Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Judge Leaves Harvard Student Visa Program In Place Indefinitely; Appeals Court Temporarily Reinstates Trump Tariffs; MAHA Report And "Formatting Issues"; Tech CEO On What Worries Him About A.I.; Chaotic Scenes Around Gaza Aid Distribution; Next Generation Police Training Focuses On De-Escalation. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired May 29, 2025 - 20:00   ET

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

DANNY FREEMAN CNN CORRESPONDENT: The former President had to resign last year. There have been accusations of antisemitism, a lot of protest activity and yet, this particular issue, we've seen administrators, faculty and students really locked arm in arm defending Harvard -- Erin.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: All right, Danny Freeman, thank you so much. Obviously, an emotional moment for those graduates today.

Well, thanks so much to all of you for joining us. We appreciate it. "AC360" with Anderson Cooper begins right now.

[20:00:28]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Tonight on 360, a day after one court put his tariffs on hold, the higher court lets them go forward for now, just one of three rulings today alone in more than 200 legal challenges, the administration is already facing and it's only been four months.

Also tonight, Health Secretary Kennedy's Making America Healthy Again report and the research it cites, some of which it turns out does not exist. Keeping them honest on that, as well as the administration's factually challenged explanation of it all.

Plus, my conversation with the CEO of a major A.I. company Anthropic his warning that A.I. technology could have a sudden and devastating impact on American jobs in the next few years.

Good evening, thanks for joining us.

The administration won a significant but temporary court victory late today on trade. A federal appeals panel temporarily reinstated the President's tariff policy a day after a lower court put it on hold. The win, though, which was procedural, may not be enduring. And in reacting to the ruling, one of the President's top trade advisers said they were ready in case the lower court's ruling on the substance survives in the end.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETER NAVARRO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR TRADE AND MANUFACTURING: He told us, go do it another way so you can assume that even if we lose, we will do it another way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Another way, sounds like a plan B, in case plan A is rejected, which seems perfectly reasonable until CNN's Kaitlan Collins pressed him on the point and he said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NAVARRO: Of course, there's no plan B, it's plan A, okay. Plan A encompasses all strategic options and when we move forward, we had a full view of what the battlefield looks like.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Okay, so now we know. No plan B because plan B is within plan A. Kaitlin joins us shortly along with two former federal judges and a former federal prosecutor. Separately, the administration was dealt a setback in another tariff challenge. A federal judge in Washington issuing a preliminary injunction blocking them in the case of two toy companies. He then quickly put the injunction on hold for two weeks, in the expectation it would be appealed. Yet another federal judge, this time in Massachusetts, said she would block the administration's attempt to bar international students from coming to Harvard University.

Just six miles from her courtroom, the school which the President has targeted now in many different ways, held commencement ceremonies. Harvard's President Alan Garber, who has been resisting the pressure campaign, received a standing ovation from all present when he made his entrance.

Now, the commencement speaker, an infectious disease specialist and immigrant from Ethiopia, did not mention President Trump by name, he did, however, invoke his words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ABRAHAM VERGHESE, PHYSICIAN AND AUTHOR: So a part of what makes America great, if I may use that phrase, is that it allows an immigrant like me to blossom here just as generations of other immigrants and their children have flourished and contributed in every walk of life, working to keep America great.

The greatness of America, the greatness of Harvard is reflected in the fact that someone like me could be invited to speak to you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Starting us off tonight, CNN chief White House correspondent and anchor of "The Source," Kaitlan Collins. So, back to the battle over the tariffs. How is the White House feeling about its chances?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, they're saying to us that they feel really good about their chances. They think they'll ultimately prevail here if this does go up to the Supreme Court. But at the same time as were hearing from these officials as they were coming out today, they're also saying, yes, they are developing backup plans, essentially, and other alternative routes to still basically secure the same end result here with the tariffs, if they have to take and use a different method to essentially get there.

Now, they were already prepared to go to the Supreme Court as soon as tomorrow for emergency action if this appeals court did not come in today as it did, and essentially give them this temporary win, which, to be clear, is not on the merits of what's being argued here. It's just saying were going to put a pause on this while all of this gets its way figured out through the courts, because, of course, the Justice Department made clear almost immediately last night that they were going to be appealing this, that they were going to go to the Supreme Court tomorrow if that didn't happen today.

Obviously now, they don't need to do this, but this does buy them a little bit of time. But the question really is what that next step is going to be, Anderson, if the courts don't rule in their favor. And as we were talking to two of the President's trade advisers who were out in front of the White House today, Peter Navarro, as you saw there, also Kevin Hassett as well, they said that they do believe there are alternative ways to get this done. But my question to Kevin Hassett was, if that's the case, then why aren't you using those right now?

Why aren't you employing those right now and avoiding this entire court battle that is instead playing out? And of course, we know another option they could use is to also go to Congress here. And so, that's been a big question for them in terms of what this looks like. It is not anything short or overdramatic to say that this is, of course, the President's really entire negotiating premise here that is at stake in terms of how he's carrying out these tariff battles.

And so, it's a real question of what that looks like going forward, as they say, they are talking about this behind the scenes and what could happen next.

[20:05:30]

COOPER: All right, Kaitlan, thanks very much. We'll see you at the top of the hour for the source. The court rulings today were part of what has seemed at times like an endless parade. It's been 129 days since President Trump was sworn into office and over that time, there have been 249 court challenges to the actions he's taken as President, 239 are still active.

That's according to the nonpartisan online legal journal just security, which has been tracking these cases from day one -- 249 court challenges, now, we were unable to find direct comparisons to past administrations, but using another measure, court injunctions, gives at least a clue.

Two weeks ago, a report by the Congressional Research Service identified 25 nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges against this administration, 25 in the first 100 days. By comparison, according to the Harvard law review, the Obama administration was hit with 12 over two full terms in office, 12 in eight years, and the George W. Bush administration over that same time span of eight years, just six nationwide injunctions.

On top of that, the President's winning record for this month stands at just four percent of cases, according to the Stanford University political science professor who's tracking that figure. Joining us now, former federal judge Nancy Gertner. Currently, she's a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, also former chief judge for the U.S. Middle district court of Pennsylvania Johnny Jones and former federal prosecutor Elie Honig.

So, Judge Gertner does the reason why the Trump administration loses more often than not in court, have anything to do with judicial overreach or who the judges are or anything like that?

NANCY GERTNER, FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE: It has everything to do with presidential overreach, not judicial overreach. I mean, the distance between what he is doing with his tariffs, with the actions against Harvard, with the deportations, without any process, is so, so far from legal that it doesn't matter who the judges are, it doesn't matter who appointed them. Everyone is responding the same way with indignation and injunctions. So the overreach here has nothing to do with the judges, it had everything to do with what he's trying to do.

Almost everything he's tried to do could have been done a lawful way through Congress and that's not the way he's chosen. He's simply flexing his muscles and then blaming the courts.

COOPER: Judge Jones, do you think the administration is acting in good faith in these legal battles?

JOHN E. JONES, III, FORMER CHIEF JUDGE, U.S. MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA: I don't think they are. And I agree with Judge Gertner fully. This is an overreach by the administration, purely and simply. And the other thing that -- the two other things, stripes, are very common here, one is the constant vilification of these lower court judges and what you see time and again with these judges is that the administration pillories them when they rule against the administration, calling them kooks, lunatics, communists, et cetera.

The other thing is you've seen the credibility of the government's lawyers completely evaporate. You know, if you're not a straight shooter with the court, if you fail in your duty of candor to the court, you lose that credibility and that hurt them again today in the Harvard case, because they offered a 30-day stay of the of the ban on international students, which was nothing but a ploy. And the judge, Judge Burroughs saw through that.

So, no, this is not an overreach by the administration at all. I agree with Judge Gertner.

COOPER: Elie, Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, was asked about this today. I just want to play this, about the actions to block the tariffs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: The President absolutely has the right to set the trade agenda for the U.S. Anything that the courts do to get in the way, they -- both harms the American people in terms of trade and in terms of tariff revenue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: I mean, it's not that simple. Congress does have authority over tariffs in normal circumstances.

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think the Secretary has it backwards there. I mean, the tariff power belongs to Congress -- that's not disputable. What Trump is trying to do here is use a special law that Congress carved out in 1977, this International Emergency Economic Powers Act and say, well, here we are. It's an economic emergency, therefore I can impose tariffs.

Now, so far, we've had mixed results in the courts. It's sort of toggled back and forth several times just in the last 24 hours. But that's a legitimate question. It's definitely going to need to end up in the Supreme Court because as it stands right now, we have this federal district, which initially struck down the tariffs, but then the appeals court there reinstated them for the time being temporarily. And then you have a separate court in D.C. that also struck down the tariffs on a separate basis.

So, it's chaos right now in the courts. These cases have to reach the Supreme Court. So, we have some sort of uniformity. We can't have this much indecision, this much chaos as between different federal courts.

[20:10:19]

COOPER: And, Judge Gertner, you mentioned your lecture at Harvard Law School. How much of the administrations attack on the university is because of dispute over international student records or campus protests, and how much of it is because Harvard is world famous, heavily endowed, liberal leaning institution in New England. I mean, is it needed in court -- what are your thoughts?

GERTNER: Well, it's very interesting. I mean, one of the things about Trump is that he can't quite keep his mouth shut. So it starts off as, hey, there's antisemitism at Harvard university. Okay, if that's the concern, there are ways of dealing with it. There are investigations you have to do. There are findings you have to make.

Then the next letter says, by the way, they're anti-American, then the next the next statement the President makes is they're too woke, and then they go on to therefore, we need to control who is hired when they're hired, what the curriculum is and what the student body should look like.

It's quite clear what's going on here, which is he simply wants to control Harvard. He wants to control the civil society, the institutions that could be the source of opposition to him. And one of the things that's wonderful about America is the First Amendment protects that and we have these strong institutions. So, he's not even -- again, it's an overreach for what he's trying to do, not what Harvard is doing.

COOPER: Judge Jones, Harvard is fighting back in court. Do you think the Trump administration will be successful in bringing Harvard to its knees, essentially on these issues?

JONES: Well, no, you know, they're doing great damage to higher education. I'm a college president now, having left the bench and I can tell you at my college in Central Pennsylvania, you know, we wonder what's going to happen in terms of checking visas. You know, what does it mean to more intensively look at social media, all of those things to create uncertainty with our international students as well.

But to go back to Judge Gertner's point, you know, President Trump is a lawyer's nightmare because he can't stop talking. And his own words you know, provide or give lie, I should say to the reason and show that, you know, the reason stated by the administration, which is to fight antisemitism, unfortunately. And I think this is insulting they turn out to be pretext. It's much different than that.

COOPER: All right, Judge Gertner, thank you so much, Judge Jones as well and Elie Honig, thanks very much.

Coming up next, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s report on children's health. It was billed as clear and evidence based, turns out some of that evidence cited, research papers don't actually exist.

Also tonight, you're going to hear from a CEO of a leading A.I. company, Anthropic, who's raising the alarm tonight about the impact A.I. may have on millions of white collar jobs, particularly entry level ones, in the next few years. He says there may be so many lost jobs that unemployment could skyrocket as high as 10 to 20 percent. Many working in A.I. privately voiced concerns, but he is doing it very publicly tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DARIO AMODEI, CEO OF ANTHROPIC: I think the reason I'm raising the alarm is that I think others haven't as much and, you know, I think someone needs to say it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:17:53]

COOPER: Some serious concerns are being raised about the Make America Healthy Again report released by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. one week ago today. Kennedy touts gold standard science in announcing the report, which is focused on children, he said it surpassed even what his uncle, President John F. Kennedy was able to accomplish in regards to America's health.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: I've met every President since my uncle was President, and I've never seen a President, Democrat or Republican, that is willing to stand up to industry when it's the right thing to do and willing to talk about really difficult issues and to hold his stand on those issues.

This is a milestone. There's never in American history has the federal government taken a position on public health like this. And because of President Trump's leadership, it's not just one Cabinet Secretary, it's the entire government that is behind this report.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, while the entire government may be behind it, a number of experts actually cited in the report are not. That's because the work ascribed to them does not exist. First reported by the nonprofit news site, "NOTUS," they found at least seven examples of studies that were cited that no one has ever heard of, like this one, titled "Changes in mental health in substance use among U.S. adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic", by epidemiologist Katherine Keys.

Now, when you click on the corresponding link, you get this screen saying not found. NOTUS contacted Keys about the study, and she responded, and I quote, "The paper cited is not a real paper that I or my colleagues were involved with."

Here's another a paper called "Direct to consumer advertising of psychotropic medications for youth, a growing concern." It's credited to a doctor, Robert Findling, who's the chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Virginia Commonwealth University. CNN reached out to the school, and a spokesperson responded. That Dr. Findling said he did not write the work credited to him in the paper.

Now, beyond the seven studies that don't exist, many other citations are rife with errors or contained broken links. In other cases, actual studies that do exist were misrepresented according to the researchers who conducted them. Now, the White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, was asked about the report.

[20:20:10]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We have complete confidence in Secretary Kennedy and his team at HHS. I understand there were some formatting issues with the MAHA report that are being addressed in the report will be updated but it does not negate the substance of the report, which, as you know, is one of the most transformative health reports that has ever been released by the federal government and is backed on good science that has never been recognized by the federal government.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Yes, so these papers never been recognized because they don't exist. Formatting issues is what she called it, that was her explanation -- formatting issues. When she said that, I thought perhaps I did not understand the meaning of formatting. So, I Googled the term and it turns out I wasn't crazy.

It says formatting issues -- now, that's hard to read, referred to problems with the style or layout of a document, such as inconsistent fonts, spacing, alignment -- oh that's better, it's bigger -- alignment, spacing or page layout. It doesn't say anything about phony studies that don't exist. Those aren't formatting issues.

Now, keeping them honest, it turns out citing studies that don't exist are misrepresenting the findings of others, all to support your health recommendations for the 74 million children in America. It's not a formatting issue.

The MAHA report was produced in little more than three months after it was ordered by President Trump. Normally, something like this would go through layers of review and actual experts would have an opportunity to question its conclusions. You know, boring stuff like that, this does not seem to have followed that vetting process.

I'm joined by Dr. Ashish Jha, Dean of the Brown University School of Public Health. Doctor Jha, thanks for being here. Is there anything -- I mean, does this make any sense to you how this would happen in a -- in a such an important report?

DR. ASHISH JHA, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COVID RESPONSE COORDINATOR: Yes, first of all, Anderson, thanks for having me back. You know, I've had an opportunity to work in the White House. If there was a report that was being released by the President or by a Health Secretary, it would go through very substantial vetting. Dozens of people would look at every reference. This is a shocking to me, this sort of level of incompetence, of making up studies and making up citations. I don't understand how that happens. It's baffling, actually, and it makes you worry about the substance of everything else that's in the report.

COOPER: I mean, also, how does something that's a phony study get into it? I mean, it's like, is it ChatGPT? Is it, you know, you hear about legal documents that have fake cases that were created under, you know, like by A.I. the government has now posted an updated version of the report as of this afternoon that fixes some of the issues with the report, not all of them. It certainly does not inspire confidence. How does something like this -- what does it do to actually -- the credibility of the entire report?

JHA: Yes, so look, one of the things that we always did that I think is really important is to have this be reviewed by experts, right, because they're going to find errors. They're going to find errors, not just in citations but in the conclusions, maybe in the analysis but none of this has gone through that process. No credible scientist has really looked through this report. And it shows, by the way, Anderson, in the substance of it, the report starts off talking about kids being the sickest they've ever been. Actually, childhood mortality is the lowest it has ever been because of vaccines and because of better medical treatments. So, the report misses the mark on a lot of fronts. Get some things right, but the whole thing looks a lot more suspect now than it did even just a week ago.

COOPER: Secretary Kennedy said this week that he may bar scientists from the NIH, from publishing in peer reviewed journals like the "New England Journal of Medicine." We also learned today that the Department of Health and Human Services canceled a contract to drug maker, Moderna to develop a bird flu vaccine. That comes on the heels of Kennedys announcement that the COVID -9 shot would no longer be among the CDC's recommended vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children. I'm wondering what your reaction to that is.

JHA: Well, first of all. Anderson, there's a question about process. How are they making these decisions? Usually when these decisions are made, they're made in public. You review data, CDC scientists present the data, the CDC director makes these kinds of decisions. This is all happening behind closed doors. It feels very capricious and it's certainly not based on scientific evidence. And that is the thing that I think worries all of us the most.

The idea that that medical science will no longer go through peer review, it will ultimately undermine credibility of the NIH. And that, I think, is what I'm worried about. And, you know, bird flu is a real risk right now, we should be getting ahead of it, making sure it doesn't cause a big problem, canceling contracts to build future vaccines. so were better prepared also doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

COOPER: And if you're saying pregnant women, kids shouldn't get the vaccine, does that mean that health insurers -- that insurers won't cover it?

JHA: Yes, so this is actually the most important part of this. First of all, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology feels very strongly pregnant women should get the vaccine. And they're right, the scientific evidence is very clear. By saying it's not recommended, insurance companies won't cover it. Medicaid won't cover it. Pregnant women will not end up getting this vaccine. It's going to be bad for them, and it's going to be bad for their babies.

[20:25:11]

COOPER: Doctor Jha, I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you.

Coming up next, the Anthropic CEO, Dario Amodei and his warning that A.I. could be responsible for loss of so many white collar jobs over the next few years. Unemployment could reach COVID era levels. That, in the changes he thinks will be needed to meet the challenge ahead.

And later, the dire situation in Gaza and the chaos confusion surrounding a new Israeli backed food distribution system there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:30:14]

COOPER: A well-known and respected tech CEO, Dario Amodei, who heads a cutting-edge AI company called Anthropic, is raising alarms tonight about AI's potential impact on employment that could soon be felt. While he says AI can lead to incredible advancements like medical breakthroughs and boost the economy, he believes it could also lead to half of entry-level white-collar jobs disappearing and 10 to 20 percent unemployment in the next one to five years. It's something that's been talked about within tech circles for a while, but rarely so starkly and so publicly.

I spoke to him just before air about that and other implications he thinks AI may have on society. Dario, you've said that AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs and spike unemployment to 10 to 20 percent. How soon might that happen?

DARIO AMODEI, ANTHROPIC CEO: Well, let's -- well, first of all, thanks for having me on the show. But just to back up a little bit, you know, I've been building AI for over a decade, and I think maybe the most salient feature of the technology and what is driving all of this is how fast the technology is getting better. A couple of years ago, you could say that AI models were maybe as good as a smart high school student. I would say that now they're as good as a smart college student and -- and -- and sort of reaching past that.

I really worry, particularly at the entry level, that the AI models are -- are, you know, very much at the center of what -- what an entry-level human worker would do. And so it's hard to estimate, you know, exactly what the impact would be.

And, you know, there's always this question of adaptation and, you know, these technology changes that happened before. But I think what is striking to me about this AI boom is that it's bigger and it's broader and it's moving faster than anything has before. And so compared to previous technology changes, I'm a little bit more worried about the labor impact simply because it's happening so fast that, yes, people will adapt, but they may not adapt fast enough. And so, you know, there may be an adjustment period.

COOPER: You are running an incredibly important company in AI, and you know this better than anybody or as well as, you know, all the names we know, people, Sam Altman and others who are working, Elon Musk and AI. Why are you raising the alarm? Because it's not necessarily, I would think, in your best interest, because a lot of the messages we hear from, at least publicly from, you know, some AI CEOs and stuff is a little bit more calming, like, you know, these agents are going to be great in your life. And yes, there may be problems, but, you know, writ large, this is a fantastic thing.

AMODEI: Yeah. I mean, you know, I think the reason I'm raising the alarm is that I think others -- others haven't as much. And, you know, I think -- I think someone needs to say it, you know, to be -- to be clear. And, you know, I recognize it's always a difficult balance, right? I'm aware of my position that I'm building this technology while also expressing concerns about it. And, you know, the reason I'm doing both of those things is, you know, one -- I think the benefits are massive and, you know, we need to find a way to, you know, to achieve benefits and mitigate or prevent the harms. And you know, the second thing I would say is, look, there are, as you mentioned, six or seven companies in the U.S. building this technology, right?

If we stop doing it tomorrow, the rest would continue. If all of us somehow stop doing it tomorrow, then China would just beat us. And I don't think China winning this in this technology is, you know, I don't think that helps anyone or makes the situation any better.

COOPER: I do want to read something that Sam Altman, your former boss at OpenAI, said in September. He was saying that A.I. can cause significant, in his words, significant change in labor markets, good and bad. He went on to say that most jobs will change more slowly than most people think.

And then, he said this, and I want to just read it word for word. He said, "Many of the jobs we do today would have looked like trifling wastes of time to people a few hundred years ago. But nobody is looking back at the past wishing they were a lamplighter. If a lamplighter could see the world today, he would think the prosperity all around him was unimaginable. And if we could fast forward 100 years from today, the prosperity all around us would feel just as unimaginable."

For younger people, I should say, lamplighters was actually a job. People went around lighting lamps on the streets. I think a lot of people may not even know what a lamplighter is. But do you think Sam Altman is wrong?

AMODEI: Yeah, so, you know, I think there are some things I agree with about that, and then there are some things that I think are too optimistic. So, you know, I definitely agree that, you know, A.I., if we succeeded, it can grow the pie greatly, right?

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if, you know, economic growth is much higher than it is today as a -- as a macroscopic phenomenon, right? That A.I. allows society as a whole to be to be more productive. So, I --

COOPER: Let me -- let me just say, because you've previously in the past said, you're the -- you've described a future where cancer is cured. The economy grows at 10% a year. The budget is balanced and 20% of people don't have jobs.

[20:35:10]

AMODEI: That's -- that's exactly what I was getting to, right Where I -- I agree with all the positive potential. I think that -- I think that isn't wrong. But -- but, you know, I think -- I think the quote that, you know, the quote you just flashed is -- is maybe too -- maybe too optimistic, maybe too sanguine about the ability for people to -- to -- to adapt. You know, people have adapted to past technological changes. But I'll

say again, everyone I've talked to has said this technological change looks different. It looks faster. It looks harder to adapt to. It's broader. The pace of progress keeps catching people off guard.

And so, I don't know exactly how fast, you know, the -- you know, the job concerns are going to come. I don't know how fast people are going to adapt. It's possible it'll be -- it'll -- it'll -- it'll be OK. But I think that's -- I think that's too sanguine an approach. I think we do need to be raising the alarm. I think we do need to be concerned about it. I think policymakers do need to worry about it.

If they do worry and they do act, then maybe we can prevent it. But we're not going to prevent it just by saying everything's going to be OK.

COOPER: Do we as a society even understand the potential inequalities that this may amplify? And also the impact just on what -- like I have little kids, I have a five-year-old, a three-year-old, what do they grow up aspiring to if machines can do pretty much everything better? What is the -- that does it do to initiative or drive or striving? And I don't know the answer to that, but it concerns me.

AMODEI: Let's -- let's take those questions one by one, those -- those -- those do concern me, but I do have -- I do have thoughts on them. You know, in terms of inequality, I'm worried about this. You know, there's a -- there's an inherent social contract in -- in -- in democracy where ultimately, you know, the ordinary person has a certain amount of leverage because they're contributing to the economy.

If that -- if that leverage goes away, then it's -- it's hard to make democracy. It's harder to make democracies work and it's harder to prevent concentration of power. And so, you know, we -- we -- we need to make sure that the ordinary person maintains economic leverage and has a way to make a living or our society, our social contract work. And that's why I think it's important.

COOPER: During testing your company's latest chatbot, Claude 4, was capable of what was described as extreme blackmail. Specifically, I understand it threatened to reveal an engineer's extra metal -- extramarital affair when it was told it would be taken offline and replaced. This was a simulation. Were you surprised by that? And what is that? I mean, that freaked me out when I read that. What does that mean?

AMODEI: Yeah, so -- so, just to be clear and to put this in context, I mean, this was -- this was, you know, as you said, a behavior that -- that -- that emerged during kind of extreme testing of the model. So, if you were to make an analogy to, you know, cars, this is like, oh, you deliberately put the car on the iciest road possible. You know, you mess with the brakes and, you know, you do that.

So, you can see if you really stress test the thing, you know, you can -- you know, then you can make the crash dummy blow up. So, this -- this isn't something that, you know, the model does in practice and actual usage. But -- but the reason we stress test the models this way, this way is, you know, that's the best way to test for and prevent problems in the real world. So --

COOPER: Right. I see what you're doing.

AMODEI: Yeah, yeah. No, but, you know -- you know exactly what you want, but you want to turn every adversarial condition up to the max all at once.

COOPER: Right.

AMODEI: And it's only by testing in that you get the model to -- to not do that, to not do that in the real world. So, I wasn't surprised by these behaviors. But, you know, this is -- this is an example of how we have to be very careful in how we take control of AI systems.

COOPER: I mean, does it -- the obvious question is, does that pretend AI becoming self-aware and which could and could that lead to dire consequences?

AMODEI: I certainly don't exclude the concept. We have a couple of people who are actually working on this topic. Well, you know, as crazy as it sounds of, you know, do -- do AI systems have -- have, you know, morally significant feelings? I would guess that they don't right now.

But, you know, when you run an AI company, you know, these crazy seeing questions are things that you -- are things that you study. So, I would say this is probably not the case now. But again, the field is advancing so fast that I don't -- I don't think you can -- you can exclude even crazy sounding things like this.

COOPER: What are practical steps people should take to be prepared? I mean, ordinary citizens, me, lawmakers, what do you advise?

AMODEI: Yeah, you know --

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Particularly lawmakers, I guess, really.

AMODEI: Yeah, well, let's take them one by one, you know, I think for ordinary citizens, I think it's -- it's very important, you know, learn to use AI, learn to understand where the technology is going. If you're not blindsided, you have a much better chance of adapting. There's some, you know, better world, you know, at least in the short term, at least for now, we should take it -- take it bit by bit where -- where, you know, everyone learns to -- everyone learns to use AI better. And, you know, that -- that speeds up the adaptation that is -- is definitely going to happen eventually, but it'll be less painful if it if it happens quickly.

[20:40:21]

For lawmakers, you know, I would say really, really, really be aware of these issues. And, you know, we're trying very hard to produce data on the economic impact, not taking off the table, you know, some -- some -- some fairly radical notions like I wouldn't exclude the notion of, you know, levying a tax on AI companies, right? If AI creates huge total wealth, you know, a lot of that will -- will by default go to the A.I. companies and, you know, less to ordinary people.

And so, you know, definitely not in my economic interest to say that. But I think -- I think this is something we should consider. And, you know, I think it shouldn't be a partisan thing.

COOPER: Dario, thank you so much. It's really fascinating.

AMODEI: Yeah. Thank you for having me, Anderson.

COOPER: Well, coming up next, chaos and sheer desperation in Gaza. Palestinians seeking food and other aid. The U.N. is calling on Israel to fix the situation, saying conditions to deliver aid safely are absent. We'll get an update from Jeremy Diamond to the region.

Plus, a massive wave of ice, rock and mud burying a part of a village in the Swiss Alps after part of a glacier broke free. What authorities are saying about the disaster, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:46:01]

COOPER: Chaos in southern Gaza, the U.N. says humanitarian needs have spiraled out of control after an 80-day Israeli blockade of all food and aid. Today, crowds of desperate people arrived at this distribution site run by a new humanitarian foundation. Some got supplies. Others were told to come back tomorrow morning. Several deaths have been reported in Gaza since the controversial aid distribution sites opened earlier this week.

At least two were killed yesterday, according to the World Food Program, when crowds of hungry people broke into a U.N. food warehouse. This video from that scene shows people grabbing whatever they could find. CNN's Jeremy Diamond joins us with more.

Jeremy, what more do you know about the aid distribution?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, listen, the scenes that we are seeing inside of Gaza reflect the desperate humanitarian situation that exists there right now. And the dangers that some Palestinians are being forced to face in order to get to some of these new Gaza Humanitarian Foundation distribution sites and then get back home, sometimes walking several kilometers to do so.

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation certainly is ramping up the amount of aid that they are distributing. They say that they've distributed 17,000 boxes of food, nearly one million meals at three different distribution sites just today, which is up from two days ago when they started operations. But at the same time, we are seeing these chaotic scenes still unfolding near these sites. And the Palestinian Ministry of Health has said that 11 people have been killed near these distribution sites, including three who were killed just today. We do know that there has been Israeli gunfire in the area. Those American security contractors who are operating those sites, they insist that they haven't fired a single shot so far. But people have been shot near these distribution sites. And just earlier this week, of course, we saw the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid site that was overrun by thousands of desperately hungry Palestinians, a U.N. warehouse just yesterday that was ransacked by people as well, and crowds today that looted a street market in northern Gaza. So, more aid is slowly trickling into Gaza, but it simply has not alleviated the hunger crisis that exists. Anderson.

COOPER: Jeremy Diamond, thanks very much.

Now, incredible images from two disasters, one involving ice, the other fire. First, Canada, where wildfires in the province of Manitoba have led to the largest evacuation there in living memory. 17,000 people have been forced to leave their homes, and thousands more have fled other fires nearby.

In all, about 160 wildfires are burning across Canada, and authorities are warning the wind will likely blow smoke into the U.S. Air quality alerts are in effect tomorrow for parts of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Also take a look at this incredible video from the Swiss Alps, showing the moment a chunk of a glacier broke off and came crashing down the slopes. That massive cloud of ice, mud, and rock hit the village of Blatten, which was home to about 300 people. Now, 90% of the village is completely covered by debris. One person is missing. Thankfully, the rest of the village evacuated earlier this month when geologists warned of a possible avalanche due to the melting permafrost from warmer temperatures. The village mayor vows they will rebuild.

Coming up next, John Miller takes us inside a multimillion-dollar campus where law enforcement can train for almost any scenario.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST (voice-over): There's not much time to think as threats come from multiple directions. Your heart pounds, even though it isn't real.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Put the gun down.

MILLER: Because it feels real.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:54:14]

COOPER: Five years ago this week, a Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd. His death shook the nation, igniting one of the largest protest movements in U.S. history. Half a decade later, what progress has been made in policing, specifically when it comes to the use of deadly force?

CNN's John Miller went to a state-of-the-art police training facility to see how law enforcement is learning to de-escalate situations and try to avoid tragedy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MILLER (voice-over): The Illinois State Police SWAT team is using a building designed like a school to practice rapid response to an active shooter. Some local student volunteers give the exercise a chilling feeling of reality as they run from the building. This is not a government facility.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nice job.

[20:55:00]

MILLER (voice-over): It was built and is run by Howard Buffett, the son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett. Any agency can train there and it's all free. Special operators can train here for almost any scenario.

(On camera): I literally had flashbacks to that day in Brooklyn where a guy set off multiple smoke bombs and then opened fire in a crowded subway train in rush hour.

HOWARD G. BUFFETT, CHAIRMAN & CEO, HOWARD G. BUFFETT FOUNDATION: That is to help the officer be prepared for every scenario that he can be prepared for so that other people don't get hurt.

MILLER (voice-over): Buffett, who once served as a county sheriff in Illinois, spent millions of dollars building out a campus filled with law enforcement run facilities and some innovative programs he hopes will change the course of American policing.

BUFFETT: When do you see some of the worst accidents occur? When someone breaks a door down or serves a no-knock warrant or when somebody's in a crowded space and there's bad judgment used and somebody gets shot or injured.

MILLER (voice-over): There is a highly interactive video wall that will put you in a myriad of bad places where anything can happen. And there's not much time to think as threats come from multiple directions. Your heart pounds. Even though it isn't real.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Put the gun down.

MILLER (voice-over): Because it feels real. These scenarios all involve people armed with guns who are shooting.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get the bat down. Drop the bat, man.

MILLER (voice-over): But the most controversial police-involved shootings.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Drop the bat, man. MILLER: Usually involve people who are not armed with a gun. One of the programs Buffett supports here is new training.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you want to come talk to her?

MILLER (voice-over): Emphasizing that when officers are not facing a gun, they have many more options.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You said you were going to do something you didn't do anything.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're going to tase me. What are you going to do?

MILLER (voice-over): It's a program called ICAT. It stands for Integrating Communications Assessment and Tactics. In a country where bad incidents with police can tear a city apart or even burn it down.

CHUCK WEXLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, POLICE EXECUTIVE RESEARCH FORUM: How do we get this message to your whole department?

MILLER: Chuck Wexler is the Executive Director of the Police Executive Research Forum or PERF.

WEXLER: People think it's brute force all the time. No, you have to communicate. You have to engage.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You, and all you need to do is I've been trying to call my doctor.

MILLER (voice-over): ICAT is training police to be able to slow down.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it OK if we go ahead and call medical for you?

MILLER (voice-over): To use time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want you to put the bat down first, OK?

MILLER: And distance.

WEXLER: It's to create, you know, realistic scenarios, realistic situations. They happen in bedrooms. They happen in stores. This is where these incidents happen in this country.

MILLER: One of those incidents happened not far from this training facility in July of last year when two officers in Sangamon County, Illinois, confronted a woman carrying a boiling pot of water and then opened fire, killing 36-year-old Sonya Massey.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: God, I swear to God, I'll beat you right in the face. Drop the pot, and drop the pot.

MILLER (voice-over): Dispatch records show that the sheriff's department had been told she was experiencing a mental health crisis. One of the two deputies was fired and charged with first-degree murder. He has pleaded not guilty.

(On camera): What would the difference have been had they been through this training?

BUFFETT: You have a much better chance of that not happening if officers have been formally trained in de-escalation.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: John Miller, CNN Chief of Law Enforcement. Intelligence Analyst joins me now. How common is that kind of training, I mean, for -- for law enforcement around the country?

MILLER: So, it varies. If you look at that sheriff's department involved in that last shooting, they don't have that kind of training. A lot of smaller departments don't have the bandwidth for it.

How this started was they were studying, you know, there's about a thousand shootings a year by police in the United States. Circumstances are different, but in 40% of those cases, according to the Washington Post study where they keep the stats, the person wasn't armed with a gun or armed at all.

So, what PERF, the research think tank did, and Chuck Wexler's people, is he got 25 police chiefs and Howard Buffett. They flew to Scotland where most of the cops don't have guns, different kind of policing. And they said, well, we'll engage in the same kind of incidents. A man with a knife, a woman with scissors, a person waving a bat where the gun on the part of the police officer isn't a factor.

And they said, what are their tactics? How does it work? And it's a combination of being further back instead of --

COOPER: Physical distance.

MILLER: Physical distance, tactical positioning, getting people on multiple sides of somebody. And instead of what we see so much of, which is the officer draws his firearm, says, drop the knife, drop the knife, drop the knife 10 times and then 10 more times. If the person approaches, they open fire. Instead of drop the knife 20 times, it's, what's the matter? What's going on with you today? Let's talk about that.

[21:00:24]

COOPER: That's interesting. John Miller, thanks very much. Fascinating stuff.

The news continues. THE SOURCE with Kaitlan Collins starts now.