Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
U.S. And Saudi Arabia Launch Strikes On Iran-Backed Militias In Iraq; France Issues Heat Warnings; Climate Crisis Fuels Extreme Weather; Fauci Refuses To Answer Senators Questions On COVID Pandemic; Zuckerberg: Superintelligence Must Be Accessible To All; BTS Won't Submit Music To 2027 Grammy's Over New Category; Aired 12-1p ET
Aired July 29, 2026 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:34]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: President Trump directs new threat at Iran. "One World" starts right now.
President Trump says Iran is going to get a beating after strikes that targeted U.S. forces. We'll have the latest from Washington.
A scorching heat wave threatens to worsen devastating wildfires as France and Spain battle the blazes.
And a warning from Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, about who gets to use artificial intelligence and who controls access to it.
Hello, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga. Zain is off today. You are watching "One World."
President Trump is vowing retribution following an escalation in the Middle East that has further jeopardized a ceasefire that is already on life
support.
In an expletive-laden in warning on Fox News earlier, Trump promised that Iran will, quote, get a beating after Tehran's surprise attack on American
forces in the region overnight.
U.S. CENTCOM says Iran launched multiple ballistic missiles that were all intercepted. After that, Saudi Arabia and the United States carried out
strikes against a Tehran-backed militia in Iraq, shattering a brief pause in fighting and threatening a wider regional war.
CNN's Zachary Cohen joins me now live in Washington. Zach, if our viewers are feeling whiplash, it's understandable. We were just reporting yesterday
the president's sighting the optimism about diplomacy being back on track after a pause in these strikes that we've seen in the Hormuz Strait. Now we
see this surprise attack.
Where does that leave the United States in its options in response?
ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Bianna, Iran making clear that they have a say in how this goes going forward as
well, launching these strikes against U.S. forces in Jordan, unprompted. That's really somewhat of a shift in tactic that we've seen from the
Iranians who have predominantly, over the last five months, attacked U.S. forces, U.S. bases in response to U.S. or Israeli operations.
But in this time, taking it upon themselves on their own terms to launch these multiple ballistic missiles towards U.S. airbase in Jordan, raising
questions again, what is the state of talks? Is there any progress?
President Donald Trump has repeatedly, even in recent days, said that Iran is dying to make a deal. We've also heard though from a senior Iranian
official saying that they have not contacted the United States in the last two weeks about engaging in talks. So, there does appear to be a
significant gap there.
And what we're seeing in this military action, especially recently, does underscore the uncertainty of the moment and what's to come. I think you
look at the surprise attack that Iran launched against the U.S. airbase in Jordan. That was multiple ballistic missiles that were all intercepted, as
you said, by U.S. military forces.
But separately, we're also seeing the U.S. and Saudi Arabia launch these joint strikes against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. And that's really a
rare moment where Saudi Arabia seems to be wading into this conflict in a more fulsome way than we've seen over the last five months.
As you know, Saudi Arabia, at least publicly, has signaled that it is trying everything it can to avoid being dragged into this war. But by
launching these attacks against Iranian-backed groups in Iraq, those groups have been launching a series of drone attacks against Saudi Arabian energy
and infrastructure over the last 72 hours.
CENTCOM says that over 30 IRGC-directed aerial drone attacks in the last 72 hours targeting Saudi Arabia. A U.S. official telling me that this joint
strike in Iraq was intended to send a message that those attacks by the Iranian militias will not go unanswered.
But it does raise even more of a concern about could this conflict be widening and could it lead to an escalation in a regional-wide conflict. I
think you talked to U.S. officials and regional partners, Gulf countries, that has been the core fear of this entire time over the last five months
that this conflict could spiral out of control.
And we're seeing now with Saudi Arabia facing attacks from really three sides in the Houthis in Yemen, the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, and
from Iran itself that they are feeling compelled that they must take stronger action. And that could add a new dimension to this conflict.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And thankfully, all of these drones were struck down. But you see evidence of asymmetrical warfare here when these drones cost a few,
you know, thousand dollars, tens of thousands of dollars, and the interceptors that are striking them down are in the millions dollars range.
And there's concern about how much supply the United States has on that end.
[12:05:10]
Zachary Cohen, thank you so much.
Well, scenes of utter devastation across Europe in the wake of wildfires across parts of France and Spain. While some fires have been stabilized
over recent days, the danger is far from over.
Local authorities in Madrid say that caution is still necessary with rising temperatures and a lack of rain forecasted. Tens of thousands of residents
in the central regions of Spain have been forced to evacuate.
And the situation in France is no different with communities displaced by wildfires and now facing severe temperatures.
CNN's Nada Bashir has more from one of the country's worst affected regions.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NADA BASHIR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is a scene which has become all too familiar now in France's southwestern Gironde region, the scorched earth
and burnt trees across miles and miles of woodland and farmland in this region, as a result of wildfires that have been blazing for days now.
And according to an official update on Wednesday, officials have said that the majority of the fires that they have been battling, over the last few
days, have stabilized. They haven't seen any sort of spreading of those fires, though there have been some blazes which have rekindled, although
they say that they were quickly dealt with.
But we are seeing peak temperatures on Wednesday today, expected to reach around 41 degrees Celsius. So soaring past 100 degrees Fahrenheit. That is
what's expected as the heat wave continues. And there is a fear that these extreme temperatures that we are seeing could lead to more fires.
And, of course, for the residents of this region, there is a huge amount of fear around the potential for more fires. More than 200,000 people already
evacuated. Many of them desperately waiting for news of when they will be able to return home, but for some, they will not have homes to return to.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: I'm joined now by CNN meteorologist Allison Chinchar.
Allison, in our last hour, we were speaking with Pau Mosquera who said that officials in Spain are somewhat optimistic that perhaps some reprieve will
be coming in the next day or two, but this is their entering their fourth heat wave just this summer.
Give us a sense of how things look on the maps.
ALLISON CHINCHAR, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Yes. So, both France and Spain will get a brief reprieve from the temperatures at slightly different times, but
they are going to get it. It's just the unfortunate part is not necessarily today or tomorrow.
Here's a look at where we have these hot spots located on the map. Again, you can see kind of that target point just to the west of Bordeaux where we
know we have those large active fires ongoing and several across portions of Spain as well.
But these are the areas where those temperatures are extremely warm, current temperatures. So this is what it is right now. You can see 37 in
Bordeaux, a couple of 40 degree areas of Spain.
So again, those temperatures have rebounded back up again compared to where they were over the weekend when those temperatures had actually dropped
back, allowing the firefighters to make some improvement on those containment numbers.
Here's a look at the forecast though. Notice all of the red here across areas of France and Spain. Now, it's going to stay across Spain for a few
more days. France finally starting to see at least a little bit of a reprieve Saturday and Sunday.
So, as we go into the weekend, we'll start to see those temperatures easing back just a little bit. But for Spain, it's going to take until next week
before we start to see those temperatures coming back down.
So, take Bordeaux for example, 30 for Thursday, back down into the low 20s or upper 20s on Friday before rebounding back into the low 30s on Saturday.
Other areas of France starting to see those temperatures can hold back down through the weekend, but it's really going to be a little bit after that.
Now, one key thing to note is that what's causing those temperatures to drop back as we are going to have a frontal system kind of move through.
Now, that is also going to bring an added chance of moisture, albeit not very high. You can see at least a couple of isolated potentials there for
some showers as we go through the next few days. The problem is it's not a lot of rain. It's not expected to be very heavy rain. Most of these areas
may be 10 to 20 millimeters at absolute best.
At this point, we will take anything we can get, but I want to be honest that it's not expected to be a high amount of rain. Again, here you can see
on the map all of these areas, whether you get it or not, it's really going to be a maximum of 25 millimeters at absolute most.
But it is also going to tick up the winds. You're going to see those start to increase, especially late Friday, and as we go into Saturday. That is a
concern for a lot of the firefighting crews, because the last thing you need are all of those winds gusting, taking those embers and spreading the
fires even beyond where they go.
We talked about Spain also getting a brief reprieve from the temperatures, but it's just more of a delayed effect.
So, again, take a look, Thursday all the way through Sunday. Those temperatures in the upper 30s. Now, they do drop back to the mid-30s by the
time we get to Monday and Tuesday, but even that is still above where they normally would be this time of year.
GOLODRYGA: Allison Chinchar, thank you. Reprieve but coming next week, not today or tomorrow. All right. They need it now though, desperately.
[12:10:05]
Europe is the planet's fastest warming continent. And the climate crisis is helping fuel the wildfires we're seeing right now in Spain and in France.
One expert likens the intensity of recent fires to several atomic bombs.
Now, all of this comes after Europe's record-breaking fire season last year when more than a million hectares burned. This concerning trend begs the
question, how bad will it get?
Stefan Rahmstorf posted this haunting photo recently on X. It shows plumes of wildfire smoke, turning the skies orange over the beach and France's
Gironde Region. And Stefan is the co-head of the research department, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Thank you so much for
joining us.
I have to say, you took this photo, you posted it. It is stunning. It is iconic, and sadly in all of the most alarming ways imaginable, red sun,
orange sky. You called it totally surreal, quote, like something from science fiction.
You've spent decades modeling exactly this scenario. I'm just wondering what went through your head when you're on vacation and what you've been
modeling plays out for you in real time to where you take a picture like this.
STEFAN RAHMSTORF, CO-HEAD OF THE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT, THE POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH: Yes. It's not the first time that I
experienced the consequences of the climate crisis firsthand. I was in Dresden in 2002 when the major flooding in Europe. I lived through that
record summer in 2003 that had 70,000 fatalities in Europe.
And so I wasn't entirely surprised to see this kind of fire extreme because that's also something that has long been predicted by climate scientists,
because warmer air dries out the soil and the vegetation much faster. They are by leading to these fires getting out of control.
GOLODRYGA: You made a remarkable admission for a physicist, and you said that it took you decades to understand that -- that most people don't
respond to data and to charts and graphs. They respond to stories and feelings and images like this one that they can identify with.
And this is a photograph of a child sitting on an orange beach doing exactly what your models predicted. But in many ways, this is much more
compelling.
RAHMSTORF: Yes. When I saw this child, I immediately was thinking in what future, in what climate will this child grow up. And I often think that
about my own children. And that really worries me and moved me, of course.
GOLODRYGA: You left before any official evacuation was put in place. You feared that the road to Bordeaux would be closed off and it ultimately was.
And I know your taxi had to detour around a closed highway.
For viewers who are watching these fires from a safe distance right now. I mean, are these types of scenarios and routes that they're going to have to
draw for themselves and come up with in their own minds in case something like this happens in their neighborhood?
RAHMSTORF: Sure. I think we all have to live with increasing risk of extreme events of their various types, including extreme heat, of course,
but also flooding from extreme rainfall as well as stronger tropical storms and then such more fire weather and fire risk.
GOLODRYGA: What struck me wasn't necessarily your analysis, but your fury. We can't see it right now in this interview, but you're -- you're quite
measured. But you said, quote, this really makes me angry. And you point out that the first IPCC, and that's the Intergovernmental Plant -- Panel on
Climate Change report in 1990, 1990, already established the greenhouse gases, caused warming and citing decades of denial and lobbying.
Here we are in 2026. Has anything changed for the better?
RAHMSTORF: Well, of course, we do have the Paris Climate Agreement, so -- which practically all nations have signed. The United States, under Trump,
have left it again. That is major progress, so.
And also, what has changed to the better, not necessarily mainly for climate protection reasons, but economic reasons, is the exponential growth
of renewable energies, which in many places are now the cheapest form of energy and overtaking fossil fuel use very rapidly. That gives us hope that
we may be able to stop this further global warming in time to prevent an even much worse catastrophe.
[12:15:03]
GOLODRYGA: What difference does the United States coming in and out and taking measures, whether it's policy related or being a signatory to the
Paris Climate Agreement? What -- what impact does that have towards the goal that you and other scientists like yourself are hoping to achieve?
RAHMSTORF: Well, it does not deter the other countries from going into the energy transition at increasing speed because, as I said, there are simple
economic and practical reasons for that.
But, of course, the United States are one of the biggest emitters, so it does definitely throw us back in the attempts to not overshoot the 1.5
degree limit that was agreed upon in Paris to not overshoot that too much.
We can't avoid that being overshooting because we'll cross it within a few years now, but hopefully, we can, yes, limit that overshoot to a few tenths
of a degree.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. I think about what you said about the future for that child sitting on the beach there. And it's a question we all have to ask
ourselves when we look at our children having to really bear the brunt of climate change and all of the extreme weather that we are seeing happen
around the world.
Stefan Rahmstorf, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for taking that iconic photo as well.
RAHMSTORF: Thanks, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Well, search and rescue crews are locked in a race against time to reach people trapped following southern Japan's deadly earthquake.
At least 14 people have died, including five who were killed when a shopping mall partially collapsed after an explosion. A woman who lives
across the street from the mall describes the deafening explosion.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YUKO YONEMITSU, KUMAMOTO PREFECTURE RESIDENT (through translator): It was like a huge explosion right next to my ear. I couldn't even tell if it was
an earthquake or something else, but the noise was so loud, my ears almost hurt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Thousands of military personnel have been mobilized amid an effort to expedite rescue efforts.
All right. Coming up for us, back in the spotlight. Dr. Anthony Fauci and Republican lawmakers are going head to head over the COVID pandemic. We'll
get to that intense hearing on Capitol Hill, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Dramatic moments on Capitol Hill just a few hours ago, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the man who led the U.S. government's response to the COVID
pandemic, repeatedly pleading the fifth in a Senate hearing. Fauci is invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
[12:20:12]
For years, Republican Senator Rand Paul has called for Fauci to be indicted and accuses him of lying to Congress about the origins of COVID.
In his opening statement, Fauci expressed his frustrations with Paul.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTHONY FAUCI, FORMER DIRECTOR, U.S. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: The only conclusion I can reach is that the sole
reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something, anything that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I
end up, in his words, quote, behind bars, unquote.
Any reasonable person who has followed his unhinged obsession with me would readily come to the same conclusion.
Under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution to refrain from answering your questions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: All right. Let's discuss with our medical expert, Meg Tirrell, live from New York.
I was watching this, Meg. It was painful to watch for all of the wrong reasons. You had Fauci invoking the fifth to every single question that he
was asked. You had Democrats come to his defense, Republicans criticizing him.
And the fact that he had been given a pardon by President Biden had led many Republicans to question why then would he invoke the fifth.
But many of these questions, in fact almost all of them, had been asked of him previously, and he'd testified to it. So, what was the purpose of this,
Meg?
MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we did hear both from Senator Rand Paul, the chairman of this committee, as well as health secretary
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has, you know, had tussled with Fauci for years, also wrote an entire book about him during the pandemic.
Over the past few days, they both suggested that if Dr. Fauci lied during this hearing, that they could potentially or he could be prosecuted for
perjury.
And so, you know, we saw from Rand Paul an actual social media post that came out yesterday where he said, quote, if Anthony Fauci comes before my
committee tomorrow and perjures himself, this preemptive pardon from Joe Biden will not protect him. And so that is the context with which Dr. Fauci
and his counsel went into this hearing.
And they did then put out a statement after you saw Dr. Fauci invoking the Fifth Amendment so many times, essentially saying that the accusations that
Chairman Paul continues to propagate are, quote, false and disgraceful. And they said they'll examine all options to hold him accountable.
They also said that they're releasing of his personal journal entries, which we also learned from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earlier this week, that he
had made possible by looking for those for eight months on servers. He handed them over to Rand Paul. You know, he says in this statement from his
counsel, his counsel says that that was done to try to embarrass or intimidate him.
So, you know, it would have been great, I think a lot of people feel if there could have been a real discussion about science, about mistakes made,
about how to prevent this from happening again. And clearly, that wasn't what we got today.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. I had Dr. Paul off it on in the last hour. He was one of the sharpest critics of the pandemic response here in the U.S. But still,
he came to the conclusion of, you know, Fauci's not the person who you want to attack and go after his criticism lied more with China and how China has
been handling these pandemics, but we got none of those answers today.
Meg Tirrell, thank you.
TIRRELL: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, back on February 28th, that was the first day of the Iran war. A U.S. missile struck an Iranian elementary school.
Now, five months later, the Pentagon and the Trump administration have yet to update the public on the circumstances surrounding that attack. At least
168 children and 14 adults were killed, according to Iranian state media.
Our Jake Tapper has more on the victims who lost their lives that day.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): This is Atena Chameli Nejad singing a Persian children's poem, smiling and making faces at the camera while her
mother fixes her hair. Her family shared these videos to remember her.
Atena was killed on February 28th, one of 168 children, according to Iranian state media, who lost their lives when a U.S. Tomahawk missile
struck the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, Iran, on the very first day of the war, five months ago.
In Iran, the parents, the families, and the city of Minab still grieve for those who were killed. They call them the martyrs.
This is Mahdis Nazari. Mahdis' body, and one of her classmates, were found in the embrace of their teacher beneath the rubble of school, according to
the head of public relations from the Iranian Ministry of Health. He wrote that the teacher held Mahdis and her classmate, quote, "Tightly in her
arms, as if she had tried with her own fragile body to become a shield against the onslaught of stone and iron."
[12:25:19]
Fourteen adults were also killed that day, according to Iranian state media.
For Omars (ph) Pegah lost both his daughter, Adrina, and his wife. He describes how it felt to receive both of their bodies, calling his wife his
pillar and his daughter his hope and aspiration.
Adrina and her mother were together on the stairs of the school when they were killed. Her teacher who survived the strike told the BBC.
In addition to what we gleaned from other news media, our own information sources are limited to the families whose social media posts we found
through anti-regime human rights activists and Iranian media.
That's because the Trump administration and the Pentagon have revealed nothing about the lives they took, apparently, by accident.
Critical and costly mistakes happen in war. This tragedy happened five months ago, but today, the U.S. military and its top leaders and the
commander-in-chief, have yet to even acknowledge the errors that led to the deaths of nearly 200 children and adults in Iran on day one of this war.
CNN's Zach Cohen reported earlier this month that according to three sources, "Senior U.S. military commanders bypassed warnings in critical
databases that intelligence about potential targets in Iran was severely out of date and approved some strikes," including the one that hit the
school in Minab.
Two of the sources said, "The decision by senior commanders to ignore the warnings was made for expediency in a rush to provide targets to start the
war."
Messages indicated the targets for the strike list were based on intelligence that was more than 10 years old. Three sources now tell CNN's
Cohen that the investigation into this strike still sits with military command.
The first two stages of the review, "focused on answering basic questions, including whether the strike hit and damaged the intended target had been
completed, indicating that the U.S. was responsible for striking the Shajareh Tayyebeh School in Minab, the sources said."
The third stage, a more holistic review of what took place and its impact on the overall mission, was not ordered. "That review would almost always
be conducted in the immediate aftermath of a noteworthy strike, they said, but it had not begun as of early July."
We reached out to the Pentagon with questions about the status of the review. An official told us the investigation is ongoing and there are no
updates at this time.
Meanwhile, President Trump's own downright refusal to acknowledge the U.S.'s responsibility for the strike continues to evolve.
TREY YINGST, FOX NEWS CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: There are images from this site that show fragments that appear to be from U.S. Tomahawk
missiles.
Is it possible that old intelligence or a mistake during a very active time in the war led to this event?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It is. But it's also possible that those images that you have are A.I. generated, because a lot what they
do is A.I. generated. They're actually very good at it.
So, I don't think that anybody -- you know, I know we're waiting for a conclusive report. I don't think they can be a conclusive report.
YINGST: Will you release the report when it is finished?
TRUMP: I guess so. I mean, I have to ask the military people. There might be a reason why they can't.
TAPPER (voice-over): In a statement to "The Lead" this afternoon, the White House said this investigation is ongoing. As we have said, the United
States does not target civilians.
For the families of Atena, Mahdis, Adrina, and the nearly 200 others, most of them children who were killed five months ago, images from before
February 28th, are now what they rely upon to keep their memories alive.
A photo of Atena and Mahdis holding hands hangs here on a banner outdoors that reads in Persian "Heavenly angels, may your martyrdom be honored."
As of now, the Pentagon and the Trump administration have not come even close to honoring the memories of the 168 children and 14 adults, that by
all credible accounts, were accidentally killed by the Trump administration five months ago.
Jake Tapper, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:30:26]
GOLODRYGA: OpenAI chief, Sam Altman, is visiting Washington to meet White House officials and lawmakers to discuss artificial intelligence policy.
His visit comes at a particularly sensitive moment days after an OpenAI test model escaped a lab environment and hacked into a different company.
And it comes as staffers from frontier A.I. companies call for a slowdown in A.I. development in an open letter.
Well, as intense debate rages over how the U.S. should regulate the fast developing technology and respond to Chinese competition, Mark Zuckerberg
says the U.S. government should not block Chinese A.I. The CEO of Meta is also making the case for bringing superintelligence to more people.
In an article for "The Wall Street Journal," he says that that can boost innovation and empower people.
CNN tech reporter Clare Duffy joins us now from New York.
So much to break down here. The timing of this op-ed from Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman's visit. Each signaling something quite different. Sam Altman is
quite concerned perhaps just about what happened with their model last week. And Mark Zuckerberg seems to be envisioning a completely different
future for A.I.
Just talk to us about the timing and what both of these men are arguing.
CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH REPORTER: Yes, Bianna. It's really interesting because Mark Zuckerberg seems to be trying to shift the narrative around
A.I. away from some of these sort of doomerism scenarios that leaders in the industry like Sam Altman have laid out here.
And in large part, I think Meta is trying to speak to the public here and paint a rosier picture of what the A.I. future could look like.
In this op-ed, Mark Zuckerberg wrote, quote, "Humanity has witnessed many transformative advances. Each time there is fear that people will be left
behind. But each time, humanity has come out with more people sharing greater prosperity, health, and freedom. We believe this will be true with
A.I. as well. And the abundance of the future can be shared by everyone."
Mark Zuckerberg is also really trying to stake out Meta's position in this ongoing debate in the industry about how accessible these advanced A.I.
models should be. And really sort of not calling them out by name, but directing attention to leaders in this industry like OpenAI and Anthropic
that have advocated for restricting access to the most advanced A.I. models. That is part of what Altman and others are in Washington this week
to talk about.
But Mark Zuckerberg said that he believes that's the wrong path and that we should be focused on open access to this technology.
I'll just read you another portion of his piece. He says, "If only a handful of institutions have superintelligence, they will inevitably
exercise a controlling influence over economics, science, and politics, even with the best intentions that concentration would limit people's
ability to choose their own future.
[12:35:15]
But it's interesting, Bianna, because on one hand, Mark Zuckerberg is saying there needs to be open access to this technology.
On the other hand, Meta, this year, just released its first closed-source A.I. model, which restricts what people can do with it after Zuckerberg had
previously advocated for open-source technology.
So, there is some tension, I think, between what he's saying and the direction that the company has been going in.
But I think the other important part and the important piece of the timing here for Meta in particular is the company is reporting earnings tonight.
The shares of the company are down about eight percent since the start of this year because investors are asking tough questions about how much money
Meta is spending on A.I. infrastructure. They want to see a greater return from the company.
So, I think, in general, it makes sense that Meta is in this moment trying to paint a rosier picture around A.I. than perhaps some of his counterparts
are who are really concerned about the risks.
GOLODRYGA: And it's worth asking, given the timing here and given the narrative that Mark Zuckerberg is now trying to promote, perhaps, they're
just hoping to buy time as well for investors and with investors as their open models appear to be lagging the frontier at this moment. All things
can be true, I guess.
Clare Duffy, thank you.
Well, one more voice is weighing in over this debate on the future of A.I., you know this man, Elon Musk, was asked whether human beings would be in
control in 10 years time. Musk, of course, is one of the worlds -- he is the world's richest man and the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, his rocket and
A.I. company.
Take a listen to how he answered a question from the editor-in-chief of "The Economist."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZANNY MINTON BEDDOES, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, THE ECONOMIST: You're sure that humans will no longer be in control in 10 years time?
ELON MUSK, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SPACEX: I think it is unlikely, in the same way that if the difference in the intelligence between A.I. and humans
is vastly greater than the difference in intelligence between A.I. and chimpanzees, it's hard to imagine that the chimpanzees would be in charge.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: All right. On that note, time for The Exchange where we want to dig deeper into the world of artificial intelligence.
Joining me now, Sebastian Mallaby, journalist and senior fellow for international economics and the Council on Foreign Relations. He's also the
author of several books, including one of my favorites, "The Infinity Machine," which chronicles the story of Demis Hassabis, who became one of
the original leaders in A.I. technology.
I can't rave enough about this book, Sebastian, so thanks so much. I wanted to talk to you about it.
We should note that that interview with Elon Musk was not only conducted with "The Economist's," editor-in-chief, the brilliant, Zanny Minton
Beddoes, but she's also your wife. So, this seems to be a family affair.
It is a fascinating interview. It is worth the -- the time to listen to all of his points and thoughts on a number of issues.
As it relates to A.I., I was fascinated to see how he's really made an arc in being very concerned about it being an existential threat to perhaps now
coming and being at peace with the fact that, as he said, at least in his version of a fact, that in 10 years time, humans will not be in charge. He
says, well, monkeys seem to be quite happy swinging from trees. I don't know if that's the analogy that most people will be at peace with.
But here you have Zuckerberg making the mirror image point in his op-ed, and he's saying he doesn't understand why anyone who believes A.I. would
perhaps be an existential threat or eliminate humans' relevance would rush to build that future.
So, how do you square those two arguments?
SEBASTIAN MALLABY, SENIOR FELLOW FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: You know, I think they've both got much to be, you know,
many gaps in them, right?
So, the Mark Zuckerberg view that this is going to be great. You know, on balance, new technologies have been great, but they also have downsides.
A..I has very clear risks attached to it.
So, the sensible position is to be both optimistic and pessimistic, right? It can do great things. It can advance science. It can empower people to
find out new stuff, but it can also be used by bad actors for cyber hacks, for bioterrorism in the future. Perhaps there's even autonomy risks,
there's deepfake risks, all these risks.
So, to sit there happily and say, don't worry, guys, it's all going to be good, I mean, it's completely not convincing.
On the other hand, the Elon Musk view, which is, now we can't control it, but hey, so what? That's not too reassuring either. And in fact, when, you
know, at the dawn of the A.I. race, you know, back in around 2014, there was this famous argument between Elon Musk and Larry Page of Google, where
Larry Page is like, it's fine. A.I. will take over, you know, humans will be eclipsed, so long as intelligence itself is preserved, it can be
preserved on silicone, who cares about biological intelligence, aka humans.
And Elon flips at this, and, you know, they have a massive bust up. They had been close friends and they became sort of enemies over this debate.
And now Elon is saying, hey, cool, don't worry about it. I mean, it's -- it is a weird shift.
[12:40:10]
GOLODRYGA: It is indeed. And going back to Zuckerberg's point and the conclusion he's come to, he's saying that concentration actually of this
power is the real threat. And he wrote in his op-ed that balance of power should be the foundation of safety.
And one of the thought experiments he uses is a person with a super- intelligent lawyer is dangerous, but somebody in court also with a super- intelligent lawyer would be more equal and just.
And he worried about regulatory capture if labs like OpenAI and Anthropic get to peer -- get to peer review the industry and no one else.
Do you think that's a principle case for democratizing this technology?
MALLABY: No, no. I don't. I think it's rather ironic when, you know, somebody goes to Washington, is photographed with the president, you know,
and publishes an op-ed in "The Wall Street Journal" and gives an interview to "The Financial Times," you know, and then says somebody else is doing
regulatory capture.
I mean, you know, who's doing -- who's capturing what? I mean -- I mean, you know, clearly, Meta has a big Washington lobbying operation just like
the other labs do and they're all trying to influence policy. And that's how the game is played.
But I think, you know, pointing at the other guys and saying, they're doing capture and I'm not is a bit -- is a bit ridiculous. So, yes.
GOLODRYGA: This comes, as we noted, Sam Altman is also in Washington, perhaps will be even meeting with the president.
And the OpenAI, the -- the safety tests that they ran, which then ultimately released this model, which they were not intending to, was a
sealed off environment, had no access to internet. It found its way out of the sandbox, got online, hacked into another tech company and stole answers
to a test that it was being given.
OpenAI said that this was just hyper-focused on passing this test, that this perhaps is an indicative of a larger scale problem.
But what does that tell us about what this kind of technology can do? Because something else I was struck by in this interview with Zanny and
Elon Musk was, in his time frame, even five or six months from now is a long time. I mean, most executives don't think in five or six month
increments. They're thinking five, 10 years.
The fact that we may see massive innovation in just five months tells us what?
MALLABY: Yes. Look, I mean, this technology is progressing extremely quickly. And, you know, one can't stress that enough, because I think
people sometimes think, oh, you know, ChatGPT arrived in 2022, and then we had A.I. And it was kind of one and done. No, no, no, no. It's not one and
done.
This thing changes every six months. And you get new capabilities, you get the ability for these systems to have very long memories to deal with audio
and pictures, to reason, to contribute frontier contributions to mathematics, to act as agents, all these different things have come out,
just in the space of, you know, less than four years.
And the next couple of years are going to be even wilder. If you listen to Dario Amodei of Anthropic, and I've got no reason to believe, you know,
he's saying anything other than the truth. And I thought, by the way, the same thing kind of privately from other lab leaders that, you know, in
about a couple of years, you'll be able to tell a frontier A.I. system, hey, go make the next version of yourself, which will be much stronger.
And the existing system will go off autonomously and create the new system. This is called recursive self-improvement. And we're kind of two years away
from that. It's very serious.
GOLODRYGA: So then the question is, what kind of regulation would be the most effective here? I don't know if that is government regulation, the
U.S. government regulation, or self-regulation by the industry. If that is a credible path as well.
You have people like Elon Musk who are arguing that the China should actually be a part of that self-regulation. And he is willing to even bury
the hatchet with some of his archrivals like Sam Altman to talk about this.
Demis Hassabis, you know him very well, obviously you covered him for this book, says that he would support a self-regulatory body similar to -- to
FINRA.
Which model do you think is the likely outcome here?
MALLABY: You know, I think the Demis Hassabis plan, which he released in an open letter about 10 days ago or so, you know, is a very good balance.
Because the problem with saying, let's have a national regulator, is you then have to appropriate money from Congress and it's going to be tough to
get enough. You won't attract the best quality scientist to work for the regulatory agencies and so forth.
If you say it's self-regulatory, then you can get it up and running much faster with more resources, attract better people and we don't have time to
lose here.
So, I think this idea of self-regulatory is great. It would begin, you know, maybe with voluntary or, you know, quasi-voluntary compliance by
other labs, but then it would -- you know, importantly, it would start to review all new A.I. models, whether they are open-weight or closed-weight,
meaning, you know, this -- there's different ways of releasing these models and some of them are proprietary and some of them you can kind of not just
random, you can earn them.
[12:45:16]
And -- and whatever, it doesn't matter. You know, as long as they're capable, these models should be reviewed. I would make an FDA comparison.
It's like a medicine, a new drug. You wouldn't release a pharmaceutical to put in American bodies unless it had been tested and verified by the
government first.
And I think it's the same with A.I., and we start with that, we do it in the U.S., and then hopefully we broaden it out by bringing the Chinese in
as well, because they have powerful A.I.
And unless they also sign up for some safety principles, what we do in the U.S. won't make much difference.
GOLODRYGA: It is fascinating. It is really changing the world.
Sebastian Mallaby, thank you.
MALLABY: Great to speak to you.
GOLODRYGA: You too.
We'll be right back with more.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Tourism help turn Mauritius into one of the Indian Ocean's premier island destinations, but rising airfares, global uncertainty, and
changing traveler expectations are now testing the island's ability to overcome new obstacles. That is this month's Africa Insider.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mauritius, in the '80s, '90s, was very famous for its beautiful beaches, its lagoons, and the kindness of its people.
THIERRY MONTOCCHIO, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ER HOSPITALITY:: We really believe that the industry is one of the most important pillar for the
economy. Its contribution is vital.
SYDNEY PIERRE, TOURIST MINISTRY: For most visitors to Mauritius, the journey begins with a long haul flight, but rising fares and instability on
international routes, are making access more costly and less predictable.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When conflict in the Middle East disrupted Emirates' flights through Dubai, one of the island's major connections was hit.
PIERRE: The Emirates were operating in that time two 380 and one 777 daily, so this represent between 20 and 25 percent of our tourist arrival for
destination. And some days, there was no flights at all.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The pressure has accelerated a rethink that began during the pandemic to diversify the roots to the island and the range of
vacations once visitors arrive.
[12:50:00]
MONTOCCHIO: During the COVID, the -- the sector really took a break to -- to think about itself, to reinvent itself and to visualize the people that
their troubles are -- are going to be more meaningful.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That means selling more than the coast and beach resorts.
MONTOCCHIO: I don't think really Mauritius is in competition with Maldives or Seychelles.
I think in Mauritius, where we are lucky, is that there's so much more that you can do in Mauritius, from -- from the mountain to the reef.
Today, Mauritius has about 1.4 million tourists a year and it's about the same size of our population. Obviously, they don't come all at the same
time.
We ought to be careful. We must not go into some other tourism, you know, improving on quality tourism, that's the way I see us see the way forward.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In Chamarel, Virginie and Jean-Marc Lagesse have spent more than 20 years building a lodge rooted in the landscape and community
of the south west.
VIRGINIE LAGESSE, OWNER AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, LAKAZ CHAMAREL: The soul that we have created here with the people, culture, Chamarel culture, I
think this makes the -- the difference.
JEAN-MARC LAGESSE, FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR, LAKAZ CHAMAREL: Most of our guests now, they spend some time with us, you know. And then they go to the
resort.
V. LAGESSE: In authenticity, you have sustainability, the respect of the nature, the respect of the local community, of the culture. And I think,
yes, this -- this will be the future of the tourism, if -- if we believe in that. If not, we're going to -- to build and build and build with nothing
inside.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: BTS are one of the most streamed artists of all time, but the K- pop band has announced on Instagram that they will not be submitting any of their music to the 2027 Grammy Awards for consideration.
Joining me now with more is CNN's Lisa Respers France. Lisa, walk us through this decision. Why?
LISA RESPERS FRANCE, CNN REPORTER: This is pretty seismic, Bianna. This is being viewed as a direct response to the Grammys coming out with a new
category, Best Asian Pop Music.
And while on the surface that might feel like it is being more inclusive to have that type of category, many of their fans, BTS fans, who are known as
the Army, feel like instead this is trying to basically shoe hole them into -- or pigeonhole them into a different category so that they cannot
compete.
[12:55:08]
Their latest album, Arirang, has been a massive, massive hit. The singles have made a run as did the album on the charts. And people are saying, if
this album is so successful, why does it have to be part of a separate category, especially given the extreme success of K-Pop?
K-Pop has some of the -- the biggest fans in the world. They make a ton of money. And BTS is the biggest group when it comes to the K-Pop genre.
So, BTS simply wants to be able to compete with the rest of the world and the rest of the music industry in the big categories and not feel like they
have to be, you know, relegated to a strictly Asian category.
They -- they want music just to be music because their music is enjoyed around the world. And they want to be able to compete with other groups.
And not to say they can't, but by saying that they are not going to even submit. They are taking a stand not only for themselves, but for other K-
Pop artists who also just want the level playing field of being able to compete when it comes to the Grammys, period, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: So -- so the intent maybe for this category to be more inclusive, but it does appear to have backfired, at least as the band is
concerned.
All right. Lisa, thank you so much for joining us.
FRANCE: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And -- and that does it for this hour of "One World." I'm Bianna Golodryga. Thanks so much for watching. "Amanpour" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
