The AI Divide 88 Nations Choose Growth Over Guardrails | TSG Ep. 1026

Hey everyone. Well, good afternoon, or maybe it's good morning. Maybe even it's good evening where you're watching this.

Who knows, but we're live here and strong gang for Tuesday. Got a lot to talk about. As always.

There's no lack of ai, uh, stories. There's the doom and gloom of everything we know is ending. Is security over, is coding over Is anything in front of a screen over robots Fighting was last week.

I don't know. What do we got this week? We've got a lot of good stuff.

Let me introduce you to our gang for the week. We've got, uh, sag, Chris bla not for the week, for the day. Excuse me.

Sag Chris bla Kate, scar seller, Mitch Ashley, and the man up in the high castle. Mike Ard. High in the high in snow, actually right now.

I'm sure actually, Kate, you probably got a decent amount too, huh? I did. I did.

Yes. They're saying this might be the biggest blizzard up there since when, 1978 or something like that. And I want you to know I shoveled.

Did you? I did. I did.

You. Good for you. Thank you.

You know, my son, who was a Boca boy and lives up in Boston now, had to do his first snow shoveling this week. He was very excited. He was very excited to do it.

I said, land. It gets old quick, man. Yeah, I'm too excited.

I, I wanna let you know that I watched the guys that I painted plow the driveway Absolutely supervised. Well, you know, you get of an age, you get of an age well, moving from the snow apocalypse to the SaaS apocalypse and everything else that AI is, are wreaking on our, uh, on our world, Mike. We've got a lot going on.

First of all, increasingly the tech bros are realizing where their bread is buttered, and that's right over in Washington DC and they keep throwing a lot of pork, pork barrel over there. Yeah. Things, things are getting surreal almost.

So there's a big conference in India and 88 Nations said they were gonna back market growth. And I guess they didn't mention much about AI safety while they were talking about it. And then it got more interesting with Sam Altman saying that while all these concerns about water and data centers is well, fake news and therefore not really an issue.

And then it gets even better with metas throwing money at states and political campaigns in the, in the states to convince everybody that, well, data centers are good for you. Of course not everybody's buying that. And some democratic senators are now like maybe rethinking their political positions as it applies to data centers because well, they're now saying, well, maybe we'll reconsider this issue after initially lending their support for it.

Things are a little bit crazy. Chris, Hank, what's your take on what all this means? Well, may we live in interesting times?

Right. So, you know, we're at one of these fascinating transitional periods that for old folks like me, you remember the internet, you know, the, the rise of all that. But like some of the other things that compressed in time, you know, back then, you know, the, the stakes weren't as high.

The dollars weren't as as large, and the speed wasn't as fast. And right now we're in a space where we're trying to figure out who sets the rules, who pays the costs, who captures the upside, and who to even define safe, right? So as you say in that list, lemme break that down.

If I can keep 'em all in my context window. At the same time, we have folks on, let's just say two sides. We're gonna regulate this thing, or we'll just let it explode and see what happens.

And that's, you know, the, the first point. Um, Sam Alman and water and so forth, you know, this is narrative management, you know, by a, an actor in the space who's just trying to diffuse things. Um, not particularly.

Well, I think it depends who you're speaking to. Well, I'm, he's got a marketing team. I'll let them worry about that.

And, uh, yeah. And meta, you know, directly playing politics right out in public, you know, we will just work with the states directly and try to guide things at the federal level, um, based on that. So it's all happening at the same time.

And, uh, the chess board is very, very active. Mm-hmm. The one thing I would say though is it seems like the average person is starting to become more aware of these AI issues, and you see them talking about it more in their communities.

They're showing up for meetings, they're concerned about not just the water, but the noise level, what it does to property values and all kinds of things. So, Alan, do you think that there is gonna be this kind of pushback from the, you know, the people rival voices, all this money being brought in from these what amounts to corporate pacs? You know, Mike, it is a funny one, right?

So first of all, it's a huge win be issue, right? Everybody's all for data centers until they're being built near them. Secondly, it's the energy and water, right?

Which I think stirs people up. No one, no one likes to see the neon green glow of a, of a nuclear reactor too close to them, though they don't really go green, do they? Anymore?

And then, but, and then third, and I think this is gonna be the one that really sticks. If I was a politician, I'd hang my hat on this. They don't create any jobs.

You get a short term construction, boom, then those con contractors go away. And this billion dollar data center that we gave free taxes till the cows come home created all of 37 jobs. Yeah.

And, you know, if I'm gonna spend my tax deferments, I'd rather give it to companies that are gonna create jobs. And I think that's what you hang your hat on here. Now, Sam Altman, shame on him.

He's denying climate change, right? And, and everything else, the, I guess, I guess that's popular these days is to deny science. But, you know, at the end of the day, remember what Bill Clinton and, and his people said, it's about the economy, stupid.

It's about the jobs. A billion dollar tax haven that creates no jobs is a billion dollar tax haven that creates no jobs. And the only people getting rich on it are the tech bro billionaires, and that don't play so good in Ohio and Abilene, Texas, and these other places where they're building these data centers.

You know, Alan, I think one of the thing is we're seeing more and more kind of generally visible reports about no, no screen facing jobs, white collar jobs are gonna be needed anymore. Um, kids and entry level, uh, entry level jobs, which of course, as a parent raises, what about my kids? You know, this, am I creating this future?

What, what, what are they gonna have? Um, and then of course, the effect on, on ourselves or individuals, I think it's that succession of continuous news reports talking about it is finally catching up in the, in the psyche of what's happening in the public. And that's gotta foment some unrest about, you know, what we're doing with ai.

Yeah. You touched on the, the, the, uh, awareness curve, right? And as I said in my first comment, you know, this is like the internet days, but compressed, right?

And, and those of us, remember, remember all the, the public service announcements, I like to joke about this, but in the nineties when people were realizing that, you know, families are getting on the internet, there would be these PSAs all over television saying, parents, should you be as irresponsible as to allow the internet into your house? Only if you have one computer, you a ly lit room. And don't let your children near it without the supervision of at least 12 adults working in a, in a consortium.

And that same anxie is that, oh my God, you know, the Internet's gonna destroy everything and our children and whatnot. And, and, and we come to learn that, that yes, it is complicated. Yes, there are risk, however, they're not exactly what we're thinking.

And I think in this last year, uh, I think Alan read your your point, I think the, the public actually has advanced in their understanding of the complexity of this and the risks. And Mitch, right? You know, it may be that a lot of jobs go away, all of them.

Is that possible? Is it a thing? I don't know.

But I think the, the conversation is developing rapidly as well. And that's probably a good sign. Yeah.

I think Sam Altman denying the, the whole, uh, impact to the sustainability narrative in the industry. To me, I think that's, uh, pretty weird. I think the AI industry's shifting from on this topic anyway, from defensive explanation to narrative control, right?

Like, how do I control the narrative where I'm gonna build some massive mega data centers, which is going to ruin the environment? But I, I don't want the conversation to shift there, because in their minds, I mean, we're talking politics. The libs are going to talk about, you know, sustainability and climate change and all that.

I wanna quickly shift the conversation elsewhere, right? So it's becoming a very defensive sort of posture, if you will. Uh, and then if I may shift the conversation to the India Summit, I don't know, I think that was one of your topics that you wanted to talk about, Mike.

Uh, so I thought that was a very interesting, uh, discussion as well where, you know, 88 nations backed market expansion over any sort of guardrails since we're talking about sustainability. I mean, those are, that's sort of part of the nar guardrail narrative, right? So it seems like nobody wants to talk about safety rules anymore as it pertains to ai, right?

It's about how do we expand, expand and expand. And I think this sort of the beginning of what I call the multipolar AI ecosystem, where it's not just a US China race. Now you're gonna get India and all the 88 nations jump in, and it's gonna be extremely chaotic, I think.

So we gotta watch that space as well. I've gotta say. So I think that what's really going on here is you got a bunch of politicians that are so hard up for money for reelection that they take money from anywhere they can find it.

And now suddenly the, the, the wind is changing and they're looking up a little bit and they're going, Hey, you know, the only thing worse than not having money to get elected is being defeated in an election. 'cause all my constituents are p****d off. So I don't know, Kate, what do you think?

Uh, no, I agree. Um, totally with what you're saying. You know, until, you know, as we've talked about NIMBY before, right?

Not in my backyard, all of a sudden this becomes important. I think one of the things that really bothers me about this whole conversation and something that I often bring up is, you know, okay, we've been here before, you know, with oil monopolies and, you know, industrial expansion and railroad con consolidation. And I think when do we learn?

I mean, when do we, when do we learn? Because what happens is that we actually see an impact, and then all of a sudden more people wake up. I mean, yes, people are getting involved in this conversation.

And, um, and as we've seen, as Alan pointed out, you know, what did you say? Like 35 jobs or something. I mean, some, something ridiculous, you know, that just doesn't equal out what we're seeing.

But I hate that we as consumers continue to pay, um, for, you know, what happened to free market, what happened to actual capitalism and all these things. I mean, you know, it, we are always, um, bearing the, the, the brunt of this, you know, I think, and whether it's ecological speaking or whether it's financially speaking, we keep, it keeps hitting us, and it, it's not right. You know, so we pay for it not only with our tax dollars, but also, you know, with our rivers being corrupted, you know, and other things.

So that's What I'll get to the oligarchy. I'm sorry, go ahead, Chris. You in a recent show, Kate, you, you use the analogy of industrialization, right?

And where you grew up and, and the timing, you know, the time we lived through, I mean, lake Recon on fire when I was a kid, right? And, and, you know, and I'm, I, I'm very aware of the risks of all these technologies and more at risk, you know, I'm not kind of a risk person, but I have a, a reasonable amount of, uh, optimism in this because I, you know, just as, as we did with industrialization in a world, gotta, you know, remember where each of us as individuals got our information from newspapers, right? And one of three channels at 7:00 PM um, yes.

Uh, among the, the, the reasons the conversation is accelerating is because everyone has access to more information. Everyone, you, everyone, people all over the world, not just showing up on shows like this, not with jobs like ours has access to AI and can ask just regular questions and say, this is going on. What's this?

And these same tools that are accelerating everything else, or accelerating the conversation, you know, and say to your point, I think, you know, I, I try to be, you know, as non-biased as possible on, on, on venues like this, but yeah, Sam, please, no, that's not good narrative engineering. You know, you can't just throw something out there in the public anymore and expect that to last because people aren't stupid. And, you know, I think this loops back to, and anyway, capitalism, you know, uh, Kate, right?

This is, I I think that, you know, and, and said internationally, right? What's happening in the states, you know, the regulations there very important. However, this is happening.

Global and bad decisions will, uh, in the, in the, in a relatively, you know, sane world, not play out well over the long term. So in the end, There's the phenomena that individuals, sorry, Mike, go ahead. Alan.

Are you gonna think twice about kicking off a prompt because of what AI might do to the environment? And, you know, is this gonna factor into your usage of Ai Me? Mm-hmm.

Nah. Short answer, no. Well, but here's the thing.

Here's the thing though. Are people going to get into the mindset? We are gonna say, like, some people say, I'm not gonna buy from Amazon anymore because of following reasons, right?

Are you gonna see boycotts of Chad, GPT, and Gemini, right? From The public cancel culture from AI is not all you're talking about. That's what I'm talking about, right?

Is that there has been a movement there, there, there has been a movement. I I don't think it's, you know, it's being talked about. It's not catching on, right?

And, and I, I think we are the worst. Um, you know, because yeah, I'm not, I, you know, with all the things said, I'm not canceling. Let, let me, let me play Grinch here.

You guys are smoking your socks. 88 countries in, in New Delhi just voted with their pocket books. They don't even wanna put security on these states on this.

They don't care. Look, we live, I, I have joked about oligarchy, but I'm not joking. We live, unfortunately not in an era of, let's say, shall we say, good government.

Yeah. Where, where the Teddy Roosevelt reformers were carrying the big sticks and cleaning up and, and busting the trust and, and the old, and the, the robber barons and stuff. We actually live in an age of the new robber Baron.

Instead of Vanderbilt, we got Musk instead of Rockefeller, we got Altman denying science, right? Until we have the political will, and it's not just in the US 'cause this is now a global issue until we have the political will globally to bust up the tech bros to bust up this oligarchy cronyism that we, that we live under. Stuff's not changing, guys.

It's not changing. You know, Alan, I think, I think one of the consequences to bring up another topic is, is globalization. We used to live in a world where if something affected the factory down the other side of town and the workers that are gonna work there, okay, that affects my community, that's local.

I can see that if something's affecting my, my taxes, but I don't see it for a year or two, okay? That's delayed impact, right? So I don't necessarily care about it until it hits me.

Uh, once the data center's built in my backyard, you know, they're back there doing, uh, site inspection and measuring out where to where to build the thing, then I care about it. That's the problem is that as individuals, unless it affects us, it's hard for people to step forward and really make a big case of it. Even the boycott movements are always really small.

I mean, very rare that it's something very big. So I'm not a, unless it's gonna be, you know, society is rebelling against ai, I don't see that on the other end of the spectrum. You have, you know, uh, fair markets is as much, as long as that can make as much money as I want to however I want to.

That's a fair market. That's the world we live in, from the investor and from the, the, the tech bros or people with lots of money. And then now you're negotiating with, okay, well, how do you, what happens when you run into those roadblocks and obstacles, and which side of the politics do you play?

So I I, I just don't see that there's gonna be a public movement that's gonna stop any of this Not anytime soon. Yeah. I think, I think, uh, the tech pros have realized that they've done what they need to do at the federal level, and they've done all the sucking up and got their way there.

Now they're moving their focus from federal to state levels. You see the, you know, if it's $65 million and met are committed to state level influence and elections. And then on the other side of the globe is they're also focused.

Sam Altman was a big personality. The India Summit, they're trying to influence the global stage as well. So done with the US federal level influencing, now they're moving to the US eight level, and on the other end, they're moving to the, the global level influencing of the other countries beyond US and China.

So it'll be very interesting how these things all converge. And the tech bros are definitely at it. There's no doubt about it.

Yeah. Yeah. gov.

Oh God. I think the mistake we're making here, I I think this is all gonna play out the ballot box and quote the immortal Patty Smith. People have the power.

We'll see. Well, I think the mistake we're making though, is, and the way each is framed is gonna be regulation or wide west, you know, it's gonna be this or it's gonna be zero or one. I think there's a lot more complicated answers to this.

More nuanced Simplistically. Yeah, Good point. Yeah.

Excellent, Chris. All right. Hey, we went way long on this, guys.

I got a boogie. We got a boogie into our next segment here, and we'll stick on ai. It's the AI agent iden identity crisis.

Yeah, it's not, I think, and therefore I am, or maybe they don't think, I think we discussed this, Mike, what's this one on? I'm not sure we're at the point of a full blown crisis, but it's coming. And part of the issue is that we already have a hard time managing identity of humans, and also we have non-human identities that come in the form of machines and, uh, applications and software components.

And now we're adding to this mix with AI agents, which some of us are not quite entirely sure if this is a new type of identity, or do they just inherit our human identities or some mix of the both, or hybrids. But it seems like for every one human, we might soon have 50 additional AI agents that have identities of their own and all of which need to be managed. And it doesn't seem like the cybersecurity crowd is prepared for this.

Kate, I know you've been writing about this and thinking about it. So what's your take on what's going on here? I have, and let me just say from a cybersecurity perspective, that we did not plan when we were building identity and access management systems, in which we, we've been doing for over way over two decades now for AI agents to be a part of this design model, right?

I mean, so the problem that, let me just start. I'm gonna first blame, um, the DevOps people for creating system IDs that are persistent. Let me just put it out there.

So, Mitch, okay, but I knew it Was gonna, I didn't know you were gonna hit me up front. Thanks, Kate. I, but at least we got it over with.

Yeah, Yeah. I, I did. And, but, and I'll do seriousness.

I mean, you know, we built identity systems, um, with a human actor, login events, scoped credentials, uh, session boundaries, you know, eventual logout. But now we're not getting that logout, right? Because it's just being these, these chained actions across environments.

So, you know, I have written about what are we gonna do, you know, from discovery gaps to ownership and ambiguity. I mean, it is in lifecycle confusion. I mean, this is like a cybersecurity nightmare.

And so with, when it comes to identities, and it really comes, I think we're gonna have to, um, take a look at behaviors. I really continue to focus on behavior based, because at the end of the day, we need to go, um, and look at the behavior of agents and what they're doing. So the actor has changed, get rid of static authorization, um, and the boundary must move.

Um, this, so this whole time of use and the behavior will be the differentiator in trying to address, um, agents. And at the end, you know, authorization must be, you know, multidimensional, which is really an, you know, from a person who has literally built identity and access management systems. It's, um, this is g this is a, this is a big challenge and, uh, yeah, No, this is a sea change for sure.

Yeah. But, but look at it this way, right? I've always said that IAM identity access management is the killer app for cloud security, right?

When we did away with perimeters, identity control and access control based on identity and responsibility and role became the killer app. And now, you know, doing that just for humans was a challenge. But then all of a sudden we added, what is it, 4 billion or 6 billion IOT devices that needed identity and access management.

Then we added every frigging container that we run in a cloud native environment. Had to have its own unique identity. And by the way, a lot of these unique identities, you know, what goes with them?

Digital certificates? Yeah, unique digital IDs that identify them, encrypt them, what have you. So, you know, it's been a, it's blown that up outta outta control.

Now, we had APIs, it's an API economy, and all of them need identities too. 'cause we gotta integrate with them. But wait, let's put another straw on this camel's back.

Let's give every AI agent a unique identity, because of course they need it too. So now we're up to, I don't know, we, we are gonna need, we're gonna run outta IP six addresses at this rate, right? With all these identities.

And, and so k to your point, is identity the right paradigm anymore? Do we go to time series databases and we do things, you know, based upon time zones or, or, you know, instances. Yeah.

Do we need to just rethink our whole IAM backbone is the killer app for cloud security and access, And I think we need to, and, and the reason why is because when you continue to do something that's not working, I mean, you know, as we know this, it's the definition of insanity. Um, and so from a cybersecurity point of view, this is really a definition of insanity because we we're not, this is not the, the right path. Do we need to secure identities?

Yes, but it's more about how, I think it's more about the behavior of these identities that is going to be become more important on how we deal with them. So yeah, I see the way you go into even secure securing these identities. I mean, Alan, you talked about IO ot, right?

The proliferation of explosion of IOT devices, and I'm reminded of this whole notion of tagging and the tag registry, right? I mean, if you look at the, this article that Mike, you sent, you know, 23% of organizations have a formal strategy for managing AI agent identities only 23%. So think about the chaotic situation that's going on, right?

So I think we're entering a phase where AI agents are operating inside enterprises faster than, you know, security and governance models can evolve, right? So I might, it goes back suggest, I might suggest that 23% of those people who said that are probably somewhat delusional, but what do I know? Yeah.

Well, it's less, right? So it goes back to the conversation we had last week on the, like Chris and I talked about it briefly. It's about the whole notion observability, right?

So the observability of identity becomes super critical, right? As critical, maybe even more than observability of systems in this context. So that I think is an interesting angle that we are explore, right?

I I, I couldn't love this, this whole topic more. I mean, there isn't anything more directly to my daily, hourly life these days, days, right? You know, because, you know, on, on, on every angle.

So we need ais that have identities that we can track over time, so we can see what the heck they do. So we can see whether we trust 'em or not. On the one hand, on the other hand, like you say, Kate, you know, they, you know, I have been physically, socially engineering myself into spaces people would rather not have me in and have done things to keep me out of since the mid seventies, right?

It just works. You can physically walk through security if you just pay attention to it. And now we have agents, you know, who will do that at the speed of light, right?

And it's showing us flaws in our security practices. And I, you know, I can't say this, uh, enough, I said it a million times on the, on this show, we take a big number. Hey, I've got a big number, therefore, I'm Mitch Ashley, and I'm the authorized total access to all the things going on in blah.

No, that's not how I want Mitch Ashley into a secure location. He is like, who are you? Do you look like Mitch?

Are you asking acting like, Mitch, are you behaving like Mitch? Have you behaved like Mitch over time? You know, but we'll let some automated system or some human remotely because they have a really big number, you know, they must be Chris Blak.

That's not how anything ever worked. So I just, you know, OPN and quality. Well, That depends on if you're talking about teenage Mitch or you know, 15-year-old Mitch.

But that's, that's a different, But it's, it's crazier than that. Because when you think about it, like, if I give a human access to something, and most of the time that're responsible people you can trust, they're only gonna go access the things that they're supposed to go access or the things that they're interested in. Even if they are over permission.

I gotta Jump in. I'm gonna burst if I don't jump in, I, hold on just a Hold on. Everyone's talking at once.

Mitch, Mitch, hold on. We're going give the gentleman from Colorado two minutes. You all are thinking about it.

Totally wrong. The sea change has happened. What's different is nothing can be static anymore.

Kate, to your point, all of our processes are built on, I know what this is. I make these rules, I apply 'em. Okay?

Now that's how things operate. That's not how AI operates. AI operates in a changing fabric all the time.

It can be changing while it's being developed as well as while it's executing. So I think we have to look at how things happen in real time. Think of it as going from, here you go, we're a Star Trek, wrath of Khan.

We're going from two dimensional thinking, like Khan has two, captain Kirkus thinks about things in three dimensions, right? It has to be continuous runtime. Same for OB observability.

Sid has to be built in, in a three dimensional capacity, not in a static. I define it then and it flows through because those agents are gonna change. Agents can also be, uh, programmed or program themselves to tht, guardrails and the things that we put in place, right?

This is, we're not talking about the same thing, folks. I, I think Mike Was just saying that to ryle us all up, actually. That's, you were, It worked.

That would never happen. What are talking about? But, but I, I will say, you know, you know, from a person, uh, as, from a cybersecurity perspective, when we would go on site and, uh, on our company site, you know, we would do some low hanging fruit cybersecurity products.

You, um, you know, some vulnerability scanning or something like that. But only because when we ev whenever we introduced an identity and access management program, it would go on forever. And, and customers would become so frustrated and it was so expensive.

I mean, and now it's like, are you kidding me? I mean, can you imagine walking into an environment saying, okay, you know what, we're gonna handle this identity net access management project. I mean, that's, you know, that, that's, you just can't do that today.

It's back Don's point. It is fundamental. You can't hold, there's no accountability without identity.

You talk about behavior, you talk about governance. Those are all accountability measures. So we have to figure out the identity problem for agents for sure.

We, we do. And, and that's why I think we have to go to, to the behaviors, because, you know, they act differently than humans. You know, they're able to, to go for longer, you know, I mean, they're, they have so many unique properties that I believe that if we looked at this from, from a behavior perspective, um, that it would be just one way, one way to start to corral this.

And, and we look at how we actually, you know, develop trusted systems and be, you know, as humans. And it's exactly what you just said. You know, we, you know, we'd literally, the six of us, we have a history doing these shows together.

We have a level of trust because we have experience. Take that away and just leave us with six identities, and we wouldn't know what it's about to do. So human systems actually account for this all the time.

We, we just need to get out of the, uh, the two dimensional idea that digital systems will behave differently. I have a question. It's what year will it be when we're playing this three dimensional chess that you're describing?

Because I don't believe any of these systems currently exist. 5 Make itself, let's move along. Let's go to our third.

'cause we're running a little late today already, guys. We're going welcome to Gastown, Mike. This is, and this is a lovely idea.

So the future of software development is gonna be our agents. And a fellow has gone out and built what he's describing as the next, I guess we'll call it software factory in the age of ai. And he is calling it Gas Town.

Mitch, I know you took a look at this, but what's your assessment? Is this kind of the first example of how software's gonna be crafting the future? Is this our new factory and is this a place where you actually want to go to work?

Well, it, it's, I think what's unique about it is, you know, we are all hear about an SRE agent or a security agent, or ops agent, whatever. This is more looking at, this is an open source project. And I think the idea is pretty brilliant.

It looks at what the roles of different agents are. You have a mayor, that's your primary interface. You have pole cats, he calls, calls them that are a femoral workers that do tasks.

You have refinery managers that manage the queues. You have witnesses to monitor things. Deacons that run portal, uh, patrol loops, dogs that manage maintenance crews that are persistent agents for doing collaborative work.

So what, what he's done is really assigned personas, if you will, or roles to what different agents do. And what I'm really fascinated about this is, is what people would do with it. It's kind of like the open koala.

Like what will people do with this? How would this evolve? And is this a model?

Maybe that goes to some of our thoughts around identity and roles and accountability. I don't know. But I think that's, we're in this great experimentation renaissance phase with ai, the good or bad of it.

Um, but I, I think that's what's important about this is what's the possibilities with a model like this. Yeah. I think this reminds me of the notion of, you mentioned SRE Mitch, the notion of pods and squads that we talked about in the context of managing cloud environments, right?

So this is sort of dozens of AI coding agents working simultaneously with each other, right? 20 to 30 agents in parallel. And it's like orchestrating a swarm, if you will, of AI workers, like distributed systems, right?

So I think from my perspective is maybe entering a new world of developer platform managed AI agents in the same way that we talked about, you know, managing cloud platforms when we have the explosion of microservices, right? So it's kind of a similar analysis. So maybe we can take some lessons learned in the world of managing microservices, the cloud analog, and then bring that to this whole agent management of the swarm of AI workers, if you will.

So that's my thought. I thought that this was the coolest, and I think it reminded me so much of Sims, like the sim characters, do you guys remember? It doesnt sort whatever You want.

Love, love those. Yeah. I, I mean, you can like develop like, I'm like, this is actually really cool and it might be a way to get people involved in looking at, um, software production and ai, you know, which is something that we need to do.

I think it makes us look at it differently, which I think is again, really cool. And, um, and also fun. I mean, you know, this is like a gamification and which I think will bring a lot of people into the possibility of looking at how do we do this differently?

Well, think about it. You can have garbage collectors, you could have infrastructure builders, a hazmat team that comes in and cleans up the mess that gets created. Almost seems like we need a mayor of sorts, right?

Umpire. I mean, I Don't know. He has the mayor in this YeahI.

So, But this is exactly right. And, and the, the response of all three of you is, the thing is this is something people can really relate to. Like Mitch has said it right at the beginning, right?

And, and with mt book and, and this now, and look, this is what we do this all the time, right? You know, and, and I, you know, we're at this point where people are just trying to get their heads around it, like we're talking about earlier in the show, right? So you, you have an AI or you have a node or whatever you wanna call it.

How do we have a bunch of AIS agents talking to each other? And it's, I I think it's the same stuff I'm always ranting about. It's like if it was a human system, like you gotta just saying you would have roles.

Now, maybe they're not exactly human roles, but I can tell you that, you know, if you're, if I'm talking to an AI that I built, there's an a, a group of agents below it, they're doing a bunch of things because yeah. Drift and so forth, and different, you know, capabilities. So you don't trust a single AI to do things.

You put teams together and they do things and they, yes, they're not humans, but they're really good at what they do, Who watches the watcher. So, wait, will, will a I agents get together and argue with the mayor and then overthrow the mayor? Will they unionize?

I mean, I've already seen these. No, I mean, you, you have an answer to that. You have, but that's A local issue.

That that's the canon, that's the canon of whoever, you know, you set up that group, you set up the rules, But, but this is the, you don't do it yourself. You have a automated system like Kubernetes do it. So you don't have, you don't have to blame individuals, humans anymore, right?

But, But here's, but here's the real point to this. Will they do those things here? Because I think it's just the, the natural evolution, the natural course of, of development, if you will, as these call them personalities or whatever you want.

But, but do not confuse that with human intelligence. And that was the point of a couple articles I wrote at the end of last week, beginning of this week, just because they kind of mimic, or these behaviors come out in the na natural interaction of, of these bots of these agents, does not mean that their intelligence and the next John Locke and Rousseau are gonna talk about the Wolfman and the whatever the, the thing is, they're not Emmanuel can't thing saying, I think, and therefore I am, they're just spots. I can't help but think about the matrix.

I think this sounds like the Matrix and you know, we, we will all be batteries for the matrix, but that's essentially what they're simulating a society, right? Until I I I have a GI and then you're done. Go Ahead.

I gotta push back on all this because, 'cause again, it, it, it's, yeah, we're going through this Frankenstein, Mary Shelley, fear based Hollywood thing, and yeah, there's edge scenarios where we all, you know, and, and nanotechnology is gonna turn us into greggo, whatever, right? But, but just, just the way, you know, we need to think about the way we talk about this because intelligence and think and believe and know and feel. These are a bunch of English words that if you look them up, our don't have definitions, frankly, right?

Consciousness. We don't actually, we, I think I know because I believe this, so I understand, right, that there's no logic in that, in that sentence, except that we all agree that it makes sense. So I think we need to get over, you know, these are not human beings.

They do not act like human beings. Are they thinking or knowing or understand? I don't, I don't really care.

Well, no, there might be Chris, there might be definitions of intelligence other than human intelligence. You know, I actually agree with what Chris is saying in, in a, in a huge way because, you know, um, and he brings up, you know, these words that we don't, um, even we as humans have, I, I think a difficult time, you know, putting parameters and conditions around words. And, you know, I don't understand sometimes I'm like, you know, we're, and I hate to say, I wanna say that we're idiots if we think that ai, and I hate to say answer, yes, you know, but you know, it, AI is not sentient, do you?

I mean, they're, we're, they're not. And they are there to augment humans. That's it.

That, that that's all it's meant to do. And, and We're, we're outta time. So that is it.

I'm gonna end it with this one though. Red pill or blue pill. Take your choice.

Hey, we've got Textron TV coming up on the replay here. We'll be back tomorrow more with our Wednesday Textron gang, and I'm sure we'll continue the provocative conversations around this is Mike Ard really an AI bot just egging us on. Stay tuned.

I think therefore I'm stay tuned. He's morphous. Yeah, until next.

And I thought more like Agent Smith. But yeah, until next time. Hello Neil.

Until next time though, this Alan Hummel, we're out. Enjoy your day.