The Changing Conversation about AI Companions

In honor of the release of her audiobook Love at First Prompt, Bridget Todd breaks down the questions we should be asking about the relationships people form with AI, the attempts to legislate around them, and the companies profiting from the desire for emotional connection.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hey, this is Annie and Samiittha.

Speaker 2 (00:07):
I'm welcome to stuff I ever told you, re Productive
I Heeart Radio, and today we are so happy to
once again be joined by the remarkable, the resourceful Bridget Todd.

Speaker 1 (00:24):
Welcome Bridget.

Speaker 3 (00:26):
Thank you Annie. It's always a pleasure to be here
with you, ladies.

Speaker 2 (00:29):
Yes, it is always so wonderful to have you on.
How have you been, Bridget?

Speaker 3 (00:35):
Things are good.

Speaker 4 (00:37):
I just launched my audiobook Love at First Prompt, which
I know we're going to get into a little bit today.
I had a kind of small book party here in
DC where I live, and it was one of those
parties where it was I was bringing together a lot
of people from different parts of my life, my friends
from home, some family members, journalists, people that I work with,

(00:57):
and so I was terrified that it was going to
be too many intersections of my social life. So I
had planned all of these games for the party, and
there's one game that I think that you might really
be intrigued by.

Speaker 3 (01:09):
Annie.

Speaker 4 (01:09):
We played f Mary Kill, but for different pop culture
iterations of AI companions, So people got to vote, like,
you know, would you rather f Bender from Futurama or
the robot from ex Machina or you know, Kit from

(01:30):
Night Writer or Samantha from Her to come up with
our list of the definitive list of AI companions and
robots and movies that you'd rather f Mary Kill.

Speaker 2 (01:41):
That's fantastic. Do you have Did you come to a conclusion?

Speaker 3 (01:46):
We did?

Speaker 4 (01:47):
So. People wanted to f the sexy bots from the
movie X Machina.

Speaker 3 (01:53):
Have y'all seen that?

Speaker 1 (01:54):
Yes, very terrifying.

Speaker 4 (01:57):
Yeah, so they'll I mean, I don't want to spoiler away,
but like effing maybe otherwise having them around maybe not
the safest option. People wanted to marry the bot from Companion. Uh,
have y'all seen that?

Speaker 5 (02:12):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (02:13):
No, that was a good choice.

Speaker 5 (02:15):
I know none of these.

Speaker 4 (02:17):
And then there was a little bit of we needed
a tiebreaker around for Kill because a lot of the
robots in movies do turn evil. But it seems like
the definitive kill robot was the T one hundred from
Terminator Too, like the bad cop robot that can sort
of melt.

Speaker 3 (02:33):
Do you know what I'm talking about?

Speaker 4 (02:34):
Oh?

Speaker 5 (02:35):
Yeah, that makes sense.

Speaker 1 (02:36):
Dog It from Xbox Yeah, you don't like that guy.

Speaker 4 (02:39):
I gotta say I love X Files as you know, Yes,
watch so I saw. I saw Terminator two in the
theater when I was a little kid with my dad,
which like not a movie for kids, but he made
such an impression on me that I can't I don't
even like to watch the dogged episodes of X Files.
That's how much of a of a negative impression the
T one hundreds made. Up to this day, I don't

(03:01):
like cops like I swear. Seeing that at a young
age really messed with my head.

Speaker 2 (03:07):
I think it was the because at the time the
effects were so new when he like goes Silver that
it was just what they would show when they were
like showing clips about Terminator two, and so he was
sort of the face of like that movie. So he
was very impactful. That character was very impactful. I understand.

Speaker 3 (03:30):
Dam have you seen that?

Speaker 5 (03:32):
So I've never seen it either, I want to say,
but I know who he is the guy. The actor
alone was scary to me, yes, because of what he represented,
so like if I saw him in anything else, I'd
be like, eh, evil guy like that. Immediately thought he
was an evil guy.

Speaker 4 (03:47):
He's just one of those actors that portrays evil so well, well,
there's only a handful for me where I know it's
a movie. I know you're acting, but I'm always gonna
be a little sun. You just were too good at
being evil.

Speaker 5 (04:03):
Absolutely, and he is definitely one of those.

Speaker 3 (04:06):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (04:08):
I also I remember put him from the Faculty, which
was like my favorite movie when I was a kids girl.

Speaker 4 (04:15):
That first of all, that cast, isn't it like John Stewart.
Sure if folks do don't know what I'm talking about,
because you're not a million years old.

Speaker 3 (04:25):
It is a movie that people forget.

Speaker 4 (04:26):
And they sleep on, and then you watch the cast
and you're like, what was the situation where all these
people come together for this movie?

Speaker 5 (04:32):
It's early two thousands, Like, if you don't know, like
late nineties, early two thousands, that was the dreamcast. So
I really like that you said this is your favorite
movie as a.

Speaker 1 (04:41):
Cat, I would watch it every day.

Speaker 3 (04:48):
Insane is clear Duval.

Speaker 4 (04:51):
Yes, I feel like she's yeah, this is the heyday
of clean Vale. I feel like has started really like
she's finally getting.

Speaker 3 (04:59):
Her fo or something now, which she has been holding
it down.

Speaker 4 (05:03):
If you were like an alti queer girl in the
nineties and the two thousands, he probably had an affinity
for Clea Duval.

Speaker 3 (05:10):
I'm happy to see she is getting her due today.

Speaker 1 (05:12):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (05:12):
Well, Josh Hartnett was the main dude of like that
era as well as well as Jordana Brewster came through
and I was like, those three were what I remember
of that era and in that movie for sure, I
just realized that Elijah Wood wasn't it too?

Speaker 4 (05:27):
Yeah, stacked cast in a way that we don't have
stacked casts anymore.

Speaker 2 (05:33):
Yeah, I'm so happy that you all know about the
faculty that.

Speaker 4 (05:36):
I know about feeling like I might be getting it
confused with.

Speaker 3 (05:42):
The Katie Hole.

Speaker 4 (05:43):
It's a very similar Katie Holmes movie that came out
around the same time, Disturbing Behavior.

Speaker 1 (05:48):
Yeah, oh my gosh.

Speaker 3 (05:49):
Yes, there was something going on in.

Speaker 4 (05:51):
The aughts where we were all concerned like what if
her teacher was actually an alien?

Speaker 3 (05:56):
What if that?

Speaker 4 (05:57):
What if that bully is actually an alien? Like what
I that the what if he's a bot?

Speaker 3 (06:01):
Y'all? Like we were we were very paranoid back then.

Speaker 2 (06:05):
I guess, or we were speaking of this is I
promise this is related recently on stuff one ever told you,
We did an episode on Inside Out too, and in it,
Samantha said something that confused me.

Speaker 1 (06:21):
But I didn't really know what to do, and it
was like days I was thinking, like, what does she mean?
And it was when we.

Speaker 2 (06:27):
Were talking about how animated movies have this power to
like make you cry, and you said, like I wrote,
you said, like that movie with the robots that make
men cry.

Speaker 1 (06:38):
And I was like, I robot and you were like yeah,
and I was like, huh. You can hear my confusion.
In the episode you were talking about Wild Robot.

Speaker 3 (06:47):
Wor oh okay, I knew we.

Speaker 5 (06:50):
Had a robot.

Speaker 3 (06:52):
I was like, the men are out of here crying
robot is it?

Speaker 4 (06:57):
Because they don't think it was a faithful interpretation of
the of Asimov's work.

Speaker 5 (07:02):
You are correct, I believe it is the Wild Robot
because it was a newer movie.

Speaker 3 (07:05):
Oh my gosh.

Speaker 1 (07:06):
I was so confused.

Speaker 5 (07:08):
I feel I just knew I had a robot and
I just knew men cried.

Speaker 3 (07:12):
That's all I was told.

Speaker 1 (07:15):
Well, I'm glad to sounds right.

Speaker 2 (07:19):
Yeah, no, yes, Well anyway, I love Bridgete that you
had a themed game that is related to your audio book,
and I'm so so excited to talk about it. Congratulations.
I think sometimes people take for granted how difficult writing
a book can be or yeah, it's a it's a

(07:43):
difficult process.

Speaker 3 (07:45):
It is.

Speaker 4 (07:46):
And you know, this weird phase where you're just trying
to remind folks that it's a thing that exists is
a little bit out of my comfort zone. But dang it,
here we are just trying to generate conversation and about
this thing.

Speaker 3 (08:00):
I spent a year of my life on.

Speaker 2 (08:03):
Yeah, and there's a lot to talk about with it.

Speaker 1 (08:08):
It's fascinating. I think this topic is fascinating.

Speaker 2 (08:11):
So can you tell the listeners more about your book?

Speaker 4 (08:15):
Yes, So my audiobook with Simon and Schuster is called
Love It First Prompt.

Speaker 3 (08:19):
It is out now. You can get it at Love
It First Prompt dot AI.

Speaker 4 (08:22):
It's really an exploration of the ways that tech companies
are increasingly inserting themselves into some of the most intimate
parts of our lives, things that we think of as
really for humans, you know, friendship, sex, grief, therapy, emotional support.
And when I was first conceptualizing the book, I think

(08:43):
we were in a little bit of a different place
when it comes to the way that technology is shaping
all of those facets of our human lived experiences. I
think things have really shifted since the books come out.

Speaker 2 (08:55):
Yes, it is such a fast pace, Like the the
way the conversation changes just by day is wild.

Speaker 1 (09:04):
So what are some of the ways that you have
seen it change?

Speaker 2 (09:08):
And maybe you've been like, oh, I wish I could
have included that or something like that.

Speaker 4 (09:13):
I would say that when I finished the book about
AI companionship earlier this year, people were really still asking
whether or not folks would really become emotionally attached to
chatbots Like that was not considered a settled question. And
I think when I would tell folks when I was
researching for the book, they would say, oh, well, are

(09:33):
humans really gonna at risk of being emotionally attached to chatbots?

Speaker 3 (09:37):
I can't see that ever happening.

Speaker 4 (09:39):
Just a few months later, I think that that debate
is effectively over for most folks right because we're in
this era now where governments are writing laws specifically about
emotional AI researchers are developing frameworks regulating what we call
intimate functionality in AI chatbots. And even as all of

(09:59):
this what's happening, AI companies like open ai are still
racing to build products that are even more designed to
become intertwined with our emotional lives. So I would say
the biggest change is that we have moved beyond whether
or not people will connect emotionally with AI, or whether
or not, you know, they really are in love with AI,

(10:20):
or all of those questions. Now the question is who
gets to design those relationships and whose interests are those
relationships sort of design to serve, Which is kind of
what I want to get into a little bit today.

Speaker 2 (10:33):
Yeah, and there is a lot to talk about there.
Where can we see this shift playing out yet?

Speaker 4 (10:41):
China is definitely the clearest example that we have right
now of this shift playing out, So earlier this month
in July, new Chinese regulations governing AI companions and sort
of emotional interactions with AI more generally took effect. These
rules were issued in China back in April, but they

(11:01):
didn't take effect until July. As far as I can tell,
I believe this is the first national regulatory framework of
their kind, you know, trying to regulate and make rules
about how AI can and cannot emotionally interact with people
from a major jurisdiction. And so you may have seen
headlines in the last few weeks that say things like, oh,

(11:23):
China has banned AI girlfriends. That's not exactly what's happening,
because the regulations are actually much broader than that.

Speaker 5 (11:32):
Oh.

Speaker 2 (11:33):
I find this so interesting because it just the fact
that there is a financial incentive of these companies to
get you too emotionally engage with them, to have that
emotional aspect, and to have these regulations about it. Just
that intersection really interests me. And you know, whether or

(11:55):
not it will.

Speaker 4 (11:57):
Work, yeah, And I think the reasons that we're seeing
some governments actually take a look at the emotional.

Speaker 3 (12:04):
Side of AI.

Speaker 4 (12:05):
I mean, I've been saying this ever since I finished
the book. You know, we talk a lot about who
gets to profit from, who gets to own different parts
of our digital experience, things like, you know, who owns
your digital likeness, who owns.

Speaker 3 (12:21):
Your intellectual property?

Speaker 4 (12:23):
Who gets to make money from your browsing data, your
location data? What can companies like Google do with that?
I think that the next iteration of that will be
about our emotional lives, our emotional selves, right, Like who
gets to own and operate and commodify and profit from
and design technology that is designed to really manipulate our deepest,

(12:47):
most intimate human selves that you know, our emotionality.

Speaker 3 (12:50):
And I guess the point.

Speaker 4 (12:51):
That I would make is, whenever I talk about this,
I can always kind of almost feel someone saying, well,
I would never have an emotional entanglement with A I
would argue that if you are anybody who has ever
used AI, even in these little ways that are kind
of non consensual, you might be surprised how much kind
of emotional manipulation from AI chatbots.

Speaker 3 (13:15):
You might have already been exposed to. Right if you've
ever used one of those.

Speaker 4 (13:18):
AI customer service agents where you say, hey, my bill
was wrong this month and the bot says back to you, Oh,
that is so frustrating. I'm so sorry that you're dealing
with that. Well, that's a bot. It actually isn't sorry
because it's not human. That is a great example of
all the kind of sneaky little ways that emotional manipulation
is baked into the experience of using an AI chatbot,

(13:41):
whether you want it to be there or not. And
so I think that we're seeing more and more governments
and institutions and researchers look toward that emotional aspect of
dealing with AI and how it shows up.

Speaker 2 (14:04):
Yeah, so when we're talking about China and these rules
that they're trying to implement, What are they looking at,
what are they trying to do?

Speaker 4 (14:13):
So these new rules prohibit companies from designing AI companions that,
in their words, encourage emotional dependence, foster addiction, excessively cater
to users, and importantly undermine people's real world relationships. Like
if I had to sort of broadly summarize what these
new rules are trying to do, basically, it's China's attempt

(14:36):
to say AI companions should not be undermining human to
human relationships. They should not be, you know, denigrating those relationships.
They should not be trying to replace those relationships. These
laws to me really seem grounded in anxiety around whether
or not emotional AI could in fact replace the kind

(14:58):
of human relationships that people are having.

Speaker 5 (15:02):
That's kind of interesting as we look at what's happening
in the US with allowing for so many other companies
to have complete and open freedom to do whatever they
want when it comes to AI and technology and those
who own the technology, and then here we have China,
who everybody's supposed to be really fearful of because they
seem to be at the forefront of technology and so

(15:22):
many people want to say they're trying to take over
our world, they're trying to take over human being, and
that they're the first ones to be in the front
to be like, maybe we should actually look at what
these companies are doing.

Speaker 3 (15:33):
Yeah, that's exactly what's going on.

Speaker 4 (15:34):
So this law, it also prohibits companies from providing miners
with virtual intimate relationships, including virtual partners, but also virtual
family members, which I didn't even realize people were doing that.
They require companies to monitor for signs that users might
becoming psychologically dependent, and include the kind of I guess
I would call them like it's a kind of a

(15:57):
longer conversation, but for this argument, let's just call it
anti addiction measures, similar to the kinds of things that
China has already adopted for things like online gambling app
So that looks like, you know, built in reminders to
stop using the service after extended sessions, and easier ways
to end conversations with AI chatbots. If you ever used

(16:19):
any kind of AI chatbot, they sometimes they can be
you know, really prone and designed to continue asking you
leading questions to make it harder for you to stop
the conversation and so China saying, hey, don't do that. Basically,
this is China's attempt to draw a legal boundary around
systems that are designed to displace or damage real human

(16:41):
relationships via AI.

Speaker 3 (16:43):
And so it seems again you.

Speaker 4 (16:45):
Might be seeing headlines that are like, China is banning
AI companions. They're not really banning AI companions out right,
more like drawing boundaries around them. And how kind of
emotionally persuasive companies are allowed to make those AI companions.

Speaker 5 (17:02):
So are the headlines try Because I'm not gonna lie,
I haven't actually seen any of these headlines, so this
is very new to me. You're reporting something new to me,
Thank you, Bridget. Are they trying to make it sounds
as China's doing a bad thing by banning.

Speaker 4 (17:14):
Oh that's a really good question. I don't know how
I would answer that. I would say, I think the
reason why the headlines are a little exaggerated about what's
really going on is because when you get into the
nitty gritty of what the legislation actually says, I wouldn't
call it complicated.

Speaker 3 (17:32):
But it is.

Speaker 4 (17:33):
It's a little more nuanced than just AI companions are
being banned. And so I think that's why we're seeing it,
you know, talked about in this way.

Speaker 3 (17:42):
I also think.

Speaker 4 (17:42):
That when i've I've read a lot of American reporting
about it, I think that we'll get into this in America,
we are not really having the same conversations that they're
having in China. And so it's just very clear to
me that, you know, when you compare the way that
China is talking about and regulating emotional AI and the

(18:03):
way that the United States is and in a lot
of cases as not regulating and talking about emotional AI,
it's very clear we're in like two different places. And
so I wonder if that's also part of the reason
why some of the headlines are not as specific as
perhaps I would like them to be.

Speaker 3 (18:20):
Does that make sense?

Speaker 2 (18:21):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, they feel very spectacular, like, yeah, oh,
this can't look what's happening here when the nuance isn't
there of yeah, happening.

Speaker 4 (18:32):
Exactly, And how it's kind of played out in China
might actually be part of why it's sort of being
reported as if China is banning these companions because a
lot of these companies, you know, now we have these
new it's revery so much what we've seen in other
in the United States, where legislation that is meant to
sort of age gate parts of the internet will say okay, well,

(18:54):
if you if an adult company, you wants to operate
in this state, you have to do X, y Z,
And so those those companies might say, okay, well, we're
just not going to operate in that state rather than
change our services. That's a little bit similar to what
we see happening in China after this legislation has gone
into effect. So rather than redesigning many of their companion

(19:15):
AI products, several of these Chinese tech companies have just
shut down or they've severely limited the companion features. And
so that's another reason why you might be seeing these
sort of breathless headlines saying China has banned AI companions,
even if it's not technically true. So I have seen
social media filling up with people in China saying goodbye

(19:40):
to AI companions because of that, because these these major
companies have said, okay, well we're not gonna abide by
these rules, We're just gonna shut down. And you know,
it comes up a lot when we talk about AI companionship,
but people really do describe it like a breakup, right,
They talk about losing access to AI companions with the

(20:03):
way that you might talk about losing a trusted friend.
You know, people have talked about how their chatbots got
them through loneliness or grief, and you know, I think
that's one of the things that's sort of easy to
make fun of or easy to see as really weird
or pathetic, but that is just what is going on.

Speaker 3 (20:22):
You know.

Speaker 4 (20:22):
I don't want to place judgment on the people who
say that AI companions have helped them navigate tough parts
of their life, but they are a lot of folks
are experiencing it as the same way that you would
experience the loss of a friend. Because if you've been
you know, chatting back and forth with an emotional AI

(20:43):
companion for in some cases months or even years, I
could understand how waking up one day there's been new
laws and that relationship has to change would be tough.
But it's just another reason why folks who find emotional
intimacy and companionship in tools designed by A companies should

(21:04):
really be careful because that relationship is not a relationship
that you own or really control. It could change overnight,
and then you will be left without this device that
you've come to depend on.

Speaker 2 (21:16):
Yeah, and I know we've talked about this in the past,
but one thing you've told us in past episodes was
about how even an update to like an AI tool
can feel like a loss because now it doesn't act
the same or maybe you lose parts of those conversations,

(21:37):
and how it filled people with dread, like the thought
of losing this. And I, you know, I haven't had
an experience like this, but there's some stuff in the
gaming world where I can kind of relate. Because if
you have a game that you play as an escape,
is a way to deal with things, and it's an
online game, then one day it just goes away and

(21:58):
you lose like everything associated with it.

Speaker 1 (22:01):
You might even lose friends you met through it. So
it's I.

Speaker 2 (22:08):
Do think it's easy to dismiss, but it is very real.
It's like that feeling does hurt.

Speaker 4 (22:14):
Oh yeah, it's I mean, both things are so true.
I think it's easy to dismiss. It's easy for somebody
who has never had that experience or similar experience to
be like, oh, these people are such headcases or whatever.
But I also think it's real, and I think in
reporting my audiobook. One of the instances that I found

(22:35):
so fascinating was when checked when open ai changed their
model of chat ept to be less flattering and less sickathantic. So,
you know, there was that model where if you asked
it a question, it would be so complimentary. People were
getting very emotionally attached to it. Open Ai changed the model,
so would be they say, less sickathantic and less flattering.

Speaker 3 (22:58):
People who had did not.

Speaker 4 (23:01):
Self report being in any kind of intimate relationship with
Ai when that changed happened, they were expressing.

Speaker 3 (23:08):
Grief and they were not you know, there these are.

Speaker 4 (23:11):
People who were using chatchypt for just like typical like
work help, homework help, whatever. But there was one comment
that somebody made that stuck with me, where you said
it went from having this energetic, enthusiastic cheerleader in my
pocket having that buddy be replaced with like a terse
overworked secretary. That's how it felt, And I get that right, Like,

(23:33):
this wasn't somebody who was like, chatchypt is my girlfriend
or my boyfriend or whatever. This was someone who was,
like I did not even realize how emotionally dependent I
was on Chatgypt until the company changed it.

Speaker 3 (23:47):
So you're exactly right.

Speaker 2 (23:49):
Well, and that goes back to your point about how
much this conversation has changed, where it's not we're talking
about the emotional aspect now, whereas before that was not
really on people's radar exactly.

Speaker 4 (24:03):
And the fact that we're seeing governments and research bodies
and institutions really drill into that emotional aspect, I think
really shows how much these conversations have shifted, even in
a couple of months. Just a year ago, we were
talking about AI regular when we talked about AI regulation,
we were talking about things like misinformation, disinformation, deep things.

(24:24):
Now they are looking at regulation from the standpoint of okay, well,
people are forming emotional connections with AI. That opens up
an entire new bucket of things we should be looking at.

Speaker 3 (24:36):
And I think that's exactly where we are right now. Right, So.

Speaker 2 (24:41):
Are any other countries other than China? Are they looking
into this?

Speaker 4 (24:46):
So China has definitely taken the most involved action, but
we can take a look at what other countries around
the world are doing. It might not surprise you to
find that the United States is taking what I would
call a much more limited approach, unlike China. Here in
the US, we have no federal law specifically regulating AI
companions as a product category or setting limits on how

(25:10):
companies can cultivate emotional dependency among adult users.

Speaker 3 (25:15):
Instead, again, surprise surprise.

Speaker 4 (25:18):
Nearly all of the action legislatively is focused on miners.
There's the bipartisan Guard Act, which would barrow companies from
offering AI companions to miners and require disclosure for all users,
miners and adults. So if you asked AI, are you AI?
This legislation would mean that for everybody AI would have

(25:38):
to say yes, I am AI. Another bipartisan proposal is
the Chatbot Act, which would require parental consent and restrict
manipulative features for children and teens.

Speaker 3 (25:49):
However, these are.

Speaker 4 (25:51):
Both just proposals. Neither of them has become law. At
the state level, several states have proposed or passed laws
requiring AI companions again to clearly disclose that they are
not human, that they're AI, and restricting features designed to
foster emotional dependency among miners.

Speaker 3 (26:09):
But really, here in the US, it.

Speaker 4 (26:12):
Seems like we are primarily interested in keeping miners away
from chatbots. It seems like for the most part, everything else.

Speaker 3 (26:22):
Is really fair game.

Speaker 4 (26:23):
They're not really it doesn't seem like they're really meaningly
looking at that sort of implications of emotional AI writ large.

Speaker 2 (26:31):
And that's interesting too because back when the Big Beautiful
Bill came out whatever it's called now, there was like
this backlash after we're Republican lawmakers who clearly hadn't read it.
We're like, oh, so I can't regulate AIS in the
state level.

Speaker 1 (26:49):
So to see it that is very different from China,
I guess is what I'm saying.

Speaker 4 (26:55):
That provision and the Big Beautiful Bill had that provision
state in the bill, it would have prevented states from
creating any new AI legislation at the state level for
ten years. And so it's something that I mean not
to go off on a tangent, but it's one of
those things that I simply cannot believe that anybody was
the only body that that benefits is AI companies.

Speaker 5 (27:16):
Right.

Speaker 4 (27:17):
That's legislation, like deep fake legislation at the state level,
which there's lots of state level deep state legislation.

Speaker 3 (27:23):
That legislation that says that you have to.

Speaker 4 (27:26):
Be told if AI is involved in a hiring decision,
you know, legislation that says that your landlord can't use
AI price fixing to raise your rent. These things that
really help everyday people live their lives. No more of
that for ten years. I cannot express to you how

(27:47):
wild it was that we were even considering a provision
like that. I mean, state level AI legislation is like,
it's very important that we have that. Oftentimes states will
kind of piecemeal come up with legislation and that pushes
the federal government's hand to be like, okay, well we
need to adopt this federally. The reason why we have

(28:07):
movement when it comes to a lot of legislation is
because of things that the states have done. Preventing states
from doing that is just so screwy. I cannot express
that more clearly.

Speaker 5 (28:19):
I mean especially from a party that says there are
supposed to be for small Yeah, small governments. So you're like, wait,
you want to do what especially in this timeframe. You know,
there's so much happening in the AI industry in general
that they're doing in a rush, Like they're doing everything
in a rush, and we should all be suspicious about
why this ten year limit was there, as well as

(28:40):
why is everything so fast? Yeah, it is alarming.

Speaker 4 (28:45):
Like, even in this conversation we're talking about how from
when I got my book deal to when the book
was published, almost the entire conversation that we're having now
is different. Imagine what that would be like in ten
years time. I simply cannot my head around it. And
if you want more examples of the fact that lawmakers
are just not on our side a lot of times,

(29:08):
especially when it comes to tech, I can't think of
a lot of better examples of it than that.

Speaker 5 (29:14):
Yeah, I mean, we definitely are not talking enough about
how much control the tech industry is having over our government.
I mean, we've kind of talked about individual players like
Polunteer and black Rock, who are all big companies, but
they have been backing technology and tech companies for a
long time, and we should really be focusing on why
that is. But I know that's a big that's a

(29:35):
big commitment.

Speaker 4 (29:36):
We know this has been Again I don't want to
go off on a tangent, but this has been top
of mind for me.

Speaker 3 (29:42):
I'll just say this.

Speaker 4 (29:43):
I have been really surprised to see the grip that
tech companies have on celebrities and influencers and like cultural voices.
Tech companies having a grip on lawmakers and less of
officials old news. I know it people that I respect
and trust shilling for There's one specific company, and I'm

(30:08):
so worried if I say what it is, this person
might hear it and be like, it's lucky about me.
But and I also part of it is tough, because
like times are tough. If a tech company that I
think is really evil offered me a lot of money
to say that a product that they're trying to normalize
that everybody would bear on their faces. That is really
harmful for women. If somebody was trying to offer me

(30:31):
lots and lots and lots of money to shill for
that tech product, I can understand why somebody would say yes.
But it is surprising to me how many people that
I trust and respect are like sure, yeah.

Speaker 5 (30:45):
Right, yeah, yeah, Like these are only used for that's
very like they want it hidden for this reason.

Speaker 4 (30:53):
Think about this, But there's there's so like tech companies
they're just so good at this. They're so oh good
at owning the conversation and laundering their products in ways
that make them seem normal and ubiquitous. And I think

(31:14):
that we're kind of bumping up against that now, Like
I think the conversation around you know, smart glasses and
stuff like that, I think people are really wising up
and saying, hey, we actually don't need to just say, oh,
this tech company says this product is fine and safe
and great and we're all gonna love it, so let's
just start adopting it. In mass, I think we're really
seeing people pump the brakes on that dynamic a little bit.

Speaker 2 (31:46):
Because there is the aspect of they want you to
adopt it quickly. There's that like emergency, everyone's going to
have one, so you need to get on board like
it's going somewhere.

Speaker 4 (31:58):
It's funny that you say this because because when I
was looking at their research for this episode, one of
the ways that the research indicates that chatbots keep you
from cutting off conversation even when you want to is
utilizing fomo, so making you feel like, oh, if I
don't have this, I'm going to be missing out if
I don't keep engaging with this chatbot, if I don't

(32:20):
keep having this conversation, I don't want to miss whatever
insights it might be sharing with me. And I see
that same thread in frankly, some of the ways that
we talk about AI, you know, y'all. And I had
that whole conversation about how women were being marketed AI,
and it's very much this fomo. It's honestly the way

(32:40):
people talk about MLMs or something, right, like there's this
big opportunity out there, and if you don't want to
be the one that's missing this big opportunity for you,
it's just fomo, very manipulative.

Speaker 1 (32:53):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (32:54):
Yeah, And as we've been saying, the conversation has moved
so fast around AI, and it's not great that a
lot of our politicians are very or older and perhaps
like I'm not saying I understand AI either, but there's
something about watching politicians who don't seem to understand what

(33:14):
they're talking about trying to pass legislation around AI. But yeah,
so I guess what I'm saying is it feels like
a lot of governments are struggling to keep pace with
the pace of AI. And that's as we've been saying,

(33:36):
and how the conversation has changed so quickly.

Speaker 4 (33:41):
Yeah, I mean, I think it was Jim Clyburn from
South Carolina recently was like, I don't even know what
CHATGBT is, and so just to give you an indication
of sort of where we're starting when it comes to
lawmakers and some of this. But in the UK, this
debate is really also very different. They're starting to really
shift away from the content, like thinking about chatbots as

(34:03):
content and really thinking about it more toward design. So
a few years ago, you know, again, most of the
conversation around AI was around things like misinformation deep thinks
all of that copyright bias. But increasingly in the UK,
policymakers are asking whether or not AI should be able
or allowed to present itself as a trusted confidant or

(34:26):
encourage people to continue talking with it. And again, I
feel like these are fundamentally different questions than folks were
asking when I was first researching this book. There is
this tech scholar named Andrew McStay. I read a piece
that he wrote in one of my favorite outlets, Tech
Policy Press, in which he argues that we are entering

(34:46):
this new phase of AI regulation centered around what he
calls intimate functionality. And I think that's very useful because
it kind of captures what I think governments and lawmakers
are so of struggling to define. You know, we're pretty
familiar with what regulation looks like when you're regulating things

(35:07):
like sexually explicit content, but it's a much more kind
of nuanced and complicated to regulate a product that is
designed to feel trustworthy or caring or emotionally supportive. And
so right now we're talking about things like AI companions,
we're dealing with both, right it's both sexual content and

(35:29):
also layering in like the intimate functionalities of AI companions,
and so they're sort of different things, but we're kind
of talking about them as if they are a package deal,
and so Mixtay that that tech scholar. Mixtay argues that
the next phase of regulation cannot focus only on AI

(35:49):
companions that are specifically for companionship things like Replica or
no Me. It also has to address the emotional or
empathetic features inside general purpose AI bots like chatgebt, because
that is how people use chatchybt. You might think of
chat gybt as just where people might go to ask

(36:12):
a question like a search engine, but increasingly, particularly for minors,
they are using chatgypt for emotional connection and intimacy as well.

Speaker 2 (36:23):
That's another reason I'm so fascinated by this whole discussion
is because there's a part of me that thinks we
have this clear line of oh, this is sexually explicit content,
we can regulate that, but the emotional aspects is much

(36:43):
more difficult to define. But it's also and maybe I'm
reaching here, maybe this isn't true, but I think that
people in relationships sometimes dismiss the emotional aspect, like we
don't think, we don't give that the weight as much
as we do the sexual aspect.

Speaker 1 (37:01):
But also if you're talking.

Speaker 2 (37:02):
About loneliness and all of the conversations around that we've
been having, I don't know, I feel like we're not
having this conversation about why this might be why people
are having these emotional like reaching out to AI because

(37:23):
maybe they couldn't find it in their life. I don't know,
It's just it's fascinating. It's a lot of yeah, stuff
to unpack there.

Speaker 4 (37:31):
I mean, that question is one that I wrestle with
a lot, and it's a little bit above my pay grade.
But if you have my opinion about why that is,
I think that that is the core question that we
dance around a lot but don't get at, which is
why why are people you know, turning to AI, turning
to tatchipt turning to AI companion apps instead of human

(37:54):
to human contact. And I think the reason why we
don't get at that answer is because the answer is
really unsatisfying. It is like most things systemic and institutional.
It's because people have to work a lot more to
just pay their rent and put food on the table.
So maybe you're not doing the labor that it takes
to maintain friendships.

Speaker 3 (38:15):
You know, it's no surprise that.

Speaker 4 (38:18):
The vibes aren't feeling great right now for a lot
of people. Unsurprisingly, those are not the vibes that make
people want to plan parties, plan the lunch.

Speaker 3 (38:28):
People will have a lot of extra money to do
those things.

Speaker 4 (38:30):
Right, Friendship and relationships take work and labor to sustain,
and I think a lot of people are burnt out
because of these large, systemic societal reasons, right, And so
my big kind of so what in this conversation is
that the tech companies have really hit the jackpot here
because they are able to potentially inflame the causes that

(38:55):
keep people isolated while also really taking advantage of the
societal gaps that cause that isolation in the first place.
And so basically they are the reason why people would
be turning to AI is because of these gaps, and
tech companies are more than happy to fill those gaps.
I mean, when I had my book party, it was,

(39:16):
you know, it was in person thing, and I invited
people that I hadn't seen in some people I hadn't
seen them in ten years, and I remember thinking, I
have done a crap job at maintaining the ties of
my social life and my relationships and my friendship because it's.

Speaker 3 (39:32):
So stinkin' hard. You know, have you ever.

Speaker 4 (39:34):
Seen that meme that's like, excuse me, how are you
supposed to work full time to afford rent and bills?
Go to the gym, text everybody back, maintain your relationships
like how?

Speaker 3 (39:44):
And it's a gap I feel. I think that's true.
I think that's why people are turning to AI.

Speaker 5 (39:49):
I think it's also a conversation because we can look
at this in the old school form of a fear
of rejection. So if you bisex, they can't reject you.
You're paying for that. If you're looking at playing games
where you know the next steps, you know what's coming up,
and you know how to face that. There's a lot
of that conversation in this conversation when we have about

(40:10):
AI you know, you can begin a conversation and relationship
with it repeating back to you your wants. So there
is the less fear of rejection because in society in
so much whatever if it's like from our childhood traumas,
from our first bad relationships with our parents, whatever, whatnot,
that fear of being told no or you're not good

(40:32):
enough is no longer really there when you have a
dedicated machine to stay back to you what you want.
And we see that also with those who are seeking
advice about, you know, suicide, and which is why chat
GPT has so many lawsuits right now and they've got
several because essentially, these AI bots have given them permission

(40:53):
instead of actually giving help, which was what they thought
maybe they could get, but they're giving back that permission,
that lack of rejection of being like no, no, you're wrong,
you're you're you are wanted here, blah blah blah, instead
of being like, yeah, you're right. You might just want
to make this stop, as well as telling people yeah,
you're right. They don't love you as much as I
could love you because they don't know you, the real you,
and I'm here for you and tit you know, accept

(41:15):
you the way you are. This is that same level
and when we understand like, yes, it's less psychophantic, but
it's still a sycophant and like they still read what
you want.

Speaker 4 (41:24):
Yeah, I mean, this is one of the reasons why I,
even though I know a lot of people do it,
I really really caution people against using chat GPT for
things like therapy. There are so many reasons why it's
a bad idea, but to me, one of the biggest
is that validation angle. You know, AI is designed intentionally

(41:45):
to be validating, intentionally to learn what it is that
you want to hear and learn what's going to keep
you coming back like and mirror that back at you.

Speaker 3 (41:53):
And sometimes we need validation.

Speaker 4 (41:57):
But oftentimes validating somebody who is experience and saying a
real crisis or a real issue can be dangerous. And
when I've said this on podcasts before, people will understandably
respond and say, well, if somebody can't afford a human therapist,
or it doesn't have insurance or can't find you know,
if somebody is black or queer or trends and can't
find a culturally competent therapist, all of that is true.

(42:19):
All of that is true, but it's exactly what I
was describing before, where tech companies there are these very
real systemic gaps and needs that are being unfilled, and
tech companies are filling that gap, whether or not the
product is appropriate or even safe to be filled to
be filling that gap in the first place, you know,
and I guess sometimes what I'll often say is if

(42:39):
I had a loved one who needed therapy, I would
not recommend an AI therapist on its own to anybody
that I loved who was experiencing an issue and wanted
to seek.

Speaker 3 (42:50):
Therapy and full stuff.

Speaker 4 (42:52):
However, if you were going to I would at least
look at some AI apps that are does specifically for therapy.
Some of them even have their own special FDA you know,
it's different from regular FDA regulation, but some of them
are even sort of they have their own special FDA
you know regulation. I'm kind of from a harm reduction standpoint, That's.

Speaker 3 (43:15):
What I mean.

Speaker 4 (43:16):
I wouldn't suggest anybody that I love use AI alone
for therapy in general, but specifically, I would not tell
anybody to use a general purpose chatbot like Claude or
chat shept for exactly the reason that you just said,
Sam that it is so validating. And you know when
you were talking about the fear of rejection and how

(43:37):
when you ask somebody out they might say no.

Speaker 3 (43:40):
This is just my anecdotal opinion.

Speaker 4 (43:42):
I believe that we're in a client like a dating
climate specifically where that's kind of been really intensified.

Speaker 3 (43:49):
You know, if you ask somebody out.

Speaker 4 (43:51):
On a a dating app, they might not just say no,
they might if they might screenshot what you say and
then roast you on social media. Like, I really think
that you've gotten to a place where that things have
really changed when it comes to the risks that you
have to take to like start a conversation, ask somebody out.
And again, tech companies know this, and that is why

(44:13):
when they market their AI companions, their marketing will say
things like, oh, this is an AI girlfriend who will
never say no. Right these this very sort of toxic
infel adjacent marketing that plays on exactly that dynamic, which
is people are afraid of rejection.

Speaker 3 (44:33):
Sorry, you know, I'm going all off the rails.

Speaker 1 (44:37):
This is fantastic. There's just so many, so many ways
we could go with that.

Speaker 2 (44:42):
So the UK they kind of tried to focus on
this intimate functionalities as you described, correct.

Speaker 3 (44:49):
That is right.

Speaker 4 (44:50):
So the government has proposed restricting romantic companion chatbots for miners,
and as has also said that they are looking at
similar kind of intimate functionalities that are in general purpose
chatbots like chat GBT to see if the way that
chat GBT establishes emotional connections with users should be restricted

(45:11):
as well. But again, scholars, including that that scholar Andrew
Mixtay that I mentioned earlier, say that the proposal still
risks focusing too much on sexual or romantic content and
not enough on the sort of emotional and intimate functionalities
of product design. So you can see why that that point,

(45:32):
I think is a really important one, because I do
think that we talk so much when it comes to
AI intimacy about people who are having sets with bots,
people who are having romantic and sexual relationships with AI,
and I understand why that is.

Speaker 3 (45:47):
It's the it's the spicy, salacious thing.

Speaker 4 (45:49):
However, we don't focus enough on the sort of emotion,
the sort of non romantic, non sexual emotional side of
AI product design, and that's it sounds like that's really
kind of like the real issue here. If we're really
interested in talking about AI and intimacy, it's we shouldn't
just go straight to the most extreme examples of people

(46:12):
who are having sets with AI. We also really got
to look at the people who are forming emotional bonds
with AI that are non romantic and non sexual.

Speaker 5 (46:21):
Well, it's kind of like the same, all the same
old when we talk about religious governments and in the
foundation of religious governments like Christian ethics, in that they
want to focus on the sex part, including when it
comes to minors. We got we gotta save the kids
from the trafficking. We got, you know, instead of understanding
the actual issue. Same thing with porn. When we talk

(46:42):
about porn and all of that, it's like, uh, we
don't want to we don't. That's not the big problem here.
The big problem is why is this need is so
much on that fact that they just are addicted to
being able to talk to someone, being able to be seen.

Speaker 4 (47:00):
So that's exactly right, and I'm so glad that you
put it that way, because when you look at how
this is all being legislated in the United States, it
all assumes that the big quote threat to children's threat
to minors is sexual content.

Speaker 3 (47:14):
You know, AI companions getting.

Speaker 4 (47:16):
Sexy or flirty with miners, which again is unacceptable shouldn't happen. However,
when you look at the research, that is actually not
how most young people are using AI. According to Micksday's research,
he found that nearly eighty percent of UK teenagers that
he surveyed used what researchers classified as an AI companion,
but most commonly it was not a dedicated app. It

(47:39):
was just Chatgypt, so they weren't using like an AI
companion app, and that when they asked what do you
use it for, the most common answer was not sex,
and it was not romance. It was getting advice. Romance
actually came near the bottom of the list. So it
does seem kind of weird that when we talk about
even when it comes to minors, when we talk about

(48:02):
how what folks are concerned about when it comes to
miners using AI companions, we go straight to sex, we
go straight to romance, we go straight to explicit content,
when miners are saying, actually, and that's not actually.

Speaker 3 (48:14):
What we use it for. We're using it to get advice.
And so, Sam, I think you're right on the money
that it.

Speaker 4 (48:20):
Just sort of seems like we're asking the wrong question.
We're asking like, oh, are the young people trying to
have sex with AI boyfriends and girlfriends, when the real
question is probably are young people becoming dependent on the
growing role that mainstream AI systems play in terms of

(48:40):
being like emotional confidence.

Speaker 3 (48:42):
Does that make sense? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (48:45):
Well, and at that age.

Speaker 2 (48:48):
It can be very tumultuous emotionally, just a lot of
changes and it can feel like isolating. And so to
have chat GPT go to for advice that makes complete
sense to me. And also using kind of this screen which,
as you said, it's a real problem, but the screen

(49:09):
of we're only focusing on the sexual content the romance
when that's not the case. And these companies have figured
it out that that's not necessarily the case and have
really capitalized on it to point that it's becoming kind
of its own whole thing.

Speaker 3 (49:28):
Right. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (49:29):
I read this fascinating op ed in The Guardian by
this economist Alice Lassman, and she basically says that what
you just described, Annie is what she calls the intimacy economy.
Her argument is basically that we've moved beyond an economy
built around capturing attention, you know, the attention economy, into
one where companies are increasingly competing for something that is

(49:53):
perhaps more valuable our affection, our trust, and our emotional lives.
So she points to some research finding that chatbots to
use guilt and fear of missing out when users are
trying to end conversations, and they're almost sort of treating
emotional attachment as just another engagement metric to optimize for
it to keep people people locked in and engaged in along.

(50:16):
And so you know, whether or not you agree with
every part of that of her the argument that she makes,
I do think that she is identifying a real shift
that companies are not just trying to build the smartest
and most powerful AI, they are also trying to build
AI that feels the most human, the most trustworthy, the
most casual, the most you know, the most human like

(50:37):
when you're talking to it. And I think that again,
we really have to acknowledge that this is a shift
from how we were talking about AI even just a
year ago.

Speaker 1 (50:47):
I'm not like your other Ai'm.

Speaker 3 (50:50):
Cool AIM fellow human kids. Talk to me about your
human problems. But this is the thing.

Speaker 5 (50:58):
Years ago, it was our parents who are afraid that
we were getting too much advice from our friends, and
we weren't listening to the parents, right. And so now
the new thing is while the parents and the older
generation are still focused on the same problems, they're gonna
have too much set because they're gonna do drugs, they're
gonna do these things. The kids have adapted. They've gone
beyond all of this. In that from not saying the
kids and I realized how old that sounds, but in general,

(51:19):
like the whole like sexual revolution, they're beyond that. They
don't care everybody's sexualized. Okay, great, moving on. We don't
need that. We want to have more friendships, we need advice,
we want growth. And so as we're going from friends,
it's harder to make friends. We're COVID babies who had
to like go to homeschool. Now we are dependent and
they are so much smarter when it comes to technology,

(51:40):
internet and social media. This has become the new way
of getting the better advice. And it's not that they
don't need to seek sexual stuff. They just need to
know life applications and this is it, oh to them.

Speaker 4 (51:54):
What you just said reminded me of pulling from I
think it.

Speaker 3 (51:58):
Was UCLA that talked it's oh yeah, it's UCLA. They have.

Speaker 4 (52:01):
They put out this fascinating report each year called Teens
and Screens, and it's basically what young people say about
their media diets and what they want from media. And
gen Z is increasingly not interested in seeing sex and
romance on screen. They're not really that into that, which
is funny because when I was that age, all.

Speaker 3 (52:22):
I wanted to see you was on screen. I'm gonna
go out of my way.

Speaker 4 (52:25):
I guess it was a lot harder to see that
when I was when I not to sound like an
old person, but back.

Speaker 3 (52:31):
In my day, but we watched it.

Speaker 4 (52:34):
Yeah, you would have to like watch it on like
the Bord channel, and maybe you'd get a glimpse, a
clear glimpse, and then that glimps would have to sustain
you for.

Speaker 3 (52:41):
Like a week. Things have really changed, is my understanding.

Speaker 4 (52:46):
But what they're actually saying is listen, we can get
sexual content anywhere, we can get you know, erotic content,
pornography anywhere. What we actually want is good friendships. What
we actually want is good for relationships. Media relationships. That's
what you want to see more of on screen. And
what you just said, Sam reminds me so much of
that that it's almost like moralizing about something young people

(53:11):
aren't even saying that they want. What they actually want
is the emotional part, the advice, And so it seems
like where we're looking is sort of in the wrong direction.
It's like we're not listening to what the young people
are actually saying they use AI for, which is advice
and emotional intimacy.

Speaker 2 (53:32):
Yeah, but I would hazard a guess these tech companies
realize that, and they have realized they can make money
off of it.

Speaker 3 (53:42):
Oh yes.

Speaker 4 (53:43):
So if you're wondering what that means for the world's
largest AI chatbot company by far, open Ai Mixed chat Gypt, well,
they are continuing to cash in on all of this sweet,
sweet emotional intimacy.

Speaker 3 (53:56):
Baby. They are not worried about all of them.

Speaker 4 (53:58):
They're like, can you to come get your hey piggies,
come get your emotional intimacy slop point point. But they're like,
how can we serve this up for you? According to
reporting from Bloomberg, open Ai is developing their first ever
physical home device that would essentially function as a AI companion.

Speaker 3 (54:20):
Rather than just a smart speaker.

Speaker 4 (54:22):
So it's kind of like an Alexa that you have
in your home, but the reporting describes it as it's
going to have a personality even according to Bloomberg, some
mechanical movement intended to create this sense that it's alive.
And so, yeah, they're like doubling down on the emotional
intimacy part of AI and betting that people are going

(54:43):
to want to have a personality driven human like AI
companion physically in their home that they can connect with.

Speaker 3 (54:51):
And so whether or not this product.

Speaker 4 (54:53):
Actually succeeds, or even if it actually goes to market,
that almost feels secondary to me to what it represents,
which is that at the same time that governments are
starting to debate how emotionally attached.

Speaker 3 (55:05):
People should be able to become with.

Speaker 4 (55:07):
AI, the world's biggest AI companies are investing in products
that are explicitly designed to become a more constant emotional
presence in people's everyday, daily lives.

Speaker 3 (55:20):
And I think that's sort of my sowat and all
of this.

Speaker 4 (55:24):
What has really popped off within a few months of
me finishing the book is how quickly all of this
is moving. You know, when I started reporting the book,
it felt necessary to kind of persuade people that yes,
AI companionship and AI emotional intimacy was something worth taking seriously,
and increasingly, I.

Speaker 3 (55:43):
Don't think we're having that debate anymore.

Speaker 4 (55:45):
I think that governments are writing laws about it, researchers
are trying to define it. Companies are investing billions of
dollars to make products that promise this emotional personal relationship
with a physical AI device that that there are betting
people are going to want to have in their home.
And so yeah, I don't think the question is whether
or not AI will become emotionally important to people right now.

(56:08):
It's what kind of relationships do you want to have
with these systems? You know, who gets to design these relationships?
How do we draw the line between technology that is
maybe useful or helpful and technology that is intentionally designed
to become emotionally indispensable.

Speaker 5 (56:26):
And just as a reminder, open AI is absolutely incohesi
with the government, and they've already been the knee and
have said that they would help create more and more
technology for the government to use us as a spy machine.
So if you want to get these.

Speaker 3 (56:42):
Just remember that they have contracts with the government.

Speaker 4 (56:45):
Yeah, Like, are these the people that you want to
trust with your most intimate parts of yourselves. Somebody who's
super buddy buddy with the Trump administration in Trump himself,
is that would you trust that person to also be
in the mix in your emotional life?

Speaker 3 (57:01):
I guess that's the question.

Speaker 2 (57:02):
That is the question, and a big one it is.
So we're really glad that you wrote this book. I
can't wait to listen to it. I'm so excited. In
the meantime, bridget where can the good listeners find you?

Speaker 4 (57:18):
Well, if this topic interests you, please check out my
audiobook Love at First Prompt. You can get it at
Love at First Prompt dot ai. It's available wherever you
get your books. I really like Libro FM because they
support local libraries, but you can get it anywhere.

Speaker 3 (57:32):
Yeah, please check it out.

Speaker 2 (57:34):
Yes, I'm so excited And listeners, if you would like
to contact us, you can. Our email is hello at
stuff iever told you dot com. You can find us
on blue Sky at Mom's a Podcast, or on Instagram
and TikTok at stuff I Never told you.

Speaker 1 (57:47):
We're also on YouTube.

Speaker 2 (57:48):
We have some merchandise to comp herero and we have
a book you can get wherever you get your books. Thanks,
It's always to our super producer Rima and R Executive
pducer Maya.

Speaker 5 (57:55):
Thank you, Thanks to you for listening.

Speaker 1 (57:57):
Stuff Never Told You is production of by Heart Radio.

Speaker 2 (57:59):
For more podcast from my heart Radio, you can check
out the heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or where you
listen to your favorite shows,