The Future of AI: With Sir Demis Hassabis & Dame Wendy Hall

Great to be here. Thank you.

Okay. I'm not to blame.

I know

Yes, I remember. We tried to input into it.

Yeah well I'd probably suggest something much more radical. So I would agree with Wendy. had an interesting head start in 2017 but you know 10 years in AI is like a century in most industries right or maybe two you know maybe a millennia so a lot has changed I think we did a good job I think I remember that actually we sponsored some of these masters did absolutely and I think that helped a lot actually we see today London and the UK is doing really well in things like startups and I think we tried to anchor that at with deep mind and brought a lot of talent into the tree and then now 10 years later that a lot of those people are now spinning out other things and this is great to see. We need to do more of that. I'm sure we'll come to that discussion later, but specifically skilling and schools, I absolutely agree with Wendy. Now, we need to look to the secondary school level, maybe even the primary school level. The horse has bolted in the sense they're all using the LLMs and chat bots in their spare time and for homework and things like that, but it's very unsistatic and it's a bit like I feel like government policies and education systems a bit like, oh, I wish that would go away, but it's not. we're going to have to lean into it and help teachers and schools and parents and students work out how do we get the benefits out of it, not just probably the way that people are using it now and kids using now and I see my kids, you know, will just help them almost cheat on their homework or shortcut things. And we know that that will result in deficit of skills, traditional skills, let alone AI and computer skills later on. But I think we got an opportunity here. Maybe it's time for a new review for you to write, Wendy. This is why I would if I was going to input into this is what I would suggest is we need to invert the classroom in my opinion. So I would lean into a this is what I would do if I was in charge of education. I would say school in school should be about people skills, projects, entrepreneurialism, creativity, judgment, all the things that you might expect the skills to be important in 5 10 years time when AGI's arrived. I know we're going to debate about AGI, but even just extrapolation of today's AI, there'll be things AI can do well and then there'll be things that will need human judgment, taste, all of these things. But these are not taught in schools today. But so I'll come to that. So the school so I think in class it should be about human human contact. How do you organize groups of people into projects like a Montyurus school but plus or maybe you get at like Oxbridge and places like these sort of the top universities these kind of individual supervisions right but you bring that into the classroom out of classroom is where you do the rote learning that would be my opinion aided by personalized AI that basically tailors the rote learning to the speed and the exact personalized to the exact speed of the student and what they need to do. It's crazy that we do a one size fits all in class anyway on rope learning. Doesn't work because you have to cater to the average. What about the kids that are behind or the kids that are ahead? Good luck on both sides. So here with AI, you can actually personalize it so everyone gets exactly the tailored curriculum that they need. And then in school, it's all about projects. I think teachers would love that personally. And then you could have world-class teachers that are like kind of almost like superstars that do the lecturing and they're really good. You know, why do we expect every school teacher, every lecturer to be amazing at lecturing the same course? That's just completely redundant amount of work. When I talk to teacher friends of mine, you know, and they have to come, each of them has to teach GCSE maths and then bring create their own slide decks. Why are we in that world? It should just be one. And then it's not then the remote learning you do at your own speed at home with the help of AI. That's what I would do. But I don't know if the countries somewhere like Singapore will do this in my opinion or UAE.

Of course not. You exactly I mean you you absolutely needed to lean into STEM and computer science because no matter it's just a higher level programming language is the way you can think about what programming is going to become. You know we used to program in machine code then there was C then there's Python and now it's going to be perhaps it's going to be English. But that's fine. Like you're still going to need to know about architecting things and software best software engineering practices. Those people who understand the deep technical, they'll be able to use these tools 10 times more effectively than people that don't have that technical knowledge.

And presumably, you're going to have to tweak the curriculum as well. I was just going to say you so I think you need to teach STEM and computer science and continue that's very valuable training but the curriculum has to change to you know there might be very different things that one should study

And particularly the risks and the other social effects of doing this that will also have to be brought into the curriculum presumably.

Oh, sorry.

Yeah. I mean firstly my definition of AGI is a system that you can test and exhibits all the cognitive capabilities humans have. The reason that's important is the human reference point and the human brain reference point is the human brain is the only existence proof we have we know of perhaps in the universe that exhibits general intelligence. And I believe that brain is a sort of an approximate cheuring machine. Obviously, cheuring, one of my all-time heroes, he showed what cheuring universal machines, you know, can compute anything. So that's computable maybe apart from like quantum systems and other things. It's a bit out of scope for today. But I think that's what an AI system is. And that means it should be able to do the types of creative things and invention things that we know the best scientists were able to do. Today's systems are nowhere near that. They're not consistent enough. they have missing capabilities. They're very impressive in many ways but they also as we've all interacted with them every day these LLMs they're missing some components now that may get solved with scaling but it may also require one or two big breakthroughs still like transformers were or things like reinforcement learning applied to deep learning like we did with Alph Go. So the jury's out on that. I think it's going to be given the amount of resources and brain power going into it around four or five years is my expectation from where we are today. So around 2030 and then when that happens that becomes a new type of tool or system that we've never seen before and we'll need to think about how to use such a transformative piece of technology. and it's going to change everything in my opinion, economies, perhaps even the human condition. But I'm a very of course the positive part of that would be advancing science, curing diseases, advancing medicine. This is why I spent my whole career working on AI and what we call AGI technologies. We help popularize that term. But obviously there are challenges with systems and we already see the beginnings of that with the Gentic systems that become more and more autonomous. How do we make sure they stay on the guardrails that we set and they do the things that we want? Then there's questions of things like you know beyond that of as the machines get more capable consciousness other things which maybe we'll get into but the first step is to get these tools right

well actually there was a bit so let me roll back the big thing for me if I don't accept it but if we reach some form of something you accept as AGI by 2030 which I don't personally am not on that side of the fence but if then that gives us four years to sort out global governance of AI because otherwise we've got machines that are cleverer than us in some aspects and the big thing is that if the software we're building starts to decide to do things on its own the sort of I'm sorry Dave I can't do that moment. And this will inevitably happen. and Steven Hawings of 2014 said, 'If we build machines that are clever, I'm not using the word intelligence, by the way, here. I'll come just say one more thing about that.' He said that was the end of the human race. That's one of the last things Stephen Hawking said in a BBC interview. There are threats. We absolutely have to have a global governance in place. the and there this I mean I was on the UN high level advisory board. It won't be not enough people the UN isn't what it used to be and it won't be of the UN but it will it could spin out of the UN. There's the global dialogue starting in July where some governments are going to come together and start really talking about what this means. And just this week Trump went back on his word and said we have got to start what did he say not regulate what's the word he used the companies and the check evaluate the software that's coming out I can't remember the word he used so he because he when he came into power he did a what did the president executive order

he overturned Biden's rule and he did an executive order that said no regulation at and he stopped the states regulating. Well, he went back on that this week or his government did and said we because and actually it was because I think the tipping point was the mythos software from anthropic. It's yeah, it's also not just that. There's a lot of people input I'm spending a lot of we're spending a lot of our time inputting into those things behind the scenes. We don't shout about that from the rooftops. Mythos is a has been a very interesting good trigger because it worried the banks and Besson which is always the be you know that's when people take things seriously right to talking to HSBC people here you know when the banks get worried then government wakes up which is you know maybe it's a good thing and that means there's a window of opportunity here I think to do something and I think that's why we saw the executive order eventually get through and but it's it's not enough and and there's more and actually we're in I mean as you know Wendy we're in total agreement I do think there needs to be kind of an international standards you know I'm my view is and maybe where we disagree is timelines on AGI but my point is is that there's a I actually talk about it as if 50% chance of 2030 with some obviously margins of error but the point is it could happen depending on things like recursive self-improvement if that works so there's a lot of things people are working a lot of things that could speed up the timelines right if those things don't work then it may take longer, but that's great. Then we'll just have more time. But my view is we don't have the right institutions fit for purpose to deal with something as consequential as this. All of the unfortunately this is happening at a moment where the geopolitics is as complex as it's been in 30 years. It's more fragmented than ever. The UN is not what it was as Wendy was saying. So you know maybe one could have imagined in fact I did imagine 20 years ago maybe it would be some form of technical subcommittee of the UN or something. that's unthinkable now. And so I feel like there's not a lot of time even 4 years, let's say it's 10 years, you know, that would be better in some ways if Wendy's right if it takes a bit longer because then we have more time to get ready and society to get ready. But look, we got to take it seriously is what I'm explaining to people who care about this that it might be sooner. So that's the point I'm making is the urgency. It's absolutely urgent now, right? We've just seen mythos cyber that's just the beginning. I'm more worried about things like biorisk coming down the line. Obviously, this is something that I work very closely on to try and cure, you know, as many diseases as possible with alpha fold. But those, you know, those kinds of tools can in the wrong hands can also be misused. And so, there are two things I worry about. Misuse of general purpose technologies by rogue actors for harmful ends. That can happen. You know, not what those tools were intended for. That even affects things like open source, which is generally good, but how do you restrict bad use cases of that? That's a big problem we don't know how to solve. And then there's the technical question that Wendy alluded to is the making sure the systems as they get more autonomous, more powerful, more smart, how do we make sure that they stick to the guardrails we set them? And then even if we solve those technical questions, then there's the economics questions. How does all of society broadly benefit? Not just a few, you know, handful of companies, a handful of people. That's not a good end. That's not a good way for society to go. And then beyond that, even if we get that right, there's the philosophical question about meaning and purpose. But so there's a whole stack of issues, each one more complex in my opinion, and we've got to get going yesterday on these things.

I'm not sure.

There's the first dialogue coming global dialogue about this is happening in Geneva that is being run by the UN but it doesn't mean what comes of it has to be of the UN. I mean that's why by the way the AI summits that was started in the UK with Sunax government and we were highly supportive of that and helping push that that I think those summits have been good they're not enough but at least they're getting the international community together to try and talk about some of these subjects

sure but but

when how long have people been trying to do climate change cop meetings for can't we can't the evidence of so this is there has to be a different route like talking shops are not going to be enough so and I just don't think the UN has the power to do anything currently so it's going to be need to be new institutions but you know that's a tricky needle to thread a lot of us are working and I'm working trying to work behind the scenes on this you know I appreciate Wendy's working you know front and center on these things I think both are needed actually behind the scenes advice and maneuvering and then you head on tackling of this.

No, of course not. In fact, they want it actually.

I did.

We do.

Well, we can't be I mean I think it's important that and I've told this to all various European leaders that you can't just be I told this to Macron back in around 2017 and he tried to do something about it. You cannot be world champions at regulation only. That's not a thing. Exactly. Right. So to have a seat I literally told him that and I said you can you know you've got to also be leading in the technology and have lead some leading companies and leading academics so that you can have a seat at the table. So first of all you see what's coming down the line ahead of time and you also have a sort of moral authority to have a seat around the table and be listened to. And there was a time when I was trying to encourage a sort of trilateral thing with Britain, France and Canada because I would say those three countries were kind of the next best at research after the two superpowers US and China. actually as a three if you look at citations papers researchers it's pretty like those three countries together now you could include some other European countries and also there's Singapore and so on but those three could create a kind of moderate bull work between the two superpowers didn't quite happen for politics and other reasons but there's still an opportunity there I think the UK is still uniquely positioned to take advantage of this we've tried to do our bit of obviously we're part of Google but I kept eat headquartered here we bought thousands of top researchers here. You know, they did some great work at DeepMine. Many of them then after five, six, 10 years went and started other things. And once you embed yourself in a location, you stay tend to stay there, right? Family reasons, other things you'd like the city and so on. And I think we're seeing that. And all ecosystems need anchors like that. Silicon Valley was not Silicon Valley until Huelet Packard and Intel, all these kind of companies seeded it, right? And they also came from strong universities nearby. Stanford, Berkeley and so on. And we have that here. The Golden Triangle, you know, Cambridge, Oxford, Hampton, UC, we got so many strong these things take centuries to build up. We have those assets. We have very smart people. We just need to have more ambition and utilize them here and hopefully government encourage that or at least not get in the way of that. And I think we're doing pretty well here, but we could do better. And then the next stage is financing the growth stage of companies which is missing which I think maybe some of the financiers in the room can think how would we do that. I think the stock exchange needs some updating. I don't know why companies don't float on the London stock exchange anymore. They will go to the US. There's obviously some problem there that needs to be addressed and I just think we could take advantage of this moment. We have all the right ingredients. The other big thing is we've got to address energy costs and our energy dependence partly for security reasons. So perhaps there's going to be a confluence of good things here. But we have the most expensive energy in the western world. And the problem with that is that's going to directly translate into intelligence. It's literally watts to dollars to tokens. So you cannot build our industry out. This that's the new industrial base, right? If you believe what's going to happen with AI is data centers, information, it's tokens. how much can you inference per unit cost? And so this is vital now. It's vital for all our industries, but it's going to be vital for the industries of the future. So, and then that will pay itself if we're going to I don't know if we're going to get to climate and environment, but obviously there's a worry about that with the data centers and things like that. But actually I just think that's a bit to me that's a red herring because if we build these technologies right they will be the it will be AI that will help us deliver the technologies of the future that will actually solve climate change. So we're working on fusion, material design, better solar power, you know, all sorts of things. We're going to be advancing this new renaissance here I see coming. We could be at the forefront of that and that will be the thing that will then, you know, completely change the climate equation, not trying to shave off 1% or 2% right now. Can I come into that

they are the best and they are setting the benchmarks for how you evaluate what's coming out of the tech companies.

100% agree on that. just again to call the praise out of the AI safety institute as it was called security institute now in the UK is the world leading and we are extremely good at that and I think that's something our academic base can feed into too because you actually want non-company organizations doing that type of work really right and so I think that is leading the way and I think that's one way towards having the technical capability for whatever standards body there is you need the highly technical folks and those could come from these security institutes networks.

Place because of all the tech investment that's gone in. And then again, you know, those people stay for a few years and then they maybe they go and do startups. So that's the other thing. And then the final thing was I just think our bit of an underdog story is I kind of wanted to prove that it could be done here. And that we were punching under our weight in this area. And I think we proved a point with Deep Mind and hopefully that inspired and I think it has inspired the next generation of founders to start amazing things here in hard technologies, deep tech, whether it's like quantum or fusion or indeed finance and banking. So but I think we could go further. We now need to produce our first trillion dollar company here that remains independent and grows here. That's probably the next challenge for the UK ecosystem. But I believe we'll do that and there are pockets of that like Stockholm with Daniel Ek trying to do this with Spotify, and then he's inspiring a next generation of entrepreneurs there. And you just need a few things to happen and seed and then the ecosystems with the government's help can build on that.

Yeah.

We've got the universities.

The next level now.

Yeah.

Yes. Well, look, I spent my whole life working on AI because I thought it would be the ultimate tool for science. So I've always been interested in the big questions, you know, of the nature of reality. How do things work? And for me, my expression of that was to build the best tool to help scientists. Now, protein folding and protein structure prediction, I came across that as an undergrad in Cambridge. A lot of my biologist friends, one specifically was obsessed with that and would talk about it all the time. So I listened very carefully. I tend to listen very carefully about people who are very passionate about things and I thought it was an amazing first of all an amazing scientific question. It was an amazing puzzle. How does this one-dimensional genetic sequence fold up into this exquisite three-dimensional little nano machines? Amazing. And it was also what I call a root node problem. If you cracked it, it would open up whole new branches of discovery, right? Drug discovery, fundamental biology understanding. And I'm always attracted to these, it was described to me once as Fermat's Last Theorem equivalent for biology. So who can resist that? And people have been trying to solve it for 50 years. And then the other thing was I just even back then, this was in the '90s, we didn't have any of the technology that we have today, but I could feel it was the right sort of problem for AI to perhaps help with. So I just filed it in the back of my mind for nearly 20 years, really 15 years, until the day after we had the AlphaGo match and I came back from South Korea and not only we won the match but AlphaGo had played an original move, move 37. So it made a sort of discovery in the limited domain of a game but still kind of unbelievable that it could do that and that was what I was waiting to see, having a system that could not only perform at that level but do those kind of things. And the day I got back is when we started the AlphaFold project.

And now we continue with Isomorphic Labs, this new spin out in UK, because I feel there's isomorphism between biology and information sciences. I think biology can be thought of as an information processing system.

Yeah, you'll like the name. So that's building on what AlphaFold did, which is protein structure, but that's only one, an important but only one component of the drug discovery process. And that's a field I think that needs to be completely reimagined. And that's what we're trying to do with Isomorphic.

Yes. Very interesting times. We'll be watching what you guys do because you're doing something with material sciences as well.

Yes. That's a lot harder.

Humans. Exactly. They're the most complex things to predict.

Right. Okay. So two good questions. I think the first one I would talk about two things actually. One is the energy situation. I think that needs to be addressed anyway for security, but I think it's doubly important given the AI economy coming down the line. We need to be part of that. We need to build data centers. We need to have that first party stuff here on the ground and take advantage of that. The second thing is what we also talked about earlier, sorting out how do we get from unicorns, we do very well getting to unicorns. How do we get to the really big global influential companies? We need some of those here. That's the next challenge and I think government has to be part of that. Stock exchange, the whole ecosystem, your world needs to sort that out to help allow for that to happen. So I think it could happen with the right ecosystem. And then the second thing on the collaboration, I think these kinds of forums are good. This is why I was delighted to participate in this. I think it's great and it's always fun chatting with Wendy too. These kinds of forums where we bring together but maybe not just technologists, we need to, this is the amazing thing about London specifically, we actually have world-class things in many domains. In the US, that's split across different cities. The government's in DC, then you've got New York financing, life sciences is Boston, and then you got Silicon Valley, and entertainment in LA. We have all of that pretty much to a world-class level in one city. And I have always been a huge believer in multi-disciplinary work. I'm even more of a believer in that now and I think AI can enable that because it allows you to get expert quite quickly at some other subject area. And I also think what we need to do to solve, actually I totally agree with Wendy's earlier point about that's what I was meaning about philosophy. It was just a highfalutin way of saying it. We need to work out intentionally what sort of society do we want to have and build in a post-AI AGI world. Forget the term. The term is irrelevant. When we're not disagreeing about the term, forget the timeline. Who cares if it's 5, 10 years, even 15. It's soon. It's in our lifetimes. It's in our kids' lifetimes. It's going to happen. So just deal with that. The horse is not going back into the stable. It's happening. We need to work out what do we want to do about it. The future is not written. It is for us, society, to write that. But only if we approach it without fear. It's a challenging thing. It's scary. There's uncertainty. No one has the answers. None of the big tech people have the answers yet. But it doesn't mean there aren't answers out there. It's for us as society to decide that. And I think that requires all parts of society to be involved. I mean the humanities, the sciences, as well as the tech and industry and government. And I think the UK and London could be a center for that actually. But only if we're successful enough economically and technically to have a seat at the table. That's the prerequisite for then having a voice that others will listen to.

Well, we have to pass laws that have teeth.

Yeah, sure. So deep fakes is a good example of that and there are technologies like invisible watermarking that we've developed and others that it's going to become an industry standard now that would allow if a government wanted to, and I think this will happen because it seems obvious that should be done, outlawing that but also making sure that any model that generates media has to have watermarking as part of it and also a detection system that government can have access to or journalists or eventually maybe the web should just automatically flag that up. That seems like a no-regrets, no-brainer thing to do. But look, as to Dune, which could happen if things go wrong, I've watched the film, I've read so much sci-fi but I didn't read Dune maybe for this reason because it banned AI. But there were many other great movies. We might not get the chance to recover if AI was built wrong. I don't know how it resolved in the Dune universe, but if things go badly wrong there may not be potential to just walk that back, so we got to get that right first time. What I would say is in science fiction, since we brought it up, there are many great examples of universes where humanity did get this right and we're kind of maximum human flourishing to the stars. I would point to Iain Banks as one of my favorite sci-fi novelists and the Culture series. That depicts a future world maybe a thousand years from now where humanity's spread to the stars and they're also AIs as well but they sort of coexist in this largely peaceful and complementary way. So there are many interesting visions of what that could be. Maybe we need more science fiction authors to produce positive stories about the way it should go because actually a lot of science fiction does affect what scientists then think to do. I think when I speak to a science fiction author I tell them write some hard sci-fi that shows a realistic view of where we could get to or where we should be trying to aim for in the next 50 to 100 years. I think we need a big creative explosion of ideas of what sorts of societies should we build assuming we get some of these things right, the technical aspects correct, and then we might be in a post-scarcity world. But what does that mean? How should economics work in that sort of world if we solve fusion and material science and some root node problems?

It's quite a hard question to answer. I'm just going to start off by saying my number one would be diversity. I'm sorry, but when I was asked somewhere what keeps you awake at night, it's not any of the things that Demis has been talking about or I hear, it's the fact that we don't have diversity in this world and I think because of that it'll be harder to build an egalitarian world using AI if you haven't got diversity. And I'm looking at it through a gender lens, but I do mean diversity in its widest sense. I'm getting older. Well, we all are. That stupid tautology. I'm beginning to feel there are things I can't do like I used to be able to do. And we really need to think about how the elderly like me are going to get the benefit of AI and school kids who have no access to technology. There's so many things where we've got to think, we've got to try and create a level playing field for people.

Well, it's a tricky one. I'm thinking mostly about what needs to happen at the global governance scale which obviously will affect everything. But I think the bottom-up grassroots aspect is critical too in the way Wendy said. But we've touched on a lot of themes. Education, making sure people are reskilled. These are all community level things. The curriculum is updated. I've told you what I would do. Maybe you agree with that. Maybe there's some way you can influence that. I'm not going to have time to do that, but someone should be doing that. So depending on the interests of your members, I think helping charities get up to speed on these things and take advantage actually of these tools. It should be great for a lot of things like back office things, stuff that charities have to do and spend money on so that they can spend their money and time on helping the community people themselves. A lot of resources in charities to do with fundraising in the back office, but it'd be better if it was frontline. So I think those things, we need both and hopefully they'll converge. The global governance scale with the frontier labs and the superpowers and then community scale. And again, maybe this is something we can lead the way on here in the UK.

Yeah, I think that's a great point actually. So I think that investors could exercise a lot more influence than they probably do. I think the problem is it's so lucrative to get into those funding rounds that the terms are basically there and it's take it or leave it as I understand it, and you can't really miss out because how many of these rocket ship companies are there? Not that many, maybe just a handful. So that I think skews the balance a bit. Also a lot of them have unusual control structures where they're not beholden to the shareholders even when they float. So maybe, but I mean look, the average investor just to be fair mostly cares about their returns. So I don't know if that we want any even further just purely economic incentive. I think that's already part of the problem. Perhaps there's some way around that and maybe when, what I'm hoping is the market will self-correct a bit in the agentic era because if you imagine that one of the leading frontier model labs wants to provide agents for a financial service company for example, I would imagine the financial service companies will want some guarantees around the guardrails of those agents, what they'll do with their client data. You can't have one of them putting a trade on that loses you a billion dollars the next day because of some misspecified goal function. So what I suspect will happen is maybe some sort of error like that will happen with the companies that are providing things without the right guardrails and then the market will do the correct thing and incentivize responsible behavior especially in the regulated industries which are also somewhat the most valuable. So I think it could be good actually. That's the kind of silver lining with these technologies becoming more commercially viable especially in enterprise which is what we're seeing now for the first time. We saw the consumer part of it but there's also now enterprise and that may actually then line up incentives in a way that's really good for responsible deployment. So that's pretty likely to happen actually and I think investors and also enterprises that are CTOs and CIOs of big banks and other companies should be using your power and your purchasing power to support providers that you believe are acting responsibly. That's what you can do. And I also say that to the average person in the street even as a consumer you could vote with your dollars and vote with your feet and use the market forces for good to put pressure to support companies and labs that are doing things in ways and with leaders that reflect the values you would like to see in the world. And as these systems become more commercial I hope that's what investors and enterprises will do. I think it could be tied too to whatever organization we collectively managed to set up to do governance of AI across the world because you could have charter or treaties or whatever and the investors could say if your company doesn't sign up to this then we're not going to invest in you.

Yes. Well, the alternate history. Yes, sure. Well, look, I don't know where you were in 2014. I don't know if you would have backed us with several billion dollars back then. Maybe you would have done, but I couldn't find. Back in 2014, which is another world in AI terms, we were still the only people doing it. This is before OpenAI was set up, before we did AlphaGo, we just had the Atari games, and people were like, what is, you're playing Space Invaders, why is that important? But Google understood the importance of that to be clear. Larry Page specifically, I give him a lot of credit on that because he himself always was interested in AI. He saw Google as an AI company. The reason I sold was I knew it would require $7 billion of investment in order to try and become one of those companies. And I was barely able to scrape together $10 million rounds at that point. And the problem was that we had done enough, the Atari thing had alerted enough of the Silicon Valley titans. They were coming after my people. So if I had to find, and we had no business, we didn't even have a product obviously because I was trying to make the core technology. And I was paying myself zero and people were being paid like $100k a year and then they were getting offers of $10 million a year. So I could sort of think, and then if that didn't work they could come back and say here's $50 million a year. So at some point that was going to go wrong. And at the time, this was before SoftBank and some of the big VCs were doing billion dollar rounds. I was slightly unlucky with the timing because if we had held on 2015-16 I could have done a fundraising round like that. Wouldn't have been British investors unfortunately, but I could have gotten it from some of the more out there investors that had the firepower. But that just wasn't available in 2014. But the other reason I don't regret it is I wanted to get back to the research and the science. It's very hard to do two, fundraise for a startup worry about product and then do something like AlphaGo and AlphaFold. I would never, so I don't regret it for a moment because for me it was always about the research and the technology and what it could do rather than the money or the power. I appreciate it would be better for Britain, but maybe for my bank balance, but I wouldn't swap my Nobel for any amount of money you could give me literally any amount. And what I've seen, 3 million researchers around the world have used AlphaFold in their important biomedical research. A leading farmer friend of mine said there won't be a drug invented in the future that hasn't used AlphaFold somewhere in their process. So I'm very proud of that. I think it's something built here in Britain. I think we should be proud of that scientific fact. And look, who knows, maybe I'll complete the job with Isomorphic. That's kind of part of the plan, right? Head fully headquartered here. But we need to fix whatever the problem is with the stock exchange right now. Why are companies not floating on there? I don't know. So we need to fix that. I'll come to you in a few years time and we can talk about it.