AI Brain at the Office | The Career Moves That Actually Matter | Too Much Happening Too Fast

You want the cocktail party safety of a job that's easy to reference, that's high status, that people will recognize, but you also want the adventure of a startup. One of those things is the more powerful force. And just be honest. I tell people, do you want to be in a startup or do you want to be the kind of person who'd want to be in a startup?

It's the week of May 25th. Welcome to The Learning Corner, a Precursor Ventures podcast. Welcome to The Learning Corner by Precursor. I'm Mia Farnam, and I'm joined by our GP and managing partner, Charles Hudson. Where we'll be talking through the articles and Goodreads that caught our team's attention over the past week. We're definitely in much better digs than we usually are. Our friends over at AngelList opened up the doors to their recording studio at AngelList Studio, right around the corner from us, right in the heart of Jackson Square. AngelList builds software for investors to back world-changing startups, and we are so proud to have them as a portfolio company in Precursor Ventures Ventures. Our first piece this week is from Rachel Carton's Substack titled, Does Your Boss Have AI Brain? Rachel spent weeks talking to marketers about what it's actually like to work for leadership that is fully AI obsessed. The core problem she services is not that companies are using AI, but that almost none of them have a real strategy for how. With a recent Gallup poll finding that while 44% of employees say their organization has begun integrating AI, only 22% say leadership has communicated a clear plan for doing so. The result is that the fun judgment-heavy parts of the job, the brainstorming, the writing clever copy, are the exact things getting handed to AI first, while the tedious work stays with the team. One quote that stuck with me was from a marketer who said it sometimes feels like their job is just training their replacement because the meeting notes and campaign data their bosses are feeding into AI tools today is the exact context that internal agents are being built to act on tomorrow. Rachel closes with a quote, unless organizations develop clear strategies, AI in the workplace becomes a bull in a china shop. With those who never even wanted it tasked with cleaning up the mess. This piece focused on AI within the marketing world, which for me, I feel like is a space where creativity reigns above all and judgment and taste, all of those things are at the forefront. One quote to me stood out. So much of good marketing is instincts, seeing the signs before anyone else, translating a spark into a smart campaign, knowing the line between brilliance and brash. With AI, we're watching decision makers run big ideas through a machine that finds the median. We've talked a lot about the importance of upskilling across different industries and knowing, you know, how much effort to be placed to showcase to your boss that you're taking hold of these tools. One question I kept on coming back to is, are there just full industries that really should just know their place of how much benefit and value they're going to extract from these tools and then leave the rest of it for where true judgment and taste really bleeds through?

I read that article. I was like, this is so sad. If someone told me just run it through AI, I'd be like, well, why do you need me, why don't you just run it through AI? I'll go do something else. And that's a funny one was like when the person gave it a meme and was like, is this funny? Bad. So bad. Usually when I read these things, I'm like, have I seen something like this before? And the closest analogy I can think of is when website A/B testing started. Everyone was like, oh, well, we're just gonna A/B test everything. And there's a lot of internet memes and old jokes about all A/B testing pretty much ends up in the same place and it's adult content. Cause you end up figuring out what people click on and it's, it's not the most inspiring stuff. And I think there was an era where it was like, well, all you have to do is A/B test stuff and let the winner of the A/B test— this whole like data-driven, we just like test, test, test. What we learned in that era is two things. One, tests are pretty good at eliminating obviously bad things, but maybe not helping you discover good things. And second, what you test and what you put into the top of funnel is maybe as important as the testing methodology. And so I think this idea that like, oh, you no longer need judgment or taste, we're just going to throw a bunch of stuff against the wall and see what sticks. It's not a very inspired way to do marketing. I also don't think it's a very successful way to do marketing. And I suspect the same thing will happen in AI is that there will be a lot of median boring, not slop, more like milquetoast content that gets produced that's neither inspiring nor terrible and will do nothing for your brand from a copy standpoint. And the people who can think outside of the box, who can be creative, will get rewarded. And I look at my inbox and I get all these emails, Precursor Ventures commitment to investing, like AI spam.

Next.

Based on your previous investments in XYZ companies and your focus on AI spam next. It doesn't help. It really doesn't help. I also feel like that manager who's probably telling their subordinate, run this through AI, is maybe getting the same message from their boss, is maybe getting the same message from their boss, who's getting the message from the CEO, who's getting the message from the board. And so at some point somebody has to say, enough. Here's how we're going to use these things to make ourselves better. And here's the things we're not going to ask AI to do.

I like how the article focuses on the fact that we right now in this market are constantly talking about these are the specific jobs that are going to be eliminated with AI. This piece focuses on, well, what about the people who currently have to live in these jobs today? Like, what is it like? What are the recommendations for people if their boss is this person who has AI brain, who's really constantly just demoralizing them by saying everything must hit Claude before it hits me? Someone had a good point in the article too. It's sort of like, well, if that's the case, then like, why do you exist as a leader? The realist answer is not leave your job and go find something different. I think people today more than ever are just, I want to hold on and, and preserve what I can. But how can you live in that environment and push back in a way that feels appropriate?

I think people are going to just start lying. Oh, we put it on a Copilot page. We make it look like it went through Copilot. I'm like, I think at some point people are just going to start lying. Yeah, I put it through Cloud. Okay, this is great. Cloud must really help.

Uh-huh.

Just kidding. I did it myself. I don't think you can do overt resistance. I don't think you can say I'm not going to use this. You'll probably get fired. But I think people are going to find subversive ways to like comply with AI mandates to still feel like a human who has value.

And I think we have hit this point where at least in like the tech industry, it is lowbrow to just say that I passed something through Claude, I just took the output. That's not acceptable within tech. But in other industries, I don't think that they've gotten there as quickly of being like, these are the levels of what's acceptable and what looks good. And that does come from leadership. Rachel, she makes a point that I think gets lost in a lot of the broader job displacement conversation, which For marketing, feedback and approvals have always been frustrating. That's just inherently part of the job, but at least there is this mutual understanding that your manager was actually taking the time to review your work. And that feedback came back from that experience, no matter how broken down it felt. It feels like maybe the real cultural loss here could be that the humans potentially are not part of that review process at all, especially for a place, again, like marketing. Do you think that companies are underestimating how much of employee trust and satisfaction and growth comes through that experience of just being able to have to run to another person, walk things through and present them in that manner.

I do. And I think people are just really focused on efficiency. And it's interesting, I use Claude a lot when I write things sometimes and I'll ask for ways this could be improved, or I'll say, this is the point I'm trying to make. Does this come through clearly? The same way I would ask a human editor, but also in the same way I might have a human editor who says, you should change this. I might say, no, I actually like it the way that it's written. This. Sounds more like me and this is the way I want to communicate this point. And the other times I give the feedback and I'm just like, wow, that is, you are right. I didn't really make that point as clearly as I thought I had upon reflection. But to your point, I would never just be like, okay, I wrote this thing, I ran it through, is this good?

It also wants to agree with you.

That's right. The sycophancy is real. And so I just think we're going to make a lot of mistakes because this is one of those technologies that looks so powerful and perfect out of the box. A lot of people are going to say, just take the output and deal with it. I hope we get past that very soon.

Well, our next piece is from Karen Deer's Substack titled "The Career Bets That Compound ." Opens with a clarifying framework. Most people think of a career as a series of jobs with titles and pay packages, but the better way to see it is an accumulation of 4 kinds of capital, including skill, network, reputation, and optionality. He outlines 6 bets that compound: going deep on one specific thing, joining a company at the right stage before it wins, building one durable network through actual work, maintaining a public presence around a specific area of expertise, earning legible reputational wins, and investing in mentors who become peers over time. On the flip side, he is equally pointing out six bets that look like they're compounding but aren't. Things like title chasing, brand chasing, comp-driven lateral moves, optimizing decisions for the wrong audiences, and generalist drift, and conference networking over real collaboration. Peace closes with what he calls the 10-year question, a simple forcing function that asks you to project yourself forward and ask which version of the next move makes more sense to you who is looking back. I mean, I brought this piece up and wanted to talk about this because something that's coming up a lot in conversations with people in my age group in SF and New York City, this feeling of, especially if you're in tech right now, you work at one of the big companies, you're like, how is it that I am in this ecosystem and so close to all of the opportunity, but I didn't get a piece of it? And the conversation that then spirals of like, had I only learned about open AI 5 years ago and channeled the right people and made that switch. Had I only done X, Y, and Z, had I only, like, had I not done investment banking or consulting and gone to a startup right out of college, then I would have been in a different situation. And I feel like that conversation is happening a lot. I think it's happening for founders as well. I was having a conversation with a great founder yesterday who was just like, you could do this all day with yourself, constantly looking around and being like, had I made this move or presented in this way, I'd be in a different spot. All this advice is really helpful, but how much of it do you feel like is actually actionable? Like you can actually truly plan this out and make all these specific steps in the hopes of reaching this perfect place 10 years from now?

I think my big takeaway from the article is it'd be great if life worked that way. I always tell people, ironically, it will all make sense when you tell it in reverse, because you'll be at the endpoint and then everything will make sense, but it might not make sense in the moment. But I have a lot of these conversations with people and I like this framework because I've used a version of it, but it's less organized, but I usually ask people like, what are you optimizing for here? And usually I tell them, do you want certainty or do you want an adventure? And I don't mean an adventure, like a fun adventure. An adventure is like a risky journey. So sometimes people are like, well, you know, I want the freedom and autonomy of a startup, but I want the pay package and job security of being at a safe company. A lot of people would like that. That is not a combination that really exists. So which of those two things is most important to you? And oftentimes when I find people trying to make a career trade-off or decision, usually ask them like, what else are you considering? Well, I'm looking at Amazon, Adobe, and Google. So you want to be at a big tech company. You should just pick the one of those companies where you think you will be the most successful and where you'll have the best experience, because that will create the best reputation and the best like track record. Because functionally, all big tech companies are kind of the same. If someone tells me, hey, I'm thinking about a 3-person startup and Microsoft, I'd say, well, you're not clear in your mind about what you want because you can't be equally interested in those two things because they're literally the opposite. And so sometimes I meet people where I'm like, you want the cocktail party safety of a job that's easy to reference, that's high status, that people will recognize, but you also want the adventure of a startup. One of those things is the more powerful force. And just be honest. I tell people, do you want to be in a startup or do you want to be the kind of person who'd want to be in a startup?

Startup, right?

I meet a lot of people who want to be the kind of person who'd want to be in startup. I think this is a good framework, and I oftentimes do meet people, particularly in high-prestige places, who are thinking, well, how's it going to look if I do thing X? Well, depends how thing X turns out. I had a bunch of friends who left Goldman in 2002 or 2003 to go to Google, and they weren't thrilled about it because Google was the one place that was hiring and we were still on the back end of the dot-com bust, and it ended up being a transformative professional experience for them. Made a lot of money, they met a lot of people. And I think about my own career and there are jobs I had where I'm like, wow, I didn't know at the time the network I built at that company ended up being hugely valuable. For example, my first real startup job, I took it because I'm like, I just want to be exposed to more risk. I want to be in a team where there's not 5 levels. And I joined a BD team where it was me and one other guy, it was me and the VP. That was our team. And he's like, this is it. There's no cavalry. Like, yeah, me and you have to figure And it was some of the most impactful growth experiences I had in my career, but it's not a company that most people would recognize if I mentioned it. And I think so many times, particularly MBA graduates I meet, or people who've mostly succeeded in life, I want network capital and I want to build a reputation and to be great at this function. And I want to make a lot of— I'm like, wow, these are a lot of compound goals. I hope you can get these all in one job, but maybe pick one.

Also, I think one thing that wasn't discussed as deeply in the article was just the value of sometimes just being patient. And just time being the thing on your side. I have found in a majority of cases, it's the people who've just stayed and been patient, rode it out in the highs and lows. It's paid off, but it's certainly not a sexy story to say. And how crazy is that? Like in today's world, it's just like not cool to say I've been at the same job for 15 years.

I mean, the two things I'll say is I left Google in late '07 and I was hanging out with someone I used to work with and he joked, he's like, do you know how much money we made if we just stayed at Google for the last 19 years? I'm like, A lot. I've never done the math. A lot. But that isn't what I was optimizing for. I wanted a life that was different. And I'm very happy with the choices I've made. I think the other thing that, that does really crack me up is I had a bunch of friends, going back to Google, who were at Google and they were there for their requisite time and they saw Facebook and like, well, this is pretty clearly most likely the next Google. So they all went over early, well before the world knew, but after insiders.

Yeah.

And then they were there and then some of them went to Quora and some of them went to Pinterest and some of them went to Twitter. Do have a set of people who are like in this ring of information where they know like, hey, I'm gonna treat this like a portfolio. I'm gonna spend 3 to 4 years, vest most of my options at these companies. And while I'm there, I'm gonna keep my eyes out for what I think will be the next lily pad that looks like the thing when I joined it. And those people are really, they move in little packs and groups.

Yeah.

And you see them moving through companies.

I would probably go on a limb and say those people aren't optimizing for success. They probably just love the challenge of finding what's the next thing and helping build that.

And when I ask those people, they're like, it was cool being at Twitter when we launched the retweet. It was cool being at Google when this thing happened. It was cool being at— and it's more the experiences and the people because at some point they already have enough money. And at some point it's like, I just want to be a part of these iconic companies in important moments. I helped work on like V1 of X, Y, and Z. And it's— it is a special experience.

Also, these people grind. It's not like— I think when people describe these stories, they're like, and then I was there. They were probably working around the clock, 5 months at a time. And so when I think people paint out this version of what they wanted their career to look like, I think they forget that a lot of it comes with sacrifice. And one, you can't have it all in every single way.

Yeah, I mean, for me, probably this— one of the single most helpful things that happened in my life in this dimension was When I was a sophomore in college at Stanford and we heard from a bunch of very successful professors about their entire career, and they were the ones who were like, this will all make sense at the end of the day. And they told us, oh, I graduated and I was looking for a job and I did this. And instead of telling it backwards, they told it forward, but you knew the end. And they were pretty honest. I took this job. I didn't realize how important, or I met this person who in the time I didn't realize was going to be. It'd be nice if these things were linear and deterministic. I think you should make informed choices. That's what I always tell people. Just know what you're expecting to get out of the next thing you do.

One last piece here that I felt like I had a little bit of pushback on, so I'm curious about your perspective. You said basically generalist drift is a non-compounding bet. So saying that if you're a generalist, that will always be something that's lower tier than being hyper-specialized. I think that's changed right now in this era. I was just in a conversation with somebody who works at one of our portfolio companies, does really well, and we were talking about how generalists who can move the ball and understand where to go upskilled with AI you can execute in ways that it's very rare. And that's just like such a good skill to have. Didn't know if you feel similarly or if you have perspective.

I do think we're reentering a world. I used to draw this picture for people. All startups can usually benefit from a generalist really early because there's a bunch of these jobs that don't require a full-time person but are meaningful. Someone's got to set up the HR system and someone's got to set up the ticketing system and someone's got to be the first product manager until you have a full product manager. Then someone's got to work with the bookkeeper to close the books. There's all of these jobs that exist for a moment in time where if you're good at process or problem solving. And then at some point you get specialists and then the specialists get rigid and you're like, God, I need another generalist person here. Mm-hmm. Like work on special projects or work on new initiatives or start something new. And there's this wave pattern of whether you need generalists. I think we're about to go through a major generalist wave because I think generalists are gonna be far more empowered than ever. And I think the risk of being specialized right now is that AI might make the value of specialty knowledge far less special.

I will say that if you're a hyper specialist, one of one, you'll never be replaceable because what models can never pick up on is how you think and process information through your own lived experiences. But it is interesting to kind of think about the rise of the generalists. When I was coming up in college, I think people are like, pick a specialization, like figure it out. And if you don't have one, probably lie and just say that you do because God forbid you're this person floating around with nothing but a good attitude. Our last piece is from The Atlantic written by Charlie Warzel titled Too Much Is Happening Too Fast. He makes it makes the case that it is not just the technology itself making people uneasy, but the pace of the conversation around it, a relentless whipsaw of breakthroughs, reversals, apocalyptic framing that he calls AI malaise. He points to a Gallup poll showing only 18% of Gen Z feels hopeful about AI. It's a 9% drop in a single year and notes that the industry's own messaging is a big part of the problem with executives warning that everything will change while offering really no coherent positive vision of what actually comes next. The line that stuck out the most to me was his observation that the most common feeling about AI right now is somatic. It's a low-grade hum of difficult-to-place anxiety from loud people constantly suggesting that the near future will look very little like the present. This framing that's being actively produced by inside the industry is obviously not just a response to the technology itself. It's just the conversation that's swirling. I, live in it a lot. We obviously talk about it on this podcast all the time, but we do live in SF and New York City.

Yeah.

So I wondered how much of the, not panic, but constant hum is the appropriate level if you had just taken yourself out of these markets and placed yourself somewhere else that feels a little bit more middle of the ground.

I keep thinking about like Ashley from Coalition's piece, We Have a Marketing Problem on AI.

Yes.

Every time I hear people talk to AI, it's super powerful. It's gonna wipe out all these jobs. And no one has anything uplifting. If you're on the capital side, this is great. I'm gonna get so much more work out of the people who work for me. There'll be fewer of them, they'll be more productive, I'll make more profits. That's a very ownership-oriented—

yeah.

If you're on the bottom, you're like, oh, all of that's gonna happen to me, and no one's telling me what's in it for me. I think these data center protests, whether they're about electricity or this whole water thing, or just in general people being like, I don't want more of this, protesting this data center in my backyard is one way to kind of stop this from happening, even though I know it just means they're going to build the data center somewhere else. I don't think most of the things I read about AI offer a lot to people who aren't already winning. If you're the owner of a company or you're a VC, you're like, well, portfolio companies are going to make a lot more money. These are good things, but like they're going to make more money by hiring fewer people and swapping humans for GPUs. And I find it really interesting because I live mostly in a world of AI enthusiasts. We're like, why don't other people? Why? I'm so excited. It's great. I have 5 agents doing these things for me. I was like, people People see this and they're like, that's the sound of my job going away.

Yeah.

With no real sense of what will replace it. Don't worry, technology is creative destruction. It always creates new jobs. You're like, well, what are the new jobs? Tell me what they are.

Yes.

I'd like to prepare myself for that.

Right.

Everyone's like, well, we don't know what those are yet. Well, this is the problem.

That's a great point. I think when people rebut with, there'll be new jobs. Great. But like, when am I gonna live with a 5-year gap between no job and the new jobs? And am I in line to get the new job or is it just people with different skills? That part has not been fleshed out at all.

And I have a lot of friends whose kids did really did really well in high school, go to top elite colleges, started studying computer science 4 years ago, and they're like, did my kid make a mistake? Maybe in this mini instant right now it feels like it. I don't think we're going to need fewer people writing software going forward. I think more people will write software. Fewer of them will be trained computer scientists. We haven't yet figured out exactly what to do. And I think this is something I've been thinking about a lot. Even if AI doesn't destroy jobs, it's going to create displacement. It's going to mean like, hey, if you were a customer support rep, you might find a new job post-AI, but there's going to be a journey to go through to find— to either reskill yourself, find a new industry. And for people, those transitions aren't seamless. And to your point, people have to live through that transition. It can be traumatic.

I think it's just this bridge that doesn't exist yet that I think people are looking for. What's the off-ramp life raft that exists for me when you've made all the right choices? I do think that for the folks who went through college in the past couple of years and were software engineers, it does allow you to kind of be like, wait, do I actually want to do this role? Because if I'm going to emerge out and stay in this role, I have to be the best, you know, really good. And I guess that's something that I actually am passionate about doing, or should I start looking elsewhere and exploring those opportunities?

And I think it is one of my— I don't know, not to get on my education soapbox, but it's your podcast.

You can.

Well, our podcast. The one thing I do worry about is This is to me the downside of careerism in higher education is if you orient all of your studies and goals towards the job you want to get and you have very little connection to the work or subject matter other than its economic value as a first job out of school. If that first job doesn't materialize, then you're like, well, what did I just do? And I think this is part of the undercurrent of this conversation we're having about higher ed is people are just like, it wasn't worth it. I'm like, well, it's because you made it a pre-professional transactional experience. Focused on studying things that would help you get a job out of school. If you'd instead said, I came here to do some personal exploration, learn a broad set of skills in sciences, technology, arts, communications. I want to have a breadth of experiences. I want to come out a better person than I came in.

Yeah.

Maybe you'd feel differently. And I think part of what you're seeing is like, oh, it used to be go into economics or, you know, do finance or do consulting or do computer science. These are safe, stable jobs. Schools reoriented their curriculum around these pre-professional careers, and now they can't deliver because, like, the labor market, right? And I think it's— I hope it causes people to reflect on this balance between getting the skills that will help make you employable but also learning the things that will make you a better human and citizen.

I wonder if colleges will start to figure out what's a format that works to almost replicate what a gap year looks like but at their school. Take a bite of everything. And I know people say that, oh, the core is like that, your, your first year. And I'm like, it's not though, because you have to pick an advisor month 4 and you're like, I guess it's business. What if it's not? And you have a whole year to explore that.

In some schools you apply directly into a school.

Yeah.

So I do think most things have to get really broken before they get fixed in America. And I think higher education might be reaching one of those points where the model becomes so unsustainable and parents will want something different for their children. And there will be new models that emerge, I hope.

My last question here is, in the article he describes like the jagged frontier of AI where AI is going to be really unexpectedly great at some things and horrifically bad at others. And people are going to have to live through that to basically figure out where they net out. I think for a lot of people, AI feels so intangible, especially if you don't live in the geographies that we live in. Do you think that the potential of some of these larger companies going public will allow people to get a little bit closer to what they are because you get to own a piece of it?

I don't know. I mean, I feel like a lot of people I know who are very anti-UBI are suddenly like, maybe the answer is we have to just take some of the profits from AI and distribute them back to the people who are displaced. Wow. Quite the about-face. I don't know if that's the right thing to do or not. I do think what it seems to me is the people who are benefiting from AI right now and are optimistic, you gotta have faith. This is all gonna work out and it's going to be good for you. I can't tell you exactly how, but this is a good thing. And most people are like, well, if you can't tell me how, why should I believe you? I know why you're telling me this because you're making boatloads of cash off of this. So of course you wanna see it continue, but what's in it for me? There's a really good interview on Platformer that just came out today with Boris from Claude, who's one of my favorite follows on Threads, talking about, hey, like, the reality is many more people are going to write software, but we'll probably have fewer computer scientists and like software development as a job.

Yeah.

Will probably go away in the same way that we have many— and the analogy that this person in the article uses— we have many more people who make a living off of the photos that they take with their phone who are not professional photographers. Yes. And it's very possible that part of being a white-collar professional going forward will be having some facility at building and writing software to help you do your job in the same way that you have to know Excel and PowerPoint. You have to know it more to be a banker or consultant than you do, but like everybody's expected to know how to use those tools and market yourself.

I think like productize your skills. One of my good friends who, she worked at Slack like a bunch of years and then just was wanderlust. So she decided to start her own Slack consulting business, moved to Nairobi and keep the same clients that she had worked before, basically take home the direct pay on it. And when she would talk to people about the business, again, to our last conversation around like, what floats better than cocktail stories? Everyone was like, what? What is this weird job you have? Allows you flexibility, but you're not really climbing the ladder anymore. You're in tech, but not really in a tech. Fast forward now, she's been doing this for like 7 years. She has major Fortune 500 clients and she's learned how to productize and market her skillset, which is really her as the brand of it. And I think that a lot of white-collar workers will have to learn how to do that and maybe perhaps pick up projects here and there at different clients and learn how to do that. But that's not a skill set that you had to do 5, 6 years ago. Networking, if you already had the job and weren't looking, was not something you had to do.

I also just think there's a lot of people for whom work is a tool. This is how I earn money to support my family. I don't have like deep attachment to this job. This job serves a purpose, which is it allows me to provide for my family. And the job of the job is to be there so that Monday through Friday when I come in, there's work to be done. I do the work. This is an exchange. I come in, I do what you ask me to do. You give me my money. I go home. If I wanted to be out there hustling, running my own business, I'd be an entrepreneur. And everyone's like, everyone's going to become an entrepreneur. I'm like, what if they don't want to? Being an entrepreneur is risky. There's a set of people who are just like, I will trade the upside and freedom.

I want the 9 to 5.

I want the 9 to 5. I want that. I want someone to tell me this is what you got to do. When you're done with this, you're done. When I leave. I don't have to take my work home with me. Like, that is a very respectable way to live. And I think telling people, well, we're just going to take that option off the table, it isn't satisfying for people who are like, this fits really nicely into the life I've designed for me.

It doesn't land in the majority of geos, I would say. We are all out of time today. Thank you, Charles, for joining me in the studio. Thank you, AngelList, for opening up your doors. This is such an awesome place to host, and I hope that we get to do it more. Thank you so much for everyone who joined the podcast. Please like and subscribe and share with others. We will talk with you all next week. Thank you.

Bye.