Return to Transcripts main page

Connect the World

Regulation Debate Rages in U.S. As Tech Leaders Sound Alarm; the U.S.-China AI Race Pits Ambition Against Safety Concerns; Tehran Criticizes Postponement of Strait of Hormuz Meeting; Supreme Court Rejects Trump's Plan to Restrict Mail-in Voting; Etihad Airways Recovering from Iran War Flight Disruptions. Aired 9-9:45a ET

Aired September 15, 2026 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[09:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHRISTINA MACFARLANE, CNN HOST, CONNECT THE WORLD: It's 09:00 a.m. on Capitol Hill, where FBI Director Kash Patel is expected to testify before a

Senate panel this hour. It is 02:00 p.m. in London. I'm Christina Macfarlane, and this is "Connect the World". Great to have you with us.

Also coming up, the growing backlash to AI. Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon holding a pro-human assembly, an effort to chart a new course. And in the

Middle East, talks between Iran and its regional neighbors postponed indefinitely. And after a relatively flat day yesterday, we are keeping an

eye on the markets this morning.

We're just about 30 minutes out from the market opening in New York. And we're expecting to hear from the Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in the

next hour. And there is a major battle shaping up in the United States over what to do about artificial intelligence. This hour, the one-day conference

is convening in Washington to push for a more restrained path for AI.

It's called the Pro Human Assembly, held by a group of concerned citizens and politicians of various stripes who want to see action taken to keep AI

under human control. Well, it comes as the industry itself sounds alarms using, quite frankly, terrifying language and even warning that the

technology could pose an existential threat to humanity.

But President Donald Trump suggests those fears are overblown. He's more concerned that China will win the AI race and, in turn, world dominance.

And from that point of view, there is real cause for unease in the United States. It's something our David Goldman has been writing about.

He says China isn't messing around. The government recently unveiled a comprehensive strategy to make China the world's AI leader by the end of

this decade. Chinese and U.S. models have been neck and neck. And David joins us now for this hour. David, I mean, this is fascinating analysis.

And it really gives us a snapshot of where these two players stand in the AI race. I mean, you say the U.S. is still just ahead of China, but it has

-- but each has its different advantages. Could you just go over the assets for each and the gaps between them?

DAVID GOLDMAN, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR REPORTER: Yeah, I mean, if you're just talking about the models, right? What are these things capable of the --

you know, Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, those kind of things in the U.S. and DeepSeek and other models in China.

How do they stack up? It's a distinction without a difference. They've been neck and neck, as I said, for just over a couple years now. But the thing

is, the United States still maintains an advantage in data centers, in power. Remember, the Trump Administration has prevented China from

accessing the most powerful AI chips, and that's something that China has had to work around.

And so, depending on how you frame it and calculate it, either country could be in the lead. But the important thing is to note that both

countries understand that this is a very, very important mission to be the leader in AI, and neither one is conceding any ground right now.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, and look, we know there's been so many concerns abounding about AI safety, and that's coming into sharp focus now with these dire

warnings that we've heard, not least in the last few days, about what it could do. I know you've been comparing how the U.S. and China see those

dangers, and that there are some stark differences. Can you tell us about that?

GOLDMAN: That's right. Yeah, I mean, so clearly in the United States, as evidenced by this pro-human conference that we're having today. There is a

concern that this technology could become powerful enough to destroy humanity. And when you have a technology that is of such consequential, you

know, or of such consequence, then you need to do something about that.

And that's what the industry has kind of come to terms with over the past few days and weeks, where they said we need to slow the pace so we can get

our best engineers to prevent it from doing the worst-case scenario. So that's the U.S. concern, or at least on the industry side.

[09:05:00]

China doesn't have that concern quite as much as their main concern is, will this technology create a situation where we lose control? The

Communist Party loses control of power over the Chinese people. That is the existential threat that they see. And so, what's developed is two very

different kinds of AI.

Where in the United States you have something that's focused on going very, very fast. And China you have something that's a little bit more tightly

regulated.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, well, much of it I'm sure will be discussed at this pro- human assembly that's happening today in Washington. But for now, David, thank you. Thank you.

GOLDMAN: Thank you.

MACFARLANE: I want to shift our focus now to the Middle East, where we've been hearing that talks between Iran and the Gulf countries seeking to

reopen the Strait of Hormuz are not happening. In fact, they've been postponed indefinitely. Top diplomats from the Gulf Arab states have

planned to meet with Iran's Foreign Minister in Oman on Monday.

Iran and Oman were then expected to announce a new maritime arrangement for the Strait of Hormuz during that gathering, but Saudi Arabia said hold off

on the meeting, and Iran wasn't that happy about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ESMAEIL BAGHAEI, SPOKESPERSON FOR THE IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY: Saudi Arabia requested that this meeting not take place for the time being. The

war in the region between Islamic countries has only one winner, and that is no one other than the Zionist regime, which seeks to perpetuate tensions

and insecurity in our region and among Islamic countries.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACFARLANE: Well, let's bring in CNN's Paula Hancocks in Abu Dhabi. And Paula, I mean, postponing these talks was seen as a bit of a major setback

for diplomatic efforts to end the conflict. So, do we know what happened here? Why Riyadh suddenly chose to put off the meeting?

PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Christina, as we understand it from one Gulf official, is that Saudi Arabia was concerned about some of

the wording within the proposal, concerned that this was actually going to change the status quo. We know that Tehran would like to be able to charge

vessels going through the Strait of Hormuz.

We know that they don't want vessels to be using the southern route through this critical waterway, which hugs the Omani coast and is as far away from

Iran as possible. And so, there are some concerns among the Gulf nations about exactly what this agreement between Oman and Iran would be.

And of course, bear in mind the fact that the U.S. was not part of these discussions. We did hear from three sources that the Trump Administration

was very keen to be talking about the nuclear program, as well as just reopening the Strait of Hormuz, so it seems as though there were a number

of issues with this meeting.

No indication of when it could go ahead, but it does highlight just how thorny this issue is. And at the same time, what we have just heard from

the UK Maritime Agency is that in the early hours of Tuesday another vessel was hit by an unknown projectile. Now they say there were no injuries, no

environmental damage, but just goes to show on top of what we have already seen over recent weeks with vessels being targeted and being struck.

How important it is to try and get some kind of agreement. Now we know that Iran and Iran will continue to discuss this plan. They've been talking

about it for months. We wait to hear what they come up with, Christina.

MACFARLANE: Yeah. All right. Appreciate the update, Paula Hancocks. Thank you. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a major blow to President Trump

in his battle to slap new limits on mail-in voting for the November midterms. In an unsigned opinion, the justices rejected his plan that would

have given the U.S. Postal Service unprecedented power to withhold potentially millions of ballots.

This comes at a critical moment, with some states already sending out ballots and others mailing those out just this week. Well, some state

election officials had warned the plan would have catastrophic consequences if allowed to take effect before this year's midterms.

And this hour in Washington, FBI Director Kash Patel is facing the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is expected to be grilled by senators from both

sides of the political aisle. The annual oversight hearing evaluates the leadership of the nation's main law enforcement agency.

Patel has been under intense scrutiny over a series of resignations and firings from the FBI, and for some of his conduct here with me now to

discuss is our Senior U.S. Justice Correspondent, Evan Perez. So, Evan, look, I expect we're going to see a little bit of political theater today

playing out.

But what questions are we expecting from Democrats to ask the director, and what questions might he hear from Republicans?

[09:10:00]

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR U.S. JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, for sure, Democrats have already started making some of the points that they plan to

make today, in part, because what happens at these hearings lately is that the FBI Director pushes back very strongly. Sometimes he has prepared

talking points to shout over the questioners, so it's not a very fruitful exchange.

What we've seen is, for instance, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Republican, sorry, a Democrat from Rhode Island, already went on the platform X and

posted a video in which he criticized the use of FBI aircraft by Kash Patel, pointing out previous times where he criticized his predecessors,

James Comey and Chris Wray, for their use of FBI aircraft for taking personal trips.

And so that's one of the things that we expect is going to is going to dominate this hearing, the use of FBI resources. But there's also some very

important investigations that we still very know very little about, of course, the killing of two Americans earlier this year during the

immigration surge in Minnesota.

That's one of the things that we have very little knowledge about what the FBI is actually doing. Whether anyone might actually be facing charges in

the shooting deaths of those two Americans. Those are the types of questions you can anticipate Democrats to ask.

Republicans are going to focus on the fact that crime is down around the country. I should note that the FBI has something to do with that, but a

lot of that is actually handled by local and state law enforcement. They are the ones that have the capacity to deal with murder and other types of

crimes like that, a lot of this doesn't really have anything to do with the FBI.

But you can anticipate that the FBI Director is going to take credit for a lot of those numbers being down. Back to you.

MACFARLANE: All right. We'll obviously keep an eye this hour as that continues, Evan Perez for now, appreciate it. Thank you.

PEREZ: Thanks.

MACFARLANE: U.S. President Donald Trump says Russia and Ukraine have agreed to stop striking each other's energy targets, but just hours after that

announcement, Russia struck two gas stations in Kyiv, while Ukraine says it hit a Russian oil refinery. The attacks are raising questions about whether

the two sides can actually pause strikes on energy infrastructure.

And there are also concerns the war could spill beyond Ukraine's borders. Earlier today, a NATO fighter shot down a drone over Lithuania after it

entered the country's airspace. Ukraine blamed the incident on Russia. Well, for more on this, I want to bring in the Minister of Foreign Affairs

of Lithuania, Kestutis Budrys.

Minister, thank you very much for joining us. First of all, can you give us any more insight about the drone that was shot down? Whether it was armed,

if it was deliberately launched at a target in Lithuania, or whether it was just a stray.

KESTUTIS BUDRYS, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF LITHUANIA: Of course, investigation is still ongoing. So tonight, the drone from Belarusian

territory violated our air space, entered into our air space, and our air defense worked swiftly. So, we saw what was happening, identified the

object, and then fighter jets were scrambled.

Those were Italian Euro fighters, and they took the target and destroyed the drone. Now the debris are found. We do investigation, and we cannot,

for sure, now claim what's the -- who is the owner and where was the source of launch of this drone, but of course we should put it into the context of

ongoing incidents in the region.

And it's not Lithuania, not only Lithuania, but also other Baltic countries, Poland, other NATO countries that have border with the third

countries and with Ukraine, like Romania. And in this case, what we saw, what was a bit different from the previous cases that NATO capabilities and

those that are deployed here at the front line they make a difference and they are effective.

And that's why we are really grateful to our Italian allies for this smooth operation.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, I mean, you're right to point out, of course, that this is the latest of a number of drone incursions into NATO territory, and of

course, we just have to look back what 24 hours now to the attack on the train on the Polish border that was carrying a number of diplomats.

It appears that Russia is striding ahead in terms of the pace of cheap drone technology and its ability to do this with greater frequency. Can

NATO keep pace with this, and are they?

BUDRYS: Our approach cannot be that we would go up to each drone and they are just launching and we're shooting them down. This is not the way.

[09:15:00]

The way forward has to be also with the proper response, political response to what is happening. Both for these incidents, we do not -- we cannot say

that it is intentional that the drone was launched intentional to any target in NATO territory. But anyway, the Russians are not taking care of

the political risks that are involved with the targeting within the Ukraine.

What I mean is that targeting the train, for example, or gas station that was next to the NATO border is dangerous. You can do the harm and cause the

casualties on the NATO territory, and this is how we can get into the escalation spiral, and we have to avoid this. And Russians, first of all,

have to avoid this.

So, improper to stop these activities from Russia, we have to respond. And this response has to be, of course, in continuing our support and

increasing our support to Ukraine, putting forward additional sanctions on Russia and increasing the presence of allied troops on the very front line.

MACFARLANE: Yes.

BUDRYS: We showed with Baltic-centric operation, with Eastern-centric operation, that we can stop these Russian activities with our measures.

MACFARLANE: Well, let's talk about the defenses and what you have immediately at your disposal to stop the frequency of these drones. I mean,

do you have defenses to stop this outside of launching expensive jets. What other measures do you have?

BUDRYS: Of course, first of all, we have to extend our capabilities to see what is happening in our air space. So, we need more radars and we need

more awareness what is happening in our neighborhood. But those systems that were developed for NATO, those were against the fighter jets, against

the major planes from adversaries.

Now we're dealing with drones that are going low altitude, low speeds, and it's a bit different of equipment that we need. But as this case shows, we

are adapting to the situation. So, this is number one. Second element, of course, are the effectors. So how we are shooting them down.

So, it's good that we have the Baltic Air Police Mission that is now transformed into the air defense operation after the recent NATO summit.

But we need additional effectors. How we are shooting down the drones. And here comes Ukraine with their experience and capabilities that they develop

themselves and that are already installed and affect prove themselves effective in Gulf countries.

So, we are working with Ukraine in our drone in the framework of the drone deal, and we see this as the way forward. But it's not only for ourselves,

the countries that are on the front line to take care of all the threats and risks that are coming. There has to be also the collective action

within the NATO and within the EU.

So, within the NATO, of course, that is about deployment -- you --

MACFARLANE: And you don't have that collective action yet. Sorry to interrupt.

BUDRYS: Well, we have to -- invest more finances into our defense and into our resilience. It's not all about the political solidarity, and of course,

those fighter jets that are deployed in the Baltics, they proved already that they are effective. And it's not only Lithuania.

Previously, we had Estonia, we had the Latvian case, but we have to increase our capabilities at the very border. That would be much, much

cheaper and probably sometimes more effective, and those are based on the finances, on the common financing from the EU and Ukraine experience.

MACFARLANE: OK, well, minister, we appreciate you coming on and giving us an update of what you know and where things stand. Thank you very much for

your time.

BUDRYS: Thank you.

MACFARLANE: And you are watching "Connect the World". Still to come, how are airlines faring with high jet fuel prices? We hear what the CEO of

Etihad Airways has to say. And later, AI is moving into everything from the classroom to the battlefield. But who's making sure the technology isn't

moving faster than our ability to control it? More on that debate just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:20:00]

MACFARLANE: Abu Dhabi base flight -- Etihad Airways says business is getting back on track after the Iran war disrupted flights and caused

airspace closures earlier this year. Still, it expects a flat revenue this year compared to 2025, given the disruption. Looking to the future, the

Etihad CEO says demand is not an issue.

His big concern, however, is about the high cost of jet fuel as the conflict drives up oil prices, which could, of course, then be passed on to

passenger air fares. CNN's Eleni Giokos spoke with Etihad CEO yesterday, and is joining me now live. So, Eleni, what did he tell you about the

concerns for jet fuel and how airlines are mitigating against that?

ELENI GIOKOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. So, it's really interesting because carriers in this region have two things to contend with. You've got much

higher jet fuel prices, and of course the ongoing conflict with Iran. And we've seen closure of airspace, specifically hitting airlines really

heavily, really badly in March and April.

And Etihad was not immune to that. But of course, you've got this double whammy. You've got this issue on jet fuel prices, and I was looking at IATA

and Platts data, and jet fuel prices right now, Christina is sitting at $181 a barrel. On average, jet fuel was around $100 a barrel in 2025.

Just shows you how extreme this increase has been. But Etihad was, I guess, smart and was able to put in a hedge in advance of this war, and that has

been sort of a protection mechanism because the maximum that Etihad would pay for jet fuel is around $110 a barrel, and that's actually been able to

shield them and not absorb some of these extraordinary costs.

I want you to take a listen to what the CEO told me.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANTONOALDO NEVES, GROUP CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ETIHAD AIRWAYS: My planes are full. The only thing I can see is if my planes are full today, if my

forward booking curve, sales that I have to December, to January, to October, November are strong, and they are.

If you ask me if I have any concern, it's just few. But that's on a bottom- line perspective. It's more on my profitability, right? So, what I worry about the future is not about the conflict, about geopolitical tension,

about customers willing to fly at jihad. What I worry about the future is at this jet fuel level that we have today.

If that takes too long, we may have, we may see prices going up, and that may impact customers' willingness to fly. It's not happening in the U.S.

GIOKOS: How long can you absorb those costs for?

NEVES: We can't, right? We can't. Something's got to give one, one day, and that's happening --

GIOKOS: Six months in one year.

NEVES: Maybe one year is a good number. One year --

GIOKOS: When does your hedge come to an end?

NEVES: So, by mid next year.

GIOKOS: By mid-next year?

NEVES: By mid next year. We have a good position till mid next year. So that's a great point. That's a really, really important point, and that's

what we need to think about, right? As we plan for next year, but the thing that we know for sure is that what we have right now is a constraint on the

refined product.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GIOKOS: All right. So really fascinating there, where he says his planes are full, and you know, drilling into the numbers. And while there was a

big shock to the system in the month of March and April, you're seeing what he says passengers up quite significantly -- planes are 92 percent full.

Around 2.2 million passengers traveling in August. But the big concern remains the jet fuel cost. That means that what we're seeing in the Strait

of Hormuz, the concerns around this important waterway, Christina, and also what we're seeing in the Bab al-Mandab Strait, continues to be an option,

an issue.

And also importantly, he says what we're seeing in the United States and in Europe is sort of a harbinger of what's to come.

[09:25:00]

It's going to really degrade the ability of consumers to spend and discretionary spend is going to create demand destruction. So, opening up

the Strait of Hormuz is important because his buffer is only going to last until mid-next year, and then he'll be facing a really tough issue.

Does he pass this on to the consumer? Does he start absorbing those costs? And what does that mean for passengers and, of course, for the airline as a

whole. But this is a global issue. This isn't just about what we're seeing here in the Gulf.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, I mean, mid next year is really no time at all --

GIOKOS: Yeah.

MACFARLANE: Is it just showing the pinch that's coming for passengers and air flights over the next year? Eleni, appreciate it. Thank you. All right,

let's get you up to speed on some of the other stories that are on our radar right now. A 40 percent rise in fuel prices has sparked nationwide

protests across Syria.

Demonstrators have flooded the streets, blocking key roads to protest the Syrian government. The sharp increase marks the highest fuel price since

the Iran war began, fueling Syria's increasing economic crisis. U.S. military officials have confirmed that it has deployed weapons in space.

Air Force Secretary Troy Meink said Monday that the weapons will defend American forces against potential threats. It's unclear when the military

put the weapons into orbit or what types of weapons it deployed. And television's biggest night was dominated by a new name, Apple TV's horror

comedy "Widow's Bay" took home Emmy awards for outstanding comedy series, writing and directing awards.

And a trophy for history maker Matthew Rhys, the first person to win Emmys in two lead actor categories in the same year. Great to see. And up next on

"Connect the World", the start of trading and the business headlines, including the AI boom and new questions about whether innovation is moving

too fast for regulation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACFARLANE: Welcome back. I'm Christina Macfarlane in London, and you are watching "Connect the World". In Washington, FBI Director Kash Patel is

facing questions from Senate lawmakers in an annual oversight hearing. He's expected to be grilled about the series of resignations and firings at the

bureau, as well as some of his personal conduct.

Also in Washington, a conference is under way to chart a quote, better path for AI. Religious leaders, Hollywood stars, and lawmakers from different

ends of the political spectrum are attending the so-called pro-human assembly. They're calling for better governments of artificial

intelligence.

[09:30:00]

And talks between Iran and the Arab Gulf countries on reopening the Strait of Hormuz have been postponed indefinitely. Iran says Saudi Arabia called

for the delay. Talks were supposed to be held on Monday in Oman. To come up with a new arrangement for the strike.

We are here watching for the opening bell and to see how markets open on Wall Street today, with the DOW already down by 0.2 percent. Markets, of

course, are all about where investors see opportunity, and as of late, Silicon Valley is finding a big one in the U.S. federal government.

The Pentagon, in particular, has emerged as a new and powerful customer for artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons. Technologies, expected to

play a major role in future conflicts. But my next guest says while it came as some surprise, the fact that Big Tech fell in behind President Trump

does not represent a political shift or a change of heart.

She writes this quote, for tech companies, the personality and politics of the person occupying the White House are less important than the person's

willingness to buy what Silicon Valley is offering. The federal government is at base a purchasing agent, and Silicon Valley's pivot to the military

and to Mr. Trump is less a story of political conversion than of market adaptation.

Sharon Weinberger is joining us now to discuss this. She's the author of "Valley of Death: How Big Tech Is Fuelling the Future of War". She's also

the Editor in Chief of "Bulletin" the atomic scientists. Thank you for joining us. I mean, you argue that Silicon Valley's shift towards the

Pentagon is less about politics than about following the money.

So, how much of this defense tech boom is really about national security and how much is it about that opportunity for profit?

SHARON WEINBERGER, AUTHOR OF "VALLEY OF DEATH: HOW BIG TECH IS FUELLING THE FUTURE OF WAR". So, it's hard to divorce yourself from your operating

environment if you're living through the height of the personal computing revolution. You're very focused on computers, as someone like Steve Jobs

was. What we're seeing now in Silicon Valley is that there is a tremendous market potential for them in selling to the Pentagon and selling to the

federal government.

And so, you see a lot of rubric and language around national security, around patriotism. It's not that they don't believe it, but their profit

motive is firmly there, and that's what's driving them right now.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, and you've written that what you call these defense tech bros tried to bring together Silicon Valley national security hawks, and

MAGA, but that coalition now may be fracturing or may have never actually been there to begin with. Can you just explain a little bit what you mean

by that and what's driving those divisions?

WEINBERGER: Sure. So, we have an administration. The Trump Administration has been very supportive of Silicon Valley of what's going on right now,

but even within MAGA, there is a divide. There are a lot of concerns within MAGA about AI, about youth, about the bubble of AI.

So, it's not simply that you have this united right around tech or united right around AI data centers. There is a lot of fracturing in it not to

mention with the Democratic Party. I think what every administration is going to struggle with is what we're seeing now, which is that the tech

companies of Silicon Valley have this tremendous amount of power.

You saw this in the dispute between Anthropic and the Pentagon, the Department of War, as they call themselves, where the Pentagon was sort of

a gas that it had a private company trying to place guardrails on how the models were going to be used. And even if you agree with what Anthropic and

with what Amodei was trying to do.

It does raise these uncomfortable questions about the power of tech CEOs to influence national security, maybe you agree with Anthropic, but maybe you

don't agree with Elon Musk. And these are the questions that this administration and any future administration is struggling with.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, and in light of that, I mean, what could that mean then for sort of defense tech contracts being signed? How concerned should we

be?

WEINBERGER: I think we should be very concerned about it. You know, I'm not going to defend the defense companies of old, the Lockheed Martin's and

Northrop's, but the idea of a Pentagon Chief or a president having to consult with the Head of Lockheed Martin about how an F-22 or F-35 aircraft

is going to be used that just doesn't exist.

The idea that someone in the Pentagon has to ask permission or consult with Elon Musk, or you know having to ask the CEO of Anthropic, is really

concerning.

[09:35:00]

The biggest shift we're seeing right now is the control of what are the equivalent of major weapons of major military technologies shifting from

the purview of government to the control of the private sector and the shift in power that entails with it. I think that the Anthropic debate is

just sort of the opening shot in a much bigger conflict that's going to play out.

MACFARLANE: Yes, and you know when as and when Silicon Valley develops this technology that could transform warfare. There's also a question of who

should be held accountable when you know these systems either make errors. Should it be the companies that build them, the military that uses them, or

the government that approves them?

WEINBERGER: Exactly. And even how do you perform oversight? Whether it's the Department of War, whether it's Congress, if there is a question in

targeting or a mistake? How do you get the information? Do you have the information from the models if they're being used from targeting?

Who do you bring before Congress? We're opening up this whole new age of warfare without really understanding the implications of it. And now what

we're seeing are private companies, a lot of them with these very bold and sometimes unsupported statements trying to drive the conversation, trying

to say what the risks are, rather than the government sort of stepping in and saying this is what we need to do, this is what we need to analyze.

It's a little bit of the scare factor driving the conversation rather than the facts.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, and yesterday we saw like you know as a result of this sort of intense debate around the need for regulation as AI becomes more

powerful, is more widely used from the military to healthcare to education, the everyday consumer. Does the United States need a comprehensive, or how

badly does it need a comprehensive regulatory framework?

Or do you buy that argument that government oversight could stifle the innovation?

WEINBERGER: Well, there's always the risk that oversight can stifle innovation, but there is absolutely. First of all, we're going to have it.

We're going to have oversight. We're going to have regulation, and so the question is, how do we do it, and who drives the conversation?

I become very skeptical when we get these very large sorts of scares statements out of Silicon Valley that we're on the very edge of artificial

general intelligence that we're in this huge arms race with China. Elements of that may be true, but when it's tied to financial incentives from the

tech companies in Silicon Valley, I think we should be very suspect.

I think that government, unfortunately, is coming from this -- from a point of weakness. It needs to be a part of the conversation. It needs to

regulate smartly where it needs to. But we're just -- I don't even think government is prepared to do that. I think it recognizes it, but it's

facing these big top companies making big statements and have an advantage in the expertise over what's going on.

MACFARLANE: Sharon, this is such valuable insight as we kind of cut through or try to cut through the noise here of everything we've been hearing. You

know, especially in the last 48 hours over what is important and what we should be focusing on. So, thank you very much for bringing us this today.

WEINBERGER: Thank you for having me.

MACFARLANE: OK, up next, we're turning to sports. I'm Patrick Mahomes, the Chiefs, and of course Taylor Swift are back on week one of the NFL as it

comes to a close.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:00]

MACFARLANE: Pro-Palestinian comments by rapper Macklemore have led to a concert controversy after he was dropped as an opening app from Ed

Sheeran's cross country stadium tour. Here's what Macklemore said on stage earlier this month.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MACKLEMORE, RAPPER: I wanted to stand up here on stages in stadiums across America and say two words that are very near and dear to my heart: free

Palestine. I want those words to be loud and clear, so that people from Gaza all the way to the occupied West Bank know that we have not forgotten

them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACFARLANE: Well, those comments came under criticism, including from the Anti-Defamation League. Macklemore now says New England Patriots owner

Robert Kraft forced Sherron to drop him, saying, quote, Ed also told me that Kraft had rallied some of the other stadium owners, and collectively

they gave him an ultimatum: if Macklemore stays on the tour, you will not be allowed to play in our venues.

Kraft confirmed he banned Macklemore from Gillette Stadium outside Boston over his Free Palestine comments. Kraft says Macklemore had quote, a

broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and added this. Too many lives have been lost and there has been too much suffering, but only sharing selective

information and ignoring the actions of Hamas is not honest and only advances more divisiveness and hate.

Away from this, though, the NFL is back in action, and so too is Taylor Swift. She was, of course, rooting on the Kansas City Chiefs Monday night

alongside Tom Cruise, no less, in their win over the Broncos. There you can see the pair sitting together. Amanda Davies is joining me now.

So very much back to business as usual for the NFL. It feels Amanda.

AMANDA DAVIES, CNN WORLD SPORT: Yeah, I'm not sure what was more hotly anticipated. Taylor Swift on the sidelines, of course, this first NFL

season since she tied the knot with Travis Kelce or the return of three- time Super Bowl winner Patrick Mahomes after his ACL injury.

But both of them left the opening game of their campaign with a big smile on their face, very happy. Taylor Swift not only because she got to spend

the evening sitting alongside Tom Cruise, but because of the victory of the chiefs against the Broncos. But we've got more on that and what's been a

busy opening weekend coming up in "World Sport" in just a couple of minutes, Christy.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, well, it certainly kept her from attending the Emmys last night, didn't it? Amanda is got more "World Sport" after this quick break.

And I'll be back with more "Connect the World" in 15 minutes. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:45:00]

(WORLD SPORT)

END