S5E14 Algorithms, Beauty, And The Artist: Gretchen Andrew

What if the internet that trained today’s AI also rewired our sense of beauty, originality, and self? We sit down with artist and former Googler Gretchen Andrew to explore how algorithms shape culture—from who gets seen on social platforms to why so many rooms, faces, and feeds now look the same. Gretchen’s path from information systems to the Whitney offers a rare inside-out view: she uses AI not to generate images, but to expose how machine-enforced standards flatten difference and reward sameness.

Gretchen breaks down the feedback loop that began a decade ago when adtech and SEO drove the kind of content the web produced. Those archives became the fuel for generative models, and now those models steer taste back into the feed. We talk practical signals for spotting AI images, the difference between building your own dataset versus prompting in a black box, and why the best AI artists still make work that is unmistakably theirs. Her Facetune Portraits turn invisible edits into physical marks, revealing the embedded judgements inside “beautifying” tools and how they travel from screens to surgeons’ offices.

The conversation gets personal and urgent. Filters can destabilise your self-image even when you know how they work. Plastic surgery trends among men and women rise as we optimise our 2D selves for Zoom and Instagram. For artists worried about replacement, Gretchen offers a path forward: study art history to know what’s actually new, build a practice that explains why the tool matters, and lean into the messy human qualities machines can’t convincingly fake. If you care about AI, culture, and creative integrity, this one will challenge how you see your feed—and your face.

Enjoy Gretchen's work: https://www.gretchenandrew.com/facetune-portraits/facetune-portraits-gretchen-1

Enjoyed the conversation? Follow the show, share this episode with a friend, and leave a review to help more curious listeners find us.

Chapters

• 0:00 Hosts Introduce Season And Guest
• 2:06 Gretchen’s Path From Tech To Art
• 5:21 The Internet That Trained Today’s AI
• 9:10 Platforms, Visibility, And Gatekeepers
• 13:15 Using AI To Critique Beauty Standards
• 18:10 Spotting AI Images And Artistic Value
• 22:35 Filters, Surgery, And The 2D Self
• 27:20 Will AI Replace Us Or Reveal Us
• 31:00 Surprising Personal Effects Of AI Filters
• 34:00 Advice To Emerging AI Artists And Closing

Transcript

Stephen King: 0:04

Good evening, good morning, good night, wherever you are in the world. This is Stephen King, and this is the Incongruent. It is our latest episode in the season five, which is all about all things AI with a human twist. And joining me today, we have a new voice.

Sukayna Kazmi: 0:19

My new voice is Sukayna Kazmi. Hello, everyone.

Stephen King: 0:24

Wow, the diva has brought some diva to the show. Thank you so much, Sukayna. You're back with a bang. Uh, a new voice for us. Tell us, what have you been doing with your life since the last time I saw you? You were last on CNN Academy, right?

Sukayna Kazmi: 0:37

Yeah. And then I was freelancing for ARN, Arabian Radio Network, for a bit. Still am here and there. And then I decided to throw myself in the deep end, and now I'm in influencer marketing.

Stephen King: 0:49

Wow.

Sukayna Kazmi: 0:51

Super random, but decided to test the waters and learn something new. So yeah, but journalism is always there on my side, freelancing here and there. Yeah. All that's true.

Stephen King: 1:00

Super, super. So welcome, welcome back to the crew and welcome to your first episode. Who did we? We had a brilliant episode today. Who did we speak to?

Sukayna Kazmi: 1:08

We spoke to Gretchen Andrew. She is an internationally recognized artist, and she does such incredible things. Everyone needs to listen to this episode.

Stephen King: 1:20

She does. And she's got a background with Google and with the big tech industry. And she's learned a lot of what the uh what these companies have been doing for the past 10-15 years, uh, which has been amazing. And she's used that to uh inspire her creative future. Uh a creative career which she's following right now. And um we're very grateful for the opportunity to talk with her about all things to do with art, uh, AI, and well, there's a little bit of art philosophy in here as well. So if you're already and if you're excited, are you excited, Sakina?

Sukayna Kazmi: 1:53

Very excited.

Stephen King: 1:55

Ready? Here we go.

Sukayna Kazmi: 2:01

Hello everyone, and welcome to another episode of Incongruent. Gretchen's work explores how AI alters creativity, beauty, and individual identity. The Whitney just acquired her FaceTube Portraits, a series that physically paints AI in four standards, making visible the pressures we rarely acknowledge. Gretchen has been a visiting professor of AI and published research on algorithms' impacts on not just images, but our sense of self. She sparked dialogue everywhere, from the VM Museum to Paris Photo. After leaving Silicon Valley for a world that would allow her to be herself, Gretchen became known for her playful hacks on major art worlds and political institutions, including Freezee, the Whitney Benell, the Art Forum, the Turner Prize, and the 2020 presidential election. Gretchen, thank you so much for being here with us today. It is such a pleasure.

Grechen Andrew: 2:59

Thank you so much for having me.

Sukayna Kazmi: 3:00

I'm so excited to have you on our episode today. There's so much to talk about. I mean, literally from Silicon Valley's tech corridors to the walls of the Whitney Museum, you have literally rewritten what it's what it means to blend art, technology, and identity. And there's so much that we can take away from this session. So, to begin with, could you please share your insights into your career history?

Grechen Andrew: 3:29

Yeah, absolutely. So I studied information systems, and it's a subject that I loved and do still love. It got me what in 2008 was the job at Google, and the tech world was still, I had a little bit more cultural cachet, was a bit more prestigious than I think it's become in the last five years or so. And I got to what should have been my dream job for what I had studied and found that technology was primarily being used to manipulate our attention, sell us things we don't need. And I had really devised technology as a tool of not just societal transformation, but also personal transformation. So I thought, okay, I'm way too young to end up in a corporate world where I don't feel like my passions are being moved forward at the pace that I can given my energy and my focus. And so I decided to pose my quitting tech as a challenge to technology, to the internet. Could it make me into something that I am not yet? I had I decided I wanted to be an artist. Artist is one of these words that means absolutely nothing or it means absolutely everything. And I decided that I was going to use online tools, YouTube, Stanford Online, MoMA Online, my ability to connect with people, my ability to promote myself, to turn myself into an artist, to learn the skills, to meet the people, and develop the career from zero.

Sukayna Kazmi: 5:13

And I think that's pretty cool. So, how has AI shifted or amplified that artistic process?

Grechen Andrew: 5:21

So a lot of my early work, or the work that really launched me into the art world initially, as you were saying, dealt with the way information was presented online, primarily through Google as a supposed source of truth. And at this time, I did a lot of research about how the internet that we were creating 10 years ago was going to be used to inform artificial intelligence. And that's pretty much the world we have today, where what was posted online, what was created online, which is a lot of very product-centric information, a lot of porn-based imagery, a lot of we have to think about the motivations that ended up being created for people to create content. Really more connected to ad tech, to SEO. And as this world that we now have has evolved, that's really what's happened is AI was given the internet, and now we have this AI that was educated on the internet, which is um as terrifying as it is it probably should be. And so I've become more interested at this phase of where we are technologically in what is it that AI is doing to us, not in terms of what I think is the more prominent conversation where we talk about AI as an explosion of creativity, an explosion of possibility, an explosion of all of these very positive, expansive human things. But what I'm seeing with AI is that it's primarily showing up in our lives as a system of normalization control, where every website now looks the same, every home being designed now looks the same. And even though, just like with the early internet, there seems to be this feeling of possibility around creativity and diversity. I want to have a conversation about the ways in which that's not true already and potentially not the direction we're generally heading with AI.

Stephen King: 7:18

I'll jump in. I'll jump in here. Uh you've sort of fledged on one of the fears of AI of this dystopian future of control and uh standardization as it were. Uh, and I found it quite interesting to say that that several years ago, many years ago, when people were being encouraged to create content for the internet, that uh there was already a vision that this content would help uh train the models of the future. Uh how long ago are we talking about? Because from the public's point of view, generative AI was born with Chat GPT. But this has been 2015 or so, according to my researchers, that was when they started using Transformers, I think, to help to make uh the models more uh useful. But uh how how long ago did was the vision there that they could see where this was going? Is that something you you know or were you involved with?

Grechen Andrew: 8:17

Well, I think we're we're we're talking about an overlap between data was fueling the last phase we were in as well. Uh Google, Meta, the ability to target and harvest our data had value even before generative AI was being it was being considered for sure at all of these companies and amongst researchers. And I think we saw the big hiring crunch around people who were skilled at this maybe about 10 years ago, where the talent who was early thinkers in this were being competed over and gobbled up into these larger companies out of institutions and out of research spaces. But because there was already given benefit to these companies to be collecting all of this data, then I don't think it the distinguish the distinction between why they were doing it and when were they doing it is is quite blended. I think about specifically with social media where people would say, oh, you get it's it's better to post a photo with your face in it. People on Instagram like to see other people's faces. And I don't think that was driven primarily by users. I think that was driven by a desire to have a lot of photos of a lot of faces. So you got a an algorithmic boost that I don't think was entirely engagement driven. Um, this would be very difficult to separate and prove this from a bunch of things. But now we're in this world where we see, uh yes, our facial data to unlock. I mean, I've never understood the user face to unlock your iPhone feature. Um it's you know, always I remember when they were doing face unlock, I was still at Google and they remember they presented this as this huge technological advancement. I thought, I'm not really sure that's about that. That's about recording our faces. It's about getting that data. That's about collecting very valuable information for AI.

Stephen King: 10:17

And one of our earlier speakers was explaining that the actual facial recognition is a quite significant security risk because it can be downloaded and replicated and the the the the security calls can be tricked quite easily with a picture of your face. Um so definitely there's some sort of there's some narrative there that's going to appear on a future Netflix show, I'm sure. Uh Kana, what do we got next?

Sukayna Kazmi: 10:42

Yeah, so I I found it really interesting how you said that AI has taken over to the point that it almost feels bland, you know, for lack of a better term. Um and if we're looking at like search engines and how AI is integrated in almost every aspect of our life, but how do you see AI reshaping who gets seen and who stays invisible in the art world when we're looking specifically at um search engines?

Grechen Andrew: 11:11

Well, AI, like all data-driven models, if it has something it doesn't know how to deal with, it prefers to disregard it. And we see this with you know, no one's making data training sets on people when they first wake up in the morning, right? Like it's the what our models and tools are educated on incorporates what it can easily process. And the visibility around this, I think in in the art world, really more where I'm coming from with this is a question of what it's doing culturally and how art can reflect that. The art world is not particularly technologically advanced, and I think the visibility will come from people like Instagram and Meta and TikTok. These are all very important tools for artists to create careers and to connect with curators and galleries. And if you're not discoverable on those platforms, then you're not discoverable in aspects of the art world. And so art is a lot like every other industry where we're sort of dependent upon these platforms and the way they're using AI and how they're changing visibility.

Stephen King: 12:29

That reminds me of the music industry because I remember one of my uh colleagues and friends, uh Ashri Bandasha, he did a feature from he was planning a feature on the the rap industry and how important Spotify was to ensuring that the uh music got heard. Um and there was a huge debate about the social media influence on on music and the disintermediation of musicians and their fans by these platforms. Sounds like you're saying the same thing for the artists. I mean, you are to be successful, you have to be an Instagram artist and turning your paintings around on TikTok like they do in the trends. Um is that something like what you you see?

Grechen Andrew: 13:16

Yeah, well, so I think so. I I was a college athlete back before college athletes could get paid. And I think about the way that that shift has just so fundamentally changed what it means to be a college athlete, where it's not being the best in your sport doesn't get you the best sport and sponsorship ideals ideals. And I I was a track athlete. It is definitive who is best in track. Like we race, there's a time, it's you know, there's not a lot of um there's a lot of data to show who is the better runner. That's not who's going to get the best sponsorship deals, that's not who's going to get the most promotion, it's who has the most followers. And I know that there's some connection between skill and the ability to cultivate a following, but not a very strong one, not a very natural one. And I just can't even imagine it. It's an entire other job that student athletes now have to manage in conjunction with being an athlete and being a student.

Stephen King: 14:15

Wonderful. Uh so Caden.

Sukayna Kazmi: 14:17

So jumping on to the next question, a lot of AI art is critiqued as derivative or impersonal. So, how do you use AI as a medium for imagination rather than just image generation?

Grechen Andrew: 14:33

So my work uses AI as a step to show the impact of AI. I will get specific now. So, in in Facetune portraits, what I do is I take filters and FaceTune, which are these apps, these algorithms, these things built into cell phone cameras and filters on Instagram. And usually these modify digital photos digitally and invisibly, they move pixels around to give people bigger lips or skinnier waists or men more firm jaws. I do that same process using robotics and paint so that that filter gets applied into the wet paint where it becomes a mark and a scar. So that every paint stroke made by that robot is somewhere that our bodies are different than these AI-driven ideals of what beauty is. And so there is a step in this process that uses AI because I have to give the robot the initial image and the new image. It looks at what's different and it paints the difference into this these wet painted photographs. But for me, what's important is that it's showing the impact of AI. I'm not a generative AI artist, I'm not using AI to create new images. I'm not using AI as a creative force, I'm using it to show its critique, to show its difference. And I think that's an area that there are a couple artists working in that area. Jake Yules, who has his deep fake drag performances, is one of my favorites. But so much more of it is image generation. And like everything else, I think if you don't look at a lot of art, it can be it can seem quite new, but all of us are getting much more literate at identifying AI-generated art. And we've played with it ourselves, there is a lack of depth to the historical significance and also to the artistic process in a lot of cases.

Stephen King: 16:36

So there's two things that you put there, and what I have seen at uh the Art toy uh festival, uh, which is where Sakina's based in the UE, uh, there have been some very beautiful and very transparently uh listed uh generative AI artworks where the artist has uh said it has gone through various situations, prompts, and it they have uh it's they show the whole journey of how the picture was created in in and it's very high impact uh visuals. It's still there in the in my mind. I can still see it quite happily, predominantly because I'm interested in AI, but also because it was quite uh an impactful image. Do you who is providing this uh valuable generative AI? So who is who is the uh the stars? You mentioned one with this trap with the you mentioned one just now, but are there any uh like banana on the wall style artists out there for for generative AI?

Grechen Andrew: 17:41

Well, the the biggest is probably Rafik Anadal, and his work is absolutely gorgeous. It's millions of dollars at this point. But in general, artists who are working with their own AIs, with their own data sets, and not just going to mid-journey and generating some images are doing some very, very compelling and beautiful things. I I hope it didn't seem like I dismiss the entire no. It's it's it's a lot like there's a big difference between fine art photography and everybody having a cell phone camera. And it's one of those things where the more you look at it, you can feel that difference. And I I love Art Dubai, I've exhibited Art Dubai, and it's a really great example of a market and a place that, especially because of the government initiatives around AI and the UAE, is engaged with the question of value to AI. What makes an AI art valuable, what makes an AI artist different than somebody who's just generating images in mid-journey? And there's a whole academic discourse being developed around that, primarily through a publication called right-click save.

Stephen King: 18:49

Yeah, that's wonderful. Now, the the the thought process in my mind was I hadn't thought about it, but to be a true artist here, then sure. Let's create my own model, let's let's let's train it properly with the images that I want before I start to prompt. Uh, I think that's the equivalent of I suppose choosing your paint, the colours of paint that you want you. I think that's that's fantastic. Um, you mentioned that you are able to uh identify and spot what is AI generated now. You've got you now, as uh someone who's marked thousands and thousands of papers, uh I can definitely see a tone of voice, uh and many of my academic peers would agree with me that you can you can see certain uh tells in writing. What are the tells that you spot in in imagery?

Grechen Andrew: 19:39

From a very basic level, there's a commonality around your sort of color range. A lot of images that aren't generated by AI don't have as vivid and extensive as a color range, and it's definitely a hallmark of an AI-generated image. More amateur-ish work created with AI will um you can see it sometimes, especially if the human body is involved in the way that the hands are. Like we're talking everything from like extra fingers, which to be fair, there's a lot of Renaissance painters who did not nail the right amount of fingers on hands in large paintings. Um the but then there's also in sort of what is avoided because the human body and the human face, text, um, anytime that AI is used, if it's using text being generated, it's a little bit of chaos and not likely to be coherent as something created without an AI model.

Stephen King: 20:40

And are there any particular pieces of art form, or because my wife does expressive art and I could show you a couple of those. Um but there is no real form or shape behind what she presents because it's her full emotions. Now I'm imagining that an AI image could potentially or someone using AI to draw an expressive art piece could make an argument. So this is this is this is my own work and try and pass it across because there is no uh resemblance of it, maybe. But is there a specific type of art that is is most at risk or or is there one which is most resistant to it? That's a good question.

Grechen Andrew: 21:23

Yeah, I mean, I I really think that at the fine art level, we're not going to there are artists who will use AI, they intentionally use AI, it's part of the medium, it's part of the message, is part of what they're creating and why they're creating it using those tools. There's a medium specificity to that. Anyone who's using AI because it's just the easier way to do it is less of a part of the conversation and probably just less likely to make maybe a couple great images, but what makes you a fine artist, what makes you an artist in the discourse of art history is to have a practice around what is created. And this is why I brought up the difference between being a fine art photographer and having a cell phone camera. Anyone can take a couple good photos, but to develop a specific way of seeing that uses the camera and having that be identifiably both made with the camera and made by you is very difficult in AI. And that's what these best AI artists have done is even if they're using models like Midjourney, they're getting results from it that is identifiably made by them and not made by anybody else. And that is, I think, a lot of the ways that as technology evolves in whatever medium is a process that it goes through. The artist's hand can be separated from the tool. That's when you get a body of work, that's when you get an artist who gets to have a career, that's when you get someone who is saying something from who they are that isn't just the tool saying something.

Stephen King: 22:55

Uh my wife would probably say uh not everyone can use a camera with a phone because she's always criticizing when I take pictures of her. But uh Sakana, should we get back on track? What's the next questions that we have there?

Sukayna Kazmi: 23:09

I did have a quick question, actually. You were speaking about Facetune portraits, and what came to my mind is that you know, essentially it's revealing the pressures of AI-enforced beauty standards. But but Facetune also gives people control over their own image. So do you see that as empowerment or erasure?

Grechen Andrew: 23:30

So I think that's a myth that it gives us power over our own image because we're not writing these algorithms of change. We there are so many value judgments, cultural judgments, body judgments built into these apps. We're just applying them. And I think that's very different than having agency. I have seen some interesting uses of these tools in the trans community of people who feel like they'd like to be able to visualize themselves differently. But overall, it's a system of standards that are being inflicted upon us and not ones that we're choosing for ourselves. And increasingly, we're seeing people go to plastic surgeons with these apps, with these filters, and asking to be made to physically look like these AI, these like half AI generated people. And I'll give a specific example here. So one of the things that almost all of these algorithms, apps, and filters do with Facetune is give women very, very big lips. And the reason why it's doing that is because we've grown so used to seeing people on a flat screen. We look at so many images of people every day on a flat screen. The beauty standard has evolved to try and create a sense of three-dimensionality within a 2D image. It's very similar to how in ancient Egyptian art, the reason why the bodies are sort of contorted, you've got a face that goes to the side, the arms go to the side, the whole walk like an Egyptian thing, is is because in a 2D surface, Egyptians were trying to represent the full three-dimensionality of the body. And the same thing is happening with male jaws and with female lips, is that we've prioritized trying to get that third-dimensional aspect into two-dimensional space. Which is why when we see big lips from the front, some people might find that very appealing. But almost nobody thinks that that view from the side where you get the duck lips is appealing. But we don't even care what we look like in real life or from the side compared to do we look good on Instagram? Do we look good on Zoom? Do we look attractive in this two-dimensional space? And so these beauty standards are being perpetuated because we've prioritized that 2D Zoom self over our own physical lived experience.

Stephen King: 26:03

That's brilliant. I a colleague of mine, Aditi Battier, and I we performed a piece of research on the life on Zoom during COVID. And we did discover something very similar. It was the the wealth of the environment that you're in that was uh dependent on how successful and how um how you thrived during that period. So that makes a lot of sense. That's just an extension. It's rather than the lived environment, we've gone into the actual physical form of ourselves and to to to adaptation for for that uh that environment. That that's terrifying. I feel like I need to go get my tin hat from the kitchen for this call, this call. It's it's it's it's it's it's really revealing a lot of things which are obvious when you bring them forward. Um uh so it's it's it's it's really is a fantastic conversation. So, Kane, uh sorry, I'm interrupting you. You've got some more questions there.

Sukayna Kazmi: 26:53

Yes, and honestly, there's just so much depth to all of this. There's so much to be explored when it comes to AI, and of course, uh the thought that's in everyone's head, oh my god, will AI replace us? So many fear obviously that AI will replace them. And you can even think of artists, they have the same thought in their head too. So you've suggested that it can actually expose the mechanics of creativity. So could you expand on that?

Grechen Andrew: 27:19

I think that we've started to invite it in the visual form, we've started to invite AI to replace us. When we use these filters and when we go to plastic surgeons and actually get our bodies and faces changed to to mimic those faces. And I want to note here it's happening with men as well. Plastic surgeries amongst tech bros is up 50% in the last two years. The numbers from San Francisco are wild right now about this. In in that, partially what's happening is there's a term I'm sure you're familiar with called the uncanny valley, where when artificially intelligent or artificially generated images and robots start to look uncomfortably human, there's this dip in how comfortable we are with that image. That's called the valley. But what we've started to do as people is bridge that valley from the other side. A lot of, I think a lot of people who get these surgeries, a lot of people who use these apps look like AI generated people just failing to look real instead of real people who are using AI to transform themselves. And so from a visual aesthetics perspective, like we're making it way too easy. Women and men are spending thousands of dollars a month on lip fillers and Botox and Ozempic and other things that while having had some grounds in beauty standards even before AI are spreading internationally at crazy speed. So there's there's that from the cultural personal perspective. Um then I think as as an artist or as anybody in society who's thinking about being replaced by AI, not just in how we look, like you know, the whole thing with an act, there's now an AI actress. Of course, everyone would rather work with an AI actress because she doesn't have demands, she doesn't need to eat, she doesn't have feelings, she doesn't have sort of that messy human contradiction. And I think that it's just like in any system of competitive advantage. We have to figure out what makes us human, and a lot of that is the mess and how that can become an asset instead of a liability. Because we're not gonna we're not gonna be more agreeable than AI, we are not going to be able to do surveillance better than AI, we're not going to be able to generate mass amounts of text better than AI, but we are inconvenient people who need to sleep, who get our hearts broken, who get angry at people who are generally not agreeable. And how do we actually turn that? And make that for me, I've made that into art by making those contradictions a visual part of the Facetun portrait surface. But as people, how do we make that an advantage? And I think there's a lot of ways that we can do that, and I do think that's a art artistic framing that people in every industry need to consider.

Sukayna Kazmi: 30:19

I think that's incredible. And honestly, AI, um as in as amazing as it is, it can never replace the human touch. I think there's beauty in that in itself. Um, but when it comes to AI, and obviously you've used AI quite a bit, what has surprised you about AI in your own practice? You know, an output or a collaboration that you couldn't have achieved uh without its support?

Grechen Andrew: 30:47

I've been surprised by the way it feels to process my own images through some of these AI systems. Obviously, I think a lot about this. I'm very aware of it. But even still, when I process my image through a beautifying algorithm, through a youthifying algorithm, to see it happen and then go back to the way I look in the mirror, even with all of the education I have around this, even with all of the awareness, it very much destabilizes quickly the sense of self of what I'm supposed to look like and what other people are supposed to look like. And that's something I don't entirely know what to do with, because one way of trying to raise more awareness around this is to have the conversation. My work makes us feel to see these changes in a way that we can be having the conversation. But even in experimenting with it, it's very destabilizing. And I I'm surprised by how quickly I can go back to my unfiltered self and be like, huh, I thought I looked better in that photo. And now I see all the flaws.

Stephen King: 31:55

I think that's really scary. I mean, you you look at what happened with Instagram, and it took what 15 years or something. I don't know, maybe that's too many years, but it took a many, many years before we realized the damage it was causing to young girls and their mental well-being. Um and clearly this is another problematic uh outcome that we can expect from generative AI in the future. I think we're running out of time on our call right now, but that's that's a very important warning there. Uh so Kenny, do we have one last question?

Sukayna Kazmi: 32:28

Yes. So for emerging artists experimenting with AI, what advice would you give about balancing tool use with maintaining an authentic voice?

Grechen Andrew: 32:41

And study art history. Because only within the context of art history sorry, I had you on mute.

Stephen King: 32:47

Would you just mind starting from the beginning there?

Grechen Andrew: 32:51

Okay. I would really think about everything that you do in the context of art history, which I encourage studying. Art history is not about progress, but there is a before and there is an after to everything we're doing as artists. And only within that context can we understand what is new, what is novel, or what is a repetition of something that's been done before. And so, especially in AI, I think it's important to think about that context and to also look at what other people are doing and ask yourself, what is you, what can't be done by somebody else?

Stephen King: 33:25

That's yeah, it truly is awesome. Uh thank you, Gretchen. That's a really, really, really wonderful uh 30 minutes uh and perhaps a bit more conversation. I'm really, really grateful for the opportunity to chat. Uh, and thank you also, Sokana, for for co-hosting this with me. Sokana, would you like to just close us down and thank Gretchen and then uh invite everyone to follow, like, and share?

Sukayna Kazmi: 33:47

Yeah, of course. Thank you so much, Gretchen, for your insights. There's so much that I took away uh from our conversation today, and especially in the world of AI and art, you know, there is there's so much beauty in it all, but also it there's a lot of scary thoughts there too, of uh where we're heading in the future with all of this and AI, you know, taking over uh every part of our life at this point. But yeah, thank you so much for taking your time out for this conversation. And for all those listening, thank you for listening till the end and make sure you follow us and stay tuned for our future episodes of The Incongruent.