← The AI Daily Brief: Artificial Intelligence News and Analysis
The AI Daily Brief: Artificial Intelligence News and Analysis
The Rise of the Anti-AI Movement
00:30:25
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:01]
A
Today on the AI Daily Brief we are talking about the rise of the anti AI movement. The AI Daily Brief is a daily podcast and video about the most important news and discussions in AI. Alright friends, quick notes before we dive in. First of all, thank you to today's sponsors, Robots and Pencils, Sweet Scrunch, AIUC and Blitzy. To get an ad free version of the show go to patreon.com aidaily brief or you can subscribe on Apple Podcasts. If you want to learn more about sponsoring the show, send us a note at SponsorsiDailyBrief AI. You can also head to AIDAILYBrief AI to find out all about the ecosystem of projects that surround the AI Daily Brief. We've got our claw camp where 4,000 people are learning how to use OpenClaw and build agents and build agent teams, our AI operators community where people are sharing their ideas about AI every day and so on and so forth. Now a last note about this episode before we dive in. If you live anywhere near New York right now, you know we are just coming off of getting truly walloped by what is predicted to be one of the biggest blizzards in the last five years. Unfortunately for me, it turns out that the blizzard's path and timing was nearly identical to our family's flight back from South America. Meaning of course that it got pushed and I am having to record this show in advance. Now. This kind of works out because this is a topic I've wanted to do for a little while now and was planning to do sometime this week, but this is a prerecord. I'm actually recording this on Sunday, February 22nd. Unless something dramatic happens. I should be back tomorrow with our normal format. So what we are talking about today is the anti AI movement. And to be honest, calling it a movement might be a little overstated at the moment. It is certainly not one big organized thing. The reasons for it are not monolithic and it would be reasonable for one to ask to what extent this is just driven by media narrative. It is certainly the case that for the last few years since the launch of ChatGPT, we've had a pretty never ending cycle of AI hyper hype and enthusiasm is the main media story around it followed by some type of skeptical narrative when that excited narrative fails to be exciting anymore and the media is all over this one right now. Just this weekend from the New York Times we got a piece called People Loved the Dot Com Boom. The AI Boom not so much. In it, author David Stratfield asks tech leaders are beginning to worry about the public's underwhelming enthusiasm for their plans to remake the world with artificial intelligence. Will that burst the bubble? And then of course, even more commented on the Time magazine cover from last week. Called the People versus AI. The COVID features nine headshots of people who, for various reasons find themselves opposed to AI, at least as it's currently constituted, forming the basis for a large cover story about this emergent political and societal force. For some, they believe that this is all somewhat deserving of scorn. Lumps on X shared a remixed version of the Time magazine cover, this one featuring nine cave people, with the headline being the People versus The Wheel Grunts from the Silent Majority Dragging Rocks and Rolling is a Drag. I've also seen plenty of versions of this with the people versus the Internet or the People versus any other technology. Now, of course, what's being implied here is that with any new technology there is always some amount of resistance that eventually looks silly and shortsighted in retrospect and for those who are most involved in this technology, I do understand the frustration of feeling assailed for building or working on a thing that you think is going to be really positive, but where it feels like so many people are genuinely mad at you just for doing what you're doing. And yet I think it would be a mistake to view the rise of anti AI sentiment as simply a media narrative. There is a huge and growing canon of studies that show particularly Americans have extreme skepticism around AI. A recent YouGov study found that 58% of Americans said that they don't have trust in AI, versus 35% who do. 45% of Americans said that they think that AI's effect on the economy will be mostly negative, versus just 16% who think that it will be more positive than negative. And nearly 2/3 of Americans in that YouGov poll, 63% think AI will lead to a decrease in the number of jobs available in the US versus just 7% who think that it will increase the number of jobs. In a Pew Research poll from last year, the US ranked dead last in terms of the ratio of citizens who were more concerned versus more excited about AI. Only 10% of those polled said that they were more excited than concerned versus 50% who said they were more concerned than excited. So the point here is that whatever reasons you want to ascribe to it, and even if you think that it is overblown in the media narrative, there is definitely a base level of skepticism and concern among Americans when it comes to artificial intelligence. And what's more, it seems to be growing. A number of videos out of New Brunswick, New Jersey went viral on X after hundreds of citizens showed up to a planning meeting about a data center and got the project canceled. That video, shared just a couple of days ago, got 5 million views. Organizer Ben Zobiak, who posted the video, wrote, a data center in New Brunswick was canceled tonight when hundreds of residents showed up. When we fight big tech and private equity, we win. AI curator Andrew Curran writes, after three years, it seems to me that public anti AI sentiment in the west is now at its highest point. Political commentator and statistician Nate Silver has been talking about this a lot. He recently tweeted, if AI produces unprecedented levels of technological disruption on timescales that are an order of magnitude or 2 faster than anything in human history, it's going to be an unprecedented political fight. And for what it's worth, the timelines potentially line up with the 2028 US election. He also talks about how this white collar first disruption doesn't have political precedent. He writes, usually these transitions would take decades and not affect white collar workers first who have more political power. Displacement of narrow classes of blue collar workers, for example Coal miners, even if most of society would benefit, usually causes huge political battles here. The displacement would be much broader, the benefits are less clear, and the people displaced are more influential. In another tweet more specifically focused on the data center concern, Nate writes, opposition to building data centers might be irrational at the micro scale, they're just going to be built somewhere else. But at the mesoscale, people are profoundly doubtful about whether AI will broadly benefit society. And that's not so irrational at all. People don't like being forced into prisoners dilemmas they didn't ask for, and it is macro level rational for them to feel resistance and indeed resentment towards that. Joe Wiesenthal from Bloomberg's Odd Lots, perhaps somewhat provocatively, as is his style on Twitter, writes, this is a good take. I haven't heard anyone in the AI world credibly articulate why the average person should assume it will make their life better. Typically they say the opposite. Ethan Malik writes, I would add that when imagining backlash, people think of Dunes, Butlerian Jihad or Luddites. But what those fights actually looked like during the previous industrial revolutions were about regulation, redistribution, nationalization. Unions and safety nets could expect similar now. It will come as no surprise that I have very different feelings than most of the anti AI folks when it comes to the substance of the issues. But I do not believe that the concerns are not legitimate. Nor do I think it behooves the AI industry to ignore these voices and these concerns. In fact, I think the leaders of the AI industry have done a spectacularly bad job of both acknowledging and addressing real concerns that people have. We may want things that are exciting to us to be exciting to others, to have things that are self evident or obvious to us be self evident and obvious to others. But that's not how the world works. And if we acknowledge and believe that the impact scale of this technology is going to be circa everyone, we have to be willing to engage with circa everyone. When I saw the Time cover, I absolutely cringed inside. Not because I'm unwilling or even disinterested in AI critique, but because usually what the media puts in front of us is quite bad. I actually came away from the piece, however, feeling, believe it or not, pretty optimistic. Not exclusively, but by and large the people they focused on as their reference points for the COVID story were not ideologues or careerist skeptics. They were people who in many cases aren't even necessarily anti AI by disposition, but who find themselves concerned with some specific impact of the technology and advocating for some specific change in policy around it. In most of these cases, I found the concerns leveled in good faith in ways that were actually solvable. And so what I thought would be useful is to actually try to break apart the anti AI movement into constituent categories so we're not talking about this thing in monolithic terms. Like I said at the beginning, I think this is much less an organized movement and much more right now, pockets of concerns and resistance that could at some point easily coalesce into a larger political force. So let's quickly go through a handful of different categories and try to understand what their big concerns are. We'll start first with the AI safety folks, the people who are concerned about X risk or existential risk, who talk to each other about what their P doom is. P doom being Probability of Doom that AI ends us all. These are the voices that you will sometimes find AI folks critiquing as living in the realm of the sci fi. It's the paperclip maximalists who argue for why super intelligent AI would be likely to end humanity. Not even necessarily out of malice, but but because we stood in the way of accomplishing some goal that they were trying to achieve. The voice of this group was much louder right after ChatGPT was launched, probably for the reason that you could get crazy headlines about how the robots were going to kill us all and folks like Eliezer Yudkowski to come in your magazine and write an essay to that effect. Now, just like within the anti AI movement overall, and frankly on the opposite side of the AI booster train, there is a massive spectrum of folks even just within this concern range. Many of them operate from a place of genuinely good faith, which creates much more room for discussion, even if you fundamentally disagree with everything that they think. You can go check out the AI Safety memes account on Twitter as an example, or even check out Laurent Shapiro's Doom Debates podcast. I think even if one fundamentally disagrees with the concerns animating these folks, it's worth having a bit of epistemic humility about all of this, given that none of us know the actual future. Now, an interesting note about these folks is that unlike some of the others in the anti AI space, they actually quite agree with the accelerationists on how powerful AI is. It's just they're very concerned about what the implications of that are. Interestingly, I don't really think that these folks have been as much of a driver of the conversation as it might have seemed if you looked just in the first six months after ChatGPT was launched. Going back to that tweet by Andrew Curran about how public anti AI sentiment is now at its highest point, he continued, the primary driver by far is not X risk, but concerns about employment and the impact on art safety. Advocacy might have been more effective and might now be in a much stronger position if they had emphasized societal and economic impacts more than X risk over the last last few years. Moving on to the next category of the anti AI folks are what we might call the capability skeptics. These are the folks you see running around on social networks claiming things like AI is just fancy autocomplete, demonstrating just how much the anti AI space is not one thing. These folks disagree with the safeties because if AI is just fancy autocomplete, it's obviously not going to take over the world and turn us all into paperclips. If you're looking for an example of this, one of the most prominent examples is Gary Marcus. And honestly, believe it or not, this is the group that I kind of have the most frustration with. The people who've been lobbying these arguments take advantage of Every time the media narrative shifts against AI to update their previous essay about why AI has plateaued despite the fact that it's plateaued at a point significantly more advanced than the last time they said the same thing. I think in general, the capability skeptics are pedantic pretty viciously intellectually rigid and unable to change their perception based on new evidence, and ultimately almost entirely ignorable. I don't think we should mistake the fact that a few people can make careers by being the token skeptics on the panel with their perspective actually being useful. And the reason that I have the most frustration and animosity towards this group is that these are the ones who so many normal folks want to be right. They want them to be right so they can safely ignore this thing that they don't particularly like until it fades like NFTs. I genuinely believe that many people will not engage meaningfully with AI because the capability skeptics aid and abet their natural disinclination to do so. And because of that, those people will be extremely far behind when it comes to AI usage. They will be the least adaptable to AI disruption, the least likely to benefit from new opportunities that AI creates. And because of that, I genuinely believe that the capability skeptics will cause more economic harm when it comes to individual people than the AI hypesters who overstate things in order to sell their products. Now, to the extent that there's one subset of this group that have at least a reasonable point is the group that isn't trying to say every five minutes that AI is on some new plateau, but who do caution that we should turn the volume down on everything just a few notches because the actual diffusion pattern by which it makes it into the workplace and into society is inevitably going to be much longer than we think. I don't even know if you can really count them alongside the capability skeptics. Maybe a better framing would be the timeline skeptics, but they, I think have a much more reasonable point. Today's episode is brought to you by Robots and Pencils, a company that is growing fast. Their work as a high growth AWS and databricks partner means that they're looking for elite talent ready to create real impact at velocity. Their teams are made up of AI native engineers, strategists and designers who love solving hard problems and pushing how AI shows up in real products. They move quickly using roboworks, their agentic acceleration platform, so teams can deliver meaningful outcomes in weeks, not months. They don't build big teams, they build high impact, nimble ones. The people there are wicked smart with patents, published research and work that's helped shaped entire categories. They work in velocity pods and studios that stay focused and move with intent. If you're ready for career defining work with peers who challenge you and have your back. Robots and pencils is the place. Explore open roles@rootsandpencils.com careers that's robotsandpencils.com careers quick question. When was the last time you actually visited a website to research something? If you're like me, AI pretty much. Does that work for you now? That of course raises a new question for brands. If AI is doing the discovering, researching and deciding who or what is your website really for that shift in user behavior, the rise of AI bots becoming your most important new visitors is what my sponsor Scrunch is taking head on. Scrunch is the AI customer experience platform that helps marketing teams understand how AI agents experience their site, where they show up in AI Answers, where they don't, and what's preventing them from being retrieved, trusted or recommended. And it's not just visibility. Scrunch shows you the content gaps, citation gaps and technical blockers that matter and helps you fix them so your brand is found and chosen in AI Answers. Now for our listeners, Scrunch is providing a free website audit that uncovers how AI sees your site, where there's gaps, and how you're showing up in AI versus the competition. Run your site through it at scrunch.com aidaily There's a new standard that I think is going to matter a lot for the enterprise AI agent space. It's called AIUC1 and it builds itself as the world's first AI agent standard. It's designed to cover all the core enterprise risks, things like data and privacy, security, safety, reliability, accountability and societal impact, all verified by a trusted third party. One of the reasons it's on my radar is that 11 labs, who you've heard me talk about before and is just an absolute juggernaut right now, just became the first voice agent to be certified again against AIUC1 and is launching a first of its kind insurable AI agent. What that means in practice is real time guardrails that block unsafe responses and protect against manipulation, plus a full safety stack. This is the kind of thing that unlocks enterprise adoption. When a company building on 11 labs can point to a third party certification and say our agents are secure, safe and verified, that changes the conversation. Go to AIUC.com to learn about the world's first standard for AI agents. That's AIUC.com youm've tried in IDE copilots. They're fast, but they only see local silos of your code. Leverage these tools across a large enterprise codebase and they quickly become less effective. The fundamental constraint context. Blitzy solves this with infinite code context, understanding your code base down to the line level dependency across millions of lines of code. While copilots help developers write code faster, Blitzy orchestrates thousands of agents that reason across your full code base. Allow Blizzi to do the heavy lifting, delivering over 80% of every sprint autonomously with rigorously validated code. Blitzee provides a granular list of the remaining work for humans to complete with their copilots Tackle feature additions, large scale refactors, legacy modernization, greenfield initiatives all 5x faster. See the blitzy difference at blizzi.com that's blitzy.com. Next up, a group that has some overlap with the skeptics, but are ultimately a different thing. These we'll call the AI bubblers. They're not necessarily, or at least a priori, skeptical of the capabilities of AI. In fact, many of them are convinced in the long term power and disruption potential of AI. They're skeptical of the business side of things. They're skeptical of where value is going to get realized. They're skeptical of whether today's business models can support the deal and debt structures that are financing the industry. They're skeptical of the market's valuations of these companies. Maybe the most prominent of these, at least right now when it comes to a media profile, is Michael Burry of Big Short fame. One of the things that I've always said on this show is that it's extremely important to break apart skepticism of the technology itself from skepticism of the market's interaction with the technology. It would be a completely coherent intellectual position. In other words, for someone to think that AI is going to and even is now radically changing things and still not think the market is pricing the companies behind it correctly. The next category we'll call the artist advocates. Now, in some cases, these are folks in the artistic or entertainment fields who are frustrated that AI is doing the things that they and their peers used to do. Others are concerned about copyright and IP more generally. And then of course, a big group of these folks are kind of just normal folks who aren't necessarily artists themselves, who just have a general uneasiness of the fairness of things, which is not something that, for example, Supreme Court decisions about copyright and AI are going to solve. The next grouping doesn't exactly describe a motivation for disliking AI, but a shared organizing principle that cuts across many people who don't like AI, which is to viscerally dislike the outputs of AI. We'll call these the slop secessionists and it's the people, like the millions of commentators on Time magazine 1776 Project by Darren Aronofsky, where they're using AI to go create mini documentaries about that pivotal year in American history, with all of the YouTube commenters basically just absolutely railing on it for looking like, in their estimation, AI slop. Like I said, I don't think that people are anti AI because they dislike slope. I think they dislike and consider the output of AI slop because they're already anti AI. But it's enough of a cultural force that it is worth identifying on its own terms. Another group which has a significant amount of attention, particularly in religious and conservative circles, are the folks who are really concerned about the impact of AI on children and teens. They're concerned about human relationship structures. They're concerned about the impact of AI on child development. They're concerned about what happens when people want to talk to AI girlfriends and boyfriends more than real life girlfriends and boyfriends. I found that this category of concern is invisible to many who aren't around the circles where it's important, but incredibly pertinent. In fact, maybe the very top of the list in certain groups and communities, the data center deniers we touched on at the beginning of the show and are a growing political force of people who are specifically pushing back on data centers showing up in their community. This group of course, overlaps with the environmental activists who are concerned about AI's impact on the environment through things like the consumption of water for data centers as well as just the general electricity profile of the industry. But these two are slightly different. Whereas the environmentally concerned folks are thinking on macro scale, many of the people that are showing up at data center protests are just focused on very close to home issues like the actual or potential rise of their electricity bills. Now, I think the category that is by far the biggest, most broad based, and has potentially the biggest political footprint is those who are concerned about the job displacement potential of AI. Anyone who listens to this show will have heard me talk about this quite a bit, so I don't think we need to get too deep into this. Simply put, the concern here is that if AI does everything better than us, what jobs are there left for people now? I actually have lots of answers to that, but the point of today's episode is not to answer the concerns of all these different categories. It's just to acknowledge that they exist, that they are in many cases growing, and that they're real positions that real people have, not just some sidelong concerns for Internet debates. Now, one interesting subcategory of the folks concerned about job displacement, which we see in the timepiece, are the folks who aren't just generally concerned about things like white collar job disruption, but have specific issues and criticisms with the way that AI is being implemented in particular workplaces. An example of this from the timepiece is nurse Hannah Drummond. Now, based on Time's profile, which is of course all I know about Hannah, it doesn't seem to me like she's some ideologue who rejects AI on principle is that she has specific concerns with how it's used in her field, which she understandably feels like she has some ground level lived experience. Insight into Time writes Drummond helped nurses at 17 facilities in the HCA hospital system, including her own, win AI protections in their most recent contract, including a provision requiring hospitals to give registered nurses a say in how new technologies related to patient care are implemented. Drummond points to concerns that nurses have had where the improper use of AI has not only been not helpful but actively harmful. One example she gave was of an AI tool that was designed to automate shift handoffs that had assigned a patient with COVID alongside another who was immunocompromised, which created obviously big risks for the immunocompromised patient. Drummond, Time writes, doesn't want to ban AI from hospitals, but says there need to be strict controls around its use. She says everything that reaches patients in healthcare has gone through rigorous testing and is proven to be safe, effective and free from harming us. Why would we cut out those same test points for this? Now, the last category of the anti AI folks that I wanted to discuss is once again kind of a catch all and we'll call the big tech haters. There are a bunch of flavors of this One flavor that's increasingly popular in political rhetoric is the tech billionaires as partisan villains. This is of course more prominent, although not exclusively prominent, on the left, and is aided and abetted by tech's loud shift towards Trump in the most recent election cycle, as well as the very visible involvement of people like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk on a national political stage. There are folks for whom, hold aside any idea of Marc Andreessen as a supervillain, just have concerns in general about how much power the big tech companies have accrued. And again, going back to the core idea at the heart of this episode of having humility even around positions that one doesn't hold, it is absolutely the case that up until the last generation we had never had companies that touched billions of people in the way that big tech companies do. Part of the reason that it's so hard to regulate big tech, part of is that networks and network effects don't operate in the same way that previous types of companies did. And however one wants to resolve them, there are lots of legitimate questions around the balance of powers between civil society, governments and companies, with big tech being a quintessential example. Now, one group which I actually think explains an extraordinary amount of AI animosity is the folks who look back now 20 years on from the advent of social media who believe that not only has social media not particularly helped us, but in fact that the world is actively worse for it existing. Matthew Iglesias wrote about this recently, saying all discussions about AI happen in the shadow of the tremendous and very sincere optimism about the cultural impact of social media that existed 15 to 25 years ago. I think that even people who are very technology forward and progressive have massive concerns about the last generation of technology and social media, which you can see in the way that millennial parents are handling social media for their kids. I have a four almost five year old and a seven year old and none of the parents in and around our community are even considering giving their kids smartphones when they're young. We'll see how this changes in practice, but right now pretty much all the parents I know who are not I will be clear Luddite anti technology folks. Many of them work in the technology field, but not a one of them wants their 12 or 13 year old interacting with Instagram. Indeed, when you zoom out, I think that there are a few ingredients that are creating a particularly caustic environment for AI right now in America. One, like I just mentioned, is that many are not convinced that we're better off because of the Internet and so have a hard time accepting that all technology is inherently progress. Related very closely to that is what I was just discussing, which is the legitimate concerns of people around the incredible power of the big technology companies to shape our lives when the big output of those companies are not things that we perceive as generally having made our lives better, but social media platforms that so often make us feel worse. That colors how people look at the promise of a new generation of technology as well as But I think that the other important part is that everything to some extent is downstream of economics, and economics for most people right now is actually or at least perceived to be very hard. Now there is a ton of exploration around why people's perception of their own individual economic situation has gotten so much worse even as General macro statistics have gotten better. Many people have answers to this question about the so called Vibe session. Some of it is related to the social media that we just talked about. The idea that people are now constantly confronted with images of people leading the lives that they'd like to that they can't afford that changes people's perception of their own economic situation, even if in real terms things haven't gotten worse or have even gotten better. There are also more discrete actual economic things that don't have to do with just perception. When the price of essentials like groceries, transportation, healthcare and housing rise faster than overall inflation, it doesn't really matter if advanced technology like flat screen TVs have gotten cheaper. You're feeling the pinch in a week to week way when you go to the grocery store. And then of course, on top of all of this, we are in just an extremely politically divided moment, which makes this easier to make this partisan. So you have all of these reasons that set up a rough environment for AI in terms of public perception. And then you have the so called leaders of this industry. Sam Altman recently said in a public discussion, people talk about how much energy it takes to train an AI model, but it also takes a lot of energy to train a human. It takes like 20 years of life and all the food you eat during that time before you get smart context. Engineer Maratz and Koilan responded to this. I build AI for a living. I believe in what we're building. But this kind of rhetoric makes my work harder and more dangerous. Comparing human development to model training is tone deaf and strategically reckless. People are losing jobs. They're getting angry. They're seeing AI as an enemy instead of a solution. Some are planning to destroy data centers and the people who build this stuff. That anger and backlash might not be reaching your floor, but it reaches the engineers and builders doing the actual work. The CEO of the most visible AI company should not frame humans as inefficient compute units. Your role as a leader is to show how AI solves real problems for humanity, not to reduce human life to an energy accounting problem from a comfortable position. I'm a techno optimist. I believe AI enhances human capability. I work with this new form of intelligence every day. I genuinely respect what it is. It is real, significant and unlike anything that has existed before. But I also believe in human excellence. We have to accept that it's two fundamentally different forms of intelligence working together. In my humble opinion, the real techno optimist position isn't AI is cheaper than humans. It's we now have two forms of intelligence on this planet, and the combination is more powerful than either alone. Speaking to Sam directly, he concludes, you're the leader of OpenAI, and whether you chose it or not, you represent everyone building an AI right now. Every word you say shapes how the world sees this technology and the people behind it. Please act like it now. I wanted to do this episode to break apart the different elements of anti AI sentiment right now because I think that as we get more precise about what people's concerns are, we can do more to address them. And like I indicated at the beginning, call me naive, but I think that there's more room for optimism than people might think, even in the critique. Coming back to the nine folks profiled in this Time magazine piece, what you don't have in there is anyone claiming that an army of robots is going to rise up and kill us all for some unknown reason. You don't have anyone talking about AI bubbles and concerns about market pricing or people giving the line that, well, actually AI isn't all that good. Instead, you have folks like Hannah Drummond that we just profiled who aren't unwilling to engage with AI in their field. They just want to ensure that it's actually helpful. Austin based pastor Michael Grayson is very demonstratively not AI on principle, but worried about teen chatbot dependency in the loneliness epidemic. Muskogee Nation activists Jordan Harmon and Mackenzie Roberts are concerned with data centers, but not because data centers are a priori bad, because in the specific area that they work, they're getting tangled up with sovereign and native land rights. Georgia Public Service Commission member Alicia Johnson again is not actually against AI. She wants the way that data centers get built to be economically fair, the way that increased energy generation capacity used to be brought online, where the cost of setting up new generation was passed on to local consumers very obviously doesn't work when those consumers aren't the beneficiary. But all that new power goes to a data center. But that is an unbelievably solvable issue and frankly, the fact that it hasn't been solved yet is, I think, a massive failure of both policy and imagination from the people who are building the data centers. There is absolutely no reason, with the economic structures being what they are, the data centers couldn't be some of the most pro community, positively engaged types of businesses wherever they operate. By the way, even Donald Trump is on this train, increasingly pushing the AI operators to make commitments to ensure that they are better stewards for the communities that their data centers operate within. A last point of optimism, as we conclude, is that right now the political discourse around AI has not hardened. It hasn't hardened from a partisan perspective. And even the policies that people want to address all these issues are still forming. Politicians are currently exploring new types of proposals for new policies for the AI age, and there's still a ton of room to shape perception of what should be done. I'm sure that as political campaigns take on a bigger portion of mindshare in 2026, we'll be talking more about what some of those proposals look like. But the point is that right now the world has not, despite what X might make you think, hardened into the transhumanist accelerationists on the one hand, and the Neo Luddites on the other. The vast, vast majority of people sit in the middle trying to make sense of what this is all going to mean for them, their families and their communities. They are not going to accept blindly that somehow this is just going to be a good thing. But most of them are also not going to reject out of hand the possibility that it could be. The more we do to address real issues, even if it's incrementally and one by one, the more that we might be able to shift the emerging anti AI movement into a cautiously optimistic coalition that actually can look forward to the future. Ultimately, this show is not going to turn into a political show, and it is not going to primarily focus on the societal impacts of AI, although that will always be a part. My mission in all of this is to give the people who have decided that AI is going to be an incredibly important force in their lives going forward all the tools I possibly can to make that as positive for them and their families as can be. But when I see this Time Magazine piece, I do not see a bunch of opponents. I just see opportunity. Wish me luck getting home. Hopefully I will be with you in normal form from the Hudson Valley tomorrow. For now, that is going to do it for today's AI Daily Brief. Appreciate you listening or watching as always. And until next time, until peace.