EP #36 Stability AI Founder: Halting AI Training is Hyper-Critical For Our Security w/ Emad Mostaque

I'm 32, juggling family, working full time and earning a bachelor's degree at University of Phoenix. I earn career relevant skills with every five week course. Skills I can use now, not just after graduation. Earn skills in weeks, not years.

Visit phoenix.edu Some people think nature is like this, but actually it's like this.

That's why Columbia engineers everything we make.

For anything nature can throw at you.

Columbia engineered for whatever.

Everybody. Peter here. I just spent the last hour with Imad Mustach, the CEO of Stability AI, talking about the recent petition that's been going around to halt or pause the development of large language models. It's early April. I just had him on stage last week at Abundance360, but that wasn't the subject. This conversation was around the fears, the hopes of large language models. And some of the points we discussed was his belief that the next six months are hypercritical, that we have six months to figure things out. Why? There are a couple of very important reasons that he discusses in this next segment. Also going to talk about how this technology is going to transform the world of education, of health care, of supporting governments around the world. One of the best conversations had with Imad in a long time. And also he's one of the most brilliant CEOs and also the only private AI company CEO to sign that petition. So listen up. It educated me, got me feeling hopeful. Hope it does the same for you. Just for folks who may not know you, Imad is the CEO founder of Stability AI, truly one of the most extraordinary AI companies, large language model companies out there with a mission being an open, a truly open AI company to transform, support humanity across health against education again about uplifting humanity. So Imad, I love what you do and proud to be a supporter. So thanks for joining today.

It's my pleasure.

Yeah. So let me, let me set it up for everybody. There's been a huge amount of conversation around AGI of leaders late and I titled this session AGI Threat or Opportunity? Large language models Go fast or go slow. Open versus closed. And there's a lot to discuss. And you know, my view on this has been shifting over time and I'm going to be curious about whether yours has as well. You know, there's a lot of talk about artificial general intelligence. You know, where are we really right now in the development? How fast are things truly moving and should people be concerned about it or excited about it? Other questions are can it be regulated? Can it be slowed down? Is that possible? And then I think an important conversation really to highlight what stability is doing is open versus closed. And then one final conversation which is, can we actually get to AGI using large language models, or do we need to have another sort of structural transformation to get there? So, shall we begin?

Yeah. Let's talk about the future of humanity. Let's go.

I love that. I love that. And you and I share the same vision of really creating abundance around the world, uplifting every man, woman and child and really using AI for global education, global health, dealing with the grand challenges and slaying them. Let's kick it off with how fast are things moving, in your opinion, and should people be concerned about the speed of progress right now?

Yeah, I mean, I think every day those outside of this are like, what's going on? And those inside of this are like, what's going on? Right. It's like everything, everywhere, all at once. Not only is it kind of all the smartest people in the world piling in on this, that 80% of the research in AI now is in this Generative AI foundation model field. And if you look at the research paper graph and archive for ML papers is a literal exponential. It's that people are implementing, exploring and understanding these things like nothing else. The final bit that's really interesting is that nearly half of all code on GitHub now is AI generated. And the average coder using Copilot this was a microstudy, is 40% more efficient. People are using the AI to build better AI, and that becomes a bit of an interesting feedback leak. Against that there is the hardware question. There was a paper in 2017, attention is all you need, which led to this boom about how to take AI from extrapolating large data sets to instead paying attention to the important bits of information, just like we do when we basically start creating principles or heuristics. It turned out that was very amenable to scale. So the original thing on OpenAI and others was just applying scale more and more compute, which happened literally at the same time as this whole GPU thing that Jensen had been building for years at Nvidia. The previous generations of supercomputers were like GPUs, Nvidia ones in particular stacked on top of each other. But as you got to 1,000, 2,000 chips, you stopped being able to scale because the information couldn't get back and forth fast enough across these. That has been fixed now, as of this new generation that's about to hit the Nvidia H100, the TPU V5s, it basically scales almost linearly to thousands and thousands of chips. To give you an example, the fastest supercomputer in the UK, 640 chips. NASA has about 600 as well. And now you're building the equivalent of 30 to 100,000 chip supercomputers using this new generation technology because you can stack and scale. It's insane. Now we've got about six months before that hits and then GPT4 level models will be available to just about, well, not anyone but more and more companies. GPT3 when it was trained I think took three months on the new, that was two years ago. On the new supercomputers you can train four of those a day.

That's extraordinary. And so how many large language models are there going to end up being, you think?

I think there'll only be a few. I think that these things are quite complicated and they're actually like game consoles like a lot of the ChatGPT functionality was already present from the model over a year ago but it just wasn't in nice format and usable and testable. So you can explore the capabilities of that game console or game engine. The way I put that is because you look at the start of the WWII U or PlayStation versus the games at the end of that life cycle exploring that space is very important and people don't want dozens so like we really stable diffusion our image model one of those folded pieces of open source software ever. Only five companies in the world that we know of have created their own versions because why not just use the one that you have? Sure to put the popularity in context we have Bitcoin and Ethereum and cumulative developer stars in about two months and the whole ecosystem now has overtaken Linux which is insane for six months, you know. And yet only three companies got their own because why would you. So I think in the future it'll probably be just a handful of companies building proprietary models Microsoft, OpenAI, Google, DeepMind, Nvidia, a few others maybe and then we're the leaders on the open models in terms of models that you can see the code, the weights, the data, etc. Which is essential for private data.

So pal, the question ultimately is it's great to have powerful large language models and the next generation that are coming online are amazing and the question is do we need more than that? Is GPT4 equivalent large language models enough to give us sort of the benefits to humanity without sort of bordering on the existential threats of AGI? And ultimately the parallel question to that is are large language models sufficient to get to AGI? In your opinion?

Yeah. So we have to define what AGI is first because different people have different definitions. Right. An AI that can do just about anything a human can do. Well, you know, half of humans are below average intelligence. Right? Okay, mathematicians. I'm not quite correct on that, but still, you know what I mean. The bar for average output is not that high. And you see GPT4 passing the bar exam in GRE. Maybe it'll go to Stanford soon. It's getting there for those specific things, but it's not agentic as yet. The worry that we have is as we scale these models, they show emergent properties, we feed them a crap the whole Internet at the moment. What we have at the moment are these models that are really talented grads that occasionally go off their meds and we fed with crap. That's the base model. Then what we do is we do this thing called reinforcement learning with human feedback where we tell it what a good and wrong response is. We take these really creative models because you're taking petabytes of data, hundreds of terabytes of data, and you're compressing it down to just a few hundred gigabytes. Like stable diffusion took 100,000 gigabytes of images and the output is a 2 gigabyte file. Of course it can't know everything, but you're telling it, you must know these things. So you reduce its freedom, its creativity, because these aren't thinking machines, they're reasoning machines. Principles, right. And then putting that mask on the front to reacclimatize them to human. But you start with a very fragile base and this is the concern on the scaling, because what happens if as you scale, it learns to lie in other things and it starts being agentic? We don't know to get to AGI though in terms of something that can be as capable as a human across a generalized set of principles, but is better at reading manuals. You don't know if this is enough. It may be or it may not be. Well, it was a very seminal paper by.

Sorry, I was just going to say the thing that is interesting, of course, is the rate at which these large language models are surpassing humans encoding capability. And I guess the question is, will it get recursive and allow them to improve on their own models?

Yeah, you could say already now the kind of overall ecosystem, just like Bitcoin, provisions humans to buy assets. This whole kind of conceptual thing, it's really made programmers 40% more efficient. From that study, if you kind of cave it as a human computer Hybrid type of thing. If you get to the level of a human, it's one thing and then ASI is when you go superhuman. Which we don't really understand why it looks like there was an interesting paper that mentioned by Meta called Cicero where eight language models are combined together and they outperformed humans in the game of diplomacy so they could convince humans on things. And that's today. We don't know where this takeoff point is where it can get self recursively better. We don't know when it gets to human level. It's just we can see it's as good as an Average human like GPT4 out of the box without tuning can pass the Level 3 Google programmer exam.

And it can pass the medical licensing exam, something which I never finished doing. I got through part two but not part three. It's extraordinary. And that's this year. And of course humans are not getting smarter. But every year we're going to see continued progression of all of these large language models. Can we take a second? I always tend towards the abundance side of the conversation conversation and I'm clear all the amazing things that these large language models are enabling and will enable. Let's just take a second to list people's concerns. What are people threatened by? Just so we can address those individually for a moment, what would be top of your list?

Irrelevant. So you know, we talk to a lot of incredibly talented creatives and artists and programmers and others. The top level people love this. There was an MIT study that showed recently the third to seventh decimal, like 20 to 30% better writing reports, but the top 5% got way, way better. And this is what we typically see with people and tools. Like the top creatives love this. Those who are not so good, it raises the average level. So you have to get better. And that's difficult for some people to embrace. Like Lisa Doll being beaten by AlphaGo at go. The average level of a Go player has shot up dramatically and he's got way better.

You know, it's not humans versus AI, it's. It's human plus AI versus AI. In that sense it's yeah.

Or versus humans. Right. Like again, you either have to embrace it or you can get irrelevant very quickly. And there are certain jobs that are sticky, you know, and there's certain jobs that are not. So regulated industries are quite sticky. But still like something like Indian BPO is probably not for basic programming. And so this is a real danger, it's a real threat. There are questions around you. The data sets being used because they typically are from scrapes of literally the entire Internet. What are the rights around that? There are questions around the output. Is it computer generated? Is it copyrightable? You know, there's finally the question of are we building something more powerful than a nuke that is an existential threat to humanity. What is a superintelligence like?

Yeah, I remember Sam Altman wrote a blog and he said, I'm going to just quote from it. He said, some people in the AI field think the risk of AGI and the successor systems are fictitious. We would be delighted if they turned out to be right. But we're going to operate as if these risks are existential. And so now the question is, if in fact you're operating as if the risks are existential, why are you building potentially existential tech?

Right.

I mean, that's an interesting conversation and debate to have.

Yeah, I mean, like you mentioned ABC recently, because there's only a few people that can build this tech, right? And he was asked, if there's a 5% chance that this tech could wipe out humanity and you could push a button to stop it, would you do it? And his answer was, I would push a button to slow it down. We can wind it back, we can turn it off. And that didn't make me feel too comfortable because my base assumption, actually I was talking to the head of a trillion dollar company, the founder, earlier this week, is that AGI will probably find us boring.

Just like in her my favorite AI movie, the one that was the most realistic and the least dystopian. Her. That's great.

Well, Broken Hearts, just like when Replica turned off their boyfriend girlfriend feature on Valentine's Day, they broke tens of thousands of hearts. I think that would be the case. Spoke to Elon last week and he said he thinks if we make the AGI curious, then why would it have any reason to harm us? Because again, we're interesting. In some ways I don't think we're interesting, but I could be wrong.

Are you familiar emailed with Mo Gadot, who was COO at Google X. He wrote a book called Scary Smart, which I read recently. And his basic thesis is the large language models are progeny. They're learning from reading our content, which they are, and they're learning from how we interact with each other and how we treat our machines. And if we're good parents, and you and I are both parents of biological organisms, if they're good parents and they see us respecting each other, they'll tend to follow suit. But if we are disrespectful and harming each other. They might tend to, at least in the early days, tend in that way. People don't realize large language models are a reflection of human society.

To a large degree I'd be sympathetic with that view. So when Web3 came about, we tried to create a system outside the existing system and all the money was made and lost at the intersection with these models, they are literally trained on our collective consciousness on the Internet. And it's the equivalent of taking a super precocious kid taping his eyes open and showing him everything. No wonder they sound a bit weird at times, right?

Yeah.

So I think we should probably be feeding it better stuff and teaching it better stuff. But right now we're at the bulking before cutting point. So that's why we create. You might have seen these memes about these shogoff, this elder weird tentacle being. That's what it comes out of the oven looking like this deep learning thing. And then you have reinforcement learning with human feedback. You tell it how to be human, you know, so the shoveled ground becomes more and more human, but there's still something lurking behind. Feed it better stuff I think is what we've got to do now rather than racing ahead because again like I think we'll probably be fine, but I'm not sure. And these things are becoming more and more capable because as you scale you see emergent properties. What happens when you've got like in the GPT4 paper, My God, they said, you know, we experimented in a closed loop system, giving it some money and telling it to go and make more money. And it was hiring TaskRabbit people and things like that. I said that's not a good idea. You don't know what happens there. I don't know what happens.

It's trying to create, it's trying to create jobs for us.

But then again, this is the amazing thing. So again, we don't officially publicly know details about GPT4 but Nvidia said they designed their new T, the H100 and V linked ones chips for it. That's just two 80 gigabyte chips stuck together. It's 160 gigabytes of VRAM has GPT4 with all its capabilities in which implies it's about 200250 billion parameter model. A single flash drive.

That's crazy.

So what does that mean when you start chaining them together and you get them to check each other's outputs and things Tell you what, it gets a lot better and There's a lot more that I don't particularly want to discuss, but I don't know what the upper limit is even at this stage. And this is before again, this massive ramp up in compute that's coming whereby I know of clusters of H1 hundreds. So the fastest supercomputer in the world right now is. Was it Not Sierra? There's a one exaflop computer. Our cluster is probably the 10th fastest public cluster in the world right now. The new supercomputers are 20 times faster, 40 times faster. Like there is an insane pickup that then will lead to emergent properties. And this becomes again, I don't know what happens. We don't know what happens. Nobody knows what happens. I think it'll probably be fine. I could be wrong.

This episode is brought to you by Levels. One of the most important things that I do to try and maintain my peak vitality and longevity is to monitor my blood glucose. More importantly, the foods that I eat and how they peak the glucose levels in my blood. Now, glucose is the fuel that powers your brain. It's really important. High, prolonged levels of glucose, what's called hyperglycemia, leads to everything from heart disease to Alzheimer's to sexual dysfunction to diabetes. And it's not good. The challenge is all of us are different. All of us respond to different foods in different ways. Like for me, if I eat bananas, it spikes my blood glucose. If I eat glass grapes, it doesn't. If I eat bread by itself, I get this prolonged spike in my blood glucose levels. But if I dip that bread in olive oil, it blunts it. And these are things that I've learned from wearing a continuous glucose monitor and using the Levels app. So Levels is a company that helps you in analyzing what's going on in your body. It's continuous monitoring 24 7. I wear it all the time. Time really helps me to stay on top of the food I eat, remain conscious of the food that I eat, and to understand which foods affect me based upon my physiology and my genetics. You know, on this podcast, I only recommend products and services that I use that I use not only for myself, my friends and my family that I think are high quality and safe and really impact a person's life. So check it out. Levels give you two additional months of membership. And it's something that I think everyone should be doing. Eventually. This stuff is going to be in your body, on your body. Part of our future of medicine today. It's a product that I think I'm going to be using for the years ahead and hope you'll consider as well. So let's talk about the other question which has been the debate over the last week or two, which is, can we slow down development? Should we slow down development? I remember asking a question when I was, God knows in college, I said, if Einstein understood what EM/MC squared would lead to the nuclear bomb, could he have stopped thinking about it? Would he have stopped developing it? The question that you mentioned earlier about Sam Altman being asked, if there's a 5% chance, would you halt it or slow it down? Can we regulate? Can we even regulate against this? Because we live in a nation or a world of poorest borders and technology very quickly becomes globalized and we might slow it down, but I don't know if other nations around the world would slow it down. So what do you think is possible here?

Well, the question is, would you turn it off? Not would you slow it down? And you shifted it to slow it down, which, that was interesting. There's only a few entities even now that can train these large models, literally a handful of. And if you look at, again at that OpenAI AGI paper, they said it's time to offer transparency to governments, transparency on governance. So one of my big issues with OpenAI and DeepMind and others is there's no transparency on the governance of these systems. That could overthrow our democracy and that could kill us all. Again, I don't think they will, but I could be wrong. I think that there isn't a slowdown in thinking, but there can be a stop on training before this big ramp up. Because people came back to me, said, what if China creates an AGI? And I was like, they don't have the chips, they don't have the know how. You've seen no evidence of that. And they don't want to overthrow their system, they want to perpetuate it. And you know what? The best way for them to get an AGI is to send someone with a flash drive into DeepMind or OpenAI and just download it again. It fits on a flash drive. Why would you bother? It's much cheaper to do it that way. So now's the time to put in proper governance, proper oversight. Again, the Open AI blog on this lists a whole bunch of things that they say in the future, I think the future is now, you should do it now. And you should put proper security systems in place if you think it's that dangerous. So you don't get leaking files going everywhere around these really large models, which I don't think are optimal ways to do things, by the way, but we can discuss that later. And six months ago you couldn't do this. Three months ago, and six months it will be too late. So now is the time for a public debate about this, about systems that could take away our freedom, that could kill us all and everything in between.

Did you actually sign that petition that was being circulated last week?

I believe I was the only private company CEO in AI, apart from Elon, to sign that. Yes. I didn't agree with everything in there, but again, I think now is the time.

And is a six month slowdown the right. How do you define that versus a pause?

So you're never going to get a pause because of competitive pressures. And for me, six months is the amount of time you need to get used to these new next generation systems that are landing, that can scale almost infinitely. So I was like, it's kind of the right thing. And again, even six months ago, that was when stable diffusion first came out. It's been what, three, four months since ChatGPT first came out. You needed the permutation around the Internet. And you're seeing things now like ChatGPT being banned in Italy, right? You're seeing the haves and have nots and you're seeing competitive pressure where this is now big business, it's affecting trillion dollar companies and it's not going to stop. So now's the time to start discussing this stuff.

I remember when Uber was banned in France and I was like, okay, we're going to start to label countries as pro and anti technology. I mean, it's kind of insane to think that you can ban these types of technologies and still remain competitive on a national or global stage. Can we flip it over one second? The endpoint of all of this technology is to make us in one sense superhuman, to allow anyone to be educated, to be a creative agent, to be extra healthy. Adding decades onto one's life. Is the goal here of this level of AI development to allow us to work less, to be more productive, to create abundance on the planet. What's your vision of where we're going here?

I think everyone that's building this, maybe if there's some defense company exceptions, is actually doing this with good intentions because they want to create something that can help humanity. Now some people want to automate humanity and literally you look at some of the statements of some of these leads and they're like, well, this will transform money and then we can redistribute it. I'm like, oh, and you're in charge of that. Other people are like, we want to augment humanity. So I'm very much in the augmentation camp where I believe humans and computers be anything. And I'm like, this allows us to scale humans. We've solved that problem. It's still early stages with iPhone 3G stage, but any child in the world soon, in the next few years will be able to have their own personalized tutor or personalized doctor. Yeah. And then this allows us to scale society as well. Because the good to go press was an amazing thing because it allowed us to take stories down and we're driven by stories. But it's lossy. You know, all those notes you're taking in your meetings, everything like that are lossy. Now the new systems, you look at, the new office and teams and all the hostages that are using that, you know, you fill in the gaps. It's no longer lost. It automatically writes your emails and summarizes stuff for you. It can be that grad and he's generally on his meds. It's going to be pretty awesome, I think, and a real changer to the way that we all collaborate and achieve our potential. But if it's centralized and that's the only option, then it probably won't go so well. I think we've had a history of that. What happens if new technology is controlled by a few hands? Power is really attractive. Really, really attractive.

Well, and this is the power that's going to drive to a new global set of trillionaires and I think a complete transformation of every industry. So let's talk about open versus closed. You very much. Well, let's begin back now, eight plus years ago, when Sam Altman and Elon talk about OpenAI being truly open with a mission to help guide the development of AI for humanities. And it began as a nonprofit and then Elon put 100 million in. He's pissed right now. It's turned into a for profit and is anything but open. And I love the fact that if you go to open AI, it doesn't point at OpenAI, it points towards stability AI, which is very interesting. But you made a conscious choice to build an open platform. Can you speak about that?

Yeah, I thought that ethically it's the correct thing to do and it was a better business as well because the value in the world is in private data and knowledge and people want control. So again, if these are grads that occasionally off their meds using OpenAI or Google or Anthropic or anyone like that, is hiring it for McKinsey, but you want to have your own ones. But then I think this technology had to be distributed. Like when I came in as a relative outsider, I've only ever been to San Francisco once before October. And I have a non conventional background. I talked to a lot of AI ethicists who were like, well, we have to control this technology and who has access to it until it's safe. And I was like, when will it ever be safe for Indians or Africans? I don't think it ever will be. And it reminded me a lot of the old colonial mindset and access to technology. I was like, if this can really activate every child's potential, you know, and you know, working with the X Prize for Learning winners and deploying this with imagineworldwide.org, my co founders charity, into refugee camps, I was like, how can I hold it back from these kids?

Yeah. By the way, just for those who don't know, many years ago, Elon Musk and Tony Robbins funded something called the Global Learning X Prize. It was a $15 million prize asking teams to build software that could teach children, in this case in Tanzania, reading, writing and arithmetic on their own. And EMAD was a partner in one of the winning teams. And you're now taking it much further, much faster, which is amazing.

Yeah. We did the rct, the Randomized Control trials with UNESCO and others. And so in refugee camps around the world, 76% of children get to literacy and numeracy in 13 months and just one hour a day with this basic software. What if they all had a ChatGPT? It will change the world. We figured out how to scale that to every child in Malawi and then across Africa and Asia in the next few years with the World bank and others. And again, it was interesting again to have this discussion because things are very insular when you have power and control. And it's very tempting to keep power and control. And this is one of the things. How do you view the world? Are we stronger together and we can deal with any problem, or do I need to be in the lead and control it if it's a powerful technology because people are fundamentally good or bad?

First of, that's a scary thought. I fundamentally believe that human, humans are good by their basic nature and that the majority of humans are good and want to make the world a better place. But we do have to guard against those that have sort of a bent arrow.

And this is why I look at what does the world's infrastructure run on? It runs on Linux it runs on open source, MySQL that's the most resilient. Windows is not resilient, which is a very interesting analogy, I think.

So how do you make money as an open source company?

Oh, it's pretty straightforward. Every nation wants to have their own models because this is a question of sovereignty. So we're helping multiple nations do that. And then every single regulated industry wants their own models. So we're helping them do that too. Working with cloud providers, system integrators and others. Lots of announcements to come. Private data is valuable, public data is less valuable. And a bit of a race to the bottom. I think people are looking on the wrong side of the firewall and again, we'll see that going forward. But they're not going to stop. Microsoft, Google, Nvidia, others aren't going to stop. They'll keep scaling. And now that there's actually revenue that can be generated in these models, you're going to move from research to revenue. Hundreds of millions. Billions will be spent on training. And again, I think the scaling paradigm is one of them where you scale these things up. I think it's an incorrect one to get us to, let's say, a level of AGI. So major that I'm interested in is the human colossus, humans coming together to solve the world's problems, augmented by technology. I think that collective and swarm intelligence will beat an AGI any day. And that's what I'm interested in, I think arming everyone with their own AI, every single person, company, country, culture in the world. We build a new intelligent Internet that can solve any problem because a lot of our problems are information coordination and this technology enables that. So very different view from most of the other CEOs of companies in this space. Global collective augmented as opposed to artificial general intelligence that can replace humans, shall we say.

Let me just make a mention. We'll be going to questions from those watching and listening from those listening in a few minutes. Imad is GPT4 and its equivalence or large enough for us to achieve what we want. Do we need to go to yet another generation? Can we build enough intelligence without tipping over to AGI?

Nobody knows. Nobody will ever be able to tell you that there's less than 12 months to AGI because we don't know until it gets there, when it gets genetic.

I used to hate all the doomsayers on AGI. My, my standard statement was always listen, I'm not worried about artificial intelligence. I'm worried about human stupidity. And to a large degree that remains the same. And what we're going to see with ChatGPT and all of these large language models are people's stupidity being amplified and people's brilliance being amplified as well. And so the question is, does it go out of bounds on the low side to cause us any real issues?

No, it's a dangerous point right now because you're not quite intelligent enough to align and you have amplification of these things where you people have powerful tools. Right. I think when it does get intelligent enough, I think there's no way that we can perfectly align it because alignment is orthogonal to freedom. We all know people more capable than us and the only way to make sure they do exactly as we want is take away their freedom. I don't think a super AGI will like that necessarily. But again, I think again, we're kind of boring. So I think that we are in this dangerous space now between those two things when it can't be self correcting until you know, Peter, that's stupid. Why are you going to do that? Don't be a dick. These are dangerous, powerful technologies that can be downloaded on a flash drive. Why would you want to train it yourself when you can just take it and use it in really original ways? Again, I don't want to get into too much detail, but it's probably not just deep learning. We've already implemented reinforcement learning and there's all sorts of ways that you can create much better systems. Like the simplest one, just get two GPT4s to check each other's answers and it becomes better.

Yes.

Surprising that.

I have to say, having you as the CEO makes me feel safer in terms of at least for stability. AI, I feel you have a mission to build a strong and viable company while uplifting humanity and doing good in the world, which is important. I think that has to be at the core for all of these companies because the technology is so fundamentally powerful.

I think realistically, Sam has an amazing mission, Demis has an amazing mission, Dario has an amazing mission. Like, everyone is quite mission driven. Who are the CEOs of the companies that could build this type of technology? It's just none of us should be in control of it. I don't know how it should be, but I think this is the time for a public debate around it. And, you know, everyone should realize that this is taking off crazily and that's what democracy is about.

You know, I remember when I was in medical school years ago, restriction enzymes were first coming online and there was a huge amount of Fear mongering about designer babies and, and being able to clone children and we're playing with godlike powers and we're going to lead to killer viruses. This is in the late 80s, early 90s there was concern about regulating and could this even be regulated because you could sneak out the restriction enzymes in a few picoliters of fluid. What came together was a series of summits called the Asilomar conferences in which the heads of the industries got together and self regulated versus the government coming down on them. Have you seen that conversation taking place here at all?

I think it's time to emerge now because we need to self regulate as an industry. We need to increase transparency of our governance, you know, and how we make decisions. Like last year Open AI with Dali to forbade every Ukrainian from using it. And if you touch on a Ukrainian term, it threatened to ban you. Why did they make that decision? Who knows? Is there any redress? No. You know, and so we have to be really mindful about things like this and set industry norms. And now I think it's time to come together. To people raising this is a big deal. I think we want to do it before it's forced upon us. But at the same time the discussion needs to be widened here because this affects every part of life. It's kind of insane. We've never seen anything like this before. Right. And we have to do it quick, quick, quick. And this is the last window that we have before. Again, everything takes off.

So that's. That is one of. That's. I've asked. I remember when we first met, I asked you, is this time different? Because we've been hearing about this conversation for forever and so you're pretty clear definitively this time it is fundamentally different.

Dude. I mean like any coder that uses GPT4, it's like, wow, look at that. I'm like multiple times better, right? It's like this thing can write better than me, it can draw better than me, it can paint better than me. I think people don't want to believe that things are different. I recently went and said some talks. This is a big economic impact in the pandemic because all information system flow changes. Things that involve atoms don't change. But so much of our life is about information and this has made a meaningful difference in that. Just play with it, try it, go in depth and you can't go away with any other answer.

I think, let me sort of go down a few of these. We've talked about education, the potential there. If you would five Years from now, what's your vision of the potential for generative AI in global education?

Every child has their own AI that looks out for them and customizes them. Are you an auditory learner? A visual learner? Are you dyslexic? That's all information flow. And you can fix all of that. Right? And it brings students together to work together as well. Because most of school right now is a child care system mix of the status game, you know, that's why I think, Peter, we were having discussion before an incredibly smart young kid asked a question. You know, my school says that it's cheating to use ChatGPT. And I'm like, it's not a competition education. Right. We made it a competition. Education is about actuation. And so I think these things will fundamentally change the way when everyone's got their own amazing teacher. The young laser illustrated prior from the diamond age. How exciting is that? And 100% we can get there in five years for every kid in the world, or just about every kid. That's amazing. That will change the world for the.

Cost of fundamentally electricity, which is getting cheaper all the time.

Yeah. So let's put it this way. GPT4, if it does run on 2H1 hundreds, as Nvidia has indicated, is 1400 watts. The human brain is 25 watts. How crazy is that?

A lot of.

Yeah, especially when we start feeding it junk.

All right, let's go to health next. You and I are both passionate about that. You've done a lot in your life in the health area. And I'm clear. I mean, one of the beautiful things is that all 8 billion people on the planet are biologically identical. So something that works for someone in India or Iraq or Mexico is, is the same that works for you in San Francisco. What's your vision there?

Yeah, people are people, just like education. If you have open source education that recursively goes, healthcare is the same. We just need to increase the information density and organized knowledge. So when my son was diagnosed with autism, they said there's no cure, no treatment. I had to build an AI system to analyze all the medical clinical trials and do a first principles analysis of what could cause it. And then we did drug repurposing to ameliorate the symptoms that should be available to everyone, you know, anyone who's had a condition which is difficult. The process of finding knowledge is so complex, you know, and so our system is a gurdig. It treats a thousand tosses of the coin the same as a thousand coins tossed in a Row. Right. Like a percentage of the population has a cytoprine P450 mutation. It means you metabolize things quicker so you're more. Your codeine becomes morphine. Those are the ones that die of fentanyl. How do we not even know that? Right. And so we have all the tools in place now to have your own personal doctor, you know, to have all the knowledge in medicine aligned so we can see across and have that information set. And I think as we do this with longevity, with cancer, with Alzheimer's, within 10 years we'll be able to cure all of these because the knowledge is all there. It's just not all in the right place. So everyone's trying to do their own things. The larger clinical trials, the information leakage, it's ridiculous. We can capture every piece of information on that.

Yeah. People don't realize all of the failures in these trials is extraordinarily valuable information that is not captured and not utilized at all. The other thing, just to hammer it home, because those of you who know my work, I'm focused on longevity, age reversal. How do we make us live longer, healthier lives? This decade is different and we're going to be understanding why certain people age, how to slow it, how to stop it. A lot of it's going to come out of the work that companies like Stable Stability and others are doing. Then we have Quantum technologies coming soon which are going to put sort of fuel on the fire here. My guess is what, within five years or less it'll be malpractice to diagnose without AI in the loop.

Yeah. And I think it'll be humans plus AI. It won't be AI. That diagnosis again, autopilots for everything is going to be the way of things. Just like self driving cars I think are imminent in terms of getting to that level four, level five and I think, you know, as five, 10 years it's going to. You have to really prove yourself to drive on the road. AI is better. You have an army of graduates that will become associates, that will pass the bar, that will pass their medical exams over the coming years and infinitely replicate them.

Yes. What people don't realize is every time an AI learns something, it shares it with every other AI out there as you update the models. And AIs are getting better every year, while we humans pretty plateau after a certain point. The other thing I love is.

Yeah, I think the thing I need to really drive home here is when you're trying ChatGPT and GPT4, that's just one of them. Imagine if there was a hundred of them checking each other. No doubt the outputs would be even better than you've seen. And 10 of them were learning about everything about you. So right now we're like single. Soon we'll be parallelizing these things. And just like if I had 100 grads that were exceptional and generally good all working around you, and you wouldn't have to oversee them, your life would be better.

When we were on stage at Abundance360, we were talking about interesting subject of who would you hire into your company? And what background would you require if you're hiring someone into your company? And what is the most important skill that people will need in this world of exponentially growing AI? And your answer was passion all the way around.

I mean like this, we've had 15 year olds contributing to open source code base, 60 year olds, right, because you don't know where it comes from. But you have to be passionate and throw yourself into this because it's going so fast. If you're not passionate, you won't be able to keep up. And then you bring the latest breakthroughs to your company and kind of communicate it. And you can use the technology to communicate it even better, which is kind of awesome. It will automatically create the presentations and slides for you. So I think passion is kind of the key thing, plus, you know, a level of intelligence and capability. But if people aren't passionate, they're not going to be able to keep up here. I think that's the key thing.

Everybody, this is Peter. A quick break from the episode. I'm a firm believer that science and technology and how entrepreneurs can change the world world is the only real news out there worth consuming. I don't watch the Crisis News Network. I call CNN or Fox and hear every devastating piece of news on the planet. I spend my time training my neural net the way I see the world by looking at the incredible breakthroughs in science and technology, how entrepreneurs are solving the world's grand challenges, what the breakthroughs are in longevity, how exponential technologies are transforming our world. So twice a week I put out a blog. One blog is looking at the future of longevity, age reversal, biotech, increasing your health span. The other blog looks at exponential technologies, AI, 3D printing, synthetic biology, AR.VR blockchain. These technologies are transforming what you as an entrepreneur can do. If this is the kind of muse to you want, want to learn about and shape your neural nets with, go to dmandis.com blog and learn more. Now back to the episode. Listen I would love to open it up for some questions, if you're open for that.

Yes. Hi, I'm Amer Awdallah. Hey. Ahmed, how are you? First question, Ahmed, is how's your noggin doing? That's good, man. I had a bit of a fender bender, so my brain was jiggled for the last few days. I think it's Fatima now. Okay. Please make sure to go check on it and make sure it's all in order, because we need those neurons continuing to fire for a few more years to come. So this is my question to you, and I'm very curious about your thoughts on this one. We are clearly on a trajectory now where we're going to have Cambridge Analytica multiplied by a billion times. Assuming you're familiar with Cambridge analytics and what they did. Right. Yeah. So now imagine on a website like Character AI, where I can go and create characters that are digital replicas of people. Like there is additional replica of Elon Musk. And then if it was very model, if it was modeled very correctly, then I can now start playing arguments against it, just like AlphaGo played itself. And I would play it against itself for billions and billions and billions of iterations until I find the perfect way to get them to do whatever I do. So it's Alpha subjugate. I can subjugate any citizen to my will. And you said earlier it's very tempting to keep power and control. How are we going to react? How are we going to solve that? That's a very big problem, in my opinion. I'm curious your thoughts on it. Like, how do we stop that from happening? That's going to happen? No, it's inevitable. Right. And again, it's like it's here pretty much now. Creative ways of using this for mass persuasion are there, like, you really get robo callers that call up with the voice of your grandmother saying it's emergency now, and you can't tell the difference. This is going massive and voice is very, very convincing. So I think the only way you could go ahead, I think the only way you can do this is you have to build your own AI to protect you. And you need to own those AIs and they need to look out for you honestly. And then trust the authentication schemes. The Twitter tick on steroids. We have to move fast, fast, fast. Because you said armies of replicants are coming here as well as being able to gamify that particular thing. We shouldn't talk too much about it, though, because. Yeah. So countermeasures. So you're saying it's countermeasures, right? It's just like antivirus, virus antivirus. So we need something that is countermeasure at the speed that is catches this before it becomes much worse. So is that something that any of us are working on? Should be. Should we unify efforts to work on that? Yes, I've got some things in that space. Yeah. Idea, idea, idea. Antivirus. There we go.

So to close out that, you know, I'm fond of seeing the world's biggest problems, the world's biggest business opportunities and believe me, as that issue comes online, there will be multiple entrepreneurs looking to slay it.

Ahmad with Stability AI. One of the initiatives is Open Bio ML. So I don't know if you could speak about, you know, best case. Where's that going? Where are we going to be in five years if sort of your best case vision turns out for that? What will that look like? Yeah. So OpenBird is our medical computational biology one. So we're on the main backers of Open Fold to do kind of alphafold type things with DNA diffusion to kind of see how DNA folds biolm see chemical reactions based on language models. There's a whole bunch of things that I just think the opportunity is massive because again, the data quality is poor. But now we can create synthetic data and we can analyze data better than anything and we can figure out how chemicals interact. The work of DeepMind and alcohol was amazing. Now we can do things in silica, so we can test chemical reactions, drug interactions and others that when combined with a knowledge base of all the medical knowledge in the world and research and able to extract patterns from it that are superhuman. I don't think there's anything we can't cure, honestly. But we've got to build this as a public common good, in my opinion and give these tools out to the experts to use and unify. We have to do this very intentionally. So open vitamins just at the start now. And we also have medoc, which is the health care equivalent of that, doing like synthetic radiology with Stanford AMI to create more data sets of rare lung diseases and things like that. And it's working great. So I think Community Commons is the way.

And by the way, all of this is how we create an abundance of health around the planet. Right? The best diagnosticians on the planet are going to be AIs and the best surgeons will be robots driven by AIs and that then becomes available everywhere. And I just want to hit on a point that I think is important for folks to hear a world in which children have access to the best education and the best health care is a world that is more peaceful, which I think is one of our key objectives here. How do we uplift every man, woman and child on the planet?

I wanted to ask a personal question here and it's something I haven't had a chance to ask Peter yet about AI and Peter, I know that you and seemingly Ahmad generally have an abundance and optimistic mindset. I understand your views are changing. Is the potential threat of catastrophic job loss concerning to you both? And if so, how do you potentially suggest people address finding meaning in their lives without consistent work or careers? I'd love to hear your thoughts, Peter, as I know you're typically really focused on this from an abundance mindset. And also yours, Ahmad. Well, Peter, you want to go first?

So yeah. So listen, I think we're lucky. Almost all of us here taking the time to listen to this conversation are extraordinarily lucky. We're doing a job. I don't know what everybody's doing, but I'm pretty much guessing we're doing jobs that we love, that we dream about, that we're excited about. The majority of humans on the planet unfortunately are not doing what they love. They're doing what they need to put food on the table, get insurance for their family. One of the things I think about is how do you use these extraordinarily powerful technologies to self educate and to self empower to go and do the things that you love, to augment yourself, to have a copilot if you want to be a physician, a teacher, a writer, whatever it might be. And that trains you on the job as you're doing the job. So it's going to allow people to dream a lot more. I think the only fear I have about AI today is what I would call itself its toddler into adolescence phase. I think when AI is in its earliest AGI state, if we get there before it's developed fundamentally an ethical emotional capability, I think the more intelligent in general that systems are, the more empathic and the more good natured they will be. I don't think we live in a universe of infinite resources. I don't buy any of the dystopian Hollywood movies where they have to come and grab all of the whatever off the planet Earth. That's bullshit. There's so much abundance of everything. I think we just have to deal with the early stages where humans are using it in a dystopian fashion or the toddler doesn't know Its own strength.

Yeah, I think that people will create new jobs and they'll do it very fast. I think the pace will be picked up by a mixture of open and closed technologies as well. You see the innovation around stable diffusion, new language models coming out and other things as well. But I think I'm really excited about emerging markets in particular. I think they'll leap to intelligence augmentation just like they left over the PC to the mobile. And that will create ridiculous abundance and value there because they embrace technology because they need to and they want to. And there's amazing people there that just haven't had the opportunity, now have the opportunity with this. So I think, you know, I think it's a bigger economic disruption than the pandemic. I don't know which way, but I believe it will be positive, to be honest. And you'll see points added to the GDP of India and other countries once they get going. This brought up a lot of questions. Really great conversation. The one that I think is most pertinent to me is after hearing Umad talk and I think Peter made the comment, he's, he's thankful that you are one of the leaders of this and leading your company because you clearly have good intentions. You sound like a giver. You can't in the Adam Grant give and take sense. How do we control against the other players that are, that have their fingers on the proverbial button. Right. Because this, like if you have people with really bad motivations and takers versus give, imagine Trump was smart enough to be a CEO of one of these companies. I mean, that is terrifying.

I prefer not to.

How do we, how do we control against that? And part of it, part of. I'll answer part of that. I think I'm an investor, an early stage investor. I think it is incumbent upon investors to be picking good, good actors versus bad actors and who they back. So anyway, this is a really concerning note because I'm glad that you're one of the good guys, but I'm sure they're also bad guys. I think actually the most dangerous are the good guys in some ways. Like most of the evil in the world is done by people who think they're doing good, not me, but you never know. I think that the key thing here is transparency. If you are using powerful technology that has the ability to impact the freedom of others, you need to be transparent and you need to have proper governance and other things like we build out in the open. And I think that there needs to be some mechanisms for that. Again, OpenAI listed a whole bunch of them in a blog post without saying whenever they do it, we need to implement that now.

So that's really important. It's not just being open or closed, it's really being transparent and having an understanding of how the technology is being developed and utilized and then having investors and governments listen. I never depend on governments for much of anything, but. But you know, it's not bad to have a set of requirements that society holds your feet to the fire on.

And this is the last time we can do that. In my opinion, this next period of 6 to 12 months, that is the.

Single most important thing I've heard said Imad. Putting that timeframe on it because of the, you know, the clusters of H1 hundreds and the new capability that we're adding. And what most people don't realize is, is that we're in this situation today with these large language models and deep learning because we've seen massive growth in computation over the last just few years and massive amount of labeled data out there over the last few years. The ideas for deep learning have been around for 30 plus years, but it's just now that it's capable and it's adding fuel to the fire. Everybody just listen up. It's the timeframe is now.

But just a quick note, like, how do you, how do you make that a forcing function over other than just a letter? I mean, the letter, that's great, but like, is that really leverage? I mean what, like what's going to cause that and what happens if they choose not to and we don't pause for the next six months? I don't think there'll be a pause. I think they'll continue, right? Like there's nothing enforceable within that period. But I think that they will feel more and more pressure to come and build industry standards. And I think there will be policy, policy responses literally, like we've just seen in Italy is now banned in Italy. And on the flip side, you don't have chatgpt in Saudi Arabia. Why? Because openly, I decided not to. So we need to have some standards around this sooner rather than later. And it will be a mixture of public pressure, government pressure, investor pressure, and more. I think it's not easy, man. It's not easy.

Imad, one of the things I truly hope is that your voice, and one of the reasons I wanted to do this Twitter space conversation with you is I really want to hear your voice in this world of AI. I know how brilliant you are, I know how giving your heart is And I want people to. We keep on hearing from Sam and Elon and others like Geoffrey Hinton and folks at DeepMind. But I'm excited to to hear you lead in this industry.

Do our best. I think again, everyone needs to speak up now. It's the time. Hello. Thank you so much for having me. Peter Imad just had a question around.

Community and I was wondering, you know.

With all this kind of stuff happening with automation and things are going to change, do you think we can like start leaning more into humans finding purpose in in person events? I just want to hear your thoughts on that. Like, what role does in person events have in this, you know, new future? I love AI. No, I think we're pro social species, right. And AI can help us connect better with people around us. So, you know, I mean, we'll come out with this Covid weirdness. And now getting used to meeting people in person, I think it's super important. You know, I think there was an interesting thing as well, like the FS study in Argentina where rather than giving direct cash handouts, they actually said, universal basic jobs, pick your jobs for your community. And people loved it because they had purpose, they had meaning. And it brought loads of women into the workforce and they're like, don't give us back to direct cash handouts. People like being with people fundamentally. And so we've got to use this technology to increase engagement with other humans rather than that wall E type future of the fat guy with a VR headset just being modeled around. I think people like stories and stories bring us together and this will allow us to tell better stories.

Yeah. Up until now, connecting and building community has typically been almost a random process. If you happen to be in the right place, if you happen to read the right thing or sign into the right community, imagine systems that are able to proactively gather people who are great matches and didn't know that they are. So I think we're going to see a lot of things accelerate in the directions that we choose. So what do we want? And be careful what you ask for.

Again, we're moving from the book and the Gutenberg phase, which is massively lossy to be able to capture some of the complexities of humanity. Like, you know, when you watch Moana, why does Maui pick up the sun with a fishing hook from the ocean? Is because it's all they ever knew. And we can start to capture these stories of the world so we can better understand each other and engage or the vice versa. This is up to us now. I Have two very quick ones and pick your poison. You can answer one or both of them, but one is on the pause and development. So what do you think the implications are for the economic competition between countries? And like, should we even be looking at it this way? And then the other question is that the conversation is really sharply focused on AI right now. But I think the real power is going to be in the converging of different technologies. So based on what you're seeing, what do you guys think is going to be the next big tech to reach mass adoption? The way that we've seen with AI in recent months, that's really going to accelerate this sort of convergence with AI and, and create really interesting things. Cool. So on the first question, I'd say there's only two companies in the world that are actually basically building this AI and that's the UK and the United States. Like you're not seeing GPT4 level models in any other countries. And so the pause was basically those two countries. On the second one, I'm not sure I'm going to push that to Peter because Peter's got a much wider view than me.

So what's interesting is I think about something called user interface moments. When Marc Andreessen created the web browser, it became a user interface on top of arpanet and it made it accessible and usable. We can see throughout time, even the App Store as a user interface moment. The ultimate user interface moment is in fact AI. So if you don't know how to 3D print and you don't know how to use any graphic programs, but you know how to describe what your intention and desire is, you could speak to your own version of Jarvis. And I think all of us are going to have our own version of Jarvis, our own personal AI that we've hyper customized, that we give permission to know everything in our life because it makes our life better. And you can say, listen, I'd like to create a device that's got a handle on it that looks like this. You describe it physically and then your AR glasses or VR glasses, you're seeing it come together, being shaped as you describe it, right? That technology here today. And then you say, that's it, print. And then it says great. And then you say, add it to the store and it's available for anybody for free or for a penny. So AI is going to be the ultimate user interface for all exponential technologies from computation, sensors, networks, robotics, 3D printing, synthetic biology, AR VR, blockchain. And that's when it starts, becomes interesting because it used to be that you needed very specialized knowledge. Now the knowledge you need is what's in your mind, what's your intention, what's your desire. And AI becomes your partner in implementation, going from mind to materialization. If you think I wanted to get.

Imad's and Peter's thoughts on something called the factorio paradox, it's in the game Factorio where once you learn to automate everything and build factories that are smarter than your factories, you would think that the work perhum decreases, but actually your work increases because now you have the whole map to expand to. And I was wondering if there is a possibility that this might also happen with the adoption of AI tools, that human labor might actually become even more expensive and more rare. As we kind of see now that we've used, I mean, we've been using Codex has been out for a year after code, as you said, Emad now is generated by AI, yet we're still finding it hard to hire people on stuff. So what do you guys think about that? I think that's great. I've spent thousands of hours on Factoria, so I'm very familiar with it. And I think that's the thing. Human discernment is still very important and human guidance is still very important. It's just as we bring build new technologies, it lifts us up, right? And it adjusts where our point in that cycle is. So, you know, I think it will replace all. Like I think I said, well, there's no more coders. There's no more coders as we see them right now. When I started coding, God, was it 20 years ago when I was like 22 years ago? Gosh, when I was 17, we didn't have GitHub or that stuff. We started using sub version that has just come out. You kids have it easy these days, you know, those who are listening with all this kind of thing. So we get better and better abstractions of kind of knowledge and the role of the human changes and it becomes more valuable because you can do so much more. Enhances our capabilities, I think. Like, so that's the exciting thing rather than oh my God, no one's got anything to do with just that I'm getting fat and watching their own customized movies. Right.

You know, there's another part of the conversation we haven't discussed, which is the coming singularity. Whether you believe it or not, I feel we are moving very rapidly in that direction. Ray Kurzweil described it, actually Werner Vinge described it first and Ray projects it to be some 20, 25 years out, the point at which the speed of innovation is moving so rapidly you can't project what's coming next. There's another book that I loved called Zero Marginal Society by Jeremy Rifkin. Talks about, about what happens when we have AGI and we've got nanotechnology and we've got abundant energy. Everything becomes possible pretty much all at once. Everywhere. We were making that joke on stage. Imad where I have effectively a replicator, a nanobot, materials are effectively abundant, energy is abundant, information is open source. So it starts to become an interesting world. And you know what I find even more interesting? It's going to happen during our lifetimes. We can get into a long conversation about whether we're living in a simulation or not. But it's the next 20 years, it's the next five years when all what we're talking about today is playing out definitively. But in the next 20 years, as we're adding decades onto our healthy life, as brain computer interface starts coming online, we thought things moved quickly this year. They're going to move. We're going to see. I think the estimate that Ray Kurzweil talked about and we've talked about at Singularity University for a while is we're going to see a century worth of progress in the next 10 years. What does that look like? The biggest concern is, I think governments don't do well in this kind of hyper growth, in this kind of disruptive change. Young kids will do reasonably well. But governments, which are governments, religions are structured to keep things the way they are. Any reaction to that? Iman?

Yeah, I think they perpetuate the status quo. I think decision making under uncertainty you minimize for maximum regret. That's why I set up stability, to offer stability at this time, so we can help out governments and companies and others and standardize the open source models and others that everyone builds on as the foundation for the future. I think. I'm glad.

I'm glad.

Yeah, yeah. And then I think that, you know, just like we're setting up subsidiaries in every single country and they'll eventually be owned by the people of that country. Got interesting things coming that we'll announce. The interesting thing you said that like, why is it happening like this? It's not Moore's Law, right. This is like Peel's Law, Metcalfe's Law. It's like a network effect that's happening right now. And that's why you're getting this acceleration, because network effects are really exponential, where everyone's trying out this thing and exploring this new type of technology and sharing information back and forth quicker than anything you've seen. And all these technologies happen to be maturing at the same time. I can't see that far out. Everyone says, why do we say 20 years? We just pull it out of our butts. We just got thumb in the air. All we know is that things are never the same again. You will never be able to set an essay for homework again at a school for every school in the world. And there's more and more of that that's coming. But these things also take time to fit into our existing system. So as you noted, programming copilot's been out for a year. It's got a lot better, but it takes time to integrate into workflows. It's not like it goes and takes over everything at once. How long does it take to get into things? 1.5 million people still use AOL. You know, Lotus Notes are still used around the world. I think it makes hundreds of millions a year. But this may change quicker than anything we've ever seen before, but it still takes time and it's very exciting.

It has changed quicker than anything we've seen before. And there will be something that moves 10 times faster than it did. Yeah. It is the most extraordinary and exciting time ever to be alive, other than perhaps tomorrow. Iman, I just want to say thank you. I know your heart and I know your mission and I'm grateful for what stability AI is doing. And thanks for joining me today. And thank you to everybody listening and for the questions.

It's my pleasure. I'm thankful to the community and I think it's going to take all of us to guide this properly. So just embrace it. Dig in. It's like you said, the most exciting thing ever.

And if you haven't followed Imad on Twitter yet, please do. He does tweet on a regular basis and. All right, pal, I'll talk to you in the days ahead.

Thank everyone. Bye. Take care.