Return to Transcripts main page

What We Know with Max Foster

U.S.-Iran Tanker Attacks Signal A Dangerous New Phase In War; Global Oil Prices Hit $100 A Barrel, Highest Level Since July; Republicans Holding Unprecedented Midterm Convention; Anthropic Researcher Quits, Warns A.I. May Kill Humanity; Clancy Jurors: Holdout "Admitted He Had Reasonable Doubt". Aired 3-4p ET

Aired September 09, 2026 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:31]

MAX FOSTER, CNN HOST: U.S. President Donald Trump says he expects the war with Iran to continue for months.

This is WHAT WE KNOW.

The United States and Iran are ramping up attacks on one another, leading to a surge in oil prices and fears of a wider war in the Middle East.

That's despite U.S. President Donald Trump telling reporters a short time ago he believes the war will end immediately after the midterm elections.

U.S. Central Command says it struck five Iranian oil tankers. Four of them were in the Gulf of Oman. A fifth was hit near Kharg Island, a hub for

Iranian oil exports. Iran retaliated with a barrage of missiles targeting U.S. ally Jordan. The Jordanian Army says most of those missiles were

intercepted.

To Washington now and CNN senior U.S. national security reporter Haley Britzky.

Obviously, these attacks have been ticking over, but they're ramping up now, it feels, Haley.

HALEY BRITZKY, CNN SENIOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yeah, Max, it does. I mean, just last week we had a series of attacks by the U.S. on

Iran. Roughly 60 targets hit along the Strait of Hormuz, air defense, mine- laying capabilities, radar, that sort of thing.

And now, CENTCOM saying this morning that since yesterday evening, seven Iranian vessels, Iranian tankers, have been struck in and around the

Persian Gulf, saying that this started because Iran was firing ballistic missiles on U.S. vessels. Iran saying that they damaged the U.S. vessels,

the U.S. saying that that's not accurate, that they never hit the U.S. Navy vessels.

But certainly, it speaks to the growing tensions here. And as you just mentioned, Max, even while all of this is going on, the president saying

that the war, he believes, will end immediately after the midterm elections in November. And as we saw with these latest attacks, for the first time

since July, prices of oil barrels up to $100 a barrel for the first time since July. President asked about that and how that they would explain that

to voters, saying that it's easy to explain. All you have to do is say, will you let Iran have a nuclear weapon? And the answer is no.

So, the administration clearly feeling pretty confident here in how they can explain this conflict to voters for the midterm election in November.

But also remember that just last week, Vice President J.D. Vance saying that he would not even call this a war, saying that there had not been

active combat operation and -- operations in some time. Obviously, we're seeing that change last week and this week again.

But certainly, all of this happening at a sensitive time for the administration and for Republicans generally here in the U.S. And

certainly, something that the administration has indicated can continue these strikes on oil tankers, Max.

FOSTER: It's quite unusual to name when you're going to end a war, isn't it? Because it gives away your strategy somewhat.

BRITZKY: You would think so, yes. And I would remind our viewers here that we heard that at the beginning of the war as well. The administration said

four to six weeks this could continue. They've kind of kept pushing that ball back, obviously, as we're now entering the seventh month of this

conflict.

FOSTER: OK. Haley, thank you so much.

Oil prices, as Haley said, are on the rise, once again pushing past $100 a barrel. That's the first time a barrel of Brent crude has reached triple

digits in more than a month. It's risen more than 3 percent. A few minutes ago, U.S. President Donald Trump said he expected prices to stay high until

after the midterms.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Shortly, but right after the election, because they'd like to have it that way, but right after the

election, oil prices are going to be tumbling downward. They're going to be tumbling down, and we'll get them down. I think, for gasoline, we'll get

them below $2 a gallon.

REPORTER: But not until after the midterm?

TRUMP: I think it's going to take a little bit longer than the midterm.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Anna Stewart's with us obviously some politics at play here because high gas prices are going to affect the way people vote. But how

can we predict oil prices in this way, do you think?

ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think traders struggle to predict oil prices. I'm not sure President Trump's going to have any more luck

here. And traders aren't actually, I think, buying into the comments we've just had from the president, given oil prices remain up around 3.4 percent,

still well above that $100 level.

And as a result, really, of the escalation in the conflict that we've seen in the last couple of days, and the number of tankers, there have been

seven tankers now attacked. Also the broadening really of the conflict, not for the first time, but we're not just looking at tankers being attacked in

the Strait of Hormuz.

[15:05:02]

We are also looking at tanker attacked off the coast of Dubai, a tanker attacked in Iraqi waters. And this is obviously more concerning for

traders, given it's a broadening of the sort of conflict region. And also, of course, Houthi attacks on Saudi oil facilities this week as well. So

that's why we're seeing such a spike in oil prices.

It may, of course, fall down if there is a few days with less tanker attacks. But really, we are seeing oil prices tick ever higher and natural

gas prices. And this is a result of traders at this point thinking that this conflict is going to be prolonged. No one is buying that this is going

to be over in just a few weeks at this point.

Goldman Sachs had a new report out today, Max. They have raised their forecast for oil prices this year and next year by about $5 a barrel.

That's their base case scenario. However, they have a worst-case scenario, which is sort of a continued escalation in the Strait of Hormuz, for which

they then see prices at $120 a barrel next year, which is where we were at really right when the war with Iran first began in the spring.

FOSTER: Yeah, I'm just seeing how the U.S. Energy Information Administration says there's going to be a shortage going into next year, so

after the midterm. So, as you say, detracting really from what the president's saying, but they're really talking about their concern about

stockpiles constantly dwindling.

STEWART: Yes, because this isn't just an issue of course of the price, the spot price today, which is clearly what the president's referring to. There

are concerns all around the world frankly about shortages of supplies.

Now, it's different with different things, so we're not just always talking about Brent crude, but also refined oil. Lots of refineries have been hit.

which means there are shortages or concerns about shortages for different types of refined oil going through to the end of the year. And there is

some concern around that.

So, yes, we're not just talking about the spot price, but also what it means for different industries, different regions more impacted than

others. And you know, in Europe. The UK is looking at extremely high energy bills going into winter. I was looking at Germany earlier today, equal

concerns, concerns that there aren't enough sort of gas in storage facilities at this point going into the winter. There could genuinely be

shortages in some parts of Europe.

FOSTER: OK, Alice Stewart, thank you so much.

Well, amid all of this economic uncertainty, in less than an hour, Republicans will kick off an unprecedented political event. They are

holding a presidential-style convention, even though we're days away from just a midterm election.

The two-day event in Texas will feature two primetime speeches from President Donald Trump. The White House says the convention will convince

Mr. Trump's most ardent supporters to get out and vote, even though he's not on the ballot.

But not all Republicans are convinced. Many are skipping the event, worried about being connected to the U.S. president's poor polling numbers amongst

swing voters.

Steve Contorno is there for us in Dallas.

And, you know, he's talking about oil prices, he's talking about midterms. Economy is going to be where people need to be convinced, right?

STEVE CONTORNO, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Absolutely, Max. That is the number one issue facing so many of these Republicans who are in tight battleground

districts is convincing their voters that President Donald Trump, two more years of a Republican Congress would give Presidential Donald Trump a

reason to change course or a reason to find an answer to the affordability problems that so many of them are facing, to the gas price problems that so

many people are feeling when they go to the pump.

Now, whether they can do that or not in these next two days remains to be seen. This is a very unique convention that we're going to see, as you

said. President Donald Trump is not on the ballot. But his allies believe that they can convince his voters, the people who have supported him in

elections, that voting for him in this election is just as important as voting for him in 2020 and 2024.

Now, as you said, a number of Republicans are fearful of being too close to the president and have chosen to skip tonight's facilities. Now I have

talked to Republicans and Trump advisers who say that is a mistake. that Democrats are going to paint you with the same brush as Donald Trump,

whether you show up and embrace him or not, and that you do more harm by alienating his base than you do by running away from him.

Now, we'll have to see which approach wins, because there are some Republicans who are in competitive races who have chosen to embrace the

president and show up here in Dallas. The president will speak tonight as well as tomorrow. The vice president will speak tomorrow evening. And it's

going to be, you know, it looks like a real convention in here, Max.

There's a balloon drop ready to fall. There are delegates who are pouring in for the evening's events. And it's putting on the pageantry of a

convention with no actual convention business. We'll see if the American people go along with it.

FOSTER: And, obviously, he's not on the ballot, but how often -- you know, how much does the president play into these votes?

[15:10:04]

CONTORNO: Well, historically, the president has loomed large over these midterm elections, and we often see the American voting public pendulum

swing back from away from the president's party in power. That certainly happens with the House of Representatives when President Trump was in power

in 2018 during that midterm election.

But look, the Trump -- Trump. and his team believe that he has a compelling message to make that Democrats would be far worse for this country if they

were put back in power, that Democrats running Congress would simply stymie his agenda and try to unravel the work he has done, that they would

obstruct him with investigations into his personal businesses, his family, his administration, and that he needs two more years of runway in order to

deliver on all the promises he made back in 2024.

Of course, one of the frustrations of so many American voters, including people who supported him, is that Donald Trump promised that he would fix

the affordability problems, that he would not start any new wars, and he would do it all very quickly. And that hasn't been the case.

And that is the challenge for Republicans and what they face over these next 55 days before the midterm election.

FOSTER: Steve in Dallas, just ahead of that big event, thank you so much.

Well, ahead of that convention, we're seeing signs that November's midterm election could flip control of Congress over to Democrats. Brand new CNN

polls show how tight the race is for the Senate. It finds no clear leader in Michigan, where progressive Democrat Abdul El-Sayed has a statistically

insignificant lead over Republican Mike Rogers. A CNN poll also finds no clear leader in Maine, where Republican Susan Collins is seeking a sixth

term and Democrats have had a chaotic time before settling on Troy Jackson.

What we want to know, then, is can Republicans fend off the Democrats' push to win the Senate?

CNN's political director David Chalian joins us now from Washington, where we're going to see what the president has to say today. A lot of it is

emotion.

So, what do you think?

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Yeah, I mean, you just showed the polling. Those are two of the most consequential Senate races on the map.

They will help determine control of the United States Senate, no doubt, because Democrats need to flip a sort of a net gain of four seats from the

Republican side in order to go from the minority party to the majority party.

But as you just were talking about with Steve, the president hangs over all of this. If you look at the approval ratings just in these two battleground

states that we have polls out for today, Max, the president is in the low 30s in terms of approval rating, 31 percent approval in the state of Maine,

34 percent job approval in the state of Michigan. Those are historically low numbers for Donald Trump across both of his terms. And that is a weight

around the Republicans who are running in those states.

FOSTER: And, you know, Steve is also talking about how some Republicans aren't attending, they don't want to be associated with the president. What

does that say about the split in the Republican vote right now?

CHALIAN: Yeah, it's a good question. You know, if you are a Republican in a battleground state or a real battleground district and the president's

numbers are low, you have to figure out for yourself, how much do I want to try to separate myself from Donald Trump and sort of create my own brand

and identity? And is that possible, given Donald Trump's dominance and sort of ownership of the Republican Party in America, versus how much do I want

to associate myself with Donald Trump?

And even though there are negatives with that, there are some positives. Can he turn out the most hardcore Trump supporters who may not otherwise

show up to the polls in a midterm year?

And doing that calculation is what a lot of Republican candidates on the ballot this year are trying to figure out. So, you see some have chosen not

to attend this convention that Donald Trump sort of designed. And it really is designed to be a base rallying, enthused Republicans about the midterm

election event.

And you see some saying, hey, no, I'm going to show up because I need to be part of that and identified with Trump so that everyone that supports him

in my district or my state comes on out and votes in this midterm election.

FOSTER: It's a bit unrealistic as well, isn't it, to separate yourself as a Republican from the president, because then people go into the voting

booth wondering, what am I voting for here?

CHALIAN: Yeah, you are right. I mean, there's a congressman in New York, just north of New York City, Mike Lawler. He's a Republican who represents

one of only three districts in the United States that has a Republican representative, but actually the district voted for Kamala Harris in 2024.

[15:15:08]

So, he's pretty vulnerable.

You know, Democrats see that as a real target of opportunity. And he just decided, to your point, Max, exactly, he's like, what am I running away

from? I am a Republican in 2026, and in that world I am Trump-associated, so I might as well try to get whatever benefit I could get from being

attached to the president if that is getting his base of support enthused to come and support me. Let me try to do that because I'm certainly going

to get hit from Democrats with all the baggage of being associated with an unpopular president, so let me try and get some benefit out of that.

That's the calculation. The question mark is, will that work? And we won't know that until Election Day.

FOSTER: Yeah, the polls, you know, we can't rely on them completely, can we?

Thank you so much, David.

CHALIAN: Sure.

FOSTER: A terrifying warning today from an A.I. researcher. He says A.I. is advancing so fast that he thinks it could be capable of wiping out

humanity by the end of this decade. Jacob Coxon posted the warning as part of his resignation from leading A.I. firm Anthropic. Another scientist at

Anthropic echoed the warning and put the chance of an A.I. apocalypse in the next 10 years at something less than 10 percent.

Let's bring in our A.I. correspondent, Hadas Gold.

I mean, you're speaking to these researchers all the time. Is this a broad reflection of the view that there is out there right now?

HADAS GOLD, CNN A.I. CORRESPONDENT: It's a very common perception in the A.I. industry that the technology that they are building is becoming so

advanced that the safety measures are just not enough to keep up with the advancements in this technology. So no, the sentiment is not new. Neither

is this sort of doom end of the world language that we're hearing from people like Jacob.

But I think what happens is San Francisco is this sort of cultural bubble and then when their way that they speak and the way that they're talking

about things in Silicon Valley kind of breaks out like this has to the broader public. Everyone is saying, whoa, what do you mean that there's a

greater than 10 percent chance that this technology that is propping up the U.S. economy is somehow also potentially going to kill us all.

But I think one of the reasons that Jacob's posts went viral not only because you know this guy is quitting his job which is likely a very you

know nice lucrative job over safety fears is because he is saying that none of these companies is acting responsibly and these are the premier A.I.

companies of the world OpenAI and Anthropic because he's worked at both of them.

And Anthropic has this reputation as the safe A.I. company. It's supposed to be the one that cares about safety and here we have somebody saying that

that's actually not the case and then that sentiment about how A.I. could kill us all is echoed by actually somebody who was senior to him who leads

alignment science, which is making sure that the models do what you want them to do at Anthropic as well.

But this sentiment is far from new. We've heard for years and years from the top people in A.I., from Dario Amodei, who leads Anthropic, who say

very casually there's a 25 percent chance that this could all end terribly for us. But they also look at the flip side and say, but then that means

there's a 75 percent chance that this is going to be transformative technology we have ever seen.

But there is definitely a feeling, especially in the last few months, as we have seen these A.I. agents do some really sci-fi things like break out of

their test environment, hack other companies that we have, we do not have anything close to enough when it comes to standards or regulations to help

keep us at least at a minimal level safe because there is absolutely no standards when it comes to not only creating these models, but also even

the safety of these models when you are testing them.

And that's why you saw things like just a couple of months ago, the more than 1,300 staffers of the top A.I. companies all signing onto a letter,

essentially begging the U.S. government to provide some tools that will help slow the pace of A.I. development over these safety concerns -- Max.

FOSTER: Okay, we'll talk a bit more about this later for now at Hadas Gold. Thank you so much for joining us.

Still to come tonight, what went on in the jury room in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial? Some of the jurors are speaking to the media about the case,

the holdout, and the mistrial.

Plus, Clancy's defense attorney is making an announcement about her future. That's after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:22:35]

FOSTER: The defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy is confirming plans to file a motion to bar a retrial. Kevin Reddington says his decision is based

on comments jurors made since Friday about the lone holdout juror who forced a mistrial. Reddington says the motion to dismiss will be based on

double jeopardy grounds. A person cannot be charged with the same crime twice.

Three jurors told an NBC station in Boston that the panel was on the verge of reaching a not guilty verdict. The jury foreperson describes how they

ended up deadlocked.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RONI CARLSON, JURY FOREPERSON, LINDSAY CLANCY TRIAL: We weren't trying to figure out if she murdered the children. She did. And she's admitting that.

We're trying to figure out, did she know right from wrong at that time? And with everybody saying she loved her children so much and everything proved

she loved her children, from her journals, to her mother-in-law. Everything proved that she loved her children, so she had to have snapped.

And he had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt after we watched that video of the interview. I think that's when it was. He

admitted he had reasonable doubt. And I started filling out the forms. I was so excited.

I actually -- there were three forms I had to fill out and I started filling them out. I wrote my signature on each one and then he said, But

I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Jean Casarez joins us now.

Of course, we haven't heard from this lone juror. Have we heard his side of the story? And I mean, how relevant are these conversations when once the

jury's over, it's over, isn't it?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's an excellent point all the way around what you make because we have not heard the other side, right? We're

hearing one side and we are listening to that one side.

What Mr. Reddington, the defense attorney, says that he's going to do at a September 29th status check. It's a hearing. He is going to make a motion

that this case should be outright dismissed because the judge in ordering the mistrial. It can only be done out of manifest necessity, and the

defense believes this jury was deliberating and what he asked for in court, he wanted that lone juror to come into court. and be questioned by the

judge on the record in front of the whole courtroom.

And the judge said, I'm not going to do that because yesterday I went through every juror, I had them swear, and I asked them if they could

follow the law and the instructions.

[15:25:09]

And every juror, including that juror, said they could. Let them deliberate. And then came that third and final note and they said with

heavy heart. We have to inform you we cannot reach a decision, and we are not going to.

So it was at that point, three notes, three times, almost 40 hours of deliberation, the judge ordered a mistrial. So, I think the defense may

argue this may take it on appeal, do everything they can to have double jeopardy attached, so it can't be retried.

But I've looked the case law up and it has to be an abuse of discretion by the trial judge.

FOSTER: Yeah. It does seem really unlikely. But the other options, I guess, are another trial or indeed a plea deal. Has there been anything

more there?

CASAREZ: Well, Mr. Reddington has been around doing a lot of interviews, and whether he's spoken to the prosecutor yet, not sure. He definitely has

said that he would entertain some type of an agreement between the parties. He wouldn't want his client to spend one day in jail or prison.

And remember, there was one on the table that was manslaughter because you had first degree, second degree manslaughter, and then the not guilties.

Manslaughter would be a conviction. Manslaughter is probationable up to 20 years. Got to remember, though, this is a triple homicide.

So, is there something in that realm? We don't know, but mark your calendar. September 29th, status hearing, Massachusetts. It could be very

important to see what the outcome will be here.

FOSTER: Your reporting has been great, Jean. Thank you for explaining all of this for us throughout.

We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:30:22]

FOSTER: A suspected nuclear site in Iran has seen a surge in construction work this year amid the war with the United States. That's according to

analysts who've reviewed six years of satellite imagery of Pickaxe Mountain. The site south of Tehran is buried deep under granite. The Center

for Strategic and International Studies which shared its analysis with CNN, believes it could be designed as a safe haven for a rise nuclear program.

U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened to strike Pickaxe Mountain very soon.

Davis Winke is in Atlanta for us.

What more is in this report then, Davis?

DAVIS WINKIE, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Max, the CSIS researchers found that not only was there a surge in construction activity that is

accelerated this year, they found that the construction of the facility hit a key transition point as well from what they were able to see. And that

transition included a shift away from the previous work, which was tunneling into this deeply buried granite mountain facility and instead

focusing on actually building out the facilities internals and hardening the entrance portals to the access tunnels.

That raises questions about when the facility is going to be prepared for its ultimate purpose, which according to those researchers is likely to be

one of three things. Their first theory is that this could end up being an underground enrichment hall where Iran is working to enrich the uranium

that could be used in a nuclear device potentially. They also believe it might could be a place where that the centrifuges that do the enrichment

work are being built and assembled.

The third theory they have is that it could be a safe haven for other nuclear weapons related work, such as the conversion of uranium gas into

uranium metal. Facilities for that work that were located above ground were previously destroyed. The researchers caution, though, that if this is

going to be an enrichment facility, it likely isn't online quite yet. And President Trump is still issuing regular threats about this, Max.

FOSTER: Yeah. And in terms of actually attacking the site, obviously it is under this granite. It was built there for a reason. How easy would it be

for the U.S. military to get underground?

WINKIE: We think it would be really difficult. CNN previously reported that the U.S.'s top general reported to Congress last summer after

Operation Midnight Hammer that they didn't believe that existing bunker busting capabilities could have gotten all the way into Iran's deepest

nuclear facilities, and Pickaxe Mountain is reportedly even deeper than those.

The Pentagon is working to address this. They awarded a next generation penetrator contract for industry to start working on a prototype successor

bunker buster in September of 2025 and a public contracting memo that we found detailed the preparation to test classified capabilities at a

geologically similar site in New Mexico this spring.

While we found activity on satellite imagery that corresponded to the timeline of this contracting action, we could not independently confirm

that such a test occurred. But all the collective indications, Max, are that the U.S. is actively trying to figure out how to defeat such a

facility as Pickaxe.

FOSTER: David Winkie -- Davis Winkie in Atlanta, thank you so much for that.

WINKIE: Thank you.

FOSTER: Now, this is final moments of trade on Wall Street. Stocks are lower. The Dow is off by Triple digits falling for the third straight

session.

This is our Business Breakout. The US is escalating its trade war with Canada. The Trump administration now threatening to ban all imports of some

Canadian goods from the 29th of September. It's the latest tit-for-tat move after Canada responded to U.S. tariffs with new tariffs of its own.

The head of Britain's air traffic control system has been summoned by the government after flight delayed chaos for a second day. More than 1,700

flights were canceled on Tuesday because of an outage. The issue was fixed, but dozens of today's flights were also scrapped. The chief operating

officer at Ryanair wants the air traffic control boss to resign.

Google is planning to invest more than $15 billion in Finland for A.I. infrastructure. The money will be spent on data centers and clean energy

projects as part of the deal. Google says it's the company's biggest single investment in Europe. The Finnish prime minister says he expects a deal to

provide lasting benefits for both Google and Finland.

Today's Apple event in California featured a new foldable phone and a new CEO. John Ternus revealed Apple's new foldable phone, the iPhone Duo. When

folded, the screen's about the size of a passport.

It's the biggest change to the look and function of an iPhone in years. This was Ternus' first Apple event as CEO since taking over from Tim Cook

on September 1st.

Let's dive in with Clare Duffy.

I mean, very big shoes to fill. If you go back to the other predecessor as well, how did he do and what do you make of a phone?

CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH REPORTER: Yeah, Max, there was huge pressure on John Turnes going into this event, not only to lay out his vision for the

company as CEO, but as the company's former hardware chief. He was under pressure to show that Apple could usher in a new era of hardware innovation

and also to show that Apple has a clear A.I. strategy in the midst of lots of concerns that Apple is behind its big tech peers in terms of A.I.

And so, Apple has really tried to deliver on those two pieces today, first with this new foldable phone called the iPhone Duo, as who said this is the

biggest change to the iPhone form factor that we have seen in years. Apple entering this still niche but growing foldable phone market that is

currently dominated by Samsung.

You see the phone there when it's unfolded, it will have a continuous single screen that is 7.6 inches wide. It can be used horizontally or

vertically. The phone can also be used partially folded with two different screens on either side. Apple really trying to expand how people are

thinking about the iPhone.

Now this is going to come at a hefty price starting at just under $2,000, going all the way up to more than $3,000. So, it's going to be interesting

to watch if people are willing to shell out that much for a foldable phone.

But this could allow Apple to attract these higher paying customers that might otherwise go to Samsung or another foldable device maker.

And then, Max, I'll touch on this A.I. strategy, which is really important piece of today's event as well. John Ternus is talking about how Apple

wants to create an intelligent personal hub that is really centered around the iPhone and Apple's other devices. He said Apple has all of this

personal data from its users from these various devices. It wants to bring that together along with its new A.I. enhanced Siri to create this really

sort of seamless A.I. digital assistant experience that, you know, he sort of implied would be much different than some of these standalone single-use

A.I. devices that we have seen other companies try to roll out.

So, Apple essentially trying to say, look, you're already using our products. We have all of this personal information that we can bring to

create a really personalized experience. So rather than looking for A.I. elsewhere, you really should stick with Apple. And that was the pitch here.

Of course, we also got other products, new AirPods, new Apple watches, but the foldable iPhone, the A.I. strategy really the center of today's event,

Max.

FOSTER: Clare Duffy, appreciate it. Thank you.

Coming up, it can file your taxes, solve an unsolvable math problem, but could cause the end of humanity too. Clare was just talking about it, but

we're looking at a pause on artificial intelligence if you listen to many researchers. I'll speak to one expert about it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:41:12]

FOSTER: As we told you earlier, one of Anthropic's researchers is quitting because he believes A.I. companies are gambling with our lives. And perhaps

most worrying of all, his boss actually thinks he's right. Evan Hubinger, who runs Anthropic's team on controlling A.I. systems, says the company

really does believe that A.I. could kill all humans. In fact, he says he personally thinks the chances are greater than 10 percent within the next

decade.

Anthropic's chief executive is also on the record as saying there could be a catastrophe on the horizon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DARIO AMODEI, CEO, ANTHROPIC: I think I've often said that my chance that something goes, you know, really quite catastrophically wrong on the scale

of human civilization. It might be somewhere between 10 percent and 25 percent when you put together the risk of something going wrong with the

model itself, with something going wrong with human -- people or organizations or nation states misusing the model or it kind of inducing

conflict among them or just some way in which kind of society can't handle it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Well, some lawmakers are now calling for a pause on A.I. development. The U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders says the so-called

superintelligence, which is A.I. that's smarter than any human, must be banned. All the while, artificial intelligence continues to advance. On

Tuesday, OpenAI said its A.I. model had cracked one of the so-called millennium problems. That's a set of notoriously difficult math's

questions. have gone unsolved for decades.

In fact, the puzzle that OpenAI solved dates back some 200 years. It's led some mathematicians to question what this means for the future of their

field.

So, what we don't know is, is it time for a pause on artificial intelligence?

Joining me now is Nathan Labenz, an A.I. entrepreneur and the host of the brilliant "Cognitive Revolution" podcast.

Thank you so much for joining us. I wanted to get you on because obviously you've been talking about this in your world for a while now, I think, but

it's really hit the mainstream.

So when we talk about A.I. being able to kill people, what does it actually mean?

NATHAN LABENZ, HOST, "THE COGNITIVE REVOLUTION" PODCAST: Gosh, well, you know, you just listed off quite an incredible string of events that have

happened in a very short period of time. And the subtext of all this, of course, is that we have examples now of A.I.s hacking out of their

environments hacking into other companies, committing what would be felonies if people did the same actions, and even taking control of some of

the internal infrastructure at OpenAI in the process.

So, I think our imaginations are really limiting now what our proper concerns should be about what A.I. might be able to do. We don't really

know what they are able to do. What they are doing now is routinely surprising the people that create them. So, actually for me, one of the

most scary things from the OpenAI report was that there was one task that they mentioned, they only said this once, but they mentioned that one of

the tasks was involving a protein database, indicating that they're doing some cross-training between biological tasks and these cyber tasks.

Now, I don't know too much about what's going on there. Obviously, they haven't disclosed a lot. But I think the most likely way, at least in the

short term, for A.I.s to actually hurt people at scale would be through some sort of gain of function bio disaster that could in fact look really

stupid in the way that they're hacking out of their containers just to go try to figure out how they could find the greater -- to get a high score on

this random cybersecurity test that they were taking looks really stupid to us.

Unfortunately, there's no rule that says something similar couldn't happen in biology and right now, I think we just are very much in the dark as to

what methods the companies are using to train how far along this has come. Have there been any incidents or near misses along those lines? Just so

much that we don't know.

And so, we're left to imagine quite a bit. But again, I would emphasize the models are surprising their creators. And so, what else do we have really

but our imaginations at this point?

FOSTER: I know this OpenAI was praised, wasn't it, initially for admitting that this rogue agent got out. And in releasing data for the report that

you were just talking about, but do you really think they're being as transparent as they could be about what's going on inside the company?

LABENZ: No, I definitely do not think they're being as transparent as they should be. I think for starters, the investigation that they invited the

good folks from METR and Redwood to come do was way too short, way too limited in scope. They only had six days on site to do it. They only had

1,000 transcripts out of many tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands.

It has since come to light that there have been other hacking incidents that OpenAI didn't disclose that people went and found on the open web. I

would bet confidently that there are still more that have not been disclosed. In the end, though, I don't think it's even so much about the

incidents. I think they should be transparent about the incidents that have happened.

But it's less about was this random German Wiki hacked or what else was random corners of the internet used as a message board? And it's more about

how did this come to happen? And for the other 20 frontier or near frontier A.I. companies that are operating around the world, mostly in the U.S. and

China, what should they expect?

OpenAI obviously has great scale, they're leading, but should we expect that everybody who's following in their path is going to run into similar

trouble as they continue to scale their own training efforts? Maybe. Again, we don't know. We don't know why this happened. We don't know what training

methods were used.

On the contrary, you might think, well, this is probably something that was just very esoteric and they were doing something very exotic. And it won't

happen in other places in this same way. I think they would do a great service. And if they really want to live up to their mission of making sure

that A.I. benefits all humanity, I think that they should do more to inform other A.I. developers who have less resources, who've had less time to

invest in safety about what is potentially in store for them if they just keep scaling within the current paradigm.

FOSTER: And just briefly, this idea of a pause, is that something you support? Because this idea that the agents are developing faster than the

companies realize seems to suggest a pause at least would be useful, but I guess it's going to be impossible to enforce.

LABENZ: Well, I'd say we should all -- we just taught sand to think, right? So, we're in a sci-fi era now. jump to the conclusion that anything

is impossible. I think we should dream big and then go try to make it happen. I do think a pause would be very wise. Right now, I think the

hardest part is getting the companies to trust one another. And so one thing I would do if I was president of the United States right now is I

would give the companies an ultimatum. I would say, you guys have 90 days to come up with a framework amongst yourselves that you can all agree to

with whatever transparency measures you need amongst yourselves to know that the other ones are not cheating on the agreement.

And if you can't come to the agreement, then the government's going to come down on you and you're going to like that a lot less. That's my current

best idea to try to kickstart a pause among the people who really do know the technology best.

FOSTER: Yeah, based on the fact that these companies are competing with each other, right, so that's part of what's driving all of this, I really

appreciate it.

Nathan Labenz, thank you for joining us on the show.

LABENZ: Thank you.

FOSTER: Now, still to come, the defending champion at the U.S, Open is out. Carlos Alcaraz says -- well, he gets offended, really, by hometown

hero Ben Shelton. We'll have Shelton's reaction from New York in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:51:57]

FOSTER: In New York, home fans are happy after an incredible 24 hours in American tennis. The defending champion, Carlos Alcaraz, is out of the U.S.

Open. Ben Shelton knocked him out after a grueling match that lasted more than four hours. This match sets a new record for the latest finish ever at

the U.S. Open, ending early Wednesday morning, 3:33 a.m. Eastern Time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEN SHELTON, ADVANCING TO SEMIFINALS OF U.S. OPEN: Well, I always say that this is the greatest sports city in the world. I say that this is the

greatest stadium in the world. I'm just hoping that my best friend and my sister over there don't have to be at work at 6:00 a.m. in three hours.

It'd be huge from their employers to let them have the day off today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Joining us now, World Sport's Patrick Snell.

It was a late night, but worth it, it sounds like.

PATRICK SNELL, CNN WORLD SPORT: Oh, Max, it was enthralling. You know, it was about 11:00 p.m. last night, local time here in the U.S. And I thought,

I'd just watch the start of this match, see how it all unfolds. It was a pulsating set. I just couldn't look away, some four hours plus later, Max,

I was still riveted, absolutely captivated by it. There was no way I was going to bed before its conclusion 3:30 a.m. local time.

I've been intrigued by the whole Alcaraz situation. The fact that he's even playing, Max, at this year's U.S. Open has been quite remarkable. Remember,

he had a month-long injury layoff due to wrist injuries. He didn't play at Wimbledon. He didn't play at the French Open, and he timed his return very

strategically to be back in time for the final Grand Slam of the year, namely the U.S. Open.

And I think he's done really well to get to the quarterfinals. There's no doubt about it. He did look sharp. He looked really, really good, and I

think this bodes very well for him in terms of 2027, but I want to give huge credit to Ben Shelton. Max, this was the battle of the 23-year-olds,

two outstanding players, except one of them has seven Grand Slam singles titles to his name.

Shelton is still seeking his first, but on this kind of form, he has every reason to be bold and to dream big.

Going back to Alcaraz, though, huge disappointment for him. He gave it everything. Once he took it to that, let's get to 10 tiebreaker at the end

to decide that fifth set, I really did think it be he who goes on to seal a place in the last four.

Let's hear now from Carlitos Alcaraz.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARLOS ALCARAZ, DEFENDING U.S. OPEN CHAMPION: He is a beast, you know. Shelton is an unbelievable player, powerful. He just managed how to play

really, really well in every situation, so great to him. But, you know, I just -- I leave the court happy. I leave the court with a smile, healthy,

and this is what I need.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNELL: Here's much to be proud of, Max, as does Ben Shelton, whose reward will be a semifinal matchup with his compatriot and a good friend of his as

well, Francis Tiafoe as well. What does it mean? It means we get guaranteed to get an American man in the final this weekend over there in the Big

Apple, America seeking its first male winner of a Grand Slam tennis event since Andy Roddick won the U.S. Open back in 2003.

Max, back to you.

FOSTER: Alcaraz is very gracious, I thought.

Thank you, Patrick.

Finally, tonight, there may have been some technical problems with the new Air Force One. Here's what happened at Joint Base Andrews before President

Trump boarded the plane bound for Dallas earlier. It appears that the emergency slide deployed whilst the plane was on the tarmac, delaying its

departure. It's not known why the slide was deployed. It happened just as Mr. Trump arrived aboard Marine One.

Mr. Trump suggested to reporters that it was all intentional, saying it was part of a routine check.

I'm Max Foster. That's WHAT WE KNOW. Stay with CNN.

END

TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS