Muse

Want to turn challenges into chances? Go digital enterprise and adapt to every change by combining the real and digital worlds. Transform the everyday with Siemens.

Everyone treats summer like it owes you happiness. Long days, pool parties, your best life on a loop. So what does it mean when you feel worse? The summer blues are real. It's why summer is one of the busiest stretches of the year for people starting therapy. Grow Therapy is here for all the moments when you decide you want more, more support, more clarity, more tools. Grow connects you with thousands of high-quality, licensed therapists across the U.S., offering both virtual and in-person sessions, nights and weekends. The therapist you want takes your insurance on Grow. Grow accepts over 125 insurance plans. Sessions average $21 with insurance, and some pay as little as $0, depending on their plan. Visit growtherapy.com slash ACAST today to get started. That's growtherapy.com slash ACAST. growtherapy.com slash ACAST. Availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.

we use numbers when we don't trust people and we forget that people come up with the numbers and the numbers are not as objective as we would like them to be and big tech is just the latest

situation of that it's the lawfare podcast i'm tyler mcbryan managing editor of lawfare with carissa valise an associate professor at the faculty of philosophy and the institute for ethics in AI at the University of Oxford. It's very easy to have the temptation of,

I just want to know. I just want to be prepared. But that kind of attitude terrifies us. It pushes us into asking prophets to essentially tell us what to do. And what we're saying is, I'm scared. I don't know what to do. Just tell me what to do. And that's very dangerous because it's giving away

our power. Today, we're talking about Carissa's new book, Prophecy, Prediction, Power, and the fight for the future, from ancient oracles to AI. So Carissa, I think it's no understatement to say that this is a very relevant, timely, dare I say prescient book in some ways. I mean, I'm just thinking about the World Cup, for example, there's every other ad seems to be for a prediction market. Animal oracles have been known to predict the outcome of sporting events like this. There's Paul the Octopus a few years ago. So I want to start, though, with your interest in the topic. How did you land on this really wide-ranging, far-reaching idea for a book, and especially

how it relates to your past work? It was a confluence of things. So on the one hand, realizing that the kind of AI that we use, machine learning, is nothing but a prediction machine, and realizing that we haven't done enough work on what exactly is prediction, and especially the ethics of prediction it's kind of astonishing if you think about it that we've been using prediction for thousands of years and there are thousands of books about prediction and academic journals and and and yet there is there wasn't one book on the ethics of prediction so realizing that there was a big gap there but also i advise governments and companies around the world on issues about digital ethics and realizing that even without ai so many decisions that are very important, having to do with justice, depend on prediction, and sometimes in very questionable ways. And that led me to look into the history of prediction, which in turn led me to the origins of Western philosophy as a kind of reaction to a very kind of mythical culture that was heavily invested in prediction. And so it was all of those things coming together and thinking, yeah, there's a book here.

Yeah, and it's honestly, I think, a paradigm-shifting book. At least it was for me. I think Western democracies, especially with more of a liberal tradition, like to delude themselves into thinking that we're rational thinkers and we've moved past a belief in prophets and oracles, but not so. But before we jump into the history, I think it's helpful to lay out the characteristics of prediction and what we're talking about here when we say prediction or forecasting or fortune telling. So could you lay out a bit about the bounds here?

Yes. So a prediction is a statement about the future. And one of its characteristics is that it seems like it's a description about the future. So something like, tomorrow it will rain, or this candidate will win the election, or we will be using AI in this and that way in the future. So it's a kind of statement that very much sounds grammatically.

like a description and it's supposed to be to tell us something about the world in the future but actually when you analyze it in terms of philosophy of language you realize that it's a very misleading kind of assertion because even though it sounds like a description facts by their very nature belong to the past and so a prediction can never be a fact not even in very scientific context so at best a prediction can be an educated guess or a kind of hypothesis that you then either confirm or or deny but more often than not when you look at how we use prediction in the public sphere you realize that it's often a kind of marketing a kind of wishful thinking and very very often too often a kind of power play in disguise because the person making the prediction makes it sound like what they're saying is a fact when they're in they're trying to bring about that future because they often have a kind of financial or other kind of interest in it yeah and we see this of course

with market manipulation in the prediction markets. I want to just briefly dwell on the term speech act here to pick up on the last thing you said. I think some listeners will be familiar with that term in international relations theory. But how does the concept of a speech act play into this?

The concept of speech act comes from the philosopher J.L. Austin, who in the 1960s gave a talk at Harvard that then became a book that is called How to Do Things with Words. and the main argument of the book is that there are sentences that don't describe the world but rather act in the world in a particular kind of way so when a civil servant marries two people they're not describing the state of the world they're they're marrying two people and when you tell your child that they have to clean their room you're not describing the state of the room you are issuing an order or a command and many predictions even though they sound like descriptions are actually veiled commands, and even ones that have to do with apparently objective things. So even if I tell you, Tyler, it's going to rain tomorrow, what I'm actually saying is take your umbrella or cancel that event or postpone that. And even more so when it comes to social matters, because we are such suggestible creatures that when somebody tells us something about the future, we tend to be affected by it, and it creates different expectations. So if I tell a student, I think you're terrible and you're going to fail. It's a very different kind of act than if I tell them you're brilliant and you're going to do great and don't worry about it. And both of those are very likely to have an effect on that person. And it depends on who's doing the speech act,

right? So if we've already elevated the oracle to this mythic status and believe them, then I assume what they say will have more of this power. Is that a fair read? That's exactly right. And we

see this with financial institutions. So when a financial agency says that a country is going to be in trouble, you bet the country is going to be in trouble, even if nothing else, because that statement will make investors flee. And the same thing when it comes to a bank making an assertion about the future. Or these days, tech executives are very prominent profits that tend to say a lot of things about the future. And they get a lot of airtime on the press and with politicians. And they get to influence the future in many ways, not only through the gadgets that they design, but also through the assertions they make about the future. And of course, this is not

a new phenomenon. So I want to transition into some of the history in the book, because I think that's some of the richest anecdotes that came out. So in looking at the first part of the book, going back to Rome and other periods of history, well, first of all, I'm just curious how you scoped this? I mean, humans have been predicting things or expressing anxiety about the future since we've been human. So how did you kind of decide where to bracket the history? And can you

walk us through some of the history in the book? Yeah. So as soon as I realized that there was a connection to ancient philosophy, that was a clear anchor for me. First, I started reading ancient philosophy, but also history of ancient Rome and ancient Greece. And of course, the Oracle of Delphi is a very important figure. And I started there. But there was also this quirky situation that I recount in the book that I was in an Oxford event. There are a lot of events in Oxford. And I ran into the librarian of the Bodleian, which is the library at Oxford. And His name is Richard Ovenden, and he asked me about what I was writing about, and I didn't really want to say, but I said something about prediction, and he was like, oh, you know, we have an exhibition coming up in the Bodleian about prediction. And the exhibition was about ancient oracles. And so I went to the exhibition, and one of the things that stood out was, first,

that prediction has always been a business. Prophets are merchants of predictions. And the second thing is that we always ask for the same things, whether it's now or 2,000 years ago. We care about our family, our health, the political situation in our country, and our business. That's basically it. That's it. And so that also became a kind of narrative thread of like, okay, if prediction is a business, how did it change? And how did we go from predictions based on qualitative issues like, you know, animals entrails and, you know, the manifestation of Apollo to predictions that are quantitative, that are most familiar to us today. And that led me to the history of insurance and the history of statistics. And it was a fascinating book to research, quite hard because predictions span so much. So it took a lot of research, but it was a wonderful kind of journey.

Yeah, I mean, the book is so many things. To cherry pick from a passage of yours, you say it's a technology book, a business book. It explores the history of prediction. It's a political treatise, it's a book about climate change, a defense of literature. But then you say at the end, most of all, it's a book about how to live well, which I think the structure of the book and the free-ranging quality also speaks to just the free-ranging quality of the topic. itself. I want to drill down on the tech criticism, the big tech, big data criticism at the heart of the book, especially because it connects well to your past book on privacy and surveillance technology. Talk more about that transition from qualitative to quantitative prophesying. And if you could just explain a bit about what's distinct about this critique of big tech versus others that listeners may be familiar with in the discourse yeah a quick comment about about how

broad the topic is it's also about philosophy i think one of the drawbacks of specialization in academia is that we end up with a lot of people who are extreme experts in this very very very narrow thing and very few people who can connect the dots and sometimes that leads us to lose perspective and to have incredible gaps in knowledge like no knowledge of the ethics of prediction. And I think philosophy is particularly well suited to be a kind of discipline that can connect the dots. And so that's part of the hope of the book. But also, I find myself in some instances giving talks to audiences that are very specialized. And I'm not just saying this, but one of my favorite audiences is lawyers, because we have a particularly, I don't know, kind of akin minds of liking premises and conclusions and logical thinking.

You're really pandering to the audience here as well.

But it's true. It's a really kind of pleasant audience to talk with. However, sometimes lawyers get stuck in the laws that we have and not in the laws that we should have or in the ethics that are behind the laws. And so getting the bigger picture of not only data protection, but like what is privacy and what is connection to prediction, I think is very important to understand the role that you're playing in society and the meaning and the weight of your job. So that's also part of the hope of the book. And then, yeah, going back to this transition of, you know, from qualitative predictions to quantitative predictions, one of the interesting aspects of it is that it's a way of justifying our decisions. And, you know, in ancient Greece and ancient Rome, going to a priestess was a perfect way to justify your decision. But when Christianity kicks in and then we have this process of disenchantment of the world, suddenly going to a priestess doesn't quite seem to cut it. And then we have a situation in which bureaucrats are in a kind of limbo because they don't have divine right to justify their position anymore, and neither have they been voted in. So they have to justify to citizens, like, who the hell are you and what do you do? And I had always assumed that the development of statistics had mostly been a mathematical development by mathematicians, and it wasn't. It was mostly a practical solution to the problem of justification and very much pushed by bureaucrats. And so essentially, if I were to distill it into a sentence, we use numbers when we don't trust people and we forget that people come up with the numbers and the numbers are not as objective as we would like them to be. and big tech is just the latest iteration of that it's just the latest iteration of profits who need to justify their decisions and who come up with often very opaque methods and very opaque machines that partly create that function of shielding them from accountability and saying like well it wasn't me it was the algorithm. Then the algorithm is the subjective thing that is based on prediction and predictions are knowledge. And that's completely wrong. No, predictions are not knowledge. They belong more to the sphere of power. And at the end of the day, human beings are the ones who are the

responsible agents here. What has been the reaction from big tech? I could almost see this ironic scenario where people reading this might try to turn you into a prophet, you know, that this is the new answer or something like that. But yeah, what kind of reaction have you gotten from some of the subjects of your book?

It's been very exciting because you never know. You spend years writing a book pretty much on your own and then you never know how it's going to be received. And it's been very nice to see excellent reviews in the New York Times, in the New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Economist is exactly what an author wants to see. And from people around the world and very different professions, from lawyers to people who work in risk management and, of course, philosophers, but also teachers and business people. From big tech, there's been pretty much silence so far, which is not surprising. However, big tech is very big. And within big tech, there are people who are interested in different points of view and who are eager to engage. But I'm more excited about the response I've received from smaller alternative businesses who are excited about doing things differently, who want to innovate, who don't have this paradigm of domination. And that makes me more excited. And also from young people who are the future. But you're right that there is this temptation, especially with the press, to end interviews asking me about, and what is the future? It's such a habit.

All right. Everyone's excited these days about AI. I'm no exception. I've spent a lot of time vibe coding recently. It's pretty exciting. You got the smarter future. Everything's connected. Your open AI or clawed instance can access everything. But here's the question. What happens when it all breaks? What happens when the system just doesn't work anymore and you're totally dependent on it and you don't have anything that AI can't touch? It's an increasingly digital world and you don't own anything real. You only own stuff that your AI can access. Does that sound like a nightmare? Does it sound like all of your wealth exists only on a number on a screen? What happens when you suddenly wake up in the morning and you're locked out of your bank account? You don't have any cash. There's no card that can help you. And if this sounds like your nightmare, and it's going to happen eventually, think about why smart Americans like yourself are turning to noble gold investments to own something real that AI can't touch. the kind of thing you can hold in your hand or put in a tax-advantaged retirement account. I'm talking about physical gold, a coin, a bar. It doesn't live on a server. It can't be frozen with a keystroke, and it can't be erased by code because it's in a safe somewhere. So if you've been wondering about whether gold or silver, for that matter, should be part of your portfolio. This is exactly the kind of moment when it makes sense to speak with somebody who understands the market. Noble Gold Investments has been helping investors protect their savings with physical gold and silver for nearly a decade. There are a bunch of things that make them different from other people who do business in these areas. And one is the white glove service. they provide white glove service from start to finish they walk you through how physical gold and silver work whether you're considering a direct purchase or rolling over part of an IRA this affects like not just customers even podcasters you know when I started doing podcast advertising with them the head of the company a guy named Colin called me up we had a call and he talked to me about why he's passionate about this. It's different from other companies. Everything is transparent. They're not pushy. It's not a high-pressure sales situation. They

explain exactly what you're buying and why. They've built a reputation on being trustworthy and reliable.

you get the answers you need and you stop guessing and you decide with confidence about owning something that actually is tangible. So visit noblegoldinvestments.com slash lawfare. That's noblegoldinvestments.com slash lawfare. And when you open a new qualified account, Noble Gold Investments will send you a free 10 ounce silver bar stamped with the American map and 250 years of independence available for qualified gold IRA accounts and cash purposes. That's noblegoldinvestments.com slash lawfare.

Hey, everybody. This is Knox from the podcast with Knox and Jamie. Back to School always brings a little nostalgia, fresh notebooks, new shoes, sharpened pencils, and trying to remember your friend's home phone number. But today, staying connected looks a little different. Between pickups practices and after school activities kids need a way to reach their parents and parents need peace of mind too that's where gab comes in gab makes phones and watches designed for kids with no social media apps or internet browsers kids get the connection they need while parents get features like gps check-ins managed contacts safer messaging and gab music which is clean songs curated for kids this year skip the adult smartphone and choose a phone made with kids in mind Use code GETGAB to get $25 off at GAB.com slash GETGAB. That's GAB, G-A-B-B.

Marketers, you know that feeling when your creative clicks? When that social post sends engagement through the roof? When your outside-of-the-box campaign hits ROI positive? When a personalized homepage turns prospects into customers? It's utter marketing bliss. Contentful helps you create tailored omni-channel experiences without working overtime. No stress, no limits, only possibilities. Get the feels at contentful.com.

Want to speed up innovation at scale? AI it. To leap from data into action and help teams design and produce faster and smarter. Transform the everyday with Siemens.

So because this is the Lawfare Podcast, I'm curious how these ideas apply to the law. Another discipline very known for its attempts, at least, to make order out of the world.

I've been thinking a lot about the law in this project, partly because very important figures in the history of statistics and thinking about statistics and numbers were very interested in the law, like Laplace and Condorcet and others. and I'm worried about how much we're importing probabilistic thinking into law because I think that law should be more about principles about justice and truth and probabilistic thinking is in tension with all of those so for example in the UK you might have legal insurance but your insurance is only going to cover your case if they think that you have a 51 chance of winning and of course you can understand why they do that and it makes financial sense but the implication is that the bad guys don't have to make it hard much less impossible to fight them they just have to make it slightly unlikely and it's very rare for somebody to come after them and for them they know this it's a calculation and so we are designing society in a way to disincentivize people pursuing justice. And that's kind of a recipe for things not only not improving, but getting worse. And similarly, when, for example, police use predictions about how a jury will see a case, instead of allowing the jury to actually see a case and make a decision for themselves, we are going against justice. And similarly, when we use algorithms to determine questions about sentencing and bail we make it very hard for justice to prevail because whereas if if you make a decision based on criteria that are clear and contestable and based on evidence there can be a rational discussion and the person being accused can defend themselves and navigate that system but when you deny someone an opportunity based on a prediction there's no way to argue against that because predictions are not facts because they're not verifiable they're not falsifiable. So we're kind of creating this Kafkaesque world. And so something that I would like to ask the lawyers of the world is to encourage their clients, their political representatives, policymakers, to try to design things in a way that push people towards being more principled and incentivizing people to pursue justice. Because part of what makes human beings human beings and part of what makes the world a better place is people fighting battles that are unlikely victory.

If we only fight the battles that we know we're going to win, it's a recipe for disaster. We need people to know that even though they have a 1% chance of winning, they should still fight that battle, even if they lose, because it's the right thing to do.

I'm curious what you would say to someone pushing back on an argument that, and I'm taking your argument to the extreme, so say that our current algorithmic predictive machines are simply just another iteration of the Oracle of Delphi. And is it not, though, that we're just sort of trying to hone these predictions or using data to improve them with still some small recognition, some more than others, that the future is inherently unpredictable. We're just trying to narrow the universe of possibilities. Yeah, just this idea that, you know, you write that to be resilient, prepared, don't predict. But why couldn't, you know, people do both, for example?

I encourage people to do both. So one of the examples I give is, you know, I look at my weather app every day and I, you know, I can't live without it. And that is very much a prediction. So the way I would respond is showing that, yes, the picture is more complex than that. It includes more phenomena. And, of course, prediction is a very important part of science. But when done well, it is put in a scientific context. Prediction by itself does not equate science with science. For example, one of the best uses of AI that I know of is using it to try to find new materials or new antibiotics. It's actually trying to predict how molecules are going to interact with one another. And that's a brilliant use of it because it narrows the field of possibilities, as you put it. And then from that narrow set, which saves you thousands and thousands of hours in the lab, you actually test those molecules that seem promising in the lab. And then you have the usual process of randomized control trials and peer review and all that. And that's what makes it scientific, not the use of AI. AI can be used in very unscientific ways. And so what I worry about is that with the pretext of using prediction in helpful scientific ways that mostly have to do with predictions about things and not people, because predictions about things don't affect things. So if I predict that it's going to rain, it's either going to rain or not. And it doesn't matter what I predict. And that's different from making predictions about people. that we use that excuse to use prediction in very unscientific ways that have to do not with scientific advancement but with the advancement of authoritarian tendencies and so one of the things you said is very important because it gets sold as that is well we're trying to minimize uncertainty and the assumption there is that it's a good thing to minimize uncertainty and it depends so it's it's a good thing to minimize uncertainty when it comes to the weather sure but just think about what it would mean to you to know exactly what you will be doing and where you will be in a year it would actually be a tragedy because it would mean that your destiny is sealed there's nothing to do and you can you just have to accept it it would mean that you live in a police state so you know in the extreme one way to predict exactly where somebody's going to be tomorrow is to jail them that's a very effective way of predicting the location of someone we see this phenomenon throughout history, that when we become better at predicting the behavior of human beings, it tends to be a very bad symptom because it means that we are creating that behavior. Not that we are discovering a script that's already written, but that we're creating it. Yeah, I think

another great example that you bring up in the book, you write, democracy needs uncertainty to thrive. It's only when we don't know the outcome of a future election that we have democracy, which I think is such a perfect encapsulation of this connection between prediction and power. And yeah, the best way to predict the future is to control it. And that's what we see also in prediction markets as well. So I'm interested in this idea of being comfortable with uncertainty and even delighting in it and running toward it. So could you speak a bit about some of the latter chapters of the book that touch more on, you know, how to live and how to live well.

One of the things that makes us most vulnerable to charlatans and to prophets of all kinds is our fear of the future. And of course, it's entirely understandable. And I feel it just like the next person. It's nerve wracking not to know what's going to happen in a month. And there are moments in history where things seem particularly uncertain when geopolitics is hot and when scientific advancements are changing things and it's very easy to have the temptation of i just want to know i just want to be prepared but that kind of attitude terrifies us it pushes us onto asking profit

to essentially tell us what to do. And what we're saying is, I'm scared, I don't know what to do, just tell me what to do. And that's very dangerous because it's giving away our power. And another perspective is to be excited about uncertainty, to realize that the minimization of uncertainty when it comes to social realities would be horrific news. And that uncertainty means that the future is not written, that we can intercede, that we can partly build it and mold it. And so instead of being afraid of it, saying, wow, I have an opportunity here. I'm given a blank page or a partially blank page in which to write in. And that's incredible. That is fantastic news. And so what I would like to see more in the public sphere is rather than have prophets telling you what the future is and just telling you, just deal with it and adapt to it and say as I do, to say, look, I've thought about this future and I think it would be really cool do you want to build it with me and to have that attitude of collaboration of this is the future is something that we build together that we decide together maybe a couple of two or three elements that I particularly enjoyed writing about is one having this curiosity and attitude of curiosity towards the world towards other people and how that is a kind of antidote to the anxiety we feel about uncertainty if you think about life as a good book and as an adventure you get that sense of I want to keep on reading I don't want to find out what happens at the end I want the story to go on not to end too quickly and a second element that I enjoyed writing about and I think is more important than meets the eye is humor I think comedy is a very important antidote to anxiety but it's also a very important element of democracy is a way for us to question power, to be irreverent towards power, to create freedom, but it also is very conducive to creativity and to all kinds of positive thinking. And then maybe the last one is I end the book by suggesting 10 guidelines that might be practical, because I want people, whether it's an ordinary citizen or a lawyer or a policymaker or a business person to go away knowing roughly how this applies to their own life. And maybe my favorite guideline is to try to seek more exposure to serendipity. The more we allow algorithms to decide who we meet, where we eat, what we watch, where we go, the less autonomy we have, the more we narrow our agency. And so it's good to try to get exposed to ideas that you maybe wouldn't have thought about.

So go to a library or a bookshop and ask for recommendations, talk with strangers, read widely, and just take strolls along the beach because you never know what the tide might bring.

It's funny, especially the humor point, it had me thinking that the people most associated with prediction, at least today, tech CEOs, insurance people, actuaries, aren't typically people known for their sense of humor. So I think there's definitely a strong connection there. And I think it's right. I mean, it's human nature to be anxious about the future and a lack of control. But it's also human nature to hate a spoiled ending. I completely agree. I mean, if you knew the end of something, there's a lot less reason to undertake it. As I was reading your book, well, several books came to mind. One was the book Charlatans, which is a recent book by Kiko Toro. And so, of course, the charlatans use of prediction was front of mind. But another person I interviewed on the podcast recently is a professor named Joey Kellner, who writes about how when societies are on the verge of collapse or in a very uncertain time, that the people living in them look for answers in very unlikely places, in fortune tellers, in astrologers, and these types of things. Is this something that you looked at in terms of the nature of the unpredictability of a society and then an increase in this faith or seeking of fortune tellers?

Yeah, and the worst part is that it tends to be a vicious cycle because the more things seem uncertain, the more people panic and then go to astrologers and prophets of all kinds and the more they lose power. And then the more they create also uncertainty, because when we try to control reality, it's like a teenager that rebels and we create even more uncertainty than what we had before. And so one historical example is in ancient Rome, when the Republic was faltering, a lot of people went to astrologers.

astrologers started predicting the coming of an emperor and that was the death of the republic when people started believing more in the future and that was an empire than in the present that was a republic in a way they had already given up on the republic they had given up on their rights on their duty to build the republic that they were supposed to defend and instead they just accepted the imperial chart of someone. I'm thinking a lot about the reaction to AI's

ubiquity these days. So, you know, you see this flattening of aesthetics and the antidote to that is people are returning to very sketchily hand-drawn aesthetics. There are, you know, memes out there of images that AI could never create. So this sort of celebration in the oddness of the human experience. Did you find any good examples of this, of people revolting against the tyranny of prophecy? Well, one excellent example is ancient Greece

and philosophers revolting against the oracle of Delphi and so on. So I think it's not a coincidence that philosophers like Anaxagoras and Socrates and Aristotle were accused of impiety. there's there's good reason for that but i think pretty much every hero that you can think of in history whether it's rosa parks or marie curie or anyone that you can think of was someone who defied their odds who got told you're never gonna succeed and when we we think about the victories of humanity like for example the universal declaration of human rights or universal suffrage or, you know, whatever victories we've had, all of those at some point seem impossible. And the people defending them got told that it was impossible. So I remember reading about the economics of slavery and how many economists thought that it was just literally impossible to abolish slavery. And of course, they were wrong. So every important victory is a kind of defiance of the odds. And when it comes to algorithms, you're right. I think we're seeing people rebel in certain ways. And one example that comes to mind in the UK a few years ago, when the pandemic kicked in, students couldn't sit their exams. And so the government decided to use an algorithm to predict what their grades would be. And you can imagine how this wasn't very attractive to the students. And it was, I think, one of the first times that we saw a protest in which the chant was fuck the algorithm by students because mostly when we encounter injustice and that it's perpetrated through an algorithm people mostly don't realize it was an algorithm or or they're so isolated that they can't go out and protest easily you can't prove that the algorithm was wrong easily but because this was a very collective and very public case, people got angry. And in fact, the government had to backtrack and we ended up pretty much changing things so that we accepted many more students than we would otherwise have because people protested. So for the students

out there who are relying on a spectacular final exam grade to save themselves, do it, defy the odds. I am curious what you're thinking of working on next, or if you have another book project in the works, especially because the connection between your previous book and this one is so clear. I'm curious, where else are you taking your research agenda, essentially? I do. I'm already

writing, but I'm not going to tell you about it. You're going to have to find out. Wait and find

out. And I will be okay with that uncertainty. Thank you. Carissa, thank you so much for joining me. This is a really, really great conversation. Thank you so much, Tyler. It's been a pleasure. including Rational Security, Allies, The Aftermath, and Escalation, our latest Lawfare Presents podcast series about the war in Ukraine. You can also find all of our written work at lawfaremedia.org. The podcast is edited by Jen Patia, with audio engineering by Kara Schillen of Goat Rodeo. Our theme music is from Alibi Music. As always, thanks for listening. Hey there, it's Wayfair here, where delivery and setup are as easy as a few taps on your phone. You're relaxing in an old hammock, scrolling Wayfair's app when you spot it, a brand new patio set.

you know, Wayfair delivers it right to your patio and sets it up. Oh, you need a new grill too? All right, Wayfair's got you covered. With Wayfair's room of choice delivery and fast experts set up on qualifying orders, life gets a little easier. Visit Wayfair.com or the Wayfair app.