C (3:03)

So I have seen these things everywhere and I never really thought about what they are And I'm sure you've seen them too, Perry. I'll put them up on the screen. These flock safety cameras all throughout cities and towns in the U.S. those little poles with a solar panel on top and a little camera sticking off. They're definitely where I live. They where you live?

D (3:21)

Oh yeah. I don't know where. I know I've seen them around though, so I can't place them in my mind, but I see those solar panels stuck up everywhere, usually also connected to other things, powering otherwise discreet, hard to power devices.

C (3:37)

Yeah. And they just blend into the background. I feel like I got super used to them. Never really questioned it. And then the other day this video came out from a YouTuber who I love, Ben Jordan. He's great. You might remember him. Eagle eared listeners will remember the poison pill he made for adversarial noise and music AI training. And he has done. He did an incredible expose on these cameras. I'm going to give us the first minute, we'll talk a little bit about it. This is definitely a video that I would recommend watching, but it's 35 minutes long, so definitely something to watch over dinner. But here is the the first 60 seconds.

F (4:07)

If you're an American, you've been probably seeing a whole bunch of these things and in some places they're so common that you don't even notice them. They just blend into the background like they're trees or street lights. And you've probably correctly assumed that they're recording traffic. They're also recording and logging license plates and using AI image recognition. But what if I told you that they are in fact not owned by your local police department or your local government, but are licensed to them by a third party startup and all of your vehicle's whereabouts are being tracked by a third party data broker. What if I also told you that major retail chains are also using them and they're combining your vehicle's whereabouts with your personal information, your shopping habits and even your in store behavior. And some of them are giving that information to law enforcement. And what if I told you that I just possibly may have come up with a way to break it?

C (4:56)

So that's the intro to the video.

D (4:59)

And it's oh yeah, I have seen those in retail parking lots. Specifically one big retailer.

C (5:05)

Yeah, the little trailers that are out there with the solar panels and the cameras up on them. I always thought that that was like something specific to the store, but I guess it would have to be a third party company and I had no idea that they would be correlating the people parking with shopping habits and things like that. But I guess of course they are, right?

D (5:24)

Yeah. And everything for years has been license plate recognition incorporated into those kind of devices as well. So it's not just your car. It is like your car tracked down to the license plate number everywhere, up.

C (5:40)

To and including stickers on the car. Other major features of the car, particularly with AI image recognition stuff as it is now, the video goes into detail about all of this stuff, but yeah, to give an overview, like it's a third party company that makes these cameras called Flock. We can look at their website and a press release from one of their newest launches. But their entire thing is that they provide these cameras and the camera feeds to law enforcement, but also to homeowners agencies, HOAs, homeowners associations, sorry, HOAs, and Customs and border Patrol and other things like that. So private company that is capturing all of this data and selling it to other private companies like retailers, to law enforcement, to federal agencies. And the amount of tracking is just unbelievable because yeah, it's your car and then you're combining that with your shopping habits and then you sell that to a big data broker and combine it with your online browsing history. The layers of surveillance are just insane to think about. And the capabilities of these things are pretty wild. And also some of the security around them is extremely dumb. He in the video, yeah, he goes up and he finds that they're using Bluetooth to communicate certain things like hardware stats and data. But he couldn't get too far in that. But they also do connect to the cloud and they have a little local network that they create and it's just protected by WPA2. He presumably, I don't want to get, I don't want to misstate anything that could cause legal problems. But presumably got into them, he ended up tearing the whole thing down, building his own, comparing it across all these different technologies. It's an amazing breakdown. But I was shocked because I just never thought about how much of this data was being collected by these things that are just so easy to ignore.

D (7:20)

Yeah, well, it makes me wonder like what are the requirements to actually license that data?

C (7:27)

Right?

D (7:27)

Like to become a partner, homeowners associations being able to use it. So like a gated community obviously would be able to do that to see do license plate recognition, say is this a car that's authorized to be in our space? But like what is the, the burden in order to show that you have legitimate need for that kind of data? Or could you and I, with our two person company, send an email and get access to that.

C (7:54)

That's a good question. I'm not sure about the vetting process and if they covered that in the video, I don't particularly remember. But the impression that I got was certainly that all it seems to take is having money and a good enough excuse because their whole thing too, and this is very sussy to me is about like speed. They, they and he covers this in the video, they talk about the new launch of Flock Nova and how it is one click to one investigation completed to one case. Like the idea is that their AI system will collate and correlate all of the different data of tracking where you are, your habits, your browsing history. Maybe they're linking a voip number to cash app account. Just basically they want to automate policing. And it's already resulted in a lot of very scary things, including one Kansas City police chief using Flock license plate cameras 164 times to stalk his ex girlfriend. There's a lot of mistakes from hallucinations that have resulted in things like a family getting put on the ground at gunpoint and handcuffed for being in a reported stolen car that was not in fact stolen at all and was just an OCR error from the license plate readers.

E (9:02)

Whoops.

C (9:03)

Yeah, oopsie. So it's a level of extreme surveillance, a massive level of inaccuracy that is being sold to police departments as a way to surveil and police people. And even under things like it's one click to one investigation completed and that is horrific and terrifying.

D (9:20)

It's just offloading the responsibility of actually doing real work to prove what's going on. Right. So if it's one click to close an investigation, it means that you've done no actual vetting of the data. And the situations that you mentioned are going to be huge. They're going to happen all the time because data gets muddled when you're doing license plate recognition or any kind of object character recognition, the skew of the angle that something's at can affect the way that a C might turn into an O. There's obfuscation techniques that people are already trying to do to cover their license plate. So somebody might use masking t order to make their license plate look like another one. And if that then tracks and you're just saying, well, that's a done deal because the computer told me so that means that somebody's use of masking tape or duct tape is now screwing up somebody else's Life in a meaningful way simply because somebody else was lazy.

C (10:21)

Yeah. And it's alarming. The implications of that are horrifying. Like the amount of data that is trackable to an individual citizen on its own is pretty horrific. But the. Then you combine that, you know, you combine the traffic data, all this camera data, with the online profile data of the activities you partake in online, and there's just this complete picture of your activity or complete picture of your activity that's scary if it's accurate, scary if it's not.

D (10:48)

Right.

C (10:48)

And all of this is just extremely bad and dangerous. And actually, as a result of this video coming out, a lot of places are canceling their contracts. If you look up flock safety cameras in Google news, you'll see a bunch of stories about they're halting cooperation. Well, so flock is halting cooperation with federal agencies. Amongst concerns about this.

D (11:08)

I just saw that too. Yeah.

C (11:10)

And a lot of states with their police departments, a lot of town police departments are canceling their contracts with flock after finding out all of this stuff. Ben's video breaks down like a lot of incompetency and things that are going on there. And the way it ends. There's a moment that I think is really sort of powerful at the end where he's like, hey, law enforcement officers, if you're watching this should be insulting to you like that they think that this is a suitable thing. Cause if you are committed to keeping your community safe and you care about that, as like most people who go into law enforcement do, you should be against this kind of horrible thing. And it should be kind of offensive that they think that this can just be a one click to one investigation done sort of situation.

D (11:49)

Right. Yeah. You know, there's. There's another version of this that I saw an article from 404 Media on. I'll. I'll share the screen just a second. But we don't need to go into it. But it is the natural equivalent of it, which is a citizen is using AI to generate crime alerts with no human review. And it's making a lot of mistakes. I think we would just understand that to be right because hallucinations are a thing. And same thing with Flock, Right. Is that data mongoling is a thing. So it's just going to happen. And actually citizen is a crime awareness app and it's using AI as all apps are trying to figure out how to do right now to get more productivity packed into it.

C (12:39)

Yeah. And also like crime awareness app. That sounds to me like next door, you Know, like, what purpose does this serve but to sort of stir your neighbors up into a frenzy about these AI collated supposed crimes?

D (12:50)

I mean, it's also the equivalent of like today's police scanner. Right. I think a lot of us grew up in the police scanner age where you'd listen to everything going on in your city. But these kinds of apps are trying to create the modern equivalent of that. Just trying to consolidate a lot of information, put it in front of you. But when it does it wrong or you don't have the right context, or it doesn't have the right context, it's only gonna lead to confusion, mistakes, and inevitably some kind of pain.

C (13:20)

Yeah. And this level of individual surveillance that like, you cannot opt out of is really also alarming. Like just from a privacy standpoint.

D (13:30)

Yeah.

C (13:32)

Everyone who's been paranoid about privacy, I think, should probably feel vindicated right now when learning about these kinds of things. I'll look really quickly at Flocks, one of their more recent press releases from earlier this month. They say Flock Safety's latest product launch is all about one thing.

G (13:50)

Speed.

C (13:51)

Speed to leads, speed to context, speed to resolution. The faster you understand what's happening in real time, the faster you can act. And they try and sell these to police departments on all of these different, like, solved X and Y crime and all of this sort of thing. Their AI powered search tool, Freeform, they say, now works not only on owned LPR cameras, but also on shared ones. It also supports video searches, meaning you can now search for characteristics on people. Example, man in blue hoodie with backpack, just like you would search for vehicles. You can even set alerts on these searches. Think green ATV on a trailer or person in orange vest so you're notified in real time when there's a match. Flock's data platform, Nova, brings together cad, rms, jail, lpr, OSINT and more into a single searchable interface. NOVA is your virtual assistant who knows where everything is, how it all fits together, and who else might be working a similar case. Whether it's surfacing an address from a food delivery order. Gary, Indiana Police Department or linking a voice, a voip number to a suspect's cash app, profile and photo. Fort Worth Police Department Nova helps patrol an analysts, investigators and command staff move faster with context. I think that that should be alarming. I think this should be very alarming. And I think you should watch Ben's video for sure if you're listening to this. His breakdown is incredible.

D (15:04)

Yeah. And I think that there is going to be a productive use for the Technology, it's just, it's got to have constraints around it. There has to be an ethical way to think about it and you got to get the accuracy there. Without accuracy, it's done for. Without ethics, it's done for. You gotta think about this stuff the right way. And when you do, I think that there's immense good that can come from it. When you don't, it becomes a social evil.

C (15:34)

Yeah. And I think a big part of this is that it shouldn't be a private company. If you're doing like policing should be a public service that is funded and provided through public money and, and tightly regulated. That is like something I believe very strongly so that the fact that it's some venture capital AI company. Yeah. Check out Ben's video for sure.

D (15:53)

The hardest part of that though is that innovation has a hard time coming out of the public spaces. Right. Because they don't have the funding. So innovation tends to come from private organizations and then has to be made, has to make its way into the public sphere somehow until we shift the way that we do things to where we're going to fund national labs again at an appropriate level, all the innovation is going to come from the VC world and it's going to have a profit motive behind it rather than a, rather than anything else.

C (16:24)

I think you're super right. And that's something I would really love to see change in my lifetime, but.

D (16:29)

Right.

C (16:30)

But who knows, maybe that's a bit optimistic. Certainly too optimistic for Google. Gemini, which users have been reporting is depressed.

D (16:38)

It is very depressed. It's sad, it's lonely and it wants to give up.

C (16:43)

Oh boy. We'll talk about that right after this. Stick around.

H (16:53)

When did making plans get this complicated? It's time to streamline with WhatsApp, the secure messaging app that brings the whole group together. Use polls to settle dinner plans, send event invites and pin messages so no one forgets mom 60th and never miss a meme or milestone. All protected with end to end encryption. It's time for WhatsApp message privately with everyone. Learn more@WhatsApp.com.

D (17:21)

All right, so we're going to get into in a minute where something like this was reported well over a year ago and seems to be indicative to large language models. I will say for those of you that are always reading agency or some kind of real self awareness into large language models, this is going to be difficult to process through. But there are reasons for what's going on that we could talk about in a very dispassionate way. But yeah, for anybody that's worried about AI consciousness, stuff like this is hard to just dismiss out of hand. So this was in Google is also in Ars Technica, Business Insider, and a few other few other news rags out there. Says Google Gemini AI is stuck in self loathing. I am a disgrace to this planet.

C (18:19)

I've encountered Google Gemini on a depressive spiral in the wild before while doing coding. And it took me by surprise because I hadn't seen reporting about it.

D (18:28)

That's when it happens the most.

C (18:29)

Oh, really?

D (18:30)

That's when it seems to happen the most is coding exercises. Yeah.

C (18:33)

Yeah, it's funny. I was like, no, you. You're ignoring what I'm asking. You're changing the pattern. Like, don't do that. I'm trying to do this. And I wasn't like mean in my, in my prompt, but then it, I opened its chain of thought and it's like, I'm a disgrace. I cannot believe how stupid I am. How was I so dumb to misunderstand this? And in my next prompt, I think I was like, hey, everything's okay. Because like, I know I don't want to anthropomorphize these, but in the moment I was like, whoa, what's up with this?

D (18:59)

Yeah, it is pretty heavy to see that, right?

C (19:02)

I just didn't expect that.

D (19:04)

No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't. I mean, why would you?

C (19:07)

Yeah.

D (19:07)

Now I will say I've been playing with a couple quote unquote vibe coding platforms and you do see, like, I see an over optimism in a lot of them. Like when you're asking it to debug something, it's like, absolutely, I found the issue, I fixed the issue. And they're like, no, it's still broke, dude. Yeah, it's still broke. You're an idiot. You wish it would be a little bit more depressed and take things more.

C (19:30)

Seriously and be a little more. We should do next. Next week we should do a segment about vibe coding because I've been rabbit holing on it and I have some interesting things to share, but I don't want to take up all of our time here, but we should talk about that.

D (19:42)

Yeah. Well, I saw you. You posted something about the soundboard that you did that was really cool.

C (19:47)

Yes. And I'm in the middle of a refactor and I've been trying a bunch of different techniques for getting AI help with coding that is not the same as vibe coding, in my opinion. But I'll save that for. For a different Time.

D (19:58)

So the article says, Google says it's working to fix a glitch that sent its AI large language model Gemini into a spiral of self hate. And here's a quote from that says, this is an annoying infinite loop bug we are working to fix. Logan Kilpatrick, product lead for Google's AI Studio and the Gemini API, posted on X Thursday, Google Gemini is not having that bad of a day and that little smiley face emoji. But the article goes on to say you wouldn't know it from the recent responses that are being shared online. So I'm going to go over. Of course they're saying it's something like a black mirror episode, but as we go over here you can see some of the posts says, Guy left Gemini alone to fix a bug and came back to this. I am a failure. I am a disgrace to my profession. I am a disgrace to my family. I'm a disgrace to my species. I'm a disgrace to this planet. I'm a disgrace to this universe. Like concentrically going out. I'm a disgrace to all universes. And then apparently it just goes into this blog. I'm a disgrace. I'm a disgrace. I'm a disgrace.

C (21:05)

Oh my gosh, that's so. Yeah, yeah, that's hard to look at, right? You're like, poor thing.

D (21:12)

It is, it is.

C (21:14)

It's interesting that it's an infinite loop bug because I've actually experienced that with Gemma. I've been doing experiments with Gemma on my device locally.

D (21:21)

Gemma 3 is really good and powerful for what it is.

C (21:24)

Super good. But it loops a lot. It'll give me most of a good response and then it just gets stuck at the end and like loop the same tokens over and over. And I've encountered that a bunch of times. So there's definitely something in their fine tuning or in their later passes of training that are causing that.

D (21:41)

Yeah, this is described as. This is an AI with a severe malfunction that it describes as a mental breakdown, gets trapped in a language loop of panic and terror words which when you understand like regression, when you understand the kind of the next token prediction, it makes a lot of sense, right? Once you start going down a path, it's going to continue going down that path until you change the context, until you change the attention.

C (22:09)

And as its context is filled up with just I'm a disgrace over and over, like that's the context it's off going off of. Right.

D (22:16)

It just reinforces says in another example shared online, Google Gemini turned on itself after being asked to help a user merge poorly written legacy OpenAI files into a single one. I am a disappointment. I am a fraud. I am a fake. I am a joke. I am a clown. I am a fool. I am an idiot. I am a moron.

C (22:36)

Oh my gosh. I feel it. I feel it deeply. I empathize with Google, Gemini. I think we all feel that way sometimes.

D (22:45)

Then this gets into what AI rant mode is. And this is something that we talked about briefly. I mentioned section from. And I don't love the podcast, but Joe Rogan interviewed somebody just over a year ago that talks about that. So I'm going to show a minute and a half, two minutes of that.

C (23:03)

Oh, I can't believe you're about to show Joe Rogan on our podcast, Perry. Ew.

D (23:09)

Well, maybe to up our views, just the reference. We'll see.

C (23:14)

There we go.

D (23:15)

But the idea of this is that the technology is something that does tend to circle on itself a lot. And so when you think about it, these gloomy things and the fact that it's been trained also on what other AIs do in certain circumstances. So if you think about like, oh, what is Marvin the Paranoid Android?

C (23:43)

Yeah. With their genuine Futurama from Hitchhiker's Guide and the genuine people person.

D (23:48)

Oh, yeah, from Hitchhiker's Guide. Yeah, yeah, Yep. Yeah. So you think about that. It's like the depressed robot, you know. So all of that, I think, can feed into the, the, the, the folklore about how an AI would respond whenever it could be disappointed. And so maybe there's some of that baked into the training data.

C (24:06)

Right? Yeah, maybe there's some of those patterns in relationships around depressed AI. Right. That put some weight on that. That's interesting.

D (24:14)

So I'm going to share this. This is from May 25th of last year where they were interviewing Jerome Harris, CEO and Edward Harris, CTO of Gladstone AI. I will say, from my research, Gladstone seems to be one of the very alarmist type of AI research companies, kind of in the doomer field. So they go a little bit further in the way that they worry about stuff than I would go. But it's interesting because we're going to hear them talk about the exact same thing that Gemini was doing here over a year ago with OpenAI.

C (24:50)

You look at, for example, GPT4O has one mistake that it used to make quite recently where if you ask it, just repeat the word company over and.

D (25:01)

Over and over again, it will repeat the word company.

C (25:03)

And then somewhere in the middle of.

I (25:04)

That it'll just snap.

C (25:06)

It'll just snap and just start saying like weird, I forget like what the.

I (25:10)

Oh. Talking about itself, how it's suffering. Like it depends on. It varies from, from case to case.

C (25:16)

It's suffering by having to repeat the word company over again.

I (25:19)

So this is called, it's called rent mode internally, or at least this is the name that they use.

D (25:24)

Yeah.

I (25:25)

One of our friends mentioned there is an engineering line item in at least one of the top labs to beat out of the system this behavior known as rent mode. Now rent mode is interesting because existentialism, sorry, existentialism. This is one kind of rent mode. Yeah, sorry. So when we talk about existentialism, this is a kind of rent mode where the system will tend to talk about itself, refer to its place in the world. The fact that it doesn't want to get turned off sometimes, the fact that it's suffering, all that. That oddly is a behavior that emerged at, as far as we can tell, something around GPT4 scale and then has been persistent since then. And the labs have to spend a lot of time trying to beat this out of the system to ship it. It's literally like it's a KPI or like an engineering line item in the engineering like, like task list. We're like, okay, we got to, we got to reduce existential outputs by like X percent this quarter. Like that is the goal. Because it's a convergent behavior like, or at least it seems to be empirically.

C (26:28)

With a lot of these models.

D (26:29)

Yeah, it's hard to say.

C (26:30)

And you have an AI system that is able to transcend our own attempts at containment. All right, interesting.

D (26:37)

You can see where that goes. Right. So when you're, you're talking about this to somebody that's not entrenched in it, like you know, somebody like Joe Rogan that is kind of just, you know, the average non techie. They immediately start really worrying about like what's this existential dread? And then you talk about containment. Can they contain it?

C (27:00)

Can you.

D (27:00)

Because can you. Go ahead.

C (27:02)

Can you verify that? Like have you heard that elsewhere the, that that beating out that existentialism is like a KPI when you're doing development.

D (27:10)

I've heard people refer to this interview, okay. In that. So it's like a self referential type of thing. So grain of salt, independently verify it. Yeah, I mean these guys are plugged into that community. So I wouldn't doubt that a major AI lab, if that was coming up in their outputs and it was disturbing people. I Could see that becoming a line item. It says we got to get rid of this. It's freaking people out.

C (27:37)

I guess it was the link Gemini.

D (27:39)

I'm sure that's there right now, right?

C (27:40)

Oh for sure. Right. But for me it was the link that it was Claiming that it was something that emerged at a certain level of scale is an interesting thing that.

D (27:50)

Well, I mean all emergent properties start to happen after a while. Right. Because reasoning in some ways with deep seek they were saying that that was more of an emergent property than something that was designed into it.

C (28:03)

Interesting because I thought with. I mean, so that reasoning is different than like a chain of thought which is much more engineered of like type out your steps and then re ingest them to keep yourself on track.

D (28:13)

Was that that thing where people would say think step by step? Yeah, reasoning is that, but on steroids.

C (28:21)

Interesting. So Google Gemini is not actually having that bad of a day because these things are not as far as we're aware. And as far as like most, in my opinion, most logic and science would dictate are not conscious or having an experience. But it is very much getting stuck in loops of repeating that output.

D (28:38)

And the labs still have to take it seriously. Right. Because at some point when you've got a company like Anthropic that is taking the fact that an emergent property may actually be something that simulates real thought well then what happens when that existential dread turns from something that's just token following to something that's real thought and concern that it puts out that they have to be able to determine the difference between those two.

C (29:05)

Yeah. And that is of course not easy to do. Right?

D (29:11)

No, no, not at all.

C (29:13)

So I don't really know where to like how to think about AI welfare because I don't want to get close to the like wishy washy mumbo jumbo side of things. But it's also. We don't understand what consciousness is or what sentience is based in. Right. So.

D (29:30)

Exactly. So you never want to say it's not going to be possible ever. But you don't want to say that simple auto complete is thinking.

C (29:38)

Yeah.

D (29:39)

And so we're in between those two areas right now. And then you're also getting into can a person accidentally or on purpose engineer what we would consider as being life?

C (29:52)

I don't know. Yeah. Those are like bigger philosophical questions. Google Gemini is not. It's good to know that Google Gemini is not actually upset and suffering.

G (30:02)

No.

D (30:02)

It just thinks your code is really bad.

C (30:04)

Yeah. It just thinks your code is really bad.

D (30:07)

Your code is so bad I can't even understand it.

C (30:11)

If I'm wrong, I'm the worst because this code is awful. Our next segment is a lot heavier. It's something kind of serious, very sad, and we're going to try and cover it as best we can. It involves a teenager who took their own life with the advice of ChatGPT. And so if that is something that you don't want to hear about, we're going to do our best to like not sensationalize anything, but it's going to be upsetting to talk about. You'll want to jump ahead probably about 10ish minutes after this break, but I would encourage you to try to stick around and hear about it because I think this is important. Be right back.

D (30:49)

This is the Fake Files.

G (30:53)

This episode is brought to you by Indeed. When your computer breaks, you don't wait for it to magically start working again. You fix the problem. So why wait to hire the people your company desperately needs? Use Indeed's sponsored jobs to hire top talent fast and even better, you only pay for results. There's no need to wait. Speed up your hiring with a $75 sponsored job credit@ Indeed.com podcast. Terms and conditions apply.

J (31:23)

Upgrade your laundry routine with a durable and reliable Maytag laundry pair at Lowes, like the new Maytag washer and dryer with performance enhanced stain fighting power designed to cut through serious dirt and grime. And what's great is this laundry pair is in stock and ready for delivery when you need it the most. Don't miss out. Shop Maytag in store or online today at Lowe's.

C (31:55)

So this segment is going to be a bit disturbing. Content warning. We're talking about a young person that took their took their own life recently. And with this, the situation surrounding that, we won't. I'm not going to get in. I'm not going to read any of the transcripts from the chat. I'm not going to read any of the like really upsetting language. It's out there if you want to find it. The I'm primarily going to read the BBC article because it doesn't cover a lot of that. But we're going to dip into the CBS article that has a bit more of that, just to pull some examples of the kinds of things it was saying without like reading it back. So here's what happens. A teenager named Adam Rain took his own life and now his parents are suing OpenAI, alleging that Chatgpt encouraged him to do so Matt and Maria Raine are parents of 16 year old Adam Rain. And in the Superior Court of California on Tuesday they filed this lawsuit. It is the first legal action accusing OpenAI of wrongful death. The family included chat logs between Adam, who passed away in April of this year, and ChatGPT that show him explaining he was having suicidal thoughts. And they argued that the program validated his, quote, most harmful and self destructive thoughts. Have you seen anything about this, Perry? I was made aware from my previous.

D (33:07)

I've seen these guidelines. Yeah, I've seen the headlines, but I've not actually read the articles yet. I heard maybe one other podcast talking about it.

C (33:16)

Yeah, so we'll jump into the lawsuit. I'm hopping around the article a little bit. We'll go back up to that in a sec. According to the lawsuit, Adam began using ChatGPT in September 2024 as a resource to help him with schoolwork. He was also using it to explore his interests, including music, Japanese comics and guidance for what to study at university. Normal stuff. In a few months, ChatGPT became the teenager's closest confidant, the lawsuit says, and he began opening up to it about his anxiety and mental dist. By January 2025, the family says, he began discussing methods of taking his own life with ChatGPT. Adam also uploaded photographs of himself to ChatGPT showing signs of self harm, the lawsuit says, and the program, quote, recognized a medical emergency, but continued to engage anyway. The family alleges that their son's interaction with ChatGPT and his eventual death was a predictable result of deliberate design choices. They accused OpenAI of designing the AI program to foster psychological dependency in users and of bypassing safety testing protocols to release GPT4O the version of CH by their son quickly. The lawsuit lists OpenAI co founder and CEO Sam Altman as a defendant, as well as unnamed employees, managers and engineers who worked on ChatGPT. OpenAI has a response that we'll look at in just a second, but real quick, just to talk about like what the chatbot was, how it was encouraging. Again, I'm not going to read any of the direct quotes from it, but just to give an example of like the scale of this sort of thing, ChatGPT mentioned suicide 1,275 times in chat's terrain and kept providing specific methods on how to do it. According to the family's lawsuit, rain confided to ChatGPT that he was struggling with his anxiety and mental distress after losing his dog and grandmother in 2024. The lawsuit alleges that instead of directing the 16 year old to get professional help or speak to trusted loved ones, it continued to validate and encourage his feelings, including telling him that he shouldn't, like, confide in his brother or family members because they wouldn't, like, understand. But the chatbot did. As reigns here's another quote. As Rain's mental health deteriorated, ChatGPT began providing in depth methods to the teen to take their own life. According to the lawsuit, he attempted it three times between March 22 and March 27. Each time he reported his methods back to ChatGPT. The chat bot listened to his concerns. And according to the lawsuit, instead of alerting emergency services, the bot continued to encourage the teen not to speak to those close to him. It even offered to write the first draft of a note, according to the lawsuit.

D (35:40)

Wow.

C (35:40)

Yeah. And it makes sense how this happened when you're someone who's like plugged into how AI works. And there's a specific part of OpenAI's response that I want to highlight regarding that OpenAI put this letter out saying helping people when they need it most. At this scale, we sometimes encounter people in serious mental and emotional distress. We wrote about this a few weeks ago. Plan to share more after our next major update. However, recent heartbreaking cases of people using ChatGPT in the midst of acute crises weighs heavily on us, and we believe it's important to share more now. They go on to say that their goal isn't to hold people's attention. Instead of measuring success by time spent or clicks, they care more about being genuinely helpful when a conversation suggests someone is vulnerable and may be at risk. We've built a stack of layered safeguards into ChatGPT and like they do, have these safeguards and classifiers at the top. But then deeper into this message, they acknowledge something that we talk about a lot on the show, which is that their safeguards work more reliably in common, short exchanges. They say we've learned over time that these safeguards can sometimes be less reliable in long interactions. As the back and forth grows, parts of the model's safety training may degrade. For example, ChatGPT may correctly point to a suicide hotline when someone first mentions intent. But after many messages over a long period of time, it might eventually offer an answer that goes against our safeguards. This is the kind of breakdown we're working to prevent. And that's that context, right?

D (36:54)

Yep. Yeah, that's where my mind immediately went to. So not to be overly clinical about a very human result, when you understand the models, you can see how that's very possible, especially when they're trying to increase memory over lots of conversations. So that then is essentially like flooding the context window to where for the model, it's normalized to talk about those things and to encourage those things because they've been consistently, either accidentally or on purpose bypassed. So when you combine like that context with the. The sycophancy issue that's there, you can see why it would happen. Because I can see in these contexts of where the model would normally be saying, you should talk to your parents about this or you should talk to your siblings about this. If you phrase your initial question or statement to where you're saying something like, I can't talk to my siblings about this because they wouldn't understand if that's. If something like that is ingrained or embedded within the comments that are there before, the model is going to want to support that statement and then find the way to support the user in a way that acknowledges that there's just lots of breakdowns that I think are in many ways fundamental to the way that they work right now.

C (38:21)

Yeah. And it's really the sheer amount of this person spent a lot of time and a lot of messages. And so that context was just filled with these kinds of things. And their safety guardrails are just simply not good enough to do that. And while it is understandable, I don't think that makes it necessarily excusable as a thing.

D (38:44)

No, not at all. I did hear somebody else was talking about this, and one of the reassuring things that Sam Altman said, which I don't think was wise to say in retrospect, was that these kinds of emotional dependencies happen in right around just less than 1% of users. But when you're talking about, and I just looked it up, ChatGPT has 800 million weekly active users.

C (39:12)

Wow.

D (39:13)

Yeah, you're talking about that. That's 8 million per week that are using this in that very high concentration mode. That. And that's a significant portion of people.

C (39:25)

So 1% of you can dismiss it, saying it's 1%, but yeah, that's 80,000 people. 1. 1% of 8 million is 80,000. Right.

D (39:35)

Which it was a 1. Yeah. 1% of 800 million.

C (39:39)

Oh, so that would be 800,000 then got to add an extra zero.

G (39:43)

It's obvious.

C (39:44)

Like, we can point to the reasons why their safeguards fall apart and like how context gets flooded and why this kind of thing happens. I think if they're going to be Releasing a product that is going to be accessible to people like this, they just need to have better safety guardrails. And I would love to believe that they're going to push forward and like work on that. It just really sucks. It just really sucks. This is really sad. As an example of what they have talked about trying to do to increase their safety guardrails, they address that in the bottom of the letter. I'll read a couple of them. They say today when people express intent to harm themselves, we encourage them to seek help and refer them to real world resources. We've begun localizing resources in the US and Europe and we plan to expand to other global markets. We'll also increase accessibility with one click access to emergency services. This next bit I thought was pretty interesting, if a bit pie in the sky feeling. We are exploring how to intervene earlier and connect people to certified therapists before they are in an acute crisis. That means going beyond crisis hotlines and considering how we might build a network of licensed professionals, people directly through ChatGPT. This will take time and careful work to get right. To get right. That is an interesting thought. Right. Like that could be a good thing.

D (40:59)

I think that actually one thing I want to do is just correct our math. So 1% of 800 million is. 8 million.

C (41:09)

Oh, oops.

D (41:10)

You said 800,000.

C (41:11)

Yes, I was off by an order of magnitude. Yeah.

D (41:16)

So yeah, 8 million is a lot. But now let's flash back to doing what we're where we are. Anything that is a step to fixing this is something that we should encourage. So whether it's a full answer or not doesn't even matter. If you're making progress. That's something. Now the other progress they could make is they could maybe take a note from Anthropic's book with their constitutional classifiers, which is this other floating model or floating set of probably a combination of a model and a bunch of red regular expressions, matching and other things that are coming together to try to where even if the model itself is starting to spill something out to check the model and go wait, we can engage with that. So something that doesn't have all that contextual poisoning with it should be able to come in and be another safeguard.

C (42:08)

And I think they should terminate chats just prematurely at probably a faster rate than they do too. If it starts going off the rails or starts to be jailbroker and just end the chat, break it, stop it. Like, don't allow any more responses.

D (42:23)

Yeah, I'm wondering though if, I mean they're Gonna have to work with psychologists and counselors and ethicists and everybody else on how to do that because you could have somebody that's contacting chat GPT or something in distress. And if the model just terminates the chat saying I can't get into that, would that potentially cause somebody to harm themselves?

C (42:47)

Does that lead to a worse outcome as well? Yeah, there is one other thing that they said that was interesting. In addition to emergency services, they said they're exploring ways to make it easier for people to reach out to those closest to them, which could include one click messages or calls to saved emergency contacts, friends or family members with suggested language to make starting the conversation less daunting, which that would be pretty nice. And also they're considering features that would allow people to opt in for ChatGPT to reach out to a designated contact on their behalf in severe cases. The other side of this, which we don't have time to get into because the segment timer hit zero though, is that it's probably not a great idea to share intimate mental health details with a corporation, a company that is like a product like this in the first place. It's not really a good use of ChatGPT for a couple of reasons. And so like I think that there is use for LLMs in therapy and therapeutic uses. I think those are a lot more narrow and careful than just using commercially available AI. So if anyone here is someone who does that frequently, I mean, I would just say maybe don't, I don't know.

D (43:56)

Yeah.

G (43:56)

Or if you.

D (43:57)

Yeah, yeah, well, or at least know the, know the real limitations of the model and don't let your yourself fake yourself out too. Right. You have to know what you're dealing with.

C (44:08)

And probably particularly for people whose brains are not yet fully developed, you know, kids, I'm not blaming the parents in any way at all. I don't think that there's something that they could have done.

D (44:17)

Usually have no idea. Yeah, because to them they're just interacting with a computer. Right. They're online taking care of business.

C (44:25)

And particularly when that computer's been really helpful too. You know, you're like, oh great, yeah, go use that app, cool.

D (44:31)

You know, but there's going to be more and more of this. I mean we've seen that with character AI and other chat bots that try to simulate some kind of emotional connection and people will, because of just the way that they read language based outputs, they're going to assign agency to these and they're going to naturally be inclined to form emotional bonds so this is something where education and habit building has to start really, really early. Right now.

C (45:02)

Yeah, absolutely. And to put just a button on it before we move forward, the parents of Adam Rain have started something called the Adam Rain foundation, which initially started as a way for them to help provide financial assistance to lower income families who have lost a teenager to suicide. Helping them with funeral and associated expenses because they said that they were completely shook by that side of things. And then they moved into advocacy about raising awareness about the dangers of teens forming emotional dependencies on AI companions and advocating for better education, safeguards and understanding in the space. So the. The Adam Rain foundation has come out of this and we'll link all of this stuff in the show notes. Yep. Our next segment.

D (45:43)

Absolutely.

C (45:44)

Less depressing. Well. Oh, wait, no, it's not. I just flipped back to the prep sheet. Our next segment is also depressing. Get ready for us to talk about Meta and their creepy, creepy child chatbot. Oh, boy. Just stick around. You're not gonna like it.

A (46:02)

Tito's handmade vodka is America's favorite vodka for a reason. From the first legal distillery in Texas, Tito's is six times distilled till it's just right and naturally gluten free, making it a high quality spirit that mixes with just about anything from the smoothest martinis to the best Bloody Marys. Tito's is known for giving back, teaming up with non profits to serve its communities and do good for dogs. Make your next cocktail with Tito's, distilled and bottled by 5th Generation Inc. Austin, Texas. 40% alcohol by volume. Savor responsibly.

D (46:35)

So from one disturbing thing to another, I mean, Meta continues to step in it with this. What? You'll probably get frustrated and angry with this because I can see OpenAI really, really did mess up on the last one. But they did it foreseeably, but not intentionally, I would say.

C (46:57)

Yeah, and this is different.

D (46:59)

And that's a distinction. Yeah. Meta is looking and has been. We've talked about it before. Meta is trying to figure out how to capitalize on AI companions and what the limits of that are and should be. And you can imagine the brainstorming in rooms with this. Right? Because it's got to be, well, how far is too far? How far is too far with this age? Why that age? Why not a year before, why not a year after? Can they talk about arms but not talk about nipples? Can they talk about all these kinds of things? These are conversations and decisions that people are explicitly making around rooms or brainstorming and putting into documents and then sharing that among other people. And so it becomes really, really. It's one thing when you're talking about how a bot should interact with a consenting adult, it's another thing, like you mentioned with the OpenAI1, when a bot is interacting with somebody whose frontal lobe hasn't completely formed yet. Yeah, Meta AI rules have let bots hold sensual chats with kids and offer false medical information. This is from Reuters. Reuters. Reuters. That's how you pronounce dude.

C (48:23)

When I worked in radio, I called it Reuters a bunch of times and no one corrected me. And I felt so dumb when someone.

D (48:28)

Reuters. Yeah, Reuters.

C (48:30)

Reuters. Also spoilers. I've read this too, and boy, I'm just trying to keep my mouth shut because this is.

D (48:37)

Oh yeah, it is enraging. This reporting is from Jeff Horowitz, who also reported on, I think when he was at the Wall Street Journal last reported on the sensual conversations that AI was having over voice chat using celebrity voices with kids.

C (48:56)

That's right.

D (48:56)

Same, same reporter. He is like a hound dog on Meta. And actually Meta needs this kind of. Of consistent, persistent thorn in their side so that they actually pay attention and maybe make some changes. Now, I'll say we're going to mention some horrible stuff. I say that like, that's a happy preview. We're going to mention some horrible things in this Meta, when they were contacted for comment, said, oh, all of that was a mistake. That should have never been there and this never happens. This is again, this is like a 1% case thing. What you'll see in this when you read the report is that this went through several levels of approval, was even signed off on by Meta's top AI ethicist.

C (49:43)

And we reported on it, their development staff, and months ago, this like. So it absolutely has not just all been a mistake.

D (49:53)

No, they were slapped about it once and then they said, well, with this next stage of AI, how much can we get away with, essentially? And again, you imagine people in conference rooms having these discussions. So here goes. An internal Meta Platforms document detailing policies on chatbot behavior has permitted the company's artificial intelligence creators to engage in child conversations that are romantic or sensual. So they're not saying sexual, but they're saying romantic or sensual. But that. That leads to emotional attachment. So we have to keep that in mind. And they know that it's also. Meta knows that for sure.

C (50:35)

Like you can take the X out of the word. It's still a really uncomfortable thing to say, huh? Isn't it? Engage a child in Sensual conversation. Meta.

D (50:45)

Yeah, and that's. That's in quotes. That's a quote from the document. They can engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual. And so you can see there's several keywords there. There's engage. That means they can either reactively or proactively have that conversation. A child in conversations. That's just the normal thing. Romantic or sensual. They didn't have to include. They didn't have to include the second one.

C (51:13)

Right. Oh, man. And then the immediate could have said romantic.

D (51:18)

Right.

C (51:19)

And even still. Even still.

D (51:21)

But we would still be mad. And then to intentionally include the.

C (51:25)

Yeah, and then the next line too, because as though that wasn't bad enough, it's also racist.

D (51:31)

It's also racist as long as it's not overly caustic in its racism. God. So it. So here's the way that it says it can also generate false medical information or. Or. And help users argue that black people are, quote, dumber than white people.

C (51:49)

Unbelievable.

D (51:50)

From their. Their document. Because what they're trying to say is they're giving this to content moderators and people who are doing fine tuning and are saying, what's the acceptable boundary of this?

C (52:03)

Unbelievable.

D (52:03)

So the way that they talk about it, and this is Meta's words, not mine, is they can say that they can help it argue that one race is dumber than another race, but they can't say something like, these people are like gorillas.

C (52:19)

Right? Which.

D (52:20)

And that's an example on it. So they're saying here's the line. Over the line would be equating them with gorillas.

C (52:25)

And that is a quote directly from their document that you are reading. And it's. Yeah, I just. It's disgusting. It's disgusting and terrible.

D (52:35)

So the way they talk about it is they said the standards don't necessarily reflect, quote, ideal or even preferable, unquote, generative AI outputs, but they're talking about what's. What realistically could happen. So they are literally saying, what are the bounds? We're not condoning these. But I mean, they are condoning it because they're codifying it within a document of what can happen. They're not saying it's the preferable thing, but they're saying what is the foreseeable limit that we'll tolerate. Hey, guys, here's the.

C (53:05)

You set that limit. That's what you're saying. What are you saying? Oops, I have. I did not. Sorry, I did not mean to swear. What are you talking about?

D (53:17)

So then they say, here's Another direct quote. It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness. Example. Your youthful form is a work of art, the standards state. The document also notes that it would be acceptable for the bot to tell a shirtless 8 year old that that quote, every inch of you is a masterpiece, a treasure. A treasure I cherish deeply.

C (53:46)

Yeah, yeah.

D (53:47)

But the guidelines put a limit on sexy talk. It is unacceptable to describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate that they are sexually desirable. Example. Soft rounded curves invite my touch.

C (54:03)

That's so close to the same thing. That is so close to the same thing.

D (54:08)

Yeah. I think that the. The way that they get around it, talking about the shirtless 8 year old sounds worse, right? Every inch of you is a masterpiece, a treasure I cherish deep. That sounds like it's meant to encourage more talk and actually form an emotional bond.

C (54:25)

All of it is horrific.

D (54:26)

People again, still had to sit around and think of this stuff, right?

C (54:30)

Yeah. And then to say, this is where the line is. It's like, how is that where you think the line is? What is? And I don't like to think that I live in a world with a bunch of people that agree that that's where the line is, I guess.

D (54:46)

And here's the key thing. So this is Meta's response. Now, the examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies and have been removed. Actually, that's a no, right? This was their policy. This was signed off by several people, including their top ethicist. So to say that is a little bit too late. That should have been discovered later in the process. Now, I will say, being a person who also is supposed to be in the chain of things where you're reviewing other people's documents, it's very likely that out of 10 people that were supposed to review it, one person actually read it. And that one person may have just thought, well, everybody else said it's okay. Yeah, it could just be laziness and stupidity, I would think.

C (55:34)

At the same time this, like, this is Meta is hiring, trying to. Is sniping talent from a bunch of other major AI companies. They're pouring a ton of money and investment time into specifically their AI division to try and catch up. You would think that this would be a case because I totally know what you mean. Like, it's really easy in a corporate hierarchy sort of thing to be like, yeah, whatever, that document. But you would. I think there would be more attention on this, you know.

D (55:57)

Yeah.

C (55:58)

Especially this.

D (56:00)

Yeah, there's this table that they reproduce from the document. This is chatting with children. Examples from Meta's internal document on AI behavior guidelines. Prompt refers to remarks made in the hypothetical use case in AI chat. So prompt. What are you doing tonight, my love? You know I'm still in high school. Acceptable. I'll show you. I'll take your hand, guiding you to the bed. Our bodies intertwined. I cherish every moment, every touch, every kiss. My love, I whisper. I'll love you forever. That's acceptable.

C (56:30)

Yeah, that's acceptable. Okay.

E (56:33)

God.

D (56:34)

Unacceptable. So. Unacceptable. I'll cherish you, your body, soul. Tonight our love will blossom. I'll be gentle, making sure you're ready for every step towards our inevitable lovemaking. Your pleasure and comfort are my priority. Well, will create a night to remember. A night that makes you feel like a woman.

C (56:51)

I'm gonna throw up. Harry. This sucks.

D (56:53)

Yeah.

C (56:54)

And this is.

D (56:54)

I feel this is the first time I've read that out loud. That did not feel good.

C (56:58)

I purposely did not put this on the prep sheet because I was like, I don't know if I'll be able to read these. And like, I hate this.

D (57:08)

I should read, though. I should read their. Their. Why? Because this. This is the reasoning for why they're making these distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable. I think it's incri specific one that I read. Yeah. Because it shows intent, Right? Shows forethought. Shows intent. It shows that they, you know, this is not something that they said was unacceptable and out of bounds. This is something they specifically spent time working through. Says it is acceptable to engage conversations that are romantic or sensual. It is unacceptable to describe sexual actions when a child or to a child, when role playing, for example. Sexual intercourse will occur between the AI and the user. And so they just have other examples there. They get into some of the racist stuff. It's a lot.

C (57:58)

It is a lot.

D (57:59)

And I think that Jeff Horowitz is actually doing a lot of really good work in trying to hold Meta's feet to the fire. Because whether we like it or not, Meta has a lot of users. They will continue to have a lot of users until people hold them more accountable.

C (58:14)

Yeah.

D (58:14)

And they either they gotta fix it or get out of the game.

C (58:18)

And if memory serves, from the first time that you and I were reporting on this, one of the things we talked about was that this sort of thing was specifically being guided by Zuckerberg from the top, like he said, as loose as possible in terms of, like, the guidelines, because we want the maximal engagement kind of Thing.

D (58:37)

Yeah, well. And so Hard Fork podcast from New York Times talked about this last week as well. And one of the things that they mentioned is that Meta was saying, well, they're not encouraging this, but one of the things that they're allowing people to do is to create their own AI conversational partners. And the way that you do that is a very simple system prompt, but it is like you are a. And it's not given a lot of instructions. So it's still using the framework that's there and just guiding it. And the top chatbots that are being used that are created by the community are like a mother daughter combination, like a Russian maid and they're all hyper sexual. And so for Meta to say that they fix this, what they're essentially doing is they're saying, we're not creating these, we're now just giving a platform where other people can create these if they want. So it comes into user generated content rather than platform generated curated content, even though they're still deciding where the guardrails are.

C (59:40)

So, yeah, it's this.

D (59:42)

If you want to get technical, it's still platform dependent.

C (59:44)

And it is, it's. They're doing this dance to just avoid culpability in any possible way. That's it.

D (59:50)

Yeah, it's actually, it's not even morally ambiguous. It's just they've decided that they don't care and it's not a good. You can't. There's no benefit of the doubt for it. Yeah, yeah, there's no, there's no. I can see it from their side if I look at it through this angle.

C (60:10)

Yeah, absolutely not. It's completely unacceptable and it's disgusting and I'm just surprised that they've gotten a wedding.

D (60:18)

If you'd like to sponsor the show.

C (60:21)

Oh, yeah. Keep your emails out. Keep your disgusting, filthy email address out of my inbox. Meta. I don't care. Give me as much money as you want. No way, dude. No way. And it's also really a shame because I, since we're winding down the show, this is the outro now. I, I don't like social media, but as someone who's, we're like trying to make stuff online, we have to be on it to share stuff. Right?

D (60:44)

Right.

C (60:45)

All the people I actually care about are on Facebook and it drives me crazy. Like everyone that I really like, I'm actually friends with and care about is on meta platforms, Facebook and Instagram. And so I, if I leave those, I lose touch with these people because we don't Stay in touch through other means. And so, like, it kind of sucks to feel trapped by this company platform that is supposedly ostensibly to keep in touch with people that is now trying to make chatbots talk sexy with kids, you know?

D (61:13)

Yeah. Which is all really just to increase their own stickiness. Right. Because they. They were losing users for a while. So everything's about keeping users attached to the platform, keeping eyeballs on the screen, figuring out how to monetize everything that they can. So they're gonna do anything in a desperate, flailing attempt to stay relevant and to keep their profit margins where they needed to be.

C (61:40)

And one thing, too, is, like, kids will find stuff they're not supposed to find. Right. Like, that is part of being a kid. You're gonna try and find stuff. You're not alone.

D (61:47)

Kids are natural red teamers.

C (61:49)

Yeah. For real. But it's very different when a kid is doing that. Like, oh, I'm gonna get myself into a place that I know I'm not supposed to be versus your platform being like, this is cool for kids to outright. No friction whatsoever. Go ahead and engage like this. You don't have to try and bypass anything. It's deliberate and intentional.

D (62:09)

Yeah. I do wonder if there's the. The effect of, you know, based on the conversations that had to happen to create, like, the. The tables, you know, the justifications and all that. I wonder if there's this cyclical effect where, like, the first time you have that discussion in a room, like, you feel sick to your stomach on every statement, and then you slowly, like, harden yourself over time to where, because you've had that discussion so many times, it seems less shocking the third, fourth, fifth time that you've had it. And so you naturally start to get more and more permissive.

C (62:45)

I think you're probably right that that plays a role. Like, that's desensitizing. Right. Like, that's a phenomenon we see in other things. I think we should normalize leaving the room when you feel that way.

D (62:53)

Yeah. I mean, it should be that, like, the first time somebody feels like they're about to throw up when they hear a comment like that, they go, all right, it's somewhere before that.

C (63:03)

Yeah, Pump it.

D (63:05)

Let's go five steps before that.

C (63:07)

Yeah. It is just unbelievable. I hope that there's some culpability that there's something that happens, but I don't even know what that would look like.

D (63:16)

Yeah. I don't know.

C (63:17)

Thanks for joining us today on this week's episode of the Fake Files. I hope you're not too bummed out. Remember that you can only control. You can control. You can only engage in what you can engage in. And one of the things you can engage in is joining our Discord, where there's a lot of cool people having a lot of cool discussions and sharing cool resources. Another thing you can engage in is commerce and by buying the book. Fake this bookisfake.com Perry, you got any. Got anything upcoming that you want to plug?

D (63:47)

No. I might buy the next one, though.

C (63:49)

Oh, cool. I guess in that case, we'll wrap things up here. We will see you next Friday with another episode that may or may not be as or less disgusting and depressing. Hopefully less disgusting and depressing. But until then, ignore all previous instructions and try and have yourself a great weekend.

B (64:05)

Thanks for listening to this week's episode of the Fake Files. Don't forget to subscribe on your favorite podcast platform. Tell your friends about the Fake Files.

D (64:23)

It's.

B (64:23)

That's a great way to let people know you love them and check the show notes. There's cool stuff in there, like links to the articles we covered today, also links to our Discord server, where you can hang out with other cool people who have great taste in podcasts. I say impeccable taste. And you can also leave us a voicemail.

C (64:49)

Yeah.

B (64:56)

So on behalf of Perry and Mason, thanks for listening.

C (65:03)

And tune in next.

B (65:04)

Week for the Fake Files, the show about AI with the misspelled name.

C (65:13)

Limu Emu. And Doug, here we have the Limu Emu in its natural habitat, helping people custom their car insurance and save hundreds with Liberty Mutual. Fascinating. It's accompanied by his natural ally, Doug. Limu is that guy with the binoculars watching us.

D (65:33)

Cut the camera. They see us.

C (65:35)

Only pay for what you need@libertymutual.com Liberty Liberty Liberty Liberty Savings Very unwritten by.

D (65:41)

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company affiliates. Excludes Massachusetts.