How do we encourage innovators investment to happen here in America to ensure we win this race? Mr. Alman, you want to start? We were honored to announce back in January uh project Stargate a 500 billion investment in United States infrastructure. Uh that is now well underway. As I mentioned, getting to see it yesterday in Abalene. Uh the first site was incredible. We need a lot more of that. We need uh certainty on the ability to build out this entire supply chain, build the data centers, permit the electricity. We'd love to bring chip production here, network production here, server rack production here. Um, and I think the world does want to invest. We have a lot of global investment flowing into the US to do this. We also want to make sure that other countries are able to build with our technology, use our models um and sort of like be in our orbit and you know use US diffusion of technology here. So that's really important. uh we need to make sure that the highest skilled researchers that want to come work at US companies can come here and do that. Uh we need to we need to make sure that companies like OpenAI and others have legal clarity on how we're going to operate. Of course there will be rules. Of course there need to be some guardrails. This is a very impactful technology. But we need to be able to be competitive globally. We need to be able to train. We need to be able to understand how we're going to offer services and sort of where the rules of the road are going to be. uh so clarity there and and I think an approach like the internet which did lead to flourishing uh of this country in a in a very big way we need that again you think that uh the uh internet age did a good job between the beginning of the '9s through the 2000s of protecting children I would say not particularly yeah and you're a new father correct yes congratulations he's doing well he is it's the most amazing thing ever yeah I don't think you want your best uh your child's best friend to be an AI bot. I did not. Uh so what can we do? How how can we work together to protect children? We've talked a lot about some of the things we're doing here. We're trying to learn the lessons of uh previous generation and you know that's kind of the way it goes. You people make mistakes and you do it better next time. Uh one thing we say a lot internally is we want to treat our adult users like adults. We want to give them a lot of flexibility. We want to let them use the service with a with a lot of freedom. Um, and for children, there needs to be a much higher level of protection, which means the service won't do things uh that they might want. Now, we're still early, so sometimes people say, "Oh, you're being too strict on the rules." And it's just we can't perfectly like tell this. But if we could draw a line and if we knew for sure when a user was a child or an adult, we would allow adults to be much more permissive and we'd have tighter tighter rules for children. As mentioned by Senator Catwell, Senator Thun and I have teamed up on legislation to set up basic guard rails for the riskiest non-defense applications of AI. Um, Mr. Alman, do you agree that a riskbased approach to regulation is the best way to place necessary guard rails for AI without stifling innovation? I do. That makes a lot of sense to me. Okay. Thanks. And did you figure that out in your attic? No, that that was a more recent discussion. Thank you. Very good. Just want to make sure what standards or metrics does open AAI use to evaluate the quality of its training data and model model outputs for correctness. On the whole, uh AI hallucinations are getting much better. We have not solved the problem entirely yet, but we've made pretty remarkable progress over the last few years. When we first launched Chat GBT, um it would hallucinate things all the time. This idea of robustness, being sure you can trust the information. We've made huge progress there. We site sources. the models have gotten much smarter. Um, a lot of people use these systems all the time and we were worried that if it was not 100, you know, 0% accurate, which is still a challenge with these systems, it would cause a bunch of problems. But users are smart. People understand, you know, what these systems are good at, when to use them, when not. And as that robustness increases, which it which it will continue to do, people will use it for more and more things. Um, but we've made as an industry, we've made pretty remarkable progress in that direction over the last couple of years. In the race for AI, who's winning, America or China? If the answer is America, how close is China to us? And what do we do to make sure the answer remains America will win? Mr. Alman, we'll start with you. It is our it is our belief that the uh American models, including some models from our company, OpenAI and Google and others are the best models in the world. It's very hard to say how far ahead we are, but I would say not a huge amount of time. Um, and I think to continue that leadership position and the influence that that comes that comes with that and the all of the incredible benefits of the world using American technology products and services. uh the things that my colleagues have spoken about here, the need to win in infrastructure, sensible regulation that does not slow us down, the sort of spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship that I think is a uniquely American thing in the world. U none of this is rocket science. We just need to keep doing the things that have worked for so long and and not and not make a silly mistake. How harmful would it be to winning the race for AI if America goes down goes down the road of the EU and creates a heavy-handed prior approval government regulatory process for AI. I I think that would be disastrous. Um I to give a more specific answer to your previous question which I think touches on why it would be so bad. Um there there are three key inputs to these AI systems. There's compute, all the infrastructure we're talking about. There's algorithms that we all do research on. Um and there's data. If you don't have any one of those, you cannot succeed in making the best models. And as Brad said, the the way for America to influence the world here is to have the technology that people most want to use and and most adopt. The world uses iPhones and Google and Microsoft products. And that's wonderful. like that's how we have our influence. We don't we don't want that to stop happening. So systems that stop us on any of these areas, you know, if we if we have if we have rules about what data we can train on that are not competitive with the rest of the world, uh then things can fall apart. If we are not able to build the infrastructure and particularly if we're not able to manufacture the chips in this country, the rules can fall apart. If we can't build the products that people want that naturally win in the market and I think people do want to use American products we can make them the best but if we're prevented from doing that people will use a better product made from somebody else that doesn't have the sort of you know that is not stymied in the same way. So it is I am nervous about standards being set too early. I'm totally fine uh you know with the position some of my colleagues took that standards once the industry figures out what they should be it's fine for them to be adopted by a government body and sort of made more official but I believe the industry is moving quickly towards figuring out the right protocols and standards here and we need the space to innovate and to move quickly. Are you saying that self-regulation is sufficient at the current moment? No, I I think some policy is good. Um, I I think it is easy for it to go too far. And as I've learned more about how the world works, I'm more afraid that it could go too far and have really bad consequences. But people want to use products that are generally safe. You know, when you get on an airplane, you kind of don't think about doing the safety testing yourself. You're like, this is well, maybe this is a bad time to use the airplane example, but you kind of like want to just trust that you can get on. It's an excellent time to use the airplane example. So how important is US leadership in either open open source or closed AI models? I think it's quite important to lead in both. Uh we realize that we open AAI can do more to help here. So we're going to release an open-source model that we believe will be the leading model this summer uh because we want people to build on the US stack. In terms of closed source models, a lot of the world uses our technology and the technology of our colleagues. We think we're in good shape there. So, how could federal policy further help encourage AI ecosystem to be developed right here in the US? Well, you touched on a great point with energy. Uh, I think it's hard to overstate how important energy is to the future here. The, you know, eventually chips, network gear that will be made by robots and we'll make that very efficient and we'll make that cheaper and cheaper. But an electron is an electron. uh eventually the cost of intelligence the cost of AI will converge to the cost of energy and the a and if it'll be how much you can have the abundance of it will be limited by the abundance of energy uh so in terms of long-term strategic investments for the US to make I can't think of anything more important than energy uh yeah you know chips and all the other infrastructure also but but energy is where this I think this ends up was that we want other nations to be able to build upon the US AI stack is that the right framework is that what we're thinking about or is it more about the consumer? Is it more about getting the rest of the world and the 78% of the population to adopt AI applications that are US or is it interrelated? I I think it's heavily interrelated. To me, the stack is, you know, from the the chips at the bottom to the applications on the top and we want the whole world on the US stack. We want them to use US chips. We want them to use services like CHT. Does does having other nations building on the infrastructure component of the stack does that more or less then guarantee or at least have a high likelihood that then the consumers in that country will be using our products and applications? Is that the sort of theory of the case? It probably does make it marginally more likely. But I also think the if someone's using a stack that we don't trust to train models like who knows what it's going to do? Who knows what sort of back doors would be possible? Who knows what sort of, you know, data corruption issues could be possible? Um, I I think the AI stack is a increasingly going to be a jointly designed system from the chip all the way up to the the end consumer product and you know, lots of stuff in between. uh I think separating that won't work that well in practice and we shouldn't want to like again I think this point this is a very critical point that the the leverage and the power the US gets from having iPhones be the mobile device people most want and uh you know Google being the search engine that people most want around the world is huge. We talk maybe less about how much people want to use uh chips and other infrastructure developed here, but I think it's no less important and we should aim to have the entire US stack be adopted by as much of the world as possible. Yeah. But I do want to ask you um specifically there's a lot made of sort of the the comparison between the United States and the regulatory environment and what exists in Europe. What specifically, and I'll open this up to you, what specifically has gone wrong in Europe that we can draw um some conclusions from? Uh first of all, we'd love to figure out how to invest more in St. Louis. I'd love an excuse to get to go home more often. Um I'll point out one example that I think is just very uh painful to users. When we launch a new feature or a major new model, we have what is now considered a little bit of like a an in joke where we say we have this great new thing not available in the EU and a handful of other countries because they have this long process uh before a model can go out and there will be I believe great models and services that are quite safe and robust that we will be unable to offer in other regulatory regimes. And if you are trying to be competitive in this new world and if you are consistently some number of months behind what other people in other countries get access to. Um that's that's an example that's extremely painful to users. And and you mentioned um sort of your observation that the the AI stack may may get more vertically integrated. Um so how does that work then? Because right now the best estimates I suppose right is that I don't know with China's two months to 6 months behind maybe on on large language models hopefully some of the advances we're seeing in the US maybe there's a degree of separation it's hard to know exactly right with deepseek but then you get down to the chips and and that advantage is more like a couple of years probably something like that so if that's where we're headed does that increase the US's advantage in your view or does that sort of allow ow China to catch up quicker as we get more vertically integrated. Um I think there's a lot of things that can increase US leadership but but we touched on this earlier. I think it's so important. Uh there will be great ships made around the world. There will be great models trained around the world. If the United States companies can win on products and the sort of all of the positive feedback loops that come from how you can improve this once you know real users are using your products in their daily lives for their hardest tasks. Uh that is something special that is not so easy to catch up with just by doing good chips and good models. So making sure that the US can win at the product level here obviously I'm like talking my book a little bit but I really do believe it is is quite important. uh and that that's in addition to all of the chips, algorithm, the infrastructure, algorithms, and data. I think this is a new area where the US is really winning and has a very strong compounding effect and and I'm a big believer in in evidence-based technical standards. Uh I've been accused of being the only real scientist who's published peer-reviewed papers in the in the Senate. Um so, Mr. Mr. Roman, uh do you believe that under appropriate circumstances uh independent evaluations based on uh standards performed by qualified evaluators uh and done voluntarily could help validate the testing that you're perform performing internally and in conjunction with uh uh peer companies. Thank you, Senator. And I think it's awesome that you are have published peer-reviewed papers and you would love to see more of that. Well, wait a second. I was on the Maslov's triangle of science. I was near the bottom. I was a geologist. So that's you're not high up in that. Geology is great. Um yes, I think what you say is very important. It's an important part of our process today. Uh external testing helps us find things that we may have missed internally. And as we're we're very proud of our safety record on the whole. Not that we, you know, we've not been perfect and we're continuing to learn new things, but I think we do have a process that is leading towards models that the public generally thinks are safe and robust to use. Um, and we've developed a lot of techniques to be able to continue to deliver that. But external testers and redteamers uh are a critical part of that process and I think they've helped us find many things in the models to improve. Let me start with you if I would. Uh, I think you know Utah would aspire to lead out with data centers and and advanced technologies. Could you just address for states and and Utah specifically what it is that makes them attractives to projects like Stargate? Yeah, and I know that we're uh having productive discussions about some potential sites in in Utah. um power, cooling, fast peritting process, labor force that can build these things, the electricians, the construction workers, the entire stack. Um a state that wants to like partner with us to to move quickly. Texas really has been unbelievable on this. Uh I think that would be a good thing for other states to study, but we'd be excited to try to fix something out. Thank you. I think I could speak for our state state leaders. we would be excited as well. But as you know, this also brings challenges and one of those challenges are the demands for energy and um what's your thoughts on how we protect rateayers and and kind of put a little bit of a firewall between them? I mean, I think the best way is just much more supply, more generation. uh you know like I think if if you make it easy to reasonably profitably create a lot of additional generative capacity the market will do that uh that will not only not drive up rates because of the AI workload hopefully it'll drive it down for everything and we've talked a lot about the importance of energy to AI energy is just really important to quality of life uh one of the things that seems to me the most consistent throughout history is every time the the cost of energy falls the quality of life goes up and so doing a lot to make energy cheaper. Um in the short term I think this probably looks like more natural gas. Um although there are some applications where I think solar can really help. In the medium-term I hope it's advanced nuclear uh fishision and fusion more energy is important well beyond AI. Um you know in some sense we have these dual revolutions going of AI and energy. the the ability to have new ideas um and the ability to get them done to make them happen in the physical world where we all live like these are kind of the the limiting reagents of prosperity and let's have a lot more. Can we talk a little bit about uh chat GPT and um how that might assist small business owners and and let me paint a little broader picture. We've heard a lot about other tools that are perhaps out of favor uh particularly with the US government that are very helpful for small businesses, but I don't know if if small businesses are fully understanding the platform that you have and how they might use it for marketing, for data research and and ways to help their small business be successful. One of you there were all these moments as Chacht was beginning to take off where we would be like, "Oh, we may have like a hit on our hands. there's like that's someone's using it for this and this and that's you know strangers talking about it you see someone using it in a coffee shop but one of the ones that really sticks out for me is pretty quickly after chatbt launched um like in the first 6 months say um I was in an Uber um and the driver was making conversation he's like have you heard of this thing called ChachiBT it's amazing and I was like yeah like what do you think about it and he was using it to uh run basically his entire small business he was like I had He ran a laundromat. He's like, I had all these problems, you know, like couldn't find good people to write my ads, couldn't get like legal documents reviewed, couldn't like answer customer support emails. And he was like a mega early adopter, but he was one of these people that was using AI to like make a small business work. And that was we talked about that story a lot at the time. Um, but I was it's nice to reflect on it again now. We've now heard that at scale from a lot of people, but that was one of those moments early on we're like, oh, this is maybe going to work. Can you explain the importance of the national lab system to maintaining our research edge and discuss any partnerships you've established or are currently pursuing, especially those threatened by massive cuts to the national labs research? We partner with the national labs. So maybe I could take a first cut of this. Uh also, Senator, I would love to get to visit a firm lab someday. That would be like a question. That would be a real life. That'd be very cool. Um there's many wonderful things that AI is going to do for the world. Uh but the one that I am personally most excited about is the impact AI will have on scientific discovery. I believe that new scientific discovery is the most important input to the world getting better and people's quality of lives getting better um over time. it is uh it is hard to overstate where we would be um if where we are because of scientific advancement and where we we would be without it. So, we're thrilled to get to partner with the national labs on this. Um I think science has not been as efficient as it can be and we're we're also thrilled to hear from scientists that they're, you know, multiples more effective than they used to be. And I think that AI tools will mean we can accomplish at some point a decade worth of scientific progress in a year for the same cost or even less. Um this this will be one of the most important contributions in my opinion that AI makes to the world. And um it's no longer theoretical like the national labs are are great example. That's the only partnership where we've given a copy of our model weights to another organization. Uh it's a a very deep and important partnership to us and I expect that that will really bear fruit. Man, I I listened to a interview uh about uh that you gave with Lester Halt maybe a year or so ago and you talked in that interview about um how open AI it wasn't initially even about making a product. it wasn't about the money. And so I know you are incorporated in Delaware and I understand you've been working with our attorney general um during uh the previously proposed legislation to transition to a for-profit not legislation but to transition to for-profit. And this Monday um OpenAI decided to apply to become a public benefit corporation instead and to have the PBC govern your nonprofit arm. um what went into this decision and what considerations influenced the timing of the organizational change? So we we never Thank you for the question, Senator, and the chance to explain this. It's a complicated thing that I think has gotten misrepresented. So this is a wonderful forum to talk about it. Um we never planned to have the nonprofit convert into anything. The nonprofit was always going to be the nonprofit. Um and we also planned for a PBC from the very beginning. There were a bunch of other considerations about is it the PBC board that would control the nonprofit somehow or you know h how our capital structure was going to work that there was a lot of speculation on most of it inaccurate in the press but our plan has always been to have a robust nonprofit. We hope our nonprofit will be one of the best, maybe someday the best resourced nonprofit in the world. And a PBC with the same mission that would make make it possible for us to raise the capital needed to deliver these tools and services at the quality level and availability level that people want to use them at, but still stick to our mission, which we've been proud uh over the last almost decade of our of our progress towards. So, we had a lot of productive conversations with a lot of stakeholders and a lot of lawyers and a lot of regulators about the best way to do this. Um, it took longer than we thought it was going to. Um, you know, I would have guessed that uh we would have been talking about this last year, but now we have a a proposal that uh people seem pretty excited about and we're trying to now advance. How can we provide consumers with more control over how their data is used by AI companies while preserving the utility of the AI system? So, how do you get more privacy and still get the benefits? So, there's all of the standard privacy controls that companies like ours and others build and should, but there's a new area that I'd love to flag for your consideration, which is people are sharing more information with AI systems than I think they have with previous generations of technology. And the maximum utility of these systems happens when the model can get very personalized to you. Um, so this is a wonderful thing and we should find a way to enable it. But the the fact that these AI systems will get to know you over the course of your life so well, I think presents a new challenge and level of importance for how we think about privacy in the world of AI. How we're going to think about guaranteeing people privacy when they talk to an AI system about whatever's happening in their lives. How we make sure that when one system connects to another, it shares the appropriate information and doesn't share other information and that users are in control of that. Um, I I believe this will become one of the most important issues with AI in the coming years as people come to integrate this technology more into their lives and I think it is a a great area for you all to think about and take quite seriously. Can you explain why federal investment in foundational research and standards bodies are crucial to your companies? I I think standards can help uh increase the rate of innovation, but it's important that the industry figure out what they should be first. Uh I think a bad standard can really set things back and we've seen many examples of that in history. I do think there's a new protocol to discover here at the level of importance of HTTP. This is just one example. There's many other things too. Um I believe the industry will figure that out through some fits and starts and and then I think officially adopting that can be helpful. Could you please sketch out what the world could look like if the US were to have a patchwork regulatory framework and how that could impact our competitiveness? I I think it would be quite bad. Uh I think it it's very difficult to imagine us figuring out how to comply with 50 different sets of regulation. Uh and in many of these states there have been you know dozens of different bills proposed that I understand several of which could could be passed. Um that will slow us down at a time where I don't think it's in anyone's interest for us to slow down. Uh one federal framework that is light touch uh that we can understand and that lets us you know move with the speed that this moment calls for seems important and and fine. But the sort of every state takes a different approach here uh I think would be quite burdensome and uh significantly impair our ability to do what we need to do and hopefully you all want us to do too. Is the consensus among the witnesses that we are ahead right now but is a kind of tentative lead what would be uh very quickly we'll start with you Mr. Alman what's your assessment on that I know we've already talked about I just want to set the context for some of the questions. Yeah, I I believe we are leading the world right now. I believe we'll continue to do so. We we want to make AI in the United States and we want the whole world to get to benefit from that. I think that is the strongest thing for the United States. I think it's also the right thing to do for all the people of the world and um I really appreciate you all being with here with us here today because I think we'll need your help and everything you're saying or almost everything you're saying sounds great. So, as I ask this question, I'll ask if you guys think we're ahead. But then the key things when you say we need your help, what would very succinctly, sometimes we're not so smart up here. Um, what would the key things be that you would need from the US government to help us maintain that lead and dominate this space, which is what I think we need to do? Mr. Altman, again to you real quick on that. We we've talked a little bit about infrastructure, but I think we cannot overstate how important that is and the ability to have that whole supply chain or as much of it as possible in the United States. The previous technological revolutions have also been about infrastructure in the supply chain. But AI is different in terms of the magnitude of resources that we need. So projects like Stargate that we're doing in the US, um things like bringing chip manufacturing, certainly chip design to the US, uh permitting power quickly, like these are critical. If if we don't get this right, I don't think anything else we do can help. Um, on on the model creation side, we've talked about the need for certainty on our ability to train and to have fair footing with the rest of the world to make sure we can remain competitive. um the ability to offer products under a reasonable, fair, light touch regulatory framework where we can go win in the market because the products will be so key to um the the sort of feedback loops and making them better and better and the ability to deploy them quickly and win at the product level in addition to the model and infrastructure and data uh area is is is really quite important. um the ability to bring the most talented people in the world here, the most talented researchers. We have a ton in the United States. There's more out in the world. We should try to get them all here. Improving models here. I think those are some of the specifics. Do you agree that the federal government should help with studying and measuring the environmental impact of AI? I think studying and measuring is usually a good thing. I I do think that the conversation about the environmental impact on of AI and the relative uh challenges and benefits has gotten somewhat out of whack. I I am hopeful that AI, you know, we've been trying to address climate environmental challenges unsuccessfully or not successfully enough for a long time. I think we need help. I think AI can help us do that. We've proposed or we're in the process of building a 10 gawatt facility and got another kind of my question. Can algorithms be biased and cause discrimination? Of course. Of course. Of course. Mr. Alman, does open AI work to guard against such bias and discrimination in chat uh GPT? Of course. Of course. So, I'm glad to hear that because you recently stated that the government should not implement privacy regulations on AI, but instead quote respond very quickly as the problems emerge. talk to me about how you believe uh leaders in in your industry can help mitigate job losses or or deal with what could as you described it last year a major social disruption. The the thing that I think is different this time than previous technological revolutions is the potential speed. Uh technology technological revolutions have impacted jobs and the economy for a long time. Some jobs go away, some new jobs get created, many jobs just get more efficient and people are able to do more and earn more money and create more and that's great. Um, over some period of time, uh, society can adapt to a huge amount of job change and you can look at the last couple of centuries and see how much that's happened. I don't know. I don't think anyone knows exactly how fast this is going to go, but it feels like it could be pretty fast. Um the most important thing or one of the most important things I think we can do is to put tools in the hands of people early. We have a principle that we call iterative deployment. We want people to be getting used to this technology as it's developed. We've been doing this now for almost 5 years since our first product launch. um as as society and this technology co-evolve, putting great capable tools in the hands of a lot of people and letting them figure out the new things that they're going to do and create for each other and come up with um and provide sort of value back to the world on top of this new building block we have and the the sort of scaffolding of of society. uh that is I think the best thing we can do uh as open AI and as our industry to be uh sort of help smooth this transition. the idea we want to get to a point where AI isn't displacing uh work but actually enhancing work that people are more productive and doing things that we probably can't even imagine what people will do if we look 100 years ago we have jobs that no one dream and I don't think we can imagine the jobs on the other side of this but but even if you look today at what's happening with programming which I'll pick because it's sort of my background and near and dear to my heart um what it means to be a programmer and you know an effective programmer in in May of 2025 is very different than uh what it meant Last time I was here in May of 2023, these tools have really changed what a programmer is capable of, the amount of code and software that the world is going to get. And it's not like people don't hire software engineers anymore, right? They work in a different way and they're way more productive. Mr. Alman, now this is going to I'm going to count this as an a highlight uh recently like um I know the work that you've done and you're really one of the people that are moving AI and now it's it's it's an opportunity. I I was excited to to meet you and now people you know people ask me it's like if you're going to talk about AI and now I get to ask you I mean you like the literal the expert you know um some people are worried about AI or whatever and I'm like you know what about the the singularity so you the people like that if you would address that please. Thank you Senator for the kind words and for normalizing hoodies in more spaces I'd love to see that. Um I am I am incredibly excited about the rate of progress but I also am cautious and uh I would say like I don't know I feel small next to it or something. I think this is beyond something that we all fully yet understand where it's going to go. Uh this is this is I I believe uh among the biggest maybe it'll surround to be the biggest technological revolutions humanity will have ever produced and I I feel privileged to be here. Uh I feel curious and interested in what's going to happen. Um but I do think things are going to change quite substantially. I I think humans have an wonderful ability to adapt and things that seem amazing will become the new normal very quickly. uh we will figure out how to use these tools to just do things we could never do before and I think it will be quite extraordinary but these are going to be tools that are capable of things that we can't quite wrap our heads around and some people call that you know as these tools start helping us to create next future iterations some people call that singularity some people call that the takeoff whatever it is it feels like a sort of new era of human history and I think it's tremendously exciting that we get to live through that and we can make it a wonderful thing, but we've got to approach it with humility and some caution. Protecting people from having their likenesses replicated through AI without permission. And even if you all pledge to do it, our obvious concern is that there will maybe other companies that wouldn't. And that's why I think as we look at what these guard rails are, the protection of digital uh people's digital rights should be part of this. I think this is a big issue and it's one coming uh quickly. I do not believe I I think there's a few areas to attack it. You can talk about AI that generates content, platforms that distribute it, how takedowns work, how we educate society and how we build in robustness to expect this is going to happen. Um I do not believe it will be possible to stop the generation of the content. I think open source openweight models are a great thing on the whole and something we we need to pursue but it does mean that there's going to be just a lot of these models floating around that can do this. The mass distribution I think it's possible to put some more guardrails in place and and that that seems important. I but I don't want to neglect the the sort of societal education piece. Um I think with every new technology there's some sort of almost always some sort of new scams that come. the sooner we can get people to understand these, be on the lookout for them, uh, talk about this as a thing that's coming and then I think that's happening, I think the better. Um, people are very quickly understanding that content can be AI generated and building new kinds of defenses um, in their own minds about it. But but still, you know, if you get a call and it sounds exactly like someone you know and they're panic and they need help or if you see a video that was like the videos you talked about, um this like gets at us in a very deep psychological way and I think we need to build societal resilience because this is coming. Uh Mr. Alman, what has been the most surprising use for chat GPT you've seen? What what what are applications that that you're seeing that are surprising? Um, you know, people message TouchBT billions of times per day. So, they use it for all sorts of incredibly creative things. I will tell one personal story, which is I mentioned earlier, I recently had a newborn. Clearly, people did it, but I don't know how people figured out how to take care of newborns without chatbt. Um, that has been a real lifesaver. So, I will tell you a a story that I I've told you before, but but my teenage daughter several months ago sent me this long detailed text and it was emotional and it was it was really well written and and and I actually commented I'm like, "Wow, this is really well written." She said, "Oh, I use chat GPT to write it." Like, wait, you're texting your dad and you don't It is something about the new generation that it is so seamlessly integrated into life that she's sending an email, she's doing whatever, and she doesn't even doesn't even hesitate to think about going to chat GPT to to capture her thoughts. I have complicated feelings about that. Well, use the app and then tell me what you're thinking. Okay. Um, Google just revealed that their search traffic on Safari declined for the first time ever. They didn't send me a Christmas card. Will chat GPT replace Google as the primary search engine and if so when? Probably not. Um I mean I I think some use cases that people use search engines for today are definitely better done uh on a service like chat GBT but Google is like a ferocious competitor. They have a very strong AI team a lot of infrastructure a very wellprotected business um and they're making great progress putting AI into their search. Um, all right. So, a question that I I I have spent a lot of time talking to business leaders, CEOs in the tech space, AI. Uh, and one question that I've asked that I get different answers on, and I'm curious what the four of you say, how big a deal was deepseek? Is it a major seismic shocking development from China? Is it not that big a deal? Is it somewhere in between? And what's coming next? And let's each of the four of you not not a huge deal. There are two things about DeepSeek. One is that they made a good open source model and the other is that they made a consumer app that for the first time uh briefly surpassed ChatGBT as the most downloaded AI tool, maybe the most downloaded app overall. Um there are going to be a lot of good open source models. Uh and clearly there are incredibly talented people working at DeepSeek doing great research. So I'd expect more great models to come. Hopefully also us and some of our colleagues will put out great models too. Um, on the consumer app, I think if if a if the Deep Sea consumer app looked like it was going to beat ChatgBT and our American colleagues apps as sort of the default AI systems that people use, uh, that that would be bad. But that does not currently look to us like what's happening on whether there what the rules should be concerning AI diffusion. Nvidia has argued that we want American chips everywhere, even in China. Uh, others have argued that we want to restrict at least the most advanced uh, processors. I'm curious each of the four of you, what do you think the rule should be, if anything, is to replace the AI diffusion rule? And Mr. Alman, we'll start with you. I also was glad to see that rescended. Uh I agree there will need to be some constraints but I I think if our if the sort of mental model is winning diffusion instead of stopping diffusion that directionally seems right that doesn't mean there's no guardrails. It doesn't mean we say like we're going to go build a bigger data center in some other country than the US. Our intention is to build our biggest and best data centers in the US do training in the US build models here have our core research here. Um but then we do want to build inference centers with our partners around the world and we've been working with the US government on that. I think that'll be that'll be good. Um I to to this point that influence comes from people adopting US products and services up and down the stack. Maybe most obviously if they're using Chad GPT versus DeepSeek, but also if they're using US chips and US data center technology and all the amazing stuff Microsoft does. Uh that's a win for us and I think we should embrace that but make sure that you know the most critical stuff the creation of these models that will be so impactful that that should still happen here. Would you support a 10-year learning period on states issuing comprehensive AI regulation or some form of federal preeemption to create an even playing field for AI developers and deployers? I'm not sure what a 10-year learning period means, but uh I think having one federal approach focused on light touch and an even playing field sounds great to