A new study argues that ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs) are incapable of independent learning or acquiring skills without human input. This pours cold water on the belief that such systems could pose existential risks to humanity.LLMs are scaled up versions of pre-trained language models (PLMs), which are trained on massive amounts of web-scale data bodies. This access to such immense amounts of data makes them capable of understanding and generating natural language and other content that can be used for a large range of tasks.However, they can also exhibit “emergent abilities”, which are essentially random performances that they were not explicitly trained for. This has included conducting tasks that would otherwise require some form of reasoning. For instance, an emergent ability could include an LLM's ability to understand social situations, inferred by it performing above the random baseline on the Social IQA – a measure of commonsense reasoning about social situations.The inherent unpredictability associated with emergent abilities, especially given that LLMs are being trained on even larger datasets, raises substantial questions about safety and security. Some have argued that future emergent abilities could include potentially hazardous abilities, including reasoning and planning, which could threaten humanity.However, a new study has shown that LLMs have a superficial ability to follow instructions and excel at proficiency in language, but they have no potential to master new skills without explicit instruction. This means they are inherently predictable, safe, and controllable, though they can still be misused by people.As these models continue to be scaled up, they are likely to generate more sophisticated language and become more accurate when faced with detailed and explicit prompts, but they are highly unlikely to gain complex reasoning.“The prevailing narrative that this type of AI is a threat to humanity prevents the widespread adoption and development of these technologies, and also diverts attention from the genuine issues that require our focus,” Dr Harish Tayyar Madabushi, a computer scientist at the University of Bath, explained in a statement.Tayyar Madabushi and colleagues, led by Professor Iryna Gurevych at the Technical University of Darmstadt in Germany, ran experiments to test the ability of LLMs to complete tasks that the models have never come across – basically their propensity to generate emergent abilities.When it came to their ability to perform above the random baseline on the Social IQA, past researchers assumed the models “knew” what they were doing. However, the new study argues that this is not the case. Instead, the team show that the models were using a well-known ability to complete tasks based on a few examples presented to them – what is known as “in-context learning” (ICL).      IFLScience is not responsible for content shared from external sites.By running over 1,000 experiments, the team demonstrated that the ability for LLMs to follow instructions (ICL), their memory, and linguistic proficiency can explain their capabilities and their limitations.“The fear has been that as models get bigger and bigger, they will be able to solve new problems that we cannot currently predict, which poses the threat that these larger models might acquire hazardous abilities including reasoning and planning,” Tayyar Madabushi added.“This has triggered a lot of discussion – for instance, at the AI Safety Summit last year at Bletchley Park, for which we were asked for comment – but our study shows that the fear that a model will go away and do something completely unexpected, innovative and potentially dangerous is not valid.”Importantly, the fears over the existential threats posed by these models are not unique to non-experts; they have also been expressed by the top AI researchers across the world. However, the team believe the fear is unfounded as the tests clearly show the absence of emergent complex reasoning abilities in LLMs.“While it's important to address the existing potential for the misuse of AI, such as the creation of fake news and the heightened risk of fraud, it would be premature to enact regulations based on perceived existential threats,” Tayyar Madabushi said.“Importantly, what this means for end users is that relying on LLMs to interpret and perform complex tasks which require complex reasoning without explicit instruction is likely to be a mistake. Instead, users are likely to benefit from explicitly specifying what they require models to do and providing examples where possible for all but the simplest of tasks.”However, the team do stress that these results do not rule out all threats related to AI. As Professor Gurevych explained, “[We] show that the purported emergence of complex thinking skills associated with specific threats is not supported by evidence and that we can control the learning process of LLMs very well after all. Future research should therefore focus on other risks posed by the models, such as their potential to be used to generate fake news."The study is published in Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics. 

One of the compounds discovered was the rare metal osmium, which is used in telecommunications and satellites in the space industry, but is considered dangerous to humans. Mexican journalist and ufologist Jaime Maussan claims that “alien mummies” found in Peru have rare metals and alloys implanted in their chests. He believes these devices, like mobile phones, could be used for intergalactic communication. “I believe it’s a communication device. I don’t know exactly how it works, but experts will have to work hard to figure out why it was put inside the body,” says the paranormal expert. The famous Nazca Mummies have been shrouded in controversy since they were first presented to the world back in 2017. Alongside many scientists who specialize in forensics, Latin American journalists Jaime Maussan and Jois Mantilla have remained at the forefront of this case. They are doubling down on what they believe to be one of the most important discoveries in human history. According to him, one of the compounds discovered is the rare metal osmium, which is used in telecommunications and satellites in the space industry, but is potentially lethal to humans. “Osmium is not easy to find; it is very expensive and, in addition, toxic. It can cause serious problems in the human body and even lead to death. That is why it is difficult to understand why this was done. If you were going to create such a hoax, would you use such a rare metal?” Maussan reflects. Now, scientists in forensic laboratories are examining the bodies that the ufologist found in a cave in Nazca, Peru, back in 2017. The “aliens,” with elongated skulls, are said to have 30% unknown DNA. However, skeptics call it a hoax. According to them, the “mummies” could have been made from parts of various animals. Jaime Maussan teamed up with investigative filmmakers Serena DC and Michael Mazzola to document the scientific experiments for their documentary. “It is completely bizarre to me that these discoveries have been ignored, dismissed and ridiculed; instead of being considered as the biggest story in the world of science. When I first saw these creatures, I took them for a new species, previously unknown. This is a great discovery for humanity,” Michael says confidently. “People are always eager to invoke some kind of conspiracy theory to explain why some injustices have happened. But in my experience you do not need a conspiracy theory when human frailty or failure will do just fine.” The post Rare Metal Osmium Found in Alleged Alien Mummies appeared first on Anomalien.com.

A viral video clip has sparked intrigue online, depicting what seems to be a ghostly figure caught on a CCTV camera. The eerie figure, however, is invisible when viewed directly. According to the video’s caption on Instagram, the footage was captured by a bus conductor during routine post-service checks. While reviewing the CCTV feed, he noticed a passenger still seated on the bus, despite it supposedly being empty. Confused, the conductor aimed his phone camera at the seat in question, only to find it completely vacant. But when he looked back at the CCTV monitor, the mysterious passenger—a man in a white shirt—was still visible, seated alone on the otherwise deserted bus. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Bien_forever (@bien_forever) This has led to a puzzling inconsistency: if the apparition only appears on camera, why didn’t it show up on the conductor’s phone camera as well? The origins of the footage remain unclear, but it has quickly gained traction on Instagram, amassing hundreds of thousands of views. The question remains: is this truly evidence of a ghost on board? The most plausible explanation is that the CCTV monitor was displaying a recording from an earlier time when someone was indeed sitting in that seat. It could be a technical glitch, or perhaps the entire scenario was staged as a prank. The post Viral Video Sparks Debate: Ghostly Figure Caught on Bus CCTV? appeared first on Anomalien.com.

[Last] week, alleged comedian Stephen Colbert had on CNN's Kaitlan Collins to discuss the 2024 presidential election. In the middle of the interview, Colbert began to ask Collins a question, in all sincerity: "I know you guys are objective over (at CNN), you just report the news as it is." Colbert, presumably, expected his audience — all Kamala Harris fans, since Colbert is the most left-leaning host on late night television — to nod along. Instead, they laughed. They laughed because everyone in America knows, at this point, that the media have become stenographers for the Democratic Party. That process was well underway decades ago but accelerated dramatically under Barack Obama. Obama's candidacy wasn't treated like a normal candidacy in 2008; relevant stories ranging from his association with radical America-hating antisemite Jeremiah Wright to his corrupt connections in Chicago politics were quickly swept under the rug, deemed irrelevant in Obama's quest for the White House. The media became cheerleaders. And they haven't stopped. They spent four long years treating Donald Trump not just as a pariah but as a traitor to the country. Every Trump tweet was treated as a declaration of war on the American people; every Trump policy was greeted with the sort of horror normally reserved for nuclear war. Meanwhile, non-legacy media outlets were deemed misinformation and disinformation, threats to the republic itself. Social media outlets that deigned to allow distribution of such alternative media were themselves targeted as abiding dangers to democracy. Then Joe Biden was elected. For the next three-and-a-half years, the media did their best to treat his policies as benevolent and intelligent, even as inflation climbed to four-decade highs and the Middle East burst into flames. They treated his obvious senility as a matter not of controversy, but of established fact: It was a fact, they said, that he was doing just fine. Sure, he might be aging, but he was all there. Then Joe Biden blew it all up. Insistent on his own durability and intellectual command — believing his own press clippings, presumably — Biden engaged in a debate with Donald Trump. He proceeded to crumble on national television. And for approximately three weeks, the media did their jobs. They asked questions. They brought pressure to bear on Democratic lawmakers and White House insiders. And Joe Biden stepped aside. Then, quick as lightning, the legacy media returned to their Obama-era identity: as water carriers for Kamala Harris. The same candidate they had once deemed incompetent and awkward, the same vice president they had once deemed irrelevant and off-putting, was now a goddess of political oratory. Her inheritance of the Democratic nomination meant a new round of legacy media prostration before the new crowned heir. And the heir is not to be questioned. Not about her lies. Not about the policies of her administration. Not about her kaleidoscopically shifting positions or her hideously dishonest vice presidential pick. We are now 25 days into Kamala Harris' nomination. She has not answered a single, solitary adversarial question. She has not sat for a single interview — even with allies. She has not done a single serious press conference. And the media cheer. That is why the Colbert audience scoffs at CNN. Because they know the truth, as everyone does: that the legacy media are a propaganda outlet on behalf of the Democratic Party. That they act as a Praetorian Guard for Kamala Harris. That they deserve less than zero respect for their pseudo-journalism. They may be able to maintain the current cone of silence around Harris. They might be able to propel her to the White House on vibes alone. But sooner or later, the American people will wise up to the legacy media and realize that they belong on the ash heap of history. Ben Shapiro's new collection, "Facts and Furious: The Facts About America and Why They Make Leftists Furious," is available now. Shapiro is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of "The Ben Shapiro Show," and co-founder of Daily Wire+. He is a three-time New York Times bestselling author. To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

When I was a child and I was being indoctrinated in school with the evolution meme, my teacher (who was actually pretty based) asked the class a question: "So which is it? God or evolution?" I raised my hand and gave an answer: "Why couldn't God have simply created evolution?" I got some praise from some classmates (especially the supposedly smart ones), but my teacher treated that answer as a cop-out and wasn't satisfied. Looking back on that moment as a full-grown adult, I realize just how childish my answer was and just how childish I was for believing in evolution. God, the Logos, the unmoved mover, can't create a nonsensical, chaotic process that magically transforms inanimate, microscopic particles into living, breathing, fully fleshed-out organisms. For intelligent design to come from random chaos is ridiculous and impossible and would have no trace of God's fingerprints. My answer truly wasn't thought through and was, in fact, a cop-out. (I was in seventh grade.) The truth is that you do have to choose one or the other.To my seventh-grade brain, evolution made sense. "Animals just changed over time!" I thought. "The monkeys look kind of like us. We must have just come from them millions of years ago." In retrospect, I think I and many others in my generation were subliminally psyoped by the liberal notion of "progress" that pervaded every aspect of our culture in the 1990s and 2000s. Clearly, we were more socially enlightened and technologically advanced than any other civilization in history. We as the human race were living proof that "progress" was real. So why wouldn't that apply to biology as well? We must have "progressed" from tiny specks of dust to fish, to monkeys, to humans. But if we think about this with just a modicum of rigor, we began to detect traces of absurdity. Take so-called transitional fossils — fossils of species that would link modern species and ancient species. We've found very few, if any, so few that evolutionary biologists like Stephen Jay Gould had to come up with an entirely new model (punctuated equilibrium) to make evolution make sense. That's just one example. The deeper you dig, the dumber and more childish it gets. As adults, we must learn to put childish things away. That means using critical reasoning skills instead of slurping up the slop we slurped up as a child. The superstition that we all came from monkeys is a good place to start.

The House Oversight, Ways and Means, and Judiciary Committees brought their nearly yearlong impeachment probe of President Joe Biden to an end Monday, concluding that the Democrat who unwittingly made Kamala Harris' second presidential bid possible has engaged in "egregious" and impeachable offenses. According to the investigators' nearly 300-page report, "overwhelming evidence demonstrates that Biden participated in a conspiracy to monetize his office of public trust to enrich his family." "Among other aspects of this conspiracy, the Biden family and their business associates received tens of millions of dollars from foreign interests by leading those interests to believe that such payments would provide them access to and influence with President Biden," said the report. Bank records reportedly show that when accounting also for the Biden family's business associates and their companies, the international "influence peddling schemes totaled over $27 million from foreign sources" just from 2014 to 2023. Contrary to the repeated suggestion by Biden and boosters that he had no hand in his son's shady dealings with foreign nationals from Ukraine, China, Russia, Kazakhstan, and elsewhere, the report maintains that Biden "knowingly participated in this conspiracy" — that it is "inconceivable that President Biden did not understand that he was taking part in an effort to enrich his family by abusing his office of public trust." In August 2019, Biden said, "I have never discussed with my son, or my brother, or anyone else, anything having to do with their businesses." The following month, Biden said, "I've never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings." Days after indicating that he stood by his previous protestations, Biden noted on Oct. 15, "I never discussed a single thing with my son about anything having do with Ukraine. No one has indicated I have. We've always kept everything separate." Biden made similar denials on at least a dozen more occasions, well into his presidency. Despite his protests, the report indicates that no such distance existed and that some of the proceeds from the influence-peddling scheme indeed went to Joe Biden. Among the funds from the scheme that ended up in Joe Biden's bank account, hundreds of thousands of dollars were allegedly "directly traceable to China." 'Joe Biden has exhibited conduct and taken actions that the Founders sought to guard against in drafting the impeachment provisions in the Constitution.' The report indicated that Biden's active participation was sometimes expressed in American policy changes, as evidenced by the leveraging of a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to Ukraine to secure a result favorable to a company affiliated with his son, convicted felon Hunter Biden. Not only does the report accuse Biden and his ilk of engaging in this conspiracy, it claims they also did their best to cover it up: Foreign money was transmitted to the Biden family through complicated financial transactions. The Biden family laundered funds through intermediate entities and broke up large transactions into numerous smaller transactions. Substantial efforts were also made to hide President Biden’s involvement in his family’s business activities. House Democrats may be prickled to learn that precedents they set in 2019 in their impeachment of President Donald Trump have been turned on Biden. The House Democrats of yesteryear argued that "'abuse of office,' defined as the exercise of 'official power to obtain an improper personal benefit, while ignoring or injuring the national interest,' is an impeachable offense." House Republicans were evidently willing to accept this legal interpretation as instructive in their investigation of Biden. The House Democrats of yesteryear also apparently argued that "'the House may properly conclude that a President's obstruction of Congress is relevant to assessing the evidentiary record in an impeachment inquiry' and 'where the President illegally seeks to obstruct such an inquiry, the House is free to infer that evidence blocked from its view is harmful to the President's position.'" House Republicans, met with obstruction and refusals to cooperate from the White House, the Biden-Harris administration, and the DOJ, were again willing to embrace the supposed wisdom of their peers and similarly infer guilt. Extra to hammering Biden over his alleged sale of American political destiny for self-enrichment, the report separately accuses Biden of using "his official position to conceal his mishandling of classified information as a private citizen." Robert Hur, who led the investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents, apparently figured the president too decrepit to face legal culpability, though he ultimately chose ultimately not to exonerate him outright. The report underscored that "Joe Biden has exhibited conduct and taken actions that the Founders sought to guard against in drafting the impeachment provisions in the Constitution: abuse of power, foreign entanglements, corruption, and obstruction of investigations into these matters." It recommended that under the Constitution, the remedy is clear: The House must impeach Biden and the Senate should remove him from office. Although the report could prove a black eye for the Democratic president whose political career is now all but over, it may similarly dog the Department of Justice, since it reiterates and buttresses past claims about the DOJ's apparent efforts to give Hunter Biden "special treatment" and spare him from the kind of accountability those outside the top echelons of the Democratic Party might otherwise face. Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, stated on X, "The evidence produced by our impeachment inquiry is the strongest case for impeachment of a sitting president the House of Representatives has ever investigated. We have exposed the truth." "The facts speak for themselves, and Democrats can no longer stretch the truth to cover for President Biden," wrote House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). "As Democrats celebrate Joe Biden and crown Kamala Harris as his heir apparent this week, Americans should remember the reality of the Biden-Harris Administration: crime, chaos, and corruption." Politico noted that it would be historically anomalous now for an impeachment vote not to follow the inquiry, not to mention politically risky for House Republicans facing re-election. While an impeachment vote might succeed in the House, where Republicans enjoy a sliver majority, it is all but guaranteed to fail in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

NOTE: This is part 2 of my guide to homeschooling. For part 1, see here.Things I observed in over a decade of teaching in public high school:Kids learning something, taking a test, and promptly forgetting it.Students leaving high school proudly declaring that they’ll never again read a book.Children spending eight hours a day learning in a series of rooms, sitting in rows, surrounded by strangers, whose home lives and influences you have no idea about or control over.There are structures above teachers they cannot hope to influence or control, and if the government says, 'You will teach underwater basket weaving four hours per day in every grade or we will cut your funding by half,' then guess what everyone will be learning next year?Sounds pretty awful, doesn’t it? Because it is. It’s also the reality of public schooling today. I fancied myself to be different from other teachers in that I didn’t just open a textbook and start teaching on page one. I tried to tailor my teaching to the abilities of my students as best I could. I incorporated real-world experience as often as possible. I took them outside whenever I could find a reason to go.But it didn’t matter, because the reality is, it doesn’t matter what a teacher’s personal philosophy of education is. There are structures above teachers they cannot hope to influence or control, and if the government says, “You will teach underwater basket weaving four hours per day in every grade or we will cut your funding by half,” then guess what everyone will be learning next year?There’s a better way to learn. It’s more natural, and it is what I believe most people would gravitate toward if left to their own devices.Who is Charlotte Mason?Charlotte Mason is a name that means a lot to some people and is completely unknown to others. I have taken to calling her the godmother of homeschooling when I talk about her. To say that Charlotte Mason’s ideas changed our family profoundly is a great understatement. So who the heck is she?Charlotte Mason was a British educator and philosopher who lived at the turn of the 20th century. Her educational philosophy literally spans six volumes of writing, but you don’t have to read all six volumes, because her method comes naturally.Looking back on the most profound educational moments of my life, I see Charlotte Mason’s reflection in them all. I studied history in college, and most of my classes were round-table discussions of books we had all read ahead of time. We were, in fact, narrating — a core concept in a Charlotte Mason education.The Charlotte Mason methodCharlotte believed that education is “the science of relations” and “an atmosphere, a discipline, and a life.” She also believed that children are “born persons” and are worthy of the respect and responsibility due to them as such. So what does that look like in practical terms?First, you do not water things down. You do, however, provide age-appropriate-sized “bites” of whatever is being studied. You spread a wide “feast” of knowledge. Art, music, math, foreign language, Shakespeare, Plutarch, history, geography ... all of these are key components of a Charlotte Mason education.Lessons are, however, kept short and use living books instead of dry, boring textbooks. Learning revolves around experience and narration — written or oral retelling of what one read or observed.My 9-year-old has read Shakespeare this school year but only three plays, never all in one sitting, and sometimes using puppets to keep the characters straight.Charlotte emphasized time in nature as integral to a successful education. Children were not expected to understand nature simply by reading about it. Children needed to go out and look at what the world is doing on a day-to-day basis.In our family, my sons go outside and then they come in and tell me all about their adventures, like how the plants are changing or animals they saw. I try to go with them on longer walks about once a week, but I also encourage them to go out on their own.Eventually, I will start having the oldest keep a nature journal, either physical or digital, but for now, I am loving his narration of the seasons and the small day-to-day changes he notices.I know we are fortunate to live in a rural setting with plenty of nature available to us, but I have read many mothers' accounts of doing nature study at a local park, in their tiny back yard with a single plant in a flower pot, or using their apartment building’s rooftop as a place for a garden. It is doable, even though it might be different for your family.Charlotte Mason encouraged children to be outside in all types of weather, but she also lived in Ambleside, England, where it was never 100 degrees with 100% humidity, either. So no, we don’t implement that part with 100% fidelity in our house, because our family circumstances are different, and I am a huge weenie who cannot tolerate heat.Habit training is also a key part of a Charlotte Mason education. Charlotte Mason understood that children are not being raised, men and women are. Believing they are born persons, it is important to help children form good habits early because habits are being formed every day, whether for good or bad. This idea makes parenting more proactive, instead of reactive.I am still very much a student of habit training, but that’s one of the most beautiful parts of a Charlotte Mason education: Mom gets to learn new things, too.When we began homeschooling, I started looking for ways to bring all of the elements that I felt public school was lacking into our days. I wanted art and music and orderliness and nature to be a part of what my children experienced. At the time, I had no idea who Charlotte Mason was. Through a series of divinely inspired events, I do now.The changes I have seen in my children, and in our life as a family, have been profound. My boys go outside and re-enact the Battle of Hastings, or they’ll come traipsing through the house pretending to be Robin Hood and Prince John. My baby daughter is so in love with books that we read 20 a day sometimes, and they are mostly all quality stories that inspire the imagination and uplift the spirit. My husband and I have reignited our own passion for reading. We have all discovered classic literature that we likely never would have read had we not chosen the Charlotte Mason path for our family.You may be thinking this sounds like a lot of fairy-tale nonsense. Like I’m some sort of Snow White, cleaning my house with forest animals and teaching wide-eyed children who are always rapt with wonder. When you’re still thinking in the “public school way,” Charlotte Mason’s ideas will sound completely alien and perhaps unattainable.But underneath that, I know what you’re thinking. Because every good parent understandably wants a quality education for his or her child, you’re wondering when we actually “learn.” The answer is: all the time. Learning happens every single day.It happens in ways you will not see coming when you start. And you won’t have to manufacture it. You will present real, quality materials and experiences to your children, and they will tell you how they have put it together for themselves. It will be meaningful in ways that textbook learning just inherently is not. Think about the books you love. Unless you are profoundly weird, I would bet money that the books you love most are not textbooks.If that doesn’t convince you, then think about what you want the long term to look like. To quote one of my favorite podcasters Tyler Mahan Coe, “There’s a difference between handing someone a $20 bill and handing them a treasure map.”Charlotte Mason ResourcesCharlotte Mason’s way is a treasure map — her methods will give your child the tools and desire for lifelong learning. If this sounds at all like what you want for your family, here are some resources to help you get started.Curriculum choicesThis is not a complete list but enough to give you some ideas:Ambleside Online (This is the curriculum we use, though with our own timetable.)Mater Amablis (Catholic-flavored Charlotte Mason)Simply Charlotte Mason (I am currently reading through all of the "Laying Down the Rails" materials. I need help habit training two headstrong little boys and a little girl who is bent on world domination.)A Gentle FeastBeautiful Feet BooksThe AlvearyPodcasts"The New Mason Jar""Simply Charlotte Mason""A Delectable Education""Modern Miss Mason""The Charlotte Mason Show" (Season 7, episode 6 is a particularly good interview with Leah Boden.)Books"Modern Miss Mason" by Leah Boden (This one is a particularly good place to start, I think.)"Know and Tell: The Art of Narration" by Karen Glass"For the Children’s Sake" by Susan Schaeffer Macaulay"Mere Motherhood" by Cindy Rollins"Mother Culture" by Karen Andreola"A Charlotte Mason Companion" by Karen Andreola"A Charlotte Mason Education" by Catherine Levison"More Charlotte Mason Education" by Catherine LevisonCharlotte Mason’s six volumes (But don’t try to read these straight through. It’s a LOT.)A version of this essay first appeared on the Unprepared.life.

The media is working hard to erase Kamala Harris’ problematic past and pitch her to the nation as the savior of democracy. Mainstream outlets don’t want you to remember that not that long ago, everyone was talking about how she was the least popular vice president in the history of the country. They don’t want you to remember the countless times she was lambasted for another word salad. They don’t want you to remember how her first run for president failed miserably before voting even began. And they certainly don’t want you to remember that some of America’s most popular late-night talk show hosts (ahem, Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert) roasted her on live television. Dave Rubin isn’t one to forget, though. Although Kimmel and Colbert have changed their tune to be in sync with the media’s current Harris narrative – and have even invited Harris on their shows – Dave has receipts from the past. - YouTube youtu.be In the first clip, Kimmel says, “Americans really aren't happy with this vice president, Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris has an approval rating of 28%, which makes no sense because she basically has nothing to do. I mean, it’s like criticizing a backup quarterback – Tom Brady is okay; I don’t love the way Blaine Gabbert has his legs folded on the bench,” Kimmel jested. But his digs got even sharper. “Kamala’s approval rating of 28% is even lower than the 30% who approved of Dick Cheney in 2008 after he shot a guy in the face,” he said, as the audience roared in laughter. In another Kimmel clip, the comedian, while standing in front of a mock choir, said, “Kamala’s approval rating is now at 28%, which is a historic low for any modern vice president.” After this statement, the choir burst into a song with the following lyrics: “She may not be polling well with her base, but at least she didn’t shoot an old man in the face!” In the third clip, Stephen Colbert said, “Now if Biden, uuhhh, do not run, the next person in line would obviously be Vice President Kamala Harris. Only one teensy problem … her approval dipped to 28%. To put that into perspective, the movie ‘Batman vs. Superman’ has an approval rating of 29%. So Kamala Harris is 1% less popular than watching two and a half hours of Batman and Superman wrestle each other, then realize their moms have the same first name so they decide to be friends.” The talk show hosts’ comments are hilarious and true. But they no longer are consistent with the mainstream media’s narrative. Chances are Kimmel and Cobert regret these past segments on their shows. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

CHICAGO, Ill. — The heart of downtown Chicago experienced a large protest and at least one disruption to a Democratic National Convention event on Sunday, a day before the Democrats' political event of the year officially starts. While mostly peaceful, the protests gave the week an ominous start with Democrats worried about potential violence during the main protests.The primary protest of the day was centered around reproductive issues and the Israel-Hamas war, with protesters stating their support for people in Gaza is intertwined with access to abortions. "[We're] here to shout so, oh, so loudly, so clearly that Palestinian liberation is reproductive justice," the first speaker said to cheers.Another speaker's message to Vice President Kamala Harris included that protesters' votes are not guaranteed because black men and women are still going to jail in high numbers.'Shut down the DNC!'"You're killing us. We're tired. We're tired of being killed. We're tired of going to jail. We're tired of our men and women going to jail. We're tired of the police killing. ... I hope that they are listening to us, and I hope they do something about it," she said. — (@) The march itself was slow and largely peaceful. Hundreds of Chicago police officers walked alongside the protesters to ensure no violence took place. The peacefulness was put in jeopardy after a protester was accidentally knocked down by a police officer on a bicycle, who was trying to maneuver around the tightly packed road. Other marchers rushed to the scene and started to taunt the officers. — (@) After a few tense minutes, the protesters started to move on, but not before promising the officers that this would be a "long week" for the Chicago police.Chants shouted during the march included, "Shut down the DNC!" and "DNC go home! Or we’re gonna bring the war home!”There are planned protests every day of the DNC. Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling has made it clear his department will not tolerate any violence: "We will not allow people to come here and destroy this city." The main march, called March on the DNC, is expected to draw tens of thousands of people, and it will be in the area around the United Center.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!