Shashir Mehrotra

We ended up with an experience that was pretty suboptimal for the user and obviously suboptimal to the expert.

I think the fundamental reason is something you said last week, that it's really hard to distill what you would do as an editor based off the outcome of your published work.

I just think it's really hard for AI to do that, and we need your engagement for that to be a good feature.

So I think they launched something that wasn't particularly good.

I think doing that and learning from it is part of the process, but that's what they thought they were doing.

So I think it's really important to think about attribution and think about impersonation and so on.

I think that as an expert, you have a trade you make on the internet.

And I think the idea that when you put content out there, myself included, you hope people use it.

You want to refer to other people's content.

You want people to link to you.

You really, really hope they attribute you when they do.

So I think the idea of when somebody uses your content, should they attribute you?

Of course.

And to attribute you, you have to use your name.

I think there's a different line, which is, should people be able to impersonate you?

And I think that is a very different standard.

And, you know, we saw the lawsuit, you know, respectfully, we believe the

The claims are without merit.

I think the idea that the feature was impersonation is quite a big stretch.

The feature was very much a, every mention was very clearly, this is inspired not only by this person, inspired by a specific work from this specific person with a clear attributed link to get back to them.