Google’s Monopoly Fight & AI’s Mental Health Controversy | TSG Ep. 917

Perplexity. CEO is really relieved. He saved $35 billion 'cause he can't buy Chrome.

You're watching Textron Gang. Hey everyone. Happy Friday.

Can you believe it's Friday? I, I love Fridays. Um, we're here at Textron gang.

We've got a great way to end the week for you with a fantastic show and a great panel of people to talk about stuff with. Let me introduce you to him and we'll get right to it. We have some, uh, up in the northwest.

Fred Wilmot joining us, I assume down Texas West. It's good to have her back and a whole award. Jon Swartz, and of course, everybody's favorite Yankee fan.

Mike Vizard. Welcome gang members. We've got a great show to talk about.

So Mike, Google. Google got a favorable ruling. Um, but you know how the courts are, I don't know.

We will, maybe it'll be appealed. Maybe it won't be, but for now anyway, even though they might be a monopoly, they could still keep Chrome. Well, you know, there, it's, it's a small but exclusive club being a convicted monopolist.

Right? But that's a whole other issue. Um, I guess, you know, what I'm trying to figure out here though is what does this actually mean?

I mean, I get the fact that they're not gonna sell Chrome, at least not anytime soon, but, and they're supposed to share data with other search engines. Like who and for what and what does this mean to people? Absolutely.

Well, I think all you need to know when a court decision is rendered in a, by a federal judge, if your stock goes up almost 10%, that, that, that ruling was absolutely favorable to you. Um, so the federal judge said, Hey, yes, you are operating illegally. This is a monopoly, but did not force the breakup.

He basically is allowing Chrome and Android to remain intact while ordering Google to stop these exclusive contracts. They have, like they do with Apple, where Apple ships its computers with Google as the default browser. They also have to share some search data with competitors, which I think is going to be heavily litigated.

I don't know that this is actually going to happen. I think it's going to be appealed. I think that this was just a, like a, a punch with a feather.

This was not a, a warning shot, uh, the way that it, it could have or should have been, but the exclusivity in their search contracts has been their secret sauce for maintaining dominance for a long time. So if this holds up, then I think we are gonna see a shakeup in the search industry because a lot of people tend to use the default browser that comes on their machines. So if they can break that up successfully versus the sharing of data, I think we're gonna see some kind of a shakeup as it is by the numbers chat.

5 x growth compared to Google. So giving given enough time, uh, LLMs may overtake Google as Google is a search engine that thinks it's an LLM and all these LLMs think their search engines, so they're all gonna converge. But I do think that this was a good decision in a weak enforcement.

So I I've got a few thoughts on this. First of all, does, does this mean that we're gonna have bing again? 'cause Bing has become this generation's clipping?

It does, yeah. You know what I mean? It's, it's a loser that just keeps coming back and, um, I don't know.

I, okay, well give Bing another look. But, but here's the thing. When I went to law school, you know, there's this, there's the, a theory of judicial economy.

Courts and judges don't like to make decisions if they don't have to. And I think had the court kept quiet here, another six to nine months, they might not have had to because I think once these AI browsers hit the market, and we, there was news again today about, I don't know if you guys, actually it was yesterday. Um, oh, who makes Jira?

Atlassian? Atlassian bought the browser company in New York. They've got two like next gen browsers that leverage AI or something.

I, I think the word is out that AI browsers maybe a throw up the cards in the air moment in the browser market, much like we've seen in the past, when we move from Netscape to Internet Explorer to Mozilla to Chrome and chromium and and so forth, are we about to see a new generation of browser that may be just maybe takes Google's m word off the table here in terms of, of this, It's gonna take a long time for that to happen, but in the younger age groups, it has already happened. TikTok has surpassed Google and local search for people underage 30 for multiple years now. Oh yeah.

Social media is another factor. People will go to YouTube, people will go, although YouTube's Google, right? But people will go to TikTok, Twitter, blue Sky, wherever they go for information just as readily as a search.

But you mentioned AI search, uh, uh, OpenAI search. Yes. I think it's like Google, I OpenAI is only about, I, I forgot if it was 27% or 30% of Google searches, you know, comparatively, but still in a relatively short time.

That's a huge market. And as you said, Anne, it's, it's going three and a half times the growth. So that's only a matter of time as well.

And if you take the chrome out of the search monopoly, do you really have a search monopoly Now? You know, it's interesting you mentioned perplexity at the top, and it's interesting, you know, we didn't take that bid very seriously when it, when it first came out, it seemed like it's a play for headlines. But in a sense, perplexity in the long term is gonna be a competitor with, with Chrome.

And maybe in a sense they thought they jumped the line, but, uh, well, That's what I thought though. All along. Right, exactly.

They were gonna Exactly Interesting make, instantly make Comet, I think is their browser right? Comment. Yeah.

And they're, and they're, um, you know, this, this whole mark, this whole browser market's just in, in tumult, it's gonna be upended. I mean, we're, we hear, uh, rumors of Apple adding an AI search engine to Siri to compete with OpenAI. Uh, Chrome is, I mean, actually Google is moving more towards Gemini.

I mean, they were making a transition of sorts. So even they see what's, what's going on, obviously in front of 'em. But it's just, can I just throw one thing out though, which, which to me is so maddening about the court system, is we have this judgment ruling last year that finds that Google is liable for monopolization, and then the remedy in a sense lets, it lets it protect its monopoly.

It's, um, it just, to me it was just like this long wi tumultuous exercise in, in nothing in the end except with the, the, the, the, uh, the sharing of the search data. But for the most part it was just kind of a, a, a, a nothing remedy. John, you sound like some I Well, how does It benefit the consumer?

Oh, sorry. I was gonna say, how does it benefit the consumer who cares care, their data cares. We don't care About the consumers anymore.

Care. I don't care. Yeah.

Well, and it, I think the Google is going to, although Gemini is nowhere near as good as perplexity or OpenAI or Claude or any of the others, or even on a good day, maybe you could say gr but I wouldn't say Grok is good at anything at this point. But the biggest winners here in in AI in this arms race are gonna be the ones with tons of data, large data centers, and lots of compute. And Google has all three.

And that you, so You're a hundred percent correct. I'm, I'm didn't do All. No, I'm, so first of all, John, to your, to your comment about the courts, you sound like someone who still believes these, our court system here has integrity.

Oh, No, I know where this is going. I mean, I, you know, I sense, right, you know, what I thought happened between the decision and the remedy. I mean, honestly, no.

When I, when I see court decisions come down in this country these days, first I know I go look up and see who appointed that judge. Mm-hmm. Right?

Terrible. And that often tells you all you need to know. But that being said, a quick anecdotal shimmy story.

I was at my fantasy football draft Tuesday night, and in my draft is my friend Jeff, who's a VP over at Google Cloud. And, uh, he's been there, he's been at Google now almost 15 years. So I imagine he's sitting on some decent Google stock, though he got divorced, but another story anyway.

And to your point, that's exactly what he said. Look, he said, we're, we're gearing up for a war and the, and the munitions in this war, data, data centers, CPUs, market share. And no one, no one has the four in that combination as good as Google does.

And so they're ready for war. Bring it on, baby. Yeah.

That, that was his message to me. I he lot of, he picked a lousy football team, I'm going to kill him. But that's another story.

I think a lot of people are getting fed up with all of it. And the part of it that they're fed up with is the Google search experience kind of stinks, and the AI capabilities put on top of it aren't much better. And for that matter, you know, what you're seeing out of the AI browser stuff so far, it's early, but it doesn't really feel like it's a whole lot better either.

So I'm kind of like waiting for somebody to do something innovative here, because it's kind of just like starting to be noise everywhere. Well, AI overviews are hot garbage. I, I will agree with that, but I mean, look at how many times they've rolled it out and rolled it back.

Right? They've rolled it out to a certain percentage, rolled it back. It's usually not a good sign.

But now's there's such a high percentage Of people, well there's, and you know, they're in this for the long haul. And I'll tell you something, Gemini has gotten better, right? It, it would, it used to be, you know, way behind it.

It's, it's gotten better. I see, I know a lot of people who like to use Gemini for certain tasks. I feel like there's, It should within the Google workspace especially.

Yeah, you can use it within that domain. Yeah, it's helpful. But outside, exterior, am I using their agents?

Not really. I am in that, you know, it gives me insights into search, but, but it, it in and of itself is not a great tool at this point compared to others. Um, I think the use case matters there.

Yeah. I, uh, I use, I use, yeah, absolutely. I use Gemini Pro pretty frequently for code validation and audit.

Um, and I might use other things to help build something. But, um, What about cloud? Yeah, I use, I use Quad too.

Um, the, the models plus the, plus the engine, the framework. But I think the, the question mark there is which model writes better code for what particular use case, and then which model writes better tests? So genetically speaking, uh, either one works fine, but I feel like, uh, from our experience anyway here, uh, we use Gemini Pro two five basically to validate my quad results, right?

In a lot of cases. Mm-hmm. And we'll pass other models through that, uh, you know, do an ab comparison.

But, you know, to your point, I think the, the bigger thing here is, you know, if it's data and data centers and, uh, compute and access, uh, you don't have to be a first mover here. You have a lot of uphill battle That that's how Google feels. They don't have to be first mover because they have the resources to see this through.

Is there not rules to a third party app that just kind of sits on top of all this stuff? And, you know, I can invoke that and it will give you the best results from all of these things because, and to Fred's point, you know, I'm using whatever AI happens to be in the app that I'm using. So if I'm in Google Docs, I'm using Gemini, or if I'm in Microsoft, I'm using their thing, but I'm not really going out of my way to go find, you Know, so Mike, I I think I, I, I don't think you're in the majority there.

Mm-hmm. I, I think people are finding that they have their favorite AI they use. I mean, for me it's, it's chat GPT, and then I'll go to Claude as my close second.

That I Says is the same thing you do, Alan, in terms of Research. I don Google, consider I don't use copilot. Yeah.

Is fine. But yeah, just a classic Google search. Forget It.

I think you're in that 1%. And I think I'm in the majority with most people who are kind of lazy. Of Course you do.

Of course you do. Of course you do. Everybody Good question.

Everybody's entitled to their opinion. The the big question is, is whether or not you have the apps on your laptops and your phones for those AI engines, right? Do you have Yeah.

So that's more, but, So let me, but let me tell you what I did today. Unfortunately, I didn't get it done in time for today's show, but I wrote a quick article this morning at like six o'clock, um, a about iPhone 17. But I took a different take on it.

I went to the experts to ask them what they thought was gonna be in the iPhone 17, and what experts did I go to? I went to the ais. So I went to chat.

GPT, I went to Claude, I went to Gemini, um, and I went, uh, uh, uh, to x to Grok, whatever. And they, they all, you know, there was some overlap, but they all had at least one or two different things that the other one didn't have. Maybe.

But then I asked Chachi PT what did it think the other ones would say? And it was interesting how it, it, and it, and it's in my article, if you check the article, it, it said, well, Gemini's going to go big and make bold things that may not be true. Claude, you know, is very, uh, very conservative.

And it's going to, you know, give you the obvious grok, I forgot, oh, rock's gonna crack jokes 'cause it tries to be funny. And, and, um, Lama lama is all about Instagram anyway, or something like that. And she's like, so, so It reflects the personalities not wrong that they represent.

I mean, but it was in, so that was chat GT's take of what those guys would say or what guys, what those ais would say. That's cool. But an inter, it was an interesting exercise.

That's a great conversation to figure out whether or not there's a consensus in quorum that can be had here. Or are we really just gonna have five people on the block having a debate about their personalities Yeah. With their hot stakes.

Yeah. Be curious to see There is good, but, Well, I think I, go ahead. I was gonna say in this case, I think, um, just getting back to the actual decision on Remicade, I think both sides are gonna appeal.

I just wanted to mention that there is a, there, I think it's DOJ and Google are supposed to meet and confer and submit this revised final judgment next week. But I think this is just gonna continue to go through the court system. Absolutely.

They're not gonna just accept this. I doubt it. No, there's, I just can't see a world where they're gonna go, okay, here's the data guys As favorable as it as it was for Google and, and Apple.

Yeah. They're not, they're still not gonna accept it. So I, I'm not sure you're gonna see the government appeal this, they, they're not, this, this administration is not into enforcing antitrust monopolistic on American based companies.

No, No. Not the least. That's, that's the facts, guys, right?

And, and I understand why they do it, but remember, why do we have these antitrust laws in place to foster competition to have the next generation of innovation? And, and, and in, in saying, we need, these companies are too big to fail, whether it's Microsoft, Google, Intel, Facebook, apple, what have you, if they're too big to fail, they block the sunlight for the next generation of companies who need that energy to grow and bring us our next Googles and our next ais and our next what have you. And, and that's the downside of that.

Hey, how much is 10% of Google's search revenue anyway, More than you'll ever need would get you, it would get you really good. Like, you know, you'd have your own suite at Yankee Stadium with your, you probably get a Can Franchise too. Isn't, isn't this how we deal with companies that are too mg to fail now?

We just make them revenue generators for the United States. Isn't that how that's gonna apply? Yeah.

That, that could, because We, we buy a stake in these companies. We don't buy a steak. We don't buy a steak, get a steak, we take a stake.

Mm-hmm. What do I know about the restaurant business? All right, let's, let's, let's end it right here 'cause we're descending and, uh, we'll come back up and we'll more court.

We, we got nothing to do, but talk court cases today, uh, philanthropic reached a settlement in their copyright case. We'll talk about that next on Textron Gang, Discover Textron Group, the epicenter of tech innovation. We are your go-to for reaching IT, leaders and practitioners worldwide.

Our secret impactful content that sparks awareness, engagement, and top quality leads with us. You'll access editorial websites, streaming videos, virtual events, custom content analyst research, and more. Join our satisfied clients.

Let's revolutionize your tech journey. Contact us today and tell your story to the world in the most powerful way with Textron Group. Hey folks, we're back.

And we're talking about this settlement that Anthropic had with a bunch of authors who are suing it for violating their copyrights. And the details of this are a little light and sparse still, but apparently, um, philanthropic was looking at maybe a trillion dollars in potential liability. And so they settled in some ways that we don't know exactly what for, but everybody seems to be watching this case, John, because, well, there's a lot of these suits up there.

Yeah. It's getting a, it's getting a lot of attention. This was the most high profile of a number of, of these types of lawsuits.

And, um, it was a class action suit that's been settled. We haven't heard terms of the settlement, but what essentially the judge said in, um, in his ruling or his, the announcement of the settlement was that, um, he, he had agreed that anthropics process of training models on these copyrighted works was, quote, exceedingly transformative. In other words, anthropics said it legally bought paperback versions of these three authors books scanned and digitized material, and then destroyed the originals.

But what it didn't mention, and this was discovered in the case, which could lead to heavy damage to philanthropic, is that it also illegally downloaded 7 million books to accelerate training of Claude. And it kept those copies. Now, uh, wired came up with an estimate that had it gone to court and lost in these other cases, it would've been on the hook for up to a trillion dollars in damages.

So it's settled here, but this case is far from over. Um, and I think there are other cases that are gonna evolve or that we've been hearing about, uh, some involving News Corp. Is, is suing.

I think Ziff Davis has been another that's sued. Uh, we have the New York Times scuffle with OpenAI, so it's far from over, but this is the first settlement, maybe the first settlement of many. I don't know.

We're gonna see more lawsuits probably crop up. Um, you know, AI moves fast and so the so are these lawsuits. Absolutely.

And I I don't think philanthropic is alone. I mean, quite famously, Tim O'Reilly came out and said, Hey, o OpenAI, you scraped all of our O'Reilly books. And as an O'Reilly author, I obviously took offense to this 'cause I worked very hard on that, and it's gonna tank my book sales.

My book has also been out for eight years, so war were those sales anyway. But it just seems like such an egregious violation of copyright laws. And it's, it's the move fast and break things ethos.

I mean that the, this is how that comes to play. I have a question about how you get to derivative works issues here, right? All of them, right?

So if it's a book that I wrote, right? And I wanna write a series of books, but you've read without my consent, right? Those books, uh, and violated the copyright there, and you write my next couple of books because you have access to all the domain knowledge plus all of my writing style and so on and so forth.

Where does that come to play here? It's fruit from the Poison Tree. Not at all.

Because what, what it, because I mean, there could be a scenario if I said, Hey, this is my new book by Fred Wilmot, or this is my new book in the Voice and style of Fred Wilmot, or this is my new book based upon Fred's book, right? But that's not how AI is working here, right? It's, it's taking your book and, you know, into its knowledge base, but in essence recreating, you know, the closest legal analogy you have to this is the sampling in music, right?

So yeah, this happened just recently to an artist named Emily Portman. She's, people were complimenting her on her new album. I just read a BBC story about this yesterday.

People were complimenting her on social media about her new album, and she was like, what new album? And it had been put out as an AI fake. So that, that clearly is, you know, crossing the line.

But that, that's not where a lot of this is using. I gotta tell you though, this settlement, and usually look, when you see settlements, there are win-win settlements. There are gun to the head settlements, and there are, you know, just save my bacon settlement and make it go away.

This was sort of a hometown. Again, I think we protected anthropic, which I'm not sure if Philanthropics us or UK based, I forget. But you know, we, we protected the hometown here.

They, they, I think they're getting away relatively easy compared to what it could, should be. And, and it's gonna set the bar for the other ones to settle as well. Yeah.

It's gonna set a precedent for some of the other cases, Right? Right. This is, It's based in San Francisco, by the way.

Yes. It's local. Um, I think, I think they also noticed there are hearings on this topic now in Washington, and the noise coming out of there isn't pro ai, it's pro content.

So Right. Content creators in Congress. Does that matter anymore?

We'll see, yeah. Come on. Too big to fail again.

I mean, it's just like more and answers, right? Are you talking about Congress or Congress? Yeah, Just checking.

Yeah, I'm talking about that. There's gonna be a lot of finger pointing and raise. 0, watch out.

0. I'm aware of that. It's the save the taxpayer money bill now.

Mm-hmm. They've rebranded it, Right? Well, content creators are taxpayers.

So there you go. That brings up another thing. I don't know if you guys have seen this, but you know, when I look, well, not so much on my post, but when I look at other posts on social media and they, and, and the, and I see some of the comments are, you know, crazy fantas old conspiracy wielding crazies.

And I say, who the hell writes this s**t? Excuse my language. And I, and I click on the person's name, how many times that person will say, I'm a digital creator.

That's what they do for a living. They're a digital creator. I think digital creators are bots that are full of crap and just put out there to so discord in our, in our world and country.

And we should, anybody who, any profile that says they're a digital creator, let's just erase it. I like that. I like that.

Check it out. I don't disagree, but self see, so I, so I know people who are digital creators, they're actual people, and I'm kind of trying to wrap my head around their first amendment rights and what you just said. I'm gonna have an executive order and suspend it.

There's, you know, there was this little loan loss passed in 1791 that in times of emergencies, I could do whatever I want. Oh, Okay. Fair.

I'm waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on that. All right, on that note, we'll wrap this one up. Let's come back and, and maybe, and well, it's a good segue into AI mental health crises.

Are we all crazy? com is the leading resource for news analysis and education on challenges facing the cybersecurity industry. com covers all aspects of cybersecurity, including data security, DevSecOps, cloud security, application security, network security, security threats, and more.

com has the largest selection of security content featuring breaking news, blog posts, podcasts, and more. com to learn more. com.

Home of security bloggers network at work. Hey folks, as Alan said, we're gonna talk a little bit about AI mental health and on previous shows, and especially with Fred, we've talked about the positive side of that where, uh, folks who may not have access to healthcare can maybe rely on ai. But now there's a negative side too where, uh, parents are suing because their son, uh, harmed themselves because of ai, or at least that's what they're blamed for.

The providers of the models are now saying that they're gonna provide more guardrails for distressed teenagers. There's, um, uh, cases in New York where somebody is allegedly killed themselves and their spouse because of what AI told them. And now there's even a congressman in Staten Island saying, we need to do some regulations here because this is gonna be the next big crisis.

Fred, I know that you've been on the positive side of this, but what's your take on the latest negatives? I think with the pervasive use and the, you know, erosion of human connection, the exacerbating symptoms of what's going on in the world and the warning signs we don't see about bot behavior is this is the downside. And absolutely, it's, it's pretty scary to think about what those types of influences are, right?

Uh, example, uh, I have a, you know, a, a a 21-year-old daughter that, that goes to school in England, and, uh, she is pretty removed from her support group, let's say. You know, if the types of ways that we've talked about are positive, can actually turn very negative and support negative behavior and activity without guardrails, it has, that will have an incredible amount of consequence in society. Right?

So, Adam Rain's parents suing OpenAI. Interesting. Um, what's the, what's the viability of that?

Having actual legs to create reform and requirements? I think the notion of self-harm and suicide eating disorders, all of the chaos that, you know, young people have today are, are magnified by their access to influential data. And some of that, whether it's, you know, chat GPT or it's anthropic or it's whomever, right?

The interesting illustrations here are that there is more and more pathos being evolved in the way that the communication unfolds between folks that are spending more and more time, uh, you know, uh, Eric Solberg's situation, right? Clearly delusional and manifested over a long period of time, uh, that had predictable consequences. So, you know, whether it's diagnosis, misdiagnosis, harm, you know, what is the shared responsibility model here that hasn't been established or the guardrails that illustrated, You know, this is, oh, go ahead.

Go ahead Aaron. This is an old problem. Yeah.

Yes. Feels like a new problem. Yes.

0. Uh, social media was not, and has not been historically a safe place for kids. Uh, you, you have all sorts of things going into place, and without parental oversight there, there's harm, right?

And so I think that we're seeing some very exaggerated cases that are bringing this to the, to the forefront. We have a loneliness epidemic. We have, uh, you know, there is no chart and map for where we are now.

And I think the, the biggest misnomer I see with people, this isn't new. It feels new because it's got a different twist on it, but it's, it's not, Yeah. You know, that's, I was my exact sentiments and I, there was a cons controlled study by OpenAI and MIT that found increased daily chatbot use was associated with loneliness and restricted socialization.

And when I saw that, I thought, well, didn't we hear that about Facebook? Didn't we hear that about even MySpace? I'll date myself.

Um, this isn't new. And I, maybe these are outliers, but they're still a very important examples of what is happening that we know of. And I think it took us, OpenAI was working on making, uh, adding guardrails to address this.

But I'm telling you, in the New York Times has a front page story outlining what happened to Adam Rain that's gonna move things up and accelerate actions by them. And by meta, by the way, I, I would liken this to the Victorians where, you know, uh, they, they were scared of gaslighting because gaslighting in the home meant poisonings. It meant fires.

Uh, and we are in that era. We are in the gaslighting era. And I don't mean that in the term it's used, how it's used now.

I mean, literal gaslighting. Uh, you, there is always a price to pay for the advancement of technology, and these poor people are paying it. And, and that's the unfortunate thing.

But I'm gonna disagree. And I'm gonna say that there's a world of difference between people on social media maybe saying things that are wrong or encouraging people to harm themselves, and a machine program by a company saying that that's a whole other level of responsibility and, and li and liability. So I don't think that this is quite the same thing as what we've seen before.

And when you got a machine that is sick of what, It's not apple, But I think when a human, when a human says, I mean, I don't know. This is, this is a really, this Is d is son, this is son of, son of Sam, right? There was a black dog talking to him, telling him to go shoot people here.

It's AI telling me to go do it. Let's not, you know what, yes, we are in a little bit of a new era and we have a new whipping boy that we can whip, but sick people do sick things. And, and so this makes Garbage in garbage out.

Yeah. And, and so this is, you know, they, if it, this is just the latest, you know, wave of this, but sick people do sick things. I, I think Fred I think was referencing that.

But let me tell you the good news here. 'cause there's a silver lining here. Why can't we train?

Why can't we train the AI to be a better mental health counselor and give everyone their own personal therapist, their own personal, you know, I, look, I, I tell you, I went for therapy for many, not many years, but a good amount of years during my life. And I found it incredibly helpful to have someone who would listen, not necessarily give you answers, make you go on a journey of finding your own answers, but would listen and help guide you on your journey there. I think, you know, why, why don't people do that more?

Why don't more people do it? Well, there's a little stigma to it, but it's also money, time, privacy. Ha.

Having a, a personal therapist that, that, and I think we could do that well with ai. I think that would be fantastic and would help a lot of people with, with mental health issues. Look at what it's doing for the elderly.

They're using, they're using AI in robots to, to be companions to elderly. That that's something that's happening in Asia. And, and I think as absolutely what this technology can and should be doing.

Yep. Just making People's lives better. Now, I'm, I'm a little concerned about the AI girlfriend boyfriend things.

Yeah. That's icky. It's not a replacement.

Well, you know, hello. It's just like junk food, right? We like junk food, we like chocolate cake, but we know not to eat it for every meal or roast.

Yeah. I know plenty Of people who I think people Are who gorge on junk food all the time, unfortunately. Right?

But, but the, it's like a digital health thing, right? Yeah. You, you go back to the same, well, you keep going back.

I met a gentleman at a networking event at the Soho House not too long ago who told me he spent all day talking OpenAI. He said, well, you're a digital expert. Tell me, you know, I'm asking for career advice.

It's giving it to me. It's telling you to be a developer. It's dah, dah, dah, dah, dah.

And I said, s first of all, go outside touch grass. Secondly, don't rely on one model. So when I, I hear sort of edging towards addiction, I say, don't, don't do not get locked into one universe.

That's the number one thing. You The context windows are getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Yeah.

Don't, don't get locked into one universe. Also, there Is gonna also, there be that though there is gonna, there are gonna be people who, who are infatuated with it kind Of thing. But, but last, It's Last time I checked, if a human encourages another person to harm themselves, that is a crime.

And you will go to jail. So it's not like, this is not maybe net new, but it is a significant liability even if you're AC company just saying So, so in the eighties, right, there was this band called Judas Priest, you may remember. I Remember, right, Exactly.

So in Alive Yeah. Sued for, you know, demonic worship that caused people to do, you know, any number of things. A teen locked himself in his room and listened to his priest and then committed suicide and so on.

And all of the social, uh, you know, triggers are there every day all the time, right? And the notion of the erosion of human connection, right, is actually the complete opposite of what we want to happen with shimmy, as you suggest. Right.

Some healthy opportunities for not only, you know, sort of teens at risk. 'cause you know, 19 year olds have the highest suicide rate of any absolutely. Age group, but also, you know, the elderly who don't have, because their kids don't live around 'em anymore.

They don't, their social circles have died off or whatever the case would be. And another Group, Fred Veterans, Absolutely. 23 a day.

Yeah. I would love for some way to stop that statistic from growing. Yep.

But that, that exact case, right? And to your point, the, the rationale between trusting one voice or distrusting all voices equally, it's not human nature. You want to establish that trust and you want to hear the truth, air quotes, uh, about what they know about you.

That's really what that type of connectivity is about. That's the part that worries me a little bit. And the shared responsibility construct is if you're gonna give me a device that I keep in my house, like Alexa or whatever, I don't have any of that in my house.

But if you did, uh, that, that device would allow you the opportunity to understand you better, right? To, to Shimmy's point about counseling and, and management of, you know, sort of health issues. How much of that is a shared responsibility that that company, that organization has to be accountable for, just like Mike said, like it, if somebody told you, you know, Hey, you should go jump off a bridge, what do we tell our kids?

Just because somebody told you to go jump off Somebody told you to do that right? Doesn't mean you should. Where is that sort of come to be part of the pathos of how we interact in society today?

That's, I'm curious If this goes, if this goes to core, it'd be really interesting to see where, as Mike alluded to, liability of the companies themselves behind the models. Um, I don't know if it would, if it will, but it'd be be a fascinating test case. We'll see, we'll see you.

We've already spoken Our courts. Alright. I just, nothing to say about all this.

There is no substitute for a good bartender. That's all I gotta say. How about an AI bartender?

I'm in. I'm in. All right.

There you go. Hey, we're gonna call a wrap. You know what?

It wraps up a week, a great week here on the gang. We hope you've enjoyed it. As usual, we've got tech drunk TV coming up immediately after this and, uh, we will be back Monday with fresh gang content to go over.

But have a great weekend everyone. We will see you Monday. On behalf of Fred and Ann and John and Mike and myself and the rest of Techstrong, have a great weekend.

We're out.