Radio Live with William JT. Be part of it. Join the debate 0800<PHONE_NUMBER> radio live Yeah, that's the number if you want to give us a call. It's some the political panel with Matt McCartin our regular lefty and this week filling in for that rotten Matthew hooted Crooked crooked the equally rotten Cameron Slater How are you Cameron? Cameron you've just been named in the house in question time as you See but it's quite clear isn't it that there are splits and divisions of national over Someone polish the floor under Nick Smith someone in the national team did there's an allegation That it was Judith Collins. You're on the inside. What do you say? I got I'm not privy to the what goes on in the Beltway But I know one thing is Nick Smith would never have been at risk if he hadn't written some stupid letters in Support of Bronwyn puller and he's only got himself to blame for that and this whole whole charade this whole Mess that's happened there. Sure. There's I'm not gonna stick up for ACC They they've got some things that are dreadfully wrong going on in there Ironically, it's gonna suit the government because labor's going on and on and on about how did Judith polish the floor under Nick I have no idea, but I would suggest that Michelle Bogue was probably deeply involved in this and and took out Nick Smith along the way With friendly fire So she might be again we'll show our sort of unintended Consequences Look, I'm no fan of Nick Smith on his politics around the myth of climate change Certainly no fan of him on that But he's a hard-working MP in the local area and I wouldn't wish what befell him on Any other MP out there, but again, I'm not sticking up from he did some pretty silly things to get rid of a mad woman Who was pestering you, but there's a very forceful person Michelle Bogue Very well connected forceful to who not to me. No, no Well, it's starting to look like this that if you're in the upper echelons of the National Party with all the connections You just are not on the beltway, mate. You you you get to the checkbook real quick What do you say to that? Well, obviously because I'm certainly nowhere near a checkbook Haven't seen any checks come in my way. So I definitely outside of that influence I was thinking the are are the other day that that that if you're not getting checked You should be because you've probably done more for the port come company and some of these locked any other mainstream But that said I think I think that That that Nick Smith, yeah, he made a mistake in writing the letter But it does seem as you say JT about polishing the floor, you know, there's more to this and We all know before of us. No no our no politics I who benefited who benefited by Nick going down whose from when puller or all others. Well, yeah Well, that's the shell bow. Yeah, exactly. So there is the Michelle I think that Judith Collins the interesting thing about that is that key Felt he had to say in public that he had asked to twice for reassurances It didn't come from from he might have had a stutter like you Matt And so well, you can be a player gimmicks. I'm trying to actually talk seriously here So here we have a situation what is going on is there's clearly There's a gender's been played in the National Party that even the Prime Minister's not sure if he's been told the truth Michelle bow is a player. She doesn't tell the truth. She was the person who got key to stand and brash and No, that's not true. She did not get key to stand. That's a myth There well, you know myth and perception is what history is written by for those are those who win but what I'm saying All right. Well, I'll accept I had Michelle go in 2002. Oh, that's what they say So let me just put that the thing is that Collins is seen as the potential Successor successor to John Key She that Nick Smith and her haven't had much in common, you know, there's been a bit of stress between them It has been in an interest that he got knifed and not her. So there's something going on It's very murky. That's why let Ava smells it. They kind of know what's going on It's interesting that Collins is to go for defamation come back to that smelling from labor thing. Yeah, I thought on that Oh, well that no, no, no, that's fair enough. So Is there divisions in our will in our will in the National Party? There's certainly some some some some agenda which the Prime Minister know our nose about and He wants to get to the bottom of it but not in front of the public and labor in my context and cameras got his own and in laborers They believe that Collins did play a role.  What are you talking about?  I'll give you that Yeah, um, that's and I own my own words. You can't deny that man. No, no, no, no And and that's the appropriate answer Although they did go on ray on ray in New Zealand and now they'll suffer Aggregation so when you say well, I you know, well you give credit to them They did go on public road outside of parliament put it up So they will have that well mallards mallards using an anonymous mail and I hear it's from a Rather senior person who really shouldn't be emailing Trevor Mallard. That's likely to come out A senior person where in the national party? Well, exactly. So in the party. Yeah, but it makes point, right? There isn't there's stuff happening But there's definitely stuff happening in the Labor Party too. We got Shearer and Nash are sitting there one no Watching what's happening? I understand Yesterday that that there were questions over whether or not they should run this Smear attack from Mallard and Mallard pretty much just told the chief of staff We didn't really care what he had to say because he was going to do it anyway Yeah Well, you know, I take that with a grand grand assault because you went there and you have vested interest in trying to deflect I'm not deflecting.  The question now is where where does the story run and what damage if any Has occurred to national losing. Here's a big scalp. He's not formidable, but he's extraordinarily capable He's got huge institutional memory. He was taking the scalpel To local government that'll still happen over there for sure, but we're working it through who You know you're on the inside who stands the gain From his loss. Well, I understand this afternoon. They're going to announce who the new minister is to replace him There's any number that are out there. I would think they might tap sound Simon Bridges on the shoulder for that Either that or the chief whip, although He's the chief whip. Well, he's so forgettable. He's about three foot six. Who is he? Well, what I don't know. Michael Woodhouse I was going to say the Dunedin guy. So he's he's oh, he's very competent. I so lost the party vote Yeah, but bridging him a sort of the the next two aren't they generation the next you know And Simon's a marry, of course, so add browns the the cabinet a little bit or browns the the ministerial He's one of those.  Let's go back to the nixmas stuff This bogus got got a lot to answer for here. Is that what you say? This is not good for bogus. Absolutely She's got a lot to answer for look. Here's the thing take away all of the so-called leaked emails and all of that sort of stuff That is completely detracting from it. What we've got here is a woman who Has suffered a brain injury. She doesn't think straight. She acknowledges that she said that public Bronwyn puller Oh, we're hoping that you're talking about the other one. Hang on Hang on a second She's now admitted today in the dom post that she installed some software that allowed her to track What was happening with her stuff in in acc. Well, arguably that's probably a crime Secondly, she went and approached her Good friend michelle bogue Who she's used before Bogue sort of used to be her employer Well, well, yes or no, but but but you don't say this puller's a nut But you don't point out that she was the communications director for national party your party So you're a director by a nut. That's what you're saying. It was back in 2002 Wasn't it and who was in charge there? Oh, that's right. Michelle bogue worst result ever So so what you've got here? She then dies in a ditch and goes to a meeting with senior acc people She then writes they they allegedly Come to an agreement Where they say we'll return the data that she's obtained In consideration for two years of continued acc cover. That's right. Well, that's extortion. It is Is a criminal act but and but that and brahman put well, they are denied but but acc says otherwise And so they've reported it to the police and there'll be an investigation So so but michelle bogue is very culpable in that because I agree She was acting as an advocate for a woman who's admitted self admitted that she had a brain injury So that support person Has a duty to care to ensure that that person is represented properly and what she's allowed her to do is to make In it allegedly an extortion claim against stacey c And then compounding the issue. She then emailed all of that to to judith collins Judith and sent it to judith collins and judith collins has confirmed. She also sent it to a staff member In a ministerial capacity says in that letter according to david fischer that this is very concerning for your board For your CEO for your department that makes it ministerial Business searchable by the official information act You've got a question whether that letter was sent so it could be discovered Exactly And so as soon as judith collins got it she passed the she looked it and said this is dynamite I'm sending it back to the department where it belongs She got better smarts than nick smith which she would expect and pansy wong and others, right? And and so and so I agree with you and so and so what happened with bow. You're right She's promoted us this very smart cable clever woman, but you and I well all four of us know that's just dumb You know and at worst it's extortion And at best it's If wouldn't this you know, it's like incompetent and so I It's classic bow. I mean she operates in the shadows. This is how she operates and She's gone one step too far. She took on the crush and that's a really bad thing to do Well indeed, but it sort of sows an arrogance Not backed up by competence. Well, well arrogance comes from having a It's overreach You're right. It's overreach arrogance comes from having a lifetime of getting away with it. Yes and I think and and and I think that that's a better explanation because what we're You know because it makes sense is that this is a person who was tipped in the national party Put the knife to your dad too, I think Yes, she did And so yeah, I just realized that that that's quite a scurrilous campaign too, but yes, and I and I agree. I watched it from the outside It didn't work. No. No. No, they go over to dad. Oh your man's got a bit of old conservative class And so he's all right Well, you know as I say as I say Matt whenever dad talks about the presidents of the parties back in the day When he was pretty they used to get around a table occasionally that's right and and sort out the back room issues Right. Yeah, it's true, isn't it? It is he always said of all the presidents Most time I had of anybody was with matt mccartan. Oh, well look now now. Oh, well now you're damaging both our reputation It's camera and me as I never saw there. He is the man of the moment winston. He has to be the most effective because weeks crooked again Yeah, what if he got your number? He's got all of the his weeks crooked. Oh 800 radio live It's the blog is the main blog out here. No doubt about it. It's a wow We'll come to the warfare.  We're back into it. That's uh, that's the uh, Number if you want to give us a call well matt people like Cameron slater and john tummahead Egg all over their face this week, right? They had dirty rotten right wing chairman There's not many days to have a win I actually think it was a very good win in the terms of That's the port had been telling everyone they got a bulletproof case They've got it all tidied and they've got some smart sort of operators on their side And the chairman he come comes up there and j and jt goes all weak in the knees and Wanted to make laughter and um, but you should be knighted But all they did is they kind of got into overreach And I guess it's sort of it's a bit like michelle bow. They get so arrogant in the thing They're untested and suddenly you see they thought go into a judge and what Those of us have been in the defendant box in these courts, right is that judges are very anal retentive They actually believe that they're gods in their own right And so when these guys go into the back rooms and they do deals and then they renege on it the next day These judges sit like the end and then they turn up and they got a pasting and so Cameron's right You know in the legal thing it's kind of you know, well you say I say and are they back at work and they're going to pay them But this is never about money. So they can go shopping with those Will will go for the throats of those workers and they intend to have their way But for the first time you see new zealanders like People are paying the laws they do they do and so they sort of look at that and they go that doesn't seem right Well, it's interesting is and and so I think they've lost the public Fight and people now start no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no We don't want to say like Cameron has got a job job to measure pay Right. No, no, no what what he's done for them be because there are other PR guys have been hopeless But What I think that new zealanders or organ is at least who care start to think oh, well that doesn't look right That's right. Cameron. And so for the first time it doesn't look right. And that's why I think the winners Hang ahead and say no, no, no, I think I think that's true. I think No, no, I'll tell you why you can't be have been as emphatic as Pearson was all over the shop cast iron legal opinions cast iron There's no turning back from this where they haven't heard the case yet. We haven't heard No, no, but hang on mate like it's very Difficult to say that when you've been turned over on breacher process, which must have happened Otherwise they wouldn't have consented to the injunctions like like we can all read between lines We've been through courts a lot of times you have particularly Cameron and He should have been you know, but I just not doesn't look good. It looks like Well, it doesn't look good when the judge says Oh, by the way guys, can you just refrain from talking to the media? And five seconds after they go out the door paslo and cali are on in the media saying what a great victory that they've had When it isn't in fact a great victory. It's a it's really a timing process thing that they're going through They're very measured. Yes. I agree with that. And and and so they're claiming I think you talk the same language they're claiming victory and And yet not a single one of those victory not a single one of those Workers has crossed through the gates to go to work. No, but that's the interesting thing They've got a week and a half worker wages so they can take the mrs. Shopping Let's hear where it's gonna end and then we'll hear from mccartan where he sees it ending Yeah, so so the court said Well, not the court said the the minutes because there's no injunctions been issued at all yet There's a court minutes and when it said that both parties agree to this and both parties agree to that We're injunctions occurers when the parties don't agree and the judge has to make an order So we've got no orders. What we've got is two parties agreeing before the judge that they'll do certain things So what the court said is well, okay, we've issued our Our our lockout notice that doesn't take effect until Next Friday in the meantime. Tell you what? We'll pay the guys as if they were back at work But by the way, can you show up on thursday to let us know just how many of the of you there are Now my union sources are telling me that about 80 of them have bolted So there isn't 300. These are the scabs you work with, right? Well, well, yeah contributing Members of society right scabs you when I I crossed the picket line once and I wrote scab on my name badge I wore it to work proudly. Listen. Anyway, who's it gonna be like you didn't come across Where and when is it gonna be so so what's gonna happen is that is that they got caught tomorrow, right? Uh, they're gonna hear the uh, the union's arguments with regards to whether or not the lockout notice Is valid because that's what they're in court for I'm picking that the lockout notice will be upheld because they issued the lockout notice with two weeks notice Um, that's appropriate. That's the law. You're allowed to do that Just like the union is allowed to issue a two week notice of of so you're calling it, right? Yep, and then They will say and the court will come out and say yep sure But um in the meantime the guys can go back to work and the portal say well We haven't got that many ships coming in. We've already filled the roster We need to work out the roster for the next month or so anyway So look we'll pay you but you don't have to come to work And then on friday the lockout notice will take effect and those union guys will never set foot on that wharf again All right. So that's this prediction. No, no, no, no, and I think and I think that makes sense merit But you see why I suppose The point I was trying to make Is that We've always said this was never about the collective agreement The company never had any intentions of doing a good faith On our our negotiations They intend to smash that union smash those workers and get rid of them. No matter what that was agenda from day one Might is right. That's rather being caught up a few times along. Yeah. Well, that's what they're doing And and and camera you don't do your old media things for nothing. Do you but but but anyway read is good Yeah, okay. All right um So what we have is the company had an agenda and tends to run with it It got caught In terms of thought it could get away with certain things it couldn't but I think that yes They put see what they did is they put the notice of Of of of lockout They didn't expect the workers you see to turn up and say, okay, we'll go back to work now and strike is over Sure. That was a good and so yeah, it was a good. That was a good tactic But it's failed all but no no and so they'll pay the workers and so you're right, you see So when the port says we've got to have efficiencies It's all nonsense, right? They just intend to get rid of all the staff and start with low degree Don't you so that's the tactic It's exactly what I said before that's exactly what maxi's do. Yeah that we agree But but what I think the company's lost in the public perception That's what they didn't portray from the start. They kept pretending. They were acting in good faith And it's the unions. That's right. And there hasn't been and now The camera sign is what the truth is That's why you're a good camera. You're very clear about the agenda, aren't you? I'm very clear about that. That's how it's going to pan out. Um, but bear in mind There hasn't been a single finding of bad faith against the company at all In the employment court. In fact, in fact, in fact, what court case do you guys watch it? No, no, no, because that's not been the question, right? Well, I don't read the minute minutes from the maritime union's press releases like you do You know instead of just playing games Instead of just playing little games here, can we just When I spit with when I sit with employers or anyone, you know, good faith when you see, you know, bad faith when you see Hey, Matt, we better take this break. We'll come back. We'll come back to this. Okay, radio live entertaining talk and news as it happens Radio live with willian jt be part of it. Join the debate 0800<PHONE_NUMBER> radio live Cameron Slater from the right Matt McCartney from the left We want to go to huskings and because that's a bit of your area too, uh, Cameron. We want to get a Sort of view from you on the media, but we just finish on the water side is you're saying they'll never go back on the Wharf Cameron Matt, you're saying they got a chance a real chance. Well, man, I've got a little bit in the background We're up to three bucks now. Where are I? I mean he doubled it. Let's go to let's go to four four. Okay. Let's go to four. Let's make it around five Okay, well they get back on the wharf. Um, no, this is what I think it's coming down to Either the directors go or the wharfies go. That's where I think it's gone. The wharfies will go And so I think that that's now the fight I think I think now there's no choice is a fight to the finish Yes, and I think the port directors go or the union is going to go So I think it is as clear as that. Well, well, well, we know and you know that the directors aren't going Well, no, no, no, no, I'm not sure if you make the corner. Let's get right. Let's get it right back to the bare bones If if this is down to the death now But these two these two parties just are irreconcilable. Yes, one has to go. You're quite right Now you said it's either the directors or it's the union now There's a couple of things that has to happen before The directors go and I just don't see that happening. How do you see it happening? No, I no, no I'm gonna be easy and I think it will end in tears You know, you're right. No, because if witness no, no, no, no, no Here's the thing the conventional wisdom from from cam and maybe a selfish atlb, you know, oh, you know It's a no lose for the other side. See you're assuming the warfare will just roll over No, they won't roll over they're gonna fight to the death.  That's right. It's a publicly owned port Yeah, for everyone not for the unions We'll see we'll see everybody not the union. We'll see I want to see that Yeah, I hear all the rhetoric from the Like you're just Gekko. You just call yourself Cameron Gekko. See See here's the thing. That's a movie from the 80s. Most people don't remember that. You've got the same view Here's the thing that cam I think is lost No, no, no, no, no, here's the thing along along the way. I think the right have lost New Zealanders believe in fair go. I agree. No, no, they believe they do and that's gotta do it right And that's why you're calling it wrong. I think that that will see is underestimated because they'll say yes The warfare's got to compromise But see I think the port directors have overplayed their hand and I think it sits on the edge And I think your assessment and JT's assessment of mine are all the same But what I think you underestimate which you may be right But I think what you're underestimate my 18 is the public factor No, I'm not as underestimate yet a march and you scraped up 5 000 people More people went to pacifica that weekend than then went to support when's the last summer right wing march got more than a thousand Yes, anti-smackers didn't even get a thousand Boob's on bikes got a hundred thousand Boob's on bikes got a hundred thousand people in clean street and man's got five thousand There's the public Hang on he put about a couple hundred grand into the march. How many people did he get JT? Five thousand The guy's been to million dollars coming last can can can you please stop So I just say please stop because I just sort of think they're people, you know, we're just being silly The thing is you shouldn't compare we shouldn't degenerate To a people who come out to sport a group of workers on strike in five thousand. I think is actually the no No, no, no, let me finish is the biggest March this country's ever had in terms of supporting a group of workers in the dispute But look, I'm not trying to think but the index say oh, what should be compared with with with other types of marches I think it's just not compare an apple. Okay. We've got to take another break. I'll 800 radio live Only seven percent of you only seven percent of you know Seven and dropping john talk to uh, who do you want to talk to john? John john is john gone Oh, I missed him. John, where you going? I've got a comment to make but tisley Can you please explain to me the last ruling by the employment court regarding the ports? Uh, well, we can't go quickly matt. There hasn't been a ruling there hasn't been a ruling there is I thought they said they told them to go back to work and then negotiate since to start Um, they said is that the employer should be letting them back to work But the employer used some excuses about health and safety wasn't very good And so what the employer said is that we'll pay them uh to stay out because what the employer is actually doing Everyone always is growing up. They're waiting for their they had to give two weeks note our notice to lock them out And so and so what the employers are doing is trying to duck in and dive and dive to get to the two weeks Just running down the clock and they're paying down. Yeah, they're running down the clock and they're paying the workers Yeah, to me the uh management that are running the ports, uh The answer to the employment court is they're giving them the one finger salute. Correct. And that's what they're scared about Yeah, and the council by sitting on their hands are supporting that now that council's local government Now what message is that putting out to the people every day new zealanders if they're not going to abide by a court ruling Why should anyone else? Well, what is even more extraordinary No, no, no, I want I want to say No, no, no, I want to say this jump in there man. No, I will thank you He's he's he's he's the thing When the court ruled the workers are going to work they weren't turn up to work The bosses then put security guards on the gate. This is after the bosses are going. Oh, you know the economic ruin to the city We can't we only made a half of these workers are holding the We only made a half a million dollars So then Come on So then when the workers say we're coming back to work because the court is ruled for us to go back They they put security guards and say you're not to come in. No, they're violent. No, no, no No, no, and then I'm going to swallow out because this is the main point The cops turn up with three paddy. Where where where where wagons the companies gets You know, they back the company they say to the workers any of you go back to work or try to go back to work We're going to arrest you and we've got three paddy wagons here And it's extraordinary things the court rules the workers go back to work The bosses then break the law and say we're not letting them back and the cops turn up and say if you try and get back The bosses never break them. They can't break the law. There's health and safety You've got one of the one of the one of the union's negotiators Got sacked because he threw twist locks under the wheel of austral crumb. Oh rubbish It's it's in the employment court.  Yeah Yeah, yeah, just talking about the ports. I've been a I've been working down there for a few years now for a couple of years and um late They're going on about profitability down and productivity down on that all last year the year before the company's coming out with Shouts and and profit barbies and all sorts of things over there Oh another man's member and now here Hello, you carry on Tony.  I mean you got one Person in your career. They're saying what insignificant turnout, baby. That's supporting 200 workers 5,000 people No, that's john tummerhead. He's a disgrace. No, that's that's 200. That's 200 workers 200 now not 300 100 are gone Obviously, so what you're saying is go to hell Cameron and john tummerhead here, right? John only got a job because he only got a job because it's Cameron He needs to have a job because of you Kelsey No, they needed they needed they needed a Fijian to balance the three marry So they got me married married married Oh, but that is oh, yeah. Wow. That sounds good. Where you go, bro? Um, yeah, yeah, I'm just ringing because I've returned uh from the picket at Auckland city One of five people that's manica. Well, actually that's not quite true that uh at the beginning There was uh two people but as the meeting progressed over 60 people And uh representatives of all sorts of community organizations and groups and the general public And you know what the question has been asked here. Who is running this city? Uh in the terms of the port of Auckland and in terms of our democratically owned publicly owned utility Our mayor is our mayor is lembran doing a great job. How many doing a great job coming from two scum buckets. He didn't vote for him Exactly. He's doing He's doing a great job Lembran's doing a great job, isn't he John? He's actually following the law. I shouldn't have voted for banks They're certainly abdicating They're they're they're they're democratic. Oh, it's tremendous to face you look after a publicly owned. No, no He's following the law brown as a dictator unelected appointee is made by uh, uh, that's tammy here. He's one of those all right Good man. Yeah, clean brown can go jump in the lake. I owe 800 radio. He's talking about you john Radio live with willian jt Part of it join the debate Oh, 800 7 23 4 6 5 oh 800 radio live. Yes, that's the number We were with the rotten right filthy right tammy head and slater and the lovely left Matt mccartan and myself Cameron Hoskins is on the take so they're saying Um jt jt said he's corrupt don't he says he should go from this is jt the unelected person on the council getting Shrugged loads of money You're just envious talking about corruption. So no, he's saying it's corruption Do you are you offended by what huskings is doing on uh on the other channel? Look, I wish I could sponsors out there that were throwing bucket loads Editorial policy is compromised Cameron. Do you not get this? Well every radio station carries ads God, he's not what pays your bill He's not can he's not getting paid on maritone maritone union. Can I just say yeah, yes It's corrupt in the sense of that. It's not declared. It's acceptable corruption. This is someone. No, no, it's not on any See what what they parade is So is it like, you know not paying your tax you can you could think no no because that's a different thing and he's just been Shut up Cameron. The thing is that what we've got is we've got people who Are portraying themselves as independent and and and about opinions which people have been asked to trust You know and you trust in what you've been told If you know that person's also being paid by someone or an organization of which they are reporting on And you didn't know would you feel that you have been stiffed? The answer is yes And that's the problem. It's not they take the money every they're gonna make it a little bit. Yes Yes, I know but it's different when your news or Organization you're selling advertising like they do on the show to pay the bills It's declared what we've got here is you've got people who are trusted and are promoted as celebrities as faces You can trust Meanwhile, even unknown to their own employer and some of them have not told the employer. They're getting No, I get that whenever I've worked in sales All my contracts in sales have always included a provision of of Forbidding secret commissions and it happens a lot in out there and especially in technology where you In a position where you can influence the purchasing of particular No, no, no So what I'm saying is that on that level and what Matt's talking about there in terms of a Undeclared commission if it was all up front. Yes, our people get this this this We've got no issue there, but this is really really hard for all media organizations that take advertising that They stand accused Often of going soft on a particular Up in the last minute or so because your mate's all confused. You know, no, look No, no, I think I think Matt McCartney put it in the right way The problem you've got you've probably got with um, uh, Mike Hoskins is particularly with sky city One no no one he winds and dines down there for free He continues to advance it as a mecca for tourism It's got major resource applications going before Auckland city and the government over Significant support for a 750 seat theater and you've got a major broadcaster on the take without disclosing it Advancing that without asking robust questions. That's just unacceptable Yeah, and and it's not about radio life at all because jay-t's put the boot into poor Henry too, mr. Slater Yeah, we made sure he got the sack from here didn't we will The difference he got a bonus going across Australia ran him out of town. That was shameful the way he was run out of town Yeah, he's even making what was more shameful was unions that organized it For having someone sacked because of a personal opinion. I didn't be shocking. Matt and I supported him not us I saw the unite banners out there. Well, that's not Matt. He's going upwards.  How come you're supporting months? How come you're supporting mum? I want to talk about Let's talk about that Be be be because you're not going to get away with a cheap shot. There's not a cheap Quickly when poor Henry puts the boot into the shop key key, but that's okay puts it into the The guard are the governor general. That's when the ruling class get upset. That's right. What about The average worker they don't care about. What about what about the racism of mums and what's our union? That's why our union No, no, they want some tokylown workers there Graham McKean Shame on them. It's shocking.  It's shocking That's Cameron Slate. Thank you for coming in though. No problem mate. That's Cameron Slate. I like hooters on the way out Good luck you boys. Thanks, killed it. See you tomorrow


Spring Cleaning is here and Appalachian Wireless has the deal to get you started. Get a Samsung Galaxy S8 for a penny or a Galaxy S8 Plus for only $89.99 on the region's best network. Better service, bigger savings, that's today's Appalachian Wireless. So your agreement requires you to store for details. A crash on this busy stretch of US-119 in Letcher County near Jenkins Saturday afternoon claimed the life of a Pockville woman and resulted in felony charges being filed against a driver from Virginia. 37-year-old Franklin Travis Hilbert of Appalachia, Virginia was arrested following Saturday's fatal crash on US-119 at Pangap near Jenkins. According to Kentucky State Police, Hilbert's pickup truck, which was towing a loaded horse trailer, crossed into the path of a Toyota Yaris being driven by 66-year-old Judy Kaiser of Pockville. Both Kaiser and the passenger were injured in the crash and transported to White'sburg ARH Hospital. Another passenger in Kaiser's vehicle, 61-year-old Barbara Newsom, also of Pockville, died at White'sburg ARH following the crash. She was pronounced dead shortly after 5 p.m. The crash occurred at approximately 4 p.m. during rainy conditions. Hilbert told officials at the scene that he was returning from the Knot County trail ride, which was held this past weekend. Police said rainy weather and road conditions may have factored into the wreck. Hilbert performed field sobriety tests following the crash and was taken into custody by Kentucky State Police Trooper Brandon Watts. Watts declined an interview following the crash. Hilbert's horse trailer detached from his truck and came to rest some 50 feet from the scene of the crash. The horse inside the trailer was remanded to the caravan nearby resident after Hilbert was arrested. Hilbert was charged with second-degree manslaughter in relation to Barbara Newsom's death. He's also charged with two counts of first-degree assault, second-defense DUI, possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. He has not yet been arraigned in Letcher District Court and remains lodged in the Letcher County Jail on a $500,000 cash bond. From Paying Gap, Chris Anderson, EKB News.


Hi, I'm Tulip Jojri. Welcome to my video series, Coffee Time. I hope you'll join me for a cup of coffee and we'll share some thoughts. And I'd love to hang out with you in these times of COVID-19 when we have to stay at home and be careful when you go out. So hope you are all safe and my prayers for the suffering masses. We send our prayers to each and every one. But before I begin anything else today, I'd love to honor our literary giants who have left valuable words for us. And from this I'm going to share some words of Khalil Gibran and what he has said about giving.   But the things you keep and guard for fear, you may need them tomorrow and tomorrow. What shall tomorrow bring over prudent dog bearing bones in the trackless sand as he follows the pilgrims to the holy city. Yes, this is a time to give, to share as Mother Teresa has said. If you cannot feed 100, then feed just one. And from here I'll tell you of a literary character called Gopal Bhair. Gopal Bhair in Bengali literature was a character who brought humor. And I remember when we were small we didn't have television or even radius to listen to other comedians. But at such times my grandfather often told me witty tales of Gopal Bhair. So in one of these tales Gopal Bhair won a competition where he was supposed to spend the whole night in the pond in the winter of the kingdom where he lived. And the king had announced a big reward for one who can spend the whole night in the cold water. So Gopal Bhair went and stayed in the water. The king's castle had a bright light on the top. So he kept staring at the light throughout his day in the water. And in the morning he made it. But the king was very skeptical and he said, I'm not going to pay you the reward because you looked at the light and Gopal Bhair knew better than to argue with the king so he went back. So one day the king didn't have his cook so he called Gopal Bhair to cook his rice. Gopal Bhair brought a long bamboo shoot on the top of which he put pot of rice and he started the fire beneath the bamboo shoot. Not even touching it. The whole day went by and the fire unable to reach the pot on the top of it didn't have the rice cooked at all. If the fire was around 100 feet from the pot how can it cook? It wasn't getting any heat at all. The king was very hungry at the end of the day and said, Gopal Bhair where is my rice? You started cooking in the morning. The Gopal Bhair said, my dear king come look the rice is cooking the top of the bamboo and I'm heating it with the fire. It doesn't catch the heat. The king said, yeah it doesn't catch the heat but you know better. Yes my dear king he said and Gopal Bhair smiled at the king and said, so how did I get my warmth in the pond of water when I was looking at the light on the top of your castle? So hopefully you will give me my reward now. That's all for the Gopal Bhair. Now let's read a poem from me.  I hope so. Or we can have tea also. And maybe a little bit of snacks. But then grocery shops are so difficult, right? Let's get back to poetry now. This is a poem that I wrote quite a while back. But I like to read it because I like rain. Do you like rain? Yeah. Watching the rain. Rain pours in torrents bringing you to me. I remember the day you and I got soaked in the rain. Our wet bodies had clung together drinking in the rainwater and the wind blew giving a cold, shivering touch. And yet our love found thousand flames in that pouring rain. Stay safe. I'll be back. I hope you will join me again in my video series of Coffee Time. And thanks to Amarst Media and the great team who are together in these times to help me along to reach you. It's something, something. Thank you for being there and being with me until we meet again.


Hi everyone, I was just so excited about that Yanis. We just pulled and I forgot to do the wax party randomizer For random team break number nine So there's everybody right there. Let's go back to the list over here gather everybody's names one through 30 New dice new list and name on top gets a wax party invite after 12 six and a six twelve times one two three four five six seven eight And 12th and final time Just one invite. It's gonna be the name on top unfortunately It's not gonna be Chris and when soon have have all the spots and JC has a single spot right here But sorry JC not not in we'll get him next time Now between Wen Chun and Chris, let's see who gets the wax party invite It's gonna be Chris the artist formerly known as Carl after 12 So there you go, Chris. Congrats to you. We'll see you in the wax party just these case breaks.com. Bye. Bye


Hi everyone, Joe for JaspysCaseRakes.com with 2015, a little blast from the past, 2015 Immaculate Collegiate Multisport Random Number Block 22. Big thanks to these folks for making it happen. Twins aren't done yet, Jack, there's still some time, still a couple innings. And there are the numbers right there. Let's roll it and randomize names and numbers, three and a three, six the hard way. One, two, three, four, five, and sixth in final time. After six, we got Terry down to Stephen Flatt, three and a three, six the hard way, six times four. The numbers one, two, three, four, five, and sixth in final time. We've got five down to six. All right, so Terry with five, Sean with nine, Jose with three, Stephen with four, Jose with eight, Jack with one, Kevin with zero. So Kevin, you'll get any and all redemptions in this box, even though they might be expired, including one of one redemption. Jack, you'll still get live one of ones. Aaron with seven, Clayton with two, and Stephen with six. Let's order these numerically. And we're going to pause the video. And when we come back, we're going to see if there's any trades, and then the break. Stick around, BRB. All right. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. No deals were done, so this list right here remains the same. We've got another one box break already loaded up, so if you want to get that going, let's make it happen. All right. Now, we just opened a fresh case, just did one box from a fresh case yesterday. So we still have four boxes left. So we'll just go one, two, three, four on the dice roll. And if I roll a five or a six, we'll just roll again. It's one. Top box. We'll save these for next time. A pretty friendly price point on this, so pretty friendly price point on this, so let's get into it. We can finish this case off. Tackiness on this, on these 10s, kind of weird. Bradley Beal, 79 out of 99. That'll go to Sean in the number nine. We've got Carlos Rodone. Rookie Carlos Rodone in his college gear. That is nine out of 10, another nine for Sean. He's having a nice season this year. Nice start to the season for him. I'm hard to see the nine right there, but there it is. 97 out of 99, Chi Chi Gonzalez, that'll go to Aaron in the number seven. 37 out of 99, that's John Harris. That'll be for Aaron in the number seven. I like that, Devonte. Yeah, it helps. And we've got a dual relic, Devonte Parker and Teddy Bridgewater. Three out of 99, Jose with three. Virus, what's going on? Got a relic here, 77 out of 99, Josh Huff, another seven for Aaron. Jersey and autograph to 99, Melvin Gordon, 75 out of 99. Nice rookie, jersey, and autograph. And that is for Terry in the number five. And last but not least, Larry Nance Jr., to 99, 81 out of 99, rookie autograph, going to Jack. Not bad, not bad. Last two are pretty good. Good to see Melvin Gordon still kicking around in the league, so is Larry Nance Jr. I like it. And there you go, gang.  That was random number block number 22. There's more in the store, so check it out, jazby'scasebreaks.com. Bye-bye.


Hello, and thank you for joining us. I'd also like to thank Albert for all the wonderful work that he's done putting us together. He's really been the glue that's helped make this conference happen over the last several years. So if you could please join me in thanking him as well. OK, now that we've got the human out of the loop, let's talk about artificial intelligence. Whereas our friends at Google refer to it as machine intelligence.  In fact, the promise of AI has been held out there for quite some time. Most recently in the 90s, where it was massively oversold. And then at the time, the technology just wasn't there to support its effective delivery, at least on the hype that was put out there. Now today, you have some of these are well-known figures. China is investing a significant amount of money. They say it's $150 billion. Russia of Vladimir Putin has said that whoever owns AI, whoever achieves AI, which is really effectively four levels. Level one is Siri. Level four is Skynet. Whoever owns AI will own the world. Recently, there was a major AI research conference. And in that conference, they actually had to move the entire conference from, I believe it was New Orleans to San Francisco. And the reason why is they scheduled it over Chinese New Year. And the event would have had no attendees, or at least major research attendees, without the reschedule of the conference. So this is a problem. This is a problem not just from a national security perspective, but also from an American supremacy perspective if you care about investment in next generation technology. So as Albert has already mentioned, I'm joined here by three individuals who have a distinct knowledge base on artificial intelligence.  But maybe just to start out, Mike, as you have a variety of these countries digging into the artificial intelligence space, at least not just in terms of basic research, but also applied research and building them in the military programs, are we in a new artificial intelligence arms race from your perspective? Well, there might be an artificial intelligence arms race, but we're not yet in it. National Defense Strategy released in January calls that out, calls a high out, as one of the modernization areas, one of the key modernization areas. For exactly the reasons you just quoted Russia's Putin and quoted a budget figure for China, I think are adversaries, and they are adversaries. I think they understand very well the possible future utility of machine learning. And I think it's time we did it as well. Great. Ivana, China and Russia, they have a national AI strategy. The United Arab Emirates and France have released or are just releasing theirs. Where is our AI strategy? And as a person who runs a artificial intelligence company yourself, what can the commercial space be doing more to support people like Pat and Mike? So in 2016, President Obama actually released a national AI R&D strategy. It's about, I think, 30-some pages you can find on the White House website. It really goes into why we need to focus on AI. But one thing that it does not do is does not talk about implementation. So we can talk about how maybe the commercial sector within the US is actually winning the AI war. But if the technology is not being used, what's the point of having it? And I think that's something that we really want to work on. And I think as someone who is working in the AI space, a lot of times engaging with policymakers, we're even talking to senior military officials about AI. We basically have to educate them first. This is AI, and this is housed from machine learning. And this is where we're at. And here are the pros and the cons and all these things. And I think the more time we spend educating them is a time that we're not spending trying to advance AI. We're trying to think about how can we actually implement this in our strategic vision. Interesting. So Pat, as a CTO of one of the largest defense corporations out there, from your perspective, building enterprise-level systems, can we afford to be a fast follower in this space? So just like every piece of technology, you can't lead every part of whatever the technology capability is, but you can choose to lead in the application of artificial intelligence and or machine learning into the defense space. And I think that's the decision that we have to make. We have to be committed to that. There's a whole stack of technologies that exist all the way from how to organize data, how to curate, get large sets of data to the fundamental hardware resource that allows you to either train or do inference in real time. All these things contribute to the possibility of taking AI and integrate it in our weapons systems future. That's where we have to make a decision. This is this strategy that Mike and Ivana have been talking about. We've got to make that decision to be committed to that and to start. I mean, we've been doing it for, we've had neural nets in classifiers for years. I've seen them back in the 90s, and they didn't work all that great for a number of reasons. But we're seeing now, led by some advances in the commercial industry, that there's great promise in critical areas of what could be the defense and space that artificial intelligence and machine learning could have dramatic impact on what we need to do. I mean, machines can do certain things much better than humans can. And if we can to get enough of that reasoning in the machine stack, I think we can make our job in terms of the defense department mission much simpler. So to follow up on that, Ivana, running a private sector company, what would you like to see come out of either the Department of Defense or heritage industrial players like Mike's company, sorry, Pat's company, sorry, in terms of enabling the ensuring of innovative technology. Everyone talks about innovation, much like they talk about AI as if it's like a cereal box to be purchased at the supermarket store. But from my perspective, I still struggle often to understand what the actual mechanisms are could be, especially when we have an acquisition system that equates roughly with Moore's law. I think at a system level, it's interesting, because I was at Andrew's last week, and it was the strategic multi-layer assessment. And a couple of the 06 and the generals who were there were talking about this interesting thing, which is that since the 1960s, we have won battles. And to a certain extent, we won wars. But we certainly have not won any strategic vision. I think there's something that JSOC also said publicly. And one of the reasons behind the reason why we're not actually winning any strategic vision is because the monitoring and the evaluation system that we have is fundamentally biased, because we want to say that the things that we created work. Well, AI is sort of there to kind of take that human bias out, so that it's almost like a fundamental shift that I think DOD and a lot of this industrial base can't really help with is how can we actually think about using AI to do something like that. And then I think on a micro level, it is about the acquisition process. And so AI, there's new technology coming out every six months, every four months. If you're a typical acquisition process, it'll take at least eight to 12 months, if you're lucky, then by the time something is going to land in the end user's hand, it's three generations behind. So how can we actually reform that? Yeah, that's a really interesting point. And if you think about some of the promise in machine learning and artificial intelligence, you're going to make an acquisition decision based on what you think has the best compliance to a set of requirements. But yet you're going to have machines that could continue to learn and improve their performance over time. And so it's going to make a decision, an acquisition decision, and then you've got to live with it. And then it turns out that the machine that you decided was not good enough may be better in six months because of some improvement that could happen as a result of it being trained better. Sure. Mike, I don't know if you wanted to answer any of those. I've got another good one for you. Well, let me talk for a moment about the acquisition system. Please. Both Ivana and Pat have mentioned that. There's a bit of a reality, cold water bath, that we in the national security community need to immerse ourselves. And that is that we can, in the world we have today, we can either maintain our process or we can maintain preeminence. But we probably can't do both. We need to be able to move inside the decision loop of our adversaries. And our adversaries are not burdened by the acquisition system we have that has grown up really since post-World War II days, starting with the development of the ICBM and so on. And it has just gotten more and more protracted. In my couple of times as a corporate CEO, I'm well aware of the difference between the decision making process. As a CEO, I have to please my board, and I have to find a way to please the market, all right? But in making decisions about which chip to buy or which piece of software to buy or anything like that, I don't have to be fair. I don't have to give all parties equal access. I don't have to entertain protests. I don't have to pick the lowest bidder.  I'd better guess right, or I might not be the CEO for very long, but that's the criterion. Our acquisition system is built for a period of time in which, first of all, American preeminence was not really questioned. We were striving to contain the Soviet Union. They weren't striving to contain us. They were striving to break out. China is on the rise, but they're on the rise against our established position. So everything we've done has been in seven decades since the end of World War II has been done in the context in which American preeminence was not questioned. And we had the luxury of time to make decisions as if others couldn't catch up. Now we know that they or we should know that they can. And we can either devote ourselves to the maintenance of the structure that we have or we can devote ourselves to remaining on top. But that's the choice we face. If the consideration for national security officials is I have to figure out a way to be fair to everybody, rather than picking who I think can do the best job in living with those consequences, then we're always going to be behind and so many other things. If I have to structure my accounting system to be balanced within the penny, if many of us in this room live all that, if I have to maintain all of that process, then we probably cannot stay ahead of our adversaries. It reminds me of a quote by Winston Churchill who said, you can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, but only after they've exhausted all other options. And Churchill was half an American. His mom was American. So I think he knew us well. True words have never been spoken. This is a comment that was mentioned, and this is back to you, Mike, again, a comment that was picked up on earlier today. In late 2016, a couple of F-18s launched a swarm of 103 Peridix micro-drons. So shortly thereafter, China responded with a swarm of 119 drones. So one of the things that concerns me personally is less who has more drones in the air, and it's more about the ability of artificial intelligence to enable those platforms, however big or small they are. So Mike, from your perspective, how should these data points, a number of drones in the air, number of unmanned or assisted or remotely piloted vehicles out there, logistics capabilities, how should all these data points inform what our future fourth-direction investment priorities should look like? And should they change from today? Well, I think swarming drone attacks, which have recently become possible and, in fact, are occurring in theater in the Middle East, I think these drone attacks give an example where, in fact, AI can be very helpful. Because certainly human-directed weapons systems can deal with one or two or a few drones if they see them coming. But can they deal with 103? If they can deal with 103, which I doubt, can they deal with 1,000? And so you reach a point where it is inevitable to say that the response to such attacks must be automated. If it's going to be automated, then it will have to be reasoned. If it is going to be automated and reasoned, now you're talking about AI. And in fact, the ability to go after such swarms is a classic example of the traveling salesman problem. I mean, there's no provable optimal scheme for doing it. You have to do a pretty good scheme. But failing to implement a pretty good scheme means you're probably going to lose, because the enemy will also have a pretty good scheme for attacking. And if we don't think our way through those kinds of issues, I mean, that, to me, is an early end. I think what will prove to be a classic example of the military utility of AI. So this is a perfect tie-in. Ivana, Deputy Secretary Bob Lurk in one of his last speeches said, surprise is going to be endemic. Because a lot of weapon system advances, we aren't going to fight them, or we won't see them until we fight them. And if they have AI that's better than ours, that's going to be a bad day. So I guess my picking off of what Mike was just talking about, how can DOD work with the industrial base, as well as leading commercial players to counter what he calls endemic surprise? How can we work to get ahead of not just the investments, but also the employment of a lot of these technologies? And to what extent does morality, as an American, play into this, given that other countries seem not to be as encumbered by that? Or are we too moral? Well, first of all, I don't think I would agree with the endemic surprises. I think the markers are out there. We just have to know where to look, right? So for a lot of folks, I think the Russian influence and the way they're using bots and the informational warfare that they used against the West, against us, was a surprise. But I think if you were actually tracking it from the anti-vaxxers all the way onward, it was not a surprise at all where they were coming from, all that. Can you repeat the last part of the question? Are we too moral? Oh, yeah. Not sure the connection there, but OK. I mean, AI is technology. So I'll talk about technology in the broader term, which is technology is neither good nor bad. It's all about how you use it, right? So it's not going to change someone's intent. It's just going to catalyze it and help that person realize that goal faster. And so it could be bots. It could be drones. It could be whatever. I think, and it's really hard to control how someone's going to use technology. For we developed quadcopters, and people used them to take photos of videos of their weddings. But you could also be Dash. And you can also use it to create your own mesh network in Mosul. So all of these things, I think that, yes, in the US, we're probably a little bit too concerned about, oh, how can we control how someone is using our technology where we don't want to open up this can of warmth. But eventually, I mean, I understand that side of the argument. But eventually, someone else is going to open that can of warmth and they're going to own it. And so I feel like it's much better for us to actually get ahead of that and then start to think, OK, now that I'm five steps ahead of everyone else, maybe I can control it, maybe not, because there's a bigger chance that I might not. But at least I can have some kind of a say instead of having no say. How can large defense corporates enable both Mike's intent as the CTO of the Department of Defense, and as well as people like Ivana and what she's doing and others out there in the commercial space who candidly don't really, and we talked about this before, they don't really have a desire to even engage with the US government. They're not interested in developing a DCAA compliant system or being subject or even understanding what the FAR is. Like, what can Northrop, as an example, do in the space from a technology perspective? Keep them far away from the FAR, I guess, that's all. No, it turns out that I think there's a very useful space that allows and I think to Mike's earlier, encourages the possibility of the potential that there's an economic motive that exists for US companies to do well, and then there's a national security motive that suggests that we want our national security apparatus to do well and protect our ability to have that economic capability. Sort of at the fundamentals of technology, it's very useful for us to collaborate together and broadly with members of the more commercially-defined technology space. And quite often, we find ourselves in a really nice position where our commercial motivations, we're selling to our customer and defense and security customers, they're probably not and they don't understand how to do that. We can be that vector for that technology to our customer base, and yet we can collaborate in ways that can drive the underlying technology to be better for the broader economic and defense and security missions. So I think there's quite a natural matching at the technology level. We also happen to have some very interesting and demanding problems that allow us to stretch the underlying technology and discover its limitations or its benefits in critical areas. So I think there's a lot of reasons why we can and should work together in sort of a symbiotic way to drive the economic and the security needs of our country. And we're delighted. We do that in our space. I suspect our peers also do similar. And I guess that's the follow-up question, both for you and Ivana, as well. Well, we've enjoyed, I guess, a richness of technology here in the United States that, quite understandably, has given us a not invented hero syndrome, where we tend to view not just technologies but the concepts of employment of those technologies as solely existing here in the United States as a source. Given the development of emerging technologies, especially AI, what's your perspective or do you have any thoughts on what you're seeing coming out of places and concepts of employment for those technologies in places not named the United States of America? Yeah, I would say my view, especially with things like AI, is there's been a huge democratization of the underlying technology and that it's going to allow achievements. It's going to allow new applications. It's going to allow new discoveries to be made very broadly across the world. And I think we have to be present in that global technology commons. We have to understand it. We have to use it. And because if we don't, and there's better technology somewhere else, we're going to be disadvantaged. We don't want to ever enter into a fight where our weapons systems, our machines, are at a disadvantage. So we want to understand that technology very broadly and see how we can make use of it inside of our own procurement. Ivana? I would agree with that. But at the same time, there's a part of me that also looks at the other side, which is that AI essentially let's just boil AI down to algorithms. They're very different types of algorithms, but they're algorithms, which means that anyone really with a laptop can compute it. And they can create an AI, which is a scary part. By the same time, if you want to do really, really cool AI, you need a lot of computing power, which brings me to China. China, before they banned bitcoins, they were mining probably almost half of the bitcoins.  And they can totally just redirect that into AI and start to create super, super computers to crunch all the data and all that stuff. And we know, for a fact, that China collects a lot of data from everybody. And so that's a concern. Yeah, I heard recently that I remember growing up reading about stories of China's attempt to kind of seed the clouds to make it rain in certain parts of the country, if any of you remember that as well. And I heard recently that apparently now they're doing it, but using artificial intelligence to do micro-targeting to be, I guess, much, much more successful. So I mean, it's kind of a random segue, but Mike, given what Ivana and Pat have said, you've had a distinguished career holding a number of different positions in multiple agencies and companies. When we talk about AI, I mean, I've ridden the wave of big data, if you remember back when that was cool, or cybersecurity. Also another monolithic term to describe a whole number of things. Now we're in the middle of the latest AI craze. From your experience, either currently or in your past assignments, what have you seen that could work or could be a useful mechanism or a useful process for helping onshore the some of this advanced artificial intelligence technology that people keep saying that they want? Well, let me comment on that in the context of Pat's and Ivana's remarks. Pat said, we've seen the democratization of AI. And Ivana commented that if you have a laptop, you can do AI. It's a, I might rephrase the same thing and say it is a field with low capital barriers to entry. Yeah, a whole bunch of computers are a great idea, but if you've got one and you're clever, you can do something. And who knows what the invention will be that really takes off? I mean, Sergey Brin and Larry Page didn't start with rooms full of computers. Einstein worked out relativity using nothing more than algebra and an inquisitive nature or inquisitive mind about the nature of the universe. That sounds pretty straightforward. Right. So it's really difficult in endeavors that are inherently low capital intensive. It's really difficult to say who is going to make the next major advance, where it will come from, how powerful it can become. So to that extent, when you talk about on-shoring such things, yeah, it's nice to have lots of compute power and all that stuff. But what we really need to do is to have a climate which wants to attract the best minds. A fear of mine has been that since 9-11, we have really clamped down on a number of different ways in which the United States used to be attractive to the best and brightest. Now I think we still are. I mean, a country that has people clamoring to get here is a better arrangement than having a country where people are trying to get out. But we're not always doing, with regard to our immigration policies, the kinds of things that would cause people to want to come here, get a great education, and stay here. Sure. So for areas that are, you know, my native field is space and rocketry and things like that. Well, those are highly capital intensive systems. AI is not. And the rules of how you progress are very different in those systems. And I think we should take notice of that. Well, and I'm really glad you said that, because realizing that you're not the PNR, a question I'd love to ask you, and the genesis of this is the saying that says, you know that you're avoiding innovation theater when the budget for innovation comes out of the CTO's budget instead of the chief marketing officer's budget. So along those lines, what's the incentive for defense personnel and the corresponding civilians to understand or have basic AI literacy, right? Maybe not know how to go to a general assembly class and learn how to code in Python, but at least have basic technical literacy around things such as AI, but not only specific to that, and one that can be promoted without it. I mean, from a CTO's perspective, what's your perspective on that? Well, I'm hardly just a department CTO. That's one of my legal responsibilities, but I also have line organizations in, say, missile defense. DARPA both report to my office. DARPA, of course, spans the waterfront on their whole mission in life is to prevent technological surprise by the United States and to cause surprise for others across a wide range of activities. So I personally think we can't lose sight of the fact that there are many dimensions of national security. We have to add a new one without losing the others, or else I have to do it without losing our audio visual. Yeah. So this is a discipline that we have to add on. I don't have a problem that people can be promoted to high levels without working knowledge of AI. What I want to see is that working knowledge or even great expertise in AI will be sufficient for people to be promoted. I don't want to go to a place where you can't get anywhere unless you're AI literate. That might not be that useful to people who are trying to help us develop ever more quiet submarines, for example. So let's not get head up and locked on the shiny penny. We need to add AI to our quiver. I think all of us have been very clearly clear about that. It needs to be a new arrow in the quiver, but it's not the only arrow. So I guess it's a follow-up, and any of you can take this one. What concerns me about artificial intelligence, this time is different monologue, is the fact that it enables, really what it enables is hyperwar. We talked about hybrid warfare with the little green men and the return of core warfare. But what concerns me is that the ability of a fairly democratized technology with low capital costs, low business barriers to entry as well, to be employed in a way that can expedite adversarial decision making, as well as their ability to really employ that decision, whatever the decision that is, in the battlefield. And so I guess what I'm curious is, is artificial intelligence the same hype or no hype as cybersecurity, or big data, or blockchain, or any of these other shiny pennies, so to speak? And is this really a game changer when it comes to how we think about basic and applied R&D, how we think about how we orient around our force structure, things like that? I'll start. Please. I won't use a lot of time. My answer is, how can you know? You can't afford to put yourself in a position where you don't know, because a reasoned technical individual would say, there could be something there. We're at its infancy.  We have an infant. But we can conclude, reasonably, that there might be some real advantages, and we can't let others be the only one to mine those advantages, particularly in a world where, if the global level powers all have nuclear weapons, it's really hard to envision serious kinetic strikes on each other's infrastructure. You can envision air battles and sea battles, but it's a whole different level to imagine China striking our mainland, or we theirs, or any other nuclear power. So given that, and given the desire of different cultures and different nations to prevail over others, which I don't see going away, much as it might be nice, given the desire of nations to prevail over others, they will seek other means to do so. And cyber attacks and AI and other possibilities will naturally occur. I mean, I've often said, I've often called attention to the dependence of the US economy on the GPS timing signal. Now, it has become popular to point that out. I like to think that I was one of the more paranoid people for spotting it earlier. But irrespective of that, you have to ask yourself the question, if half the US economy goes down because we don't have the GPS timing signal to allow encrypted financial transactions to take place, then in what sense can the national security establishment say that they're defending the nation? I mean, maybe no bricks and mortar were pounded into dust, but two days without electricity in New York goes feral. So the number in an advanced society, the number of different ways to be vulnerable, increases greatly. And AI and cyber and some of these other newer realms offer possibilities to our adversaries to do that. We must see to it that we cannot be surprised. Let me stop there. Yeah, and while you guys are talking, if you can weave in as well, I think a good point that Mike brought up around escalation dynamics as well, if you have a technology that can easily ratchet up the potency of the strategic corporal, so to speak, whether they're in the Donetsk Basin or somewhere else. I mean, so information warfare and information operations is one of the places. And speaking of hyperwarfare, I think that is a very good example of hyperwarfare because there's a website online. I forget the name, but it's essentially WordPress for Twitter bots. So in 10 minutes, you can create your own Twitter bot. Anyone can do it. It's slightly terrifying to think about because bots by themselves are a lot of corporations use bots on Twitter. So when you're writing like, hey, American airline, like, my fly was delayed, blah, blah, blah, blah, the first line of response that you get from American airline on Twitter, that's a bot. So it's not bad, but the fact that someone can create a bot. I've explained it so much. Thank you. And so if someone can create a Twitter bot in 10 minutes and use it for whatever purpose they want, that is very concerning. And so I teach at NATO, and I always say this, which is that information warfare sometimes can be seen as even more dangerous than the arms race because there's no mutually assured destruction. What is the consequence of the entire internet being flooded by bots? A, 70% of us probably would not even know that there were bots. B, we don't have an alternative to the internet until quantum internet is invented and stable enough. We have to use it. And then going back to the hype about AI, I think there is a lot of hype, but I also think that the hype is there because a lot of people don't understand what it is. So everyone's talking about it like they know what it is, but a lot of them don't. And so it's a very abstract way of talking about it that actually undermines the amount of time we could be spending talking about real AI problems. Interesting. Pat? Just one other thing to add. These are really terrific thoughts here. There's this tendency to just black box AI. AI is this big black box computer.   You run it and you get magic answers out of it. Well, that's really not a great way of evaluating either you or your adversaries decision-making process or creating effects. I think when you untangle this hype around AI, it's an important tool. And I think we need, whether our adversaries have it or not, I think we need to have that arrow in our quiver to support the decision-making processes, the pulse to pulse fight that happens in the electronics regime. You're talking about these bots. Talk about swarms, products coming out. These are swarms. These bots are essentially another form of swarm. And we've got to have machines that can carry out and execute the things that we need them to do in the battle space. And that's where I think we need to take artificial intelligence and machine learning for our customers. Great. Well, we have about five minutes left for questions. So people with the mics, we have one there. We have a question right up here in front, please. Please give your name and identify yourself too. Thank you, Patrick Tucker from Defense One. For Dr. Griffin, you just mentioned a moment ago how you're ahead of the cool kids on urgency regarding US GPS reliance, particularly across the economy and not just for defense. As you put together 10 areas or so, as you've said, where you're going to be looking to make investments for the future of research and development for the Defense Department, what are some of the key areas that are emerging as threat areas that have been left out of the larger conversation that you're going to be paying particular attention to? Well, the kind of priorities for the research and engineering secretariat are not secret. And we didn't just think them up. If you read the National Defense Strategy, the unclassified version, they call out 10 or a dozen areas where the United States really needs to modernize its national security establishment. So for example, well, AI is one of those, and that's what we've spent this panel talking about. But another is quantum computing. Well, I'm on a mission to change that to quantum science because the potential engineering applications of quantum science now 100 or so years after the scientific invention of the discipline go include, but go well beyond computing, hypersonics. I think any open publication in the defense arena will provide you with ample evidence that China now has a significantly advanced offensive hypersonic capability that the United States needs to have and does not yet. Directed energy weapons, we, as a result of the urgency of the mid-east war, something like a decade ago, we started scaling back our investments in directed energy. Well, even with the world's best AI, let's assume perfect AI to counter a swarm of drones might be difficult to do that with physical bullets. I might need directed energy to be able to shoot what I can target as one example. The microelectronics industry was very worrisome, and I believe properly so, to those who crafted the national defense strategy. It used to be that on purely economic and performance grounds alone, leaving aside trust issues, United States microelectronic vendors led the world. People wanted to buy US microelectronics because that was the best stuff. That's not so anymore. We need to fix that. So those are a few of the areas, and I have a few more. Let me let someone else have a turn. Questions? They're in the front place. So in the lead up to World War II, I'm Matt Ryan with the Council for Emerging National Security Affairs. In the lead up to World War II, there was a usability gap, specifically with respect to technologies like aircraft. Dr. Singer mentioned this earlier, but is there going to be a usability gap when it comes to AI and human capability to remain in the loop, or is it just a matter of computing power when we decide who's going to have that bad day? Go for it, Ivana. The short answer, since I see the stop sign, is yes, there will be a gap. And it's something that was actually highlighted in the 2016 is that we need to start retraining the workforce to actually start to think of, or to retrain the workforce to work directly with semi-autonomous or AI in general. Because right now, it's kind of just an ad hoc process that people sort of just learn on the fly, but I don't think there's any comprehensive training. Pat, any last thoughts? I mean, this idea of finding a gap that AI will either fill or be threatened to have overmatch, I think this is a decision that we have to make as a nation. If we believe that artificial intelligence machine learning has that level of impact, then I think it's up to us to take the proper steps to recognize that impact to provide both the investment and encouragement and the national sort of infrastructure to allow it to blossom and take advantage of it. Well, big things I learned. Number one, the customer service I talked to apparently isn't so much customer focused. Number two, most of the brave souls who follow me on Twitter are apparently Twitter bots. And number three, I would sure like to see more engagement and interaction between three representatives such as yourself. I feel most of the discussion, not just around AI, but around technology in general, could use more of this and less of people just wearing suits, so to speak. So please join me in thanking our panelists. Thank you. Thank you.