AI in Education

Lee Smith welcomes career educator and philosopher Jake Tawney for a thought-provoking discussion on one of the most consequential issues facing classrooms today: the rise of artificial intelligence in education. In Episode Fifty of Roots, Rights & Reason, Tawney challenges the conventional debate over AI by arguing that the most important questions are not about technology itself, but about what it means to be human, how students learn, and whether artificial intelligence is gradually replacing the very skills education is meant to cultivate.

Throughout the conversation, Smith and Tawney explore the distinction between AI algorithms and conversational interfaces like ChatGPT, examining how these tools may shape human communication, critical thinking, and intellectual development. Tawney warns that technologies designed to automate reasoning inevitably risk diminishing the human capacities they replace, while also offering practical guidance for parents, educators, and policymakers seeking to navigate AI responsibly in the classroom. The episode presents a timely and philosophical examination of a rapidly evolving technology and its profound implications for the future of education, human formation, and society itself.

Follow Lee Smith on X https://x.com/LeeSmithDC

New episodes drop every Wednesday at 3 PM ET.

To watch Roots, Rights and Reason, visit The Roots, Rights & Reason Show: https://www.americasfuture.net/the-roots-rights-reason-show

Subscribe to our Rumble channel: https://rumble.com/c/AmericasFuture

Follow Us On Social Media
X: https://x.com/Amerifuture
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericasFutureInc1946
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/americasfutureusa

Subscribe to our Newsletter to stay informed: https://americasfuture.net/subscribe/
Catch up on all past editions here: https://americasfuture.net/newsletter

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:02

From the brave roots of our founding, to the unstoppable force of American ingenuity, to the sacred inheritance of freedom we must protect. This is our legacy. Join investigative journalist Lee Smith on Roots, Rights, and Reason. Powered by America's future.

SPEAKER_01 0:21

Hi, I'm Lee Smith. Welcome and thanks for joining us for this new episode of Roots, Rights, and Reason. This week we're discussing one of the most controversial issues of the day: artificial intelligence and education. And how AI affects how we learn to be human. Conversations about AI often go nowhere. One person says AI is terrible, kids are using it as a therapist, while another responds, but it can help detect cancer and MRI scans. The debate rises and falls on specific uses, and that's the problem. Technology doesn't just help us do things, it changes who we are. The clock didn't just help us tell time, it made us time conscious people. Nearly every technology has what we might call an application problem. Nuclear energy gives us both power plants and bombs. Cars can transport us or cause harm. Our guest today has a different framework for thinking about AI. He distinguishes between the algorithm and the interface. The algorithm is how the system works, how it processes data and produces outputs. The interface is how we interact with that system. For many people, AI means chatbots, like ChatGPT or Grok, tools that simulate human conversation. The same underlying algorithm can power a chatbot, a search engine, or medical imaging software. MRI scanning software doesn't need a chatbot interface at all. It can simply analyze an image and produce a report. So if we're worried about AI acting like a therapist, maybe the issue isn't the algorithm, it's the conversational interface. Technology tends to replace what it automates. When a tool takes over a task, human ability in that area tends to decline. Think of how power tools replaced manual skills. AI raises a bigger question. What exactly is it automating? Unlike earlier technologies, AI doesn't just automate physical tasks, it increasingly automates aspects of human reasoning. It can write essays, solve problems, generate images, and mimic conversation. So we have to ask, to what extent are we comfortable outsourcing human thinking? And that's an especially big deal in areas like education, where the point is to develop those very skills. AI interfaces, especially chatbots, may have a similar effect. When we interact with machines that simulate human conversation, we begin to treat them socially. We say please and thank you. More importantly, we may start to internalize what those interactions mean. So instead of asking only what can AI do, we should ask, what is it replacing? And how is it shaping us? Our guest today is Jake Tawney, an inspired educator, administrator, and author who previously appeared on Roots, Rights, and Reason to speak about the revelatory power of mathematics. Jake Tawney, welcome back to Roots, Rights, and Reason. The last time you were here was so much fun and it was so inspired. Your talk about mathematics. And I couldn't wait to speak to you again about something big and important. And that's why you're here, career educator, someone who's focusing on a very important uh controversial issue: artificial intelligence and education. What are the issues? What should we know? What's the right way to have this debate?

SPEAKER_02 3:58

Uh yes, great question. And uh really thank you, Lee, for having me back. I think this is this is a wonderful uh conversation that we had about math. And I'm I'm excited to have a conversation about AI, in particular about AI and education. Um, I mean, what what are the issues? Gosh, there's just so many of them, right? Um it's uh the the issues for me, and maybe this is just the natural sort of philosopher in me, but the issues for me start with I think sort of those those those things that are at the level of what it means to be human, right? Um I mean, I think if if we want to think about the nature of AI, if we want to think about the nature of education, the nature of being human, and how these things interplay, we we better be prepared to think about things at the level of nature, right? At the level of of essence. So I think right now, so many people are focused on use cases, right? Um and and you get these these arguments that in some ways come to loggerheads, where you have one person saying, Well, look, AI is awful because it can write essays for students. And so students aren't learning to write essays anymore, um, and that's terrible. And another one saying, but AI could be used as a personal tutor for students. Um, and and the problem with that conversation, at least for me, is that it is sort of too far down the road. We haven't defined our terms, we haven't made some proper distinctions, and we certainly haven't had, I think, the more important conversations that are really at the level of human formation. Uh, and for me, that's where all of these conversations have to start, right? I'm happy to engage why I think that something like Chat GPT is a disaster for students learning to write, right? I'm happy to have a conversation, how there's no evidence at all that any of these uh customized tutoring chatbots actually are helping students get better. That like the evidence is just not there. But but even that just seems to not be at the right level. I think we need to really start several steps back and define in some ways what it is that we mean by AI, how something like ChatGPT is different from the very same algorithm that's in your phones that's doing your mapping and navigation software. And I think we need to have very serious conversations about what is education, what does it mean to be human? And how do we think of what I really do believe is ultimately the most complicated and perhaps most serious issue that has faced education, at least educational pedagogy, um in a long time, maybe ever.

SPEAKER_01 6:29

Wow. Um, I wanna I want to hit the big question. What does it mean to be human? We talked, I talked a little bit about in the introduction, you split it up into look, well, what when we're talking about AI, the issues we're talking about, it's not really the or we should split down between the algorithm and the interface. And I've used ChatBT and you raise a very interesting example. So you're like, right, we write please, because that's how we're accustomed to having conversations, if we're polite, if we're raised correctly, if we're raised, uh uh if we're raised correctly as human beings. So that's how we're used to talking with other people. Um, how will AI, how does that interface shape who we are as humans, or how could it shape.

SPEAKER_02 7:13

Yeah, I I mean, I think first that that distinction is fundamentally important. I mean, this is something I've been talking about more recently, uh, you know, as I've had these conversations about AI with people. Um, because again, I think there's a fundamental distinction between something like Chat GPT and the very same algorithm, the the neural network that's that's in the background guiding uh like our navigation software on our phones. I think it's really important to separate that. It's a it's a little bit harder to critique the idea of a neural network itself, like the idea of the actual algorithm, the technology behind a lot of the AI things. I think there are critiques. And I think we should come back to that at some point and say, you know, what is the nature of the algorithm? Why should it cause concern? Why also is it beneficial? Uh, what are the kinds of things it can do? But I think the the distinction that people aren't making is that and then the interface. So, you know, for for example, let's just step outside of education for a little bit here. Somebody who says, look, look, ChatGPT is really great because I can take my MRI images and upload it, and it can identify, you know, before I even see a doctor, things that might be wrong, right? And then I can take that information to the doctor, uh, and this is really good. Um, I look, I'm ready to admit the the point that ChatGPT can do that or Grok can do that. But I can also imagine a program that's much simpler that just has a load button uh where you upload an image of an MRI and it downloads a report that gives you the same thing. What's critical about ChatGPT is in fact that it's a chat, right? The interface has been wrapped up with the algorithm itself. And so, so here, uh, I think of for for me, somebody who's a very influential thinker, I think of Neil Postman. So, Neil Postman, an education thinker, a technology thinker from the 80s into the 90s, um, you know, he wrote uh that book, uh Amusing Ourselves to Death. Uh, you know, he was talking mostly about the television, and that's fascinating itself. Um, but he was writing on the heels of the first generation that was raised with television in their lives uh really since birth. And and as he thinks about the nature of technology and in particular communications technology, um, he says, and I think he's right, I think this is a first principle we have to admit when having conversations about artificial intelligence. He says, look, technology will always form us, not merely by its misuse, but also by its mere use, right? And and that's something that the first time you read it, or at least the first time I read it, that's completely foreign to the conversations we usually have about technology. Usually conversations start with the use case, with the principle that look, all technology can be used for virtue or vice, can be used for good or evil, right? And and Postman specifically says that principle is banal enough to not even write a book about. Like, of course that's true. Everybody knows that, right? Nuclear fission can be used to create an atom bomb or to create nuclear energy, right? Um, you know, at the risk of being crass, a uh a car can be used to drive to a building or to drive into a building, uh, you know, as sort of a mobile weapon of sorts. So everybody knows that principle. That's not worth writing a book about. And in terms of conversation and dialogue, that that's where we end up kind of at loggerheads. I think the more fascinating thing is that all technology will form us by its mere use. Postman's writing about the television, and he he says that it's formed us to expect entertainment from everything. And I think he's right. Um, I wish he had lived long enough to see us go through the social media phase, the cell phone, the, the, the, the individual smartphone phase. All of these things have formed the way that we communicate and the way that we understand the human person, right? Um, the cell phones have turned us into people who communicate through small sound bites, right? And that's really interesting for me. The the idea behind Grok and Gemini and Chat GPT, and in what I would call these sort of multimodal natural language-based interactive models, right? The idea there is that they're interacting with you through human language, right? Through natural language. And my fear is that that will form us in ways that are imperceptible, but will will inevitably take take effect over the long run, right? It will form us to understand that this is what human communication is, and ultimately then this is what a human being is. Now, you know, for people who are are really well grounded, maybe that risk is less. I think the risk is still there. But if we think in particular of students, of young people who have not yet come into maturity, if they start to interact with something like Chat GPT in a way that seems like human command communication, I mean, I think that's at least worth some serious thought. But you see, Lee, that's at the level of interface. And we have to be able to pull that apart from the level of application.

SPEAKER_01 12:16

Do you think as an educator, uh, do you have you seen already? I mean, I'm I'm too old to be shaped by it. I can be lazy and I can use different things on it that are helpful. But for me, I still have, and I'm not saying they're all good. I'm not saying that I'm virtuous because of it, but I think I'm probably a little too advanced at this point to be shaped. But younger people, that's certainly not the case. Have you seen, have you seen this already? And if so, yeah.

SPEAKER_02 12:44

I mean, I think we have, right? I I would caution us against the idea that I do think you're right that the older we get, the more formed we are. In some ways, like the less susceptible we are to be informed by our technology. But I don't think that risk is ever absent, right? I mean, I I myself, um, you know, didn't have a cell phone, I think, until I was close to 30, I think. Uh, and and yet I still feel the formation that comes from that device, right? Um, but but have we seen this kind of formation with kids? Sure, right? In any classroom, we've seen this because another principle of technology is that it will always replace what it automates. Always, right? Um, I mean, my grandfather built houses for a living, and uh this was before the advent of the pneumatic nail gun. And to watch those old guys be able to pound nails in uh with the efficiency and the accuracy that they did, like it was a it was something of an art. That no one can do that anymore, right? Now, to your point, I think you know, the pneumatic nail gun as it came in as my grandfather got older didn't completely remove that skill because he had practiced it and been formed by it for so long. Um, I think given enough time away from it, he probably would have lost that as well. So, our question is to what you know, if your question is how is this affecting students already? That very much depends in some ways on how it's being used. It will replace what it automates. And this is not rocket science. If you use Chat GPT to solve your math problems, it will automate your ability to solve math problems. If you use Chat GPT to write an essay, it will automate your ability to write essays. But more than that, like let's let's suppose someone says, look, I don't use Chat GPT to write my essays, because I I know that I want to be able to write on my own, but I use chat GPT to help me generate ideas. I use it to do proofreading for me. I use it to suggest better ways of phrasing things. Like, okay, look, that's great. And and right now, I'm not saying that's good or bad, but I am saying it will replace your ability to generate ideas. It will replace your ability to edit your own essay, and it will replace your ability to look at your phrasing and come up with better ways of phrasing it. Again, like maybe that's good, maybe that's bad, but I think it's at least important to recognize that. So it's forming students and changing students precisely in what they are using, using it to do, right? Because technology will always replace what it automates.

SPEAKER_01 15:15

It's fascinating. You made the point about your grandfather that people can't do that anymore. They don't have that skill. And that's something else that happens. Once you develop a new, even without developing a new technology, people forget how to do things. I know this argument has come up regarding nuclear weapons programs and say, oh, well, people, you know, the knowledge is there. Like actually, all this stuff can go away if it's dropped for a generation. I think we've seen this in manufacturing here in the United States as well. There's lots of things that people, the knowledge is no longer carried on by human beings. And so that stops. What uh what are we in danger? What are we in danger of losing that affects us, that touches us most deeply as humans? Is it conversation? Is it writing? You describe how important writing is um uh as not only a skill, uh, as not only a skill, but how to think, how to understand things, how to be able to make an argument, how to how to do human things. Are we in danger of losing these things?

SPEAKER_02 16:21

Uh well, I think we are, but I think if I understood your question, it's like, well, with with AI, what is the fundamental thing that we're in danger of losing? I mean, certainly if you look at any particular application, like that thing is the thing that we're in danger of losing. Whatever you use it for will eventually get automated, it will get replaced, and you'll find that skill atrophy. Um, but if we look at the nature of what artificial intelligence is, if we look at what a neural network does, it seeks to automate human reason. Like that's what it does. And that's why it is so multimodal in in both the data that it takes in and also the way that it in what it accomplishes.

SPEAKER_01 17:01

Can you go back to this? Because I think this is really important. I've never heard it put like this before. It seeks to replicate human reason. That's the that's the fundamental principle of the, I guess so, with artificial intelligence. Right.

SPEAKER_02 17:15

Yes, and I think that's in the name, right? It's in the name artificial intelligence.

SPEAKER_01 17:18

I know, but I've never thought about it until you put it like that. It's like, right, that's of course what it is.

SPEAKER_02 17:23

But but we also know this from the industry, right? We know that as uh as these models get better and better and better, um, the measures of how good they get are, you know, in effect, um uh it's it's sort of level of reasoning, right? The the the things that it can accomplish, the problems that it can solve. You know, we we now have examples of chat GPT solving unsolved math problems uh that no mathematician has been able to solve. So this is this is a new thing, right? Um I said chat GPT, um I don't think it was that one, but it was one of the large language models was used to solve a novel math problem. So I don't think that this is controversial. I think that the developers of these algorithms, I think the nature of the algorithms, I think the way that we speak about the algorithms, I think all of that gels around the idea that what it's designed to do and what we expect it to do is to automate human reasoning, right?

SPEAKER_01 18:20

I think I you're right. I think most people, and I'll maybe I'm wrong, but I'll use myself as an example. Most people when they hear artificial intelligence, they imagine it's something like an enormous um a combination of an enormous encyclopedia as as as well as sort of uh you know, uh ask Jeeves or something like that. And it can do certain things for you, produce certain things, but it's sort of an advanced Google program as well, a search program. But the idea of replicating and replacing human reason, that's profound, and that's that's a different idea.

SPEAKER_02 18:55

Yeah. I I really do I appreciate that comment. I really do think it's naive to think that these large language models are uh one of two things. They're either glorified search engines or somehow they're they're just really good at summarizing uh information. I think that is not aligned with our experience of them, right? I mean, they they are not just summarizing, they are generating. This is why they're called generative large language models, right? They're generating content that didn't exist before, right? I mean, this is it to to liken it to sort of a search engine. I like to think of it this way. There's a difference between, let's go back in the old days, right? Before we even had computers, there's a difference between going into a library and saying to the librarian, can you find me, you know, the sources that you have or good sources about uh World War One? And and the librarian says, sure, come back in an hour, and the librarian then hands you five books. This is what I think you should read. Um, so that's one scenario. Another scenario is that you you walk in and you ask the librarian for this, and instead of giving you the five sources, uh the librarian reads all of it and writes a research paper on it and then hands that to you. Or maybe in some interactive way just starts dialoguing with you about it. That's fundamentally different than a search, right? You're not just searching for stuff and and and kind of bringing them together uh in something that already existed in some form. No, no. What these algorithms are doing is looking at all the available information, but it's not just summarizing, it's bringing it together in novel ways, ways that didn't exist prior to it. And again, I would go back to that example where it solved a math problem. This is not a search engine where you give it a really hard problem and it's going out and looking for solutions to that problem. It actually is presenting a solution that did not exist, that mathematicians were unaware of until that solution was presented. So this is not a glorified search engine, and it's not uh, you know, simply a summarizer. It is something different than all of that. And again, like, you know, good, bad, I'm not even there yet. I think we should understand what it is or what its implications are.

SPEAKER_01 21:13

Well, look, let me ask you, as a mathematician, as someone who's passionate about the subject, is it exciting to have this and to have the uh solution to a very difficult math problem in the world? Or is it like, wait, I this is not good because this is part of our, this is part of the human spirit. It's part of human ambition, these shapes and figures. So how how do you see that? The math in particular?

SPEAKER_02 21:39

Yeah, I mean, there's there's two ways to think about it, right? There's the short term reaction to the thing, but then there's the long term phenomenon. And I really want, in some ways, permission to address that long term phenomenon first, because I think that is ignored even in the way that we ask these questions, right? We want to say, well, isn't this great that we have this solution or we have this new technology? That AI laid out a blueprint for that can solve some medical problem, right? So isn't it great that we have that thing? Like I'll come back to that. I mean, I do want to, I think it's an important question, but I think it's a secondary question. The question for me is again, what is the long-term impact on humanity? If AI is used to generate solutions to mathematical problems, it will atrophy humans' abilities to solve mathematical problems. And the question should be: are we as a society okay with that? Right? If AI is automating human reason, in what ways is it doing that? And as a society, are we okay with those being replaced? Because I think it's a relatively straightforward first principle that technology will replace what it automates. So, insofar as we use it for a particular aspect of human reason, it will automate that. And so I know that keeps coming back to my point, but I think in some ways that is my point. We're kind of asking the wrong first questions.

SPEAKER_01 22:57

I'm glad you keep coming back to this. I think it's crucial and it definitely reshapes the debate, saying, look, here's the purpose of it. This will happen. Do we think this is a good idea if we keep going down this path? Um, how's are people meeting you on that level in that debate? And what are people saying? Are people like Jake? You are you're a worry wart. Uh, you know, people always get worried about technology. This is gonna work out fine. That's how humanity goes.

SPEAKER_02 23:28

Yeah, no, I've actually found this distinction very helpful because again, I'm not coming out of the gate saying we should scrap neural networks altogether, right? Again, I recognize that our future probably is that the the neural networks, the algorithm, the AI algorithm part is going to be in the background of virtually everything we do. I think the future is that it is doing our navigation software. Most of us don't remember that, at least on Apple's side, like they made a big change a couple of years ago in moving from a traditional algorithm to an AI-driven algorithm. We never saw the difference. We just continued using our phones as is. It's gonna do that. Of course, we know it's gonna drive our cars, but it's it's gonna manage the electricity in your house to make it more efficient. And so these things are gonna be in the background no matter what we do, right? And so I'm not, I'm not in in some ways, uh, you know, laying out a doomsday conspiracy in that way, a doomsday scenario in that way. I think that that the algorithms uh are going, like any algorithm that came before it are going to find good applications, right? I think people have found it helpful to separate that off from the interface. When they hear the term AI, they really only think of Grok or Chat GPT. And they they haven't even they they haven't they haven't thought about the idea that you you could remove the technology, the interface, and still hold on to the algorithm to do some things. Um, and I think in some ways, that interface is the thing I want to talk more and more about. Because if this is, if we are communicating with uh with an electronic system, that's going to form the way that we think about human communication. You started this off, Lee, by by um, I think you and I had talked ahead of time about this weird idea that a lot of us when we start engaging with Chat GPT, we find ourselves using words like please. Yeah, right. We don't do that in a Google search. We say, please give me the date of right.

SPEAKER_01 25:19

That's what's a very strange thing. And it strikes me that don't say please, then what happens? Will I get accustomed to asking questions? And will I get accustomed to just, you know, whether it's my wife, my son, but friends or whatever, just frankly being rude, not engaging with them in this normal in this normal.

SPEAKER_02 25:37

Yeah, I mean, I think that's right. And and again, the idea that we engage with these platforms in a way that models human communication, to me is actually one of the more troubling things because I think we will naturally, even those of us that are a little older and that have been formed already, right? Even though we're never fully formed, um, we will over time start to engage with it on a more and more human level. And I just think that's problematic. I mean, you know, for me, uh we are body-soul unities and we are called to communion with other body-soul unities. Like that's just fact. That's what human nature is. We have both a soul and a body that's integrated and we interact with other body-soul unities, right? That's that's fundamentally what it means to be human. And so, insofar as we peel all that apart and we start using that hallmark of human rationality, which is which is language, insofar as we we start engaging with human language with something that is not human, I think is a long-term problematic. Uh, and and by the way, I think in some ways we've paved the way for this already with cell phones. I think that, you know, particularly young kids have become used to communicating with other people in a completely mediated way. There's no, it's not face-to-face, it's not video, it's not even sound, it's just short text back and forth. And they would almost prefer that than a phone call or an in-person meeting. So if you if you think about it, the way that they've been communicating with each other has already been formed in a way that now models how they will communicate with Chat GPT. And I think that that's that's fundamentally problematic. And I think as we think of the more egregious applications, like using Chat GPT as a friend or as a personal counselor, um, we can see how this becomes problematic because we're now treating the thing as if it's human and it's not, right? Um, but that that is not just the algorithm. I want to keep going back to that. That is the interface. We need not say all neural networks are terrible and we should never use them for anything, right? Um, if we can pull apart the interface and the algorithm, I think it's at least the beginnings of a conversation.

SPEAKER_01 27:46

I want to ask you last question. Uh, in the meantime, while we're figuring out how to have the discussion, uh outs outside of our conversation, how we talk about the interface, uh, what should teachers, what should parents uh, what should what should parents be doing saying, look, I I I understand why Chat GPT is helpful to you, uh, finishing your paper on the, you know, the uh 19, the the the first world war, but I don't want you writing your papers with Chat GPT. What should parents and teachers be doing?

SPEAKER_02 28:19

Yeah, so so there's uh there's the level of policy and then there's the level of practice, right? Um the policy of schools should 100% be that Chat GPT is not to be used for any assignments, period, whatsoever, right? Because that's not the point of education. The point of education is not the production of the artifact itself. Um, you know, my good friend Brian Williams at Templeton Honors uh teaches great books classes and often says, as a college professor, I don't need to read 30 papers on the Iliad. I really don't. I already know the Iliad. I don't need to read those. The purpose is not the paper. The purpose is the production of the paper. It's the process that the student goes through in order to digest and analyze the literature, in order to improve their own writing, in order to improve their own thinking, in order to wrestle with complex and deep ideas. Right.

SPEAKER_01 29:09

Show me how you think. Show me what you've understood, where you're done. Exactly.

SPEAKER_02 29:13

Yeah, and so it has no business in the classroom whatsoever. And I think teachers, again, should ask themselves that fundamental question insofar as you allow it to be used, are you okay with that thing being replaced? Because technology will replace what it automates, right? So that's the level of policy. Now, obviously, this has to imp uh impact the level of practice because it's it's if if that technology is available at home, this is going to be an uphill battle. Now, again, I'm one who thinks we should hold high moral lines for our students, right? But at the same time, I think this probably this the advent of this technology is going to force us and has already forced us into doing things that are good for kids anyway, which is to do some some of the harder work in class. Like, let's solve math problems in class where you don't have access to that resource, right? Let's do the wrestling and do the hard lifting in class. At the at the K-12 level, we found ourselves having to move some of the essay writing into class to go back to handwritten essays. And a lot of this, I think, has been really good for the practice of teaching writing, right? So I do think that policy is important, but it has to be followed with practice that that sort of coheres with that policy.

SPEAKER_01 30:27

That's interesting. Instead of, look, I want uh, okay, here eighth graders, instead of a six-page paper on um on the Odyssey, uh here in class, I want you to write 500 words for me. Tell me about uh, you know, talk talk to me, uh, talk to me about the siren episode. What what happens there? What does that mean? Um Jake, Tony, thank you so much for being here with us today on Roots, Rights, and Reason. Again, another really inspiring conversation. Conversation. I mean, all of your your insight and your information. Thank you so much for it. I I'm dying to have you back on again. In the meantime, thanks to all of you for watching Roots, Rights, and Reason. We'll see you in our next episode next week.