How Scared Should You Be About AI?

reaching out. We're talking right now because there's an article that was put up in The New York Times on March twenty four, twenty twenty three, titled you can have the Blue Pill or the Red Pill and We're out of Blue Pills, which is a fun title by Yuval Harari, Tristan Harris and as a Raskin. And it's an article that is kind of about the pit falls and dangers of AI research, of which there definitely are some. I

enjoyed your thread on the matter. I thought it was a lucid breakdown of the things the article gets right and the areas in which I think they're a bit fear mongery. So yeah, I think that's probably a good place to start, unless you wanted to start by just kind of generally talking about where you kind of are on AI and what you kind of think, you know,

the technology is advancing towards right now. Yeah, I mean, I think I can probably answer both those questions and the same because part of why I enjoyed writing that threat dissecting the article is I just had the strangest feeling reading it that I agreed with it so much in principle and yet somehow objected it to so much in detail. Yeah, and it thinking about that article helped me think about my own feelings on AI, which you know, every day of the week is slightly different because so

much news happens. Yeah, I found myself overall deeply frustrated that I agree with the central conclusion, which is that maybe we shouldn't be just like plowing headlong into this and should be more careful when we we we screw around with technology like this, which I agree with and I feel like should have been the thing we did with like I don't know, Facebook, Twitter, like all of these things, Like it's less my obsession is less with like the specific dangers of AI, and more with what

we keep letting these guys who are fundamentally like gamblers within your capital money really put our society through the ringer without ever asking should we like do any research on maybe how social media affects children and like how all of these different things. And it's it's right that, like, yeah, we should be concerned about what these people are going to do with AI, but also why why now? Why

just now? Yeah? And that raises a really good point, which is what's different now versus what we've been experiencing with social media? And just to give your listeners some context, one of the three authors on this Sneer Times article is famous for writing this book Sapiens that's a sweeping history of humanity, and the other two are actually most famous for the Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma. So they really are in this camp of warning people about social

media algorithms. And as exactly as you're saying, that's sort of this thing that we've been dealing with, probably quite poorly, and now we're kind of moving on to the next societal risk, which is AI. So that as a really

important question of what's different now? And I think That's one of the things the articles trying to address, which is many of the problems that we already have with algorithms, data driven algorithms, and even AI as it's used in social media is still happening now, but somehow things feel like they're aspiring out of control. Yeah, and I think, I mean, honestly, I think a lot of this just has to do with culturally, what are touchstones for AI

we're going into this, you know, which are Skynet? You know, like it's that sort of thing, and you do see. I feel like the uncredited fourth author on this particular article is James Cameron, because there's pieces of it throughout this There's some it opens actually pretty provocatively. Imagine that you are boarding an airplane. Half the engineers who built it tell you there is a ten percent chance the plane will crash, killing you and everyone else on it.

Would you still board? In twenty twenty two, over seven hundred top academics and researchers behind the leading artificial intelligence companies, we're asking a survey about future AI risk. Half of those surveys stated there was a ten percent or greater chance of human extinction from future AI systems. Which yeah, let's zoom in on. Yeah, yeah, let's talk about that, because what I tried to do in my thread was go through all the claims and assertions and really pause

and say hold on. But that's a great one to start, because there's a lot to dig in right there. Yeah. So, first of all, there's a huge difference in that airplanes are based on science and physics and things that we understand pretty well. There's a lot to it, and there's been millions of flights, so you have a lot of data. You know, how many planes crash and how many don't. Maybe one engine goes out, you can do the statistics and CEO you know whatever, percent of planes without the

engine still land safely. The problem with AI is we're just guessing, right There's no way to know one hundred years from now or ten years from now what it's going to do, what the real risks are, so we speculate, and that's not uncharted territory, right let nuclear weapons were first introduced, people had to guess and speculate. But the danger, I think is putting it in that same category as

things like airplanes or climate change. I'll like to think about climate change when you see these you know, what's the IPCC if forget the acronym in these reports, that's based on thousands of scientists digging into thousands of published papers and all this data really modeling the environment. There's

a lot of meat and substance to it. The problem with the AI is it's mostly people I hate to say it, but like me or like you, just kind of guessing and thinking, maybe this will happen, maybe that'll happen. The reasonable thing to say if you're in the airs, which is like, yeah, I have concerns that AI could cause serious negative externalities for the human race, perfectly reasonable statement. It is physically impossible to say there's a ten percent chance,

exactly because it's never done that before. You know, I'm a math professor, and I'm the first to say numbers don't have some intrinsic meaning. Right. If I just say something has maybe a fifteen percent, I'm just making up I'm pulling out of my ass. Yeah, it doesn't make it true. So it's this, it's a general pet thieve I have of sort of giving a false sense of precision by using numbers that you don't really know where

they came from or they're just made up. So that's one issue is these numbers are made up, and asking a thousand people to make up numbers isn't necessarily any better than asking one or two. You know, then if the numbers made up, it's made up. So that's one issue. Yeah, I also do think and I'm not the I saw someone making no I think it was Ben Collins, who

writes for NBC. On Twitter made a note that like, well, the fact that all of these statements about like how dangerous they are about human extinction are coming out of people in the AI industry has started to kind of feel like marketing. That's right, Yeah, exactly, it's a little bit of buzz marketing going on here. And I think you mentioned social media, and the authors of this article mentioned social media, and we have to look to the past right to understand the future. I think that's the

only way to do it. So, what was one of the biggest scandals in social media was Cambridge Analytica And as you know, we probably remember, this was this data privacy scandal where a bunch of data was collected from Facebook users that shouldn't have been you know, people didn't realize that the data has been collected, they didn't approve it, and it was used for this election company or this political company that was trying to profile people and influenced

campaigns towards Donald Trump towards Brexit. So this was a huge scandal, and you know, Facebook was fine five billion dollars or something, very justifiably. But I would say what it was in retrospect was a data privacy issue. People's personal data was leaked when it shouldn't have been. The problem was there was so much fear and fear mongering over it that people felt this data was used by these sort of algorithmic mind lasers to kind of know us in such great detail and get us, trick us

into voting for Donald Trump and targeting us. And the journey is still kind of out, but most of the evidence looks like Cambridge Analytica it wasn't that effective. They just couldn't do it. And it turns out you can know a lot about a person, a lot about their data, and it's really hard to influence them to change them. So what happened I think was there was a lot of alarm set spread rightly so about the tech companies. They have too much power, too much data, they know

too much about us, and this horrible thing happened. The problem was a lot of the alarmism then actually reinforced this aura of power, of godlike power that the tech companies have. People criticizing them actually gave them more potency than they deserved. And then suddenly Google and Facebook and all they had. It wasn't sudden, but it kind of built it up. They had this aura that our algorithms are it's so insanely powerful, and we have to make sure they stay in the right hands, and we can

do so much. And that's unfortunately what I see happening now a lot, and that is kind of the setting for critiquing this article. Yeah, absolutely agree that this stuff is risky. AI. I absolutely agree that we could go down to dangerous path. But once we start leaving firm ground and speculating wildly and using the terminator stuff that

you described. Yeah, even if you think you're criticizing the tech companies, you know what you're doing giving them the biggest compliment in the world, saying that you guys have created are godlike and you've created these mighty machines, created a deity which is very similar to the language this argue article has at the end, and I think it's kind of worth like, as you're bringing up there are real threats. There are real threats that are immediately obvious.

The threat that a lot of writers are going to lose their jobs because companies like BuzzFeed decide to replace them with you know, chat, GPT or whatever. The fact that a lot of artists are going to lose out on work because their work has been hoovered up and it's being used to generate Like these are very real and very immediate concerns that we don't have to They're not hypothetical. We don't have to theorize about the AI

becoming intelligent for this to be a problem. These are things we have to immediately deal with because it puts people at risk. It's the same thing with like, you know, there's a lot that gets talked about with Cambridge Analytica, with kind of like the different Russian disinformation efforts. But when I think about the stuff that was happening in

the same period that worries me more. One of the things that occurred is because there was so much money to be made if you could get certain things to go viral on YouTube, companies that use tools that weren't wildly dissimilar from some of these basically generated CGI videos based on kind of random terms that they knew were

likely to trick the algorithm into trending. And god knows how many children were parked in front of these like very unhinged videos for hours at a time that like they would start watching some normal kid musical video or something, and then they're watching like the disembodied head of Krusty the Crown bounce around while like some sort of nonsense song gets sung, and it's like, well, what is that actually going to do with kids? Like, we don't know.

That's unsettling, thoughttling. Yeah, And that's the kind of thing, you know, And I'm sure there will be obviously, Like one of the things that this article is not wrong about is that if we kind of leap forward into this technology with the kind of abandon that we're used to giving the tech company, there will be unforeseen externalities that we can't predict right now that will be very concerning.

I just don't think it's sky in it. Yeah, And that's what was so challenging, not just with that article, but with I think the movement we're having is I do agree very much in spirit. I agree with the recommendations. We need to slow down, we need to be more judicious and cautious, we need to really consider these. But again, if we overhyped the technology, we may be doing ourselves a disservice by empowering the very entities that we're trying

to take power from. And a sample like that, can I read a quick quote from the article, do you AI's new mastery of language means it can now hack and manipulate the operating system of civilization. By'm gaining mastery of language, AI is seizing the master key to civilization from bank vaults to holy sepulchers. That's right, and that I mean, that is funny, and you're right to laugh. Let's actually zoom in a second, and I think this is such a tempting trap that AI is super intelligent

in some respects, right, you can. It's done amazing at chasss amazing, It's jeopard be amazing at various things. Chat Gypt is amazing at these conversations. So what happens is it's so tempting to think AI just equal super smart and because it can do those things, and now look, it can converse, that it must be the super intelligent conversational entity. And it's really good at, you know, taking text that's on the web that it's already looked at

and kind of spinning it around and processing. It can come up with poems and weird forms. But that doesn't mean it is super intelligent in all respects. For instance, one of the main issues is to hack civilization. To manipulate us with language, it has to kind of know what impact its words have on us, and it doesn't really have that. It just has a little conversation a textbox and I can give it a thumbs up or

thumbs down. So the only data that it's collecting for me when it talks to me any of these chatbots is did I like the response or not. That's pretty weak data to try to manipulate me, you know, it's so basic. That's not that different than when I watch YouTube videos. YouTube knows what videos I like and what I don't like. Would you say that YouTube is hacked civilization. No, it's addicted a lot of us, but it's not hacked us. Yeah.

We people have hacked YouTube and that has done some damage to other people, like but it's like the thing is. And that's part of why while I have many concerns about this technology, it's not that it's going to hack civilization because like, we're really good at doing that to each other. Like there's always huge numbers of people hacking bits of the populace and manipulating each other, and there

always have been. That's why we figured out how to paint like it's I do think that there's there's an interesting conversation to be had about the part of why people are kind of willing to believe anything as possible with this stuff is that for folks who were just kind of living their lives with a normal amount of attention paid to the tech industry, it seems like these tools popped out of nowhere a couple of months ago, right. It feels like, oh, there has just suddenly been this

massive breakthrough. And the reality is that all of the stuff that people you know, chat gpt, these different ais that everybody's talking about, this is technology that people have been pouring resources into for years and years and years and years and years, and that's why it's able to do some of these amazing things that we've seen. But it's not I don't think it means that in a

month it's going to be a thousand times smarter. It's it's it's a process of labor, and it was finally ready to be unveiled to the extent that it has been. Maybe that's right. And a good example is a GPT four which recently came out. There was GPT three before and chat Gypt, and there was so much speculation that GPT four is going to be again this godlike thing that just you know, that brings us to the singularity.

And honestly, it's done better at tests. You know, I forget the numbers, but maybe one of them got a twenty percent grade on some tests and this one got an eighty percent. So that is a significant improvement. Right. If you're a teacher and your students improve that much, you should be happy, right, But as you said, is that a thousand times No, even though the machine is

much bigger, much more data, and it just shows that. Yeah, Like, the reality is this is incremental progress going at a very fast rate, very unsettling even for those of us following the field closely, where it experiencing that kind of vertigo that you're saying that whoa where did this come from? So even within the field, and you're absolutely right, if you're just at home, you know, not paying attention for a week or a month or a year, suddenly the

stuff pops up. It is disorienting. But one thing I think that's helped me at least kind of clarify what not even answering what the risks are, but just understanding the different camps of why certain people are reacting differently, and why even the people afraid of AI seem to be now fighting amongst each other and why it's getting fractured. Is are you more afraid of this AI used as a tool by people or are you more afraid of it kind of taking on its own autonomy and kind

of going rogue and doing its own things. And I'm very much afraid of people using it. I think big companies are going to use it and there's going to be a lot of problems, just like we saw with social media. People will get addicted, democracies will be flooded with misinformation, It'll be weaponized by various actors, will be bought accounts. So I am very concerned about it being used. Basically,

it performing the job it was told to do. But it'll be told to do dangerous jobs, either making money or making discord. There's another group of people that are more worried about the AI somehow deciding on its own to do things to take over. And that's where you know, I can't roll it out, But that's where I kind of am skeptical. Let's focus on how people are using

it for now, for the foreseeable future. I don't think we need to worry yet, at least about the AI somehow having a life of its own and stabbing us in the back and enslaving us, because there's just so much that can go wrong before you even get to that point. Yeah, and it's it's not that's exactly like it's a threat triage kind of thing, where like, is it theoretically possible that one day human beings could create an artificial intelligence that is capable of having its own

agency that is malicious? Yeah, sure, I guess, Like I mean maybe, but man, we're there's a lot of us that are very malicious right now that are actively trying to harm other people at scale. I'm concerned about how they will use AI to do that. I think botonets are a really good example. One of the things that that these these new this newest generation of AI tools allows is more realistic and intelligent bots than I think have been accessible at scale before. And that's a very

real concern. Um. I will say when I kind of sorry, when I kind of wargame this back and forth with myself. One thing that is oddly comforting is like, well, the shared comments that we all inhabit of, like ontological truth is already so shattered that like there's there's only so much damage. I feel like adding additional bots and additional disinformation can really do um. Like I done one thought on that though, because I've been digging into that too.

I've been, you know, trying to ponder how to feel about that, because a lot of this I don't know, you know, I'm trying to make is. I do think if you go back to like two sixteen earlier versions of the Internet before leading up to Donald Trump's election, I think there was a lot of wild West to Google, to social media, to all these things. Right, fake news was just like piling up to the top of Google

search results. That election was so monumental and such a seismic shockwave through tech that fake news and misinformation might have played a role that they really had to do something, and I think some companies are more effective than others. I think Google put a lot of effort into making sure authoritative sources rise to the top. So what that means is when now you go online and you google for medical information, the top results you get are WebMD

or some official CDC, your government thing. They're pretty decent reliable. It's not to say there's an all that crap on the Internet, but Google has done a pretty good job of having the good stuff float to the top, and that's the information that people see. So what I'm worried is now we might be kind of resetting ourselves back to the twenty sixteen where when you're talking to these

chat bots that are trained on all the internets. Yeah, I don't know if the web mds and the CDC type of information is necessarily going to float to the top. Maybe they'll work that out. But I'm also worried that open Ai or Google or Microsoft for wherever, they'll have ones that are pretty reasonable and kind of you know, tuned to appeal to a lot of people. But Elon must might build his own competitor, one that might be really tuned to elevate the right wing site your car.

So I have been messing around, as I mean, and you have been doing so in a much more rigorous manner, I'm sure. But I've screw around with a couple of different AI chat and search engines. I use find PHI and D sometimes I've been playing around with BING and one of the things I've noticed is that you know, if you ask it like, hey, summarize for me, like why the Battle of Hastings mattered, You'll get a reasonably

decent answer. But if I ask it like I don't know, specific questions about myself, I've come to I noticed at first when I did it, I would get some really weirdly like colloquial vernacular from it explaining things, and I realized it was just pulling answers directly that fans had asked about me on the subreddit that this show has. And so when I think about like ways in which to game the system, well, you make a bunch of bots.

You have them post questions and answers that are you know, supportive of this specific product line or whatever on a subreddit and hope that it gets picked like scanned by an AI and that becomes part of its like answer for you know what happens if you know, I can't stop itching or whatever. I don't know, like, but I like obviously you can see using them ways in which these cannon will be gamed to some extent. You know, it's always kind of a red Queen sort of situation

where you have to disinformation people fighting this info. You're always running as fast as you can just to stay in place that's right, And that is that brings up another issue which I do feel like this is possibly really tipping the balance in that it takes a certain amount of resources to create misinformation, it takes a certain amount of resources to debunk it. Right, A journalist has to sit down, Snopes has to write a little piece

about it. And the problem is with this AI, it's suddenly just dropping the price of creation down to essentially zero. Anyone can create essentially limitless supply of quasi information that may or may not be true. But the problem is, is the price of journalism of debunking also going down, maybe by fifty percent, right, maybe it takes you half

as much time to write an article. It's not going to zero, no, So that's the balance is Creating stuff has gotten a lot cheaper, Detecting, debunking, doing proper journalism has gotten a little bit cheaper. So I'm worried that that's journalists are already stretched then. And this is by far my biggest concern because it's it's not just this

that's obviously a significant factor in it. There will be more disinformation, there will not be more journalists, in part because I think AI is going to take jobs from a particularly low level d It's not going to replace, you know, prizewinning columnists at the New York Times, and it's not going to replace like guys like me who have a very long and established career of doing the specific thing that we do. But I think back to when I got started as a journalist as a writer.

It was as a tech blogger, and I had an X number of articles that I had to get out per day, and obviously, like my boss was essentially trusting that with that many articles, i'd have a few that did well on Google, and that brings in traffic, and that brought in money. And there's a degree to which you're just kind of doing seo shit. But it's also I conducted my first interviews for that job, I went to trade shows for the first time. I did my

first on the ground journalism for that job. It taught me how to write quickly and an a polished nature. And I was not writing anything that was like crucial to the development of humankind. But it made me into the kind of person who was later able to write things that were read by people all over the world, and that had an influence on people. And I worry about the brain dray, not just among journalists, but among writers,

among artists, you know, people who do illustrations and stuff. Eventually, musicians, at least some kinds of musicians will probably also run up against this, where the stuff that it was easy for kind of people breaking in to get a little bit of work that would hone their skills and allow them to live doing the thing that they're interested in

is going to disappear. And more and more of the stuff that we kind of casually low level consume, not our high art, not our favorite movies, not our favorite books, but the stuff that we encounter when we stumble upon a web page or like in a commercial or whatever, will be increasingly made by AIS, and that AI will be pulling from an increasingly narrow set of things that humans made because less humans will get that in tree level work, and that is there's something concerning there that

is something that worries me about the future of just creativity. Yeah, and I think, I mean two points. One is just to kind of be Devil's advocate a little bit, because I do sympathize and I think you're right, but a little bit devil's advocate is there. It might be on the out flip side of the coin that there's people that feel like they have artistic imagination and desires but lack the technical ability, and suddenly they can paint, so

to speak, by using these aiimage generators. Maybe someone has some form of dyslexia or their English as a second language or even you know, native speaker without any of these issues obstructions, but just finds the writing process difficult, and maybe AI enables them to be a writer to contribute.

So I could see, you know, there's going to be the pros and the negatives, and I don't know how the balance is, but I think you're right thinking from a profession that's sort of like a passion project view. From a professional view, I do see the profession narrowing. If it journalists are expected to work twice as quickly because they're all using chatbots, there's probably going to be half half as many of them, right, I mean, that's

that's the economics. But this brings up a bigger issue, which is I do think what you're hitting on is there are these long term risks that maybe AI is gonna fuel this rebellion of robots and this. You know, maybe, but again, we have an economics, social, political, economic world we live in, and I just think let's really focus on the issues we have. Now. That's not discounting the future. It's not like let's burn a bunch of carbon and

meaning fuels because who cares about climate change? That's our grandkids problems. Yeah, this is different. It's like, let's think about the jobs the world. I mean, another way to put this is if we mess up our economy and mess up our democracy by people losing jobs and mass protests and losing trust in the government and there's just an erosion of truth, we're not going to be able to handle climate change or any of these big AI

you know, the singularity type of risks. So what I feel like is, let's focus on what keeps our economy and our sanity and our humanity. Well, let's keep this fabric of society together now so that we're more equipped in the future to handle all the risks AI and otherwise.

But this goes back to what you're saying, which is, these are real issues in the short term, and if we don't address them, if we get distracted by the long term, we're not going to be ready to address the long term even if we think about it now, we'll be so distracted and so dismayed. Yeah, so I

think we have to be practical here. I agree, and I am also I think it's a valid point that you make about the fact that all these are tools that will reduce options for some people, there are also tools that create options that can be used for the

creation of art of culture. I do think some people I know have brought up photoshop when I talk about my concerns with AI and are, like, you know, there were a lot of people, draftsmen and whatnot who were concerned when photoshop hit because it was a threat to some of the things that they did for money. And photoshop effectively has created whole forms of art that didn't exist or didn't exist in the same fashion before it

did as a tool and tools like it. And that's not a think I think it's kind of worth I don't like I don't want to be kind of just on the edge of tragedy here. You know, this is a there's a lot of different ways this could go, and they're not all bad. I think we're all used to calamity right now, so much so that we potentially expect it in situations where it's not the inevitable outcome. Well, I mean that's I think one way to kind of boil a lot of that down is we can adapt.

We just need time to do so to many things. And what's really challenging and frustrating now is the pace is so fast. It's not just an illusion, and it's not just oh, if you don't pay attention to AI, it really is fast. It's very very hard for us to adapt. So, just thinking of the Internet, we got a lot like individuals as users and tech companies got a lot better at dealing with clickbait. Right YouTube was tons of baden. They figured out ways to demote that

to some extent. We got a lot better at keeping fake news out of the high search rankings in Google. Like I mentioned, a lot of these problems that came up, we're not perfectly addressed, not even close. But there was significant progress and that's often understated. But if these problems are coming so fast and so intense, it's a lot to adapt to. And that's what's really the challenge is the pace. And I think we're we're seeing a very

very breakneck pace. That's really hard. Now does that main you're on the side of like Elon Musk and some of those folks who just signed that letter being like, maybe we should put a pause on AI research because you know, I'm not one hundred percent against it. Again, I kind of am, like, Man, I wish we'd been having this conversation when Facebook dropped or YouTube dropped. But I don't think that's a realistic thing. I'll say that,

but I do. Look yeah, yeah, so I would say, no, I'm not I'm not a favor that for one thing. I mean, in a very practical sense, you think all these companies that are putting billions of dollars in these investments in AI are all going to sit around saying, you know what, let's just not do this for a few months of course not. So here's what I think They're not going to slow down. What's going to happen is going to happen. Even if some players decide to

be responsible and slow down. Guess what that means. The only people plunging ahead are going to be the irresponsible ones. So what I think we need to do is I don't think we can really slow that down. So what about the flip side. I think we need to accelerate public education on artificial intelligence. I think we need to accelerate government legislation, regulation, international cooperation. I don't think we can solve this by slowing AI down. I do think we need to find a way to speed up our

democratic process processes. It's taken us how many years to pass basically nothing about social media in the US and some mixed results in Europe. Yeah, that's the problem, right, If we could work faster, then I think we could keep up. And I think that that's that's actually the long term like practical survival thing from this is that I hope we get is like, yeah, we've always needed to be more careful about the things that we expose

billions of people too. Suddenly it should have happened before now. But I hope that this I hope that all I hope the fact that AI, because of James Cameron, is coated into our brains to be something that triggers a little bit of panic in people. I hope that rather than reacting with panic, it leads to a more intelligent and considered state of affairs when potentially embracing technologies that are going to change life for huge numbers of people.

That's right, and that is I think we have an opportunity here to experience that and explore them and try and that that is kind of what I was aiming for, And that threat is again I love that article that you know you mentioned at the beginning, But if we start going down this road of hype, there is a danger that we're going to fall into these traps. And I think let's stay grounded. Let's say practical, let's real

identify the risks. Not that I'm some guru and know what they are, but it's almost easier to see what's not true than what is true. Yeah, and that's I think let's all try to police each other and make sure we're focusing on practical things that really are manageable, that really are genuine risks that are impacting people, that are impacting people today, and especially ones that are impacting marginalized populations. Yes, so I think let's hope we learn

these lessons. And yeah, I am not optimistic, but I'm not as cynical. I think there's a lot of important discussions happening now that let's just say, there's a lot more discussion now than we had with social media, and maybe that's a good thing. Yeah, well, I think that's a good note to end on. Noah, did you have anything you kind of wanted to plug before we roll out here? No, I just I think it's it's a great topic that everyone can be involved in, and I

just my plug is just don't be intimidated. Don't be afraid. I am writing a book that's not going to come up for a couple of years that's trying to help empower people to kind of be part of these conversations.

But that's far off. I just want to say broadly, don't be intimidated and don't fall for this narrative that sometimes happens in tech communities that, oh, you know, I'm not a tech person, I don't have a chance to understand this stuff affects all of us, and how it affects you matters, and your opinion matters, and your voice matters, and we're all part of social media, we're all very soon going to be part of AI in chat thoughts,

So don't don't be afraid to join the conversation. You don't need any technical background because I think the subject is just as much sociological as technical. It's about people. I think that's a great point to end on. Thank you so much, Noah, really appreciate your time, and everybody else have a nice day. I mean you have a nice day too, also, thanks to you too. It's lots of fun. It could happen here as a production of cool Zone Media. Well more podcasts from cool Zone Media.

Visit our website cool Zonemedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can find sources for It could Happen here, updated monthly at cool Zonemeda dot com slash sources. Thanks for listening.