The peril (and promise) of AI with Tristan Harris: Part 2

Hello and welcome to How I Built This Lab. I'm Guy Raj. So what if you could no longer trust the things you see and hear? I'm not talking about conspiracy theories. I'm talking about the breakdown of what we now consider to be hard facts. Evidence.

What if you couldn't trust the signature on a check, the documents or videos presented in court, the footage you see on the news? the calls you receive from your family because they could all be perfectly forged by artificial intelligence. The breakdown of trust in our society That's just one of the risks that could be headed our way as AI gets smarter and smarter, and

That's why my guest today, Tristan Harris is sounding the alarm about the rapid development of AI. This episode is part two of my conversation with Tristan. He's the co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology, and if you haven't listened to part one yet, you'll want to go back and listen to that first. In that episode, Tristan talked about how so many of the technological tools we use every day, things like social media and search engines, were designed to grab as much of our attention as possible. And that's had some really damaging effects on our society. We also talked about the exponential development of AI and

How it's advancing so quickly? that even the people that work on it aren't aware of the full scope of its capabilities. Today, Tristan is back to talk more about how AI is changing our lives. What we need to worry about and how we can protect ourselves from some of the scary stuff.

But not everyone is worried about the dangers of AI, which presents its own challenge. Just on I'm here in the Bay Area, you are too, and um I go to from time to time I'll go to events, um meetups just to observe what people are talking about around generative AI and there's a lot of excitement about what's happening in San Francisco and talk about, you know, this is the next

The next big thing. people are saying it's it's like what it felt felt like to be here and you know, two thousand three, two thousand four with web two point oh. Yeah. So there's a lot of excitement around it. And not that much scepticism. And so I wonder In a world where

where profit is incentivized. Obviously we live in a capitalist System. You know, what would stop somebody from pursuing this at lightning speed. I mean If they're incentivized, but

Bye. financial rewards to pursue it. Well If they're

fully incentivized to go as fast as possible and there's no counter incentive. That says you're liable, let's say, for the harms that might show up. Then of course you're gonna go as fast as possible. And so that's that's why in our work, like people think that we're Criticizing Sam Altman.

or open AI or one company, or we're criticizing AI overall. And No, neither of those things are true. What we're criticizing are perverse incentives that lead to bad outcomes because we are true futurists who want the good future. And we see that to get that future. We have to.

change the incentives that we're currently operating with. And a good example of this is liability. So What lesson did we learn from social media? For those who don't know or remember this, in 1996, there was this thing called the Communications Decency Act. In which there's this section famously called section two thirty.

That basically gave all Internet companies in immunity shield that you would not be liable For anything that you're online bulletin board. Where someone posts hate speech or something like that, or tell people to commit suicide, or smears someone that you would not be liable.

For any of those harms. And that made sense when the internet was just a bunch of bulletin ports and it was not powered by AI. But we used that immunity shield. and applied it to social media companies when they came along later. And so when they go and intentionally addict children, use social comparison, use variable schedule rewards, use you know, social proof and social validation and direct messaging and

All that to try to jack up their products. We allowed social media companies to not be liable for any of the downstream harms that we're now living with. And the a correction we could make to AI. companies is that instead of being

you know, incentivized to race as fast as possible. Well we really what do we want to incentivize? We want to have them move at the pace that we can get this right. Well get this right would mean what if everybody was liable for the downstream harms that could occur? And they all moved at a slower pace.

Not a generically slower pace, but at a Pace in which We're doing the relevant safety work. And how would we rebalance that equation so that everyone is doing a race to safety? versus a race to power and capabilities. How will people start to see this impact their lives? I I I

was on Instagram this week and um I got delivered a surfing video. And it was a video of Kelly Slater surfing and Beautiful, pristine. waters and he was just weaving in and out of other surfers, maybe forty surfers. It was an amazing video. And I looked at the comments and they were uniformly, you know, you just went down there like, Wow, this guy's the goat. This is amazing. Wow, what and then finally there was one comment and it was like, Guys, this is AI generated. And I looked at looked at this video and and I I'm pretty sure it was AI generated, you know.

That's Already happening some of it is very good and it's not even A fraction as good as it's gonna be if if as you say this this exponential curve, as good as it'll be in A year, five years, ten years from now. What are we talking about? To lay it out for me, Tristan. I mean

Are we talking about a world where nothing is real and everything is I mean it's it's like Aldous Huxley again on steroids. We we just will not be able to even know if a a call from our spouse is real. Yeah. So AI is not gonna get worse at

Emulating. Someone's voice, someone's handwriting, someone's likeness, their This that's what generative AI does is it gives you those capabilities. Anything that can be emulated. will be emulated. And that's why it's generative AI. It's generating text, generating images, generating 3D models from scratch, generating architectural designs, generating movie scripts, generating amicus briefs, generating, you know, fake articles about people. Anything that can be simulated will be.

In New Hampshire, uh that someone had deep fake Joe Biden. and automated some robocals with Joe Biden's voice telling people not to vote in New Hampshire. Yeah. And I actually listened to it, to be honest, that one, I would have thought that that sounded like Joe Biden.

And The point is that it's that's the worst that it will ever be. So if you're not impressed today with where it is. Just look at the growth rate of how much better and how quickly it's getting Better. And what can you do in the face of that? Well

You know. By default, yes, if we live in the world that we live in today, we won't know what's true. But I was just talking to the digital minister of Taiwan, Audrey Tang. And she's talking about the need for authenticated privileged messages. So like Anytime the government sends a message, it now comes through one number.

If you get a text from the government from that number, you know it's the government. If you don't get a text from that number, it's not the government. You know, Apple and Google could start working on an interoperable standard saying that we're gonna verify and make sure that when there's a phone call, there's a real handshake. that there's a new secure encrypted handshake. It's just for like we moved from We went from the default on the internet being H E T P. To HTTPS, secure. So we went from kind of an unsecured, open, unencrypted internet to more secure and encrypted connections.

I think that in the age of generative AI we're gonna move to these more Privileged and secure. uh environments. I just wonder how

It's like It's like putting a finger in the dike. Yeah. And there's more and more water building and it's just about to that that dam is gonna burst. And and I just think, well Already People have used ChatGPT four to figure out how to break into into passwords. I mean, even something as simple as every now and again, I'm sure this happens to you, I'm sure this happens to a lot of people listening, you get a text and it's looks like it's from your bank and it says fraud uh detected on your account. And many people who aren't as used to the getting these things might click on it. That's simple.

But you know what I mean? I mean it's just a matter of time before it's before it it it's able to just break through all of these. systems that are designed to protect us. Yeah, well and this this by the way, I think is how we frame The way that we're worry about the risk, which is that we're just simply releasing more capabilities into society.

Faster than society has the immune systems. To absorb and adapt. to all the new changes that accompany all of that AI getting released. Yeah, when when

The first time someone released that open source the AI that said, with three seconds of your voice, I can speak to your bank. Was every bank in the world prepared for that and planning for that, like years in advance? No, they They don't know what new AI capabilities are gonna be released, and that's just

One tiny one. There's literally hundreds of them per week. It's hard to track. In fact In our AI dilemma talk, we quote the Co founder of Anthropic, Jack Clark, who said, That unless you're scanning Twitter every single day for all these updates, you are missing updates that are critical for national security. And so that that's where the

you would say, okay, so why don't we just stop all this? Why don't we just not race? Why don't we just stop releasing all AI? Well then people would respond to that saying, but if China doesn't stop Than the US. is just gonna fall behind. But I wanna I wanna push back against this, which is not just that I think we should just stop in the US.

We have to get smarter about what does it mean to be China because if they race so fast that they release stuff that then undermines their own society, that's not in their interest either. Yeah. We have to be smarter than that. The US has to lead and say We need to set the terms of the race. And it's actually a race

to the responsible and conscious deployment of technology that in its effect strengthens your society relative to other ones. That's the true competition. We're gonna take a quick break, but when we come back, more from Tristan on the measures we could take to responsibly deploy AI. And the role Tristan played in a recent White House executive order on AI. Stay with us, I'm Guy Raz, and you're listening to How I Built This Lab. Welcome back to How I Built This Lab. I'm Guy Raz and my guest is Tristan Harris.

Co founder of the Center for Humane Technology. And Tristan, as you've heard, has been sounding the alarm about the rapid development of AI. And he says that advancements in the technology could unravel the very fabric of our society. societies, human societies depend on

more or less depend on a a sense of trust. Mm-hmm. That there's common in information. And and even if there are uh you know differences of viewpoints and so on. I mean You can trigger Riots, conflicts, um Violent demonstrations with misinformation. that is so credible that seems so real. I mean videos, you know, I I I keep thinking about this movie

The Running Man that came out in like the eighties with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Have you seen that movie? Uh it's vaguely familiar, remind me of the plot. So basically I think if I'm recalling correctly from my childhood Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Bakersfield cop.

And he's a good guy. But he's disliked by his superiors or his colleagues or whatever. And there there's a scene where they're all in a helicopter, um and there's a r an anti government riot and the helicopter fires on these d demonstrators and and massacres them. And they essentially frame Arnold Schwarzenegger, who tries to prevent the other pilots from doing this. They frame him as the guy who did it. And they create a video where it looks like he is the

Butcher of Bakersfield. And so he's sent to prison. But You can imagine That future. I mean, it's so crazy that that that film You know, what happened that film. Could easily happen. You can imagine a court of law.

You know, documentary evidence being presented. Video evidence being presented. Um signatures of uh documents, um photographs. Uh recordings, all of these generated by AI that are so good they're it's impossible to discern from real evidence. It's it just and I again like I'm on a rant here, but it seems like this this is going to completely upend how we think about communication, what we believe, what we present as fact and evidence, how we Function. Yeah.

Yeah, one hundred percent. I mean here's a metaphor. Imagine that the whole world Is run on top of Windows ninety five. You know, it's it's running the world's computers. And everything in the world runs on Windows ninety five.

Governments run on Windows ninety five, banks run on Windows ninety five. Hospitals ninety five, legal documents, court cases, lawyers, it all runs on Windows ninety five. And then imagine one day. Someone publishes This

Code. to the whole internet. Mm-hmm. And it basically teaches you. how to hack any Windows ninety five computer in the world. So now Windows ninety five, which runs the world.

Is not secure anymore. It's insecure. So In this metaphor. the way that our whole society has been constructed is like sitting on top of this box called

Civilization. two thousands, right? Like we've sort of living on a Early two thousands. world stack of the assumptions of paperwork and signatures are are are actual signatures and photographic evidence is actual photographic evidence and people's voices are real and can only represent their only voice.

But suddenly we just undermined collectively with AI. That set of assumptions. And so what do you do when this happens? Well, you don't try to pretend let's all keep running the world on Windows ninety five. Yes. Moment.

With AI is forcing a kind of rite of passage. Humanity has to kind of go through a bar mitzvah or bot mitzvah to Upgrade the systems that we have been relying on to accommodate the new assumptions. And we've done those upgrades before. In democracies, you know, when you said the printing press came out, the printing press both killed the previous forms of of government, of feudal governments, and it made way for democracies, first through a really unstable period.

And then ultimately you could have public education, you could have the fourth estate and news articles. It forced this reorganization. of what kind of governance that we need to live in. We are in this uncomfortable But we have to do it. Adaptation period.

Where we are needing to upgrade. The basic legal philosophical mechanisms. We have to come up with new meaning for what is evidence. In a world where AI can generate that evidence. And there are ways of doing that. We could live in a world where the only places that the any media you see on the internet. Will only be on the internet if it's watermarked, because we know that it was real.

So there there are things like this that are the building blocks, the puzzle pieces of this upgrade, but there's about a million of pieces that has to happen. And I know that can sound daunting to people, but I almost want us to be collectively saying, Okay, we're gonna hold hands together. And we gotta go through this transition. And yes, it's gonna be a little bit rocky.

And we have To make these changes together. I know that a big part of of what you you do is just creating public awareness. But you also went to the White House to help put together an executive order. around the stuff late in twenty twenty three. Tell me what that ordered actually

in practical terms will do? Like what will it slow down this process? Will it actually create actionable protections for us, uh or is it just I don't know. I mean, again, It's an executive order. It's not law. You know, a congressional law.

Well So there's the multiple parts to answering this question. So I mean, this is I think it was like 111 pages. It was done in record time in six months. It touches algorithmic bias. So AI that's used in current AI systems that are biased and how to deal with those issues. It deals with AI and biological weapons and needing to lock down the supply chains for where people can get dangerous materials and saying We need to handle that better. It deals with AI and the next GPT five and GPT six set systems. It says that if you train a system, That uses more than 10 to the 26, I believe, flops or floating point operations, too technical jargon. Then you have to notify the government. That's like basically like saying, If you're building a nuclear weapon that's really powerful, the government has to know. Yeah.

But to your real point, your real question you're asking is What can that executive order do? Cause it's not law, it's an executive order. It's not legally binding for making sure that all the companies have to do all these things. Um, a lot of it is changing what's called federal terms and conditions. So to get federal funding, if you're a biology lab.

you will not be able to get that funding if you don't do these new sort of protective measures for the dangerous biological materials. So what that's doing is using the leverage of the government and its funding power. To start to incentivise. different aspects of the supply chains of the world, educational environments, banks, et cetera, to do more of the things that are AI resilient. So

Think of it as a movement and a signal, like a big bat signal blasted into the sky that says the US government is taking AI seriously. Now. It's not the security blanket that suddenly makes the world safe or suddenly open AI and anthropic stop everything they're doing. And before they study or do more research, they look at the executive order. They're still racing to build AI. As fast as possible. And we mentioned the nuclear metaphor. How did we get to nuclear proliferation safety? How did we get to nuclear non-proliferation controls?

There was also back then a lot of track what are called track two dialogue, so informal conversations between American nuclear scientists. And back then Soviet nuclear scientists about basically making sure that we had safer controls on nuclear weapons. They couldn't accidentally go off. I'm happy to report that informally there are some of those dialogues that are happening between Chinese AI scientists about the risks. And you ask AS AI scientists about the risks.

As I say all this, is this adequate to where we need to go? No. It is not. It is far It is a small drop in the pond compared to what needs to happen. What we really need now is for people to demand from their lawmakers.

that we take these issues seriously. And I think things like Liability. as a regulatory framework. are are powerful because people understand it, right? You as a AI company shouldn't be worried about being liable for the harms.

If there are not not gonna be any harms or risks. So if you don't think there are risks. Then go ahead and release it. But if you do think there are gonna be risks. and you're liable for them, what that does is it has everybody move at a slower pace.

At the pace that we can get this right. We're gonna take a quick break, but when we come back What Tristan thinks it'll take for the world to unite against the dangers of AI. and how he stays motivated in the face of such an enormous challenge. Stay with us, I'm Guy Raz, and you're listening to how I built this lab.

Welcome back to How I Built This Lab. I'm Guy Roz, and I'm talking with Tristan Harris, co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology. Tristan has compared the development of AI to the development of nuclear weapons, but in some ways, The AI problem. Is even more complicated. I keep thinking about the nuclear analogy, right? Because there are nine nuclear powers and probably will be ten, uh, with Iran eventually. And um we're talking about states, nation states. And and all all of them pursued this more or less for power, right?

Um This is different because it's not just countries. It's not like it's just China or Iran or the United States or North Korea. It's It's individual companies. It's individual people. I mean not to say that some guy working in The basement in Ukraine or Belarus is gonna build something as

as effective as what open AI will do, but Every day there's a new company that is Researching. generative AI capabilities and and what they might be able to build. So How do you cr create uh mechanisms

To control all of that. Yeah. I wanna say that You know. You could have been there in nineteen forty five and said, You see the first nuclear bomb go off, you

Get that there's gonna be a nuclear arms race, and you could say I'm gonna throw up my hands. The world is over. Every country is gonna get a nuclear weapon. There's gonna be

conflict and then there's gonna be nuclear escalation and the world's gonna be over. Yeah. Notice that we made it through that. It's a miracle we made it through. Even for for the next forty years, it didn't feel like that was gonna happen. That's right, for a long time. Yeah. And it didn't happen Just because like humans are good or humanity got lucky, there's a lot of people who worked very hard. There was the Pugwash movement, uh, there was the Russell Einstein Manifesto, there was the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Atomic Bulletin, all the nuclear nonproliferation uh work. You know, building satellites that could detect when people are moving nuclear weapons around, doing better controls and understanding of all the sources of uranium in the world. We built this whole

global infrastructure to try to have better understanding of safety and control for what would make A world with nuclear technology safe. That required a lot of people working really hard. So now I want to say the situation looks pretty similar.

You know. Building. towards artificial general intelligence and going faster every day looks pretty bleak. It does. It's not as tractable or easy.

as nukes because back then you needed to have state level resources and access to uranium, which is a very specific And hard to find thing, but not easy to get. In this case What uranium was for nuclear weapons.

Advanced NVIDIA GPU chips. R for AI. So when you see that the Biden administration has created the CHIPS Act. and is actually restricting sales of NVIDIA chips to China, that's basically like saying We need to start controlling and looking at the global supply and flows of NVIDIA GPU chips. Now, how do you get out of this?

with a new union of concerned AI scientists and a movement of tech engineers and a movement of the public and legislators that are calling to action. And so there's gonna be that kind of effort here. All right, so what does that effort look like? Like what do we need to do to you know, to prevent the AI version of a nuclear catastrophe, right? Especially when So many of these AI tools are publicly available for anyone to use.

We need there to be different norms around that. Where we probably don't want to open source. The really advanced AI systems. That are coming.

Think of it this way, for those who don't know, by the way. What we're talking about with open source. AI models, which is different than open source code. Open source code is more safe and more secure because if I do Linux in an open source code way, more people look at the code, they can identify the bugs, they can improve the code, it makes the overall thing safer, more secure, more trustworthy because it's so transparent. But AI systems AI models that are open source.

means that anybody can retrain them to do even more dangerous things. So for example Facebook released Lama two, their open AI uh model. And they tried to tune it to be safe. So if you ask it, how do I make a biological weapon, it will not answer you. It would say, Sorry, I can't answer that. Yeah. Once it's out there in the open.

I won't go into the technical details, but basically for about a hundred dollars, you can retrain all the safety controls off of it. So you can say be the worst evil version of yourself at your evil twin personality. And it'll suddenly answer happily any questions about biological weapons. Now it's not smart enough to have accurate really deeply accurate instructions about how to do that. But we probably don't want to be releasing Lama three, llama four, and micros and you know Mark Zuckerberg has publicly stated within the last week or so that

That he wants to build. open source artificial general intelligence, which is the most dangerous thing you could possibly do. Mm. You know, I still think most of us can't fulfill quickly our lives are going to change. And

It's already created chaos. A certain level of chaos, but manageable chaos. And I I don't think that most of us can imagine what could happen, and I sometimes I wonder like Is it effective? Is it effective to scare people or to create these kinds of, you know, doomsday scenarios in people's minds, but at the same time I think about and you reference this in your talk. this film the day after that came out in in like the in mid eighties, I I was like eight or nine years old when that came out. And I I for the life of me, I don't know why my parents let me watch it with them.

And I was terrified. I mean watching I remember the scenes of the b bombs exploding in Kansas City, Missouri, and It was just Terrifying. I I had nightmares for years. You know, I was a and that film really did I mean, not to say that you know, resulted in in major treaties, but

It did create a sense a sort of this it built a consciousness, at least in the United States,'cause at the end of the film it's like it says, um This is just a representation of what could happen in nuclear war in In fact, it will be much, much worse than what you've seen. And I don't know, is there a world where it's worthwhile creating some like a day after around AI? So people just understand what we're possibly facing.

Yeah. I'm so glad you're bringing this up and You know, what's what's interesting about it is, you know, Reagan had military advisors saying We can win a nuclear war. We just have to keep We gotta keep them building bombs and keep building them, have more of them. Yeah, exactly. And if

One side believes that the other side actually believes that they're gonna try to win a nuclear war. That's what creates the risk because then everyone's on hair trigger alert for anything that looks like it could be a nuke. And then that something that's an accident, like a flock of birds, comes across the radar and you almost hit the button. So what we needed to do was create a new trustworthy basis for coordination that the US and Russia. would trust that they're actually so existentially terrified by Armageddon that both of them would fear everyone losing. More than they fear me losing to you.

Yeah. And I think what that film the day after did Is it painted a picture of how everyone loses if this happens? So this actually can have a really big impact. And the point of this from a metaphorical stance. is that we as public communicators, you guy with this podcast and people who are listening to this, We have to make

The dark future legible. So that we can steer towards the light. If we don't have The dark food should be legible and people just wanna focus on AI making cancer better and

giving us solutions to climate change, but not really seeing how the incentives pull us to racing to roll out capability as quickly as possible and destabilize society if we're not honest with ourselves about that. we're gonna get the thing that we're not honest with ourselves about. And it's by being honest with ourselves about That uh risk side. that we can actively collectively choose.

to steer towards the light side. And that's if all the open source developers agree on those risks. That's if China agrees on those risks. That's if the UAE, which is also building an open source model called Falcon, agrees with those risks. That's the world that we need to create. How much time do we have? Well

like many things with climate change too, if we should have started more than a decade ago. The next best time is today. I I just think the gravity of this is enormous and how quickly it's happening is enormous and we have very few choices in this game, you know. It's

I feel disempowered because I hear you. And we yeah. That's why I mean, in my mind it's like It's The next twelve months it's like everything has to happen and don't get anxious about that. Just Say, okay, what can we all do over the next twelve months that amounts for the maximum set of things shifting the incentives to

You know th this isn't a problem with a solution. This is a predicament with responses and ways of navigating, and this is about how do we find the wisest, clearest Steady handed path through this. That we can. And I think that we all have to stay resolved and calm and say, What will it take? You know, for the world to go well.

and to work every day at assuring that outcome. Uh by the way, if you're interested, you can text AI to five five four four four. We're interested in gathering sort of public support and power around demanding the kind of A AI guardrails and safety that we want. There are many groups that you can get involved with online, you know, demanding from Congress and legislators that we need. better mechanisms of having liability for AI systems. There's a lot that can happen, but really just sharing this around and having more people talk about it is one of the best ways to to make an impact.

Tristan, I imagine that you get attacked. You're in the Bay Area and you've come from that world. I imagine you get attacked. Not just praised. I mean a lot of people love what you do and your message, but there probably people who really hate what you do and claim that you're over hyping this and You know, you're not making money off this.

Right. This is a nonprofit organization. This is I mean. What is your incentive? What drives you to keep doing this even with all the pushback that you You get. It's really simple, guy. It's uh it's love. Like I want to be able

to live in a future and have other human beings and life forms be able to enjoy and love. The feature that we're creating. Just like you have to care about the planet.

And you know, the health of the environment underneath our feet and that supplies our air. We also have to care about protecting the social fabric, trust in the sharity. Upon which everything else depends. Yeah. Do you think that humans are gonna be around in five hundred years?

Uh I don't know, is the honest answer. I don't know. We often

in our work at Center for Humane Technology, we we do think about this moment. as an initiatory threshold, like a rite of passage for humanity that we cannot keep doing. technology the way that we have been doing it. You know, we did DuPont chemistry, whose motto was better living through chemistry, and we all love that. We reverse engineered this whole field of organic and inorganic compounds and

We can synthesize anything with chemistry. And we got a lot of amazing things out of that that everyone's grateful for. But we also got Forever chemicals. And forever chemicals literally never go away. That's why they're called forever chemicals. Your body can't degrade them. We all have it in our bodies. Every single one of us, you and me and everybody listening to this, if you go to Antarctica right now and you open your mouth to drink the rainfall In the rain in Antarctica, you will have levels of forever chemicals that enter your body that are more than the current.

EPA says are safe for human health. Yeah. Now we have created this mess. The answer isn't we should be self-hating primates who don't want to build any technology. It's how do we do technology without externalities. How do we do social media without destroying mental health of teenagers?

How do we do smartphones without destroying attention spans? How do we do food packaging without creating forever chemicals and plastics and plastic pollution? I think we can be pro-technology and anti-externalities, and that's the nuanced position that I want everybody to be in. Rather than say you're either four tech and four acceleration or you're a D cell. It's like no, I'm forgetting this right. I hope we get this right.

As a species. Me too. I really do. Me too. Tristan, thanks so much. Thanks so much, Guy. Really appreciate it.

That's Tristan Harris, co founder of the Center for Humane Technology. And thanks for listening to the show this week. Please make sure to click the follow button on your podcast app so you never miss a new episode of the show. And as always, it's free. This episode was researched and produced by Alex Chung with editing by John Isabella. Our music was composed by Ramtin Arablui, our audio engineer was Neil Rouch. Our production team at How I Built This also includes Carla Esteves, Chris Massini, JC Howard, Catherine Cypher, Carrie Thompson, Malia Agadello, Neva Grant, and Sam Paulson. I'm Guy Roz and you've been listening to how I built this lab.

What you see above is a preview of the first minutes. One unlock costs 3 credits and covers this episode forever: full segment and word-level timestamps on this page, plus .txt, .srt, .vtt and word-level JSON downloads, as many times as you like.