Sorry, so if it is more concentrated, then there will be more social poll or other way. But

they would have more. So, the way to think about it is like, like cars cars were hugely disruptive to a lot of things. They kind of invented dating and they the supermarket possible and made suburbs possible all that stuff. But even someone like Henry Ford did not actually have enough money that he could have theoretically done some sort of suburban on we mitigation fund that actually tries to, you know, pay people to move back to the farms and subsidize them living in closer to ancestrally normal environment like he didn't make enough money to do that. And in part because the margin on cars is not that high, but the margin, the margin on a appeal API calls to open AI could potentially be significantly higher and the market cap ascribed that could also be significantly higher so you could actually reach a point where, you know, Sam Altman or like open AI causes trillions of dollars of economic disruption, which also is worth trillions of dollars and uses some of that money to mitigate some of that destruction because they would rather have say half the upside and not. Yeah.

Right. So the economic power becomes to the extent where they can do societal societal level changes, not the kind of government influence. And I understand where, where, where, or like what this argument

is now. Yeah, I think which the argument is it's very dependent on the goodwill and the perceptiveness of the people who win. So you want there to be a really tight correlation between, you know, Sam knows how to start a good company. And he also knows what is best for us in the event of AI disruptions and he also wants to do what is best and you know you hope that all of those correlate really well in a world where with a person who like the entity that solves this actually has, has enough wealth to be the main party that's trying to mitigate some of the downsides. You can also imagine much, much darker

futures.