Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
https://youtu.be/jLEO9Gbba0k
Matt and Sean talk about the scramble to develop AI that could undermine the very underpinnings of … well… everything. Don’t panic. (Yet.)
Watch the Undecided with Matt Ferrell episode, Why the AI Revolution Has a Fatal Flaw https://youtu.be/hBfhd88DCZA?list=PLnTSM-ORSgi7uzySCXq8VXhodHB5B5OiQ
Matt and Sean talk about the scramble to develop AI that could undermine the very underpinnings of … well… everything. Don’t panic. (Yet.)
Watch the Undecided with Matt Ferrell episode, Why the AI Revolution Has a Fatal Flaw https://youtu.be/hBfhd88DCZA?list=PLnTSM-ORSgi7uzySCXq8VXhodHB5B5OiQ
Follow us on X: @stilltbdfm @byseanferrell @mattferrell or @undecidedmf
Undecided with Matt Ferrell: https://www.youtube.com/undecidedmf
★ Support this podcast ★
Creators and Guests
What is Still To Be Determined?
Join Matt Ferrell from the YouTube Channel, Undecided, and his brother Sean Ferrell as they discuss electric vehicles, renewable energy, smart technologies, and how they impact our lives. Still TBD continues the conversation from the Undecided YouTube channel.
Today on Still to be Determined, we're talking about the corporate goals that drive AI development, that then undermines the economy, that supports the corporations, that sets the goal, that drive the AI development. Sigh. Hey everybody. Welcome to Still to Be Determined. I'm Sean Ferrell. I'm a writer. I write some sci-fi.
I write some stuff for kids, and I'm just generally curious about technology and luckily for me, my younger brother, my baby brother is that Matt behind Undecided with Matt Ferrell, which takes a look at emerging tech and it's impact on our lives. And Matt, how are you today? You've just been recently traveling.
Do you wanna talk a little bit about your travels and where your travels took you and what travails you Matt on your travels?
Yeah, I was down in Houston, Texas for a couple of days. I visited a company called Quaise. It's a company I did a video on a couple years ago. I refer to it as they've created a death ray that they shoot into the earth to make geothermal wells.
Right. And when I said that to them numerous times when I was down there, I kept saying. Death Ray. I kept turning to them and go, I know you don't like it when I say that. And they just go, no, we don't. There you go. But it was, it was really cool 'cause it's like I did a video about them a couple years ago when they were just like kind of coming out about what they were doing, taking this fusion technology called a gyrotron and using it to do vaporize rock into the earth.
And now they are doing it. Wow. They're actually doing it. And I went there and saw a test rig firing into the ground and doing its thing and saw in person and it was very cool, very cool experience. Got to meet more of the team. Um, I'm planning on making a video publishing. It may come out like in a month or so, but it was a really fun trip.
Really good time.
Sounds really fascinating and a weird melding. You keep saying Death Ray. Of course. Those of us playing along at home immediately start thinking of the Death Star. Yes. But then you mention it's called a what a. Gyrotron, a Gyrotron. Immediately now we're in the Transformers, so it's the perfect blending of Star Wars and Transformers.
Finally, Sean has gotten what he wanted when he was 12.
Regular listeners to this show will know of course that we'd like to visit the mailbag from our previous episode to talk about what you're talking about in response to what we're talking about. I'm really sorry. This is how my brain works. From episode 2 66, we were talking about power lines potentially laying on the floor of the ocean because of deep water desalination plans, but also the floating wave capture. We've been talking about the ocean a lot lately and, yes we have, somebody in one of the comments was like power lines at the bottom of the ocean, what would that do to marine life? And we talked a little bit about the fact that there are already lines like this across the bottom of the ocean, and that for some reason sharks like to attack them.
Well, George BP jumped in to say the thrashing in the water. That produces mechanical waves that are picked up with the lateral line that runs along each side of most fish's bodies is what attracts a fish to a potential meal. The receptors in the sharks pick up actual EM fields like those generated by the preys heart.
Probably mild EEEG potential as well in my opinion. When heart rate is high or irregular, it's either afraid or dying. So that's dinner. This is why the high frequency and probably high powered compared to a heart nerve cluster firing field found in cables, confuses the shark and baits them into using the cables as chew toy.
End of info dump. Thank you so much, George, for jumping into the comments with what is a very clear and strangely given the topic, concise wrap up of what's going on in the shark's minds. I was gonna say really quickly, hat tip to you, George, for having a great username. I know you think well, that's just my name.
My name is George. Our grandfather's name was George. So George, you reminded me of my grandfather. Thank you so much for jumping into the comments. There was also this from Seber, strangely enough, that was our other grandfather's name. No, that wasn't, sorry. Who jumps in from Austria? Wow. To say hi Matt and Sean. In Austria, Germany, and probably some other states with a very high percentage of renewables.
There's a rising problem of electricity, marked price peaks in both directions. Very high prices on winter evenings. Then in the spring and summer, even negative prices when the sun is shining. There are hours with negative 25 C. We even had one once at minus 70 C for one hour, so people were making money.
People put their electric heaters in their garden to make money with wasting energy. Quite interesting fruits of high amounts of renewables. Maybe an interesting idea for one of your videos. Cheers from Austria.
Yeah.
Yeah. Energy storage. Yeah. But the idea that the price went to negative seems to me like here in the US the debate seems to be why are the power companies charging me for access to the grid when I'm making my own power with my solar?
This seems to be a gap in the other direction to me, where they aren't being charged a flat rate for just access to something, and it allows for negative pricing to actually benefit you the producer.
It's all supply and demand, Sean, so it's like, it's those times where the renewables are producing so much energy and it's just not getting used.
That's when the prices fall into the negative. And it's weird that it works that way, but that's how it works out. And that's where I was like energy storage. It's like that's where energy storage comes in. If you're producing that much energy stored away, and then guess what, then you can use that stuff at the times where it's supposed to be expensive 'cause you're not producing enough and you can just shift it.
It's like energy storage is the key to all of this. And it's just funny when you see this stuff happening, it's because there's not enough energy storage and there's way more energy than they can be used.
Hmm.
Bananas. That's all I'll say.
Then this again, we have seen a lot of this in the past where people in the comments jump in and say, Hey, I was involved in research in this about four decades ago, and Matt and I are always like, this is crazy.
This is crazy. That Matt's channel is attracting people with the kinds of experience that they do, and they jump into the comments to say they were there at some aspect of earlier research and. Chlistens, jumped into the comments to say, comments about I worked on that in the seventies or eighties, just proves the difference between in lab testing phase versus production phase.
I think that's an interesting reminder of that truth. Yes, yes. A lot of this is exactly that, and Matt's had a couple of videos recently. Matt, do you wanna point out some of the videos in the past few weeks that you've had where they fall to one side or the other of it's an engineering problem, which means it's well past the lab phase and it's about the application phase, or it is still in the research phase.
And you've had a bunch recently, like the wave capture was one where you were exactly like this is an engineering problem. The desalination plants at the bottom of the ocean, that's an engineering problem. They know how to do it. It's just doing it in a way that's cost effective versus we're trying to figure out if we can take this laser, shoot it into the center of the planet and blow us all up.
Well, here's the thing. Quaise, that company I just visited, is in the engineering phase as well. This is not, there's not a theory they're proving out. It's literally just an engineering problem to get it to the production stage. Some of the videos I've made recently, like around some of these battery technologies that are like on the cutting edge, those are good examples of in the lab.
It's not gonna be here next year. It's not gonna be here the year after. It still might be years away because. They've shown it works in the lab, but getting it to that production scale is where the engineering challenge kicks in of like, can we do this economically? Can we do this at scale? So it's like, if you look at some of those recent battery videos that I did maybe a month or two ago, 'cause I did a lot of battery videos in that time span.
So take your, take your pick. Uh, there was a bunch of 'em. Uh, and there's a video that I'm doing that's coming up at some point in the next few weeks around self-healing solar cells. You know, if they get cracked or, uh, start to kinda like, I don't wanna say delaminate, but they get like little imperfections, they'll actually heal themselves.
This technology is really cool and it could change the direction of solar in a lot of ways, but it's still very much in the lab. So it's like one of those, it's not gonna be here in a solar panel in five years. It might be a decade or more away if it proves out. Because it has to go from the lab into the engineering phase.
And it's like there's, that's where a lot of ideas and innovations, you could say, go to die or go into stasis, because it takes sometimes decades for that stuff to work out.
Right. And then it also relies on somebody remembering that the research existed. Right. I mean, you've, yeah. I'm curious, I don't know that we've actually talked about this from this angle before, but have you ever done research into something where.
I feel like there is one case where we talked about this exact thing, somebody's working on something and then accidentally stumbles on very old research to discover like, oh, this has been looked at before. And we.
I don't know if that doesn't come to mind immediately, but there has been accidental discoveries, like a sulfur battery, sulfur batteries that we've known for a long time have the potential to be like this crazy battery energy density long lifespan.
But they have a huge Achilles heel that nobody knew how to fix. And then a team just kinda like accidentally went oopsie. They were trying to do one thing and like basically spoiled their their lab experiment. But then at the end of this experiment was like, whoa, that's kind of crazy why that happened.
And they went back and discovered what they did wrong, actually showed that they could actually solve the problem with sulfur. So that happens all the time. Here's this decades and decades old idea, but they just stumbled upon a discovery that cracked the nut.
So that's funny 'cause that kind of the penicillin of battery storage, like Yes.
Like, oops. Yep. I just wiped out a bunch of bacteria. On now to our discussion about Matt's most recent. Matt, this is of course why the AI revolution has a fatal flaw. Matt, why you hating on AI so much? What has that ever done to you?
This one. I watched the video and I was just really struck. I want to say here in this podcast, which of course is Matt and I talking about the content of the video, but I want to just give a hat tip to you, Matt. This I thought was an excellent analysis of, thank you, the issue it really, appreciate it, hit me. Like it was fair and balanced and really landed on the issue in a square way. That was just like, it's taking a look at AI is scary to so many people, myself included. It is also not necessarily, the future of AI does not necessarily have to be one that is destructive to people's lives.
Correct. But how do we get there when everybody seems to be grabbing a rope and running as fast as they can to the horizon and not thinking about like, are we doing this in the best possible way? And I do know from other parts of my life that there are people out there who are I advocating for the slower approach, the ethical approach, taking a moment to say like, let's take this in steps.
Let's not rush as fast as we can. Whether that actually happens when you have AI announcements coming out of Apple and then Google has to trump them, so they have to push harder. And everybody's like, well, we're just getting there. Getting there, getting there, getting there. So big picture, I just want to ask you did your research into all of this and, and sometimes I, for our new listeners who might be jumping in for the first time, I sometimes ask Matt open-ended questions where his response is to roll his eyes and go, oh my God, that's a huge question.
So I'm trying not to do that here, and I'm gonna do it in this way. Okay. Did your research into all of this and your writing of the script and putting everything together make you feel optimistic, pessimistic, or mixed about this issue on an emotional level?
So for me, I'm very much mixed on this because, where the internet doesn't do well with nuance, that's where I live. It's us versus them. Black or white. AI is a big bad, or AI is the best thing ever. It's definitely in the middle because you have to take each application. For me, the thing I would hope you came away with at the end of the video was it's, it's not the technology, it's how we're applying it.
That is the, the danger. So it's kind of. For me, I'm using it for helping with research, which is fantastic. It sped up my research process. I'm using it to help brainstorm thumbnail ideas and I can iterate through thumbnail ideas really quick, which is fantastic. But then there's a whole thing of like, well, it used your books to learn how to write.
It used my YouTube videos to learn how to make videos. It learned, it's learning from all the stolen material, which is kind of like that icky like. I don't wanna reward these companies for stealing all this. Yeah. But at the same time, they're creating products that are incredibly beneficial, and that's just large language models.
Then there's AI being used in fusion research and battery research and new material designs and medicine and cancer cures. It's like there's all these things that are gonna be like a huge positive for society. Yeah. But then there's the, oh my God. The more I was looking into this, it's like, this is why I made this video, which was, I am so torn about AI.
I see the huge potential, but this is the most risky thing we as a society have ever done. And it's like it cannot be understated, like. The whole idea of the singularity. Yeah. Is, is racing at us right now, Sean.
Yeah.
We are much closer to that moment than I ever thought would be possible in our lifetimes.
Yeah. And this is not something that's gonna happen 30 years from now. This is something that's gonna happen. It's happening now way fast. Yeah. It's correct. Yeah. It's gonna, it's, it's, it is gonna happen really fast and it's, it, this is an exponential, like, you know how like the curve goes, like the hockey stick graph?
Yeah. We're basically on the part of the graph right now that's going almost straight up. Yeah, that's how fast this stuff is gonna get going. And so for that, it scares the living crap outta me when we have an current administration here in the US that just banned any kind of regulation around AI for the next 10 years.
Yeah.
10 years. This stuff is going so fast. It's like you should be saying, let's reevaluate this every 12 months. Yeah. You know what I mean? Not, Hey, let's just take 10 years and just let the tech bros go nuts. Yeah. It's like that is the worst. That's the worst idea. But at the same time, you don't wanna overregulate and stifle things because we may end up be passing up on some of those huge benefits that we can get out of it.
Yeah. So we have to. We have to be very thoughtful about it. And the problem that we have right now in a society is we're not being thoughtful as a society. Yeah. And that's what terrifies me about this.
Yeah. As a, as a creator, as an artist, I keep going back to a comment that I saw on social media, which was dropped there so casually and I was just like, that is it in a nutshell, which is.
What I, somebody who was a writer saying, what I want AI to do is to do all the things, the drudgery of my life so that I can do the creative things like create art and write and do that. And instead, what it is doing is the opposite. AI is showing up and being used to create art and creativity, which leaves us nothing but the drudge work.
So it's like, where's the AI doing my laundry so I can go out and paint instead? Well, it's the AI's doing the painting. Yes. And I'm left with the laundry. And just, I wanna share this two anecdotes from the past week. I don't know if you saw this, Matt. It was largely buzzing around in the lit circles in social media.
Mm-hmm. Two news stories around AI. A woman with a self-published book on Amazon. Some early readers discovered that there was a point where she had inadvertently left AI prompts within, oh, dear God, the text. So she had taken the entire text as developed by the AI, pasted it into documents, created this book, and was selling this book, and in the middle of a chapter, it suddenly said.
I have manipulated the writing the way you requested to make it more like the writing of such and so, and it was that kind of thing. Oh dear. So this person is using this AI and not proofreading. So think about the potential issues around the simplicity of not catching what AI is actually saying to consumers.
If you are somebody who's using AI in this way to push creative stuff that you haven't created yourself. The other one and this one is the one that is, haha. It's funny but haha, it's not. I think it was the Chicago Sun Times. Mm-hmm. Published a list of the most anticipated summer reads, and many of the books on the list don't exist.
Real writers were given attribution for books that aren't real. Non-existent authors were given attribution for books that aren't real. Synopsis were included. Some of the books actually sounded interesting but. And don't exist. They do not exist. And the editors of the paper were like, we don't know how this got into print.
I'll tell you how it got into print. People don't process information anymore. They take what they're given, they put it forward and they move it on through the pipeline. This is a failing on so many different levels in particular. The starting point is the guy who apparently was involved in having the byline of the article admitted that he sometimes uses AI to do some light research, but he always proofreads.
And he makes he double checks. Yeah. Clearly not. No, clearly not. He just had somebody, yeah, he had an AI generate a list of the upcoming books for summer 2025. But it doesn't stop with him. I don't actually think he's more culpable despite the fact he's the one who did this, but probably, I don't think he's more culpable than the editors or anybody in the pipeline.
Just of the newspaper. Yep. And it's just, it's gross. It's gross and it's. It's the kind of like the two of us are kind of like, I'm looking at my feet and seeing the stuff scurrying around my feet and you're looking at the horizon and you're seeing the looming shadow. And neither of us is wrong to be focused on the part we're focused on.
Like it's scary from here all the way to the horizon. Yeah, and it's, and it doesn't have to be, and that's what's frustrating. It doesn't have to be scary. Yep. If only some adults were in the room to say like, hold on, let's pull it back a bit. There were lots of comments that jumped into various aspects of this.
There was this one from JC who writes, I'm 64 years old. I've seen the electric typewriter replace typing pools, the word processor replace print shops, the desktop computer replace graphic designers, the internet kill travel agencies, the smartphone eliminate phone books, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Several whole industries have disappeared in my lifetime. Some have even appeared and then gone again. Remember, faxes? People always retrain and life goes on. But I will agree with you on one premise in that quality of life has actually gone down as the new jobs require less skill. And therefore less pay.
When I was a kid, a blue collar factory worker could have three kids, own his own home and a car on just one salary whilst the wife stayed at home. Could an Amazon Deriv, could an Amazon warehouse employee do that nowadays? I don't think so. JC as somebody who's 64 years old, I appreciate the fact that you are looking at the generations behind you and you are not saying, well, I did it.
Why can't you? Circumstances have changed drastically. The economy, the world does not work the way it used to. We all need to recognize, we don't have to embrace that, but we have to recognize that. Yeah, and AI is going to play a part in that. Matt mentions in his video, retraining is something that people would need.
How many people, realistically at the age of 50 or 55 or 60, will retrain into jobs that are high skill computer technician jobs? There's a difficulty there, isn't there, Matt?
Yes. There's something else I want to add onto what he's saying and he's a hundred percent correct. Things have changed, but things have changed with AI in a way I don't think anybody's really grasped onto yet, because this is no joke.
AI and robotics are coming for all jobs. Not some, not some industries, all jobs. And somebody commented on this video saying. They're a contract worker like the, a trade, like a plumber in the New England. And New England has a huge shortage of workers in the trades, and so this could push more people into the trades.
He's not wrong. Yeah. But in response, Tesla is making an Optimus robot and they're not alone. Yeah. There are dozens of companies trying to make humanoid robots that will be AI controlled and can be trained to do any task. So fast forward 10 years, 15 years. It wouldn't be shocking to see some robot that's able to do basic plumbing.
Yeah. You know what I mean? Like it's, every job is going to be affected, so it's like, well, people could transition into this. For how long? Like maybe they could transition into trades and then 15 years from now even those jobs are gone.
Yeah.
AI is, is is something we have never seen before and it's going to impact us in ways that we can't necessarily look to the past to figure out how it's going to impact us in the future because.
Nothing like this has ever happened before. It's, it's, that's where it's like, it kinda freaks me out a little bit.
I think it has happened before. I think it happens all the time in nature. It's called the mycelial infection, that zombifies insects. I think that that is the closest analogy that I can think of is you take the creature that is out there saying like, I have a job.
I'm supposed to go get leaves and bring them back to the nest, and then an infection sets in and that creature still looks like it is doing that work. But it is now not doing that at all. It is just going somewhere to spread a spore. It feels like that's where we are like this. You're going to end up, as you mentioned, like I think it starts probably with somebody at the top of a company ladder saying if we could just build robots, they could do all the work of our employees.
We wouldn't need employees. And then one day somebody says, well wait a minute, if we're building robots that can do that, couldn't the robots themselves be a product? Then you lose sight of the fact that as your video goes into it, oh, if you don't have employees, it goes back to Henry Ford's model of business.
You pay your employees enough to buy your product. You now have your customer base. People on the, on the assembly lines at Ford were paid enough so they could buy a Ford. Yep. But nobody wants to pay workers enough to buy their product anymore. And there seems to be this overriding lack of recognition amongst those at the top of these corporate ladders that collectively, they are just sawing the legs.
They're, they're sawing the branch that they are sitting on without realizing it.
It's the old joke, Sean.
It's the old Silicon Valley joke of like, step one, build the product, step three profit. What about step two? Yeah, it's like question mark. Nobody ever mentions that, and that's the big question mark here is you're looking at the profit, but the profit is determined on people being able to buy your thing.
Yeah. And if nobody can do that, what the hell.
To point out a lot of people, were jumping on exactly these issues in the comments such as Almag, who says, I'm a 58-year-old male displaced employee. I'm living as a nomad out of a converted cargo trailer. I survive by moving from one seasonal job to the next and still years away from social security benefits if they will even exist.
I have degrees in physics, computer science, and biomedical engineering. My age stops every interview. That's a shame. Retraining is not an option for an option for some people, it's not a slam dunk retraining when you say, oh, we can retrain these coal miners to do other work. Nobody is suggesting we're gonna take the coal miners and retrain them to be AI programming specialists.
There's a reality of what it means to shift from an industry paradigm to some other paradigm. It is hard. It is in some cases dangerous, and we're watching it happen both for measurably ethically defendable goals such as moving off of burning coal and moving to sustainable renewable energy sources is an overall good.
Mm-hmm. So nobody's suggesting going back to coal is the ethically preferred direction, but there is a hard impact on those people whose work relies on that. Yep. We need to embrace that. We need to be honest about that. We need to help the people with that. At the opposite end of the spectrum, you have this kind of development, which isn't taking that into consideration at all, and is eating from the opposite end of the economic paradigm.
It's not going after the blue collar manual jobs. It is going after everything and worming its way in from the other direction. And when these two trends meet in the middle. What are we left with as far as an an economy that has legs? I really don't know. Yep. Trials by error. Jumped in to point out something that I also nodded along with.
Tech Bros don't understand. One of the goals of economics is to maintain peace. It's yes. Yep. Source caster pointed out it was clear with the first successes of AI that we will need to completely new economy system sooner or later. Unfortunately, human civilization is infamously known for sticking to a status quo until a total collapse happens.
That worries me. Yes, we have talked about that on this channel as well, that when you are sitting in the middle of a paradigm, it is hard to imagine what a paradigm outside of that might look like, and it is very often achieved through drastic, painful change, not an easy, smooth transition. That comment hits the nail on the head.
It does. Finally, there was this from Otto who I thought was helpful in pointing out that one of the places that we can begin to decipher and interpret how this change might feel and what can be done about it. And it's gonna sound silly on the face of it, but I do believe that these are challenges that have been faced historically.
A paradigm shift of this magnitude and the speed may not have happened, but there have been paradigm shifts in the past. But one of the ways, mm-hmm, that people decipher change and help prepare for change is through the creative arts. There are ways of looking to fiction, whether it's stories, movies, whatever, that have taken a look at these questions.
And begin to riddle out some of the problems that we face today. That's one of the powers of fiction is that it gives us a small, almost lab like experience of being able to look at an issue. Otto jumps in the comments to say. This reminds me of a short story from the 1950s, the Midas Plague by Frederick Pohl.
It describes a future where robots make everything. In order to keep the economy going humans are needed to act as consumers. In a neat twist, the poor are required to work harder to consume as much as possible, which turns out can be exhausting. The rich, on the other hand, are allowed to consume what they need.
Sounded crazy at the time, but I'm starting to see the parallels with today's world. Oh man. Yes, yes, yes. Frederick Pohl. That is crazy. Writing at a time when the tax base in the United States was at one of its highest levels, but the middle class exploded in size and the Pangaea of the idyllic world where everybody could reach the brass ring if they just worked hard enough, seemed achievable, and yet.
Where has that road led us? But here where we're talking about should we be terrified or should we be optimistic? Yeah. I continue to be on the fence. I dunno about you, Matt. Yeah.
Well Sean, this, there's something that comes, you and I have another podcast, Trek in Time. Mm-hmm. Star Trek keeps popping into my head.
Yes. Every time I think about this, because there is a path towards that future. Sure. With AI, because you could totally see a world where robots and AI are doing all the, the drudgery work, they're, they're handling things in a way where it allows all of us to pursue our dreams, to pursue things that we like to do.
Opening up a world where nobody needs, or is lack of want. It's like we all, it's a world of abundance. You could see that. In a very, there's like, out of all the millions of permutations that we can look at, there's like one path that can get us to that little thing. And the thing is, can we figure that path out?
Yeah. Or are we gonna end up just all driving off a cliff like a bunch of lemmings to jump to a different, that's, that's the question for me.
To jump to a different fictional universe. I'm in your description of, of all the paths, there's one that leads to that future. I'm suddenly reminded of Dr. Strange in the Avengers movie saying there is one.
Yes, where the outcome is beneficial to us. Yes, it is hard to. It's hard to see that we're gonna be wise enough to figure out that path. But here's to hoping and here's to continuing that conversation and here's to all of you jumping into the comments to let us know what you thought about this conversation.
I look forward to hearing from everybody and we will visit the mailbag next week. As always, thank you for taking the time to watch or listen. Your comments help feed the podcast and it helps shape the Undecided with Matt Farrell show as well, because Matt takes all of this into consideration and knows what's important to you guys, and it really does help give direction to the overall effort that, that you're listening to right now.
Don't forget liking, subscribing, sharing with the friends, comments, those are all very easy ways for you to support us and we appreciate your time taking, taking the time to do so. And if you wanna support us more directly, you can go to still TBD fm. Or you can go to the YouTube page and click the join button.
Both of those ways allow, allow you to throw coins at our heads. We appreciate the welts. And then we get down to the heavy, heavy business of talking about how AI might be listening.
Thanks for taking the time to watch or listen. We'll talk to you next time.