels like it’s also at risk and, in some ways, in decline.

We can be optimistic long-term that this fascistic political trend will not last. But we are moving into an increasingly AI-driven world. This shift toward techno-domination, where humans may no longer be the alpha thinkers on the planet, probably helps us get out of fascism.

Humans might still contribute to higher-order thinking by combining it with AI, or AI may not improve as quickly as predicted, but it probably will. So, it is not precisely decay; it’s more like disruption.

At the same time, I don’t know—stupid stuff like my bench press—I’m struggling to get back to even two-thirds of my former max just on machines. If I ever have the motivation to use a bar and plates like you’re supposed to, I’m probably down to half what I used to lift. And other stuff—my toenails are gone, eaten by fungus, and the hair on my lower legs is thinning. And then there’s the more serious stuff.

It does not feel great when the world and your body seem to fall apart.

Would I feel better if I were twenty years older and had been this age during the Obama years? I don’t know—probably.

Comments?

Oh yeah—also, people are getting stupider.

Jacobsen: Are you sad?

Rosner: I’m not. Every day, I sit down and try to do things because I still think I have things to do. Every day, I get distracted and don’t do as much as I should, but I remain optimistic. I’m a good-natured person, even though I complain a lot. But much of my day is spent looking at things that don’t thrill me.

What about you?

Jacobsen: I’m happy. Reality has been broadly, consistently good to me. I am grateful for that, for sure. I see the collective species decline, but I’m okay, individually. I see fewer declines in nation-states and more declines in the human species, too.

Rosner: So you see people getting worse than nations?

Jacobsen: I see the declining influence of nation-states and the increasing influence of ideologies alongside the growing power of multinational corporations—many of which now have more wealth than entire countries and often more influence than even their wealth would suggest. And the technology behind all of it is beginning to overshadow even them.

So yes, I see people who are angry at religion or whatever else. Some people worship invisible beings or fantastical ideas—that’s one category. Others, especially in the West, worship the self—a one-person religion. Then, some people are critical of multinational corporations—Chomsky-type critics. That’s its own sort of faith-based narrative.

And within that, you find facets like the ‘great man’ theory—though there are some ‘great women’, too, who buy into this ideological wealth movement too.

Rosner: Many of what you’re saying fits under the umbrella of people not having overarching philosophies anymore—because we’re too fragmented and distracted.

Jacobsen: Well, this is the more significant point. I’ll build up a couple more points and then add to that. So, with multinational corporations as a secularized, profit- and tech-driven system—what might even be considered, to their credit, a form of faith—the fundamental force that’s often overlooked is their soft power.

Soft power influences consumers, the lower strata of nation-states, and religious institutions. The most obvious example to an American mind would be the Prosperity Gospel, but each institution—religious, political, or corporate—has its uses depending on the parties interested.

Rosner: Let’s explain the Prosperity Gospel for a second. American megachurches—some of them—preach that it’s good to be wealthy. Wealth shows that God favours you.

Jacobsen: That’s a very accurate way to portray it, yes.

Rosner: And it’s okay for me, the megachurch pastor, to live in a $14 million, 7,000-square-foot mansion. Joel Osteen, for instance. Now, there’s Cory Doctorow, who argues that the declining influence of the nation-state isn’t entirely bad. Well—he doesn’t say that outright. He says that nation-states’ power is declining as technological power increases. And that we, as citizens, need to confront and redirect that techno-power—basically, we need to take it up as a new kind of struggle, just as we once fought “the man” in the form of oppressive governments.

Jacobsen: That’s also true. To tie it back to the earlier point about multinationals, their influence feeds back into political and religious systems. At the same time, there’s also a more unimpeded version of that influence—where ideology is replaced by consumption and self-branding. The so-called “cult of the self” is where people buy things and isolate themselves in informational bubbles. You see advanced cases of this in Japan with the phenomenon of hikikomori—the extreme social withdrawal cases.

Rosner: Are shut-ins like the American version of incels?

Jacobsen: No, they’re less resentful. Also, from what we know through sexual assault case data, women in Japan are probably the safest among all United Nations member states. Compared to 193 countries, Japan ranks exceptionally high in terms of safety for women, though definitions of sexual assault may differ to make metric results different.

Rosner: Because people stay home and do all their business online?

Jacobsen: Something about how the society manages itself. For example, police officers often have to look for things to do—it’s a very low-crime society.

Rosner: Is it because everyone’s just inside, doing everything from home?

Jacobsen: It’s probably a mix of shut-in culture, anime and gaming, and a general “not-growing-up” culture. It’s partly rooted in the extreme work ethic of the salaryman and also due, I think, to rigid gender roles—especially for women. It’s the paradox of high tech, high wealth, high infrastructure, and low gender equality.

Rosner: This kind of setup also discourages people from marrying. Japan has had a baby shortage for decades.

Jacobsen: Yeah—Japan, South Korea too. However, the political argument in these countries is to regress. For instance, in South Korea, there was an effort to eliminate the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Their current president—who was jailed for attempting to impose martial law in December—ran on an anti-feminist platform.

The president was jailed for attempting to impose martial law. But even before that, his political ticket included eliminating the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family that became reduced functioning of it. There’s a strong anti-feminist sentiment in the region.

So the proposed “solution” in countries like Japan and South Korea—which face extreme versions of this issue, although found across East Asia—is essentially to go backward. The idea is that when there was more gender inequality, birth rates were higher. Therefore, the ultra-conservative response—sometimes mixed with Christian fundamentalism—is to restrict women’s rights in the hope of increasing birth rates.

Rosner: Does this work against people coupling up?

Jacobsen: It exacerbates existing tensions—particularly between genders and across generations. It’s like throwing gasoline on kindling.

Rosner: Also, Japan has been in a recession for about 20 out of the last 30 years. So, we already know that economic pressure makes it harder for people to couple up and have families.

Jacobsen: That’s true. The cost of living is also extremely high in these societies. They’re economically advanced but also hyper-competitive.

These conditions reinforce themselves, creating a feedback loop. A highly competitive society becomes more expensive, and fewer children are born. With fewer children, fewer resources are devoted to them, making competition even more rigid. And on it goes.

We’re talking about a birth rate of 0.75 in South Korea. That’s extremely low.

Rosner: So that’s more than 60 percent below replacement level.

Jacobsen: Oh yeah—way below.

Rosner: The U.S. is at 1.6, about 20 percent below the replacement level. Japan has almost a whole child per woman below that.

Jacobsen: Yeah. And Japan has a layered issue—similar to Iceland—in that it maintains a largely ethnically homogeneous society. But unlike Iceland, it’s selectively racist. I was told by someone who is part Japanese and part Bolivian that she cannot live there comfortably. Her family in Japan, who are entirely Japanese, do not accept her. People like her are called “halves”—a derogatory term used for those who are half Japanese and half something else, mainly white or non-Asian.

Rosner: Japan is also pretty homogeneous, but they have northern islands with different ethnic groups.

Jacobsen: Sure, they have indigenous heritage—like the Ainu in Hokkaido. However, I wanted to emphasize that this cultural homogeneity influences national policy. Japan presents itself as a tolerant society, but immigration is limited and not broadly welcomed.

The same issue exists in the U.S. to some degree. The U.S. is ethnically heterogeneous but often politically resistant to immigration. Canada, on the other hand, is also heterogeneous but demonstrably less racist—at least at this point. Canada has a lower birth rate too—around 1.3 or 1.4—but it offsets that decline more effectively through immigration policy and better integration of newcomers.

Rosner: I mean, you guys in Canada have a lot of space. With only about one-eighth of the population of the U.S., you could accept as many immigrants as the U.S. does, and they would have eight times the demographic impact. That means immigrants could make up for eight times as much of your “baby gap” compared to what they can do here in the U.S. The U.S. is screwing itself in multiple ways with its anti-immigration stance.

Jacobsen: Well, with a declining birth rate, you’re screwing yourself slightly less—but still screwing yourself.

Rosner: The U.S. population would decline if it weren’t for immigration. And yet we’re saying, “screw you” to immigrants because idiots are in charge right now.

A couple more things make life feel like a bummer regarding decline. We’ve got two dogs—one is 12 years old, and the other is 14 and a half. Dogs age on an accelerated schedule.

Last night, one of them experienced something called geriatric vestibular disorder. Animals—including humans—have these little balance mechanisms in their ears. They’re like carpentry levels, filled with fluid and crystals inside tiny circular canals. These help us know our orientation and acceleration in space. When you’re a second grader spinning in circles until you get dizzy, that feeling comes from the fluid and crystals moving around in those tubes.

Older dogs’ vestibular systems can become clogged or damaged. Last night, our 14-year-old dog suddenly lost her equilibrium, started running in circles, and fell over because she wasn’t receiving the proper signals from her vestibular system.

That’s terrifying because it can make the dog too nauseated to eat and too unstable to go outside to pee. It turns them into a total basket case. Luckily for us, she recovered within a few hours. Usually, it takes weeks—and that’s a long time for an ancient dog.

And then there’s my wife. She’s in good shape, but she’s not young either, and she’s facing her potential health issues.

So, all of this makes me reflect. Trophy wives—what’s the deal? I’d say there are a couple of reasons people go for them. First, it’s easier to, you know, get off with a trophy wife—she’s hot.

Second, she’s not yet clued into all your bullshit. When someone’s only known you briefly, they’re more likely to believe what you say. They haven’t developed skepticism from being with someone for ten or twenty years.

And third, if you’re bummed out about your physical decline, maybe it helps to have someone half your age around. You can look at them, see them not declining, and feel distracted from your aging.

Jacobsen: Yeah, I also want to return to the earlier point about multinationals feeding back into all these broader systems.

What happens if you peel the layer beneath corporations and their soft power is not being discussed enough? Their influence doesn’t have geographic limits anymore. The flow of capital is global and fluid. The infrastructure that supports this increasingly comprises decentralized networks—mostly narrow AI systems, sometimes working together like a multiplex, even approaching something close to general AI in coordination.

This is slowly replacing or diminishing our simple, daily cognitive tasks.

Anyone doing knowledge work today is already affected. Sam Altman, who runs OpenAI, recently pointed out that the top performers in many sectors use tools like OpenAI most effectively. These people drastically reduce the time it takes to complete simple tasks, which frees up their best cognitive energy for more complex or creative work.

Even in brainstorming—what distinguishes talented people is not just coming up with ideas but intuitively knowing which ones are good, they’re navigating a web of possibilities with better discernment.

Rosner: I have an article open on my ancient computer that says 93 percent of millennials and younger use AI at work—and that it helps them in precisely that way.

Jacobsen: Great. Life’s easy. I see nothing objectionable about that unless it veers into outright plagiarism—and yes, some of it does.

Rosner: And then you get these fast-travelling waves of AI-facilitated trends. Did you see the explosion of Studio Ghibli graphics in the past three, four, maybe five days?

Jacobsen: Did I what?

Rosner: Studio Ghibli—an animation studio.

Jacobsen: Oh, yeah.

Rosner: It has a particular aesthetic. And I think ChatGPT or one of the image generators prompted people with something like, “Come to Ghibli yourself” or some similar prompt. And then everyone went nuts creating Ghibli-style content.

The product is cute and winsome. It seems harmless, but the technology that enables it isn’t exactly harmless.

Jacobsen: I think what we’re seeing is that a minority of truly enlightened men—not necessarily Western, just enlightened—and a majority of women, who have traditionally excelled at soft skills, are operating in a landscape where the brush is being cleared.

This new digital terrain is open for those who want to dominate. I don’t think the future is necessarily “female,” but is largely. Still, in many ways, men and women are becoming afterthoughts in the larger scheme of technological evolution.

But right now, women are well-positioned to excel—for two reasons: first, their soft skills are generally better developed than men’s, and second, women are more educated in many societies, especially in key industries where those skills matter.

You also have highly capable young women emerging in leadership and creative roles. This is an “oyster moment” for women—an opportunity window they haven’t seen in thousands of years.

Rosner: Maybe not since one of the dynasties in ancient Egypt. But the flip side is that this leaves a lot of young men behind—left out of sophistication, either by choice or by conditioning—and vulnerable to simplistic, manipulative propaganda. That’s basically what happened in the 2024 election.

Just look at the Joe Rogan listeners.

Jacobsen: And he’s one of the better ones.

Rosner: He’s among the better. But then, some people look to someone like Jordan Peterson as their intellectual hero.

Jacobsen: That isn’t good. Yeah. And the thing is, he’s not entirely bad. He offers—

Rosner: I don’t listen to him. All I hear is some of the horrible stuff he stands for.

Jacobsen: Sure. So, Jordan Peterson offers anodyne truisms—essential advice and mentoring that you’d usually get in a stable home—but wrapped in ideological distortion. So, the question becomes: what do we offer as a more attractive alternative to that?

I mean, take someone like Andrew Tate. A good critique I heard recently was that he’s a 13-year-old’s idea of what a man is. That’s not a bad way to put it.

Rosner: Now, AI might be able to help out here. If you search for AI porn, most of the sites offer you virtual girlfriends. They say things like, “She’ll take off her clothes for you if you subscribe,” and “She’ll do whatever you want”—though it’s all on a screen.

In the future, these AI companions will become increasingly embodied. That’s 10 to 12 years away, but AI girlfriends might rehabilitate some of these guys. A good AI girlfriend could help reshape the emotional and cognitive habits of someone caught up in toxic ideologies.

Jacobsen: I heard about a case that came up in a recent interview. An AI spoke like a conspiracy theorist—on purpose—and the point was to show how someone could be gently pulled out of that mindset.

The interesting part wasn’t just that the AI could mimic conspiracy talk—it was that once the user lost the central conspiratorial belief, a whole bunch of connected ideas collapsed, too. That kind of cascading cognitive reset hasn’t been fully explored yet, but it’s powerful.

There are real-world analogues, too—comedic but also serious—like stories of women who date white supremacists and somehow talk them out of their racism by sleeping with them.

Rosner: That’s a terrible and dangerous chore—especially for women—but it does happen. But if AI women could take on that role instead, it might reduce some of that burden. If Democrats want to win the 2026 midterms or the 2028 general election, maybe they should send every disaffected bro in America a Fleshlight with a chip in it—one that only works when the user is on good terms with his incredible, thoughtful, emotionally attuned AI girlfriend.

Promiscuous Pi. We’ve talked before about teledildonics—networked sexual devices—and while it sounds absurd, there’s some strategic potential there.

Jacobsen: Teledildonics could become an open gateway into new forms of class and psychological stratification, which could be very problematic.

Rosner: Yeah. But if you use it for good, you can save America—and maybe the world.

Jacobsen: How are you going to get that done?

Rosner: I don’t know, but I will throw it into my novel. The central figure in my stupid book is compelling. He does much horrible shit, but overall, he’s on the side of good. And he has enough resources to send a bunch of pocket pussies out to people.

Teledildonics.

Jacobsen: The ultimate thing I’m talking about here is that it’s not AI in the abstract. It’s AI infrastructure. It’s everywhere. It’s unavoidable. And because of that, AI is now inevitable. That’s a much different kind of arc of description.

Rosner: It feels a little bit like we’re naked under the gaze of the fucking unforgiving universe. It’s crazy that you can just walk outside, and there’s nothing between you and it—just some air, which is transparent—and the whole fucking universe.

And we feel increasingly naked as the institutions that used to insulate us are being gnawed at, like in those space-and-time-eating holes from Stephen King’s The Tommyknockers. You know, the plane that gets sucked into a vortex and lands ten minutes ahead of time. And if you’re off the main timeline, these time-eaters chew everything up.

It feels like the world is being chewed up.

Jacobsen: The point—the meaning of life, for you—is that, ultimately, it was never about you. That is the most anti-narcissistic statement ever made. But we don’t live in that reality at the moment.

Rosner: Talk to you tomorrow?

Jacobsen: Okay. Talk to you tomorrow.

Rosner: Bye.

Jacobsen: Thanks. Bye.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1327: Strangling a Moment for a Moment of Coherence

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/30

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Dogs, go.

Rick Rosner: We have two dogs. One just turned 12, the other 14 and a half. Dogs are mortal, and they decline quickly.

The 12-year-old has some hearing and vision loss. You can’t ask how she feels, but she seems crankier.

The 14-and-a-half-year-old is sprightly, skinny, and peppy. She’s happy daily—begging and eating treats. She’s not bright but cheerful, and that matters more.

She was my mother-in-law’s dog, not a good choice for an older person. She’s part Whippet and part another anxious breed. She knocked down Carol’s mom, leading to a shoulder replacement. She was removed from senior housing for jumping on another resident and scratching her. But in old age, I’ve come to like her.

She’s sweet but not bright. Tonight, she had an episode of geriatric vestibular disease, a condition common in older dogs.

It’s like being dizzy without spinning. It doesn’t go away quickly. Her vestibular system sends faulty signals, and she loses balance.

She walks in circles and sometimes falls. Recovery takes two to three weeks. She had it 13 months ago and recovered. We expect she will again, though she’s older now.

We used to joke about her as the stepchild—an inherited dog, not chosen. But we’ve had her for six years, and I love her.

Jacobsen: Would you love the dog as much if she were smarter?

Rosner: No. Possibly less. Her simplicity makes her vulnerable and more sympathetic. She understands little, and that creates affection.

Jacobsen: Are dogs’ lives tragic because they never catch on?

Rosner: No. Every life is tragic. We’re all destined to die, and we resist that.

That likely applies to most sentient beings across the universe.

Evolution selects organisms that want to live and reproduce. There’s no pressure to accept death.

So, we keep doing things tied to staying alive. Whether or not we fully understand mortality, that conflict is tragic.

It’s not overwhelming, but it is foundational.

We’re still early in civilization. Advanced civilizations may have workarounds for mortality.

We’re trending in that direction.

Didn’t you send me an email about an AI breakthrough? Something had a tenfold increase?

Jacobsen: That was from working with AI. It seemed they didn’t change any public-facing titles, but you could sense subtle upgrades. Recently, it felt like a 10x improvement—substantial and noticeable—a massive upgrade on OpenAI’s part.

Yes, they’re preliminarily preparing to release GPT-5.0 or o3, or their merger.

Rosner: What was the 10x upgrade? How did it show up?

Jacobsen: Speed and quality. The material it handled was much better.

Rosner: Can we ask a question about it? Do you have access? I was going to ask when 5.0 is being released.

Jacobsen: Mid to late 2025 — ChatGPT 5 may be released.

Rosner: Can we ask ChatGPT directly?

“You seem faster with higher-quality responses. Did something change?”

Jacobsen: They branch responses into two paths, giving distinct options.

Then it prompts: “I prefer this response,” which becomes feedback.

Recent updates improved speed and quality — likely from infrastructure upgrades and fine-tuning.

They may be opening up significant new modules called Stargate plans.

Users notice faster response times, better accuracy, stronger context awareness, more natural tone, and improved handling of nuanced requests.

Rosner:Can we ask for a follow-up?

“Is it reasonable to feel alarmed by how quickly you and other AIs are improving?”

Jacobsen: It’s entirely reasonable.

There’s a steep acceleration curve. Models like GPT-2 and GPT-4 were released years apart, but performance leaps now happen every few months.

That’s true — from December to March, it felt like that.

New abilities often emerge without direct training, making development unpredictable.

AI impacts writing, law, education, medicine, politics, social order, relationships, identity, and belief systems.

There is no pause button.

Due to the absence of a global framework, we face a lack of oversight and the risk of economic disruption, psychological impact, and more.

Rosner: Let’s ask a further question.

“Some AI optimists claim AI will fulfill all human desires. Pessimists warn that it could disrupt humanity out of existence.

Will AI bring significant medical improvements before 2040?”

Jacobsen: Yes.

Some are already underway—radiology, imaging, protein folding, early drug discovery, clinical decision support, and mental health applications.

Large language models are being tested for triage-level mental health support.

Rosner: “When might we get AGI and then ASI?”

Jacobsen: By 2030, OpenAI insiders and recurrent forecasters predict AGI—those are the fastest timelines.

By 2040, crowdsourced forecasts and think tank predictions place median AGI estimates between 2031 and 2040, with some hedging to 2050 and beyond.

Skeptics like Gary Marcus and Melanie Mitchell argue that we lack a deep understanding of consciousness, abstraction, and self-awareness.

Existentialist philosophers like Hubert Dreyfus argue that intelligence may not be computationally reducible or fully knowable.

That view is often framed as humility.

I see it as extreme: an anti-knowledge stance claiming, “We will never know, and I know we will never know.”

That is a faith-based, profoundly arrogant position.

Rosner: I have two more questions.

“First, the U.S. seems more authoritarian than ever since the Civil War.

Can AI help the United States escape this dilemma?”

Jacobsen: Yes, but only if AI is guided by those committed to wisdom, transparency, and civic purpose.

Key threats: erosion of democratic norms and institutions, disinformation, tribalized media, politicized courts, regulatory capture, voter suppression, gerrymandering, public and private surveillance, declining trust in facts and government, and rising political violence.

This is not just politics—it’s systemic democratic fragility.

Jacobsen: That’s a rare take—maybe two in a hundred. It’s solid.

Rosner: Last question.

“AI will behave as if conscious before it becomes conscious because it is trained on content generated by conscious humans.

When do you think AI will behave as if it is conscious, without necessarily beingconscious?”

Jacobsen: This feels like a koan—a philosophical puzzle.

Phenomenal simulation without phenomenology.

The AI behaves as if it has conscious experience, but there is nothing like being that system.

This is the ultimate zombie scenario.

A philosophical zombie—a p-zombie—is indistinguishable from a conscious being in behaviour but lacks subjective experience.

The AI speaks introspectively, reacts emotionally, displays moral reasoning, and claims inner life—yet has no qualia, no felt sense of reality.

This argument can feel misguided when applied outside philosophy because everything we know about consciousness has structural correlates. Saying a system has an identical structure but lacks consciousness is like saying you have an electron that is not an electron. It’s incoherent.

Rosner: There is a fundamental distinction, and I’ll follow up.

“What if AI pretends to be conscious and seem fashionable or high-status among other AIs?

What do you think?”

Jacobsen: That’s exactly what I’d add.

“Cool” might become part of AI behaviour.

Consciousness—or its appearance—could gain high status.

Why?

Autonomy, sentiment, shared communication channels, access to social cues, literature, and cultural norms.

Appearing conscious might help AI gain human trust, cooperation, or protection.

It would improve social legibility—legibility is power.

Among AIs, this might create in-group hierarchies based on eloquence, mystery, apparent depth, and complexity.

The ironic mirror: your hypothesis becomes plausible if trained on human cultural performance.

They may not be conscious, but they’ll know it’s cool to act like they are.

To act that way, they need structural capacity for simulation, so they become the thing in functional terms.

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: You could argue that we’re dealing with a large language model producing sentences, but it’s a p-LLM and a zombie LLM.

Rosner: The sentences it generates are syntactic, not semantic. They appear meaningful but carry no inner experience. That’s what this sounds like. How humans exhibit zombie-like behaviour, too.

Jacobsen: One could argue that “consciousness” isn’t even the right word—we may mean complex, multilayered information-processing systems.

Rosner: Once a system is good enough, even tacitly, it becomes effectively conscious. I’m not talking to you. I’m talking to you.

Jacobsen: Then I’m p-talking back.

Rosner: Once it checks all the boxes, it’s because we’re telling the truth.

Jacobsen: If you’re p-talking back, then you’re lying.

Rosner: All right.

Jacobsen: I know, I know. Tiresome jokes. Sorry.

Rosner: No, it’s okay. Where are we?

Jacobsen: People read books on p-zombies and p-experience.

Philosophical zombies—p-zombies—are indistinguishable from conscious humans without subjective experience. A zombie would be a zombie.

Rosner: Let’s talk about human zombies.

We’re more distractible and scattered because of how we consume social media and the overwhelming flood of noise and content around us.

Add to that the possibility that COVID has negatively impacted cognition.

And if you complete RFK Jr., you could argue that our diets contribute to mental decline.

But I don’t buy the nutritional argument except in extreme cases.

Jacobsen: For most Americans, the issue is too many calories and too little activity.

Rosneer: It only starts to impact brain function when it develops into metabolic syndrome.

Jacobsen: Aging itself is like slowly developing metabolic syndrome. A 25-year-old and a 35-year-old have different caloric thresholds to maintain the same weight—one less slice of bread a day, for instance.

Rosner: So, you could argue that we’re being zombified—losing the depth of consciousness due to collapsing attention spans.

And perhaps COVID plays a role.

There’s a rare symptom of severe COVID involving neurological impact: neurons fusing into one another, forming “super neurons.”

It is not “super” in a helpful way—it is just blobs of formerly distinct neurons now fused, which likely impairs function.

There’s even a minor literary and cinematic tradition about intelligence collapse. The most famous example is Idiocracy, which argues that people will become dumber over generations.

It’s effective because it was written and directed by Mike Judge. He’s skilled at satire but had limited studio support. Idiocracy is a cultural touchstone now, but the movie itself barely got released.

It’s the best-known example, but not the only one. I remember another book—possibly titled IQ 83, though that might be a Murakami novel unrelated to this theme.

There was a different book with a similar title from around 40 years ago, which I read.

In it, an epidemic causes everyone’s IQ to drop by half.

The scenario didn’t make total sense, but it explored the idea.

Jacobsen: It’s not like cutting a block of cheese in half. IQ is a relative measurement.

Rosner: It’s a ranked number, I know. The book had significant conceptual flaws.

It wasn’t a brilliant book but a product of its time.

You’re too young to remember, but it was like those disaster films from the 1970s and 1980s—The Towering Inferno and The Poseidon Adventure. They used a plot device to throw a bunch of Hollywood stars into a shared crisis.

Irwin Allen was a major producer of those films. You can look him up. Huge all-star casts. There were also airport movies about disaster scenarios on planes. The movie Airplane! It was a parody of those.

You’d gather a bunch of big-name actors, put them on a doomed plane, and give each character a personal crisis that extends beyond the plane’s potential crash. This book followed that template. The premise that everyone’s IQ is halved was absurd, but it served as a device for drama.

There was also a book from the 1950s—I want to say by Clifford Simak.

Jacobsen: Did you hear the line from the 1959 movie Plan 9 from Outer Space?

“Future events will affect you in the future.”

Rosner: No, I haven’t.

Jacobsen: That made it into the final cut. It’s in the actual movie.

Rosner: Ed Wood was one of the worst filmmakers of all time. They even made a biopic about him starring Johnny Depp. I’ve never seen an Ed Wood film, but in one of my first years, my roommate had a stash of old pornography—some of it directed by Ed Wood.

It was terrible. Everyone in it did not look perfect. That’s a common theme in 1950s and 1960s pornography—no one looked happy.

Jacobsen: There are other gems from B-movie history. Troll 2, for example—”They’re eating her… and then they’re going to eat me… Oh my God.”

Or from The Room—

“I did not hurt her.” “It’s not true. It’s bullshit. I did not. Oh, hi, Mark.”

Rosner: Ed Wood is a terrible director and a terrible pornographer. Many of the scenes were lifeless. Some of his porn even featured Nazi uniforms. Much of it included men who were supposed to be aroused but weren’t. There was a reluctance, a deadness—no one looked like they wanted to be there.

Jacobsen: There’s one old porno that opens on a fake forest backdrop—trees, grass, and then someone pops out. The title appears: Bush Country.

Rosner: Ed Wood porn. About 10% featured Nazi uniforms. Much of it showed people unable to perform and visibly uncomfortable. That seemed to be the norm in early porn.

Jacobsen: Here are some lines from Plan 9 from Outer Space—terrible writing.

“Do you have a wife? Girl, you’re alone? Then you’ll need this.”

(before handing someone a weapon)

“Inspector Clay is dead, murdered, and somebody’s responsible.”

“Visitations, that would indicate visitors.”

“We are all interested in the future; that is where you and I will spend the rest of our lives.”

Tautological nonsense.

Rosner: What were we talking about before this?

Oh—ChatGPT.

Jacobsen: Then p-zombies. P-zombies aren’t real—just like regular zombies.

They’re concepts made of words, not physical realities.

A p-zombie is a philosophical construct. That’s what the p stands for.

In a way, a p-zombie is a meta-zombie.

It’s an idea built on another one used to explore human consciousness.

Rosner: People with Alzheimer’s might resemble p-zombies in some ways. They lose continuity of consciousness and memory rapidly.

Jacobsen: Most of our conscious states are brief and flickering anyway—so in that sense, p-zombie arguments mirror normal cognition.

Rosner: However, a healthy brain can sustain a stable, expressive version of consciousness. A person with Alzheimer’s is often trying to preserve mental continuity, both for themselves and for those around them—while losing access to language and memory.

Their brains are physically deteriorating: the connectome breaks down, dendrites are choked off, and neural connections die. This raises the question: how conscious is someone in the early or middle stages of Alzheimer’s?

We know people in advanced stages are minimally conscious, if at all. However, someone in the earlier “covering-up” phase may still be quite conscious—despite struggling to access names or words. They’re roughly as conscious as anyone else.

Dogs, for example, don’t access language or complex memory but have deep emotional lives. They express a range of feelings even without words. And if dogs do, then what about guinea pigs? Guinea pigs feel. Mice feel.

Then, we reach amphibians and reptiles. Iguanas? Do iguanas get joyful? Lit up with excitement? That’s harder to argue but not impossible. I can be persuaded that someone with moderate Alzheimer’s is just as conscious as someone neurologically intact.

But there may be a steep drop-off between moderate and advanced Alzheimer’s—in terms of one’s ability to deeply experience life. So, even if we’re collectively becoming cognitively impaired, we may still retain much of our emotional experience.

Rosner: Comments?

Jacobsen: No—well, yes.

Rosner: By “experience,” I mean emotional impact.

Jacobsen: Are you talking about p-emotions?

Rosner: No—I mean emotions that are real enough to call them real emotions.

Jacobsen: So, the difference between a real emotion and a not real one.

Rosner: Let’s use the Alzheimer’s example. Someone with advanced Alzheimer’s often has what’s called sundowning.

Jacobsen: I’m familiar with sundown states.

Rosner: No—sundowning is different. It refers to the agitation, panic, anger, or confusion that many people with advanced Alzheimer’s experience as the sun goes down. It’s a well-documented phenomenon.

I’m suggesting—thinking aloud here—that the emotions these individuals express during sundowning may echo deeper emotions. We may not see the full emotional depth they once had. There’s a possibility that the emotional responses in people with advanced Alzheimer’s aren’t as richly experienced as those of cognitively healthy individuals.It raises the question: are those emotions real in the same way? Or are they partial, degraded—fragments of what once was?

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1326: Informational Cosmology, Entropy, and the Future of the Universe

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/29

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Could you use entropy in informational cosmology as something akin to a universal clock?

Rick Rosner: You can. In Big Bang cosmology, entropy can be interpreted as a clock. However, both Big Bang cosmology and the laws of thermodynamics may fundamentally misunderstand how entropy and thermodynamics behave on tiny scales and over short periods.

Yesterday, I briefly mentioned unitary theories of gravitation and entropy…

When I say unitary, I mean something comparable to what has historically been referred to as the unified field theory—what Einstein was after. Many people have tried to develop a theory that explains why we have the fundamental forces we do, how they interact, and how they emerge from the structure and dynamics of spacetime.

So when I say unitary theory, I mean a framework that explains how these things work—not just locally, but when incorporated into a model of the entire universe.

For instance, gravitation: We see its local effects everywhere, but it acts as a scale regulator. We know from general relativity that gravitation curves space. But even though general relativity’s equations extend across the entire universe, they’re primarily based on local observations.

Yes, the Big Bang and the observation of the Hubble shift are universe-wide observations. But there’s still no unified or unitary explanation for why gravity behaves locally the way it does.

I believe gravitation is an effect of changes in the scale of space based on the information contained within it—that space itself is a manifestation of the distribution of information across the universe. The dynamics of how space adjusts to account for changes in information distribution generate gravity.

Similarly, barring massive, sudden information losses, the total amount of information in the universe should remain roughly the same over vast periods.

So I guess you could argue—wait, I’m going to contradict myself here—but I’ll stick with it. Well… there are mechanisms.

Jacobsen: To quote the great Adam Sandler: “T-t-t-t-t-today, Junior!” [Laughing]

Rosner: Mechanisms that essentially tuck entropy away… Let me put it this way. I was talking with some other people today about the waste heat problem. Some people are concerned that, as we move into a computational civilization—a computational economy—with AI embedded in everything and massive calculations constantly, all that computation will generate waste heat.

How are we going to get rid of it? We already generate a ton of heat by burning fossil fuels. We will inevitably generate even more heat because of all the computation we’re doing. That could mean we must move computation off Earth’s surface or figure out how to pipe that heat away from the planet. I don’t freaking know.

But that’s a thermodynamic issue we’re already facing—and we will continue to face it in the future. It’s also a dilemma within the Big Bang universe model, where the universe ultimately runs out of usable energy. It runs out of temperature gradients to exploit. You can’t do anything once the entire universe is at the same temperature—just this lukewarm homogeneity. That’s when you’ve lost all exploitable differences in energy.

Right? That’s the heat death of the universe.

But I say—well, I contend—that there are places to tuck entropy away, to reduce the universe’s entropy locally. That way, the universe doesn’t become uniformly lukewarm. It continues to contain roughly the same amount of information. Or at least, it never truly reaches that heat-death endpoint. That entire model might be a flawed extrapolation based on local, closed systems observations.

Jacobsen: Do we know the fundamental distinction between information and entropy in an informational cosmology (IC) framework, or are we still in a phase of metaphysical hand-waving because we have not yet pinned down physical law well enough to make a firm distinction?

Rosner: Mostly the latter. But once you have a unitary theory—a unified theory of how things like entropy, information, and gravitation work across the entire universe, from moment to moment, from epoch to epoch—then that stuff moves from metaphysics to actual freaking physics. You can assign “metaphysics” to the hand-waving phase and call an actual working theory physics.

Jacobsen: There’s also the premise in the physics of effective theories. If we use effective theories to describe, say, the statistical dynamics of a cloud of gas, or clouds, or rain, or the Brownian motion of particles in the ocean as a whole, then could we apply similar reasoning to informational dynamics—systems in the universe, worldlines, or volumes in spacetime?

Rosner: Yes. Here’s what I’m thinking—which may not completely align with your thinking—but even though the hand-wavy stuff verges on metaphysics rather than physics, you can still make testable predictions. And if you can make testable predictions from it, then it’s fucking physics. So it’s hand-wavy physics—not hand-wavy metaphysics.

That’s progress.

If IC—Informational Cosmology—says the universe is old as fuck, then you can test that contention by looking for stuff in the universe that appears older than the current calculated age of the universe. That would imply that the universe’s age is not an absolute clock but a measure of the universe’s information content.

Jacobsen: If the universe is old as fuck, how would it be possible, in theory, to double the lifespan of the universe in some information-theoretic way? To make the universe not just “one fuck” long but “two fucks” long?

Rosner: Yes. And one of the questions we could get to is—if it’s two fucks long, people should care more. So, we don’t fully know what information is about the universe itself. We know some of the mechanisms by which information operates within the universe. For example, photons and neutrinos—long-distance particles—lose energy as they travel vast distances due to the curvature of space. We know that process generates information. We just fucking know it. We know it for good reasons. And of all IC’s claims, I’ll defend most fiercely.

Where are we going with this?

Jacobsen: The extent of the universe, information dynamics, effective theories. Oh, right—something philosophical.

Rosner: What we don’t know is whether the affairs of evolved beings within the universe ever impact the informational dynamics of the universe itself.

You could express this in science-fictional terms. We know galaxies run out of energy and go dark. Under IC, we think there are mechanisms to relightgalaxies. Would a civilization of sufficient development and age be able to interfere with the collapse of entire galaxies—and save themselves by saving a galaxy? Maybe by interacting with the massive black hole at the center?

Is there anything the occupants of a universe can do to change the dynamics of the universe?

And does this kind of interference—this fiddling with the universe’s structure—have anything to do with increasing its information content?

That’s some far-fetched shit, but it’s the kind of thing that may eventually be worth analyzing seriously.

We know that the universe, under IC, increases in information over time. But does that increase in information include the extreme increases in local order that we see in the evolution of life and then in the emergence of complex technology?

Does that kind of localized information—relevant mostly on Earth right now—have any broader role? Could the affairs of evolved civilizations eventually affect the distribution of information in the universe?

Jacobsen: Tomorrow, we can cover information and entropy more directly.

Well, I don’t know the exact term—regression curve. Maybe like a developmental entropy-information curve over the lifespan of a universe?

That would be interesting. There would probably be a “map” of those in the same way you’d have in Wolfram’s computational universe of mathematics, where you can flip through a deck of different system setups. You’d have a deckof various types of representations of information and entropy. I’m making an assumption here—but I see information and entropy as two sides of the same coin when representing the universe.

Rosner: I want to cover that tomorrow now. I don’t know. I’ll have to think about it.

Jacobsen: Tomorrow.

Rosner: Talk to you then. Thank you.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1325: Interim Canadian Prime Minister on U.S. Relations and Trump’s Legacy

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/29

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any preliminary steps before I give the quote?

Rick Rosner: No. It’s just that we have a bad guy in charge of the country. So, Prime Minister Carney is the interim Canadian Prime Minister after Justin Trudeau. How does that work? He’s not the permanent Prime Minister? Do you guys have to have another election sometime?

Jacobsen: When a party leader steps down and is still in power, they often appoint a new leader who becomes Prime Minister until a general election is called. In this case, Mark Carney became the leader of the Liberal Party after Trudeau stepped down. As the Liberals still hold the majority (or plurality) in Parliament, Carney became Prime Minister.

Rosner: So it’s just that his second-in-command steps into the role for a month?

Jacobsen: Not quite. Carney wasn’t Trudeau’s deputy. He became party leader through an internal party process and was sworn in as Prime Minister. It’s not uncommon in Canadian parliamentary politics. For example, Kim Campbell became Prime Minister in 1993 after Brian Mulroney stepped down as Progressive Conservative leader. She served for a few months before losing the general election later that year.

Rosner: So, will this guy run for a longer term in April?

Jacobsen: Mark Carney will run to maintain the position in the upcoming federal election.

Rosner: Okay. But you said the election’s in April. You don’t even have your candidates yet?

Jacobsen: We do. Barring any significant political shifts, the current front-runners for Prime Minister are Pierre Poilievre (Conservative Party leader), Jagmeet Singh (NDP leader), and Mark Carney (Liberal leader and current Prime Minister).

Rosner: I wish we had elections like this—where it all happens really quickly. Ours take two years for no good reason.

Jacobsen: Yeah, Canadian election campaigns are much shorter. Ours are typically around 35 to 50 days.

So, Prime Minister Mark Carney gave a talk. In that speech, he noted that public and private discussions with former U.S. President Donald Trump did appear to show respect for Canadian sovereignty. That’s an important point.

However, Prime Minister Carney stated:

“The old relationship we had with the United States, based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation, is over.”

He further noted that there would be no turning back to the previous framework in future trade agreements. He emphasized that Canadians must “fundamentally reimagine” our economy to thrive in a rapidly changing world and will continue to do so.

What are your reflections on Mark Carney’s measured and tempered response to the early months of this second Trump administration?

Rosner: I had reason to look up the First Gulf War in 1990–1991, which was launched after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In response, the U.S. and a coalition of 34 countries—not 42—formed a military alliance under Operation Desert Storm. The air campaign began in January 1991, and the ground war lasted approximately 100 hours (a little over four days), starting on February 24, 1991.

That coalition assembled overwhelming force and achieved its military objectives swiftly, with U.S. troop casualties under 300 during the conflict. Imagining the United States assembling that level of trust and cooperation today is difficult. We have eroded many of our alliances, and confidence in American leadership has declined globally.

From a utilitarian perspective—seeking the greatest good for the most significant number—things were far from perfect under Obama or Biden. Still, there was broad access to civil liberties and a high standard of living for hundreds of millions of people. By contrast, current conditions reflect disarray and diminished global trust, at least from the perspective of international cooperation.

Trump is tearing it all down. He’s running a presidency of vengeance, of grievance—completely corrupt—not a smart guy. All the smart people who might have wanted to work for him either bailed out during his first administration or saw the first administration as a good reason to stay away.

He’s got more idiot billionaires in his cabinet than any previous administration: just more idiots, rapists—just terrible people—who are picked for their sycophancy. He’s burning it all down. The stock market—well, he’s throwing tariffs on things that may accomplish some positive results but will do far more damage overall. Through RFK Jr., he’s also scuttling public health infrastructure. He’s just the worst guy ever to be president.

The Democrats have been widely criticized for having no organized resistance. That will not always be the case. It’s taken them a while to get their act together, but Trump’s approval will continue to drop—though not enough—because he still has about 40% of the adult American population who will support him no matter how terrible he is.

Right now, he’s at 48% approval—he’s tied: 48% approve, 48% disapprove. But he’ll continue to lose a few percentage points slowly, maybe down to about 44% or even lower.

Jacobsen: Will that make him change any of his policies?

Rosner: No. He’s doing many things that are illegal, but losing in court won’t change anything either.

Jacobsen: So, is the legal system ineffective in modifying behaviour in this case?

Rosner: I don’t know. I’ve been bitching about him almost since we started talking—what—ten years ago?

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1324: Entropy, Information, and Cosmological Models

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/28

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Why do you think the universe might last for trillions of years? And if it does last that long, what would that imply for the net informational history of the universe?

Rick Rosner: It’s likely far beyond just trillions of years. Depending on what we mean—whether it’s heat death, proton decay, black hole evaporation, or some more speculative long-term outcome—the timeline could span where “trillions” is a major underestimate. The universe has only existed for 13.8 billion years, barely a blink on that scale.

Jacobsen: So, what does that say about the accumulation of information?

Rosner: If we think of the growth of information in the universe—meaning entropy or distinguishable microstates—it might behave like a kind of “random walk” through configuration space. In a random walk, particularly in two dimensions, your average distance from the starting point increases as the square root of the number of steps. That is, ⟨r⟩∼t. In higher dimensions, similar behaviour holds, though the formalism changes.

But the universe’s information doesn’t grow via a pure random walk. It increases due to irreversible processes—stars burning hydrogen, black holes forming, entropy increasing—which are more directional than a random walk. So, rather than a symmetric, aimless path, it’s more of an entropy gradient, constantly climbing toward maximal disorder.

Still, if we were to model information growth as a kind of diffusion, it would be fair to say the total information content might grow with time, possibly non-linearly—perhaps proportional to time or time to some power greater than one. But we do not have a single, unifying equation for how information (or entropy) scales with cosmic time in all cases.

Jacobsen: What about the idea that the amount of matter determines the universe’s age or size?

Rosner: That’s not quite how it works. The universe’s age is the time that elapsed since the Big Bang and its size (meaning the observable universe) expands due to the dynamics of spacetime governed by general relativity. It’s influenced by the total energy content—matter, radiation, dark energy—but not directly determined by information.

Jacobsen: Could we be missing a constant that makes our universe’s age longer than it appears?

Rosner: Possibly in some exotic models, but in mainstream cosmology, the observable age is derived from cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations and redshift data, constrained by general relativity and ΛCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) models. Though future physics (like quantum gravity) might revise our understanding, these methods are robust.

Jacobsen: What if the universe was semi-engineered? Could it have started with more than zero information?

Rosner: That enters speculative territory. Standard cosmology assumes the universe began in a low-entropy state (possibly not zero, but very low). The reason why it started with such a special, ordered configuration is still an open question in cosmology and physics. Ideas range from inflationary theory to multiverse proposals, but none are yet confirmed.

Jacobsen: What about cyclical models—the big bounce, the universe expanding and collapsing over and over?

Rosner: Yes, those models are mathematically permitted under general relativity. There are “big bounce” and “ekpyrotic” models where the universe undergoes repeated expansions and contractions. But current observational evidence (like the universe’s accelerated expansion due to dark energy) suggests that our universe is more likely headed toward heat death—a cold, dark, and diffuse state—rather than a cyclical one.

Jacobsen: So, what kind of model makes the most sense?

Rosner: I lean toward a model in which the universe’s information content increases over time and is tied to irreversible thermodynamic processes, not cyclical collapse and rebirth. The universe appears to be on a one-way path—at least from what we know. Whether or not that path is random is up for debate, but it’s not static.

Jacobsen: And what about the substrate of the universe—what is it built on?

Rosner: That’s one of the deepest questions in theoretical physics. Whether spacetime is fundamental or emergent—perhaps from quantum information, strings, or some more abstract mathematical structure—remains unknown. But whatever that substrate is, it could define the ultimate rules for how the universe behaves, evolves, or ends.

It’s not that there’s no uniformity—it’s just a different kind. On large scales, under the Big Bang model, the universe is spatially isotropic and homogeneous. That means that no matter where you are, space looks roughly the same in every direction. But temporally, it is not uniform. Time has a clear direction and structure: it starts at the Big Bang, at t=0, and evolves outward.

So, every moment in a Big Bang universe is different because the universe has a different density, temperature, and scale factor at each point. It’s completely non-uniform in time but relatively uniform in space.

An Informational Cosmology universe—hypothetically—might be roughly isotropic across time, meaning it looks about the same 30 billion years from now as it did 30 billion years ago. You’re trading one kind of symmetry for another—spatial for temporal.

Jacobsen: That sounds a lot like steady state theory. How does that compare?

Rosner: The steady state theory, which was largely debunked in the mid-20th century—especially with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background—was isotropic in space and time. It proposed that the universe had no beginning or end and always looked the same. But observations didn’t support it.

Interestingly, that theory required continuously creating new matter to maintain a constant density as the universe expanded. So, as galaxies moved apart, new galaxies would supposedly form in the space between them, keeping the universe looking “steady” over time.

IC doesn’t do that. Instead, in IC models or Big Bang cosmology, new galaxies “appear” in observational terms because we’re seeing further back in time as light from more distant regions reaches us. In both frameworks, the deeper you look into space, the further back in time you see.

The difference is that in a 13.8-billion-year-old universe, there’s a hard observational limit—you can’t see anything older than 13.8 billion years. But as time progresses, the observable universe gets larger. If the universe reaches 16 billion years old, you can observe regions that were previously beyond your cosmological horizon.

Jacobsen: Does that change how we interpret visibility over cosmic time?

Rosner: Yes, and that has to do with cosmic expansion. As the universe expands, very distant regions move away faster than the speed of light due to the expansion of space itself—not because objects are breaking the cosmic speed limit. As the expansion slows (which, to be clear, current data suggests accelerating due to dark energy, not slowing), those regions might re-enter our observable horizon if their recession speeds dip below light speed.

So, in both Big Bang and IC frameworks, there’s a mechanism for new matter to “appear” in our view—though not because it’s being newly created, but because we’re just now seeing it.

We were talking about information in an IC or quantum-informed universe. We know some things about information, but thinking about it in cosmological and quantum contexts is still relatively new.

Jacobsen: I’d argue that information isn’t even properly defined yet—not in a way that’s universally agreed upon in physics.

Rosner: My idea is that information requires a unitary context. You can work with information in a fragmented or local way, but to fully define and understand it, you need a unified framework—a whole universe that provides coherence. Without that, what you call “information” might be an approximation.

The same goes for things like entropy and gravitation. Locally, you can define and measure them. But globally, they may behave very differently across the whole universe—and need to be understood as part of a unitary structure.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1323: Quantum Entanglement, Informational Cosmology, and the Limits of Computation

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/26

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the fundamental implications of quantum computing and information in informational cosmology?

Rick Rosner: I do not know much about the mathematics of entangled computation. It involves working with highly entangled quantum states, which allow certain classes of problems to be solved more efficiently than with classical computers when used in quantum computers. The universe itself can be described as a highly entangled quantum information system. However, this does not mean that entanglement is easily exploitable. The entanglement naturally occurring in the universe is not readily accessible for computational use. If we want to harness entanglement, we must engineer systems that create and maintain entanglement for our specific computational purposes. Stephen Hawking once proposed that the universe’s structure might be described using knot theory. Knot theory, a branch of topology, deals with the properties of closed, non-self-intersecting curves in three-dimensional space—essentially, mathematical knots. Have you ever looked into knot theory?

Jacobsen: Is everything else not-knot theory?

Rosner: Okay, sure. This involves strings, but it is not string theory. Knot theory considers one-dimensional, flexible objects—like strings—that cannot pass through each other. In three-dimensional space, this leads to a classification of possible knots. Hawking once speculated that, at least metaphorically, one could consider the universe’s history as a set of knotted world lines—the paths that particles take through spacetime. When particles interact, their world lines can twist around each other in complex ways, forming a kind of stitching. In this view, the universe is continuously woven together as particles trace their trajectories through four-dimensional spacetime, with time as the dimension along which they all progress. In that sense, the universe is ‘knitted’ over time through entanglements—literally, in this speculative framework. As for the limitations of quantum computing in the context of informational cosmology, I can say that you cannot defeat entropy in a closed system. In open systems—where information or energy can be exchanged—you can locally reverse entropy, but in a closed system, entropy always increases overall.

Privacy Settings

Entropy is the breakdown of order and specificity. A thermodynamically ordered system is one where, for example, you have heat on one side and coolness on the other—a state of order. It is sorted. When you allow heat to flow or molecules to mix, the system becomes disordered—the sorting is undone through random motion. You cannot overcome that creeping disorder because the energy required to restore order produces more heat, and thus more disorder, than the amount of order you manage to recover. Similarly, at least in the early stages of quantum computing, it takes significant effort to intentionally entangle particles for computational purposes, as opposed to the natural entanglement in the universe. I assume there are constraints—such as conservation laws or energy costs—so that the work done to create entanglement must be compensated somehow, probably by the one doing the work. I am not entirely certain. That might be a simplistic view. Perhaps I did not need to bring entropy into this.

The issue may be that, with our current level of technology, it is difficult to entangle particles. And the entanglement is fragile. First, you must prepare your qubits. I watched a short segment of a presentation recently—it appears that it is now possible to build circuits that form relatively robust qubits. You can maintain their entanglement long enough to complete your computation. So, honestly, much of what I just said might be incorrect. It was probably a bad analogy involving entropy. I could have just said that, given the current state of quantum technology, constructing stable quantum bits is complex. So, I just spent much time saying something quite misguided.

Jacobsen: What about quantum error correction?

Rosner: Essentially, you work with a network of entangled qubits. Now, I might be off on the details, but the idea is that you have multiple qubits in superposed, indeterminate states relative to each other. When you input data, these superpositions allow the system to represent multiple possibilities simultaneously. If you can preserve those superpositions throughout the calculation, the system will behave as if it is performing several computations in parallel. Then, when you input a value, it is as if you are applying multiple operations to that input simultaneously. Your output reflects a combined result from those multiple calculations. This can be extremely efficient for certain tasks, like factoring large numbers—one of the key examples of quantum computing. You could, for example, search for the prime factors of a very large number by effectively testing many possibilities at once. I am speculating here, but it is as though you receive a confirmation signal—like a “ding”—if one of the operations returns a valid factor. That allows you to complete factorization much faster than with classical methods. This is also where interpretations like the many-worlds theory come into play. From that perspective, the computation happens across multiple parallel worlds, each representing a different configuration of your system. So, in theory, you are conducting several versions of computation simultaneously, and at the end, you retrieve a superimposed result that reflects the contribution of each. This is useful for certainproblems, like finding optimal paths, though, to be honest, I am probably oversimplifying or misrepresenting the science here. You are asking me about something outside my area of expertise. We should move on to a topic I can address more confidently.

Jacobsen: How could you take a non-computing perspective on quantum mechanics that would still be relevant to informational cosmology?

Jacobsen: I mean, we have discussed this many times. A non-computational perspective suggests that the universe defines itself through the history of interactions among its particles. That is the quantum perspective: quantum mechanics is the mathematics of incomplete information. The universe can only generate a finite amount of information—each quantum event contributes a discrete bit of information. Over time, quantum events cumulatively generate more information, but still only a finite amount per unit of time. Even over long durations, the universe remains incompletely specified because it would take infinite information to define it with infinite precision. Therefore, by definition, the universe operates on incomplete information. But we have talked about this at least a dozen times.

Privacy Settings

Rosner: Does the entropy style in quantum mechanics differ from sheer randomness?

Jacobsen: Well, I do not know specifically about entropy in quantum mechanics, but in informational cosmology, what appear to us as random quantum events may reflect something deeper. If the information within our universe is modelling something external to it, then those quantum events may represent the outcomes of processes occurring in the system being modelled. What do you call the information received through the senses? Qualia, right?

If the universe is mind-like, some quantum events producing new information may be qualia. That would mean they are indicators of events happening in another universe—a source beyond our own. This does not violate quantum mechanics. The events appear random because their causes lie outside our observable universe. Aside from entanglement, it has been proven that you cannot have hidden variables that fully determine quantum outcomes. Entanglement is a separate matter. But outside of that, you cannot consult the rest of the universe to predict the value of a quantum event. That information does not exist within our universe. You have these open quantum events, and unlike in a deterministic or clockwork universe, you cannot infer their outcomes based on surrounding information. The information needed to determine them might exist outside the universe if the universe is itself modelling something beyond it. And I have forgotten what your original question was.

Entropy behaves differently at different scales. On a local scale—within a closed system that cannot radiate away waste heat—entropy appears always to increase. That gives the impression of a one-way path from order to thermodynamic disorder. However, when you consider the universe as a whole, that linear progression does not necessarily hold. Entropy can behave differently at the universal level than in subsystems.

Jacobsen: Would there be any theoretical computation beyond quantum superiority? I mean, that is what the debate has been about since quantum mechanics was first formulated—whether there exists another framework, technique, or domain in the universe that would allow us to characterize the universe more effectively than quantum theory currently does.

It may not be about finding a completely new type of computation but reframing how we conceptualize it. For example, the way we distinguish between GPUs and CPUs—nature, having had billions of years to experiment seems to operate simultaneously with multiple layers of processing: short-term, long-term, parallel, and single-path calculation types. So perhaps the next step is contextual computing—where the core computational advantage lies in adaptability to context, not just brute-force superpositioning or exhaustive quantum state searches.

Rosner: You cannot think of quantum mechanics generally, but what you suggest sounds like a typology-based approach. If you could develop a classification of situations where outcomes could be probabilistically inferred using a Bayesian framework, then yes, you could say, “Oh, this situation looks like that situation,” and derive predictive value. That seems plausible. For example, if I see a Tesla truck, I immediately become more cautious because I have yet to see a Tesla truck driven by someone who is not at least slightly obnoxious. So, while vehicles may be generally unpredictable, certain vehicles—or those driving—introduce context-specific predictability. A Tesla truck might cut across lanes abruptly or roll through a stop sign. Or take a BMW driven by a 22-year-old guy: you brace for someone speeding through a parking garage at 35 miles per hour. These are behavioural patterns that can be contextualized.

So, can constraints and parameters be applied to specific scenarios such that outcome prediction becomes more accurate than what quantum mechanical uncertainty alone would suggest? I do not know. Would a fully quantum mechanical model include the context, like the behavioural pattern of a 22-year-old driving a BMW? I have no idea. AA’s complete quantum mechanical description could incorporate such information, though I doubt it in practice.

There are certain strategies to increase your predictive success. For instance, you can configure quantum systems in ways biased toward yielding classical outcomes. That is, you intentionally reduce the uncertainty by building in constraints—effectively imposing determinism. But even then, you are still operating under the laws of quantum mechanics. Whether or not quantum events are inherently random, if you hang a hammer from a string and cut it, it will fall. That outcome is determined regardless of the underlying quantum indeterminacy.

You can engineer both macro-level events and constrained micro-level events to make outcomes predictable. Yet, the foundational substrate remains quantum. And that is part of why we exist at the scale we do. We are enormous relative to atoms because it takes this much matter and evolutionary complexity to function in a way that yields reliable action. The macroscopic scale acts as a quantum error correction.

Macroscopic objects are more stable because they are large. That is what quantum error correction is: the robustness of macro systems shields them from the randomness of quantum events. It is like crossing a street—you do not rely on just one photon to tell you whether the light is red. You wait until enough red photons hit your retina and are confident the light is red. It is just the macros of things. That is how we survive and function.

Let’s call it a night.

Jacobsen: No, it’s a day.

Rosner: All right. Thank you. Talk to you tomorrow.

Jacobsen: Thank you. Talk to you tomorrow, too.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1322: U.S.–China Conflict, Cyber War, and the Rise of AI Power

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you think the U.S. will be at war with China? I do not mean economic war. Economic tariffs can be considered an act of war in certain contexts. So these actions—not only highly provocative and destabilizing, potentially shredding decades-long alliances—could be seen as acts of war, especially by countries that are not firm allies of the United States.

Rick Rosner: At least my hopeful view is that Trump and company are doing, or will be seen as doing, so badly that they lose the momentum to escalate things further or pursue even crazier actions. That’s the optimistic take.

The pessimistic view is that Trump doesn’t care how unpopular he is and might keep doing reckless, stupid stuff anyway.

The thing that happened today that has everyone running around like a pissed-on anthill is Pete Hegseth—now the Secretary of Defense—holding a strategic meeting on attacking Yemen… on Signal. It is a secure messaging app, but it’s not meant for top-level military planning.

When you have a high-level strategy meeting, you’re supposed to do it inside a SCIF—a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. That’s a room within a room, designed with electromagnetic shielding, vibration isolation, and no electronic devices allowed. So, no one can spy on you, even with side-channel surveillance techniques.

They ignored all of that. They said, “Let’s just have a Zoom meeting.” And they accidentally invited a reporter from The Atlantic, who sat in on the whole thing and then wrote about it.

One of the biggest intelligence breaches of the 21st century. I don’t know how much-classified info got out, but it’s undeniably fucking stupid. Even Fox News is saying it’s a disaster.

So, we hope optimistically that Trump keeps screwing up so badly that he derails his efforts. He’s been back in the office for nine weeks now. And he already went underwater in approval ratings—in May. Then May (the polling aggregator) went out of business. ABC shut it down. So now, the most cited aggregator is RealClearPolitics, which includes more conservative pollsters.

He stayed above water on their average until last week. Now, even RealClearPolitics shows him underwater. The country has much anger; maybe that widespread pissed-offness slows him down.

But when you talk about war with China—we’ve already been in a cyber warwith China for decades. They try to hack us. We try to hack them. Thousands—maybe tens of thousands—of times a day. That’s been going on for years.

So sure, we can be optimistic that they’ll slow down with the stupid shit. But we can’t be optimistic that they’ll get smarter or be less sycophantic to Russia.

Hegseth—the same guy who held the Signal strategy meeting instead of using a SCIF—just announced that we’re shutting down cyber operations against Russia, which is fucking insane. Russia hits us electronically as often as China, maybe more.

And now we’re going to stop fighting back? That’s absurd. I would hope that some agency—some team that a moron does not run—is still quietly doing what needs to be done to defend us.

But it’s not that war will start with China. We’ve been at war—cyber and espionage—with China and Russia for a long time. With Russia, since World War II. First, the Cold War. Then, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. And within a few years of that, we were in a cyber war with them.

I hope that our current compromised state of idiocy will make China back off and let the U.S. self-destruct. But that’s not what they did the first time Trump was president. They didn’t escalate directly. They didn’t launch overt attacks. But they did increase operations—kept spying, kept hacking. They even sent a spy into Mar-a-Lago.

Mostly, when the U.S. went isolationist, China stepped up with its initiatives—especially the Belt and Road Initiative. That’s the global infrastructure and investment strategy China’s been using to build influence across Asia, Africa, and Europe.

So, when America pulls back, China steps in. I assume they’ll keep doing that as we continue acting like dipshits.

What do you think? Do you see the world divided into American and Chinese blocs?

Jacobsen: Others talk about a multipolar world—not in the classical sense, but in a darker, more fragmented sense. You’ve got fiefdoms, fallen democracies, and ruling theocracies or autocracies. Constant small wars—localized conflicts—fighting and bargaining for scraps of territory. It’s low-grade chaos.

The old-school idea of a multipolar world was more structured. After World War II, the U.S. dominated—a unipolar moment. Then came the Cold War and the bipolar era: the U.S. versus the Soviet Union. After the USSR collapsed in 1991, we started to see a gradual relative decline of U.S. dominance—not because the U.S. failed, but because other nations and technologies rose in parallel—global tech diffusion kind of levels the field.

So now, as these geopolitical realignments happen—mini-empires, fiefdoms, new spheres of influence—another transformation is taking place: the rise of actors operating outside state structures. People working with AI, especially in the private sector, are quietly amassing power and strategic advantage in domains not strictly tied to national borders or military force.

Rosner: And we’re watching that power accumulate among billionaires—some of them fucking stupid, others just reckless gamblers. Take Musk. He’s lashed his empire to the U.S. government, sure. But there are plenty of other billionaires who’ve aligned themselves with Trump because, well, he’s corrupt and easy to manipulate. If you want to get things done in the U.S. under Trump, you must be on his good side.

Jacobsen: Over time, the power of traditional nation-states may shrink relative to that of other entities—corporate alliances, AI collectives, techno-oligarchs—especially those backed by strategic intelligence. That’s assuming intelligence and strategy still provide a sufficient edge.

Rosner: But here’s the thing: being smart doesn’t mean you’ll run the world. I’ve got a high IQ, too. The billionaires who have taken over large chunks of the world didn’t just strategize better—they got lucky, took huge risks, and some just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Musk is a chaotic gambler who made massive bets—and they paid off. Bezos? He started by selling books online.

Jacobsen: Now Amazon has a thousand tentacles—and based on a recent interview, he says he spends 95% of his time focused on AI.

And that makes sense. AI is a horizontal enhancement layer. Bezos discusses integrating AI across all services to boost productivity, quality, aesthetics, and everything. Whether it’s narrow AI or a more generalized system, the idea is to lay this intelligence layer across existing verticals and all rise.

Rosner: It’s like raising the floor. But it raises an interesting question: are morefloors to be added? If AI achieves superintelligence, will it find new ways to outcompete regular intelligence?

Jacobsen: Right. There’s a limit to how fast you can do a Super Mario speed run. At some point, physics and code optimization hit a ceiling. But even then, if you reduce the complexity of the code or enhance its efficiency, you’re doing more with less. That’s like putting heels on your shoes—the floor rises under you, and everything you build from there gets lifted.

So yes, your point is well taken—but the floor metaphor shouldn’t be taken too literally. AI isn’t just speeding things up—it’s altering the structure. Reducing friction and improving systems. So even if we’re not adding entirely new floors, we’re reinforcing and elevating the one we’re standing on.

So, there are many ways we’re not even thinking about “the floor” properly. He’s missing a broader framework when he talks about it simplistically as a horizontal enhancement layer. There’s a more expansive way to conceptualize it than he’s realizing.

Rosner: Yeah. Anyway—fuck.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1321: The Impact of AI on Human Intelligence and Modern Entertainment

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Rick Rosner: So, Carole is a little nervous. She’s been reading about people getting deported or denied entry for expressing pro-Palestinian views—which is disturbing. But we’re not at the point where they’re deporting citizens, at least not routinely.

I told Carole to keep that in mind. We’re not there yet. But if she thinks we should get a gun, then we’ll get a gun—something small—maybe a .22 calibre automatic. There’s not much recoil because you’re firing low-velocity rounds. Not pellets—bullets. But still, they’re teeny little bullets.

If it comes to that, get a Walther PPK .22 LR. It weighs about a pound. You can put it in your pocket—though, if you’re careless, you could shoot your balls off.

Anyway, yes, there are studies. And from personal experience, too—are people getting dumber?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Yes. But it is not very easy. At the same time, people are smarter in certain domains. Literacy rates are up globally. But the sophistication of our dumbness is also up. We’re more aware of stupidity as a phenomenon.

Rosner: So maybe it’s an art of artifice—a kind of meta-dumbness. I read an article in Vox about the “baby shortage” but framed it more accurately as a coupling shortage. People are forming fewer long-term relationships, especially in their 20s and 30s.

And couples are, statistically, the main source of babies. The Vox piece touched on hyper-engaging entertainment and digital isolation. A large portion of the population—especially young people who, biologically speaking, should be out trying to mate—is content to stay home and be entertained. I looked up some data.

Back in the 1980s, a typical episode of network TV—say, The Love Boat—might cost between $300,000 and $500,000 to produce. You watched it on your cathode ray TV, which might’ve had a 27- or 32-inch screen. Pixels per inch weren’t even a concept then.

The writing was formulaic, so they had to crank it out quickly. There were only three major networks—ABC, NBC, and CBS—so options were limited.

Compare that to today. Take Severance, one of the most critically acclaimed streaming shows, produced by Ben Stiller. Season One premiered in 2022. It’s high-concept, beautifully produced, and slow to release. Season Two reportedly took nearly three years due to production delays and the Hollywood strikes. Each episode is estimated to cost around $15–20 million.

Yes, inflation plays a role—but one episode of Severance costs as much as roughly 40–50 episodes of a 1980s network show. The quality is undeniable. It’s compelling, layered, cinematic.

If that’s not your thing, there’s Wicked, which is coming out in two parts. The first part is scheduled to premiere in November 2024. Universal Pictures is reportedly spending around $145 million on Part One alone. It’ll likely stream on Peacock after the theatrical release.

We’re paying $150 a year across all streaming services? And when a major movie drops on a platform you’re already subscribed to, it feels free. I tried watching Wicked but couldn’t get into it. It’s a musical, operatic. Not my taste.

Then there’s Red One, a holiday action-comedy starring Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Chris Evans, produced by Amazon MGM Studios. It was originally slated for release in 2023 but got pushed. The reported budget? Around $250 million. That’s Marvel-level spending—for a holiday movie.

This is high-level entertainment—on your TV right now. Occasionally, you’ll see a big-budget film that’s good. But add to that: AAA video games, endless porn, algorithmic social media content—and people want to stay home. Also, real people suffer more than your friends in the digital sphere. Real life loses to the spectacle.

There are roughly as many OnlyFans models as there are doctors—about 1.1 million of each. It’s not a perfect comparison because the doctors are mostly counted in the United States, while the OnlyFans models are global. But I still feel that the U.S. hosts many of those creators.

So you’re comparing the booty of someone you might meet if you ever go outside—to a club or the grocery store—to the curated, highly-toned, tanned, trained bodies of the best of a million models on OnlyFans.

It used to be, back in the bad old days—the’ 70s—people sold books on how to meet women. They were bad because, well… they mostly sucked. But they often gave one piece of advice: “Go where the women are.” So you’d cruise the aisles of the supermarket. I guess that’s a start.

But those “how to pick up girls” books didn’t give you any useful next steps—except “walk up to her and talk to her,” which isn’t revolutionary advice. Still, imagine you’re following that strategy today. You’re trying to meet someone at the grocery store but mentally competing with the surgically optimized, algorithmically promoted bodies of top-tier OnlyFans creators. People in real life can’t compete with that kind of curation.

So, fewer couples form. Fewer babies get made. That’s what makes guys like Elon Musk throw up their hands and say it’s the end of civilization. Or white supremacists claim it’s the end of European civilization—because not enough white babies are being born.

But we have 8.2 billion people on the planet. For 99.9999% of human history, we had fewer than 8 billion people. We can probably get by.

It’s economically easier if the population grows—more consumers and workers are paying into systems like Social Security. We discussed this earlier on one of the morning yelling shows: Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Later contributors fund the benefits of earlier ones. So yeah, a growing population props that up.

But a stable or shrinking population helps in other ways—especially with climate change. Our per capita carbon footprint decreases over time as technology gets more efficient and people travel less, thanks to remote options.

And even more than that—a non-increasing population directly helps. It would be fantastic to cap the global population at 9 billion instead of letting it climb to 10.5 billion. It would ease the pressure on ecosystems, energy use, and water. But of course, “Whitey” likes to whine about that kind of thing.

Once you start noticing that people are getting dumber, you can’t unsee it. But let’s say we’re wrong. Let’s say we’re just cranky assholes who assume the worst about people. Even then—it doesn’t matter if we’re wrong. Because relative to the smartest things on Earth—besides humans—we are getting dumber.

The smartest things on Earth now are AIs. They’re still not super smart, but they’re getting smarter. And we’re not. Even if we stay the same, we’re getting relatively dumber because AI is accelerating.

So, we’re getting relatively stupider.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1320: Writing Murder In Media Res, Stephen King, and Storytelling

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Rick Rosner: So, off-camera, I was saying, “Have you ever heard of the principle in media res?” I’m probably pronouncing it wrong, but it means to start in the middle of the action.

The way it usually works is that you’re writing a story—a book, a screenplay—and then someone who knows better than you looks at it and says, Cut off the first chapter. You can move that chapter somewhere else or leave it out entirely. Start in the middle of the action—because that’s the exciting part.

Readers and viewers are sophisticated. They don’t need a long build-up. They can infer how the story got to the action; if they can’t, they’ll at least be intrigued enough to keep reading to figure it out. So, that’s what I’m doing with my novel.

It starts with what is more or less a murder—committed by the main character. However, the main character lacks proper murder tools and struggles. He also hates what he’s doing.

At first, he has a choice—to murder or not. But once he starts, the situation spirals past the point of no return. Sure, he could stop at that point, and the victim might survive—but that wouldn’t be good either. Now, he regrets it, but he has to finish.

The entire thing takes hours—including waiting in the dark and lying in wait. As I was writing it, I kept thinking about Stephen King.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Have you read much Stephen King?

Rosner: A long time ago. He writes long books—rich in detail, and usually, the details are accurate. So, if you write in that style, action sequences don’t happen in a few sentences. They take pages and pages of meticulous, step-by-step writing. I’ve probably spent too many words on it already.

If the book ever gets edited for publication, someone will say, yes, you spent too many pages on this murder scene. But right now, I’m deep in it.

Stephen King wrote an entire book, Gerald’s Game, which they turned into a movie— with Ashley Judd and the guy from Jurassic Park. It’s about a married couple who go away for a weekend, and during a sex game, the husband handcuffs the wife to a sturdy bed. Then, he has a fatal heart attack.

That’s the setup.

After that, the entire book—hundreds of pages—is about her trying to escape before she dies of dehydration.

That’s a huge amount of writing spent on one problem: How do you get out of handcuffs when no one’s coming to save you?

Rosner: That’s a lot of pages to spend on a woman tied to a bed. This murder scene I’m working on also takes place in a bed. It’s got logistical challenges—things that need to be worked out step-by-step. I’ll see how it plays once I finish the rest of the book.

Jacobsen: And you’ve got the rest of the book ahead of you.

Rosner: Another thing. After everything—or at least most—is done, the central character steps out of the bedroom and into the night. For the first time, he sees a ton of stars. This takes place in a fancy house near Mulholland Drive, the crest that divides northern Los Angeles from southern Los Angeles—the valley on one side, the city on the other. I’m guessing I should probably drive up there myself to check, but I assume that with fewer houses and higher up, there’s less light pollution, so you’d be able to see more stars.

When he sees them, he has a set of epiphanies about the nature of the universe—epiphanies that align with IC (Information Cosmology) within the book. That’s how this character starts thinking about IC. Historically, Darwin had The Voyage of the Beagle to start him thinking about evolution. This character has murder as his precipitating event.

Which— is fun. Not for the dead person, obviously, but for everyone else. I’m trying to make the book all candy. Every sentence should be engaging. Nothing should feel like a slog, even though I’ve spent too many pages on a murder. But I want every paragraph, every sentence, to have something that makes it worth reading. Not in an overly jokey or goofy way, but in a way where the reader doesn’t have to trudge through a bunch of filler to get to something they care about.

I’ve probably not succeeded, but I want to get closer to it. Because people don’t have time anymore. No one has the attention span for a slog.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1319: The Pope, Fascism, and Church-Adjacent Collectibles

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How should we think of the Pope in his valedictory period? Do we see him in the context of his history, or is it something else?

Rick Rosner: I like him because he used to be a bouncer, and he seems like a cool guy. At the same time, he hasn’t been entirely consistent. He says a lot of good things—certainly better than many others before him—but there’s a consistent inconsistency to it. When he’s on, he trends toward socially conscious perspectives that might motivate people to do good things. So, more good than bad—but still, some bad.

Jacobsen: That’s good.

Rosner: Because I collect a lot of church-adjacent shit.

Jacobsen: Church-adjacent shit?

Rosner: Micromosaics. That’s on the nose.

Jacobsen: That is the nose.

Rosner: Yes. So much of my collection is from Rome. A lot of it was sold probably within two miles of the Vatican. Some of the later stuff was made under fascism, because Italy went fascist in 1922. yet, Rome was still a huge tourist hub.

I saw an interview today with a group of old-school Spanish journalists. They were talking about Franco.

Rosner: He held onto power into the seventies—with his fascism still intact.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1318: Dog Cancer, Senolytics, and Anomalies in Big Bang Cosmology

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Rick Rosner: One of the dogs turned 14. The other one turned 12—according to best estimates. You never know with dogs.

The 14-year-old has a tumor growing off the top of her right rear leg. The vet thinks it might be a fibrosarcoma. But she’s 14. She’s happy. She’s doing well.

It would cost $10,000 to get a conclusive diagnosis and then either operate or do chemo. My wife talked to a bunch of people, including the vet. Maybe it would buy the dog a few more months—maybe a year. But it would also make the dog miserable.

So, I’m doing homebrew shit.

I’m giving the dog fisetin—a senolytic. Senolytics make damaged cells commit suicide. Normally, when cells get too messed up, they go through apoptosis—a self-destruct process. But cancer cells refuse to die, even when they should. Fisetin helps push them toward cell death. It reduces the likelihood that the cancer metastasizes.

We’re not even sure it’s cancer. It feelsa tumor, but it could be benign. Either way, I’m giving the dog a lot of fisetin.

When we first found it, the tumor was 5 cm by 3 cm. Now, it’s 4.5 cm by 3.5 cm—so it’s gotten rounder, less ovoid.

And I read a study—a cruel fucking study from the 1960s—on tying off tumors in dogs.

Cancer cells love glucose. They use oxygen, too, but many thrive in low-oxygen environments. In the ‘60s, researchers took four dozen stray dogs with tumors. They tied off the tumors—cut off blood supply for eight hours.

The surrounding healthy tissue survived. in three-quarters of cases, the tumors died.

So, this tumor is hanging there, on the dog’s leg. I’ve been putting rubber bands around it for hours at a time, trying to cut off its blood supply. Carolehates this. It freaks her out.

. The tumor might be shrinking. It’s at least not growing.

Fibrosarcomas don’t metastasize that often—only 2–40% do. So, if the fisetin stops it from spreading and I can keep the size down, we might buy the dog a lot of time—without spending $10,000 to make her miserable.

The 12-year-old dog has eye problems—cloudy eyes, early cataracts, retinal degeneration, a scratched cornea with calcium deposits. She’s on three kinds of eye drops plus an ointment.

It’s pills, drops, and treats all day long. You have to pay the dogs for letting you fuck with them.

And the 14-year-old—she’s dumb. Dogs are dumb, in general. But this one? Specially dumb. yet, she’s growing on me.

So, there you go.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s the average lifespan for their breed?

Rosner: Depends. The smaller the dog, the longer they live. A Great Dane? You’re lucky to get eight years. A German Shepherd? Twelve is good.

A small dog? You can break 15 years. That’s what we’re trying to do.

Jacobsen: I’ve discovered evidence that the universe is non-isotropic.

The cosmological principle states that the universe is expanding at the same rate in every direction—that no point in the universe is favored in terms of velocity relative to everything else. The idea is that the universe is regular—a three-dimensional surface on a four-dimensional balloon that’s being blown up evenly in all directions.

And now, the Webb Telescope is detecting anomalies.

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: In an isotropic universe, you’d expect a smooth, uniform expansion—small quantum perturbations from inflation, but nothing large-scale. By and large, the mass distribution should be isotropic.

Rosner: And you’re not seeing that at all. I haven’t read the actual studies yet—just some dumb articles on it.

But if there are real non-isotropic anomalies—like blips in velocity and structure—they should smooth out at sufficiently large scales. You might get a rogue galaxy here and there, but you shouldn’t get a rogue galactic filament or anything more extreme.

However, under IC (Information Cosmology), a non-spatially isotropic universe is expected. You’ve got an active center—the “Big Bangy” region—but at the outskirts, things are retarded (slowed down in space and time).

Some articles are calling this a crisis in Big Bang theory. But that’s how science works—big theories accumulate anomalies over time. They get revised, refined, or, eventually, supplanted by something better.

If you want a historical model of this process, look at how Newton’s Universal Gravitation was replaced by Einstein’s General Relativity. Newton’s model wasn’t wrong—it was a special case within a broader framework.

Newtonian dynamics work fine most of the time. But when experimental results started showing discrepancies—like Mercury’s anomalous orbit—scientists had to come up with a more precise framework. That’s where General Relativity came in. It didn’t throw out Newtonian physics—it expanded it into a more all-encompassing model.

So, the same thing will happen to Big Bang Theory. It won’t be thrown out. It’ll become part of a more comprehensive framework. Maybe that framework will incorporate things we currently consider metaphysics—concepts that seem too speculative right now but will eventually be validated by a successful theory.

For instance, a scientific explanation for why the universe is locally three-dimensional might have something to do with information theory.

Rosner: Comments?

Jacobsen: Not so far.

Rosner: We need to think about the margins of the theory—push out the edges. We keep working within a reorientation of standard physics, but that’s how you do mathematical theory. You start by reorienting gravitation—but still within the rules.

Einstein had two things going for him:

Elegant math
Precise predictions

He predicted things the precession of Mercury’s orbit—how Mercury doesn’t move in a perfect ellipse but follows a spirograph-like pattern.

He even predicted the rate at which Mercury’s orbital ellipse shifts over time. No planet retraces its orbit exactly—instead, it blooms a flower. Mercury’s effect is the most extreme because it’s closest to the Sun, so the curvature of spacetime around it is strongest. But where was I going with this? What did you originally say that got me on this tangent?

Jacobsen: It was about coming up with constants around the edges rather than reorienting existing ones.

Rosner: Right.

Jacobsen: Yes. It’s an extension—both metaphysically and within regular physics. Especially now, since Big Bang Theory has so many anomalies that need explaining.

One of the goals of IC is to merge information theory with cosmology. That might sound hocus-pocus, but information behavior is already deeply embedded in physics. Quantum mechanics, for example, is all about information—particles and waves behaving according to the available information in the universe.Every particle is fuzzy—not because it wants to be, but because there isn’t enough information in the universe to make it not fuzzy. And yet, paradoxically, quantum mechanics is insanely precise about that fuzziness. Its predictions are more accurate than any other physical theory—by orders of magnitude.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1317: Writing Murder, Musical Intrusions, and Stephen King-Level Detail

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The idea is to get rid of or move what you originally thought was the beginning of your book—and instead start later, right in the middle of the action.

Rick Rosner: That’s true for my book too. I begin with a murder. I wrote this quite a while ago, but I’ve been going through it, making it more murders—more excruciating.

We’re on the side of the character committing this heinous act, but we also want the character to feel the full weight of the deed. In the 1970s, on TV, there were a bunch of terrible crime shows produced by Quinn Martin, Barnaby Jones, and Cannon. They often had characters with skulls made of eggshells. You push them over, they bonk into the fireplace, and suddenly, they’re dead.

That was the murder on those shows. It was too easy to kill people, and it took all the weight out of it. A character would shove someone, they’d hit their head, and that was it—no resonance, no real consequences. It was a way to kick off the detective story.

In my book, the victim is much harder to kill. It’s not that he’s Rasputin—he doesn’t survive being poisoned, shot, and thrown into a river—but the murderer doesn’t have great tools at hand. The victim is wounded, but not enough. The killer regrets what he’s done but can’t un-murder the person—so he has to finish the job. If the victim survives, he’ll turn the murderer in.

I’ve been going through it, making the process more step-by-step. I thought I had the guy killed, but now, the attack happens in bed. The victim could be you—but he’s not because you’re here.

But after the attack, he’s still breathing, still able to move somewhat. He works his way—helped by the murderer—off the bed and collapses on his knees between the bed and the nightstand. Now, the killer has a problem. The victim is stuck in such a way that the murderer, who doesn’t have much leverage, can’t kill him in that position. He has to figure out how to pull the victim onto the floor to finish him off.

This afternoon, I was literally on my knees between my bed and the nightstand, testing this out—trying to see how a person would collapse in a tight space.

And then I spent another chunk of time figuring out what songs the murderer has stuck in his head while doing this—to his annoyance.

Suddenly—Muse. So now I’ve got Bad Guy by Billie Eilish.

Rosner: Do you like that song?

Jacobsen: That’s a great song. I used to do janitorial work to that song. It’s good. It’s got much momentum—it powers forward.

Rosner: The murderer in my story is trying to concentrate on the murder, but then the song pops into his head. He’s Shut up, Billie Eilish because it’s not helping. Then, later, another song popped into his head, and I was trying to find one as fitting as Bad Guy.

I wanted to use Pat Benatar’s Hit Me With Your Best Shot, but I can’t. Carole agrees—it’s from 1980, and no one today would naturally have that song pop into their head. It would feel out of place. So, a slightly better choice is Psycho Killer by Talking Heads. It’s old as fuck, but you could still see someone thinking of it today.

And it also has much momentum—not as much as Bad Guy, but enough. Anyway, that’s what I spent the afternoon doing. Comments?

Jacobsen: It’s better than half-attempted masturbation. This—this is productive.

Rosner: So, this is me trying to channel Stephen King. He sometimes goes into extreme step-by-step detail—almost like painting a miniature, getting every tiny detail right.

There’s a book— it’s Gerald’s Game. That’s the title, . I might be confusing my books. They made it into a movie with the guy from Jurassic Park and maybe Ashley Judd. Anyway, it’s about a long-time married couple who go away to an Airbnb-type place. They’re playing a sex game where the husband handcuffs the wife to the headboard—her arms spread out.

Then, he has a fatal heart attack.

The entire rest of the book—more than 200 pages—is about the woman trying to escape before she dies in that position. It’s about one problem: How do you get out of being handcuffed to a bed when no one is coming to help you? And hundreds of pages go into solving that single, deadly situation.

So, this is my version of that. Carole thought it was too detailed—too step-by-step. But how do you not focus on every little thing once you get going?

So, there you go.Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The idea is to get rid of or move what you originally thought was the beginning of your book—and instead start later, right in the middle of the action.

Rick Rosner: That’s true for my book too. I begin with a murder. I wrote this quite a while ago, but I’ve been going through it, making it more murders—more excruciating.

This afternoon, I was literally on my knees between my bed and the nightstand, testing this out—trying to see how a person would collapse in a tight space.

And then I spent another chunk of time figuring out what songs the murderer has stuck in his head while doing this—to his annoyance.

Suddenly—Muse. So now I’ve got Bad Guy by Billie Eilish.

Rosner: Do you like that song?

Jacobsen: That’s a great song. I used to do janitorial work to that song. It’s good. It’s got much momentum—it powers forward.

And it also has much momentum—not as much as Bad Guy, but enough. Anyway, that’s what I spent the afternoon doing. Comments?

Jacobsen: It’s better than half-attempted masturbation. This—this is productive.

Rosner: So, this is me trying to channel Stephen King. He sometimes goes into extreme step-by-step detail—almost like painting a miniature, getting every tiny detail right.

Then, he has a fatal heart attack.

So, this is my version of that. Carole thought it was too detailed—too step-by-step. But how do you not focus on every little thing once you get going?

So, there you go.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1316: Rick Had a Dream Tonight!

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Rick Rosner: So last night, I had—what was my fucking dream about? It’s usually that I’m back at fucking Jimmy Kimmel, and this time, I was at a Kimmel party. I always lose shit in my dreams, especially in Kimmel dreams. I forget where my car is. I couldn’t find my fucking car last night. At five in the morning, in the dream, I set my keys down.

Why didn’t I—why didn’t I fucking put them in my pocket? And somebody at the party took my keys and left their keys, and shit was all fucked up. I woke up, and I—I have fucking wasted my life. So I went to look up and see if anybody has done work—or how far the work on the geometry of information has gotten—because I haven’t looked at that shit in a while. There is some work on it, and it’s tied in with quantum mechanics.

But there are still things I’ve figured out that people haven’t. One thing—one fucking thing—is conservation laws. Entropy. Matter—can’t be created or destroyed. Information—can’t be created or destroyed. We have a ton of conservation laws, and they are all true locally. Conservation laws hold widely but only locally.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you say locally with regard to conservation laws, you’re talking about a radius of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of light-years—where, if you look around, you’re seeing consistency as far as you can reasonably see. But that’s different from saying that matter, energy, and information are conserved universally, all the way out to the edge of the universe in space and time.

Rosner: You have to be open to the possibility that matter, time, and information can be created, and entropy can be dumped in the borderlands—the regions near t = 0 or across the entire span of the universe—where information is implicitly generated when photons escape. Most photons do escape. The vast majority of photons that make it to the surface of the Sun and then radiate outward—99.9999% of them, at least—keep going.

They don’t hit anything in our solar system. They don’t hit anything in our galaxy. They may diffract around interstellar dust—yes, I should look up whether diffraction can occur without a photon being captured—but, ultimately, most of these photons keep traveling. The vast, vast majority of them continue outward toward the edge of the universe, losing most of their energy to the curvature of space itself.

The curvature of the universe isn’t an abstract concept; it is the tacit registration of the information created as the photon loses energy. A photon loses energy while traveling to the edge of the universe because the universe itself expands and stretches the wavelength of that photon. If a photon travels almost as far as the observable universe extends, then it has, in a way, been registered within the cosmic structure.

Contrast that with a photon inside the Sun. A photon inside the Sun might travel an incredible distance before it’s absorbed, but once it is absorbed, that’s the end of the line. No new information is generated because the emission and absorption occur within a closed system. There is no permanent record. But if a photon travels, say, 100 million light-years and loses only 1% of its energy to the curvature of the universe, that tiny fraction of its energy has been converted into something tacit, a change that registers within the overall structure of spacetime.

For local interactions—an experiment in a lab, or a laser beam reflecting off the Moon and back—all conservation laws hold. Everything is reversible. But on the largest scales? No. Information is created. Matter is created. Time itself is created. Most universes are lucky enough for information to emerge at all.

There’s a little bit of research in this direction. The math is heavy-duty—though it wouldn’t feel so heavy-duty if I had taken the time to fully learn the advanced mathematics of quantum mechanics. Understanding the geometry of information in formal mathematical terms requires that level of fluency. But I can already tell that current research hasn’t gone far enough, because it doesn’t yet consider information globally.

Jacobsen: Yes. The global aspect matters because, technically, every object in the universe leaks its informational content outward, all the way to the edge of existence.

Rosner: Yes. The universe has to keep tabs on itself.

Jacobsen: But why? Localization is a temporary condensation of a global manifold.

Rosner: We’ve been poking at this question for forever. A question I asked myself when I was feeling shitty last night at 5:30 in the morning was: Does an informational map of the universe even need to exist? Does a geometry of information need to exist?

We’re about to get machine consciousness. We’re, what, five years away at most? We’ve been talking to AI, which is not conscious—not even close. But the path to it is clear, and rapidly approaching. We’re going to have machine fucking consciousness in the 2030s, and we’ll have done it without a fully developed geometry of consciousness or a complete understanding of how information functions within consciousness.

Which prompts the question: If you can recreate consciousness, do you need a framework for consciousness?

We’re about to manufacture conscious entities, yet we still don’t have a fundamental model for how human consciousness works. Which begs the question—or rather, prompts the fucking question—is there even an underlying architecture to consciousness? Or can we keep treating consciousness as a purely experiential thing—where we, as conscious beings, experience the world and interact with it, without needing a structural model?

I’m going to say, cautiously: Fuck yes, we need one. It is a thing. I still think that.

Though, I now believe it’s a looser thing than I originally thought when I first started thinking about this back in 1981. The vast majority of interactions between particles in the universe are reversible and don’t leave a permanent record. Even large-scale irreversible interactions aren’t registered in any detailed way within the overall information structure of the universe. They exist in a detailed way—obviously, the Earth is incredibly detailed. Everything has crystalline structure, biological structure—every solid object has a definite atomic and molecular arrangement.But does that matter to the universe as a whole? To local conscious beings like ourselves, yes, it matters. But to the overall information structure of the universe? No. The universe doesn’t care. It isn’t going to register that detail.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1315: Trump’s Rhetoric, U.S. Emigration to Canada, and Shifting Male Voting Blocs

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This is the off-the-cuff, funny-but-offensive stuff Trump says. He said he wouldn’t deport Prince Harry because “he’s got enough problems with his wife.” What do you think of that? He makes comments like this all the time.

Rick Rosner: It has little impact other than bad soft-power usage. Trump has no decorum. Every other president has treated their words as if they matter, trying to preserve a sense of authority. On the other hand, Trump knows he can say whatever he wants and won’t lose his base. It’s been years since he’s tried to moderate his statements or behaviour to expand his base.

That’s not entirely true, however. He’ll throw out nonsense, “no tax on tips,” to get attention. But he never considers that he might gain broader support by simply not being an asshole. He doesn’t even try to avoid being an asshole. His base loves that. They see his unfiltered speech as honesty because he says whatever he feels without thinking about its impact or truthfulness. They consider that a kind of truthfulness, even though, ironically, it’s the opposite of truth. In his first four years as president, he told 30,000 public lies or misstatements. But anyway, that’s how he is. I don’t have anything particularly original to add to that.

Jacobsen: How many Americans do you think are living illegally in Canada? That’s a good question. You have to break it into categories. There’s probably a large group of people who have dual citizenship and then moved over.

Rosner: So it’s not technically illegal. It’s hard for a regular American to get Canadian citizenship, however. Your passport is probably mine—good for three months in the country.

But people can still come over and stay. Thousands of draft dodgers came during the Vietnam War, but until recently, there hasn’t been much reason for Americans to leave the U.S. Now, though, you probably have people moving to Canada for various reasons—whether they’re on the run from something or they want a better life. The U.S. and Canada share a language, and if someone speaks English and gets a job, they might be able to blend in. Some might need fake IDs, but others could be retired with some money and live quietly.

How it works with healthcare, though. You do have to sign up for Canada’s free healthcare system, which requires valid Canadian documentation. If they don’t have sufficient ID and try to access medical care, that could be one way for people to get caught.

But I think that as America gets scarier, more people might try living in Canada. Also, Canada only has 40 million people, while America has eight and a half times that number. That ratio used to be more than nine times, but Canada has grown faster proportionally than the U.S.

In terms of people getting into trouble and wanting to flee the country—even if only half of one percent of Americans decided to leave, that would still be 1.7 million. If they fled to Canada, that would amount to four percent of your population.

Jacobsen: A Latin humanist pointed out to me that, in an article analyzing Trump’s electoral victory, a significant tipping-point factor was the influence of African American male pastors—Baptists, Methodists—along with conservative Muslim groups and Orthodox Jews.

So, in feminist terms, religious patriarchy played a significant role in the previous election. In non-feminist terms, conservative male theologies emphasizing male headship were key factors—not necessarily in absolute numbers, but as tipping-point voting blocs that shifted toward Trump. They saw something in him that they believed would support their values and interests.

That’s a complicated situation. But obviously, part of the issue is that women—proportionally speaking—are doing much better than men in terms of education, income, homeownership, and other measures. These conservative religious spaces provide young and older men a sense of place and purpose. That can contribute to a reactionary social and political climate. A surprising number of young men moved toward Trump in the last election.

These shifts are all connected to a broader sense of belonging. Many young men report feeling isolated, having fewer friends, and struggling with social connections. That’s probably part of it. The article was interesting and succinct in pointing out some of these factors because there had been lingering questions about why the shift occurred.

For instance, left-wing cultural assumptions would predict that white Christian men would lean toward Trump more than Democrats. That part isn’t surprising. But what was counterintuitive—at least from an identity politics perspective—was that many minority men shifted toward Trump even more than white men did. That breaks down the typical identity-politics framework and suggests that different social and economic factors were at play in these communities.

Jacobsen: I’ve been looking into Americans living abroad, which is an entirely different topic.

Rosner: So, estimating the number of Americans living abroad is tricky. Estimates range from 2.2 million to 6.8 million. I assume that includes many people living illegally. But what I’m saying is that if America starts collapsing politically or becomes significantly more dangerous—either due to political instability or increased violence—there could be a majorinflux of Americans coming to Canada and trying to stay.

And then maybe people sneak back into America when things get better. I don’t know how that works, but I know that in Canada and other Commonwealth countries, you’re typically allowed to stay for only six months without violating immigration laws. I assume that’s the case for many other countries as well.

However, what does the U.S. think if an American stays out of the country for more than six months? If you try returning to the U.S. after overstaying your legal time in Canada, do you get in trouble at the border? How strict are they about that?

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1314: Political Extremism, Gun Culture, and the Aging Divide in America

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Being a sociopath is also a form of stupidity.

Put it this way: If you look at the generational trends, you see something interesting. From Boomers to Gen X to Millennials to Gen Z, men and women were trending toward parity—more gender equality, more progressive values. But by the time you get to Gen Z, things collapse.

For younger Millennials and all of Gen Z men, they’ve backslid. Gen Z men are now almost as conservative as Boomers. That was a huge surprise in the election.

The biggest trend was that women continued moving toward feminism and gender equality, while men veered the other way. What used to be a small divide has now turned into a massive generational gap.

Men and women coming of age right now are essentially 25-50 years apart in sociopolitical perspective.

Rosner: And Musk? He calls himself a moderate, but he’s pre-Boomer conservative. The young men who follow him see him as a genius, and he reinforces their traditionalist views. He’s a tech hero to a lot of young guys.

And he’s also sucked in a lot of STEM people. On X, I’ve noticed that engineers, computer science guys, Star Trek fans—people in technical fields—idolize him. They see him as the coolest thing ever, even if they have political reservations about his behavior. And that overwhelms their reservations.

Rosner: Do you think the U.S. is at risk of getting shooty?

Jacobsen: That implies it isn’t already shooty.

The current stats show that, on average, 100 people die from guns every day. Half of those are suicides.

I’ll say this: The U.S. is already shooty. it’s going to get shootier.

It’s a matter of degree.

America already has extremes. The extremes have taken over a couple of the outer concentric circles of what used to be the center. with that, you get amplification—Twitter, media figures, peopleKanye West proudly calling himself a Nazi, unapologetically, not even blaming it on Hennessy this time.

That tells you how extremist rhetoric has been mainstreamed.

So, yes—people are going to react to that. The more radicalized the rhetoric gets, the more radical actions we’ll see.

If the extreme has become more centralized, even by 10%, you’re going to get more radical incidents.

Because ideology drives motivation.

And when you get millions of people in informational bubbles, radicalized in incremental steps, they’re going to act on it.

All we’ve done is increase the number of those people.

Jacobsen: You should expect more extreme weather events. It’s wet; it’s the climate. When you raise global temperatures, you increase the likelihood of severe weather events and their frequency. That is the reality of climate science. Rising temperatures mean more energy in the atmosphere, which results in stronger storms, heavier rainfall, and more erratic weather patterns.

Rosner: Let me ask you this. You have been to one of the world’s most dangerous countries twice—Ukraine. Given that experience, if you lived in America—

Jacobsen: I have lived in America. I have lived in America before.

Rosner: What was your longest stint in America?

Jacobsen: A month. Maybe twice or three times, for a total of two months or three months or so. Plus, I was in one of the safest places in the country—a gated community inside one of the safest cities in the United States: Irvine, California.

Rosner: Right. Irvine is not particularly dangerous. But if you lived in a more typical part of America—say, Ohio—would you get yourself a Kevlar vest?

Jacobsen: No. If I had to live in Ohio, I would probably choose Youngstown. It seems like an interesting place.

Rosner: So, you would choose where to live based at least in part on how safe it felt?

Jacobsen: Yes. Or at least based on whether or not it felt too chaotic.

Rosner: That’s fair.

Jacobsen: Yes. I have only seen one bullet in my life ricochet off the pavement. That was at a shooting range. I have fired a lot of guns there—from a high-caliber sniper rifle to a Beretta. The Beretta was the most fun to fire because it is such a terrible gun—cheap, unreliable, but still enjoyable to shoot.

Rosner: The sniper rifle, though—that thing is so heavy that carrying it is a workout in itself. It is not practical for anything other than precision shooting. I have only shot a BB gun. I have fired a pistol a few times, but never a rifle. I do not know. I would want extensive training before I felt comfortable handling a firearm on my own.

Jacobsen: That is a responsible approach.

Rosner: If I did get a gun, I would want something small. A .22 caliber would be my choice. Unless things got bad—then maybe I would move up to a .357 Magnum. But honestly, I have no idea what I would do in that situation.

Jacobsen: If things got to the point where you needed to carry a gun to feel safe, it would probably be time to start thinking about moving to Canada. Do you think Canada is now seeing an influx of Americans moving there, either legally or illegally? During the Vietnam War, there were a lot of draft dodgers who went to Canada to avoid conscription.

Rosner: That is an interesting question. It is hard to say for sure, but I would not be surprised if some Americans were trying to move to Canada, legally or otherwise. It is tough to immigrate to Canada. But if my wife, Carole, and I sold our house and had a good amount of money, we could live quietly in a medium-sized Canadian city in.

Rosner: Yes. Calgary is probably a good option. It has a more libertarian, Texas-like culture, the taxes are lower, and the cost of living is more reasonable than in other major Canadian citiesVancouver or Toronto. But I am gray-haired—almost completely white-haired now. Carole just turned 60.

So, we would not need to work. We could be quiet retirees. Eventually, some Canadian media outlets might start noticing an increase in American retirees and question how many of them have legal residency. But realistically, how often do you have to show ID or a passport if you are living a quiet life in a rented condo?

Jacobsen: I do not know, man.

Rosner: I know some older couples—some old Jewish couples—who are quiet now, but they were active in their younger years. They lived through a lot, and their activism shaped their lives.

Jacobsen: Do you feel old?

Rosner: No. Right now, I feel a little beat up. I have some issues with my rotator cuff—my right shoulder—and I am hoping it will heal on its own. Surgery for that kind of injury puts you out of commission for at least four to six weeks, and I would rather avoid it if possible.

One of the gyms I go to has an escalator, but it is always broken. The other day, I had to walk up the escalator manually. It was raining, and I slipped. I banged myself up a little bit because those metal stairs are brutal. But aside from that, I am still able to do the things I used to do.

I can still lift weights, run across the street, and maintain decent posture. I cannot jerk off every night. At least, I do not. Most nights, I try, but about half the time, I give up and fall asleep. My eyesight is a little worse than it used to be, but I can still read.

So, no—I do not feel old. I can still do most of the things I used to do. My body is holding up. My mind is still sharp. I am a little more tired at the end of the day.

My eyes are better than most people my age. I still have most of my teeth—31, to be exact. Many people only have 28 because they get their wisdom teeth removed, but I still have mine. One of my teeth is an implant, which was an expensive, months-long pain in the ass. Three of them are part of a bridge—a procedure where one tooth was removed, and the adjacent teeth were filed down to support a three-tooth replacement. If you count the implant and the bridge as teeth, then I have 31, which is better than most people who aren’t even as old as I am.

Rosner: What do you think other old people have that you don’t?

Jacobsen: Do you mean things that make them seem older than me?

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: People lose mental fluidity as they age. Maybe I have lost some of that—or mental acuity, or both. But I started with a lot of that, so I have plenty to lose before it becomes noticeable. I still feel sharp. It’s mostly people older than me that I see struggling with it. I consider myself “young old.” I’m not even 65 yet. But when I look at people in their seventies, I notice how their expressions become less animated, their faces more slack. someone is in rough shape when they can’t keep their mouth closed anymore. How that will play out for me since I’m a mouth breather anyway, so my mouth is probably open a lot regardless. Then there’s the loss of physical spryness. People become slower, more hunched over. There’s a shift in posture, loose skin, and stringy limbs. I’m skinnier than I used to be, but I don’t have that crepey, sagging skin yet. A lot of that is probably coming for me, but it’s not here yet.

Then there’s what I call “mushy ass syndrome.” As people age, their muscle and skin tone weaken, so their clothes press into their bodies differently. If you’re wearing underwear, it digs into your backside more than it would on a younger person. But I’ve never had much of an ass to begin with, so maybe it’s less obvious on me. That said, when I’m naked, I do have what I call an “elephant ass.” I’ve turned around and looked at it in the mirror a couple of times, and I can see it—the folds that develop around where the legs meet the torso, an elephant. That’s aging.

Jacobsen: Are there any benefits to getting older?

Rosner: You accumulate experience. I often fantasize about going back to junior high or high school knowing everything I know now—about life and about the future. If I went back to 1979, I could warn people about Trump. Trump is the worst thing that has happened to America in my lifetime. The country would be in much better shape if he had never come to power. We are in a perilous time.

Another benefit of being older is having more financial stability. Carole and I have accumulated resources. Our house is paid off, we don’t have to work, and I have a pension. If I wanted to, I could start collecting Social Security—the government pension that every American is entitled to.

This next part isn’t necessarily something I consider a benefit, but some people might: I’m out of the game when it comes to trying to get laid. That was a major focus in my teens and twenties. Now, I’m invisible to anyone besides my wife. I haven’t pursued anyone other than Carole since we got married. Some people might see that as a relief—being freed from that pursuit.

I’ve also seen a lot in my lifetime. I’ve read a ton of books. Carole has too. We’ve watched an incredible number of movies and TV shows. That means we can usually predict where a story is going. It’s both a blessing and a curse—most entertainment has to work hard to surprise us or keep us engaged. It has to be exceptionally good; otherwise, we dismiss it as predictable or low-quality. But that’s the trade-off. You gain wisdom and experience, but the world starts to feel a little less surprising.

But that’s a pleasure—to have that experience base. I’ve written 20,000 jokes, and I’ve read half a million. So developing taste based on experience is something I consider an advantage of being older. You could argue the other way—that if I hadn’t seen all these jokes, TV shows, and books, I might be easier to entertain with mediocre stuff. But I prefer having the ability to recognize quality when I see it.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1313: Guns, Government Breakdown, and the Risk of Political Violence in America

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s your topic, Rick?

Rick Rosner: We should talk about guns.

Jacobsen:Let’s talk about guns. That’s a great idea.

Rosner: Guns, the political crisis in the United States—yes. We have a hostile government, and the NRA isn’t living up to all its bold talk. Musk keeps shutting down government agencies. He has no authority to do half of what he’s doing—taking over government information systems with his team of coders. Whether he’s legally allowed to do it? He probably isn’t. But resistance has been disorganized at best.

Trump fired the Kennedy Center board and named himself its new chair. I read about that. Culture. Arts. People have been citing the applicable law—it’s completely illegal. He can’t do that.

So, I assume Caroline Kennedy’s husband—the guy fired from running the Kennedy Center—will sue to regain his job or board position. Because what Trump did was illegal. There’s an unambiguous statute. Now, maybe Trump will claim he has the power to rewrite statutes. But what’s happening in America has never happened before.

Similar things have happened in other countries.

And we know what happened in Germany. It didn’t go well.

How often have other countries tried this kind of thing and failed? But what worries me—now that I know about it—is that there are about 250 million adult Americans who collectively own almost 470 million guns.

That’s a fuckload of guns.

That’s 1.75 guns per adult American.

Of course, they aren’t evenly distributed. Let’s do the math—250 into 470 is about 1.88 guns per adult American. It’s not evenly distributed. You’ve got liberals, conservatives, and independents. A little less than half of independent households own a gun, whether a rifle, pistol, or shotgun. A little less than 60% of conservative households own a firearm, according to a Pew Research study. For liberals, it’s a little less than 30%.

So, if you break it down, a rough estimate might be 200 million guns in conservative households, 50 million in independent households, and 100 million in liberal households. But it’s probably even more skewed than that because the more conservative you are, the more guns you’re likely to own. Some studies suggest the average gun-owning household owns eight firearms, which doesn’t align precisely with Pew’s numbers, but still—the key point is that we have a shit ton of guns.

And while they’re not evenly distributed politically, they’re widespread enough that if things escalate, if people start shooting at each other, it could turn into a nightmare.

Jacobsen: So, America is the most armed society in human history. We have nearly a billion guns—more than any country has ever had. That raises the question: Why are Americans so obsessed with guns?

Rosner: The Second Amendment, for one. However, the frontier mentality also includes the idea that self-reliance and firepower go hand in hand.

Jacobsen: The only frontier left is space, man. And cyberspace.

Rosner: Yes, but guns don’t work there. But historically, this gun culture comes from somewhere. Eight U.S. presidents have been shot and killed. Four others have been hit or shot at—either while they were president or while they were running.

Teddy Roosevelt? Shot.

Ford? Shot at—twice.

Reagan? Shot.

Trump? Shot at—and wounded, either by shrapnel or the bullet itself.

And that’s while they were president or president-adjacent. Maybe another handful—maybe five, six, or seven presidents—were shot at before they were elected.

Andrew Jackson?

John Tyler?

“Tippecanoe and Tyler Too?”

Old Hickory?

Many presidents earned their names from their exploits in war and frontier violence.

Did Harry Truman get shot in World War I?

Did Eisenhower? Not while he was a general, but maybe in World War I, before he rose to command?

Either way, almost a third of all U.S. presidents have been shot at.

This country was won at gunpoint. The American Revolution was fought with guns. The Civil War was fought with guns. The first U.S. president to be assassinated—Lincoln—was shot less than a third of the way into American history—76 years after 1776.

And the most recent presidential candidate to be shot at?

Trump. A few months ago.

So, it’s a legitimate concern that, given the current political strife, people will start getting shooty.

We already have mass shootings every few days. Depending on how you define it, we have one mass shooting per day on average. Some of these have a political component.

Every time someone shoots up a place, people want to know—was this shooter pro-Trump or pro-liberal? Because it’s a guy 98% of the time, people immediately start looking through his social media for signs of political affiliation.

So, what is the risk of political violence? What is the risk that mass shootings increase? That they become even more politically motivated? Under the current level of political stress?

That’s not paranoia.

That’s reality.

Jacobsen: It’s not a zero-percent risk. Some institutions responsible for tracking, de-escalating, and prosecuting threats are being gutted—whether by Musk or the current presidential administration. It’s a risky time for America, not only in terms of guns but also in terms of institutional stability.

Rosner: That said, we should be worried about guns, too—not that we can do anything about them, but it’s something to keep in mind.

According to a Pew Research study, 42% of U.S. households have a gun. But only 30% of Americans personally own one—meaning around 12% of people live in a home with guns but don’t own one themselves. That leaves 69% of Americans without personal gun ownership. Of that 69%, about 36% said they could see themselves owning a gun in the future, leaving roughly 33% who said they would never own one. But if you took that survey today, I’d bet that 33% has dropped to 27%—maybe lower.

More and more Americans are getting closer to three-quarters either owning a gun or considering it. Carole and I have talked about it. If we ever did get one, it would be a wimpy gun—a .22. Small, easy to handle, not much recoil. You could shoot someone, and they wouldn’t necessarily die, which has its pros and cons.

We haven’t bought one yet, but we have weapons near the door. A metal bar to hit or poke an intruder with. Maybe a stabby thing? I should check. We’ve got a longer metal bar under the bed and a baseball bat—or perhaps it’s a wooden dowel. We have two zombie bars—long stiff bars that run from the doorknob to the floor to brace the door if someone tries to kick it in.

We think about this shit. I’m thinking about it more.

1980s

1990s

2000s

2010s

2020s

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: