So how do you build that trust with underwriters and business leaders so that AI becomes something that they will actually use?

Yeah, I think it's ultimately about just defining what are the guidelines that we want to use AI with, right? So are we willing and are we allowing AI to make actual decisions or are we using AI as a tool that underwriters can use to get things done? And it's not a bad thing to start with a tool that underwriters can use, even if that means that the tool can do a lot of the things the underwriter does only for the underwriter to review.

But the point is actually in the review.

I mean, how many of you have drafted an email in ChatGPT and gone in and then sent it out? Everyone does that all the time.

But you do review it first.

And I see that as the first step of this is you move into review mode, right? So underwriters are actually reviewing decisions AI agents make, right? And that's what they're doing.

And that's where they're applying their true actual underwriting skill.

Like, do you need to define new common standards or is sort of the broader work that some of the, you know, core horizontal AI companies are doing kind of setting those standards for you?

Yeah, that's a good question.

A lot of those standards exist, but aren't really tailored for insurance-specific functions.

And insurance is pretty complex.

When you start thinking about an out-of-sequence endorsement, That is not something that exists anywhere else.

That's so insurance specific that you need to build that tool.

And we need to natively build that tool for an agent to interact with.

so What is your take on some of the AI regulation, the third-party AI rules? I've seen some language suggesting that at the end of the day, under some circumstances, legislation potentially, if the AI is deemed to have made a mistake, that there's a human who's going to be held accountable and who is that human in this scenario?