90% Isn’t Good Enough: Platform Whiplash & AI Trust Crash

Hey everyone, happy Monday. Wow, it's Monday. It is Monday, right?

Techstrong gang, we're live. It's noon here on the East Coast, and it's a great day. I get my car back after four months.

I'm so excited to just drive my car today. But tempering that excitement, there's so much going on. I don't know.

I spent most of my weekend delving further into Mythos and the Mythos response from the CSA and a bunch of my friends in security. I've been writing a lot about it. I don't know if it's the end of the world, the beginning of the world, or somewhere in between, but it certainly is exciting.

We've got a great gang to discuss our topics today. Let me introduce you, the one and only Garima Bajpai, making his return after a brief hiatus from Techstrong gang, my good friend R2, Robert Reeves. Good to see you, Robert.

Of course, Kate Scarcella. She looks like she's still home in New Hampshire. Good for Kate.

One and only Mitch Ashley, and the man in the high castle, Mike Vizard. Welcome gang. Happy Monday.

Everybody looks alive. I guess better than the alternative. Mike, it was a weekend, well, it was a big week last week.

It just carried over into the weekend. But we're still digesting a lot of different news and sources coming in. This first one looks like ...

I guess, does it come out of KubeCon, or this came out after KubeCon about the state of platform engineering? Well, they released this research at KubeCon, but we haven't returned to this topic in a little while. We've all been watching the rise of platform engineering, and folks at CNCF did a little survey and found that, well, about a quarter of teams have a dedicated team, an official platform engineering team, and the rest are either some sort of hybrid or there is no formal team.

And whether they're actually doing platform engineering or not may be in the eyes of the beholder. But I'm trying to wrap this, in my mind, around the following thing, and Robert, I'm going to toss this to you. But is a quarter about the total number of folks that we can expect that will have a formal platform engineering team, and the rest of DevOps and platform engineering is always going to be a little more, shall we say, ambiguous, and a little more fluid and less structured.

And is that just the nature of the thing, or is this a work in progress? And, if we did this survey a year from now, half these folks would have a formal team. Well, you're right.

Remember, platform engineering, it comes out of DevOps, and it's a natural extension of, okay, we have these practices in DevOps, let's go ahead and build a system and a platform that's going to enforce them and make it easier for that developer to make the right choices, the right choices for our company, our organization. But remember, the whole hope of DevOps, and Garima, keep me honest here, the whole hope of DevOps is not to have siloed DevOps teams, it's that everybody's doing the DevOps thing. And so why don't we do that with platform engineering?

If we're enforcing these best practices, if we're paying attention to those four key metrics with DevOps, why not have this permeate through the entire organization? I'd be curious what the actual questions were from this survey. If they asked first, do you have a platform engineering initiative at your company?

And the follow-up being, well, how are you implementing that? Do you have a team that is dedicated? Are you doing it from a coalition of the willing?

Are you paying somebody money to make it happen for you? But the good thing that I got out of this is that people are paying attention to platform engineering, and they are trying to build a freeway instead of surface streets for developers. And that's super positive for everyone.

Right. Garima, does this echo anything that you're seeing out there? Does this resonate with you, or what's your sense of where are we on this journey?

Right. I will take a twofold approach on this. The first thing what survey says, and I will echo the sentiments which Robert has already articulated.

One, this survey was done with developers and practitioners in mind. 420 applicants actually responded to this. 28% of organizations have a dedicated platform engineering teams.

And again, to what Robert was mentioning, that it actually, this movement cropped from the DevOps movement, right? When we saw that the DevOps movement was maturing, the tools had a mature adoption level, then it was a natural evolution of going into a platform engineering mode, right? So that's where a lot of practitioners and companies who were largely at scale using DevOps would have been benefited out of it.

Now, the problem with a wider adoption of platform engineering with the same state of mind is that there are two things which are happening in parallel where the-emergence of AI and AI native applications, there is a substantial amount of disruption happening in the cloud native world as well. So we need AI assistant cloud native tools and projects to kind of support, as well as we need a platform which supports our AIDC, which is basically artificial intelligence development life cycle, right? So these two factors are influencing the adoption.

Now, what CNCF would try to do with the survey is to influence how practitioners, how developers, and how organizations would think about not only their own projects, how do you infuse AI into your cloud native projects so that it becomes more relevant in the future? Also, from an enterprise perspective, they're trying to influence that it's not this platform or that platform, because what I am seeing is that there's AI platform and then there is a cloud native platform engineering team. So these are two different silos.

So what CNCF is trying to do is, oh, don't do this. Collectively think about these platforms, and this is an actual journey of platform engineering evolution. So if you think about till 2030, what could happen is that they want to ensure that the mature adopted projects from CNCF bucket should be picked for platform engineering, as one of the stakeholders to be added to the platform engineering stack, and also platform engineering itself evolves into a very mature platform as a single solution or single way to go kind of approach with roles and all those other things which are in perspective, so the investment doesn't get fragmented.

Well, it sounds like it's pretty fragmented as it is, because as I listened to you, the thought that came to mind was, now my silos have silos. So Mitch, is all this going to come together someday, or is this just the natural state of things? Yeah, I think we're seeing a repeat of DevOps, where it isn't a group.

Is it a job title? Probably more formally it is here with platform engineering. I think whether there's an organization or not is less important, and more important is what they do, what people are doing this, whether they're doing it on projects in the organization, cross-functionally, a subset of it, replicating it, maybe it's not all the same.

But I think it's important to look at it because not only what we're doing today, but as more code is developed, more things arrive on the plates of platform engineers, testing, et cetera, which is going to elevate and increase both the use of AI there as well as automation to help make that happen. So I think we're in the age of, yeah, these people are not only important wherever they live, we need them to be able to get code into production at scale, at speed. com.

It's 10 job postings for platform engineers, and it turns out that there are specific folks out there who are looking for people with the title platform engineers or want to hire folks with the title platform engineers. There were people looking to hire DevOps engineers, too. Thank you.

And three-quarters of the people said there was no such thing as DevOps engineers. I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree. Yeah.

Here's the deal. 100% of organizations have a platform engineering team. They just don't call it that.

It was called ops for a really long time, for as long as on their night team. We have all had ops teams. Ops teams do the platform.

Now, some of us call them platform engineers. But the role hasn't changed. The interesting thing about platform engineering, when you go to a platform engineering meetup or Platformcon or KubeCon, you'll find who comes to the platform engineering tracks?

Well, some people, probably 28%, who call themselves platform engineers. But you get other people who call themselves ops people, other people call themselves SREs, other people call themselves DevOps people, DevOps teams. But they're all part of this platform engineering thing.

That's number one. Number two, with all this mythos and everything that happened this week, guess what? You know stuff runs downhill.

Security people are going to be out of the job- Thank you ... of finding vulnerabilities. But you know who's going to be in the job?

The poor schnooks who have to fix those vulnerabilities. And you know who they are? They're the platform engineering team.

They're going to be the most important people in this whole thing, is they got to fix all these doggone vulnerabilities. So that number is really going to shoot up. Then the third thing is a real politic issue here.

Within the platform engineering community, there's a vying for leadership between the CNCF, which would like to make platform engineering part of the CNCF mandate, as I think Garima is pointing out, and they're offering training and everything else. org community, which is about 300,000 strong, that has Platform Engineering University and everything else. And so they talk nice to each other, but there's a competition there for who owns the minds of all these people, no matter what they call themselves.

And I think that's what really this is all about. Okay. To Alan's point, is all this going to, quote unquote, roll downhill to the platform engineers?

Are they going to save the day? Does it- Well, I think it not only rolls down- It always might. I think that's the point.

Okay, go ahead. Well, I think it not only rolls downhill, but honestly, at the end of the day, first, whenever I hear this platform engineering stuff, for me, I'm always like, it's always Groundhog's Day for me. DevOps, platform engineering, it's all the same.

And you know what else is all the same? Cybersecurity is never mentioned anywhere. So we're still out there fighting vulnerabilities.

And I'm telling you, I- What is crushing me is the idea that it's like we put a new name around it, and we think somehow it's almost like, voila, p**f. Like the new name somehow integrates all these different pieces and people, and no, everything is still divided as ever, and we still have the most vulnerabilities as we ever have. And can we just forget about all these stupid names, and can we just get to work on some real of these problems that we're having?

We have vulnerabilities in our code, and we have so much. AI is doing some really good things, and it can code really well, and it can really look at vulnerabilities in a way that we have not been able to do, cybersecurity people. At the end of the day, for me as a cybersecurity person, talking to my coders out here, it is so important that we actually start to take this.

It's not that we're not taking it seriously, but we really do need to think differently on how we- But that is the point of this whole mythos response from CSA and all the people who were involved in that report. Yeah. And Jen Easterly wrote an article on this in LinkedIn this weekend, which is, look, we're going to have to go through a cauldron here, right?

A crucible. Yeah. As all of these vulnerabilities that AI finds come to the forefront, we've got to figure out what to do with them.

But at the end of the day, what it's going to force is exactly what we've been saying in cybersecurity for 30 years, which is we need better hygiene on code. We need more secure code. And eventually, through platform engineering and other kinds of places, we're going to build better security testing into our internal development platforms, our IDPs, into our CI/CD pipelines, into our GitOps pipelines.

And so the code coming out is going to be better as a result of this. But as I wrote in an article last week, the treatment may be a success, but until then, the patient died. Right?

Because getting there is going to be hell with all these vulnerabilities, and how the heck are we fixing them? But at some point, we actually, I'm sorry, I really am sorry for the dead patient, but at some point- ... we actually, I've been saying that for a long time.

It's almost time to throw out the baby in the bathwater, right? It's like the punk rock bit. Sorry for the dead patients.

Go ahead. Why stop now? Yeah.

No, but we have all known that there's serious issues, like even with the way that- Oh, yeah. No, doubt ... and when did I think I even blame Mitch for coding in system admin as password and making that session constant, right?

I think Mitch is the one who started that off. I blame Mitch too, Kate. You make one mistake as a developer, and you never live it down.

I think we all blame Mitch, to tell you the truth. Old Mitch "Admin" Ashley. Yep, there he is.

If I could do it all over again, I'd do exactly the same thing. He just regrets he only has one life to give for his admins. So, guys- Hey, we are over time on this topic.

We've got to jump. Mike, what do we got next? All right.

We're jumping to, well, there's this report talking about how accurate are these AI results that we're seeing crop up in all our Google searches, and you wrote an article talking about this where, I guess they're touting the fact that they get it right 9 out of 10 times. The issue is, of course, as anybody who does anything with five nines knows, that it's that 1 out of 10 times, and you start multiplying that number and, well, it's millions of search results that may not actually be accurate. So it gets a little crazy out there.

But Alan, you wrote about this. What's your take? Yeah.

What's going on here? So this comes out of a report that I think it was in The Times. I think so, yeah.

It was in The New York Times. So it's not all AIs. It's specific to Google Gemini.

And we've all seen those great Gemini summaries when we search Google now because they don't want to send traffic to anybody like us, right? And let me be clear about that, right? This whole Gemini keeping no click out or whatever Google calls it, has been a tremendous model change for publishers of content like Techstrong.

Yeah. So I'm not a big fan of it to begin with. And I always suspected that half of those searches were full of crap.

Well- Yeah ... I was wrong. It wasn't half.

90% of them are good. And 90% sounds like a great number, but I remember back in my days in the dot-com hosting field, when I first started hosting, we used to have a 90% uptime guarantee, and I thought that was great, until someone pointed out to me that on a given month, or every three and a half months or so, they basically are down for a day. And I was like, "Ah, what's the big deal?

" Well, turns out some people care about those things. So we went to four nines, and I thought four nines was the cat's meow. And then someone pointed out, well, over the course of the year, you're down for three and a half weeks or something.

Okay. We up the ratchet. We go to five nines, and five nines to me was the we can't do better than that.

Now there are some six nine hostings these days, but when we look at this at AI scale, at Google scale, they do trillions of searches that Gemini is coming on. And this Times report found that it's just 90% accurate. So-That translates to millions of bad information, false information, wrong information being served up almost every hour or every day, right?

And here's the thing, this is Google, God dammit, right? This is Google. They put that Gemini thing right at the top of the page before their sponsored links, before their real search links.

This is the authority. It's the authority. Right.

There's the- Except you can read the little stuff at the bottom, right, that says it's AI, it may not be true. They're doing us a disservice here, and people got to wake up. Mitch, go ahead.

No, I was going to say, when did our jobs become fact-checkers? When does our job become fact-checking AI every place that it appears? I understand early on with generative AI, that was something we have to do.

" Well, you know what? Then don't present it as having factual information. You need to fact-check it yourself.

This is an age where AI is supposed to be doing things for us, not creating more work for us. This is another example of us focusing on the wrong thing. We need Gemini or whatever tools is acting as our search engine.

It needs to be a search engine, not a fact-check work creation engine. Mm-hmm. " And invariably, they fall asleep or they get bored, and then they miss something, and all hell breaks loose.

But I don't know. Well, my job, when I'm working with Claude, it is my job is to make sure that there's no hallucinations. Make sure that when it says XYZ, that I'm making sure that is factual.

There are times where it's just BS. It's a complete lie. " And I say, "Prove it.

" And the response is, "You know what? You're right. " And so we do have to switch, but I think those skills are the same as a journalist, fact-checking.

Yes, that's always been a part of journalism. In software development, there's always peer review, code review, even to the point of somebody acting as a rubber ducky for debugging. I think a lot of this is going to change our workflows, but it's not going to change the underlying role of the person consuming, whether that's a journalist or a software engineer or a manager or something like that.

We cannot accept this as the gospel truth. We need to have a critical, cold, calculating eye when we're looking at these, whether it comes from a person or AI. And I think, and I'm kind of telegraphing our next block, but I honestly think that Gen Z's going to help the Gen Xers around to have that, because I'm by default, I trust computers.

Mm-hmm. I don't trust them much, but I do trust. And so I do think that we have to be a little more critical with this stuff, and those little links at the end of the Google search summary up at the top, I make a habit of clicking those.

We do the same thing. I was taught this at the beginning of Wikipedia. Don't just read the article, read the sites.

And I think that if we start doing that, and we change our workflow a little bit, it will help us. But Alan, you're absolutely right. Nine out of 10 with this factual information, well, it came from Google, it must be right.

Oh, yeah. The moon landing never happened. It works for dentists- Earth is flat ...

to press toothpaste, but- So what? But Mike, wait, there's more. There's more to this story that I think we need to get out on the table.

First of all, Robert, when you were talking about your job is making sure that you don't hallucinate and everything- Mm-hmm ... I think you're talking about like a friend from the '60s with tricky Mickey Lady Bluefinger or- Yes ... something like that, or yeah, no, I had friends who hallucinated, but here's the thing- When you say friends, do you mean like first-person I or- No, it's not that.

Not me. Of course not. But you never trusted those people.

That was the thing. Right. That's the key.

But here's the thing, what this is really about, when you dig underneath the 90% and everything else, is a fundamental business change by Google, right? Because at the end of the day, all those blue, yellow, green, red logos that Google puts up there, it's still funded by AdWords and Search. Mm-hmm.

It still represents the overwhelming chunk of their revenue, and a lot of revenue it is. And there are still companies doling out big money to be at the top of the page on Google- Yeah ... and spending a fortune of money on SEO to be well-ranked in Google when Google has said, "Wait a second.

We're no longer a search company that sends you to what's indexing the internet and sending you to go read orYou know, find out about these things you're searching for. No. We are now a content company that's serving up content that quite frankly is full of crap 10% of the time, but we're serving up content.

We're just not serving up our own content. We're taking your content that you used to pay for us to send you to and using it to keep people right here. And publishers got to get wise to this and say, "No, Google, you're not sending people here.

" Right? It's wrong. I propose another solution.

So at some point, somebody's going to come up with a tool, and maybe they already have, and it's just not widely used, but if I launch a search query, it should go against multiple so-called index engines and give me an answer so that I can compare the answers to know which one was b******t, because I'll be able to say, "Hey, there's clearly a discrepancy here," and I might even have an AI that will highlight the discrepancy, and the same thing will happen with coding, right? I'll use multiple engines on the back end and create samples of code, and then I'll ask my local AI agent which of these is more accurate and better. I mean, is this unreasonable?

Yes. No. " That's how we got into this whole mess in this country.

Everybody has an opinion. Well, I'd say human's opinion- There's only one fact. I'm sorry, go ahead Robert ...

which is human's opinion versus- Yes ... it came from on high like Moses with the tablets. " Which was a story from my house, which is complete BS.

We got very upset with the Spanish rice recipe from Gemini. Absolutely. Yeah.

It was terrible. It- Some things you just don't give on. It was wrong.

No, and it's wrong. So now let's make a note on that, right? Right.

But fundamentally, do we want Google to serve up content that's not theirs, or do we expect Google to be a search engine while they're taking our money left and right for sponsored results and SEO and all that? What is Google? What do we want Google to be?

I'm going to name my universal AI tool that I just described, I'm going to call it A*****e, because like opinions, everybody's got one, right? That's right. Nice.

That's exactly it. But I say it's un-American for Google to change from being a search provider to being a content provider. What is more American than screwing over your partners?

Come on, man. That's true. You're right.

You're right. You're right. Let's wrap ourselves in the flag.

If we're going to do it. Let's bring back some '80s level greed here. Come on.

Come on. All right. Put on Wall Street.

Let's go. All right. Let's jump.

Let's- All right. We're jumping. What's next?

So continuing a little bit on the same theme, but there is a study out there that suggests that the Gen Z crowd is getting less enamored of AI in general because, well, they're kind of looking at it going, it doesn't feel authentic to them as if you peel back all the pieces of the survey and the results, and it's also interesting, this is the same generation that is rediscovering collecting vinyl records and wants to have things like comic books that they can touch in their hands and cigarettes. And suddenly holding- Having a tactile thing has become more important and I guess something that another human created has higher value in their minds. But Kate, I don't know what you think about all this, but is there a generation gap starting to emerge here in AI, or are we all kind of heading down the same path?

Well, what I found interesting in speaking from a grumpy Gen X-er, what I found interesting is the Gallup study says Gen Z is less optimistic about AI and more frustrated, but the usage hasn't dropped. I mean, that's the key right there, right? I mean, we all complain, but we're certainly not using it, right?

I mean, it's sort of like we can complain about how many calories are in a whole chocolate cake, but we're still eating the entire chocolate cake. I mean, I don't think it happens until people stop using it. So we can complain about it all we want to complain about, but at the end of the day, it's still being used by our little Gen Z-er friends.

So how much weight do we put on it, that they're unhappy? Gosh. Hello.

We're always unhappy. We're all unhappy now. I mean, every day we're all unhappy.

Ah, go play in front of your own house. I think there's a whole another dimension to this, Alan, and is it not liking AI, or is it not liking the impact of AI to jobs, people that are struggling to find jobs, what this is doing? There's a much more social consciousness- Mm ...

I think of the Gen Z generation. I think that's a huge factor in whether they like AI or not, not just what AI does. Right.

" And then I started to realize that you have to dig deeper into what these people are using AI forSo they're exposed to AI in schools, for example. So they are using it for quick help, so study notes or those kind of things. Then when they go back to school, they have the same study notes.

There is no critical thinking involved in it. So that's one of the root causes of getting angry about it, because I'm not unique. Then, as you mentioned, Mitch, job hunting.

Many of these Gen Zs are entering into the job market. They're using it for job hunting. But all the other people are also using it for job hunting.

So this personalized assistance from AI is not helping them as much as they were thinking about it. Then they're using it for shopping. They're using it for those kind of things.

So again, the problem is that the kind of results or outcome or the excitement about AI has dropped because the outcome is not matching their expectation. And I think it is, to a certain extent, to say that there has to be an intentional or moderated use of AI going forward, and that can be one of the solutions to this problem. You talked, though, about not having creative thinking.

That's not AI's fault. It's our fault. We are the ones who are the creative thinkers.

0 is supposed to be about, this human machine teaming, and we either, as I say, put the dog on the leash. We either understand AI and use AI the way it's supposed to be used, but I don't allow AI to override my thoughts. And that's what people are almost like-- People go and they're surprised that AI's coming up with the same solution across the board.

Mm-hmm. Really? I don't understand that.

Of course, it's not sentient. Are we getting lazy in our thinking, though, because it is so tempting to take this thing that got generated and cut it and paste it into something, and away you go, and then the next thing you know, somebody's yelling at you about something in chat. But whose fault is that?

No, but don't blame the tool. Me too. Alan, you and I, same thing, buddy.

Let me get real here. Let me get real here for a second. I haven't been real all day.

But let me get real. Here is a personal observation by Shimmy. People of an age similar to the ones on this show here with me, well, except for you, Garima, you're young.

And Kate. But no, seriously, people of Gen X. Mitch, what do they call-- We're not quite boomers.

We're in that in between boomer and Gen X. We're at the end of the boomers. The Jones.

They came up with a name for it, though. No, but there's a different name. I don't know the name of it.

It's Jones. We're Jones. Gen Jones or something.

Gen Jones sounds like a woman, I guess. Oh, it's changing anyway now. But here's the thing.

I think is the word. We're better at using AI than a lot of these Gen Zs are. You know why?

Because to use AI well, you've got to communicate well, because AI is only as good as the input you put into it. It doesn't have the spark. And when you can convey that spark to AI, the work you get out of AI is a lot better.

" I didn't want to tell him this because I didn't want to bust his balls. Hopefully he's not watching. He might be.

He just unsubscribed. Yeah, we just lost one right there. Okay.

Kate from the three-point line. Nice. Yeah.

But here's the thing. Is it any wonder? Look what you're giving it.

Garbage in, garbage out. Absolutely. Yeah.

I tell this to our people here on our-- Because we're on an agentic journey here at Textron for the last months. You've got to talk to this thing like it's your friend and you can talk music. I told one of our AV engineers this.

He's a big music fan. I said, "Talk about music with it. Ask it what it thinks of the kind of music you like, or do things with it.

" Sweet talk it, baby. Sweet talk it. Yeah, you got to learn.

It's a two-way street. You know, Alan- Like Han Solo in the Millennium Falcon. I think the DevOps adage applies: We get the AI we deserve.

Absolutely. So my advice to Gen Z is to stop the wah-wah and work with this thing. Work with this thing.

I feel that Gen Zs are singled out here, but I will actually point out one research which I read a couple of days back. Since 2012, the attention span of people have reduced to one third. And this is a scientific research.

Now, if we say that we don't blame the digital first movement, we don't blame the AI first movement, I'm all in for that. But this is the reality. This is what is happening.

And the AI native people who are born with AI tools, it is very hard for us to put any kind of guardrails because they will find workarounds. We can think about critical thinking is very important, but we need to have some kind of adoption mechanism, some kind of intentional thinking around AI tools and digital tools. Otherwise, we will struggle with these kind of things as we move on.

But we're blaming AI for exploiting human laziness, really. And I don't understand why we don't like to challenge critical thinking. I feel like I grew up with debate teams and everything else.

I feel like we blame AI for our laziness. I really do. No, it's a lack of communication skill.

That's what it is. Whether you're communicating to a person or an AI. I see it with my kids.

" Is that in a text? Yeah, yeah. Exactly.

" Do they just give the thumbs up? Yeah. That's it.

Or do they write, "Okay"? Cool story, bro. Cool story.

Yeah. Exactly. " Yeah.

Gang, listen. Yeah. We got to remember, though, that children are going to follow their parents.

All right? Whether it's the example or the counterexample. And so if we're talking about AI, which is written, created, by humans, if we're talking about Gen Z and their inability to do XYZ, at the end of the day, it is parents' responsibility to make sure that they are critical thinkers.

That's a hard job. It's very difficult to do. And so I would like us to consider, though, that instead of pointing out the AI boogeyman, let's also save some of the criticism for parents.

Because that's ultimately responsible for raising the child, and making sure that they have the tools and skills and intestinal fortitude to get through this. Let's save some of the blame for the parents and not put it on AI or the other boogeymen like video games and high-fructose corn syrup. And the only thing I- Let's save some for the parents.

Yeah. And I love high-fructose corn syrup, by the way, and I'm fine. Love it.

Love it. But the only thing, and to your point, Robert, what I'll say is that I do feel, as an older person, it is really important to help a younger generation come into this digital age. That's so natural to us because we grew up with it.

We grew up with the beginnings of it, right? So we understand it differently. For us, we are more intimate with it.

And how do we help a younger generation embrace it in a way that helps them to take advantage of it and not the other way around? Mm-hmm. Well, no, but I think we're betting the farm on that.

That because they're natives and we're not, at the end of the day. No, but what does that mean? Yeah, but it's learned.

How are we understanding natives? It's learned. For them, they're natives.

And let me just come down off the high horse. We built it. Oh.

We've done a really s****y job, right, with a lot of this stuff. We've let social media rip apart our country. You're right.

Our world. Yes. Right?

You're right. My hope is that Gen Z, because they are native- Mm-hmm ... will learn, the same way they might be turning off AI or turning down the knob, that they turn down the knob on social media, too, and they learn not to be led like sheep.

And they learn how to separate fact from fiction and signal the noise. And that everybody can have an opinion, but there's still only a fact is a fact. Right.

And I'm betting the house that Gen Z figures that out because we haven't. I think ultimately we got to teach everybody that until proven otherwise, it's false. So zero trust life.

Scientific method. That's like a new reality TV show. " Okay.

Guys, we're over time. What a great discussion today, though. Great way to kick off what's going to be a crazy week, I'm sure.

Gang, it's so good. Robert, it's good to have you back, my friend. Thank you.

I enjoyed seeing you on here. Garima, Kate, I'm sure we'll see you probably this week. Mitch, for sure.

Mike- You bet ... you're Steady Eddie. Steady Eddie.

We'll see you there. Get rid of the bad penny. Uh-huh.

Hey, we launched a new site this weekend. Well, it's a redo. It's a relaunch.

com. You want to stay up to date on everything? It's got, I think, 1,000 of our webinars there that you could search by title, topic- Wow ...

subject, and everything else. Wow. It's on demand as well as see what's coming online.

It's a nice site. The web designer for this site was amazing, I heard. But- I heard he's good.

He's available for hire. Yeah, he is. It's something to do on his spare time.

But, until then, though, we'll be back tomorrow. We've got Techstrong TV coming up after this. I think we might have a tech field day this week.

But for now, this is Alan Shimel. Thanks for joining us and the gang. Take care.