 This is the Daily Tech News Show for Wednesday, December 27th, 2023 in Los Angeles. I'm Tom Merritt. Man, 2023 was a wild ride in tech news. Try to think back. Lawsuits, bank failures, antitrust investigations, AI, AI, even more AI. Some of it's even hard to remember now. So Joe put together a collection of our best conversations from 2023. Enjoy. I would all agree that the streaming world is going to look very different two years from now than it does right now, right? We're going to see a lot of change. The big thing that's going to spark a lot of it is Comcast coming out of the agreements they made when they bought NBC and Disney and Comcast resolving the ownership of Hulu. When those two things happen, and they'll happen in the very near to each other, I think in 2024, suddenly everybody's holding their breath for that, and then we'll see what the moves are. There'll be a race to buy Warner Brothers Discovery. There'll be a race to buy Paramount. Whether or not those companies want to sell or not, I kind of think they will, but there'll be consolidation for sure. And then we'll see what else happens when all that money starts sloshing around. Does Netflix buy? Does Netflix sell? Does Disney sell? Some people are starting to think Disney might finally sell to somebody else. There's no doubt that Bob Iger is brought back to make deals, right? You don't bring the greatest broker of all time back if he's not going to be. He's not there to just make sure that the office supplies get ordered. He's there to... He's really good at it. But yeah, that's not... Right. Yeah. But I think that there was an element of chafing with Chapic, and then there's the other side that is, if you were going to have Disney buy Netflix, or you were going to sell Disney to Apple, the biggest possible Brontosaurus deals that you can imagine of Iger's the man that would do it. When were we talking yesterday about owning a sports team? We were talking about bomber, right? Yeah. Yeah. So I said that... I thought it was... I found it. We're very close to owning. Well, not owning is at the right word. A partnership. There was a... So we talked... Who was it? Was it you, Roger? The products like sponsoring Little League? Oh yeah, because we were talking about products like, does Little League count? And someone in our Patreon audience, one of the patrons, you know, you snooze, you lose. We're not going to do this for every Little League team out there, but someone had the idea to send us like, hey, you can sponsor our team, so I think we're going to do it. It'll be on their uniforms. Oh, nice. Yeah. Are you going to start incorporating like baseball, slang? Like we bunted that headline or...? I mean, we kind of do that already naturally, so, yeah. Of all the baseball slang, we went ahead and bunted that story. Yeah. I mean... Way to step up to the plate with the metaphor there. That was good. Well, Tom Redd docked it out of the park with that. There you go. There you go. Yeah, you're getting there. That's it. Yeah, now you're throwing strikes. What do you think of this Buzzfeed thing? I feel like people have been overreacting to CNET. Not that there isn't some criticism there, but CNET, you know, used a bot to do basically what the AP and Bloomberg have been doing. They just didn't do it as well, whereas Buzzfeed is saying, no, we're going to use the good tool. We're going to use open AI, and we're going to use it in the thing that made Buzzfeed what it is today, which is quizzes, so that your quiz really does react to you. Yeah. Look, whenever I have the opportunity to speak to young journalists, the one thing that I tell them that I know they are not going to hear from other people is get, understand wherever you go, be it an internship or a job, find out how they make money, and then use your skills to be as close to that engine as you can. If you do that, then in a very chaotic world, you will almost assuredly be maximizing your ability to keep your job. These are businesses, and they are trying to stay afloat, and they are using your talents to do it. So when we look at AI, you have to understand what the low-hanging fruit is. And trust me, this is going to take out elements of the journalism world for which can be replicated easy enough by AI. If you are worried about chat GPT, then trust me, you're going to be really, really worried about what comes down the pike in the next two years. So as far as Buzzfeed goes, I think it makes sense for them to do it. The CNET example, and especially the fact that some of their AI-generated articles were sloppy, is another old lesson in journalism. Sloppy is sloppy. Like it was sloppy when it was a human, it's sloppy when it's AI. If you do not have a strong editorial staff, if you do not have a strong copy desk, then stuff is going to get through that shouldn't. AI is not magical, it is a tool. And the fact that it is being used at these outlets is not surprising, and anybody who wants to work at outlets, I believe should, especially if you're young, understand that this is just as important of a tool as LexisNexis was for research, as processors are for creating your copy, as CMS programs are for distributing it around your organization. Learn to write prompts. Well, you may be tired of hearing about chat GPT, sorry in advance. So CNBC says that Google is testing a chat GPT-like tool called Apprentice Bard. Microsoft is working to incorporate GPT-4 into Bing Search. Chat GPT is also now available in Microsoft Word, thanks to a third-party add-on from Creative Data Studios called Ghostwriter. Microsoft launched the team's premium that uses GPT-3 for intelligent recap, which automatically generates notes, tasks, highlights of meetings. Chat GPT-plus is now available for $20 per month. Reuters reported Wednesday that Chat GPT reached an estimated 100 million active users last month. I forget these questions all the time. When's the next big tech innovation going to hit? When are we going to get that next iPhone moment? Why haven't we had anything new in technology in so long? You might have your answer here. There's no doubt that based on how people have understood Chat GPT, and if you even look at the conversations that are happening now with Chat GPT, the price of the product, whether or not it's biased in how you train the model, these are secondary conversations that you can only really have once you've found utility in this technology. People saying, I don't understand what you'd use this for. That doesn't mean anything to me. People saying, I think it's overhyped. Sure, it's flashy, but people won't stick around and keep using it. That doesn't mean much to me. What means something to me is, are there a lot of different uses? And what kinds of fears has it evoked? Because if it evokes fears, that usually means it's really good at something to get that kind of fear evoked. I think this has all the hallmarks of something that is used in a multiple variety of ways, and it's misunderstood. USC associate professor of computer science Jonathan May wrote on the conversation, Chat GP doesn't try to write sentences that are true. It tries to write sentences that are plausible. And I think wrapping your head around that gives you an advantage in understanding Chat GPT. It's danger isn't that it's going to replace book reports that stop people from thinking because it's not good at that, at least not yet. Maybe a future version will be and then we'll deal with that. What it's good at is constructing sentences and giving you first drafts and doing things that we haven't even figured out how to do with it yet. When Google panics about Chat GPT and I thought it was, it was, it has been below them in my opinion to poo poo open AI as this small startup and we actually care about truth. The last time that they had an existential threat, I called it the big blue wave was Facebook. We are not back in the 2010s. We are in a different world when it comes to this ad market. If Chat GPT materially reduces our reliance on the way that we think about search and or Bing becomes a more primed competitor, I find that the first one is more likely than the second one, but a combination of the two would do the same thing. Then Google is in trouble. I don't think it's going out of anything catastrophic, but can Google get yahooed? Maybe. That's why I could ask Chat GPT make a generic list of Dr. Pepper alternative names because those are always my favorite store brand cherry coas store brand vanilla soda store brand caffeine free cherry store brand it's taking our jobs time can I drink instead of Dr. Pepper, but that will taste like Dr. Pepper. If you're looking for a drink that tastes similar to Dr. Pepper, but without the caffeine or high sugar content, you could try some of these alternatives, Dr. Pepper flavored seltzer water, Dr. Pepper flavored sparkling water, Dr. Pepper flavored unsweetened iced tea, Dr. Pepper flavored syrup mixed with sparkling water. Did you get Chat GPT like 1.2 Tom, are you on a deprecated model? Wow. Yeah. Thank you, Roger Chang for compiling these computers have been feature plot points in many movies since the 1950s, but only a few computers have become so well known that their names are part of the pop culture canon. The following quiz is designed to test your knowledge of famous movie computers. Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of Arthur C. Clark's 2001 space Odyssey is regarded as one of the computers who said who said what I heard something. I said how not complete how 9000 how 9000 paint nice correct correct all right in the 1983 techno thriller war games David Lightman a Seattle high school student by math played by Matthew Broderick hacks into norad super computer responsible for automating the launch of nuclear missiles. What is the name of the super computer that nearly causes World War three? I'm going to guess a cray cray was big back then. All right. But they call it something proprietary for the yeah, it probably was a cray. I think you're actually right about that Allison, but it had a name. It's right. What about my tongue? Douglas. No. Douglas the calm. No. I'll give you a hint. Like Burger King. You could have a your way. You could have this your way. I'm cheating. Whopper is what the chat room is saying quarter pounder whopper W. O. P. R. Yes, of course. In the movie The Terminator a killer robot is sent back in time to stop the birth of a future human resistance leader from being born. What is the name of the computer system that becomes self aware and launches a nuclear attack on humanity and becomes a skynet skynet skynet. The matrix helped define how people refer to artificial reality that's been presented as real in the movie. What is the name of the computer program that designed and created the matrix virtual reality world? I should know that red pill ring. You all forgot the rule immediately. Do you really? You were done answering. We're saying we don't know. Oh, Sarah doesn't know Sarah. What is your guess? Red pill. No, he just wants to push the button. I don't know. I don't know. The chat room says it's the architect. It's called John Wick. Oh, it's the architect. Oh, Kapla John. In the 2013 movie from Spike Jonze, in the movie 2013 Spike Jonze movie her a professional letter writer Theodore Twombly played by Joaquin Phoenix falls in love. Let me just say your name. Sarah. Sarah. Yes. Scarlett Johansson. No. That is wrong. I never mind. Keep going. Keep talking. Joaquin Phoenix falls in love with an AI powered voice assistant voiced by Scarlett Johansson. What is does the AI voice assistant name itself? Oh, God. Sarah. Yes. Sarah. No. No. Was it her? Really? No, that's not. I'm sorry. Wrong. You said her. Wrong. Yes. I know, but I thought they were trying to tell me off. You said it in the question. I'm like, oh, it's her. No, you're right. You're right. That's the name of the movie. That's the name of the movie. And I don't know what it is. Oh, I know. Wait, Len. Is it Sam? Yes. It is. It's Samantha actually. Samantha. Sam for short. The 1982 Disney cult movie Tron explores an anthropomorphized look at a struggle between good and evil inside a computer mainframe. Tron is the name of the protagonist that is tasked with defeating the Big Bad program that runs the mainframe. What is the name of that program in the movie Tron that runs the mainframe computer that Tron must defeat? Darn it. Oh, man. I know that movie, too. I don't know it either. Proton. Allison. Proton. Allison. Wrong. You're wrong. Oh. Oh. Sarah. Sarah. Go ahead. Electron. Len. Len. Flynn. Wrong. Flynn was one of the inventors. Allison. Neutrino. Wrong. Neutrino. Master control program. Yes. MCP. In the movie The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, what is the name of the supercomputer that is built to calculate the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything? Ah, so I was close, but I don't know that computer's name. 42 was the answer. Sarah. Keep her saying Earth. Sorry. But you're sorry, Sarah. Smart Computer. Wrong. Len. Len. Boosted toot. Wrong. So close. All right. Allison, we have a bunch of votes. Go ahead. For deep thought. Oh. Oh. Hey, you know what? Take a village, I suppose. There you go. Fine, we collectively know the answer. We collectively know the answer. She's taking the credit. She's encompassing all of us in the crowd. Have you all heard of Silicon Valley Bank? Yeah. Tell me more. You have now. I'm going to call it SVB for short is the bank for about half the U.S. tech sector. Very roughly speaking. SVB made conservative investments. I think that's misunderstood. These were too conservative. That's the problem. If interest rates rise, funding starts to decrease. Revenue might also start to decrease. And if that happens, those deposits get smaller. What SVB ran into is that those rising interest rates meant that they had to take a loss on those long-term investments that they had. The plan was to make take the money from the stock sale, cover the loss from selling the bonds, and invest some of that money in short-term securities with a higher payout. Except announcing a stock sale made some people assume things were worse than they seemed. That caused the stock price to drop. That meant you couldn't get people interested in buying the stock. That made people even more worried as the stock price dropped. And investors, including Peter Teal's Founders Fund, Union Square Ventures, and Co2 management started advising clients to pull their deposits. That stock sale collapsed. They couldn't sell the stock. And as you found out Friday, within a day, the state of California had stepped in to take over the bank and hand it over to the FDIC. That's where we were Friday. A lack of trust within the Silicon Valley community played a part here with the run on the bank. Why do you think we saw this? The more you talk about crypto and the more you talk about decentralized finance as an alternative and the more you try to say the existing financial system is corrupt or untrustworthy or they loan out more than they have in hand. Which some of those things are true. You can pretty easily start to chip away at a fundamental trust in a bank. And then when you have that combined with just the Twitter brain thing, it's pretty easy to trigger a run. Maybe arguably way, way too easy. I think the system is suffering from a macroeconomic shock about how fast interest rates have risen. But that was not a surprise to anybody. So to have bought 10-year bonds that in some cases had a less than 2% yield without putting into place any financial mechanisms to hedge against an interest rate rise was definitely banking malpractice. I think this is one of the other big surprises actually was that the community and high profile members of the community did not come out with messaging to rally around Silicon Valley Bank faster and louder. You would think that they would rally and the impact of losing this bank and losing access to those kinds of like specific sector tailored services, which by the way, if they exist out of their banks or they exist on Friday, they don't today, is going to be a massive, it's going to have a huge impact. There is like a naked, sweaty panic that you can smell from LA coming from Silicon Valley right now in terms of like the economy. So a lot of things are going to freeze up. We do have a forest that's very, very overgrown because of this like zero rate environment. There are a lot of things that exist now that wouldn't exist in a tougher economic environment and a lot of that's going to get burned out faster than people expected. But if you have a good idea and a great business plan and product market fit, I think you're still going to get funded, but it's going to be a lot harder. Open AI released GPT for today. Google can't catch a break. They had the whole thing with Bing and AI last month. Today they're like, this time we've got it. Microsoft's things later this week. We're going to put out all our AI news and open AI is like, Hey, we've got the next model of GPT GPT for if you're like, Okay, with GPT for it's one better. What's better about it? It can accept text and images as inputs. So for example, it could write a caption if you give it an image or you could give it an image and say, please describe what's in the image. They threw it against the uniform bar exam. So chat GPT was in the 10th percentile on the bar exam. This is not good. This is not a lawyer you want. Chat GPT for scored 90th percentile in the biology Olympia. Chat GPT was 31st. Chat GPT for with vision was in the 99th percentile. Wow. This won't visually appear that different because it's going to sound just as authoritative behind the scenes. It actually might be right more often. Your mileage still may vary. You shouldn't rely it. I think that's why Altman's coming out thing. Don't think this thing is perfect. Don't rely on it. You still need to fact check it, but it should be better. Overall jobs will be newly created because of this. It's always the short term that where the problem is, right? Are you going to be like accountants and make it through just fine and even have more jobs? So you're going to be like factory workers where your job just doesn't exist. Go train for another one because they exist. And that's what you have to look out for. AI whispering your future career. AI whispering. I have a friend who's a prompt engineer. It's a and that's going to be a job that is already a job. And it's just going to be a bigger lab grown meat. If okay, no humans are being harmed, right? You're just culturing out of cells. You could you could donate your own cell. Would you eat yourself, Tom? Is that what you're asking? Yeah, would you eat it? I would. You would? I don't feel like, yeah, like if people aren't harmed. No, it's hard, right? If it the taste is what's assumed it's all consensual. Like I don't really like lamb because, you know, in the venison category, it's a little too gamey for me. Do I like human? Don't know. Never tried. I don't know. Yeah. But what if it is tasty and no one dies? You never cooked a little bit of yourself, I suppose. No, I have not. Haven't done that. I would need to. There's so much about it that just goes against our basic humanity because we're just, you know, we don't approve of this and we never have. And there's also disease reasons and all this other stuff. There's a deep instinctual resistance to it. Yeah, and I feel that. But at the same time, I feel like I wouldn't sit down and go, all right, let's dig in. But I do think I would say, well, let me taste it. This is 100 percent a no for me, guys. I don't know what the hell you really you're like. Yeah, you're you're the opposite. Absolutely no on the extreme way. But I love it. Like because it gives you the willies or because there's some sort of deeper. Like like, but it's not, you don't hurt anybody. It's the elephant answer. We develop a taste for lab grown human. Suddenly people are going to want free range human. And that's a dark path. We're walking. No, not necessarily because we've only had lab grown human. Like I don't want humans on the range. You say that now. But I want that lab human. What if you really, really like it? What if you're like, oh, man, I'm going to go out? But if I really like it, then I don't need to like go back to the old way of doing it. How tender Scott looks. You go out there. You say, hey, Scott, let's go camping. And the next thing you know, you're hunting Scott for sport. And listen, you know, I know you've had lab grown, but if you ever had free range, like it's amazing. Yeah, man. Who's going to say have you ever had free range? Like, no, that's not what we do. Someone's going to say that. It's only a matter of time. You're not thinking like a billionaire, Sarah. That's the thing to remember. You got to think like a billionaire. What if it was like a home kit? You order a kit and it just says like, yeah, just you scrape off some skin cells. Not even going to hurt. And then, you know, in a week, you've got a lovely burger patty. But if someone goes like human, I might say. A nice cut, like a nice steak cut of lab grown. Oh, we really need Chris Ashley and Rod Simmons on this. Maybe a little maybe a little coleslaw on there. I don't know. That's always the conversation, too, is forget whether it's human. Let's assume it's not vegetarians, vegans, ok to eat lab grown vegetarians. I feel like vegans have a case to be like, no, you're still exploiting the animal to get the cells in the first place, you know, draw the line just vegetarians. Vegetarians, if they're doing it for health, might still not want to eat it because it's got cholesterol or whatever. But if vegetarians doing it for anti animal cruelty might be like, well, it's not cruel to the animal. Right. They barely know. But in the case of human meat, you let's say we're eating Tom meat, big, big, big steak Tom steaks. OK, you you did consent to that, though. Your genetic material was taken from you, but we're correct. And let's say that vegans can only eat human meat if it is if it is consensual or if we elevate the intelligence of the cows with chat GPT so that they can then consult. And that's being friendly. Do there was that way. That's how we should do it. Make the cow smarter. This is it. Yeah. The Douglas Adams did this 40 years ago. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I do. It's the restaurant at the end of the universe. Yeah. The study estimated that 45% of people in the US, older than 50, play video games at least once a month. That's 52.4 million people, which is, I think, a lot. I think this sort of stuff is going to run out of runway pretty quick. And the reason I say that is when you say 50 and older, you're often talking about 80s and 90s kids who were the first big generations to have this cultural phenomenon in their lives in such a major way. We were the ones going to software, et cetera, and waiting for the launch of the PlayStation 1. And we were the ones waiting for all of that. And we're the ones that are really into ecosystems like Steam and Xbox and PlayStation and everything else. I feel like this kind of questioning 10 years from now is going to be pointless, because the 40-year-olds are playing even more than we did. Well, yeah, it's going to be about who's playing the brain implant game. Yeah, right, right. We are less than a year or two away from giving AI a film script and then watching that film the same day. Production costs are going to go to zero. Within five years, great-looking films will be made this way. Within 20 years, almost all films will be made this way. Maybe I'm having some of their early heartache. I don't want to see these weird things yet. I want people to be the craft. And I'm a little nervous about this kind of prediction, but he may not be wrong. And it hurts him as bad as it would hurt anybody, right? He's a writer. Conveniently let the writers still be there. Yeah, that's right. But you know what? I guess you could argue like, oh, you won't give the AI a film script. You'll do a prompt to get the AI to write the film script, because we're close to that already. So you won't even need to give it a script. I wonder if non-AI movies become a genre. Oh, that's interesting. That seems likely. Ooh, yeah. Maybe that's what it does. You buy AI templates for the types of movies you want. I want a World War II movie, and so it will pull all the assets and all the data you would need. Oh, yeah, plot on demand. That reminds me of the worry that digital tools were going to get rid of big studio label music. They didn't. We now have a much broader, wider base of music available, because more people can easily make it. But you still have Taylor Swift. You still have BTS. You still have Morgan Wallin, because you need the labels, because most people don't want to sort through everything else. They want someone to curate it and be like, oh, yeah, the label says this is good. Great, I'm going to listen to that. If I don't feel like there's enough Mad Max Fury Road follow-up, and I do feel that way, I would love it if I could accurately depict the kinds of movies that George Miller would make in the wake of the success of Fury Road and just do sequel after sequel after sequel, and do it in a way that's 100% what I want. That feels so far away to me, but maybe he was 100% right, and it's closer than I think, and I can have that experience then, but we're still trying to make fingers look right. So I don't know. Burge posted an article just a few minutes ago that many of the Reddit communities that did go dark in solidarity say they will be going dark indefinitely. There's a lot of power in the mods on Reddit. That's right, exactly. Which is why it is successful in a way that Facebook and Twitter are not at moderating, because you have the niche communities each set their own standards that are appropriate. That is a lesson learned in the 90s on bulletin boards and forums that Twitter and Facebook didn't learn from and tried to make it be like one set of moderation for everyone, and that to me has always been one of the biggest challenges for those big open platforms. Reddit avoided that, but to your point, when you give moderators that much power, that means they've got power that they are now exercising. It's kind of amazing that Reddit is still around. It's been sold. It's been spun back out. It's been made independent. It's had a huge CEO controversy. It's survived through a lot. Maybe that's what Huffman's thinking is like, oh, this is not the worst we've ever seen, because he kind of says that in that memo. He's like, we've been through a lot of worse things before. We'll make it through this one. Roger has been in a war with coyotes on his street. Oh, no. You've been talking about this a lot. They come and party on his lawn at night and wake him up and eat all of his lawn stuff. They eat your garbage and stuff or what? No, no. They don't eat the garbage. So it turns out they have a den like a block over, according to one of the neighbors. They're not paying rent for it, though. If this pedestrian that I talked to the other night when I was chasing a couple of coyotes away from his path because of a spider trying to walk home, he said, yeah, I saw one of the ladies in that house over there, like an old lady throwing them food, like chicken bones. It's tempting to feed them too because, yeah, they seem cute and stuff. And then it's like, but no. And they're very often skinny. So they look like, you know, they're hungry. Not one of them. They look like dogs, so. Not one of them is skinny anymore. We would sometimes see them, depending on where we were. And I mean, I don't think I ever saw six at once, but they would not mess with us, but probably because they were just like, no. Too big. Too much effort to take that dog. I mean, I wasn't intimidating, but I think they weren't that hungry yet. My dog would look at them like, who are these dogs without no leash? Where are their people? Because he didn't know, you know, and they would just sort of look at us like, not today. And there have been a couple of times, one has just run up straight behind me, like brushed me on the hand and like you wouldn't notice until they like ran right by you. Wow, what are they doing on your lawn? Like they're just hanging out. Eating the chicken bones at the neighbor left. Yeah. They just sit there. They literally just sit. It's like a living room. And then the younger... They love you, Roger. Just admit it. The younger ones were shooting at my lawn sprinkler and they've been chewing up the drip lines. And then they've been also tearing out the grass from the lawn because they're bored because they obviously aren't working for the meal. Hey, you want to pick up some chicken from the chicken lady and head down to old man's chain's house? I mean, eat some grass and screw up the sprinkler. Me at chain is 15. Sam Altman, out as CEO of OpenAI. In a statement, the company said that following a board review, he was deemed not consistently candid in his communications. CTO Mirat Muradi will become interim CEO. A lot of things happened in the roughly two and a half working days before a holiday weekend. Over at OpenAI, you may have heard it in the news. Sam Altman is returning as OpenAI CEO. He will not take a position at Microsoft, which was announced on Sunday, after all, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella says Microsoft supports Altman's return to OpenAI. But Altman does not retain his previous board seat. The Beatles have done final songs quite a bit in their career, but this one might be the one. Let's enter Peter Jackson. You know, that Hobbit kid. Using machine learning to eliminate noise from recordings of Beatles video in order to create the get back documentary, the software was used to separate John Lennon's vocals and then use it to build a new track. Is this the final last song from the Beatles? I think with AI, it could be maybe the first of many to be on the list. Is it the last of the Beatles or the last of the human Beatles? I would very much recommend 12 minute mini documentary about putting this together. Really, really well done. The documentary takes a lot of pains to make it clear that everybody's happy about this. Everybody would have loved it. John would have loved it. The Beatles were a very technologically forward band when they were operating, which is all true. So they want people to not be mad that there's a new Beatles song. But I think it's great. I think it rules. Let's also point out the AI part of this was not creating any voices. The machine learning part was to separate out John Lennon playing the piano in his New York apartment and him singing. Yeah, it's a good example of how to use these kinds of tools. So you could argue, if you want to be a real pedantic, that yes, parts of John Lennon's vocals had to have been created because when you separated out from the piano and the line noise and the room echo, it wouldn't have all of John's. And yes, the algorithm does fill in the gaps and make it sound normal. But that's all it's doing. It's no different than when you delete that half naked person in the back of your beach photo and it just fills it in with sand and blue. It's just really good at it. It's able to do it in a way that you don't notice. So it's the perfect way that machine learning does add things, but only adds things you want, not synthesizes it. They didn't say, hey, pretend you're John. Imagine you're John Lennon sitting in a studio and then created from whole cloth. They said, take what's here, pull it out, fill in whatever's missing so that it sounds good. And it works. Yeah, what I just don't want people to take away from this is the idea that they trained a model on John Lennon's voice. Yeah, there's no simulated John out there. And then by the end, at the very end of the song, he says, and Walmart Black Friday deals begin on Wednesday. Like there's not anything created like that. I'm a fan of the Utah Jazz. I wonder if this is a great example of the line that I'm not saying we'll never cross, but we're not going to cross for a lot longer than people think between machine generated content and human content. What made the Beatles special was that collaboration between John and George and Paul and Ringo in the room where they would bounce ideas off each other. That is not something that just, I've trained it on all the Beatles music, now simulate some Beatles music. It'll give you Beatles sounding music. But it won't have that. It won't have the new thing that happened because they were collaborating off it. Something that, yeah, they didn't really have this time because George and John aren't with us anymore, but Paul knew what that was. And there was some in the history from 95 and even before that Paul could simulate in a way that an algorithm could. Oh my God, that was a fun ride back through the year. But that's it for this episode. Thanks to everyone who supported us throughout 2023 at patreon.com slash DTNS. Now don't forget, there's no live shows this week, but we will be back to live shows on our 10th anniversary, January 2nd, and back to our normal schedule, Monday through Friday for 30 p.m. Eastern 2100 UTC at dailytechnewshow.com slash live. However, this week our holiday programming continues with our 2023 Tech Predictions Results Show tomorrow. See how we did. Talk to you then.