"Very good, very good, very good.
"Very good?" "Very good, very good." "That's a lot." "Cool, what do you say?"
“"Stift on a warm test, computer build, focus management, finance step, look what's out."”
"Mega, but that's not fixed completely."
"Well, just a few photos of the loan steuer will be ready." "Very good, very good, very good." "Hold your money, with such a steuer." Café in his best form, with the new Cuba-1 capsule machine from Chiba. "In every Cuba capsule, you can find a café from a special store.
For espresso, coffee, cream, or coffee, you can go to Knopfdruck." The new Cuba-1 with premium design, compact bar cruiser, and a small price of $9.20. Thanks to innovative press-brouette technology, every special car with a very big café.
And here are the Cuba capsule machines in their Chiba-fiale and Chiba-de-E.
“"To stay up to date on all the news that you need to know,”
there's no better place than right here on the DSR network. And there's no better way to enjoy the DSR network than by becoming a member." Members enjoying ad-free listening experience, access to our Discord community, exclusive content, early episode access, and more. Use code DSR 26 for a 25% off discount on sign-up at the DSR network.com.
That's code in DSR 26 at the DSR network.com/buy. Thank you, and enjoy the show. Welcome to the AI Energy and Climate Podcast, a special series from the DSR network hosted by David Sandalot, and inaugural fellow at Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy.
Join us as we talk with leading experts to explore the intersection
between these critical issues that will impact the future of each and every one of us.
Hi, this is David Sandalot. Welcome to the AI Energy and Climate Podcast. I'm going to start today's episode with a reading recommendation, which is something I've never done before. I recommend you read Pope Leo's encyclical on AI, or chapters three, four, and five of the encyclical
in particular. Those are the parts that deal directly with AI. The encyclical is huge. It's 42,000 words long, and it's not a document that's written with the 24-hour news cycle in mind. It's more of a document for the ages, so there's no great hurry to consume it in its entirety. Read a bit by bit over several weeks if you're so inclined or take it to the beach.
The encyclical deals with AI issues at a fairly high level of generality. Many of us immersed in the world of AI, energy, and climate change are dealing with more granular issues, such as how to accelerate interconnection cues for AI data centers, or the extent to which data centers are responsible for power pricing increases, or the potential for AI to accelerate innovation in clean energy materials. Those are all hugely important topics, but you might find
it valuable to step back and consider more big picture issues with respect to AI as well.
“That's what the Pope does, exploring AI's impact on core human values and what it means to be human”
in the age of AI. He's obviously thought very deeply about AI's role in society, and has lots of expertise in AI issues. The Pope does offer thoughts on how AI impacts energy and climate issues in particular. That's the topic we discussed in this episode. So I found chapters three, four, and five of the encyclicals would be fascinating, and was delighted to be able to speak about it with Paolo Carosa, a law professor in Notre Dame.
In addition to his position in Notre Dame, Professor Carosa shares the meta oversight board, which is a body that people can appeal to if they disagree with meta's content enforcement decisions on Facebook, Instagram, and Threfs. Professor Carosa and I discussed the encyclical, it's likely impacts, and his role on the meta oversight board. I found his comments to be thoughtful and fascinating. I hope you enjoy our conversation. Professor Paolo Carosa,
welcome to the show. Thank you, David. It's good to be with you. Well, I'm delighted you're here, and I'm very much looking forward to learning from you about Pope Leo's very interesting encyclical on AI. You made a strong statement to the Notre Dame news about the encyclical. You said, and I quote, you said, "I'm convinced that this will prove to be a defining document for our era. It's not just for Catholics, but speaks to the concerns of all of humanity."
So what about the encyclical led you to say that? Well, I think there are three different
Dimensions of that answer.
is who the speaker is, and the third one is actually the substance of his message.
With regard to context, first of all, he gets undeniable. Everybody knows and sees daily the transformations that AI is bringing to every aspect of our society, of our personal relations,
“our education, our employment, our politics. And I think it's also clear that there's a great”
deal of uncertainty and confusion about what to think about that and how to judge it from a moral perspective, what's good, what's bad, what's to be feared, what's to be welcomed and embraced. And it's a context in which there are many, many voices. Some of them quite wise and really thoughtful, but none that have had the kind of global stage and presence and capacity to speak with the sort of a coherent moral and intellectual tradition of 2000 years plus behind him and one and a
half billion followers in the world sort of institutionally by definition. So he fills a certain kind of vacuum, I think, where people are hungry for some kind of judgment, some kind of guidance to say, help us figure out what to think here. And you see that in the reaction that the Encyclical is gotten from so many quarters. Some of it negative, but even the negative, and some sense is implicitly
“an acknowledgement that it's filling a certain kind of gap in the discourse, right? That's why”
they need a field compelled to respond to it. So the second thing is, as I said, who's speaking
and what he brings to it, but the last and most important thing is really the substance of the message,
the substance of the message is, at the core, what we really need to be concerned about is constructing and living in a world in which we can remain human. And you know, I thought it was fascinating that, you know, he quotes many different sources, more sources than is typically the case for a Catholic Church official document, by the way, that itself is kind of interesting. You know, my friends are rejoicing over the fact that he quotes JR talking along the way
for the first time ever in a church document, but the first quotation that he gives that is not to some official church source was to a German philosopher named Romano Guardini, who in the 20th century, and that was standing as Italian name. He was German, wrote in German, wrote in German, and the quote quotes him is saying contemporary man has not been trained to use power well.
“And I think that is really both the fact that he starts with that early in the document.”
This is first external quotation, and that then power figures prominently as a theme in the document says a lot about what the document is really about. It's about saying essentially, we need to learn collectively to use this extraordinary power well, and by well means in a way that allows us to preserve our humanity and to honor the things that make human beings important and valuable.
I notice he also quotes Plato. He quotes Plato saying that the deepest and most important
things are learned only after a lot of time and effort, which is related to the point you're making, but it's that unusual to call upon secular philosophers in that way in a document like this. Yes, it is. I mean, it's become more frequent with recent papers. I mean, we Catholics had the benefits of such sort of capacious intellectual minds in, you know, popes like Benedict XVI and John Paul II, and they're a philosophical theological prize,
that they opened up that discourse quite a lot in a way that was before them completely unprecedented. So it's less unusual than it used to be, but nevertheless, for Leo to go so far as to in a single sentence site Beethoven's ninth Picasso's of Werenica, and Schindler's List is sort of astonishing. Well, the encyclical is vast. I mean, 42,000 words, and I'm guessing the most of our listeners have not had a chance to read it, certainly not read it closely.
And so I thought maybe it just spent a little bit of time diving deeper into what exactly he says. And maybe one way to get into that, I'm curious about how you would characterize the Pope's view of AI, would you say that he is pro-AI, anti-AI, neither of those things, both of those things, and I would say certainly neither of those things. And in a few places he makes it clear very explicitly,
You know, at one point he says, I think the exact words are that the key issu...
the technology as such, but the vision that underlies it. And he says very explicitly in a different place
that he does, it is not a time for fear and panic, but also it is a time for sober judgment.
“And so I think he is trying very hard, I mean, we all have to then conjudge whether we think he's”
successful in doing so, but I think the intention is clear that he's trying very hard to steer a very careful path between a naive, uncritical acceptance of it, but also away from simply condemning it and saying, the end of the world is at stake, we should resist this, we should go back to nature, we should disconnect all of our devices and this project, very, very far from that on the contrary,
he doesn't go into much specifics about the practical benefits of AI. He leaves at at a very high
level of abstraction, but he does interestingly point out that the very nature of the technology is itself a manifestation of the dignity of human persons. In other words, that part of what makes human beings unique and dignified and valuable is that we have these creative impulses, that we make tools and we use them in order to better our lot and so forth. And he acknowledges that AI itself is part of that creative human genius, and for that reason alone is not something to be
condemned, but then obviously the majority of the encyclical is devoted to identifying
potential risks and dangers and to admonishing us to try to address them before they become
materialized. Could you talk about some of those risks and dangers? What are the items that he points to that got your attention? The list is pretty long if you go into the details,
“but again, most of them are stated at relatively high levels of generality, right? And I think”
so before I sort of list them, I want to sort of say a little bit about why I think that's the case because it's a help to I think reading the document in a way that is true to the distinctive genre, okay? It's a document that is not aimed and intended to provide specific policy directions. It is one that is instead aimed at sort of helping to educate readers about general principles, particularly moral principles, that ought to guide us. And then it is up to those who
have the responsibilities and power in the spheres of economics and politics and technological development and law and so forth to then figure out what to do with those principles at the
“granular level, right? How to translate them into specific policy choices and all the rest of it.”
And therefore, most of the the dangers that he lists are ones that are stated at the level of saying, for example, he highlights how much contemporary technology has made it more difficult for us to distinguish between truth and falsehood. And and and therefore undermined our capacity, both individually collectively, to arrive at things that you know, we think again reasonably is said to be true. And then without that it becomes very hard to have a healthy politics or a
healthy communication ecosystem as he calls it. It undermines the education of our young people and and leaves them very vulnerable without that. So, you know, so that's a sort of a core thing. Similarly, he identifies the the threats to certain kinds of human freedoms. On the one hand, the freedom of of what I would call a certain cognitive liberty or integrity, the way that the technologies can be used in ways to harvest the most intimate details of human
life and and more importantly, try to try to use them to then manipulate our decisions. And and and therefore that becomes a question not only of the the risk of personal freedom, but also of social freedom. He points out the the vast social control that could be and and sometimes is exercised. He is obviously especially concerned about labor and work and the dignity of work and the capacity of people to to work and and to realize and their dignity
Through the work that they do.
concerns for as long as there have been these documents and and as many of your listeners probably know the Ochoes his name specifically in order to echo a predecessor of his Leo the
13th from the 19th century who wrote the first what is acknowledged to be the first of the major
social modern social and cyclicals of the church and that was all about labor in the industrial revolution right and so here he's echoing that is very name and the first year of his pontificate was intended to sort of echo the fact that he of of his concern for those kinds of economic transformations that potentially could leave people vast numbers of people without employment and how important to simply having work is now again he doesn't go into the details of saying
saying therefore the labor market should be structured in these ways or therefore laws should prohibit mass layoffs that that's not you know that that is sort of a not the level at which he's trying to intervene here but simply pointing out these kinds of dangers and there are others that I could point up but those are sort of a lot of the central ones right there. To to others that's
“struck me or it's focused on migration and migrants and and refugees and that's something I think”
we've heard from him in other contexts and and then I think of a great interest to listeners of this podcast maybe what he has to say about about energy and climate change issues and he he specifically says and I'll just quote because I pulled it out out here he says current AI systems require enormous amounts of energy and water significantly influencing carbon dioxide emissions
in place heavy demands on natural resources for this reason it's essential to develop more sustainable
technological solutions that reduce environmental impacts and help protect our common home. Please quite focus on that. Yeah yeah thanks for pointing that out certainly and of course you know we know that that's consistent with his immediate predecessor Francis and his teaching you know that that in cyclical allowed out to see really brought that much more centrally into focus for the church and and undoubtedly Leo sees this as being in continuity with that. Well I want to push a little
line you your comments about the extent to which he is entering into the political world because I was struck it it's some of the more direct statements he made on this topic. I mean he's he says I mean I pulled this out he says it's not enough to invoke ethics in the abstract robust legal frameworks independent oversight informed users in a political system that does not advocate its facade
“responsibility or required. I think that's that's consistent with the framing you had but he also he's”
he's he's putting his foot in the door there right the he's that's where I would read it. Oh yes. Oh yes. Yeah yeah so and I wouldn't want to be this understood so I'm glad that you you know are calling for a little bit more precision here you know what I meant to say is that he doesn't go into the details of what the content of those laws should be and the specifics of the policy but he does make it clear and this is really a consistent theme throughout the document that we need a robust and
healthy politics and law in this process and that that is that is part of what it means to serve the common good and achieve you know the he has this this running metaphor from the very
beginning from the first paragraph of he pulls from the Hebrew scriptures of rebuilding the walls
of Jerusalem after the exile of of of of the Israelites and their return to Jerusalem and how much that was a collective project where everybody had responsibility everybody was playing a part and all the rest of it and and that metaphor is one that then is spun out in such a way as to call very explicitly for saying we need politics in the deepest and truest sense of that word where we come together work together compromise with one another in order to undertake actions that serve the
common good of our communities and without that politics and and moreover I would say is a legal scholar and lawyer without translating that politics into law as well we're not going to be successful so in that sense he it is a very political document at that level for sure did you have any thoughts based on that on what impact do you think this will have either here in the United States or globally I have a variety of thoughts on an essence
have been a common question for people that people have asked me and I really on the one hand I don't think that it will have much of any impact that I'm going to qualify that in a moment
“right in the sense that it it's a document that is I think it's impact”
lies in its capacity to intervene at the level of culture in the broadest sense and even perhaps
At a sort of spiritual level at the level of our by the individual relationsh...
the meaning of the things I in front of me including these tools that I have in my hands with AI
and and not in an immediate sense to inspire you know a specific legislative process or referring now it might do that but I'm kind of doubtful that it will do that in any very robust way inspire a specific legislative program or what have you or a new treaty at a multilateral
“level even less he calls for multilateralism I think that's you know that's very far from what we”
have on our horizons at the moment um but uh and and so the the influence if it's going to
happen and I do think it can happen is going to be on a longer time horizon and more mediated through
a variety of institutions and levels of society so for example educational systems you know where he calls for new kinds of partnerships within schools between different as sectors of society to really kind of rebuild the capacity that we have to know how to use these tools well in a way that that serve you know are well-being right and don't harm us um those kinds of things at that level I think it can have an an impact but it's going to take people
not simply responding to it with a hot take and a sound bite in this week that has been issued
but you know dwelling with it a little bit and and trying to take it seriously and chewing on it and thinking about how it might make its way into everything from family life to schools to the workplaces. This podcast is underwritten in part by the U.S. Embassy of the United Arab Emirates. It's editorial content is completely independent and the views expressed are exclusively
those of participating experts. It is presented live without editing. For further information about the UAE's efforts in the areas of artificial intelligence and technology, go to the website of the embassy at www.ue-emBC.org and search for UAE-US tech cooperation. We thank them for their support. We thank everybody who is supporting this podcast for their support and we look forward to it developing and growing over time because the issue is so important.
Yeah, it seems very distant from sound bite culture and viral TikTok videos on that type of thing, but it's a much more sober, thoughtful document that will play out and it's impact over over a much more extended periods of time. How would you expect to poke Leo to follow up on this at all? What do you think he'll do in the months or years ahead on this topic and any guesses or speculation about that? I don't have any doubt that he's going to continue to talk about these
“things. I think the purpose of this document and to my view as someone who's very sympathetic”
to it's contents, the virtues of the document are the ways in which it takes a variety of many different small issues and we've certain common thematic threads to tie them together. This is the framing document that unifies the whole and I would expect that what we're going to see and when he speaks on the world day of communications, he's going to focus on the communications ecosystem. When he speaks to a particular group that is there interested in climate change,
he's going to really emphasize like what are we doing about data centers and the need for water and energy. When he speaks in a different context, he'll dwell much more on the vulnerability of children and including his very transparent and I thought on his acknowledgement of the failures
“of the church and in that sphere. I think the pieces will be spun out in many different ways.”
And in addition to that, I think he's going to probably be less transparent
Is the ways in which the Vatican and the Bishops more generally will make this
part of the educational programs that reach into the capillaries of the church throughout the world
into parishos, into Catholic schools, into initiatives that are at a very local level as well.
“I don't have any doubt. And finally, I think there will be diplomatic efforts as well.”
The only sea is not a heavy hitting diplomatic player because it is only such a small entity, but it's a unique player in the diplomatic sphere and so far as exactly the fact that it's free of the interests of defending territory and economic and political interests in a narrow sense. It has a little bit more liberty to speak to certain kinds of broad moral principles
at the global level. And I don't have any doubt that the ambassadors of the Holy Sea
will take this document and use it in a way in every forum that they have an opportunity to intervene in. I'm curious about the potential impacts of the Encyclical in one specific domain which is in the tech companies and then in particular in Meta. And you you chair the Meta oversight board and maybe you can just tell the listeners what is the Meta oversight board exactly and then what impacts do you think this Encyclical
“home might have either on that oversight board or on tech companies more broadly?”
Yeah, well I sure hope it has an impact there. I think it really needs to in the tech sector and that's you know it was astonishing but you know intriguing to see Chris Ola from Enthropic on the stage at the presentation of the Encyclical on Monday. I was pretty unique thing so I'll come back to that.
But first the oversight board so the oversight board is an entity that was created about six
years ago by Meta as an independent body. So Meta financed it but put a bunch of money and an independent irrevocable trust in order to protect its independence and various other structural guarantees and then appointed you know it has been a varying number of Meta members about 20 right now from all over the world who are charged with making decisions and policy recommendations on difficult and important content moderation problems that Meta faces. So decisions on specific
pieces of content whether they should remain or be removed from the platforms and more generally recommendations on how the policies should be structured or enforced or how automation should be used
“and so forth and it's been you know I think a bold experiment in devising new creative forms”
of oversight and accountability that are independent both of the state in a formal sense but also of the industry and an important way and you know it's still in some senses unique other companies haven't followed Meta's example and the authority of the oversight board is still fairly constrained to only certain aspects of Meta's business and things so I don't want to overstate it but I do think it it it represents at least a very important effort to be creative in fashioning new systems
processes and institutions that might help foster responsibility in the industry and an accountability and it's exactly on that score that I think the intersection between Leo's and cyclical and the work that I've been doing on the oversight board is most interesting he actually uses it explicitly the term independent oversight in the in the in cyclical and calls for new forms of independent oversight and I'm thinking that's exactly what we're trying to do and he emphasizes as I mentioned
earlier in particular the need to do that within the information ecosystem which is the one where we're operating right so I doubt that Leo has ever heard of the oversight board but in a you know sort of broad and indirect way I think he that's exactly the kind of institution that he's calling for us to try to devise and and develop and strengthen with one another and how will that actually affect our work on a day to day basis I mean you know we might pat ourselves on the back and I think
everybody will sort of celebrate that that we we seem to be aligned with important voices that are calling for more sort of moral seriousness in this area but what I hope will happen that the
Could actually impact the practical work that we do beyond just you know feel...
other people will read the message of the pope and look at the oversight board and say hey maybe that's an example that we should try to build on and learn from and maybe other industries would say we should try to do something similar to that or other stakeholders in you know the the the economic and political space would say let's let's try to you know to follow that example doesn't have to be identical but at least inspired by it right I would love to see the
oversight board become sort of you know not more powerful with regard to the industry but
a model that others will be inspired to follow the same kinds of essential concerns for building
independent oversight and maybe this document will be a catalyst for that. That's an eating and let me say a word about about the Anthropic Executive who was there you just mentioned that briefly and what you think that signals? Well I so on the part of on the part of Leo and the
“church I think it's it's it's a sign of the emphasis that this document and that his vision puts on the”
need for cooperation and unity across all sectors of society nobody's excluded collect conversation has to happen across ideological bounds across two graphic ones between you know workers
and capital between technologists and ethicists etc and I think the seriousness of saying
no boundaries everybody's in we're open to talking with everybody of goodwill is what was sort of being signaled there I don't think it's any in any way meant to privilege andthropic and say Anthropic's got a special status that other companies don't I think the pope would be delighted to do exactly the same as then with someone from open AI or Google or meta and and and well beyond on Anthropic side though I you know it's it's an interesting
speculation about why why they chose to do it and why Chris is all of us there you know something
who buys his own admission is not not religious a little on Catholic clearly has a company that
in some ways that odds with many of the things that that's hopefully I was calling for in the document explicitly you know the question of data as a common good to take one example is certainly doesn't seem to be aligned with it and so I was intrigued by the extent to which Olo said what I will you know I will take at face value as being in good faith saying we don't fully understand what we're doing and therefore we acknowledge that we need
criticism from outside and engagement from people who are going to be you know looking at what we're doing and asking all sorts of hard questions about it and and demanding a certain kind of responsibility of us
“you know I hope that that now translates beyond just you know superficial words and I think that's”
you know that's where the the test really is going to be played out is is there you know is this could be a nice event in in Rome or is it something that will be a sustained engagement with people who are serious about reflecting on the moral implications of of AI use development. Well this fascinating we need to start to wrap up but there's one topic we've touched only lightly and which I thought was particularly interesting which is the post discussion of the potential for AI
to be human and he emphatically rejects that possibility and for AI doesn't have a moral conscience and I wouldn't do any thoughts of reflections on that line of thought from the copier well you know on the one hand it's not surprising at all right is a humanist or tradition in which the human person you know drawing from the book of Genesis is considered to be
“created in the image of God there is something quite unique there but I think it's you know one”
step further is just just note that the things that he's talking about that that are important to human dignity are you know love responsibility friendship the ability to pursue and grasp the
Ultimate meaning of things not just you know to assemble data points in an in...
I think he does you know point to things that right now certainly seem to be far beyond the
“capacity even of the most sophisticated instances of you know Claude and et cetera at the same”
time though I will say I'm not sure that the the pope and the document grapple sufficiently with the mysteriousness that AI is already beginning to show us there are lots of ways in which it's a lot more than you know what some people terrifically calls to Catholic parents you know there there's something there that we still don't understand and increasingly so and okay we can take the pope and you know and say it's not it's not human okay but it's something more than we
that we really it's it's more than any machine or tool than we've ever experienced in the past and in it's human like qualities and there's something that still needs to be grasped and struggled
“with there in the future yes he eludes to that fact but then he just declares that AI is not human”
he's but that's very interesting he says that AI can surpass and does surpass human intelligence and speed and computational capacity but that doesn't make it human and it goes under kind of riff on on that idea but it's it's a declaration on his part it's you know it's it's from faith not from from any other you know not from another direction so I thought it was it was a fascinating discussion and and it's as you say the mysteriousness of AI is is something that is fully grappled
with there you know all right thank you so much for your time really appreciate it his we we always
end our podcast conversations with two questions for our guests that in the first one is how are you using AI tools in your they did it like oh well I mean I'm a relatively late comer to the use of AI but it's increasingly present in personal life I use it for a lot of those sort of practical planning of things like you know recently I went with my wife and daughter on a long backcountry backpacking trip in the Grand Canyon and used AI extensively for the planning purposes and I
I mentioned that primarily because I kind of delight in the irony that I used AI in order to plan a trip which was 100% off of the grid and away from technology in my in my professional life as a as a scholar I'd say primarily use AI at the beginning and at the end of the process
of writing and thinking in other words when I'm first approaching a topic I find it really useful
to sort of get an intellectual map of the space what are the ideas who are the players whether the things that I should consider it it helps me sort of orient where I'm beginning a particular project and at the end I'm increasingly finding that it can be very useful as sort
“of a sparring partner for ideas like okay here's what I've written here's what I think push back”
on this tell me where you find holes tell me what I haven't considered how would you critique this I give it particular personas if you were coming from this you know philosophical perspective how would you respond to my paper that kind of stuff and and I you know I've still learning a lot how to use that well but I'm finding that you can really be an enhancement and not a displacement of my own intellectual work that's fascinating and I must say I've done exactly which you just
reported is the second step and it's just remarkable how some of these tools are capable of critiquing
arguments from different perspectives I find that to be invaluable absolutely no question could you please recommend three books or ports or articles for our listeners could be older news something from your childhood or something you're ready yesterday yeah well so I'll I'll I'll I'll preface my answer by saying you know I come from a very literary family okay my parents we're both professors of languages and literature and comparative literature and I you know I grew up
in a household in which it was rarely the case that there was a topic at the dinner table to which Dante was not relevant and so and and what I you know what I'm grateful for in that upbringing is that I'm still convinced today I find it very sort of you know and questionable that
Even dealing with a world that is so uh changing and volatile and the technol...
that great literature still has so much to teach us and we should not let go of the sort of human
“dimension that we gain from wonderful novels so without long-profess I would say recently I”
I devoured this I'm gonna cheat it's really four books but they they go together as one by the Norwegian Nobel Prize winner Sigridon set from the 20th century she wrote these epic novels about the middle ages and the ones the series that I read was called Olov
Antonson and and it just it tells the chronicles the life of this man in a way that's unbelievably
sort of psychologically sophisticated historically grounded and insightful and and beautiful
“and it's description of nature and everything it's wonderful I can't recommend it more highly I couldn't”
put it down I also went back to one of my favorite classic novels again having been raised you know in a household Italian literature and speaking Italian novel by Alexandra Monsoni called the Betroth to an Italian Prometzi Spalzi is one of the most iconic novels of the 19th century and um I again I just find the the characters drawn beautifully Fabio Fabio Monsoni M-A-N-Z-O-N-I
and then what I'm reading right now is um rereading for the first time in decades
Dostayevsky the brothers Karamazov because there's a new translation just a year or two ago
“that came out that was brought to my attention by guy named Katz I think first name I'd be Michael”
and not sure but Katz is the last name and so wonderful translation it really it brings out so much of the of the humor and colloquialisms of Dostayevsky and I'm enjoying it a whole lot right now well Paolo Karaza I have learned so much from this conversation I'm sure our listeners have as well thank you so much for taking the time to join us on the AI energy and climate five cast it's been a great pleasure David thanks for the great questions thanks for everything that you do
on the podcast and the series to help keep us educated on these issues thanks so much this has been the AI energy and climate podcast a special production of the DSR network now there's Chiesett a new kind of legacy of the Kirstlich nach Kerses schmeckt put it yet to a park on the handle as best as you can see
one of the greatest tests he ever heard about in cheeset chiesett yet some artists have seen the Kerses schmeckt on the handle as best as you can see in the next episode we'll see you next time with a new episode of the Kerses schmeckt on the channel.
