Grant Harvey

It makes sense.

Well, that makes me think, so if we're talking about a problem set that could potentially have 17 trillion possible, you know, areas to go, what type of, like, are you competing with OpenAI for compute here?

Like, how much compute do you need for this type of stuff?

Like, yeah.

Yeah, we sort of landed on that too, right, Corey, where it seems like it's specific tasks that are getting replaced, not jobs.

Like at this point, no AI can replace any single job at this point.

Fair enough.

I will make more bold.

Well, what are your thoughts on OpenAI's stance that they're basically saying now in 2026, they think that they're going to have, they're confident that we're going to have AI that can make like, I forget the exact phrasing that they said, but like meaningful small contributions to science.

Yeah, but then in 2028 or 2027, they're thinking that it'll have significant impact on novel breakthroughs.

What are your thoughts?

Do you think that those timelines make sense with what you've seen?

What are your thoughts?

Would you list the model on the paper?

Would you say, like, and authored by, you know, me and Grok, or me and... I think so.

Yeah.

So would you say that the like Albert invents models are agentic?

Like is there any part of your system agentic?

Like how how do you how do you think of the way that people are working with that?

Are they working with as a co-scientist or as a specific tool?