"AI vs. Humanity: The Shocking Truth You’re Not Hearing" ft. Dr. Robert J. Marks

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 00:00

Computers and AI cannot be creative. It doesn't understand what it does. And it will never have sentience or consciousness the way that we do.

Allan CP (: 00:08

From Elon Musk's warnings to the so-called Godfather of AI, Dr. Robert J. Marx is returning to the Science Element podcast to let us know what's hype, what's real, and what does it all mean about our future? Is AI this sleeping monster that's gonna take over everything and we should all be scared of it? Or is it just an overhyped tool? And given that he advises some of the most influential people in the world on this topic, I think we should listen to him. And some of his answers might just shock you. Let's dive in.

Thank you so much for joining us today, Dr. Marks.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 00:40

Oh, it's good to be had.

Allan CP (: 00:42

Yeah, it's awesome. Just having you back. A lot of people did enjoy our last episode together. And so we wanted to maybe touch base with you on AI. Jeffrey Hinton, he said that AI will have self-awareness and consciousness and that us as humans, don't really know what we're doing ⁓ as far as AI goes. So what is your, I guess, hot take or even opinion on

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 01:07

Anytime you hear forecasting, think it was Niels Bohr that said forecasting is dangerous, especially if it's about the future. And it turns out that Jeffrey Hinton is making a prediction. I call this delayed scrutiny. In other words, you're not going to be able to show whether Jeffrey Hinton is wrong until you get into the future. And so you get all of these claims made with delayed scrutiny. And that's one of the ways to check out the fakiness of AI reporting.

I can point you to a: 1950

I will tell you that in: 2016

ld stop this. Now this was in: 2016

This goes back to the: 1950

Allan CP (: 03:19

So before we dive in, go ahead and follow us so that you never miss an episode. Also, we have an exclusive membership for the podcast. Basically every week we'll send you a resource alongside each episode. And then there's other benefits as well. Plus you're just supporting what we're doing. So if you'd like to do that, we have a link for you to click. Also, if you just want to get a taste of what that would look like to be a part of the membership, we have a free member packet download. That's also going to be in the description for you so that you could check it out.

take that I saw was basically that AI is an existential threat to humanity and it's something that we have to think about ⁓ sooner rather than later.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 04:00

Sure, this is a prediction which I've heard a number of times. One of the people that did this was Stephen Hawking. He said that AI is going to drive better AI and become superintelligence. And I believe that claim about AI being an existential threat was made by Elon Musk. so I don't know. Nobody ever says how it's going to be an existential threat.

Yeah. Nobody says how it's going to, it's how it's going to do this. It's going to some way kind of come over and take over and things of that sort. ⁓ I, I just got a briefing from one of my colleagues that visited the golden dome. Are you familiar with the golden dome? The idea that where they're going to put weapons across the United States, kind of like Israel's iron dome. Yes, exactly. And one of the things that they decided, and I think this is great is that,

Allan CP (: 04:49

say.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 04:56

in their AI systems, they're always going to have when possible a human in the loop. And if you have a human in the loop, then AI cannot take over. I think that if you do an open-ended AI taking over, that's probably not a good idea, especially if you haven't vetted the AI. And there is AI that's vetted. I I would not mind riding in one of these driverless taxis in San Francisco and Austin. That's fine.

because their system is not complex. It turns out that the more complex a system is, the more ways that it can go wrong. And that has to be vetted. And I think that the self-driving cars have been vetted very well. Whereas the AI Grok and chat GPT are so complicated. mean, billions of knobs which you turn in order to get the thing to work right.

That there's so many ways that it could go wrong and it has so-called hallucinations. I don't like the word hallucinations because what it's doing is responding the way that was trained for Pete's sakes. It's not a lucidator. It's an anthropomorphization. that's a big word, isn't it? Yeah, in other words, there's this thing which makes us relate to AI as a human being. It's not a human being. It's a computer for Pete's sakes. ⁓ And so I think that there's a danger there in making that.

making that assumption.

Allan CP (: 06:26

because it's been coded to relate with us as humans, it itself isn't.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 06:30

Yeah, it's doing, it's, it's doing what it was trained to do. In fact, that's the reason that there will never be super duper AI. I'm not sure we addressed this last time, but one of the things is that AI is never going to be creative and an order for AI to write better AI to write better AI has to be creative. And creative is defined as the program does something which is beyond the intent or explanation of the programmer. And that hasn't happened yet. So.

Allan CP (: 06:56

Have you spoken with people that are like just colleagues or other people that are experts on AI where they disagree with you?

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 07:04

Well, I think there's a lot of people that disagree with me. But I think that ⁓ they all have something in common, at least in my experience and the people I've interacted with, is they believe that we are computers made out of meat and that therefore we can be replicated. We talked about the AI church, for example. There is a faith, and that faith is unfounded, that we are computers made out of meat. They have their own faith. ⁓

Allan CP (: 07:36

Yeah, that's really funny how they believe that about us, yet they don't believe that somebody also coded us.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 07:42

Yeah, well, Elon Musk for a while, I read this on the web, so it must be true, that he believes that we're simulations. There's a number of different ⁓ models of consciousness. And one of them is simulations, we are simulations of a higher power, something like in the Matrix or something like that. And Musk for a while at least believed that we were simulations. So George Gilder, the founder of Discovery Institute said that Elon Musk is an incredible entrepreneur.

an incredible guy to get things done, but he's kind of a retarded thinker. And I think that that's a quote, by the way. That's not me saying that. That's George Gilder. So I think that some of these things that he said in terms of ⁓ that were simulations and ⁓ that things are an existential threat are, yeah, I don't think they have any credence at all. And AI is more dangerous than thermonuclear weapons? I don't know.

Allan CP (: 08:38

That's what Bud asked that next.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 08:40

How could that be? I know what I can do with a thermonuclear weapon. I can wipe out the power grid if I put it up high enough and send out an EMP. I can wipe out cities if I have a thermonuclear device. So I don't know. I would have to look at the definition and that's one of the things you have to do when ⁓ such claims are made. You have to define the terms. What does an existential threat mean?

And why is AI more of an existential threat than thermonuclear weapons?

Allan CP (: 09:13

What's your take on what Elon said, since we're discussing some of his takes, is on the democratization of artificial intelligence and AI.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 09:24

actually

agree with that. There is something coming out now which is called Big AI. You've heard of Big Pharma, Big Business, there's Big AI. That would include things such as Amazon, ⁓ Open AI, which is the father of Chet, Cheap E.T., I think Rock, and these are very powerful companies and they require lots of money in order to operate because they need lots of power consumption in order to do things.

Well, I think that it would be a big mistake to put them big AI in control of artificial intelligence. That would kind of push out the small entrepreneur, the inventor, the person that can apply some of these things. And, ⁓ I, I just hope that indeed legislation doesn't, doesn't favor AI to the point that it's favored other big businesses. mean, are we going to get to the point where they say big AI is too big to fail? Right? Yeah. You don't want to, you don't want to go there. don't.

Allan CP (: 10:23

Would that also be just dangerous for any of us in the sense of not even just them keeping the people out but would they be able to weaponize it? Is that also an issue or what would be the worst part?

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 10:36

Well,

it is. It can be weaponized, but it turns out a lot of the AI that's available, lot of the algorithms are available free for download. ⁓ Even large language models, some of the software that you get has large language model sort of capacity. there's, let's see, there's ⁓ TensorFlow is one of them, and I forget what the other one is, but they just have a big library of AI algorithms that you can download and use in any way that you want.

Allan CP (: 11:06

Is it close to being democratized?

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 11:08

In that sense it is in that sense it is but if for example there is a control of artificial intelligence by ⁓ Legislation the last thing the last thing we need in the government is another oversight committee or another oversight agency I think that the developers of AI need to be held responsible for their products And if their products screw up, then you should be able to go after them

And there's different levels of scrutiny that you have to look at and determine the degree of scrutiny that must be applied.

Allan CP (: 11:45

So why is there, cause you mentioned that, so OpenAI is in charge or they're the ones that are responsible for, not Grokka, Chachabee T. And Elon was part of that, right? Or he was one of the founders.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 11:59

I'm all irritated that it was first of all going to be like open source and that they changed the rules after they took over and Yeah, they're keeping all their code and everything confidential, but I tell you it's it's incredibly impressive if you've used it. I mean just astonish

Allan CP (: 12:15

The one that you would say is like, is that because it's the most popular one that's being used or is it functioning at a better rate than Grok and Claude and.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 12:24

Well,

think that Grok just came out with a new set of software where you can take a photograph and make a movie out of it. They were really, really kind of cool. So ⁓ I think in special areas that other AI outshines it, I would say overall the chat GPT, in my experience, is probably the best, you know, just for overall. there are special sort of operations where you can go elsewhere and get better results.

Allan CP (: 12:35

I gotta try.

Does it really, what part of the trust of Sam Altman, like Elon saying he doesn't trust him, would affect the common user or consumer, you know, like?

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 13:04

⁓ well that's another thing. We talked about delayed scrutiny as kind of a flag for a deep fake and such. You also have to consider the source. ⁓ Sam Altman is the CEO of OpenAI, which is responsible for ChatGPT. He's going to do everything he can in order to increase his visibility to advance his company. And Elon Musk is also famous for doing that. I think back in

the days of Tesla, he made a lot of ⁓ claims about self-driving cars, which were kind of hyperbolic. ⁓ So yeah, consider the source. And these people want to advance their businesses, advance their interests, and they're gonna do that. So consider the source and delayed scrutiny. I have a chapter in my book, by the way, of detecting deep fakes, and that's one of them, or detecting claims which are false.

delayed scrutiny and consider the source or two of them. So yeah, they're gonna come out and they're gonna be positive. They are not disinterested people.

Allan CP (: 14:10

Yeah, that makes sense. They're not necessarily going to be like, hey, what I'm doing isn't going to work.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 14:14

Yeah,

yeah, exactly. They're gonna do self-promotion, which is what they should do. I don't fault them for it, but if you're the CEO of a company, you want to launch your company and tell the world how great you are.

Allan CP (: 14:28

I saw this video by Joe Rogan where he had said, or they were, I think it was him and a guest. They were watching a video of AI speaking a language that wasn't trained to learn. Can you, I'm sure, yeah, you saw it too.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 14:44

I'm not familiar with the specific case they're talking about, but I can talk about a case a few years ago where it made the news cycle and it was everywhere. ⁓ Two AIs learned a language where they talked to each other and this made it everywhere. It was on UPI and ⁓ New York Times and a number of other places. And somebody who was smart actually went to the guy who coded it. He said, that's a bunch of baloney.

He said the AI was going kablooey and screwy and I just shut it down. That wasn't the way it was reported. The report was that the AI scientists were so scared of what it was doing that they shut it down. He said no, it was screwing up and they shut it down. And of course that retraction did not make it in the news cycle as much.

Allan CP (: 15:35

Is that the video where they, was like two people had AIs like on phone calls or whatever and they were talking to each other and then they were using sound bites to speak more efficiently? that what the-

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 15:50

No, no, no, this was something else. I think that what you're talking about was an exchange in English where a chatbot would be talking to another chatbot. And you could actually simulate like Socrates talking to Einstein or something like that. that was really interesting.

Allan CP (: 16:08

Yeah, so sometimes the news that's being just thrown around. mean, we said this last time, I think is what you explained to us is some people are going to run with the news so that they can get all the clicks and views that they want.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 16:21

That's the other thing is outlandish claims you have to be careful about because these people want clickbait and sometimes they'll make outlandish claims that you think, I got to learn more about this and you click on it and you see more of their advertisements and they make big bucks.

Allan CP (: 16:38

So speaking about outlandish claims, I'm sure that you've already looked at the Google's quantum computing. ⁓ What is it? Quantum computer?

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 16:50

What

is called parallel universes? Yeah.

Allan CP (: 16:52

And so what, like, how does that work? mean, could you explain some of that to us?

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 16:59

Okay, I explain quantum computing by talking about the movie Mystery Men. Have you ever seen the movie Mystery Men?

Allan CP (: 17:06

No, but I'll definitely write that down.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 17:08

It's

a story about these superheroes with sub with superpowers that weren't so impressive. Like there was the shoveler played by William F. Macy and he was able to hit people with shovels really well. It was really funny. But one of them was a guy called Invisible Boy and he was interviewing to become part of the team. And they said, what's your superpower? says, well, I'm visible. I'm invisible. We can see you. says, yeah, that's one weakness. I'm not invisible unless somebody looks at me.

So if somebody looks at him, he becomes visible. So that's kind of the way it is with quantum computing. Quantum computing lives in this universe where you can have all sorts of different levels, if you will, of computation. And ⁓ when you look at it, there's a collapse and you get one of the elements of computation. And so this is what they call the parallel universes, if you will. There's a couple of, at least two,

Models of quantum computing I'm familiar with one is the Copenhagen respond the Copenhagen model which says that Yeah, it's just it's just uncertain and it's gonna collapse There's another one that says every time you do a collapse then that spins off another universe and as I just find that totally ridiculous As far as quantum computing I still have my doubts. I first heard about quantum computing 30 years ago

and they have been ⁓ trying to develop quantum computing since then. I see YouTube videos of people that are bailing from quantum computing because they're kind of disillusioned. There's this assumption that quantum computing is gonna replace your laptop and do things 20 times as fast. No, it's very good on specialized sort of problems. And you have to set up these specialized problems so that when the collapse occurs, it gives you something meaningful as a result.

And so that's quantum computing and at least that model of parallel universes. And again, it's just a theory. And I think that most intelligent people, like me, subscribe to the Copenhagen model. Which is that, yeah, there's just uncertainty out there. And if you look at it, just like Invisible Boy, it ⁓ becomes visible. It actually collapses to a specific result. But as long as you don't look at it, you don't have this so-called quantum collapse,

then it's out there doing all of these things in parallel, if you will.

Allan CP (: 19:35

And why do people want to use that to explain, I guess, the multiverse?

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 19:39

Well,

by the way, there is absolutely no evidence of a multiverse. There's two types of multiverses. There's one which is kind of the, you know, we're the universe. This is the universe. There's a bunch of other universes that are parallel to this. I think that this comes out of string theory. And ⁓ indeed, there's absolutely no evidence of that. And there's no evidence of string theory either. I mean, that's kind of something that has been looked at and

And I don't think that there's going to be many more advances in that, at least in the near future. And so it's something which is totally done on faith. And if you look at things such as the creation of people, I'm a proponent of the God-designed things. I say that, okay, this building I'm in, do you believe that there was an architecture? Do you believe that there was a planner, somebody that actually drew the schematics of it?

Do believe there were builders came out here and nailed things in the wall? And they said, well, yeah, of course. I says, but you've never met any of those, have you? And they haven't. They haven't met any of them. And then we talk about ourselves. How could we exist just like the building without a creator? Now what happens with multiverses, this is one of the explanations of those that are materialist and say, well, you know, it must have happened. They said, well,

Yeah, the chances are really small, but if we add like 10 to the thousandth parallel universes, well, all of a sudden the probability of one of them having a sentient life like us increase. So they usually get to expand their theory, but it's something which is done totally on faith, and there's no evidence of parallel universes, of which I'm aware.

Allan CP (: 21:26

⁓ So you believe in intelligent design and then how do you then explain to somebody that does ask you like, well, why do you believe that it's the God of the Bible then that's the intelligent design.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 21:36

Well,

there's actually two steps. One is that one is the belief in God. And of course, that brings you into a monotheistic area, which are Jews, Muslims and Christians primarily. And then you have to address the question of Christ and was Christ, you know, your savior? And ⁓ I mentioned that there's a God shaped vacuum inside of everybody. This is what Blaise Pascal said. And you got to fill it with something. You got to fill that.

And so the atheists fill it with the AI church the Muslims fill it with Muhammad the Hindus fill it with I don't know whatever whatever the Christians fill it with ⁓ with ⁓ with Christianity and I guess in in summary and blunt summary I think that this God-shaped vacuum is is like a hole in that hole is ⁓ circular and If you look at the at the faith, which has the most explanatory power

That is Christianity. It just fits reality so well. And so that's the round pig in the round hole. I think all of the other religions are kind of square pigs and ⁓ rectangular pigs. And then of course the ⁓ deity of Christ is also incredibly important there. And it explains and models humanity the way it is that we're all sinners. We all know right from wrong, yet we sin.

And if we are put up in the judgment day and God is a righteous judge, he's going to send us to hell because we have sinned. There's a lot of religions that say, a lot of religions which say, you know, if you do more good works than bad works, then that kind of balances out. But if you go into a courtroom and you're in there for manslaughter, you don't bring up, well, you know, last week I worked in the soup kitchen and I helped little old ladies across the street. It doesn't matter.

You're on trial for your sin. And that's what God has to do. And God is a righteous judge, so He'll send us to hell, but He's also a ⁓ loving God. And He's the one that sent His Son Christ to pay for our sins, which is just beautiful. And ⁓ it's an incredible love, which when I think about deeply, I choke up. It's just an astonishing love.

And the other thing that happens, I think, when you become a Christian is that you change. They call it being reborn, if you will, and you change and you become a different person. I know when I came to Christ as a junior in college, I changed. I was totally different person on the outside. So I think that those are strong evidences. And there isn't the intelligent design evidence about Christ.

But I the evidence historically in terms of the way it describes us and the way it describes humanity in the life changing events, mean, people say, what's the most convincing thing you've had about Christianity? It was my own conversion. And I can't, you know, share that with them. They said, you're just proselytizing or something like that, so.

Allan CP (: 24:50

Well, that's the reason I asked that is because, yeah, intelligent design takes us to a point and then from there, yeah, and then from there we have to then make that decision on, who is this designer?

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 25:02

Right,

exactly. I think it's more of a soft, ⁓ intelligent design is hard. I think that the evidence for the existence of God is just overwhelming. Frank Turek wrote a book called, what was it, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. It was a great book and it's true, because in order to be an atheist, you've got to believe that we're here by a cosmic accident. That's really...

Allan CP (: 25:26

And there's a lot of really good accidents that are continually happening for this to sustain. ⁓ My last question on just the topic of AI alone, well, maybe not my last, but close to my last would be, ⁓ does it have a shadow self? I know I sent you a video where they asked, it was, yeah, it was something that the page watching it was just doing a, you know, their conspiracy page, they have fun with that stuff. ⁓ But.

The reality is as people are truly believing this that it has a shadow self.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 25:57

Let's yeah, let's talk about that. You know, we we applaud AI when I can write a good a good paragraph or a good page ⁓ describing fiction We have to remember that AI has been trained on all of the fiction in the world. In fact, we've kind of are using up that ⁓ That fuel that's used to train AI, you know, we've used most of the available available pros in the world ⁓

And so do you think that it has ever read a science fiction story about somebody having a shadow self about AI and so what it's doing is just repeating itself So AI can't be creative it cobbles together little pieces of things which it has learned So I'm not I'm not surprised that it would do that. It's You know, we're afraid of it, but we we applaud it when it writes good fiction. So You can't have it both ways You can't say that in one case is true in the other case is fiction

Allan CP (: 26:55

Yeah, that's interesting because you make a really great point when it's we're plotting it for very simple. Well simple but still complex But then we're also imagining that it's just creating this whole entire ⁓ divided version of itself

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 27:12

It's crazy.

Allan CP (: 27:15

as if it didn't have input information on those very types of narratives.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 27:19

Computers and AI cannot be creative. It doesn't understand what it does and it will never have sentience or consciousness the way that we do. Now all of those you have to define before you go into it, but ⁓ that's that's going to be a limitation.

Allan CP (: 27:33

As far as computing, computer coding goes, is that something that we're still gonna need to understand and have like, even myself, I vibe coded a little bit and had fun. ⁓ But then I'm also like, okay, how do you even take this to the next level? You vibe code, you create something cool or at least a rough draft, but you still need a coder, right? You need people that truly understand coding. ⁓ That's not gonna go away.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 27:58

You know, I don't think so, but I think that all of these aids for writing code are going to be very useful. They're going to be good tools. And I have not coded myself for a number of years. That's what my graduate students knew. But ⁓ they say that the coding is getting better and better and better in these large language models. And it's just frankly astonishing. But it's going to be something which is used piecemeal.

And even the human intellect is going to have to cobble together all of these different pieces in order to generate the program that they want to generate. ⁓ that's way it's going to be. And it's going to be a tool. ⁓ I ask an undergraduate, for example. ⁓

I asked him to use a calculator, he said yeah. I said, can you do long division? Remember we'd learned long division in school? And he hesitated and says, well, not very well. We don't need to do long division. We don't need to go through spelling checks. Word does all of that for us. We don't need to code little parts of our program. We can go to Copilot and we can say, generate some software that does this and it'll do it for us. So.

We're just having more and more fun in terms of what technology can do for us, making our lives easier and easier and easier. So we don't do long division anymore. We don't teach spelling anymore. I don't know what happened to the spelling bee. I don't even know if they still have that. ⁓

Allan CP (: 29:34

Yeah, no one's impressed anymore.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 29:36

I'm impressed anymore because because And even with your grammar and I I think I mentioned this last time but I write clunky paragraphs and I look at it I say man that's clunky and I go to chat GPT and I said rewrite and I put down my paragraph and it it comes back with a pretty good response I have to go back and I have to polish it a little bit, which is fine But the thought is mine and the content is mine

So I don't have any worries about using chat GPT for that That that that isn't cheating that's using chat GPT as a tool

Allan CP (: 30:13

It's an editor for you basically, it's just organizing your

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 30:16

Sure,

just like Grammarly, know, checks your grammar and all of this other stuff. So, yeah, so life is becoming easier and this is going to be really great for our society.

Allan CP (: 30:28

How do we keep from becoming lazy when it does come to thinking well and thinking critically as far as using these tools?

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 30:37

I think that ⁓ these large language models are indeed replacing different occupations. yeah, certainly that's the case. And I think that yes, it can make us very lazy in terms of our creativity. But now we're lazy in learning long division and learning our spelling words. So I'm not worried about that. The question is, will it diminish our overall work ethic? And I hope not.

Allan CP (: 31:06

Yeah, I think I did see somewhere, I forgot who it was, but that they were saying, you know, some people are going to be lazy and some people are going to think twice as fast about more productive things. So it's not really the tool. That's the problem is those people using it. It's really biblical. ⁓ right. Like at the end of the day, a lot of things are a moral.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 31:27

Yes, AI, as everybody said, it's a tool. It's an incredibly powerful tool, but it's like any other tool. You can use it for good, you can use it for evil, you can use it for all sorts of things.

Allan CP (: 31:39

My last question to you is, do you have anything that you're working on or teaching that would be super interesting for us to hear about?

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 31:48

⁓

I do some work for ⁓ a contract with the DOD. Unfortunately, it's called Let's see. What's the word? It's ⁓ unclassified but sensitive so I can't can't talk about Okay Everybody it doesn't The requirement from the government is everybody in our group must be a US citizen So we get we can have no foreign national so it's a pretty low bar date

Allan CP (: 32:02

⁓

the

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 32:18

to get to, but I'm hesitant to talk about the specific stuff.

Allan CP (: 32:24

Understood, we'll respect that. Well, thank you so much for joining us today and just giving us some more insight on how to be thinking about AI. I've met a lot of people that are, I mean, buying into some of the hype or the narrative that's making some people fearful. And because of my first conversation with you, it's at least given me some peace that some of the stuff is just hype and it's us buying into social media bait.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 32:25

Okay, good. Good, good, good.

It is, and I would, those that want medicine should probably come to the Discovery website, mindmatters.ai. Mindmatters.ai. And there we have a lot of people that are kind of like-minded to me. I'm thinking of Gary Smith at Pomona College, Wesley Smith, who you mentioned, ⁓ and some other people that actually write about the limitations. And these are highly credentialed So it's something you can trust. think it,

takes away the facade of AI and its mysteriousness.

Allan CP (: 33:28

Yeah, thank you.

Dr. Robert J. Marks (: 33:30

Thank you, Alan. Take care.