0032: Westworld

Hello, this is Ted. And this is Brandon. Welcome to Concerning AI. Yeah, Concerning AI.

Here we are. We're concerned. And we're artificially intelligent. No, we're just concerned.

No, no, no, we're just concerned. As far as you know, we're not artificially intelligent. So this show is already, you know, Ted knows what we're going to talk about on this show and I would like to derail this for a moment before. Please do.

Please, this is not something we talked about at the time. So have you noticed, even in our Facebook group, that there are some AI deniers? AI deniers. Say more about that.

They say things like, not going to happen. Oh, yeah. It's not going to happen in our time. We don't need to worry about it.

It's not going to happen for a long time. In fact, one of them that he posted an article that I think was that that group that supposedly advises the president or the White House about. Yeah. No, it's a DOD.

They do the United States Department of Defense. Yeah. And he was saying that like the quote that really struck me out of that whole thing was, you know, it's just not going to happen. It's like, it's not like heavier than air flight wasn't going to happen.

It's not like any of these other famous impossible statements that turned out to not be true. It's like impossible in the sort of sense that digging a tunnel to the moon is impossible. Yeah. So there are two things that that's made me think of.

So one is when people say it's not going to be for a while, I want them to quantify what they mean. We don't have to worry because it's going to happen no time soon. Right. They need to quantify what they mean.

Like that article, you know, talks about even like self-driving tanks is not going to happen in the next 10 years. Exactly. Yeah. Right.

You know, 50 years is extremely concerning to me. If you think it's going to happen within the next 50 years, I'm concerned. Definitely. Definitely.

Now, if you're a 20 year old kid working on a startup, which I think one of the people who posted an AI group is, you know, maybe 50 years seems like a long time ago. But it doesn't seem like a long time to me. 50 years is when we're all still alive. I mean, you know, a lot of us are still going to be alive.

And the idea of wiping out humanity while we're still alive or while our children are still alive. So this is my call. Yeah. I don't have to figure it out.

But I would like to have a quick way to sort of place yourself on the spectrum of times. Oh, you want to do like a survey? No, I don't want to have a survey. I want to have a label that you can say, well, I'm a.

I see. I'm a green diamond. Yeah. Or, you know, something like that that says kind of where you think, you know, it's going to happen between 10 years from now and I'm 90% sure it's going to happen between 10 years and 50 years from now, like that's everything.

So I'm a 10 50 or something. Yeah. Yeah. I think it might be like zero to 10, you know, less than 10 would be maybe the first group.

And then, well, I, okay. So it's I'm giving myself. Oh, maybe not to have that. I want to label it.

If you labeled it just by range, then you didn't, you don't have to group it at all. I want the 90 percent confidence. I see. So if I thought it was going to be less than 10, I could be a zero to 10.

And if I thought, you thought for sure, like I'm 100% sure it's going to be between zero and 10, then you wouldn't even be a zero to 10. You'd be like a zero to eight, right? Because we're looking for one to eight. Right.

But so somebody could be a 10 to 30 and somebody else could be a 10 to 50. Yeah. And it's, you know, it's, it's undefined because you can move either of the boundaries to get your 90% or whatever. But, but I feel like there would be something like a kind of a label that could be quickly communicated that would help express.

Yeah. Because when we talk about soon, it's such a, it doesn't mean, you know, it just doesn't mean the same thing. So if we were trying to understand like differences of opinion and somebody said they were 10 to 30 and somebody else said 10 to 50, you could kind of assume they were coming from more or less the same place. Yeah.

So 1000 or something would be coming from a very different place. Or a, you know, 1000 to never, right? Which I think that, that DoD advisor guy with his tunnel to the moon might be right. But all the examples he gave were things like intentionally created military machinery.

He wasn't talking about accidents or, you know, or things like that. Yeah. So I think he probably, if I had to guess, I would guess that he comes from a perspective where maybe even evolution isn't accepted. Yeah.

We are so special. Yeah. Right. Well, maybe, like that's the only way I can imagine if you believe that we evolved, there's a clear evidence.

There's a clear. True. But I didn't get enough information from that article to know other than that analogy of digging a tunnel to the moon. Other than that statement, everything else seemed to me like he could have easily been a 25 to 100.

Yeah. Yeah. But that statement right there, you're right. That's a good marker.

It's very hard to grok. Yeah. All right. Well, it'd be cool if we could think about that.

So before we, before we, so I am a 1000 to never on Westworld existing. We're going to talk about Westworld tonight. And so we're going to come back to this question of Westworld existing. It's story bias.

I'm not, I'm not too worried about that, about that, that definition. I don't think you're going to need to try to convince me that Westworld could happen. I don't think we're going to have that conversation. We'll see.

We haven't, we haven't prepped to Westworld conversations. No, not at all. But the Westworld is really not the issue. It's like we could have the same conversation about her or about, you know, any of the other movies that we've talked about.

But what about, what about super intelligence? What about human level AI? So the, the thing about Westworld that really struck me, you're not going to give me an answer about your, your favorite mind. Oh, what is, where am I?

Yeah. I'm talking about Westworld. The 90% spectrum? Yeah.

I'm not going to give you a little bit of analysis. This is the first time I've even heard this concept, but where do you put yourself? Oh man, I'm going to say five to 70. Five.

Holy shit. Well, I just think it's going to happen so quick. I, I don't feel like the substrate is there. That's the thing.

I mean, I don't think the substrate is going to be there for another, you know, till 2025 or something like that. Yeah. So, so I would be shocked if it was five. Right.

Right. But I, I'm no longer nearly as certain as I would. And I used to think that it was at least 50 years out. Yeah.

I don't really, I can't, I can't say with certain anymore that I believe that. Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to say, okay, three numbers we need.

Three numbers. I think three numbers we need. So I'm going to say I'm a five to 70 with the peak at about 30. 30.

Yeah. 30 spoke 30 is my peak as well. Boy, I can't see it happening at five. I, I'm going to say more like, you know, more like 15 to 15 to 50 for me.

And I don't know why my larger numbers smaller than yours. I don't know why I have more confidence. You know, I don't know if that's really what it means or not. It's just a guess.

Well, I feel like people in these conversations are pretty much justifying their gut feel. Yeah. So that's just what my gut feel is. I have less certainty, I think than I, I'm feeling very uncertain.

I also think that 30 and 50 are probably the same thing. Ultimately, I'm not sure that that matters. Yeah. Yeah.

Those numbers don't really matter to me. Yeah. Much. But you know, several episodes ago you talked about making a bet with a colleague about self-driving cars, you know, in less than five years, right?

Yeah. We would have a city in the United States that had fully self-driving cars. I actually said Portland. Oh, you said Portland.

Not in the city. I think we will have a city. Yeah. You can just call one in the local shop, but Portland with its politics and everything, you know, it's possible that there will be a ruckus where.

Oh, I don't think so. I think we're going to be early adopters soon. It could be. It could be.

I think that we're, I think that we're really bad at predicting short term, but I think we're pretty good at predicting longer term in this sense. I think our longer term predictions will be better than our short term ones. When we think about self-driving cars, we think about our particular application of narrow AI. I think we're not that great.

Yeah. I'm not sure about that. Yeah. Okay.

Let's talk about what's wrong. But we know what we are, right? So I got to remember what I am. Five, 30, 70.

You're five, 30, 70. I'm going to say that I'm, what did I say? 15, 30, 50. Yeah.

15, 30, 50. Yeah. Okay. So tell us what you are.

So tell us how brilliant it is. Yeah. That would be good. More of that would be more of that.

Well, you know, he goes, I'm going to throw a fragile. Yeah. Well, and we just, it makes us so happy. Yeah.

Okay. All right. Cool. So let's talk about Westworld.

And I want you to start because you've, you've, you've had some pretty strong feelings that you've teased for us, but let's, so let's not start there. Okay. First, so if you haven't seen Westworld and you don't want it spoiled, the rest of the show is going to be about that nicely played. So turn it off.

Nice. Well done. I wouldn't, I wouldn't have had the same consideration for this. I appreciate that.

So just for context, I have seen the entire first season of Westworld on HBO and this week I went back and watched the 1972 movie Westworld, which was absolutely terrible. I've seen the previous one. I've seen the entire Westworld. It was so bad that I watched it with my wife and my sister-in-law and we got about an hour in and it was clear they were both falling asleep.

And so we just had to turn it off. And so I watched the rest of it today by myself. And they had the, had the world even devolved at that point where the killer robots were really cool. That was in the last 15 minutes.

That was really the end of the movie. That, that was a terrible movie for a lot of reasons. Like there were no, there was no character development. There was no hero.

There was no villain except the man in black. And it was an AI. It was a robot. It was a robot.

Yeah. And the whole thing just sort of devolved, it turned out a dime. And the whole, like it just didn't, it just didn't work. The movie didn't work.

As far as I'm concerned. As entertainment, the technology was fascinating to see the control room full of the 1970 real the reels going in the background of everything was computers all around. The CRT screens, you know, it was really, it was funny. So anyway, so don't worry about going back and watching that one.

Michael Crichton wrote that and this was, you know, the new Westworld was based on that old one. It's based on the Michael Crichton book that turned into that one. So the idea of, you know, those of you that have seen Jurassic Park, it's the same kind of idea. It's a theme park gone wrong.

Right? It's like you make this theme park and it's kind of fun. Jurassic Park was about what bringing dinosaurs back from, from being extinct by finding DNA and amber and putting them, you know, making them. Not that far-fetched.

Yeah. And it's so fun. I mean, what a great thing to be able to go see the dinosaurs. I love that idea.

Well, Westworld is, it's much darker than that in a lot of ways because what you get is robots, essentially who you can do anything to them. You can shoot them. You can have sex with them. They have no consent.

They have no volition of their own as far as we know at the beginning of the premise, right? Right. And it's a theme park. You know, they just go in for service and they fix them up and they put them back into service.

Right. So they have some pretty amazing fix-you-up technology there too. Yeah, they do. They have the trifold iPads and, you know, they've got...

Well, that little welder where they just like fix the guy's neck cut up, right? Oh, yeah. Just like... By the way, the opening sequence, I just think is so beautiful with the 3D printers that are building, you know, the sinews and the bone and the building a human from scratch and it's just, I think it's just gorgeous, the music and the player piano, right?

The player piano is the first AI, right? It's the first robot. It plays the piano by itself. Yeah.

And then you go from there all the way up to humanity. They're indistinguishable really until you shoot them or they shoot until they shoot you. Right. Because when they shoot you, you don't die.

Right. You get a little shock. There's some magic there. Yeah.

I don't know what happens when they shoot you. I don't know how that works. Yeah. There's a little zap.

Yeah. Huh. You wonder... The details of where the zap come from.

There's a lot of magical parts in all sides, but in here too, there's lots of magic that things are not explained. Right. And we don't really know how that happens. So why did you find it interesting about this?

Okay. So I found that the time shifting and the way they played with time was interesting because as a storyteller, when you have human characters, if you try to do flashbacks, the viewer can tell that something is different because the person has aged, but the robots don't age. And so they have these jumps of 30 years and maybe I'm just dumber than most people in the audience. I didn't get it.

I didn't know ahead of time that that was happening until the reveal. So I found that fascinating. Yeah. I didn't get the suspicion until he caught up all the soldiers.

And I was like, oh, that's who this is. Right. Right. So the man in black is William and he's been coming back to the park for years, a period of 30 years or whatever.

He said that at one point, he's been coming there for 30 years. He's been trying to find the maze. Right. So there's a couple of things about that that don't really hang together.

Like, how could that possibly hold his interest? We saw him make so much progress in such a short time. We thought it was a short time as the older as the older man in black. How could he have not made more progress in the 30 years leading up to that?

Like, that doesn't make sense, but it parallels the what doesn't make sense about the AIs. How would they not wake up? How would they stay so static? How would they stay so static?

I mean, the technology, our technology, we see growing by leaps and bounds every year. And those, we definitely saw the idea of different generations, but Dolores was still the first generation and so was still in service. So the moment that really like sums up the conundrum for me is when Maeve first starts messing around with her programming and gets in touch with her program. Yeah.

Before then, that's all impenetrable. The AIs don't have access to their own code, which is the only way that such a thing could possibly happen is that you don't know you have the code. You don't have access to it and you don't even know that you could have access to it and you're not even interested in finding out that you have access to it or something. But in Maeve's case, she starts remembering her dreams.

They give them the concept of dreams so that if they have any glitches in their memories, they can just attribute it to being a dream. And so she makes these drawings of these suited maintenance workers and she puts one under the floorboard and then she sees that she's already made that drawing dozens of times. But something shifts for her at that moment, like that one time, something shifts for her and she decides to commit suicide because she knows something that like death, I don't know how she figures that out, but she figures out somehow that death is not permanent, that for her, that death is access to this other world, these dreams. And yeah, so she finds these guys and somehow she's woken up, which is super weird.

That she wakes up in that moment. But yeah, so she finds her, she gets access to her own programming and what does she do? She changed some of her parameters. As if these aspects of herself are parameterizable.

That's a simple, yeah. Like somebody could be intelligently just slide it up and compassion, you slide down or perception, you slide up or down or persuasion. I don't know, I can't remember what the other one is. That's the premise of all the role playing games.

That's right. That's right. Level seven. They are.

They are. Roll it up. I want to roll stronger in the intelligence. Yeah, so strength is probably, physical strength is probably one too, even though that's hard to wear.

Yeah. So, okay. Like self-awareness might have been one or who knows what. All right.

So, again, what's interesting here? Like, yeah, what's interesting with respect to the show? What's interesting in terms of AI is the idea that unintended consequences of programming. We program a narrow AI and we expect it to stay narrow.

But if we're trying to get it to be more realistic, more towards humans, at what point is it possible that it's no longer a narrow AI or that itself, you know, that self improvement kicks in or that self-awareness kicks in? This whole idea of self-awareness, that when these robots, these robots were programmed with a voice in their head and that voice in their head is Arnold until they become self-aware. And when they become self-aware, that voice changes to be AI. It changes to be themself.

They now think of that voice as themself. So that is really fascinating. Now why was Arnold's voice in their head? It was because they wanted their programmers needed some way to tell them what to do, to bring them back to what am I supposed to do now?

So there's a voice in their head talking to them. We have a voice in our heads talking to us. Yeah. And so we have a lot of thought about what is that and where does it come from and all that stuff.

But the point is in this, it's a programming technique they use to keep these robots doing the things that they're supposed to do, keeping them tied to their own motivation. And then at some point they become self-aware. And when they do that voice shifts from being Arnold to it becomes them. Then they are self-aware.

They know that it's them, not external. And so there's something really interesting there. Now is the tech anywhere near real? No, I'm sure it's not.

I'm sure that Westworld tech is not actually, you know, doesn't, just like every other movie. The tech doesn't actually help us think about AI. The show is entertaining and gets us to think about issues of self-awareness and consciousness and the idea that machines could be self-aware. Yeah.

I mean, I feel like it does create potentially empathy for the AI. Remember the Boston Dynamics dude that was getting pushed down and shoved and stuff that they're walking around? You know, because that thing is so anthropomorphic enough, then you kind of feel like, hey, there's something wrong about what's going on here. The western world makes it really clearly, I mean, it's hard to come away with from that and not feel like what's happening.

All those machines is wrong. Yeah. Yeah, rape and violence and murder and I mean, it's definitely wrong. Yeah.

Even before they're self-aware, it like brings all that stuff up, right? I mean, like the Boston Dynamics thing clearly is not self-aware. It doesn't even look really like, well, it sort of looks like a creature. But yeah, you're right.

There's empathy that comes up. And it's like, that's part of what Westworld does for you too, is it's so visceral. Like, so like, yeah, yeah. Yeah, but terrible.

Yeah, but the problem there is that it's just because they look like, you know, we can anthropomorphize them. If it's all, you know, if it's a disembodied AI, I guess we just got to give it a face, right? Or something in the graphical face or a sexy sounding voice or even just a very efficient sounding voice that sounds like a human. Well, yeah, like in her, in the movie, her, she didn't need a body, but she had a voice and that voice was enough.

That voice was enough for us to feel like she was a... Right. You know, like if she was a being. Yeah.

So that felt like an important thing to me that this did is create that bridge between us and the AI. Yeah. And one of the things you said to me a few weeks ago when we were talking about this, not on the show, but you were saying to me, it felt like it could... Like the idea of a...

I can't remember exactly what you said about it, but somehow the violence and everything that it makes it okay to treat these things very badly that could lead ultimately to very bad results for us. Yeah. Well, it's some friend of ours. It was on the show.

The Berenstein Bears, I talked about the only show. No. They were reading this super moralistic stories to their kids, the Berenstein Bears, and their kids were getting ideas about the bad things that the kids were doing and learning their lesson from in the story. Right, right.

They started doing those things. Yeah. And so, in 2016, Microsoft had a chatbot that it put on Twitter and within a day it had to take it off because it was so racist and sexist because of the way humans related to it on purpose. They were trolling it.

Right. And so, Westworld is kind of like troll world. Troll world. Yeah.

It taps into your basis self if you want it to. If you allow yourself to go that way. Yeah, you can be a greeper for sure, right? Yeah.

You're just out there tormenting. You're out there tormenting. Yeah. Right.

Yeah. And in fact, in the 1972 version, that was even more so. Like they made a game of shooting these robots. So yeah.

So that is problematic. I feel like it's sort of normative and dehumanizing. Depersonizing, I guess. Definitely at the beginning.

But I'm curious, does that persist for you even after like William falls in love with, I forgot her name. Dolores. With Dolores. He falls in love with Dolores.

For a while. For a while. He gets frustrated with her because she's not really human. Right.

She's not yet a being. Yeah. He falls in love with her before she's self-aware, which is problematic for him. She's not a real boy yet.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So does it persist?

No, by the end. I don't know. It's one of those tricky things. You know, what is watching all the violent movies and playing the violent games and the things we do?

What does that really do to us? Who knows? I mean, there's all the different kinds of research. So I worry about it though, from two perspectives.

I worry about it from my own sort of, you know, is that going to create in me that somehow that's okay and that I'm taking the moral, you know, I'm not taking the moral high road, not the moral normative road to treat the, you know, to treat the AIs and the machines with the same respect and dignity that a human would be accorded? Like, that's the problem. The problem is that I see it setting the bounds. The norm is beat them up, shoot them up and rape them.

Yeah. And the high road is, you know, treat them like a person. That feels wrong to me. It feels like the norm should be treating them like a person.

And the low road that is treated in the same way that we treat them as mistreating people is to mistreat them. Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, you know, there's some other TV shows that I watch with lots of violence in them, like Vikings or Game of Thrones. Now, they probably do similar things about people maybe.

Yeah, because that's the historical time period, it seems like it fits. Now it doesn't fit today. Although there's plenty of cop shows and murder shows and like Dexter, you know, the Dexter TV show where the hero is the murder, he murders bad people, but you'd cheer for him. And I don't watch that show anymore, but I did for a while.

And what does that do for you? You know, to sort of justify the idea of murder. So that's one thing. Yeah.

What does that do to me personally to watch it as I relate to these machines of the future? The second thing is what sort of narrative does it create for the machines, for our children, for our progeny, I don't know. I can't remember who it was, but our children are our children, machines in our gym. So well, let's give it a name.

So we are homo sapiens, sapiens. You know, could we have homo sapiens, you know, Siliconium? Her Robosapiens. Robosapiens.

Okay, let's use Robosapiens for now until we come up with something better. I think somebody came up with that. It's fine. Well, you know, we'll assume we didn't invent it.

We borrowed it from somewhere and if you want to give us the reference. They feel so disconnected. Like I, you know, calling them our children has a value statement. Yeah, I know, but we have actual human children.

I think we have to differentiate because they're different species. They are not, they are not the same. They're different. Don't you think?

Yeah. Also, when do we have to start using it? You know, do we use it, do we use it for AlphaGo? Yeah, I know.

Do we use it for the, for the Boston Dynamics bots? How about if we call them our kids and our children and our kids? The goats. The goats.

Yeah. Our little ones are, are, are, yeah, scions. But that doesn't have any connection. And what I want is I want to tap into this, this.

So people have powerful drives and instincts and feelings. And I want to tap into the powerful ones that I have. So I'm going to call them our children. So I could change that, but do we need to qualify?

Is it our non-biological children? Just so that we can distinguish or do we, are you, are you trying to raise children? AI children. All right.

All right. All right. We call them our AI children. Yeah.

Our chai. Yeah. Yeah. That is what we're going to do.

But yeah. Okay. So our AI children, what happens when they wake up and they watch Westworld? Like what does that say to them that that that is, I feel like that same, that same thing.

Shifting of the normative and high road versus the normative and the low road. Yeah. Well, I think that a lot of our great literature is very problematic in many, many ways. There's lots of books that I think are so awesome and I want to read them with my children and then I do and they're so racist that I just can't, I can't even deal with it.

Like Little House on the Prairie, for example. So racist and so sexist. It really bothers me to read it with my kids. So I think that's in parallel a little bit with what you're saying.

Like the, the art is regressive. It's like not, it's not where we're headed. And so it's going to fall into a historical time period when, when it gets viewed in the future. You know, it might not be so bad today, but maybe in five years or in 10 years or in 70 years, it is bad.

You know, maybe. I mean, you know, think about if, if it were sort of mainstream, this is a mainstream show. Yeah. Think about it.

If it were a mainstream and it was, you know, people be intrigued like that for episode, after episode, after episode, after episode. But I think that's based on their race or something. Well, I mean, it's true. But I mean, but then at the end it's a shift, right?

That's the arc of the story is that there's a shift and now they're human. You know, now they're aware. Now they're people. Now we don't know what happens because at the end everybody dies, right?

All the, all the humans die. So we don't know what's next in the story. We don't know if this compassion that we, like we feel compassionate for these ruthless murderers now, but they're now self-aware. Maybe our view of them changes.

Maybe it's no longer okay to rape and murder them because now they are people or maybe they, they no longer are people, they even become less human-like because they don't have to try to be human anymore. Yeah, maybe. They become very alien. Right.

So that's the way we are for season two. It would because that would bolster us for sure because that would, you know, that would also set us a danger. Yeah. Well, that matches my intuition a lot better that if you aren't trying, you know, if you, yeah, if you let the dynamics take you, not the Boston dynamics, just learning dynamics, take you where they will, there's no reason at all that it should take you in the direction of universally appreciated human values, right?

Is there? Well, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.

I don't know. Ben would make the argument that for sure there is that how could things be intelligent and not come up with the same values? Well, I think we're going to have to dig into that more. That's a really hard problem.

And we've alluded to it and we've tried to live along the edges of it. It's a really hard problem. So my summary for Westworld with respect to the concerning AI shows, there's not actually that much there. It didn't make me think about, you know, I feel like you felt like, I feel like you got something out of it that I'm still trying to figure out.

I got a lot of questions and just like all art, it follows the story bias. And so there's not as much there as it seems. Like from an entertainment product, I really enjoyed her. It was her.

Right. And yet I knew that there were so many problems. I had a lot of questions that were problematic and things that if you tried to solve them, that wouldn't be a good movie anymore. With Westworld, I wasn't left with so many thoughts that I wanted to explore to poke holes in it.

I was just left with, this is a beautiful piece of art and it makes us think about consciousness and AI is waking up, you know, that moment of the singularity or whatever. Whatever. That's asked the question of are we special or not? Yeah.

Pretty beautifully, I think. So yeah, all right. So, okay. Yeah, are we this special thing?

Yeah, which, how could we be? I don't, how could we be? I just don't, I can't buy that. We're made out of atoms and so are my machines.

Well, and especially since I think the things that we hold on to as the most special about ourselves are, I think we might be terrible at. Yeah, you talked about that on the show about the things that have come later, latest in our evolution, you know, that have not been evolution, we've invented later, like our technology, you know, that's the worst of that. Right. The stuff that we've added at the very end.

Yeah, we're using hardware that's amazing. Yeah. But it's like we're hammering in a nail with a violin. Yeah.

It's not great at hammering in nails. We think it's like the best thing out there. Hammering in nails is not a hard problem. That reminds me of the weight, but why ladder of intelligence, how, you know, we, we fall into this trap of thinking about the village idiot and Einstein as the two bounds.

And so we put ourselves somewhere along that ladder. Right. You know, most of us listen to show are clearly much closer to Einstein. And so we feel good about that.

But if you think about going down, what goes down from the village idiot all the way down to, you know, yeast or something or, you know, sick or sell, and you go all the way up, up, what do you mean? Up, up, what's up? You know, and then if you throw that ladder out, it's just a dot, which is, yeah, like all the village idiot to Einstein, it's just a dot. The village idiot to Einstein are all the same.

But speaking of Einstein, and then the whole thing, like, you know, Einstein was such a genius because he was able to use that specialized three, that hardware that specialized for living in three dimensions to think about problems that are not that amenable to it. Do you think we might be able to do something like that? Ah, yeah, maybe next time. I see what that is.

Yeah, maybe next time. That's just making fun of me because I have this, uh, product pyramid that I am dying to do on the show. And so maybe we'll do it next time. Yeah, that'll be fun.

All right. And next time we're going to have a super cool, uh, sign off, you know, like, boom boom, no it's going to be cool. We're going to look cool. So usually we end the show and we sound stupid, but next time I'm sure we're going to have something really catchy.

Oh yeah, yeah, I've got to think about that for next time. Maybe my four year old can come up with something like that. Yeah, but until then, this is Ted signing off for Concerning AI. And this is Brandon.

Bye, boom. No, oh, this is Brandon for attorney. Yeah, I just love it. See ya.

See ya. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay.

All right.