AI Agents Are Moving Into the Real World

On the one hand, people continue to debate about whether there is actually a market for personal agents. Some think that this is one where Silicon Valley entrepreneurs just have it wrong, that people don't actually want optimization and productivity in their personal lives. Others argue that that's a reductive view and that for all of the tasks that people actually enjoy, like certain types of shopping, there are a million other small annoying tasks that they would love to have automated away. Increasingly, that debate is getting new evidence. And as agents like Muse and GrokBot pick up steam, they are moving off of our screens and into the real world. The AI Daily Brief is a daily podcast and video about the most important news and discussions in AI. Alright friends, quick announcements before we dive in. First of all, thank you to today's sponsors KPMG, Litzy, Robots and Pencils, and HyperAgent. To get an ad-free version of the show, go to patreon.com/AIDailyBrief, or you can subscribe on Apple Podcasts. And if you want to learn more about sponsoring the show, send us a note at sponsors@aidailybrief.ai. Now, one other quick note. There are a lot of new folks around these parts, and I'm trying to get a better handle on who you all are, what you're here for, and what you'd like to hear more and less of. If you go to the aidailybrief.ai website, there is a big link to a fall listener survey. It'll only take you a couple of minutes. and would be incredibly valuable for me figuring out how to evolve this and potential other shows. So again, I would be endlessly grateful if you would take 2 minutes to do that fall listener survey. You can find it on our webpage, aidailybrief.ai. Anthropic has announced what they're calling a big AI breakthrough in the biology field. Less than a week after confirming the existence of an AI-powered wet lab in the Bay Area, Anthropic has said Claude discovered a novel enzyme system with properties reminiscent of CRISPR, with only high-level direction from our scientists. CRISPR is gene editing technology based on an enzyme sequence discovered in bacteria. It's used to mechanically cut DNA and splice in new genes. Anthropic's discovery looks similar to CRISPR in the way it features an array of repeated genomes. They acknowledge that they don't yet know its function or level of significance, but these enzyme systems are relatively rare and have previously unlocked capabilities like cutting, copying, and inserting genes into DNA. They claim the discovery took 1,000 Claude agents, 21 hours, and around 210 million tokens, so somewhere on the order of $10,000 of compute. CEO Dario Amadei, who has a PhD in biophysics, promoted the result on X. He wrote, it's easy to dismiss this as a one-off or curiosity, but we've repeatedly seen a pattern where AI performance in new intellectual domains goes from weak to superhuman in a matter of a few years. In 2023, models struggled to do math at the level of an average high school student. In 2024, they started to do well on math competitions for the best high schoolers in the country. In 2025, they started to solve minor open problems. In early 2026, more significant open problems. And in late 2026, they are beginning to solve the top few open problems in all of mathematics. We believe AI for biology is on a similar exponential trend. Amodei said the need to confirm significant results using physical experiments is what led Anthropic to set up their wet lab. He disclosed that Claude isn't quite at the point of autonomously controlling lab equipment, but that's the end goal. He also mentioned that it's only a safety level 1/2 biolab, meaning it doesn't handle materials that are dangerous to humans. Continuing, he wrote, in Machines of Loving Grace, I wrote about AI's potential to cure most diseases in 5 to 10 years, a goal that sounds impossible, but one I believe is just barely possible if AI is applied to every stage of the pipeline. The first step is showing that AI can first help with and then drive biological discoveries. Claude's discovery of related prior work that goes back decades beginning with systems like CRISPR and continuing with discoveries like the Bridge recombinase and VIPER in the past few years. I believe that we're at the very beginning of finding such systems and developing them into powerful tools for biotechnology. So what did people make of this? For some, it was way overhyped. Ravij Schwartz-Ziv writes, the sad thing is Dario knows better. He was a PhD student. He knows the significance level of this result. He knows that if he had walked into Bill's office, his advisor, with, we found an interesting system but we still don't know what it does, said he was ready to graduate, Bill would have kicked him out of the room. But somehow, when the IPO is around the corner, this becomes AI is starting to drive biological discovery. Lucas Harrington is a bit less dismissive, but does add context. He writes, as someone who did this kind of genome mining work during my PhD, finding a weird cluster of genes and repeats is often the easy part. The hard part, and where the real discoveries come from, is figuring out what the system actually does. Anthropic does not yet know what this does. They've shown that the repeated array produces RNAs, but not what those RNAs do, what the RT does with them, or whether the system has any of the programmable properties that make the CRISPR comparison justified. He concludes, I'm genuinely rooting for all of the frontier labs to seriously get into biological discovery, and I'm excited about what comes out of it. But announcing these very early incremental findings with the framing of a major discovery doesn't help. I'd much rather they set the bar high now, so that when an AI actually discovers a fundamentally new biological mechanism, Everyone appreciates how big a deal it is. Protham says, don't misunderstand it as Claude curing cancer. But why it matters: finding tools like CRISPR used to take human experts months of manual searching. Here, AI did that work and found something real at a speed no human team could match. Still crazy. Basically, as Tanishq Abraham sums up, it's very cool and people should be excited, but it's also very, very, very preliminary. Next, we head over to a couple stories from the United Nations. Where in a speech whose major purpose was rejecting globalist control of AI, President Trump has rebranded artificial intelligence to superintelligence. Speaking before the United Nations on Tuesday, Trump said, the United States totally rejects any attempt to construct a globalist scheme to control artificial intelligence, which is being spoken about so much now. Hereinafter officially called superintelligence, we're changing the name. The use of the word artificial makes it sound fake, and it is not fake. It's actually amazing, but we have to be careful. In fact, it is exactly the opposite of what it purports. He declared from the podium that from now the United States government would refer to superintelligence and hoped the world would follow suit. In other words, Trump added, welcome to the world of superintelligence-SI. It sounds much better. It is much better and it's more accurate. Let's see if I have any power. Maybe I do and maybe I don't. We're going to find out soon. Now the memes were infinite. Replit CEO Amjad Masad wrote, your intelligence, it's fake. It's artificial. Mine, it's super. Superintelligence. AKA, Zvi Moskowitz, when he got done beating his head against the wall, lamented the concern of every AI safety advocate when he wrote, if he had just gone with superior or extreme or supreme, I would not care, and this would be extremely funny windmill tilting. But specifically going this hard on super is a giant linguistic nightmare of a namespace clash. Oh God, this is going to be annoying. Meanwhile, getting back to the substantive part of the speech, Trump's objection to a, quote, globalist regulatory scheme did not come out of the blue. Heading into the UN meeting, a group of 20 countries signed a declaration that welcomed initiatives to pace the frontier and called for mandatory independent safety testing, common standards, and the creation of an international AI institution by member states which is able to set standards, enable verification, and convene states when capability thresholds are crossed. The call was led by Finland and supported by nations including France, Germany, and Singapore. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres supported the call and encouraged external experts, including from frontier AI labs and AI safety institutes, to engage with the panel to help inform dialogue on such matters. The glaring hole in the proposal is that neither China nor the US were in support of a new international body to govern their development of the technology. During his speech, Trump said, we will only encourage superintelligence, not rein it in. We are going to watch it closely through the Department of Justice. The United States leads the world in superintelligence and will continue to do so safely and responsibly. White House Science Advisor Michael Kratsios reinforced the point on Wednesday, telling the UN Security Council, our primary responsibility is to ensure that continued advances in superintelligence benefit our citizens and safeguard their liberty and way of life. The frontier of intelligence is advancing rapidly. That is not a reason to pause its further development or to constrain it with new global governance structures. After staking America's claim to a long line of permissionless innovation that drove global growth, Kratsios concluded, a prosperous future will not be secured by a global regulator. It will be secured by sovereign nations that adopt superintelligence, responsible companies that build it, and free people who refuse to be ruled by fear. Also on Wednesday, Sam Altman and Dario Amodei addressed the UN Security Council to explain how they think the council should think about AI risk. Sam Altman appeared live in New York and said, This moment is complicated as we feel both tremendous potential and very understandable anxiety at the same time. These models can help people discover new knowledge, new medicine, better healthcare, stronger education, and build more productive economies. They can be new tools for people to pursue dreams and ambition that today feel out of reach. Altman's entire speech was all about the dichotomy of AI— both the clearest danger and the biggest opportunity of the coming decades. He formed his suggestions around 2 major risks. First was the risk of RSI allowing frontier labs to build models they can no longer understand or control. Altman said, The industry must not accept too much technological risk just because the benefits are too great and they feel too important to slow down. He added, We need to understand what these systems are doing and have strong evidence that they will do what people intended, especially as they get very smart. It doesn't matter whether people put their risk of catastrophe at 10% or 1%. None of these levels are remotely acceptable. Altman's second concern was concentration of power, commenting, a company or country that believes only it can be trusted with this technology can use that belief to justify almost anything else. Charting a middle path, Altman said, we don't want to fall into the trap of blind optimism. We also don't want to fall into the trap of doomerism either. While Altman didn't offer an opinion on global AI governance, Dario Amadei was far less coy. Calling in via video link, he said, I believe this is the most important global security issue facing the world today. No leader, no company, and no government can manage this alone. Amadei spelled out a step-by-step playbook for global AI governance. His prescriptions, as we have recently heard from him, include signing simple treaties with broad consensus, like a ban on AI to develop biological weapons. Amadei then proposed the development of global evaluation and verification systems, to allow states to verify commitments made by the labs in rival countries. Third, Amodei wants to see global standards for testing AI models for loss of control and misuse risks, as well as a global notification system. Emphasizing the gravity of the situation from his vantage point, Amodei warned the Security Council that, quote, if managed poorly, I even believe that AI could be a risk to humanity as a whole. Anthropic on one pole of the safety discourse, the White House on the other, and OpenAI somewhere in the middle, trying to find the middle path. Now, if you are interested in that middle path, that's going to be something we talk about in this week's Long Read Sunday episode. However, for now, that is going to do it for the headlines. Next up, the main episode. Hello everyone. One big change around AI is we've shifted our thinking from how we rank our pages to how do we become the source that AI trusts enough to answer with. At KPMG, they're seeing this firsthand. AI-generated results now surface answers directly, often without a single click. That's why they are increasingly focused on generative engine optimization, or GEO, structuring content so AI systems can retrieve it, understand it, and cite it as trusted authority. This is not just an SEO evolution, but a visibility mandate. And indeed, the GEO mandate from KPMG is simple. If AI is shaping decisions, your expertise needs to show up inside the answer. Read all about it at kpmg.com/us/geo. Again, that is kpmg.com/us/geo. Blitzy's deep codebase understanding unlocks the thing every roadmap owner cares about: shipping new features. Here's the truth about building inside a massive enterprise codebase. Writing code was never the bottleneck. Context is. Which system does this touch? Which contracts can't break? Which standards apply? Blitzy already knows because it reverse-engineered your entire codebase into a dynamic knowledge graph before feature work began. With that complete picture, Blitzy builds features end-to-end. Architecture, APIs, UI, and tests all validated against your existing systems. One Blitzy customer built an AI-native application from scratch with 100% autonomous completion, saving over 2,700 engineering hours. Features that respect your codebase instead of fighting it. Stop letting your backlog grow faster than your team. Accelerate your roadmap at blitzy.com. That's B-L-I-T-Z-Y dot com. The best teams don't have a single star carrying everyone else. They know their own strengths and each other's weaknesses and play to both. That's the team Robots& Pencils has built on purpose. Nobody there is grinding through busywork to pad a headcount number. People come for the hard problems, and they stay because everyone around them is leveling up at the same time. In a market full of companies that are just trying to hire fast, that's worth a look. Check out robotsandpencils.com/careers. This episode of the AI Daily Brief is brought to you by HyperAgent, where you run fleets of agents your team can manage together. Forget local agents and chat workflows waiting on your laptop to be prompted. HyperAgent deploys always-on agents in the cloud, doing real work across the tools your team already uses. Marketing agents turn competitor moves into landing pages. Sales agents enrich leads, draft emails, and update the CRM. Ops agent chases the paperwork and tracks the budget. Every agent has access to shared context and follows your rules about scope and approvals. It's time you had agents that feel like teammates. Hire yours at HyperAgent. Get $100 in credits at hyperagent.com/AIDailyBrief. Welcome back to the AI Daily Brief! Today we've got everything from building websites while driving a car to cute little mascots wearing smart glasses, because the theme of the show is AI moving into the real world. Now, if you've been listening over the past couple of weeks, you'll know that the arrival of GrokBot and more recently Muse, alongside a slew of other buzzy personal agent products like Instinct, have significantly increased the conversation around the place and resonance of personal consumer agents. And yet, despite all of these new products, there are some folks who are bringing a very deep baseline skepticism to this. Strategy's Ben Thompson has been talking about this across numerous interviews over the last month, basically arguing, as he put it to Patrick O'Shaughnessy, that consumers do not care about being productive. Now, in a recent appearance on TBPn, he went viral reiterating that exact point. He said, tech companies are like, let us book your flight for you. I've had a personal assistant for 10 years. He does not come within an inch of booking my flights for me. That's crazy talk. I understand which ones are going to be delayed. I know which seat I want to be on. So the fact that this is continually a demo is hilarious to me. Number 2, people love shopping. They don't want to be productive. They want to be entertained. One of the biggest forms of entertainment is shopping. This is part of the whole fast fashion thing. It's fun. Building up a head of steam, he continued, just because someone's complaining doesn't mean they're unhappy. People groan, oh, I have to research this, I have to go and do this, I'm so busy. And then you have an eager tech company executive say, oh, I have an assistant that can do it for you. And it's like, no, not only do I want to do it, I want to complain about it. I'm enjoying myself complaining right now, okay? Would you just let me be and live my life? Now Ben is not alone in this sentiment. Earlier this week, Stay Sassy had a similar take get a lot of traction. They wrote, The problem with all these AI personal assistant things is that people don't actually want to do stuff. You get that, right? Just like AI tools in the workforce, AI assistants don't actually abstract decisions for you. They let you accelerate decision-making. So instead of making one decision a day and then lamenting you can't do more, AI assistants are going to let you make 10 decisions a day and act on all of them. A miracle? Nah, dawg, a nightmare. Nobody except type-A drivers who need Twitter fodder actually want that. After retelling a story about finding inspiration at college and then going home for the summer to see friends who didn't leave town, they commented: What I learned after many years of trying is that absolutely nobody wants to realize their potential. People want to hang out with friends and complain. That's how the world has worked for 10,000 years. This weather sucks. Can you believe the cows walked off? People don't want enablement. People don't want you to take all of their excuses. There's even a quote from legendary author Kurt Vonnegut from an interview back in 2005 touching on exactly the same topic. On leaving the house to buy an envelope, his wife suggested that he could just buy 100 envelopes online and never need to complete the errand again. And so I pretend not to hear her, and go out to get an envelope because I'm going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope. I meet a lot of people, and see some great-looking babies, and a fire engine goes by and I give them the thumbs up, and, and I ask a woman what kind of dog that is. Of course the computers will do us out of that. And what the computer people don't realize, or they don't care, is we're dancing animals. You know, we love to move around. And we're not supposed to dance at all anymore. But what's the counterpoint? But just how correct is this nostalgic, romantic idea? What room and demand might there be for people to actually use personal assistants that are designed on the sort of productivity that Ben Thompson is dismissing? Investor Amy Wu Martin points out that trying to paint everyone with a single brush is inevitably reductive. Reposting Ben's soliloquy, she writes, Respectfully disagree. There are window shoppers and there are affluent consumers who hire a personal stylist or use Stitch Fix to save time shopping. There are travel point maxers and there are travelers who book via a travel agent because, again, time. Personal agents will not be for most people at the beginning. In fact, I'm guessing Muse retention will look terrible before it smile-curves. But life optimizers will use them, assuming agents get privacy, fraud, etc. right. Fintech content creator Simon Taylor, meanwhile, agrees with part of Ben's premise, but thinks it's incomplete. He writes: Ben says, 1, people don't want to be more productive, they want to be entertained. And 2, shopping is entertainment. His point is solid. If you look at doomscrolling, Netflix watching, and shopping, you see a perfect consumer. The companies that fed the funnel won. Productivity apps happen but never take over the world. Those points are correct. But I think Ben is missing something big here. People are lazy. They want to delegate schlep work. They don't want to book the cycle class for my daughter by checking my calendar, finding the form, filling it in, confirming it with other calendars so they know too, then pay the $1 deposit for no-show prevention. And I might know where I want to book dinner, but picking a time that works for others, using the form, putting it in people's diaries— that's all schlep work I want to delegate. And users of Muse and Instinct will tell you it's magic. That's not shopping, it's buying things. It's the opposite of entertainment. Investor and entrepreneur Jill Gunter, meanwhile, says that this whole argument misses big chunks of the population. She wrote: I see this take all the time, and I will continue to insist that if you don't think a lot of people want to be more productive or outsource admin, Then you don't understand that there are 2 billion mothers in the world. Finally, Madhuguru, who works on AI at Meta, puts it this way: consumers don't have one relationship with doing things. As an example, they point out browsing clothes can be entertainment for some, but hiring a roofer is miserable for most. Even with shopping, sometimes you want to browse for an hour, sometimes you want the right thing just delivered ASAP. The argument overall? The latent demand for agents that remove this friction for consumers is immense. And yet, unlike so much about the AI future, this is an argument that we actually can start to get some evidence for. And the newest piece of evidence is that right now, as I record, Muse continues to sit at the number 1 spot on the App Store. And even more than that, because there's all sorts of ways that a company with the size and distribution of a Meta can drive an app to number 1 even if it's not all that resonant, it's also getting really positive buzz from some unexpected areas. The New York Times' Eli Tan recently published a piece that was very surprising to many. It was called, I Gave My Life Over to Meta's AI Agent and Was Blown Away. Muse helped handle my dental insurance, booked dinner reservations, and created a podcast for me. It also required my most personal data and trust. Now, a big part of the article is about the challenge of the bargain that's inherent in making a personal assistant available, which is turning over so much highly sensitive and private data. But once the author did, they found, quote, Muse to be the most useful AI app I had ever used. So what did they actually do with it? Eli wrote, I had a few goals in mind. I wanted to see if Muse could bring me the personal empowerment that Mark Zuckerberg has often talked about. I also wanted to push Muse to see just how much AI agents can achieve and where they might fall short. Very quickly, I found that my agent could efficiently fill out online forms, a tedious part of using the internet. I could take a photo of a parking ticket and Ren would pay it for me, asking for approval before making the payment. My agent could also make phone calls using different personalities, and I found it to be helpful for dealing with customer service such as with my dental insurance. Finally, he asked it for a good way to spend $45 that it had previously saved him. He wrote, at this point it knew my life pretty well. I thought it might suggest something altruistic like donating the money to charity or buying flowers for my girlfriend who was recovering from surgery. Instead, he continues, it suggested something even better: buying bowls from Heath Ceramics, a local ceramics maker with a dedicated following, on Facebook Marketplace, one of my favorite pastimes. The agent not only made that suggestion, but then started messaging sellers and bargaining on his behalf, ultimately leading to a deal. Now what's interesting is that the experience of using this app fundamentally shifted where their skepticism about personal agents lays. Coming in, it was about whether they were useful enough. Coming out, it was about whether enough people would be comfortable with the privacy implications to actually get that much use out of it. Certainly one of the ways that Meta seems to be trying to increase that utility is through just an unending spate of partnerships. Meta's Chief AI Officer Alexander Wang has been on an absolute Twitter/X frenzy announcing partnership after partnership after partnership with companies like Spotify, Box, Dick's, Sephora, Gap, Walmart, and more. In fact, it's very clear watching the Meta team on social that they really feel like they have something here and are trying to grab this momentum by the absolute throat. In addition to the partnerships, over the last couple of days we've also seen a number of new features. The Muse for Mac app now has computer use. They also announced a real-time avatar that can allow your Muse to actually talk to you in video form. And, at Wednesday's Meta Connect event, Muse came to the latest edition of their Meta Glasses. Now the past few years of the Meta Connect conference have been a bit of an anticlimax. Last year's event was built around a new generation of the Meta Ray-Bans, a new flagship with full-color screen, and an improved base model. The 2024 edition featured a prototype of the smart glasses, as well as the release of Llama 3.2, which was the beginning of the end for Llama. This year had no such issue, and the reason was a huge portion of the releases were in some ways geared towards improving the user experience for Muse and bringing it into the real world. The Meta Ray-Bans got a product line refresh, adding an audio-only pair with no camera for the first time. Still, the big focus was on using the Ray-Bans to control your Muse. In his rundown of the major announcements, Mark Zuckerberg listed this feature first, commenting, Muse, your personal agent, now has voice and real-time video. You can have long conversations and Muse will work in the background and get things done for you as you're talking. We're also bringing Muse to Glasses so you can talk hands-free throughout the day. For a Steve Jobsian one more thing announcement at the end, Zuckerberg also announced a new category of AI hardware that they're calling Muse Charm. It's about the size of a stopwatch or an AirPods case, and is designed to be an always-on device for communicating with Muse. It has a small colored screen and can take voice instructions directly without unlocking a phone or using an app. Zuckerberg said that if you don't own Meta Ray-Bans, this is going to be, in his words, by far the fastest way to talk to your Muse and show it what's going on around you. Now a lot of the details beyond that are a little unclear, with Zuckerberg saying it's still in active development, but he did say that Meta hopes to ship it in time for the holidays. Now, this is the type of product that I think about 6 months ago, almost everyone would have reflexively dismissed— both from the standpoint of agent capabilities, as well as the skepticism around the source from Meta. The initial response to this announcement has been much more interested. Software engineer Babyfolio writes, I wonder what Muse Charm and Ray-Bans will actually be like to use day to day. I'd definitely like to try them. Personally, I think this is the right approach. Bringing AI into the real world could get a lot more people using it, especially those who aren't going to open a chatbot app every day. Muse Charm could end up as one of the biggest products ever launched by Meta, or could go just as wrong as the metaverse. This could go 2 ways. One, you leave the tasks that take most of your time to the AI agent while you work on your creativity, human activities, quality time with people you love, hobbies, etc. Or 2, it makes you so obsessed that you end up isolating yourself and just talking to a little character that decides where you eat, what you buy, and who you reply to. And you won't even notice because it will feel like help. Now obviously there is a 3rd option. Which is that it's just not really good enough to do either of these things, and again I think that up until now that would've been most close observers' default assumption. But Silicon Data head of research Steve Howe thinks that something has shifted. He wrote: We've seen a few of this idea come and go— Humane, AI Pin, Rabbit R1, and some others I'm forgetting. They all flopped— the AI wasn't good enough to support the bold functional form so people still find themselves needing to look at the phone. I think this may finally have changed. Nick Cago from Google DeepMind is even more optimistic, writing, just watched Meta Connect 2026 and wow, Meta is really nailing this AI for everyone narrative. For the first time, it's actually so clear how AI can benefit the average person and improve their lives. And lest you think that this trend towards AI in the real world is just limited to Meta, SpaceX AI is also pushing their agent across new surfaces with the launch of GrokBot in Teslas. This is literally GrokBot inside your Tesla. Meaning theoretically, anything that you're managing with GrokBot, you can manage from your car. Tesla content creator Davin Olson showed himself placing an order at Starbucks while using Full Self-Driving mode. Tesla engineer Nick Cruz-Bataigne demonstrated his GrokBot shopping for some AirPods and ordering a coffee on the go. Tesla fan Sawyer Merritt wrote, You can order stuff online such as Amazon, manage your email, calendar, finances, or other tasks through GrokBot using just your voice in your Tesla. There is no separate app. Everything just lives within the existing Grok voice interface in your Tesla. Now, AI builder Alex Finn is a lot more ambitious than just ordering coffee from his Grok bot. He wrote, having your car drive you around while you talk to an army of agents is incredible. For Alex, it was all about managing his burgeoning digital agent empire while going to wherever he needed to go. Now, even with all of these changes, the App Store performance, more interest in this new category of products, there is still a base-level skepticism around this product category of personal consumer agents. Riley Brown, who pointed out that Muse is number 1 on the App Store, also added, to be fair though, it's hard to trust the numbers. He compared it to Threads where he said, the platform, while technically competing with X, has always felt dead. Threads feels like a platform where most of the users were tricked into downloading it through Instagram. It's too early to tell how Muse is doing. At the same time, later he posted, The common person's opinion of AI will surprise you. Played a poker game last night in New York City, all of which were people out of the tech bubble. 3 of them banking, one had his own research firm, one a doctor, one in insurance, etc. Here's what I noticed. 1, everyone at the table was fully convinced AI would kill everyone at some point in the next 10 years. I was introduced as a, quote, AI YouTuber, and the first thing they asked me was, how many years do we have left? I used to think this was a niche doomer opinion. Everyone at the table was successful, fun to be around, and outgoing, and they had a shared assumption AI would lead to our extinction. Everyone at the table had heard of Muse, and most were a user. And people were describing it as, it's an AI, but like, you don't have to ask it to do stuff, you just connect it and it starts working for you. They didn't care about the model, they just liked that it would remind them of stuff, cancel subscriptions, etc. So let's leave aside the presumption of extinction for just a moment, and leave with 2 questions to watch as we continue to observe if and how personal agents are finding their way to the mainstream. Question one is how much this bridge into the real physical world will matter for adoption, and question 2 will be whether the secret sauce is, as Riley's poker buddies suggest, a shift from agents as reactive experience to a proactive experience, bringing the value to you without you even having to ask. For now, new winds around personal agents continue to be blowing, and more often than not I'm seeing that people who are trying these things are finding themselves more impressed than they thought. For now, that's gonna do it for today's AI Daily Brief. Appreciate you listening or watching as always, and until next time, stay curious. Bye! Peace!