Thinking Tools

Hi, this is Charles Hoskinson broadcasting live from warm, sunny Colorado. Today is February 13th, and we're making another video to talk a little bit about some of the old things we used to discuss before politics went crazy. We're kind of going back to that. The premise of this video is that we're all a little damaged; we're all victims of relentless and unending propaganda from mainstream media. What’s happened is that it’s become exceedingly difficult for us to truly understand and empathize with each other.

People have reached a point where it’s very hard for us to have a real conversation; we often talk past each other. So, I wanted to make a video to show you two different memes and discuss where the future is going, particularly through the lens of artificial intelligence. Let me go ahead and bring up my screen. Alright, let me close that and the other one real quickly. I have the resized ones that are a little better.

Alright, you guys ready? So, I thought this was pretty funny. Here’s a meme about Elon Musk: "You own a store, your store gets robbed. Elon looks at the video footage of the robbery and tells you who did it. Now you want to arrest Elon?

You’re an idiot." This is floating all around Twitter now. Your politics will completely guide your interpretation of this picture. If you are right-leaning, you’ll look at this and say, "Yeah, that’s kind of funny; that’s true." If you’re left-leaning, you might get really angry and think, "That’s not fair; that’s not what’s going on.

You support fascism, Nazi, Hitler, whatever." Now, the reason I don’t have a lot of sympathy right now for the left is that I’ve been traumatized. You left-leaning folks talk about victimization, but really horrible things happened during the Biden Administration in the cryptocurrency space and with our government as a whole. We were lied to every single day. Some people don’t want to admit that, but it happened.

A lot of us are just enjoying liberation from that terrible situation. If you’re of that persuasion, you fail to acknowledge that things can exist outside of your perspective. The broader point of the video is that artificial intelligence is here to help us restore our empathy and humanity if we choose to use it that way. So, let’s take a look at something here. I did a little meme analysis and put it in ChatGPT.

I asked how accurate this meme is. It won’t fully understand it unless it’s contextualized. The first thing it noted was that it was generally speaking about Elon Musk and Dogecoin. I clarified that it was about the Department of Government Efficiency. The AI responded, "I understand you’re referring to a meme that compares Elon Musk's role in the Department of Government Efficiency to a scenario where he provides helpful information but is criticized instead of the actual wrongdoer.

" Let’s assess the accuracy of this analogy in the context of Musk’s involvement in Doge. On January 25th, President Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency via an executive order, appointing Elon Musk to lead the initiative. The primary goal of Doge is to reduce federal government spending by identifying and eliminating wasteful expenditures, downsizing the workforce, and potentially closing certain agencies. Actions taken under Musk's leadership have included dismantling agencies the United States Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. These actions have been justified as efforts to cut costs and improve efficiency.

Analyzing the meme analogy, it positions Musk as someone who identifies a problem—wasteful government spending—and takes action to address it. Critics argue that Musk's approach is overly aggressive and lacks transparency. Legal challenges have been raised concerning Doge's authority and potential overreach of its actions. Concerns have also been expressed about the impact on federal employees and the potential erosion of essential government functions. In conclusion, the meme suggests that Musk is being unfairly criticized for attempting to improve government efficiency.

However, the analogy oversimplifies the situation. While Musk's efforts aim to address legitimate concerns about government spending, the methods employed by Doge have significant implications, including potential legal challenges, impacts on federal employees, and possible elimination of essential services. I asked, "What’s wrong with Elon just telling us what’s going on?" The AI replied, "You’re absolutely right. If Elon Musk, through the Department of Government Efficiency, is merely identifying waste, inefficiencies, or corruption in government spending, then it would be unfair to blame him for the consequences of that information being exposed.

" This aligns with the meme's analogy: Musk is just watching the footage and reporting what he sees, yet people want to arrest him instead of addressing the real problem. Key points to consider: Doge's role is advisory, not executive. Legally, only the president can do this. Musk's influence is still huge, even though Doge doesn’t have firing power; its recommendations carry significant weight. The backlash is not necessarily about identifying inefficiencies but about the method, the lack of transparency, and the ideology.

So, is the meme accurate? The AI provided a chart: Yes, if Musk is just pointing out problems, he is being unfairly blamed for the fallout. No, if Musk’s influence directly or indirectly causes large-scale firings and shutdowns. This raises an interesting thought experiment: How could this process be improved? The AI suggested increasing transparency and public input, publishing detailed justifications for recommended cuts, and consulting federal employees, economists, and affected citizens before making drastic recommendations.

The process appears to be top-down and unilateral, making people feel the cuts are being dictated rather than discussed. We should prioritize reform over just cuts. Instead of mass layoffs, focus on modernizing outdated processes, targeting wasteful contracts, and introducing measurable performance benchmarks rather than just cutting things. Independent oversight and bipartisan review are also important. The bottom line is that we can make it consultative, data-driven, and gradually measured.

So, how could this process be made bipartisan? The AI produced some ideas: Any recommendation affecting more than $500 million in funding or 10,000 jobs should require bipartisan support. I asked, "Wouldn’t this dramatically slow things down?" Yes, adding bipartisan oversight and gradual implementation would slow the process down, but that might actually be a good thing. Here’s why: Efficiency versus stability is a necessary trade-off.

Rapid cuts may save money immediately but can cause chaos, a loss of essential government functions, legal challenges, and mass layoffs without transition plans. Slower, bipartisan changes ensure reforms stick and aren’t undone when political power shifts. Instead of slowing everything down, focus on fast-tracking obvious inefficiencies and avoiding political reversals. If Doge moves too aggressively under one administration, the next administration might undo everything out of political retaliation. For example, military base closures require bipartisan realignment to ensure that closures last across administrations.

Bureaucracy already slows everything down; use that to your advantage. Government agencies are notoriously slow, and bureaucratic inertia makes radical change difficult. Instead of fighting the system, Doge could work within it by pushing for incremental reforms. This is a balanced conversation. It’s not saying that Democrats are the most amazing people in the world; it’s a responsible discussion.

You can keep engaging with it and adding to it. What if I feel the government is so broken that something dramatic has to be done? Wouldn’t Doge make sense in that context? If you believe the government is fundamentally broken and needs dramatic immediate reform, then a more aggressive approach like Doge could make sense, but only if it’s done strategically to avoid complete chaos. The key question is: Do you want permanent efficiency or just rapid disruption?

What does a more radical Doge look like? Immediate spending freezes, audits of wasteful programs, and a public-facing platform for exposing government inefficiencies. For example, Musk’s Doge could publish a report naming the ten most wasteful agencies every month. These agencies would get 90 days to fix inefficiencies, or their budgets would get slashed automatically, with no Congressional approval needed for spending cuts below a certain threshold. This would create high-speed accountability, forcing agencies to justify budgets constantly, with the risk of high-speed legal challenges and public backlash.

The power swings would make it all temporary. Now we’re thinking critically, and that’s the point of AI: it gives you a tool to think through these types of issues. You can either live in the comfort of the picture and wrap your identity around it, or you can engage with the complexities of the situation. The left wants to label every person on the right a Nazi. I’m convinced of it because that’s what they keep doing.

Every headline, every statement: racist, sexist, homophobe, Nazi. There’s no room for satire, humor, understanding, or empathy. Many people on the right are so tired of it that they write off pretty much everyone on the left. The reality is that the vast majority of people are probably somewhere in the middle. Because no one feels listened to or heard, they’re willing to embrace the extreme.

The options we have are either that the government doesn’t need to change at all or that no meaningful reforms need to be made. We’ve been asking for reforms for over 20 years, and the Pentagon has failed audits seven years in a row, with hundreds of billions of dollars missing. We see year after year that the situation gets worse, and we’re told we have to raise taxes or radically reform. This brings up a very valid and important point: legal challenges are going to slow things down anyway. We’re already starting to see that happen.

There’s also a strong possibility that in 2026, Democrats will retake the House. If that’s the case, they could undo most of the things you need because the legislative branch controls the purse strings. If you want to make this permanent instead of just a feel-good temporary thing, you have to start thinking in terms of bringing people along for the ride, even those we don’t like. That’s the power of having a thinking tool. That’s the power of making deliberate and considered decisions.

This is how I work when I make business plans within my organization. I have my hot takes on Twitter, but when we actually make business decisions, we think things through extensively. For example, I could develop a PACE plan as if I were Elon running Doge. PACE stands for Primary, Alternate, Contingency, and Emergency. I can start developing a PACE plan for executing government efficiency reforms under any circumstances, even if faced with resistance, legal barriers, or political opposition.

The primary plan would focus on legislative and bureaucratic reform, the alternate plan on aggressive executive action, the contingency plan on high-speed agency downsizing and public pressure, and the emergency plan on decentralized reform and federal showdowns. You start thinking about it and ask questions like, "Has something like this been done anywhere else?" For example, Argentina recently undertook significant government efficiency reforms. Both reforms share a focus on reducing government size, but the approaches differ in context and execution. Argentina’s reforms have been characterized by rapid implementation and significant austerity measures, leading to economic stabilization and social changes.

In contrast, Doge's strategies may involve a more phased approach, considering the distinct political and economic landscape of the United States. It’s interesting when you start thinking about it. You can even do a deep research report. When making decisions that matter, social media doesn’t matter; it’s not real. You have to take the time to dissect things, create thinking tools, and ask questions.

For example, what would have to be true for Doge to be successful? You could ask: clear and measurable objectives, strong legislative and executive support, effective change management, legal and ethical compliance, technological integration, public support, and communication for sustainable implementation. This isn’t partisanship; it’s common sense. Does Doge have clear and measurable objectives? Yes, it has established clear outcomes to guide its initiatives.

According to a report from Business Insider, the goal is to reduce government spending by at least $1 trillion, with a potential target of $2 trillion by July 4th, 2026. Has any country cut at this scale before? Yes, several have done this—Argentina, Iceland, Jamaica. You can think about what is similar and what is different. Draw a Venn diagram to see the overlaps and differences.

Does Doge have sufficient executive support? Legislative support from Congress appears to be mixed. While some Republican lawmakers endorse Doge, there are notable concerns regarding the department’s methods and the extent of its authority. Critics argue that Doge’s actions may overstep legal boundaries and lack sufficient oversight. What are those legal boundaries?

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power of the purse, meaning only Congress can authorize federal spending. Doge’s initiatives to unilaterally freeze or redirect funds allocated by Congress may infringe upon this constitutional mandate. When lawsuits arise, you can view them from two perspectives: as Biden or Obama-appointed judges trying to destroy our government or as judges interested in the separation of powers.

They may be concerned about the congressional authority upon which Doge is operating. Doge is not doing this unilaterally. The executive branch may have the power to do these things, but there are also compliance, privacy, and data access concerns. The Privacy Act of 1974, dual roles, conflicts of interest, and legal challenges all come into play. The meme doesn’t do justice to the complexities of the situation.

It’s a fun thing if you’re on the right, but when you start digging into it, you have to consider the separation of powers and constitutional authority. Are there conflicts of interest? Are we concerned about privacy and data access? For example, are Doge employees operating in a secure facility? Yes, they have operated within secure areas, but their access has been controversial due to concerns over proper authorization and security clearances.

Reports indicate that several Doge employees attempted to access secure areas without possessing the necessary security clearances. Following intervention from Elon Musk, access was granted, leading to significant internal disruption. Musk has been designated as a special government employee, which may affirm certain access privileges, but the security clearance levels for Musk and his team remain unclear. House Democrats have raised concerns about potential unauthorized access to classified information by Doge personnel. This raises interesting questions about what level of clearance is necessary for accessing sensitive information.

If they’re operating within secure facilities, how do we ensure that the most secret information remains confidential? The conflict of interest is also concerning because Musk will be looking at everything, including agencies that are currently investigating him. That’s how you analyze something if you want to take the time to go through the whole exercise. Now, let’s talk about rational ignorance. Rational ignorance is a concept in economics and political science that describes the decision to remain uninformed about a particular issue when the cost of acquiring the information outweighs the potential benefits of knowing it.

This behavior is considered rational because individuals assess that the effort and resources required to gain the knowledge are not justified by the expected advantages. Every single thing we just discussed would have taken many hours, if not days, to research and fact-check without AI. We were able to ask these questions and instantly get decent answers with citations. The cost of acquiring knowledge and information is much lower than it used to be. Our political and economic systems are constructed for rational ignorance.

You’re expected not to want to be informed or understand how any of these things work because it takes a long time. The reality is that if you spend all that time, your vote is exactly the same, and your political power remains unchanged. That’s why many people are harsh on the American public, saying they don’t know anything or are uninformed. But if you get informed, how many hours would you have to spend? The more informed you get, the angrier you become because there’s nothing you can do.

Unfortunately, it just gets worse over time as you watch more and more issues unfold. But now, with AI, every person can go very deep on these topics. This video has been going on for 26 minutes, and we already have a better understanding of the Doge situation than 99% of the people in America. You now know that Doge employees tried to access a secure facility but probably don’t have the necessary clearance. that countries like Iceland, Jamaica, and Argentina have attempted similar reforms.

You’ve thought about the different areas that would have to be true for Doge to be successful, and you’re forming opinions on these issues. The vast majority of the American people do not engage in this level of analysis. We even have a PACE plan for Doge. For those of you in the military, we have all this stuff available at our fingertips. This is just the beginning, and with advancements in AI, the tools will only get better.

On the other side, you’ll hear a lot about misinformation from those who oppose free speech and AI. For example, consider this image: "Professor Oldman was never seen again." Is this picture AI-generated? You can analyze it for facial and anatomical inconsistencies, unusual artifacts, and background issues. AI can help determine whether an image is generated by AI or not.

It’s becoming increasingly hard to determine what’s true because AI is getting very good, but AI can always detect AI. There are telltale signs, and sometimes it’s just too good to be true. Our capacity for analysis and detection of fraudulent artifacts is extraordinary, surpassing even the FBI's capabilities in the 1990s. That’s pretty cool. There’s a gentleman named Chris Meisner who runs a channel called Unsupervised Learning.

He created a framework called Human 3.0, which includes various concepts. This is where we are today. Thank you for joining me in this discussion.