We Shape Our AI, Thereafter It Shapes Us [5:05-10:07]

So I think that he captures that angst on the doomster side, and he captures the over optimistic zeal on the other side. But in both cases, given that I do actually know how it works and what is really happening, it leaves you dissatisfied. Maybe they should have interviewed you, Keith, that was the mistake. In your editorial, you suggest that the film positions Tristan Harris, who's become perhaps the most articulate and successful critic of technology, not just the AI, but of social media as well. As a moderate or someone in between, I'm not sure that was the case, though. I mean, was Harris presented as the voice of reason in the film? No, I think he was definitely on the, you know, let's just label it doomster, but that might be an unfair word for him, but he was definitely on the doomster side. And, you know, when you leave it, I said to my wife, who is naturally inclined to be a skeptic about AI, you know, what do you think? The same what's sent. You know, she fears the replacement of human agency by tech, and that leading to worse outcomes, worse outputs. She's not in the, it's going to kill us all world. It's more that it's going to make our lives less interesting kind of world. And I asked her about the movie at the end, and the point we both agreed on is, the only opinion you could come out of the movie with is a negative one of AI. There's no narrative in the movie that would allow you to disagree. I mean, what have you done? At least the point, there's no narrative that would allow you to go in as negative and come out as positive. You know, the other piece of the roger, the co-director and the main character in the film, trying to figure out the meaning of AI, was his father had a, a rare form of cancer, and then it was acknowledged, particularly in conversations with some of the more senior AI people that this might help him. So, I mean, you, you broadly talk in your editorial, it's not just about the AI doc about who gets to tell the AI story. I mean, don't we all, I mean, what does this even mean? Who gets to tell the AI story? You're sounding like a, a woki type Keith. Well, look, who gets to tell the story of brain surgery? Hopefully it isn't Mormons who are against surgery. Hopefully, it's brain surgeons because they understand brain surgery and they make all of our natural fears about somebody going inside your skull. They give it context and allow you to feel that there will be a good outcome because they understand it. Well, you trust them and you trust them. So, who gets to tell this? Well, let's trust them. I mean, as we know from the COVID, the politics of COVID and even the RFK junior stuff these days, not everyone trust. I mean, they certainly don't trust journalists and they, they don't even trust doctors, Anthony Fauci has become the antichrist for many people. So, some brain scientists are considered ideologues of one kind or an unknown. Well, I think it changes when the discussion is social policy versus cure. You know, brain surgeon is about cure. Social policy is a different sphere and Fauci was very much in the world of social policy around COVID, not diagnosis or science. It was the science of social policy that he was focused on. And their opinion flourishes because in civil society, you're allowed to, and in fact, we should encourage many, many different opinions. But that doesn't mean any of them are right. They're just opinions. And so, I think the headline this week was the catalyst for it was open AI acquiring a TBPN. Now, this was another piece of surprising news, but it mildly open AI by streaming show TBPN, aiming to change a narrative on AI. And as comes back to your, your theme of who gets to tell the AI story. Do you think that the story behind this story is that the people at open AI feel that the AI story isn't being told fairly. They bought, they bought a company that has a, it's like buying tech crunch and in the web 2.0 age.