Transcripts For CSPAN3 Bruce 20240705

Security technologist called a security guru by economist. He was he has written more than one dozen books, including the New York Times best seller data and goliath and click here to kill everybody, both awesome books, which ive also read cover to cover in his latest book, a hackers mind. In quotes, schneier provides easily digestible mine opening tourist on how hacking exacerbates notes the. Associated press. Then it says kirkus calls the hackers mind an eye opening banding book. Get ready to be and offers hope for leveling a badly tilted playing field. Booth teaches at Harvard Kennedy school and lives in cambridge, massachusetts. So please put your hands together for the person who wrote the book on applied cybersecurity. Bruce schneier andrea angwin, thank you. Gretchen, you think you have. And that was pretty fun. That was im so excited. We got a mask of this situation. You know, hes got the mask. He said, well, its great to be here and thank you all for coming. And its my first time in this building since pandemic finally i was in the old building. Ive never been in this building. Oh, yeah. The interim one. Yeah. Yeah. While they were renovating here. Yes. So so, bruce is a doesnt need an introduction. Hes a legend and want to start with a bunch of questions. Im to ask him based on my reading of the book. And then open it up for for all of you guys. Well, but i do want to just start with the very the amazing premise that blew my mind, which was that i myself think of myself as hacker aligned, i would say as a data journalist who has often hackers or used techniques in order to examine that, i thought public needed to see and you make this really argument. So i guess i had always thought of the as the outsider and that was my view of it. And you make a really interesting argument that really hacking is the domain of the privileged. And so i was hoping you could talk a little bit about the power structure just to start, and then we can move into the details. And i think power is key and i that word bringing power, the notion of hacking. To me, hacking is a subversion. Its its subverting the rules, not breaking the rules. Its doing something that the rules are allow but is unintended and unnoticeable. Aided by the rules, designers. So its not cheating on your taxes. Its finding a tax loophole and thats and thats an important difference. And hacking is something that a lot of people do in the situations whenever theres a set of rules and theres a desire to subvert them, you know, people hack and i and my book has examples from from sports, from history that mentioned religion, religion rules have been hacked all the time. And but also from from hedge funds and from Companies Like uber and in tax. So everybody is hacking but when the rich and powerful hack, they often have the ability to make sure hacks arent declared illegal. So we normally think of hacking and then the computer since you find a hack in Microsoft Windows and microsoft says you cant do that and they patch the code and that really well because theres like a power thats in charge of windows, it works less well when you a tax loophole because no ones really charge the process. Changing law is complicated and slow so things tend to stick around the carried interest loopholes around for a couple of decades. We just cant we got were a one vote short of closing it. We still cant close that loophole. So hacking really tied up in power i love the example you give of Goldman Sachs loading and. 1500 bars of metal at ten foreign warehouses in in order to game the spot market for aluminum prices. So heres example of hacking you and i cant do so it turns out that price of aluminum in the Commodities Exchange has to do with how quickly. It can be delivered. So Goldman Sachs because that goldman can buy like most the aluminum and they move it around warehouses like they put it on trucks, drive it all the way, house, take out of a truck, put on truck. The next day youre over to the warehouse. That because that artificially manipulates the price totally hack. I mean when when we decide aluminum cost it doesnt include one Company Driving it all around to pretend. But according to the rules that they figured out, they were able to basically control the price of aluminum and so theres a hack that you to be powerful if i figured it out so that no ones going to care. But if youre Goldman Sachs can make a lot of money with it. You do make this point in the book they say hacking is not cheating. Right. And thats really important. But i think its it is. Its interesting to me because, you know, you talk about peter thiels use of the roth ira loophole and which is, you know, a tax code loophole that allowed him to. Are you going to explain it . Tax free is a 4 billion tax free forever. Yeah. So that seems like a cool hack, but i i just if you got billion dollars. Right, exactly i was trying to figure out actually where to stash my 4 billion, but am im wondering, i mean, you thats not a cheat. But isnt that cheating . So it depends what were talking about. Its not against the law. Right. Right. So. So follows the letter of the law it breaks the spirit. We can argue its unethical. We can its immoral. But so, so up to me, we have a set of rules. The tax code or, you know, the rules of basketball or the rules of football, rules of the game. And youre not breaking them. Youre finding a loophole. So my favorite stories in the book 1970s some team shows up on the formula one race track with a six wheeled car and says you cant have a six wheeled car. And the team says pulls out the rulebook, says, well, show me. And it turns out that the rule book is silent on number of wheels a car could have because whoever that a car couldnt have four wheels. So thats a heck no one thought of it now, because its a formula and i dont know their names. They have a french name whos in charge of women racing. They able to patch the rulebook. So you open up the rules today and says that a car can have no more actually, or no less then just in case four wheels. But thats easier because you have one body that is in charge of fixing the rules. Now there are times when the rules are better if theyve been hacked. So in hockey a dozen years ago, maybe a little more someone someone invented of curving your hockey stick. Now, i dont dont watch hockey, but supposedly when you curve your stick, the puck goes much faster. It gets air. The game is way more dangerous and, way more exciting. And now everybody curves their hockey stick and. The league has now detailed rules. And how much coverage are you going to have . Theyve modified over the years. So theres a hack there was a positive change on the game as far as everyone was concerned, except for the people getting injured. But then they have to do theyre better protective armor, but they are there are injuries. So. So there is right. So theres a hack thats i mean, not even moral or immoral, just like there was no there was an empty space. The rules because no one thought of it. The person who invented the the high jump flop. What was his . And you remember the name stage name flansburgh. Great. So great. So he invents a way to do the high jump that no one thought of before, and suddenly everyones doing it. Its the person who figured out that you film cooking from above, right . And changed all of think talking youtube videos. So you talk about how you say hacking be an engine of progress actually can be a force good. Although i feel like a lot of the stories the book made me feel bad. Yeah. I was hoping you could tell us one of the good one. Oh, we could argue the hockey ones a good one. The i use in the book is the in the 1400s, some whose name is eastwick or antisec hacked. The the English Common law trespass to protect from the government. It used to not do that was never intended to do that. And he brought a case where the government trespassing. So you cant do that by this law. And so there we have we have, you know, whos in charge of the law. Well, courts are and judge said, yeah, i mean, that makes sense. Thats a good hack. And now, you know, all of our notions of trespass law come from that decision. So theres a hack for. Good. You know, one that we can argue is for good. We talk about uber and uber hacks all sorts of laws, laws about employment, laws about taxis and right. Hacking it again and again and. We can say theres a lot of really bad things is doing. They also say the taxi industry was completely moribund, captured by these local monopolies and unable to. And it took a company like uber to kick it over. So here i have like this good and bad. Mm. Right. I mean i think its a it reminds me of the, you know, Creative Destruction is sort of. Yeah. The idea of it reading your book, i couldnt stop thinking about. Trump you say in the book that you dont want to talk about trump because its like talking about guns. You just like, have people dont listen. And its like a terrible example. I know but its a good example. A hacker. I mean, that guy hacked all the norms of traditional media, of social media. I really have always thought of him as like just basically a dinosaur tech. He just, you know, and i dont know if everyone knows what that is, but essentially, when you flood a server, too many requests and it shuts down, i felt like he broke. So norms that no one could absorb. Thats right. Right. Basically, youre doing things so fast that the media just operates it as a slow. We dont have a to deal with and we really patched either. So i mean like week were learning that suddenly, like is the entire news cycle even though hes not in any of power at all. Yeah exactly. And there were like a whole bunch of other people being arraigned that day who are never going to get that coverage right. I mean, just and it was coverage of nothing. Yeah. Yeah. And what the doors were like in the building. A lot of stuff out the door. There wasnt lot of talk about the door. Its like theres nothing to talk about and yes, exactly this why you dont go down the rabbit hole. I know, im sorry, but i just to raise it. But i was thinking about types of hacks. Right. And de dos attack made me think medical billing, which also like a dos attack on me, like the number of bills i get from and the itemization itemization figure out basically means that no way for me to contest it or even what im paying right. And i heard some of those called me migo for my eyes glaze over. Yeah, right i mean, things that are so complicated so you cant understand and that is, again, that is a rich person hack. All right. Im going to talk about that. Ill give you a history example which is vaguely religious. So the 1700s, there a surprising epidemic of random murders in europe, mostly northern europe, mostly denmark. Enough. This is not in the book. I learned about this last week, so im kind of excited about it. So heres the hack. You want to commit suicide, but suicide is a mortal sin if you commit suicide, right . You go straight to hell. So you believe that. So thats a consider you believe that hundred percent. So what do you do heres the hack. You kill somebody, murder is a capital crime. Youre going to die. But you get to confess to a priest first and that im not this up. There was a of random murders of people who want to commit suicide. And this the way they were able to do it and avoid eternal hell and they only fixed it when they got rid of capital as the only way. Patch this then saying that is insane. I mean, i love the whole section on the indulgences, right . That mean the classic hack of the church was being offering to sell indulgences so an adult indulgence is basically like a get out of sinning free card. Its so so cool so so you i was like so write me up i mean in the in the catholic faith that you have you seen in theres penance well it doesnt have to be in that order right so you can do an of penance first and get whats called an indulgence which kind of protects you from. I, i dont know how it works once in five so i dont know i dont know what the deal is. So but and this something and then and the church is in church earning money from this the church doesnt get any money any other way. So this is how the church funds itself. But they kind of over this over the decades and centuries realize this is kind of a limitless you can sell as many these as you can print and theyre up being a whole economics. Theres theres middlemen that are that are selling them to people from the church. Theres all sorts of fraud. I mean, this is what Martin Luther railed against this practice. And this is a way of taking is, you know, the notion of sinning penance, which makes sense. And you know financial nation is a form of penance we can do that. That seems reasonable and turning it into this like financial engine that was never intended right so the rules arent broken its all by the rules but Martin Luther looks at and says this cant be right. This is just bad, this is immoral. And you know and the rules are change. So you cant do that anymore. You cant go to your church and a get a sinning free card. They patched they patched. Okay. So we have to talk about a. I. Because everyone is obsessed with strategy between right now and you have. An interesting point. You say i was going to change hacking in two ways. First, itll be used to hack us, and then also ai systems will become hackers themselves. So can you describe what youre talking about and whats going to happen . Yeah talk about the second one. I think its actually its actually interesting. Lets lets think about that. Both interesting. Like what is really i mean, you wrote that. All right. Fair, fair. So lets talk about the tax code again, a tax code is not computer code, but its code its algorithms, right . Its got inputs and outputs. Its vaguely formulaic, supposedly. And that code has bugs. We call them loopholes, right . It has vulnerabilities. We call them tax avoidance strategies. And as black hat hackers know where those maps call them accountants. Right. But its very much a parallel. So these tax avoidance strategies, these loopholes are found by people, right . Theres your accounts who are who are poring through the tax code, looking for loopholes, and they find some amazing ones. And theyre can be very profitable, which are the character tax loophole. Theres the double dutch sandwich that Companies Like apple and google used avoid very much any tax for about a decade and theres something called come trading where you get two tax refunds for one trade and and eu is trying to figure out if they can like ban this thing having trouble but but so so that is a human process finding these loopholes turns out that you know going through a whole lot of data looking for patterns is something that i can do really well. So it is not unreasonable believe that an ai could be trained to find tax loopholes. But already guys are finding loopholes in computer code. Theyre not that good at it. Theyre going to get better. So what happens when an ai is fed the nations tax code and said, you know, i want to pay minimum tax . Well, the worlds tax codes. Its a company like apple or google. Youre going to find what, 110 100 a million tax loopholes and what that going to look like because our system for patching these is very slow. Witness the carried interest loophole and we still have it patched. So, you know, this has always been a very human thing, made power it power affects whether normalized or not. But you know when i start doing, i think its going to change the speed, scale and scope of this hacking. So i want to give another text this also shows a power differential. And if youre a member, youre youre all in new york. So this is affected you. Trumps 2017 tax cuts. One of the things they did was reduced state and local Tax Exemption and i know if you remember, but the word came out that we should prepay our 2018 taxes in 2017 when we could take the take the deduction. And if you remember that and that rumor went around for about a month and the irs said, no, you cant do. And so the irs saw the saw the hack and said, no, thats not allowed. And and that really is a power thing, preemptive purging. They wasnt preemptive because people were doing it, but they did issue a ruling saying, you know, you will not be able to take the deduction for prepaid 2018 tax on a 2017 return. But that so so but if we had lobbyists it could have gone the other way and thats the difference that that that the the hacks the rich and powerful invent come with lobbyists come with power behind it to ensure that doesnt get patched. Then no one goes to peter thiel and say, you know look, im sorry, thats not the way roth iras were us our tax on our 4 billion. Right. That doesnt happen. I know i was reading the section on aei and i got really excited. I thought well, maybe chad cbt can find me a tax loophole because im not smart enough to find one myself. And maybe this would democratize hacking. And i think and i think it will i mean, we cant we cant undo that power structure though. I mean i think it will decries the finding of them. But you know i mean i could take advantage of peter thiels tax loophole that just he did but i just dont have know the ability to turn into 4 billion. But thats the difference we can all do what he did and what did is he took money from his roth ira and invested it in his new company at micro pennies per share. And then it turned into i was palantir. So you and i could do that if we you know are the multibillion Dollar Company forming sort which we seem not to be so far its not working so far but but but this this whole time. Correct. We have a but i do think its worth thinking about. Also, the power structure who owns i because as soon as i started thinking about that, i thought, oh, theyre going to be like a tiered a. I. System where basically all the good loopholes, youll have to pay a lot of money to get. Well, we talked about this a bit in the break before before we started i mean, i think a lot of peoples of ai are basically fears of capitalism that the issue is not a. I. The issue is whos controlling. It means an ai run by a tech monopoly for their interests. Thats real different than if its an ai that is your advocate running on your hardware for your benefits. You know, we dont have that world. But like do the citizens of sweden fear a. I. Like we do . Probably not. And what are they going to do to ask them . We should ask them. We all have phones. Call them up. Yeah. I mean, i thought it was an interesting point. You said pervasive predatory hacking is a symptom of a flawed system and you described late stage capitalism as the tsunami of hacks in our society reflects an absence of trust social cohesion and civic engagement. And so i started to feel depressed about the state of democracy because it does feel so hackable, right . It does feel like theyre that the powerful are finding ways around accountable. Party. I mean, somethings going on. I think that things are becoming more algorithmic things being more tractable as they become more computerized things are being more global, so that are bigger, they have bigger and were in a low trust trough where the notion that well, dont you dont do that because its not right. Its not moral. Its not a lot of people have at least at least vision to power that you know it is it legal. The question i ask not it moral, is it right and a problem . Because all of laws are incomplete. The all sets of laws, loopholes, theyll all be hackable. And i think as you know, and and we sort of know this as as a psychological result, if you perceive that other are cheating, getting away with something, youre more likely to cheat. And if you feel that, you know, those people are getting away with it, why cant i get mine . So that so that kind of low trust cycle feeds on itself in a way thats not great. Yeah, it reminds me of my inlaws who live in india and so they would always say to me, you know, india so corrupt to use bribery, have to bribe this person. You have to bribe that person. United states. So great. And i was like, no, no, no, you dont understand. In india, corruption is democratic. Like, you can. I am just not im not rich enough to participate in the corrupt, right. Its just that its like its a reserved for peter thiel or i dont know jeff bezos can like buy the most expensive Single Family house, washington, dc so we can influence policy i mean, that kind of of of hacking is not available to us. I mean, here we are at ford and, you know, i dont know if these guys are at that level. They might be i dont know. I dont know. So. Okay. I started getting really depressed. So can we talk about like how how to solve. So this is, you know, the title. The book is subtitle how the powerful then size rules and how to bend them back. So the reason i was there, because you cannot sell a book that says everything sucks and were all you cant write, nobody will will let you publish that book. You have to Say Something optimistic now i try do better than that because a lot of you read a lot of Fiction Books that like chavez a problem, is one chapter of a solution. Its like, this is no fun. I try to like reserve a third at least two solutions. This way i harder in this case because, i think we have really some systemic problems of bigness of tech of of of resource constraints that kind of converging where costs of getting it wrong are now greater than they ever were before because we are more powerful as a species than we were at any other time in history so but when i think solutions actually think about a. I. Because, this is where this is this a democratic that. Sure. I mean, the ai is going to be in the basement of Goldman Sachs finding tax loopholes. Its wealthy clients. But that same a. I. Could be employed by you right in in a in your capacity as a journalist to look at a new tax new tax bill or a law and look for the loopholes doesnt mean they get fixed but they become part of the debate. So, you know, we have i think the ability through transparency to use these tools in a way that will be good. I mean, just like in the in the computer world. And so we think about hackers using using a. I. To find a define hacks and vulnerability exploits in the code thats bad. But that same code can be used by the vendor, by a microsoft to put its code through the ai and patch all of the volunteers before the code released so we could have a world. There are no tax loopholes because the ai finds them all and. Hopefully were good enough as as politicians do to them. We were more likely to before the rich and powerful start making use of them. They got a problem here because. Some of these are deliberately inserted right . And i think about this in terms of micro legislation and i think is another i battle. And i think if negotiations are smaller, a unit of legislation that affects something, its like a word, a sentence, maybe even piece of punctuation that i can slip into a bill. Youre not, you know, you as a journalist, are not going to know what it does, but it does nothing for me. And when it passes, i get my benefit. And that does happen all the time. All the time, right . But but now we can find. Yeah, you have this idea which i liked a lot. When you talk about red teaming regulations. So yeah, the idea of red teams. Ill let explain red teaming and how its an idea from Computer Security that youre talking bringing to policy so in red teaming is is when the when basically good guys look revenues themselves when when microsoft takes its release the windows before its released and basically hacks it and tries to find the vulnerabilities it can and it could finds and patches them before released. No no one else can use them. And we can do that with with rulemaking. We can do that with legislation. We can do that with a tax code. And i think we to i mean, things are being slipped regulations all the time and we just dont notice because busy and distracted and you know some of the others. So i just paid to make sure whatever that thing they want is in there. And i have some weird examples. So there was something a lot of stuff in the covered relief bills, something about manufacturing you get subsidies and manufacturers define in such a that like Coffee Roasters got it and grocers got it for spraying vegetables with stuff that kept them because it was made it was defined in a certain way that that had all these loopholes so you know maybe we would know that before its too late. I mean, i love that idea. You talk about how you think that, you know, theres basically several defenses, right . Like you remove vulnerabilities you can reduce effectiveness of a hack. You detect and recover from hack or you can red team and before that ice. Yeah, thats a four major one. So we go about reducing the effectiveness i think of card counting in blackjack were totally a hack and i mean because you know and for a casino it is kind of weird and i say it that they have decided that strategy is not allowed in blackjack not allowed to have strategy in your hand but so that so one of the ways theyll do, theyll try to detect card counters, but they will play with like a six deck shoe and only play halfway through it just so cant do it anymore. I mean, they do redesign game so that the the part of play where there is an advantage is always at the end of of the deck where basically the blackjack the blackjack for you is watch a dealer go bust and thats your game and. There are times when its more likely to happen depending on the number of of picture cards and number of tens in the deck. So you count tens basically and then some as the deck is advantageous to you. It is not. But if if you make it so, you only play through half the deck, you never can get point where the math is on your side. So theres a way we can solve it just by redesigning the game. I dont have i dont to detect card counters. I dont have to throw them of the casino and to worry about anything right. So, i mean, just do feel like that. Im worried that our level of hacker ability as a society is a bad sign about where were at. Yeah. I mean, i think i think all systems are hackable. I think there is really some some something deep in financial here that i cant quite grasp that all sets of rules are incomplete that theyll have things that are emitted that situation will change, just like lawyers, say, all contracts are complete. And thats thats actually a feature that that thats not bad but theyll always be avenues for hacking and as long you have someone who wants to maybe thats where we more than once system to survive youll have hacking you will have people who will do that. And i think again, because, you know, we have we have these Global Systems we have more tractable systems, we have more power as a species. I feel like were kind of at a unique. So i sort of agree with you in that disturbance. I also came away feeling that lawyers were the ultimate hackers and, that i had never really given them credit for that. And thats but thats for the good, right . Because theres an ambiguous city. Right. Im going to go and do the thing and youre going to say you cant do that. And well both get our lawyers will confirm a judge. Ill argue my case. You your case. And the judge will decide, is that hack . I did good or bad . Is it like eastwick and then the notion of trespass should also cover government . Or is it going to be like, you know, prepaying your 2018 property taxes, saying taxes for 2017 and the irs says, no, that that doesnt work. So yeah, so two lawyers and lawyers help system of systems evolve. So id like to open it up for questions as i think that we have mixed looks like on the left and right. All right im come and stand in front of them or you could nod you can just sit there here comes somebody. Your blackjack example if this is on it sounds like one option that sometimes they place is artificial scarcity. So literally in that case, constraining the deck. You talk a lot i believe about regulatory capture and overregulation perhaps the same kind of solution work is that something that works more generally or only in cases . Yeah, its really dependent on the case. Youre thinking of like a few regulations means fewer hacking. Is that so . If Congress Grants a regulatory body the right to make a regulation, but you have to do it in seven pages. I dont care how corporations, what special cases you have seven pages to do it. My guess is artificial. So i tend to like regulatory bodies because they are the most agile me so the greater body we much quicker at dealing with a hack than congress. Well, my congress will take years years to never that thats thats your timeline for congress and hereditary body work you know months two years so i think that kind of agility is important especially in our in our, you know, tech heavy world that congress will pass a law that tends to be a guideline or that tends to have a general framework. And then its the fda or the fcc, the fcc or someone else to figure the details. So thats a good thing. Im not sure artificially construe gaining the number of words, which i guess is than other pages, because like i can get a small font. Im not that that is going to work, but there are ways you can you can constrain where just make the the hack less effective because this is less domain to hack on. I mean my hack on windows is so effective because everyone uses windows but the hack on you know obscure operating system you never heard of like three people use on the planet is. Not that interesting because three people use it on the planet and theyre probably weirdos. So, so there are constraints that way. I have a very strange question. So its all right. This is a strange talk. Please feel free to disregard. You dont want. I wanted to know why you did the con jose restaurant guide. And did you go to san jose to do it . Yes yes. Can you enlighten. Rest of us . What . Oh, lets do it. Its too weird a question. Why dont you get me after the talk. So i to be involved in the development of a system is called liquid feedback that you would probably have heard of, which was a kind of hack of sorts. And i wonder if you have thoughts on sort of say it goes a bit in what you said about the regulatory bodies how to make the the rules let lets switch it because as i understand from book the problem often that you have an expert system like set of rules that is very explicit and the hacks find these holes because they are not covered. But if you think of repeating game like we have to continue our business next year and so better be fair to each other, then you wouldnt use or exploit these hacks or is that. No, i think you are on to something and is feels like societal cohesion, right . So if you and i are in business together we have a contract we will probably never look at the contract because were in business together and you know, im not going to cheat you cheat me because. We have a business next year and the year after that and that relationship ends up being more important than the rules. But when its either a one time game or its anonymous or, you know, you dont feel that the rules matter. You just want to get yours emails to getting theirs. Then it starts failing. So and there is something inflexibility and. This is where the legal system really the legal system is flexible. I mean, the judge, if you come up with a hack and you go to a judge and we have one of them in tech, napster, its a great example. And one of the early file sharing music, sharing services. And they found a loophole in copyright law that worked. And the judge said, yeah, no, basically, i mean, yeah, you found a loophole. No mean and, thats what the legal system does. And that could be because they had that to figure out what, they think is the just answer rather than what the letter of the law says. Sometimes theyll follow, sometimes they wont. And they are they we our system gives them that discretion. And that is generally a good thing. So, yes. Hey, thanks. And this is kind of for julia to but i mostly focus on the use of Decision Making systems in the public sector. And im curious, you think of the dynamic a julia i like as a journalist. I know you mentioned like you see yourself hacker line or not necessarily hacker, but i think you and folks at the markup everyone is is very good at like trying to simultaneously understand how companies are you know hacking trade secret laws or something to that effect but also fire laws are in getting around that. But im curious, bruce also, if you have thoughts on the dynamic of when both parties of basically like the public and Watchdog Group something to that effect and the companies that theyre trying to get at like sort of simultaneously like cat and mouse and hacking whatever regulatory scheme there is. And if over time there is any sort of historical or story that comes out of it, that is either degrades one or, you know embed the power of one or the other, i hope that makes sense at all. You want to start. Im not sure i totally know where you wanted to go with that. I guess i would say that i feel as a journalist that theres a huge power imbalance between. Journalists and the institutions that theyre trying to undercut and and so i have often used hacking as a way to essentially try to circumvent system names to see behind the black right but. I would say that that is. Legally there can be challenges to that that are risky for journalists. It is and particularly theres a lot of the Computer Fraud and abuse act that is really unfortunately puts journalists in and researchers at risk. And so i think its yet another situation. I think, of where the powerful People Better tools for hacking. I think thats right but but that i think that kind of arms race that cat and mouse happens in a lot of areas because you know if your person against you is going to employ the same type of tactic because its been normalized so its this back and forth and a lot of i a lot of what youre doing is trying to figure out whats going on, you know, when are really trying to make sure you dont know whats going on and that that kind of transparency is really. Yeah. I mean, i remember time we were we built this thing at propublica called the facebook political ad collector and facebook started changing that. The way we identified ads was that theres like something in the code that just says sponsored . And so they started putting more and, more ss on the sponsored so that our we wouldnt catch. And then so were like, oh, now theres two ss. So we started collecting all the ones that have two ss, then the red three as it was the dumbest cat and mouse game. Okay . And then ultimately they were like, actually just like, cease and desist. Yeah. They moved to the strategy and Helen Nissenbaum has had the same problem with her. Oh, really . Yeah. Has she has a something about looking at facebook ads and what youre getting and that shes shut down. Yeah. Over there. Wasnt. What are some of the guardrail urls you would recommend or subscribe to back to. I when its a when only scenario what do you mean by a win only scenario without efficacy without any rules. Yeah. So maybe like a side channel exploit thats discovered because its completely open to discover that. But in in manner. So what are some of the guardrails you would suggest around. Yeah i mean i think were still figuring that out. I think you think about some of the adversarial machine learning, then theres a lot of ways to subvert these systems, whether theyre Large Language Models that many of us have played with the couple of months or other ais. And yeah, what would we, what are we learning about . Ai security, safety is that its like really surprisingly hard that things that we, we, we, we just still really learning the landscape here and the fear of now is that its just so fast that were not going really have time to figure what the gap guardrails should be because i dont think we really know much. And its anything to watch, you know, sort of everything change and then change again and, you know, its going to happen a bunch of this calendar year. Dont dont. No, dont relax. And exactly whats possible. What works, what doesnt is going to look very different now. I think we are beginning to really understand it. Do you agree with the six month moratorium thats been asked for. Its not a bad ask, right . I mean, we could start there and so the pushback is that we dont do we dont do that. Right. We we dont put a moratorium, but we have we have actually managed, as a species, not to do human cloning research. I mean, it was a decade ago that we said we shouldnt do this. Theres one researcher in korea, i think who and he was like vilified by everybody on the planet. And were not doing it. So there is a precedent now, to be fair, human cloning is not nearly as profitable as right as these days. I these are and you know, we tend i mean, this is america we do it the money wants so its gonna be harder but you know its not a bad at least at least it allows us to pause and have a conversation. I think were also bad at as a species, but maybe we can try. I mean, the thing is theres not really any money right now in the large, plain language either, right . I mean, theres potential, i think is really a story on my show. Were trying to see them deployed. So i mean, i both open table and kayak are using them now. So open table, you know, to just a query about where you want to have dinner and kayak for an entire vacation. So then youre going to start seeing them in a lot of these apps. Microsoft is betting big on, putting it in office. I dont know what googles doing with it or facebook i mean, i think there is real money in these and its going to be soon because its going to i mean, weve had hades, the aig, really lousy term. I mean, use it anyway because its a bucket of technology and some are more advanced and others weve had a. I. Writing news stories in sports, finance and fashion years, but theyre very formulaic, you know, so so it was super easy to get them to those stories. And so thats thats already happening. And then i have to not i to see i want at least better disclosure you are dealing with i it should be disclosed you should you should know. And whether it is text or audio or video and its going to be all three, it should be disclosed. Hello. Thank you for being here. I wanted to ask you what you think about cbdcs and the future of money and privacy and how you see that affecting it. So for everyone else, cbdcs, central bank, Digital Currency and i do, yes right . Im with them. It doesnt matter. I mean, as long as government issues money, however they do it, whether its a piece of paper, whether its an entry in a spreadsheet, which basically all our money is, or its some kind of digital token, the you know, its my guess is not much difference. There are a lot of laws Financial Companies have to have to follow and know your customer laws terrorist financing laws and you know we are seeing if think of something of cryptocurrencies, we covering them more and more in ransomware where tracing them were arresting people its its not this you know free for all of of badness just last week the and and about a dozen other countries rolled up was a genesis market it was a black market for for credentials and basically hacker stuff that know people are paying with with cryptocurrency and these are so its all going under the Financial System i think that this this could be a country free for all is going to disappear at that point all it is is dumb speculation so it might as well go away. There might be value a central bank to do it, but as long as the regulatory works, i dont what the form is. So its its i mean it sure its not a blockchain in any way that matters. So you know, go to town. As i have it, for questions somebody is coming. I was matt would do a Funky Chicken dance when was time for us to end. For the lets pull up with some more questions. Oh well youre not going to see it. Only i will see it. So what you think about the concept of a regulatory body approving being released in the same way . You know, we have regulatory bodies look at cars before theyre to the public. And so this is worth talking now. So the eu is going down this path and theyre defining of every like low, medium and high in terms of not that that discrete but sort of effect. And the other there are different regulatory structures. And the idea is if you can have an i drive a car to something that i can kill somebody, theres theres a higher regulatory standard now. We do this in Tech Technologies can kill you are highly regulated. And where theres airplanes or cars or pharmacy articles, theres a lot of work that has to be done before, you know, we consumer get to touch the thing and you know, as i especially robotics you know starts affecting the world in direct physical manner i think were going to see more of those kinds of is it going to be approved me the different ways to do all right so the fda for theres a lot of testing theres a whole lot of procedures and i submit like this much paperwork to the fda that you know in theory reads it and says yes or no i mean its not that great. But thats thats the idea. You know, airplanes for know any kind of changes and we can talk about how all this fails and i keep thinking about those but thats the basis of the way it works. So we could do that with they and my guess is we will with some a. I. This the a. I. That that can kill you. But for the ai thats powering a toy and not because its just toy, you know, and the end state of this is the precautionary principle. A normal united states, everything that is not prohibited is allowed. Push your principles the other way that anything that is not altered does not appear to specific allowed is prohibited. As we get more powerful as the things we can do, kill us, were going to have more stuff in. It was not explicitly permitted. Its not allowed. And the gray area becomes no. And the gray air being yes. I think that really is a function of how powerful we are a species. And if i give you a printer, it will not be. You can print like anything except this list. Itll be can only print this other list because like the stuff in the middle, a lot of thats probably pretty bad we just dont know yet although arent we basically allowing selfdriving cars without of this approval. Oh yeah. So just i want to check there. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Um, probably not a good idea. Seems bad. Yeah although you just see, this is this is back in your world that the tesla employees said they were sharing all of this private, did you see the story . This is today. Yeah. So tesla place. Oh, yeah. Well, that private video, we were sharing it. Its like. Like naked guys in cars. Its like super bad. Oh, yeah, its. Theyre sharing with each other on these chats and theres this surprise. You not surprise me, but its shocking nonetheless. Right . Thats the problem. Not surprised, but shocked is how i feel about so much of this tech thats been like snowden on right. Exactly. Okay. Well i think we are done with questions, matt. We wrap it. Okay. Hes doing the check it is doing them. Thank you. Checking. All right, weve gotten the chicken. So i think the plan, we have a reception right . Yes. Snacks. Snacks what better word in the english is there snacks . I ask you a thank bruce for bringing us. Thank you so much for coming and for the snacks