Ryan Sean Adams

prohibit LLMs from being able to even provide any sort of healthcare, therapy, financial type of a device, essentially protecting credentialed authorities as, you know, these are the high priests and they get to comment on these things.

If you were trying to use an LLM to get any form of therapy or advice, that's off limits.

And this is a way we can, society can kind of organize to slow down automation,

There's maybe a good side of this, which is if your argument is, well, like this is going to happen so fast naturally that we actually have to slow things down in order to give time for society to adapt.

On the other hand, it's also a bad thing because we're limiting the propagation of these tools that can increase well-being and increase affordability.

And if the U.S.

doesn't adopt them, then some other country will and will become more relevant over time.

Anyway, what do you think about this social force, let's say, cultural force, political force that is starting to push back on AI automation?

It feels like that's starting to strengthen, maybe even crescendo.

Do you think this disrupts the entire plan here and the thesis and the economics of everything?

It's expensive.

I mean, $200 an hour?

It's really not.

There's so much work ahead.

And that's why it does seem daunting at times, but it's a fantastic opportunity at the same time.

So we talked about what individuals can do.

We've talked at some level about what societies can do.

How about companies and how about investors?

What can they do with this shift towards verification scarcity rather than, I guess, intellectual and cognitive scarcity?

Christian, how about investors?