The question here is a lot of experts in AI don't share the same level of concern that you do about the dangerous rules. What's the last word? What specifically do you believe that they don't? Well, the biggest issue I see with civil AI experts is that they think they know more than they do. And they think they're smarter than they actually are. In general, we are all much smarter than we think we are. But much less smart, the more than we think we are, by a lot. So this tends to plague smart people. They just can't, they define themselves by their intelligence and they don't like the idea that a machine can be waste smarter than them. So they just count the idea, which is vitaminally flawed. That's the wishful thinking situation. I'm really quite close to the cutting edge in AI and it scares the hell out of me. It's capable of vastly more than almost anyone knows. And the rate of improvement is exponential. You can see this in things like AlphaGo, which went from in the span of maybe six to nine months it went from being unable to beat even a reasonably good go player. So then beating the European World Champion who was ranked 600, then beating Lisa Dolph 4, 5, who had been World Champion for many years, then beating the Card World Champion, then beating everyone while playing simultaneously. Then there was Alpha0, which crushed AlphaGo 100 to zero. And Alpha0 just learned by playing itself. And it can play basically any game that you put the rules in for. If you, whatever rules you give it, it literally read the rules, play the game, and be superhuman for any game. Nobody expected that rate of improvement. If you ask those same experts who think AI is not progressing at the rate that I'm saying, I think you will find that their predictions for things like Go and other AI advancements have, they're vanting averages quite weak. It's not good. We'll see this also with self-driving. I think probably by an end of next year, self-driving will encompass essentially all modes of driving and be at least 100 to 200% safer than a person by the end of next year. We're talking maybe 18 months from now. Nitz at the study on Tesla's Autopilot version 1, which is relatively primitive, and found that it was a 45% reduction in highway accidents. And that's despite Autopilot 1 being just version 1. Version 2, I think, will be at least two or three times better. That's the current version that's running right now. So the rate of improvement is really dramatic. We have to figure out some way to ensure that the advent of digital superintelligence is one which is symbiotic with humanity. I think that's the single biggest existential crisis that we face and the most pressing one. And how do we do that? I mean, if we take it that it's inevitable at this point, that some version of AI is coming down the line, how do we steer through that? Well, I'm not normally an advocate of regulation and oversight. I mean, I think it's one should generally go on the side of minimizing those things. But this is a case where you have a very serious danger to the public. And it's therefore, there needs to be a public body that has insight and then oversight to confirm that everyone is developing AI safely. This is extremely important. I think the danger of AI is much greater than the danger of nuclear warheads by a lot. And nobody would suggest that we allow anyone to just build nuclear warheads if they want. That would be insane. And mock my words, AI is far more dangerous than nukes. Far. So why do we have no regulatory oversight? This is insane. What's question you've been asked for a long time? I think it's a question that's come to the forefront of the last year. We begin to realize that it doesn't necessarily, I think, if we've all been focused in on the idea of artificial superintelligence, right? Which is clearly a danger, but maybe a little further out. What's happened over the last year is you've seen what I've been calling artificial stupidity. You talk about algorithmic manipulation of social media. We're in it now. It's starting to happen. How do we, what's the intervention at this point? I'm not really all that worried about the short term stuff. Things that are, like narrow AI is not a species level risk. It will result in dislocation in lost jobs and, you know, the sort of better weaponry and that kind of thing. But it is not a fundamental species level risk, whereas digital superintelligence areas. So it's really all about laying the groundwork to make sure that if humanity collectively decides that creating digital superintelligence is the right move, then we should do so very, very carefully. This is the most important thing that we could possibly do.