Automation Nation: Will Robots Take Our Jobs?

A debate on the future of the American economy and the role of intelligent computers and robots. Will rapid technological innovations aid American workers, or will it render large numbers of American workers obsolete?

Transcript

IDEAS IN ACTION with Jim Glassman

Automation Nation: Will Robots Take Our Jobs?

JIM GLASSMAN:
Welcome to Ideas in Action a television series about ideas and their consequences. I'm Jim Glassman. This week: it's not cowboys versus aliens it's humans versus robots. With over 9% of Americans looking for work the job market has never been more competitive, but these days competition is increasingly coming from another source; highly intelligent robots. Can the American worker go toe-to-toe, or wheel-to-wheel, with a robot? What does the increasing use of artificial intelligence and robots mean for your job and the future of the American economy? Joining me to discuss this topic are; Robin Hanson, associate professor of economics at George Mason University and research associate at Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute; and Martin Ford, founder of a Silicon Valley based software development firm, Querybot Systems, and author of the book, The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future. The topic this week: humans and robots; complement or competition? This is Ideas in Action.

ANNOUNCER:
Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investors Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at Investors.com.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Martin, you know that since the recession began nearly four years ago spending on human beings by companies has gone up 2%. That's all. Of course unemployment has increased. While spending on software, hardware, and technology's gone up 26%. Are we already seeing automation having a major impact on employment?

MARTIN FORD:
I believe we are and it's not something that's just happening instantly right now it's been going on for some time. Over the past couple of decades at least what we've seen is that the wages for average workers have basically been stagnant in spite of the fact that we've seen significant increases in productivity. And basically all the fruits of innovation and of productivity are really going to business owners and to management at this point and very little to labor and I think automation has a lot to do with that. Economists that have looked at it have found that currently the job market is polarized and what that means is that the mid range jobs which have traditionally been jobs that have been really solid middle class jobs and they tend to be routine jobs that require some education and training but not an extreme amount, and these jobs have basically disappeared. They've been vaporized and what we're left with now is a polarized market with lots of low-end jobs, low skilled jobs with low wages and also high-end jobs that really require lots of education. But going forward I think what we're going to see is that automation is going to take on more and more so it's going to start to impact especially the higher end jobs because its capability is constantly expanding. You know we're seeing an acceleration in technology and in the capability.

JIM GLASSMAN:
I want to get to the historical comparisons but I'd like to ask Robin first of all I mean aren't there benefits to automation?

ROBIN HANSON:
Absolutely. We are rich today in large part because we developed fast capable machines that over the last few centuries have displaced many workers and allowed other workers to go on to more interesting creative jobs.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Didn't people talk about this you know in the 19th century that we're all going to get unemployed as a result of new machines or-- agriculture is a good example isn't it? Tractors, combines, and yet we're richer than we ever have been.

ROBIN HANSON:
The concern that machines will replace humans has been a concern for many centuries. It's been something people have envisioned for a very long time and so far it hasn't been that much of a problem. It doesn't mean it always will be mild but so far it's been a good thing.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So what makes this change different from let's say the automation of farming where we produce a lot more food, with a lot fewer people?

MARTIN FORD:
Well first of all Robin is correct, I mean there's no doubt that advancing technology is really what has made us wealthy and historically that's been true. The difference between what's happening now and what happened with agriculture is that with agriculture we were talking about a primarily mechanical technology that was specific to the agricultural sector. And there's no doubt it eliminated millions of jobs. It was in the short term very disruptive but those workers eventually found opportunities in other relatively labor intensive sectors. They found jobs especially in manufacturing and later in services and also the other thing that happened is that as food production automated, consumers had more money to spend and they spent it on other things in manufacturing, in services and that did drive employment. But the key is that at that time technology was at a point where those sectors were labor intensive. They had to hire a lot of workers. What we have today is quite different. We have this new field of information technology and it is ubiquitous, it will be applied everywhere. There aren't going to be any sectors appear in the future, I don't think, that will get a pass on information technology. It's going to get applied right away to any new industries that pop up--

JIM GLASSMAN:
But Martin just during the last presidential term, during George Bush's presidential term, you know we had unemployment around 4%, 4.5%. I mean-- that's almost full employment. Here we've had a recession, unemployment's up to 9%, but really is this just all of a sudden happened in the last few years?

MARTIN FORD:
I don't believe it's all of a sudden at all but what I do believe is that we had a housing bubble of course and I think that masked this to a very significant extent. It did that in two ways; number one is that consumers took on a lot of debt and remember as I said before wages were stagnant during this time. Unemployment was low but wages weren't increasing and so people went out and continued to spend a lot but they did that on the basis of debt-- credit cards and home equity loans rather than on the basis of income and that spending helped to drive the economy; the other thing is the housing bubble itself created an enormous number of jobs because building residential homes is very labor intensive. It creates a lot of jobs for construction workers and it also creates peripheral jobs; loan agents and people like that.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So you think that was kind of an anomaly. Robin I just wanted to ask you if this is imminent, this change-- we're going through it right now. Is there something the governments should do now to take this into account?

ROBIN HANSON:
Well let's talk about how much of a change we're having. So I think it's important and I hope we agree that there's a lot of short-term fluctuations going on in the economy that have little to do with increasing automation. Just a lot of other things going on and it's a mistake to get too hyped up about this particular driver because it's a slow long-term driver. It's not something that suddenly makes the economy go up or down. So I think we agree on that. So the issue is to look at long-term trends, long-term issues, and see where that's going over the long run. So if the government's going to do anything about it it needs to be focusing on the long run.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But what about this argument that Martin makes that sounds-- pretty good one to me is that we live in this era in which jobs, where you make money basically off the sweat of your brow or the strength of your back, those jobs are disappearing--

ROBIN HANSON:
That's been true for a long time.

JIM GLASSMAN:
--And even at a higher level you're running into competition with robots and automation. So how are we going to compete?--

ROBIN HANSON:
It's been true for a long time that almost all the value for most work is from your head. Most of the value for most jobs is the fact that we have smart brains and we are clever about how to do the jobs, yet automation hasn't equally taken on all jobs. There are some kind of jobs that are just a lot harder to automate and those jobs are where people will go when the easy to automate jobs are being taken over.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And what are those jobs that are harder to automate?

ROBIN HANSON:
Well, if you are a software expert you probably have a better sense for which jobs are harder to automate. It's easier to talk about what's easy to automate actually. It's easier to automate routine jobs, structured jobs, jobs for which you don't need to know that much. That's what people are doing all the time. Software professionals like Martin here are looking out into the world and trying to see where they can write software that will displace jobs.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Martin thinks and I'll let him speak for himself in his book he's really talking about a lot of jobs that are going to be automated correct?

MARTIN FORD:
Right and I think it's important to understand the point that I think most jobs in the economy are to some extent routine and fairly narrow. I mean people get paid to do fairly specific things. I mean, you may be a very well rounded human being and there may be a lot of things that you can do that are well beyond the capability of any machine but typically that's not what you get paid for. You get paid to go to work and you tend to face the same types of challenges again and again within some relatively narrowly defined range and as these technologies get better they're going to be able to take on more and more of that. One of the really potentially disruptive things I think is going to be machine learning, which is a technology where software looks at what's been done in the past in terms of how a job was performed and then basically figures out how to do it in the future. Basically it writes its own program based on looking at that data. So as that continues things that now appear to us to be non-routine will begin to look routine--

JIM GLASSMAN:
So give me an example of that. I mean I know maybe one example will be Watson the IMB computer on Jeopardy figured out how to beat the game but in more practical terms. MARTIN FORD:
In more practical terms for instance Google's got a translation tool that you can use to translate a web page and you can get a readable translation of-- basically in any language almost instantly and that was constructed entirely with machine learning. I mean they didn't go out and hire a bunch of people who are fluent in all those different languages and then program that application. They-- the machine did that by analyzing documents. So machine learning is a kind of-- really it's a tool where a computer learns to program itself.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Ok so actually-- let's probe that for a little while. So you've got a machine that's learned how to translate. That puts translators out of business but there may be some advantages-- economic advantages to that Robin. I mean is that good or bad?

ROBIN HANSON:
First off these automated translations are a first good cut, but they're not a full translation. If you want something professionally translated, reliably translated, if you want like 99% of the words right, you need to hire a human today. So they're impressive technologies, they're impressive improvements but it's really too easy to think that because they've done something really impressive that suddenly they're almost to where you are. Most of us do jobs and we feel routinized, we feel like we're robots because it seems so easy but that's because we have such fast capacity. If you actually try to write a program that copies what most people do you suddenly realize just how flexible they are. Most of these programs that do one specific thing they can't do something very different. You take Watson and you give it a different game show and suddenly it can't do anything. It was designed to do that one game show--

JIM GLASSMAN:
--But Martin-- well that may be true today but is that going to be true in the future?

MARTIN FORD:
Well-- I think they'll be a lot more flexibility in the future but again the point is that in their jobs most people don't play two game shows they play one game show. I mean they specialized in one type of work. They do one basic thing. And actually if you look at a technology like Watson, playing Jeopardy is extraordinarily broad. I mean you get questions from basically anywhere. If you take Watson and repurpose that technology to the real world whether it's answering questions about medicine or providing customer support for a company or product support. I mean it's a much narrower range. It actually is in many ways much, much easier than building a machine to play Jeopardy.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Would you feel more comfortable getting a consultation from let's say a cardiologist-- a human cardiologist or a machine cardiologist?

MARTIN FORD:
Well I'm not at this point ready to cut doctors out of the loop. That's not the point. I think doctors are probably relatively safe except for some specialties perhaps like radiology where it is really routine. Things like analyzing you know visual images, those may be much more susceptible to automation. But they're a lot of other jobs in the economy particularly in areas like customer service, customer support--

ROBIN HANSON:
I don't think we need to speculate about this. We've seen many, many decades of steady progress in automation. We've seen what the rate looks like. We've seen that it's slow, methodical; it takes time to slowly chip away at the kinds of jobs humans do and get machines to do that. We're not on any sort of sudden threshold where suddenly a vast flood's coming over the gates. We are slowly chipping away and we'll continue to slowly chip away--

MARTIN FORD:
But surely you agree that the technology's accelerating right? I mean you're looking at an exponential in terms of the hardware, the software's moving somewhat slower--

ROBIN HANSON:
Economically it's not accelerating. I agree that chips are accelerating every two years they get twice as fast but that doesn't have twice the economic impact. In terms of the ability to use computers to do useful things that's slowly chipping away at a relatively linear, modest rate.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But don't you-- Robin-- don't you think that there is some effect of automation on the current unemployment situation? Or you think that's a completely separate issue--

ROBIN HANSON:
It's minor. It's not enough to be worth focusing on. If you're going to deal with unemployment today you should be looking elsewhere.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And you think, Martin, that there is something very different about this kind of automation, artificial intelligence, learning machines, than what we saw let's say on the farm or even in the factory up till now.

MARTIN FORD:
Definitely much different than what happened in agriculture. You know we've got a really a revolutionary technology that's unprecedented. It's not different from what's been happening over the last 20 years it's just more pronounced you know--

ROBIN HASON:
What about the last 50 years--

JIM GLASSMAN:
Why is-- explain why it's unprecedented. I'm not sure that our viewers really understand let's say what artificial intelligence is. What does that mean?

MARTIN FORD:
Well it means that machines are increasingly taking on cognitive tasks. I mean they can solve intellectual problems. They can think in some sense, they can make decisions, they can solve problems. Now when you say the words artificial intelligence people tend to get caught up in what you see on movies, science fiction type things and that's what we'd call true or artificial general intelligence where you have a true thinking machine. That's something that is still in the realm of science fiction. It's decades away. That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is artificial intelligence that is specialized. It's you know--

JIM GLASSMAN:
So give me an i-- give me an example of a job that artificial intelligence could supplant.

MARTIN FORD:
Well there's an article in the New York Times not long ago about eDiscovery Software, which is software that looks at legal documents and determines which ones are relevant to a court case. Now historically that would have been done by paralegals and lawyers who would have been working with cardboard boxes full of paper documents. Now you have a software application, which can go through electronic documents and figure out which ones are important for the court case and that's directly resulting in the loss of jobs.

ROBIN HANSON:
Let's talk about the timescale of unprecedented. Computers are unprecedented but they've been around for well over a half-century. Within in the last half-century we've seen what computers do. We've seen how they slowly chip away at jobs and we'll continue to see chipping away at jobs over the next half century. But there's no sudden thing that's happened in the last 10 years to make a change over what we've seen from computers. We see computers.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But isn't it possible, Robin, that computers can get so smart that all but a very small number of workers can actually provide any significant valued added compared to the machines?

ROBIN HANSON:
Yes that's possible and in fact I think yes that will happen but not soon. Not in the next 10 or 20 or even 30 years.

JIM GLASSMAN:
What about the idea that machines themselves will make people smarter so that there will be more people in the-- kind of the very smart part of the spectrum and they can be doing jobs that machines can't do? In other words machines will help people stay ahead of machines.

MARTIN FORD:
Well that's absolutely true for a certain segment of the population. People who are very well educated, have the skills, have the motivation--

JIM GLASSMAN:
But can't machines help other people in the population become smarter? Or are people sort of inherently smart or not?

MARTIN FORD:
You know again it's this contrast between doing work that's relatively routine and work that's genuinely creative. You know a computer-- what we've seen historically and this is part of where I think I disagree with Robin is that since the beginning of the computer revolution computers have been tools that have extended the capability of people doing routine work. But now we're getting to a point where computers are going to do that routine work. They're going to simply automate it all and if in fact it's true that most of the work out there is on some level routine, then we're going to see an impact.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Robin I think there's one thing that you won't deny which is that over the last 20 or 30 years the income earning potential of somebody who is well educated, let's say who has a college degree, has increased vastly in comparison to someone who's not well educated.

ROBIN HANSON:
I agree.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So with-- do you think that's a result at all of this kind of automation that Martin's talking about?

ROBIN HANSON:
Not mostly. First off if you look worldwide we see returns to skills across the ladder. I think there's particular things happening in the United States over the last few decades and they're interesting and important but don't confuse those with these broad trends of computers and automation. There's this fundamental important long term trend that's important to realize something big will happen within the next century or so. I completely agree with Martin that something really big and out of trend will happen eventually and we should be thinking about it and preparing it but that's not what we're seeing in the last couple of decades in the United States.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So that's not because for example you know 30 years ago you drive into a gas station and you know 2 or 3 guys jump out and pump the gas and wipe off the windshield and now you can just go to a gas station-- I did it the other night-- there's nobody in the gas station but me. So those people lost their jobs and let's say they can't be retrained for something at a higher level, that increases the gap.

ROBIN HANSON:
Absolutely but that sort of displacement of jobs has been going on for a very long time and will continue to go on for a very long time. So that's not really the effect. I think the right way to think about this is in terms of whether labor-- humans and machines complement each other or substitute for each other. This is the old economics debate. So way back hundreds of years ago economists were afraid that machines would substitute for people and in fact afraid that human wages would fall drastically with the very first machines. But that's not what happened because during that time it seems like humans and machines complemented each other. The more valuable machines got the more valuable humans got too. I think the right way to understand this is that tasks complement each other but individuals can substitute on a task. So when machines were doing one set of tasks and we were doing another set of tasks then when they got better at their tasks that made us more valuable at doing our task right.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Ok. What-- just very frankly-- what makes your argument different from the Luddite argument of the 19th century, which Robin was just expressing there?

MARTIN FORD:
Again I think our-- we've got technology now which takes on cognitive or intellectual problems I mean a lot of what Robin is talking about is mechanical type technologies that extended capability in a manipulative way, not in intellectual ways. And if most people are doing routine work and if computers get to the point where they can take on the majority of routine tasks then it's going to displace people in the sense that well there might conceivable be a job out there that's routine-- or non-routine and creative in some way it's going to beyond the capability of that person to do it.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So we may be focusing a little bit too much on jobs. I realize everybody talks about jobs but really isn't the aim of economic policy or the aim of an economy to produce prosperity, opportunity, to give people a good life and yet we always heard machines are your friend. You know like a robot could do stuff for you that you wouldn't-- that you don't want to waste your time doing. So why isn't this overall a boon to society?

MARTIN FORD:
Well I think in terms of the technology and what it can offer to us it is. It is. I mean I'm definitely not against technology at all.

JIM GLASSMAN:
I mean people work fewer hours than they used to work and yet they have a better life mostly.

MARTIN FORD:
Well some do. People in low wage occupations work fewer hours but then they work three jobs just to get by. I mean we have to understand that this is impacting different groups in different ways. You know going forward I believe we're going to run into a problem when technology can do most of what people are capable of doing-- most of what the average people are capable of doing.

ROBIN HANSON:
And why is that a problem?

MARTIN FORD:
Well because those people under our system they're not going to have an income. I mean you can't survive in our economy without a job. Not in the United States. We don't have the kind of social welfare safety net--

ROBIN HANSON:
This is where I disagree. I think that when machines are really powerful and they can do lots of things you only need to own a few machines to be able to own a lot and survive and be prosperous and wealthy. So once machines are so good that people can't compete with them we will have a vastly prosperous world where there's all these very productive machines and owning some of those machines will be enough. So we need to make a smooth transition so that people start to buy capital so that they can own those machines and be productive and wealthy.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So you as a college professor could own a machine that could churn out your lectures or write books for you that otherwise would take you a long time to do?

ROBIN HANSON:
I might but I might just own stock in companies that does-- do that. Or I might own real estate; I might own other sorts of intellectual property. There's just many other things that are valuable in this new economy. In a world where machines are productive there's lots to own that's useful.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But don't you agree with what Martin is saying that in such a society there will be more-- we may be already seeing this-- more people will be left out. I mean do you think there's a kind of moral dimension here? That as we become more automated the rich will get richer or people will have the opportunity to get richer and a lot of people will be left out?

ROBIN HANSON:
We're still in an era where wealth is increasing. The world is on a tear in terms of increasing wealth. Worldwide people have been getting dramatically richer. This has been the best decade ever in terms of decreasing poverty. Worldwide people are getting richer. Now eventually this will happen but it will happen with enough foresight that people can use their income to buy stock, to buy real estate, to buy these other things they will need to survive in this new world.

JIM GLASSMAN:
This is a good point I mean you know between 2000 and 2010 was the single biggest period of economic growth in global history. I'm saying global history a lot of it is because of China and India but they're partaking in the same kind of automation that you're talking about. What's the big problem basically?

MARTIN FORD:
The problem is the extreme inequality that we're seeing. I mean it's inequality in income and also in wealth--

ROBIN HANSON:
But inequality is reducing worldwide. That's the point. The rich aren't getting as rich as the poor are getting richer--

MARTIN FORD:
Well in developed countries though inequality is certainly increasing.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So you do think there's a difference between this phenomenon is more pronounced obviously in developed countries than in developing countries?

MARTIN FORD:
Currently but it will certainly impact in developing countries and especially in China as well eventually because they're-- Foxconn the manufacturing in China recently introduced-- or they announced that they're going to introduce huge numbers of robots in spite of the fact that wages there are very low. So even China will be impacted by this eventually.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So actually that's a really good example. So Foxconn, which employs 1.2 million people and had gotten into some kind of you know it was really a scandal about the number of people that were committing suicide. They're saying well we don't have to worry about these people committing suicide we're going to higher a bunch of robots who probably won't commit suicide-- and Foxconn is a Taiwanese company right that does a lot of business in China as well-- has factories in China as well. So is that the wave of the future in developing countries?

MARTIN FORD:
I think so I mean there's no doubt that if you look at China manufacturing is going to automate in China. I mean manufacturing in the United States is already largely automated and it's going to follow the same path in China that's inevitable.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So are there government policies that you think ought to be implemented now to take care of what you see as growing inequality as a result of automation?

MARTIN FORD:
I think we need more progressive taxation and we need to build a better safety net. I think that the dialogue that's going on right now politically is all about austerity. It's about cutting the safety net. You know you've got states that are actually cutting back on unemployment. We're talking about cutting entitlements for the middle class. I think that's all disastrous looking forward in terms of what's happening.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So you think there needs to be more of a safety net.

MARTIN FORD:
There needs to be more of a safety net and there's no choice but to fund that through more progressive taxation on the wealthiest people who are really benefiting from this trend and they're benefiting in large measure because they're in the right place at the right time. They're here at this moment and this technology is making them very wealthy, we need to incorporate that into our tax policy.

JIM GLASSMAN:
That's a good place to leave it. Thank you Martin and thank you Robin. And that's it for this week's Ideas in Action. I'm Jim Glassman, thanks for watching. Keep in mind that you can watch Ideas in Action whenever and wherever you want. To watch highlights or complete programs just go to ideasinactiontv.com or download a podcast from the iTunes store. Ideas in Action because ideas have consequences.

ANNOUNCER:
For more information visit us at ideasinactiontv.com. Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at investors.com. This program is a production of Grace Creek Media and the George W. Bush Institute, which are solely responsible for its content.


3 Comments

The complexity is that many advances and other events are coming relatively soon at the same time.
In addition to Accelerating Processor speed and advanced algorithm software, which will not only change or eliminate people's jobs, it will cause a change in the lifespan of humans through thousands of medical break throughs. Pattern recognition software is making stock market trades is nano-seconds. New materials such as graphene and nanotubes may cause breakthroughs in energy. There may be a new bubble if energy prices can be brought to near zero. The whole economy will get reworked. This would make millions of jobs. At the same time there is the deep super debt of nations.. Plus at the beginning of the Iraq war we had a few pilotless aircraft, now we have thousands. Our enemies will eventually have it too. As usual, this world is quite interesting.

Going down to the basics, the question is --- Why do we are so focused on jobs ? Because in today's world, you income comes basically from your job. Then the solution should be --- Devising a way to make income not dependent or less dependent on one's job. Can this be done ?

It can be done today --- Give you an example. If you own 500 vending machines, you make a good living without getting a paycheck from anyone. In essence you own slaves, in this case machine slaves rather than human slave prior to civil war, to make your money for you.

One of the guest correctly said the same .. When people on this planet get more and more richer, the society can and will evolve and devise a system where average people can count on their ownership of machine slaves to make their money for them ... in a very common and large scale.

What we should do is to have MIT study this and work out a system to enable this ..

Totally agree with kingstonchi. Manufacturing in first world countries has been continuously declining since the dot-com boom. As technology gets so sophisticated that what's in our pocket is n times more useful than us, we need to change the model of how the working class makes money.

Big Mike
CEO of Rancho Cucamonga Bail Bonds

Leave a comment

Featured Guests

Martin Ford

author, The Lights in the Tunnel, and Silicon Valley software developer

Martin Ford is the founder of a Silicon Valley-based software development firm. He has over 25 years experience in the fields of computer design and software development. He holds a computer engineering degree from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and a graduate business degree from the University of California, Los Angeles. He has written for The Atlantic, Slate, The Huffington Post and has contributed to NPR. The Lights in the Tunnel: This groundbreaking book by a Silicon Valley computer engineer explores shows how accelerating technology is likely to have a highly disruptive influence on our economy in the near future--and may well already be a significant factor in the current global crisis.

Robin Hanson

George Mason University Economics Professor and Research Associate at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University

Dr. Robin Hanson is an Associate Professor of Economics at George Mason University, a Research Associate at the Future of Humanity Institute of Oxford University, and chief scientist at Consensus Point. After receiving his Ph.D. in social science from the California Institute of Technology in 1997, Robin was a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation health policy scholar at the University of California at Berkeley. In 1984, Robin received a masters in physics and a masters in the philosophy of science from the University of Chicago, and afterward spent nine years researching artificial intelligence, Bayesian statistics, and hypertext publishing at Lockheed, NASA, and independently.

Episode Clips