What are the sorts of rationalizations that you're aware of that people use to justify their own AI use while at the same time condemning other people for doing the same? So yeah, I mean, the

hypocrisy trap talks about this a lot.

The degree of an inconsistency really matters.

If there's even a bit of wiggle room, we tend to judge it less harshly.

So in our minds, what we're doing is finding that wiggle room.

My use of AI in this way is justified.

Yours was inexcusable.

To what degree is our response to this sort of hypocrisy, this double standard, a response to the fact that it has been foisted upon us by this small group of people who hold so much power within Silicon Valley and over the AI industry?

Can you take us through the four key principles of the framework and explain why you chose these specific areas?

Yes, absolutely.

So the first one is make it easy, and there are a few examples here.

It can be a question of just removing the friction involved in, uh, performing a behavior.

That is surprisingly important.

We tend to asti-- we tend to underestimate the extent to which just even a small reduction in effort can make the difference between someone doing something or not.

So, um, you know, there are studies showing that just in helping university students, uh, to complete their applications increased attendance rates from twenty-eight percent to thirty-six percent.

How would you help those who are thinking about applying it to brands or products or, uh, or a commercial application? How, how, how can they build on this idea in those, in those spaces?

So what are some of those blind spots for those who might feel we're in a trust machine or, and not realize we're in a purist regime, uh, purity regime?

Part of the thing I talk about is that organizations are trying to do lots of different things at once, and that can mean that you have some forms of inconsistency, partly because different parts of the organization are doing different things.

Um, organizations and businesses are really in a difficult position because they have to, um, make a profit quite often, listen to their shareholders, but also they're under pressure from consumers to appear to be sticking to principles or having principles, stepping in where we think that maybe governments or others are falling short.

And yet that kind of consistency, um-Is, is really, really, uh, unavoidable.

Uh, and so trust in companies has really declined over the last 25 years, partly because they've been trying to reconcile these different things.

Um, you can have, uh, the sustainability department saying, um, uh, "Return and reuse your handbags," for example.

"We'll-- Don't throw them away.

It's being pointed out in, in every corner and every facet, online dating, in the news, but yet we're encountering it, and we don't have a good rubric to really measure, okay, what, what am I willing to tolerate and, and what is actually acceptable.

Yeah, that's right.

I mean, a few things there.

Like, so with politics, we feel weird about it because the truth is in democratic societies, you know, you have to have both principles and pragmatism.

You have to sort of give a clear message and then make some compromises to actually get things done.

And you often hear people saying, oh, why can't people just work together and get things done? But also why can't people stand up for our principles? So we want it both ways in our politics as well.

We kind of want those incompatible things.

And then we get annoyed with politicians when they don't, you know, make the two contradictory things work together.

other way and that we ordinary punters kind of make it impossible for people we vote for or celebrities or even each other to