Thank you.
I'm going to switch tracks here a bit. All of you have made comments on the definition of harm and defining material harm, but all of you have described slightly different ways that you determine that yourselves internally. I think that's what I heard. I can repeat back some of the things I jotted down, but it sounded like there was a slight variation in how you assess that internally. Most of you have said that a lot of what you consider to be a high-impact system depends upon the use case.
There are two questions here. Maybe I'll start with the use case question, because I think it's probably the most difficult one. My feeling is that if we were to try to predict all of the various use cases....
Ms. Curran, you said that we should identify the use cases we're concerned about and then, I think you said, identify the threshold of harm, if I'm not mistaken. I find that as regulators and legislators, it would be very difficult to determine all of the various use cases. I'm sure you can't predict use cases either. What I'm struggling with is how that is a real approach for legislators to take. Could you respond to that?