- 'Sup, you beautiful bastards?
Welcome back to "The Philip DeFranco Show."
Buckle up, hit that like button,
and let's just jump into today's news.
AI has just exploded over the last few months,
and we've been talking about it in art, in deepfakes
It's becoming so much more accessible.
One of the latest controversies we're seeing is
with AI writing books,
because according to Reuters, in mid-February,
there were over 200 eBooks offered an Amazon's Kindle store
that listed ChatGPT as an author or co-author.
While many of those books were about ChatGPT
and how to use it,
there are plenty of other kinds of books
written by the service, which has left many in the industry
concerned about what the impact's gonna be.
You know, with this, we've seen outlets like Insider
speaking to someone who was able to
create an illustrated children's book in 72 hours
using ChatGPT and Midjourney,
though that book, called "Alice and Sparkle,"
specifically drew a lot of backlash
from creatives and consumers.
In fact, if you look into the reviews,
you had people sounding off, saying things like,
"I initially couldn't figure out
why it seemed so alienating and dispiriting
and why my four-year-old daughter was so sickened by it."
Then realizing, "Oh, it was AI,"
and saying, you know, "This is very poor and sloppy stuff.
This truly represents a race to the bottom
for children's art."
And that's connected to why authors are concerned
for two very different reasons,
where you have Mary Rasenberger,
executive director of the Authors Guild, telling Reuters,
"this is something we really need to be worried about.
These books will flood the market
and a lot of authors are going to be out of work."
And also adding, "There needs to be transparency
from the authors and the platforms
about how these books are created,
or you're going to end up with a lot of low-quality books,"
which is relevant because a number of authors
that are using this
do not feel like it's important to disclose
that a book was written by artificial intelligence,
and, right now, Amazon doesn't require the authors to do so,
but I also think it's something that goes beyond that,
because, remember, and I'll repeat this over and over.
Today, where AI is
is the worst it will ever be ever again,
so there can be the negative impact of
a flooding of a lot of low-quality content
that maybe makes people go like,
"Oh, I don't like this whole experience."
But, also, if this becomes what I think it could become,
you're gonna see higher-quality work start to come through,
and then that can replace other authors,
and with that, of course, it's also important to remember
that this is impacting so many different industries.
I mean, even just today,
we saw headlines that Spotify is introducing
an AI DJ feature,
reportedly using some personalization features
Spotify already has
that creates playlists like Discover Weekly,
but this DJ actually speaks to you
and talks you through the songs that it's selecting for you,
and Spotify is saying that
the dialogue from the AI DJ is not pre-recorded.
It's actually made on the spot via OpenAI.
Meanwhile, in other areas, you have more chaotic stories
like AI videos of politicians going viral on TikTok,
but luckily those fake videos aren't things like
Biden saying he's about to nuke Europe,
and instead giving you things like
Obama, Biden, and Trump playing Uno together.
- [Obama] You guys wanna play Uno?
I wanna use it for my upload tonight.
- [Biden] I don't have Uno.
- [Trump] Everyone has Uno, (beep).
It came free with your (beep) Xbox.
- But also, according to other reports,
there are far more consequential examples of this,
including videos where Biden is saying a racist slur,
and some of the AI videos that are out there
are far more convincing than the one we just showed,
especially in a world where we're paying attention to
a video like 5 to 20 seconds at a time in passing,
and TikTok even having to take down a video
of an AI-generated Joe Rogan
touting a supplement called Alpha Grind.
So it's designed to look like, you know,
Rogan was promoting it,
but it's actually a product that he's never endorsed,
and, honestly, with how long it takes
for these kind of videos to get taken down,
I think this is gonna become a bigger and bigger problem.
Like, it's just gonna be
this ever-losing game of Whackamole.
You also have a ton of people right now
talking about an AI clip of PewDiePie
that's made its way around social media.
- If you're watching, Felix, I, AI PewDiePie,
I promise I won't replace you anytime soon,
but I can take over your channel
if you need some time off for the baby.
Okay, now that you are here, I want to tell another story
about the time ants ate my balls.
- With people kinda just stunned by the audio in particular,
thinking that it's eerily accurate.
See, I guess the main point here is
another day as we further tiptoe into a world
where you're never gonna be able to
believe your eyes and ears, and genuinely, for me,
it's hard to feel like we're anything but doomed.
Like, there's gonna be cool shit in the middle,
but I just don't see any foreseeable way
that this doesn't get to a really dark place.
And then, is deadly child abuse good for society?
Somehow, that is the question we are debating right now,
and it was actually kicked off
at a House Judiciary Committee in Alaska,
where you had state lawmakers discussing
adverse childhood experiences,
with one part of the presentation
estimating that fatal child abuse cases
could cost the family and society $1.5 million
in trauma and potential earnings,
but one Republican, David Eastman, honed in on that number
and couldn't help but voicing his objection.
- You know, in the case where child abuse is fatal,
obviously, it's not good for the child,
but it's actually a benefit to society,
because there aren't needs
for government services and whatnot
over the whole course of that child's life.
- Through the chair, can you say that again?
Did you say a benefit for society?
- Talking dollars.
- Then going on to clarify
that he's just pointing out that the $1.5 million price tag
may actually be offset
by the cost savings from the dead child
not using those government services
that they would otherwise be entitled to.
You know, completely insane devil's advocate bullshit
that's somehow been normalized,
and, you know, you have people responding,
"Well, what about the cost of the family?
What about the cost to society? It's immeasurable."
But David doesn't seem to get that point,
because he keeps going.
- Does that $1.5 million get higher or lower
depending upon the age at which the child is killed?
- You know, I'm just trying to crunch these numbers.
Do we save more money if they die at age 5 or age 10?
And, keep in mind, this is coming from a guy
who considers himself pro-life, and actually, on that issue,
he stirred up outrage several years back as well,
talking about Medicaid-funded travel
for medically-necessary abortions,
and saying, "You have individuals who are in villages
and are glad to be pregnant,
so that they can have an abortion
because there's a free trip to Anchorage involved."
With him making that comment in relation to
a bill that he amended calling abortion, quote,
"the ultimate form of child abuse,"
or I guess the way he would think of it now,
the ultimate cost savings.
And then, the Subway near your home or your work,
in the very near future, may look different.
Also, to clarify, I'm not talking about
the mode of transportation,
but rather the substandard sandwich shop,
because, looking towards the future,
Subway has to answer this question of
how do we get more people to come into the shop
if we're so committed to mediocrity?
And one of the solutions they've come up with
I think actually could work,
and we're gonna start to see more and more of this,
because, reportedly, Subway is now planning to build
electric car charging oases.
Oasis-es? Whatever.
It's a Subway
along with charging ports, bathrooms, and playgrounds,
and this is likely something
that we're gonna see more and more of
as people keep transitioning to electric vehicles, right?
Unlike when you pump gas,
if you're stopping to charge your car,
it's gonna take more time.
So, if you're gonna have that guaranteed traffic
where they literally can't get away,
why not give them places
where they can eat and give you money?
And, personally, I say,
despite all the random bullshit I've been talking about,
Subway, I think it's smart and it's great
that they're doing this.
I'll probably use this place.
In the future, I'd love if, I don't know,
it was also embraced by Firehouse Subs and Which Wich
and literally any other sandwich place,
but the main thing is
you should expect the landscape to change drastically
over the next decade.
And then, it's the beginning of a new year,
and I've got a great hookup for you.
With basketball, hockey, and concerts all in full swing,
there's always an event for everyone,
and you're not gonna wanna miss out,
and, even nicer, how about getting $20 off
by using my code PHIL for tickets?
Just one of the many reasons I wanna thank
the fantastic sponsor of today's show, SeatGeek.
With over 28 million downloads,
SeatGeek is the number one rated ticketing app,
and with Taylor Swift, SZA, and Ed Sheeren
on tour right now, you need SeatGeek.
Listen, y'all, I've always used SeatGeek,
whether it was when I went to the Super Bowl
or any other sporting stuff,
concerts, comedy shows, stuff like that.
Boom, a new experience at my fingertips thanks to SeatGeek,
and SeatGeek wants to make sure
that you're getting a good deal,
so when you're on the app, look for the green dots.
Green means good deal, red means bad,
and every ticket is backed by their buyer guarantee,
and SeatGeek is the only site
that lets you return your tickets
ahead of the event with swaps.
It's $20 off your first purchase with promo code PHIL,
so make sure you click that link in the description
to download the app.
And then, this is the most important election of 2023,
and so much is on the line, and you might not think so,
because the race we're talking about is
to fill an empty seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court,
to which you might be like,
"Well, I don't live in Wisconsin."
Hear me out.
So the race has now officially been narrowed down to
two candidates after the primary election yesterday.
In first place,
you have Liberal Milwaukee County Judge Janet Protasiewicz,
and trailing her is Conservative Daniel Kelly,
a former Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justice
who was appointed by
the state's then-Republican governor in 2016,
but lost the seat in the 2020 reelection
where he had been endorsed by Trump.
Now, a key thing with this story is that
this race is technically supposed to be nonpartisan,
but Protasiewicz has closely aligned herself with Democrats,
while Kelly has done the same with Republicans,
and both parties, as well as dark money groups,
have poured millions and millions of dollars
into this so-called nonpartisan race,
and the reason for that is that
the stakes here could not be higher.
The outcome of this election will determine
whether liberals or conservatives
have a four-to-three majority on the state supreme court
at an incredibly consequential time where there are
a number of insanely important issues at play here,
and if you're thinking, "Well, I don't live in Wisconsin.
This doesn't impact me."
Well, I have the unfortunate duty to let you know,
no, not true.
This has massive implications for the whole country,
and as I always say, you may not fuck with politics,
but politics will fuck with you,
or, more specifically, in the words of
the Chairman of Wisconsin's Democratic Party,
"The Wisconsin Supreme Court race
will shape the future of American democracy."
Wisconsin is one of the most important swing states
in the country. It helped decide the outcomes of
both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections,
and it is the center of debates
on gerrymandering and free and fair elections
that have played a huge role in deciding those races,
and that state supreme court,
which has had a conservative majority for the last 14 years,
has been instrumental in shaping those policies,
having weighed in on many of the most crucial topics
and almost always sided with the Republicans.
For example, on what has been described as
"arguably the most important decision
the court has made in recent years,"
the court ruled four to three last year
to uphold one of America's most gerrymandered maps
that gave Republicans a massive advantage.
I mean, this map was so gerrymandered
that the GOP was able to hold
six of Wisconsin's eight eight seats
in the House of Representatives
and getting a big majority in the legislature
despite the fact
that Democrats won the most statewide races,
and very significantly here,
the whole situation was kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
A big reason the conservative majority
has decided so many important things
is because the state government is deadlocked
with a Republican majority in the legislature
and a Democratic governor.
So, by approving a map that massively favored Republicans,
the conservative court kept the system in place,
ensuring that they'll continue to have the final say
on so many of these essential areas,
but if Protasiewicz, the liberal candidate,
wins in this general, the court is all but certain
to revisit the gerrymandered map,
with her even explicitly saying in a recent interview that
"a liberal majority could establish new election maps."
So, not only would this move have
major implications for internal Wisconsin politics,
but also for the very control of Congress itself,
where Republicans currently hold
a very slim five-seat majority,
so any seats Democrats gain could tip the scales.
Also, to that point, the Wisconsin Supreme Court
also plays a huge role in
how the state's elections are administered
and could influence how its 10 electoral college votes
are doled out in the 2024 presidential election,
because, last year, the conservative court
banned absentee ballot drop boxes,
and back in 2014, it upheld a GOP voter ID law
that studies have shown suppress Black voters,
and although the court did vote against
considering Trump's lawsuits
to try and overturn the 2020 election in Wisconsin,
they only did so by an alarmingly slim margin
of four to three,
and this court will all but certainly be tasked with
wading into election-related cases in the coming years.
You don't even have to look far into the future.
I mean, you have the court right now
expected to hear a lawsuit by a conservative group
aiming to further limit voting access
by banning mobile and alternative voting facilities.
There are also other issues at play
like some very basic human rights.
One of the things
that this race has centered most heavily on
is abortion rights, because the outcome of this race
will almost definitely determine
whether or not abortion will be legal
for the state's six million residents,
because after Roe v. Wade was overturned,
a Wisconsin law banning abortion
that was literally from 1849 went back into effect,
but a lawsuit against that ban is winding its way
through the court system right now,
and it's basically a done deal
that it'll eventually go before Wisconsin Supreme Court,
and when it does, experts and analysts say that,
if Kelly wins, it's all but assured
that abortion will remain illegal in almost all cases,
but Protasiewicz has campaigned extensively
on abortion rights
and vocally supported the right to choose.
She also said she believes a liberal majority
could reverse a 12-year-old law that basically eliminated
collective bargaining for public workers.
When you take everything we've talked about
with this story in collectively,
it's why you have Protasiewicz saying,
"Everything is at stake, and I mean everything.
Women's reproductive rights, the maps, drop boxes,
safe communities, clean water.
Everything is on the line."
So, right now, we're gonna have to wait
to see what actually happens.
You have the general election there on April 4th,
and it's believed that it will be very close,
because even though
Protasiewicz took a solid lead in the primary,
winning 46.4% to Kelly's 24.2%,
an incredibly important thing to note is that
Kelly only got some of the conservative votes,
and meanwhile the other liberal candidate
didn't take nearly as many votes away from Protasiewicz.
When you add up all the votes for all the candidates,
it becomes a much closer race.
So, for now, we're gonna have to wait and see,
and, you know, no big deal.
Just the the future of American democracy at stake,
though, honestly, that feels like every election now.
And then, y'all, whether you're religious or not,
you better start praying you don't end up at this hospital.
I'm talking about the Robert J. Dole VA Medical Center
in Wichita, Kansas,
with the story starting on a summer afternoon
with a doctor cutting into a patient.
The patient is suffering from peripheral artery disease,
which is when fatty plaque clogs up arteries,
blocking blood flow to the legs and the arms,
and it's a condition that affects so many.
In fact, 6.5 million Americans over the age of 40,
and it can cause pain, numbness,
and other usually minor symptoms,
with, key thing, this sometimes is treated
using devices like tubes with blades attached
to shave hardened deposits off of artery walls,
as well as stents to widen blood vessels
and balloons coated with therapeutic drugs,
but, very importantly, these can lead to complications
such as blood clots or even amputations,
so they're typically used sparingly,
maybe two or three per operation, but not at this hospital.
Over an extraordinarily long three-hour procedure,
the doctor inserts more than 15 devices,
and the reason for why the hell would you use 15 of these
may have something to do with
the person standing next to him, Kari Kirk,
who's a representative for
the world's largest medical device company, Medtronic,
who supplies the hospitals with many of its instruments,
and while it's common for company reps
to be present during vascular procedures
so they can guide doctors through using their products,
that can also lead to bad incentives.
I mean, just think about it.
Companies profit more when their products are used,
so their presence in the room
can influence treatment plants,
and, in this case, we saw how warped Kirk's motives were
by the text convo she was having
with a colleague in real time,
expressing what can only be described as
maybe a little bit too much excitement
about the drug-coated balloons,
announcing, "Just used 12," with two exclamation marks,
to which he responds, "Does that mean I owe you money?"
And she answers, "That's what I'm thinking,"
with an emoji of someone rolling on the floor laughing,
with them later saying,
"You're gonna wanna start going to the VA all the time,"
and the only reason we now have these messages is because
a whistleblower took Medtronic to court
for allegedly bribing hospital staff
into using exorbitant amounts of products,
with the lawsuit and documents claiming that,
between 2011 and 2018,
the company gave VA workers Apple electronics,
NASCAR tickets, and hundreds of expensive meals,
and, in exchange, the hospital allegedly signed
a lucrative contract with Medtronic.
Meanwhile, the company allegedly
groomed and trained physicians
who, let's say, use the devices liberally,
and by liberally, I mean dozens at a time,
with one hospital administrator who was shocked to discover
how many devices they were buying, saying,
"We were more expensive than, I believe it was,
the top 10 hospitals in the VA combined."
And in the worst case, reportedly,
a doctor used 33 devices on one person,
with investigators actually finding that
amputations rose 6x during that same time period,
though not concluding
one way or the other about it being causal.
And attorneys in a lawsuit say, "It is unconscionable.
There can be no valid medically-acceptable basis
to cram so many devices into a human being.
This is not medical treatment. This is abuse."
And in addition to using
just a ludicrous number of these devices,
they also allegedly used them as a first resort
during the earliest stages of peripheral artery disease
despite there being cheaper alternatives
that are at least as effective.
Now, of course, with this,
the company and the doctors are denying the allegations,
but it's far from the first time
that Medtronic has been accused of stuff like this.
In 2018, for example, its subsidiary Covidien
settled for $13 million over claims
that it gave kickbacks to hospitals
that used its mechanical blood clot devices,
and another subsidiary forking over $18 million
and admitting to persuading surgeons to use its devices
outside of approved procedures in the brain,
and then the next year, the first subsidiary again
settled for $17 million over claims
that it gave in-kind marketing support
to doctors using its vein products,
and then the year after that,
Medtronic paid $9 million to settle claims
that it bribed a neurosurgeon to buy its medication pumps,
which is is also one of the reasons why I think
you and I probably don't expect this company
to be held responsible, because when you're the world's
largest producer of medical devices,
playing with tens of billions of dollars,
settlements are often just the price of doing business.
I mean, honestly, at this point,
I think it should be one of the slogans for America.
If you do the crime,
you don't have to do the time if you pay a dime.
(patriotic music)
(eagle shrieks)
And that is actually where today's show ends.
As always, I wanna say thank you for watching
and being subscribed to these daily dives into the news.
My name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in.
I love your faces and I'll see you tomorrow.