 You know, I think the value of the AI for Good Summit is really in bringing together multiple stakeholders from a lot of different perspectives. I think we tend to stovepipe ourselves. We tend to have the academics go to academic conferences. I suppose the practitioners go to their own meetings and you look at social scientists and behavioral and economic scientists. They have their own professional meetings as well. But we don't have that many venues where we can all come together and really understand each other's perspectives. I think one of the real challenges is that we all have a different language. And the way that we think about problems is in fact very different. As a technologist, we tend to look at a problem and want to solve it. A social scientist wants to see, well, what's the impact on people with these kinds of technologies? And the way you go about answering those questions is very different. And then the policymakers say, well, you know, I see this as a great technology, but how can you ensure that it's safe? Or how can you ensure that privacy challenges are met? And so getting everyone together with all of these different perspectives in the same meeting, I think, is of real value. And we really don't do that enough. We don't have enough venues and opportunities to talk across these boundaries, these disciplinary boundaries. And so to me, that's the real value of the AI for Good Summit. You know, I think the outcomes of the summit can be in some practical implementation steps. I think we've all internationally been thinking about artificial intelligence and what it really means for our societies, for the world of work, for education, and so forth. But to a large extent, our conversations are at a pretty high level. They're very strategic, but they're so strategic in some sense that we don't have any really practical steps to follow. So it would be really great. And hopefully the outcome of the summit will be some steps, some really specific practical steps that can help people go from the high level concerns and strategies to things that we can, actions that we can actually take. Well, if you think about the perspective of a particular nation, each nation, I think, has their own challenges and needs of how to deal with the issue of AI. There are common challenges across nations, but I think at this point, many nations are looking at it from their own perspective. So last year, the U.S. began looking at this and trying to put down on paper some high-level visions as it relates to policy matters, as it relates to R&D matters, and as it relates to economic matters, as we can see how AI is going to affect our society and our nation as a whole. And so one of the things that we wanted to do is to really look at the literature, have a very, in some sense, an intellectual understanding of what AI means to our society, to our nation, and look at these three themes, the policy matters, the R&D matters, the economic matters, and see how can we think about these issues going forward, what can be some good steps that we could take going forward, and how do we really understand the situation as it stands right now. So I was involved in co-leading the development of the National AI R&D Strategic Plan, that piece of it, and what our task was was really to look at what industry is doing in the area of AI R&D, and then look at what the role of the federal government is in supporting research in R&D, and really outlining the role of government in this space. So that's what we did with the National AI R&D Strategic Plan, was really to lay out a number of strategies that were high-level themes that we believe the federal government in the U.S. should focus on so that we can really advance the directions of AI, while also ensuring that it's safe, that it's secure, that it abides by our ethical norms, and so forth. And so these are the high-level principles now that we would like to use as we are setting now our priorities in these areas, and then of course there are many steps that need to be taken to translate these high-level visions into action that can have an impact on the nation. It's conversations like that that help us to help the policy makers understand the technology broadly and how it's moving together with the technology people understanding what the policy thinkers need to know, what kind of questions do they need to have answered in order for the policies to be put in place. So it's really policy-informing R&D and R&D-informing policy. And I think until each of these two worlds and areas can understand each other, it's going to be hard to be really nimble in creating these policies. But I think that's certainly an important place to start.