AI vs Internet Transformation

AI adoption is accelerating faster than the internet era, and in this episode Neil and Eric break down what that means for jobs, brands, and businesses. They debate early vs late adoption, enterprise AI inertia, OpenAI vs Google Gemini, and why brand moat still matters in an AI world. From ChatGPT and Claude to switching costs and enterprise politics, this episode challenges you to rethink how fast you need to move in the AI transformation. Key Takeaways AI adoption is happening faster than the internet Brand is still the ultimate moat Enterprise AI switching costs are lower than you think Chapters: (00:00) Internet vs AI Adoption Speed (02:13) Why AI Is Accelerating Faster (04:02) AI Job Loss and Enterprise Lag (05:13) Early vs Late Adopter Strategy (10:27) AI Content and Newsjacking (13:49) Why Brand Is the Real Moat (20:09) AI Model Switching Costs (23:13) Enterprise AI Buying Decisions

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Finding customer information shouldn't mean digging through emails, call notes, and spreadsheets. HubSpot Starter Plan brings all of those details together, so it's easier to track what's happening with every deal and what to do next. It pulls information from calls and emails. Then it gets to work, logging and summarizing them. Right after your call ends, HubSpot pulls next steps from your call notes and drafts suggested follow-ups. And it stays up to date for you, so you can build demand, win more deals, and spend less time on repetitive work. Your records, insights, and next steps are ready for you to act on. And you don't have to miss a beat searching for any of it. Try the Starter Plan for $10 a month. Learn more at hubspot.com. Neil, when the internet first came out, okay? Do you remember how long it took for corporations to adopt the internet? Like, to use it to get an email address and, you know, learn how to use the web?

• 0:45Speaker 01

  Yeah, it was a long time. It took many, many, many years.

• 0:48Speaker 00

  How many years? Just guess.

• 0:50Speaker 01

  Five-plus years. No, maybe 10-plus years.

• 0:52Speaker 00

  Exactly. Five to 10 years. Five to 10 years. So perplexity said this, right? So I had to do a deep research. And I was like, okay, well, well, if that's the case, like, isn't that probably going to be the case for AI? And it was like, yeah. And I'm like, but hypothetically, there's no time for people to adopt this time, right? Because it's, it's, the things are changing so quickly this time. You don't have like a five to 10-year window. That's like, this time you can actually, you know, we're talking about job loss and things like that. So I, I ran that idea by perplexity. I was like, is that true or false? And it's like, this is largely true because, you know, the, the, the world's changing so quickly. You see layoffs, 17-year record, right? You see tech companies aren't hiring that much anymore. You see, like, it's, it's, it's not the same world that we're used to two, three years ago. That's the point I'm trying to get at.

• 1:36Speaker 00

  And I saw a post earlier, I don't know if I shared this with you, but you need, you, you, you need to share this with me, actually. How, like, people think they can still work like the COVID years, like three, five years. They think they can just coast. But the reality is, it just isn't that anymore. And I'd rather kind of strike some motivation into people. Because this is not internet transformation where you're, you're, you're okay after. I think this is a situation where it's like, no, no, no, no, no, no. You have, like, not knowing how to use this is akin to not knowing how to use the internet. But you don't get the time buffer that you got before.

• 2:07Speaker 01

  So I want everyone to think about it from a little bit of a different perspective. And you can take Eric's perspective or my perspective. I'm not saying I'm right or anything like that. The reason the internet took a long time to adapt... Technology wasn't in our fingertips. It wasn't in our hand. Back then, a lot of

• 2:23Speaker 00

  Shitty connections too.

• 2:25Speaker 01

  Shitty, not just shitty connections. People were dialing up like Eric and I, our first internet connection was you plug it into a phone line and if someone called, it disconnected your internet. Like, stop using the phone, right?

• 2:36Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 2:37Speaker 01

  And it was really slow. On top of that, not everyone had computers. There weren't these cellphone devices like you see right now. There weren't even really cellphones back then. Now we're in a place where people already have the technology and AI, or let me rephrase, not the technology, people already have the hardware. AI, the software layer, is plugging into the hardware that you're already using on a daily basis and you don't need new hardware. So you're seeing adoption much quicker. Just like when Facebook first came out, it took them a long time to get to a billion users. When Threads came out, they were able to get to users much faster, same with ChatGPT or same with Slack, because people already have the hardware in their hands and they can adapt this technology much faster. So it's

• 3:22Speaker 01

  just like if you look back in the day from all the technology changes and the eras, you know, I don't know who broke this down, but it was some billionaire, you know, like from the printing press and the manufacturing, you know, space and agriculture, they're breaking down like all the major changes in life. They used to, those windows were very long. And if you look at the internet and what happened, it wasn't as long. And if you look at what AI is doing, it's going to make it even shorter. It's because we already have a lot of the foundations, so it makes it easier and quicker for people to adapt. So if you think you have a long time to adapt, which is what Eric's getting at, you're very wrong. And the reason being is people are already adapting because it's not hard for them to.

• 4:00Speaker 00

  Dude, I just ran this through perplexity again on top of the chart. And so here's what it says, guys, we're not, by the way, when we say this, guys, we're not trying to be doomers. In fact, this podcast is meant to be inspirational. But sometimes when you try to inspire and it just doesn't work, sometimes a nice beat down works too. So, so that's where I'm coming from at least. Neil, Neil's not much, not really giving a beat down. But

• 4:19Speaker 01

  No, I think that's more Eric than me. I'm more positive.

• 4:22Speaker 00

  Definitely coming more from my side. So where parabolic loss is most likely. So job loss can still Parabolic, highly automatable, routine cognitive work, AI-first companies. And so, so at the edge of your org chart, some roles can go from safe to mostly automated over 12 to 14 months, which feels parabolic if you're in that band, even if macro employment is high. So I do agree, like, I do think there's gonna be net new jobs. I think everyone's gonna be okay, but I think there's gonna be a period of time for a couple of years where there's gonna be job displacement and that's where, you know, people are gonna be, might like, you know, rise up and be unhappy or whatever, uh, please don't do that. And then the other piece it says here, why there is some time to adapt. Okay, three structural frictions show slow a true systemic cliff.

• 5:07Speaker 00

  Enterprise inertia and integration costs. So this is actually saying that you have time to adapt, right? So enterprises, Neil refers to enterprises quite a bit.

• 5:16Speaker 00

  Most, even if 78% of organizations use AI somewhere, most are still in pilots and pockets. And Neil has talked about that quite a bit, not full stack redesign, process change, compliance and systems. All this stuff, system integration takes years. I agree with that. Second piece is skill and change management gaps, especially when it's an enterprise. That stuff is really slow. We're talking large ship slow, okay? Most employees report only modern AI support and capability building, right? And then, um, yeah, I think those are the two main things. So food for thought, you guys take it for what it is.

• 5:47Speaker 01

  And to give you guys perspective, if I had to put Eric and I, you know, and talk about our differences so you guys can get an understanding of our viewpoints and how we think about things. I would say Eric is a very, very early adopter. If something comes out that day, he's probably gonna test it that day or the next day or close enough within the week. Would you agree, Eric? You tend to adapt really early?

• 6:10Speaker 00

  Yeah, so we gave an analogy for this, remember Neil? The D-Day analogy where I'm probably not on the first boat, but I'm probably like the third boat. Whereas you're coming in on like a plane and parachuting it, like what's the invasion's done?

• 6:21Speaker 01

  Yeah, and I wouldn't say Eric's on a third boat. I think he's close to the second boat, maybe at the back of the first boat, right?

• 6:28Speaker 00

  A lot of time.

• 6:30Speaker 01

  I'm not saying you wanna die, but there is no death in this, right? There is early adopters and I would probably say you're most likely on the first boat. You're just not the first person off the boat. You're probably waiting for everyone to get shot first and run through the mines. And then you'll go through after all the mines have been already run over, right? But I would say Eric's pretty much on the first boat. Eric's spot on. I'm I'm big on technology, but the way my brain works is I'm very numbers oriented. And unless someone can show me ROI, revenue, profitability, or a path there. It's a harder time for me to be a early adopter. Because I believe, and I I can be wrong on this.

• 7:15Speaker 01

  I believe I can buy my way in, even if I'm flying in off of a plane and parachuting down. And I think money solves a lot of problems. I know that's a bad way to think. But I just believe that, hey, I don't have to be the first. I can hire some of the people who are going to be the first. And once I know something's going to work, I'll parachute down. And I'll just pour a shitload of money at it, and I won't care about my return in the short run.

• 7:38Speaker 00

  Yeah. So what I'll say that's good about Neil, since since I've known him for, I guess, close to fifteen, sixteen years now. Oh, my God, we're coming on sixteen years. So I've known him for sixteen years. Uh, it feels like just yesterday that we met. But um, so Neil is he'll wait and wait and wait and wait. And once he sees it, he will press and not only press, he'll press hard. Now, he won't go to the blackjack table and press. He but once he sees a bet that's worth making, it's all in. It's like all the chips and no need to get a return immediately. Um, he's always been like that, right? So the the reason I'm calling this out, and Neil kind of brought this up, is you have to understand your own yourself. You have to understand your demeanor. You have to understand your own risk tolerance. And anything Neil says or I say, it's not exactly gospel. It's just what we think based on our life experiences.

• 8:22Speaker 00

  So you take it for what it's well, and then you do your own research, because none of this is financial advice.

• 8:27Speaker 01

  No, and you also have to keep in mind, we're also different places in our career. It doesn't mean I'm doing better than Eric or worse than Eric. I've been an entrepreneur longer than he has, right? It's just fact.

• 8:37Speaker 00

  Twenty four years.

• 8:38Speaker 01

  Yeah, twenty four years. So and I think you're on what, ten, eleven, twelve?

• 8:43Speaker 00

  I think all I know is your gap, you've had fourteen years in business longer than I have. That's that's what I know.

• 8:49Speaker 01

  Got it. So if I'm at twenty four, he's at ten.

• 8:52Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 8:53Speaker 01

  Um, when I was starting out as an entrepreneur, I would be very early on, kinda like that first boat analogy that we're talking about. And I got shot a few times, not really shot, but you know, I went through some landmines.

• 9:06Speaker 00

  I shot him in business.

• 9:08Speaker 01

  Yes, I got shot a business version of it. And when you're in a startup mode and grinding it out, and I wouldn't say Eric is fully in startup mode. Um, but you have to do that and you have to be scrappy. And when you have a more established company, it doesn't mean mine's bigger or smaller than him. I'm just giving context. If you have a more established company and you have a lot of people and revenue and Eric does have revenue as well. But you also have to think about wealth preservation at the same time. And when you have a bigger organization, at least in headcount, you know, no matter what size you are, there's political bull crap that you have to deal with and people deal with in your organization, no matter who it is.

• 9:49Speaker 01

  I don't care if you're a founder or not, just like the Sergey Brin example, where he told Sundar when he was working on Gemini. He's like, you deal with these people. They're getting in my way, right? Um, and he's at a much bigger scale, but it just goes to show no matter who you are, what size company, especially at the larger scale, there are politics to deal with. And sometimes a shortcut at larger scale is you just go and spend the money. And your cost of business to get the result is you have to pay more to get the end result. Versus Eric can be scrappier and get the results without having to spend the capital.

• 10:25Speaker 00

  All right. So moving on, I want to show you something, going back to Open Claw. So did you see the vibe coded Epstein files podcast? So we want to talk about distribution with Open Claw. Okay. So going back to the topic of this one. So let me show this to you, Neil. So check this out. So when you look at, can you see this?

• 10:42Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 10:43Speaker 00

  So, okay, Levy dot ETH texted this or tweeted this. So, vibe coded the Epstein files podcast was clawed in a weekend and just crossed 100,000 downloads in the first week. To put that in perspective, the top 1% of all podcasts globally get around 5,000 downloads in their first seven days. This did 100K, that's 20 times the top 1% threshold. The average podcast gets 141 downloads in the first 30 days. Most spend 18 months trying to crack 1,000 per episode. A lot never get there and there are 4.5 million podcasts out there now. No fancy studio, no production team, just clawed a Mac Mini, this is open claw basically, at a weekend of focused work curating the right approach to this series. Still processing this one, honestly. That's kind of crazy to me because you can find any trending topic and this thing can

• 11:26Speaker 00

  just crank out a new podcast whenever it wants and it can rip, right? It's kind of similar to the GitHub repo of this guy Cory Haynes, who I talked about in one of my videos. He's got this GitHub repo with 7,500 stars on it and I just think there's going to be new ways of marketing that are coming out because like when you have it, excuse me, you have an open claw, it's able to do these things, you know, on its whim.

• 11:48Speaker 01

  Look, I know some people think this is cool. I look at this as whatever. It's a trending topic, Epstein, that everyone's talking about. I personally feel bad for a lot of the people or what happened to a lot of the girls and stuff like that. And I don't care to read, just me personally, about these dudes who went to the island and did inappropriate stuff or listened to it because it's just like, it's just sad to hear what happened and or imagine what's happening. And I look at using technology for things like this to go off of trending topics. Eric's seen this playbook before. Remember all those sites like the BuzzFeed of the world that were just hijacking Google Trends and getting tons of traffic? My big thing on this, I've seen this playbook before, it's really hard to monetize.

• 12:33Speaker 01

  Yeah, people can say this is really cool, but it's going to be really hard to make money from it.

• 12:38Speaker 00

  Yeah, so the way I see this, I think it just depends on the business model that you have. If it's a media business model, then by all means you go for it. So I don't think this really applies to Neil's business or my business necessarily.

• 12:48Speaker 01

  Or the majority of businesses.

• 12:50Speaker 00

  Well, it depends on your business, right? I think if you're, again, if you're like, if you are a media company, this applies to you. I think, I do think, like, for example, my, my, my open claw, I have a, I have a bot that's called Flash that will tell me trending topics and then it tries to tie it in with whatever I'm talking about. It's nice, but I don't try to newsjack that much because to Neil's point, newsjacking has never, you might get the views, but you don't necessarily get the conversions from it. But I will say that when I, the, the trend that I'm really surfing right now is open claw and clawed code. But I tied in with marketing and business. That actually, if you find the intersection, it might work for you, but you're not always going to have that with trending topics. So. Yeah. Frictionless Growth Marketing hosted by Sonya Thompson is brought to you by the HubSpot Podcast Network,

• 13:35Speaker 00

  the audio destination for business professionals. Frictionless Growth Marketing hosted by Sonya Thompson shows how modern brands grow by removing the friction in their marketing and customer experience that pushes customers away every single day, often without leaders even realizing it. Each episode delivers practical insights, real brand examples, and conversations with marketing leaders showing brands how to win with the new rules of growth, identity-driven marketing, cultural relevance, and frictionless customer experiences. Listen to Frictionless Growth Marketing wherever you get your podcasts. Yeah, so we still got, we still got 10 minutes left. Yeah.

• 14:10Speaker 01

  All right, let's go for two more.

• 14:12Speaker 00

  Do you see this? Do you have it open?

• 14:14Speaker 01

  I have it open now.

• 14:16Speaker 00

  Well, you picked one.

• 14:18Speaker 01

  Let's see, you have something here that's, humans are no longer the moat, and we talked about this. I want to talk about how brands, it's not really in here, but I still really do believe brands are the moat. And I was using this example earlier today. So someone asked me, you know, like, hey, in Latin America, you know, what's an example of a retail company that is using AI? And how are they not worried about like some new brand just knocking them off and crushing it? And they, and before I went into that, I, I asked a person a question because they had a Louis Vuitton purse. All right, so they're holding up a handbag and I don't know how old Louis Vuitton is, but I'm pretty sure it's 100 plus years old.

• 15:02Speaker 01

  I could be wrong, but I think it's 100 years old. Do you know, Eric?

• 15:04Speaker 00

  I'm looking it up right now. 172 years.

• 15:07Speaker 01

  Yeah, so it's a.

• 15:10Speaker 01

  It's an amazing brand. They have a really strong brand loyalty. If you go to China, where they sell a lot of knockoffs, and I don't mean this in a bad way, it's just reality. I'm not saying Chinese people are the only ones knocking off. There's people in India and I'm Indian that knock other off products. And there's people all over the world that knock them off in the US, etc. But majority of the people don't want a knockoff. They actually want the real thing. Why? Because they love the brand so much and it's a goal and it's prestigious and they really want it. And I think one thing that's hard to replace in today's world is a moat.

• 15:49Speaker 01

  Eric hasn't adapted yet. One day he will, once I figure out his shoe size in this brand. You know, like a lot of business people all around the world now, I always see him wearing Zena second skin shoes. I have four of them.

• 16:03Speaker 00

  You've started doing that.

• 16:05Speaker 01

  I've been doing it for two years now.

• 16:06Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 16:07Speaker 01

  I have four pairs of the same exact color. They're more comfortable.

• 16:10Speaker 00

  But you usually wear the common projects.

• 16:12Speaker 01

  No, I don't wear common products as often. I wear common products maybe a tenth of the time.

• 16:16Speaker 00

  Yeah, anyway, continue. Go ahead.

• 16:17Speaker 01

  But they're, they're one of the most comfortable business dress sneakers or whatever you want to end up calling them ever made. They're more comfortable than Nikes for almost anyone who asks, because most guys have Nikes and that.

• 16:29Speaker 00

  When I go to Miami next week, I'll buy a pair.

• 16:31Speaker 01

  All right, but it has to be second skin. If it's not second skin, it's not the same thing. Like the comfort's not the same because Zena has different kinds of sneakers. But the, but the point I'm getting at is like, it's that brand, it's that cachet. When you look at Michael Jordan shoes, if Eric and I spent all our money, I'm pretty sure we can build a shoe that's just as comfortable as a Michael Jordan shoe. And we can copy the design and it can look identical, but people won't buy it because ours won't have that Jumpman logo. And that Jumpman logo goes a long way. And I know this because before COVID, I used to go to the Michael Jordan golf tournament. And I met Jordan and a lot of his team and business managers and Jordan's cool.

• 17:11Speaker 01

  But it was really fun to talk to his business team and he actually has a small team that communicates to Nike on his behalf. And they were telling me about their Derek Jeter deal. Derek Jeter, for anyone who doesn't know, is an old baseball player, really good at baseball.

• 17:26Speaker 00

  He's not even that old.

• 17:28Speaker 01

  He's not that old, but he's retired. That's probably a better way to put it, like he no longer plays.

• 17:34Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 17:34Speaker 01

  But did you know they sold more Derek Jeter shoes when they started doing things like with a lot of their brand endorsement deals? Cause they would go under Jordan when they started removing the name and just having the Jumpman logo. The Jumpman logo helped produce more sales if they removed the other stuff from the same designed shoe. And the point I'm getting at, what they were explaining to me is that brand affinity is so strong and people want it clean and just that, not other names with it. It could be Steph Curry rocking his version of Jordan shoes and people love that as well, but they don't want the name Steph Curry. They just wanted the Jordan logo. That sells a ton of shoes and that's the power of brand. And I think that is really hard to replace.

• 18:19Speaker 01

  But at the same time, I think that's really hard to create as well.

• 18:22Speaker 00

  Yeah, I really think there's, there's two modes, right? So brand is a brand tells a story at the end of the day and I forgot who I heard that from. But when you think about the Jumpman, it is when you watch Jordan, for example, and how he made you feel, right? Or when you think about Coca-Cola, you don't think about Coca-Cola, you think about the time you enjoyed that Coke, maybe with your mom when you're a kid or something like that. Or maybe when you're at McDonald's, right? Um, when you're a kid. And so, so I think one talent is a moat and still, yes, even with AI. And the second thing is brand is a moat and this, this actually carries over into this tweet I'm looking at here. Sandra, Sandra Jakic, Jakic tweeted this. So the highest paying job in tech will soon be marketing. What do you think about that? Cause this one got 1.7 million views on it, 8,500 likes.

• 19:07Speaker 00

  What's your take on this?

• 19:09Speaker 01

  I don't think it'll be the highest paying job in an organization. I think a lot of marketers liked it.

• 19:14Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 19:15Speaker 01

  The CMO was one of the highest churning roles in a C suite. I think it is actually the highest churning role in a C suite. Um, and I think a CFO, COO, CEO will always get paid more in an organization than a CMO. But that's just my personal take and I could be wrong. I'm in marketing. I've seen so many of these large organizations and a lot of my buddies.

• 19:37Speaker 00

  Your CMO at your company.

• 19:39Speaker 01

  Yeah. And, and a lot of my buddies are CEOs of publicly traded companies. So, and a lot of these numbers are public. But going back to brand, here's an interesting one for you, and I think we'll agree on this. Okay. A lot of people used to talk about cursor, right?

• 19:55Speaker 00

  Oh, yeah.

• 19:56Speaker 01

  I know a lot of people still use cursor and it's integrated with Claude code. But do you hear as many people talking about cursor now? And do you think their brand is really that strong of a brand, like a Jordan brand?

• 20:09Speaker 00

  Never.

• 20:10Speaker 01

  Yes, I think Cursor built their brand because they're like, oh, this makes coding easier. People didn't have strong brand affinity to Cursor, in my opinion. They just looked at it as a tool that make their lives easier. I think ChatGPT has a strong brand, right? I think you would agree with that. It has extremely strong brand.

• 20:30Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 20:31Speaker 01

  Right?

• 20:32Speaker 00

  So you know what's interesting? Go ahead, finish your thought. Go ahead.

• 20:34Speaker 01

  And would you agree that Claude has a very strong brand, at least in the B two B world? Specifically to organizations, not just SaaS for organizations.

• 20:44Speaker 00

  Yeah. You know what actually, okay, so this is actually interesting that you bring it up this way. So I think about Claude, you know, I pay for Claude, we pay for ChatGPT, right? We pay for all the other ones, okay? Now, ChatGPT is a strong brand, Claude is a strong brand, they're all great.

• 21:01Speaker 00

  It kind of doesn't matter. So like a couple, the last couple of weeks, I was talking about Claude code and then, you know, talking about, you know, Opus four six. But now I see all the engineers talking about using Codex, which is owned by by OpenAI. They have Codex five three, which is a very strong model as well, which you can use for open call. So anytime something new comes out, it's not, earlier you were saying it's like month, it's like the news cycles are monthly for AI. It's like every day. Like I'm, I'm very promiscuous with my models. I don't care about the brand. So when the utility is higher and there's something new, I will gladly switch over to something. And that's when the switching costs just quite aren't, it's just not quite there right now, which is sometimes, you know, the brand itself is not strong enough.

• 21:41Speaker 01

  And I don't think it's Eric. I think it's actually the majority of the market that thinks that way. I know I think that way. I think majority of corporations think that way and he nailed it. It's because switching costs aren't high yet. I think that'll change over time. You want to hear an interesting?

• 21:55Speaker 01

  Side note, I was at that conference and that company does, you know, more than a billion a quarter, so over four a year. They were paying for ChatGPT. They wanted a change on ChatGPT, okay? And ChatGPT was just like, yeah, we don't do custom stuff for companies unless they're spending ten million dollars minimum with us a year. And Google was pitching them like, you guys are already on the Google suite. You guys should just switch to Gemini. Like, what's it cost? Like, nothing. It's included. It's free. Google can, of course, do that because they make one hundred and sixteen billion a year in profits, so they don't really have to make the money like ChatGPT. And like, yeah, but we were wanting this custom stuff and we're trying to get ChatGPT to do. Google's like, yeah, we'll do it for you. And they're like, what's it cost? They're like, nothing. We'll just do it for you. And they're like, all right.

• 22:40Speaker 00

  That's a good offer.

• 22:41Speaker 01

  That's a great offer. Now, when Google first started working with them and OpenAI thought they were going to renew the deal and they did not renew with OpenAI, they were crushed. They're like, you're not going to renew with us? Because when they first had OpenAI, Gemini wasn't as good. Now they're like, wait, Gemini is really good. And in some cases, that is for making these cases, it's better. So it just shows you how companies aren't that loyal. You tell big organizations, they're going to save a lot of money. They do. My team threw a fit. When we switched from Google G Suite to Microsoft Outlook, right? And so many people emailed me like, Neil, we don't want to switch. And then the same with Teams. We don't want to use Teams. We prefer Slack. We prefer Zoom. And we didn't give a crap.

• 23:26Speaker 00

  You just ignored them, right?

• 23:27Speaker 01

  Yeah, we were saving so much money. We don't care. And you know what? Most companies we work with, keep in mind, we mainly work with enterprise companies. We do team calls with them, even if they're sending the invites or Cisco or a lot of these platforms. Why? Because we choose the platforms that save us money and we don't care if people don't like one over another. That's reality.

• 23:48Speaker 00

  And it tied us all together, like tying it back to AI. And this will be the the the closing point here, I suppose. Like, look, today we're talking about OpenClaw. Tomorrow we might talk about ClosedClaw. And then then I might be talking about whatever Claw. We don't even know, right? And so this this this stuff shifts quickly. You can take, you know, the it's it's up to you on on how fast you want to go, but hopefully you guys learned a thing or two. Anything else you want to say before we hop off?

• 24:12Speaker 01

  No, that's it. Thanks for paying attention today.

• 24:14Speaker 00

  All right. See you, guys. Goodbye.