Episode 4: AI, Copyright, and the Future of Content Creation

Pablo Calvo (00:00):

Thank you for joining the Boost. I’m Pablo.

Leon Hitchen (00:01):

And I’m Leon. 

Pablo Calvo (00:02):

And today we’re going to talk chat, GPT, the courts and 2024 predictions. 

Pablo Calvo (00:13):

Alright guys, thank you for joining us today. a lot of interesting news related to ai. As you probably saw in our last segment of the Boost, we actually chatted with a guest that focuses his business completely on open AI’s platform Chat, GPT, which a lot of companies are doing. But what’s interesting now is that we’re seeing a number of different court cases that are starting to hit the Newswire. Most importantly, I feel like the one that’s gotten the most press most recently is the New York Times suing Open AI and Microsoft over the copyrighted work. The dilemma is actually pretty interesting because from a business owner standpoint, you want to be able to shortcut, right? You want to be able to get things done more quickly. You have to be able to generate content. The question is how do you do it? And if you’re not familiar with the case, what the New York Times is saying is that, let’s see here, open AI is literally uploading all of their content, not attributing any of that content, and then in effect also stealing, which I feel is the most important part, stealing the SEO results from that publisher, the original publisher with zero citations. 

Pablo Calvo (01:37):

Yeah, 

Leon Hitchen (01:37):

So the big thing too was April they started a discussion, business conversation. They couldn’t really come to an amicable ending to that. So now they’re taking it to court. I guess in the end it’s like a licensing fee. The New York Times allows reprints, they allow the sharing of it, but they just want that original credit to train those bots. And I’m sure they’re saying that they’re inventory of what, a hundred plus years of data, it’s probably worth millions, billions of dollars. 

Pablo Calvo (02:16):

Billions, I’m sure. Maybe trillions, I don’t know.

Leon Hitchen (02:18):

Microsoft could probably pay it. Probably the best route to go is to pay for this stuff. 

Pablo Calvo (02:26):

I’d agree. But the thing is, is that what you have is sort of like the new technologies versus old technology kind of, it’s almost like a tug of war, right? You’ve got journalism, which look, let’s be honest, as far as where we are today with journalism majors coming out of school, where are they going? Are they all working at newspapers? Are they all working at magazines? No. In most cases, they’re becoming self-published or they’re working for online magazines or online publishers. So it’s almost like in order for the New York Times or any other major newspaper to stay relevant, they have to protect their content, right? They have to be able to protect it. But how do you do that when you’re no longer talking about print as the only medium? Now we’re talking about SEO for results. Readership happens in snippets. You’re not reading whole articles. I mean, how much content do you really download in a given day where you’re fed something, I don’t know, 15 seconds at a time, 10 seconds at a time, right? 

Leon Hitchen (03:32):

That’s also I think the problem with the internet and my qualm with the problem with all of this is at what point do we train the AI start writing stuff, and then it’s already kind of going down a weird path where it’s going to start feeding itself at the same content over and over again. It’s probably going to go insane at some point. If you talk to those chat bots enough, you cause it to break and it goes insane. That was 

Pablo Calvo (04:04):

Hall hallucinate hallucinate. 

Leon Hitchen (04:06):

There’s the 

Pablo Calvo (04:06):

Word. 

Leon Hitchen (04:09):

And more and more I think writing on the web should be contained or at least labeled in some way. So training on it I think has to be distinguished. And right now you really can’t distinguish what’s AI written, what’s human written minus even that minus mistakes and stuff. The AI makes more mistakes than a human makes sometimes, right? 

Pablo Calvo (04:34):

That’s true. I mean, what’s interesting though is that the whole value proposition for any LLM model, a large language model, is that it’s supposed to facilitate the production of content for a publisher. Say for example, for us in our day-to-Day jobs, supporting clients, writing content, are we necessarily going to be the experts in a particular field for every single industry that we support or represent? Part of it is like we have to be able to gather that information. So it does have value from a research standpoint, but you take that information and you do, I guess the best way to say it is you rely on it to be accurate because let’s be honest, how many people actually know about every single bit of content that’s out there in its accuracy, is able to validate it when it’s not being managed, and how do you manage that? 

Pablo Calvo (05:34):

So I think it lends itself naturally to these mistakes, but in the end it’s like, all right, it really depends on the user. When you talk about any bit of technology, anything could be used positively or negatively. That’s the ethical dilemma. It’s like, okay, how are you going to use this technology to effectively accomplish your goals, but also police yourself? And I just don’t feel that there’s going to be any way short of just saying, Hey, we’re not going to be able to allow you to use our data whatsoever. But it’s publicly available data. I mean, the New York Times is publishing the information. It is publicly accessible. Is it 

Leon Hitchen (06:15):

Though? We’ve got the paywalls, I think, 

Pablo Calvo (06:17):

Right? Well, yeah, but I mean, I was able to reach the Times article this morning, and I don’t have to go through a payroll one of three probably. But in the end is like they need me to buy their content, right? Correct. But the thing is, how many times have you gone to say, a publisher that is citing the original article? That’s very true, but redirecting the traffic to their own publication. The New York Times didn’t get that. I’m not going to go and subscribe to the New York Times. That’s probably not what I’m going to do. I still get the information, even if it’s rewritten, citing the original article, likelihood that I’m going to go to the original article. I’m not a research writer. You know what I mean? I’m not writing a paper for a college class or something. I’m using this information for production, which is completely different than I think anyone that’s a journalism major understands that the rules that dictate journalism are not going to be followed by people that have no clue what those rules even are. Yeah, 

Leon Hitchen (07:25):

I think in their complaint, they talk about the free writer principle in there is most people are not going to pay, and there’s, in their case, a few select donors and stuff that funds their journalism through those donations, through those subscriptions. But if this is just taken and rewritten, oftentimes it is. New York Times breaks news, thousands of publications press publish again. 

Leon Hitchen (07:55):

There’s a fine line of it, and I think it happens a lot on YouTube where you have people who try to do a creative way of commentary, but essentially you’re just watching that YouTuber’s video and kind of snickering in the background. And I think the whole discussion is, is that a copyright in theory? Is it copyright material? Are they just taking it? They’re not adding the creativity to it and redoing it. You can take a clip of video, make it your own, and then it’s not a copywriting material anymore. But in this case, I think OpenAI is just taking that content and they’re regurgitating it almost like word for word in a lot of ways. There is Reddit threads where they would go and add in mythical points in a book. The book is they’re talking all about it and they’re doing fanfic or whatever it is, and they started noticing the names pop up and they’re like, Hey, can we trick this into thinking this is what we wanted to do? 

Leon Hitchen (09:06):

They were able to find that, write a bunch of stuff, then go look at Open AI and get chat GPT to feed it back to them. So they knew that they were just stealing the content. So I think there’s got to be a monetization level on it. The New York Times was working towards that. I think open AI in their effective altruism stance. They’re essentially like, look, we’re going to make a lot of money and we’re going to make the world a net good. And don’t worry about the money for the creators, for the journalists and all of that. Just worry about what we’re going to do in the end, and we’re going to be the best stewards of this. And I don’t think they’re going to be the best stewards of it. 

Pablo Calvo (09:48):

Well, I don’t think they can, only because in the end, newspapers are not the only place people get their news. I mean, they write lots of words and that word content is what we’re talking about here. That’s being stolen effectively. But they’re not the only ones. I would venture to say that there’s more small publishers that are writing around the same things on personal blogs, small websites that have much fewer readers, for example, but they still have valid opinions. They probably are well researched maybe. 

Leon Hitchen (10:27):

And I think that’s the point is some publications just regurgitate exactly net for net what happened at the New York Times, right? Sure. The ones that do good and I think prosper on the internet are the ones that, excuse me, that essentially add opinions and facts and they add more information. And differentiating that stuff for the normal person on the internet, it doesn’t matter. It even verges into the conversation of Google. So when you Google something on Google News in Canada, Facebook doesn’t let you consume news on the platform because they have to pay for that news. And it’s a weird thing of should that news be paid for pre-internet ish days, pre social media, it was all paid. You couldn’t really get news for free. Now we are in a information society that get anything for free, almost. We 

Pablo Calvo (11:30):

Expect it. 

Leon Hitchen (11:31):

Yeah. New York Times, I don’t know how many people hit that and go, oh my gosh, I can’t read this. Screw this, I’m done. But I do think that there’s a part of me is like, Hey, I subscribed to the New York Times because I’m like, Hey, I know that’s the original source. I want the best reporting. I want to support that. I think the same thing in all of this. Open AI Bard, all the LMSs out there. I think that was the right 

Pablo Calvo (12:01):

Way. LLMs, same thing 

Leon Hitchen (12:03):

Out there. They need to pay their route somehow. And I think Open AI’s kind of gone that way with their extensions or plugins and all of that, but they need to pay the internet. 

Pablo Calvo (12:18):

So I feel like there’s probably two things happening. First, the New York Times, like most large newspapers, their they’re struggling, right? Yeah. They’re clinging on for dear life. So this is the means of being able to claw back some revenue, right? For damages because they’re seeking damages in the billions. We’re not talking about like, oh yeah, this is 50 million, a hundred million. No, no. They’re seeking damages in the billions. Why? Because Microsoft has very deep pockets. So the question comes down to, is this protecting just the integrity of their content or is this them trying to generate legitimacy, number one, to be able to say, Hey, you know what? We are the purveyors of all information because we did research. But my take on it is over time, this could actually do the exact opposite. People would say, Hey, you know what? I don’t care about the New York Times. You want to block users from coming to your site without paying for it. Then you get the exact opposite impact, which is, I’m not paying for that. I expect my content for free. So then what happens? Well, people are going to start literally turning away from the New York Times. They’re not going to, because New York Times isn’t the only newspaper out there. And again, some of the best reporting that’s happening online is not necessarily happening at newspapers 

Leon Hitchen (13:49):

Or any institution 

Pablo Calvo (13:51):

Or any institution. Exactly. It feels like the whole thing on plagiarism, I get that. I completely get it. But say for example, if the content wasn’t verbatim, if they took it as source material and then they just simply rewrote it, and AI got so good that it was able to rewrite that content in such a way that no two words repeated in any way. Let’s just say that. Let’s just as an example, would the New York Times still have issue with it? Could they have issue with it? 

Leon Hitchen (14:21):

I think on a business case, yeah, they’re going to have issue with it no matter what. I think there’s other people to this. The Sarah Silverman or 

Pablo Calvo (14:31):

Yeah, 

Leon Hitchen (14:31):

Comedian, no comedian author, something 

Pablo Calvo (14:34):

Like that. Yeah, she is both. Okay. 

Leon Hitchen (14:36):

Yes, yes. I don’t know who she is exactly, but I saw that she had sued Meta, which is the part of them that’s doing the open AI or open LMM stuff. She was contending like, Hey, you fed it in there. You can’t, and this is the weird copyright stuff. You can’t own the copy of the book digitally here, make a copy. And I can’t hand it to you stuffed in the sense. Sure. That’s kind of what they’re doing though. That’s true. If it gets good enough to where it could rearrange it and add a creativity to it and make it unique, I think it’s fair. But also, I think the purpose of AI is less about writing the full content. It’s more about editing, giving summaries, giving analysis. But I think 

Pablo Calvo (15:27):

It’s supposed to be an assistant. Yeah, 

Leon Hitchen (15:28):

An assistant, a tool, something that’s going to help you along the path. I think too many people are using it as a replacement for their riders. Red Ventures that owns bank rate, they own a bunch of CNN and all that. Even ESPN, I believe got caught doing this. They were publishing AI written content. They went as far as generating ai like authors. 

Pablo Calvo (15:57):

I heard about that. 

Leon Hitchen (15:58):

And I think there’s too much greed on that other side. And just in general, humans have that propensity to reach too 

Pablo Calvo (16:06):

Far to not pay. 

Leon Hitchen (16:08):

They want to maximize on their pool of opportunity, 

Pablo Calvo (16:13):

Their profit versus their expense. 

Leon Hitchen (16:16):

And I think there needs to be some guardrails around this of, man, this isn’t a tool to write everything. There needs to be a way to label it. Like, Hey, this was written by ai, some sort of detection, even the images, what is an image now? Before it was Photoshopped, before that, it was manipulation of the film and everything. Now there’s, there’s pictures of presidents, there’s deep fakes of presidents talking on TikTok and they’re having chest debates and stuff, and it looks very realistic. And I just think we’re venturing into a world of what is going to happen. And I get the argument of this copyright law and all of the monetary discussion is going to hamper the development of ai. But I think there needs to be a quick slowdown and say, Hey, what’s going to happen to everybody? The creators that are out there are creating and producing written content. How do they protect themselves in the end? And that’s what I’m looking at. I’m less looking at OpenAI, 80 billion, a hundred billion dollars company, Microsoft Trillion or whatever it is. How does the smaller creator that’s got 10, 20,000 followers on their blog and they’re making a decent money, they have a Patreon, how do they prevent that stuff from being stolen, rewritten, repackaged? And I think it kind of flows into the next article about that, where it just got stolen. 

Pablo Calvo (17:44):

So the article that Leon is talking about is it’s on futurism.com, and we’ll share the links in the description for the episode. So a company called Excel Jet, which is a Microsoft Excel resource website, writes a lot of content tips, shortcuts, that sort of thing. Lots of content for professionals that are using Excel to facilitate their adoption and use of Excel in business or educational settings. Well, they have a lot of very strong SEO because they’ve been producing this content for a long time. What’s happened? They’re contending Excel Jet is the owner of Excel Jet, his name is David Bruns. He’s contending that all of his content was actually hijacked and uploaded into OpenAI. And all of that content was then rewritten. Some inaccurate content on top of that was then published by a competitor. And they didn’t ever name the competitor, but they named the person, his name is Jake Ward, said that he essentially took all of the content and stole about 3.6 million views from Excel Jett over an extended period of time. 

Pablo Calvo (19:07):

So thereby stealing business, stealing eyeballs, stealing potential revenue from the original creator because all of that content was just uploaded in mass. I mean to, there’s a clear ethical conflict. I mean, if you actually adhere to ethical rules, you don’t do that, right? But you have somebody that’s literally just going after revenue money. They’re just trying to generate their own revenue stream. So they’re like, Hey, you know what? I don’t care if it’s available for me to copy. If it’s available for me to paste, I’m just going to do it. And I do feel like that is similar to, say for example, stealing somebody’s trade secrets. I mean, you can be sued in courts for stealing somebody’s proprietary information. I guess the question is, can the information that I write today, for example, if it’s original content, I can prove that I wrote it, it did not exist before I wrote it, I published it, and then someone else comes by and takes it, doesn’t attribute, doesn’t pay me. Would that be essentially open season on anybody that uses LLM platforms? 

Leon Hitchen (20:20):

Yeah, and we’re applying, copyright law is decades old now. We’re applying something that’s not really built for this. And I think for the most part, copyright law has been very flexible. Like Disney constantly pushes the can down the road for Mickey Mouse. It’s becoming public domain this year. These things, there’s a risk that essentially copyright log isn’t applied to any of this, and it might just be open season. And to some extent, the internet is the wild wild west, but this guy, Jake Ward, 30 

Pablo Calvo (20:57):

Years in, yeah, 

Leon Hitchen (20:59):

Well, it still is. The initial internet was that was the march across the country essentially that was making it to California. And we’re just now figuring things out. We don’t know how to govern the internet. Europe governs their part of the internet. We govern the part of the internet. China’s got its own intranet. There is no true internet right now. There’s not one connected thing. There’s still subcategories to that. I don’t ever run into Russian sites unless I look 

Pablo Calvo (21:31):

For them, look for them, right? 

Leon Hitchen (21:33):

But this Jake guy, this whole article stemmed from a Twitter thread, and I think he’s a little bit of an influencer. His bio is building scaling businesses to millions with organic marketing. He is a content marketer. So I think to some extent, this was a publicity stunt. It was all PR in the end. And he says that he stole 3.6 million eyeballs traffic from a competitor. And in the thread, he talks about how he did it. He used the tool, and I’m looking for it right now. It’s called By Word or something by word.ai. And you get free articles. I’m sure either he’s in the business or it’s his somewhere along the path. But it is interesting, there’s this side business of SEO parasite and the parasite SEOs essentially use an affiliate link and put it on your site, and you can leach all that SEO off of there. But I think at the core problem is SS EO search engine optimization. 

Pablo Calvo (22:40):

Yeah, you’re diverting traffic. I mean, if there was no traffic, but it’s for bots. 

Leon Hitchen (22:44):

We’re just writing for bots in the end. 

Pablo Calvo (22:45):

Well, yeah. I guess part of the discussion is, okay, so Google stance is you’re not supposed to game our platform. You’re not supposed to game our bots. But yet there’s a whole industry around doing exactly that. Right? 

Leon Hitchen (23:02):

And I’ll send you this article and we’ll put it in the show notes. It’s from the Verge. It’s the people who ruined the internet, and they say SEO people essentially ruined the internet. Because if you Google anything today, what pops up First five results, SEO Optimized content, a recipe, the first thousand words is not the recipe. It’s the story of the life of the person that’s not even real. And I think with the bots, we’ve gone too far along in theory though, the humans are still reading and consuming some of the content. But I’m not reading that thousand words. I’m either pressing jump to recipe, or I’ve got an ad blocker and I just scroll through. Or 

Pablo Calvo (23:47):

You use Chachi PT to give you a summary of what you want to read. That’s fair. I mean, that’s how I use it primarily. I mean, so for example, if I’m using a platform like say Chachi pt, I’m doing a number of different things on the platform. I look for ideas just coming up with content ideas. I mean, this is the way a business can legitimately use tools like these ethically, right? You’re trying to get a diversification of ideas on what you could write about. You could gather, hopefully cited data. Is it cited sometimes, but not often Properly 

Leon Hitchen (24:26):

Too? 

Pablo Calvo (24:26):

Yeah, properly. No. Every time I click a link on chat, GPT, you click it. It doesn’t take you anywhere. Sometimes. 

Leon Hitchen (24:31):

Well, it’s because it’s hallucinating, right? There is this big thing in The Verge did some more reporting on this that it literally hallucinated that it saw or that the publisher wrote articles about things. It never did. It never covered it never did. It was not real. And you don’t know what’s real. 

Pablo Calvo (24:53):

Someone’s just making it up. 

Leon Hitchen (24:54):

Yeah. Well, it’s not someone, it’s 

Pablo Calvo (24:56):

The 

Leon Hitchen (24:57):

AI took hints and things, and then the language model took inferences and created something, and it will blatantly lie to you. And that’s where I get a little worried on it. I use it in a very similar way, just like these show notes that we’re reading off you inputted articles, you had it summarized. I think that’s really great. I love doing that. Our show notes, we feed them in the transcriptions, AI driven, the summaries, AI driven. That makes a ton of sense. I love getting article questions, questions that people asking on the internet to write articles about. I love doing that. I love sitting in a meeting and have it summarizing my notes that is essentially chicken scratch and bring it into something. But 

Pablo Calvo (25:47):

You can even prepare for meetings using those tools, right? 

Leon Hitchen (25:50):

Yeah. Go look at somebody and say, Hey, what does this person do? Give me some recent accolades or notes. Even now there’s a tool called Type Fully for Twitter, LinkedIn and Masteron and stuff. It will go through my tweets and say, Hey, this one tweet did really well, write more content about. I think it was smart home stuff. It was like write more content about smart home stuff because it gets really great success. So it gives me more ideas based on things that I’ve talked about and that are engaged. I think all of those are great, but where verges in the, I guess, ethical dilemma or those questions is when you’re writing a whole article from ai, not editing it, not reviewing it, you really run the risk of just lying. And then also putting people out of a job that I don’t think an AI should be doing just yet, but I really love all the other applications. It’s just the dangerous part of human nature is to maximize to a crazy extent. 

Pablo Calvo (26:57):

Well, what’s interesting too is that you’re talking about a platform also that’s, or platforms, but we’re talking about LLMs in general as a platform or a technology type. So now you’ve got, when we had Sage, SEO with us last episode, we have a platform that is being built on top of another existing platform. It’s counting on this data to be able to build. And I would contend now there’s thousands of startups that are now trying to leverage these LLM platforms for their own businesses, 

Leon Hitchen (27:34):

And they have to leverage those big ones because you need a wealth of data. Microsoft knows the only way to get to this great point of AI being actually very useful is feeding it with a ton of data. It’s probably going to listen to this podcast, transcribe it, feed it into it. It requires that, and no small business can do it. Sage, there’s just no funding model available for him to run millions of servers somewhere across the country. So I think there’s a good happening. And Sage, SEO, I like how you do the research. And there, I think there’s some interesting bits on the articles. It is fully written that they have to be careful, and then the person using it has to be careful. And I don’t know if the person using it’s going to be careful. 

Pablo Calvo (28:26):

Of course, you would have to expect that They wouldn’t. I mean, 

Leon Hitchen (28:31):

They need a warning label. It’s like the hot coffee, like dilemmas, coffee’s hot. It’s expected. Humans are bad. They will sue for that. Same thing for that is I think there needs to be a warning label almost. I hate to say it. 

Pablo Calvo  (28:46):

You’re right about that. I mean, the problem is, is that you want trust people to use it ethically. And at the end of the day, I always feel, and this is just human nature, the desire for generating wealth is going to outpace for many people, is going to outpace the ethical balance that they’re supposed to have. I personally have a problem with trying to take content. And then again, it’s because it was hammered into my head. You don’t do that, right? So you have to at least, I was always told in school that you have to add your own spin. You have to contribute to the conversation. If you’re not contributing to the conversation, then you’re just simply copying it. And 

Leon Hitchen (29:32):

Even if it passed the plagiarism check, you’re not contributing. 

Pablo Calvo (29:36):

You’re not contributing. Exactly. So I think that the governance is probably still, it’s going to be required to some degree, what that looks like. I guess that’s going to be, maybe that’ll lead us into our trends for 2024, because I think we’re probably going to be discussing this quite a bit. But anyway, it’s interesting. It’s something that we’re seeing almost consistently. They’re talking about these SEO heists, that’s the term that I saw. 

Leon Hitchen (30:03):

Or parasite, SEO 

Pablo Calvo (30:05):

Or parasite, SEO as a term as 

Leon Hitchen (30:07):

Well. I loved what the futurism wrote. It was like SEO 11 or SEO, ocean, SEO. Ocean. I love that Ocean 11 heist thing. It is a heist. And there’s parasite, SEO, 

Pablo Calvo (30:23):

SEO Ocean’s 11 is what they called it. That’s right. That’s right. Yeah. I mean, I feel like this is going to be a consistent topic. I know from a business owner standpoint, someone that may not necessarily use open AI as often as maybe we do in an advertising and marketing business, but there’s also plenty of writers for businesses of all kinds. I mean home services or anything that you, you’re trying to sell a service on the internet. You’re going to need content to be able to draw in traffic. And I guess the question comes down to is at what point will I guess the need for professionals to do this work? I think we’re far off into the future still. But if it’s not managed properly, is it just going to be to the highest bidder? I’m just going to spend the most money and then buy the most expensive technology and it’s going to do everything for me with no cost. So 

Leon Hitchen (31:22):

Tying that to that first episode that we did about page builders and stuff, the greatest debate on the internet has been developers aren’t needed. They’re going away. You’re not going to be a developer any longer. This is going to stop developers. I think to some extent, there’s the world’s ending always happening. Sky is falling. Yeah, the sky is falling. The world’s ending always happening. AI poses a greater risk to some of that. But also it’s the same thing like Wix, Squarespace, these page builders didn’t stop developers. There’s still a need for them. I think it niched them a little bit further into very specific tool sets and building applications and apps and all of that. Less of these small websites for a roofer or a plumber, you don’t need to do that anymore. You can go to somebody that has a more affordable price than a hundred thousand dollars web app. 

Leon Hitchen (32:26):

You can go get something for 2000 to $10,000 and be good. I think the same thing’s going to happen in the space of writing and all of that similar to that writers for very specific sets of stuff, like maybe marketing copy will become less required. And then over time, you’re going to see writers kind of niche into spaces, say marketing copy for B2B SaaS, and they do it very well. They probably leverage open AI or some of the other ones. There’s Bard, there is the Llama one from Facebook. There is other ones that kind of put their personal spin on Shop gt. So there’s other ones out there that I think over time will kind of flow into the river. The internet of humans are still going to be there and probably always be there. And AI won’t pose this great risk. But I think the worry is, as humans, we always remember every movie AI destroys us. And I don’t know if that will happen. I really hope it doesn’t. But 

Pablo Calvo (33:39):

Like the Terminator. 

Leon Hitchen (33:40):

Yeah, all of that. And I watched a movie or a TV show called the 100. The Whole World ended because of AI in the end. And it almost ended in the end because of ai. And I think to some degree that AI probably hallucinated, but I really do think humans will leverage it. And at some point there’ll be a good equal balance to this. And we’re just always like, we don’t want change and change is happening. And I also think there needs to be enough pushback to slow down the AI companies to some extent, so that they let people flow into this. Because give it three years, AI is not going to really be the discussion point anymore. It would just be something in the background. 

Pablo Calvo (34:22):

Let’s hope not, because right now it feels like there is sort of a fatalistic attitude about it. But I mean, looking at the New York Times article, I mean there were 1300 comments on that article in a very, very short period of time. So this is definitely a hot topic. And for our audience, please contribute to the conversation and let us know what you think. 

Leon Hitchen (34:43):

Yeah.