Latest / Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar / 5/28/26: John Mearsheimer Cooks Neocons On Iran, Russia Ukraine War Escalates, Pope Leo Warns About AI

Transcript

5/28/26: John Mearsheimer Cooks Neocons On Iran, Russia Ukraine War Escalates, Pope Leo Warns About AI · Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
• 0:01
  Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
• 0:05
  Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
• 0:07
  Speaker 2: the future of the show.
• 0:08
  Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
• 0:10
  Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
• 0:13
  Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
• 0:19
  Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
• 0:25
  Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
• 0:27
  Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
• 0:29
  Speaker 3: dot com. Very excited now to be joined by our
• 0:32
  Speaker 3: great friend, Professor John Meerscheimer of the University of Chicago.
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: Sir, it's great to see you. Thanks for joining us again.
• 0:37
  Speaker 4: I'm glad to be here. Thank you for inviting me.
• 0:39
  Speaker 3: Always so sorry you recently took part in a debate
• 0:43
  Speaker 3: with your co author, doctor Stephen Walt against Mike Pompeo,
• 0:47
  Speaker 3: the former Secretary of State and Victoria Newland, famous for
• 0:51
  Speaker 3: many reasons of being one of the preeminent neocons and
• 0:54
  Speaker 3: very involved in what happened in the Color Revolution in Ukraine.
• 0:58
  Speaker 3: But there was one particular moment we wanted your reaction
• 1:01
  Speaker 3: to of your exchange here with Newland and Pompeo on
• 1:05
  Speaker 3: the issue of Iran.
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: Let's take a listen, we'll get your reaction.
• 1:08
  Speaker 5: This is what human decency demands. You don't let a
• 1:11
  Speaker 5: radical regime close off the global economy by firing Shaheed
• 1:14
  Speaker 5: missiles into nations that did nothing right. They're firing into
• 1:18
  Speaker 5: civilians in the United Arab everetts even just this week.
• 1:23
  Speaker 5: That's just not something that the world can accept. And
• 1:26
  Speaker 5: so this monster is worthy of the hunt.
• 1:28
  Speaker 6: You do know, Mike, that we started the war?
• 1:30
  Speaker 5: No, absolutely, not absolutely not, oh no, no, no, no.
• 1:35
  Speaker 6: See, they weren't firing those missiles in Welcome Israel and
• 1:39
  Speaker 6: the United States attacked Iran.
• 1:41
  Speaker 5: Well do you understand, Well, welcome to nineteen seventy nine,
• 1:44
  Speaker 5: when the revolutionary regime began to kill Europeans.
• 1:46
  Speaker 6: You do know that we overthrew the democratic, the elected
• 1:50
  Speaker 6: government Valtein fifty four. Just for the record, you talked,
• 1:54
  Speaker 6: you were talking about this. You don't think Iran has
• 1:56
  Speaker 6: You think Iran's forgotten about that?
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: No, I suspect that you know.
• 1:59
  Speaker 6: I think Iran remembers that we supported Saddama, saying in
• 2:02
  Speaker 6: the Iran.
• 2:03
  Speaker 5: Iraq war, I know about this. I know that other
• 2:06
  Speaker 5: countries have history. Do you think Iran as a monster?
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: No, okay, okay.
• 2:12
  Speaker 7: I don't think there.
• 2:12
  Speaker 6: I don't think there's I'm glad I don't live there.
• 2:16
  Speaker 6: I think many countries do many bad things, including my own,
• 2:20
  Speaker 6: and I wouldn't call the United States I'm monso.
• 2:24
  Speaker 8: So do you also remember that we wouldn't have had
• 2:27
  Speaker 8: October seventh if we hadn't had Iranian support for Hamas.
• 2:31
  Speaker 6: I wouldn't have had October seventh if we've gotten peace
• 2:33
  Speaker 6: in the Middle East. And that's a much longer story.
• 2:37
  Speaker 8: It is, and every single US president has tried and
• 2:40
  Speaker 8: we'll continue to not very hard, but.
• 2:42
  Speaker 4: It is very important to emphasize there's no evidence that
• 2:46
  Speaker 4: Iran even knew about October seventh, much less goodness.
• 2:51
  Speaker 8: Oh my goodness, I'm sure it is no evidence in
• 2:57
  Speaker 8: the public.
• 2:57
  Speaker 4: Record of that.
• 2:58
  Speaker 7: Oh my goodness.
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 3:00
  Speaker 3: The smirk sur from Victoria Newland whenever you bring up
• 3:03
  Speaker 3: the genuine fact that there is literally no evidence of
• 3:08
  Speaker 3: all of that. What's your broad takeaway here? We haven't
• 3:10
  Speaker 3: gotten to talk to you. Since that debate aired well, I.
• 3:12
  Speaker 4: Think in that in terms of facts and logic that
• 3:17
  Speaker 4: we beat them at almost every turn, and I think
• 3:20
  Speaker 4: that's reflected in their response to my point that there
• 3:23
  Speaker 4: was no evidence that Iran was involved in the events
• 3:28
  Speaker 4: of October seventh. I mean, they didn't say, here are
• 3:31
  Speaker 4: the facts that show you're wrong, or here is the
• 3:33
  Speaker 4: report that you should read that explains why you're wrong.
• 3:37
  Speaker 4: They just laughed at me and made fun of me.
• 3:39
  Speaker 4: And that tells you. I believe that they didn't have
• 3:42
  Speaker 4: the facts on their side, and in terms of the
• 3:45
  Speaker 4: points that Steve made, they had no refutation for those
• 3:49
  Speaker 4: facts because there is no refutation for those facts. What
• 3:53
  Speaker 4: Steve said was true, and he could have even gone
• 3:57
  Speaker 4: further and pointed out that last June, the Rangeans were
• 4:01
  Speaker 4: negotiating in good faith, and out of the blue, the
• 4:04
  Speaker 4: Israelis attacked them, and then we attacked them. And then
• 4:07
  Speaker 4: this February, on February twenty eighth, the Iranians were negotiating
• 4:12
  Speaker 4: again in good faith, and we, not them, started a war.
• 4:17
  Speaker 4: We attacked them, We tried to decapitate and succeeded at
• 4:21
  Speaker 4: decapitating the regime. So the idea that the Iranians are
• 4:24
  Speaker 4: these sort of mindless aggressors who are constantly starting wars
• 4:29
  Speaker 4: and doing all these evil things against the good guys
• 4:32
  Speaker 4: Israel in the United States is, as both of you know,
• 4:35
  Speaker 4: a laughable argument.
• 4:37
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: I was watching the full debate this morning. I've quite
• 4:40
  Speaker 2: gotten all the way through, but one of the things
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: that I thought was really noteworthy is, you know, your
• 4:45
  Speaker 2: two con opponents. Victoria Neulan doesn't even support the war
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: with Iran, so clearly she thinks this is not going well.
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: And Pompeo does support it, but he believes that we're
• 4:57
  Speaker 2: right now in a very poor position. Of course, his
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: answer is we just need to do more war and
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: then that will work it all out. But to me
• 5:04
  Speaker 2: that was very telling that neither of them could really
• 5:07
  Speaker 2: defend the current status quo and the level of disaster
• 5:12
  Speaker 2: that the Iran war has created for the United States.
• 5:15
  Speaker 4: Yeah. I would also point out to you that Victorian
• 5:18
  Speaker 4: Ulan made it clear that she disagreed with Pompeo when
• 5:22
  Speaker 4: he is Secretary of State helped President Trump pull us
• 5:26
  Speaker 4: out of the JCPOA. She said that we should have
• 5:30
  Speaker 4: stayed in the JCPOA. She said it had flaws, but
• 5:34
  Speaker 4: those flaws could have been fixed, and we should have
• 5:37
  Speaker 4: used it as a foundation to build a better agreement.
• 5:41
  Speaker 4: And that is actually a fundamental disagreement between the two
• 5:44
  Speaker 4: of them. So I think it was quite clear that
• 5:47
  Speaker 4: although they both agree on a lot of issues, they
• 5:50
  Speaker 4: disagree on a number of important issues. With regard to
• 5:54
  Speaker 4: the subject of Iran, there's no question it's a disaster.
• 6:00
  Speaker 4: We have no sort of theory of victory at this point.
• 6:04
  Speaker 4: There's no strategy that anybody can point to that will
• 6:09
  Speaker 4: allow us to pull our chestnuts out of the fire.
• 6:12
  Speaker 4: And although Pompeo was a huge supporter of the Iran war,
• 6:18
  Speaker 4: he wrote this op ed for Fox News on February
• 6:21
  Speaker 4: twenty eighth that talks in very glowing terms about how
• 6:25
  Speaker 4: the war is going to evolve and what a wonderful
• 6:28
  Speaker 4: move it is by President Trump to start this war. Nevertheless,
• 6:33
  Speaker 4: given how it's gone south, he has no way of
• 6:37
  Speaker 4: fixing the problem. He has no solution.
• 6:40
  Speaker 3: Yeah, that was just the real All they had was, well,
• 6:44
  Speaker 3: that's why we have to do more.
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: That's what it ultimately came down to.
• 6:49
  Speaker 3: It was really ironic, I think actually just even put
• 6:52
  Speaker 3: in that position where Ultimately, neither could defend how disastrous
• 6:56
  Speaker 3: the current status quo is. Obviously, Israel was something that
• 6:59
  Speaker 3: was also hovering over the entire discussion its own influence
• 7:04
  Speaker 3: on the United States. Well, here we have a very
• 7:06
  Speaker 3: recent comment from Ben Gavier of Israel. Can you put
• 7:12
  Speaker 3: C two up here just to get your reactions, sir.
• 7:14
  Speaker 3: Here Ben Gaverer says Israel will not allow Trump to
• 7:19
  Speaker 3: make a deal with Iran. And this here you have
• 7:22
  Speaker 3: a member of these literally Israeli government of the Security
• 7:25
  Speaker 3: Cabinet saying that they will not allow the United States
• 7:28
  Speaker 3: to pursue this deal with Iran in the midst of
• 7:31
  Speaker 3: all of these negotiations and firing and continued allegedcies fires.
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: What do you make of that comment.
• 7:38
  Speaker 4: Well, it's very important to understand that the deal that
• 7:43
  Speaker 4: will be cut, assuming we get a deal, will be
• 7:48
  Speaker 4: a disastrous deal for Israel. Israel started this war with
• 7:53
  Speaker 4: a number of goals, none of them have been achieved.
• 7:57
  Speaker 4: And furthermore, Iran is going to end end up controlling
• 8:01
  Speaker 4: the Strait of Hormuz. And furthermore, it looks like if
• 8:05
  Speaker 4: the deal is cut, that Iran's economic future looks much
• 8:10
  Speaker 4: brighter than it's economic past. This is disastrous for Israel,
• 8:15
  Speaker 4: and Israel wants to do everything it can to undermine
• 8:20
  Speaker 4: the deal. This is why the Israelis are bombing away
• 8:23
  Speaker 4: in Lebanon. This is the principal way they have of
• 8:29
  Speaker 4: undermining any deal. And what Ben Gavier is basically saying
• 8:36
  Speaker 4: is we don't like the deal at all. It's disastrous
• 8:39
  Speaker 4: from our point of view, and we will make sure
• 8:41
  Speaker 4: there is no deal. And I think he is an
• 8:44
  Speaker 4: effect saying that, you know, we control the United States
• 8:47
  Speaker 4: and we'll make it impossible for Trump to strike a deal.
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: Do you think that they will succeed in that? Not
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: only do you have you know, escalated bombing in Lebanon.
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: We can actually put this New York Times tear sheet
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: up on the screen that the Lebanese are resigned to
• 8:59
  Speaker 2: a war even if the US and Iran do make
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: a deal. This is something that the Iranians have said
• 9:06
  Speaker 2: from the beginning is unacceptable to them, that they want
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: the war to end on all fronts. You also have
• 9:12
  Speaker 2: Trump made some wild statements starting to blow up the Omanis.
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: If they do anything to have control or share control
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: of the Strait of horror moves, you have an entire
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: neocon freak count here in the US of all sorts
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: of influencers, people who have had the ear of the
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: White House saying no, no, no, you can't stop now,
• 9:31
  Speaker 2: this would be too disastrous, et cetera. So do you
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: think that we are close to some sort of, you know,
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: true conclusion to this war, Well.
• 9:40
  Speaker 4: You want to understand that we're talking first about getting
• 9:45
  Speaker 4: a cease fire in place and opening the straits. That's
• 9:49
  Speaker 4: the first tip in the process. And then once that's done,
• 9:52
  Speaker 4: you'll have negotiations on the nuclear issue, on the Straight
• 9:56
  Speaker 4: of Horror, moves, on sanctions, on reparations, on missiles. They're
• 10:01
  Speaker 4: just all sorts of issues floating around in here that
• 10:04
  Speaker 4: have to be dealt with, a lot of moving parts.
• 10:06
  Speaker 4: To put it in slightly different language, But up front,
• 10:10
  Speaker 4: what we're trying to do now is just create a
• 10:14
  Speaker 4: meaningful cease fire, and that means again shutting down the
• 10:18
  Speaker 4: war to include Lebanon and opening the straight And the
• 10:24
  Speaker 4: problem is that the Israelis do not want us to
• 10:29
  Speaker 4: stop the war in Lebanon, and they don't want us
• 10:33
  Speaker 4: to stop the war in Lebanon because they want to
• 10:35
  Speaker 4: conquer territory in Lebanon. They want to defeat hesblah, but
• 10:39
  Speaker 4: also because they see that is the ideal means for
• 10:43
  Speaker 4: undermining any kind of agreement, and they don't want an agreement.
• 10:48
  Speaker 4: The Israelis want to go back to the bombing campaign.
• 10:51
  Speaker 4: They want the war to restart again in a meaningful way.
• 10:55
  Speaker 4: And of course President Trump doesn't want this at all.
• 10:59
  Speaker 4: Trump wants to cut a deal. He understands that he
• 11:02
  Speaker 4: has no theory of victory here and he's got to
• 11:05
  Speaker 4: cut a deal to put an end to this. But
• 11:07
  Speaker 4: the Israelis want to prevent him from doing that, and
• 11:10
  Speaker 4: Lebanon is the key lever that they have over him.
• 11:14
  Speaker 4: And of course they have the lawby and the warhawks
• 11:16
  Speaker 4: and the United States who will back up Israel at
• 11:19
  Speaker 4: every turn.
• 11:20
  Speaker 3: Yeah, professor, one of the things that we were really
• 11:22
  Speaker 3: shocked by this morning was this comment from Trump saying
• 11:26
  Speaker 3: that he was threatening to blow up Oman if they
• 11:29
  Speaker 3: do not abide by US demands of opening the Straits
• 11:33
  Speaker 3: of horror moves.
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: Let's take a listen, we'll get your reaction.
• 11:36
  Speaker 9: Now. The Strait's going to be open to everybody. It's
• 11:40
  Speaker 9: international waters.
• 11:41
  Speaker 4: Nobody's going to control it. We're going to watch over it.
• 11:43
  Speaker 9: We'll watch over it, but nobody's going to control it.
• 11:46
  Speaker 9: That's part of the negotiation that we have.
• 11:48
  Speaker 4: They would like to control it.
• 11:49
  Speaker 9: Nobody's going to control It's international waters, and Oman will
• 11:53
  Speaker 9: behave just like everybody else that will have to blow
• 11:56
  Speaker 9: them up. They understand that they'll be fine.
• 11:59
  Speaker 3: We'll have to blow them up. I mean, how is
• 12:01
  Speaker 3: this going to affect our regional alliances?
• 12:05
  Speaker 4: We've done so much damage to our regional alliance is
• 12:08
  Speaker 4: already number one and number two. Trump just talks like
• 12:12
  Speaker 4: this all the time, so that it's not as shocking
• 12:16
  Speaker 4: as one would it find it to be if someone
• 12:20
  Speaker 4: like President Biden or President Bush had said this. I mean,
• 12:24
  Speaker 4: this is sort of a part for the course for
• 12:26
  Speaker 4: President Trump. So I think in the final analysis, it
• 12:30
  Speaker 4: doesn't matter. The Omani's probably just rolled their eyes, just
• 12:33
  Speaker 4: like everybody else in the United States and in the
• 12:37
  Speaker 4: golf did. The fact is that we're in deep trouble
• 12:41
  Speaker 4: in the golf. Before the war on February twenty seventh,
• 12:44
  Speaker 4: it looked like we had a formidable alliance structure. We
• 12:48
  Speaker 4: had bases all over the region, and our allies, our
• 12:52
  Speaker 4: golf allies, all thought that we would provide security for them.
• 12:57
  Speaker 4: They thought that our security umbrella that was over their
• 12:59
  Speaker 4: heads a reliable one. But the events since February twenty
• 13:03
  Speaker 4: eighth have shown that that was not the case, that
• 13:08
  Speaker 4: the United States could not protect them, that those US
• 13:11
  Speaker 4: bases in the region were vulnerable, and that moving forward
• 13:15
  Speaker 4: they have to think seriously about how to provide for
• 13:19
  Speaker 4: their own security and not rely on the United States
• 13:24
  Speaker 4: in any meaningful way, because they have now seen what
• 13:28
  Speaker 4: happened when they relied on the United States. They got clabbered,
• 13:32
  Speaker 4: and there is always a threat these days that they'll
• 13:35
  Speaker 4: be eliminated as functioning countries if the war really heats up.
• 13:40
  Speaker 4: And the Iranians were after their desalination plants and their
• 13:46
  Speaker 4: energy infrastructure.
• 13:50
  Speaker 7: Professor Wowie have you.
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: We also wanted to talk to you about the Ukraine War,
• 13:53
  Speaker 2: which grinds on and as far as I can tell,
• 13:56
  Speaker 2: the front lines are more or less stock. The Ukrainians
• 13:59
  Speaker 2: have made very effective use of drone warfare, which has
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: helped them overcome some of their manpower disadvantage. You can
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: put d one up on the screen. There is some
• 14:09
  Speaker 2: concern and this is a Wall Street Journal article laying
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: out the case that Putin could expand the war beyond
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: Ukraine striking inside of Europe, you have also Kiv has
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: been striking inside of Russia. You've had Russia escalating attacks
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: directly on the city of Kiv. So just give us
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: a little bit of an update of war where the
• 14:30
  Speaker 2: war stands. And if you think that this is a
• 14:32
  Speaker 2: realistic possibility that's being laid out here in the Wall
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: Street Journal.
• 14:37
  Speaker 4: Well, I think you have to separate the war on
• 14:41
  Speaker 4: the ground from the air war. And when I talk
• 14:44
  Speaker 4: about the air war, I'm talking about this strategic bombing
• 14:47
  Speaker 4: where the Ukrainians are using drones and missiles to strike
• 14:52
  Speaker 4: deep into Russia, and the Russians, of course are doing
• 14:54
  Speaker 4: the same thing vis a v Ukraine. That's the air war,
• 14:58
  Speaker 4: and then there's the war on the ground. There's no
• 15:00
  Speaker 4: question that with the coming of drones, it's very difficult
• 15:04
  Speaker 4: to make rapid progress on the ground, but the Russians
• 15:09
  Speaker 4: are nevertheless making progress in Ukraine. The idea that Ukraine
• 15:15
  Speaker 4: has turned the tide on the battlefield and is rolling
• 15:18
  Speaker 4: the Russians back, or will someday roll the Russians back,
• 15:23
  Speaker 4: is not a plausible argument. The Russians are winning on
• 15:26
  Speaker 4: the ground and you want to remember that they've already
• 15:29
  Speaker 4: conquered twenty percent, roughly twenty percent of Ukrainian territory, and
• 15:34
  Speaker 4: they're not going to give that territory up. Ukraine is
• 15:38
  Speaker 4: never going to recover that twenty percent that it's already lost.
• 15:42
  Speaker 4: The only question is how much more territory will the
• 15:45
  Speaker 4: Russians conquer, and they will conquer more territory. So that's
• 15:49
  Speaker 4: the ground war. The air war is where things are
• 15:54
  Speaker 4: getting dangerous and there what's happening is that the Ukrainians
• 15:58
  Speaker 4: are using more drones and more sophisticated drones to attack
• 16:03
  Speaker 4: deep into Russia, and they're hitting oil refineries and they're
• 16:08
  Speaker 4: killing lots of Russian civilians, and the Russians are reaching
• 16:13
  Speaker 4: the point where they're saying enough is enough, and they
• 16:17
  Speaker 4: bomb Kiev on Sunday night in ways that they have
• 16:22
  Speaker 4: never bombed that city before. They really turned the dogs loose,
• 16:26
  Speaker 4: as I like to say, and they're threatening to do
• 16:29
  Speaker 4: even more. They've warned European countries to remove their diplomatic
• 16:36
  Speaker 4: staffs from Kiev because they are obviously intending to hit
• 16:41
  Speaker 4: targets that might include those diplomatic installations. But the real
• 16:48
  Speaker 4: worry is that the Russians will hit targets inside of
• 16:54
  Speaker 4: Eastern Europe or even Western Europe. There are voices inside
• 16:59
  Speaker 4: of Russia that say it's time to take off the
• 17:02
  Speaker 4: gloves and to go after targets in Europe because the
• 17:06
  Speaker 4: Europeans are assisting the Ukrainians in these attacks on Mother Russia.
• 17:12
  Speaker 4: The argument, which is quite correct, is that there is
• 17:15
  Speaker 4: no way that the Ukrainians could attack Russia, could attack
• 17:20
  Speaker 4: deep into Russia with drones and missiles the way they're
• 17:22
  Speaker 4: doing now without significant assistance from the West. And if
• 17:26
  Speaker 4: that is the case, we the Russians have to attack
• 17:30
  Speaker 4: into the West if they're going to be allowed to
• 17:33
  Speaker 4: attack into Mother Russia. So it looks like there is
• 17:38
  Speaker 4: a serious possibility that at some point in the future
• 17:42
  Speaker 4: the Russians will attack NATO countries and that would be
• 17:46
  Speaker 4: potentially disastrous.
• 17:48
  Speaker 3: Now what we've also seen, sir compit with D three
• 17:50
  Speaker 3: up here on the screen. I took note of this yesterday.
• 17:53
  Speaker 3: Zelenski in a new letter to President Trump and to
• 17:57
  Speaker 3: Congress saying that he urgently needs patriot interceptors. And in
• 18:02
  Speaker 3: the letter, basically what he says is that they're going under.
• 18:05
  Speaker 3: Like you just said, they sustained Russian attack. You have
• 18:07
  Speaker 3: these drones and hypersonic missiles that are now being used
• 18:10
  Speaker 3: by the Russians, which definitely do show an increase in
• 18:13
  Speaker 3: the air war.
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: What should we make of this then? From the Ukrainian side?
• 18:17
  Speaker 3: So if the Ukrainian if the Russians are going to
• 18:18
  Speaker 3: escalate their attacks, then the Ukrainians I assume, will escalate
• 18:21
  Speaker 3: even further in terms of their drones, not just oil refineries,
• 18:25
  Speaker 3: but at other more strategic targets.
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: What they're asking for patriot interceptors.
• 18:30
  Speaker 3: The Trump administration also is in a bit of a
• 18:32
  Speaker 3: bind because of what just happened with Iran. They can't
• 18:34
  Speaker 3: just give them over. They have to really husband their resources.
• 18:37
  Speaker 3: What will this look like if things continue to go further.
• 18:41
  Speaker 4: Well, I think that there's no question we have used
• 18:46
  Speaker 4: up so many Patriot missiles, so many THAD missiles, tomahawks,
• 18:51
  Speaker 4: on and on in the war against Iran, that we're
• 18:56
  Speaker 4: in a situation where there are great limits on the
• 18:59
  Speaker 4: world weaponry that we can provide to the Ukrainians. And
• 19:05
  Speaker 4: of course this includes patriot missiles, and Patriots were their
• 19:08
  Speaker 4: best defensive weapons, and they're out of Patriots and therefore
• 19:14
  Speaker 4: they're wide open to attacks from Russia. And what Zelenski's
• 19:20
  Speaker 4: trying to do is convince the Americans that they should
• 19:23
  Speaker 4: send patriots to Ukraine to help Ukraine fend off these
• 19:27
  Speaker 4: Russian attacks. But the fact is that we don't have
• 19:30
  Speaker 4: patriots to give them. We've expended so many weapons in
• 19:34
  Speaker 4: the war against Iran. So this means that Ukraine is
• 19:40
  Speaker 4: wide open to attacks from Russian missiles and from Russian
• 19:44
  Speaker 4: drones for the foreseeable.
• 19:46
  Speaker 2: Future, Professor leout for us, let's say that Russia does
• 19:51
  Speaker 2: go forward with a strike drug strike on a NATO country.
• 19:55
  Speaker 2: What do you think would happen? Then?
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: You know, what does that look like?
• 20:00
  Speaker 2: Do you believe that the US would be likely to
• 20:02
  Speaker 2: take in that scenario?
• 20:04
  Speaker 4: Well, if you listen to the rhetoric that comes out
• 20:06
  Speaker 4: of Russia from sort of the principal proponents of this perspective,
• 20:11
  Speaker 4: and these this perspective enjoys widespread support inside of Russia,
• 20:18
  Speaker 4: especially among the elites. The argument is that you would
• 20:21
  Speaker 4: launch limited conventional attacks against the West, and if that
• 20:27
  Speaker 4: didn't convince the West to cease and desist from helping
• 20:31
  Speaker 4: the Ukrainians to attack into Russia, deep into Russia. Then
• 20:36
  Speaker 4: what the Russian should do is think about using nuclear weapons,
• 20:41
  Speaker 4: not large numbers of nuclear weapons, but just a handful
• 20:43
  Speaker 4: of nuclear weapons to send a very clear signal to
• 20:47
  Speaker 4: the West that the Russians mean business. But the Russians
• 20:51
  Speaker 4: field they have to do here is established to terrence.
• 20:54
  Speaker 4: The Russians believe, and I think quite correctly, that the
• 20:58
  Speaker 4: West thinks that they can help Ukraine attack Russia and
• 21:04
  Speaker 4: there'll be no price to pay for the West. The
• 21:07
  Speaker 4: West gets a free ride here. It just can help
• 21:09
  Speaker 4: the Ukrainians punch away at Russia. There's no real deterrent
• 21:15
  Speaker 4: in effect against the West, and the Russians believe they
• 21:19
  Speaker 4: have to establish a deterrent and they want to do
• 21:22
  Speaker 4: that with conventional weapons, or they're talking about doing it
• 21:24
  Speaker 4: with conventional weapons, but their argument is if that doesn't work,
• 21:28
  Speaker 4: they'll use nuclear weapons. The Russian perspective here is basically
• 21:32
  Speaker 4: that the West doesn't understand that they're dealing with a
• 21:36
  Speaker 4: nuclear armed adversary, that we live in the nuclear world,
• 21:40
  Speaker 4: and that when you begin to threaten the Russian homeland
• 21:43
  Speaker 4: and you begin to kill Russians in large numbers, that
• 21:48
  Speaker 4: you are creating a situation where the Russians are going
• 21:51
  Speaker 4: to have an incentive to strike back, and to strike
• 21:54
  Speaker 4: back in serious ways, and to try to convince the
• 21:57
  Speaker 4: West that we live in a world where nuclear deterrens
• 22:01
  Speaker 4: should obtain you and the West may have forgotten about that,
• 22:05
  Speaker 4: but we're going to remind you that we live in
• 22:07
  Speaker 4: a world where nuclear weapons may be used, and we
• 22:10
  Speaker 4: will use nuclear weapons if necessary to restore the terrence.
• 22:15
  Speaker 4: So that's what's going on here, and it's a very
• 22:17
  Speaker 4: dangerous situation because the West and Zelenski don't seem to
• 22:22
  Speaker 4: care about Russian red lines. The West and the Ukrainians
• 22:27
  Speaker 4: seem to think that they can just pound away at
• 22:29
  Speaker 4: the Russians and get away with it.
• 22:31
  Speaker 3: And if you look at the Iran situation, they were
• 22:33
  Speaker 3: only able to establish a terrence by inflecting immense economic
• 22:36
  Speaker 3: damage on the world, and by doing that they were
• 22:39
  Speaker 3: able to demand a ceasefire. You know, Russia can read
• 22:42
  Speaker 3: the news just like anybody else and say, okay, we
• 22:44
  Speaker 3: have to do something similar.
• 22:46
  Speaker 4: Absolutely, And by the way, just to go to the
• 22:49
  Speaker 4: back to the Iran case. When you look at the
• 22:51
  Speaker 4: Iran case and you tie that into North Korea, you
• 22:55
  Speaker 4: see that North Korea was smart to get nuclear weapons,
• 22:58
  Speaker 4: and that Iran should have gotten nuclear weapons because the
• 23:02
  Speaker 4: Israelis and the Americans definitely would not be attacking Iran
• 23:06
  Speaker 4: if it had nuclear weapons that could hit Israel. And
• 23:10
  Speaker 4: the reason they're doing that is because they think they
• 23:13
  Speaker 4: can get away with it, They can get a free
• 23:15
  Speaker 4: ride because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. Yeah, and your
• 23:18
  Speaker 4: point about the parallels between the Iranian case and the
• 23:23
  Speaker 4: Russian case, I think is right on the money. That's
• 23:26
  Speaker 4: the lesson that the Russians have taken from what the
• 23:29
  Speaker 4: Iranians have done.
• 23:30
  Speaker 2: Well, this is what really scares me because, first of all,
• 23:33
  Speaker 2: it seems that, you know, enough time has passed that
• 23:35
  Speaker 2: we've become complacent about the fact that we do live
• 23:38
  Speaker 2: in a nuclear armed war and what that means in
• 23:42
  Speaker 2: terms of the level of devastating, life ending destruction can
• 23:46
  Speaker 2: be wrought. We also live in a time where basically
• 23:48
  Speaker 2: every other taboo has been thrown out the window. We
• 23:51
  Speaker 2: all watched a genocide on our live feeds every day
• 23:54
  Speaker 2: and no one with any power stepped in to do
• 23:56
  Speaker 2: anything about it. You know, we call war peace now,
• 23:59
  Speaker 2: we say that arounds the aggressors. You know, we in
• 24:02
  Speaker 2: Israel are the ones that bomb them. So every previous
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: taboo seems to have gone out the window. The only
• 24:08
  Speaker 2: one that seems to remain at this point is the
• 24:11
  Speaker 2: nuclear taboo. And it makes me wonder how long that
• 24:15
  Speaker 2: is going to be able to hold up.
• 24:17
  Speaker 4: Yeah, I agree with everything you said, And just to
• 24:20
  Speaker 4: sort of reinforce your point, Crystal, you want to remember
• 24:25
  Speaker 4: that Ukraine invaded Mother Russia, yes, in August of twenty
• 24:33
  Speaker 4: twenty four. And you also want to remember that Ukraine
• 24:38
  Speaker 4: and both of these operations were with assistants from the
• 24:41
  Speaker 4: United States, and Britain attacked one leg of the strategic
• 24:45
  Speaker 4: nuclear triad of Russia. And as I've pointed out on
• 24:50
  Speaker 4: a number of occasions, this was unthinkable during the Cold War.
• 24:54
  Speaker 4: The idea that we would allow one of our allies
• 24:57
  Speaker 4: to attack into Russian territory, it's just not in the
• 25:01
  Speaker 4: realm of possibility during the Cold War, and the idea
• 25:04
  Speaker 4: that we would let one of our allies, with assistance
• 25:07
  Speaker 4: from US, attack one leg of the strategic nuclear triad
• 25:11
  Speaker 4: of the Soviet Union was again unthinkable. But here we
• 25:15
  Speaker 4: are in the Ukraine War, and we've helped the Ukrainians
• 25:18
  Speaker 4: to invade Russia. We've helped the Ukrainians to attack the
• 25:23
  Speaker 4: strategic nuclear triad of Russia. And also it seems that
• 25:28
  Speaker 4: we helped the Ukrainians launch a decapitation attack against Putin.
• 25:34
  Speaker 4: It's not for certain, but it certainly looks like that.
• 25:37
  Speaker 4: And you really wonder what the United States and what
• 25:40
  Speaker 4: the British are thinking when they helped the Ukrainians do this.
• 25:44
  Speaker 4: And of course the Russians understand exactly what's going on,
• 25:46
  Speaker 4: and that's why the Russians are deeply committed to re
• 25:50
  Speaker 4: establishing or maybe I should say establishing deterrence and making
• 25:55
  Speaker 4: it clear to the West and to the Ukrainians that
• 25:58
  Speaker 4: this just has to stop, and to make it stop,
• 26:01
  Speaker 4: they're willing to go up the escalation ladder. And then
• 26:04
  Speaker 4: of course the questions we've been talking about is whether
• 26:07
  Speaker 4: or not they're willing to use nuclear weapons and break
• 26:09
  Speaker 4: the nuclear taboo, so to speak.
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: Great point.
• 26:13
  Speaker 3: Well, thank you very much, sir. As always, we deeply
• 26:15
  Speaker 3: appreciate your time.
• 26:16
  Speaker 4: This is my pleasure, thanks for having me on the show.
• 26:22
  Speaker 1: Joining us now is Brendan Steinhauser.
• 26:24
  Speaker 3: He is the CEO of the Alliance for Secure AI.
• 26:29
  Speaker 3: It's going to join us to talk about the Pope's
• 26:31
  Speaker 3: new and cyclical forty thousand words.
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: On the topic. Thank you very much for joining us.
• 26:35
  Speaker 7: Man, good to see you, Thank you for having me.
• 26:38
  Speaker 3: Absolutely all right, So, Brendan as a Catholic, as an
• 26:40
  Speaker 3: AI expert, let's go and put this up here on
• 26:43
  Speaker 3: the screen. Some of the main takeaways from the Pope
• 26:45
  Speaker 3: leos and cyclical on AI. Why don't you break us
• 26:49
  Speaker 3: breakdown for us some of the more important themes from
• 26:52
  Speaker 3: this long in psyclical, what it means in this modern
• 26:55
  Speaker 3: age of AI and of digital transformation.
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: That we'll get into some of the specifics.
• 27:00
  Speaker 10: Sure, I think Pope Leo the fourteenth, of course chose
• 27:03
  Speaker 10: his name as a nod to Pope Leo the thirteenth,
• 27:08
  Speaker 10: who came about in the Industrial Revolution. And so this pope,
• 27:11
  Speaker 10: who's a mathematician by training, understands the unique challenge that
• 27:15
  Speaker 10: AI poses. This is going to be transformational, and so
• 27:18
  Speaker 10: he really in the encyclical looks at all these different
• 27:20
  Speaker 10: aspects of the human experience, everything from jobs in the
• 27:23
  Speaker 10: economy and the dignity of work, to data privacy, to
• 27:28
  Speaker 10: automated weapons drones flying around making decisions about who to
• 27:33
  Speaker 10: kill or not kill, and he also looks at things
• 27:36
  Speaker 10: like transhumanism, some of these more interesting sort of and
• 27:40
  Speaker 10: challenging questions that we face about what it means to
• 27:43
  Speaker 10: be human. And so he's looking at the whole picture here,
• 27:47
  Speaker 10: and I think he's really done it in a thoughtful way,
• 27:50
  Speaker 10: and he's brought in a lot of experts to comment on. Okay,
• 27:53
  Speaker 10: where do we go from here and what does Catholic
• 27:55
  Speaker 10: social doctrines say about all of this and what should
• 27:57
  Speaker 10: we do?
• 27:58
  Speaker 2: Talk a little bit more about that lens of what
• 28:01
  Speaker 2: it even means to be human, because part of the
• 28:04
  Speaker 2: message was that there's always this impetus to use a
• 28:08
  Speaker 2: machine to quote unquote perfect humanity, but part of humanity
• 28:12
  Speaker 2: comes through the struggle inherent to being a human being.
• 28:16
  Speaker 2: So talk a little bit about about that lens, because
• 28:19
  Speaker 2: I think that could be really important for stitching together
• 28:22
  Speaker 2: the kind of broad coalition to rein in AI and
• 28:24
  Speaker 2: make it a tool to benefit humanity that I think
• 28:27
  Speaker 2: we all would like to see come together.
• 28:31
  Speaker 10: Absolutely, he talks a lot about how AI and all
• 28:34
  Speaker 10: tools should be used to serve humanity. It should be
• 28:37
  Speaker 10: to enhance our productivity and to make us better, and
• 28:41
  Speaker 10: that we shouldn't be.
• 28:42
  Speaker 7: Serving the tool, but the tool should serve us.
• 28:45
  Speaker 10: And he talks about how technology can have a dehumanizing effect,
• 28:48
  Speaker 10: especially if it replaces human beings and replaces us as
• 28:51
  Speaker 10: workers and as the people making decisions on planet Earth.
• 28:55
  Speaker 10: He talks about how God gave us this special place
• 28:58
  Speaker 10: on Earth, gave us stewardship, and I think he's very
• 29:01
  Speaker 10: concerned about AI that develops into something kind of super
• 29:05
  Speaker 10: intelligent with the rise of robotics. You put those two
• 29:08
  Speaker 10: together and you could have a very bleak and dark future,
• 29:11
  Speaker 10: and so he talks about avoiding that.
• 29:13
  Speaker 7: But yeah, I think the dignity of.
• 29:14
  Speaker 10: Work and sort of the future of jobs in the economy,
• 29:17
  Speaker 10: social inequality, concentration of wealth and power, those are the
• 29:21
  Speaker 10: things that I think most people can relate to, and
• 29:22
  Speaker 10: I think those are the problems right before us.
• 29:25
  Speaker 3: There was one line. Maybe you can explain it to me.
• 29:28
  Speaker 3: I'm secular, But where are the temptation of erecting a
• 29:31
  Speaker 3: new tower of Babel? He says, I ask everyone to
• 29:33
  Speaker 3: abandon the construction of yet another tower of Babel and
• 29:35
  Speaker 3: to join forces in building up the common good so
• 29:38
  Speaker 3: that humanity will never lose its beauty in the world
• 29:40
  Speaker 3: once again, will come to recognize the human heart as
• 29:42
  Speaker 3: the place where God desires to dwell. What does that
• 29:45
  Speaker 3: warning mean in the context of Ai.
• 29:48
  Speaker 10: Yeah, the Tower of Babel metaphor has been used a
• 29:51
  Speaker 10: lot with AI, and it was interesting to see it
• 29:53
  Speaker 10: in the first page of this and cyclical, And it's
• 29:56
  Speaker 10: the idea from the Old Testament where the people of
• 29:59
  Speaker 10: the world were trying to build this tower to their own,
• 30:02
  Speaker 10: to their own glory. They were trying to essentially come
• 30:04
  Speaker 10: together with one language and sort of a homogeneous culture,
• 30:08
  Speaker 10: and they were glorifying themselves instead of God, and so
• 30:11
  Speaker 10: that was seen as a great mistake, and people were scattered,
• 30:14
  Speaker 10: and they then were scattered about the world and different
• 30:16
  Speaker 10: languages and couldn't communicate with each other. And you know,
• 30:19
  Speaker 10: the metaphor has to do with kind of with what
• 30:21
  Speaker 10: we might be building now, which is this kind of
• 30:23
  Speaker 10: all powerful thing that is to the glory of humanity
• 30:26
  Speaker 10: instead of God, and that we're trying to use technology
• 30:29
  Speaker 10: to almost become godlike. And so I think he sees
• 30:32
  Speaker 10: that very clearly, and I think, you know, this is
• 30:34
  Speaker 10: an idea that is very prominent not only within sort
• 30:37
  Speaker 10: of Catholic tradition, but Christianity. Broadly, and I think the
• 30:40
  Speaker 10: Tower babble also kind of also, you know, people are
• 30:43
  Speaker 10: familiar with it outside of religious communities, but I think
• 30:46
  Speaker 10: it's a powerful symbol of human beings should not be
• 30:50
  Speaker 10: trying to do something that either you know, replaces God
• 30:53
  Speaker 10: or that makes themselves the gods, where they're actually replacing God.
• 30:57
  Speaker 7: And so that's the idea broadly.
• 30:58
  Speaker 10: But I think, look, this is something we can all
• 31:01
  Speaker 10: sort of understand that the technology could become so powerful
• 31:05
  Speaker 10: that it becomes dangerous.
• 31:07
  Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I mean it's sort of radical at this
• 31:12
  Speaker 2: point to say that the technology should actually serve humans
• 31:16
  Speaker 2: rather than the human serving technology. And I think that
• 31:18
  Speaker 2: shows you how far afield we've gotten from in the
• 31:21
  Speaker 2: development of these products, and how little we have really
• 31:26
  Speaker 2: thought as a society about what we want these tools
• 31:28
  Speaker 2: to do and to be and how we want to
• 31:30
  Speaker 2: deploy them, versus how the ai oligarchs and the Trump
• 31:34
  Speaker 2: administration have decided that they want to go forward with this.
• 31:38
  Speaker 2: And I wanted to ask you about a few developments
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: in terms of the Trump administration's approach. We can put
• 31:43
  Speaker 2: E one B up on the screen here. I found
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: this report to be very unsettling. They say US law enforcement.
• 31:50
  Speaker 2: This is from Wired magazine Daniel bogoslaw over there. US
• 31:53
  Speaker 2: law enforcement warns of anti tech extremism as AI hatred grows.
• 31:59
  Speaker 2: This is based on the NSPM seven, the National Security
• 32:03
  Speaker 2: Presidential Memo seven, which extructs the Department of Justice to
• 32:06
  Speaker 2: target anyone holding a variety of views. One of those
• 32:10
  Speaker 2: views that they are now putting out here is quote
• 32:12
  Speaker 2: unquote anti tech extremism. And in order for you, according
• 32:17
  Speaker 2: to the reporting in this article, to sort of get
• 32:19
  Speaker 2: flagged as a potential anti tech extremist, all you need
• 32:22
  Speaker 2: to do is potentially be holding a strong opinion on
• 32:25
  Speaker 2: data center development in your community, or attending an anti
• 32:30
  Speaker 2: data center protest or another protest of one of the
• 32:34
  Speaker 2: large tech companies. And it strikes me that this is
• 32:37
  Speaker 2: arising at a time when there truly is a bipartisan
• 32:41
  Speaker 2: reckoning with this technology and increasing backlash against the direction
• 32:46
  Speaker 2: that they're going in.
• 32:48
  Speaker 10: Absolutely, yeah, this is a really dangerous thing. And we've
• 32:50
  Speaker 10: seen this play out kind of in previous administrations and
• 32:53
  Speaker 10: in this administration, where this is used to chill free speech,
• 32:58
  Speaker 10: it's used to sort of go after your political enemies.
• 33:01
  Speaker 10: I think it's really dangerous and it's a bipartisan problems
• 33:03
  Speaker 10: certainly over the course of American history, but it's something
• 33:07
  Speaker 10: that should really make all Americans come together and say,
• 33:10
  Speaker 10: we reject that. We don't want that, because you know,
• 33:13
  Speaker 10: if you support something like this and then you know,
• 33:15
  Speaker 10: the other political party gets into power, you don't want
• 33:18
  Speaker 10: them coming after you. And I think this is really
• 33:20
  Speaker 10: just an excuse to go after you know, mostly peaceful
• 33:23
  Speaker 10: protesters and people who are raising questions. But you know,
• 33:26
  Speaker 10: my response is kind of like, good luck, because you're
• 33:28
  Speaker 10: talking about like eighty five percent of Americans have these concerns,
• 33:32
  Speaker 10: and you know, the data center fight that's happening across
• 33:35
  Speaker 10: the country is very local, very organic, very bipartisan. I mean,
• 33:38
  Speaker 10: you see people on the left coming out people on
• 33:41
  Speaker 10: the right. You see you know, these protests happening in
• 33:44
  Speaker 10: conservative areas and more liberal areas, cities and suburbs and
• 33:48
  Speaker 10: rural areas. So good luck calling eighty five percent of
• 33:51
  Speaker 10: Americans extremists. Are there some people that you know have
• 33:56
  Speaker 10: done some things on all sorts of political issues over
• 33:59
  Speaker 10: the years that are that are yes, and those people
• 34:01
  Speaker 10: should be dealt with individually. But this has a chilling
• 34:03
  Speaker 10: effect and I think that's exactly what they want, because
• 34:05
  Speaker 10: they see that people are rising up and they don't
• 34:08
  Speaker 10: trust the truck trust the tech oligarchs, and they want
• 34:12
  Speaker 10: to have their freedom, and they are very skeptical, skeptical
• 34:15
  Speaker 10: about what is happening.
• 34:16
  Speaker 3: Brennan, this also happens in conjunction. Let's put E two
• 34:18
  Speaker 3: up there on the screen. This was a fascinating incident
• 34:21
  Speaker 3: where Trump was about set to sign an AI executive order.
• 34:25
  Speaker 3: The executive order, as least as we understand, it would
• 34:28
  Speaker 3: have required some of these AI companies to submit their
• 34:31
  Speaker 3: models for review or at least like some level of
• 34:35
  Speaker 3: safety review. It was literally hours away from being signed
• 34:38
  Speaker 3: when it was pulled at the very last minute. The
• 34:41
  Speaker 3: inside reporting is that David Sachs, who works in the
• 34:44
  Speaker 3: current administration, called the president said that this would set
• 34:47
  Speaker 3: back the US AI edge over China.
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: What do you make of this development.
• 34:54
  Speaker 10: I think David Sacks is not really serving in the
• 34:56
  Speaker 10: best interest of President Trump. He's serving in his own
• 34:59
  Speaker 10: financial and tr and his you know cronies in you know,
• 35:03
  Speaker 10: big tech. I think that it's it's frankly bad politics
• 35:06
  Speaker 10: for Sas to encourage the President to do this. I
• 35:09
  Speaker 10: think the President was on the right path. I think
• 35:11
  Speaker 10: the Chief of Staff Susie Wiles understands this and has
• 35:13
  Speaker 10: been briefing the President on the national security implications of
• 35:17
  Speaker 10: AI and on the politics of this. So I think
• 35:20
  Speaker 10: it's a grave mistake, and we want to see the administration,
• 35:23
  Speaker 10: you know, continue to try and do something here to
• 35:25
  Speaker 10: protect the American people.
• 35:26
  Speaker 7: And I'm afraid if they don't.
• 35:28
  Speaker 10: Not only will we have a huge cyber incident cyber
• 35:31
  Speaker 10: attack this year, potentially you know, for their own political reasons,
• 35:35
  Speaker 10: they should do this as well, because if they don't,
• 35:38
  Speaker 10: it could be really bad for them in the midterm elections.
• 35:40
  Speaker 10: So I think it's a bad political move, but more importantly,
• 35:44
  Speaker 10: it's harmful to national security. And I think there are
• 35:47
  Speaker 10: people within the administration like the Treasury Secretary, Susie Wiles,
• 35:51
  Speaker 10: a chief of staff, and even I think Pete Hegset,
• 35:53
  Speaker 10: despite this war with Anthropic at least reportedly been talking
• 35:57
  Speaker 10: about some of the dangers that advanced poses to national
• 36:01
  Speaker 10: security and cybersecurity. So we need the administration to turn
• 36:04
  Speaker 10: the ship, and frankly, if they don't, there's going to
• 36:07
  Speaker 10: be a political backlash in November and beyond because the
• 36:10
  Speaker 10: politics of this.
• 36:11
  Speaker 7: Are very clear.
• 36:12
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think it's still early days for this
• 36:15
  Speaker 2: to be central in twenty twenty six, but I fully
• 36:18
  Speaker 2: expect AI to be central to the debates in twenty
• 36:22
  Speaker 2: twenty eight, and there are a lot of candidates who
• 36:24
  Speaker 2: are starting to look inform their opinions accordingly, what do
• 36:27
  Speaker 2: you see as the most sort of dire immediate threats
• 36:31
  Speaker 2: from AI development. I know we had the Mythos release
• 36:35
  Speaker 2: which wasn't released, but certain actors got it, and you know,
• 36:39
  Speaker 2: others who were unauthorized were able to gain access to it,
• 36:41
  Speaker 2: and I think that was a bit of a wake
• 36:43
  Speaker 2: up call for people. But what do you see as
• 36:44
  Speaker 2: the most immediate term risks that we should be on
• 36:46
  Speaker 2: the lookout for.
• 36:48
  Speaker 7: It's a good question.
• 36:49
  Speaker 10: I would say the biggest risk does relate to a
• 36:52
  Speaker 10: cyber incident, and that's mostly because the capabilities of AI
• 36:56
  Speaker 10: are doubling about every four months, and sobilities are growing rapidly.
• 37:01
  Speaker 10: We're not able to keep up with the protection side
• 37:04
  Speaker 10: and patching the vulnerabilities. If we don't have a safety
• 37:07
  Speaker 10: and testing and evaluation effort in the federal government, then
• 37:12
  Speaker 10: those capabilities are just going to outpace our defenses, and
• 37:15
  Speaker 10: then you think about a bad actor, whether it's a
• 37:17
  Speaker 10: terrorist group or an extremist or a state actor like
• 37:20
  Speaker 10: China using one of these models, distilling one of the
• 37:23
  Speaker 10: models and then using it to attack us. That is
• 37:25
  Speaker 10: a thing that really keeps me up at night in
• 37:27
  Speaker 10: the next you know, six months to nine months. But
• 37:30
  Speaker 10: at the same time, you have you know, rapid job
• 37:33
  Speaker 10: displacement happening. I mean, we've tracked over one hundred and
• 37:35
  Speaker 10: thirty thousand jobs lost so far due to AI going
• 37:39
  Speaker 10: back to next year or last year, excuse me. And
• 37:41
  Speaker 10: I think that's a great concern as well, because you know,
• 37:44
  Speaker 10: if that continues and there's no place for those folks
• 37:47
  Speaker 10: and they're not able to go into a new job,
• 37:50
  Speaker 10: we could have high en employment, we could have.
• 37:52
  Speaker 7: Social and political instability.
• 37:54
  Speaker 10: We could have even you know, more serious kind of
• 37:57
  Speaker 10: concentration of wealth and power and social inequality that is
• 38:00
  Speaker 10: not good for society, that is not good for our country.
• 38:02
  Speaker 10: And so I think both of those things are huge
• 38:05
  Speaker 10: problems that really are solvable if we get to work.
• 38:07
  Speaker 3: Yeah, Brendan, really appreciate your analysis here, man, Thank you
• 38:11
  Speaker 3: for joining.
• 38:11
  Speaker 7: Us, Thank you so much.
• 38:14
  Speaker 3: Thank you guys, so much for watching Friday Show tomorrow,
• 38:16
  Speaker 3: See you all then.