Good morning, and to all our online viewers, good afternoon, good evening, from wherever you may be joining us. My name is Sadia Zahidi, I'm a managing director at the World Economic Forum. AI has been top of mind here in the conversation so far in Davos, and I think top of mind for many of us who've been using the low cost or no cost tools that have become available over the last year or so. There are of course many more things that are impacting the future of jobs, but of course artificial intelligence and specifically large language models are one big piece of that. And we tried to look at the World Economic Forum as to what some of the impact might be. And we broke down about 800 jobs into 19,000 tasks and tried to understand what might be the impact of LLMs. And overall, 40% of all of those tasks could be impacted. Now that exposure could be either automation or augmentation, but 60% of tasks across those 800 jobs, across those 19,000 tasks are not impacted. And maybe a second point to get our conversation started. The jobs with the highest potential for augmentation. So here what you can see is in the light blue are the tasks within those jobs that are exposed to automation. In that medium blue, you've got the tasks that are exposed to augmentation, which can be a very good thing. And then there are in dark blue the tasks that are unaffected. Now of course we picked there just the jobs that had the highest potential for augmentation of certain tasks. And I'm sure our panel will tell us a lot more about their views on this. This is simply one analysis and there are many others as well. And to guide us through that conversation, I'm gonna turn it over to Francine Lacroix. Francine, how are you? Thank you, Saadi. I mean, I'm really excited about this panel because we have industry leaders who will also be able to give us an insight on exactly how you use some of the AI tools that are available, how you see it changing. And then we also have some great surveys give us a glimpse into the future of the workforce. So I could not be more delighted to introduce Nicolas Yaronimus, Chief Executive Officer of L'Oréal, Paul Hudson, Chief Executive Officer of Sanofi, Christie Hoffman, General Secretary UNI Global Union Azim Azhar, Chief Executive Officer, Exponential View, and Joe Zoglu, the Global Chief Executive Officer of Deloitte. So we're gonna have a good conversation to first of all try and figure out what exactly we're talking about because we're talking about transformation. Azim, you understand this, right? Frankly, more than most. You put it in simple words when you talk about augmentation AI. Like what kind of wave, transformational wave do you see in the next 12 months, two years, and then 10 years? Thank you very much, Francine. I think we've all been surprised by some of the tools that Sadia referred to earlier on. I think one of the incoming assumptions a few years ago was that AI tools would tackle the routine cognitive work, first of all, the everyday tasks. And what we've discovered through these large language models is they're also applicable to what we might have thought of as creative, discretionary, strategic thinking. So in some of the research that's come out in the past year, we've seen that quite high salary jobs, quite discretionary jobs in consulting and strategy lend themselves to augmentation productivity improvements when you pair a talented human with these very early, early days AI models. A talented human job. I mean, this is what you kind of, so you go around the world consulting, but also you've done surveys on actually how transformational this could be. Well, we recently conducted a survey of 2,800 C-suite level executives, and I would summarize their current feeling about all this as equal parts excited and overwhelmed. They're excited because the use cases are transformative, whether it be in the context of drug discovery or transforming, manufacturing by creating digital twins, much more effective and efficient call centers, and you can just go on and on. But there's a lot of hard work to do. There's too much shiny objects right now. There's too many buzzwords. There's a tremendous amount of IT modernization that needs to take place to actually get the data in a state that's usable. There's legitimate issues around privacy. Companies don't want their data leaking out to train public LLMs. There's issues around intellectual property. So I like the way you framed the question in terms of two months, two years, 10 years. We generally overstate the impact in a very short horizon. And understate the impact over a longer horizon. This is going to have a huge impact. It's not going to be overnight. Paula, are you excited or overwhelmed? I'm both, but I'm in particular excited. I mean, it's interesting. The genie's out of the bottle, right? It's up. It's out. Everybody's using it. It's a name for 11,000 people using AI on a daily basis. I talked to a lot of my peers. There's a mixture of fear and security and data privacy. But it's up, and it's running, and it's doing things that are incredible. And I was struck by the comments and the surveys. You know, in me, for the rock, paper, scissors of it, AI beats human, but AI plus human beats AI. And I think we have to get to that point now where we just realize that we have a huge culture change to go through because people are very defensive. People are protecting data. People don't want to share. People don't understand federated learning. People don't understand that my LLM and my algorithm will be so much more powerful, I share more. And people are not good at sharing inside organizations and indeed across sectors and within sectors. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. For me, we can drug undruggable diseases. What a way to start. And it's going to be enabled by large language models. Yeah, and of course, it will change depending on the industry. So it's different to Sanofi that if you run Lohial, how are you looking at this? Again, and in what timeframe? Well, we are very excited today. I mean, we've been using AI like everybody for a long time now to boost our formulation processes, to augment our researchers. But what we see, the possibilities of Gen AI as it relates to creativity, for example, in its capacity to augment our teams, we are a very creative company. We invent products. We create images and the capacity to use these models to boost our creativity is phenomenal, and already we are working on some advertising backshots. We have made the decision not to use fake humans in our advertising, but as it relates to products, to images, we do fantastic things. So I think short term or midterm, because we need time to train everybody. We've already trained 6,000 people, but we have 90,000. But it will be a fantastic augmentation, I think the title of the panel is very well chosen of our employees. So there are lots of things to pay attention to, and I guess we'll talk again about it, but it's very exciting. Christian, you focus, of course, on jobs, on humans, on workers. So how worried are you about not putting, I guess, the workers and the humans for this technology? So I represent workers across service industries, including ranging from professional athletes on one side to caregivers and cleaners on the other, but also including finance, IT, and call centers and workers and telephones. So everybody's afraid. What does this mean for me? The reality is some sectors are gonna be way more heavily, as you pointed out, call centers. That's the big one, where there's already been LLMs in use for a few years, so we have some data to look at. So I think, and then on the other side, on the media industry, we've seen two strikes this year over getting the right to negotiate guardrails around the use of their images and their writing. So I think in the creatives, there's a lot of fear and they're taking steps to address that through bargaining. But in the other industries, I think there's a mix of this could be great. Some of the evidence coming out of call centers, for example, is, yeah, this makes our job easier and better. On the other hand, we need the opportunity to sit down and negotiate with the employer to make sure it's fairly implemented, to make sure we get our fair benefit from it, not all the gains flow to the business, that it's fair and that some of the risks are mitigated, including job security. I would say if two-year tenure horizon, or I think it will be more gradual than what people are fearing right now and that we've seen some of these big transitions for bank workers, for example, where many jobs have been eliminated over decades and it's been done in a way, at least where there are unions, which is respectful of managing through attrition and early retirement and so on. So I don't think it necessarily means a huge displacement, just an adjustment. Nikola? Yeah, I wanted to react on the employee point of view because what we're seeing, first of all, right now, short-term, it's a job creator. I mean, half of the jobs of the hireings we've been doing over the last three years have been either related to data or to AI. So it's right now, it's creating jobs. And midterm, I see my teams, they're all working too much and they're desperately hoping to have some sort of solution that helps them crunch the data, come up with better PowerPoints and not waste hours doing them. So I think I really see this, of course, there may be some industries or some type of jobs where it's gonna be a bit more radical, but I see this as a real way to free time and probably get our employees to have a bit of a world-life balance. I mean, I think Azim stressed me out on Monday where he told me, you know, a room full, including all of my bosses, that I need to be 20% more productive thanks to AI in a couple of years. Well, I mean, you may feel that that's pressure, right? That's certainly what some of the data is showing, that right across job tasks and categories, you get 20, 30, 40% productivity gains. I think one thing we have to be very wary of is what has happened historically. When we saw automation appear in the manufacturing in the 19th century in the UK, there was a 60-year period where wages fell relative to economic growth. It was called The Engels' Pause by Economists and we need to learn from history and say what are the things that we can do to avoid a multi-decade situation like that, which did lead to some political unrest whereby we got to a better social contract by the 20th century. But we can go into that with our eyes open. And I think Christie's point about collective bargaining and how well workers' rights are respected becomes really, really important at this moment. Once we sail through the exuberance of what the technology can do, we have to keep an eye on the workers' ability to participate in that decision-making. Yeah, Paul? Yeah, I think it's interesting. I think the newspaper headlines are about job losses. But the reality is the nature of work has changed. We all know that. And we also know that, as Nicola said, we're recruiting more and more people. They may not be the same people doing the same things, but we try our best to make sure that we can retrain and reskill. But I think there is this journey to more meaningful work. People don't want to do PowerPoint. They want to be weaponized, amplified. Do they not? I mean, it's a while, to be honest, me, personally. But I understand that it's not my favorite subject to get involved in. But we don't spend enough time talking about what this will enable that is not possible by human beings.  You know, on my phone, I have all the company's data, coded and protected, of course, 130 terabytes of data every day, analyzed real-time, the equivalent of 14 million Excel spreadsheets that would take 60,000 people daily to give me an insight. And I get Instagram reels of where to look in my business, for opportunity, for risk, real-time. No human involved in it at all. And our people move from doing analytics to working with insights to doing something to have an impact. And the productivity gains that come from that, the speed that comes from that. I worry less, in fact. We have no objective, of course, to reduce the number of people, because AI can do that. We have a big objective to increase productivity, and we have an even bigger objective to establish more insights that can lead to a more valuable delivery of healthcare for patients. And that's so exciting. Most of these things can't be done by a human being not even one good at Excel or PowerPoint. That's the main skill. For the last 15 years, finally we're getting rid of it. Joe. I think part of the challenge here is that we're taking what we can see and is available today, and we're trying to project the impact over a long period of time. The environment's not static. In fact, we're on a sharp upward logarithmic curve in terms of how quickly these models are gaining sophistication. So it's a little dangerous to predict too much based on the state of play today. All of that said, you have a big debate out there in terms of how this ultimately plays out through a macroeconomic productivity, job creative versus destruction lens. This is going to make work more meaningful. This is going to make people more productive. There's no doubt. This is also gonna take some elements that are currently done by people and allow those tasks to be performed by the AI. Now in every prior wave of technological innovation, there have been far more new roles for humans created than the old ones that were destroyed. That's still the consensus-based case here that ultimately you see more net new job creation. Now whether it all happens in the same timeline, we certainly don't want a 60-year gap in terms of generations it takes to replace those jobs given the social consequences, but there are some who have expressed a concern that this time is different because the technology is moving so quickly up the curve of human capability that this will not replicate the phenomena of sort of past waves of innovation. And that has a whole host of new consequences associated with it. But sort of the smart money best estimate is that over a foreseeable horizon, this is a net job creator. This makes people's lives better. I assume the concern of course is that you're no longer putting the human with the technology that the technology could actually go past, I guess, human behavior. And there are a lot of also faults. If you look at some of the LLMs we're talking about in the green room, like there's still, I don't know whether you need better chips, better, you know, it will just get better, but there are a lot of faults in what we're looking at now in the LLMs. There are. We should also look at what happens with augmentation. The, when the first chess computers beat humans for a few years, the best way to play chess was called central chess.  That period lasted less than a decade before you're just better off getting the computer to run. And that's certainly been the case in other areas. For example, GPS, when the first GPS is came out, we were better with the GPS. Now we just trust ways. One of the challenges that we have to contend with a scenario we have to play with is that this augmentation period that we're all excited about around here only lasts for a few years. As the capabilities of these systems and process change eliminates the space of the human. And so we then need to think about how quickly can we create the new jobs right across our economy that will no doubt emerge. And I think that's going to be one of the challenges. So do we understand, again, so I guess the concern is that it just goes so fast that a lot of chief executives that are not sitting here don't think about this retraining, don't think about actually what the future looks like longer term. Yes, I think they have to think both about the augmentation over the next few years and the possibility that turns into wide scale task replacement and how they're going to create the new roles. Chrissy? Yeah, let me just come in on the point that you made earlier about 20% increase in productivity. There has been a study that was published about a month ago that said by 2030 the average white collar worker or 80% of white collar workers could do their same job in four days than they do in five. So I think when we talk about jobs we also have to think about should we move towards shorter work weeks. And as you pointed out, work-life balance, we use, you know, some of the stuff at uni uses chat GPT and they're happy to have more time, you know, to get the same amount of work, you know, potentially done in less time. So there's not anybody who doesn't think, wow, I could, you know, do my bullet points more quickly with some support or some other basic simple tasks. But I do think that going back to the question of the future we have to be more open-minded about reconstructing a work week as well. I mean, it doesn't necessarily mean that 20% of people lose their jobs. It could mean that we're working four-day weeks. We don't wanna replace that experience from the 19th century which gave rise, of course, to the Luddites and a whole series of uprisings around the use of technology. You know, we don't wanna replace that. We want this to be, you know, a win-win, you know, and that's really our ambition is to make sure workers are embedded in the process and bargaining has a role. Nicolas, four-day week? Well, you know, it's been early days, to be honest, because we're looking in the future because we're right now in a period where people had started working from home with COVID. So we bring, we brought our employees back to the office and they have the possibility to work from home two days a week. And it's very, very important today rather than, you know, before talking about four-day weeks is to have people work together. Again, we're a creative industry and I know so many employees and of so many other companies in L'Oreal that have been working from home for months and that have absolutely no attachment, no passion, no creativity. So right now my topic is more than before we get this fantastic benefit from the LLMs and from January TVI to have people to continue to work together. Yet, I know that even if you work three or even if you work five days a week today, you have very long hours at L'Oreal and I think that as far as I'm concerned, if we can get people to work even 10% less and have more time just to think, to discuss, to spend time at the coffee machine and brainstorm, that would be a fantastic achievement and I truly believe in that. And I think just to move to another topic, something we may discuss and Paul alluded to it, I think this AI and this GNI will also bring fantastic benefits to the consumers in terms of helping them make decisions, helping them treat their health, helping them choose the right beauty products amongst the jungle of products that are there in the market. That's, I think that's a very, also a very positive effect of GNI. Yeah, and I wanna come back to both you and Paul actually to see exactly how you're using it now, right? Because you're dealing with companies with Pacific, sometimes it's all a bit theoretic. Joe, can you give us an insight into, again, what sectors right now are using AI or augmentation the most and whether that will change over time? So you're seeing ubiquitous use cases. There are some that have sort of leaped out in front, I'm sure Paul can comment on life sciences which is sort of have some companies that are at the forefront here given the use cases. But this point about the consumer is really important. That ultimately we need to demonstrate that this is gonna make real people's lives better. And when you look at the potential of this technology to solve for some of humanity's greatest challenges, this is gonna be a big part of the equation relative to climate science. This is gonna be a big part of the equation relative to new treatments that extend the sort of length and quality of human life. This is gonna be a big part of the equation in terms of food security. And yet, what are we spending our time talking about? It's gonna take the jobs away. It's gonna result in privacy concerns. We're sitting here sort of riling people up over the risks and my fear is that we're in a bit of a race here. That we have to win the hearts and minds of society to see that this is ultimately gonna be a huge benefit to people so that we don't let the concerns influence the political and regulatory process so much that too many guardrails are put in place before we ever even get the chance to demonstrate the benefit. Yeah, but we have a whole bunch of elections this year and Nazim, if you don't take all the workers with you, as we know, it polarizes. Right. And so you have extreme politics. Yeah, I think it's a balancing act. So I think Joe's observation, which is we need to find pragmatic positive stories about the technology, about the potential of the technology is really, really important. It's time for a reset about how we talk about AI and augmentation, less about unalloyed fears and much, much more about pragmatic real steps that improve workers, improve the work day and improve things for consumers. Christie's vision of the four-day work week, we can build on that. 40% of Gen Z workers have side hustles. And so how do we start to rethink the nature of the employment contract that enables these young, energised, creative people to work, to allow them to keep on their side shows, selling second-hand sneakers on Instagram or whatever it happens to be? So we have an opportunity actually as part of this technological shift to stick to some nice positive stories that are practical and also start to rethink that relationship between the worker and the firm. Nazim, who gets it right? So in terms of politicians, again, we need a big thinker, a big regulator. Like, who do you turn to? I mean, I struggle to find the visionary politician who articulates this well from the major economies. I think some of the smaller economies, turn to Estonia, for example, can talk about the digital transition in a very, very articulate way, but we have experts from other countries who may have better perspectives. Paul, give me a sense, maybe, concretely. So what does it mean for a cent of feeders? So in life sciences, there's so much that you can do, like, if not protein folding, just the advancement of medicine and technology. Yeah, I mean, just before that, I don't think... I think there's a lot of discussion about cloud sovereignty and about rules and regulations. Of course there should be, but I think it's overshadowing the incredible opportunity that we have. And in healthcare, we believe we're the first healthcare company to use AI at scale. We take two approaches. See, Alex, from in silica in the audience, who may be the first person to bring a drug through phase two that was born out of AI. It's never been done before. I think he's got a shot at it. We may work together on it. There is, we just simply can't imagine enough chemical structures and biological structures to be able to find a solution. And, you know, about 10% of diseases have medicines, which means there's so much out there that we just can't find a mechanism to treat or we don't understand the pathway. We're changing that. It's a no-fee, so we have two types of AI. Expert AI, which is working on structural biology, trying to improve understandings of inflammatory processes to bring relief for people. That's about 6,000 people doing highly bespoke, supercomputing lots of power, lots of GPU work to do things that have never been done before. Then the other 85,000 people in the company are using what are called snackable AI, which is what I referred to earlier, getting nudged to make them more effective. And this is a real challenge for people because most of my peers in healthcare just want to do pilots. I'm not even sure they use cases at this point. They want to do pilots. They're worried about cyber threat. They don't ever want their data to leave the house. They don't understand federated learning and training algorithms, leaving data in safe places, particularly patient data. Which is kind of fair, Paul, isn't it?  I don't want my data to be everywhere. I think large language models work because they're large. And so one of the interesting things is I've got all Sanofi's data, right? I've got 50 years of toxicology data, and it means that I have a great understanding of what that looks like, and I can use AI to curate it. Isn't it better in healthcare that all the companies put that data together? Now, when you say that, and then we can make better medicines that are safer, faster, the reality is people go, oh, but it's my data. But the truth is, I don't want to see your data. I just want to train my algorithm on your data, so my algorithm is more effective. So I've got more chance. Oh, by the way, you can train yours on my data, because what matters is more medicines get created for patients. And there is, so we have two levels of stress. One is, do companies really adopt AI? I say no, but hopefully they will. And do sectors understand what working together in a pre-competitive space can do to elevate all boats, to do something incredible certainly in healthcare? Does it definitely help with innovation or if there's not this competition element to life sciences? Does it actually stifle innovation? Because we're looking at the same data. Yeah, but I think as with any major industries, a lot of people do things that are very similar. It's who does more with it. It normally wins. I think this era of my data is my thing. You find that your data won't be enough to train large enough to get the insights that others that share will get. And I think most people haven't made that leap yet. And we will, because we see it as a competitive advantage. Nicola, can you give me a sense? Again, you have a very large company and you've touched on this. I mean, it goes from like marketing to training to of course how you sell. You can match color foundations easier, which I guess is good for the consumer and good for your sales. But can you give us some concrete examples of how you're using some of this technology now and how that will change? Yeah, well, I could give you maybe two or three examples but quickly first, as for research, AI is an obvious booster. We are like many companies in the middle of a regulation frenzy that forces us to reformulate a lot of our products. And if we were to do it the old way, it would take us a century and we'd never meet the deadlines. So we have AI-powered formulation tools that go full time faster. And that invent, to be honest, structures, formulas that our scientists would not have come up with. So that's not only an accelerator but also a door opener. That's internally. And then there's what we do for the consumer. I just come back from the CES in Vegas where I had the honor to do the opening keynotes. And first of all, I was fascinated by the amount of innovations that were powered by AI and particularly in the healthcare domain. But as far as we're concerned, for example, we introduced something called Beauty Genius which is a conversational help for women who need to be recommended a beauty routine that would analyze their face, their hair and have an exchange discussed. So it's a human-to-human or human-to-AI discussion and it's extremely powerful in terms of solving a big pain point for consumers. So you have on the one hand the research that powered and the other hand, how do we make the consumer happier? How do we answer faster their calls? Today it takes us 11 hours on average to answer one of the 80 million queries we had. Every year we'll do it in less than one hour and it will be more accurate. So all these things are things that are powered by AI and we've just opened our Loreal GPT to have our safe space for discussion. So you're not sharing? You're not sharing cross-industry? We're not sharing. We're not sharing so much. But we have to disagree on a few things, as well. As far as the panel. I mean, again, when you speak to chief executives and do surveys, do they want to share? I mean, sharing is better, but then if you're competitors and it's not necessarily a better outcome overall or is it? So this is new. We're in, if you use your baseball analogy, the first inning, the initial reaction is to look inward and protect. So the predominant conversation with clients is we want to leverage the technology. We certainly want to take advantage of everyone else's data that's been used to develop the public large language models, but then any use of our own proprietary data, we want to stay within the company's own named LLM. So essentially take your proprietary data and layer it on to the available public LLM to customize it. Now, over time, I suspect we will agree that there is societal value in certain use cases to sharing. Now, what mechanism exists between industry consortia, regulators, government stepping in, that if we can demonstrate that we're actually gonna create a better healthcare outcome, a greater likelihood of solving some disease by taking patient data across a whole host of different organizations and aggregating it, but you then go to lowest common denominator. What happens if eight agree to do it and two don't? So that brings up the question of the role of governments, the role of regulation. For those use cases where there's such a compelling societal value to sharing. But Joe, so I spend a lot of time also thinking about climate change and how you have a uniform set of data. I mean, we don't really have a uniform set of data right now, how you collect data, so you can analyze, but you could be analyzing different things. We don't even have a uniform set of data within individual companies. So this is part of the problem is it's easy to talk at 30,000 feet about all of the potential and all of the use cases. If you look at the state of corporate IT right now, you have a lot of legacy systems, mainframes from decades ago, things patched together in manual processes. That's not a recipe to feed in its scale to a large language model. So we've got to do the hard work to actually modernize the IT environments. And then we can have the conversation around whether we can aggregate across multiple companies under common data standards. Chrissy, where do you see the most excitement on some of these LLMs and the changes that will go through either regionally or country by country or just like sectors? And again, it's different if you're in life science than if you're working in something else. Yeah, I mean, we represent workers in services. So in science, it's clear there's a whole nother set of potential that are very exciting. I think in services, you know, right now, there's been very, very little application of Gen AI at scale in large service situations apart from call centers. So, and that's been studied. We see a little bit in finance and banking. And of course, for the actors and writers in the media sector, you know, putting that apart because there is a question of using their image and their voice and so on. And that's kind of a different use case than, you know, that's more about ownership and control over image. And I think that's a different issue that has to be dealt with in the context of copyright law and of course, mixed with collective bargaining. But finance and banking, so we were just having a conversation with also the ECB president. She was saying, you know, how they actually look at data and go through data now is really generated by AI because it's just easier to go through social media to understand how the consumer is feeling. And so it gives us, gives them, they think better visibility into the data they're looking at. I think that in the finance sector, for the workers, they've been going through such a long period of impacts through technology. I mean, so not generative AI so much as algorithmic management and all kinds of other tools that have eventually led to a combination of both surveillance on one hand that workers really do not like. And so that's sort of the old, I don't want to use the word old generation of technology because it's very much in effect in across a lot of industries. And ranging from warehouses to a bank worker, I think the question of the algorithmic management has been so deeply unpopular and not necessarily resulted in more productivity rather than control versus I would say enhancement. It's not an augmentation.  So that's been very unpopular. But there has been a gradual job loss in the banking industry because of ATMs, for example, leading to fewer bank branches in the developed world. And there's more in others. But so I think in finance, there's not necessarily a view from workers that they've great, we're welcoming this technology. I do think that there is a need. There's a lot of discussion in Europe where there's plenty of unions and works councils and so on to really engage in this process, but it hasn't been like, isn't this great? It has not been that kind of experience for them. I'm gonna go to Ukraine in a second, but Azim, can you give us actually what you're worried about? I know you're optimistic about AI and some of the solutions, but there are things we're very optimistic on this panel. And there are still pitfalls that chief executives that world leaders and C-suite need to look out for. I think one of the hardest areas is the unknowability about all of this. You know, we can't really plan for what will happen. And we thought that AI would be extremely precise, like a cold Vulcan, and it turns out to be a little bit fictitious, a little bit hallucinatory, and we now have to deal with that fallout. We thought that AI would not help people be empathetic, and it turns out from recent studies at doctors who use LLMs deliver their news with a higher degree of empathy. We're not even certain whether the general models will always outperform highly specialist models. There's always been the case, the reverse has been true. The specialist beats the generalist in a particular use case. With LLMs, that might not be the case. So I think one of the challenges for any leader is to go into this, seeing the opportunity, but also recognizing that nobody, not even the scientists, really understand the technology and how it might play out. And that could lead us into making, regulating too early. It could lead us into making decisions that we can't... We then want to reverse from. So we have to figure out the architecture that allows us to explore, deploy, and do all of that safely while continually revising our fundamental assumptions. But Azim, do you have any insights? Again, how do you know a system works? How do you know the LLMs work? I mean, we sometimes, you know, at Bloomberg, play around and kind of say... We prod them a lot, and hope they do. But it's so risky, right? It is risky. They could get it wrong. There's no real way to check that what you're looking at is real. There's no real way to check, but we are making very, very slow progress. And I think part of the challenge of there's no real way to check is that, at a mathematical level, there's no real way to check. It's not just that it's hard. And so one of the questions will be, over the next few years, do we develop new technical safety protocols or do we develop new architectures that they themselves are more reliable and deliver the reliability that we need? Paul's shaking his head. He's saying, absolutely not. They are reliable. I look at our, you know, I reference the 130 terabytes. I mean, when we started doing... When I joined the company, the budget process was like 3,000 slides and it lasted forever. And, you know, last year, it was 30 slides. It was an AI-based case. It's 99.3% to 99.9% accurate for the following year's performance. And we get to make investment decisions for upside. We get to talk about, instead of the politics of presenting slides about a budget and trying to... everybody's sort of hedging, it can be highly accurate, certainly financially. And with the word itself, it takes some effort to avoid the hallucination, but you, particularly in areas where you have good context, you very quickly can work that out with better prompting. And I don't think there's any real drama about that. I mean, I Google a lot of stuff that comes up really wrong, so I don't even know...  Well, you're honing in on what may be one of the, sort of, fundamental thresholds for adoption, this question of how do you know it's right? Right. Well, how do you know humans are right? So let's take a use case. Driving a car. Every year, I think the statistic globally is a half a million people are killed in accidents caused by human beings.   That sounds great. That is probably not human nature. If you went forward and said, we're gonna use this technology that's going to kill 50,000 people a year, people generally hold the technology to a higher standard than they hold the imperfections of humans. And so we have a societal issue to navigate relative to what we set the standard at. Are we comparing it to perfection or are we comparing it to the current alternative, which is a very imperfect human decision-making process? Yes, I mean, I would turn to trusted news sources, right? How do you know it's right? It's like, if you're a news organization, you have a number of steps that you need to check and it's checked by humans. Some of these LLMs, you just don't know. If I put, what's the best makeup brand in the world? Royale. Yeah, but so what if it doesn't say, right, Royale? It means that I have to understand why. I have to understand why, but it's true. I mean, we've all read about the hallucinations. So the capital of Canada is Toronto because that's what's most commonly found on the internet. But I guess the system will have to learn, but probably one of the questions is, should we at some point tag very clearly what comes from J&I rather than not from? I mean, if I take on images, I think it's important. If we have fake interviews from any of us, the next panel was fake Francine speaking and saying horrible things. How do we make sure this is the real Francine? There's still a lot of questions and frankly, I'm not capable of answering them right now. Especially in elections. Especially in the year of elections. So there are worries. And I think the big question around regulation is should we regulate the science, which seems hard or as some panelists have said earlier, should we regulate the use cases and make some, encourage some and try to forbid some? I think that's a big question for the future. Zima actually was really good. So I asked him about hallucinations. Like when you Google, not when you put something, chat GPT and you had a great explanation, which I understand 80% of it. But it's basically the way that the model's done, right? Well, it's just that it learns the sort of underlying concept. So it learns that, you know, one top university is like another top university. So likely for you Francine to, if it gets it wrong, it'll put you at another great university. It won't suggest that you did athletics training when you left high school. Because that's too far a cognitive leap. So, but I think the scientists are making a lot of progress in dealing with factuality. But I just, I think that we can't be certain as to when that those results will be delivered and put into the systems that people are using. So, yeah, different in the science world, I guess. It's different. Look, we, we, I don't think we can get to the next generation of a golden generation of science without artificial intelligence. I think it's impossible to imagine what's going to happen. It may take time. We all know that. But I think it's, I think it's extraordinary. Just, just back to use cases. I'm interested in the driver's car thing, just to make a quick comment. My daughter lives in San Francisco. And, and after 10pm, between 10pm and 7am, she takes a driverless taxi. Because it's safer. She would rather be in a fully autonomous vehicle than on her own because that's an emotional choice and a fear choice. And I think sometimes there's risks of accidents, but there's also, we have to remember, the use cases are very different depending where we are. I listened to a defence CEO talking recently about AI. And they said, perhaps Nicola said, we've been using AI a long time in a lot of industries. But he, but she made this really important comment. She said, you know, because of the role of human. She said, look, if a missile is launched against the United States, human beings do not respond. AI responds. You can't accept, intercept a missile flying at 5,000 miles an hour with a human being. AI takes over and AI will defend the United States. If you launch a missile on another country, a human decides. Because AI does not have the moral compass to make the right decision. She said, and we bifurcate how we support two completely different approaches on a very important subject. She said, because one, a human can't do, and one, a human must do. And I just think the world is going to end up a little bit like that. For us in science, humans can't imagine what could be done to treat cancers on their own. And we just have to accept that we're going to break new ground by doing both things. But do you remember the floating balloon that was over the US? I mean, again, I'm sure before launching, it was a human that decided that actually, let's hold on to see what's so... And the Americans didn't see it because humans couldn't process the volume of sensor data that their sensors would produce, right? So they now have to use machines to do a little bit more than that. Kristi, I mean, when you look... So we haven't been in the house. I'm going to ask you, all of you, in 30 seconds, what are you watching out for in developments in AI and augmentation over the next 12 months? Is there something that you're excited about that changes? I think excited from a worker point of view would not be the right word to use. I mean, I think that, yes, as part of humanity, we are all, it's all exciting, but the people I represent are anxious to know, what does this mean for me? I think you cannot, and I understand, we don't want the anxiety to preclude the progress if that's the message, of course, but in order for that anxiety not to preclude that process, they need some guarantees, some commitments that they're on that journey together with their employers that they understand what's happening, there's transparency, they have a role, they have a right, and that they'll be part of the process, both of avoiding risks, such as they may be, which could be safety, it could be some level, some training that they need and all of that, but also to support deployment. And all the studies, the OECD study on AI came out and said it's much, people are much happier where they've been consulted and brought into the process, and they're much more eager to use it. So I think this is where we're at, like we want people to be excited, but we also, we have to address the anxiety and the fear of like, you see these headlines, 40% of jobs, what does that mean for me? So that's, yeah. Joe in 20 seconds, the next 12 months, I'm gonna go 20 seconds each to finish this off. Well, at Deloitte, we're all in, I certainly understand the fears. We've seen this movie, we can't stop the technological progress, you mentioned the leadites, smashing this stuff. We've got to embrace it and do it in sort of an ethical, responsible way, but recognize this is moving and it's moving quickly. Paul? Look, most people are using AI already. I used to go into the street, I can't believe I did this, I used to walk in the street, put my hand in the air to get a taxi. How random a chance of me getting a taxi is that? I can now use Uber because it's more predictable. It's here, I think it's leadership, it's training, it's support, it's recognition that we have to find the right rules and regulations, but it's such a privileged leader, company like Sanofi at a time when AI is the most disruptive it can possibly be. Well, if last year was the year of extreme fears about extremely unlikely outcomes, I think this year we have a chance to have generative positive, practical conversations about the technology right across society. So that's what I'm looking for in 2024. Nicola? Well, I think the key question is trust. In the end, we've been talking a lot about it, is how do we ensure that there is trust at every byte, as in terabyte? And that's data privacy, it's the ethics of algorithms, I mean, you're talking about in my domain, a skin color race, there's lots of biases that we have to work around and to make sure do not happen. So it's, we have to make sure to work together to make sure that this great progress, this revolution doesn't have more downsides, would add sustainability. You know, the computing power of these gen AI things is incredible. So everybody's talking about future technical solutions that are gonna make this sustainability problem go away, but right now it's there. So it is still, I'm very optimistic and excited, but still worrying. And if I may add one last thing as we're talking about workers, because this is the first industrial revolution for white colors, a lot of blue colors are actually happy. I'm talking about, you know, representing hairdressers here. They won't be, hair won't be cut by AI, but they will use AI to make sure you've got the right hair color. So that's what I'm talking about. Happy, happy world. Thank you so much everyone for a wonderful conversation. Thank you.


If you use our content without our express written consent, we will come after you. My staff has marching orders to take down the videos of the people who use my material without my permission.  Talking about how they were going to punish people. Attacking smaller channels that can't defend themselves. His account got mass reported. Little alpha males are getting tired of being called out. The way they've reacted is like a b**ch. The reality is that you guys are dogs. This is what they do to protect their scam image.  If you guys didn't have clout, nobody would f**k with you. I reached out to Myron to find out why in the world would you do that. And I'm glad that y'all motherf**king showed your hands. I'm a goddamn attorney. So if you guys didn't want us to cover you, now we definitely would. People don't know that you're very good with women. Like, and you were a player back in the day. Like, everyone thinks, oh, you know, he has a great LTR. My own girlfriend has had sex with a lot of men. Devin has written the carousel. He has f**ked a lot of guys. Donovan will attempt to report this video and get it taken down and it's bull s**t. And guys, and this is funny when I lost my first of two YouTube channels. Guys are telling me, go to Bitshoot. Go to here, go to there. So there you have it. That's Donovan Sharp admitting that two prior YouTube channels were deleted by YouTube terminated ban lost. Here is his current channel, over 110,000 subscribers, all these views. This is no less than the third channel he's had. The prior two were terminated by YouTube. This one by him and any YouTube employee can easily review this and find out that it was operated run by Donovan Sharp. It was all about him, just like his new channel. This one was banned for severe violations with hate speech. And this one was banned for severe violations with spam, deceptive practices, misleading content. Surprise, surprise, right guys? So any YouTube employees watching this put another notch on your belt. Your haters crying on YouTube about those copyright strikes. I don't know why though. Kevin Sam is the same thing. I'm glad. Now the haters can stop these reaction videos. They need to chill. Yep. All right. I'm just going to make this announcement. If you use our content without our express written consent, we will come after you. All right. It's a business. Y'all want to make hit pieces and all this other stuff. You can't make hit pieces without being ready to get hit back. The thing that they're mad about is that we're not going to give you the cloud and mention your name. We're going to have the lawyers do the work behind the scenes and hit your pockets. So it's your choice. What you want to do if you want to make more hit pieces on us with false information and slander us. Because we made a five hour video refuting all these claims that were made. And you're going to continue to try to ride that train and make money off our name. Cool. That's fine. But there's going to be consequences of the actions. We are going to pursue you guys legally. If you come after us and make false allegations, use our name for cloud or whatever it is. If you're going to make hit pieces, you're going to get hit back. But the problem is that you're not going to get hit back by us on video. You're going to get hit back by the lawyers and they're going to hit your pockets. So make a decision on what you want to do when you want to make videos and hit pieces on us. Y'all want to cloud chase? Cool. But now it's going to come out of cost. It was not fun in games all before two months ago when you guys were making these crazy allegations. Now that we're fighting back, there's an issue. Now we're going to take everything that we need to do from a legal perspective to come after you guys. Once again, if you use our content without our express written concern, we will come after you. All right. So it's up to you guys what you want to do. You want to make hit pieces? Cool. You're going to get hit back.  They basically tried to delete these channels. For anyone watching who doesn't know YouTube, like the strike system, like me and Paul here, I have to worry about. If you get three strikes, copyright strikes, or three community strikes, they'll f**king delete your channel in the heartbeat. In 90 days, these f**king assholes, because they're so butt-hurt and they're so f**ky, they want to cross all of YouTube for anybody criticizing them and falsely reported copyright strikes like 10 at a time.  Right. They did 20, look at this, they did 20 against Abba and Preach. Yeah. They did one channel. They might as well go f**king slap Connor McGregor. You know what I mean? I go start a fight with a seasoned MMA fighter. I mean, it's amazing to watch, man. It's sad. And to clarify for the people watching, had YouTube not paid attention, because these are big-ass channels, they usually do pay more attention, had this happened to a bunch of smaller channels, like yours channel 10,000 subscribers, you would just get your channel deleted because you'd get 10 strikes, which is way more than three, and they would just instantly delete your f**king channel. This is one of the loopholes in YouTube to f**k with channels and get them deleted. And you know, this copyright system is supposed to be used to take down direct rips of other people's videos, they add nothing to said video. And for them to abuse it in this way is a big no-no in both the unwritten and written rules of this platform. These copyright trolls, the people that would abuse fair use, because they know you're probably not gonna sue, but or you're not gonna defend yourself. Fair use under US copyright laws such as it is, it allows for limited use of copyrighted content without permission if the purpose of the is to provide commentary criticism or parody. I mean, quite honestly, this is exactly what, for example, movie reviewers use. This is why we get news agencies that are able to play clips. Fair use is very, very important and must be protected. What Fresh and Fit have done here is, I hate to say this because I do like these guys, but the way they've reacted is like a b**ch. They went under the table and tried to copyright strike and get other channels struck down, get their videos removed, get their channels demonetized, because they didn't like something that was said about them. And they didn't like that their content was used to set up a, an example of somebody that wanted to use against them. So if Fresh and Fit, if you guys watch this, I got nothing but love for you fellas, but you f**k this one up bad and you handled this one really wrong. And going after other content creators in this way, it makes you look like a scared, weak b**ch. The sad reality is in my experience on YouTube here, it always seems like for some reason it's just the men, especially the men who claim to be like, alpha, red pill, hoot, hoot, hoot, hoot. They end up getting like the most emotional about s**t. You lied. It was funny you lied, that's why people reacted. You copyright strike in three of our videos means that our channel could have gotten permanently terminated. For your reporting of our fair use reaction to your hypocrisy, you're willing to terminate our channel. All that is besides the point, you know you f**ked up.  You haven't changed whatsoever. Reality is you guys is dog s**t people. You're the exact type of people we like to laugh at and make a point of. Let's just call it is what it is. You are out here allegedly scamming people, trying to get money from desperate men who don't have sense of direction in their life.  As soon as people do that, now you're threatened termination of the entire channel because you're trying to remove all three of the videos that we made about you all.   I know y'all are insecure.  But it's n****s like you all who always try to silence somebody and try to move things around and we know y'all n****s are emotional because we saw how y'all react. Not once, not twice, but on three separate occasions to other people calling you all in your criticism. Y'all n****s got all loud and rowdy. They didn't have this attitude for a year and now they do. Little alpha males are getting tired of being called out. For those of you who aren't on YouTube much, he's basically going against YouTube culture to try to shut everyone down. Literally any YouTuber you talk to will see this behavior and think he's a piece of s**t if they didn't think that already. What's awesome about this clip is I'm having a lawyer drafting a legal letter right now which we're sending to YouTube notifying them that Fresh and Fit are clearly abusing the copyright system. And then I was scrolling through the comments and I saw that Spencer Cornelia also got a copyright strike yesterday from Fresh and Fit. Interestingly enough, luckily I didn't get a copyright strike but what did happen yesterday, oddly enough, is my Instagram got randomly deleted. That's weird. This happened to my friend Alex from Playing with Fire before his Instagram account. He hasn't been able to get it back. This was like months ago. And he told me that his account got mass reported. And I have a feeling that this happened to my Instagram account as well. I don't know why Fresh and Fit went after my Instagram. Maybe it was just their fanboys. But considering that we all got basically attacked yesterday, I mean, it had to be a coordinated thing. And again, this is what they're doing. They're literally self-destructing because their fragile egos can't handle criticism. Okay, so here's a response. Again, we have a legal team on this. They know the laws and YouTube has copyright strike in those channels because the lawyers found illegal bases do so.  In the end, and this is already happening, a lot of the people who got the channel strikes have already won the appeal.  And we actually need you guys to supply proof that people are violating your copyright. So YouTube is already onto them. So no, it's not because the YouTube found illegal bases because they're taking your money and they want to show you something for it. It's like, oh, let's just submit these appeals.  If you continue to mention this, if the illegal team go through your videos and act accordingly based on the law, please do. Make hip peace on us at your own risk. Never made a single hip peace on you. Always been very fair and objective. I agree that other content creators have, but I've never made a hip peace on you. You will be warned and you will no longer monetize at our expense. And this last thing is so laughable because he thinks it's all about the money. He thinks about monetization. First of all, every single video I have on Fresh and Fit is demonetized. I did that on purpose to show that this is not about the money. This video will also be demonetized. Again, it's not about me making an extra $50. It has nothing to do with money. Secondly, my business model has almost nothing to do with YouTube ads. That's a very, very small percentage of my revenue. And thirdly, like again, you think this is about the money because everything for you is about the money. It's not about the money for me. This is about drawing attention to some sleazy as f**king s**t that you're doing. That didn't make any sense to me. I reached out to Myron to find out why in the world would you do that and without disclosing the DMs because y'all know I don't do that. If I have a conversation with somebody, it's going to stay there unless I get their consent to put that information out. Either way, Myron is saying, okay, I feel attacked.  I'm not having it. And I can kind of understand that. But here's my criticism to that. If you use controversy as your marketing strategy, people are going to respond to that controversy. That's just how it works. You can't tell men to not be simps and then the co-host of the show is simping. And then when he gets caught simping, you say, okay, that was a part of the marketing strategy. It was all just the troll. Okay, if it was just the troll and it was a part of your marketing strategy, then when I react to that video, I'm giving you exactly what you want. I'm promoting your channel. Isn't that what you wanted? That's a part of your marketing strategy? If you guys didn't have clout, nobody would f**k with you. You talking about, you have game? You have no game. You got a podcast that gave you clout, which is the only reason why anybody even talks to you. You're ugly, serious. You're not intelligent. You can't talk. You've got no game. You're not alpha. You're literally a walking contradiction. As smart as these motherf**kers are seem to be, bro. You gotta f**king know.  You got to. You know what I'm saying? So like, for all the simps in here that's like following Fresh and Fit, you know what I'm saying?  You know what I'm saying? Like, bro, they did this s**t to themselves. Nobody is hating on them. Nobody is kicking them when they down. Nobody is trying to tear their s**t down. They calling them on their s**t. Think about it. For this many channels to have the desire to call somebody out, you are clearly doing something to evoke this kind of a reaction from all the channels. If I use your content for 20 seconds, you better believe I'm using it under fair use. I'm a goddamn attorney. Are you kidding me? I'm an attorney. We're concerned that some of the information you have provided may be fraudulent, right? And what did the attorney sign? Y'all remember what the attorney signed? Let me show you what the attorney signed again. Remember what the attorney signed about the fraudulent? What did the attorney sign about the fraudulent? Let's take a look. What did the attorney sign? Right here. I understand that abuse of this tool will result in the termination of my YouTube account. Uh-oh. Uh-oh. Looks like YouTube is on the trail. Don't avoid termination of your channel. Take this s**t back. Take this bull s**t back where it came from. Come over here with this bull s**t. YouTube is not playing, guys. YouTube is not a game. So many people are on here. Oh, he was trolling for content.  Oh, you know, this was an experimentation. This was an experiment to get clicks and views. Keep playing with YouTube. Keep f**king playing and see what happens. What did the... What did the paralegal, this 22-year-old paralegal? I don't know how she is. Let's say she's 22. Goddamn paralegal is not giving up so easily. I don't want to fight. She wants to fight. Can you imagine, guys, if you put all of that hard work into the hands of a 22-year-old that wants to fight the YouTube team? One paralegal against the YouTube team.  Do they know what alteration is? Hey, the lawyer is getting paid. He's making his money. Do not argue with what the lawyer is saying. The lawyer is just trying to stretch this out. What he just said makes no sense without alteration. By definition of us cutting in and interjecting, we've altered potato brain... All of this could have been avoided, but... I agree. Let's play. Let's go. I agree. So now that we got the green light, I got a bunch of their videos already locked up and edited, so we're going to be dropping those. So if you guys didn't want us to cover you, now we definitely will. They tried, they slung, they failed, and YouTube is now looking into them for potential termination. So, hey man, I warned them. I swear to God, I warned them. I said, guys, don't do this, because it'll come back on you. Because I know their content. And I know if YouTube takes a look at their channel, it won't last long. No, of course not. But hey, you want everybody to notice you more than I notice you now. All right. You want that notoriety? You got it. All these fuckers that are scamming you, that are misleading you, that are wasting your time, this is what they do to protect their scam image.  So, for those of you that don't know, Derek Moneyberg is suing Spencer Cornelia. Then we have Fresh and Fit, who are now coming after Spencer Cornelia. They're countless people. They've thrown copyrights like everyone.   Listen, I hope you bring that cloud over here, bro. Please bring some of that copyright chasing strike.  I'll have a legitimate reason to come after you.     The most in control of their goddamn emotions that you can freaking find. Yet they can't handle the fact that people are criticizing their bad ideas, right? This is crazy. So let me get this straight, all right?  But then when people react to the viewer videos on the actual bullshit that you're spitting on, now it's come to find out you guys want to do the copyright strike.  And you know what else is funny? Because I don't buy this. Listen, listen. Like I said before, bring some of that strike over here, bro. I would need some of that more. Some more. This is slowing down over here.  Strike the channel, okay? I dare you to. Nigga, here's the thing. Here's the thing with these people and guys like this, all right? They don't like to be called out on their own ish. They don't like to be called out on their own buffoonery.    And they're only in the business of selling you guys a dream. Fresh and Fit initially made a post on their community tab talking about how they were going to punish people if, you know, they don't want to, if they use their content. That post has been removed. So they ran like some little girls, which is what they do. They ran like some hoes. They put the community tab up there. And then they deleted it once they found out that they lost. What I'm going to tell you is this. All that tough talk about people got to pay. Those copyright claims will be retracted in the next seven days because there is no way that these guys are going to lose 507,000 subscribers. So they're going to also out and take away those claims too. As you might have also guessed, I am one of the small channels that has been hit by fraudulent copyright claim coming from the fraud and fit game. That aspect of these guys are fair. In fact, Myron doesn't want anything to do with fairness. Let's see their entire concept. They took from me into viewing girls, although I did not encourage them to intoxicate the girls and confiscate their cell phones and ambush them with topics and subjects that they weren't given beforehand and all under the rhetoric and talking points of Rollo Tomasi, which is also someone else's concepts, ideas and material. So it doesn't surprise anybody that they would be attacking smaller channels that can't defend themselves the same way they attack women on their show who also can't defend themselves and if those women should defend themselves well. It's honestly an honor for me to be able to like, I was watching this guy right a year ago and now I'm working with him and I'm able to break bread with him, which is an honor. So next question, Donovan, because a lot of people, I want to talk about this. We talked about it on my games podcast a few months ago. People don't know that you're very good with women and you were a player back in the day. Like everyone thinks, oh, you know, he has a great LTR. Devin has a high body count.  Devin has ridden the carousel. She has f***ed a lot of guys. She has cheated on boyfriends. She has done that.  You're getting ready to go to bed the other night. And my girlfriend takes off her clothes. She normally sleeps naked and I'm looking at her body and I'm like, something's a little bit off. Devin's a spoiled f***ing brat, guys. I call Devin a food snob all the time. Any man who marries a woman, any man who marries a woman past the age of 23 years old, you're getting leftovers.  That's what happened. I misled my audience about Devin's age, but I did that for privacy purposes. Now, you guys know that I'm a lawyer. I'm sorry. Now, you guys know that I'm not a lawyer. However, I've been through this process several times on The Meyer and Gaines Inn, so I know exactly how this works. I did this with Southern Israelite. I copyright struck strike seven of his videos. YouTube denied two of them and upheld five. Subsequently, Southern Israelite lost his channel. So here's how this works, here's how this works. How can I put this? The YouTube copyright complaint process is all about making good faith claims based upon a reasonable belief and not simply harassing YouTubers. Like when a complaint is submitted, if after a first review, if YouTube's team does not agree that a copyright infringement has occurred, they respond informing you of such. And I've gotten plenty of these emails. They'll say if you don't respond to this email within seven days or don't respond with any substantive information, your YouTube account may be terminated. You may be able to avoid termination if you retract your takedown request. If you wish to do so, please reply to this email with I hereby retract my claim of copyright infringement. I've gotten eight of these emails, seven of them was because of Southern Israelite. One of them was because of Gustave. Anavin Sharpe decided to copyright strike me. Weird flex, but go off. How are you going to copyright strike someone when you are explicitly talking about me? Like the video, the clip that I took from you is about me, darling. You wouldn't have that content if I didn't exist. So what are you trying to do here? I think what you're trying to do is you're trying to scare me or something and it's not working. No, when you use someone's videos, you have to ask them permission first, number one. Number two, if you want to stay away from a copyright strike, you alter the video somehow.   Like, you're supposed to know. You are supposed to know these things. Ms. Janice. As a YouTuber, you are supposed to know. What, all of a sudden now you're going to ask someone? I was curious if you know if that's copyright or not. Like, Gustave, that's on you, sweetheart. Like, again, listen, listen. I'm responsible for the copyright strike. I'm not going to run from that. My staff has marching orders to take down videos, to take down the videos of the people who use my material without my permission, except for a few people on a list. They have marching orders. I pay them for this. If you want to, if we take a look at the IG story here on Myron's, this is Myron's Instagram. This is Myron's Instagram. Let me, right? So if we take a look here at the story on Myron's Instagram, YouTube is not deleting their channel in seven days. You can see the conversation right there on the screen. And so based on this, it appears that Myron's attorneys made the complaints in good faith and followed the protocol for making their argument in compliance with YouTube's policies and law. This is the normal process. And again, I know this because I've done this several times. This is how it always goes. This is how it always goes. So the fact that Myron's channel isn't going to be deleted says to me that his law firm probably successfully retracted the claims that YouTube denied. Listen, man, my results speak for themselves. Speak for themselves.


It's for every ten horror films you watch, maybe three are really good, and one of those ten is superlative. They just peep, they just, because it's such a money-making business, they just poop out a lot of horror films that are sub-par with their storytelling and their scaring. I'll show you where your mom poops out. Hey, welcome back to our studio. Whoa. Today we got a game. It's time to play a game with your friends, and if they don't, then punch them in the gonads. What? This is, somebody made this for us. Thank you. Thank you so much, because I can't make these games for myself, because then I would know the answers. Yep. If you'd like to send us a game, you don't have to, and I'm asking you to make us a game. You can send it in the email and description of every single video. For any language, this one's Colliewood, so Damal. Not any language. We don't want it in Mandarin. True. Nothing against Mandarin. And you could make it in any language, slideshow format, or video format. Leaking air. Read that. Rules. Rule number one, 12 questions will be about Colliewood and Colliewood people that OSR knows sometimes don't, but maybe learn, I don't know. Number two, you'll earn one item. You'll earn one item required to make a sambar after each question. You'll learn. I think it meant learn. I think it missed an L. You'll learn one item required to make a sambar. Cool. Okay. Number three, questions are not increasing in difficulty. They're just jumbled up. Okay. Number four, unlike the parent show here, you don't lose if you miss one question, but you'll not have that ingredient. Okay. Got it. So you earn an item to make a sambar, and I guess the person who makes the most sambars wins, I guess. At the end of the game, you should have enough items to make a sambar. The more items the tastier the sambar is. Six. Both of you have to lock the answer together within 37 seconds. The slide is for 27 seconds, which gives you 25 times to 25 seconds to discuss a two minute buffer. No, not doing that. Okay. It's on the slideshow. Not doing the time. Slides will auto transition between pages till the answer. Okay. So it auto transitions. Ready? Okay. Here we go. Oh, you can have a lifeline. Ask Corbin's mom. Ask Rick's mom. Take a tea break. I like that. No. We're not doing that. You don't want to talk to my mom? No. Did you give her COVID, by the way? I usually ask her to not talk and to cover her face. Guttural sounds only. Guttural sounds. No high pitch squeaks. Just the guttural sounds. That's my kink.  That's all. Good. Check the first. Okay. Ready? Ready. Let's go.  Mokabala, mokabala. Yeah. Mokabala. That one. Mokabala, mokabala. Probably. Yeah. Mokabala, mokabala. That's probably. That's the Corbinization. I can't click on it. Okay. I don't know what this means. Okay. Yeah. Mokabala, mokabala. Mokabala, mokabala. Devap. Prabudevap. Prabudevap. Always and forever, that song will be the Prabudeva song. Dost. Actually, non-bar. I need to record. Yeah, we need non-bar. I need non-bar in that. Yeah. Who made this? You're having fun with this. According to PS2, who sent this funny potbelly spy, according to PS2, who sent the funny potbelly spy, I think it was the Chola Princess. I was going to give the Chola King. I think it's the Chola Princess. Cholo? No. Lean like a cholo. And we are all wrong. Wow. The minister of the court. And we like that movie. We did. But it's been a while. Which one of these songs of Anirud has vent the most viral views? Oh. Proudy, baby. Chola Varidi. I'm going to go Roudy, baby. Okay, I'm going Chola Varidi. Yeah. Two, one. You got it. You got it.  Why these Chola Varidi? Chola Varidi. Maintain, please. Who directed the Tamon movie? Super deluxe. That's a good question. Man, it's been what, four years? Directed. Directed. Directed. Since I have no clue, I'm going to go with... Cigarajan kumaraja? Yeah. I say it's Karthike Naran. We're both definitely wrong. Three, one. That was a complete and total guess. Who's the lead in Doctor? Oh. SK. SK right there. You have a Karthike name. I can't say the name, but whatever one has SK in it, I know that. We do know him now. We know him now. Unless it's Yogi Babu. Yeah, no. Is he the lead? Still three nothing. Yeah. I'm going to count that. Which one of these is not a part of his name in Kamal's upcoming movie Thug Life? He asked you to remember it. Which one of these is not a part of his name? What do you mean a part of his name? What do you mean? What does that mean? He has a long name. I do believe Nayakan and Rangrarar are part of that. I want to say that Anirutwar is the one that's not a part of that. Okay. Since I'm completely guessing, I'm going to go with the one that starts with S. Okay. Yay. Three, two. Nice. Tomato. Oh. I guess this is the Sambar. All right. I don't quite understand that aspect of this game. Which of the following Miss World Winners did start their cinema journey in Damo? That's a good question. I think it was Aishwarya. That would have been my guess because the Pika I believe is Dalu. Priyanka I believe started in Hindi. I might be wrong. Laura Dutt leads me to believe it's that, but we don't know that person. But they did say for the most part, I'm going to go Laura Dutta. Okay. It was Priyanka. I was about to switch because I was like, are they trying to trick us? Interesting. That's a great question. That's a great question. I feel like a lot of actually started in the south. Yeah. It seems like. That's a great question. Great question. Great question. Which one of the following is not a movie A.R. Ramon scored outside of Indian cinema? Which one did he not score? He did not score the million dollar arm. He scored 127 hours? No. Did he? Because I loved that movie when it came out. It was James Franco. Yeah, I know. He may have scored a million dollar arm, but I didn't think he did. I'm going to go 127 hours. What are you going to do? I'm sticking with a million dollar arm. Oh, he scored 127 hours? I thought you had that. And he did score the million dollar arm? What? A million dollar arm is a good film. Did you see the million dollar arm? No. It's a true story about these guys who were incredible bowlers that were recruited to become baseball pitchers. John Hamm is the main guy. Yeah, it was.  I had no idea that A.R. Ramon scored 127 hours. I loved that movie. Was that? No, that came out after Slumdog. Yes. That came after. So did a million dollar arm. Wow. Okay. Wow. There you go. What's the main female character name in 96? Okay. Priya. Yeah, I was thinking Priya, but that might be a common name, like Rahul. Again, what's it been? Three and a half years? I'm going to go John Nani. Okay. But even though Priya was a little bit of my first guess. It's 32 right now, right? 31. You've gotten... We've tied a couple of times. Okay. Yeah. Oh. Well, we stooges. Which of the following isn't a film in Monty Rottenham's terrorist trilogy? It's... Iruvar. Yeah, Iruvar. Iruvar. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's an easy one. Yeah. Which of these drug busts is the first based on the chrono... is the first based on chronological order? Oh, interesting. Which of these drugs busts is first? Leo's the factory. It's hard. I don't know names. But I know the factory was way in the past. I do know that. Because that was his backstory! I'm saying the joy drug bust. Wrong, it's me. Goddammit! 3-2. Which one of these was an Oscar submission from Collie Wood? Okay. Like, independently submitted or... Yeah, it's a good... That's an interesting... The country. I think it was Visaranai. I think it's Vada Chenai. Oh! Wow. I remember hearing about it. Nice. We haven't... Wait, have we? No, because I think it's a Kamal sound one. No! Wait, that... I don't know. 4-2. 4-2. What's the name of the opposite clan in the movie Saripataparambarai? The opposite clan? I don't know. These are shot in the dark guesses. Seriously. I'm going to go with the first one. Okay, I'm going with Vadayapa. Wow, I'm so smart at this game. 5-2. This is tough. You've got daddy's... We're both daddy's little princess sambar. That's a great order. Well, technically I'd be higher because we did tie a few times. If we counted them... No, ties... You don't get the points for that, technically. I did guess it read so did you. He has to win and he has to win by as much as possible. No, it would be the same amount because if we tied, it would be the same amount. I'm just saying, for this thing right here, I think I'd be closer to 8. Alright, so you're an experienced wife. Congratulations. Thank you. I'd rather be daddy's little princess. You know what I'm saying? No, I don't. Anyways, that was a fun game. Great game. Tough questions. Tough questions. Anytime he has names, I'm like... Yeah, I have no clue. That does... Name...  She was like, what's blah, blah, blah's name? I've known for over a year. I was like, I don't know. It's the worst. The worst is to run into somebody who the minute they see you, they say, Rick! And you know them, but you don't remember their name. It's awful. Guy I know.  All the memories are there, but the name is not coming to me. I hate that. I know people who... My wife. My wife! She will remember everybody. Yeah, same. Everybody she's ever met. We could have had dinner with somebody that we met in an acting class from a year and a half ago and she'll say the name of the person and I'll look at her. How did you remember their name? Yeah. Insanity. She says, how could you not even sensitive white man? Exactly. And then I say, now you're talking, babe. Anyways, thank you so much for making the game. Yes. These are always fun. If you'd like to make us a game, you could send it to the email in the description of every single video. Just make sure that it's a slideshow or video format. So it's easier for us. Cheers. Cheers. Thank you so much. Thank you. Juice!


Hi everyone, happy Saturday. I'm Joe for jaspyscasebrakes.com coming at you with 2019-2020 Panini Spectra basketball. First off the line edition, one box random team break number one. So a lot of exclusive stuff here. We're looking for on-card rookie Jersey autograph wave parallels, I guess those are first offline exclusives or gold waves. Nice. So should be pretty awesome. Big thanks to everyone here for getting into it. I appreciate it, whether you bought spots straight up or whether you won spots, I appreciate you getting in. And there's all 30 teams right there. Let's roll it, let's randomize names and teams five and a four, nine times. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight and ninth and final time. After nine, Scott down to Robert. Five and a four, nine times four, the teams. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight and ninth and final time. Got Boston Brooklyn on in the background, 44-38 Boston, got the Kings down to the Mabs. All right, so here's how the randomizer shakes out for you, Scott with the Kings, Nicholas, Sixers, Blazers, Knicks, Robert with the Clippers and Bucks, Scott with the Suns, Tom, you got my Lakers, Robert with the Celtics, Michael with the Nuggets, Scott with the Hawks, Gretchen with the Cavs, last by Mojo, Anthony with the T-Wolves, Robert with the Jazz, Gretchen with the Pistons, Raymond with the Heat, Jonathan with the Charlotte Hornets, Katie with the Warriors, Nicholas with the Pacers and Rockets, Terry with the Nets, Jonathan with the Bulls, Cody with the Magic, Adam with the Wizards, Stephen K with the Thunder, Mike Tower with the Grizz, Nicholas with the Pelicans, two big teams right next to each other here. Raptors for David May, Nicholas with the San Antonio Spurs and Robert with the Mabs, Mabs one today too. All right, let's sort by column B and let's pause the video. When we come back, we're gonna see if there's any trades and then we'll have to break. All right, welcome back everybody. A little bit of trade chatter, but in the end, no deals are done here. Thanks everyone for getting in. So there's the final list hot off the presses. So here's the first off the line boxes.  It's one, top box, and we'll save these for next time. Next break's already up on jaspyscasebreaks.com if you're watching live. All right, what did Yachty do? I have him on the fantasy team. All right, so on the bottom here, we've got Bowl Bowl, 32 out of 49, that's for the Denver Nuggets. We'll see them in action a little bit later tonight. Behind Lonzo is a Trey Young. We've got a Bob McAdoo illustrious legends for the old Buffalo Braves, which I'm almost certain turned into the Clippers. It's 35 out of 99. The Buffalo Braves were purchased and then moved to San Diego to be called the San Diego Clippers. And then they moved up to LA. Yes, in 1978, Braves owner John Y. Brown, Jr. swapped franchises with the then Boston Celtics owner, Herb Levin, who then moved the team to San Diego and renamed the San Diego Clippers. This franchise moved to Los Angeles in 1984, now known as the Los Angeles Clippers. That'll go to the Clip Show and that will be for Robert. Clippers messing up Jesse's Parley. Come on, Clippers. There's Trey Young again by this time at Refractors. Behind Kyrie is Colin Sexton. And behind Kyrie is two-color jersey and autograph Brandon Clark. Nice, Memphis Grizzlies, officially in playoffs. Looking good. That's 48 out of 49. Pattern in the background is really cool. That'll be for Mike Tower and Memphis. All right, two more packs. We've got Vince Carter, eight out of 25. I love that pattern there, Atlanta Hawks. That'll be for Scott. Cameron Johnson for the Suns. That'll be for Scott. And behind Andre Drummond is Eric Pascal, two-color jersey and on-card autograph for the Warriors. Katie with Golden State, 10 out of 39. That wave pattern is really cool. All right, and that was Cleveland edition of Andre Drummond. And the last one. Last pack, we've got DeAndre Hunter, Pulsar, 17 out of 99 for Atlanta. Behind Donovan Mitchell is Bruno Fernando, another hawk for Scott. And behind Donovan Mitchell, the last one is gonna be, is gonna be jersey and auto-KZ Okbala. Jersey and autograph for Miami. Raymond with the heat, tried to trade, couldn't trade Mojo. For Raymond, 27 out of 149. This Spectra stuff, ladies and gents, looks really sharp. We've got another box in the store right now for another first-off-the-line box in the store right now.  I'm Joe, I'll see you next time for another one of these.