00:00:00
[Music] I honestly believe that the AI revolution is underhyped. Now, why is this all important?
00:00:09
Eric Schmidt is here. He's the former Google executive chairman and CEO. These agents are going to be really
00:00:14
powerful, and they'll start to work together. We're soon going to be able to have computers running on their own,
00:00:19
deciding what they want to do. Now we have the arrival of a new nonhuman intelligence which is likely to have
00:00:26
better reasoning skills than humans can have. So if you were emperor of the world for
00:00:32
1 hour, the most important thing I do is make sure that the west wins. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome
00:00:40
Eric Schmidt. [Music] Hi. [Music] Hi. Looking good. Good to see you. Good to see you.
00:00:52
Good to see you. You're looking, Eric. You're looking. Very nice. Oh my god. David, good to see you. It's
00:00:59
like David Sax is here as well. It's like a It's like a reunion of all of our former companies. David, why did
00:01:04
you quit after all? My old my old boss. It was What was it like working with Young
00:01:12
Freedberg? Take us back. Can I Can I tell a story? We have to come down to Orange County and they're
00:01:17
like, "Hey, we're going to take the plane and it was Eric's plane." We get on the plane and then he goes up and
00:01:23
flies the plane. I'm in the back of the plane by myself. Was it King Air? I'm like, "The CEO of Google's flying me
00:01:27
down to Orange County." It was incredible. That was my first time actually hanging out with Eric.
00:01:31
It was It was my Gulfream. That's right. Um, he was way too smart. Way too smart.
00:01:37
Way too smart. Was he focused? Did he contribute? Did he move the needle? But he was very smart. Okay, that's kind
00:01:44
of our consensus off the pot as well. Look, you guys know this guy well. He's really that smart. So, he taught me more
00:01:52
stuff than most of any of the employees at Google and then you left. Well, tell us what you've been doing.
00:01:57
So, um No, no, wait. Before that, I got to ask you this question. There was a recently
00:02:02
deleted video from Stanford. Oh, no. You had a moment of clarity where you said, "Hey, you know, like at Google,
00:02:09
people are like too much work life balance. They need to commit. They need to work harder. We had Sergey at the
00:02:15
last event. He's going back to work. So Sergey got the message. Predicting Sergey's behavior is
00:02:24
something I can fail at. I tried for 20 years. Um I am not in favor of um essentially working at home. I And the
00:02:34
reason I mean many of you guys all work at home to some degree, but your careers
00:02:38
are already established. But think about a 20-some who has to learn how the world
00:02:43
works and you know they they come out of Berkeley or Dartmouth and they're very well educated. When I think about how
00:02:49
much I learned when I was at Sun just listening to these elder people who were 5 or 10 years older than I was argue
00:02:56
with each other in person. I don't how do you recreate that in this new thing? And and I'm in favor of work life
00:03:04
balance and that's why people work for the government. Um, sorry. Um, strays. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Um, if you're going
00:03:14
to be in tech and you're going to win, you're going to have to make some tradeoffs. And you're remember, we're up
00:03:20
against the Chinese. The Chinese work life balance consists of 996, which is 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 6 days a week. By
00:03:28
the way, the Chinese have clarified that this is illegal. However, they all do it.
00:03:34
That's who you're competing against. I brought I brought everybody back to office. It's so much better.
00:03:38
So, it let's just pick up on that theme. So, you don't need to defend the government.
00:03:42
No, no. Believe me, I don't I don't see the need to. I'm an unpaid part-time adviser to the government. So, uh but uh
00:03:48
but we are in this high-tech competition with China. They obviously care about AI, too. They're trying to race ahead.
00:03:56
How do you uh I I understand that you recently ma made a trip there. How do you um handicap this this this
00:04:02
competition? Well, you and I just talked about this as part of your as your incredibly important work in the White
00:04:08
House. Um, I had thought that China and the United States were competing at the peer level in AI and that the good work
00:04:17
that you have done and your predecessors did to restrict chips were slowing them
00:04:21
down. They're really doing something more different than I thought. They're not pursuing crazy AGI strategies partly
00:04:29
because the hardware limitations that you've put in place, but partly because the depth of their capital markets don't
00:04:35
exist. They can't raise based on a wing and a prayer $100 million or maybe an equivalent to to build the data centers.
00:04:42
They just can't do it. And so the result is they're very focused on taking AI and
00:04:48
applying it to everything. And so the concern I have is that while we're pursuing AGI, which is incredibly
00:04:54
interesting and we should talk about and all of us will be affected by this, we better also be competing with the
00:05:00
Chinese in day-to-day stuff. Consumer apps, this is something you understand very well, Chimath, uh, consumer apps,
00:05:06
uh, robots and so forth and so on. I saw all the the Shanghai robotics companies
00:05:11
and these guys are attempting to do in robots what they've successfully done with electric vehicles, right? and
00:05:18
they're re they their work ethic is incredible. They're wellunded. It's not the crazy valuations that we have in
00:05:25
America. They can't raise the capital, but they can win across that. The other thing the Chinese are doing, and I want
00:05:31
to emphasize this is a major geopolitical issue, is that my own background is open source. In the
00:05:36
audience, you all know open source means open code. Open weight open weights means open training data.
00:05:43
China is competing with open weights and open training data. And the US is largely and majority focused on closed
00:05:49
weights, closed data. That means that the majority of the world, think of it as the belt and road initiative, are
00:05:56
going to use Chinese models and not American models. Now, I happen to think the West and democracies are correct.
00:06:02
And I'd much rather have the proliferation of large language models and that learning be done based on
00:06:07
Western values. Eric, we had a a major open- source initiative um with Meta, you know, incredible balance sheet,
00:06:15
tremendous technical firepower, but they seem to have misexecuted and now are taking a step back and reformulating
00:06:21
something to your point that looks a little bit more closed source. It's not clear. You know, Alex Wang's a good
00:06:27
friend. Uh he's come in, he's taken over. He's obviously incredibly uh incredibly capable. I would not hold
00:06:33
keep um I I would not say that they're going fully closed. And I think also they got screwed up because the deepseek
00:06:40
people uh R1 did such a good job, right? If you look at the reasoning model in deepseek and in particular their ability
00:06:48
to do reinforcement learning forward and back, forward and back and forward and back. This is a major achievement and it
00:06:54
appears that they're doing it with less precision than numeric precision than the American models. As a bit of
00:07:01
technical things, uh there's something called FP64, FP32, FP16. The American models are typically using 16 bit
00:07:09
precision for their training. The Chinese are pushing eight and now even four. Is there is there something that um the
00:07:17
American you know bigger companies need to be doing in open source so that we can actually combat this?
00:07:22
Well, a number of the large companies have said that they want to be leaders in open source as well. Um Sam Alman
00:07:27
indicated that the smallest version of the 03 model would be released I believe open weights and they have done so and
00:07:35
he told me anyway that this model is much smaller than 10 the 26. It's much easier to train and it will fit or or
00:07:43
can fit on your phone. So one path is to say that we'll have these supercomputers
00:07:50
doing AGI which will always be incredibly expensive and so forth. But we also have to watch to make sure that
00:07:55
the proliferation of these models for handheld devices is under American control whether it's OpenAI or Meta or
00:08:03
Gemini or what have you. recently you uh took over uh relativity space and I think for for the people that don't know
00:08:10
this is a business that effectively whose ambition is to compete with SpaceX. I think you were the first investor or
00:08:17
the earliest investor in it. I was I'm sorry. It's okay. You lost some money in the first what
00:08:23
happened? Did you get crammed down? No, no, no. I mean all of us did. All of I mean look
00:08:27
I mean I've been very happily uh you know an investor in SpaceX and Swarm and Starlink. relativity was
00:08:34
and by the way swarm is a big deal created swarm was a so thank you yeah swarm has been a really great
00:08:39
success for for them and I think for the world um but what I was going to ask you
00:08:43
is walk us through the evolution of the space market why you decided of all the companies you have the capital base to
00:08:50
kind of put your money anywhere why did you pick that why did you pick that business why now
00:08:56
rockets are really cool and they're really hard I had I'm as you know I'm a pilot and I know lots about jets And I
00:09:03
had assumed that rockets were as mature as jet engines. They're not. It is an art and a science. These things are very
00:09:11
hard to do. The amounts of power, I mean, in our case, the rocket is 4 million pounds of thrust. Um, you have
00:09:18
to hold the thing down to test it. And you can't even hold it with metal things. You have to have other things to
00:09:23
hold it down as well. There's so much force otherwise it will take off. Um, another interesting thing about rockets
00:09:28
is that a rough number is that 2% of the weight of the rocket is the payload, 18%
00:09:33
is roughly the rocket, and 80% is the propellant. And my reaction as a new person is, you're telling me you can't
00:09:40
do any better. And the physicists say after 60 years of physics, that's the best we can do to get out of the
00:09:46
gravitation of of the Earth. And so, I think rockets are interesting and they're challenging. There's always an
00:09:52
opportunity for competition. um in relativity space's area, it's essentially a LEO com a LEO competitor.
00:09:59
So low Earth orbit satellites, that sort of thing. The order book is full. We just have to launch the rocket and and
00:10:05
this entry into space happened and I'm not sure how well known this is. So you can go as far as you want to go into
00:10:11
this, but you've done a lot as well in next generation warfare as well. Do you want us just to talk about that and how
00:10:18
you ended up there and what role that plays and just give us a landscape? Maybe David asked about the China
00:10:23
question, but it's they're all kind of almost interrelated. Well, at first place, I'm a software
00:10:27
person, not a hardware person. I I explain to people that hardware people go to different schools than software
00:10:31
people. Um, and they think slightly differently. So, I'm always at a limitation in these new industries. Um,
00:10:37
I had worked for the Secretary of Defense and have a top secret clearance and all that. I was given a medal, etc.,
00:10:43
uh, for trying to help the Pentagon reorganize itself. And when the Ukraine war started, I was watching and I
00:10:50
thought, well, here's an opportunity to see a country that has no navy u and no uh and no air force how they do this
00:10:58
with automation. And indeed, it has been a spectacular success as a matter of innovation. Um and outnumbered 3 to one
00:11:06
with huge differences in um kinetic strength, weapons, mobilization, and so forth and so on. Ukraine has held on
00:11:15
really quite well. Um and what's happening now is you're seeing essentially the birth of a completely
00:11:20
new military national security structure. Um one way to think about it is that we all u so first place and I've
00:11:28
I've seen it live and I will tell you that real war is much worse than the worst movies you have ever seen about
00:11:34
war. And that's all I'll say. It's really horrific and it's to be avoided at all cost. Um and then right for
00:11:41
obvious reasons and the the and I love all these people say well we'll well you know the wararmongering
00:11:48
talk be careful what you wish for because the other side gets a vote when I started working and and trying to
00:11:55
understand what Ukraine was doing uh Russia was pushed back and they've come back with a very very strong second and
00:12:03
third round so the enemy gets a vote in this situation uh but to but to go on um
00:12:08
The rough way in which war will evolve is first things will have to be very very mobile and very much not in fixed
00:12:17
places. This takes out most of the military infrastructure that exists in the world. Um things like tanks um of
00:12:25
which we're now building a whole bunch more even stronger tanks here in America don't make any sense in a world where a
00:12:31
2 kg payload from a a well-armed drone can destroy the tank. It's called the kill ratio. And that drone costs retail
00:12:40
$5,000, $4,000. The tank, the American tank costs $30 million. You can see the you can send an awful lot of those
00:12:47
drones to destroy those tanks. Um, the likely evolution goes something like this. So, first, people learn that
00:12:54
drones are like rifles and like artillery. So, it's more efficient to use drones now than to use mortars,
00:13:01
grenades, artillery. That's clear. If you just look at the economics, economics in terms of cost or
00:13:07
effectiveness as it's called. Um the next thing that happens is that both sides develop drone capabilities which
00:13:15
what you're seeing now and each then becomes a war of drone against drone. So you have drone against anti- drone. And
00:13:22
so then the shift moves to how do you detect the enemy drone and how do you destroy it before it destroys you. So
00:13:28
the doctrine ultimately is the drones are forward and the people are behind. And I've seen operations in for example
00:13:36
sitting in Kev where the Ukrainians are commanding things over Starlink I might add um in the distance in the distant
00:13:43
war and they're very very effective. So we've solved the latency problems, we've
00:13:47
solved the timing problems and so forth in that area. The ultimate state is very
00:13:52
interesting and I don't think anyone has foreseen this. If you go back to our conversation about RL and planning,
00:13:59
which is what you're seeing with AI, let's say that that we're on one side and we have a million drones and there's
00:14:05
another side over here that has another million drones. Each side will use reinforcement learning AI strategies to
00:14:11
do battle plans, but neither side can figure out what the other side's battle plan is. And therefore, the deterrence
00:14:19
against attacking each other will be very high. Today, the way military planners operate is that they count
00:14:24
weapons. They say, "Well, you have this many and I have this many and you can do
00:14:28
this kind of a maneuver and so forth." But in an AI world where you're doing reinforcement learning, you can't count
00:14:34
what the other side is planning. You can't see it. You don't know it. And I believe that that will deter what I view
00:14:39
as one of the most horrendous things ever done by humans, which is war. Because unless there's a perfect balance
00:14:45
between either side, there will be some mutual destruction of the drone supply like there would be with any artillery
00:14:50
stock in traditional warfare and whoever's left ends up winning. Like they're just
00:14:56
Well, it's very important to understand that there's no winners in war. Um, by the time you have a drone battle of the
00:15:02
scale I'm describing, the entire infrastructure of your side will be destroyed. The entire infrastructure of
00:15:07
the other side will be destroyed. These are lose-lose scenarios. Isn't there like an an equilibrium though that that
00:15:13
can also create where there because of that mutually assured destruction there's a det or is that
00:15:19
well I'm arguing that it's it's not a deterrence right that as deterrence can be understood as
00:15:25
I want to hit you which I don't but I want to hit you so much but that if I do that the penalty is the penalty is
00:15:32
greater than the value of me hitting you right and that's how det that's how but that seems like an that seems like a
00:15:38
great um advantage antage and upside of this move to sort of drones and automation that we don't have today.
00:15:46
Well, I there are many advantages to moving to drones and automation. One, they're much much cheaper, right?
00:15:51
They're much much cheaper. Yeah. And two, and two, you can stockpile algorithms. You can essentially learn
00:15:58
and learn and learn. And remember, you can also build training data, right, that's synthetic, so you can be even
00:16:04
better than the others. The final question I've been asked by our military is what's the role of the of a
00:16:11
traditional land army? And I wish I could say that all of these human behaviors can occur without humans being
00:16:19
at at risk. I don't think so. I think that the way um robot war essentially drone war will occur is there will be
00:16:28
these destructive waves, but eventually humans are going to have to cross a line. they're going to have to
00:16:33
after we've depleted them. So, you're investing in this drone technology and then do you think
00:16:39
Optimus and humanoid robots are the next, you know, volley in this um new warfare. It's going to be a long time
00:16:48
before humanoid robots we which is what we see in the movies all day, right? Be a very long time before we see that. Uh
00:16:55
what you're going to see is very very fast mobility solutions, right? airly airbased solutions and also hypersonics
00:17:02
hypersonics also things underwater there's a lot of that going on it's a different domain um if you look at the
00:17:09
um the muro and some other boats that the Ukrainians used they have essentially used USVs to destroy the uh
00:17:17
Russian fleet in the Black Sea this was crucial for them because they needed to be able to export the grain from Odessa
00:17:25
around and it's like 6% or 10% of their economy It's a very big deal and they did that with drones.
00:17:31
Eric, it seems like there's this overarching worldview that you have, meaning you have this view on AI.
00:17:40
There's all the stuff you're doing now in drones, in warfare, in rocketry. It all converges quite honestly because in
00:17:46
the in the next five or 10 years, these things will all come to pass. What is the like how do you view the world? Like
00:17:53
what is the role of America? What is your role as a as a capitalist, as a technologist, as like a statesman?
00:18:00
I want America to win, right? Uh I am here because the American dream, the people who invested in me, in my
00:18:13
case, Berkeley and so forth, people took a chance on me. I want the next generation to have that. I also want you
00:18:20
all to remember I was just in in uh as part of the World War II surrender ceremony in in Honolulu and they talked
00:18:27
about fighting tyranny, right? We forget that our ancestors or greatgrandparents
00:18:32
or whatever fought the Great War to keep liberalism and democracy alive. I want us to do that. How do we do that as
00:18:40
Americans? We use our strengths. What are our strengths? We're chaotic, confusing, loud, you know, but we're
00:18:48
clever. Uh we allocate capital smartly. We have very deep financial markets. We have this enormous industrial base of
00:18:56
universities and entrepreneurs which are represented here. We should celebrate this. We should stoke it. We should make
00:19:01
it go faster and faster. I spent lots of time in Europe because of the Ukraine stuff. They are so envious of us. When
00:19:08
you're in Asia, they are envious of us. Don't screw it up, guys. That's what I want to work on.
00:19:14
Can Can I Can I just ask you outside of this external conflict? We had um a conversation with Alex Karp today and we
00:19:25
actually had Tucker Carlson here yesterday and some of the dialogue was around the I I don't know if the right
00:19:31
term is the erosion of the west that there may be social issues that are brewing in the west that may be hurting
00:19:37
us from the inside. How much do you observe or spend time on these issues? And the metric that often is cited now
00:19:43
is declining birth rates in the west. And that our population, and we're gonna talk with Elon in a few minutes about
00:19:48
this. Um, oh, sorry. Oh, we just ruined my bad. My surprise. Oops. Sorry. Sorry.
00:19:54
There's your surprise guest. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Um, slip. Uh, but um, Elon is a good friend and he's
00:20:04
addressing this issue of population directly himself. problem solve for it. Good for you.
00:20:13
Is it is it is it a reflection of something going on? There's a rise of Mandani getting elected in New York. Uh
00:20:18
some of the historic values of the West seem to be, you know, kind of under a state of transformation. Right now,
00:20:27
one metric of the success of a society is its ability to reproduce. And so, I think this is a legitimate concern of
00:20:33
the West. It's much worse in Asia. The um the Chinese number is about 1.0 0 for two parents. In Korea, it's now down to
00:20:42
78 for two. So, it's really important to recognize that we as humans are collectively choosing to depopulate. And
00:20:51
the numbers are staggering, right? And imagine a situation where instead of having growth, you have shrinkage. And
00:20:58
furthermore, they're getting older. And so, as a business, all of a sudden, your
00:21:03
revenue is declining. And there's nothing you can do because you can't innovate with fewer and fewer customers.
00:21:08
So if you just put it in a business context, ignoring the moral issues which are all very real, it's just bad, right?
00:21:14
So we have to solve that problem. I happen to be in favor broadly of immigration because I think immigration
00:21:19
helps us solve that problem. But as a global mechanism, we have to address that. Um, in any case, from my
00:21:26
perspective, you're going to have these issues, but America is organized around the concept of American exceptionalism.
00:21:35
And as long as we understand that the way we make progress is we invest in the right people, in the right businesses,
00:21:42
we have a a strong capital market, we invest in the infrastructure that they need, um, we'll be fine. That is my
00:21:49
actual opinion. Can can we go back to um AI for a second? So um Eric, I think you can help us get
00:21:56
to a let's call it a a bipartisan understanding of these issues. I think you you you think really clearly about
00:22:02
this. Um you know, in in the wake of Chad GBT launching at the end of 2022, I think the discourse was really dominated
00:22:12
in 2023 and 24 by this idea of AGI and that AGI was imminent. And I think it created almost like a panicky atmosphere
00:22:20
in Washington among policy makers and you saw things like we got to restrict open source because you know then China
00:22:27
will get it and um and this is before Deepseek launched and then we saw that actually they're ahead of us on open
00:22:32
source but it feels like there's been um a pullback a little bit from the AGI narrative which I think I think it's
00:22:39
actually a good thing. I think it's more conducive to calm rational policym. What's your perception of AGI right now?
00:22:45
Where where are we on that whole train? So So um so first place, the speech that
00:22:51
the president delivered about a month ago about AI strategy, which I think you probably wouldn't say it, but you kind
00:22:57
of wrote it for him, was exactly right. Right. So thank you. David collaborated with an amazing
00:23:04
leader who we all respect and admire so much, Eric. Yes. Uh, so nevertheless, saying I wrote it was was way too
00:23:15
strong. I mean, actually, but anyway, if you didn't if you didn't write it, then it must have been your twin. But in
00:23:20
any case, um, the you you got you got the emphasis right, which was that investment in research, investment in
00:23:28
the kind of stuff that we do is really, really important. I don't agree with you on this on this
00:23:34
AGI thing because there's this group which I call the San Francisco um narrative because they all live in San
00:23:41
Francisco and their narrative goes something like this. Um today we're doing agents uh the agentic revolution
00:23:48
will change businesses which I agree with. Um that what happens is the systems will become recursively
00:23:54
self-intelligent with recursive self-improvement as it's called. If you have a scale-free problem
00:24:01
and a scale-free problem for example is programming or math where you can just keep doing it you get these enormous
00:24:08
fast gains if you buy enough hardware do enough software so forth and so on that
00:24:13
is still underway. The collective of that says that in the next three-ish years they believe that
00:24:21
we will get forms of super intelligence and the way they define it is basically a savant a chemist so a physics soant a
00:24:30
mathematician soant I don't agree with the three years but I do agree that it'll be maybe six or seven years
00:24:36
but if it's a savant in you know a particular area is that general intelligence it's not general intelligence yet
00:24:44
general internal intelligence is when it can set its own objective function. Right?
00:24:49
And there's no evidence of that. There's no evidence right now of the ability to set your own objective
00:24:54
function. Um the the the thinking and I'm writing a paper on this so I've been studying it is that the the the
00:25:01
technical problem is non-stationerity of mathematical proofs. And what you're doing is you're trying to solve against
00:25:09
objective function but the objective function keeps changing which is how humans operate. your goal changes every
00:25:14
day. Whereas computers have trouble with that. As a math problem, we don't have an algorithm yet for LLMs that can do
00:25:22
that. People are working on it. Um and the the test will be can you basically um using the information available in
00:25:30
1902, can you derive the same thing that Einstein did with special relativity followed by general relativity? We
00:25:38
cannot do that today. Um and most people believe that the way this will be solved
00:25:44
is through analogy. So the theory of great geniuses is that they understand one area of extremely well and they're
00:25:52
so brilliant the lady or man can then take their ideas and apply it to a completely different domain. If we can
00:26:00
solve that problem then I think it's over. Then we get to AGI and then it's a whole different world.
00:26:08
I think one of the reasons why it's hard to replace a human and you know JK and I
00:26:14
debate this is that humans are end to end. You know we can do the whole job. You have sort of a complete
00:26:19
understanding. You can pivot very easily. AI at least as we know it today is not end to end. It has to be
00:26:25
prompted. You get an answer. That answer has to be validated. Then you have to ask a new question because it never
00:26:30
gives you exactly what you want. You have to apply more context. You have to go through an iterative loop. Finally,
00:26:35
you get to an answer that has business value. The way biology puts it is that AI is not end to end. It's middle to
00:26:42
middle. Humans are end to end. And so, as a result of that, instead of AI replacing all of us, AI will be very
00:26:49
synergistic with humans because we can define the objective function. We do the prompting and we work with it to iterate
00:26:56
and it does a lot of the work in the middle. Um, that seems to me like a very optimistic, less duoristic take on it.
00:27:04
What you just said is exactly what's going to happen for the next few years that each of us will have assistance
00:27:11
which on our command and our prompting will be incredibly helpful to whatever problem we have you know personal uh you
00:27:18
have people who are using these things for relationship advice for you know talking to their kids I mean it's all
00:27:22
crazy stuff um but the fact of the matter is that's it the to me the real question is when does it cross over to
00:27:29
having its own valition its own ability to seek information and solve new problems s that's a different animal.
00:27:35
But have we seen any evidence of recursive self-improvement yet? Um, not yet. I'm I'm I've funded a
00:27:41
number of startups which claim to be close to it, but of course these are startups and you never know, which tells
00:27:48
me it's 5 10 years cutting numbers. What do you think Google's doing on this front?
00:27:52
Um, well, I'm not at Google anymore. Um, every issue of Gemini is top of the leaderboard. So 2.5 just overcame
00:28:02
everybody and I'm sure there's another one coming. Um Demis is working really hard on this question about um
00:28:08
scientific discovery. So that's a p that is a path to getting to AGI. Eric, um we appreciate the work you're
00:28:17
doing. Uh we appreciate you being here with us. We appreciate what you've done, the impact you've had on Silicon Valley,
00:28:23
uh as society. Yeah. No, but it's it's really been I am so happy to be part of this. You
00:28:29
created this incredible community and there's all of these smart people that spend all their time listening to you.
00:28:37
Very concerning. Wow. Eric [Music] very Thanks, Eric. Appreciate you. Cheers. All right.