>> JOSH TYRANGIEL, WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

>> THANKS SO MUCH.

>> YOU'VE GOT THIS BOOK OUT, "AI FOR GOOD", AND I WANT TO READ SOMETHING FROM THE INTRODUCTION THAT STRUCK ME.

IT SAID WE'RE LIVING THROUGH --IT'S RATIONAL TO EVEN PROTECT --IN WHICH WE MAY LIVE AS CITIZENS.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?

>> WELL, I'LL TAKE THE FIRST PART FIRST WHICH IS THE CATACLYSMIC PART, RIGHT?

I THINK A. I. HAS ARRIVED IN A VERY PARTICULAR CONTEXT, WHICH IS PEOPLE ARE JUST DRENCHED IN EXISTENTIAL RISK, IN EXISTENTIAL DREAD.

AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RUNNING THESE LABS ARE NOT HELPING MATTERS.

THEY COME IN AND THEY TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A. I.

'S EITHER GOING TO CURE CANCER OR MITIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE, WHICH IS GREAT BUT HARD TO BELIEVE.

OR IT'S GOING TO DOOM HUMAN EXISTENCE.

AND SO THAT GETS PEOPLE TO TUNE OUT RIGHT AWAY.

SO THAT'S NOT HELPFUL.

THE POSITIVE PART IS THAT WHEN YOU SEPARATE THE TECH FROM THE TECH COMPANIES AND YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE WAYS IN WHICH IT CAN HELP US SOLVE MEANINGFUL PROBLEMS PARTICULARLY IN THINGS LIKE GOVERNMENT AND HEALTHCARE AND EDUCATION, IT'S DAZZLING.

NOT ALWAYS, AND IT'S NOT ALWAYS EASY.

BUT THE SOLUTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO US ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

AND SO WHAT I FOUND THROUGH THE REPORTING IS THE TECH CAN DO A LOT OF THINGS FOR US.

WE JUST HAVE TO MENTALLY WRAP OUR HEADS AROUND WHAT IT CAN DO AND HOW IT CAN DO IT.

AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME WORK.

BUT, WOW, WHEN YOU APPLY IT TO CERTAIN PROBLEMS, IT REALLY DOES MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

>> WELL, YOU SAID IT CAN BE DAZZLING APPLIED TO CERTAIN PROBLEMS.

GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE.

I'M NOT SURE WE'VE SOLVED ANYTHING YET.

>> I WANT TO SEPARATE THE TECH FROM THE HYPE.

SO I WENT TO THE CLEVELAND CLINIC, AND THEY LET ME WANDER AROUND, WHICH I'M GRATEFUL FOR.

AND THEY HAVE A LOT OF PILOT PROGRAMS AND THEY'RE ALL LED BY DOCTORS.

THEY HAVE ESTABLISHED SYSTEMS, PATIENTS WITH VARIOUS SYSTEMS.

THEY HAVE DOCTORS WHO HATE CHANGING THEIR WORK FLOW, RIGHT, AND YET THEY MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS.

SO A BIG EXAMPLE IS SEPSIS, RIGHT?

SEPSIS IS ONE OF THE WORST THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN INSIDE THE HUMAN BODY.

IT'S AN OUT OF CONTROL REACTION TO INFECTION, AND EACH YEAR IT KILLS ABOUT 250,000 AMERICANS.

MORE THAN BREAST CANCER, PROSTATE CANCER, OPIOID ADDICTION COMBINED.

IT'S VERY HARD TO DETECT BECAUSE IN ITS EARLY PHASES IT ACTUALLY PRESENTS LIKE A COLD OR DEHYDRATION.

AND BEFORE YOU KNOW IT, IT RACES AWAY AND IT CAN KILL YOU.

SO THEY DID A PILOT PROGRAM, THERE'S A HUMAN ELEMENT TO THE PILOT PROGRAM, WHICH IS MAKING SURE THEIR CLINICIANS ARE ALL MUCH MORE AWARE OF SEPSIS THAN THEY WERE.

AND THEN THEY DID AN A. I. PILOT.

AND THE A. I. PILOT IS A SOFTWARE HOOKED UP TO EVERY PATIENT THAT COMES IN.

AND ALL IT DOES IS REMIND DOCTORS THROUGH A PREDICTION AND DETECTION ENGINE THAT SEPSIS MIGHT BE PRESENT, AND IT SEPARATES SEPSIS RISK INTO THREE LEVELS, AND THEN IT BEEPS.

THAT'S ALL IT DOES.

THE DOCTORS ARE THE ONES WHO INTERCEDE.

AND YET OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR USING THIS SEPSIS PREDICTION SOFTWARE, THEY REDUCED DEATHS IN THE HOSPITAL DUE TO SEPSIS BY 41%.

SO THAT IS A THOUSAND LIVES SAVED IN PART THROUGH THE PARTNERSHIP OF A. I. AND DOCTORS WORKING TOGETHER.

SO THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE, RIGHT?

ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, WE ALL KNOW THAT HEALTHCARE IS A TERRIBLE BUSINESS FOR EVERYONE BUT THE INSURERS, RIGHT?

AND FOR A HOSPITAL SYSTEM PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT HOSPITALS ARE BASICALLY HOTELS.

SO THEY HAVE PATIENTS, THEY HAVE ROOMS, THEY HAVE STAFF, FOOD, LINENS, BEDS.

AND THE KEY DIFFERENCE --THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROFITABILITY AND HEMORRHAGING MONEY IS THAT HOTELS KNOW WHEN THE CUSTOMER IS SHOWING UP AND WHEN THEY'RE LEAVING.

AND HOSPITALS DON'T.

AND SO WHAT THEY DID AT THE CLEVELAND CLINIC IS THEY WORKED WITH PALANTIR, THEY'RE A CONTROVERSIAL COMPANY IN SOME REALMS BUT BASICALLY AN ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE COMPANY, AND THEY CREATED A SYSTEM TO ACTUALLY KNOW WHEN PEOPLE ARE COMING AND GOING.

WHAT THIS SOFTWARE DOES IT HOOKS UP TO EVERY DATA SET INSIDE THE HOSPITAL INCLUDING ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS.

AND SO WHEN THE DOCTOR MAKES A VERBAL NOTE SAYING THIS PATIENT IS LIKELY TO BE RELEASED TOMORROW, THE SOFTWARE KNOWS IT.

AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THE HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR CAN PLAY THE HOSPITAL LIKE A VIDEO GAME.

SHE KNOWS WHEN PEOPLE ARE COMING, SHE KNOWS WHEN THEY MIGHT BE RELEASED.

THEY'VE INCREASED THEIR TRANSFER VOLUME TREMENDOUSLY.

THEY'VE CUT DOWN ON EMERGENCY ROOM WAIT TIMES BY 90 MINUTES.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE WATCHED "THE PIT," BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT SHOW IF YOU CUT DOWN WAIT TIMES BY 90 MINUTES.

AND SO THESE ARE THINGS SHOWING UP, AND THEY'RE NOT REVOLUTIONARY.

THEY'RE EVOLUTIONARY.

AND THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE -- >> WAIT, JOSH.

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ACTUALLY I AGREE WITH, THEY'RE NOT REVOLUTIONARY.

THEY'RE EVOLUTIONARY AND SOMETHING I HOPE A HOTEL CAN PUT IN.

TELL ME, IT SEEMS DISAPPOINTING WE'VE ONLY GOTTEN TO THAT.

I READ IN YOUR BOOK THE DIGITAL TWIN OF A HEART.

THAT TYPE OF THING SEEMS THAT'S A REVOLUTIONARY LEAP.

>> WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DIGITAL TRENDS OF HEART, THERE ARE A PAIR OF DOCTORS AT CLEVELAND CLINIC WORKING ON THE ABILITY TO DO A. I.

-ASSISTED CARDIAC SCAN.

AND THE IDEA HERE IS AS OPPOSED TO EVERY DOCTOR STARTING FRESH, DOING THEIR SCANS AND KNOWING WHERE YOU ARE, YOU BASICALLY WALK AROUND WITH A TWIN OF YOUR HEART AND EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENING TO IT.

AND AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT WE COULD RUN TESTS ON THAT DIGITAL TWIN AS OPPOSED TO HAVING TO RUN TESTS ON YOU.

SO AN A. I. MODEL CAN RUN A TEST ON AN A. I. MODEL, SAVING YOU A LOT OF HEART BREAK, CUSTOMIZING MEDICINE.

NOW, THEY STARTED THIS WORK ABOUT SEVEN YEARS AGO.

IT'S TAKEN TIME TO WORK OUT BUGS, BECAUSE AS YOU WOULD EXPECT WITH A. I. , YOU CAN DO AMAZING THINGS.

BUT YOU'VE GOT TO TWEAK IT.

YOU'VE GOT TO ACTUALLY WORK WITH THE PATIENT, ESTABLISH THEIR COMFORT.

BUT THEY HAVE MADE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF PROGRESS.

SO IT'S THESE LITTLE EVOLUTIONARY STEPS WE'RE SEEING THAT ARE GOING TO GET US TO THE REVOLUTIONARY STEP, AND IT'S NOT THAT FAR AWAY.

>> YOU TALKED ABOUT PALANTIR AND YOU MENTIONED IT IN THE INTERVIEW.

IT'S IN YOUR CLEVELAND CHAPTER, AND YOU SAY THE VERY MENTION OF PALANTIR CAUSES PEOPLE'S BLOOD TO CURDLE.

WHY?

>> SO PALANTIR ON THE LEFT --PALANTIR WAS FOUNDED OR COFOUNDED BY PETER TEAL.

AND PETER TEAL IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY VOCIFEROUS TRUMP SUPPORTER.

HE'S IN SILICON VALLEY.

HE'S A CO-FOUNDER OF PAYPAL, A FRIEND WITH ELON MUSK.

I COULD GO ON ABOUT THE REASONS THE LEFT HATES HIM.

THE RIGHT DOESN'T LIKE PALANTIR BECAUSE IT REALLY CAME IN AND CHALLENGED EVERYTHING ABOUT THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.

PETER TEAL'S CO-FOUNDER IS A GUY NAMED ALLEN CLARK.

HE'S HALF BLACK, HALF JEWISH, A KAMALA SUPPORTER.

HOW THE TWO ARE FRIENDS IS A MYSTERY TO ME.

BUT THE COMBINATION HAS REALLY FREAKED OUT EVERYBODY, EVERYWHERE.

AND IT DOES NOT HELP THE COMPANY IS NAMED OF THE STONES IN THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

I JUST MENTIONED ALL THE NEED TO KEEP DATA CLEAN AND KEEP ITS INFRASTRUCTURE RIGHT.

THE CHIEF ARCHITECT OF PALANTIR SAID WE ARE THE MOLE PEOPLE OF SILICON VALLEY.

WE'RE BASICALLY PLUMBERS.

WE GO IN, WE STRAIGHTEN OUT ALL THE DATA PIPELINES, WE CLEAN ALL THE DATA, AND THEN WE PRESENT THE DATA ON VERY CLEAR DASH BOARDS SO THAT SOMEONE RUNNING A COMPANY OR A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A MILITARY OPERATION CAN ACTUALLY SEE WHAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH AND ORGANIZE IT AND MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON THIS DATA.

AND SO I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY HOW PALANTIR HAS BECOME A VERY POLITICAL HOT TOPIC.

WHAT THEY DO IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND THEY DO IT VERY WELL.

>> YEAH, BUT IN NEW ORLEANS, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY ARE TAKING ALL THE CAMERAS ALL OVER TOWN DOING FACIAL RECOGNITION, PUTTING THAT IN A DATA SET, BEING ABLE TO FOLLOW PEOPLE.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAUSES PEOPLE TO PUSH BACK AGAINST A. I. ?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

BECAUSE IF THEY ARE NOT BROUGHT INTO THE PROCESS, IF THEY'RE NOT TOLD WHY THIS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR SOCIETY AND WHY IT MIGHT BE GOOD FOR THEMSELVES, THE NATURAL AND COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE REACTION IS I DON'T WANT ANY OF THIS.

AND SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS WE HAVE A CRISIS OF TRUST THAT WE HAVE EARNED IN OUR SOCIETY.

IF WE ARE GOING TO GET THE BEST OUT OF THIS MATERIAL WE HAVE TO TRUST OUR INSTITUTIONS.

NOW, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A MOBIUS STRIP IN THE LOGIC HERE, RIGHT?

WELL, HOW CAN I TRUST INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE DISTRUSTTLE AND USE A. I. AGAINST ME?

AND THE ANSWER IS WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO STOP IT ARE SOMEWHERE.

I HAPPEN TO BE A FAN OF BIG GOVERNMENT.

I'VE BEEN A FAN OF THE LAST SEVEN YEARS OF PEACE AND PROSPERITY.

AND I THINK THE GOVERNMENT HAS A ROLE TO PLAY IN STRENGTHENING GOVERNMENT AND STRENGTHENING TRUST IN GOVERNMENT.

IT'S HARD.

IT TAKES A LOT OF WORK.

AND THE SECOND IS NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE TECH, YOU STILL HAVE TO ACTUALLY WANT TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT FOR THIS STUFF TO WORK.

OTHERWISE, A. I. CAN BE JUST AS DESTRUCTIVE AS IT CAN BE PRODUCTIVE.

>> LET ME ASK YOU THE BIG QUESTION.

IS A. I. GOING TO CREATE MORE JOBS, OR IS IT GOING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF JOBS THAT HUMANS DO?

>> SO I - -IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO I WROTE A BIG COVER STORY FOR THE ATLANTIC ABOUT A. I. AND THE FUMER OF EMPLOYMENT.

I'LL TELL YOU WHAT THE ECONOMISTS MOSTLY SAY.

THEY SAY A. I. IS GENERAL PURPOSE TECHNOLOGY, AND THEY COMPARE IT TO PREVIOUS GENERAL PURPOSE TECH LIKE ELECTRICITY, RIGHT?

ELECTRICITY CAME IN, EVERYBODY KNEW IT WAS GREAT.

IT TOOK ABOUT 40 YEARS FOR THE BENEFITS TO BE FELT ACROSS SOCIETY.

IT CHANGED A LOT OF JOBS, BUT IT INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY IN AMERICA SO MUCH THAT IT WAS WORTH IT, RIGHT?

NOW, THE DIVIDE AMONG ECONOMISTS TENDS TO BE --AND A LOT OF NOBEL WIN ECONOMISTS HOLD TO THAT.

YOUNGER ECONOMISTS I SPOKE WITH SAID THEY DON'T THINK THEIR ELDERS ARE MISUNDERSTANDING THE DATA, THEY THINK THEY'RE MISUNDERSTANDING THE TECH.

AND A. I. BY ITS NATURE IS SMART MACHINERY, AND SMART MACHINERY CAN HELP ROLL ITSELF OUT.

SO IF THE A. I. REVOLUTION IN AMERICAN LIFE TAKES 10, 20, 30 YEARS, WE WILL HAVE TIME WITH THE NATURAL RATE OF ADJUSTMENT IN LABOR TO FIGURE OUT WHERE JOBS MOVE.

THERE WILL BE NATURAL ATTRITION AS COMPANIES COME ONLINE, AND WE'LL PROBABLY BE OKAY.

IF IT TAKES THREE TO FIVE YEARS THE DISRUPTION WILL BE SIGNIFICANT.

AND THE YOUNGER ECONOMISTS SAY IT MIGHT BE THREE TO FIVE YEARS AND WE MIGHT HAVE A REAL CRISIS ON OUR HANDS WITH UNEMPLOYMENT RATES, YOU KNOW, RAPIDLY GOING UP, UP TO 10%, 15%.

>> WAIT, LET ME PUSH BACK ON THAT.

I'VE HEARD THEM SAY THAT FOR THE PAST THREE TO FIVE YEARS, AND YOU SEE IT IN ALL THE PRESS RELEASES, LAYING OFF AND WHATEVER.

YOU LOOK AT THE JOB NUMBERS IT'S NOT THERE.

THE RECENT JOB NUMBERS, MORE EMPLOYMENT.

IF THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE HAPPENING IN THE SHORT-TERM, WHERE IS THE DATA SAYING SO?

>> EXACTLY.

AND EVEN THE SKEPTICS ABOUT THE FUTURE WILL SAY IT'S NOT YET SHOWING UP IN THE DATA.

WHAT THEY WILL TELL YOU IS THAT IT IS INEVITABLE, THAT BY THE TIME WE GET TO THE END OF THE YEAR THEY EXPECT TO SEE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.

WHEN I SPOKE TO FORTUNE 100 CEOs AND THE PEOPLE WHO EMPLOY MOST OF AMERICA, THEY WERE ALSO CONCERNED.

AND THEY WERE CONCERNED FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.

THEY OBVIOUSLY REPORT TO WALL STREET.

THEY'VE MADE THESE HUGE INVESTMENTS IN A. I. , AND THEY'RE WORRIED THAT THEY DON'T --THEY AREN'T YET ABLE TO SHOW GROWTH AS A RESULT OF THAT IMPLEMENTATION.

BECAUSE AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, IT TAKES A LITTLE TIME.

IT'S NOT AS EASY AS PEOPLE SAY.

IT'S NOT A SILVER BULLET TO PULL A SWITCH AND A. I. COMES ON.

AND SO THEY'RE CONCERNED WHAT THEY WILL HAVE TO DO TO SATISFY WALL STREET IS CUT JOBS.

AND SO THEY THINK A BIT OF A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY HAS COME ALONG WHERE IF THEY DON'T CUT THOSE JOBS, IT WILL BE THEIR JOB THAT GET CUT.

AND THEN WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS QUIETLY, WE WOULDN'T MIND IT IF CONGRESS HELPED US HERE, IF CONGRESS REGULATED A. I. , IF CONGRESS PUT IN MORE MONEY FOR JOB RETRAINING.

BECAUSE IF WE LAY THESE PEOPLE OFF, AND ALL OF US DO SIMULTANEOUSLY, THERE'S GOING TO BE A CONVULSION IN SOCIETY.

>> SAL KHAN WHO'S BEEN ON THIS SHOW OFTEN AND HELPED BUILD KHAN ACADEMY BECAUSE THE SCHOOL SYSTEM HAS CLOSED THERE, HAS NOW MADE A DEAL WITH OPEN A. I. FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, EVEN BEFORE CHATGPT WAS RELEASED.

AND YOU WENT TO WATCH HOW CHATGPT IS WORKING IN TERMS OF K- 12 EDUCATION.

WHAT DID YOU FIND?

>> SO, YEAH, OPEN A. I. AND KHAN ACADEMY ESSENTIALLY BECAME PARTNERS.

SO THEY WORKED WITH CHATGPT.

THEY TRIPPED IT OF SOME OF ITS BIASES.

THEY STRIPPED OF ITS ABILITY TO TALK TO KIDS IN INAPPROPRIATE WAYS.

IT BECAME A TUTOR, BUT IT DIDN'T GIVE THE ANSWERS AWAY.

IT WAS A VERY STRANGE PROCESS TO WORK WITH A. I. , AND LAUNCHED A THING IN CLASSES.

WHAT THEY DISCOVERED OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO, AND I SAW THIS IN CLASSROOMS IS FOR KIDS IT'S FINE.

KIDS HAVE THEIR LAPTOPS OPEN WITH LOTS OF TABS OPEN.

AND FOR A LOT OF THE KIDS I SPOKE WITH THEY EITHER SAID, OH, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WAS A. I. , IT'S FINE.

OR THEY RESENTED IT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE A. I. AND THEY WANT THEIR TEACHERS TO TEACH THEM.

THE MAGIC OF IT, WHICH I WAS SURPRISED BY AND I THINK SAL WAS SURPRISED BY IS THAT TEACHERS HAVE FOUND IT INCREDIBLY USEFUL.

YOU CAN INPUT A LESSON PLAN AND INPUT THE TEACHING TOOLS AND ESSENTIALLY SAY, LOOK, I'VE BEEN LECTURING KIDS ON THIS MATERIAL AND I'M GETTING BLANK STARES.

HOW WOULD I TURN THIS MATERIAL INTO A LAB?

HOW CAN I GET PEOPLE TO ACTIVATE IN THE CLASSROOM, TALK TO EACH OTHER, AND THEN SCAFOLD THE LEARNING SO WHEN THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING, THEY CAN CALL ME OVER AND I CAN TEST IT.

AND WHAT I SAW IN THIS CLASSROOM IN INDIANA WAS A TEACHER REALLY WALTING WITH IT.

SHE TOLD IT WHAT SHE WANTED TO DO.

IT GAVE HER A LESSON PLAN.

SHE TOLD HER WHAT MATERIALS SHE HAD IN THE CLASSROOM TO MAKE A LAB, AND THEN SHE WOULD GO BACK AND FORTH WITH IT.

SO SHE SENT ME SOME HOMEWORK THE NIGHT BEFORE I ATTEND ASKED I OPENED THE GOOGLE DOCUMENT LIKE, OH, GOD, I'M NOT PREPARED TO DO CHEMISTRY.

AND I WALKED IN AND I SAW A JOYFUL CLASSROOM OF 10th AND 11th GRADERS.

THAT IS NOT A COMMON THING.

THE WORLD DID NOT REARRANGE ITSELF BECAUSE OF ONE CLASS.

>> IN THE HISTORY OF THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION THERE'S REALLY BEEN TWO STRANDS.

ONE OF THEM YOU CAN CALL THE STRAND IN WHICH SHE TALKS ABOUT SYMBIOSIS, THE PARTNERSHIP OF HUMANS AND MACHINES.

YOU SEE THAT WITH STEVE JOBS AS PART OF THAT STRAND.

THE OTHER STRAND IS SORT OF THE COMPUTERS WILL GO OFF WITHOUT US, THE APPRECIATES WILL BE ABLE TO THINK ON THEIR OWN.

AND YOU GET A LOT OF PEOPLE THESE DAYS TALKING ABOUT THE SINGILARITY.

WHAT IS YOUR VIEW?

WILL THIS PROCEED AS A PARTNERSHIP OF HUMANS AND MACHINES, OR WILL THE MACHINES EVENTUALLY LEAVE US BEHIND?

>> WE HAVE TO DICTATE WHICH WAY WE WANT IT TO GO.

IF WE CROUCH IN A DEFENSIVE POSITION BECAUSE A. I. SEEMS HARD, BECAUSE THERE'S LOTS OF OTHER EXISTENTIAL RISK OUT THERE IN THE WORLD, AND WE LET THE MAKERS OF THE TECHNOLOGY TELL US HOW TO USE IT, WE ARE LIKELY TO GET LOTS AND LOTS OF AUTOMATION WITH LOTS OF PROFITS ROLLING UP TO THOSE COMPANIES.

IF, HOWEVER, WE DO GET INVOLVED AND WE INSIST ON USES THAT WE CARE ABOUT, THAT ARE COLLABORATIVE, EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TODAY INVOLVED A MACHINE EITHER ALERTING SOMEONE OR HELPING SOMEONE SEE SOMETHING, BUT IT WAS ALWAYS A HUMAN IN THE LOOP.

IT WAS ALWAYS COLLABORATIVE.

IF WE CAN INSIST THAT THAT'S A BEST CASE USE, THEN I THINK WE MAY REALLY WELL GET GAINS.

BUT IT'S --THIS IS GOING TO BE CONTESTED TERRITORY.

AND WHAT I WOULD SAY IS MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE WHO WILL MAKE THEM FOR US.

AND THE LAST TIME THAT HAPPENED WAS THE SOCIAL MEDIA AGE, AND WE SAW HOW THAT ENDED.

A. I. IS SO MUCH MORE POWERFUL THAN ANYTHING SOCIAL MEDIA HAS TO OFFER.

THE BENEFITS ARE SO MUCH GREATER, SO I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO USE THE TOOLS AND BEGIN TO INSIST THAT THIS IS THE WAY THEY WANT THEM TO BE PRODUCED, AND THEY WANT THEM TO EXIST IN THE WORLD.

OTHERWISE, IT COULD GO COMPLETELY THE OTHER WAY.

>> JOSH TARN YRANGIEL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU, WALTER.