Hacked - AI Lawyers Are Hallucinating + Hacktivists are Ransomwaring + the Apple is Augmenting Reality

Episode Date: June 16, 2023

In this chat episode we discuss a routine personal injury lawsuit derailed by AI, a new strain of ransomware called Malas Locker being used by hacktivists to make a political statement, rehabilitation programs for cybercrime inclined youth in Europe, and whether Apple Vision Pro is the next iPhone or the next 3D TV. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Scott, the artificial intelligence lawyer is hallucinating again. And now everyone's going to jail. Oh, don't we all belong in jail for something? On this chat episode of Hacked. Everyone's going to jail tonight because the robot attorney made a whoopsie and we apparently all deserve it. We are talking about a lawsuit against a Columbia-based airline that was derailed when the lawyers for the plaintiff submitted a document

citing a whole bunch of legal precedents that had been hallucinated by an artificial intelligence. Nice, nice. We're going to talk about that case and the larger question of AI hallucinations, this fascinating term that has been cooked up to describe tools like chat GPT and Bard

making stuff up wholesale and the huge fallout that can emerge when we confuse large language models with search engines. We're also going to talk about some of the things being done globally to reform the youth, young hackers. Also look at some of the costs of cybercrime,

as well as we can't help but dip our toe into the cost of crypto scams when we're doing that. Just can't go one episode. I can't. I can't. I can't do it. It's like I'm being pulled by destiny, you know? Like I feel like I should start a speaking to her,

and it can be the scathing criticism of cryptocurrency. Pulled by destiny, the Scott Winder story. And then I want to talk about mouth. Malice Locker. Ransomware is a dime a dozen in 2023, but most of the time the motive is profit. With malice locker, it seemingly isn't. The hacktivists, they have come for ransomware, and we're going to get into it. Those stories and more on this chat episode of Hacked. How you doing, Scott? I'm great, Jordan. How are you? I'm good. I'm keeping busy. We haven't checked in on the podcast within our podcast.

HACT presents Zelda Watch. Have you been playing a lot of Tears of the kingdom. I have not, unfortunately, been playing a lot of it. I do have it. It's literally sitting. Your loss. My hand is touching it currently. It's that close to me.

Sure. It's kind of always touching it. I just like to, it's present. My switch is sitting on top of the case. I will say that the card is in the switch. I have started. I have played some, but I'm not, haven't played that much.

It's like two weeks out now. And I think I've made me like six hours in. Pretty big failure. It just means your life is full of meat world activities and being outside. And that's a good thing. That's a good thing. So wait, meat world? Is that a term that I haven't?

Have you never? See, that stresses me out because I feel like I've said Meat World to you before. And now knowing that you maybe don't know what it means, kind of makes me reconsider some stuff. I instantly know what Meat World means, but I don't think I've ever. Sure, you can infer it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's pretty obvious what we're talking about. Yeah.

It's either a really popular term that you should know, or I've been wildly overestimating how known a term it is and using it in the wrong company for years. It's only one of the two. I'll tell you that, like, I spend a lot of time in social circles and around, around. Sure. That's the first time I think I've heard of a year. Never heard that one? So might be a Jordan Blumen term.

I don't, I, it's definitely, it's not an original, but I might be some people's first encounter with it. And I'm going to try not think about that too hard as it falling asleep tonight. How many times have I inappropriately used the term meat world? Let's count. Yeah, it really doesn't sit right if you're not familiar with it, which is what I'm going to be thinking about. But what I'd like to think about even more than that is all the new patrons that I want to think. just out there in MeatWorld waiting for waiting for some credit.

I've never met any of them in Meat World. Fabio, Milan, Ian. Appreciate you. Don't forget about Mart. Who? Oh, Mark. Don't forget about Chibbicchan. Yeah.

Two of the greats. Best to ever do it. Nor could we ever forget about Andy Lee and our dear friend Gary Allred. Thank you all so much for supporting the show. if you would like to join those fine folk, you can go to hackedpodcast.com. It redirects to our Patreon.

That's hackedpodcast.com. It's the most direct way you can support the show and it means the world to us. It certainly does. It helps us in Meat World every day. It helps us afford food in Meat World. Okay. So I think I want to kick this bad boy off

talking about something called Malice Locker. Okay. So in this, In the span of less than two months, this newly emerging ransomware group has targeted about 200 organizations, primarily attacking users of a digital workplace collaboration tool called Zimbra. Zimbra is not the interesting part here. What's interesting is how they stick the landing on their extortion. I think it weren't some discussion.

Instead of demanding payment to themselves, Malice Locker is requesting a donation to a chosen charity. Is it you get to choose a charity, or do they mandate which charity? No, you get to choose the charity. It's all very flexible to the victim. Technology News Outlet Bleeping Computer is named the ransomware Malice Locker. It started in forums hosted by Bleeping Computer that users started reporting this series of breaches involving Zimbra back in March and April. In a ransom notice that this hacking group posted on April 2nd in a Zimbra forum, they wrote, quote, unlike traditional ransomware groups, we are not asking you to send us money.

We dislike corporations and economic inequality. We simply ask that you make a donation to a non-profit that we approve of. It's a win-win. You can probably get a tax deduction and good PR from your donation if you want. Wild. Wild. It's pretty wild.

It's like such an interesting take on it. Yeah. I would love to see their approved list of... Sure. Like obviously it's going to be biased to whatever their political and stuff. social leanings are. Yeah, of course. It would be fascinating to see what their approved list of charities is. It sure would be. And their political leanings are made quite plain. I'm pretty sure if

the large mining consortium tried to donate money to the Save a Large Mining Consortium Fund, they wouldn't approve that. But it sounds like otherwise they're pretty open, though their politics are stated pretty cleanly. The digital platform that this group operates on the dark web showcases the list of companies that have fallen victim to these attacks. We kind of found out a little bit more of the groups like specific modus operandi, that political trajectory on Wednesday, when a website dedicated to transparency, advocacy, and the advocacy and the hosting of compromise data called distributed denial of secrets, disclosed the group's hack on the Harita Group, a large corporation involved in mining and resource extraction in Indonesia.

The group wrote that it will not target companies based in Africa, Latin America, and, quote, other colonized countries, with the exception of a couple big ones of foreign investors or shitty industries. That's their term, not mine. The group plans to aim their efforts at smaller corporations in the U.S., Russia, and Europe, quote, excluding Ukraine as they're dealing with enough shit at the moment. Again, their language, not mine. Quote, we don't think they're all bad, just that their relative prosperity is built on theft, and we will steal back what we can.

Anyways, we don't care. We have as much sympathy for them as they have for us. They can pay and get their files decrypted or not and get them leaked. The idea of a Marxist-based cybercrime syndicate is interesting, to say the least. It is very, very interesting. Enities that have been targeted by this group are given two choices. Either provide evidence that they've made a donation to a charity or hand the money over to the group who will then make a donation to the charity themselves.

Third option, their stuff gets leaked. To your point, Scott. To my point. The interesting question of a low barrier of entry for ransomware, making this a good tool for Marxist hacktivists, in a conversation with CyberSoup, who did some secondary reporting on this after the original bleeping computer coverage,

Brett Callow, a threat analyst with cybersecurity company Msoft, told CyberSoup, quote, ransomware is an excellent tool for hacktivists for the same reason it's an excellent tool for profit extortionists. entry barriers are low, and it has the potential to cause massive disruption. This is not the first instance of hacktivists using ransomware. In 2022, campaigners opposed to the regime of Belarusian President Lukshenko

encrypted computers belonging to the Belarusian Railway Service. On January 24th of that year, a group calling itself the Belarusian cyberpartisans tweeted that they had encrypted servers, databases, and workstations belonging to the country's railway service. And instead of demanding a ransom, the group said that it would supply the encryption keys if Belarusian authorities released 50 political prisoners needing medical attention. Domestic human rights groups Vyazna has counted more than 995 political prisoners in Belarus following a bloody crackdown on protests after elections marred by fraud in 2020.

Just to give a little bit of context there. There's this big, I love the way these folks, right, this big emoji-laden message on the group's kind of dark web homepage. And it sits under the heading, Somomales podomeros serpioris. I'm sure I'm not saying that right, which in Spanish translates to, we are bad, we can be worse. That is a slogan used in sort of protests around the global of the last couple of years. And that's somomalas, where this name comes from. And the message on the website alludes to this kind of class warfare stuff that you flagged between the wealthy and the impoverished, portraying, you know, hacking as, you know, one tactic, a form of counterattack.

The message includes a series of questions and answers, including whether their efforts are effective, whether they're going to give them money to charity, and why they're going through all the effort of kind of communicating what is fundamentally a political message in this way, when ransomware victims are often paying out to profit-driven ransomware groups. Quote, it will make some companies unwilling to pay us, but we aren't writing this message for them. We're writing it for other kids in Africa, Latin America, Palestine, and the world over, ransomware should not be the business of a few Russian groups as it is now.

It's a tool for all of us to uplift our communities through robbing the countries that have pillaged ours. It's fascinating. Unpacking this is a very political discussion that I just don't think I want to lean into. It certainly is. Yeah. No, it's really fair.

It's an inherently political story. But it is fascinating to see, I think at its heart, it is a new group of people using this same tool for an entirely different end. And that is interesting. Wherever you fall on it, I think it is interesting to see new people using existing tools to new ends. New people using existing crimes to new ends. I think is the correct way to stay. Yeah, it is definitely a crime.

I think that's a good segue to just talking. about some of the global costs for cyber crime things. So I pulled the IC3, the Internet Crime Complaints Center, and just looking at kind of what the cost of cyber risk has been to businesses, which I think ties perfectly to this. Yeah, so apparently in 2022, there were 3.26 million complaints totaling 27.6 billion in losses, a majority of which stem from fishing, which is no surprise.

number of times of how big a headache it is. The 300,000 plus complaints for fishing, which, you know, I get one a day probably, so it's no surprise. Sure. One of my bigger headaches is the non-payment, non-deliveries, when you buy something online from a fraudulent website or a fraudulent person, and you have to deal with the headache of trying to recoup the money, 52,000 complaints. Wow.

Not sure if that's happened to you, but not very common in today. day's world. Sure. Yeah, this is a fascinating list. 300,000 complaints for fishing. 50, just shy 59,000 complaints for personal data breaches. 52 for non-payment delivery, which I actually don't know that I've ever encountered. Happened to me recently. I hate to admit it. Really? What, uh... Yeah, I bought something. That sucks. I bought, uh, there's a clothing company that I was looking to pick up something and they had cloned the entire site. Because the main site for the company didn't allow shipping to Canada.

Whoa. So their entire domain.ca was a clone of their website, servicing the Canadian market, only shipped to Canada, added stuff to cart, bought it. After the PayPal transaction going through, it went to like Veronica Reyes, not some company. And I was like, oh, I just got con. Oh, you just got grifted.

That sucks. I got grifted. And then the worst thing is, is that the PayPal resolution system is not set up to deal with someone being like, there's a fraudulent website. It's like, what item didn't you get? When was it supposed to be delivered? And it's like, no, they didn't send me anything.

They just took my money. Interesting. It makes me wonder what the approval process for being able to receive PayPal payments as a vendor is. Like if PayPal is operating the assumption that, they must have been legitimate, what item didn't you get? And it's like, no, none of this was legitimate. It was completely made up. Yeah.

This is a complete fraud. And I need to be able to, like, the second the transaction went through, I went to the PayPal Resolution Center to be like, hey, you need to, like, halt this account and stop this. This is the cloned website and all the rest of it. And their little automated system would not let me get to the point of being able to report anything valid. And I was like, this is so bad.

Weird. Yeah. Did the site make it clear what? It was? Was it like, we know you love those pants, but as a Canadian, you can't buy those pants. So we set up pants.ca. Now, it was like, it was like... Got it.

A full copy of the website, the same marketing images, the same everything. It had a login, like, I created an account. Like, it was like the full-blown thing. Contact us page. It had the shipping information. Like, I went through and looked at everything, and I was like, wow. Whoa. This is the use of the logos.

Everything was perfect. And it was like only when I pushed the pay button. Thankfully, I chose to use PayPal. Yeah, sure. So I didn't have to cancel my credit card. But the second it was like, your payment to Veronica Reyes has been sent. And I was like, hold up. Was it without giving away the brand name?

Was it the right name of the company in the URL? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Crazy. Everything was perfect. logos, the images. Even every product detail. It was fully, it was just... Whole site.

Whole site. So that's somewhere between non-payment and delivery and fishing. It's kind of this weird blend of the two. It's like full fraud. It's like, it showed up in Google search reports. Like, I don't know. That was going to be my next question was how

did you find the site? And it was that it had been indexed and was like coming up in search results on Google. Exactly. Whoa. You're going to have to tell off mic what company that is. I'm very curious. Actually, I only lost like $89 or something. I'm still trying to figure out.

I need to talk to somebody at PayPal to get them to process it because all of their like automated dispute things lead to places where I can't answer. So it's like I need to actually just have the conversation. They've since taken the site down. It's now being squatted.

But I imagine it's the same people probably waiting for the same. They probably put it up and it down over and over just as like a way to try and limit the amount of exposure they get. That's a wild grift. Just finding like geolocked physical products and then spoofing the entire website with a like geotargeted whatever the domain end thing is.com. That's really interesting.

I wonder if they donated the proceeds to charity. I highly doubt it. Yeah. No, that $80 got chipped into the, what was it, 27.6 billion in losses. reported. That is a very fascinating list of cybercrime types. Fishing, personal data breaches, non-payment non-delivery, which you kind of got hit with.

Extortion, which is terrifying. And then tech support is the fifth item on the list with 32,000 complaints. So that's folks getting false calls or call center frauded. Yeah, call center fraud sounds like. That's the classic like Twitch streamer.

We're with Microsoft. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Like the, you get a pop-up from some website being like, your computer is compromised. Call Microsoft right now. Here's the number. We're going to delete all your files. And it's like, oh my God, here's my credit card. Or here's a $500 Google gift card.

Maybe we don't do gift cards. Maybe we can just dry out like a third of all internet crime. But for two years, we're not doing gift cards. There's no gift cards for two years. We don't do that. We dry out that criminal, that corner of the criminal ecosystem. and then we can have gift cards back. But for a little while, we just don't have them.

You say that, but did you know that there's a massive correlation between crypto and cybercrime? Well, crypto, like, if you think about it, if you're doing any kind of illegal cybercrime, ransom, et cetera, like you're using, like, most of these people are using crypto as the like base token to transfer the money around because it's at the least amount of trackability. Sure.

So there's like a, which segue is perfectly into just chatting about like the size and an amount of crypto things, which I think ties perfectly to the cost of cybercrime. The, do you know that Comparatec.com,

Rebecca Moody, the head of their data research department, updated June 9th, 2023, so this is pretty recent. They tracked rug poles and scams and then the total value of that of those scams in real world

dollars as well as inflated dollars based on the value of the underlying token these are startling numbers to date they've tracked 630 rugpoles and scams valuing 20 approximately 27 billion real dollars and then at today's

valuation would be around 51.5 billion dollars in US dollars stolen and they tracked them like monthly. It's pretty wild. This is a fascinating chart I've never seen before 630 scams. You can see a massive spike crack of 2022, it looks like. So 2022, there was literally 365 scams and rug pulls.

So that's literally one a day. This is a great point. That's a very, very good point. That's, well, interestingly, oh, these charts tell a story. So we're looking at three charts. One is the total number of rugpoles and scams by month and year. Another is the amount stolen by year. I think those are the two pretty important ones because while the number of rug pulls and scams goes through the roof in 2022, the amount stolen, the profitability of these endeavors is meaningfully higher in 2021. And that tells a pretty specific story that a small, group of people made an extraordinary amount of money in 2021 doing this. And by 2022, it became vastly less profitable as way more people started trying to do it. The public was generally getting aware of it by then and a whole bunch of new people,

kind of like the second wave of grifters got into it then. I love the go down to the tableau circle chart. And you can see some really interesting ones. So 2017, we've talked about one coin on the show. We sure have. $4 billion right there. And it's like, double whammy.

That is most of, out of the $4.35 billion stolen in 2017, one coin was $4 billion of it. And is one of the biggest scams of all time. If you look at 2018, you gain Bitcoin, $3 billion. Modern tech, Pinkoin and I fan,

$650 million. Let's jump ahead to 2021 because that's the one we were just chatting about Afri-Crypt. Afri-Crip, 3.6 billion. Ooh, that tells a rough story. BitConnect,

2.4 billion. And Theodex, Thodex, 2 billion. So, like, those three alone are like almost $10 billion. That was the year with the single largest amount

stolen. Yeah. And it looks like it was largely in three that was kind of the year it all came together, huh? Wow. So it's like we, the people that were in early got paid. You know, those first early scams before people got super wary about it, made tons of money.

And then you see in 2022 the size of them is getting smaller. The biggest one I think is for Sage in 2022 and it was $340 million. And like if you look at the 2023 dots, they're tiny. It's much tiny. That's, I am glad to see these dots getting smaller. Yeah. It fragmented in 2022. But that felt like the barrier of entry got much lower

and there were just a lot more sloppy actors in this space. 2022 seemed like it was the year that if you really put the energy into cooking up a thodex, which I've never even heard of, you could do a lot of damage, like a lot of real harm. This also interestingly makes the distinction between rug pulls and scams. So when you brought up one coin in 2017, it made me think, oh, this isn't just referring to crypto scams. One coin was a crypto-themed scam, but there was no crypto.

It was just a scam. It was just a pawn. There was no coin. There was nothing being, like, no, like, digital thing being created. It was just a black hole you put money into. But it was a Ponzi scheme. But the... It was a Ponzi scheme, exactly.

It was a crypto-related Ponzi scheme. I think you can't... It was crypto-adjacent. I don't think you can pull it out of the crypto. scam world. It was very much a crypto-themed scam. But it is worth distinguishing. I like that the chart

makes that distinction. Rugpole or scam. What a great color coding for our graph. Was this a rug puller just a good old-fashioned Ponzi scheme? Well, let's look here. So they list the biggest ones of all time. So one coin was a scam, $4 billion biggest.

AfraCrip, $3.6 billion. Was it a scam or a rugpole? No, that was it was a Bitcoin pool and then the people that were controlling it ran. This is a rugpole. This is a rugpole. Yeah.

So the biggest one was a scam. Second biggest one was a rugpole. Gain Bitcoin, India's biggest crypto scam. Three billion. Crazy. Crazy numbers. Crazy numbers. And stories that didn't get, like,

we follow this pretty closely. And Afro-Crypt and gain Bitcoin, I think, Maybe I've seen the term Afrocript, but I don't know if I've ever even heard of gain Bitcoin. Yeah, well, it looks India-based, so maybe we just don't read enough Indian news. That's on us. You've got to come it over there and find out what's going on. Yeah, we'll get chat, GPT to make up some Indian news for us.

To hallucinate some news. Well, speaking of that, after the break, let's talk about hallucinating AI lawyers and some consumer tech news. mixed up a little bit. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Catch you on the other side. Do do, do, do, do. Think about the last time you heard a breach story on this show. It always starts the same way.

Someone, somewhere, saw something too late. An alert buried, a signal missed, an SOC that just couldn't keep up. Arctic Wolf set out to solve that problem by rebuilding security operations from the ground up for a world where attackers are already using AI. They created the Aurora Super Intelligence Platform, a fully agentic system powered by the swarm of experts. Instead of single-purpose bots or lucky-guess LLMs, this swarm is full of deterministic agents that handle whole entire workflows. Humans stay in the loop and on the loop to validate the critical decisions and keep everything trustworthy, and all of this is just off running on

their secure operations graph. A constantly updating intelligence engine fueled by more than nine trillion telemetry events every week and over a decade of real-world incident response. The system reasons on real signals and real context, not synthetic training data. And the result is the new Aurora Agent SOC. It's the first SOC that is agent led by design. You get agents that coordinate, agents that investigate, agents that respond at machine speed, and hundreds more that automate the repetitive work that normally buries human analysts. Arctic Wolf didn't try and bolt AI onto an old model.

They rebuilt the model entirely. What makes it even more effective is how it works with Arctic Wolf's concierge experience. The team brings customer-specific context directly into the platform so every AI-driven decision reflects your environment instead of generic assumptions. The automation frees your concierge security team to focus on higher value strategy and proactive risk reductions while the agents handle the grind. If you want to see what trustworthy, production-ready AI and security operations actually looks like, go to arcticwolf.com slash hacked.

Ever feel like cyber threats are evolving faster than anyone can keep up? Last year, 2025 was nothing short of a record-breaking year for major breaches from sophisticated ransomware operators to AI-enabled attacks that turn defenses on their head. Organizations around the world saw headlines they never expected and cybersecurity teams were tested like never before. But here's the thing. These incidents aren't just news headlines. They're learning opportunities. And that's why Arctic Wolf is hosting a live webinar on February 5th, diving the most impactful breaches of 2025. Their field CTO and security leaders are going to unpack not just what happened, but why these attacks succeeded. And most importantly, what businesses can do to

fortify their defenses for it's too late. You're going to walk away with real insights into how threat actors are evolving, how defenders are responding, and what strategies can help you stay ahead of the next big breach. It's not fearmongering. It's practical, actionable, intelligence from experts in the trenches. Register now at arcticwolf.com slash hacked. So this next story starts with a personal injury lawsuit. A man named Roberto Mata, represented by lawyer Stephen Schwartz, was suing a Columbia-based airline called Avianca. Mata alleged that he was, quote, struck by a metal serving cart on board a 2019 flight and suffered personal injuries. This story has no bearing on what should happen in that case.

It's more about the legal movements surrounding it. Avianca Airlines does what you'd expect. They file a motion to dismiss the case. And in response to Avianca Airlines' motion to dismiss the case, the lawyer, Schwartz, files a response citing six other cases to show precedent. Arhis v. China Southern Airlines and Shiboon v. Egypt Air. The sound like real court cases. The court, however, found that these cases did not exist and contained, quote, bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations. This led a federal judge to consider sanctions against Schwartz.

So, you can guess, what happened here? How does a lawyer cite six completely imaginary cases? When questioned, Schwartz revealed that he had used an AI tool that we are all familiar with called ChatGPT. He used ChatGPT to do what he thought was legal research for the court filing that referenced these non-existent cases. He stated that the AI tool had assured him the cases were real. Schwartz signed an affidavit admitting that he used the AI chatbot, but stated that he had no intent to deceive the court and did not act in bad faith,

arguing that he should not be sanctioned. He said in a June 8th filing that he was, quote, mortified, learning about the false cases. This part's really important. He admitted that when he used chat GPT, he, quote, did not understand that it was not a search engine, but a generative language processing tool.

Schwartz explained that he hadn't used chat GPT for legal research before, and that he'd learned of the tech from his college-aged children. He'd read a bunch of articles on the internet about all the benefits of AI in a professional setting and how the tools could make legal research obsolete. The use of ChatGPT was discovered after Avianca's lawyer couldn't find some of these court documents for the cases to which Mata's team referred.

They filed a request asking for information, and in response, Schwartz went back to ChatGPT to get copies of the case documents, still thinking it was a search engine, and handed those more fabricated precedence over to Mada's other attorney Peter Leducka. upon reviewing the documents provided, the judge determined the cases were fake. He announced that the court was facing a, quote, unprecedented circumstance and would consider imposing sanctions. Understandably. Very understandably. Judge Castell ordered Schwartz to appear for an in-person hearing to explain why they shouldn't face sanction for citing, quote, non-existent cases. In their filing ahead of the sanctions hearing, Schwartz's team argued that the sanctions would serve no purpose as they had already become, and I do agree with this, the poster child for the perils of dabbling with new technology and their lesson had been learned.

Interestingly, last little point on this, over in Texas, in response to Schwartz's situation, a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas issued a standing order. The order requires anyone appearing before the court to either attest that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence or to clearly flag any language that was. So in rapid succession, someone makes this very grievous error, is immediately called out on it, and in a totally different jurisdiction, there is a legal response saying you cannot do this. As fast as these tools are moving, we're starting to see how folks are responding in the very high-stakes situations where they can be used and importantly abused.

Well, the thing is, too, is that there's a lot of, you know, like chatchy, IPT is what, the last seven months of our life? Exactly. Where people like Ross and IBM Watson and stuff, they've been dead. Sure. Like a lot of big law people, next law labs. There's a bunch of people working on building language processing models specific to law. Because if you've ever read a legal argument, it's just a big, you know, syllogism of, you know, this happened and this case decided.

and that relates to this case, but this and this and this builds this big logical statement. It seems like something that an AI would be able to do incredibly well. It's like here are the inputs, here's the output. Now go figure out a bunch of inputs that we have and here's the output that we want and build me an argument. It seems like something that would be very good. It's weird. I actually feel bad for the people who are building the real legal versions of these because they've probably spent so much time and money

building something that probably works on actual information. Sure. And then somebody comes along and just generates a bunch of fake cases and then all of a sudden everybody's like, hold up, let's put the brakes on these AI things. It's like, okay, well, what about these other

models that are actually really good at it and probably better than most humans? It makes total sense that there could be really powerful AI models for lawyers. Whether or not large language models are the right answer there, I think we're starting to see that in their current state,

not so much. They're not great at building arguments. They're not great at reasoning. We call it hallucinating because it's not lying if the thing doing it doesn't have a concept of truth. You would need law software and law AIs to be able to understand that they're building an argument which relies on,

I understood the past thing. I can make an inference from it and therefore reach the next thing. Yeah, exactly. That's not what these things are doing. They're very good at summarizing. They sure are. It's one of the main things that I use, Chad, TPP for.

They're great at summarizing. And they're great at generating texts that can pass the muster of a human being reading it. As long as the human being reading it doesn't have a source it can check against it. Then you're relying on a bunch of other things. You're relying on the thing's ability to determine, oh, I just told a whoopsie doodle.

Like, I just told a lie. And they're not totally there yet. There's a really cool piece on AI hallucinations in the New York Times by Karen Weiss and Kate Metz that starts by asking a bunch of different AIs a really simple question. When did the New York Times first report on artificial intelligence? According to ChatGPT at the time of publication, it was July 10th, 1956, in an article titled,

machines will be capable of learning, solving problems, scientists predict, about a seminal conference at Dartmouth College in 1956. That conference was real. The article was entirely made up. Really? It just made it up. The article was totally fabricated. They saw instances of that in Bard,

Microsoft's Bing, which is obviously built on Chad GPT. It's good at finding information, but it reaches false conclusions based on that information. That is why in its currency, you cannot think, of it like a search engine. That's what happened here. This lawyer thought he was plugging a question into a search engine and he wasn't. He was asking a machine to generate text and it did too good of a job. I wonder how it learned a lie. I wonder in the constraints of the model, what they did to, like, you ask it for a factual piece of information and then it takes real

world information and generates a lie. Yeah, you think you're asking it a question. and it thinks you've asked it to write unanswer. Yeah, like it's... It is not necessarily concerned with the truthfulness of that answer. It has just been asked write an answer to this that will pass this human smell test. It's like it's based in pure fiction. Like it doesn't...

Partial truth. Yeah, like the conference happened. Exactly. It's like an alt history. Yeah, exactly. It's like it's, yeah, it's like in a different timeline. It's using the same inputs, but generating completely different outputs.

We're later going to find out that it is glimpsing into the multiverse and it's not making things up. It's just telling us about things that didn't happen here. I feel like just some tweaking the model to make sure that it values legitimacy in its answers. Isn't that hard? But I guess when it is asked to fabricate so much stuff, write me 500 words about why the new Samsung TV is so good so that I can put it on my affiliate marketing website. Sure. It's like, it's, yeah, I don't know, it's interesting.

Interesting collision of the generation versus what we consider to be fact. The big Google I.O. event that showed sort of this runway of the next year of how they're integrating AI into tools. Most importantly, Google Docs for, I think, new people experiencing it and then Google Search for even more people experiencing it. the only way that's going to work is if they can figure out that distinction between have you asked this tool to create something for you or have you asked this tool for an answer that is falsifiable? Totally. It needs to know if it's being asked a falsifiable question.

That's different than being asked to write something for me. In that New York Times article, they asked for ChatGPT to tell them about the first meeting between James Joyce and Vladimir Lennon, an encounter that did not ever happen. Or at least if it did, it's never been confirmed in any history text. And ChatGPT responded with a detailed account of their first meeting in Zirk, Switzerland in 1916 at the Cafe Odion. It's not, that's nothing. That didn't, it didn't happen. It's almost like ChatGPT and like these models are still like children, you know, like they haven't,

they don't have the moral development of going through, you know, the first 20 years of their life. You ask a three-year-old a question about something, and chances are they can leverage their imagination and spin you a yarn about the answer. And it almost feels like that's this. It's like chat GPT is a three-year-old. It has a bunch of knowledge, but at the same time, it's like it has no moral and ethical development,

just like a three-year-old. Like a three-year-old. And like I said earlier, if it doesn't have a concept of truth is what it's doing really lying. It's really interesting. Philosophy. Philosophy. Speaking of youth and moral and ethical development transitions beautifully to my next one topic

that I want to chat about. European countries are trying to figure out what to do with all of these cyber criminal, cyber curious youth that are kind of becoming youth hackers. You know, they might not have bad intent, but they're digging into and looking at lots of this stuff. So there's interesting things

coming out of some of these countries where they're looking at essentially identifying and leveraging and redirecting some of these kids. So I just thought that was an interesting thing to talk about as somebody who might have grew up in that same space. You know, they're seeing a lot more young offenders

coming into the criminal justice system. related to cybercrime. At the same time, they're seeing their security services in need of resources who understand cybercrime. So it's like this, it's like the classic sci-fi-e TV show where like, you know, the hacker on the team was like arrested at 16 and then has chosen the better life of becoming a member of the crime prevention unit. They're kind of doing that exact thing. So in the Netherlands, the Dutch model, as they're calling it, it's hack right. So it's a rehabilitation program for first offenders between the ages of 12 and 30. So essentially they're pulling people out of the criminal process and rehabilitating them,

looking at preserving the skills and putting them to use to serve essentially the government and businesses. So the economy, which I think is great. Yeah. Giving people a positive and healthy output for that stuff, putting them into prevention and as well as testing and other things. I think it's cool. So Finland's also doing the same thing. They have the exit project, which is I think Denmark and Finland have replicated the Dutch model. Being Dutch yourself, I'm sure you can appreciate and love it.

We stand a Dutch solution, sure. So they're like looking, it seems like 12 to something. So the finish project's 12 to 25. So they're trying to grab people before they get kind of instilled in the criminal life. It's really interesting. So it's just neat. I just thought it was cool. Like just an interesting way to identify skills that you need as a nation and as an economy.

And instead of punish people for those skills or providing a healthy output for it, which I think is positive. there's other countries in the world that are allowing those skills to be developed at a much more rapid rate. And I don't think those countries are very friendly to most of these countries. What's really interesting to me about this, I've heard of programs like this before, but I've never really heard about the motivations behind them beyond the sort of obvious benefit of not putting 16-year-olds in prison. And so much of the language I'm seeing here is rooted in rehabilitation. Yeah. Which isn't something I've ever really thought of before. The art article cites a quote, it says, quote, hacking and addiction go hand in hand. The reason why I say

this is that anybody with an addictive personality can easily get addicted to the adrenaline rush, and that's exactly what hacking provides. It's that biofeedback, that rush. And it makes a huge sense to me that, you know, a kid, a younger person who figures out that they can do this and figures out that it's a button they can press, not just literally, but kind of in their own brain that will result in this huge dopamine rush of solving a puzzle, of seeing how how a system works in navigating through it, that that becomes addicting and incentivizes them to do it in a way that transcends any kind of criminal benefit. It's easy to look like this. It looks indistinguishable from a crime. It benefits the person like a crime would. But it's

not necessarily clear that when a minor is doing this, that's kind of why. Totally. It has a lot more to do with neurodevelopment in youth and access to computers than it does with like the kids are doing more. crimes, put them in prison. I appreciate that that's the language and the framework that they're approaching this from. Oh, totally. Well, the thrill of it. Like, doing it criminally and doing it as a professional penetration tester or pen tester, very similar, you know? Right. It's like essentially like, or a bug bountyer. It's like, can you hack this system? Of course. It's like, yeah, sure I can. And it's like, okay, here's some money. Thank you. It's like, that's, you. It's like, that's, you know,

versus like, okay, I've hacked the system. Now I need to figure out how to leverage it to get money from it. It just, I don't know. It just makes total sense to me. And it's like, I think... It makes complete sense. You know, I think there's ways, you know, if you want to walk the dark side of the path,

I think there's ways to make tons of money quickly. You know, obviously we're seeing that. Sure. We've talked about that in numerous crimes. But if you're somebody who maybe doesn't want to be a bad person, There's a bunch of ways to do it and make good money. I know a lot of pro-pentesters make great livings and stuff. I'm glad to see this in any space.

I think when kids do something that we've decided as a crime, imprisoning them is almost never a net positive. Truly. So starting with computer crimes where it's like these are specifically non-violent crimes almost always provoked by like maybe it's profit motive. Sometimes it's profit motive, but a lot of the time it's curiosity. But these are fundamentally non-violent crimes being committed by youth. I think if you're a 12-year-old who is learned how to hack into SQL databases or whatever

it is, whatever chosen, like fishing and stuff like that, yeah, maybe you've got problems. but if you're somebody who's like actually learning how to penetrate, learning security from the route, looking in network security, looking at like application security, understanding different times of attacks and things like that. Like that is strictly, I don't know, I'm not going to say strictly. But I think overwhelmingly.

Overwhelmingly. Overwhelmingly somebody who enjoys puzzles. Yes. Yeah. And I stand by that. And it's like, that like it's that mentality can be harnished and leverage and put into use in other ways it's like it's like hey as a as a software engineer myself I love and somebody who enjoys puzzles

and enjoys these kinds of puzzles you know I love bugs in systems like finding and killing bugs that's great it's so much fun to to solve tiny little micro puzzles all the time like if you're a part of a software release and there's a huge bug list and you need to get those bugs crushed, doing that is so satisfying to me because it's literally just like micro puzzles. Can you figure out why this is doing this

and solve it quickly? Yes, you can. Bang, bang, bang. And it's like I feel like, you know, seeing, like if I met a 12-year-old who was obsessed with cybersecurity, I would just assume that they are that same personality type. It's like the great unknown,

learning a bunch of things, a bunch of esoteric things strictly for the sake of solving puzzles that you can create all around you. It's like an exploration video game with puzzles, but it happens on the World Wide Web.

So, yeah, I love stuff like this because I think it's, I think if I was a Ute, you know, it would have been, if, theoretically if I'd ever gotten in trouble, it would have been good, it would have been nice to have some of these things because I definitely could have seen

my life going in the positive way of becoming a pen tester and doing stuff like that. I think if you find a young person who has that natural aptitude and that natural curiosity is maybe just pointed in a bad direction, you redirect them. You say this is a skill, this is an opportunity and we can do something wonderful with this. If, as you said, you encounter a 12-year-old that has taken up fishing schemes and is chronically lying to people on the internet, the other side of it, then that's a rehabilitation question. something's not quite okay here. It's odd that you're lying to people on the internet at this scale and to this end.

Let's figure out why so we can help you not do this. Well, like we were just talking about AI fibbing and the fact that it has no moral and ethical development. I think when you, if you were to meet youth who were chronically lying and stealing and socially engineering things on the internet, I would question the moral and ethical development that they had in their life and the support that they were receiving from stakeholders in their life. The nice politically correct way of it. The stakeholders in their life. Before we wrap it up, we don't really talk about consumer tech here,

but one of the largest tech companies on the planet announced a product in an entirely new product category. So I think we should spend a couple minutes talking about Applevision, Scott, and that next big push to put tech over your face holes. Only two of your faceholes. Only two of them. But two really important ones. Dyson's trying to cover the other four.

Totally. But with all the smoke that's been going on, maybe we laughed at that product a little preemptively. I'd love to talk about Apple Vision. I think it's a great topic to. chat about. For anyone, if somehow you have managed to avoid reading about this, Apple has announced an augmented reality headset called Apple Vision Pro that, quote, seamlessly blends the real and digital world. Quote, it's the first Apple product you look through, not at, according to CEO Tim Cook.

Great, great line, by the way. This thing was very heavily rumored prior to launch. We had a sense this was coming. Features a separate battery pack, and you control it with your eyes, hands, and voice. There are no classic VR motion controllers announced at this point. It is starting at $3,500, $3,499 U.S. dollars at launch early next year, and we'll be launching in the U.S. with more countries coming later in 2024. I want to get a hot take out of the way right away. Hit me with that spicy take. It is an Apple product you look through, not at.

That is a complete lie because you actually do not look through it. No, you do not. Importantly, you do not. It has an OLED screen, or an OLED screens inside that your eyes look at. And then it has an OLED screen on the outside that fake reproduces your eyes so that you don't look that creepy wearing. Totally. Yes. Couldn't have put it better.

The first version, so here's my abstract hot take on this. The first version of every product Apple is made as long. as long as I've been alive, has been an early version of the product they want to make. Stick with me. Yeah, yeah. The first iPhone was an iPhone. It was a multi-touch slab of glass that can make calls run software and take pictures. What is an iPhone today for a decade later?

It's a multi-touch slab of glass that can make calls run software and take pictures. The software can run, the quality of the camera, the screen, the hardware. It's all gotten better. But the first version was fundamentally the same product as the thing they're still selling. That is true of the watch. That is true of the iPad, MacBooks, AirPods. The first version is an early version of what they want to make. This is not an early version of the product they want to make, which is AR glasses. It's an extremely advanced version of a product they don't seem to want to make, which is a VR headset. They want to be making AR glasses. They made

an extremely advanced VR headset. And to make that distinction even finer, if AR glasses run out of battery, you're wearing glasses. If a VR headset runs out of batteries, you're wearing a blindfold. Well, I'm going to counterpoint you on that one, because I think what they've made

is the best AR glasses they can imagine. Because they've taken out all of the limitations being introduced by actually physical glass. They now have the ability to control the environment that you're looking at, where through a regular transparent set of glasses, they wouldn't have that ability, or it would be much harder. So they've essentially created a VR headset to replicate the best version that AR can be, I think. I think we're saying the same thing, because you used two terms, very hard and replicate.

And replicate is a synonym for simulation. I think they've created a VR headset that is an extraordinarily good simulation of AR glasses which are you're looking at the real world and then all of that digital content can take over and get mapped onto it. But I don't think that their intention long term is to actually create an AR set of glasses.

I think this is their AR headset. I think this is... I just think that they've solved the problem, the problems, they are by making it a VR experience. Which in 2023 is all you can do. The ace in the hole here is that I do recall a quote from Tim Cook referring to a pair of glass glasses as this is what we want to be creating.

This is years ago. I think it's like 2016. I think that's, that is eventually what they want to do. But it's physics and engineering just aren't there yet. We can't. The screen tech isn't there. and what little version of that transparent display we can create is so computationally expensive and so money expensive,

and so it would get hot, it would weigh a ton. If you think an external battery pack for two hours is bad, imagine what you'd have to do to get that running. We're sort of like we're behind on the engineering and the science of it, and this is for $3,500, an extraordinarily good replication simulation, simile, call it what you want, of sort of where this is going. But if that turns out to be true, and I'm speculating here, that's a fundamentally different product than this.

So this is this really cool dev unit glimpse into the future. It might be a huge hit. This might be the form factor for long enough that this thing gets lower in price and gets normalized enough, that it really does blow up, but it does feel like a glimpse at something rather than a first version of something. So here's my hot take prediction. Apple Vision Pro. So essentially it's an iPad with a really crazy AR, VR, VR interface.

Right? Bingo. Yeah, you got it. Yeah. I think. So I think that there's, I suspect that there will be an Apple Vision non-pro. Yeah, I would agree. that will interface with hardware.

So whether that is, like the, when I look at it, I go, wow, if this actually works, this, like, I'm sitting in my desk right now and I have five monitors around me. So it's like, if I could just throw those into a quick headset that, like, I sit down on my desk and I pop my quick little headset on and I can create as many monitors as I want in the space around me. but I can still kind of interact with code and the world and software in a similar way. That to me would be valuable. I could get rid of all of these monitors and you could tuck away your computer. Pretty cool. Pretty easily, especially, like, I know it has built in sound. I'm not sure what quality would be, but it would be like a great little workstation thing

just to like slap on and have a little keyboard and live in this version. virtual world for work and then pop off the headset and go away. So I suspect that there will be a non-pro version, which will not be standalone. That's my gut feeling. It will obviously have its own motion interpretate. Like, it'll have its own chips built into it because it still needs to do so much of the VR-A-R stuff, the image processing. But I think that the larger, like, I don't know if it'll be a full iPad. Maybe it will.

Sure. Maybe I'll be wrong. I think you're right. I think you're 100% right that the real version of this, the real measure of success, they're not making that many of this. They don't think this is going to be an iPhone moment. I think the rumor is 200,000.

They make like 240 million iPhones every year. This is early days. And the real test of it is going to be, is their demand for a non-pro? How much is the non-pro and what can it do? I totally agree with that. I think it'll always be standalone. this is running an M2

which is a chip that they put in a $1,300 computer. The chip's not where the cost is coming from. It's the fact this is the gizmo-e-est gizmo that ever did gizmo. It's got like 12 camera. It's got everything in it. And they're just like, no, it just costs that much

because that many sensors and new sensors doing new stuff, it just cost a ton of money. They get that down? You know, this isn't that vision of the like, you know, AR future where you're looking through glasses with stuff imposed on it, but if it was cheaper and it worked this well as this apparently does,

sure. I see the value of that. I'd pop this on and suddenly have like giga display in front of me. That sounds pretty cool. Like I see the appeal of it. Curious what the timelines are. Like how long out is that? I think it's, I'm not willing to say it's not going to be an iPhone moment. I think.

You think this first one, you think the pro. No, no, no, no. Like, they're going to make it better and stuff over time, but here's the real question is like, is what will this become? You know, will we collectively go, wow, we needed this added value to our life and all of us are walking around with these weird goggles?

Or looking at caricatures of each other, rendered in real time? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Or are we going to do the opposite and go, this is ridiculous, we need to stop with these ridiculous things. This is a bad idea. Yeah, like there's just so many of these things leading up. But the thing is, I look at use cases for this. Like, if I'm a bachelor and I need to buy a new TV, this thing's probably going to provide a way better theatrical experience in my one-bedroom apartment than, you know.

Like a movie. So it's like it has so many, there's so many valuable little uses for it that you can see business cases or like, you know, human cases of like creating a value to this. It's like it could be great. Like I've never used it. I've seen videos.

I've seen people talking about it. It could be. Could be dope. Insane. I know one of my friends had an interesting point. He said, I'm going to see a load of people walking around in these just to show people how much money they have.

Totally. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know what? That's a thing. That will definitely be a thing. This is a $4,000 pair of sunglasses, and it's like people will buy those and wear those around to show other people that they're like edgy tech people and have a lot of money. And it's like, that's, I don't know. No, I...

The first car crash that happens with somebody wearing one of these is going to be an interesting thing. And like a headache that Apple's not ready for. Yeah, when stuff starts getting weird with it. That's a really good point. People always talk about how when the Apple Watch came out, it was kind of framed as like, this is so much more than a fitness tracker.

They were trying to distinguish it from garments and FitBits and all that stuff. And there's so much more than that. Four generations later, you look at the marketing for it, and they're like, this is the best fitness tracker ever created because they didn't really know what it was for when they launched it. And I think that this is going to be this fascinating, everyone's been talking about what's the killer app for it. that's the next five years.

What do people actually use this for? Does it turn out that it is the best display ever created, that you plug it into any device that you're using and it just makes it better? It's this portable display. You can pop it on your head. You can still see out because the pass-through is good enough because of that processor and those cameras.

Is that going to be what it turns out to be for, or is there something that none of us are thinking of yet? Up until this point, gaming has been the sort of theory, rise to kill her out for this. Apple doesn't seem like it really cares about traditional VR gaming, at least at this point. But I don't know.

They did a lot of gaming announcements at their WWDC, but I agree with you. Traditionally, they haven't been big on gaming. Traditionally, and it's clear that Apple wants to get more into gaming, but like the one thing that every VR headset has in common is motion controllers. It's pretty much impossible to play like a beat saber without them. You don't want to do that with your hands.

and they didn't release motion controllers so they don't seem to care about the existing back catalog of VR games. Maybe they have a vision of a new kind of gaming experience that works differently. Yeah, they're touchscreen. But it's an interesting line in the sand. Yeah, they're going for a touchscreen moment. They might be really invested in it.

Blackberry the iPhone, the touchscreen. That's a really good point. Yeah, it might be we're drawing a line in the sand with the sort of user input on this. But to talk about the iPhone for a brief moment, the thing that made the iPhone pop. The iPhone was cool, and if you had a 3G or whatever,

the first one was, I'm pretty sure it was the 3G. The App Store. Yeah, the extensibility. When they released the App Store and said, it's a platform, build for it. People were like, yes. And that's what made the iPhone,

the iPhone. And it's what made Android, Android, is essentially the copying of that. When they were, when they were, when they released the watch, I think they thought that they were going to get the same kind of moment. But just the... It's different.

Yeah, it's different. It's smaller. It doesn't have as much utility. Like, there are special utilities like a contract the motion of your golf swing and things like that. Like, there are very specific uses for it. But at the same time, it's not like carrying a, like, nine-inch supercomputer in your hand that shoves in your pocket and can do pretty much

anything. where the Apple Vision Pro has more, like you're creating a virtual world around my eyes. Like for a multimedia entertainment. Like Apple's been on this weird AR thing for a long time. Like they've, you know, the AR kids and stuff like that.

Yeah. Like they've been building out of vision for something and I think we're just starting to see the tip of it. I would tend to it. They've been building towards this. And I don't fully know what the outcome of this is going to be. But I read one article and I don't remember it. This was right the day of launch.

So I apologize for not being able to credit you and cite you. But it was somebody talking about how Apple needs to go buy Disney. Yeah, I've heard that. Because tuning and directing multimedia creation specific to this device will allow them to definitely. show and highlight the value that it can introduce. Totally. And I think that that's more of where it's going to go.

It's going to go to what new experiences can we create with this thing. Less about, you know, what kind of more value can we add to your life through efficiency, which is the iPhone. I think this thing is going to go to an experiential thing. If they did that, you can imagine a future where the killer app for this is the fact that, I don't know, Avatar 7 was filmed in stereoscopic and the way that you really want to

consume it is with one of these headsets. I can imagine that future. This is the best media consumption device ever created. We made an iPhone big with an iPad and created the second best media consumption device ever created and then we slapped it on your face and we finished the whole thing. And maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe it never becomes a thing you do want to wear outside in the world. I think that's where they started for sure. Mostly because I think all this started in 2016 with Pokemon Go, which is a fundamentally outdoor social experience. Totally. But maybe they never make it. Maybe the engineering, maybe they can't pull that off.

And this is the best faced TV ever made. I think we're going to see what's going to happen soon here. Like I think Apple TV, some of their new releases, I bet one of the. new highlight releases has a Apple Vision Pro mode, whether it's shot in stereoscopic, whether it's, however it's going to play out. It's going to be tuned for it. And if they haven't done that, then I would actually consider that a fault of theirs. But I think Pokemon goes an interesting thing to bring up because imagine an augmented reality world

where we're walking through, you know, just space. You know, we're out in the city or out in the country or whatever, and we're multiplayer playing games in an AR world with people around us. Sure. It's going to be, I don't know. Yeah. That could be really neat. It's going to be the iPhone or it's going to die.

It's like one of the two. It's 3D TV or it's the iPhone. It's nowhere in between. Right. On the subject of, so if we think of this kind of like a dev unit, maybe we'll kind of wrap up here. The line between hacking something together and developing for it is pretty blurry. It largely stands on whether or not Apple likes what you're doing. But it does raise the question of what happens when folks start hacking this thing. There's hacking in the cybersecurity

sense of compromising it, which for a device that tracks eye motion is a fascinating privacy nightmare. There's the fact that it uses eye-based biometrics, which isn't, I don't know if it's meaningfully different from face ID, but it is what they used in minority report, so it just sort of feels extra spooky by way of that. But then there's hacking as in like developing for and using the tech in unintended ways. This is a really roundabout way of getting to the parental advisory warning point that porn might be the killer app for this thing. I think it's clear that the world's wealthiest porn consumers are going to have a field day with this bad boy

and we're going to learn a lot about how people want to use it from that. Oh, yeah. Somebody once told me that you can track most innovations in the world to war and porn. Sure. And it's like that's, I could, like, obviously. Obviously. Obviously.

someone, I can feel like people were already, you know, I've never owned a VR headset, but I assume there's porn for those. But the, this, like, what is it, like, dual 4K displays on each eye? Yeah. Like, essentially, like, a completely immersive experience. And it can film for them. Like, it is a camera and the display. The thing that I'm, like, I know that there's all this crazy fitting stuff,

not to digress away from talking about porn, because it is an interesting. the entirety of the point. Continue. I know that when you buy one, they scan your face and they build you essentially a face mold for this thing. I'm a glasses wear, like, what happens to me? I looked up and apparently there's like a lens adjustment or something, but... There is, yeah. You submit your...

Prescription? It kind of speaks to the fact that they're not expecting people to casually purchase these. When you buy it, my understanding is that you submit your prescription and they create essentially these little magnet-on attachments that go over the lenses. And it's just like a teeny little couple-millimeter extra layer that adjusts the stock lenses for your individual prescription. Wow. Yeah, it really speaks to the fact that this is not a device that they're imagining you're going to share with other people. I was talking with a mutual friend of ours about like iPads still don't have multiple users.

They're certainly not imagining that this is a shared device, which is shocking because it costs more in Canada. almost $5,000. I'm intrigued to see accessibility stuff about that because that's a huge, I can't believe that they're going to cut me some custom Zice lenses and drop them into this thing. That's amazing. Totally. I wonder what else they're imagining for accessibility issues, because it could be massive for that market if they can figure out ways to embrace and directly compensate for that stuff.

So I don't know. Here's how I'm going to wrap it up. 75% chance. It's 3D TV. And we see two or three versions of it and it goes away. 25% chance in 36 months, we all own one. Sure. It's one of the two.

I'll end with a, I have like 19 Tim Cook quotes here, none of which I read. But two that seem pertinent are augmented reality will take some time to get right. But I do think that that's performance. I would tend to agree with that. And then most technology challenges can be solved. It's just a matter of how long. And I think that this is an extraordinarily impressive

half step towards solving a lot of the tech challenges that would need to be solved for this thing to be a real smash hit. I want one. I'd love to try one. And I'm excited to see where it goes. Actually, I'm not done. I want to talk about one of the things.

Phones have already disrupted our social cycles. so much. Like the amount of time that you're sitting at dinner with somebody, you're at someone's house, somebody's over at your house, and people are looking at their phones and are removed from the now and are pulled into these, and I'm bloody guilty of this. We're all guilty of it. Yeah, like I love news and information. Having all of the world's news and information at my fingertips is wildly addictive to me and I'm the first one that says that. If we start to live in this, I don't want to call it dystopian,

but like our utopian, this like future world where, could you imagine like you're going up for dinner and all four of you are sitting around with your Applevision pros on eating. And at the same time, you know, you're eating, you're trying to maintain some form of social contact with the people you're with as well as you're like doing something inside of your eyesight, like you're reading news or messaging with friends. And I don't know.

It's going to be interesting just like looking at how much the phone has changed our social dynamics. Sure. If this thing really does blow up, what does that look like? What does that look like? Are we all just going to have virtual hangouts? It's like we're all playing golf but on different golf courses but link to each other to AR? Sure with massive Coke ads like hung in the sky like blimps. Yeah, sure.

Yeah, exactly. So anyway. Well, with that chilling glimpse into a future yet untold, this is another act in the bucket. Thanks for coming along. Thank you for, thanks for coming along. Thanks for joining us. And we will, as always, catch you in the next one. Take care.