An Experiment in Augmented Intelligence — Living Between Worlds 4.12

Foreign. Welcome, everybody to Living Between Worlds. This is the last session of our fourth year of these calls. We're going to do something different today. As some of you know, we started this in, in early in Covid. I was struck both by the, you know, the, the enormous disruption of the pandemic and the striking parallels between the COVID pandemic and the climate pandemic. And that's where we started the calls looking at how do we live in a vuca world. We changed the title in the second year and Ken, you want to take us to the second slide. This is some of the ground that we've covered over the last four years. You can get a sense of the range of topics we've looked at. Some of them been very specific action in the World Focus. Some have been more philosophical and inner. And we've tried to dance between the inner and the outer in a way that was fruitful and productive. What we've done now that's new is that we've trained an AI on the entire corpus of the Living Between Worlds calls. Actually almost the entire corpus, four of them. We, four sessions have technical issues on, and they're not in yet. But all of our words over these past four years are in this beast now. It's only our corpus. It's not. It's not a large language model. It's not the entire universe of predated human knowledge. It's just our words for us. And it's an experiment to see if this is something that can enhance our experience and our conversations together. We're not looking for right answers. We're looking for pattern and provocation and enriching. I tend to think of AI not as artificial intelligence. My wife Jan calls it simulated intelligence because it really ain't intelligence. But I think of it as augmented intelligence. So I'm curious to see how this can contribute to us, each of us and us together in the work we're doing. Some of you know Professor Scott Galloway from nyu last week he did his annual reporting on his predictions, how he did, how he scored for 2023 and his predictions for 2024. And one of the things he had to say about AI that I thought was really important is he said, look, AI is not going to come take your job, but people who are good at using it are going to come take your job. So hypothesis that I'm throwing out there is that it's going to be worthwhile for us to understand this stuff and understand how to use it and see it, how it can enhance the Work of our tribe. So with that in mind, let me start with just a couple of polling questions. We'll have a. We'll have a couple of questions at the beginning of the call, a few at the end. Ken, can you bring those up?

Hold on one second. Just admitting some people to the waiting room from the waiting room here. I think I have to.

I can take care of that if you just focus on the poll.

Let's see, where is polls. Oops. Hold on a second.

While he's doing that, just some general housekeeping. Use the chat. We so far have not been sharing the chat. We do publish the video to YouTube. You can save the chat using the three dots at the lower corner of the chat screen if you do want to speak. And there'll be plenty of time for you to do that today. We're going to be full plenary today, we think. Use the zoom hand raise function that will stack you up in queue and will take you in sequence as you. As you did. So just take a look at questions number one and two right now. Have you interacted with an AI before and have you used it actively? A little. Not at all. Just get a sense of what your experience with these things is. And we'll give that a few minutes to run, a few moments to run. Yeah, I've run it through a lot of paces and I find it troubling. Okay, well, we'll get to that.

Just submit the first two questions as your suggestion here.

Just the first two? Yeah, the, the, the. The second. The last three are going to be about what we've done in the next hour and we haven't done it yet. And Jesse, to your point about it being troubling, there's a lot that we could talk about about it's troubling and concerning nature. That's not the. We can probably. We'll probably visit that in another call early in 2024, but today is focused on this particular machine that we have built for us. Shell something for now.

There we go.

Yeah.

I've had two different kinds of experience with AI. One is that I love enabling AI for zoom transcripts. They're not accurate, but it's easy enough to figure out where they went haywire and to actually have a record of the call without having to generate a, you know, 64 megabyte sound file. But I've also, as a tool for creativity, I am troubled deeply by the fact that it sounds so authoritative as it spews bullshit that I think it's really convincing people that it knows what it's talking about when it doesn't either, because it's selectively pushing one set of facts and ignoring some of the corollary facts that make interpretations different or it just makes stuff up.

So again, I want to. I want to hold that kind of discussion off for another call. There's a lot to talk about there, including how to train this thing so that it works well for you and sidestep some of those problems. But again, today, let's focus on our conversation and what we can see here. So let's take a look at the poll results. Ken, you want to show the results. You pop them up. Okay. So about two thirds of us have used them. Not a little in a lot. You see the difference there. So that's good for now, just as a context. So let me. Let me ask you all a question first, and then we'll ask the AI. And I want to credit to Alex Kadatus in London, who has built this thing and is not yet with us. Hopefully he'll join us at some point today. Some of you have been with us for just a few calls. Some of you have been with us, I think, almost from the beginning. What would you say have been the key themes and the key insights of these and how to work with these things and how, how you shape the prompts, the kinds of questions you ask, the specificity with which you ask them, the context that you give. It has an enormous impact on the quality of the responses that come back. And we can talk more about that another time. Who is. Who is that there? I'm sorry, I'm not saying. John Yon Ballard.

Yes, Hello, John.

You came in a little late. This is. This is an AI that we've trained on the living between worlds.

I've been here since the beginning.

Oh, you have? Okay, great. Go ahead. So, reactions?

Well, very similar. My team and I are working with the AI on multiple levels every day, and basically we're finding it's fantastic to draft things that are complicated.

So how do you react to what you're seeing on screen now?

I. I think it's excellent. And it. Actually, I was, you know, having some thoughts of what I wanted to say, and I couldn't formulate it enough to share, but everything I was thinking is in there.

Cool, thank you.

I'm excited about that.

Stuart Levine. And then I want to show you the next step on this thing. Go ahead.

Apologies for jumping off. It's interesting because I said for me personally, the meaning was that I'm not alone.

Yeah.

The summary Is great. I agree with everything there, but it didn't speak to my personal thoughts about the situation. And I think that's an important distinction. Gail.

Okay, good. Um, again, this is not a right answer. This is an. A distilled summary from a particular perspective, and each of us has our own experience. What happens if you ask the same question twice? I don't know. Well, that's. That's good to differentiate. Well, I think I. We haven't. We haven't really run it hard on that. It's certainly giving very similar answers. Are they identical or not? I don't know. Well, we'll see. Let me call your attention to the stuff on the bottom of the screen. Those are drill in details behind that contributed to the construction of this paragraph. What? Would you like to look at one of them in more detail?

Conversational transformation for 20GIL.

Okay. Any other votes?

Community storytelling.

Okay, we'll come to community. Let's do conversational transformation and then community and dialogue. So these are the elements that contributed to, in particular to the summary. And Conversational transformation touches on the transformative power of dialogue and the presence that new worlds are spoken into being. It also addresses the need to navigate conversations with others, especially those with differing views, and the balance between conflict and cooperation. So that's one of the things that. That's one of the things that contributed to this. But now notice this. This is kind of cool. We've never seen this anywhere. Maybe you have, but we haven't. If I click play a video for that paragraph, it takes me here, challenging them from outside, wherever outside is, between working to help institutions adapt and working to reinvent or replace them. Between tinkering at the margins and committing to reinventing everything. So we've got the general synthesis, the elements that fed it. And we hop out to this particular point in one of the videos where that's spoken about, which I think is kind of cool. So you have a kind of meta map into the four years of conversations. You can go to the particular clips that address particular questions, look at community and dialogue continues the theme of community engagement and dialogue, emphasizing the importance of reflecting on mood and commitments as part of a series of conversations. It also introduces the idea of feedback and direction for future conversations. Resonant for you or not, relevant or not, characteristic of our conversations or not. Jesse says, sounds like you, huh? Okay, so one thing we perhaps could do in the future is to train it to sound. Is to. Is to de. Emphasize my words and emphasize other people's more. Although I'm not sure we can do that. Okay. Should we look at the video? So here we're in session 4.1 city. What an idea. Thank you, Alan. And everyone else has spoken and those who haven't spoken. And Ken, let me turn it over to you to take us into breakouts. Okay. Okay, that's kind of. That's lovely. Kind of a bad choice of the clip anyhow. There you get a sense of it. Let's do another one. Let me ask you this. You know, you've heard me talk about the Gramsci quote about the time of monsters, about, you know, the old world is dying and the new world is struggling to be born. So what do we mean by time of monsters? What relevance does that have to how we navigate metacrisis? Over to you. Or what does it mean to you?

Well, to me it sounds like the way.

Let me just remind you and everybody please keep your mics off and raise your hands to be called on so we can manage the queue. But Jesse, go ahead. Oh, it sounds like how people deal with issues they don't understand. Okay, great. Somebody else. Time of monsters and navigating metacrisis. Shell.

Yeah, well, we certainly are in a time of monsters, some of which are human monsters, like a certain Republican running for president or the heads of countries like Turkey and Hungary and the Gaza Strip and. And others are monsters of human creation, but not human, such as the climate crisis. I just today happened to watch part of a concert in Berlin that was a benefit for both an Israeli and a Palestinian, two separate women's rights organizations. And I found the fact that such a concert could happen in Berlin, which was the epicenter of monsterism within our parents lifetimes, was extremely hopeful for me.

Thanks for that. I hadn't seen that, Stuart. And then we'll go to the AI.

Yeah, quickly. It's a time when there are real crises and there are time when there are crises that humans create in our own minds as a result of some of what we see and observe and hear.

Thank you. Okay, okay, let's. So let's ask this thing, same question. What do we mean by the time of monsters? What relevance does that have to how we navigate metacrisis? Right now this takes about 45 seconds to produce an answer. If you've. You chat. If you've used chat GPT, you know that it's a matter of seconds or fractions of seconds. So we're not. We're not there yet.

If you told me, I could have downloaded the Jeopardy music.

There's still time, Ken. We could probably build that into the thing and hope to stay ahead of the lawyers. So, time of monsters refers to a period of profound uncertainty and transformation, as described by Antonio Gramsci, where the old world is dying and a new one struggles to be born. This metaphorical phrase captures the essence of societal upheaval, where primal forces that are not fully understood are at plague, shaping the future in unpredictable ways. The relevance of this concept to navigating metacrisis lies in recognizing that during such tumultuous times, traditional structures and norms are challenged or collapsing, and new ones have yet to be established. Hang on. I can't see understanding that we are in the time of monsters can help us approach metacrisis with the awareness that our actions may contribute to shaping the emerging world. It suggests that we must engage with these crises creatively, serenely and productively, building and fortifying relationships, technology, and policies, while also being prepared to adapt and influence the profound changes occurring. What do you say? And I'm curious both about whether you think it's a good or bad answer, but also is it a provocative answer that generates something new in your thinking or awareness? And Jesse, I see your hand up. I'm going to. Wait a second, give some other people a chance to go first. Okay, Hang. Hang in. Okay. And I see that people are responding in the chat, which is great, but would love to get you audio so that you're in the corpus for future trainings. If you'll speak. We're a little recursive here, kids. Okay, Jesse, they're all shy. Let's go to you. Well, it reminds me of the difference between systems and philosophy that the philosophy.

Of sustainability is remarkably like what's suggested here.

A.

A readiness for and responsiveness to the changes that are dramatically happening, even though.

We don't know quite what they are. However, the. The. The system science of sustainability tells people to do exactly the wrong things, and that's why it's getting worse and worse and worse. The, the systems of sustainability were designed to sustain finance, not the earth.

And you have to do some digging.

To find that out. And you have to know a lot about context in order to find that out. And, and, and the chat bots, they don't do that. So, Jesse, hold that thought. I want to come back to you for a moment and let's ask this thing a question from. From where you're speaking. But first, let me see if there's any other reactions from other people to this response. Notable to me is that Jesse's response wasn't so much about the language on the screen, but something that was provoked for them by this. So, Bill Anderson, please, please unmute. Go ahead.

Yeah, fine. So I've only really been participating in the last several months, but so as opposed to the last answer, maybe because I've been doing a lot of reading, this answer actually bores me to tears, and I haven't learned anything from it. I mean, the sentences are, you know, but just in a way, meaningless. Okay. So I find it just like. Yeah, that's all I can do is just sigh. It really doesn't provoked much in me, and maybe because I've been reading more sophisticated analyses and doing my own thinking about it.

Okay, fair enough. Again, I don't know. I don't know when you came in, Bill. This is not an attempt to deliver right answers. This is a synthesis of the conversations we've been having for the past four years. So for better or for worse, that's what it is at the moment. Philip. And then, Doug, I think this is.

Only my fifth or sixth of these sessions. And as a relative newcomer, when prompted with the original question, my mind just, you know, I'm going everywhere, what, what possible meaning could this have? And I really appreciate the sense that this has given me a sense that the context in which this prompt has been discussed in this group is focused here. And I really appreciate that. I appreciate having a sense of what you seem to mean, what the discussions that have been going on here seem to mean when prompted with an image like the time of monsters or dealing with metacrisis, because, frankly, those words provoke a lot of thought in all different directions for me, and those are interesting, but not necessarily conducive to participating in this group. So I really appreciate being able to kind of get a sense of what this means here.

Great. Thank you. Doug Breitbart, welcome.

You're on mute. Doug. I find myself challenged by responding to the, The AI synthesis of what's being fed into it as a sort of cross between a, an echo chamber and a house of mirrors and responding from. Responding from a meta place, which is what's the value add for me.

Good.

And. The first question, prompt and response as a sort of an elegant and efficient reference of what's been, I think sort of works, you know, with a delta 5 to 10%. It's in the neighborhood and is valuable for that. For the, the same reason the person who just contributed said that sort of helped me tune into what's going on here.

Right.

The second question is trickier because the, the input defines and begets the output and, and the choice of that language languaging dramatically constrains and predisposes the output in, in a Pabham kind of way. And I just, I don't know that there's any, anything energetically living out of the exercise. Okay. It's not, it's not that there's anything new being synthesized or surfaced. It's a, it's a sort of regurgitation, but it's not providing. I, it's almost as if it, I'd rather you ask it to ask us the question a question rather than ask it a question to provide the answer to.

Well, let's do that now, Doug.

That, that just strikes me as potentially more.

Let's do that now.

More interesting.

What question would you like to ask it to about asking something of us? Let's just do that right now.

That's. I'm not sure I can do that that fast because I've played enough with these things to know the time, the time and effort and energy is in crafting the prompt and, and I can't, I can't do that as quickly as AI can do it.

Okay. Take your, take your time. I don't mean, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but like. No, that's okay. I'll put you on a larger lower spot. Come back in the next, you know, two to 30 minutes. Sure. With a question. Glenn? Yeah, thanks.

The.

The answer is so. Huh. Reflecting on, on the previous comments, I think the issue is, is the question that should or should not have been asked? I don't feel that this is giving me enough ballast to answer to answer and make a decision based on this. So. So let me ask you the same thing, Glenn. Would you, would you like to pose a follow up question?

I have probably have too many questions, Gil.

Okay, you want to give me one? I mean here's the thing where I'm finding this useful. Not this in particular, but my interactions with AI in general is as if I'm having a conversation with a particular person or group of people. A lot of the stuff I'm doing is saying I am a social entrepreneur looking to build such and such an enterprise and you are a group of graduate business students with access to all the research in the world. I'm trying to find some options for this question given certain criteria and results that I want to produce in the world. What do you got? Don't hallucinate. Give me references for everything you say and suggest a follow up question. Then I get a very different order of response than what we're getting here. So if you walked in, somebody said, this is what we've been talking about for the last four years. And you say, that's interesting, but what about prescribe two policies that will meet 80% of the topics that were discussed in the last four years, or resolve or two policies that will address. Help me out. Raised. Yeah, well, that's still asking it for answers, not questions. Well, okay, we'll get to questions in a moment. Well, I think the point is what I discovered in my experiences of risk. People use risk without thinking of what the risk is to be used for. Here we're asking for information without seeking how to leverage the information. So that's why I'm asking. Give me the policies, tell me what to do. Okay. See what it says. Jeopardy. Music, Ken.

I haven't downloaded it yet.

Okay. Kimberly, while you're waiting. Kimberly, you want to say your response to this thing while we're waiting?

Sure. Hi, Gil. This is interesting, I think. Well, I, you know, what is the context in which people would be using this? Right? Because if it's individuals, then I could see someone saying, wait, what do we mean by the time of monsters? And then it could give a contextually appropriate definition of that.

And then, oh, okay, that's what someone.

Means when they say that. Or like, sort of what, you know, what someone might mean in this context. But then if it's like, wait, how are we using this model in a group setting to facilitate conversations. Right.

Or even individually, but then to find.

More nourishment for group of people. Right. Then that's an interesting use. And I wonder if people are saying.

Asking other questions something like.

What are the areas of consensus that have been found over the last four years? Right. From its, from its body of reference.

Material, what are the points of consensus.

And what are the remaining questions that are still open?

Great. But we can come back to that in a moment. Thank you for that. Let's see how it responded to Glenn's question. Please describe two policies that will address 80% of the concerns raised in these conversations. One, implementing a policy to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels. This would help correct market distortions and redirect financial resources toward renewable energy sources, which is consistent with the public opinion favoring funding renewables over fossil fuels. Two, introducing more comprehensive reforms to address the structural defects of capitalism. This could involve reorienting business strategies or business strategies strategies around purpose, climate and circularity, as well as changing organizational practices and redistributing wealth more equitably to ensure sustainable economic activity and social progress. Glenn, that was your question, so you get first reaction. We have a wonderful word in Danish.

Spelled T. T J A is pronounced ch.

Ch. It means yes and no at the same time. Great to have that word. So yes and no that these yes or no to these policies or yes and no to that it surfaced these policies from the conversation. Well, I haven't been involved in four years, so I'd have to leave you and Ken to be a moderator to say yes, indeed. This, this is a truthful extraction and you could find adequate evidence as far as, I mean, in some ways it mimics what's in Earth for all. So I would say we know there's some substance to it. Okay, other, other people's reactions. Philip and then Doc and then Kimberly, back to you.

You know, I was just thinking, not as a reaction to this, but just as a question that would be interesting to ask. Is the question going through my mind is, is there a particular purpose that we really want to be training this to be most useful for or are we in a position of trying to discover uses that we may have for it? And in either case, what would it suggest we talk about next time in order to augment its capacity to assist us in such way?

Well, let's, let's come to that in a little while. No, I don't, I don't know what the purpose is. I'm diving into the deep end of the pool to see what might be possible here. Might it be useful? If so, how? And if so, let's play an experiment. You know, for me the interest is can something like this enhance our conversations, our work, our effectiveness? And that's an open question. Doc hall, welcome. And then George, you're up next.

You're on mute, Doc. My reservation about this is whether or.

Not we have.

The language to discuss the topic we keep wanting. We talk about policy that presumes that there are top down solutions.

There may not be.

So we have to dig in really deep because this situation is more frightful and a bigger change than any we have contemplated in my history. And I don't know where we can go with it. With language. We don't have the language for it.

Because.

Maybe it has to be conveyed to us in something other than language or fuzzy language.

What? What if all we have is language?

What?

What if all we have is language?

Language always has a what.

I said what if all that we have is language? What if language is the only thing we have?

Well, that's never all that we have to communicate with. But is it enough?

Don't know.

And I don't have a great answer to that question.

But I.

I fear that we do not that we.

We have to have.

We have to enter this with.

Different.

Attitude and realization of how deep are our thinking and our system. Change has to be God.

J Doc, if this, if you. If this, if, if what you're seeing here on screen is someone you were having a conversation that's not big legal alert. Sorry.

Anyway, that's pretty much the end of it for me. How do we foster a better attitude about the depth of change that we are into? And do we have to go into and stop trying to go back to the solutions of the past and say surely some of this. Would benefit us somehow? And all my prior experience can't be useless. And that's kind of where we are. We want solutions because we're familiar with those. Okay, so is this great market solution.

Is this a better question, Doc? How do we foster a better attitude about the depth of change we're facing rather than going back to the solutions of the past? Is that kind of what you're asking?

That's kind of what I'm asking.

And let's see what we get.

I had wonderful answers to give you but I do not. An answer presents a logical question. Maybe this attitude change is something beyond conventional logic conveyed with words and equations.

Oh, so here's what, here's what this thing thinks that we think or that we say at least in these last conversations. How do we foster a better attitude about the depth of change we're facing rather than replying to relying. I should have said relying on the solutions of the past. Sorry. To better foster better attitude about the depth of change rather than we need to embrace the process of change and have faith in our collective ability to evolve. This involves engaging in conversations that bridge distances and differences, learning to live together in a pluralistic world and redefining our relationship with the natural world as one of belonging rather than of dominance. We must shift from a reactive mindset to a proactive one considering the long term implications of our actions for future generations. Systems thinking, Soft eyes, Diverse perspectives. Specific yes, one is.

Our actual feeling toward the rest of life on Earth. We can intellectually figure out that we are utterly dependent.

On life.

That does not necessarily give us an emotional attachment to all other life. What do we actually feel about this? And feeling that you are a part of all other life is something a little bit beyond just recognizing that the systems of Earth dependent on life and it dependent on us. Well, this is a huge behavioral change.

For most of our attitudes and the. Yep, good. Thank you. So I like both what you said, Doc, and that your dissatisfaction with what this creature is generating provoked you to say that. So thank you for that. George.

The first response, the two ideas that will deal with 80% of what we were talking about are blue sky ain't going to happen within the time period. It's like talking to a friend of mine and saying we've got to get rid of, you know, get money out of politics. Well, it ain't going to happen before the next election and we're not going to transform capitalism, you know, within the next three to five years.

Therefore. Therefore what?

These are not practical, these are aspirational rather than whether, rather than something that's more down to the ground and there's a little bit more, you know, the bottom up solutions mentioned in. Blah, blah, blah. There are things that are there, but I don't think that this is particularly useful to me at this particular point in time.

And yet you keep coming to these conversations, which is all you're seeing on. This is all you're seeing on screen here, right?

Well, the conversations are useful to me.

To deal with other people, to hear.

What other people are saying. And I've been, I've been trying to.

Find a way for, for people here.

To sort of work together on something that's real and it hasn't happened yet. I'm not sure that ever will happen.

But the quality of people here and.

The, and the discussion is still useful.

Well, thank you for that. You know, there are people here who are working on real stuff and, and there's an open invitation for you to hook up with each other and work up, work on real stuff together. It's not the purpose of this call to forge us all into a single unified creature because there are plenty of organizations working on these issues. But if you want to work on stuff, hook up with people and do that. You know, what you're maybe saying is that, well, I guess you just said it. We haven't, we haven't generated specific policy proposals and organized actions out of this group. I think that's true. We have discussed these things. I agree with you that we're not going to see money out of politics in the next three to five years, certainly not before the next election. But we might well see the end of subsidies for fossil fuels in the next decade or two. That's increasingly a focus of specific action of specific organizations and people around the world. So to me, it's interesting that out of 35, 40 some odd hours of conversation, it pulled that out as the first item again saying, look, this thing is not an oracle. And what I'm hearing in a lot of your responses is, well, this is not a good enough oracle. It's not giving me the right answer. This is not a machine that generates right answers. This is a distillation and reflection back to us of what we have been discussing and what we've been saying. So maybe that's a different way to look at it. Let me go to Stuart and then Rick, you did make it welcome, and then Philip will come back to you.

Yeah, thanks, Gil. So, a couple of thoughts. One, the whole process of using AI in this way reminds me of when I used to do years ago legal research before it was even automated. And I really learned that the principle of gigo is so important, garbage in, garbage out, that the quality of your question is just absolutely critical in terms of having you get the result you want. That's one piece. Two on these specific questions. And actually, I'll go to three. First, I had a response to George and that was you need to ask it more questions. You need to ask it a lot more questions. Back to the specific example I put in the chat in response to the first response that it sounded like Congress speak, meaning it would say it sounded like someone who wanted to say something but didn't want to say something. The second question I found really curious because one hand was kind of the party line. One response in terms of subsidies for fossil fuels, but the second response talked about restructuring the entire economy with completely different value sets. And I thought that that was a line of response that was very, very useful and could be followed up with the kind of questions that George was pointing to to see, so what, what might be practical here? What do you think? Mr. AI is practical here in terms of action that we might take.

So look, so look, if you're, if, if you're out for a walk with a friend or sitting at a bar with a couple of friends and somebody gives you the answer that sounds like Congress speak, what's your next move?

You. Or something like that.

Or, or what?

No, or, or my next move is what do you think is practical? What could we, you know, what might be accomplished here? Or that sounds like you understand the bigger picture, but it doesn't sound like there's any kind of practical suggestion here.

Or, or, or so again, so the encouragement here is to think about this as a conversation like you would with a person. And if it's a person who you love or hate or disrespect or respect, you're going to respond in different ways. But you're not going to just like, take what they say as the end of the conversation and walk away. Except in certain cases, you're going to interact and the conversation is going to go somewhere. So let's try a little bit of that. Philip and Rick, and then let's do some more questioning. Again, the purpose. The purpose here is not to build an oracle, but to do something that enriches us and our conversations and our interactions, our sense of possibility and what we do in the world. And I'm looking for your guidance about whether this does that or can do that or how we can make it do that better. So Philip and then Rick and then Alex.

I've just noticed generally when anytime you're engaging in a long conversation, whether it be like what we're doing here, or, you know, I studied philosophy, and it's like this ongoing conversation over generations between all these dead people. And, you know, well, this person missed the point made by the earlier person. And therefore, you know, it's kind of null because they just weren't up to speed with the larger conversation that was going on. This type of dynamic happens. And I think that the general role of conversation can be to get us all on the same page, bring us up, bring us to terms and kind of catch us up with where the conversation is, but then also, obviously to integrate new perspectives and push it into new places. And anytime new people come into a process like that, it's always a question, what is the state of the conversation? How do I bring myself up to speed, and how can I therefore make a meaningful contribution from where things are? And this just seems incredibly valuable for that, for being able to bring people in and really give them the, you know, not the dogma of the group, but just a general sense of where the conversation has gone and therefore where you might try to take it.

Great. Thank you, Rick, welcome.

Yeah, thank you very much. No, it's great conversation. You've said it twice. This is not an oracle. And I agree with that. I see it much more as a sounding board of being able to access things, stimulate, throw a light on something you hadn't thought about. One person said it was too basic. Yeah, it is. But on the other hand, you can fill in the gaps. You can say, this is where the gaps are in this response. And I'll give you an example that I've just been experimenting with. I Don't know if many people have used it or not, but on YouTube, you can go and you can use the AI tool to ask questions of the talk. That was done. And I just did this and I was going to write a response and I thought, no, let me ask the question of the. See what comes with it. And I then recrafted that completely, but it gave me a scaffolding to say something that would. Which was much quicker than had I had to do it from. So I see it as sort of a research assistant tool to enable me to work more quickly. And I did put a question, and I don't know whether you're interested in looking at it, but I'll put it in the game, which is how might we use AI ethically as a research assistant to empower us to become masters of monsters and not victims to the dark side of AI?

It's a great question. It's probably not one that shows up very much in the corpus.

I understand that, but this is, this is a question. I can go on other, plan other places and ask. Absolutely, but it'll generate. I go to different places. And I said, oh, that's interesting. I didn't see that reference and et cetera.

I mean, I just think it's an.

Amazing way of doing research.

Absolutely. I mean, you can do that. It's. It's actually now. It is now in the corpus because it's spoken in this conversation. You can go out and research that and bring that back in our next meeting. And so that interaction both inside and outside, is pretty rich. So thank you for that. Alex, let me call on you and first introduce you to people. This is Alex Cladidis from London, who is. Who is the guy who built this thing with us. So thank you for what you've done so far. You've heard some of the reactions. The floor is yours. Thank you.

I apologize. I was late because I got the time zone. I was incorrect. So, okay, I think the last few speakers that I did get here sort of, sort of picked it out. This was the. The initial thoughts we had with Gil in building this. We didn't want to go too far into, too deep into the tool, partly because we just started building it, but also because we didn't exactly have a good feel which way to go. The biggest, I mean, I think a couple of your contributors have said in the last few minutes, the biggest point to say is that you're looking at what use. What has been talked about in this context. And for me, as a software developer, that's what I was interested in particularly a lot of the questions that you can ask about these topics that you discuss here. I mean you can ask a chat GPT directly. So this is not a vehicle to ask about what should you do about sustainability in the long term. This would just provide you that what people have spoken about or the. The overall the summary of the context of what's being spoken about in relation to that question. So I mean I'm really interested in what you the feedback because we can take it in many directions for the one thing I mean I'm sure you've shown the video but Gil so yeah, so. So one of the things you can get directly parts of the video that it thinks are relevant for the topic it gives you like the previous speaker said, it gives you a breakdown of how it came about with to that gives you five or six options to go to videos. So I thank you for your comments because they're really useful. But you have to remember this is just what has been discussed. And if we want another tool, an add on tool, it can be built further to say this is what was discussed. If you want more information, click on this button. We can actually do all sorts of sexy things and we'll get more information in. But as a first step, this was the first step tool if you like Gil, did you have anything because you have good ideas as well as to.

No, that's good for now. Let me just say with that prompted by that Alex, that I'll confess that my reason for starting these conversations four years ago was to have enriching conversations with. With. With committed people who I care about about really challenging stuff that I'm struggling with and that you all I think are struggling with. And the purpose is to enrich us and to enrich our conversations and to enrich how we are in the world. That's been the purpose of the calls themselves, the purpose of bringing this AI into the story is to see if it can help us do more of that better. And so I think Philip summed it up very nicely that for someone coming in, you know, in the last six months to four years of conversations, he's quickly oriented to the kind of shared history of what we're talking about. I mean Ken and I have been talking together for years. We have a lot of shared history. We say something, it references all kinds of other stuff in our minds and experience, but not so for you individually unless we've had those too. Here in this conversation among you know, the 700 people that have passed through these Things over the years and the more or less 40 or so who are fairly regularly here, there is something shared somewhat in each of us, somewhat in the corpus. You know, one of the questions here is, can we draw on that and on the pattern recognition and inference capacities of these tools to help enrich these conversations for us? Let me just say one more thing, and then I'll go back to Jesse, and then I want to have us have a conversation with this thing. Two of my best. Some of my best and worst experiences with chat GPT1 was that I. I saw it giving a bio of a professional couple that I knew. So I asked it, and it looked kind of good, but not really. And I asked it for bios of some other professional couples that I knew, and they all look professional, pretty good, and not really. And then I asked it for a bio and history of my wife and myself. And if I didn't know us, it would have looked sensible. And because I knew us, I knew that was 48% was full of shit. So it takes real caution there. On the other hand, I asked it a legal. A business legal question, and in 30 seconds got $5,000 worth of legal work that was 98% accurate. So very different. Different context, different. Different matter of what I was looking for, different way of shaping what the request was to the beast. So part of the game here is we've got a new tool. Like, you know, first time you were on the Internet or first time you had a smartphone, we get to learn how to play with this thing if we want to do that. Jesse, I'm going to skip you for a moment. Go to Ken, because we haven't heard from you for a while. A while since logistics. So what's up?

So I'm wondering if you would ask my question of is there a story emerging from our conversation? If so, what are its outlines?

Is there a story emerging from these conversations?

And if so, what are its outlines? Which, when I asked it, I was really surprised by the answer. So.

Okay.

And I did download the Jeopardy. Music, but I can't play it without stopping your screen share, so I'm gonna.

Okay, all right, we'll save that for later. So do I have your question correctly?

Yes.

Okay, so let's see. And you. You can provide your own Jeopardy Music, or I can.

You can hum it for us. G. It'll do it and it'll do it anyway, Gil. But if you scroll down, we'll see it saying. Working on it or something.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. There we go. We got an answer. Is there a story emerging from these conversations? If so, what are its outlines? Yes, a story is emerging from these conversations. Its outlines suggest that in times of crisis and chaos, there's an opportunity for long held ideas to take root and influence, influence the narratives of the world. The story revolves around the concept of seizing this moment to shape the future. By engaging in different kinds of conversations that are not about debates or decision making, but about exploring possibilities and orienting toward what comes next. It acknowledges the uncertainty of the current world condition and the sense that the old order is collapsing. The story also emphasizes the importance of focusing beyond immediate urgencies to consider the reconfiguration of everything. It invites participation in a collective exploration to weave new worlds through meaningful conversations that move beyond traditional strategies into a laboratory of shared experiences and ideas.

So I just want to know what people think of that. Nicer.

Is that pretty similar to what you got?

Very similar to what I got yesterday. Yeah.

Yeah. Because one of the questions was, does it give the same answers each time? It looks like it more or less does. Any reactions to this? Well, yeah. Long held beliefs are often the causes of the crises that we face. And that's why they become crises, because they confuse us. Depends how long held, I think. Oh, sometimes very, very. I mean, the current crisis goes back thousands of years, you know, and it's the whole development of civilization that, that is at risk and at fault. Well, and exacerbated in the last 500 years of the development of market capitalism. But maybe we need a little, maybe we need to go back tens of thousands instead of thousands. Well, you know that my sense is that the dividing point was about 5,000. Okay, so again, so again, the question isn't do you agree with this some, with what this is saying or not, but do you think this is an interesting and reasonably reflective and provocative distillation of the conversations that we've been having?

Well, I haven't been a part of.

The conversation all the time, but I'd say it, it, it might sadly be correct. Okay, well, I, for me, it's not sadly because right off the top it provoked you into a, into a depth conversation about a particular aspect to this, which is great. Well, that's what I do.

I always look at the counter examples.

And compare and contrast and, and that's not what GPT does and nor what most of our conversations do. But anyway, I wanted to ask Ken or Alex, how. Well do you think.

A chatbot could.

Could answer the, the question of what are the gaps in the, in the current conversation that we should pay attention to.

I'll take that one. Before I, before I answer that, can I ask, is anybody interested in how it arrived at that answer? Because if you drop down any of those, you can go to the point of the video that people talk. I mean, it's not a perfect system, but one hopes that it'll be the highest. The exploration of possibilities, for example, be the highest relevance to this result.

Yeah, we showed that capacity, Alex, before you joined.

Yeah, but is it interesting in the context of the answer you gave? Is that interesting at all? But anyway, that's what I was saying. Now, coming back to your question directly, Jesse. Okay. The way it's currently implemented, it just looks at what's there and answers based on what is in the transcripts of the videos. No more, no less. I gave an example to Gil the other way the other day where I said, Gil answer asked a question to say some. Something sensible about the conversations we've had. And then he said, what should a CEO do about it? Or something like that. And in that context, it'll take the first part of the answer from what has been discussed. But when you ask it, what does the CEO want to know about it? Or something like that, it'll actually use ChatGPT's knowledge to embellish that information. Right. So. So that is a. It's got a hook by which it can actually use to, To. To wrap around the answer. But it won't go from the answer out. It'll just need. It'll take information in.

Alex, I want to. I want to. I want to stop the talk about the technology and its workings for the moment. We only got 21 minutes left on the call. We got a couple of other things we want to do. But I do want to say this, that we are, we are all of us, using the language of question and answer. And that's probably the wrong way to speak about what we're doing here. These are not answers. They're not solutions. They're responses in an interactive conversation designed not to settle anything, but to provoke a next step in the conversation, which is something we haven't been doing yet very much. And so let me can ask you if you have anything else you want to say about this one or why it was provocative or valuable to you. And then let's ask, let's ask, you know, if, if imagine this was Ken saying this, what would your next conversational move with him be?

Ken, to your first point, I think it was David Grossoff who said, this is actually pretty amazing that it's it. You know, it's taking us. I couldn't come up with this. I've been part of these conversations now for about 18, 19 months, and there's no way I could have come up with that in 45 seconds or even 45 minutes. So I find this to be an intriguing tool for reflecting on where we've been and figuring out there's some ways in which this is digging up things and weaving together in ways that I could not. Somebody just said, you know, could this replace Gill and Ken? Maybe, but I kind of doubt it. So I find it useful in that regard. I have a lot of other questions about. About its utility, but at least in that one regard, I think it's quite useful, and I'll just stop there.

So if. If. If you were in a bar with Ken and, you know, you asked him about. And you haven't been here, and you've asked him about what these calls have been about, and he said this, what would be your next conversational movement? Would you make ask a question? Would you offer an assessment? Would you say something from your own experience?

You'd have to start by buying me a drink.

We're already in the bar. We've done that. That's. That may be the next conversation. Oh, hey, can I buy you a drink?

You're not my type, Gill. Sorry. Yeah.

So if this was a conversation, what's. What would you say next?

Tell me the story.

What story?

The story emerging.

Well, it. That's what. That's what this did.

No, it didn't. Okay, that's. That's an outline for a theme or a story.

George. Hang on. George. If you're. If you're in a bar with Ken and he tells you this and you say that's not a story, is that your next move or is it something else?

I just want to point out it's.

I built.

I. My question had the outlines built in. I didn't say, what is the story. I said, what are its outlines? So that's. That's. We could ask it, what is the story that's emerging? And we'd probably get a different answer. That's the distinction.

Thank you, Ken. So, George, what's your question?

The question is, I guess not your.

Question of the AI. Your question of a person that you're looking into, into their eyes, having a conversation, and you care about each other.

All right, you're telling me about these conversations, and the story is about changing the story that we're telling ourselves. Well, what's the new story that we need to tell ourselves.

Okay, let's try that. That we need to tell ourselves. For the sake of what? Because it doesn't know that. Yeah. A story for what purpose?

To. To navigate.

Okay.

Aspects of the poly crisis.

Okay.

To steer between Scylla and Charybdis. Charybdis.

Okay. It's not gonna come up a lot.

In my life lately.

Say what somebody.

And create a better world.

Okay, let's try that. Let's do that. And yeah, that's priming it to give.

False answers again, though, rather than raise questions. How is that your and is false answers?

This is. This is George's question.

So.

Doug, while we're waiting, You're muted.

So I can relate to this in. In a Doug Engelbart way.

Okay.

A. It's a true bootstrapping augmentation to my intelligence, to my intellectual capacity. It helps me be much more efficient at referencing what's been said or contributed or discussed before with a. With as as much or little specificity and. And contextualization as putting into the prompt. Okay. Right. In that sense, it's a trailing indicator. I can't. I don't think there's the ability for it to create or synthesize out of whole cloth anything new.

Okay.

So intrinsically, its limitation, it's as limited as I am.

It's as limited as we are, as we. Correct.

It's as limited as the collective is in being it. In the Rumsfeldian, we know what we know, we know what we don't know. It's not going to come up with what we don't know. We don't.

If we ask these questions of ChatGPT, we'd get different kinds of responses. Here we're asking it not of the general corpus of the. Of the Western world, but of 40, 50 hours of conversations of these few hundred people. Yeah. Thank you for that. So what's the new story that we need to tell ourselves to navigate the metacrisis and create a better world? It involves embracing change throughout all our actions, inactions and words. That's interesting. Recognizing that we're participants in the process of creating new worlds. The narrative should focus on solidarity, democratic action, and entrepreneurship as key arenas for making history. Not through wars or political power shifts, but by changing everyday practices. Here we're asking it not of the general corpus of the. Of the Western world, but of 40, 50 hours of conversations of these few hundred people. Yeah, thank you for that. So what's the new story that we need to tell ourselves to navigate the metacrisis and create a better world. It involves embracing change throughout all our actions, inactions, practices in the way we understand and deal with ourselves and each other. It should also emphasize the importance of trust, local engagement, and the sharing of personal stories that illustrate the benefits of sustainable living. Moreover, it should reject the notion that sacrifice is inherently noble and instead promote innovation, collaboration, and a sense of. And words. That's interesting. Recognizing that we're participants in the process of creating new worlds. The narrative should focus on solidarity, democratic action and entrepreneurship as key arenas for making history. Not through wars or political power shifts, but by changing everyday practices and the way we understand and deal with ourselves and each other. It should also emphasize shared destiny among all inhabitants of the planet. That's the old story. Okay, so you don't like the story, but this is. Here's the thing. This is a story. This is my story. It's a perspective. It's a base. It's a. It's a. It's a pla. It's a move in a conversation. You've heard it from other people before. You may have the importance of trust, local engagement, and the sharing of personal stories that illustrate the benefits of sustainable living. Moreover, it should reject the notion that sacrifice. Spoken it yourselves? I certainly have. Does this help us in what we're up to in the world? This is inherently noble and instead promote innovation, collaboration, and a sense of shared destiny among all inhabitants of the planet. That's the old. This kind. Does this kind of conversation, whether with the bot or with ourselves, in this. In this container of living between worlds or in our lives in universe, do these kind of conversations? Okay, so you don't like the story, but this is. Here's the thing. This is. This is a story. This is my story. It's a perspective. It's a basis further the work that we're doing. So that's kind of the general question here. Let me take dogs. It's a. It's a. It's a play. It's a move in a conversation. You've heard it from other people before. You may have spoken it yourselves. I certainly have. And Yan, briefly, please. And then we're going to go into a home stretch here. Doc Hall.

Yeah, I go back to and theme I and earlier, if you're trying to fill up a big hole.

Does this help us in what we're up to.

In the world Seems to be getting bigger faster than you can feel.

This kind. Does this kind of conversation, whether with the bot or with ourselves, in this. In this container of living between worlds or in our lives in universe do these kind of conversations. Okay.

And anybody who bottom up Create regardless of the public policies or anything else can recreate local communities that are more.

Circular patients further the work that we're doing. So that's kind of the general question here. Let me take Doc and Jan briefly please. Then we're going to go into a home stretch here. Doc Hall.

Yeah. I go back to the theme I had earlier. If you're trying to fill up a big hole for self sustaining and represent the kind of thing that we would get to anyway with top down public policy if it ever got around to being implemented.

Okay, thank you.

Then we can have seems to be getting bigger faster than you can feel. Find a new place to dig.

Okay.

And. And we do bottom up conversations about more specific actions that everybody has taken locally. I can learn from you. You can learn from Create regardless of the public policies or anything else for me and we're both benefiting.

Good deal. Thank you Doc. John Ballard.

Yeah. Can recreate local communities that are more circular, more self sustaining and represent. Thanks for a fantastic conversation. I'm. I'm. I'm. What's coming to mind is Robert Rules of order which represented a fundamental shift in human civilization the kind of thing that we would get to anyway with top down public policy if it ever got around the coming out of putting the sewers in in San Francisco being implemented.

Okay. Thank you.

Then we can have and the notion of recording the minority opinion conversations about more specific was a transformation in human in the human condition because before that the minority opinion could be erased by the power players action that everybody is taken locally. I can learn from you, you can learn from me. And we're both benefiting the other notion of having minutes that reflected the discussion at a board meeting and then those minutes had to be approved. In other words everyone who cared if the minutes were accurate would review those minutes and then affirm them. And that was the first thing that happened in the next meeting was confirming the minutes. As far as I can tell, making that bulletproof is the only thing that AI can do consistently right now. And I just want to throw out. I've. I found out about three weeks ago that I've been doing scripting and labeling for iterative and constitutional AIs for almost 40 years and did not know that I was doing that.

Yeah.

So I think this is incredibly well done on the part of the two of you to start chewing on this and that the quote you opened with is absolutely correct. Every single individual in Order to have efficacy within the next six to 18 months is going to have to be competent with augmenting their own capacities through these tools. And it is not at all clear how that's going to happen. But the thing that has emerged for me, I'm privileged to work with Mark Hewitt, who developed the Alaskan Sovereign dividend fund almost 50 years ago as CIO at Fairbanks, Alaska and has been doing machine learning for 35 or 40 years. And what I've realized is that that AI is going to force all of us to actually understand how we work as humans in order to work with it. Yeah. And that we're going to be moving into what are called constitutional and iterative AIs, which actually learn and will do a lot of the things that address the complaints that came up that you, you know, tabled earlier in the meeting.

Yeah, yeah.

I'm really, really just excited and I'm happy to offer. We've just last week author a white paper.

Good.

On this subject and I'm happy to offer that to the group. I'll send that to you or, or.

Put, or put the link, or put the link in the chat if you'd like to do that. I think what you just said toward the end there is really important, Jan, is that it's not just about how we have conversations with AIs, it's also about how we have conversations with each other.

That's right.

And that's one of the things I've been observing in this conversation is how the way people have been interacting with the AI is reflective about how people interact with each other.

That's right.

Nature and the richness of the conversations that we do and do not have with each other.

Right.

So I want to encourage you, I.

Will say that having an accurate record of what occurred is not common practice. And we've been using Zoom has just implemented a note taking thing in the last where we've been using it.

The Zoom AI companion is actually quite remarkable. We're using it. I think it's on here.

Each of the things I review as a quote unquote minutes that I'm approving. I, I can't add anything to them and I don't see anything in them that is, is contradictory.

So, so let, let, let's hold off on the tech I need. And Kimberly, I see your hands up, but I want to ask two specific questions before you run out of time. Is it, is your comment brief?

Yeah. I just wanted to ask if the chat from the calls has also been fed into this.

The chats have not been fed in yet. That's something that we may do in the future. There's a lot that happens in the chat. I haven't even been able to watch the chat today. So now there's. I know there's gold in there, but it has not been put in yet. Alex, we can talk about that.

I think that's a great idea.

Yeah. We're building. We're building a list of stuff, and we're trying to focus on a few key things first and then a wish list for where we go next. So that may be. So let me. With that in mind, let me ask you this. Where should we go next with the Living Between Worlds conversation series? I'm not asking you about the AI Piece. I'm asking about these conversations that we have together. Where should we go next, Shell?

Well, I'm going to riff a little on George, and it would be great if we could somehow create some action out of these incredible conversations. Okay. Don't have a clear path on how that would work, but it's something definitely worth exploring.

Well, let me invite you, Shell, and anybody else who cares to. To think about that and bring proposals into future calls. Stuart. Thank you, Shel.

Yeah. I think you've opened up a whole new world, Gil, in terms of exploring how we can use AI which has been clearly demonstrated as having value. How we can use that to augment some of the conversations that we've been in.

Value and hazard. And we'll talk more about that in some future calls, of course. Anybody else? Where should we go with this conversation series in the next year? Gil?

Carolyn Rafflesberger just put something in the chat. I think it's very interesting and worth our consideration of inviting myth makers and storytellers and giving them time at the. At the beginning so that some stories get fed into the. The corpus. And she's got some suggestions here. So I suggest we talk to her offline and see if we can make that happen.

Let's do that. Okay. Let me. Let me ask the AI the same question. Okay.

While. While you're doing that, I just like to. To really affirm that idea and suggest that the next year should be. The overall question should be what can we do together in common? What are. What is. While we're all working on our individual passions and contributions.

So let me. Let me. Let me invite you all then to think about that. Both bring that to the next call, but in particular, send notes to me and. Or Ken. We can share it out with the group. This is the crafting of these calls like this process we're having here is an interactive co creative process. So please weigh in. Where should we go next with this series? According to the AI should explore practical strategies. Here you go for navigating the transition from old to new paradigms, focusing on actionable steps that individuals and communities can take. Delve into the development of resilience and adaptability in the face of uncertainty, emphasizing the cultivation of skills and mindsets that enable positive engagement with emerging challenges. It would also benefit from inviting experts who could provide insights into successful transitions in history, lessons learned and how they can be applied to current times. Additionally, it could examine case studies of communities or organizations that are effectively operating in this in between space, highlighting best practices and innovative approaches to creating a sustainable future. And what strikes me about what I just read and by the way, I'm reading these aloud so that they can go enter into the corpus because it does corpus doesn't access the text on screen. It strikes me that this echoes some of the things that each of you that each of you has just said in the last few minutes. Just kind of remarkable.

One completion on what I was saying, Gil, is that the idea of having a conversation start harder to catalyze discussion and I think this outline the chat is great.

Thank you.

Really, really. Well, if it's implementation focused.

Absolutely. Rick. And then I want to bring another poll up on screen.

Rick, I'm just going to ask. I just, I'm going to read the question out so it's in the it's captured. How might we develop a language and skills about how to address and understand the systemic determinants of a metacrisis and collaborate on solving our interconnected web of wicked problems. Which echoes an earlier comment about a.

How to approach Rick, please put that in the chat. We'll ask at that later on and get it in. I don't have time to deal with it now. I want to thank you all for being willing to join an experiment. We're operating without a net here. We've, you know, Alex and I have been beating on this for weeks and Ken has stepped in a little bit, but mostly, you know, nobody else has seen this yet and we built this out of an intuition that it might contribute something to what we're up to, whatever that is. I really appreciate your the thoughtfulness of your thoughts and responses. There's a lot for us to digest here, both in terms of the tool but all and also in terms of where the calls go in the future. So we'll dig into the chat in the coming weeks, we got. Pretty much everybody has responded, so. Good. Ken, anything else you want to say?

Yeah, I'd just like to thank people. It's really been. It's been a pleasure joining Gil on these calls, arranging the questions in the breakout room. You know, I get to talk to Gil now a few hours every few hours every month that I wouldn't be talking to him about otherwise. So that's brought us closer together. And I've just. I've learned a lot from Bertie on these calls, and I hope that many of you I'll have a chance to meet in person. I know some of you in person already and talk to some folks offline. So I'm really grateful for the community that's formed around this and just want to thank everybody and wish you the best of the holiday season.

Happy solstice, folks. Thank you for being with us on this. We'll see you next year.

You can dance in a hurricane.

But only if you're standing in the eye.

You can dance in a hurricane.

But only if you're standing in the ice. I. Good deal. Thank you, Doc. John Ballard.

Yeah, thanks for a fantastic conversation. I'm. I'm. I'm. What's coming to mind is Robert's Rules of Order, which represented a fundamental shift in human civilization coming out of putting the sewers in San Francisco. And the notion of recording the minority opinion was a transformation in the human condition, because before that, the minority opinion could be erased by the power players. The other notion of having minutes that reflected the discussion at a board meeting, and then those minutes had to be approved. In other words, everyone who cared if the minutes were accurate would review those minutes and then affirm them. And that was the first thing that happened in the next meeting, was confirming the minutes. As far as I can tell, making that bulletproof is the only thing that AI can do consistently right now. And I just want to throw out. I've. I found out about three weeks ago that I've been doing scripting and labeling for iterative and constitutional AIs for almost 40 years and did not know that I was doing that.

Yeah.

So I think this is incredibly well done on the part of the two of you to start chewing on this and that the quote you opened with is absolutely correct. Every single individual, in order to have efficacy within the next six to 18 months, is going to have to be competent with augmenting their own capacities through these tools. And it is not at all clear how that's going to happen. But the thing that has emerged for me, I'm privileged to work with Mark Hewitt, who developed the Alaskan Sovereign dividend fund almost 50 years ago as CIO at Fairbanks, Alaska, and has been doing machine learning for 35 or 40 years. And what I've realized is that AI is going to force all of us to actually understand how we work as humans in order to work with it. Yeah. And that we're going to be moving into what are called constitutional and iterative AIs, which actually learn and will do a lot of the things that address the complaints that came up that you, you know, tabled earlier in the meeting.

Yeah, yeah.

I'm really, really just excited and I'm happy to offer. We've just last week authored a white paper.

Good.

On this subject and I'm happy to offer that to the group. I'll send that to you or, or put the link.

Or put the link in the chat, if you'd like to do that. I think what you just said toward the end there is really important, Jan, is that it's not just about how we have conversations with the AIs, it's also about how we have conversations with each other.

That's right.

And that's one of the things I've been observing in this conversation is how the way people have been interacting with the AI is reflective about how people interact with each other.

That's right.

Nature and the richness of the conversations that we do and do not have with each other.

Right.

So I want to encourage you, I.

Will say that having an accurate record of what occurred is not common practice. And we've been using Zoom has just implemented a note taking thing in the last. Where we've been using the last Zoom.

The Zoom AI companion is actually quite remarkable. We're using it. I think it's on here.

Each of the things I review as a quote, unquote, minutes that I'm approving. I, I can't add anything to them and I don't see anything in them that is, is contradictory.

So, so let, let, let's hold off on the tech. I need. Kimberly, I see your hands up, but I want to ask two specific questions before you run out of time. Is it, is your, your comment brief?

Yeah. I just wanted to ask if the chat from the calls has also been fed into this.

The chats have not been fed in yet. That's something that we may do in the future. There's a lot that happens in the chat. I haven't even been able to watch the chat today, so I know there's, I know, there's gold in there, but it has not been put in yet. And, Alex, we can talk about that.

I think that's a great idea.

Yeah, we're building. We. We're building a list of stuff, and we're trying to focus on a few key things for first and then a wish list for where we go next. So that may be. So. Let me. With that in mind, let me ask you this. Where should we go next with the Living Between Worlds conversation series? I'm not asking you about the AI Piece. I'm asking about these conversations that we have together. Where should we go next, Shel?

Well, I'm going to riff a little on George, and it would be great if we could somehow create some action out of these incredible conversations.

Okay.

Don't have a clear path on how that would work, but it's something definitely worth exploring.

Well, let me invite you, Shel, and anybody else who cares to. To think about that and bring proposals into future calls. Stuart. Thank you, Shel.

Yeah. I think you've opened up a whole new world, Gil, in terms of exploring how we can use AI, which has been clearly demonstrated as having value, how we can use that to augment some of the conversations that we've been in.

Value and hazard. And we'll talk more about that in some future calls, of course. Anybody else? Where should we go with this conversation series in the next year?

Gil? Carolyn Raffensberger just put something in the chat. I think it's very interesting and worth our consideration of.

Okay.

Inviting myth makers and storytellers and giving them time at the beginning so that myths and stories get fed into the. The corpus. She's got some suggestions here, so I suggest we talk to her offline and see if we can make that happen.

Let's do that. Okay. Let me. Let me ask the AI the same question. Okay?