The Era of Experience

AI Inside #65

Summary (aiinside.show)

Google and Chrome

● The Department of Justice has suggested that Google sell Chrome,

potentially resulting in a new owner for the browser.

● OpenAI is interested in acquiring Chrome, according to Nick Turley, the

head of product.

● Other potential buyers, such as Perplexity, could also be interested in

acquiring Chrome.

AI and Browsers

● The hosts discuss the potential for AI to replace browsers or make them

less important.

● They consider the idea that agentic AI could change the way people

interact with information and applications.

● The conversation touches on the concept of a "browser" and its role in

accessing information.

AI Generations and Education

● The hosts talk about the concept of AI generations and how they might

impact education.

● They talk about the possibility that AI could cure all diseases in the next

decade, according to the CEO of Google's DeepMind.

● The conversation emphasizes the need for responsible AI development

and the importance of considering its potential impact on society.AI and Human Interaction

● The hosts explore the idea that AI could change the way humans interact

with each other and with technology.

● They discuss the potential for AI to assist with tasks such as research and

writing.

● The conversation touches on the concept of "learning" and how AI might

approach it differently than humans.

Actionable Items

● The hosts encourage listeners to explore the topic of AI and its implications

for society.

● They suggest that listeners consider the potential consequences of AI

development and the need for responsible innovation.

● The conversation highlights the importance of ongoing discussion and

education about AI and its impact on society.

Conclusion

The podcast AI Inside provides a platform for exploring the world of AI and its

implications for society. The hosts inspire listeners to critically assess the

possible repercussions of AI development, while emphasizing the importance of

responsible innovation. The podcast covers various AI topics to educate listeners

about the fast-changing field of artificial intelligence.

Key Points

● The potential for AI to replace or change the way we interact with browsers

and information.

● The importance of responsible AI development and consideration of

potential consequences.

● The need for ongoing education and discussion about AI and its impact on

society.

● The potential for AI to assist with tasks such as research and writing.

● The concept of "learning" and how AI might approach it differently than

humans.

Mentions

People:

1. Jason Howell - host of the podcast

2. Jeff Jarvis - host of the podcast

3. Nick Turley - head of product at OpenAI

4. Yann LeCun - from Meta

5. Linda McMahon - Education Secretary

6. Sam Altman - CEO of OpenAI

7. Chung-In Lee

8. Neil Shanmugam

Businesses/Brands:

1. Google

2. OpenAI

3. Perplexity

4. Motorola

5. Microsoft

6. AOL

7. Prodigy

8. Gemini

9. Meta

10. CNN

11. IEEE

12. Twitter

13. X (social media platform)

14. Business Insider

15. Patreon

Further Reading:

1. Article on AI generations (mentioned but not specified)

2. Interview with Yann LeCun from Meta (mentioned but not specified)

3. Washington Post story (mentioned but not specified)

4. Book by Jeff Jarvis (mentioned but not specified, from 2011)

Transcript

Jason Howell: Hello, everybody, and welcome to another episode of AI Inside the

Podcast, where we take a look at the AI that is layered throughout so much of the world,

the technology and beyond. I'm one of your hosts, Jason Howell, joined as always by

Jeff Jarvis. I can hear you now. How are you doing, Jeff?

Jeff Jarvis: Hello there. Sorry about that. I have, Jason is like in five places in my life

right now. I'm on YouTube. I'm watching the stream on Twitter. There's Jason. Jason's

everywhere. You're checking all the things. I know when I cut to you, I heard myself

echoing in the background. I'm like, "Oh, is that me now or me then?" See, it's the

Matrix.

Jason Howell: Yeah, it is the Matrix. And you know what? I'm getting comfortable living

in the Matrix. This is just, this is the year 2025. 2025 is the year where we realize we are

living in a simulation. Before we get started, huge thank you to those of you who support

us on our Patreon. That's Patron of the Week. Dan Merchant is one of the amazing

patrons that support us each and every week. Just go to patreon.com/aiinsideshow if

you want to take part in that. We really do appreciate it. And again, just a quick call out.

Leave us a review or a star rating on your Podcatcher of Choice. But the reviews are

really helpful. We have gotten at least one that I've seen in the last week that is more

current. And that's kind of what I'm hoping for, is to kind of freshen up the reviews and

get some newer reviews. So even if you have an older one, renew it, you know, refresh

it, whatever. We really appreciate it. But let's jump in because this is a news episode we

got a lot of news to talk about. And I think maybe we start with Google. And I say

Google ahead of OpenAI, even though OpenAI is at the start of this news story as well.

But Google's antitrust trial is, would you call it the punishments phase? I don't know. It's

kind of like how can we punish you, Google?

Jeff Jarvis: It's the woodshed phase, yeah.Jason Howell: Yes, exactly. The company was found guilty of its, well, found guilty of

unlawful practices in online search and advertising in the U.S. And as a result, the

Department of Justice has recommended, I kind of feel like it's not going to happen, but

has recommended that Google, you know, if we get our way, Google is going to have to

unload Chrome. They're going to have to find a new owner for Chrome. And it sounds

like OpenAI has an executive that testified at the trial. Hey, we'd be interested. We'd be

down. That's Nick Turley, head of product, who testified that the company would be

interested in owning Chrome. Just saying, if you're selling it, we'd certainly be interested

in owning it. What do you think about that, Jeff?

Jeff Jarvis: It's a stunt. It's just like perplexity saying they're going to buy TikTok. It's

now the way to punish everybody is to make them sell something. And then everybody

jumps up and says, oh, I'll buy it. And it's a kind of ridiculous story cycle that we're in

now. And OpenAI, A, I trust Google with Chrome a lot more than I would trust OpenAI,

period. B, I think it's a stunt. I think it's just for the what it worked. But we'll see all over.

We're doing it right now. But it was in that we're doing that because it was in the news

all over. And so that's where it is. And C, I wonder what the real value is to OpenAI.

Sure, it could insert itself in that browser, but hello, antitrust. It's the same problem that it

tries to fix. Then it's even worse because the company will use it for its own purposes

and not allow others in. Google has always allowed others in. But that's a 20-year

problem, Jeff. That's 20 years from now when they finally say, oh, actually, that was a

bad idea 20 years ago. We'll just make Microsoft and the browser in the past. Yes. My

browsers have been such a focal point because I think they're the main, they're our

main entry into it. You know, I remember many, many years ago at the beginning of the

web, my son, we ran focus groups when I worked for advanced publications in

Cleveland. And the people in the focus group said, you know, there's this amazing thing

on this online. It just has everything. It has the weather. It has sports. It has news. It has

fun. What's that? It's called Netscape. And, you know, we've seen for a long time,

people don't understand the brands that underlie the web and everything else. I think

that's probably less the case now. But I think there's this kind of naive view among both

regulators and media that the browser is everything, whether it was Microsoft or

whether it's now Chrome. So it seems like a kind of a silly moment in all of this and

serious stuff going on with Google. Absolutely.

Jason Howell: I see that Chris and the questions asked whether Google could make

another browser. I don't know because there is no decision yet whether this is actually

going to be the path that was a recommendation. And I don't know what limitations there

might be. But once again, I would trust Google more than I would trust OpenAI.

Jeff Jarvis: Yeah. And, you know, what does it do to all the rest of the services? The

browser is key to everything we use, to email and docs and drive and maybe not maps,translate. All these services we use are out of this hub of the browser. And if you're

trying to split that off, it's like saying the phone company can own the handset, but

somebody else has to own the phone. For those of you who remember the old days

where those were two different parts, I'm sorry, I just dated myself. And there was a wire

that went into the wall. Yeah, Curly Coron too. For you kids, I'll show you in my Jeff's

museum later.

Jason Howell: Well, I think what you were just talking about kind of illustrates both

sides of it. You know, you were kind of saying the browser, like it's long been seen as

this very, very important thing, but I don't know that that's really, you know, maybe the

case anymore. Maybe I'm getting, you know, your words mixed up a little bit, but also it

is really important and we do channel and funnel so much through it. And so I can see

why a company like OpenAI might love to have Chrome as their kind of anchor for, you

know, especially when we're talking about the agentic AI ambitions, you know, to have a

browser that you can just then completely connect your AI service and all those agentic

qualities directly into, you know, Perplexity has its Comet browser that it's doing this. I

think Perplexity would be another, you know, kind of interesting party to want to own it. I

don't think that they've explicitly said, "Hey, we'd be interested." But I wouldn't be

surprised if they do. And nor do I think any of it matters because I think at the end of the

day, Google's not going to have to sell Chrome. That's my hunch. That would be like,

you know, to your point, the kind of tangled web of everything that is connected that

would interplay in that move just seems, that seems like a lot. And I know that the DOJ

in a case like this, at least my recent understanding of this is that they shoot for the

moon and often they end up somewhere in between where it was and, you know, where

they're shooting for. And I don't think that that place in between necessarily means

Google has to get rid of Chrome.

Jeff Jarvis: Yeah, it's entirely different DOJ than it was when this case was brought. So

who knows what that will mean?

Jason Howell: Yeah, that's true. They're continuing on the theme that they had of

Google bad, but we'll see. But, you know, you raised two other points that I think are

really interesting, Jason, and one argues with the other. The one is that there's finally

competition in browsers. Right. Perplexity is going to create a browser. They have

reason to do so. And if open AI is hunger and effort browsers, it could make one. It

wouldn't cost them all.

Jeff Jarvis: Oh, they're going to. It's trivial.

Jason Howell: Yeah. So on the one hand, just as the argument is that this is

anti-competitive and we have to get, we have to pull it away from Google. There's

competition. The other contrary argument is that we talk a lot about how, whether agenerative AI replaces search. What if it replaces the browser? What if a genteck AI

replaces the browser in essence? It makes the browser far less important because your

pathway to applications and to information and to functions is going to be otherwise, it's

going to be through command structures, new command structures, voice, and so on

and so forth. Whether that happens or not, we can predict, you know, till the cows come

home. Yeah. But the idea that the browser, it's exactly the same as the Microsoft fight.

The browser was the key to everything. And then it wasn't for Microsoft. They lost the

browser war. There was competition and there's competition still. So, yeah, I want to

agree with you that I don't think they'll be forced to do this. These days, I can't predict

anything.

Jason Howell: Yeah.

Jeff Jarvis: But the other thing that obviously bothers me is I'm a girl book guy. Right.

And, um, yeah, what does it mean to have to sell Chrome apart from, uh, is that the

browser alone? Is that the OS? Uh, what does that really mean? Yeah. Good question.

Yeah. Go ahead. Sorry.

Jason Howell: No, no, no, no. I want to hear what you had said.

Jeff Jarvis: Just one other thing is the other day just occurred to me. Um, when, when

Google originally used to go to Google.com and there was the blank on the page and

you type that in, right? And when Google went to the, what's it called Jason, the one bar

or the one whatever. Yeah. What did the address bar became everything, right?

Mm-hmm. It was actually, it was confusing. It confused me for about a week. What was

that address bar? Is that where I go to put things in? And when I would go to the, the

course to the Google search page, it would go ahead and put it up into there to train me

and say, this is where you're doing everything. Omni box. Thank you. Um, well, so the

Omni box, the browser is not just a browser. The Omni box is the path to all kinds of

functionality. Um, so anyway, I just, um, yeah, the browser is an, an, a fungible beast

now. When's the last time I went to a Google search page and, you know, clicked on the

search area in the middle of the page and put my search in there. Like it happens, it

happens very rarely and randomly it's, you know, and I couldn't even tell you what is the

circumstance that takes me there. But everything that I do is in that Omni box.

Jason Howell: I mean, and what you're saying also really reminds me of the

conversation that I had at mobile world Congress with, uh, Google's Android head,

Samir Samat, when we were talking about a post app world where agentic AI becomes,

you know, so prevalent, is there a need for apps? Is there a need for applications when

agentic, uh, AI can just kind of go to the places it needs to go to do the things. And I

think Samir's point was, was also, you know, appropriate and spot on, which is that

even, even in that world, there is still a need for companies, for brands, for destinationsto have some sort of a kind of a place to go or a, you know, maybe they've got a brand

that they want to convey. And that's, that's how you do it. Like the agentic AI can do

those things, but it might not necessarily mean that we don't have those other things as

well. Cause they also serve other purposes too. So, so I don't know. Um, I do see if, you

know, obviously this was a, this was a publicity stunt, uh, on open AI's, you know, side

to gain more of the oxygen from the PR room, which it's very good at doing, but no

matter what open AI guaranteed going to do the browser thing, if you know, I guarantee

you they're working on it behind the scenes already. And it's going to be trivial. In fact, in

fact, tell, tell the browser, tell the chat to make the browser software. Mm-hmm. It's fairly

trivial, I think.

Jeff Jarvis: Yeah. And I guess what's coming, what's coming to me right now also is

that there's some, um, there's some overlap here between like how necessary is, is it to

AI to have its own browser in the same way that how necessary is it to AI to have its

own piece of hardware, like a rabbit are one or whatever, you know, it's everybody's

looking for these different ways to make it, um, I don't know, make it more of an

immediate utility. And it seems to be doing all right in the form that it is right now, but

you know, we should pay tribute to the browser was a paradigm, paradigmatic shift. Uh,

I was working at Delphi for one horrible month, which was Delphi internet, um, before I

got the hell out and they were going to have a GUI because everybody had the GUI,

right? Uh, there was a, well and prodigy and so on. And you had to have your graphical

user interface. And then along, I was, I remember the day when somebody came in and

said, you got to see this thing and it was the browser, the first crude blue browser. Uh,

but it, it immediately said that changes everything. That's a pathway to famous. And

that's what our browser is. It's not a program in and of itself. It's just a way to get to stuff.

Mm-hmm. Yep. Interesting stuff there. Um, and then we were talking a little bit, you

know, I mentioned perplexity perplexity comes up a lot these days on the show. Uh, I

think this is interesting. Perplexity, uh, is working on some big deals right now. One of

them, we might actually hear more about tomorrow with Motorola. This was a deal that I

guess Motorola has an event tomorrow. It's expected that the event is going to be about

their new razor phone. And according to Bloomberg, probably going to get some

information around a deal that Motorola has struck with perplexity to have its perplexity,

uh, agent preloaded on Motorola devices. Gemini, I'm guessing would still be present on

the device. I don't think that this is necessarily saying that Motorola would not have

Gemini installed, you know, and Google's Gemini is out and perplexity is in. But I think

this brings the option of another AI assistant or at least the app onto the device. And

then, and then there's Samsung, which apparently is in early talks with perplexity as

well. Right now, I think according to the case that we were just talking about, it was

revealed that Samsung has a two year kind of licensing deal with Google. And

Samsung's been working really closely with Google on a lot of things. And one of them

is bringing Gemini into Samsung phones, but it turns out perplexity is talking andpotentially making deals with Samsung to bring the perplexity agent onto Samsung

devices, potentially in place of Gemini. And as all of these court cases happen and start

to kind of strip apart the status quo of how Google does its business and strikes as

deals, this could be something that we see more of in the next couple of years. So back

to the prior conversation, this is, I didn't expect this to be tied in, but it, but it is. Let me

ask you a question because you're a pro phone user, right? You study phones and how

they operate and your use of them is critical to your research, right? When you think of

doing something on your phone, what proportion of the time do you, I think these are

three choices. You go to directly to an app. You go to the browser. Do you go to the

assistant?

Jeff Jarvis: Oh, that's a really great question. Uh, trying to break it down. I mean, I

probably, whoo, that's a, that's a fantastic question. I don't, okay. I'll start with assistant. I

don't use the kind of baked in shortcut for assistant very often. Right. How do I, um, I

mean, and I, and I, that's really slowed down. I think that was different when Google

assistant was more, um, leveraged and kind of a little bit more dependable and, and

new, cause it was the new thing. I wanted to get in the habit and I certainly had that

habit for awhile. I don't use it as much and I definitely don't use it as much with Gemini.

It's not something that I go to regularly every once in a while. I do. I'm almost more

inclined to launch the app, honestly, to do that either with Gemini or with perplexity,

which I do launch perplexity and it does have the voice assistant capability inside the

app. And so I will sometimes launch that. Am I going to, like I could probably open up

my pixel and you know, in the settings and assign the perplexity voice agent as my main

agent, but I choose not to, I couldn't tell you why. I think it's part of the reason is

because Gemini is kind of tied on a little bit deeper level to the Android operating

system. Like perplexities, voice agent is great for search. It could be called an antitrust

trial just for that comment. But it's true.

Jason Howell: You know, this is, this has been Google's big, you know, strategy for

better or for worse. And I think, you know, it's, it's starting to kind of bite them in the butt.

It is the intertangled web at the same time I'm a consumer and I kind of want those

conveniences. So, um, that's part of the reason why I don't kind of remove Gemini from

that placement and put perplexity in its place. And then how often do I go to the

browser? Oh, that's, that's, uh, almost always if I go to the browser, it's because I used

the Google search on the, you know, that's on the home screen to like ask a question of

something or to, you know, if I, if I really need to go to directly to a website, I guess I just

put it in there. Um, I don't know. That's interesting. It's hard to, it's hard to give concrete

answers on that. I don't know how to answer that other than when I need to. So, so I'm

an old fort. So I mean to go to the browser. Okay.Jeff Jarvis: Oh, certain apps that I use, obviously, you know, the weather app or

whatever, but I tend to my reflex is what I'm saying is I want to, I want to get

somewhere. I want to look up something. I want to do that. I go to the browser. If I'm

using, uh, the app, it's really more voice search. Um, you know, I'm sitting at the dinner

table and how old Brooke shields now? I don't know. I'll ask, you know, Hey, G hell, it

was Brooke shields. That's really not, um, AI. It's really not the agent. I don't think it's

been, you know, just, yeah. That's hard. Yeah. Just voice search. Yeah, it really is. Uh,

so I'm not using the agents much at all, which the reason I asked that and the answer is

what's the bet. If you're trying to deal with Samsung, what's the bet of what the, what the

user use spaces is going to be of these things of, of a default agent versus a default

browser. Um, I don't know. But again, it goes back to our prior discussion. The browser

may not be the, for me, it's still the hinge point of everything. For you.

Jason Howell: No, no, definitely not. The browser is definitely not the hinge point for

everything, but I'm, you know, I've got my feet in all different ponds, I suppose, but, um,

but I do think, and we talked about this a little bit last night on, and on the Android

faithful podcast as well about like having a perplexity as a voice assistant tied into my

phone by default does eliminate, like I said, some of those deeper kind of connections

to say Android operations or settings or some of Google's kind of, you know, kind of the,

the special sauce that Google has integrated with their services into Gemini and stuff.

So having perplexity in that spot eliminates or reduces some of that functionality. But as

we know in AI, everybody kind of has their favorites or they have their, their AI models

that they turn to for very specific certain things and, you know, and their go tos. And so

that might not matter as much. It might not matter to every user. The fact that when they

use their, their voice assistant, it can't know what to do with turn the lights on in the

living room or whatever, where Google's can. It might just matter that like 90% of the

time when I want to use voice AI, you know, search, it's because I'm researching or it's

because I'm doing this thing and therefore I want that to be assigned to something that

has a different skill set that's more tailored to what I actually need, not, you know, doing

what Google thinks I need.

Jeff Jarvis: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's a really good point is that the, the, the

assistant, aka agent, will be charged with having more knowledge about you. It will be

more personalized necessarily. That'll probably be killer. The killer, not killer Apple, the

characteristics that makes it win. Right. It also has a lot of stickiness to it. Open AI is

really working hard on this right now. You know, they're, they're really kind of doubling

down and opening things up as far as memory for users. And turns out that becomes

really, really handy and helpful over time. As the model learns what, what you're

constantly looking for when you ask it to do this certain thing, that means as a user,

that's less hoops. I have to jump through to get the answers that I'm looking for. And I

think this is just kind of an interesting fact is, is that the more we give into these modelsand get that, that memory, the more sticky those models become, because why would I

want to pick up, pick, you know, take my toys and go over there. When this one already

knows so much about me, I'd have to start over again, going over there. And I think our

phones are going to get there too. And that'll be really interesting from, from that

perspective.

Jason Howell: Yeah. And I can already hear replaying some of the, the, the battles of

your, one is obviously privacy. You know, it's too much about you. How do you, you

know, what control do you have? And the other is the filter bubble argument will

resurface. And the filter bubble argument was made by Elaine Pariser and then Axel

Bruns wrote a book called our filter bubble was real, in which he had lots of research to

know they're not that Google was not in fact personalizing to the level that was

presumed, was not putting you in a filter bubble, but an agent will. So what was, what

was worried about in a moral panic past will come back perhaps with some cause.

Jeff Jarvis: Yeah. Yeah. Cool. Well, we've got a whole lot more to talk about. We're

going to take a super quick break and then we'll talk a little bit about Demis Hassadis

interview on 60 minutes. That's coming up in a second. Did you, did you get a chance to

see Demis's appearance on 60 minutes?

Jason Howell: No, I've been writing too much about the head of 60 minutes quitting.

Jeff Jarvis: Oh, different 60 minutes story entirely. And I was not aware of that actually.

Jason Howell: Oh yeah. I was on, I was on CNN last night talking about it actually.

Jeff Jarvis: Oh, no kidding. Wow. I'll have to look that up. Well, yes, Google, Google's

deep mind CEO did make an appearance on 60 minutes over the weekend. And I think

it's interesting because there were a lot of, you know, fresh off of our conversation with

Yann LeCun from meta. There were definitely a couple of points throughout the

interview where it was like, okay, I've heard that before Yann was talking about this too,

particularly the fact that, that Demis was basically saying, you know, AG AGI as people

define it very differently or don't is at least 10 years down the line. So Demis and Yann

appear to be on the same kind of timetable as far as when they think this randomly

defined concept of artificial general intelligence will actually happen. And it's not

immediate. It's definitely somewhere down the line, but he did make the prediction that

AI could potentially cure all diseases within this next decade. All diseases, that's kind of

crazy to think. I feel like anytime you put all or nothing, there's at least a small amount of

invalidation in my mind to something like that. Cause really all of them, maybe that's just

an easy way to say most, but just the way you say most would be probably where I

would go with that. But yeah, I don't know. What do you think about that prediction?Jeff Jarvis: Even most is too far. It's a turbocharged view of technological solutionism.

And the argument is that the internet really brought out solutionism thinking it's going to

solve everything and it's going to bring peace and certainly has not. No, that's not. This

is a whole other level where it just, it's part of the AGI ASI presumption that we're going

to get there and it's going to be so amazing. It can do these things and it's being

described to it with no reason, no basis. Will it help with medicine? Yes. Will it help find

different uses of molecules? Yes. Will it do things behind the scenes like protein folding?

Yes. All that's yes. All that's amazing enough. But this just goes overboard in a

ridiculous way in my view. And I think it's harmful in the long run on two sides of it. It

puts a target from his perspective. It's dangerous because I think it puts a target on the

back of the technology he's building. Well, it's going to fail. It's not going to reach the

heights that it's been predicted to do. And on the other hand, it makes it more fearsome.

Oh, it's all powerful. It's kind of, you know, it's God. It's not. Let's take the wonder that

we can have with this on its level. Why does it have to be everything? It's irritating. And I

respect him and I respect his work and he's a genius at this stuff. I'm not taking any of

that away. Just don't oversell it, man.

Jason Howell: Yeah. Hard, hard not to, I suppose, when you're that close to it and you

know, work there.

Jeff Jarvis: Yeah. Maybe, maybe they, well, they believe that they know something that

the rest of the world does not. That's, that's part of the problem. Yeah. I think, I think that

sets up a distance that's that they haven't learned what happened in this period of, of

the arc of internet. Hype. And this is this, this, you know, is it just the internet hype was

hypey enough. This is 10 times hyper year. Wouldn't you agree?

Jason Howell: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I was a lot younger when, when the internet was

first, you know, coming around. And I certainly wasn't as analytical at that time. I was

probably caught up in the hype more than anything because I was very excited by it. But

it, but it feels that way from my point of view now, you know, at the same time, it's really

impressive. You know, some of the, some of the accomplishments that have happened

here, right? Like he discusses deep minds, alpha fold, mapped more than 200 million

protein structures in a single year. If that was equated to the amount of time it takes

traditional researchers to do their work prior to this, that would have been 1 billion years

of traditional research time. And take the sale. That's just amazing. That's absolutely

amazing. And, and that gives the confidence to say, well, if we're doing that now, then

what are we going to accomplish in the next 10 years? It's going to be, you know, a

million fold what, where we are right now.

Jeff Jarvis: Yeah. And presuming the hockey stick is applicable to everything in life

because it presumes the, the, the basis of if we, you know, if we do this much now, thenyou've, you've given a definition of what this is. And then you multiply it by a hundred

and you say, well, that's everything. No, there's a lot of challenges in life. Yeah. And I'm

glad the technology is. We're both boosters of this to the extent that it does the amazing

things, but the booster, the high end boosterism just drives me nuts. So.

Jason Howell: Well, while perplexity CEO, Ariven Srinivas agrees with Demis called

him a genius after this interview and says he, he should be given all the resources he

needs to realize this goal. So that's perplexed by the way, perplexity entering the

conversation. It seems like more and more right now. They're brilliant at PR.

Jeff Jarvis: They are brilliant. Yeah. We're open AI obviously was brilliant because it

took over the world and has gotten all this money and so on and so forth. But just in

terms of, of, of, and perplexity is not as hypy. Oddly enough, right? It doesn't, I don't

hear the AGI stuff quite as much from them. What I see is we can do this. Oh, we're

going to enter this conversation, letter in that conversation. We're going to buy browser.

We're going to buy tick tock. We're going to agree with our competitors. They just sneak

in the stories. Just brilliant.

Jason Howell: Seems, seems to be the case. Yeah. This next one you put in there and

I did not have this on my radar and I thought this would be a really interesting

conversation. The Trump administration, considering a draft executive order that would

direct federal agencies to integrate AI into K through 12 education here in the US, of

course, it's in a very early form at this point, according to this article in the Washington

Post. It would integrate AI into teaching, also administration tasks, create programs

using AI technologies with partnerships with private companies and nonprofits and, and

schools to create and promote foundational AI literacy. And yeah, interesting. I mean,

this just seems to go deep. And obviously I have not read the draft executive order in its

entirety. I've just read this article to kind of get a general sense of what's going on here.

But I find myself a little conflicted because on one hand, I think it's really important to

recognize, you know, this like inflection point that we're in right now with technology and

to, you know, in many ways, embrace it, get ahead, if not ride that wave. On the other

hand, it feels so sudden and drastic to commit so quickly to the level at which, you

know, this article seems to illustrate.

Jeff Jarvis: Well, I love the word they used in the Washington Post story. It is a

pre-decisional word I hadn't heard before. And I'm sorry. It's a concept of a plan. It's a

concept of a plan. I have to do the joke here because the joke is obvious, but they're

having, they instructs education secretary, Linda McMahon, to prioritize federal grant

funding for training teachers, blah, blah, blah. So she's going to put A1 sauce in our

schools. You see the story last week that she confused. She kept on calling AI A1. And

so A1 sauce had a bonanza with that. And so we're all going to pour A1 sauce over ourstudents. Yes. I've done the obvious joke. But this is it's the problem with all these

executive orders is it's with the stroke of my Sharpie, I can change the world. And more

knows in some ways you doing it. But this is not that easy to just say we're going to put

AI in everything. And the irony here is while and I'm trying to get overly political, though

my views are fairly known, while they're cutting into education in every other way

possible. Right.

Jason Howell: Well, that's part of what feels so drastic, right? It's like a one hand taken

acts to all this stuff. On the other hand, let's replace it with AI.

Jeff Jarvis: Right. And and so deeply like it's just based on reading through this, it feels

like such a deeply embedded kind of solution. Obviously, you know, there's they're

chasing down, you know, countries like China who are pursuing, you know, integrating

AI into their efforts in education. And there's a big sentiment right now in U.S. leadership

that like, well, we can't let China win the AI game. We've got to win. And so let's do do it

by every means necessary. And it's just, yeah, it's such a response. It would be such a

response if it actually passed.

Jason Howell: Yeah. And the fear, I think, is that if you're a teacher, they're going to

come and say, well, yeah, we just we just gave you 20 more students, but no problem.

You got to. Right. Or yeah, preparation's hard. Curriculum is hard. But you got AI now.

So this makes your job easy. And of course, it doesn't. Not at all. This morning I

watched something that's still going on right now, William & Mary College. They did

something about education and AI. And my friend Matthew Kirshinbaum, University of

Maryland, and Rita Rayleigh from UC Santa Barbara had done a piece in the Chronicle

of Higher Education about whether AI will kind of ruin universities. And the joke today

was, well, AI doesn't need to. It's happening elsewhere. But not a joke. But there's

concern in the academe at that level, the university level, about the relationship to these

big centralized companies, about the resources that are provided or not provided, about

the freedom that academics will have to do things and whether they were talking about

whether they could run a model under the desk, which in a way, maybe you can do with

some of the stuff we're seeing. And so there's big concerns at an educational level

about AI all around. Nobody is saying it's not amazing. Nobody is saying it's not a tool

that we should use. Nobody is saying we shouldn't teach our students. But this

presumption that, OK, I can pour the A1 sauce into a syllabus and I'm done is kind of

ridiculous. But there is a demand out there. So at Stony Brook, I wrote a syllabus for a

course in AI and creativity. And last I knew a week ago, it already had 91 students

signed up. And so there's a popular demand and desire for this stuff. And so I think

that's great all around. Just do it smartly. Don't do it as if you think one signature and it's

done. That's all.Jason Howell: Yeah, reactively and swiftly. Although that's proving to be kind of a

hallmark

Jason Howell: of where we are right now is reactively and swiftly. For better or for

worse. So yeah, like I said, I'm a little conflicted on this because I do. What I don't want

is for the U.S. education to to only see the bad potential of AI. Oh, well, students are

going to learn to cheat, blah, blah, blah. Like I do believe that AI and what it you know,

the current state of LLM and everything that it's developing into through agentic and

beyond. Like I don't think this goes away and I don't think that wishing it or pretending

like it doesn't exist does any good. And I don't think that the younger generations

coming up necessarily see it or will see it that way either. They're going to embrace it in

a way that we older people are not going to have an easy as easy a time doing because

it's not our normal. But it's their normal. And so, you know, so there is a need to kind of

embrace and kind of lean into that education piece. Just please do it in a responsible

way that doesn't throw out that involves a lot of other goods and involves the community

and how it's done.

Jeff Jarvis: Yeah. And not just say you're not doing enough. I write more. We need

more. Everybody needs an open AI subscription. There we go. Right. Done it now. Do

all your work on open AI. OK, perfect. We've done it. We've done the AI thing. Yeah. Oh,

that's one way to do it. We'll see. Let's talk a little bit about AI generations because I

thought this article, another one that you put in here actually was that was I don't know. I

appreciated reading through it. I'm having a hard time pulling up here. But if you go to

archive today, you can get on. Yeah. I'm not subscribing to Business Insider.

Jason Howell: Yeah. Well, the problem is I try and pull up. I try and pull up the archive

links on Chrome and for whatever reason, it never works for me. Really? I had to load it

in an entirely different browser in order for it to work. Anyway, that's a little behind the

scenes. But you had put in this this article that talks a little bit about AI eras. The fact

that like not too long ago, we were in the simulation era, which is kind of the AlphaGo

era where models were learning through repeated and digital simulations and

reinforcement learning. And there was all the AlphaGo playing the game. And whoa,

can you believe that the game is capable of playing this so quickly and dominating and

everything? That was the beginning. Then there was the human or rather is the human

data era where we are right now dominated by Internet scale data transformer models,

of course, and where we reside right now. And then Google researchers David Silver

and Richard Sutton have proposed, according to this Business Insider article, a major

shift in AI development with a concept called the era of experience. Yeah. What do you

like? Tell me a little bit about the era of experience and experience and what they say.Jeff Jarvis: So, yeah, I thought this was interesting. And by the way, this paper is going

to be part of a book called Designing and Intelligence from MIT Press. So it's a preprint

from Silver and Sutton. And I agree with where this goes. The funny thing was it repeats

what what Jan Nikodin told us. Yeah. So its credit is given to Google and that's nice

because they don't get much credit in the world as much as they want. But this isn't just

Google saying this. What we it's Jensen Wong, Jan Lekun, Google are all saying that

the next phase has to be experienced to teach AI reality. And that's where you're really

headed. And it's going to happen. Reality world models. Yeah. It's going to happen

through robotics and it's going to happen through digital twins and it's going to happen

through data gathering through classes and all that kind of stuff. But it's got to have

some sense of cause and effect. And it doesn't have that yet. It doesn't know that. So

that's going to be really interesting. So I think I think that the point of the paper is good.

Business Insider does kind of a simplistic view that Google told the world what for. Yeah.

Right. This is where everybody's going. And I think we're waiting for that. I don't want to

say leap. I think it's just I'm going to use the word paradigm again. You know, when I

worked at Delphi way back when they had a five dollar paradigm jar. If you use the word

paradigm, you had to put five not just to put five dollars in it. It was that much. It's an

easy word to lean into. I am so guilty of that in the new paradigm. I've had to try and

back off of that word. So there will be, I think, a paradigm shift. Oh, it's worth 15 bucks

already for this experiential layer. But I don't think we've seen it yet. Apart from robots

obviously learning some things, but in ways we can't touch because we have the robot

or digital twin factories. But we don't touch it because we're not seeing what those

alternative futures are or anything like that. I don't think we've seen a consumer level

version of experience yet. Where, oh, it understands that the egg drops. It cracks. Right.

Right. Right. And so I think that's what I'm kind of waiting for is the application layer of

experience learning. And it could be a ways away. And it's not going to be like

generative AI because I don't think a token based world. This I've got way out of my

depth here. Way out folks. But I think this is part of what Yallan Lekun told us in the

wonderful interview, which if you haven't seen it yet, Jason, we'll give you the link in a

second. Is that when you're just dealing with this abstraction of tokens, is I keep on

saying there's no meaning. Well, reality has meaning in so far as that's an egg and this

is what its properties are and this is what can happen to it. And it has to associate it with

that concept of egg. That's not the case in generative AI. It's not the case in machine

learning as it stands now. It will be in robotics. Right. Hand has to achieve. If it's an egg,

don't push too hard because it'll break. Right. You push too hard, it breaks. Right. So I

won't do that again. I've just learned that about the egg or whatever that however it

abstracts that notion of egg. You know, spheroid weight thing. And so this is a little

fascinating to me. I just love this next part of it, but I don't know when it's going to get to

our actual attention past theory.Jason Howell: Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah. And I think one thing that was kind of

interesting to me that I mean is probably just a different way of explaining what you

were just talking about is that the current era that we are in, you know, we often talk

about data scarcity, about the fact that these models are so hungry and they just need

so much information to get smarter and smarter. But yet at the same time, we've almost

fed it almost everything we can at this point. The only way that they get better, you

know, leaps and bounds better into a kind of a new paradigm, as you put it, is by

learning these skills and these limitations themselves beyond just the information that

they've been fed. And so I think that's a really interesting thing to me. I think that's the

wrong way to put it for a machine, you know, lived sense.

Jeff Jarvis: Well, right, exactly. Well, even learning is a troublesome word. Yeah. But

this paper at the end of it emphasizes mainly not robotics, but agents. Right. And it says

that that's what in everyday life, personalized assistance will leverage consistent,

continuous rather, streams of experience to adapt to individuals' health, education,

professional needs, and long-term goals. And that's what I think is the best way to do it.

It was she who said that the creativity is leached out of the models because they've put,

they've modified it down so there's no unpredictability. Because unpredictability is where

you get to problems, hallucinations, all that kind of stuff. So you've got to leave in

mistakes to learn. So you've got to tell it to go off and find the plane ticket, and it doesn't

find the plane ticket, and then it has to, that's part of the process of learning, is failing.

And it's really interesting.

Jason Howell: Absolutely. I mean, absolutely. In the human experience, so much is

learned through failure, even though it's incredibly uncomfortable. But that's part of the

reason why you learn so much from it. It's profound. And yeah, so that's necessary. And

do we, as humans who have created this thing, do we have the patience for failure with

these systems? And it's largely, it seems like people express that they don't because

they continue to harp on AI systems that aren't 100% information accurate 100% of the

time. There's not going to be that way. Same as humans. Humans aren't either. We're

patient with humans because we realize it's part of the human condition to be imperfect,

but we aren't with the machine. And maybe we need to give the machine a little bit more

grace than we do right now.

Jeff Jarvis: Well, if it can't fail, it can't learn. If it can't fail, it can't get that experience.

And so do we have that tolerance for that failure? How do we build that in? Because I

think we have this idea that the machine is a machine, so it can't make mistakes.

Mm-hmm. Interesting stuff. Now, this next one, oh, and you put in another link here. Did

you want to talk about it real quick?Jason Howell: Only parenthetically is that as a business insider gave Google credit for

this thing that we just spent the last time I was talking about, similarly, IEEE,

interestingly, came in because Google often is said to be behind, behind OpenAI,

behind others. IEEE came in and said Google succeeds with LLMs while Meta and

OpenAI stumble. That's the first time I've really seen major credit being given by

somebody of as much stature as IEEE, saying that just talking about the model, just

talking about the performance, I don't really want to go into any depth here, but it was

interesting to see a slight vibe shift there. Google's getting some good juice here.

Jeff Jarvis: There you go. You get what you deserve, Google. You go, Google. This

next one, oh, boy. Got thoughts on this one. A 21-year-old former Columbia University

student has raised $5.3 million in seed funding for his startup called Cluely. It's an AI

tool designed to help users secretly "cheat on everything." So exams, interviews, sales

calls, first dates, as shown by the verifiably creepy promotional video that they shared

on X, that I'm pretty sure only incels will find appealing. The app concept was born out

of founder Chung-In Lee and co-founder Neil Shan-McGum's, I'm sorry if I

mispronounced your name, their tool called InterviewCoder that they developed while

studying at Columbia University. Did they develop this for their work at Columbia

University or was this on the side? Because they were ultimately suspended from the

university and I couldn't figure out if this was something that -- I'm guessing that's a

connection, but it's not clear.

Jason Howell: Yeah, it's not clear. But anyways, the app was designed to allow users

to cheat undetected. They were embroiled in disciplinary proceedings at Columbia over

the AI tool. Right. And they both dropped -- evidence dropped out. So did they create

the tool on their own outside of the university or was it something that they created as

part of their studies? It began as a tool for developers to cheat on knowledge of leaked

code, a platform for coding questions that some in software engineering circles consider

outdated and a waste of time. So maybe it was their way to just say, yeah, but this goes

to the definition, what is cheating?

Jeff Jarvis: Well, yeah. Is it cheating when you use a calculator? Right. And that's kind

of part of what they're saying. Right. The story I tell in my book that no one bought

called Public Parts is that Mark Zuckerberg, when he was still in Harvard there, he had

an art class. And the final in the class would have to be writing things about all of these

pieces of art. And everybody knew that. And so they would do study groups. And so he

organized a study group so that everybody was sharing the best of this. And the

argument in the book that Zuckerberg made was that at the end, everybody did better.

By using social, by not seeing it as competitive, by collaborating, they all learned more.

And he had a study class. But he said that the grades for everyone in the class went up.

So was that cheating? Or was that a smart use of social collaborative thinking? Is itcheating to use the technology? Or is it a smart use of technology as an aid to you? I

think we have to re-examine the notion of cheating. What does cheating mean? I think

that merely is a kind of interesting question. I just asked myself. But I'll ask you too. Is

cheating being unfair? Is cheating being opaque? What constitutes cheating?

Jason Howell: Yeah, is cheating? Yeah, because I mean, I think when I think of

cheating in my older kind of school time paradigm, I think of this is a question that wants

to know my knowledge of something. And instead of sharing my knowledge of

something, I'm sharing what I've written down or what I'm reciting or regurgitating from

this thing in a moment where I was expected to know it instead. But now instead of

knowing it.

Jeff Jarvis: Right. But now leave school. You have a similar task. Right. If you get the

answer you need, is that cheating? Does it matter? If you're tasked with a job and you're

able to do the job, does it matter if you knew the answer or if you sought the answer?

Right. Now, when it gets to dating, that is creepy because it's Sierro de Bergerac. Am I

really dating you or am I dating the app? I mean, that just felt like incredibly deceptive.

That promo video is the guy is sitting at a table with a, you know, I don't know if it's a

blind date or a first date with an attractive woman, of course, and she's asking him

questions. And then you see his kind of like Terminator view coming up of the A.I. kind

of coming up with the answers that he can feed to her. So he's essentially cheating on

the questions that she's asking, lying about, you know, being being an untruthful or

dishonest about his age. When she asked and says, well, you look kind of young, are

you sure you're 29? And he's, you know, he's being fed all this information. And then

when she decides to walk out, then then like the A.I. kicks in to like win her back. And

so he recites that from a very heartfelt place and almost gets her to the point to where

she finally realizes, I just need to get out of here and leave. And it was just kind of like, I

don't know. I don't think that does anything to endear me to what you're talking about,

because I do agree with what you're saying. Like there was a time when calculators

were probably seen in the same.

Jason Howell: Oh, they were. Same, same perspective. A spell check. I mean, you

know, for my preparation for these shows, often I'm using A.I. tools to research, which I

would have had to do manually and by hand earlier. I would have to like do a Google

search and find the stories and collect them, open them in many windows, read through

poll information. Instead of taking 20 minutes to do that, I can take five minutes or

maybe even less and have it pull back those things. And so you could see that as

cheating for these shows, but it doesn't mean that I don't synthesize the information and

do something that I mean, these shows are prime example. Hopefully you get benefit

and value out of it. And if you do, then it's just an example that it kind of doesn't matter.

For those of you listening, you're watching. I hope you think that. Oh, good. Jason andJeff read some stuff that I don't. I don't need to read now. Of course, that pisses off

media hearing it said that way. But it's true. You don't have time to read everything. And

maybe in some cases you say, oh, that's interesting to me. I'm going to look it up. I want

to learn more, but that's our choice. It's the same exact problem we get to with search

and media right now and social media right now is is everything need not be the

destination. So anyway, yes, so these students are out. I say more power to them. I

mean, yeah, I bet they've. Got a got a pathway here. I think this will be interesting to

watch. Just just drop the like the manipulative kind of aspect, you know, with with like

dating and stuff. Because all right. How about the other example they give the main

example they give us sales calls. Is that bad?

Jeff Jarvis: I believe you get lied to. Yeah, it's yeah, I suppose it's bad if it's dishonest.

But if it's not. And it's targeted to what my needs are and sells me what I want. Yeah,

totally. If I'm a sales agent, I'm going to go through training in order to effectively sell and

effectively say the right things and effectively not say the wrong things and recognize

cues and all this kind of stuff. If there's a tool that enables me to do that part of my job

better, I don't see anything wrong. I mean, the key to all sales things. There's a guy

named Jeffrey Gittamer who writes sales books, like my first book. And so I watched

how this operates. And same as in what I teach in journalism is listening. It's listening to

people understanding what their needs are, empathizing with those needs and trying to

come up with solutions for those needs. And if your solution is in fact legitimate and

good, you make a say. There you go. Right. That's okay. In fact, so we hear a lot about

how this is going to come to customer service. And phone mail jail and all the hell we go

through. Right. So the agent is reading the script. Get off the damn script. And the fear

is that I will be even worse than that. But it may be far better than that. It may

understand my need better. It may be more responsive to that need. It may be able to

get to a solution faster. I was going to say maybe faster. Sometimes it's painful. The only

if the AI is given the true agentic power if it has agency to do so. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Very

interesting. Let's take a super quick break. Then we got a few more stories around

things out, including Oscars kind of becoming a little bit more welcoming to AI.

Jason Howell: All right. The Academy of motion picture arts and sciences officially

updated its rules to allow films that are using generative AI to compete for Oscars. So

basically coming out with an official stance to say, Hey, you know what? Just because

AI tools were used to which by the way, it's, I mean, it's, it's, if it hasn't, you know, just

overtaken or at least, you know, highly influenced how these movies are made, it's

going to at a very swift, swift move. But this just ensures that, but they're basically

saying like, it's okay. As long as there's a human involved, they say they do emphasize

that the films where human creativity and human involvement are central will be more

heavily considered, heavily considered. So not like requirement. But the filmmakers do

not have to disclose the use of AI that had been considered as one thing. And that's notthe case here. So basically they're saying at the end of the day, what we've been talking

about AI is just another tool and yes, you can use it. Just be responsible. And hopefully

you've got humans also doing things on these things too. You can still win appeal. It's

here. If you use a typewriter.

Jeff Jarvis: Yeah, right. Hey, that's a great example. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. When word

processing came in, it wasn't, it wasn't to the level of moral panic, but it was, um, some

fear that somehow this was too easy. Somehow this was, this was going to change

things. And it does change the way I wrote. It meant because I wrote in the old

typewriter days. Mm-hmm. So it did change immensely. It made it easier. It made it

faster. It made it, it gave me more power. The barrier. It levels the playing. It lets too

many people in.

Jason Howell: Yeah, right. It doesn't quite gate keep the way we used to have it.

Jeff Jarvis: Bingo. Bingo. Yep. Yep. Yeah. Well, so I'm a Howard Stern fan and, um, uh,

he complained when the public podcast started. And I think, I think I had this argument

with him once on, on the air. Oh, podcast is nothing. You've got to learn radio. You've

got to work your way up or just full old fart, right? Right. Now you see the Joe Rogan's

of the world are huge and even he has to admit that. Okay. So he's still there. Yeah.

Yeah. Howard Stern. Is he, is he still rocking? I haven't listened to the show in many

years.

Jason Howell: He's on serious. He's got to pay. Yeah. Yeah. He's a, he's become an

amazing interviewer speaking.

Jeff Jarvis: Yeah. Yeah. Cool. Yeah. I used to really be into his show. He used to love

it. I need to check it out again. Uh, and then finally, yeah. Okay. We're, we're back to

open AI, but I thought this was a good way to lead back.

Jason Howell: Yeah. They begin and end with open AI these days, but I thought this

was a good way to, to kind of round out the show. Uh, CEO Sam Altman shared that

users say, please, and thank you to chat GPT. As we know, we've talked about it before,

and this results in tens of millions of dollars in operational costs. Says there are a

significant energy costs to processing, uh, every word that is typed into a chatbot, of

course, please. And thank you are also words that enter in there. He couldn't help

himself in saying it's still a good idea to be nice. You just never know someday the robot

might have mercy on your soul. Couldn't help, but kind of get that, that, how many

useless words? Oh, you know, there's a paradox of text. Cause I'm writing this book

about the line of type. And if you go back to the difficulty of writing in the past, whether it

was, uh, by, by scribal quill, right? Or by setting type one letter at a time, all that was

really laborious. Yet people were very long winded then. When we get to this age of theinternet, and especially things like Twitter, where we could go on as long as we want.

And suddenly we, we come up with new ways to be as, um, economical with our

language as we can be. It's just kind of interesting to me. So, um, uh, the one hand, I

think that we were used to using the least words possible for both Twitter and Google

search. And now AI comes along and says, no, say more, but whenever time you say

more, it costs money. It costs energy. I mean, it all costs money. I think people are

dumping incredible quantities of data into their LLMs, you know, and a short one or two

letter nicety is, is, is not moving the needle here. I mean, I guess, you know, in the, in

the sense that everything at this scale adds up to some large number, but large number

by comparison to the actual large number that is the overall cost of all words and

everything. It's just a, I mean, it's a spec. It's a grain of sand.

Jeff Jarvis: Yeah. And there's new efficiency to be, and I remember when, when, when

search and web came up with caching, that was a big deal. Save effort. Speaking of

which there was a story that didn't make it run around, but I'm trying to mention real

quickly because we talked about this a few weeks ago where, uh, sites are being driven

mad by AI, uh, scrapes scrapers coming in and costing them a huge amount of

bandwidth. And so Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation finally said, Oh, to heck with

this. And so they've put up, uh, a, um, uh, 461,000 freely accessible data sets here.

Don't scrape us. Go there. Don't take it. Okay. We've got, we've talked about this not too

long.

Jason Howell: Exactly. And so I was talking about how if, if news and other sites did

this and say, here, just take it. It's okay. Here it is. But stop scraping me every day.

Cause it's costing me money. And I think this is as, as, as so often the case, Wikimedia

foundation is ahead of the rest and thinking smart, um, about this technology. Don't

scrape me, bro. So you can, you too can go get that data on Kaggle. Is it Kaggle or

Kaggle? I guess two Gs. I guess Kaggle. Uh, I would say probably Kaggle. It appears to

me that it's Kaggle, but who the heck knows? Uh, interesting. Cool. Well, we have

reached the end of this episode of AI inside Jeff Jarvis. Thank you so much for being

with me for another hour of, of getting smarter on artificial intelligence and everything.

Uh, the web we weave is a wonderful book that everybody should read. You can go to

JeffJarvis.com to find that the Gutenberg parenthesis in pay magazine. Uh

Jeff Jarvis: Yes. And a magazine, you cannot find public parts here though. You said

that was that nobody read that. I didn't, you can probably find an eBay. I don't know.

Let's see if you go to Amazon. As public parts was of course my Howard Stern joke

because he wrote private parts. Yes. Yes. Indeed. Okay. You can still get the audio

book. Yeah. Let's see. I got it. You got it. There you go. Yeah. Yeah. Hardcover $6

paperback $12. Yeah. These are, are you, you can get it on audio book. Of course. No,

maybe. Yeah. No. It's there. You go. You go deep into the catacombs of Jeff's work. Youcan cool. And this is from 2011. So, yeah. Hey, you've been writing a lot of books for a

long time. It's worth mentioning your whole catalog from time to time. Thank you, Jeff.

So much fun.

Jason Howell: Thank you, Jason. Always a big time. Thank you to, uh, to everybody for

visiting the site, of course, uh, where you can go to, you know, find all the ways to

subscribe to the show, ai inside.show. And then of course there is the Patreon,

patreon.com/ai inside show. And I will just go ahead and throw that up on the screen

along with our amazing executive producers, Dr. Doo, Jeffrey Maricchini, WPVM 103.7

in Asheville, North Carolina, Dante St. James Bono de Rick and Jason Nifer, by the

way, he corrected me on, uh, on how to say his name. Jason Brady are amazing,

amazing patrons that, uh, that, you know, support us on a, on a deeper level as

executive producers. So patreon.com/ai inside show. But I think that's about it y'all.

Thank you so much. Thank you again, Jeff. It's a lot of fun. We'll see everybody next

time on another episode of AI inside. Bye everybody.

Jeff Jarvis: Bye everybody.