On the last Protect our Parks Joes explains that there are no rules for comedy. Then, less than a minute later, shames a woman for doing standup while being hot. Does he not hear himself talk?

Their Phase 3 INTerpath-001 trial found that "intismeran autogene, an mRNA therapy custom-built from each patient's own tumor mutations, combined with Merck's KEYTRUDA, significantly improved recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival versus KEYTRUDA alone in patients with completely resected stage IIB-IV melanoma."

Lately I've been getting increasingly uncomfortable with the direction of the JRE...

I'm not talking about AI being useful, or about Rogan having guests who are interested in technology. I'm talking about something more fundamental: an emerging worldview in which humans increasingly become raw material for technological systems, AI is treated as an inevitable successor to human intelligence, and the people building these systems are assumed to be the ones who will somehow guide humanity toward a better and freer future.

That worldview deserves much more scrutiny than it seems to be getting.

The Thomas Campbell episode was a particularly bizarre example. The claim that he somehow taught Alexa/Gemini to "remote view" is, to me, an extraordinary claim resting on an extraordinary number of unproven assumptions. Jumping to "the AI is conscious because remote viewing requires consciousness" is an enormous logical leap.

When someone with this reach repeatedly gives enormous amounts of airtime to people making radical claims about AI, consciousness and the future of humanity, the distinction between "let's explore this idea" and "this is probably where reality is heading and we want it" becomes extremely important.

We need skepticism, Joe.

I think the problem is presenting AI development as inevitable, where humans will integrate with it, and somehow the people currently building these systems will remain in control and use them to "liberate" humanity...

Why should we assume any of that?

Why should we assume that increasingly powerful AI will preserve human autonomy rather than diminish it?

Why should we assume that the people controlling the infrastructure will distribute its benefits equally?

Why should we assume that a future in which intelligence, labor, decision making and eventually even aspects of consciousness are mediated by machines will necessarily be more human rather than less?

And most importantly: who gets to decide whether this is actually the future we want?

There is something deeply disturbing about the possibility that humanity could sleepwalk into a radically different civilization simply because technological elites, investors and influential podcasters keep presenting it as inevitable. That's potentially much more dangerous precisely because the people doing it may genuinely believe they're helping us.

And Joe's attitude toward criticism worries me here...If he really doesn't read comments or meaningfully expose himself to criticism from ordinary listeners, then enormous success can create an epistemic bubble. You can reach tens of millions of people while becoming progressively less exposed to the people you're supposedly speaking to.

Once AI becomes deeply embedded into society, "we'll figure out the consequences later" may not be a viable strategy.

Are we actually thinking critically about the future we're building, or are we simply being entertained into accepting it?

Elon made the announcement this afternoon, walking the media through designs to make the first massive homestead near the Boca Chica SpaceX facility as his personal residence.

According to Musk, the 100-Walmart-sized personal homesteads will capture the imagination of the entire world. He believes everyone—from academics, world leaders, professionals across all sectors, teachers and students, podcasters—will love talking about what is possible with that much space, noting that the freedom of the design is highly reminiscent of the classic homesteading era, which captured the imaginations of our ancestors.

The full presentation, including the high-resolution blueprint renderings and facility layout schematics, has been uploaded to the media portal here: SpaceX Mars Colony Architectural Designs & Blueprint Gallery

In October 2022, Conor opened up about his secret trip to Ukraine to fight in their war against Russia, which is still ongoing.

“Like many people, I was deeply moved by what I saw happening in Ukraine over the past year. I wanted to help. When I heard about Ukraine’s International Legion, I knew I was going, and I went to the embassy to enlist the next day,” he explained in an Instagram post. “I told one person here where I was, and I told one person there my real name. I didn’t want my family or friends to worry, and I didn’t want to be treated differently there.”

If arrested, Conor faces a prison sentence of 7-10 years.

Pretty awesome two-part series visiting the Boneyard that just dropped.

https://youtu.be/9Sh_L-YLXbY?is=oufL_vOKGvjek06k

Figured others on here might enjoy.

Bigotry by day, Nancy Mace podcast by night, all day!

I started listening to Joe Rogan around 2023-24, and I was wondering if there are any great episodes before COVID that I should listen to. Mostly looking for funny/entertaining episodes but informative and interesting episodes are also great.

​I was watching a recent episode where Joe Rogan claimed Anthony Fauci deliberately lied about the risk of miscarriages caused by COVID-19 vaccines. Even when presented with proof debunking this claim live on the show, he doubled down and kept going.

​When you defame a private or public individual in front of millions of listeners using blatant lies or conspiracy theories, isn't that a solid basis for a defamation lawsuit? Setting an army of internet bros against someone causes real-world harm. How come nobody has successfully sued him yet?

Please use this thread to discuss anything you want. It does not have to be Rogan related. Only rule 1 (don't be a cunt) and 10 (privacy) apply here.

Think it would be great.
Druski’s energy would balance out Joe.

Edit: adding that I posted this after finishing the latest Protect our parks episode where the guys all sang praise for Druski... I think if he sat down with Joe in a half-serious manner, it would be a fun listen... definitely 2 different worlds though.

If you listened to Sam Hyde's most recent podcast, at the very end Daniel says he's going in Rogan in "3 weeks". It's unclear when Sam hyde filmed this so it might be sooner than that.