Dr. Kent Gustavson: Welcome to Man vs. Slop. We're always talking about AI on this podcast, and we have our first guest on this podcast ever to join us in the round and speak about rubbish, which he told me is what he calls slop. But I'm very interested to talk with Vinayak Sastri about AI, about life, about all the crazy things happening in the world. And I'm Kent Gustavson.

Aleck McCathie: I'm Aleck McCathie.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: Let's go.

Vinayak Sastri: And I am Vinayak.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: Oh, yes. And he's Vinayak. So, Aleck, what are some headlines?

Aleck McCathie: It seems to be the same stuff week by week. Every week that I'm looking at the news, I'm seeing reports from these big companies like Anthropic just reporting on all the crazy things that their models are doing during their testing. This week, South Korea's president says that AI was used to hack seven banks. So, like, the the nefarious things that are happening are just... It's exponentially growing, it seems, by the week.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: So what I think is interesting is the... It's... It seems like it's the the crowd effect happening. One one crazy thing does something, and everybody jumps on the bandwagon. So this week, Muse has gotten bigger and bigger and is starting to gain steam and apparently Facebook has a frontier model now.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: So we're talking about... You got Facebook, or Meta, sorry, Meta. You've got Meta, you've got Google, you've got Anthropic, you got OpenAI, whoever else is next. And now... Yeah. Maybe I'll point to Vinayak. We got these huge AI models. I don't know. What do you... How do you explain the difference between these?

Vinayak Sastri: No. I think it's, so hey, first of all, thank you for having me here Aleck and Kent. So it's a pleasure to talk about it. And before I dive into that particular question, I know there is a lot of talk, especially in the past few weeks. Something to which Aleck referred to, you've been talking about.

Vinayak Sastri: But I look at it, I'm an eternal optimist. So I look at it from a very positive lens in terms of what's happening. And I think the interesting thing is a lot of these AI models which are out there are exponentially growing. I a lot of them have a cutoff in terms of when they were modeled in maybe August last year or August the year before. Think just given the sheer volume of data as we are putting it out every day, for example, YouTube gets about, I think, 20,000,000 videos now a day compared to what it used to be a few months, etcetera.

Vinayak Sastri: So I think all of us are content creators. All of us are also content consumers. So no wonder the models continue to evolve because there's so much data out there and there's so much segmentation possible. I think it's very interesting because the nuances of what the universe can actually offer, which many years back the physicists said it's a quant or a quantum. We are actually seeing, living the reality in terms of how quantumatic, if I may use the word, data is getting.

Vinayak Sastri: And the types of insights you're getting, obviously there's a lot of good. There's also some not so good, if I may say. And, but it's just, it's just mind boggling. And I think the more people come up with models, the more they're able to explore.

Vinayak Sastri: Because remember, a lot of this is still on public data. There is still a lot of data sitting behind private networks, which I'm sure, you know, various organizations are are building their own models. And so it's it's mind boggling, but it's quantumatic. And and somewhere in between, it is really pushing the frontier as we go.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: And and any I like that you're talking about the frontier. Any thoughts about you've got your Meta, you've got your Anthropic, you've got all these things. Is that just about the money? Is it just about how big these companies are jockeying to get? How how quickly they can get a user base? I mean... Or is there a significant difference between them?

Vinayak Sastri: That's an interesting question because, obviously it starts with user... A user base. Meta, for example, already had all most people as users on their platform, and they were already putting content out there. So I think it was just the next logical step. And I think what really accelerated all of this is it's not just in terms of generating data, but storage really boomed along with the evolution of cloud and cloud based storage and all of that.

Vinayak Sastri: You go back almost a couple of decades ago when they were talking about grid computing and using, you know, what should I say, unused resources, unused computing power. And I remember the experiment which started with the search for extraterrestrial intelligence at home, SETI@home. And it was a fascinating project started with a screensaver. And the first thing was, you you could be the first with your desktop to actually have alien contact. And I mean...

Dr. Kent Gustavson: And were you... Were you the first?

Vinayak Sastri: No. I was not the first, but...

Dr. Kent Gustavson: No kidding.

Vinayak Sastri: But I really like the idea of that. And and that came up with a number of others. There was the whole human human genome unfolding. A number of other projects came in, climate prediction. And I think in the Fukushima disaster, they also used a lot of these crowd sourcing to actually trace areas where nuclear radiation is spreading, etc.

Vinayak Sastri: I could be wrong, but a lot of that crowd sourcing happened. And from there, if you see its usage of that data storage and compute power. Today we're talking about GPUs, which is astronomically much bigger than what it used to be earlier. So so, you know, it's it's it's a cyclical effect, and it's a positive cycle in that sense. And and I guess Meta already had an advantage because they had a strong user base.

Vinayak Sastri: Companies like Anthropic and the others were able to continue to work on their models to make sense of it. Because if you see, under the model is a neural network. There is a deep learning algorithm which is actually at work. It's very much like our brain. And the more variables you're able to give it, the more it is able to compute and start to quantify and make better sense.

Vinayak Sastri: So I think it's intelligence evolving. That's the way I see it. And obviously, whoever has the largest number of users alone doesn't stand at an advantage. It is also their ability to create these models. So, you know, for all you know, Kent, you could be the next one.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: Yeah. Yeah. No. I I already have... I have contacted aliens here from my from my home office. So that's that's me. I'm that guy. I just didn't tell anybody about it. So I'm also curious because you used these epic words. You used universe, and I kind of want to point to that.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: And you're talking about quantum, and you're talking about... These are scientific words. And what I think is so cool is, you speak in a humanities way, in a almost marketing slash business slash humanities slash... slash mensch. And at the same time you're talking about quantum and little bits of data and the universe and the aliens and all this stuff.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: It feels to me like AI, is... Like this opportunity that we have right now, this speeding up or whatever's happening, this this pivot point feels like those two things are crashing together.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: And that's when you get things like content slop, but at the same time you get these, like, every single math equation in the history of the world is about to be solved. Like that kind of stuff at the same time.

Vinayak Sastri: Correct. Yeah. I mean, it's a very interesting intersection, don't you think? You know, in terms of... Yeah. Exactly like you said, it's content slop. In fact, there are companies out there which which today will tell you what are the number of AI generated music videos or AI generated movies. I mean, what we call as... I mean, not just deepfakes, also at the same time something which is it's not created by a human. It's it's a machine creating something and...

Dr. Kent Gustavson: I think I think I watch those accidentally sometimes. I get sucked in and it's like, have you looked at every president who had funny hair or something like that? And then you watch 15 videos of presidents with funny hair or something. Is that... I guess that's what...

Vinayak Sastri: Yeah. That's one. And the other is, you know, there are also these... It could be just, let's say, an evening of serene music. Or it could be, you know, music in the sky, whatever.

Vinayak Sastri: And then there is new music getting created. So, yes. I mean, so there is there is that side of it. And then you have all these complex problems that are getting solved, like the one that the OpenAI talked about, or I think it was Anthropic which talked about, something which was not solved for more than a hundred plus years. And they were able to crack that, which is quite amazing.

Vinayak Sastri: And third aspect of, you know, between these two extremes, you see what's also happening with people. You know, there are a number of apps that have come out which are teaching people basics in terms of, like, the curriculum around maths. What amount of maths do you... Or mathematics do you need to really understand, you know, some of these? What should be a level of literature, exposure to literature?

Vinayak Sastri: How do you sort of discern between, you know, ins... You know, the real music versus AI developed music? You know, so I look at it like it's from the abstract, something which is totally abstract to something which is very concrete.

Vinayak Sastri: Something which is really sublime to something which is very boring. So, you know, those... And I think you have to today work... Live across that continuum on a number of different layers.

Aleck McCathie: I I love talking about it on that continuum. Last week or one of the previous weeks when those math equations were solved and we were talking about it, I've been hearing about it over and over again. And the the bottleneck there is now like our human judgment because we can't just say like, oh, yeah, AI solved all those things. We don't have to worry about it anymore. Like, someone actually has to read through, like, every equation now, and it might take them years to be like, okay, that one actually makes sense.

Aleck McCathie: That one's good. And it's the same way with, I think, content too. Harvard released a study this week about how, you know, coding agents, for example, like, companies are doing so much more coding, like, you know, 30% more or something huge across, like, a study of... I think it was, like, 700 software companies. But the funny thing is, like, they're not releasing anything more.

Aleck McCathie: They're not doing anything better. Like, there's nothing more efficient actually happening in those companies. And it just makes me think about how we've talked in previous weeks too about the thing that you brought up, how there's all these, like, AI songs being released onto all these platforms. Same with videos too. For sure, images, everything.

Aleck McCathie: But, like, it makes me think, like, about that human judgment and, like, thinking about it on the spectrum. Like, someone actually has to watch the video or listen to the song for it to be an actual song or to be a piece of content. Otherwise, it's just floating out there in the void being nothing. And, like, I I think that there was another study or somebody said something. Like, there's so many books being released now onto, like, platforms like Amazon that are just completely generated by AI.

Aleck McCathie: There's no way that they'll ever all get read. They're just there. And it's just... So it just makes me really think about, like, we're creating a lot of content, but it's not really content until somebody gives it that sort of judgment, I guess.

Vinayak Sastri: No. Absolutely. And I think the... No. That's a great point, Aleck, because... Yeah. I think... And that's where the dimension of the human sort of comes in, which is where, you know, a lot of people are talking about augmentation with humans or the human in the loop, so to speak. Because you can generate great content, you know, sorry, quote unquote great content in terms of music or literature or, like you mentioned, coding, etcetera. But somebody has to really critically look at it to be able to judge it, decide in terms of whether there is merit in deployment, etcetera.

Vinayak Sastri: Or there's even merit in listening to it. And I think given we only have so many seconds in a in a day, there's only so much we can do. And it's an interesting point. Is that... Is all that content just gonna sit out there, or is it going to follow a natural life and death kind of a situation?

Vinayak Sastri: It'll be interesting to watch. I mean, if I just go back to the industrial age, just before this whole third wave came Even in the industrial age, think as production increased, people started producing more and more. And then suddenly you had these stockpiles of inventory of companies making accessories or parts or whatever. And there was only so much that were getting consumed and then it started going through its own natural cycle. So probably that's also going to come with this.

Vinayak Sastri: But in this case, it's more disaggregated, so to speak. That was more aggregated, So it was more visible. But I guess it'll probably be interesting to see, you know, based on how much content is created every day, how much of it actually gets used or reused. But, you know, the lifespans... I don't know. It's it's worth, it's worth pondering over. That's a great point.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: Super interesting with thinking about the warehouse is full of junk, where it's it's... If you think across content, machinery, weaponry, across our entire world, I mean, from creative to war, like, literally the entirety of of human existence, we're looking at kind of junk versus, you know, filter through the noise in a way, and we just have more junk, and so we have to use the same tools to filter through the junk. It's almost, it's the same game again, like back, you know, when the, you know, when the codex was first written, they're like, look, it's a flat page. You can compare two things next to each other. It's not a scroll.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: And that was, like, epic and revolutionary and changed everything. And when Luther's time, when he, said everybody can read this book, right, because now we can print it, these epic changes in the universe and the world. And I always talk about Oog and Boog, they're my nicknames for our caveman and cavewoman ancestors. They had revolutionary things that happened too. Probably the hardest things, where they started moving, started thinking, started singing, started speaking, started doing stuff that made it possible for us to survive.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: So that makes me now think about humankind and saying, okay, we've got people saying we've got three years, the clock is ticking. It's like a MacGyver episode, where three days is ticking down and MacGyver's trying to get out of a closed room or something. And that's kind of the way it's posed in the media. But you said you're an optimist. I mean, I'm sort of an optimist too, but how do you see that situation?

Vinayak Sastri: Yeah. I mean, when you hear about it like that, it is scary. Scary or terrifying, so to speak. But, you know, you used Oog and Boog... Moog, I think. So even if you look... Yeah. Sorry?

Dr. Kent Gustavson: Oog and Boog.

Vinayak Sastri: Oog and Boog. Okay. So even if you look at that, that particular evolution that happened, there was I saw it somewhere where it's the whole discovery of fire which actually accelerated this whole process of the development of the human brain. Earlier, it would take about, I think, twelve to sixteen hours for food to get digested. The activities were limited, but fire basically gave us cooked food.

Vinayak Sastri: And cooked food means, you know, meant digestion, which is like the canal, the three to five hours, depending on what you eat. And it suddenly, you know... And that really led to the development of the brain and more blood flowing to the brain, and then suddenly, you know, the other cognitive faculties develop. So I think if you look at that, maybe there is the discovery of fire moment here when it comes to all this. With the clock ticking down, with all this content, data, etcetera, sitting out there, a lot of it not really required.

Vinayak Sastri: Maybe there will be the equivalent of the fire development here in terms of maybe it could be data deletion standards or people saying that you watch content and I just delete it. I don't... It's not... I don't know. I'm just throwing out ideas out there.

Vinayak Sastri: Maybe that's what's going to come. But I know that's going to come because historically, evolution has sort of used those things. So I think we are still waiting for our discovery of fire moment.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: So I like that. I like the artistic side of that. Now I'm gonna push back and say, what about our brain? So when kids are growing up, obviously, they're they're adapting with their brains. Will the brains change quickly due to this, I mean, I don't know, the, I guess, constant onslaught of information, graphics, images, ideas? I mean, like a fire hose, I guess.

Aleck McCathie: Yeah. I'll I'll even add too that that information isn't being aggregated by, you know, television networks or or, you know, education policies. It's just available on their in their hands like more than ever before too.

Vinayak Sastri: Yeah. No. And that... And that is true. And and this whole aggregation of information available at a fingertip, I think the the average focus now on TikTok or Instagram is is what it's the average view for a video is less than two seconds.

Vinayak Sastri: You know, in terms of scroll and two seconds. Two, yeah. That's what I read in one of the articles. Two to three seconds. So which is why the whole the whole evolution of shorts and, you know, less than thirty second video. So even in the thirty second, people are watching for like less than one tenth of the time. So, yeah, it is going to have an impact in terms of... Because what really happens to critical thinking faculties? What happens to understanding, comprehension? Or will everyone become abstract, you know, in terms of what they do?

Dr. Kent Gustavson: So I have a challenge. I have a challenge for us. Each of us has... For the next round, we each have two to three seconds to say something interesting. You ready? Who wants who wants to go first, Aleck?

Aleck McCathie: Oh, jeez.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: Oh, your two to three seconds are up. No. Try again.

Aleck McCathie: Yeah. That's putting me on the spot. Like, I I... It's it's weird to think about how low the attention span is. You have to come right out the gate saying something almost probably shocking in order to keep somebody on your thirty second video.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: Or just scream or something. Yeah. Like... Or or... Yeah. Interesting. So so in in terms of AI, there's the flip side of all this. This is all big. It's all about finance, the world, where are things going, space, you talked about the universe.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: And then we've got how we're using it and deploying it. And that's kind of the irony of Man vs. Slop. We've got the humans and we have AI. It is pretty fascinating what we can do with this. And I would say, in my opinion, what I think is so interesting currently is that individuals have such an ability to create a large epic level structure around themselves.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: And if that individual is very intelligent, has a very structured brain, or has certain ideas, they can build them like never before in certain ways. It's like a three d printer, on the the imprint of the, you know, idea network of the world or something.

Vinayak Sastri: Yeah. No. Absolutely. And I think the... It it it also will give rise to the the soloist, if I may. You know, the... Someone who's who's like... Could be a solo entrepreneur, solopreneur, somebody... A solo musician, a solo content writer, a solo podcaster. Because today you have, you know, there is a plethora of tools possible to sort of stitch it together.

Vinayak Sastri: And you can... Like you said, and I like the way you put it. You know, in terms of the structure, you put the building blocks on it and you create more structure. And then you have it sort of run a system for you. And it can it can open up really mind boggling possibilities in terms of... In just create... Even just creation. You know, it doesn't have to do with anything to do with finance or business. Even for someone to just create it. And I think that's already happening out there.

Aleck McCathie: Yeah. Yes. One example, like, I love that idea of soloist because I like to read a lot of news about, like, gaming and stuff like that. And people can now develop a game completely on their own. The music, the graphics, the... All the coding, every last part of it can be someone's solo project that they vibe code now together. And just the idea of soloist, it reminds me... I I don't think I brought this up in the last week, but, like, some guy just compiled, like, the entire Adobe Suite and released it for free. Like, one person was just like, you know, screw Adobe and their several decades of, like, software development and their billion dollar industry. I can just solo copy...

Aleck McCathie: Like, he decompiled the entire software and recompiled it and then released it open source. Like, one man.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: That's... It's super interesting. It's super interesting to to think about again, what that did, it makes me think about AI and say AI is a very personal thing, a lot like the Internet is also a very personal thing. An individual can have a one to one relationship with this thing that's not a thing, this set of tools, this ability to connect, and it is a one to one thing. It's a very interesting redirect that you had there because corporate is different than individual, and they operate differently in in the universe.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: And and, yeah, I find that also really interesting. So so you as an individual, I'm curious about what you're vibe coding or doing with AI or... So you could tell us as much or as little as of the really cool stuff that I've I've heard you're working on. Or just... Yeah.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: How are how are you seeing the opportunities and and just interesting things out there as a... An individual?

Vinayak Sastri: Yeah. So maybe I'll talk about the opportunities. If you look... So so first of all, it's... I like the way you put it. It's your individual relationship with the tool that you have. So let's say if if someone's on... If I'm on Instagram, you know, and Instagram is, you know, it's a great platform. It's used by a lot of people for a lot of things. But you can actually tailor it to what you want.

Vinayak Sastri: You know, if it is emerging tech, if it is the universe and galaxies, if it is something to do with, you know, human biology or it could be something as... something like slop as well or Man vs. Slop. I can cater it for that.

Vinayak Sastri: I can use it to consume information like that. Where I see the opportunities, it is to bring out both my creative side and as well as my, you know, the structured side of it. So on the creative side is, what can I do with art and AI? You know, what's What kind of shapes, forms, ideas, thoughts? Can I mirror my deep thoughts thinking, combination of emotions and thoughts and put it out on paper there?

Vinayak Sastri: So that's on one end of the spectrum. And then the other is automating something as simple as everyday tasks. It could be if I take an Uber regularly, can I build in some intelligence where it tells me what are the best times of the day for me to take an Uber? So it's hyper personalization to that level.

Vinayak Sastri: And then obviously, the next question is how do you sort of scale it? Or maybe I'm not interested in scaling it. Just want to use it for me and a few close members around. So I think all those possibilities are quite exciting. But it also gives rise to decision fatigue. Because how do you decide which one to pick, you know, which one to work on?

Vinayak Sastri: It's like suddenly you're this child and there are so many toys to play with and how do you do... You know, what do you do with what? And so I think I really identify with what Aleck is also saying in terms of, you know, there's this there's this burst of information and it's all very exciting and then you're wondering as to... But you still have to prioritize which ones to drive towards an outcome. And I think that's where working in a... The corporate setup helps because it it boils down to which ones will make a meaningful difference when it comes down to outcome.

Aleck McCathie: Oh, yeah. I love that idea of trying to find on that spectrum where you'd wanna use the tool and, like, using it as a platform to also not just be efficient or, like, you know, automate some of your tasks, but also see how you can use it as an outlet for creativity as well. Like, do you think that there's enough access to AI for, like, the individual people or enough education around it right now that, like, all the products and all this blast of information we're getting? It feels like we're moving towards, for me, almost like bigger privatization or soloization, for lack of a better word, of like content where if everyone... Every neighbor you have has the ability to use a tool that can output their creativity into the world easier than ever with, like, zero friction.

Aleck McCathie: Are enough people doing that? Do we need more of that? Is it in people's hands, and are people educated enough about it to be able to use it in that way? Like, what are you seeing as somebody with, like, your finger on the pulse? Are are we getting that kind of content, or do people have access to it enough?

Vinayak Sastri: So I think... So I'll break it into three. In terms of access, I think access, you know, has dramatically improved. So a lot of people have access. You know, it's it's it's across age groups.

Vinayak Sastri: It's across sections of society. It's across, you know, the types of education, etcetera, that you have. So access, I don't think is the issue. I think education, you know, in terms of what is what is considered as creative, etc. And it goes back to the point you made earlier that there are... There's no... So there is a lot of content getting created, but how do you define what is good? I think today it's become in terms of what is viral. So it's what catches attention, you know. Or it's not only about...

Vinayak Sastri: Yeah, it's basically what is interesting at that point in time. I think that's there. So I think education still needs to catch up. You know, education about the types of tools, how do you want to use it, what is it that, you know, you can do with it, Probably what you what you should not... You know, maybe it's a good idea to go back to the traditional old notebook with pen and paper, which will also help.

Vinayak Sastri: And how do you sort of blend in all those? And and nothing to beat, you know, one's own thinking because... And today, you know... And maybe it's the algorithm on on some of these platforms, but I see a lot of videos which talk about spending time alone. You know, spending time or, like, twenty minutes in a day thinking about how your day went.

Vinayak Sastri: The number of people taking up meditation and things like that has also increased. There's a lot of interest around that. So it probably goes back to that point that maybe because everyone's getting bombarded with all this information that they want a break where they can rechannelize their thoughts in terms of, you know, and how did they use it. So I think that's a big plus, you know, upside as well because people have started to realize that, hey, you know, there's much more than this. So at the end of the day, it's it's a means to an end rather than the end itself.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: Amazing. Amazing ideas surfacing, and I was thinking about where you were talking about the the children with their toys. And the more toys there are, the, you know, the few... The less time there is to play with select toys. And I thought about the Velveteen Rabbit.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: The story is, I guess, a 100 some years old now, but this this, you know, stuffed rabbit that that the the boy sort of gets tired of, if I remember right. And there was a different animal in there that's like, you know, you can become real. You know, this whole thing about, are you are you stuffed or are you real? And then the rabbit was with the boy as he got some some sickness, and then it had to be taken outside to be burned, and then the stuffed rabbit had a tear, and shed a real tear, and then became real. Then the boy looked out the window the next year, and there's the real rabbit outside that looks just like his stuffed animal.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: And I I feel like, in a way, like, we're talking about the Velveteen Rabbit here, where it's this this this just library full of toys and crazy things, and and we're running around after it until we're laying there in bed with time to think and time to process, hopefully not with a terrible disease. And then the things we care about, the things that are actually important, surface, like the Velveteen Rabbit. That's that's my thought there.

Vinayak Sastri: No. That's a great thought, Kent. I love the way you put that.

Aleck McCathie: I'll I'll end it off with my my doomery take, I guess, as I do. Just because it reminded me of another thing I I heard this week. There there was a a study that Berkeley released with one of their research fellows on human compatible AI. They did some kind of study where they put a bunch of people... I guess half of them were using ChatGPT and half of them weren't.

Aleck McCathie: I I don't remember the exact setup, but after just ten ten minutes of, like, using ChatGPT, having it taken away after that, the people who use it for only ten minutes were, like, much less likely to continue doing hard tasks. Like, they just completely gave up on their ability to stay focused or stay locked in and and wanting to continue trying to figure out something hard. So it just makes me think, like, this is a beautiful tool. It's allowing people a lot of access to creativity, to efficiency. But are we becoming immediately too dependent on it when we have the world's answers to everything at our fingertips, the world's, you know, solutions to all problems at our fingertips. We don't have to sit with hard things anymore. Is is this weakening us?

Vinayak Sastri: Yeah. Now now that you put it like that... Yeah. Maybe to some degree, yes. But that's where I think the education part of it comes because how do you use it as a means to an end rather than the end itself?

Vinayak Sastri: So it's like like how some of my friends who use it as an adviser. So they say that, you know, we sometimes run a few whatever issues, problems with one of these applications. And then, obviously, it it will have a point of view, but... And they sort of say that we agree to disagree. It's like as if you're talking to a real mentor, coach, or, you know, a real person.

Vinayak Sastri: And I think bringing... If... As long as you bring that distinction in, that'll really take this forward because I think nothing can beat critical thinking, our own thinking. We can use this as a con... And like you said, it has probably an answer to all of world's problems in a way.

Vinayak Sastri: But at the end of the day, even to execute a lot of that or even our own problem, one has to execute. So the hard thing is not just in terms of, okay, it may give us a plan, a roadmap, etc, but one still has to do the grunt work to get it done. So I think if you use complementarily with that, it'll probably make us more resilient.

Aleck McCathie: I love that take. That makes sense to me for sure. And I agree with the idea that education probably could solve a lot of that as well.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: Thank you today to Vinayak Sastri, a soloist, in the best sense of the word. And it's been a great conversation, and now I'm gonna pull the plug.

Vinayak Sastri: Great. Thank you. Thank you, Kent. Thank you, Aleck.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: podcaststhatmatter.org.