... as I've, I've read your writing.

Yeah.

No.

So, um, where, where I stand and where I come from, indeed it's, is, is a long story again.

I think that at this moment, the most, uh, complex or maybe the most confusing part of it all is the, the concept itself.

We are using the concept of AI to mean everything and anything.

It doesn't really mean, uh, becomes a empty signifier, uh, becomes something like, uh, a couple of years ago, everybody was talking about digitalization, and everything was the digital and so on.

So maybe we can start by getting your reaction to the document, the partnership between Vatican and Anthropic, and then we can kinda get into the, the specific pieces of it.

... as I've, I've read your writing.

Yeah.

No.

So, um, where, where I stand and where I come from, indeed it's, is, is a long story again.

I think that at this moment, the most, uh, complex or maybe the most confusing part of it all is the, the concept itself.

We are using the concept of AI to mean everything and anything.

It doesn't really mean...

So maybe we can start by getting your reaction to the document, the partnership between Vatican and Anthropic, and then we can kinda get into the, the specific pieces of it.

So yeah, explain the paradox.

Maybe starting a little bit before that, I wrote the book because exactly I was getting a bit fed up with the way that AI has been explained and has been sent down our throats by all kinds of ways.

And I thought there was time to explain things a bit in a different way and also putting a couple of notes.

Maybe not completely paradox, but a kind of challenges and controversies highlighting those.

So it starts indeed with the idea that the more AI can do, the more we'll see what exactly AI is not doing yet.

There is a old definition of AI, which already from the 70s, I believe, which says that AI is what AI cannot do yet.

And that means exactly once we solve the challenge, then it becomes just computing.

No, I don't say