# The Strategic Stack: Overcoming AI Slop — Transcript

And I get to introduce Travis Arndorfer, Creative Director with over 20 years experience leading strategy and creative work for organizations ranging from global brands to regional leaders across multiple industries. Travis has also founded and led an agency AI lab where he develops practical frameworks that integrate artificial intelligence into marketing workflows while maintaining strong strategic thinking and creative quality. His work focuses on using AI as a true partner, enhancing ideas rather than simply increasing output. In today's session, he will share the strategic stack framework, offering a clear approach to creating AI-assisted marketing that stands out, remains thoughtful, and delivers real impact.

Please join me in welcoming Travis. Thank you. And thank you all for joining me here in this last session as we kind of tackle what I think of as a little bit of the elephant in the room when we talk AI. It's pretty exciting what AI can do, but also it can create a lot of troubles for ourselves.

AI slot, as you've probably seen, is It's just everywhere. It's in really big, really expensive brand ads. I don't know if you saw Coca-Cola came out in the holiday season of 24. They did an AI version of their annual ad and it went over like a lead balloon because there were all kinds of broken things with it.

Just it was very sloppy. So last year they doubled down, said, okay, we're going to give you 2 ads. And it was, in many cases, a repeat. We had a number of tires shifting, the truck was morphing, the physics were kind of wonky.

It was a hot mess. To the point where there was some call for a boycott of Coke because of it. And it's interesting, and I think these first two, there's plenty of big brands I could have picked on. I could have picked on Nike, I could have picked on J.Crew.

You name it. It's surprising, but many of them have stepped in it. But I picked these first two because I think what they're illustrating is something that we're seeing, that the more emotional something is when we're doing marketing that's trying to connect with people, and especially in an emotional space, and we're using AI to pull on it, and we do it in a sloppy way, consumers and buyers react vehemently. They do not like it.

Coke is, I think, maybe still learning this. They actually, to the Hubbub this year, they came out with a rebuttal, which kind of a behind the scenes that was done by Notebook LM's voice and narrating it. So it did not go over real well for them. McDonald's stepped in it too.

In the Netherlands, they actually had a really good idea in terms of a strategic starting place that the holidays are a really busy time of year and they can actually be sort of a struggle for us. But the execution was, again, a hot mess. And we had all kinds of just uncanny faces and broken physics. And it was so bad that within three days, they took it down.

And I got Marvel up here. Marvel would tell you that the Fantastic Four poster did not have AI in it. Fans thought differently and they saw the same face in the crowd a couple of times. Okay, that can happen with some other things too, but it doesn't sound good.

The fingers were wrong and some other things. That starts to smack a little bit more of AI. But the reason I put that one up here is because it doesn't really matter anymore. The bar is starting to change.

Whether you use AI or not, people are sensitized to it. They're already on edge about it. And when they see slop, they're reacting to it really strong, strongly. I think we're getting a little feedback.

Am I too close to this? Apologies. All right. We're seeing AI slop in all kinds of critical publications. was in the Maha report where we had, I think it was 7 different sources that we were trying to base the science on weren't there.

They don't exist. There were dozens of other sources that had the appearance of coming right from ChatGPT, but they at least did exist. We're seeing it in tons of court cases. I think about, I'm not sure, about 90% of those 1300 plus cases were in the last year.

So the momentum there is a little frightening. It's showing up in scientific journals. There's been over, I think it's like 335 scientific journal articles that have been entangled and eventually retracted because of it. And I think one of the insidious things there is that the average time to retract it is like 550 days.

It's like a year and a half. So in that time, there's plenty of time for other articles to pick it up, cite it, and get into that cycle. And then there's all kinds of other articles. We see it from daily newspapers, the Sports Illustrated, it's all over.

If your inbox is anything like mine, you're seeing it on a very personal level all the time too, from co-workers, from maybe even from clients or customers. And right now, it's believed that over half of LinkedIn articles that are longer than 100 words, that's... that are long form in LinkedIn world, few sentences, are believed to be written by AI. And then we're seeing it just in all kinds of, I would say, more everyday uses in small business like Logo. And again, I point out the Salty Otter because, again, I feel like it's a cautionary tale.

This is a bar and grill in Santa Cruz. The owner had a dream to have this bar, but She's good at cooking, but maybe didn't have the design skills. So went to AI and AI the Otter later put in the text. Her Yelp page was just trash.

It was one star review after one star review citing the logo. Now, four years ago, I swear, I've eaten in places that have this basic logo with the sun kind of set thing. It's not great. But again, I look at it as we are seeing a change.

There's a shift in the bar. People are very sensitized, very on edge around sloppy use of AI, especially when it's seen as a cost cutting or human cutting, if you will, technique. I mean, that was a lot of the blowback with Coke is that in defense of it, the creative directors came out and were talking about how, oh, they were able to do it in 30 days instead of a year and all this money they've saved. And it's like, okay, he just stepped a bit deeper.

So when we look at AI slop, a lot of us can see it, kind of smell it when we start to look at it. I like to think of it as the ultra-processed food of content because it looks like it should be good. Until we start to get into it and look at the nutritional analysis, there's not much there. AI is really good, and in fact, in many cases, better than humans at the contextual syntax and structure.

So things look really, really good. They feel very official. It feels like it should be right. And we'll get to that in a little bit on the trouble that causes for us.

But when we start to dig into it, the content length is there, the substance is often really light. And there's, a lot of slop happens because we think we're going to save time or money, but we maybe overlook some of the other costs that are hidden in there. Perhaps a little ancillary to our talk here today is, you know, I think the 1st place I look at is the work slop that maybe one person gets something done a little faster, but if they pass a riddle on to five or 10 other people, where is that being accounted for? And I expect we'll see a lot more about the hidden costs of WorkSlop.

As Neil was just talking about, if you get crosswise with EEAT because you have whiz-banged yourself some content, that stuff can be down-ranked and you'll actually show up less. And I think for most of us here as marketers, we're trying to connect to our buyers and to our consumers. We're trying to make a meaningful connection so we can change their behavior. And if we invite or invoke disgust or anger, we're just shooting ourselves in the foot.

And then the last point here, it's kind of a couple. It's easier than ever to flood the market with content. So we're seeing a higher bar of clutter, but we're also, as like the salty otter, it's sensitizing people and changing how they're reacting to what's out there. I had a creative director friend reach out to me a couple months ago and say, we had a client that pushed back on one of our articles and said, you know, this is AI's thought, like, what are you doing?

Like, I thought we were friends. Like, why would you do this to us? Like, what's going on? And as they dig into it, it was more of a classic problem.

Client hadn't maybe been forthcoming with content that was needed to produce a good article. Account service got nervous about the looming deadline. Next thing you know, what we have gets shooed along, and the writer does her level best, but the article ends up feeling fluffy, and the next thing you know, the client is kind of hot about it. And it tends to jump levels.

It isn't that like, hey, this doesn't seem like it has enough stuff in it this time. It's like it's more of a breach of trust. So I think it's really important to keep that in mind, that whether we're using AI or not, it's affecting all of the work that we do and how it's being judged. And perhaps I'm a little naive, but I think most marketers turning out slop most aren't They aren't trying to.

So why does it happen? Let's take a look a little bit at some of the things that create the tendencies for SLOP. And I think a good first place to start is with the tool, is with the LLMs. They're designed to predict that next most likely token.

So the math behind them pushes them into, I mean, it constrains them to this, that to go to that comfortable middle, that common, and to avoid things that are more distinct and more surprising or rare. So there's some of that tendency is baked into the tool. But I think maybe what we don't realize is there's more of that baked in than what we had realized. So when a model comes out, it goes through alignment training.

And there's a lot of research now showing, or some research showing now that there's an alignment tax of sorts. So alignment is to make the model safe. So it's producing things that are answers that we're not eating rocks, we're not doing unsafe things. It's those guardrails.

And it has the overall effect of all of the queries that come from that model then, start to become more homogeneous. And it can go from rates, so a single cluster rate is like if you were to sample a model several times, how many of those times does it come back to the same basic answer? Before training, before the alignment training, it's typically about half a percent to a percent. After training, it can skyrocket.

We can be, you know, as high as 79%. So there's real things going on with the tools that predispose some of this. It isn't all tools leave marks, all tools have ways at which they work, and good operators can learn to use those in ways that don't leave unwanted artifacts. Those things about the tools are real, and they do cause some of that generic sizing that we see in AI slot.

But it's not the whole story. It doesn't make it inevitable. I think there's something more going on that has to do with us. This is a wonderful study that came out in March.

Shaw and Navya out of the Wharton Business School looked at how we use AI and how we make decisions. So it's kind of building off of, if you're a fan of Daniel Kahneman's work with thinking fast and slow, it's building off of this, but kind of modernizing it. It's a wonderful study, but it found that four out of five people fouled AI down faulty logic, failed to override it. And there's lots of other kind of interesting tidbits within that study, but I think This should be a little bit of the wake-up calls.

These are smart folks, and four out of five times, they went with AI when they shouldn't have. So to kind of unpack that, I think what starts to happen is what I call a cognitive cascade. There are things about the way our brain is built. Our brains are very metabolically expensive, and we We have evolutionarily designed to take some measures to stem that expenditure when it seems reasonable.

And this fluency bias is that kind of the tip of the iceberg of that slide down the cognitive cascade. And that is when things look like a duck, quack like a duck, we're like, duck, and we move on. There's another bias here called the automation bias that we also have a tendency to prefer or to overvalue things that come from a machine that kind of like, poof, look at that. And those things together start to disarm us.

And then we start to, and this is usually kind of a behind the scenes subconscious process, we start to see it as an authority. We start to defer. and we start to become passive. And interestingly, we get really confident about it, that Shaw and Navi's study showed that there's a double digit, I think it's like 11 percentage point increase in confidence when people used AI, even when in certain cases they had a 12, like a 12% chance of being right, like they under time pressure, You know, we tend to perform less well. And in those cases, it even went up higher.

So this is where the cascade starts. But there's more to the picture. So our brains are wired in such a way that we tend to value things that we struggle for, where there's some amount of effort. It increases the value.

It increases our investment in it and our ownership. And when AI can remove all the friction, subconsciously, we don't invest. And without those cues, we don't do the quality control. There's a direct relationship between a sense of psychological ownership and the quality control, if you will, that we put into something.

If I value it and I feel like it's mine, I'm going to shine that up. I'm going to make sure it looks good. If it's not mine, I don't super care. I'll super care.

And that's where we get into this metacognitive laziness and where we just fail to critically think and to catch those things. And that's where you see really smart people putting their names essentially on really sloppy work. So that's the kind of the cognitive cascade behind the scenes. But when it all comes together, the machine side and the human side, I think one of the worst parts about it is that it tends to cause this collapse of tasks, this task collapse, or like what I like to call task turduckens, where you start to do one thing, but it's really 10 things all wrapped up into one.

And that's where it gets especially dangerous because we are outsourcing tons of decisions that the machine will make for us, and we'll start to regress toward that mean, toward that average. So let's look at an example. We're a small manufacturer. We produce fasteners that help assembly.

It makes it easier, faster, and better in the long term. and it helps with automation. But our sales have been flat to a little bit down, and the sales team wants to get in front of more people faster. So we want to do a nurture series. Let's see if we can get more of our subscribers to request a demo.

So create a nurture series to drive that request and use a professional tone, highlight our key benefits, and include a clear call to action in each email. Okay, as I look at this, let's start to unpack it. We've got one big request, that is, let's create a nurture series to drive to demo. And if you think about what it was going to take to do that, I think, well, I've got two main things.

I've got to figure out what that overall strategy and architecture is. Like, what is it that I need to overcome? What's that story? How does my product help?

How are we going to break that out? What's the cadence? Some of those more architectural kind of things. And then I need to write each email.

And I can further unpack each of those things. And we can keep doing that. If you look at the architecture, again, I've got to understand what the audience needs to hear, what it is that motivates them, what they're overcoming, and how it is that our product help maps to that so that we can create that story. And then, again, that strategy, I need to figure out, well, what's going to be the right way to tell that story?

In what order does that story get told? And how does it break out across our emails? We could keep doing this. I did this, and this is directional.

You and I will probably disagree a little bit about some of the things that might need to go into this. But I think there's a whole host of things lurking behind this at this point where, you know, I don't even have any idea who's on that list, how they got there, what we've done with them, what they're expecting. Wow, there's just, there's really just tons. And if I think, okay, I'm going to throw a lot of great data at it, and I'm going to solve some of that stuff.

So I've tried to be kind of generous here about what if I gave it a great brief, audience profile, CRM data, our brand tone and messaging guide, I give at the product messaging house. There's probably a lot of raw information there to make decisions, but there's still a lot of decisions looming, and there's probably still a lot of information I don't have. So even at this point, If I slap an LLM on the back and say, go get them, it will. And I have outsourced tons of decisions, all points at which things get rounded off and become more and more generic.

Countering that is deceptively simple. It's taking small passes. Instead of doing, it's really, it's fighting that big problem of task collapse. It's breaking it down and taking each task one at a time.

In each pass, you're going to have a human aim it, decide what it is we're trying to do, and then refine it, kind of call it. I like to think of it, you know, as like you might have been taught to do a good paint job. You know, you're going to take it in layers. The first thing you're going to do is prepare that surface. whether that's sanding it or degreasing it or getting it ready to accept the primer.

You're going to put on that primer, and then you're going to sand it down and get it smooth so that the next surface, the next layer can be nice and smooth and repeat that. It's the same kind of thing here. We're just doing it at the speed of AI. There's just this big propensity to use AI like the easy button, and that just It really does take us to slop town, like it's the direct ticket.

So this loop is fairly straightforward. It's just a very iterative thing. If you think to what JC was saying this morning about the human role becoming around judgment, accountability, and decisions, that's what this is. We're using AI to do the work, but we're the ones that are guiding it and deciding What is good?

And then, and very importantly, at the end, we're refining it. We're culling, you know, many of the models today are machines. They just will overproduce for a variety of reasons. And it's really important, again, in each layer to take out what isn't part of your vision for good work.

And it is a deceptively simple thing, but at every stage when we're doing this, that's a point at which we are imparting our own sensibilities and we are steering away from that average kind of generic approach to things. Each part of this, again, seems very simple. It is very simple. But each part of this plays an important role in that cognitive cascade and in fighting those root causes of failure and why we end up with sloppy stuff.

So those small tasks, those small passes are really important to fighting task collapse. That's probably, I would say, the number one thing when you're using AI. If we just, even if we go back to that example, and we just took it in tiny passes, but we had AI do it all, I guarantee you would end up with better work. It's that we end up doing this in big chunks that round off that unique stuff faster.

So taking it in small passes helps us stay with that task collapse. And then the other parts, the aiming, the refining, these are all parts of us being active and fighting us, becoming passive, and surrendering. It's what you would call productive friction. Again, to create value and ownership at a psychological level, I have to have some skin in this game.

And by going through these small passes, I get that. Now, if you've ever wrangled with an SS or an LLM, I mean, There's certainly some friction there at times. And so these small passes really help keep us on our toes in terms of being vigilant and quality controlling things so that we don't end up off course. Now, we've talked a little bit about inputs.

I think these are very important, and I think we have to think about them a little bit differently when we're using AI. It is great to have these messaging houses, personas and stuff, but it's less about outsourcing than it is about keeping things on track. And then to some degree, it's about managing, as a human operator, managing my decision fatigue so that I don't, I'm not always recreating wheels. I'm not, that I can attend to the decisions I need to at this time right now.

That I've collected examples of our good blog posts, of our good emails. of our voice and so that it's easy to refer both myself and the machine back to those things so that we have good anchors. Like I said, every tool has a way of, it has qualities. You know, if you use it one way, it's great. You use it another, you'll encourage tear out in your product or whatever.

Well, we don't have time to go into all of these into depth, I think it's very important to avail yourself to learning these tools. And I really like the word tool. And I know that we bandied about a lot, right? Oh, AI is a tool.

It's a tool. I used to use and love the analogy of AI being your smart intern. It's like your intern that came from Oxford. or your smart assistant, you send it out, you do something, it comes back, you review the work, and then you recalibrate it and send it back out. I like that, but I don't, my issue with it is that we start to, it kind of primes us in terms of that cognitive cascade of thinking it as an authority, as something that an entity that can just do.

Whereas when we think about it as a tool, And I think that that sets us up better to constrain the way that we use it so that we're getting the kind of results that we want. So we can tame some of that filler that we were talking about, you know, that ornamentation that LLMs have a tendency to do by using using these rigid formats like JSON so that it's just putting the specific things we want out there. And reading it's not real fun for us. It's sort of like the health food of content.

But it's a means to an end here. It's a way to keep the LM from covering things up with some of that ornamented filter. Likewise, we can use prompting strategies like chain of thought with some verification steps within it to keep things more factual and keep it on track. We can use the LLM's own probability talents to prompt for more diverse or more unlikely answers.

But it all comes down to how we as the human operators use it. I think it's I think that's just it. There isn't really more to it. The markers that I see consistently turning out better work aren't using better tools.

They're not, they're just not. They've found a tool stack and maybe that shifts, but they're learning the tools and they're using it just as they might have before to craft good work. They're just doing it at the speed of AI. They're taking smaller passes.

They're learning when to use the tool, because sometimes the best tool is a different tool. If I need to find and replace something, well, maybe that's maybe I should do that in another tool. But this is what it really comes down to, is learning those tools and using them in a way that can bring your vision to life. I don't really have more about that.

It's just It's up to us to stop the slop. If we value quantity over quality, then that's what we'll get. If we want really distinct marketing communications, if we want to stand out in the market and yet do it at speed, we can do that as long as we use AI in a way that actively fights some of those failure points. that cognitive cascade to stop the task collapse and to put us back in control. Because that's really what happens here is that we become the passenger, we become passive, and we just get lazy.

And it really doesn't need to be that way. If we regain the control with the craft and just take small passes through things, we can turn out really great work even using AI. What questions do you have? Yeah.

You know, every marketing salesperson is different. Some people may love to hand draw everything, and somebody else loves AI or whatever. But how do you-- this message is, I thought, really great and so timely. How would you help your team understand this, these concepts?

I'm the one that made the Kool-Aid, so I've had lots of it. So take that all with a grain of salt. For me, I think there's a lot of an aha in understanding some of that behind-the-scenes stuff that goes on with our brains. And I think knowing that can help arm people to see it and even to have a lexicon to talk about it with each other.

I think part of what happens too, and I don't have the answer here, is it's hard to collaborate with AI and with a team. So if I'm working on a project with a team and I or someone else goes off and does part of it and they involve AI and there's a lot of back and forth and stuff, it's tricky to bring them up to speed in a way that they can be an intellectual partner and challenge me in a productive way and make sure that I didn't slide off the rails. Because it happens easier than it should, it seems like, at times. So I think that's part of it.

And just acknowledging that this is what can happen to us, and it's just a natural thing. We just need to fight it. We just need to be aware, I think is a huge first step into stopping it. Anyone else or, you know, does anyone have any case studies about instances in your workplace where you've seen slop or seen slop stop that you've had success at stopping it?

One of the challenges that I have is like because AI it's really good, but it's like not perfect. It's like getting stuck in the. can't really, like, trust it completely to fully let the thing out and do what it's supposed to do. So some days, like, I've noticed that I've gotten stuck in the, well, it's got to be perfect before we can even use it. And getting over that hump to, like, maybe 90% or 95% is actually good enough.

How do you balance the excellence versus the good enough Yeah, I think that it depends. The first thing to do is decide when good enough is good enough and when it needs to be excellent. And I know that sounds kind of silly, but there are plenty of times where I need it to be well thought through and a good quality, but maybe I don't need it to be award-winning. And then there's other times where I've got more at stake and I really need this to be well polished.

And I think that's probably the first step is kind of identifying how big is our target here. And when it is a smaller target, when we're trying to hit that more excellent thing, Again, some bias, but I think we have to inject ourselves at some point and be that quality control filter. And it might mean that, Neil was suggesting that it's great for outlines and getting started. That might be where I start with it and maybe then I take it and write the thing and do the parts.

Or maybe I work in a different way and I, you know, I do some strategy with it up front and I have it write the drafts. And then I take it back and I'm the one that gets in there and throws out sense and structure that I think stinks and whatever else. I don't know if that's a great answer, but I do think that at some point we just have to, maybe 95% from the machine or 85% from the machine really fast is great. In fact, maybe that's huge.

Maybe trying to get to 100% is, again, maybe not the right target for this specific tool, depending, of course, on what exactly you're trying to do with it. Yeah. From your perspective, do you see this slot problem getting worse, getting better, stopping, changing? Where are we in another week, another month, another year?

Where do you see who's going? Predictions in the AI sphere are probably not the wise. I'm not, I don't know for sure. But I will tell you that I think some of, you know, we talked early on about the machine side.

I think some of those kinds of things are going to continue to be ironed out, you know, The reason why there was such a big range, like 28.5% to 79%, is it varies depending on the exact model and the recipe and the exact way that they do the training. And the smart cats at OpenAI and Anthropic and other places are trying to figure out how to do some of these things, like the alignment training. and do it with less impact to the diversity on the model. I think some of those things, I just presume, will get ironed out. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if that, to some degree, intensifies some of the challenges with the cognitive cascade.

I think right now, there's about, there's some research about AI imposter syndrome emerging, that people feeling inferior, it's about half. right now that would identify that their LLM is smarter than they are. So I think the danger is that part of it will get better and part of it might get worse because it will be even more tempting for us to trust it as an expert and to surrender to it. Yeah. I feel like the biggest problem with So like, I mean, maybe it's just a devil's advocate thing, but like just to layer things and do it slowly and like inject yourself through the process that you're describing, is that just a sophisticated way to not get caught?

Or how do you draw the line where like, I'm using AI to help me, but like I'm also beginning to, and I don't know, maybe the way to illustrate it would be like that auto logo of the restaurant you gave earlier, like, okay, if that restaurant is going to use AI hopefully with that process, what might that look like it's the right? In the case of the salty otter, I don't know, because again, we've probably all eaten at places that have that basic logo because so many entrepreneurs in that situation come get there because they have great passion and talents around culinary interests. And They may not be native designers or writers or whatever, and they may not have a large budget and prioritize where they're spending their money. There's some of that I think we need to be aware of, and I don't have a great answer for how that, how we're going to get a, how an there would get around it other than to spend more attention to it.

I don't, again, I don't know if that's maybe the, the answer you're looking for, but I guess like how do you, how do you use AI even if it's not SLOP, if like the SLOP is basically a red flag, Yeah. In fact, when you were saying that in the first part, my mind goes to, early on, we were talking about publications. I can't tell you how many printed publications, court citations and stuff, where people left things like, oh, this would make a nice introduction for your speech or whatever, or, obvious parts in there. And the answer to that is read your work. that's back to that judgment and accountability and decision making of one of the best things that we can do is invest ourselves and our time and look at that final outcome.

When I'm using something, it's just like if I'm using a router or something and I've jammed the stock through, if I don't look at that and see if I've done a good job, I just throw it in a pile. I'm sort of opening myself up to that slop. I mean, I'm allowing that. Yeah.

Can you touch a little bit more about the laziness, kind of what I call it, that human fatigue. How leaders can be hyperbiginous that it's like backing the-- taking a sample of pilot. that 90% of their work is automated. They just take off, and then the planes does everything, and we have planes that even land. But then in that area, they get fatigued, or they actually trust the system, and that's how they make errors.

How leaders can be hyper-vigilant in that end while you touch the point of laziness? Yeah, I think the laziness you're talking about again is that metacognitive laziness that sets in once we have that confluence of factors where I've kind of become passive, I'm in the passenger seat, and things are almost frictionless. I think that's a key part. That's part of that disarming of the mental systems that would otherwise be in place.

And so while I'm not an engineer and can't tell you exactly how you might do it. I know that there are plenty of techniques that we can build positive friction into our workflows and into the way tools are made such that we can avoid that sort of uneffortful me getting sleepy at the wheel, not paying attention kind of thing. So I think it's, again, it's about being aware that there's a trap in things being completely effortless and frictionless. But that's not all, like, again, it's like that deferred inefficiency.

It's not looking at the whole picture. I'm just trying to make this one thing be the most efficient possible without realizing that then might cascade or defer problems elsewhere. Yeah. Maybe really content specific, but should we all just accept that the M-dash is dead now because of AI?

Well, they've done an M-dash fix, so supposedly that's not coming out as more. And again, I personally, I love the M-dash. I was always a fan. I probably used it as a lazy writer crutch too many times myself.

It's a beautiful thing when used well. I would say no, embrace it. The interesting thing is, and we can get into the different things, apparently there was also a time when the LLMs were using certain verbs, delve and things in excess, and it was changing. again, it's that overuse. And so I think we're going to continue to see patterns of those kinds of things.

And like I said, I think you should own it. You should grab onto it. Use it well, and it will be good. I think that's the key thing with all of it is just, it's just trying to reclaim the active part of craft and in creating good work versus that kind of the passive stuff that we inadvertently get lulled into.

Yeah, Nick. I think your kind of woodworking analogy with the router is interesting because I think of AI and I think, you know, thinking of it as a tool makes a lot of sense. Because if you think of like, say you're going to build a cabinet or something like that and you need to cut a piece of wood, you can use a hand saw to do that. And if you do that, you're probably going to be a lot more meticulous, a lot more careful, a lot more thoughtful.

Or you can use an electric saw where you go faster. But at the end of the day, you still have to make sure that it's the right cut in the right place. And I think a lot of this slop can also be summed up by only a poor craftsman blames his tools. And so as you're working through this, you think about, okay, whether it is, you know, something that AI did or something that I did manually, at the end of the day, if you're the craftsman, you're still responsible for how everything comes together.

Yeah. I like that. I know we're about out of time. Anything else before we wrap?

All right. Well, thanks again. I really appreciate you being here.