Mina Kimes

ESPN Research.

She has access to so much data so quickly, the same way that a typical person has access to calculating what is six times three, that there's no use for AI in this circumstance because the data is too legible.

But now there's like, think about like a Goldilocks zone between sort of on the one hand, something totally opaque, like druggable protein targets for pancreatic cancer and something way too legible, like something you can look up on ESPN research on dashboards.

That's something like economic data

BLS data, a ton of government data, which is famously, famously impossible to access quickly such that I have to send a request to an economist and tell him go away for a week and then come back to me to tell me how has father time for children under two changed in the last 20 years according to the American Time Use Survey.

That's the perfect zone for artificial intelligence.

That Goldilocks zone of the database exists, but it's an enormous schlep to go through it.

And that's what I learned from our interaction, is that because different people have wildly different jobs...

Some people are working in biomedicine.

Some people are working at ESPN doing football commentary.

And some people are working in the middle doing economic commentary.

And this is the sweet spot for AI right now.

And it's not at the other polls.

And the important thing here, and then I'm done with Stardust Spiel,

I think when people think about artificial intelligence as related to other technologies, it's so weird.

Like when you think about like, what does a light bulb do?

A light bulb turns on.

That's what it does from you and me, Mina, Pablo, everyone listening.

The light bulb turns on and it's the same lumens and watts for everyone who pulls down on that light bulb cord.

AI is like a light bulb that when different people try to turn it on, for some people, the light bulb turns on dark.