So if the bottom rungs of the corporate ladder are automated away, like it's just not available anymore, how does a human being enter the system to be developed in the first place?

I think there's a responsibility that's really incumbent on organizations to pay attention to that.

I know we're in college graduation season, and this has come up at a lot of commencement speeches where there's, um, a, a bit of angst around the talk of the industrial revolution's next phase being AI, and I believe a lot of that has to do with, you know, people who've invested in their education and gone that route and are struggling to find jobs because there are fewer out there, um, or, or at least that's the perception.

So I, I guess for me, that perception is the piece that I think still is coming to pass.

Is it actually because of AI? Is it because companies are under budget pressure and they're making reductions, and that's, you know, the point that they can make them? Is it less about AI, honestly, and more about automation or changing the way they're actually doing their work? Because when we think about AI, and I say the big we, maybe not necessarily just my organization, but anywhere, where that all starts is with process engineering and how are you working and what are you trying to deliver, really? That's, that's the place that everyone needs to focus.

We're not really, I think, globally, I don't know of any organizations who feel they've nailed that, so we're really not as far down the path with this as some of the news headlines may lead people to believe.

I truly believe a lot of organizations are still trying to figure it out.

It's fundamentally different, and if you apply first principles thinking to it, what does a talent executive, um, you know, what, what would they have done successfully to create the new organization?