From Hollywood, it's time now for Edmund O'Brien as... Johnny Dollar. We're ready on your call to Boston. Go ahead, please. Hello. Yes? Mr. Samplin, this is Johnny Dollar. Johnny Dollar? I don't believe I remember you, Mr. Dollar. Well, we've never met. Your company hired me here in Hartford to investigate the Joan Sebastian death. Oh, saw that they didn't advise me. Well, they probably will. I called you to find out the name of the officer in charge of the case, if I could. It's Lieutenant De Rosa. De Rosa. Do you happen to know what their theory is, if any? Theory? I don't think I've arrived at a definite theory. Still a toss up between murder and suicide, eh? Okay, Mr. Samplin. I'll be in touch. Edmund O'Brien in a transcribed adventure of a man with the action-pact expense account. America's fabulous freelance insurance investigator. Yours truly, Johnny Dollar. Expense account submitted by a special investigator, Johnny Dollar, to Home Office, currently in life insurance company, Hartford, Connecticut. The following is an accounting of expenditures during my investigation of the Joan Sebastian matter. Expense account item 1, 175, phone call to Boston, advising your manager there of my assignment. Item 2, $28 car rental and mileage from my Hartford apartment to police headquarters, Boston. Judge Trusses? Well, it's not up to me to mistrust you, Lieutenant. These insurance people get uneasy when there's a choice between suicide and murder. Unless the murder motive is the policy. And you don't think there's a chance of that? I wouldn't say definitely not, but the Sebastian girl made a mother her beneficiary, and her mother's an invalid and a rest home.  No, I didn't. Oh, yeah. It goes to see her a couple of three times a week. Crazier things have happened. I'll, uh, get the file for you. Sit down. This is all we've got so far, pending the coroner's inquest and the autopsy report. Here's a photo of where she was found. Ah, shallow water. That's the bridge? Uh-huh. She was lying right about there. But I don't think you have to worry about suicide, doll. As far as I'm concerned, it wasn't. I'll buy that, too. I wouldn't say this bridge is a suicide type. It's too low. Yeah, yeah. And there's another thing. I've been on the force for more years than I like to count, and I've run into my share of suicides. But I've never known a woman to do it that way without taking off her coat. Oh? Yeah, usually shoes, too. I've learned that's part of a generally accepted pattern. The Sebastian girl didn't fit the pattern, huh? Yeah, here's, uh, here's the way she looked. Coat on, belt still tied, shoes. Her purse is still missing. We're searching the streamport. How old was she? 21. She was a beautiful girl. Yeah, I noticed that. I try not to, but with her, I couldn't help it. How much questioning have you done, Lieutenant? Oh, not as much as we'll do after the inquests. When will that be? Day after tomorrow. Do you want anything more here? No, thanks. I'll, uh, I'll give you the background we have on her. It's in my office. I won't party anymore, Lieutenant Rosa. Besides, I like to dig up backgrounds myself. I know them better if I do. Thanks a lot for your cooperation. I drove out to the stream where they found the girl's body, and they had chalked up another point against her death being a suicide. The bridge from which he had dropped was a good four miles from town. On the assumption that she'd been brought there in a car, the placement of a body in regard to the two lanes on the bridge made it look as if the car was going toward Boston, not away from it. Five minutes later, I was heading the same way. The manager suggested I come up.  That's right. Who are you? My name is Darla. I'm from her insurance company. I'd like to talk to you about her if I could. Well, I suppose so, but there's nothing I can do now. This is the biggest shock I've ever had. Now, he said there'd be trouble, but I never thought she'd do anything like this. Maybe she didn't. What's that supposed to mean? Well, there are signs that say maybe she didn't commit suicide. There are? Do you think she had any reason to? Well, that's what I said. I never thought she would. Sit down. Any place. Thanks. Poor little Joan. What does it mean? I'm not sure. Did you say you expected trouble? Oh, yeah. I kept telling her. It was the way she went, like she couldn't live fast enough. Like there wasn't time to get everything done. She'd been like that ever since she got rid...  Joni was all tied down, taking care of her before. What could have caused the trouble? Well, I'm not saying she was wrong or anything, but... Well, there were too many men. I imagine that was easy for her. Sure was. Too easy. You mind telling me who they were? Well, I don't know. Only about one. Harold Corrie. He's gone with it the longest. Harold Corrie? Yes, he drives for the North American Van Lines. And sometimes he goes way out to the West Coast, and... Well, while he was gone, Joni didn't stay home and catch up on a reading, if you know what I mean. I think I do. She went out with a different guy almost every night. I didn't pry, but she never told me who they were. You think somebody killed it, don't you? Would you help me try to find out? What could I do? You didn't want to pry, but I get paid to. I'd like to look at her things. Well, I suppose it's my duty sort of, isn't it? In a way, yeah. But I can't force you to. Oh, I know it's a thing to do. Some of the drawers are locked, but I'll show you what I can. I started on the lock dresser drawers. They gave up an open after a brief struggle, but contained on the hold things that might normally be locked up because of their value. Imported perfumes, expensive laundry, and some jewelry. The only thing that looked as if it might have been hidden for the sake of secrecy was under the jewel box. It was a gold key, a functional house type key, but with meaning added because the head of the key was heart shaped. It hung from a fine gold chain. Well, I never saw that before. Never saw the perfume before either, but I smelled it. That's a few hundred dollars worth of scent. And the rest of it was, uh, was Joan used to such expensive things? Well, not that I know about. Harold Corey, you sure couldn't shell out that kind of money. Heart shaped key. That's cozy. I'd like to keep it if I could. Well, I don't know about that. After all, it isn't mine. I might get into trouble. You won't, I promise you. I'm working with the police on this thing. I want to find out where it was made, if I can, and who ordered it. Oh, I get it. Sure, I wouldn't stop you from doing that, even if I could. I wonder if I can get some information about a driver of yours, Harold Corey. I phoned his home and couldn't get him. Is he out of town? Just off here. Oh, when's he due back? Thanks very much. Expensive on item three, seven dollars, drinks and dinner, after I checked into the Bristol Hotel. Item four, a nickel, phone call to Joan Sebastian's employer. Edward Hollis was at home and would see me. Mays will be comfortable. It's nice of you to see me, Mr. Hollis. I thought it'd be better to do it this way, rather than bother you at work. Of course, and I appreciate it. The atmosphere at the office has been gloomy enough. Oh, this is Mrs. Hollis, Mr. Duller. Oh, how do you do? Quite well, thank you. I didn't know the poor girl, but it's a dreadful thing. Yes, I'm afraid it is. They don't understand. Young girl like that with everything you live for? Well, it may be even worse than that. The worst? How could be worse? It looks more and more like her death was not a suicide. Mr. Duller, I didn't mention it on the phone. The police think it was murder, though, and so do I. I thought it'd be better to save the blow until I get out here. You know, murder's pretty messy. This is a shock. I suppose I could be dragged into a courtroom along with everybody else who'll know her. Yes, sir.  There's no reason for you going through this. All right, I think I'd rather. Good night, Mr. Duller. Good night. I'm sorry, but it couldn't be helped. Of course it couldn't. I understand. I'll make this as fast as possible, Mr. Hollis. I don't know how much you knew about Joan Sebastian's private life. I knew nothing. I have a number of girls in the office and it's been my philosophy to remember that not too long ago, I was as young as they are. As long as they do their work well, I ask no questions. As a matter of fact, I have no right to. Sure. From what I've gathered, she was mixed up emotionally. She hadn't had much freedom because of an invalid mother she took care of. Oh, I did know that. When the mother went to a hospital, Joan began to make up for lost time. She led her friends to believe that she ran around with a lot of men. But I don't believe that. Oh. I think it was one man. Would you give me the names of the girls she worked with? I'd like to talk to them and find out if something may have come out over lunch or cocktail. Yes, sir. I'd rather my staff wasn't upset too much, but I'll tell you, if you'll want to question them separately. That's right. And I could give you the names now, but if you'll phone me at the office in the morning, I'll give you their addresses and phone numbers. That would help. Good. You can call any time after 9.30. I called the next morning and got a list of six feminine names, which I pocketed for later reference. And at 10.30, I was at the home of Harold Corey, the ground floor apartment on Hemingway Street. Yeah, who is it? My name is Dollar. Come later, Woody. I don't want to talk to anybody right now. I'm an insurance investigator. I want to talk to you about Joan Sebastian. Who have you talked to? Why did she do it? She didn't. Well, you mean it's a mistake? In a way, yeah. It's murder. Murder? You're crazy. Am I? No, maybe I. She never killed herself, would she? She had no reason to. When did you see her last? The night before I left for Philadelphia. When was that? The nights ago, Tuesday. I left at five Wednesday morning. She was found Wednesday morning. What are you driving at, mister? When did you learn that she was seeing somebody else when you were out of town? Did no, she wasn't. Look, Corey, I'm not tossing suspicions around to see how they bounce off you. You're on a bad way. Do you know that?  Me? I loved it. I wanted a marriage. That's a motive, not an alibi. Get out of here, will you? Leave me alone. You aren't helping yourself with this act.  Get out of here before I do have a murder to answer for.    This is Dala, Lieutenant. Hey, I've been kicking myself for not getting your hotel yesterday. Well, I didn't have one then, but I got a few things to pass along the hour. Well, if it's the Sebastian thing, save them. What do you mean? It's suicide after all. How come? Out of sea report. There was concussion from that drop from the bridge, but that wasn't the cause of death. Now, wait a minute. The cause of death was from carbon monoxide. It looks like she pulled the suicide where it would embarrass somebody, and they tossed her in the creek to get her out of the way. Hello. You still there, Dala? Yeah, I'm still here. This is where I came in. We'll return you to the second act of yours truly, Johnny Dala, in just a moment. But first, one of Radio's greatest stars has returned to CBS The Star's address. He's Frank Sinatra. Frank will be here every Sunday afternoon for a full hour of songs, comedy, and commentary on popular music. The Frank Sinatra show is a part of CBS's new lineup of entertainment on Sunday afternoons. Join CBS every Sunday afternoon, won't you?  Yes, Sergeant, said you were waiting for me. Oh, yeah. Sit down, Dala. You didn't seem to like the latest development. Well, I've been working from other directions. Give it to me again, will you? Well, here's the autopsy report. Death by asphyxia caused by carbon monoxide, agent unknown. Probably automobile engine exhaust. That's the most popular these days. Do you believe this, Lieutenant? I believe what's on the report. And how did you say she got into the river? I said maybe she committed suicide somewhere so that somebody would get involved. Maybe in the driveway of somebody who didn't want to get involved. To get rid of her, she was probably moved to the stream. What's matter? Don't you like that? What else does the report say? Oh, symptoms of severe concussion. I thought you'd be happy with this suicide evidence. The insurance company hired me to dig up facts. If it was suicide, all right. But if it wasn't, they want to know that too. And I don't think it was. Why not? Well, from what I've learned, she wasn't a type. She liked to be alive, and she played it hard enough to leave some motives lying around, jealousy for one. That boyfriend of hers? Ah, you know about him then. Yeah, Corey, isn't it? A truck driver? That's right. And then there's this. Look. What's this unlock? I wish I could tell you. It was given to her by somebody. I'd like to know who. Would you put a couple of men on it, find out where it was made? I could do it, but I think the police can get it done faster. All right, dollar, I'll stick my neck out that far. I'm under orders, you know that. I have to pee a sign before I can invest in it. Yeah, sure. But I'll take your story upstairs and see what the chief says. Let me know what else you find. I will. Say, do you have the address of the old flame you mentioned? The mother's friend? Still like the settle for fraud, would you? Yeah. The death sergeant will give you his address. His name's Paul Anderson. Mr. Anderson. I am. I'm from Joan Sebastian's insurance company. One of you'd spare me a few moments. Oh, yes, I suppose so. Come in. I didn't know she had a policy. She did. $25,000 to go to her mother. I see. Her death has been classed as a suicide, which voids the policy. The two-year self-destruction clause is still in effect. That's a pity. Why'd you say that? It's the least she could do for poor Mildred. That's her mother? Yes. An extremely young mother. Who's almost ruined her life for that girl. I didn't know that. Daughter was born when Mildred was only 17. She was left to care for the child herself. I helped as much as I could. How well did you know the girl after she grew up? Well, I was a friend of her mother's. How'd you ask? Which one did you know first? I don't see what this has to do with the matter. You don't have to answer. I don't want you to misunderstand. There's nothing to be hidden. I suppose it is unusual. I did meet Joan first. But when she took me to her house and I met her mother, I realized that Joan was, well, no more than a cheap little opportunist. The complete opposite from her mother. As I say, I suppose it is unusual. That doesn't make any difference. Point is that you dropped the girl in favor of her mother. Is that it? It wasn't the gross situation you evidently wish it had been. I realized Mildred's condition and the lack of care. I knew she needed someone and I did what I could for her. Did you send her to the rest home? I did. I look here. This has gone far enough. You asked me these questions for one reason, so that you can make your own conclusions, haven't you? I didn't know it showed. It does. Think I sent Mildred to the home to get her out of the way, don't you? That is not the case. I shouldn't think what you like. Go ask Mildred if you care to. I won't bother her. Do you know anything about a gold key that Joan had? A gold key? Now I don't know anything about a gold key. I've known very little about Joan all these past months. I could have told you that she was headed toward a bad end a long time ago. Now she's reached it. There's no one to blame but herself. 4 p.m. then and at 5 I was standing in front of the North American Band Building on Columbus Avenue as Harold Corey backed a big rig into a parking area and headed for a quick order restaurant. Hello, Corey. What this time? This patcher tells me you're going out in another run. Pretty short layover, isn't it? That's right. I asked for it.  What do you want? Do you know how she died? I read about it. Carbon monoxide. Do you still think it couldn't have been suicide? She's dead. That's as far as I can think. You knew about Paul Anderson, didn't you? What about Paul? That he might have been more interested in Joan than he was in her mother?  What you say is true. I didn't know about it. If I had known about it, I would have gone after him, not Joan. I can't take any more, mister. Look, I don't enjoy it either, Corey. Like you say, I'm just doing a job. After questioning the six girls who had worked with Joan Sebastian, I was still nowhere. None of them knew anything about a private life. The next morning, the police located a goldsmith who said he remembered making the key. The police told me you might come in, Mr. Dalla. No trouble at all. We're happy to oblige. Good. You've seen the key? Yes. The officer showed it to me. Oh, friendly young man. I have it with me. You're sure you made it? Oh, yes. Positive. See here? I'll admit to a quaint conceit. You see here? Part of the scroll. See the letters? Well, yes. See here. In my initials, Cedric Fawes, that I have in the cleanest of recollection, who I made it for. I pulled that young off to that, too. I don't even remember when. There's so much work you know. Maybe I can help you. It would have been between seven and eight months ago. You keep any kind of record? Oh, of course I do. I'm bound to. A matter of law. Seven or eight months should have... Ah, let me see. That would be November. October. September. Seven would be March. Eight would be February. Oh, yes. Yes, of course. Here we are. Here we are. Frankly, I'm intrigued. How many of my items may have been involved with tragedy? Who knows? Perhaps I'm a curse. I was hoping you'd be a cure for this one. Well, I hope so. You wouldn't know what week or day. Oh, I'm afraid not. February wasn't a very good month, was it? Post-holidays slump. Reset, change rings hide. Set opals. Dreadful stuff. Therefore, oh... Hmm? What? No, no, no, no. That's much too small. Key for a jewel box. Well, let me see. Let me see. Ah, ah, March. It's engraved spoon. Reset. Reset. Repair of place. Here it is. Door key in gold. March 17th. What name? Do not deliver. We'll call J.E. Carter. J.E. Carter. Does that help? No, no, not a bit. Do you remember anything about him? No. Paid in cash. Oh, wait. Now, that was the day Mrs. Brand brought the baby shoe in for placing. She's the counselor's wife. I remember that. It was snowing. That was the day it was ordered, huh? Yes. Now, wait a minute, wait a minute. It was modeled from a plain old cast house key. Uh-huh. I cannot picture him. But I'd done some apartment keys and he said this was for a cottage. Outside of town? It was a surprise for his wife. Some place on the bay. I remember that because of the hideous weather and I could just feel that wind coming through one of those summer cottages. Now, do you think you'd recognize him if you saw him again? Yeah, I can't say until I do. I could try. Well, we may have to call on you then. Thanks. Thanks a lot. I think you've helped.  We found the day the key was ordered and he remembered a few things because the counselor's wife came in the same day. Why? Well, the customer Carter was the name he used. Mentioned the cottage on the bay. Now, that's east and the girl's body was found northwest of here. I think she was dumped from a car coming toward Boston from out there. So I think the cottage is in that direction. Yeah, deduction, you're... Look, if I were going to dump a body, I wouldn't carry it across two traffic lanes, would you? I'm being paid to think about another case. I couldn't sell the murder pitch upstairs. But I tried and I'll buck for a promotion if you're right and upstairs is wrong. I don't suppose you could earn that promotion by assigning some men to cover that section. Oh, not a chance. That's county. Division of Responsibility. And I, for one, wouldn't be surprised to know how many people have died because of that division of responsibility. Expense account item four, $35 mileage covering a two and a half day search of real estate offices northwest of Boston. Object, a cottage rented a few days before March 17th by a man possibly using the name J.E. Carter. It was morning tonight, legwork, but on the afternoon of the third day, it paid off. I found an agent who had rented a cottage to a J.E. Carter. She took me out, but before we went into the place, I noticed the lean-to garage marked up by plenty of tire tracks. Inside, I found a stained rug, among other things. You said I personally vowed for the people I do business with. You never know, do you? I should say you don't. You want to go now. I think I've seen enough. Let me lock it. I want to see if this key fits. It does fit. Yeah, it sure does. May I come in? Why, yes, yes, of course. Come in. Didn't expect you to come back. Didn't you, Mr. Halles? You thought you'd get away with this, huh? What did you say? Well, now, there's no reason to be clever with each other, Mr. Halles. I know you killed her. You rented a cottage out beyond Mystic River. You used the name J.E. Carter when you bought the gold key. I did that? I'm afraid you did. Come into the other room. Yes, you're right, I did. I became infatuated with her. If you'd known her, you'd understand. I realized last week that it had to stop, and I told her. She had been going with that young quarry boy. I told her that even if I was single and eligible to marry, I would advise her to hang on to him, someone of her own age. That was last Tuesday night? Yes.  Or at least I thought I did. When I went out, I... I learned what she had really done. She committed suicide in the car. You can hardly blame me for wanting to keep the secret. No, you've been reading the papers, Mr. Halles' suicide and all that. I've been inside your cottage. You didn't do a very good job of cleaning up the bloodstains. You're right, Mr. Dahlin. There seems to be no longer any reason to attempt cleverness. I'll make my statement to the police. I'll drive you down. Thank you. How did you find out, Dahlin? There was a Wall Street Journal there addressed to you. Oh, I see. Edward. Beatrice, go upstairs. No, Edward, I won't. I insist, Beatrice. What good will it do? Do what I've done because I lost you? Why, should you ask me to go upstairs while I lose you again? I forbid you to say another word. Forbidden. You have no right. I found them, Mr. Dahlin. It took a long time, but I found them. She had taken them from me because she was beautiful. And I no longer am. I was waiting in the cottage until they came in. I struck her. Is this true, Mrs. Halles? I killed her. And since there was nothing left, we carried her to the cup. Beatrice, what have I done? What have I done? Expense account item five, $110, final bill for car rental. Item six, $85, miscellaneous. Expense account total, $356.75. Remarks? I don't know what sticklers the Massachusetts law courts are, but Joan Sebastian was not killed by their own wife. She was unconscious but alive when Halles put her in his car trunk. She died there by carbon monoxide. Yours truly, Johnny Dollar. Truly, Johnny Dollar stars Edmund O'Brien in the title role and is written by Gil Dowd with music by Wilbur Hatch. Edmund O'Brien may soon be seen in the Paramount Pictures production Warpath. Featured in tonight's cast were Virginia Gregg, Howard McNeer, Virginia Eiler, Wally Mayer, John Stevenson, Bill Johnstone, and Raymond Burr. Yours truly, Johnny Dollar is transcribed in Hollywood by Jaime Delvalle. This is DamnCoverly inviting you to join us next week at this time when we will again bring you Edmund O'Brien as yours truly, Johnny Dollar. Stay tuned for Vaughn Monroe's Caravan which follows immediately over most of these same CBS stations. This is CBS for hop along Cassidy rides every Saturday night, the Columbia Broadcasting System.


Welcome back everyone. This is Brian. We're talking about asynchronous code in this video. So what is a synchronous code? I'm sure you've heard this buzzword and everybody is throwing it around like it is just some magical thing Really ascent code runs in the same thread What yeah, that's right. It runs in the same thread It appears to be some voodoo magic where the code looks like it's running in a multi-threaded fashion But it's all on the same thread So what a sync does is it uses a co routine to run on the same thread. So in the background, it's really scheduling this stuff We're going to introduce some keywords, for example, async and a way to really describe this. But what we're talking about Let's say we had a few things like being one thing two and thing three And we wanted to run all of those At the same time well multi-threading comes to mind, but then when you have threads you have all this complexity like locking and crashes and joining and all this fun stuff that just really sucks. So What a sync does is it takes the same thread and it says you're not usually using the entire thread For example, something like this How much of that thread are we actually using here? Well, we're using the entire thread But how much work are we actually doing very little actually none because we're doing pass So what a synchronous will do is say, okay If there's any unused time because remember a thread is a slice of time on that cpu Go ahead and get that extra time and do something else so for example We could run this and this and this and this and we could just keep going And it would all appear to be running at the same time and really all it's doing is it's using the unused time on the same thread Let's dive in and take a look Okay, the first step in any application.  Now, wait a minute. We're talking about a sync Why are we using threading and multi-processing because I want to be able to display to you The thread and the process that we're running in and you're going to see that even though It appears like it's a multi-threaded application. It's all on the same thread in the same process And to display that we're going to use logging now from here We're going to add something new to our arsenal. I'm going to say import and we want async i o which stands for asynchronous input output async i o We're also going to use random our good old buddy the random generator And just for giggles because I know you love it. You just cannot get enough of it. We are going to Use logging so we're going to say logging basic config and we're going to configure this right here at the top So there's no mystery as to where it's getting configed I got some some really good user feedback where they said sir We don't understand how you're configuring logging. Can you explain it? So to overly simplify it's just right here at the very top Okay, let's go ahead and make our functions And this is going to be the bulk of the video. So I'm going to slow way down here I'm going to say def and let's make a display function and the whole point of this is to well display the log But I want to do this in a special manner What I want to do is say Thread name and you guess what we're about to do here and say threading dot current thread And we want to get the name And then we're going to get the process name And it's probably pretty obvious what I'm about to do here multiprocessing dot current process That name I just want to shove those in some variables. So we don't have some big long Line of code that we're looking at but you could very much condense that down into a one liner if you wanted to Then we're just going to say logging dot info We've covered logging to the point. It's almost ridiculous to even talk about it But basically at this point all we're going to do is shove this out into the log And we want to say the process name Slash We could put this really in any format we wanted Thread name and then whatever the actual message was Probably help if I put that correctly. There we go Very very simple display function Now from here, we're going to make an asynchronous function It's very complex. I want you to pay attention We're going to say async And then whatever our function is it's really that simple. I lied to you. It's not hard at all From here. It just looks like normal python But it's pretty important to note that this async keyword defines that we are going to have the ability to Run this function asynchronously doesn't mean we have to means we have the ability to we're telling python Modify this code when you do your magic under the hood so that we can run this asynchronously All right from here, we're going to say display And I want to go ahead and display the name plus Say starting I can actually spell the word There we go Keyboard has betrayed me and because we've started I want to know when we've finished And then we're going to well Do something and I don't really care what we do. We're in newbie land here. So we're just going to simulate some work Now we're going to introduce you another keyword When we're talking about asynchronous functions remember these will appear to run At the same time they're going to use that dead space in the thread timing on the cpu So anything that we're not currently chewing up on that cpu. It's going to shove that in there and try to run it We want to be able to synchronize Asynchronous code and to do that We're going to use the await keyword And this does very much what it looks like it will wait for a asynchronous function to complete for example We're going to say async i o That's sleep And that does exactly what you think it would it's a coroutine that completes after a given number of seconds Which basically means it's an asynchronous when you see coroutine. It's an asynchronous Sleep function that goes after a couple seconds So if you don't do the await you're either going to get an error Or it's just going to immediately jump to the next line because guess what this is now in a synchronous call All right, so let's go ahead and jump in here and i'm going to say random dot Let's do ran and i've been doing ran range, but i want to like mix it up a little bit here i'm going to do one to ten And really that's it. That's our worker function here. So this is an asynchronous function Now a little bit of Trickery here. It's an asynchronous function calling an asynchronous function You have to use the await keyword when you do this Otherwise you're going to have a bad time in async land because it's just going to plow forward and not even pay attention to you So let's go ahead and make another function here. I'm going to say async That's your big indicator that this is going to be asynchronous code We're going to define run async And I want a maximum that we can work with here Go and make a list of tasks and then for x in range To our max Let's say name equals And we want to just make some sort of string representation here so we can see what the heck is actually going on And then we're going to say task dot end So really we're just going to add to our list and we're going to create Some type of task And we're going to make an async i o dot Ensure future You want to make sure you have a future in life. So that's why you're learning programming But really what this thing does is it wraps a co routine or an asynchronous function Into an awaitable future. There's your keyword awaitable Meaning you can use the await keyword when calling this Really a lot of fancy jargon, but that's really what's going on there. So let's go ahead and make our co routine We're going to say work Name this is a little bit different than what we're used to we're actually giving it the function with the parameter Under the hood. What's happening here is python's going to wrap that whole co routine into a future and allow us to await for completion Seems pretty challenging, but it's super simple when you look at it Now we're going to go ahead and say Await because we want to await for all of them to get done async i o dot gather And what gather does is it, you know, just imagine asynchronous tasks are like a bag of marbles And you drop that bag of marbles on the floor and they go everywhere in all different directions So now you want to gather them all up And you're going to wait until you've got them gathered up. That's kind of the visual you'll get there But really what we're saying is wait on this asynchronous call Which is called gather, which is going to go through all of these tasks And make sure the future has finished Okay, no more screwing around. Let's do our main function here. Let's actually see this thing work here I'm gonna say main main Got a little main happy there And in here, we're going to go ahead and display That the main started Now because the main started I want to show the main finished that way we can see this thing in its life cycle Let's go ahead and run this real quick You can see main process main thread main started main finish So now we have the process the thread and then whatever we got there In here, this is where we're going to make this asynchronous magic really really happen The first thing we want to do is get an event loop So I'm going to say loop equals async i o dot it Event loop and if you don't know what an event loop is They're happening all the time As you're sitting there looking at the program on your computer, whether it's a desktop laptop mobile device doesn't matter There is a loop in the background, which very much looks like this while true And instead of pass it's got some special code that basically says let other things have the context of execution So we're going to get that special loop that's in the background And we're going to be able to manipulate that So now that we've got our loop It's actually very very simple We're going to run something until it's completed.  This will make your application literally run forever. This will never stop And now it doesn't mean it's going to keep going if your computer's off It just means it's going to go until you forcibly stop the application So I'm just going to put a little note there will run forever But what is that really used for typically you'll see that In long running applications like tcp servers or things of that nature or database programs Or something that's going to wait and wait and wait and they call it the main event loop Where you're waiting on keyboard input or something like that We are going to do the opposite. We are going to loop only as long as we need to So we're going to go out here and we're going to say loop dot Run until complete Now you notice the first thing it wants Is some sort of future generator now future that sounds familiar. That's right We did that up here in this async gather So it's very simple at this point. We can just call our function run async 50 So what's going to happen when we run this? Well, it's going to go into our run async with a maximum 50 It's going to say 4x in range, which is 50 in this case And then it's going to just print that out and make sure that it runs This is really the tricky part right here. We're saying await async.io gather and gather is going to gather all of those tests We shoot out into the processor And collect them in a nice fashion for us to use Now before we really stop Talking and start running this thing. We want to do one more thing. We want to actually close the loop closing the loop will free up resources and it stops the loop from being able to run infinitely and things like that and it just says to Python and the computer that we are now done with that and we don't want to use it anymore. We're just going to close it out Think of it a lot like a file. We're now shutting that and we don't want to use it anymore All right, let's go ahead and clear this and let's see this thing in action. All right, so All right, so You see a bunch of gibberish here, but you should notice right before I even scroll up What's going on here main process main thread every single one of these main process main thread And i'm going to scroll up And the other major takeaway here is you see starting starts at zero and then they're sequential because we're starting these in a specific order But once we hit finish, you know, it goes from item one to item four This is where it really looks like it is multi-threaded. There's no guarantee in which order this is going to run The computer is going to decide which order to put it in This is extremely cool So let's go ahead and clear this and I want to run this again Just so you can see what's going on they all start and then the async io operations start finishing This is incredibly cool All right, major takeaway from this Asynchronous operations run in the same process same thread although it Takes out all the complexity of multi-threaded applications You do have to keep in mind a few different things. For example, you need the async keyword Which marks a function for asynchronous operations You need the await keyword, which will actually stop execution and say i'm going to await Or wait on the asynchronous function And we're talking about loops This is the application sitting there churning away in the background and waiting for something to complete when we're done with that loop we need to close it and Be very careful if you ever use run forever It will make your program look like it's locking up, but really it's just running an event loop in the background I hope you enjoyed this video You can find the source code out on github.com If you need additional help myself and thousands of other developers are hanging out in the void realm's facebook group This is a large group with lots of developers and we talk about everything technology related not just the technology that you just watched And if you want official training, I do develop courses out on udemy.com This is official classroom style training if you go out there and the course you're looking for is just simply not there Drop me a note. I'm either working on it or I will actually develop it I will put a link down below for all three of those and as always Help me help you smash that like and subscribe button The more popular these videos become the more I'll create and publish out on youtube. Thank you for watching


Hello, welcome to another international relations capsule for the Shankar IAS Academy. Today we are discussing the formation of a Taliban cabinet in Afghanistan. That seems to be the hottest subject being discussed everywhere today because the composition of the Taliban cabinet disappointed everyone. They had given signals that this is going to be a new Taliban, Taliban 2.0 rather than the old Taliban which is known as Taliban 1.0. So the expectation was that since 20 years had passed since the last Taliban government was ousted and the world had changed and Afghanistan had changed also and therefore the Taliban which has now taken over will be somewhat different from the Taliban of 20 years ago. That was the expectation and they gave reason for people to believe this because first of all it took a long time even though they could easily occupy the residential palace and take control over the whole country except for Panjshir Valley. They could have immediately appointed this cabinet and that but they gave hope to the world that this would be different. They were looking for more moderate leadership. They were also looking for an all inclusive cabinet taking not just the Pashtuns but others also and people who had even held interim offices like Abdullah Abdullah and Karzai and so on. So such expectations were there but then this when it prolonged one knew that things were not going so well and there were even reports that there was a clash among them and there was even a report that Mr you know Baradar was even the now present Deputy Prime Minister was even hurt in a clash. This is may not be true but then everything was at least suddenly when the ISI chief that is the Pakistan Pakistan spy chief arrived in Kabul and gave personal directive to quell the rebellion in Panjshir and very quickly they were able to take over Panjshir also and soon after that this new cabinet was announced. Once that we knew that this was not a new moderate government. The names were not surprising because all these are all the old names we already knew. So the Supreme Leader is Mullah Hassan Akhund. No sorry Supreme Leader is Mullah Hibatullah Akhmatsada who is the Supreme Leader. He would be the final authorities like something like the Ayatollahs in Iran but there is like similarity between the Taliban government and the Iran structure. So there is a Supreme Leader and Akhmatsada and then below that there is a Prime Minister. There was a general expectation that it would be Mr Baradar who is considered to be a moderate person but instead they have Mullah Hassan Akhund who is the Prime Minister and Minister Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar has become the Deputy Prime Minister. He was the one who was very active in the Doha discussions and he is the one who had given sub-signals to India that Taliban government would like to work with India but he did not prevail and so he has become Deputy Prime Minister not the Prime Minister but the most disturbing thing of course is that the appointment of Sirajuddin Haqqani as the Interior Minister he of course is the leader of what is called the Haqqani Network which is simply a Pakistani outfit supported by the ISI that is Pakistani in from intelligence service and Haqqani Network is one of the most feared and considered to be the most fundamentalist and terrorist organization in the pay of Pakistan. Then there is Ullama Ahmad Yaku who is the Defence Minister and the Foreign Minister is Amok Khan Motaki the Foreign Minister all known figures they were in different positions in the previous Taliban government and therefore what they are indicating is that it is continuity rather than change and the most disturbing part of this whole exercise is that it is completely Pakistan dominated the whole cabinet seems to have been put together by the ISI to make sure that the Taliban government is not different from the previous one it will be a fundamentalist government and some of the factors are very disturbing there are 33 ministers out of which 30 are Pashtuns the main group and all others other groups have been ignored so 30 out of 33 Pashtuns means it is still a Pashtun government and not an Afghan government as yet so it became very clear that this government is going to be heavily dependent on Pakistan and this is the bad news that has come particularly for India because any expectation that we would have a new dispensation in Taliban with whom we could work has been relied so and this is the impression that others have was many others have different relationship with Pakistan but as far as we are concerned this is of an important development so the Sakhani linkage is also with Al Qaeda leadership and Pakistan ISI and he was also involved in several attacks against Indians particularly the Indian Embassy in 2008 and he has a reward for those the US State Department has announced a reward of 10 million dollars if somebody helps to catch him or kill him so and this is true of several of the cabinet ministers there are some of them are declared UN terrorists others are declared terrorists by others many people are being have a price on their heads who can be punished or killed etc so it's a very very dangerous situation which has developed so the general impression is that this is not going to change very much because though they are saying that this is an internal government since the composition is entirely of one character then it cannot be much change cannot happen and this is sad because they needed we thought that they needed recognition from the international community and more than that humanitarian assistance because Afghanistan is slipping into anarchy, poverty and even starvation so the humanitarian effort of the international community is very much required and in spite of that they have taken this decision that's because they are fundamentalist Islamist profoundly anti-modern and committed to jihad so they are establishing an anti-modern medieval kind of government is what they are looking for we had thought that there was they'll be pushed to some kind of a moderate approach but there is no sign of that but there are some countries believe that they can do they can work with them China is one of them Russia and Iran and Pakistan so these are the countries which have already more or less recognized the government by keeping their embassies there and even American US government as well as British Johnson said that he could do business with this Taliban government so it is since it is not just an insurgency group but has become a government now they probably assume greater responsibility and therefore the expectation is that even though they are a fundamentalist and anti-modern government and at least medieval type of government which will be ruling the country within Sharia law and there are several indications that things will be like in the old days because women are not being allowed freedom they've announced that they can go to educational institutions provided they are segregated the institutions themselves should be segregated that's not possible at least at least the amendment women should be segregated in the classrooms but even more disturbing is that there are there are not news coming from provinces etc where women have been dealt with very cruelly and there have been deaths of women who defied the law so it's a different situation than we had expected and there is a serious possibility of a civil war even though Taliban has put down the insurrection in Panjshir valley but there were some demonstrations on the streets demonstrations and though it was immediately repressed but it took place for some time it continued because nobody is interested in Pakistan taking over Afghanistan so the nationalistic tendencies were also there but it did not continue so the differences remain and there is a very good possibility of a civil war with the involvement of al-Qaeda and many other terrorist groups which are there ISIS etc so the hope and expectation is that since these are all diverse people you know when you have a revolution you are just operating on your own causing husband's destruction as possible but if they have to be a functioning government they need to have some kind of a common program so whether the Haqqani network will accommodate the other ideas and let it be a composite government with a minimum program minimum program is something which is not not sure but people like Baradar and others hopefully will try to bring about some kind of a proper agenda a common agenda for the government but the fact is that Taliban has maintained the Pakistan has maintained Taliban and therefore it is quite possible that these anti-Pakistan sentiments might be controlled and it may not come out again even though it is true that there were demonstrations and Taliban had to shoot in the air in order to discharge the crowd so whether they are willing to sacrifice nationalism in order to make adjustment is the question so a serious setback is of course for the US we have discussed it before but the United States has not expressed great concern over this because they had signed an agreement with Taliban earlier even though that agreement is not in force so the United States is pretending that this was a minor and things will get better so whether the so the United States is hoping that they will be able to have a workable arrangement so there is no question of immediate recognition of by the United States so as long as it doesn't hurt United States interests there would be United States will be working with them that is the signals that we are getting and if it is just a jihad group without creating terrorist incidents from their territory and managing things without violating human rights so many people are trying to get reconcile to the idea of a Taliban government and with hopes but India is the most affected by this as we have discussed before we have had some conversations in Doha with the Taliban and there have been some you know promises given that if the Indian embassy continued they would ensure its protection but we did not take up the offer and we moved the embassy out so we are dealing with this situation with characteristic caution so if we had started a premature dialogue with Taliban that would have given a wrong signal to the previous Afghan government that was one of the reasons why India did not appear did not want to appear to be defecting from the Ghani government so India is really the most disadvantaged also because of the possibility of what is called the China Pakistan Taliban linkage so we are continuing to wait and watch we have expressed concern over the lack of change in the approach so India has been given some assurances but we would certainly not take any action at the moment but there is going to be in fact today a conference of countries who are interested in providing humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan so probably we'll participate in a modest way but we may not certainly go for a huge humanitarian program which might amount to recognition and so we'll probably as a gesture give some humanitarian assistance but not a fully political engagement like we had before the investments that we had maybe those investments might be wasted but still our priority is to make sure that the right message goes to the Taliban and our government so we really do not need anything from them as long as they do not encourage terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and they do not wage terrorist wars against any other country in the region we can relax and watch and we do not have an immediate requirement for us to do some business with them so we are sitting back and waiting for the right messages of course the United States has been a big setback but as I explained in an article which I wrote for the Hindu so this setback cannot be permanent because the United States is still the world's largest power, military power, economic power etc so this and also the reason why the United States people generally were in favor of US withdrawal only the withdrawal was haphazardly handled and that is the only complaint that people have and therefore President Biden will be able to continue the rest of his term without being seriously affected by the present setback of course China's role would be the major factor as well as the United States is concerned so the United States would like to ensure that the Chinese influence does not become too overwhelming in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the region as a whole and there India is their best bet to control that so even though we are not exactly following the US steps with regard to the Taliban government we are in tune because of the common issue of China so we would still be consulting the Prime Minister is going to Washington for the Quad meeting he is going to address the UN General Assembly he already spoke to the BRICS leaders we discussed BRICS and the outcome of the BRICS meeting was not bad about Afghanistan because the all the BRICS leaders including China and Russia made some statements against any terrorist activities etc so those five countries were able to come to some kind of a common block which looks encouraging but China is keeping its cards close to a test and they are really trying to look around and see how they can exploit the situation basically by working with Pakistan rather than directly so after the Washington visit perhaps there will be greater clarity as far as the attitude of many of the major countries is concerned so at the moment we have no office in in the Kabul and we are trying to quietly bring back all those people who want to bring back including Afghan friends who want to go to Vizars and are willing to come back to India so that process is going on quietly without much noise and we will wait and see what kind of policies the Taliban government adopt at the moment there is no hope of it becoming a modern government but you cannot imagine the kind of pressures that will come on them because of the 20 years as a new generation of Afghans whose aspirations are different who will need liberty and freedom so immediately after the takeover by the Taliban they may not express those things publicly but it must be and also the women's issues are very very significant so if they have to continue without any external interference and try and manage whatever system they want to do they need to give some positive signals to their own people and also to the rest of the world so we so far the signals are not helpful and the Pakistani domination is really the big question mark for us in what kind of way will they try to use their influence in Afghanistan and Jammu and Kashmir so otherwise the signals are very clear what they want is a traditional Islamic Sharia government and as long as they remain within their internal sphere do not export revolution to other countries a concern may be a little less but it is too early to say what the consequences will be what more they will be in because they are better received in putting out any kind of rebellion that they are very particular but in their words at least they are a little more recent and so that is all that we can we can say at the moment we hope that this will be a transient situation and things may improve but otherwise we'll have to find some way of coexistence with Pakistan and Afghanistan in a new form thank you very much


The National Women's Hall of Fame inducted retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Carol Mudder Saturday, September 16th in Seneca Falls, New York. I'm being inducted along with nine other women who have also been selected for induction. What an honor to stand with these women who have accomplished so much. Mudder served in the Marine Corps for more than 31 years and achieved many firsts for women. She was the first women three star general, the first women qualified as a command center crew commander for the U.S. base command and the first women flag officer to command a major deployable tactical command. Anytime you're honored like this it's a responsibility as well. There's a responsibility to set a good example and to live up to the high standards of the people who selected me for the honor. Mudder now serves on the National Advisory Council of the Alliance for National Defense, the National Medal of Honor Museum Foundation Board and as president of the Indiana War Memorials Commission. Thank you.


Welcome back to Think Tech. I'm Jay Fidel. This is Community Matters. We're going to talk about AI today in all its forms, and there are many of them with Elton Fukumoto. When the question before the house is, how is it going to change the world? How is it going to change our future? We'll be right back for that discussion. Elton Fukumoto, thank you for joining us here on Think Tech. Thank you, Jay, for inviting me. Well, you and I got into a discussion not too long ago about AI and chat, what have you, and since that time, it's like the subject has blown up. It's everywhere. It's on every media. Everybody's talking about it, and the trouble I have is I don't know where it's going, or whether I should advance myself into it or maybe back away from it. So, let me ask you the seminal question. How is it going to change our world? Artificial intelligence has the potential to change our world irrevocably. This could be artificial intelligence could be an existential threat to humanity. So, the title of this particular talk, AI and the Future of Humanity, Jay, that sounds so grandiose, but unfortunately, I believe it is appropriate, because if we do develop artificial intelligence that is equal to the intelligence of human beings, the problem is once we do that, it's a very short step to develop ultra-intelligent machines that are far smarter than we are. And I'll give you an example. AI researchers have told us for a long time that even to get a robot to walk the way human beings do is an incredibly difficult task. They thought it was going to be easy, but there's so much that goes into just being able to walk like a human being. The problem is once you get a robot to walk like a human being, it's a very short step from that to having that robot do a backflip. And if you know what a backflip is, Ozzie Smith of the St. Louis Cardinals used to do that in a baseball game, and boy, that's difficult. Human beings cannot do a backflip unless they're extremely gifted athletically. And this is what the machines will be able to do very shortly after. So we will be confronted with machines of our own creation that are a lot smarter than we are. And if we look at popular culture, the rise of the robots in the Terminator series and X Machina and iRobot, these robots take over the world. And I know that sounds like science fiction, but my talk today really is asking the question if these robots and if artificial intelligence does potentially pose an existential threat to the future of our species, shouldn't we be talking about it? Shouldn't we, for example, be giving it the same kind of attention that we do to climate change? Because I think the, actually for artificial intelligence, the potential downside for human beings is much, much more severe. You know, Elton, when I looked at the web, you know, in preparation for this show, I saw something that disturbed me. I'll tell you what it was. A teacher, a scientist, all commenting, such as you're commenting, on the future of AI. And the message that both of them gave was, we have to, we have to warn people to be careful. Well, we heard that noise before. We want people to be careful on social media. Are they careful? We want people to be careful about hacking on their computers and phones. Are they careful? The careful message really doesn't work at all. And it seems to me that the concern you expressed, in which they, these two videos that I looked at, they did not express, is that just being careful is not enough. If this affects the whole world, it affects every phone in the world, it affects every computer in the world, it affects every person in the world, all of human endeavors. And so being careful, you and I could be careful, but what about the guy who is not well-motivated, who is, you know, trying to do something nefarious? What about him? And so the question I put to you is, what about government regulation? You know, where does the First Amendment stand on all this? If we let it flow free the way we have essentially let social media flow free, we're in for a hard time. You know, it's going to be ultimately destructive. So AI, as you say, could ultimately be destructive. Don't we need regulation? And what kind of regulation do we need? Okay, those are good questions. So what I'm proposing that we need to do is to have a discussion and this would have to be government regulation. Unfortunately, it has to be government regulation of the sort that we see in climate change. In other words, it's not good enough for the United States to regulate artificial intelligence and research into this subject. All the countries in the world have to do it because not only the United States, but Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, and of course, some of our adversaries, Russia and China, are also doing research into AI. And it doesn't do any good for some of us to regulate this and others not to. So it requires something that human beings are not very good at doing, which is getting together and saying, for the good of humanity, we need to suppress our desire to create these machines. So it's a really difficult talk. Well, let me ask you two differentials here. Let's suppose that there was an international organization that had the influence necessary to make every country come around to a kind of global regulation, every government, every country, a uniform regulation around the world. What would it say? What would it do? How would it regulate AI? Well, all right. So the consensus right now, and I'm quoting from a TED talk by Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom. So he consulted his colleagues, and the consensus is we won't have AI for another 20 or 30 years. So 2040 to 2050. So we do have time if we were able to do something. And so the kind of regulation we would have is we would simply decline to do further research in this area, and we'd have to suppress research in this area. Nick Bostrom has his proposal, and his proposal is A, let's let the research and artificial intelligence continue, but we should do task B. And task B would be we build into these machines the values that we share. So he thinks task B is easier than task A. So if we're going to build these intelligent machines, make sure they share our value. And I think his solution is, well, there's a very small line. If you watch his talk, it's actually not very hopeful because if we make the slightest mistake, it's going to fall apart. Well, you say we, you're using the pronoun we and us and our, but who is to decide what these standards are? I mean, we can say, we can make the assumption that there's an international organization, a group of countries that will influence every country on the planet to do government regulation, but you're adding another layer here. And the layer is what are we building into this software? The moral standards, if you will. Who decides? Would you let Vladimir Putin decide? No. Would you let Vladimir Putin on a committee to decide? So who's the we? And who determines the global morality here? Well, I think those are good questions. And those are why, even though we have 20 or 30 years, it really doesn't look very hopeful. And it's worse than you say, because it's not simply that, well, we don't have our act together and so forth and so on. Human beings are not hardwired to think globally or to think 20, 30 years down the road. It's what concerns human beings. And this is true of climate change as well. Human beings don't really care about what happens 20 or 30 years from now. It's, I have to feed my family. Please help me now. This is, it's our thought processes are geared to what's local and what is present. And we don't, we have trouble thinking very far in the future and thinking globally. So we're not going to do very well. Well, I have to change my assumptions on you then. But by the way, I think it gets worse. I think people are all into self interest. What we've seen in this country with the 1% versus 99% where the 1% has all the money and doesn't care about the 99% is a kind of greed. It's a sort of reverse altruism. I don't care about my brother. I don't care about my neighbor. And that's not limited to the US. So what we have here is a failure of global concern about the other person. This is really bad. So, but let's build that into our discussion. Let me, let me offer you this. We're looking at AI and its future on humanity.  The reality is that if Vladimir Putin wants to do the internet research agency in Moscow and he wants to use AI in order to attack the American democracy, he will be able to do that. Nobody is going to stop him. So what do you get if you go high octane on this kind of new technology and you let anybody use it anywhere in the world, including state actors, also non-state actors? What kind of world do you get, Elton? Well, I think you get a world in chaos because it's totally like the the wild west out there. And so here's a problem. If you if you have a very smart machine that's smarter than other machines, the danger is that machine could break into your encrypted computer system. So we have military encryption for the US military and whatever. If someone could break in, we'd be doomed. And the reason it's hard to break in is because our machines are are fairly smart. But if somebody had a smarter machine, they could break in. And for example, our nuclear capability could be neutralized. So we'd be in terrible trouble. So the solution I am proposing is and it is probably being done today already. It's kind of like with nuclear weapons. Despite the First Amendment, you cannot publish an article describing how to build a nuclear bomb. I think there's actually a case like that. Somebody wanted to publish material describing how to make a nuclear weapon. And a judge said, no, no, no, we're not going to do that. And so what we have in the nuclear field is we have companies that build these nuclear weapons. But I'm pretty sure they work for the United States government. I actually own shares in a company called Brunswick, which makes bowling balls. Remember, Brunswick when there were bowling alleys? Surprisingly, they also make nuclear warheads. I mean, that's a combination. Yeah, I know quite a combination. But their only customer, I'm sure, is the Defense Department. And I think that's what we need to do. We need to have a legislation in the United States that nationalizes or says, look, if you're doing work in artificial intelligence, your only customer is the Department of Defense. We will pay you to do this research.  But if you come up with something, good, we're going to, we're your only customer. That will work only for the U.S., but it will work only for the designated activity. There are so many other destructive activities that are possible. Think of germ warfare, chemical warfare, all kinds of science. That's the weapon of mass destruction. I guess you'd have to make a list, but it would be a long list. And furthermore, I think actually, if you've got on the web right now, worse, if you've got on the web and used AI on the web, you can find out how to make a bomb or do other weapons of mass destruction. And a case or a statute isn't going to stop you. So this information is going to be more and more available as time goes by. And our existing legal infrastructure, our institutions, are really not able to stop it. Well, I hear what you're saying. All those other things that you mentioned, they're also probably, even though we don't know it, if you could build chemical weapons and so forth, I'm sure the U.S. government already has certain controls in place so that you can't sell those to just anybody, maybe to friendly governments, but certainly not just to anybody. You've got to get permission already. So for all of those other areas that you've mentioned, I think there already is some kind of implicit legal strategy that limits the dissemination of those dangerous weapons to either the United States government or customers who are approved by the United States government. You know, I can get on the web right now and call up a website in Russia. And I can ask it questions and get answers from it, AI or no AI that I could not ask, assuming there was some regulation in the United States. What I'm saying is the United States can't regulate the whole world. And so if we don't like weapons of mass destruction, we can maybe, through legislation or court action or a combination, through law enforcement agencies, we can stop it from happening or at least theoretically stop it from happening in the United States. But for example, gambling on the web, and so it's not legal in a lot of states, but shouldn't get on your computer and gamble in various places in the world and actually win or lose. What I'm saying is when you have a global possibility like this, it's very hard for one country to control it. I understand what you're saying, but I think let's put it this way. So if the United States does control it, I think it would be good for us from one perspective, because let's assume that we already have the lead in AI. And so what we want to do is to preserve our lead. And I hate to be chauvinistic about it, but if the United States is protected, that is, if our encrypted systems can't be hacked because we have the lead in AI, let's say we're good with that because we're the good guys. Now, if we're not the good guys, then that's a problem. But if we can take care, and there are many companies, you know, ChatGTP was created by OpenAI, which some guy in his garage probably just thought it up, and then Microsoft invested a billion dollars in it. So these guys are just shooting up, but as soon as they do develop something, we have to bring them into the government and say, look, if there's a military application for this, you're only customer is the United States. And I think we're already doing that for nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, so I think we can follow that paradigm. I think this would be a good time to take a snapshot of what we have. So is it Microsoft is developing a new AI chat program? I think it's off Bing. And I think Google is developing a new one. I think it's the Lord knows they have a lot of data to play with. I think it's Bard. And there'll be others. These guys can put billions in though, they'll be the leaders. And they'll exceed OpenAI by miles and miles in no time at all because they know this money to be made. OpenAI right now is free, although there's talk about how they would charge you a monthly subscription of 40 bucks or something for enhanced usage. Right now, the lines are jammed up with so many people trying it out that they're ready to charge you something to jump to the head of the line. These other guys are not going to hesitate. And if they give you the full throttle AI and you're a business, they're going to charge you a lot more than 40 bucks. And you're going to pay for it and you will know you're getting a great value for your money because it'll help you solve problems instantaneously. Business plans, budgets, all kinds of business, all kinds of innovative things right now instantly with a touch of a button. I went and looked on my phone. I went and looked at the Play Store on my Android phone. And I typed in AI or chat was it EPT. And dozens and dozens of apps came up. And I'm not even sure that OpenAI and the chat program was there. There are dozens of others. Everybody jumping on the bandwagon. And of course, if you're well funded like Google and Microsoft, you can do extraordinary things. But some of these other guys, they'll do extraordinary things too. So you talked about chaos. Right now, there's zero regulation that we know of, although I would have to agree. I don't think the federal government would be too happy if you were telling people how to make bombs. But there is very little on zero regulation. And now you look at my phone and you see dozens and dozens of people jumping on the competition. Each one thinks he's going to have the future of the world in the palm of his hands. Each one thinks that ultimately he'll be able to make tons and tons and tons of money telling his special use of AI. There's an infinite number of possibilities for AI to solve problems. It's not just one thing. So you talked about the word chaos, Jelton. I'd like to ask you what that means. Well, I guess it means that that regulation would be difficult. But let me suggest this. That at a certain point, it's not necessarily just a matter of the programming, but it's also a matter of the hardware. And I think it's easier to control the hardware. So give me an example. As you know, there is the famous breaking of the Nazi enigma code during World War II. And there's the imitation game, a movie about Alan Turing, one of the pioneers of AI. And he and Jack Good, who's one of the pioneers of, he coined the term ultra intelligent machine. They were working at Bletchley Park in Britain to try to break the Nazi code. But there were two parts of that. Number one, is the programming part. They had to understand how this machine was being programmed. But they also had to have an actual mockup of the machine itself, which they stole through regular espionage. So it doesn't work only to have the program without having the actual hardware. And so the hardware is where I think governments can control this thing. Because as far as chaos is concerned, yeah, anybody can get a program off of their iPhone. But how many people can actually control the hardware? That would be necessary. The artificial intelligent machine would have to have a very large set of servers. Because the human mind is actually astronomical. And so you'd need the hardware and that perhaps is more easily controlled. Well, it's also, this raises the question, Elton. And it's a big question is, we know the software industry is not going to stand by. This is too hot. Too many people are interested. The capacity, the capability of this kind of programming is unlimited. And it's really exciting when you think of the possibilities. We could talk about that for a while. But it seems to me that neither of the hardware companies are going to stand aside. They're going to say exactly what you were saying. They're going to say, we need more horsepower. We want bigger servers. We want to achieve every possibility that AI can offer us. So your desktop, your laptop, your phone. It's going to be different going forward. You ask about the future of humanity here. These hardware devices are going to change. And I'll bet you five, it's going to be in the near term. You won't have the same kind of computer on your desk. The server, the cloud, it's all going to be different because everybody will want AI. The world will want AI. And to go to your point, how do you control that? They're going to be busy all over the world. It's not limited to the US building ships, building cases, building circuit boards all over the world. How are you going to control that? Okay. So if I could just in the brief remaining time I have throw the monkey wrench in this whole procedure, there's one weakness in AI. I mean, we've been talking about it, but there is a counterargument. The counterargument says, well, these machines don't have emotions. As a matter of fact, they're not even conscious. And as a matter of fact, it's pretty clear that those computer scientists don't even know where to start making a machine conscious. So it could be that although these machines have a good chance of, they're very good at fooling us into simulating intelligence, it could be that actually they fall short. I mean, that's a possibility that's out there. And we should also consider that. But I take your point. And I think if you look at the landscape, it's pretty bleak. But let's hold out some hope that our reasoning is flawed somewhere. Well, the positive side of it is what makes people so excited. I mean, I asked AI to write a love poem to my wife. And it did immediately. And it was very good. I said to myself, I wish I could do that. I asked AI to answer a question on whether we should get a new couch for our living room. And it answered me and told me all the reasons I should get a new couch, and all the reasons I shouldn't get a new couch. This opens what you and I were talking about when we originally spent time on this subject. That is the law. Council on one side makes an argument. Council on the other than they make rebuttal. And then it goes to a little black box on the bench. Maybe six inches by six inches. And the black box listens to everything. And the black box makes a ruling. That's where we're going, isn't it? I think we're already there in the medical field. Artificial intelligence is already making diagnoses which are better than those done by doctors. So in life and death situations, the machine decides. And so I think we're already there in that field. And in the law, yeah, that could be our future. But again, in the law, and we're thinking about this, we're having that case decided by something which might be logical. It's very logical. Maybe the law is logical. But if the decider is not even conscious, I don't know how we can delegate that sort of decision to an entity which is not even conscious. I'd like to offer you two thoughts on that. Number one is when the Internet first came around, which was not that long ago, essentially 1995 when Bill Gates did a reverse move and all of a sudden took Microsoft into the Internet. That was really brilliant. There was not a lot of abuse. People were so excited to have this new way of communicating and learning and answering questions. It was so exciting, I remember. And it took a while. It took five, 10, maybe 15 years before the bad guys got involved and started abusing it with all of their hacking and fishing and what happened. So we had a moment of respite, if you will, from the excitement, the thrill of the new technology to the time when it was abused. And I suggest to you, Elton, that could happen here. The world, everyone in the world could be so excited about the possibilities that they don't use it, at least not at first, as something nefarious. Hard to say what kind of a honeymoon we might have. But I think we're still in the honeymoon phase. And I think that there's so many wonderful possibilities to help humanity that it's sort of irresistible to find the next one. Because you can make a lot of money. That's the way this is going to evolve. You will be able to make tons of money if you come up with an AI application that answers questions that could never have been answered before. That's one reaction I have. The second is, you talk about consciousness. You talk about emulating human consciousness, self-awareness. Like in the movie Hal 2000, Hal, I can't help you with that Hal. What was it? The 2001 Space Odyssey? That machine, although it was programmed and had limits, it did have consciousness arguably. And I believe, let me throw this at you and see what you think, I believe that we're not that far from a machine. Forget about doing backflips, but we're not that far from a machine that would essentially be able to look at itself, who have consciousness. What do you think? Well, the consciousness I'm thinking of is really basic. So the consciousness I am thinking of is something that a dog has and something that a rat has, something that every mammal has. The classic article is, what is it like to be a bat by Thomas Nagel? If you can conceive of what it is like to be a bat, blind, but sensing through echolocation, it's conscious.  Flat. Nothing. Nothing happens. It's not conscious at all. We know that already. And so every mammal is conscious in a little way, but so far, none of our machines is conscious. And they wouldn't even know where to start. The AI people would not even know where to start to make our machines conscious. So I think that gives us some hope that machines are actually going to fall short.  Okay, I'll buy that for the moment. But let me say, it would not surprise me that my Samsung began to develop consciousness in a while. And it began to have a self image of itself as a Samsung. And you and I should follow this, Delta. And we should get together and see, because this is so fast moving, that it's not something we can have one show about and stop. So we have to circle back and examine it from time to time. What do you think? Sounds good. Okay, Elton Fukumoto, an attorney been around the block and been thinking about AI. And this has been a great discussion. Thank you, Elton. Thank you very much, Jay. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at thinktechawaii.com. Mahalo.