Digitalisation is often seen as a ‘panacea for all ills’ and a key enabler of sustainable regional development. However, history shows that digitalisation often falters due to inadequate governance and implementation. The complexity of contemporary society presents multi-layered challenges, especially given the high expectations surrounding Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies such as Big Data and Internet of Things. Success requires careful contextualisation of objectives, technologies, and their intended roles. At the regional level, a gap persists between theory, ambitions and the practical realisation of digitalisation – an issue this paper addresses. We explore how Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) principles can support sustainable regional digitalisation planning. Specifically, we demonstrate how embedding the Systems Design Approach + (SDA+), grounded in the Technology Organisation Environment framework, within the reflection process of RRI facilitates a deeper and more granular reflection. Drawing on empirical insights from the EU-funded DigiTeRRI project involving three European regions, we illustrate how the SDA+-enhanced reflection process improved regional digitalisation strategies and discuss its broader potential for addressing other ‘wicked issues’.

Living Labs have proven to be valuable environments for fostering innovation through user-centred approaches. However, many researchers and companies still face challenges in implementing these methodologies sustainably. Addressing these challenges requires not only structural solutions within Living Labs, but also the cultivation of expertise among researchers and practitioners. It is crucial to educate researchers and innovators in practices aligned with user-centred research, living lab practices and co-design, emphasizing societal relevance and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) within the research community. This paper presents and evaluates a novel training program developed within the VITALISE project, aimed at onboarding external researchers and familiarizing them with Living Lab Research Infrastructures through transnational visits and collaborations. Results The program features a modular design covering key topics such as Living Lab methodology, harmonisation of research practices, and participant recruitment and panel management. A total of 49 participants completed an evaluation questionnaire, with results indicating high satisfaction and perceived usefulness across all training modules. Post-training, most participants reported feeling confident in applying Living Lab methodologies after the training. Notably, individual differences in interest across training blocks highlighted the need for flexible, tailored programs that accommodate varying levels of prior knowledge and specific research needs. This study suggests that targeted, adaptable training initiatives are acceptable. Self-reported feedback suggests that it could help to enable researchers to integrate Living Lab methodologies into their work. However, further formal evaluation of learning gains is needed. Continued development of structured, scalable, and context-sensitive training programs, supported by international collaborations and standardized approaches, will be essential for fostering sustainable and impactful Living Lab research across disciplines and borders.

Purpose This paper investigates how European Healthcare Living Labs (HLLs) operationalize principles of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) within their innovation management practices. Rather than adopting RRI as a fixed framework, HLLs use it as a flexible, guiding orientation to navigate complex organizational and institutional environments. Design/methodology/approach The study combines a systematic mapping of 89 HLLs across Europe and a thematic analysis of 16 in-depth interviews with HLLs project managers and stakeholders. Findings HLLs enact RRI as a dynamic process, aligning innovation goals with ethical and inclusive values. They develop reflexive management practices that reconcile normative commitments with innovation imperatives, fostering collaboration and inclusiveness. The study contributes to understanding RRI as a situated practice rather than a fixed protocol. Research limitations/implications Findings are context-specific to European HLLs. Future research could examine similar dynamics in other innovation ecosystems or regions, or outside the healthcare sector. Practical implications We identify and describe tools and strategies, such as stakeholder co-creation, iterative evaluation, and adaptive governance, that help innovation managers integrate societal values into innovation processes. Social implications By embedding RRI principles, HLLs promote inclusive, ethically aware innovation in healthcare, enhancing responsiveness to societal needs and trust in innovation systems. Originality/value The study offers a perspective on how RRI can be strategically embedded in Healthcare living labs, linking normative ambitions with operational realities in innovation management.

We have written the introduction to this special issue on responsible research and innovation (RRI) in the UK and Japan as a visitor's guide to an imaginary island holiday park to emphasize how we have centered the situatedness of practices that contribute to responsibility in science and technology. Our overarching argument is that RRI cannot be discussed as a program without foregrounding its location, and that RRI therefore needs “alternative practices”—heuristics that inspire adaptation in context—above “best practices” that might be exported from historic centers of investment to historically marginalized peripheries. We have also gravitated to experiment and play as strategies to find more space for intellectually rich, personally satisfying, and collectively enjoyable work amid pressures for STS researchers to take on rote service work under RRI mandates. We welcome you to the place—トピアtopia—that our collaboration has built and invite you to travel with us through the alternative practices we have sketched out here.

Researchers in science and technology studies (STS) are increasingly being called upon to contribute to research programs in the natural sciences and engineering, often under the heading of ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI), or more recently, responsible research and innovation (RRI). There has been little work to date that compares these experiences across countries and contexts. In this paper, we present two accounts of STS involvement—in artificial intelligence in Japan and synthetic biology in the UK. Although we work in two different technoscientific fields in two different countries, similarities emerge. Our accounts both show the importance of long-term, low-stakes collaborations, built up organically over time—collaborations that trouble the distinction between being either an “insider” or an “outsider” to a technoscientific field. We argue that RRI is more likely to be expansive and imaginative if it is done in the context of such collaborations, and that it is important for research funders to cultivate the conditions that make them possible. We end by calling for more tales from STS researchers of their experiences of RRI and ELSI across countries and contexts, to provide tools and resources for future collaborative work.

Plastics drive twin crises: persistent pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Bio-based approaches using enzymes and microorganisms to depolymerise plastics and valorise monomers show promise but raise societal, ethical and regulatory questions central to Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). In this Perspective, we reflect on RRI implications of bio-based plastic degradation, informed by stakeholder discussions across the plastics value chain and public engagement. We identify broad support alongside concerns about scalability, interaction with existing recycling, governance and containment of genetically modified organisms, management of additives and contaminants, and the roles of regulation and economic incentives in enabling adoption.

BackgroundResponsible Research and Innovation (RRI) promotes inclusive, anticipatory, and reflexive research practices that respond to societal needs. While widely applied in technological fields, its application in youth mental health remains limited. This study aimed to explore how RRI principles are understood and enacted within a large interdisciplinary programme on digital youth mental health in the United Kingdom, focusing on the perspectives of both researchers and young people.MethodsAn online survey was conducted with 21 researchers and 5 young people (mean age = 21 years, standard deviation = 2.74) involved in the programme. The survey included open-ended questions exploring knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to RRI and youth mental health. Responses were analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis to identify patterns of meaning across the dataset and to generate themes.ResultsSix themes were developed, reflecting participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices. Both researchers and young people conceptualised youth mental health as multifaceted, shaped by personal, social, and cultural factors, and existing along a continuum from flourishing to struggling. Young people highlighted digital harms and economic precarity, while researchers emphasised biopsychosocial determinants, offering complementary perspectives. Involving young people was seen as essential for challenging adult assumptions, improving clarity and relevance of tools, and strengthening ethical integrity. Barriers included communication gaps, entrenched hierarchies, inconsistent involvement, and the resource-intensive nature of participation. Key facilitators included mutual respect, care, flexibility, and procedural structures such as youth co-chairs (i.e., a young person co-leading the project/grant with the principal investigator/s) and regular collaborative meetings. Together, these elements demonstrated how RRI values can be embedded to foster meaningful and equitable youth–researcher partnerships.ConclusionsThis study shows that applying RRI in youth mental health research enhances co-production by integrating diverse perspectives, addressing ethical concerns, and strengthening the quality and social relevance of research. To fully realise this potential, RRI must be embedded as an ongoing practice supported by intentional infrastructures, such as youth leadership roles, communication training, and opportunities for intergenerational dialogue. Crucially, funders must recognise and resource the relational, iterative, and time-intensive nature of responsible youth involvement. Embedding RRI in this field provides a valuable framework for moving beyond tokenistic consultation towards inclusive, future-oriented, and ethically grounded research.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-026-00848-x.

ABSTRACT This article contributes to the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) literature by drawing on feminist posthuman care approaches to discuss experiences of researching and co-designing with older minoritised adults. It responds to calls in RRI for a focus on new conceptualisations of ‘care’ and ‘response-ability’ for the future of the field. We focus on the praxis of care-full and response-able design adopted on the Connecting Through Culture As We Age project. In so doing we respond to the need for empirical accounts of how these RRI concepts take shape in grounded practices of research and innovation. We highlight a set of practices that aim to embed care and response-ability in digital design processes involving older adults, researchers and designers, to deeply consider our roles in ‘taking care of the future’ in RRI. In the context of ageing populations and increasing inequalities we hope these practices may be useful to others.

This paper examines how applied research universities can enhance their societal engagement by leveraging global trends in co-creation, knowledge transfer, and institutional innovation. The Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia (UCC) invited this contribution as part of the design process for its new National Strategic Plan (PEN) 2026–2029, the institution-wide strategy that sets priorities across its multicampus system. Responding to this mandate, the paper proposes a thematic framework that connects UCC’s cooperative identity and multicampus presence with international debates on research, innovation, and engagement. Four thematic entry points are developed. Section 2 examines participatory agenda-setting, with a focus on frameworks such as Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and foresight methods. Section 3 discusses helix collaboration and co-creation, highlighting how universities convene partnerships across sectors. Section 4 turns to institutionalisation, exploring governance, incentives, and curricular integration of societal engagement. Section 5 addresses digital infrastructures and collective intelligence, emphasising how artificial intelligence and open platforms are reshaping both academic practices and university–society interaction. Each theme is analysed with reference to global trends and illustrated with selected Latin American cases. These examples, presented as sources of inspiration, demonstrate how regional universities are incorporating engagement into their strategic planning, experimenting with citizen science, integrating social responsibility into development plans, and connecting with international open science networks. By juxtaposing such illustrations with UCC’s existing assets — clinics, transfer structures, territorial programmes, and SDG alignment — the analysis offers a comparative lens rather than an institutional diagnosis. The strategic synthesis in Section 6 presents these insights in a matrix that links global practices, Latin American illustrations, and UCC’s current strengths. This comparative approach highlights that UCC is not starting from zero. Instead, it has a robust base of practices that can be made more systematic, better connected across campuses, and more visible in national and international arenas. The paper concludes with nine recommendations, organised under the university’s three main functions: research, teaching, and societal interaction. These recommendations emphasize governance and incentives for research agendas, curricular pathways for project-based learning, and facilitation skills, as well as the role of multicampus networks as civic hubs facilitated by responsible digital infrastructures. By consolidating its cooperative mission and aligning with global benchmarks, UCC can reinforce its leadership in Colombia while contributing to broader international debates on the role of universities in democratic renewal and sustainable development.

Ensuring the long-term sustainability of mining and post-mining practices is crucial for balancing resource extraction with environmental and social responsibilities. This study critically examines the role of science in addressing the complex challenges posed by mining, particularly in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It identifies key responsibilities for science, including the development of sustainable extraction technologies, innovative land reclamation and ecosystem restoration strategies, and equitable frameworks for resource distribution that prioritize affected communities. The study emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches, the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), and effective knowledge dissemination to minimize adverse impacts while enhancing mining’s contribution to renewable energy transitions. By exploring the interplay between mining, renewable energy, and sustainable development, this study underscores the transformative potential of science to balance humanity’s resource needs with ecological preservation and social equity. The findings offer actionable insights for aligning mining practices with sustainability principles, fostering resilience and equity in mining-impacted regions.

BackgroundLiving Labs have proven to be valuable environments for fostering innovation through user-centred approaches. However, many researchers and companies still face challenges in implementing these methodologies sustainably. Addressing these challenges requires not only structural solutions within Living Labs, but also the cultivation of expertise among researchers and practitioners. It is crucial to educate researchers and innovators in practices aligned with user-centred research, living lab practices and co-design, emphasizing societal relevance and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) within the research community.MethodThis paper presents and evaluates a novel training program developed within the VITALISE project, aimed at onboarding external researchers and familiarizing them with Living Lab Research Infrastructures through transnational visits and collaborations. Results The program features a modular design covering key topics such as Living Lab methodology, harmonisation of research practices, and participant recruitment and panel management. A total of 49 participants completed an evaluation questionnaire, with results indicating high satisfaction and perceived usefulness across all training modules. Post-training, most participants reported feeling confident in applying Living Lab methodologies after the training. Notably, individual differences in interest across training blocks highlighted the need for flexible, tailored programs that accommodate varying levels of prior knowledge and specific research needs.ConclusionThis study suggests that targeted, adaptable training initiatives are acceptable. Self-reported feedback suggests that it could help to enable researchers to integrate Living Lab methodologies into their work. However, further formal evaluation of learning gains is needed. Continued development of structured, scalable, and context-sensitive training programs, supported by international collaborations and standardized approaches, will be essential for fostering sustainable and impactful Living Lab research across disciplines and borders.

This paper proposes the integration of an ethical dimension into the concept and design of morphospace. This is traditionally used in paleontology, architecture, and bioengineering to visualize and generate theoretically possible forms given certain parameters. Drawing from Value-Sensitive Design (VSD) and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), I introduce a structured methodology to quantify and operationalize ethical considerations in morphospace. While current applications of morphospace focus on geometric and technological parameters, in this paper I propose a methodological extension that incorporates criteria of environmental sustainability and social impact. By intersecting value-sensitive design and bioinspired design, the paper develops therefore an approach that allows for the evaluation of engineered forms not only in terms of technical feasibility but also ethical responsibility. Moreover, the paper also highlights the need for interdisciplinary governance to constantly update ethical standards in bioengineering and architectural design. Finally, I discuss key challenges, including interdisciplinary standardization, computational complexity, and evolving ethical standards for implementing the ethical dimension in morphospace’s design. By transforming morphospace from a purely feasibility-driven model to one that incorporates ethical responsibility, this work aims therefore to bridge the gap between technological possibility and value-sensitive-practice in design and engineering.

ABSTRACT This paper examines the critical role of epistemic injustice in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), particularly through the lens of reproductive medicine scandals in the Global South. It unpacks the perception of the Global South as a hotbed for scandalous ‘firsts’. That is, there seems to be a tendency for these regions to chase major scientific breakthroughs and global recognition, often at the cost of transgressing scientific and/or ethical norms. By analysing two kinds of scientific scandals – described as ‘science out of place’ and ‘science out of pace’ – this paper highlights both the challenges and opportunities for RRI to ‘de-link’ from hegemonic perceptions of legitimacy in science and to promote productive epistemic socialisation. This is essential to develop our ethical sensibility in the fast evolving and inherently contentious field of biotechnology.

The quick development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) prompted a great deal of attention concerning its global governance. For global policy, innovation, security, and ethics are paramount. These factors also shape important social perceptions relating to the risks and the value of the opportunities associated with AI, the stakeholders involved in AI policy and decision making, and the futures that are imagined and prioritized. This paper explores the three dominant narratives the governance of AI: positioning AI as an economic engine, a security challenge, and as an enabler of sustainable development. The paper employs the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and the Science, Technology and Society (STS) frameworks to study the narratives of leading global players (e.g. the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)). These narratives are frequently written from a Global North perspective and largely overlook the imbalances of power, the voices and perspectives of the Global South, and the issues of governance on Artificial Intelligence (AI) from a Gender perspective, and other marginalized voices in the narratives of AI governance. Centering inequity in AI governance calls for the expansive revision of the narratives to incorporate more civilizational, geopolitical, and moral frameworks. These actions would guarantee that AI development is socially and ethically responsible while also providing fairness in the distribution and accessibility of the benefits and risks it poses. This article aims to broaden the AI governance narratives through discourse analysis to build a future that is democratic and just.

Abstract Aim The oesophageal cancer (OC) multi-disciplinary team (MDT) operates under significant pressures. Machine learning (ML) may enhance efficiency, consistency, and cost-effectiveness by identifying intricate decision-making patterns provided it is trained and implemented responsibly. We present an externally validated ML clinical decision support system (CDSS) aimed at predicting OC MDT treatment decisions and prognosticating palliative scenarios, co-designed using Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) principles. Method Clinicopathological data collected from 1931 patients over 13 years were used to train and validate ML models predicting initial treatment pathways and palliative prognosis. 953 cases from a leading tertiary unit trained models which were externally validated on 978 cases from another geographical catchment. Model performance was evaluated using Area Under Curve (AUC) for treatment classifiers and calibration curves for survival models. A parallel RRI program combining interviews and workshops with computer scientists, clinicians and patient representatives allowed end-users to co-design the CDSS user interface. Results The ML models performed well with AUCs between 0·873 – 0·909 for the primary model, and 0·711-0·815 for the palliative classifier. Predicted survival probability from the palliative survival model was well calibrated over the first 12 months post-diagnosis in both cohorts. The RRI program provided a collaborative, multidisciplinary environment to develop the CDSS which is user-friendly and quick to use. Conclusions We present a novel, responsibly developed, externally validated AI CDSS trained to predict oesophageal cancer MDT decisions. It represents the foundations of a transformative application of ML, personalised, consistent and efficient MDT decision-support within OC which aligns to RRI principles.

Our enduring cultural narratives about technology—carried across generations and embedded in collective memory—shape how societies interpret and respond to emerging innovations such as artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and neurotechnology. These stories may help shape regulatory discourse by embedding philosophical assumptions and ethical norms into governance frameworks. Frankenstein and Astro Boy serve here as illustrative archetypes that capture contrasting traditions of technological imagination: one foregrounding risk, hubris, and individual autonomy; the other emphasizing harmony, relationality, and technological partnership. Media representations continue to reinforce these orientations, framing debates over the integration of technology into human life. While Western narratives often highlight threats to personal freedom, many East Asian portrayals explore technology’s role in sustaining social balance. Yet within all regions, there remains significant internal diversity. This paper develops a research agenda for understanding the relationship between cultural narratives, media portrayals, and neurotechnology governance. Drawing on examples from literature, film, and policy debates, it identifies patterns of correlation—not causation—between cultural imaginaries and regulatory approaches. Our approach builds on prior experiments in anticipatory governance, such as Responsible Research and Innovation and its application in the Human Brain Project. These initiatives showed both the value and the challenge of embedding ethical reflection into scientific practice. By extending this conversation to include cultural narratives, we highlight how global governance of neurotechnology can be broadened beyond a European focus to integrate diverse philosophical traditions and imaginaries. We conclude by outlining mechanisms for more inclusive governance—layered regulation, cross-cultural deliberation, international impact assessment, and a novel Narrative-Informed Governance Toolkit with five operationalizable components—offering conceptual scaffolding to guide future empirical research and practical design. Building on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) frameworks while addressing their documented limitations, our approach extends anticipatory governance by treating cultural narratives as resources for governance design.

Demonstrating methods for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is now a focus of research and development programmes designed to support decision making about future technology deployment. In this perspective piece, we outline some of the approaches to responsible research and innovation (RRI) being put to work in a United Kingdom-based programme organising field trials of various carbon removal methods. Unlike the disruptive technologies that predominate in RRI scholarship, many land-based methods for carbon removal have already been deployed, in some cases over many decades, with governance closely linked with longstanding fields of research and practice. We highlight why responsible innovation frameworks that developed in the context of geoengineering controversies may be only partially-suited to field trials of land-based carbon removal methods. We suggest that field trials of carbon removal methods are not simply evidentiary procedures but also strategic sites within an emerging innovation regime where RRI approaches can be both implemented and critically tested.

ABSTRACTBackgroundWhile co‐production is increasingly emphasised in youth mental health research, few studies have explored how young people themselves conceptualise and evaluate responsible and dialogic co‐production. Understanding young people's perspectives is essential to ensure that participation is meaningful and protective, rather than tokenistic or exploitative. This paper offers a retrospective reflection on a 3‐year UK youth mental health programme that embedded youth involvement and co‐production from the outset, at multiple levels (research participation, advisory and leadership).ObjectiveThis study examines how young people involved in a UK youth mental health research articulate, from their own perspective, what counts as ‘meaningful co‐production’, centring its responsible, relational and dialogic dimensions.DesignA Qualitative Secondary Analysis was undertaken, applying Reflexive Thematic Analysis to explore patterns and meanings in participant accounts.Setting and ParticipantsData comprised responses from five young people (three females and two males; M = 21 years, SD = 2.74) via an online open‐ended survey, and a focus group with eight young people (seven females and one male; M = 25.63 years, SD = 3.03). All participants had lived experience and were under 24 years old when they began their involvement in the youth mental health research programme on which this study is based.ResultsTwo central themes emerged: (1) ‘We just want to be cared about’: Co‐production is caring and (2) ‘Please, show up as a person, not as a “researcher”’: Co‐production as a dialogic process. Young people emphasised that meaningful co‐production, in youth mental health, is relational and affective (i.e., rooted in emotional care, mutual respect, flexibility and dialogue) and that the living experience of mental health is continuous and demands sensitivity.DiscussionThese insights challenge procedural or ritualistic approaches to participation. Instead, they foreground care, reflexivity, power sharing and researcher presence as ethical prerequisites of co‐production. The results align with Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) principles, highlighting the need to embed structural supports for emotional safety and relational engagement from the outset.ConclusionsMeaningful co‐production in youth mental health research requires embedding relational ethics into design and practice, ensuring young people are engaged as whole persons and partners. This model moves beyond procedural inclusion towards genuinely participatory research.Patient or Public ContributionYoung people with lived experience co‐designed the study materials, co‐facilitated the focus group, contributed to the interpretation and co‐authored the manuscript—ensuring that their perspectives are central to the study. Young people with lived experience of mental health were central to this study. Members of the programme's Young People's Advisory Group (YPAG) contributed to the design of the survey and focus group materials, ensuring they were youth‐friendly and relevant. Two YPAG members co‐facilitated the focus group alongside the first author, actively shaping the data collection process. Their insights and perspectives also informed the interpretation of the data, particularly in refining how themes captured relational and dialogic aspects of co‐production. Additionally, these two YPAG members are co‐authors of the manuscript, contributing to the conceptual framing, reflexivity and clarity of the results, ensuring that the work authentically reflects youth perspectives.

Background Living Labs have proven to be valuable environments for fostering innovation through user-centred approaches. However, many researchers and companies still face challenges in implementing these methodologies sustainably. Addressing these challenges requires not only structural solutions within Living Labs, but also the cultivation of expertise among researchers and practitioners. It is crucial to educate researchers and innovators in practices aligned with user-centred research, living lab practices and co-design, emphasizing societal relevance and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) within the research community. Method This paper presents and evaluates a novel training program developed within the VITALISE project, aimed at onboarding external researchers and familiarizing them with Living Lab Research Infrastructures through transnational visits and collaborations. Results The program features a modular design covering key topics such as Living Lab methodology, harmonization of research practices, and participant recruitment and panel management. A total of 49 participants completed an evaluation questionnaire, with results indicating high satisfaction and perceived usefulness across all training modules. Post-training, most participants reported increased confidence in applying Living Lab methodologies. Notably, individual differences in interest across training blocks highlighted the need for flexible, tailored programs that accommodate varying levels of prior knowledge and specific research needs. Conclusion This study suggests that targeted, adaptable training initiatives are acceptable and can help to enable researchers to integrate Living Lab methodologies into their work. Continued development of structured, scalable, and context-sensitive training programs, supported by international collaborations and standardized approaches, will be essential for fostering sustainable and impactful Living Lab research across disciplines and borders.

ABSTRACT Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming our society, offering remarkable opportunities but also raising significant Ethical, Legal, and Social Aspects (ELSA) that should be addressed for responsible development. Some existing approaches to responsible AI successfully translate ELSA into concrete AI design practices but risk overlooking power dynamics and structural issues, while others excel at fostering dialogue yet struggle to turn insights into real design changes. This paper develops the ELSA Lab approach as a promising way to bridge this gap. Building on research in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), Social Labs, and Quadruple Helix (QH) collaboration, we show how this approach combines the strengths of practical, solutionist strategies with sufficient negotiation and reflexivity. We not only outline the key features of this ELSA Lab approach theoretically but also present a hands-on work process for putting it into practice. This approach aims to drive a systemic shift toward more responsible AI.