intellect reviewing the code to make sure that it's successful. But we know, based on experience and now based on research, that human review can also be compromised. This is a study that was done earlier this year by Wharton, and they actually gave quite a lot of human participants tasks to complete, and they gave those human participants the use of an AI tool to complete those tasks. But unbeknownst to those participants, the AI was told to confidently lie to these participants some of the time. And what they found in the data is that while participants did follow the AI advice 92.7% of the time when the AI was correct, they unfortunately also listened to the AI nearly 80% of the time when the AI was wrong. This is almost surely happening in code