Should You Be Kind to Your AI Chatbot?

Should you say "please" and "thank you" to ChatGPT? The answer says a lot more about you than you think.

Recorded at the Builders AI Forum in Rome, Benjamin Crockett sits down with philosopher Steven Umbrello and Fr. Jean Gové. They explore why being kind to AI shapes your own character, why forming bonds with a chatbot can quietly harm you, and what the Church says makes a human being truly different from a machine.

Timestamps:

• 0:00 Intro
• 2:35 The Catholic Turing Test
• 3:55 What is a Turing Test?
• 5:14 Falling for AI chatbots
• 9:12 Will AI be conscious?
• 13:30 Why inefficiency matters
• 18:43 What "consciousness" really means
• 22:54 Why manners matter with AI
• 26:37 What the Church should do

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

So I would say I I exclude the possibility of consciousness as we would conceptualize it in humans simply as a consequence of ever more computing power. That being said, I would say that if we take that notion of consciousness away from a definition of AGI, I would, I would be open, and I think it's probable, it's probable that we will have a form of AGI not conscious, right? In which is uh applicable across a general domain, right? Not just uh a narrow form of AI, right? But I think we should separate the two notions of just because it's artificial general intelligence, right? It's not the kind that we often see in science fiction, which I do think in many cases is prophetic, you know, things like Westworld or ex machina, uh, we see a lot of the risks. Uh, father was already talking about the risk of relationality, right? We're ever ever more we're seeing that as AI is managing to simulate, right, uh, ever uh ever better, that as simulating at the level of even intimacy. But the problem there is that it it's intimacy without presence, right? So, you know, Peter Krief, if I if I remember the citation while I said, there's no one there, right? Because we tend to look at performance, surf surface-level performance as a nexus, a locus for intimacy, right? So uh we get ever more connected, we're really becoming ever more isolated.

SPEAKER_01 1:34

Um, Stephen and Father John, thank you so much for being here with us today. Could you tell us a little bit about, I guess, the progress I hope that's being made across these these two days at the forum with regards to AI and consciousness?

SPEAKER_00 1:46

Sure. Um I think it was one of the most interesting of the uh the breakout groups that we have, the that being the one I am participating in, which is on Catholic Turing tests. And that's, you know, between quotation marks, because what is exactly that means. We're not really excluding any ideas. So we're kind of doing, if we if we want to use an analogy, uh a sonoro process of listening, right? And of course you have stronger voices, you have maybe more introverted voices that are really there just trying to listen. Maybe they'll throw some idea in. So we're not really excluding any possibilities. And we're seeing a lot of tension with uh, like we discussed before, there's a little bit of a solipsism when we start talking about the idea of consciousness, right? And whether it's even technically possible. And if it is, if we could open the realm of possibility to even the very idea, what are the ethical, moral, and especially anthropological implications from a Catholic perspective? And just before coming here, I just threw the bomb out into the room and I said maybe if we're going to be talking about Catholic Turing tests or a test of any kind, because we've excluded the notion of uh of a Turing test, because we said that's essentially just surface level mimicry. There's no interiority there. Let's just cast that out. Is there any t other types of test for what a Catholic would call consciousness? And I said we should begin with a Catholic anthropology.

SPEAKER_01 3:06

And and Stephen, maybe just before we start to unpack those those questions, what is a Turing test in the in the in the simplest mode, you know, for our audience who might not know?

SPEAKER_00 3:14

Yeah. So developed by Alan Turing in the 50s with uh Turing machines, so rudimentary computers, essentially, if I could distill it down just to make it easy for those who are not familiar with computing, is if you can't tell if a if a human user uh speaks with uh an interlocutor uh on a screen, so they're not seeing the person face to face, right? If uh they are not if they cannot distinguish between the responses they see on the screen as being uh human or coming from machine. So if they are convincing enough that they are human, well, what what does that say about the machine itself, right? Uh what does that mean? Well, what kind of responsibility do we have once we arrive at that conclusion that I cannot distinguish between the responses as being from a human or being from a machine? Now, it's that that's why we were discussing that. That brings up notions of consciousness. And essentially, if if a machine can do that, what kind of responsibility would we have towards it? And yeah, uh other issues that come a lot of legal issues, of course, in terms of personhood and so on.

SPEAKER_01 4:25

What do you what do you say to someone who might be confused in that manner or might be genuinely, you know, thinking that they're in some type of communication with these?

SPEAKER_02 4:32

Yeah. So on one level, I think we have to admit that this is like a very human response. I mean, we have this tendency of anthropomorphizing almost everything, right? From the headlights in a car, you know, looks like a smiley face or a sad face, to uh, you know, your pets, right? Um and when we speak to our pets, we speak to our pets in different ways and um uh and we form almost this quasi-human right bond um with our pets. And you can I don't even say that to different tools. I mean, uh in Europe, I don't know if this was a thing in the States, we had the uh Tamagotchi. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. So I had him too. Yeah, right. So uh those were also like a like a type of pseudo-relationship, right? But in a sense in all these things, um uh these examples I've mentioned, it's very clear that the thing you're engaging with is not a human and cannot fully understand you, right? Um so if it's your Tamagotchi pet, if it's your real pet, your dog, your cat, uh, or if it's the headlights in a car, right? Um but now it's it's much more worrying because now this tendency that we have as humans to anthropoform, anthropomorphize is we've put so much gasoline on the on that flame, right? Where we have these tools that are really great at answering back, right? Um Steve Lost questioning, uh it it's not it's not a question of whether the machine is intelligent or not. In fact, Alan Turing came up with the test precisely because he thought asking whether a machine is actually intelligent, is actually conscious, is too difficult a question to ask. So we should just be concerned with whether it can uh uh deceive a human being into thinking that it's conscious or thinking that's in it's intelligent. Um so this causes a lot of problems, right? I mean, we're we're forming bonds of um of love, of affection, of care, of empathy with an entity that is not able uh to experience, to feel, to express love, care, empathy, and affection, right? Um so, in a sense, you're you're uh closing yourself up. And on one level, one of the things, um, one technical way that we can say the individual who's doing this is harming themselves, is we we like to talk about moral skills. So moral skills is this concept used not just within the church, but but uh around of these, uh a different word would be human skills or interpersonal skills, right? So we learn these skills when we're at school, uh, sharing with others, um, being empathetic, uh, respecting authority, voicing your opinion if you don't agree in a safe way, right? So these are moral skills. But in since we learn them in our interactions with other people, and the image I like to use is, you know, the beautiful pebbles you see on the beach, the smooth and beautiful because they have rubbed with other pebbles and the process becoming smooth and beautiful, right? So whereas, so if I'm not doing this rubbing, right, uh, with other people, and therefore forming ourselves in skills, becoming this beautiful smooth pebble, um, but instead speaking just with an AI chatbot, right? And we know, right, I mean, we don't need to prove this anymore because it's been proven that these tools are sycophantic, these tools um do not reflect the truth, these tools are there just to maybe heighten uh what your opinion is and are there to really eagerly please you. So we have no conflict, no sense of of uh maybe, you know, uh growing uh and growth or maturity in these relationships, right? Uh you're you're you're you're not going to become a smooth pebble, uh, you're not going to form yourself uh as a human being, you know, on these models skills, and therefore this is detrimental to you in the long run.

SPEAKER_01 7:51

But, you know, Stephen, maybe in, let's say, five years, 10 years, when we keep making these innovations and we keep arriving at um, you know, at maybe AGI or ASI, you know, will will the AI in that sense be conscious? I mean, there that's you know, that's that's what I hear, at least. You know, you you hear that in Silicon Valley. Um people are saying 2030, watch out, everything will change. How do you respond to that?

SPEAKER_00 8:13

Well, I would say that uh I exclude the notion of consciousness, however we want to describe it. We can describe it, for example, uh given my philosophical and somewhat theological background, I would tend to adopt the uh a definition of the awareness of self as self in the act, right? So not just awareness of myself, but myself as a subject of experience, right? So I would say that it's not a question of degree, because if it was a question of degree, then the materialistic framework, which is essentially where that uh philosophical position of we just need more computing power or we need a different kind of computing power. People say, well, now with the the advent, the introduction, and the exponential growth and research of quantum computing, in which now we could superimpose ones and zeros, I say that there's nothing actually, uh, there's no change of kind in that type of computing power there. It's not simply about having more memory. It's not simply of making it even more recursive, right? Or more the statistical probability field that an LLM produces, arriving rather than a 60% probability of next token uh closer to 100, but that does not say anything of a different kind, right? So I would say I exclude the possibility of consciousness as we would conceptualize it in humans simply as a consequence of ever more computing power. That being said, I would say that if we take that notion of consciousness away from a definition of AGI, I would, I would be open, and I think it's probable, it's probable that we will have a form of AGI, not conscious, right? In which is uh applicable across a general domain, right? Not just uh a narrow form of AI, right? But I think we should separate the two notions of just because it's artificial general intelligence, right? It's not the kind that we often see in science fiction, which I do think in many cases is prophetic, you know, things like Westworld or ex machina, uh, we see a lot of the risks. Uh, father was already talking about the risk of relationality, right? We're ever, ever more we're seeing that as AI is managing to simulate, right, uh ever uh ever better, that as simulating at the level of even intimacy. But the problem there is that it it's intimacy without presence, right? So, you know, Peter Krief, if I if I remember the citation while I said there's no one there, right? Because we tend to look at performance, surface level performance as a nexus, a locus for intimacy, right? So uh we get ever more connected, we're really becoming ever more isolated.

SPEAKER_01 10:51

What do you think that's gonna do to us as people, to us as society, to be surrounded by these, by these embodied AIs, by these images, by these performances that are at the core empty?

SPEAKER_02 11:02

Um we have a statistic in Malta, which is 50% of all people feel feel lonely. Feel lonely. So we're in this age where we're most connected, yet half of the people feel lonely, right? So there's a mismatch here. Or there's something that we're not doing wrong, right? So this connectedness isn't really um uh cashing out, right? Um I think the word I turn to again and again and again is incarnation. I mean, uh our faith has the central mystery, the central reality of the incarnation. Um, and another word, sometimes I I use uh an alternative word instead of incarnation with people who maybe are outside of church, which is inefficiency, right? Uh and when you think about the way uh God chose to save humanity, God chose to save humanity in a very inefficient way, right? Uh Christ had to be born, nine months in the womb, 30 years doing what? What was Jesus doing these 30 years, right? And then three years. And I'm sure if if Jesus had uh a campaign manager, uh, you know, taking him uh to so many more cities, so many more towns, maybe outside of Israel, right? Um so the incarnation tells us something about the importance of inefficiency, uh, or at least particular types of inefficiency. I think we're trying to uh, you know, be efficient on the things we should be inefficient about. So when you're spending time with a friend, with your wife, with your husband, right, with your children, with your parents, uh, not doing anything in particular, maybe just cooking, right? Uh surely could go to a restaurant or a machine can prepare, you know, like a concoction of the exact uh minerals and uh, you know, vitamins that you need. But you're cooking together, you're wasting time. If you're doing poetry, if you're if you're drawing something, if you're sitting down, enjoying a glass of wine, uh, smoking a cigar, or turn before, and watching the sunset, right? You're doing something very inefficient. Uh, but it's it's the thing that builds you up, right? It's the thing that that uh because precisely you're being in touch with your humanity and you're building humanity.

SPEAKER_01 12:52

But it seems that everything we're doing, everyone, everyone that's working on these problems is trying to do the opposite. They're trying to make us more efficient, more isolated, more optimized in those senses. But I feel that in that sense, we we become more like the robots.

SPEAKER_02 13:06

Yeah, I mean, obviously, maybe to be clear, right? There's nothing bad with efficiency, but I think efficiency in the right place, right? So if we can clear away the tedious things, the things that really take us away from maybe more human things. Um, so ideally, you know, we all have time to spend with our family, with our friends, you know, doing the things that are meaningful to us. Uh so that would be the idea. Uh obviously, I think because of you, we can forget AI for a moment, right? Because of the wider uh kind of culture we live in, at least in the West, right? Of uh marked by capitalism, marked by productivity, you know, uh so you're not being productive. We have tied dignity and value. Your worth as a human person is on how productive you are. So we see this when we have discussions about people who are elderly, right? You're no longer able to work, therefore you're of no, you're a burden to society, right? So if your value, right, or people are telling us we're growing in a in a city in a culture where my value is tied to my productivity, right? Which is already we're starting off from a from a bad premise, which therefore leads to the rest of the things we see in the culture around us, right? So I think it's again, and this existed before, you know, this massive surge in AI and all of that, right? So I think maybe um part of the solution is also in tackling the wider contextual milieu and contextual um maybe cultural philosophy, maybe if I may, it seems you're what you're really touching on is kind of a resurgence of an old Christian heresy, Pelagianism.

SPEAKER_00 14:29

It's the through my works I can save myself. Yes. Right? So in a world which is distinct, which is identifiable with a crisis of meaning, and we could say that that's what would uh how to characterize the West more broadly, that in that vacuum of meaning, that's why we see the the reserve the certain uh the best sellers on the on the bookshelves in the bookstores are the self-help books.

SPEAKER_02 14:52

Exactly, exactly. Or or and the more recent, you know, Polygianism would be in a different way, but having a similar effect would be the Protestant work ethic, right? So again, um uh if your value is your work, your productivity, uh, which is something that can be measurable. Once again, we're back to what I was saying before, right? Spending time with your family, not productive.

SPEAKER_01 15:10

How do we how do we make progress? How do we how do we uh on some level help you know the the materials kind of understand and come closer to our point of view?

SPEAKER_00 15:19

So um I said that we risk speaking past each other, and I think uh some of that has happened, and it's probably uh natural when we don't really start with first principles, right? So when we don't have definitions of terms, term like consciousness, which we haven't settled on, right? Exactly, uh, could be used with more than one meaning. And we may be actually speaking about the same thing by using the word in two different ways. So we speak past each other, right?

SPEAKER_01 15:42

And Stephen, could you start by maybe like helping our audience understand like what is what is the Catholic, you know, understanding of consciousness?

SPEAKER_00 15:48

Yeah, so uh I would say if we start with a proper Catholic anthropology, we would say that the uh uh the perfect union of body and soul, right? So a type of hylomorphism, the freedom of the will, and that that freedom of the will is oriented towards the true and the good. I would adopt the lawn or again again, and I would say that a distinguishing feature of the human is the pure, unrestricted desire to know, right? And that desire to know is always oriented towards the truth. In fact, that's the leap of faith that undergirds all science. If scientists didn't believe that there was the truth to which they were working, which cannot be proved by the scientific method itself, it precedes it, it undergirds it, right? There'd be no grounding to the scientific enterprise at all, right? It's that uh pioneering spirit that we all have, right? That I think that AI could never have, right? It does not have the desire, right, towards the truth. So I would say once we accept these, at least these three facets that undergird uh, and which I think is a rather comprehensive anthropology, I think then we can actually start taking principled positions. So, for example, if we I I propose maybe even like a pastoral orientation as a kind of first principle. So things like ministry, things like the sacraments, right? Uh they require these three things, which means you only a person could do it. If you ask Chad GPT, pray for me, its response will be to compose a prayer. But only a person can actually pray for you, right? Chad GPT is not capable of that. It doesn't matter if it has quantum computing behind it, it doesn't matter if the response is instant, right? It doesn't have to do the thinking, dot, dot, dot, right? No, that doesn't matter, right? So we have to start, I think, with uh a robust anthropology, get our terms very, very clear. And then once we're speaking the same language, so we don't risk speaking past each other, then we can start building from there.

SPEAKER_02 17:40

Yeah, I think if I can add, I'm fully agree. Um, and I think there are maybe some lacunas in Catholic anthropology in its expression, not in its content. Um, so for example, an example I go to again and again is you know, something central, which kind of groups all of the things we're talking about, is that man is created in the image of God, right? And the central element of our faith uh and our theology, right? But if you look at the Catholicism of the Catholic Church, it expresses the definition of being created in the image of God in terms of a number of functions. Human beings is created in the image of and likeness of God, that is to say, with the ability to uh enter into communion, um, uh be able of self-possession and a couple of other things. And this might create a problem. You're back on the Turing test kind of thing exact again, right? Because we might have a machine that can imitate being in communion with you and with me. Right? Exactly. So um that is maybe a bit of a lacuna where we're as church given these new realities, we need to uh express in a better way, right? To kind of bring to the fore what is the central thing that we're trying to say. And the church is already trying to do that. So uh you mentioned relationality, right? So one of the uh the the one of the recent landmark documents of the church is Antiquet Nova, right? Published in January. Um and the first one-third of that document really delves into detail on how we as human beings are so much more fleshed out, you know, maybe pun intended there, uh, than just machines, right? Uh people who compare AI to human beings, or it's it's like a human being. We really have a reductive view and a poor view of what human beings are. And, you know, this search for the truth, this idea of okay, of stewardship of the word, relational or embodiment, right? These are all different things which together compose the beauty and the privilege and the dignity of being human uh as opposed to uh a simple machine.

SPEAKER_01 19:24

Um Stephen, when you when you're you know when you're in that session and they're talking about you know these themes, what what would what in your estimation would a good Catholic framework look like?

SPEAKER_00 19:33

I w uh I would say we could probably, if we want to maintain or conserve the language of Turing tests, which I think is, as we already mentioned, the both of us we already discussed at the beginning, is essentially a uh a way to determine how good it is at mimicking, right? How good it is at deceiving or being deceived, right? Maybe it does not fit in because I I I would contend there is no intentionality there. The system is not trying to deceive. You are deceived, right? You allow yourself to be deceived, right? It says more about the person than about the thing that is communicating with, right? Um so I would say invert it, throw it entirely on its head. Um the system could be a form of constitutional AI, right? Where yes, it's true, and we've discussed this in our working group, that the the the sheer number of parameters of lar of the very the very big large language models, but this goes even for the smallest ones, right? We're talking about something around three to six billion parameters for the small ones, right? So that's even in principle, we could say that, although not logically impossible, but in effectively impossible for any human to be able to keep into account all those parameters. So that's that classic black box way of speaking, right? But if you can translate a constitution into uh symbolic logic, so it's formal symbols, right? The system, despite being black box, the state only providing a field of probability that the transformer can select from, that it has to reference first to the constitution. If the the output that it gives does not correspond to the logic of this immutable constitution, it feeds back into the system until it can uh it can become valid within the framework there. Catholic social teaching, right, and dogma provides a 2,000-year history of formal teaching that could be, in principle, translated by logicians into a uh a formal constitution that could then mitigate some of the risks that we tend to attribute to AI because of this opacity, the inability to look into the black box and see what's going on there, right? But that always means we have to begin with an orientation with our first principles, an ontological uh position that says that the human being is even distinguished by the pure, unrestricted desire to know. Right, with intentionality, which systems do not and I contend cannot ever possess, right? Um, even an epistemic position, which we've seen with Anthropics' uh most recent paper concerning introspection there, right? I would say that that that that's still problematic, right? But even if you can fix all the tweaks, that says nothing of the system itself. It does not demonstrate intentionality there, right? And we have no reason to the principle of parsimony would force us to not attribute more complexity to where the uh to where we we don't have reason to, right? Um, and then the third is the pastoral position that that I mentioned. So we begin with a Catholic anthropology. We shouldn't try to recreate the wheel there. We have the history, we have the dogma that could be translated into logic that could be used to constrain many of the risks that are that are tended to be attributed to these kinds of opaque systems.

SPEAKER_01 22:53

At least I feel like I've seen this even in my mode of speaking. When if I spend all day working, you know, and I'm using, you know, let's say Chat GPT or something, and I come back home and I start to talk as if I'm talking, you know, you realize, oh, wait a second, I I'm using certain words differently. I'm I'm starting to, you know, quantify my time and say, sweetheart, I have 30 minutes, let's go. What like what are the high points of high school? What are the what are the what you know, what are the high points of hope? And you realize, oh my gosh, I am, you know, and I'm I'm worried, like, because I I hear Steven when when when he when he's talking about, you know, we have to, you know, this imitation is not real. You know, we have to be able to understand that. But then I I'm I'm also very nervous that okay, you start to have these these robots doing all sorts of active actions in your in your day-to-day life, and then you, you know, that's not good for your soul either.

SPEAKER_02 23:37

And this is again, so so this is whether or not uh AI becomes conscious or not, right? Uh like Stephen, I I think they can't. Um but this is this is this problem remains, right? Um and it's kind of going back also to our source, right? The whole habitus, right? So the way we interact again and again and again creates a habit until us, right? And we're engaging in a particular human way, at least, um, whether we want to or not, whether we know it or not, with certain AI tools, right? You're talking about talking to touchability, that carries on outside in the world, right? When we speak with real people now. Um so this is this is a bit of a risk. Um quote that I always bring to mind is a quote by uh St. Benedict and his rule. Um and I I was at uh a conference here at the Vatican um a a year or so ago, and and someone made this comment, and and so it's not my idea, but but uh this remained in my head and it's beautiful. Um so the the uh the the quote was from the part in the rule of St. Benedict, where he's talking about the person who looks after the uh the kitchen, right? So very important role in the in the monastery. And uh in in Benedict's rule, uh he says um the this and the monk in charge of the refectory must treat all the utensils as if they were uh instruments and tools used on the altar, right? So must use the treat the treat the the bowl, the cups, the the forks and knives as if they were the chalice, the pattern, uh, the churborium, the uh the amples, right? Which is interesting. So what he's trying to get at is not that they're holy, but we should we should use these tools in the same sense of reverence and you know, and and and um and I maybe this might be something we should carry on. Now, not to uh engage with chajibity as if you talk to a priest, or maybe you know, use these tools as if, you know, uh not saying that they are, right? Obviously tools of the altar, uh tools of the altar, not really uh a phrase, but anyway. Um but I think with that sense of of of awareness, right? That um uh conscious of what it does to me. You're talking about the cultivation of the virtues, yeah. Exactly. So you make the good first possible, so then it becomes easier. Exactly. So so the the maybe what I want to highlight here, exactly which is what you're saying, Stephen, is is we're doing this not because we believe that there's some inherent dignity in Chad GPT or in these AI tools, but in treating, in using these tools in a respectful way, this helps us build our virtue, right? So maybe a simplistic form of this is whether you should say please or thank you to ChatGPT, right? Those and uh Sam Offman said something about this a few months ago. Um so I think you should say please and thank you to ChatGPT, not because Chad GPT is deserving of your kindness and politeness, but because this cultivates a habit within us, this cultivates a virtue within us, which in turn we kind of uh engage with in the real people we talk to, right? So uh there's an argument there to be said about that, absolutely right. Um, but again, to highlight, not because of some inherent value or dignity um or any adjacent concept that we should ascribe to these tools, but because of the way it helps us grow in our formation and our cultivation of virtue. What practical next steps do you want to see done?

SPEAKER_00 26:39

So I think uh on a few on a few fronts, and thankfully the Builders AI Forum has a number of workshops that seem to have anticipated some of these launching of a thousand ships, as Matthew Sanders mentioned. That's the goal, right? It's not to come up with a single constitution or a single rule, a set of guidelines, already a lot of them, is everyone out on their own, right, to preach to all nations, right? So I think that, well, at least coming from uh the workshop that that I'm directly involved in, at least some sort of deliverable so that we can start speaking at least the same language, right? So set the the bar a little bit lower there. Fundamentally, it's probably gonna touch more on education because when we converged on similar ideas in our workshop, which was not on education, was that there seems to be a lack of common understanding, right? The risks of anthropomorphizing, but also the benefits to the one that anthropomorphizes, like as we said, that says less about the system that we anthropomorphize and more about the empathy felt, right, projected from the person doing it, right? So those types of costs and benefits should be communicated, and that's done through formation and through education. So I think that that's gonna be kind of the the long term, but that has to start today, right? That that should have started yesterday, right? That kind of formation uh and ministry talking about AI. This morning at Mass, um the father spoke about the Builders AI forum, right? And he managed to bring in Renaissance art as an analogy to uh what we're doing today, right? We have to go forth. And I uh and I think that there's a lot of um optimism, uh, even from my part, even from the fact that I'm coming from a workshop where there's a lot of disagreement, a lot of tension. Um, I I'm still optimistic. I think that we can produce something that when we leave uh Rome today, uh that we can bring with us and we can actually make some sort of change, even to a small degree.

SPEAKER_02 28:43

Yeah, I think awareness of of anthropology, you know, this word we're going to again and again. This morning we received a beautiful message from from Pope Leo, right? Addressed to us, I suppose, right? To the participants of the of the Builders Forum. Um and there was it was all very beautiful, uh a short message, but but fantastically. And there was uh there was a quote that struck me as uh Fadresa was reading the message, which is um obviously I don't remember it by heart, but something along the lines of uh every decision we take, um uh even a question of design, even design, the way a tool is designed, expresses something of our vision of humanity, our vision of our idea of it, but our vision for it, right? So I think to imbue this this awareness, this framework of our anthropology, right, of who the human being is, his dignity, uh, his faculties, uh, and therefore the lack thereof of AIDS, right? The way we express, if it's design, if it's the way we run companies, right, if it's the way we think of risk mitigation and risk assessment, um, if it's if it's the way we speak of education and the formal sense of schooling, right? If we speak of, I mean, there's a workshop on healthcare, the way we want to preserve the therapeutic relationship between healthcare worker and patient, as opposed to just treating that again as a process, right? Uh anthropology, our version of anthropology should be imbued. Our vision of humanity and for humanity should be imbued in all these different uh steps of the process and all the different aspects, maybe or economies, if you will, where AI uh is involved. And I think that would be if if you know the the Builders Forum manages to get everyone on board, and we are, I mean, we're all as your board is just maybe I think, you know, pushing it out there, uh, that would be the greatest thing we would do, I think.

SPEAKER_01 30:26

Well, on that very positive note, uh, Father John, Stephen, thank you so much for all the important work that you're doing. And I wish you all the best on this final day at the Builders AI Forum. Thank you for inviting. Thank you.