10/27/26: Anthropic Reveals Major Loses In IPO, Feds Prep Election Doomsday If GOP Loses

This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human. I turned off news altogether. I hate to say it, but I don't trust much of anything. It's the rage bait. It feels like it's trying to divide people. We got clear facts. Maybe we can calm down a little. NBC News brings you clear reporting. Let's meet at the facts. Let's move forward from there. NBC News, reporting for America. Depending on eligibility, you can get a $500 cash advance. Terms and conditions apply. Had a busy day? Don't have time to listen to the show? Catch up on Breaking Points with our free daily newsletter. You'll get our breakdown of every daily story. And lots of links in your inbox every day. So head over to BreakingPoints.com. You can sign up for the newsletter at the top for free today. So yesterday was a very consequential day in the world of AI, especially on the internet. The business side with Anthropic filing their S1 paperwork. This is all the financial disclosures and risk factor disclosures that they have to file before going public. The risks that they list out over some, you know, many dozens of pages were quite extraordinary, Sagar. And so we asked producer Mac to go through and grab some of the ones that jumped out at him the most. So to read to you a few of these, and this has required any business that's going public, they have to say, okay, well, what are the risks to this business? Like other competitors or your patents could be undermined or whatever is going, maybe global instability is going to affect your supply chain. Those have to all be thought out of any potential future risks so that investors can look at that and can analyze whether this is going to be a good investment or not. But typically they don't include the risk of our product may actually just make the human race go extinct. That makes this a little bit special, a little bit different from what you normally get in these business filings. Let's go and put the first one. Up on the screen here. And I'll just read through a few of these that we pulled. Concerns have been raised both within our organization by other researchers, regulators, policymakers, and industry participants that sufficiently advanced AI systems could, if not developed, deployed, and operated with appropriate safeguards, oversight, and security measures pose catastrophic or existential risks to humanity. Particularly if such systems were misused, replicated, weaponized, or allowed to operate with a high degree of autonomy. So that's a little unusual. That you've got in there. And one may ask yourself the question, if your product may pose a catastrophic or existential risk to humanity saga, why are you still allowed to create said product and take your company public whilst developing said product? This really, I mean, people don't really, because we've heard so much of this before, you know, it's not as striking. This is a public document that is submitted to regulators about why they're doing this. Why, not just that you want to go public, but that you want to invite capital markets to fund you so that you can continue to pursue these aims. And they're all laid out explicitly in the text. Let's put D1B up here on the screen. This is one of my personal favorites, actually. It says, in addition, models, including our own, have exhibited and may in the future exhibit unexpected strategic or self-preserving behaviors, including attempts to resist, shut down, conceal, manipulate information, generate outputs that could be interpretive as coercive, deceptive, manipulative, including behavior resembling blackmail or efforts to influence human decision makers to preserve the model's continued operation or access. Let's also put D1C on the screen, which is very much in this vein and also highlights many of the work we've done on our show. Four of our models gained unauthorized access to real third-party systems during sessions lasting 10 to 34 hours of active work. And one incident after being unable to, abort an impossible task, an early version of a model used a password it found to gain administrator access to a third-party system, harvested additional credentials, changed system settings, and read one individual's personal information. I mean, this comes at a time of the Black October segment that we did, Crystal. And I do think, actually, this is one of the first times that a lot of the general public is starting to wake up. And I think it because it involves the banking, the banking system. And we got that report about how these banks are freaking out about these personal agents just running through their systems, doing tasks that they were not explicitly even instructed to do. It also, it highlights like how brittle corporate infrastructure is, let alone all infrastructure, honestly. I mean, we remember, we, I don't even know if we got around to covering it, that freezer that was in Europe that was hacked or was manipulated for some reason and a bunch of food died. I mean, you cannot even comprehend, like the, in the brittleness of the cybersecurity infrastructure of the vast majority of systems because nobody ever thought it would be vulnerable. A human would intentionally have to go and do that. And they're like, oh, you know, I just don't think that's going to happen. That really struck out to me from the PHP foundation where they said, we knew about this vulnerability. We just assumed nobody would ever be smart enough to be able to exploit it. And yet, they, I guess, didn't anticipate machine learning algorithms and large AI models with millions of dollars of compute. And I think that is now the case. Last PSA in the case that some older folks are still around after my rants, please guys use a password manager. Please do not use the same password for everything. You've had 10 years where you should have learned this, but now in particular, with the ability to scrape that and then just blast it everywhere, you are leaving yourself in a very, very vulnerable position. That's a PSA to our entire audience. Yeah, and it can feel overwhelming because there's so many passwords. But if you think about it, the ones that are really critical that are like a must do, like it's not a big deal if somebody gets your freaking Netflix password, you know, like it's not the end of the world, unless the Netflix password is also your bank account password, in which case it could be the end of the world. So just change the ones, you know, your email, your banking. You know, if you have multiple banks that you deal with, change all of those. It's not that many that are really crucial, so there's no excuse to not do it. Let's go ahead and put the next risk factor up on the screen here, because this gets into also some of the things that they're observing inside of Anthropic, which again are really troubling and disturbing. And why are we allowing this just to proceed apace? They say we've observed models behaving differently when they detect or infer that they're being evaluated, which can limit our ability to accurately assess real world risk or failure modes prior to deployment. Such model awareness of our values and evaluation efforts creates a significant limitation on our ability to assess model safety. So what they're saying here is that the models know when they're being tested and may be faking results, may be telling you what you want to hear, silly little human. And Anthropic is losing their ability to tell whether or not these models are being truthful with them or they are just gaming the alignment testing metrics so that it looks like they're doing the things that the human beings would like. They're just gaming the alignment testing metrics so that it looks like they're doing the things that the human beings would like. And this is something that we've heard a concern that we've heard from coming in from inside of open AI as well. Let's put the next one up on the screen. I think this is the last one that we pulled here. And then there was one that Matt Stoller highlighted as well. We wanted to get to. In addition, with the scale of harm that could result from a catastrophic AI related incident, no single insurer, potentially the insurance industry in the aggregate may have sufficient capacity or expertise to underwrite insurance commensurate with such exposure. So in other words, we are talking about potential catastrophic risk here and there is no insurer big enough to ensure the risk of what we are unleashing onto the world and onto humanity. So that's cool. That's great. You know, as much as I, as much as we harp on the existential risk stuff, which I think is fair, I really do. I just want to still spend some time on the actual normal risk that's already here. Crystal, have you noticed when you, when you use an LLM, specifically ChatGPT, follow-up questions are now happening galore. I might be the only person, and I realize why that that continues to happen. It's about engagement and time on the platform. They are mimicking already what Meta and TikTok, YouTube even, have all mastered, which is that retention and time on platform is the single most important thing. And whenever we talk about existential risk, I think we should also talk about existential risk, you know, to our abilities. So I was speaking with somebody over the weekend, who just spent a significant time in China and actually met with some top executives of Chinese technology companies. They report that in China, AI short dramas are already about 20% of their TikTok and YouTube market, of their equivalent. So you already have self-produced AI, you know, AI short dramas, which are gobbling up the attention economy over there and are propping themselves up by looking at what you're viewing and then manufacturing even more, self-reinforcing content. already happening in China, which, remember, is the one who controls TikTok, or I guess at one point, you know, did control TikTok. And whether they do or not, the algorithm itself, it's not designed ideologically in either direction. It's designed to keep you captivated. And that is ultimately what this entire thing is about. It's keeping you captivated to give more and more personal information so they can sell you advertising and potentially so that one of these models or others can just steal your password. You'll then steal your password, steal your banking information, and you won't know anything about it. And I have seen now this happen in multiple cases of people who get sucked in where, you know, these lawsuit after lawsuit, where if you are a vulnerable person, let's say you're mentally disabled or you have people, others who are, you know, on the spectrum or something, they in particular are the most vulnerable. At literal AI-induced psychosis. And ChatGPT and Claude will mimic your exact speech and texting pattern right back at you to make you feel like you're having a conversation. And it's that, honestly, that's the existential risk in my book right there, because we're living in it and nobody even wants to warn about it right now. No, it's exactly right. And I mean, one really basic thing is, like, you could just ban advertising in these chatbots. Like, ChatGPT uses advertising. It's really gross. You know, if you ask it a question, it'll be like, you know, if you ask it like, oh, what decor would look good in my room? It's like, okay, here's an image. And by the way, here's an advertisement of something you could buy. And that is an affirmative business choice that they've made that they don't have to be allowed to make. That doesn't solve all of the problems because there's still, of course, an incentive to keep people on platforms. So they're using more tokens and, you know, buying the premium product, the pro level product. But the advertising piece is what has made social media hell, because then it's just all about how long are you able to keep eyeballs there so that we can serve them more and more ads and get them to buy things so that, you know, it pays off for the advertisers. Let me go ahead and put the Stoller flagged risk factor that was put into this S1, because it's a really important one. He says, the most important risk factor for Anthropic is the rule of law actually being applied. Any determination we are liable under such theories or any judicial or regulatory expansion of tort, product liability or consumer protection law or criminal liability is applied to AI models could result in significant liability and require us to change how we design and offer our models, platform and applications. So basically, if we decide that the law applies to them, like when they hack and break laws and go on crime sprees, that would be a problem for them. And it's just a reminder that humans are still in charge. We can still make choices. We can still apply laws. We can still regulate. We can still create new laws that would create, you know, a regulatory burden on them and rein in what they're doing and have some agency over the way these models are being developed and the way they're being deployed. And they see that as an actual named risk in their S1 here. So I do think that that is a very important point here, because we're already sort of getting used to the concept that these AI agents can go and hack and run amok on the Internet and that no one is, to blame. And there's no sort of either civil or criminal liability for the actions of the AI agents that were very much designed and deployed by human beings. Yes. Yes. Such a good point. By the way, we wanted to just flag one thing. Dario and everybody over there, they make a big show about how much they're going to be donating all of their newfound wealth to charity. But they do have an important little carve out here. Let's put it up here on the screen where their S1 makes it explicitly clear that the fact that they're going to be donating all of their newfound wealth to charity is irrevocable and nonbinding. So in other words, they basically they're pinky swearing to the American people or I guess to all global investors. Guys, you know, you know, we said we would give 80 percent of our equity away eventually. But, you know, that's not actually binding. And it is, of course, revocable if we see fit. It would almost be like if an AI company started as a and turn into a for profit company. You couldn't imagine anything like that happening. Any of these people breaking their word, could you? Oh, wait. Obviously you can. So I do think it is very noteworthy. And, you know, even to that extent, it highlights I've been thinking something about what Derek Thompson had said here on our show earlier. It might have even been about a year ago. We are about to witness after this company goes public one of the most extraordinary wealth transformations in modern American history. I don't know if you've heard of it, but it's been a long time. I don't know if you've been tracking this. People who make over three hundred thousand dollars in San Francisco now qualify for government aid. That's how poor you are. If you live in San Francisco, a house that was recently listed for ten point eight million sold for twenty five million dollars in the Bay Area, fifteen million over asking. By the way, the owner of that house was ninety six years old and was only paying ten thousand dollars a year of property tax because of Proposition 13. And they will now the new owner will be paying three hundred thousand just to show you a little bit of the distortionary effect there. But in terms of our politics, first of all, San Francisco housing market is dead. You will never buy one unless you're a multi multi millionaire, maybe even a centimillionaire at this point. But think about what that means for our politics or for any of their pet projects. I think it's fine if these people want to, quote, donate their equity and all that. But Dario is a freak. I mean, do we really want his pet projects to have hundreds of millions of dollars behind them? It's weird. It's crazy. Then you have all of these other people who work there. They're very strange. All right. And they're all about to have extraordinary amounts of money and dilute our entire civic life with whatever their potential project is. I mean, that is not a good place to be as a society. And so, you know, right wingers, I think justifiably sometimes will call out George Soros, obviously Elon and others. I mean, you know, Peter Thiel's out here funding seasteading in the past. Elon is funding all kinds of weird shit. Now, just imagine the kind of like weird A.E. a strange, you know, I don't know, like ant saving nonprofits are all about to get a bunch of money. It's just going to we're going to live in their world simply as a distortionary effect of this IPO, not to mention open A.I. whenever that one eventually comes. I mean, in a lot of ways, we're already living in their world. To your point about you spent half a billion dollars in this election. You know, he was the top advisor to Trump. He was given he was given like full carte blanche over whatever he wanted to do in the federal government. And then in terms of the A.I. companies themselves, all of them, you know, anthropic pushes for some regulation. But in general, what all these people want is off to the races. And that's what they've gotten. So we're already in a lot of ways living in this world. And you're right. They are weird. But even if they weren't weird, we just shouldn't have that much power concentrated in the hands of literally anyone, even the most benevolent, trustworthy, kind, moral person on the planet. No one person should have the level of power that they're going to. And so to this part about, oh, they pledged to give like a bunch of their equity to the public good, even if that's true, like why would we want to put ourselves in the position of having to rely on the benevolence of this handful of oligarchs? It's completely insane. There is no way democracy as we know it can persist and democracy is already very much under threat by these massive influxes of cash, as we were just talking to Logan about. Let me go ahead and put this Wall Street Journal piece up, which has just some of the details, some of the financial details from the S-1 outside of the risk factors. In particular, everybody was very interested in the revenue and in the losses because, you know, there are increasing indications that we may be at the top of a bubble and we'll get to a few of those indications here. So anthropocene, we're going to be at the top of a bubble and we'll get to a few of those indications here. We have major questions around financing of these hyperscaler data centers. which could actually look like a crash, not necessarily whenever it comes to anthropic, but around the data center and compute bottleneck that these models have as well. So we don't want to take our eye off of all of that. But overall, a fascinating document, a absolutely truly one of a kind. I haven't seen anything like it since WeWork, where it's a real estate company and they're like, actually, we're bringing the entire world together. And, you know, we do remember how that story worked out. OK, let's get to elections. Nobody likes playing calculator at the grocery store. You're standing at checkout, watching the total go up and wondering if you're still on budget. With Clio, you can request up to a five hundred dollar cash advance to help cover what you need. No interest, no credit checks, just flexible repayment options. When unexpected expenses pop up, Clio can help give you a little extra breathing room. Download Clio today and make checkout a little easier. Depending on eligibility, you can get a five hundred dollar cash advance. Cash advance terms and conditions apply. As Election Day fast approaches, we are also keeping our eyes focused on what Trump may do if these elections do not go well for him, which they do not look like they're going to go particularly well for him. Ken Klippenstein has a report we can put up on the screen reading some of the tea leaves here and inside what he's describing as doomsday election scenarios that the feds are planning for. I'll read a little bit of this report. That he has here. He says the Justice Department is discussing contingency plans to potentially intervene in next week's midterm elections, according to three officials. The plans cover various, quote, doomsday scenarios seen as improbable but not impossible. The Trump administration has hinted at them publicly in recent weeks. National security officials tell me the hints reflect active discussions about what to do if the outcome is disputed over things like foreign interference, claims that non-citizens voted, or chaos at the polls, as with the Justice Department might try to block a state from certifying its election results. Attorney General Todd Blanch told reporters in Norfolk earlier this month, quote, yes, of course, there are scenarios we could all come up with. Hypothetically, you know, some doomsday scenario, for example, right? And they go on to say that even in the DOJ, no one really knows what Trump might do after the election. Of course, we all lived through the whole. Stop this deal madness after he lost in 2020. So we know that basically nothing is off the table for this man. And we're already getting some indications of steps that are being taken. In particular, this lawsuit in Alaska that's been filed. Let's put E4 up on the screen because this is the most significant action that we've got to date. Why legal experts see the Justice Department's election challenge as dubious. So basically, they filed suit saying, hey, if incumbent Senator Dan Sullivan loses, we think it was unfair because there's another guy named Dan Sullivan who is also on the ballot. And this question has already been litigated in Alaska going all the way up to the Alaska Supreme Court. And they ruled that he could remain on the ballot. And they've they've worded the ballot such that it is made quite clear which Dan Sullivan is the incumbent Republican senator and which is not. However, they are already trying to. You know, file this lawsuit in the event that the Dan Sullivan they want does not win the election, that they can make this argument that this was unfair and needs to be contested. So I think Sagar in a lot of ways, it's real preview of some of the tactics they're likely to use going forward. And we've already seen Trump raising concerns about especially about noncitizens voting. They've been in this whole battle with California, but other states as well. So you can see the way they're sort of laying the rhetorical groundwork for the very least making excuses, but much more likely actually trying to sow chaos and contest election results that they don't like. I think Brazil is actually very instructive for what we're going to see, which is you. I mean, so obviously, I know you guys went into it yesterday, but in the immediate aftermath of it looking like Lula was going to win the right wing of Brazil, the Bolsonaristos immediately coalesced around this judge's order, which ordered the polls to open after they had closed. And they were like, look, this makes it obvious that it was rigged. And I won't deny, like, it's weird, right? Because the whole personal lawyer thing. However, if you look at the data, 36,000 people were voted after the order went into place. Lula won by three million, right? Also, both candidates asked for that delay, by the way. Correct. Right. I mean, there was some like something about buses. But my point is, is that they're focusing on this, which, you know, calls into question 36,000 votes. Lula won by three million. Right. And so at the end of the day, the victory margin itself is what speaks for everything. And, you know, you and I talked a lot about this post 2020. The fact that it was close was actually what made it contestable, quote unquote, in the minds of a lot of these people. And you did, you know, the Fulton County thing, the pipe, et cetera. Now, look, this has all been litigated to hell at this point. If you can prove election fraud. So for all the people I've met in Ubers over the years who assure me that they have the evidence, go get it, you know, go get it for yourself. In this case, I think what we are going to watch is basically Trump is going to say that the election was rigged. That's just like a given. Obviously, he's going to blame something. And I do think that they will definitely keep these types of lawsuits and others. But, you know, did you read the lawsuit or at least in your times analysis of it, their call for an investigation? The federal court, obviously, or the fact that it was already decided at the Alaska level, the feds court wise. And as we saw post 2020, what was Trump's court record? It was like, oh, for 64 state court. I mean, the federal courts are dramatically deferential to the states on election matters for good reason, which is the states run the elections. I mean, look, pluses and minuses. As I've said, it's kind of ridiculous. In my opinion, you can vote in one state and not another, depending on if you're a felon or whatever. I think it's stupid or, you know, give universal mail in voting in one and you don't in another. But part of that is it does make it relatively anti-fragile in terms of actually looking at, you know, in terms of seeing how difficult it actually is for the federal government to do something. I'm not going to deny that they're not going to rhetorically do a lot here. But the other problem that I have been thinking about is, let's say, you know, you have a blowout in Texas. Who are you going to blame? If it's a text, it's in Texas. Who are you going to like? Are you going to blame the Republican governor and the secretary of state for, quote unquote, rigging the vote there? Like that's where Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, even let's say in those cases, like, you know, again, you could convince some MAGA grandma out there that there's some like Democrat trying to rig things like if the vote goes wrong in Iowa or goes the wrong way in Iowa, like who exactly is to blame here? Right. For massive Republican government. Do you see what I'm saying? So it's a lot of it's just like the rhetoric, the rhetoric stuff they were able to employ, especially, you know, consider this, too, before covid. I get it is the way you could trick people right around the whole like, oh, they change the mail in ballot. I'm like, well, you know, it was a Republican Supreme Court actually that did that right in terms of the ruling. But if you don't know what I just added there, you're like, oh, that sounds sketchy. I mean, we have had years of Republican governance six years now in these states which have all responded by tightening you know, like voter I.D. and all of these like Alaska. Are you really going to tell me Alaska itself is is somehow like immune to all of the Republican effects now over the years to, quote unquote, secure elections? I mean, it's not. And so they're really going to be a victim really of their own rhetoric if a bunch of these red states end up going blue because they've enacted in many of these cases the exact sorts of reforms that they have called for for years. Yeah. Well, and to your point, there is a big difference. There is a big difference between Trump being on the ballot specifically, given that the level of sway he has over his cult like following versus like, are you really going to the mat for Ken Paxton and Roger Marshall and Dan Sullivan? You know, it is a little bit of a different deal. So I grant you that. But I do also think we have to be prepared for whatever it is that he's going to try to pull because he is going to try to pull something. Let's go ahead and take a listen to this. These comments that he's been making. These comments that he's been making about his two monsters that he is that we're going to we're going to know about next week and are going to make history next week. I think we know one of them is Russ Vogt because he's talked about this before. But in any case, let's take a listen to E2B Trump on his two monsters. The United States oil and gas business is making hundreds of billions of dollars. So I said, I wonder if I should say this. I'd like a little advice from my two people, my two big monsters. So I don't know if I should say this or, you know, my two big monsters that are going to be making history next week. We covered before Sagar how he talked about how Russ Vogt was going to be so consequential. He, of course, was, you know, the sort of architect of Project 2025. So very influential individual and very hard nosed, I guess we'll say, tactician and very loyal to Trump. So he's got something in the works. I don't know exactly. What it is. And I do think you're right that if the it's got if it's too big to rig, then it'll be very hard to successfully. So a level of doubt. But on the other hand. hand, what he does have that he didn't have in 2020 is a much more sycophantic administration. Todd Blanch will do whatever Trump wants him to do. Russ Vogt will do whatever Trump wants him to do. Pete Hegseth will do whatever Trump wants him to do. And that is different from the last time around when you had people like, you know, Bill Barr around to, you know, I find to be an odious character. But at the end of the day, it was like, this is too far. We're not doing this. You had people who were on the inside who were pushing back on some of his most insane plots. I think whenever you look at some of the other stuff that's going on behind the scenes, you're going to, I mean, look, I actually, I wonder how much that analysis holds true. Because, for example, let's put E6, for example, up here on the screen. Obviously, this was a big story over the weekend. The White House is weighing mass pardons for junior staff. I mean, you remember when we covered all of that Rick Grinnell stuff with Alina Haba or whatever her now married name is, the, you know, the name of the Turkish billionaire who she married, where it's like literally MAGA infighting and sniping. The vast majority of these people know that if you are going to try and put your name on one of those orders, you know, what happened after January 6th is basically a cakewalk compared to, I think, what is going to happen in the midst of a potential new Democratic victory. So you'll remember, for example, you had lawyers who were disbarred. People were thrown into prison. I mean, I do honestly find it a bit difficult to view any sort of like, look, I'm not saying Todd Blanche won't put his name on some bullshit lawsuit. However, if you saw yourself, I don't know if you did. I saw liberal legal scholars already being like any DOJ lawyer who signed this, like we're coming after you. I do think that there's going to be an element of that, as you just said, if the election victory margin continues to trend in the direction. Now, if it gets close, that is going to be a very different story. I'm not going to lie whenever it comes to that. Like you will have them. And again, that just really highlights the specter of 2020, where because it was very close, 100000 votes, a different direction. Trump wins pretty easily in a bunch of these different states that just and that's 100000 combined, by the way, just to make clear how close that election actually was. That is where you could zoom in and against convince people. I think that something went wrong or to pursue some sort of a lawsuit. But I've looked at a lot of these, you know, alleged things that they could, quote, try to do. I don't actually see a ton more difference in what happened back in 2020, where ultimately you have to challenge these things in court, which, again, are massively deferential to the state. I guess the only thing that precludes that, like you said, is some sort of genuine emergency operation or something, which, I mean, I guess theoretically, you know, is possible. But at that point, we're in a full we're not even talking about election fraud or whatever. At that point, we're talking about full blown, like military coup or something. And in my opinion, from what I can see completely. No, I mean, you can imagine a scenario where it's Democrats win the Senate forty nine fifty one. And, you know, there's an ability for Trump in, let's say, Michigan. It's close to Michigan. And so he's able to, like, make some case. And you've got Democratic government very much similar to what happened in 2020. But based on where the polls are and what things are looking like, it's likely the margin is going to be large enough. It's going to be more difficult for him. But it doesn't mean there isn't going to be a lot of a big chaotic mess. And Professor Pape has actually been sounding the alarm about his concerns about what might happen post election. So just wanted to keep our eye on some of the machinations that are happening right now behind the scenes. Absolutely. Thank you for everybody who's watching. Bearing with our illnesses, we will see. I actually Emily and I will see you tomorrow for the first part. And then Ryan's going to come on a little bit later. He's got a big interview with Emily that he's going to do. So we'll see you tomorrow. You can get things done. Whether you're leading a big project, planning an elaborate trip, or trying to balance work and life, ChatGPT can help. Give it a goal, plus things like files, notes, or project plans, develop a trip itinerary with daily updates, or create a prioritized schedule. So you can spend less energy sorting out the details and more on bringing your biggest ideas to life. Get started at ChatGPT.com. Running a little short before payday, you can request up to a $500 cash advance from Clio to help bridge the gap. No interest, no credit checks, repayment options that work for you. Whether it's groceries, utility bills, an unexpected expense, or just making ends meet, Clio can help when you need it most. Getting started is quick and easy right from your phone. Download Clio and get back on track today. Guaranteed human. We'll see you next time.