Lester Holt interviews Open AI's Sam Altman and Airbnb's Brian Chesky

When you guys get all the applause, I've invented nothing. Zippo, great to see you guys. Welcome. Thanks everybody for being here. Very excited about this conversation. Uh, we'll set this up by letting folks know you guys are friends. You have your, your work is kind of, you know, worked in together on some important projects and some important things. So we're going to get into some of that as well, but you're wondering why the two of them are here. That's why. Thank you so much for your time. Let me get, um, let's start off with kind of a perspective. Sam, what percentage of this audience do you think has in some way interacted with AI today? I would bet most, uh, I'm not going to hold you to it by the way in the nineties. It's a, and most of us don't know where it's affecting our lives. Yeah. You know, there, there are people who use chat GPT and you kind of know when you're using that or not, but the number of people that are integrating AI into all of their other services and taking our GPT four and other models that we have and you know, it's sort of like lifting a lot of services up. Has AI crossed a critical threshold in the past year? I think that yes, but I think there will be many thresholds that AI, uh, crosses. You know, we used to, Brian actually gave me great advice about this. We used to talk about, we're going to get to this like moment of AGI and you know, it was this very ill-defined term. And I think it never made sense to think about it that way in the first place, but we used to, and now we think about it as it'll just be this series of thresholds, uh, where the systems will get new and new, better and better capabilities. So, you know, you can use chat GPT today for some things and you'll be able to use it for much more helpful tasks in the future. Um, you know, maybe today there are things like, okay, uh, like for example, one of our, um, one of our partners color health is now using, uh, GPT four for cancer screening and treatment plans. And that's great. And then maybe a future version will help, uh, discover cures for cancer. So I think of it as successive thresholds, but definitely the fact that we can talk to computers in natural language and have them understand us and help us. That's certainly been a threshold. I want to talk about some things that we've seen in the news lately and get your reaction to it. Um, at times you have both made friends and enemies fairly quickly. You struck a big deal with Apple recently. Um, Elon Musk was upset and said he wouldn't allow Apple products at his companies. Did you see that reaction coming? Uh, I saw it happen, but no, I didn't, I, I didn't, I sort of doubt it will actually happen. Um, but I didn't predict that. Are you, does it represent something that's happening on the outskirts of open AI in terms of reaction from other tech companies? Uh, no, I think that's just like an Elon reaction. And Brian, let me turn to you. Airbnb recently picked up an AI startup. Are we at a point now that every tech company is going to have to have a piece of this action, a partnership or its own development plans? Yeah. I mean, I think that just like now every company almost in the world is on the internet, AI is just going to be completely embedded in everything that we do. And I think that one of the things that's incredible about Sam is like Sam used to say, you have to be, if you want to be a great entrepreneur, you have to be right about one big thing in your career. And I think that Sam was right about one of the biggest things in the history of tech, because this is going to be something that's going to affect people's lives more than any technology that we've ever seen in the past. But I think a lot of the conversation, you know, we're talking about AI is this like existential enigmatic thing. And I think one of the things we're missing is just talking about the practical ways that people can benefit their lives. So I can just give you an example, Airbnb, but Sam has a lot of examples. So today Airbnb is a way you like type in a city and you find a home and you book a home and that's Airbnb. And that's pretty much the way that the internet's worked for the last 20 years. But imagine the future systems that understand you better. That's the real promise, a computer that can understand you. They're going to ask you like, well, who are you, Lester? Like, what are your hopes? What are your dreams? Like, where do you want to travel? What do you one day want to do with your life? And then it could actually understand you and be more of a matchmaker, really understand you and match you to people, communities, services, experiences, anything you want to be able to travel and live anywhere in the world. And that's kind of how I think Airbnb can use. But I think almost every industry can get remade with AI and I think they can participate. But the stakes are higher here than, I mean, what you talk about is largely aspirational, but with AI you're looking at some real fears that I think we all here understand. So what does that mean in terms of the people who are running this? Most of us are just passengers on this bus. We're watching you guys, you know, do these incredible things, you know, talk about it being compared to the Manhattan Project and wondering where is this going and wondering who are the people behind it? Can we trust these people? So talk if you can about the moral responsibility and for all of us to know these people, know people like you who are making these changes. Yeah, I mean, I can share. I mean, I met Sam in 2008 and when I came to Silicon Valley, the word technology might as well have been like a dictionary definition for the word good. I mean, Facebook is a way to share photos of your friends. YouTube was like cat videos. Twitter was like talking about what you're doing today. And I think there was this general innocence. And I think over time what we realized is when you take a tool, and I think technology is a tool. You know, Steve Jobs, one of the things he said is he put a handle on the back of every computer because he said never trust a computer who can't throw out the window. He said these are tools and we're meant to dominate them. They don't dominate us. And I think one of the things that happened though is when you put a tool in the hands of hundreds of millions of people, you know, they're going to use it for ways you didn't intend. And I think we are much more sober and realistic in this new generation because I think we learned a lot of the lessons of the last generation. We learned about how technology can be used mostly for good, but there's always unintended consequences. And so I think this time, one of the things I've seen Sam do is he's been very cautious, not Pollyannish at all, about where this technology is going and really telling governments there actually is a need for regulation. Sam, I want to get your take and give you a chance to talk about your firing. You were fired from your own company. Why? Let me first touch on something that Brian said with your earlier question and then I will be very happy to talk about that. This is going to be a huge change in society. I think unlike other technological trends, we're aware, even if today we're like, okay, chatGBT is this very helpful tool and it's, you know, once I use it, I'm not scared of it. There is a sense of super understandable anxiety about where this is going to go. What does it mean if these tools keep getting more capable at the rate they've been getting capable at? And there's tons of wonderful things and we could talk about those all day, but there is this, what is the future going to look like? Even if we solve every safety problem, even if we solve every, you know, misuse problem, even if we figure out the perfect regulatory regime, what are our lives going to be like when it's not just like the computer understands us and gets to know us and helps us and do these things, but we can say, hey, computer, discover all of physics and it can go off and do that. What does it mean when we can say, hey, start and run a great company? It can go off and do that. So that's a big change. That's a lot of trust that we have to earn to be some of the stewards. There will be many other people working on this, of this technology. And we're proud of our track record. I think if you look at the systems that we've put out and the time and care we've taken, we've been able to get them to a level of generally accepted robustness and safety that is well beyond what people thought we were going to be able to do when we got to these initial systems a few years ago. Like when you looked at GPT-2 or GPT-3 and said, are we going to be able to make this safe enough to use? A lot of people thought no. But there's this thing, there's this, the future is like looming large and we've got to continue to earn the trust with what we do, the systems we put in the world and how we, how we have legitimate decision-making over these systems, how we broadly empower people with them, how we continue to promote stability in the world in the face of all this change. And it makes people very anxious. And the whole like, the whole board firing me and coming back thing, I mean Brian was an enormous help during that. It was obviously a super painful experience but I do understand why anxiety levels have been so, are so high. I, and I think the previous board members, like they're nervous about the continued development of AI, had whatever feelings they had about me and how we were doing things and although I super strongly disagree with what, what they think, things they've said since, how they acted, I think they're like fundamentally good people who are nervous about the future and trying to figure out how we get to a good outcome. I'm super excited with the new board. They're extremely constructive and helpful and experienced and strong. It's been a very productive thing since then, but that was a horrible experience to go through. Not, not during the moment where it was just like, this is a crazy thing, let's figure out how to undo it. And Brian was like unbelievably helpful, but then the period after that, where I just had to like kind of pick up the pieces in this like state of emotional shock, that was, that was really bad. You were trying to pick up the pieces, you were picking up the phone, Brian. Yes. Explain that. Well, I remember, so maybe just to go back in time, when ChatGPT launched, it launched in late November 2022, it was a phenomenon unlike anything we'd seen probably since the launch of the iPhone. I have no recollection of anything and I, we knew overnight everything was going to change. And I remember meeting with Sam and I said, you know, I've been through a little bit of this rocket ship before, and I'm not going to advise you on the core research of AI, but when it comes to like marketing and like stakeholder management and PR and like design and product and everything that's not that, you're going to go on a rocket ship. And I'm only where I am today because people believed in me and people helped me. And one of the great things about Silicon Valley is a high trust place where people will help. So I just wanted to be helpful to him. So this goes on for about a year. It's one year later and I get a text message and it's actually from somebody else saying Sam was fired from OpenAI. I was like, fired? And I immediately texted him and I think his text back to me like was five minutes later. He had just found out he was fired and he said, so brutal. And I go, what happened? So we get on the phone and he doesn't know what happened. It wasn't fully explained to him. And by the way, his co-founder who was also on the board was removed from the board. And that seemed to me very suspicious. So I got on the phone with him and Greg and I felt really comfortable with the circumstances that this was not a fair process. And I think there should always be a fair process, but especially if they're founders, because they're very, very difficult to replace. And what I noticed in those first 24 hours was not a lot of people sticking up for Sam. And I, in my darkest times, in my crisis, have had people stick up for me. And that's what I wanted to do for Sam. And I basically, we talked through things and I said, I think the most important thing for you to do is just be completely transparent internally and externally with what you know and what's happening. But the most remarkable thing and the thing that made me really want to defend him was, you know, you learn a lot about people in a crisis. If you really want to know what someone's like, see them in a crisis. And at no point in the five days this went down did Sam ever, even for a second, focus on self-preservation. He was completely, I was like, why aren't you sticking up for you? Like, why don't you care more about yourself? That's what I was saying to him. Like, somebody's got to stick up for you. You're not even sticking for yourself. And he just was so focused on the team and what was best for the team. And I think that's what really made me, you know, so vociferously like focused on helping. I want to turn, Sam, if I can turn to the, some of the bad publicity you've received lately, including the dust up over the voice of Skye. One thing that could help clear up the concern over the similarity of Skye's voice to Scarlett Johansson would be to hear from the actor who you say was hired to be the voice of Skye. Is that something that you will do? Certainly if she wants to. I mean, I know she's made statements through her agent, but I'm not, I don't know where, I mean, anything she wants to do would certainly be fine with us. The whole thing opens up certainly a larger question of what do we own in an AI world? Do we have control over our likenesses? We're seeing, you know, deepfake porn right now. People's, heads being swapped. These are harmful on an individual level. How, and I know it's not unique to open AI, but how is the industry going to respond to this? I mean, we think the industry needs to take a super strong stance on that. It is, we obviously do, and there are other issues related to how this technology is being used to harm people that we think the industry needs to very strong stance on. We've tried to be not only very loud in our calls for regulation to prevent some of these misuse cases, these misuses, which I think is happening, but also to set a really good example in the products and services we offer and hold ourselves to a very high level. But were these things inevitable? I mean, you clearly saw the risk coming as this technology was maturing. Like deepfakes and stuff? Deepfakes, yeah. Face swapping. It was inevitable that the technology was going to be capable of that. And so, you know, of course there are going to be systems out there that allow that. But that's where I think we, society, and governments have a role to say, you know, we'll allow some use cases of technology we're not comfortable with, but in some places we are going to draw a line. And face swapping, deepfake revenge porn is a great place to draw a line. We're nearing a presidential election, as you know. We're seeing some of the deepfakes already happening. There's been talk about this for years, that this would be a very difficult election. What are your thoughts as you begin to see this stuff to emerge, and in terms of your responsibility, your industry's responsibility, to make sure that we're not being overwhelmed by disinformation? Yeah, so, you know, this will be, I think, the first election where, not just the US, many other elections this year, where AI is like a major technological element. Provenance is really important. Accurate polling information and avoiding some of the issues we've seen with previous technological platforms and other election cycles. And, you know, preventing things like deepfakes. I think those are three top-of-mind issues for us in this election cycle. I'll also add that there may be other things, ways people try to misuse this that we're not aware of yet. So, we have like a whole monitoring efforts set up, and I think we'll need a very tight feedback loop as we get closer to the election to see if there's additional areas where people are trying to abuse the technology. And while we're on the topic of the election, Brian, I'll let you start. What do you think will be the impact on your individual businesses in terms of the outcome of this election? Hard to say. I mean, Airbnb is kind of more of a city-by-city, state-by-state thing. So, the changes in federal administrations don't, have not historically had a huge impact on us. And we're, of course, in 120 countries. So, we're a pretty resilient business. I mean, one of the things we saw during the pandemic is when one part of our business changes, it adapts to some other part. So, I don't anticipate a really big change based on who's elected. How about you, Sam? I do expect some big impact based off of who's elected, but I don't know how to, I don't know what it'll be. It does seem to me like AI is going to be an increasingly important geopolitical priority in the world. But I'm, you know, it's hard for me to say exactly how it's going to go. One of the things that I really valued about Brian, so Brian kind of like undersold what he mentioned earlier in that first year, kind of like what he's done to help. But when ChachiBT started taking off and everything just went crazy for me, a lot of people reach out and say, oh, I'd love to help you. I can do this. I can do that. And, you know, everyone's, I think they mean it when they say it, but everybody's just busy. Brian was like the person who would just sit down with me for like three hours every other week and like give me a list and say, here's the five things you've got to do now. Here's where you're behind. Here's where you're screwing up. Here's what you've got to proactively do. Here's what you've got to think about. And it's basically like almost always right. And I learned to just always shut up and follow the advice. One of the things that Brian started saying more recently is that you're probably not thinking enough about politics and policy and what that's going to mean for how the world thinks about AI. And here's the people you need to hire. Here's the, here's what it means to map this out and think about a strategy here. Here's what you should do and definitely not do. And that's been like super helpful. And I do think for our business, it's going to be really important. And I think one of the things, Lester, is that, you know, I remember coming to Silicon Valley. We didn't think these platforms would have the impact in society that they, we now know they have. And so I think the mindset that Sam has, and even the questions for asking him probably weren't asked of tech leaders 15 years ago. I think the whole industry has changed. The whole conversation is like, like Sam has built out much more of a team much earlier than the big tech companies would have around policy and stakeholder management. I want to ask about one of the things we've learned in your research and developing chat GPT and others is the requirement of data to train up these modules. It's an insatiable appetite as it appears. Has it changed how you view what is fair use and whose material copyrighted material you can use? First of all, I don't think we know yet what the future of how these models get smart is going to look like. You know, is it that we just need more and more data forever? Doesn't feel to me like likely to be right. You know, if you think about what a human can learn from reading one textbook, it's very different than what it takes these AI models for now. So I expect, and also there comes a point where to like invent new science, you need to just sit there and think and run some experiments, but it's not in any textbook because it's new. So I expect that the future of how we think about training data and what it takes to make these models really capable. Is it going to be a roadblock though in the development of these products? That's what I was trying to say. I, you know, this is like science. We don't know for sure. I think it won't be. Now, that said, the issue of like fair use and how to think about how people who create data, create knowledge, create, you know, wonderful books. I think, although like from a legal perspective, we're confident in our fair use position. Now that we see where this may evolve, we need to figure out new economic models where the whole world gets to participate. And I think this goes beyond just people who have data that we train on, but also, and we've, you know, found many different ways to license it and do different things, but also the people that provide the feedback to the models, the people who like go off and create great real-time news that maybe the model doesn't train on, but you want to display it at the time. And that there's a lot of work that goes into that. And, you know, I think maybe AI is going to, not super significantly, but somewhat significantly change the way people use the internet. And if so, you can see some of the economic models of the past need to evolve. And I think that's a broader conversation than just training data, but it's sort of like content in general surface to the AI. I want to ask you about artificial general intelligence. That's taking it up, taking up the game considerably. If I understand it correctly, that's when you get to the point that the computers can do whatever we can do. Is that a fair summation? You know, I think I was wrong to initially think about it as this one moment as we talked about, but it does seem to me, and now I think people use AGI to means all sorts of things. It does seem to me that trying to sort of roadmap out for the world where we think the significant increases in capability will be can do what, you know, people can do, can create new science, can do what whole companies can do. That feels like it'd be very useful for the industry to sort of agree on so that we could have these conversations in a little bit more of a disciplined way. And that's one of the things we talked about is like just operating transparently, letting people know that it's probably not this one Promethean moment where it goes from AI to AGI, that there's many, many steps, just like the story of technology, and that it's really important that we bring society along and that we're not operating in this black box and people think there's only a few people controlling the future, that we're transparent with other developers and computer scientists and researchers and policymakers about these are steps we're going, this is what we're seeing, and this is what we think the next four steps look like. But isn't this a race on a different level? The stakes are so high. Of course. I mean, are you, do you consider yourself in a win to get to the point of artificial general intelligence? I don't think of it as a race. I understand why that's like a very compelling, dramatic way to talk about it. I think that there may be a race between nation states at some point, but the companies that are developing this now, I think everyone feels the stakes that need to get this right. I also think to Brian's point that it's not, there's not this milestone we're all racing towards. It is this, it is this continual evolution of technology where we melted sand and figured out how to like turn it into transistors and then figured out how to like build an operating system and do a certain kind of programming and we made it bigger and bigger. And then we figured out how to like train these systems that are sort of smart in some ways, but they're not off like running as these autonomous things. They're tools that we're using to do more than we could before. In the way that we used computers to do more than we could before without AI, and in the way we used machines in the industrial revolution to do more than we could before, and the way we used agriculture to be able to have time and space to do more things than we could before. And I don't think it's this race to a milestone. It's this ongoing, the next step and the next one and the next one, and the tools are going to get better and better, but what happens is it's not like for sure technology is not neutral and tools are not inherently neutral things, but the impact we can have by building the tools is important. We want to get that right. People are going to go use these tools to invent the future that we all collectively live in and what one person can already do now before Chad GPT existed is an impressive leap. And by the time we get to GPT 6 or 7, what one person can do will be incredibly increased. And I'm very excited for that. Like I think that is the story of the world getting better. We make technology. People use it to build new things, express their creative ideas, and society improves. Yeah, when you talk about these programs though, and when you give them the ability to do what we do, we also have a set of values, different sets of values. We view common decency in a not so common way sometimes. How do you teach that to a computer in a way that won't be harmful? How do you teach values that are positive? One of the things that has surprised me, and I don't want to say this gets us like this solves the whole AI alignment problem, but at our current levels of systems, our ability to teach a model a certain set of values and to behave in a certain way is way better than I thought it was going to be at this point. Now there's a harder question, which is who gets to decide what those values are? Who gets to decide what the defaults are? How much an individual user can sort of customize them within those broad bounds? And as an early step there, we put out this thing maybe a month or two ago called the spec, where we tried to say here is our desired model behavior. Here are the values we want our model to follow. And that way people can at least tell if it's a bug or intentional when it does something that they don't like. And over time, society can debate what those values are and we can adapt to it. So I'm very heartened by our technical progress on this topic, but man, writing that set of values or getting society to debate and agree on what those set of values should be, that's a much harder challenge. Brian, as you've talked about, you've given Sam advice from time to time. I read somewhere, I don't have the exact quote in front of me, at least I can't find it right now, but the notion of go for it and figure it out later. What is the quote? It's the idea that you have believed that you need to go for it when it comes to this kind of research. Are there breaks that should be put on? Well yeah, I mean I think if you imagine you're in a car, the faster the car goes, the more you need to look ahead in front of you and you need to anticipate the corners. And I think that we acknowledge that this technology is so, so powerful that I think this is why we're like being so thoughtful. I mean people really are agonizing over how to treat these systems and I do not remember us doing this in 2007, 2008. So I do think it's a very, very different time. I mean one of the things that Sam and I talked about was bring other stakeholders in early. And one of the things we did last year was we went on a tour around the world meeting with people. It was mostly, I think, a way to get feedback from people, educate people and really get feedback. So I think the key point, Lester, is we never go so fast that we leave society behind. That we only go as fast as to bring everyone along. And I think that if everyone here could feel like they could participate and they could have their input into it, then I don't really think there's a huge thing to fear. I think the thing to fear is something we don't understand or we're left out of. It's something that runs away from us that we can't control. And so that's the future we don't want to live in. Also it's quite interesting if you say the word AI, it can be scary. You say chatGBT, it doesn't sound as scary because it's a very tangible tool. So I think we need to also just focus on that which is in front of us and how can we help people. There's a lot of problems right now. And open AI, I mean, it can lead to a lot of scientific research and discovery. ChatGBT can be an incredible tool for artists. With Airbnb, we think it can really bring people together. We're living in this huge epidemic of loneliness. We can use this to help bring people together. At the end of the day, it's not the technology, it's the people with the technology. It always comes down to the people, their values, and are they good people. The way I sort of think about this is we need to learn how to make safe technology. We need to figure out how to build safe products. And that includes an ongoing dialogue with society about, hey, this has this impact I didn't expect or don't want. And also you're not letting me do this thing that's really important for this reason you didn't understand. So the way that we talk to the broader world and the people that use and impacted by our products and let them reflect what they want. And then also a safe operating plan, which is we get better and better at predicting capabilities. Research is, of course, an open question. You don't always know where it's going to go. But before we start training a new model, we'd like to be able to say, here are the dangerous capabilities that we think could happen. We have a preparedness framework to test them. Sometimes this takes a very long time. With GPT-4, for example, we had about eight months between when we finished training when we released it, including lots of external consultation and red teaming. Future models may take even longer. But it is very important to get the feedback from society. One thing that I don't think is good is to let a huge capability overhang build up. And then we haven't had that feedback loop with society. So we do need to figure out how to balance that. But yeah, you know, taking the time to get it right is very important. Are you ever inclined, or do you think you'd ever be inclined, to back up, to see the future and find it is maybe as scary as some people have suggested? Are you prepared to hit that moment where you have to take a step back, even as your competitors may want to move forward? For sure. There are things that we have built and chosen not to release or held back for long periods of time. There are plenty of other companies that would release things that we won't. We're not going to get every decision right, of course. And we also may at some point deploy something and need to take it back. But there will also be things that we just don't deploy. You know, we talk about these scary images. Did it help when you compared where you are with AI with the Manhattan Project, the race to build an atomic weapon? Was that helpful for you as you try to make your case? I mean, we try to give a number of historical analogies because we think it is important. We may be wrong, we may be right, but it's important for us to tell society what we believe the level of importance of this technology is. There's no perfect historical analog for any new technology. So we can say there were some things about the Manhattan Project that are like what we're doing now. There's some things about the Apollo program. There are some things about the iPhone. There are some things about that iMac with the handle, which I also really loved. There are some things about the internet. There are some things about the industrial revolution. But what I think is important is to say here are the parts where we can look to a historical analogy and here are the parts where we can't. And the shape of this technology and kind of the decisions and the impact, it is fundamentally like a little bit different than the Manhattan Project. It's not a race. It's not going to be done in secret. And I think nations can collaborate together and there could be a transnational kind of group or body that could really kind of align to make sure we're all on the same page, which would be best for society and frankly probably best for entrepreneurs so they don't have to comply with like 200 different laws. We think that's super important to get some sort of global framework and cooperation. I think we're really going to need that. I think one of you mentioned the nation states. Is there a risk of nation states taking this technology and using them in a dangerous way? Absolutely. I think you always have to be really, really careful about who you're putting this technology in the hands of. I think it goes back to some of the things Sam's thinking about. One of the I know they developed early on that they chose not to release is voice cloning. There's technology already where you can basically capture someone's voice, but obviously that would be very, very dangerous because obviously you can imagine how it could compromise elections and major security risk. So I think one of the things is just thinking about who could these tools end up in the hands of and therefore if you let the genie out of the bottle, could it get too dangerous and so be very thoughtful about it. And Sam, according to one report, you speculated artificial and general intelligence could accrue as much wealth as a hundred trillion dollars. That's wealth that you said you would then redistribute. Is that, was that an accurate quote and do you want to expand on it? I think the sort of point I was trying to make was that I thought it could like double the world's GDP, which feels like reasonable to me and certainly would be in line with other technological revolutions. Yeah, we do think this is just going to be a massive driver of productivity and already at this early stage seeing what people are doing with it to sort of vastly improve products and services. Do you understand how that would sound to a lot of people though? For sure, of course. But I think like this is where, this is where historical analogs are helpful and this is where it is helpful to look at the chart of world GDP over time. And you know if the, if the world GDP can grow at you know seven percent a year, like which sounds hugely fast, but maybe with a technological shift like this is not that far away. I'm always bad at doing this in my head but I think that's like only 10 years to double. So I think it is you know, I think it is worth taking the potential of this technology to do enormous good very seriously and I think we can now see more of what that looks like as people are adopting the tools. Preview, if you will, for us, chat GPT-5. What will the leaps in technology be and does it put you on a straighter path of where you want to be? Does it put us on a what path? I'm sorry? A what path? Does it put you on a straighter path in terms of your goals? So we don't know yet. You still have a lot of work to do on it. But I expect it to be a significant leap forward. A lot of the things that GPT-4 gets wrong, you know, can't do much in the way of reasoning, sometimes just sort of totally goes off the rails and like makes a dumb mistake, like even like a six-year-old would never make. I expect it to be much, much better in those ways and to be able to be used for a much wider variety of more helpful tasks. And it does go off the rails sometimes. Is that a result to back where we were speaking about the lack of data or the shortage of data? I think it's many things together. We're still just like so early in developing such a complex system. There's data issues. There's algorithmic issues. The models are still quite small relative to what they will be someday, and we know they get predictably better. So I think it's more like there's many things that we need to go improve all of. And we're still just like so early in the technology. You know, the first iPhone was still pretty buggy, but it was like good enough to be useful for people. Yeah, I think that like I don't think things are going to change as much in the world in the next couple years, people think. It's not linear. Things are going to change slowly and then probably all of a sudden. And I think everyone's still trying to figure out how to use this technology. If you take your phone and you look at your home screen and ask yourself a year and a half after ChatGPT launched, how many apps are fundamentally different because of AI? And very few of them are fundamentally different. So I think we're still in this world where we're developing a lot of the, you know, computation with NVIDIA. Sam and team are developing the models. But a lot of the change in size can happen when people build on top of those models, the applications. And there's so many uses for it. I mean, you know, one of the big use cases that we're talking about is scientific discovery. You know, think about what this can do to drug research, to like, you know, some of the biggest kind of types of ills in society. There's a lot this can do with education. We think this can essentially give access to tutors to everyone around the world. Creative people. I know there's a lot of fear that artists can be replaced. But, you know, I think if artists participate, I went to design school, I think this is a technology that they can use. So I think we can go down the list. And I think there are going to be a lot of really exciting opportunities in the next three to five years. Where do you want to be in five years, Sam? Further along this same path, you know, we'd like to one of the most fun parts of the job is getting like tons of email every day from people who are using tools in these amazing ways. I, you know, was able to like diagnose this health problem that I'd had for years, and I couldn't figure it out and was making my life miserable. And I just typed my symptoms into chat GPT. And I got this idea and went to see a doctor and not totally cured. Or I've been trying my whole life to learn these things and couldn't do it. And I got chat GPT to be like a tutor for me. Or I, you know, I'm like three times as productive as a developer. And I'm doing these amazing things. I'm the science using it. And I love getting those things. I love how much people love chat GPT. I really do. And five years from now, I just hope it's a lot more of that. I hope we have put this tool into the world that continues to delight people and let them do more and like be their best at whatever they're doing. Well, we'll be having more conversations like this down the road, certainly as you go down your path. But I want to thank both of you, Sam Altman and Brian Chesky for taking time and being with us here in Aspen. Great conversation. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks for watching. Stay updated about breaking news and top stories on the NBC News app, or follow us on social media.