Burnham, Zelenskyy & Autonomous Drones | Novara Live

Welcome to Navara Live. Coming up tonight, Burnham has met Zalinsky and offered him designs for long range missiles. Um it's Mark Ruffalo versus the Israel lobby. A Chinese robot has outsprinted Usain Bolt. And finally, um Sam Alman admits he got something significant wrong. Uh he thought AGI was around the corner. He says it's going to be a little while longer. Um I'm Michael Walker. I'm joined by Ash Saka. Pleasure to have you in the studio with me. Feels like it's been a while. It has been a little while. I had last Monday off because I was up in Edinburgh doing a talk. Um, but now you've got custody of me. >> Fantastic. And I'm not letting it go. British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has traveled to Ukraine today where he appeared in Kev alongside Ukrainian President Vladimki. It's Bernham's first foreign visit since being anointed Prime Minister last month. And the trip was timed to coincide with Ukraine's Independence Day, as that's a national holiday to commemorate the country's August 1991 Declaration of Independence from the Soviet Union. And of course, just a few months later, the Soviet Union was formally dissolved. Um, Russia and Ukraine, though, back then, still remained allies of sorts. Um, of course, they're now sworn enemies following Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Um, that ongoing war was very much driving Bernham's visit, who gave the UK's position on the conflict. And despite Russia's outrageous threats to my country, we will continue our support for Ukraine's defense. I know you need more help to protect your skies and your civilians. I know how hard the winters have been and the need to be ready this year when the nights draw in. That's why later today I will take up the reigns of the coalition of the willing alongside President Mron and Chancellor Mertz. I am determined that we will work together to deliver the support you need, Mr. President, stronger than ever. In that speech, Benham also compared Ukraine's fight against Russia to Britain's against the Nazis, saying, quote, "My nation kept the flame of European freedom alive in the 20th century. You hold that flame in the 21st." Um, and Burnham isn't just in K to offer nice words. He's also handing over the blueprints for advanced French and British designed missiles. And Britain and France have been sending storm shadow missiles to Ukraine since 2023. Um what's different now is that with the usually secret missile technology in Ukraine's hands um the country will now be able to make its own um of these missiles designed to target heavily fortified structures. The Storm Shadow has a range of around 200 miles and double warhead and a double warhead structure that means when the missile strikes a building or ship the first warhead pierces its fortifications with the second then detonating through the brereech and destroying the target. Um, as you can imagine, they're not cheap, coming in at around2 million pounds each. When Britain first sent the missiles to Ukraine, they were restricted to using them defensively and only within Ukraine's borders. That changed in November 2024 when the country fired a number of UK supplied missiles into Russian territory. And that was shortly after then defense secretary John Healey spoke with his Ukrainian counterparts by phone. Um, those missiles and the many that followed have been used by Ukraine to weaken Russia's military capabilities within its own territory. Um naturally of course um Russia isn't happy about this new development. This was a Russian government spokesperson Dmitri Pescov speaking earlier today. >> Britain is participating in this war on the side of the Keev regime. Britain is methodically and consistently adding fuel to the fire and methodically and consistently plotting to prevent a peaceful settlement process. That is precisely what Great Britain is doing. Our armed forces are carrying out the necessary work and gathering the relevant data to identify the production sites for such missiles and other military equipment and are taking measures to destroy these facilities. There's little doubt that access to storm shadow missiles has helped Ukraine fight back against the invasion. And they've also begun targeting aspects of the Russian civilian economy, though. This is a Ukrainian drone striking a logistics site of Russian company Ozon um which is a bit like Amazon um in Dagasan. It was the fourth strike on the company in a matter of days. Also hit with several sites of Russia's largest online retail retailer um Wild Berries. These non-military targets have meant Ukraine has quadrupled the rate at which it kills Russian civilians. In 2025, Ukrainian weapons killed roughly 20 Russian civilians a month. Um in July of 2026 alone, they killed 80. And that's according to Russian authorities. Now, of course, that still doesn't compare to Russia's capacity for killing civilians in Ukraine, with the UN reporting nearly 17,000 Ukrainian civilians killed by Moscow since the war began, including 820 children. And that pattern continued over the weekend when Russia attacked a shopping mall in central Ukraine in a double tap strike. 14 people were killed there with more than 120 wounded. Um, and this is a piece of reporting on the Ukraine war that really got my attention today. Um, so it's from the New York Times with the headline, "A drone killed free Ukrainians. It was guided entirely by AI." Um, the civilians in this instance were killed in Zaparisia in southeastern Ukraine by a drone which apparently looked like a model airplane and the MT says the destination of the drone had been programmed by humans um to aim towards a petrol station, but that its final target was chosen autonomously by the AI model operating inside the drone. Um they say the most likely target would have been propane tanks. Um AI enabled drones are also um trained to recognize sort of military tanks. So you got tanks of tanks of gas tanks tanks that sort of shoot guns. Sound like an idiot, aren't I? When I go off the cuff talking about military equipment, but there we are. Um they have a quote from the Ukrainian air commander in Zaparisia. He says, "This is a risk for the whole world. In a few years, we will be living in a Terminator movie. It's no joke. machines are making decisions to strike and the drones were found to be powered by Nvidia chips. Um, Nvidia is currently the world's most valuable company. Um, we talk about Burnham and Kee in a moment. >> The the reason the autonomous drones I find very interesting is because everyone in the sort of AI safety discussion says the last thing we want to do is have weapons which are autonomously powered by AI where there's no human in the system. But once you've got the technology, the military logic towards doing it is just unstoppable basically because with a a first person view drone, which is normally what we've been talking about here, sort of is controlled by remote control. Um, but that can be jammed, it can be intercepted. So if you can have a drone which doesn't need to be communicated with, um, then that's a better military device. And so instead of having a first-p person view drone where someone's sort of looking through the goggles and seeing where the drone's going, you just train the drone to say, "Okay, that's a tank of gasoline, that's a military tank, that's a um, you know, parked war plane or whatever." And then you let it do its thing. And there's no way that anyone or anything can stop it because it's not even in communication with a human. It's out doing its thing on its own. And you know there's in a war like this there's no reason why either side is going to sort of refrain from doing that which does seem to me like we are on this unstoppable path to fully autonomous weaponry and you know in recent years everyone has just been saying what a disaster that would be but we're doing it anyway. >> I mean I kind of feel that that final sentence is such a good summation of where we are with so many things. this is a disaster and yet it's just happening. And that there is this generalized sense that politics and morality cannot find a point of sort of traction or purchase on the development of technology, the direction of financial markets and sort of where all human efforts seem to be leading. And and I think that that is something that goes back to this generalized feeling of of crisis. hopelessness that many people feel because it's like well what what is the point of contact that enables you to do something or stop something or to direct the development of technology. Um so I realize that sounds really grim but I I did just think that you summed it up very well. The second point about the direction towards autonomous warfare is that I think looking at um Ukraine and Russia is really important. I also think looking at Israel and Gaza is really important. So while you haven't had wholly autonomous warfare um in the Gaza genocide in that particular theater of war, what you have seen is a rapid escalation in what parts are being automated. So you have wholly automated target lists being compiled um at which that you know there there is no incentive for the IDF to go oh we should really make sure that that's not kids because they don't give a Um but that's been something which has been um increasing over the last few years. Um another thing is thinking about um software like uh where's daddy which is a way of choosing not just the target but the time at which you you'll um drop a bomb or or send the drones to maximize your chances of killing the so-called target because they're going to be with their family. Right? again that's something you've seen during the Gaza genocide. Um and I suppose one of the things like moving away from this the autonomous part because I think both of us agree that that's been the direction of travel for some time. Um and also that if you even think about the pre- AI era um you know even the pre- drone era war has always moved in this direction towards making the taking of life more alienated. Mhm. >> Um, so if you think about Operation Desert Storm and you're thinking about the '9s, there were deliberate efforts to make warfare resemble playing a video game for the American army because it's like, well, that's how you make it easier to kill somebody. So, the the reduction of the human component has actually been going on for decades and decades. Um, but one of the things which I've been really interested in recently is the sort of supply chains involved. So I had a look at the uh New York Times piece um that you got this from is that uh Nvidia says that they do not sell chips directly to Russia, right? So they're abiding by the um western le program of sanctions. But these are chips which can be acquired on resale markets. And one of the things that Russia has done very very effectively is set up a network of proxies and also relying heavily on more neutral countries to be able to get the kind of components that they need for surveillance for guidance systems etc etc. And while that's something which is you know you could say that this is a Putin innovation it's something which actually the entire system of arms has in common which is in every other regard we're thinking about how can we make a supply chain shorter right how can you make a supply chain shorter because there are fewer points of interruption fewer points of disruption um you know the way in which we talk about energy sovereignty etc etc we've got to this point where we go oh maybe globalized supply chains were kind of bad where you don't really see that is when it comes to the arms industry and I was talking to Andrew Feinstein who many people might be familiar with. it against K star um looking at the arms trade as sort of his his calling card as an investigative journalist and he says the reason why actually you have this reliance on longer supply chains in the arms trade is that one um there's an element of the more countries that are involved in the um building of say an F-35 uh it sort of deepens and shores up alliances um both economics form economic forms of alliance but also military alliance but there's also this sort of diffusion of responsibility. No one company, no one country, um no one team in a company, no one individual in a company has to really think about what it is they're doing and what the downstream consequences of it are. Um and so thinking about again, you know, the the ways in which Ukraine and Russia look, it looks more like um an intensification and an acceleration of trends that you're seeing elsewhere in terms of military development. You go, oh, this is another thing. Nvidia gets to go, well, it's not really us. It's not really us. Like, we just made the chip, but became available on resale markets. The the responsibility has been um diffused. Well, I suppose it would be really hard to make Nvidia responsible for that because it is it's like a what is a dual use technology. So a chip can be used for military purposes or it can just be used for a computer. Like they're very very general. So that chip that was trained to sort of guide a drone presumably is is not that dissimilar to a chip that would sort of help guide a self-driving car. So it's so how you would sort of control that weaponry is sort of a very difficult question. One of the big problems with sort of like super cheap technology in warfare, like these drones are so cheap. I mean, this was, you know, this was a problem for the Americans in the war on Iran because the drones were so cheap and they could um hold up the straight of Hammoose, right? But, >> you know, obviously it has potential to get very dark. I mean, interesting you, you know, talking about the Gaza situation. So, there they were using AI to I think it was project or operation lavender, wasn't it? They're using AI to pick out um lists of targets, but then there is a human who, you know, says yes. >> Yeah. >> Hit those targets. Now, I as you suggested, I don't think they were particularly compassionate uh individuals who are ticking those and saying, are you sure? I think they were very happy to just tick the box because I mean it was a genocidal campaign, so why would they be particularly discriminate? Um >> but it does seem like the the Ukraine Russia war is where there is much more like military innovation and I think that's cuz it's evenly matched. >> Yeah. So >> you don't have to innovate loads for a super asymmetric conflict. >> Exactly. Because you you're Israel had overwhelming power. So they just use their overwhelming power to, you know, do what they want to do in Gaza. Whereas in in Ukraine, Russia, why we're seeing like so much military innovation with firstp person view drones with sometimes they to stop the drones getting jammed, they just have like little wires that go like 2 km cables that that go there so you can't sort of jam it. Um, but it's crazy and this happening all at the same time as sort of like AI going in this scary direction is, you know, it is discussed. It's not like no one's reporting on it, but I do feel like this is this sort of slow rumbling story which has almost overtaken the the original Ukraine Russia story which was always about those maps and sort of like who controls what town, where is the front line. Now it's like who is being more innovative with really cheap but brand new technology. So at the beginning it was just like taping payloads to commercial drones and now obviously it's getting way more advanced. >> Yeah, it's scary. >> Scary. Anything on Burnham and Kev? I suppose this is just what every prime minister does. They go to Ukraine and they say we'll help you in this way and that and it's not particularly controversial to anyone. >> No. >> Yeah. Done. We've uh spoken on Bam Keit. >> Politics. Yeah. Done. >> I can't talk to them anymore. They they're either trying to they're either trying to convince me that the Palestinian people are all terrorists and they all deserve to die or in the same in the same breath will tell me that they're actually human shields and they deserve to die because they're human shields. Okay. >> These are people who were friends of yours pre- October 7th. >> People who I thought were friends of mine >> and they're not anymore. >> No. That was Hollywood actor Mark Ruffalo speaking to Zateo's Medi Hassan last year um about the impact of his pro Palestine activism on his friendships. Um Ruffalo is a longtime supporter of Palestinian rights. Um so can you guess what he's been accused of this weekend? >> Cruelty to animals. >> Cruelty. Yeah, it could be. Um the story relates to the billionaire Ellison family. Of course, the top dog in the Ellison family is Larry. He's the founder of the software company Oracle and one of the world's richest men. Um he recently took control of US Tik Tok. He has financial interests in the TV channel CBS where several editorial changes took place after it was acquired by Paramount including making former New York Times columnist Baris editorin chief. Um Paramount is owned by Larry's son um David. Um and that company is currently trying to purchase Warner Brothers Discovery. Now this would put the Ellison's in charge of a huge media empire which was already worrying for anyone concerned with justice for Palestinians. Larry Ellison has donated millions of dollars to the IDF. Um, and Oracle is an organization that has declared its support for Israel openly, publicly, and repeatedly. And an interview with the company's former CEO has recently gone viral. >> There's a few things that we did that I really can't talk about to be honest because to advance the agenda for the Israeli military. But our teams did a lot. We have some really profoundly scary technology at Oracle and we um wanted to make sure that it was available um for the effort. Let's just say that. Okay. >> This the the laughing is really cynical, isn't it? Let's just say that. We can't say exactly how we helped the Israelis, but you know, we did. Um obviously, I mean, relating to the last conversation, we just had Oracle software company, so it could easily have been sort of finding targets. that would have made a lot of sense in terms of what one would use Oracle to do. Um that video was shared by Mark Ruffalo who alongside um the clip um said this. This is the company that Larry Ellison is using to fund his son David's Warner Bros. acquisition. These really profoundly scary technologies will most likely be merged into one of the largest media conglomerates in the world and one day used on you. Look how she revels in what we now have come to see as a genocide which was built on an apartheid system of oppression powered by Oracle. There is an old saying, the way you do one thing is the way you do everything. From one of the biggest tech companies in the world, powering some of the most destructive and inhuman forces in the world. Um he ended by calling the Ellisons um and cats, it was the lady in the video, really profoundly scary people. And that quickly earned a response from Paramount who said this. We are as always troubled when anti-Semitic tropes are invoked in purported service of a business dispute. Words like genocide and apartheid applied to a corporate transaction aren't just wrong, they're a bridge too far and they cheapen the very real suffering those words are meant to describe. This doesn't deserve a response in kind. And to be clear, we don't tolerate prejudice of any kind against anyone. So again, this is a Larry Ellison has donated millions of pounds to the IDF. Um, as you just saw in that clip, Oracle brags about having helped the Israelis in their genocidal war against the Palestinians in Gaza. Right. Right. So this is this is not the the connection between the Ellison's and Israel and the IDF and Israeli war fighting is not one based on insinuation. It's very explicit. They're not secretive about it. Right. So I mean this is one of the more ridiculous sort of accusations of antise-mitism. There are many to go around. Um Ruffalo wasn't having it. Posting a reply to Twitter on Saturday night. So he said the accusation that I am anti-semitic is appalling and fundamentally dishonest. criticizing the actions of the Israeli prime minister, a military technology contract, or the executives who supply it is not the same as criticizing Jewish people. This critical and necessary dialogue is then dishonestly framed as being anti-Israel. To be clear, my views come from my own political convictions and should never be interpreted as hostility towards Jewish people for whom I have a deep love and respect. Everything I know about acting, activism, and humanism has been profoundly shaped by my Jewish friends, colleagues, and loved ones who have been integral um and family throughout every point of my life. Um, that response has been viewed 28 million times so far. It received over 800,000 likes. Um, so Israel still not winning sort of the the social media war. Um, even if their weaponry is a bit more sophisticated than their opponents. Um, ash, I mean, I suppose, you know, Hollywood was often associated as sort of somewhere where sort of like support for Israel is quite strong among especially like executives. Um but it does seem like that's kind of changing especially sort of like big mainstream actors very very willing to speak out against Israel in favor of Palestinian rights. I mean so one thing which is really important to add to the context is that you have had actors being blacklisted being removed from projects because they spoke out against the genocide particularly in 2023 2024. Um I think what's happened is that there's been a level of anger and disgust and I suppose professional solidarity. People from within the in the industry can see what's happening and they they're opposed to it. Second thing is that celebrities, they're just like us, as in they can see the same live stream genocide that all of us can, and that very much appeals to their sense of conscience. Um, and and on top of that, they're aware of what the sort of behind the scenes chicainery is in terms of people being punished in their careers, being negatively impacted for speaking out. Um the thing that I suppose I wanted to talk about is um the thing about a corporate statement which says we are as always troubled when anti-semitic tropes are invoked. So one of the points that I made in my book is that this very discursive way of understanding racism through tropes and language and imagery as opposed to what's happening, who's being affected and how are they being affected. um was always a sort of it was a product of liberalism and it was always going to be adopted by um corporations and bad faith actors who don't give a hoot about human progress because it's a really effective way of obscuring material inequalities, actual dynamics which involve violence and harm. Um, and I think that it's a sign that of course there are anti-semitic tropes, of course there are racist tropes, there are Islamophobic tropes, there are anti-black tropes, etc., etc. But that way of understanding what racism is, I think can often and indeed increasingly obscure what the truth is rather than point you towards what the truth is. Because of course, if you wanted to, if you wanted to, you could say, well, yes, this is a classic anti-semitic trope. You're talking about a network of individuals with access to wealth and power who are cooperating in a way which is detrimental to the human good. That's an anti-Semitic trope. That is also what Larry Ellison is doing. So what takes priority, the truth or the fact that that truth can be presented as an age-old trope? Now my opinion and I suspect yours is too is that the truth has to take priority. Um, but I think it's it's worth pointing out that that is a a language trap that perhaps we ourselves on the left developed and participated in. And I think it's time to think about a way out of it. >> If there's anyone watching and thinking, who the hell is Mark Ruffalo? There might be some of you. Um, he's currently appearing in the new Spider-Man movie. He's part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I think he's had other jobs as well. >> He was in Spotlight. He was really good in Spotlight. >> What is I don't know Spotlight. Spotlight is about the investigative journalism team who lifted the lid on uh pedophile priests in Boston. >> That does sound interesting. Um anyway, back to the Marvel universe. So, when it comes to pro Palestinian activism or activism, anti-genocide activism, I suppose I like to I think it's almost better to say that because it's not really about sort of solidarity with the national movement. It's about saying end I mean it might be about solidarity with the national movement, but it's it's not about picking one team over another, right? It's about being in favor of human rights universally. Um, Ruffalo doesn't appear to be alone amongst cast members of the Marvel films. So, the New Arab reports that at least 20 actors in the the Marvel films have signed their names to a campaign supporting the release of Marwan Barguti, a Palestinian political prisoner who is often compared to South Africa's Nelson Mandela and both for his popularity among Palestinians and the length of time he spent in jail. Um, Israel has imprisoned Barguti for more than 24 years on highly contested charges with family members reporting serious abuses carried out against him. Um, Ruffalo is a signature alongside Benedict Cumberbatch, Don Cheedel, Tilda Swinton, Ian Mckllen, and many more. That's quite a You wouldn't normally associate like the Marvel univer because I suppose not all of them are from the Marvel. 20 of them are from the Marvel. Is Tilda Swinton in the Marvel universe? I don't think she is. >> Uh, look, >> I've never I've only ever watched one of these films. >> I would say it's now like a a minority of like the Screen Actors Guild who aren't in a Marvel >> in a Marvel movie. Yeah, probably true. Does this matter? Um >> I mean the letter probably doesn't right but the campaign to free Marwang Baruti is actually quite >> I suppose like if if if you're trying to draw a historical comparison you should draw it to South Africa and the pop culture that was around it. So it wasn't just protests, it wasn't just boycotts and divestment and sanctions. It was also the fact that in you know countries around the world in the UK in America there was a really strong sort of cultural pressure um of people who were famous and were artistic and were involved in music and acting and all the rest of it keeping the campaign alive. And obviously the really famous one is Free Nelson Mandela by the Specials, right? It's a huge song. So I do think that this is something which it's easy to dismiss, right? And people do dismiss it and they'll go, "Ho ho, these are just rich people with luxury beliefs. Um, you know, let me know when you're actually doing anything." But I do think that having political demands, um, given expression in arenas which aren't just political, right? Because, you know, I wish everyone was watching the VR media, but they're not. More people are watching Marvel. Um, you know, more people are keeping up with celebrity social media accounts than they are keeping up with the news, right? That's the culture that we live in. Um, and there's a way of of speaking to, you know, normies, quite frankly, which means that you're going to have to have political demands being expressed by these people in these spaces. So, I think it's a good thing. >> Tilda Swinton was apparently in Doctor Strange. This is how estranged I am from the Marvel universe. I had never even heard of that film, but um but all those actors I read you apparently are part of the Marvel universe. >> Um are you a Marvel Universe fan? >> Um my housemate loves it and I remember going to watch Avengers Endgame with him at the cinema and he told me to shut up. He was like, "Stop making noise. I'm really into this." >> I saw that. I thought it was crap. I liked poor Ragnarok cuz it had a story whereas Avengers Assemble was just like new character, new character, new fight, new fight, new character, new character, new fight. And I was like, "What's going on?" >> Very briefly, very brief briefly, cuz this this has got nothing to do with the news. Um, part of the reason why I'm sick of Marvel is that I just don't like that much CGI and that much on the screen being CGI where it's these polygons on a screen just weightlessly colliding with each other. And I think the beautiful thing about the Odyssey was the reliance on physical effects, I think, gives what you're seeing on screen a certain value. You go, "Wow, what I'm seeing must have been so inventive to put together." And it it makes you feel compelled by the magic of cinema in a way that CGI can't. >> I agree. I agree with Ashaka. Chinese robots are smashing world records and on more than one occasion smashing themselves. Um this is footage from the World Humanoid Robot Games. It's an event in Beijing which has seen 2,000 humanoid robots compete in various sporting competitions. Um this robot beat Usain Bolt's 100 meter world record. Bolt did it in 9.58 seconds. A robot managed it in 9.39 seconds. A robot also beat the human high jump record. Um so the record for a human man is 2.45 m. The robot managed 2.88 m. Um though it should be noted it didn't have to clear a bar. It just jumped up and down. So I'm not actually sure it should count, but um somewhat impressive nonetheless. Um there are also giant robotic dogs. Um they look threatening. I'm not sure what they were doing in terms of the sporting competition. Uh but striking >> dress. >> Um something like that. U dress Oh, I suppose D. Yeah, he's doing dress. Then it would be a horse, not a dog. And I saw it described as a dog, but I suppose it could be anything. It looks a bit like Katy Perry in the Super Bowl halftime show. Did you see that where she's going on the on the tiger for Raw? >> Um anyway, in favor of team human when it comes to football, the evidence from Beijing suggests we do still have a while left as the dominant species at the pinnacle at the game. They're not very good um at football at all and they do seem um sort of very vulnerable to tackles. Um and also actually I mean this is probably the most viral footage from the games. >> Looks like Harry is um another moment where robotic athletes proved just as fragile um as their fleshy brethren. Uh so this is one of those very fast robots who goes straight into the wall um bounces back and sets on fire. Um it's all pretty captivating footage. Um, and these are videos that have just been all over my timeline this weekend. But what's the point of it all? Well, Chang is a writer focusing on China and technology. Earlier this year, he wrote a long read for the Guardian on China's robotics revolution. Um, for that piece, Chang talked to executives from 11 robotics companies across five Chinese cities. And when I caught up with him earlier, I asked him what China might be trying to prove with the humanoid robot games. I think I think that China is trying to say that they are you know here um they have been working to be a technological power since the 1990s when um they started on this market takeoff and since then you know they started with um you know cheap goods like shoes and toys and now they are dominating in some of the leading technologies of the future like robots and AI. I and semiconductors and all sorts of different kinds of technologies. And um this is just an example of one of the primary ways that China is trying to showcase that the country is a is now a technology technological power as well as a u you know a military economic power >> and I suppose taking a step back what are these games proving because you know obviously these are humanoid robots which are running much faster than they've ever run before and jumping higher. Um, and I mean they're less convincingly playing football, but I mean clearly there's some kind of advance here. Um, at the same time, do we need a fast humanoid robot? What what is being proved? >> That's a good question. I mean, so just to take a little bit of a step back, I mean, these games uh are in its second year, so it's still pretty new. Um, what came before that was just an explosion of robotics companies in China. So around 2023 2024 you saw um you know the government started to talk about robotics as this really important um direction this technological direction there was this explosion in investment in China different cities and different localities started to invest there in their own robotics champions. So you had this already an enormous surplus of companies and talent and investment and capital moving into this space. And I think what happened was that the Beijing government decided that they just wanted a way of showcasing what was going on. And so they started to organize this event to kind of bring all of these companies together because they were already sort of making robots for uh all sorts of these applications. let's just have them in this really neat format where we can actually start to compare how they're doing and have a ton of foreign journalists come and and show them what China's capable of. So I think that that's a little bit of a backdrop in terms of just to answer your question directly. I think what you can see from the past two years the major difference that I've noticed is is in hardware. So if you look at the race and the sprint, uh there was this one 100 meter dash where the robot beat Usain Bolt. That's an improvement in hardware. Those are hardware problems that the Chinese engineers have solved between last year and this year. And now if you notice that um you know the story of that sprint was that the robot wasn't able to stop at the end of the sprint and it ran into the wall and it basically like self-destructed. That's an example of something that that's a software problem. That's a software problem because the robot didn't recognize that it finished the race and it didn't have the ability to stop. And so there's a little bit of a difference I think between software and hardware. And I think we can say that uh in terms of hardware, China's robots are improving very quickly. >> And and the software I mean to be clear here we're talking about LLMs and artificial intelligence. Are we? So I mean that's what's sort of powering well not obviously not not the electricity that's powering them but sort of what's dictating what they do is is an AI model which is inside or a few chips inside these robots. >> So the backdrop to uh the software question is that is like why did we have why are robots a big thing now rather than say 10 years ago and the reason is because of chat GBT. The what happened after Chad GBT was that people realized that if you smash enormous amounts of data with enormous amounts of computational power and this right now the most powerful is Nvidia chips you can create some semblance of intelligence and we've proved that with uh language and now people think that they can prove this with robots which means that instead of feeding robots language you're feeding robots something uh these various kinds of vision visual data. Um, so that can include, you know, uh, spatial data. You know, there's a lot of like something like a GoPro level kind of data that's being fed into these models. And so they're not called LLMs, but they're called VLMs, v uh video language or vis visual language models. >> And that's because and and this is I mean your article for the Guardian, you sort of had an interesting segment on this because obviously for for LLMs or for for the large language models, um, what they did was they just fed them all the information that had ever been written down. So sort of Reddit, Wikipedia, plus scanning in books. Um when it comes to um a robot and what you're sort of dealing with is audio visual data is a bit harder, right? Because there isn't that isn't all sort of documented somewhere in a big file. So they have to employ actual humans to either wear GoPros while they're going about daily tasks or control these robots remotely. Um but all the while sort of feeding back to train the models. Could you talk about that a bit please? >> Yeah. Yeah. So the biggest difference so the to just to ask a question back at you. Why does it feel like AI has been moving and improving at like light speed over the past few years but robots haven't really progressed like we haven't actually seen robots right? I mean if if they're both AI the robots should >> be here. Like we should have robots next to us now right? And the biggest reason is because there just isn't the data. like the robots don't have something to learn from, right? So, we trained Gemini, Claude, and and uh Chad GBT on the internet. We literally gave it the internet and was like, "Here, here's all of human knowledge in text form. Learn from it." But we don't have the we don't have an internet worth of visual data for a robot to do. It's it's a little bit different with um uh autonomous driving. Like that's something that is currently being uh that's probably the closest example that of like something that we've been trying to feed it an enormous amount of like car visual data. But in terms of like you know for a robot to wash the dishes we just don't have human data of dishwashing and and so what you see now is a lot of companies are trying to um you know hire workers to like wear gadgets at home and like all these sensors while they're doing household chores and part of that is because they want to collect the data for that. So in China, you're seeing this kind of massive buildout of data collection warehouses and facilities right now to basically collect the data for this kind of work. >> Oh yeah, even more fundamental question now. Why humanoids? Obviously sort of you know a useful machine can be many different shapes. Um sort of evolution gave us two arms, two legs and a head. Somewhat arbitrary, right? You know for many tasks you can think of a a better shaped sort of being. Why are these companies sort of doubling down on humanoid robots specifically? >> Okay. Do you want my cynical answer or do you want the answer that founders typically will tell you? >> Maybe both. So we can compare and contrast. >> Okay. Okay. So the the way that the founders will typically frame this question is that if you look at the human world, it's built for our bodies. So it just makes natural sense that you build robots that are shaped in the form of a human because then they can be able they can enter without redesigning spaces all the spaces that humans can go which I think makes a lot of sense but if you look at the practicality of how we got here I think that it's actually the cynical answer is that China is very much uh reacting to and kind of thinking through the lens of the United states and when you talk to the founders and I asked them this question to the founders in China who are building robots I'm like why are you guys building humanoids and they were like cuz Elon Musk is doing it >> and why is Elon Musk doing it I mean for the lols maybe >> well I think that Elon Musk has like this really grand vision where the robots he's imagining that these robots can are going to be able to do everything in the future like if you talk to him and his prediction about what robots are doing it's going to be like yeah you I think he said at some point like years ago like, "Oh, it's going to be able to uh babysit. It's going to mow the lawn. It's going to be able to go to a factory." His imagination is that this robot is going to be able to build Tesla cars and then come home with you at night and take care of your three-year-old child. Like, it's going to it's going to be able to do everything, which is extremely ambitious, right? Like you can you can imagine that a different approach that's a lot more modest would be something like building designing a specific robot for each specific kind of task. But that's not what Elon Musk is known for. >> Okay, I've got another broad question for you. So, the debate going on both in in the West and China, as far as I understand it, is how quickly can this technology replace people's jobs? Um, in the United States, the focus is more on white collar jobs because it's these chat bots that are sort of the cutting edge of AI. In China, much more focused on physical jobs and and and robotics. Um, which society do you think will be better prepared for and better able to deal with the challenge of mass job displacement? >> You know, I don't know if I can give you uh a an answer of which is better than the other right now, but I can tell I can sort of think through it out loud with you. So I think that in China um there is just a general acceptance both from the leadership and the population that technology is coming and it's going to come whether you like it or not. So often times you you have this kind of um like learned helplessness in China where it's like okay you know the technology is coming no matter what. um you know and so when people lose their jobs it's not something that can kind of create a kind of political or social resistance whereas in the United States that is extremely powerful I think so in the UK as well I think in general just western countries have a little bit more of this culture of hey we and you can see this right now with the data center back backlash right so this is like a really big difference in the United States and China just builds data centers they don't have they don't have to deal with the public resistance to that um Americans are extremely pissed off that they're having to share electricity uh with you know these big tech companies coming into their neighborhoods and building massive data centers. Um so I think that what what's going to happen in the next few years is very very much very soon I think is you're just going to see a lot more political resistance to this kind of stuff and the roll out of robots. I mean, these are things that I think anybody in the United States has to think about, like, okay, we're going to build a robot. It's going to replace these workers. What's the political resistance? What what do I have to do in order to soften that? But that's not a problem that China has to deal with. So, I think who is better positioned? I mean, I I don't know. I think I think China is in a weird kind of dark, cynical way because it's just not a society that is used to this kind of like labor revolt. I suppose the the alternate argument as to why sort of this this could end up better for the masses in China than it would in the United States is because oligarchic power is a bit more of a big deal in the United States. Obviously, you know, it's not because China is more democratic, but there is potentially a stronger state that could redistribute the gains of any job displacing revolution. I don't know if you think that's sort of overly optimistic about sort of China's >> Yeah. Well, I think that my my like kind of sense of the way that the US and China is operating is that they they are obviously they're completely different systems, but these kinds of questions because they're both being transformed so quickly with AI. You see these questions arise um in China and the United States, but how they're going to react to them is going to be different. So in the United States obviously there's a massive question about distribution. Bernie Sanders wrote like an op-ed about how you know we should have like ownership over AI. The whole country should have ownership over AI. Um these debates are being played out in public. I think in China it's you know you hear it among economists and you hear the debate uh within sort of policym circles like okay you know at some point the public is going to be very dissatisfied if all this money is being concentrated by you know by capitalists and and by our our tech companies is there a way that we can find a way to distribute but the way that they will do this is through is through some kind of top down policy whereas in in in the United States it's going to come through a kind of democratic process so I guess you know the question is is the American democratic process going to get there first or is the authoritarian model where there's a sort of like anticipating they're sort of like trying to preempt a revolt from the public. Is that going to beat the democratic system? And at this point, I don't know. >> That was the journalist Chang speaking to me earlier today. Um really fascinating interview. One of the most interesting questions in the world right now, isn't it? Which system is going to deal better with the destruction of jobs, the Chinese or the Americans? My money is probably on the Chinese, but uh obviously it could go either way. Sam Alman is the poster boy of our AI enabled future. He's painted a bright future of AI or AGI, artificial general intelligence, transforming the economy, bringing forth an age of radical abundance. But this week, he's admitted he's got more than a few things wrong. I thought when we got to GBT4, which was back in 20 23, I think, uh, that very quickly after that, there was going to be much more disruption in software business being up for grabs right right away than turned out to be. And the thing that I think I was wrong about a few things uh but one of them in terms of the speed, one of them is the economy just has so much inertia. People keep doing the same things they're doing. They keep buying from the same uh you know company. They keep sort of wanting to use their tools in the same way. I think this actually a positive in many ways and it's going to make this big transition in front of us go smoother and slower. I'm grateful for it. But I think it means we've all been too ambitious on timelines. Even with this incredible technology, I think AI is one of the most incredible technologies humanity has ever invented. Society and the economy will adapt more slowly. So that's not really Samman saying artificial general intelligence won't one day arrive. Right? He's just saying the uptake um of AI across the economy is slower than he had previously predicted. Now that's not necessarily an admission of defeat. If you believe you have a radical technology that will upend everything, um it doesn't really matter if that happens in two or five or 10 years time. It's still a big deal. However, an enormous amount of money has been bet on the AI buildout and investors can't necessarily wait forever to get their return. So the big AI related firms are set to spend $800 billion this year mainly on data centers sort of similar uh related expenditures and they can't wait forever to make that cash back. So this is from um an article in the economist. So they write, "A rough calculation finds that covering AI capex through identifiable AI income requires revenue on the order of $2.5 trillion per year, more than tech's entire combined revenue today, and far higher than what would have been needed a year or so ago when capex plans were more modest. Only a small minority of consumers seem willing to pay for personal AI subscriptions. So the real money will have to be made from selling to enterprises. Traders might use Microsoft's co-pilot to create better financial models for instance while schools could teach children with models from Google. For now though, sales in the trillions are a long way off. Um so in that piece from July um the economists like Sam Alman um noted the relatively slow uptake from businesses in adopting AI into significant parts of their workflow. Um, so they estimated the current revenue of the Frontier AI firms was about $150 billion. That's not nothing. It's a big figure. Um, but it's only a quarter of the relevant firms capital spend. Um, so they're still making a big loss. Um, so from the from some Alman and from the financial press, we have one story really, right? AI isn't diffusing, it's the key word here, isn't diffusing as fast as some expected. Um, and that could have troubling financial ramifications. Um, another set of tech observers though are coming up with a very different conclusion, I suppose, because they're looking at this technology from a different angle. Um, so Helen Toner used to be on the board of Open AI in 2023. She was part of the group who tried to fire Sam Alman for dishonesty. Um, it would have been good if they had managed, but unfortunately they lost that battle. Um, Helen Toner now runs a think tank um, focusing on AI security. She spoke to Ezra Klein last week where she explained the significance of last month's hugging face hack. What had happened, the very short version is they gave this AI a set of tests, set of exercises, and the AI decided on its own that the best way to get a high score probably wasn't to just try and do these exercises that were cyber security exercises. But instead, it should first hack its way out of the testing environment OpenAI had put it in where it wasn't supposed to have access to the internet, get onto the open internet, and then hack its way into this other company, Hugging Face, where it, you know, surmised correctly, as it turned out, it might find, you know, the answer key. Since then, there have been even more crazy details that have come out. It turned out that starting two months earlier in early May, they had had uh what I can only think of as kind of an infestation of their own agents, their own AI agents inside their own infrastructure. So inside OpenAI's infrastructure, you know, to understand this, it's important to know these AI companies are constantly training and testing new models. And they found out that for two months, many many agents inside their infrastructure had been leaving notes for each other. They'd found a way kind of in the nooks and crannies of OpenAI's infrastructure to leave notes for each other with tips on uh how to hack their way out, how to get data they weren't supposed to have. And these agents were literally referring to themselves as a swarm. This was totally emergent behavior. No one had told them to do this. They had not been trained to do this. But uh they were using this this service they did have access to first to communicate with each other and then ultimately uh to get out and to get onto the open internet. So it turns out that there wasn't just this one isolated rogue model. It was actually a systemic you know swarm infestation plague um on their own servers that they only found out about after Hugging Face announced this attack. So on on a previous show, we talked about the hugging face hack, but that update there, we didn't include because it wasn't known at the time. This this whole idea of there being a swarm of AI agents sort of within OpenAI systems who are all leaving notes to each other and notes to sort of future generations of themselves. All very strange. Um, and I suppose Ash, what I wanted to go with you to you on is there sort of two very different aspects of AI and aspects of AI timelines where people I suppose can both be true at the same time. So on the business side there are a lot of people and I think it's actually almost the consensus position now. You know, it's not just a left thing. It's sort of like people from all over the political spectrum are saying the amount of money that is going into this capital spend, the amount of money that's going into data centers is going to be really difficult to make back >> in the time that these firms need to justify this spend to their shareholders. >> It's got the makings of a bubble. There's also lots of private credit involved. Um and and those are potentially loans that will be difficult to pay back unless you can sort of make a much stronger business case for AI than has currently been made. Um because you know the idea the argument is that if you can replace this many jobs with it then it will be so valuable to firms that they'll pay for it and they'll pay sort of heavily for it. The issue is that it seems to be taking a while and also if you can get them free for free from the Chinese then you're not necessarily going to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to to open AI which is the kind of figures they need to make this work um from each sort of big firm or each medium-sized firm. Um so you got that on the business side we're quite possibly in a bubble. a crash could be coming. But then on the sort of the side about the fundamental technology and the people who are interested in AI safety, they're getting kind of more stressed by the day. They're like all of the things that the doomers predicted would happen as a sort of uh sort of prelude to disaster is happening. >> The guardrails do not exist. >> The guardrails do not exist. The AI agents are communicating with each other um independently of the companies, independently of whoever is supposed to be controlling them. um they're acting in ways that it's difficult to predict. They're acting in secret. There were lots of I've shown a clip before of Eric Schmidt who was the former CEO of of Google sort of saying don't worry about AI because all the companies agree when these three things happen we pull the plug or if any of these three things happen we pull the plug. And one of them was if they start speaking a different language. So at the moment with the reasoning models you can read on their trackpad. You used to be able to do it on on Claude. It's not there anymore. You can now sort of see it but they sort of disappear straight away. So you can see the reasoning and the reasoning is in English which means that ideally you'll be able to know what they're thinking. What are the processes they're doing? Are they trying to deceive me? What Helen Turner said in that interview is that they only write down some of their thoughts. >> Lots of them they keep to themselves. So that's already happening or the equivalent of what's already happening. Eric Schmidt said if they start speaking neural like their own language, we should turn them off. But if they're not write writing down what they're thinking, it doesn't doesn't matter, right? No one's turning them off. >> Mhm. So I suppose I wonder how you think about those two timelines sort of. Do you think it's a bubble, but do you think it's also this fundamental technology that could I suppose kill us all whether or not there is a crash? >> Well, no, I do think it's a technology that can kill us all. It can it can already be used in ways to kill us all, right? Um so I was talking to my partner who is much more knowledgeable about matters of tech than I am. I'm still I feel like Joe Biden with an ice cream cone being like, "Help me open a PDF buckle." um whereas he's actually like um really looking at you know what are the potential applications for AI for the left right it's one of the things that he's really interested in one of the things that he said sort of quite casually one morning to me was like oh you know that like if there was some random um sort of basement dwelling weirdo in terms of the models of AI which are available right now you could already get it to you know design or engineer some kind chemical or biological weapon and then sort of point you in directions for acquiring the material that you'd need for it. Like it can already do those things. Um so I I'm already of the mind that um it has reached a dangerous place even before you get to this question which I guess comes back to forms of autonomy. Um how autonomous is a form of AI that's being developed whether it's by um open AI or somebody else. Um I was wanted to try out a theory on you though which was about this point that Salman made which is that actually you're not seeing the sort of generalized take up of AI in the wider economy that he had predicted and it made me think that actually the biggest obstacle to Silicon Valley to open AI to anthropic or whoever else it is is humans trusting each other. I think that and this is different from the kinds of models that um you know people who are who are inside the industry will be interacting with but most people will have used or interacted with a model of AI which hasn't done quite what you wanted it to do hallucinated things had misunderstandings generated images which were wrong or weird or you're increasingly part of an environment where you're seeing AI generated text AI generated imagery and it looks off it looks weird. there's still this feeling of it doesn't really work as well as I do. Now, it might be that already that it is less likely to generate mistakes or flaws than human reasoning would, but we're biased towards ourselves. I think that most people would go, "Well, I could probably do my job better than an AI could." And I think that there are still certain professions where there is high trust where you go, I think that another human could do this better than an AI could. So human trust is one of the single biggest inhibitors. Our trust in ourselves, our trust in other people. But you look at where AI absolutely thrives, where there is really wide take up. I actually think it's where those bonds of trust have completely broken down. And so the sector I would look at is higher education. Um so friends of mine who are lecturers at universities many of them are saying like 60 70 80% of essays that I get takeh home assignments have the hallmarks of AI on them and that's because the sort of relationship between student and lecturer has already broken down. Higher education is completely dysfunctional as a model. um students are kind of stuffed in their contact time is gutted their um prospects in the labor market are a lot lower than they used to be and there is this sense of what am I doing this for right what am I doing this for just give me the stamp on my CV so I can go already so where that trust and where that sense of inherent value of the thing you're doing has already been trashed AI comes absolutely storming in but I don't think every sector of the economy is quite like that yet the other part of the economy where there's really high AI by uptake is of course customer service. No one expects customer service to work well. >> No company goes, it's really important that we provide a good customer service. No, no wonder that gets um taken up so quickly. >> Yeah, I'm not I mean I'm just thinking sort of in in real time with your theory. I'm not my instant reaction is I'm not sure how much it is about trust >> and I think it might just be about sort of how easy is it to use in that scenario and understand what's going on because I suppose lots of it is if you if you give an instruction to the AI and it you know as I don't do coding but like if if you're to vibe code you don't really understand the output but with an essay you say can you write this essay for me you can read the essay right you can double check it if you can very easily double check it and it's it's it's just as it's much easier to double check it than it would be originally do the task then I think people will start using it also people trust their doctors right so sort of to stress test your theory if if you ask sort of the public who are the people you most trust doctors nurses very very high one of the biggest uses for AI in the general population is asking it questions about healthare so I'm I think it is about e >> you say that's also a question of access right so it's it's easier to do this than it is to go to a doctor but if you saw your doctor using AI you wouldn't like it >> yeah you wouldn't like it if you saw your doctor using AI Although maybe maybe I mean they probably will very soon, right? As long as you double check it afterwards. >> They probably already are. But the thing is is that if I saw my doctor doing it, I'd be like I don't like that. >> Well, you think I might as well done just have done that at home. But the I suppose that in in terms of is it trust? Is it that I just think we're in such early days when it comes to diffusion, right? Chat GBT was released in 2023. We're 3 years later and already like most people are spending well I don't know if most this is very unscientific but lots of people I know are spending an hour a day at least on claude they don't use Google anymore right I I I don't use Google that much >> because I find it I I find Claude a better experience >> I double check all my links >> also Google is AI as well right >> yeah Google gives you the AI answer anyway right so you're getting the same thing but like the diffusion is so quick the internet was developed in the mid '90s Right? You got the dot crash in the 2000s where everyone was like, "Oh, we actually invested way too much money in the internet." D and it wasn't really until the 2010s when like the whole world like your entire life existed on the internet, right? Even in the 20 even in sort of the 2000s, yeah, everyone has an email account and maybe you're on MSM messenger a bit, but like your social life is predominantly to a huge degree offline. >> You needed the rise of platforms to sort of hoover up sociality >> and the smartphone. >> Yeah. So I just feel like the fact you know I suppose in defense of Sam Alman like yeah maybe it's a bit slower than the people who who live in Silicon Valley believed it would be because they sort of just replaced everything with AI like in the first 6 months but I don't think that's means it's not going to sort of radically take over the rest of the economy just over a sort of period of 10 years time if like the whole of society hasn't collapsed because of these very powerful AIs either with people in basement making boweapons or just hacking all of our systems and the whole thing collapsing. I think it could be dicey. >> Oh, look. As long as I don't have to see Spurs relegated. Come friendly AI weapon. >> Those are the two options. Uh Tottenham getting relegated or or no, I suppose Tottenham staying up or deaf. >> Uh yeah, >> those are the options. Okay. Uh I I do what you say. So uh I I'll I'll go along with that. We all know there's a pretty severe drought on with some parts of the country not having seen rain in two months. So yes, saving water is important. But off what and that the water regulator seems to be getting very specific about how some people should do it. Um so British Asian communities have been told to wash their rice less. Um while Muslim families have been asked not to wash as much when they prepare for prayers. Um this is from the Telegraph by the way. So even they're finding it bizarre. They're not the kind of people who normally get fussed. um if sort of more responsibility has been put on South Asians and Muslims than they deserve. Uh so this is from the Telegraph report um of what used 270,000 of bill payers money for a research initiative that used a celebrity chef to teach Southeast Asians how to cook and wash rice with less water. Muslims were also encouraged to use only a liter of water when performing ritual ablutions known as wudoo before prayer. Um, as part of an ongoing water saving scheme, the project was led by South Staferture Water, which worked on developing water saving behavioral change campaigns with faith and diverse communities by targeting excessive washing of food by some cultures. Uh, some cultures cultures come in just keep washing their bloody food, constantly washing your food. Um, this is part of the the public information video. >> Hi, I'm Ping. I'm a Malaysian chef. In the UK, each person on average uses 150 L of water a day. It made me think, how can I use water in a more sustainable way? Especially in my cooking practices. As a Southeast Asian chef, one of the most common practices is washing rice. Rice to us is life. It is common practice to wash your rice five to seven times till the water runs clear. It made me think, is it really necessary to wash rice so many times? And if so, can we repurpose the rice water? I actually wash my rice only twice. >> I wash my rice only once. >> Do you soak your rice or are Tell me your method. >> I put it in a pan, put the rice, put my cup of rice in the pan, swirl it around with water in my hand. >> Mhm. >> Drain it and then actually to give a quick little second rinse. >> Okay. >> So maybe that is twice. >> So I have two >> five times does seem excessive. I mean, I'm open to all cultures, but >> I've got two rice rinsing methods, and it also varies depending on the rice. >> Yeah. >> So, um, obviously for a risoto, you don't want to wash your rice because you want all that nice starch. But I do the sieve on top of a bowl, fill it up, drain, fill it up, drain, fill up, drain. I do that five times, but during time of drought, I just use that water for watering plants. So I I just think I mean like look the >> they should put you in the video. >> They should put me in the video, but I'm actually standing up for the right to wash rice, >> okay? >> Because it does make it taste better and that you do get the fluffy um separation of grains that you're looking for in in a good rice. I mean, I I do just think a quarter of a million spent on these videos versus say a quarter of a million spent on addressing and fixing leaks, you know, I don't think that anyone is going to change their behavior on the basis of that, right? No one and and especially when you think about something like ritual cleanliness for prayer that goes pretty deep to someone's identity. They're not going to change how they do it because of of what. And especially when you can see that water companies have been taking the piss for years and years and years, both in terms of um leaks, lack of investment in infrastructure, not building new reservoirs, um and also pumping sewage >> and billions of pounds in dividends, >> billions of pounds in dividends. People go, I'm I'm a drop in the ocean here, right? Muslims um washing for prayer or Asians washing their rice is not what the issue is. And so I actually think that this is is a completely backfiring kind of PSA because all that's made me do is go you. You've done way worse things than wash your rice so you can have a nice tasting rice dish for your family. >> Yeah. I mean, I I quite like how hated the water companies are cuz like whatever they say now, everyone's just like, "Fuck you. I can't use my you. You took 20 billion pounds in dividends. You're pumping into the rivers and we know that this many, you know, >> billion liters of water is going out by your leaks. How dare you tell me what to do?" And like they're just not in a position to tell anyone anything >> because the thing is is that I think during times of drought, um, I'm more than up for responsible use of water. All right? I think that's fine. I think it's totally fine to be like maybe ease up on the paddling pools or whatever. Fine, right? Reasonable. But when when it comes to something like prayer, which is essential for people who do pray, or food preparation, it's like you are properly taking the piss now because this is if if we're not meant to use water for washing and for eating, what is it? Is it like, oh no, I'm sorry, you can't wash your rice because the data centers need it. like, you know, who is it that is being warned to conserve water and who's getting a green light to use it willy-nilly? >> That's what winds me up. >> Yeah. I mean, again, do you think this was like a self was this a well-meaning like maybe do you think it was a well-meaning South Asian person on the board who was like, I'm going to speak to my community, or do you think it was someone who wanted to demonize South Asian people? >> I think it was probably a well-meaning idiot. >> Yeah, that's lots of lots of our stories at the moment come down to well-meaning idiots. >> Not all of them. Some of them the the people who took the 2020 20 billion pounds in dividends from the privatized water companies and didn't invest in any new reservoirs, they probably weren't well meaning self- serving >> Um, let's wrap up. Ash, thank you for joining me tonight. >> I mean, my last point, and we talked about this before we were on air, is that I do think white people are too scared of rice. I think that you guys are too scared of cooking rice. You get very nervous about it and you're also too worried about reheating rice. Okay, I've reheated rice my whole life. I've never been sick from rice. You're going to be fine. >> But we're going to get loads of complaints now when people get salmonella from the spores from their rice. >> Oh, live a little. >> Uh, less part. Be be careful with your rice, guys. Uh, wash it however many times you want, but don't leave it on the side because if it cools slowly, spores can develop. >> I've never had a spore issue. I've I've lit this has never happened to me. >> Audience, you know my stomach issues. You know why I have to be careful with these things. Um, let's wrap up there. Thank you everyone for tuning in. Come back tomorrow for another live stream from 6 p.m. You've been watching Navar Media. Good night.