Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral, CNN Senior Military Analyst and Carlyle Group Partner James Stavridis (Ret.); Interview with LSE Syria Conflict Research Programme Director Rim Turkmani; Interview with McAllister Olivarius Chair and Senior Partner Ann Olivarius; Interview with LinkedIn Co-Founder and "Superagency" Co-Author Reid Hoffman. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired March 10, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
A future without the United States in NATO? Former head of the alliance James Stavridis maps out how Europe is preparing for that scenario.
Then, deadly violence in Syria with accusations of executions and communal killings. We get the latest.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, how are you? Can you tell us about any of the rape allegations?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- a self-proclaimed misogynist charged with human trafficking. Now, Andrew Tate and his brother on U.S. soil. I asked British American
lawyer Ann Olivarius what their release means for women's safety.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REID HOFFMAN, CO-FOUNDER, LINKEDIN AND CO-AUTHOR, "SUPERAGENCY": I think there's a lot of ways that these agents can actually in fact kind of be on
our side.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: "Superagency." LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman tells Walter Isaacson why he believes in A.I.'s potential for positive change.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Well, this could be a crucial week for the war in Ukraine. Here's U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio arriving in Saudi Arabia, where he'll meet
with his Ukrainian counterparts tomorrow. President Zelenskyy is also in Jeddah for separate talks with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Now, the backdrop could not be more fraught. After the Trump administration has dealt Kyiv a number of serious blows in recent weeks, including an
ongoing pause on military aid and intelligence sharing. All while Kyiv is still fending off Russia's brutal aggression. Russia's missiles killed at
least 23 people in just one day over the weekend, and their troops gaining background in Russia's Kursk region, threatening one of Kyiv's crucial
bargaining chips in any future negotiations.
So, what could peace look like, and what role would the U.S., Europe, and NATO play in any security guarantees? Admiral James Stavridis served as
NATO's Supreme Allied Commander. And in a recent peace for Bloomberg imagines what would happen if the U.S. pulled out of that alliance. He's
also a partner at the Carlisle Group, and he joins us from Florida.
Admiral Stavridis, thank you so much for joining us. Just an unimaginable scenario even having to write about the U.S. pulling out of NATO a few
months ago, and yet, here we are. Let me begin though with this important week here of meetings between the United States and the Ukrainians. The
American side says that their goal is to, quote, "create a framework for a peace agreement and an initial ceasefire."
Based on everything that we've seen publicly from the White House and all of its ire directed seemingly just towards Ukraine with serious
ramifications and holding back intelligence and weaponry. How concerned are you about what may or may not come out of these meetings tomorrow?
ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER AND CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST, PARTNER, CARLYLE GROUP: I'm very concerned. We
all should be. This is trending in a very negative direction for Ukraine. Let's be hopeful, and hope is not a strategy, but let's be hopeful that
with the arrival of Secretary Rubio, which I think is a good thing, there is a possibility that we can get back on track, get back to the idea of the
minerals deal, which I think is very attractive personally to President Trump.
And if we could get back to that sort of where we were, Bianna, right before the explosively bad meeting in the White House, that would be a win.
What are the chances of getting back to that? I'd say they're better than even at this point, but certainly, a lot of concern out there to include,
final thought, the strikes that Russia has been launching against civilian targets and against critical infrastructure in Ukraine.
GOLODRYGA: In terms of the outcome of the U.S. withholding military aid, experts like yourselves say that that won't be noticeable on the
battlefield for at least another few months and hopefully, the U.S. will start again supplying Ukraine along with the Europeans with that needed
aid. But the intelligence that the U.S. has frozen, how much can we say that has played a role in some of the gains and inroads that Russia has
made even over the last few days, specifically in the Kursk region?
[13:05:00]
STAVRIDIS: Yes, your premise is exactly right. And just for viewers, yes, obviously, the heavy-duty military equipment, the bombs, the missiles, the
guns, all that is critical. But if you stop and think about it, even as someone who's not involved, shall we say in the profession of arms, you
would quickly realize, where are you going to point them? What are the targets? How are you going to be certain you're not going to cause
collateral damage, for example? All of that comes out of the intelligence and the imagery. These are the photographs that come from overhead sensors
like satellites, which you're showing now.
I've watched thousands and thousands of hours of this kind of footage with my targeteers during strikes in Afghanistan, Libya, the Balkans and
elsewhere, it is the lifeblood of military operations, intelligence and imagery. And that is having an immediate impact, I think, in the Kursk
region. You showed a map of that a moment ago. This is a key bargaining chip for Ukraine. And so, far, it appears since that intelligence was shut
off. We're seeing real gains by the Russians and, oh, by the way, the -- their evil creatures from North Korea, 12,000 soldiers are part of this
Kursk offensive. We've effectively blinded the Ukrainians, even as this assault has begun.
And final thought, Bianna, the intel about incoming missiles against civilian targets, if that has been shut off, that -- certainly, you can lay
the deaths of Ukrainian civilians. alongside this decision. It's a bad one.
GOLODRYGA: So, how do you then try to explain or wrap your head around what we've seen taking place, Russia only stepping up its attacks against
Ukraine over the last few weeks? President Zelenskyy appearing to come with real concessions and offering some solutions that he thinks could lead to
at least a temporary ceasefire in land and sea, and yet, you hear President Trump continue to say that this is going to be more difficult to get
Ukraine to come to the table, that Ukraine really has to make some concessions.
Secretary of State Rubio said that he will be listening to see what concessions Ukraine can make. And we don't hear that type of language as it
refers to Russia, yes, there was a one off about additional sanctions, but that hasn't been actually implemented at all. And we know -- I don't even
know what impact additional sanctions would have since so many sanctions were leveled against Russia when this war initially began.
STAVRIDIS: Yes, it's clearly in a complete U-turn on U.S. policy. Previously, we were supportive, in my view, as we should be, of Ukraine, a
democracy backed up by all of our European allies who are the victims here, who were invaded by a dictator, Vladimir Putin. Now, it feels as though
we've done this U-turn where our presumption is that Russia is somebody who we can kind of support in their approach in the negotiations while we put
all the pressure over here on the Ukrainians.
You know, Bianna, we used to talk about maximum pressure campaigns applied to who, to the Iranians. Now, we're applying maximum pressure and using
those terms against the Ukrainians. I think it is a miscarriage of justice to do so. Having said all of that, let's get both parties to the
negotiating table. Let's get a ceasefire without giving away any more Ukrainian territory, and let's see where the negotiations go.
But ultimately, your point is 100 percent correct, which is the U.S. is going to have to put a lot of pressure on Vladimir Putin, and he will have
to make some concessions alongside those that we envision for the Ukrainians if we're going to get to a deal.
GOLODRYGA: Back to your piece on envisioning what the world would look like if the U.S. does exit NATO. I want to quote from your article and you
write, "The Europeans foreign and defense policies would rapidly split from those of the U.S. Instead of confronting China alongside Washington, they
might see greater economic and perhaps even military cooperation with Beijing as a hedge against growing U.S. alignment with Vladimir Putin's
Russia. More European nations will likely join Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative. Europe may be far less inclined to join with the U.S. in
pressuring Iran over its nuclear program, and instead seek economic advantages there."
Mind-boggling to envision that type of multipolar world where the Europeans, who had been more aligned to China over the last few years but
really took a step back because of pressure from the United States to do so, may find itself back in that position, if not even more reliant.
[13:10:00]
And now, on social media, you have Elon Musk saying that the U.S. must exit NATO. Some elected members of the Senate suggesting the same online. How
real is this hypothetical at this point, but one that at least led you to write a thoughtful piece like this?
STAVRIDIS: Yes, thoughtful, perhaps, but certainly for me, heartbreaking piece as a former supreme allied commander of NATO to write it. I believe
in the alliance. I believe in the transatlantic bridge. But let me tell you, it's kind of an aha moment for Europeans as they look at this U-turn
in foreign policy that we discussed a moment ago. And they are coming to, what I fear is, an accurate realization that at least under a Trump
administration, they can't count on solid support from Washington.
So, we ought to remember, Bianna, and you know this, you know Europe quite well, we ought to remember that Europe is not without cards in this game.
They have the second largest economy in the world collectively, 22 percent of the world's GDP. The U.S. is 25 percent. They're 22 percent. They have
the second largest defense budget in the world collectively, more than China, more than Russia, probably around $500 billion, U.S. has $900
billion.
So, they have a lot of capacity. They have excellent defense, industrial- based firms, everything from Airbus to Tayless (ph) to Leonardo, many others that Americans won't know. But eight of the top 20 defense firms in
the world are in Europe. So, they've got the capacity. The question is, to conclude, do they have the will and do they have the unity? I think given
what they're seeing from Washington, that is underway and that could lead to a crack in that transatlantic bridge and the end of NATO as we know it.
GOLODRYGA: And you bring up an important point and that is the economic impact too and how Europe will have to rely more on its own defensive
companies as opposed to what we've seen over the past few years, and that is the United States being the main source for procuring weapons for
Europe. This has long been viewed by the Biden administration as an investment in the U.S. economy, specifically in the defense sector, a
reinvestment. President Zelenskyy also said as much when he spoke before a joint session of Congress saying this isn't charity, this is an investment.
What happens to the United States if all of the sudden the growth engine, at least on defensive weaponry, shifts to Europe?
STAVRIDIS: It will diminish our own defense industrial base. Just to put the numbers on your excellent point. Today, about 75 percent of European
defense spending goes right to American companies. They make about 25 percent of their military equipment in Europe. They are actively creating
funds allocating resources to spin that around so that they can be the ones producing 50 to 75 percent of their own military equipment. I think they'll
get there in three to five years. And that is moving fast in the world of defense procurement.
And then, final point, and I think you underline this, but I just want to hit it again. When we talk about providing aid to Ukraine, military aid, we
don't send them like a container full of cash. What happens is we spend that money here in the United States, in our defense industrial base, and
send them those products. Guess who's going to take that market over? Oh, by the way, guess who's going to get the mineral deal if we walk away from
Ukraine? So, there are sound economic reasons we ought to stay engaged here as well.
GOLODRYGA: Really important conversation. James Stavridis, thank you so much for joining the show.
STAVRIDIS: Thanks, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Well, next to Syria, where more than 700 people, including scores of civilians, have been killed in the worst outbreak of violence
since the ousting of former President Bashar al-Assad late last year. Syrian government loyalists are accused of carrying out executions as part
of a brutal crackdown against pro-Assad rebels. Now, those attacks started after reports that Assad loyalists had killed members of the rebel group
that helped topple his dictatorship. The country's interim president, Ahmed Al-Sharaa, is calling for national unity.
Joining me now to help explain what is happening is Rim Turkmani. She directs the Syria Conflict Research Program at the London School of
Economics. Rim, thank you so much for joining the program. There's a lot of unreported video and unconfirmed news coming out of Syria over the last 48
hours, 72 hours.
[13:15:00]
Can you walk us through what we do know about what transpired and just in the last few moments we did hear from Al-Sharaa, who himself has said he
demands a full investigation into this as well?
RIM TURKMANI, DIRECTOR, LSE SYRIA CONFLICT RESEARCH PROGRAMME: Indeed. I mean the context is very difficult. So, it's difficult to know the full
picture. But what we know before even this started that it has been building up. What we had is an army and security forces for the previous
regime that suddenly been dissolved. So, we knew that there were hundreds of thousands of people who were part of the old regime, who are trained,
who are armed, who are linked with each other, many, but not all of them are Alawite. Many went to the coast, feel completely excluded out of the
new regime, feel very threatened, lost their resources, their power, and they were ready to hit back.
And these people should have been processed through a process of either transitional justice or DDR or integrated in some form of security forces,
but should not have been let free. These are all the same mistakes that have been committed. After the Iraq invasion, the dissolving the army, the
batification, creating an excluded minority that feels completely powerless. And now, they're hitting back.
So, what they did is that they started an ambush against the new security forces. I wouldn't say, as the report said against the rebel who liberated
Syria, because now, we have a new formed state. And these guys who've been killed, I mean, they are young members of the security forces. They just
joined, just been trained. I mean, they are not member of the terrorist organization and they've been ambushed and that kind of started a backlash
and a series of massacres.
Now, several groups joined from across the country, some of them are part of the very newly formed Syrian army, which is still different brigades.
The new president is trying to bring them together, but there's so many divisions between them, so many different drivers, and they're not all
really under the control of the president.
Some of these brigades, particularly the one called Al Amshad, who were active in North Syria, used to be supported by Turkey, they committed
horrific crimes. Also, previous member of SGS, who are the international jihadists from Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, (INAUDIBLE), they also committed
absolutely horrific crimes, and it's still ongoing. It's still happening until now. There's still forces going from one village to the other,
killing civilians.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
TURKMANI: And what we know is that at least 240 from security forces have been killed, and more than a thousand civilians, at least.
GOLODRYGA: That's what I was going to ask you and thank you. You really helped explain what's transpired. But to the fact that you say this is
still ongoing is alarming, especially since you have Al-Sharaa who's making public statements now calling for calm, calling for investigations, even,
quote, "for those closest to us vowing to punish anyone in this violence." So, does that just reinforce the point you made that he likely does not
have control of all of these fighting forces?
TURKMANI: Yes. And this is very difficult to have control so quickly. I mean, we're coming from a background of very, very fragmented country where
the conflict is still there. The conflict is not over. You know, I was in Syria. I walked around. You feel the divisions are still there. Different
brigades, different drives, different ideology. It's not going to be easy to integrate them. No one can do this in Syria.
My belief is that we really need a multilateral neutral presence to help like, you know, U.N. mission who can help integrate these forces, do the
art process, mediate when mediation is needed. Protect when protection is needed. I don't think we can leave it to Syrians on their own right now. We
don't want like one country to come and intervene, but we want a more neutral presence that everyone can feel safe around and who can assist the
new authority to produce something more inclusive, because the reality is, OK, we're speaking about those ex-regime criminals, but in the background,
the Alawite community is tired. They don't want this.
I mean, I spoke to so many Alawites in Syria. You could see it. They don't want this. And we have to remember, it's them who decided not to support
the regime when it was collapsing. The regime collapsed because the loyalist community did not fight for him. They are done with it and they
are resisting this. They're resisting another episode of violence. So, they need to feel secure. They need to feel safe. And then they become partner
in building a new country.
But right now, they don't see themselves and the new authorities -- all the minorities in Syria, you can see it everywhere, they don't feel the new
system is inclusive enough. It doesn't mean they don't -- they want to overthrow the regime. No one wants to talk about overthrowing the regime
now in Syria. It will be enlightenment. No one wants such, you know, a huge scale operation.
[13:20:00]
They want to see a more inclusive regime, more inclusive system of governance. They want to be represented. They don't want a sectarian army.
You know, a sectarian army have been formed, sectarian by design, led by officials who are not even Syrians. So, they do feel threatened, and we
have to understand this, and we can see now the results of them not being secure enough.
GOLODRYGA: Where does this leave Western countries from Europe to the United States, who obviously had sanctioned the Assad regime heavily, and
over the course of the last few weeks, had been really in the process of lifting some of those sanctions, been meeting with Al-Sharaa and some of
his top deputies as well?
I mean, the United States came out and said that we condemn the Syrian massacres and that the U.S. quote, "stands with the minorities." How at
risk is the lifting now of these sanctions, which Al-Sharaa desperately needs, as you've noted?
TURKMANI: Absolutely. I mean, one reason we have all of this is that the economy is in complete ruin and anyone can come and recruit young men for a
new episode of violence. I mean, many on the Alawite community have been misled into this by some ex-generals who had some money and who seem to
have some links also with the regional powers like Iran.
So, we do need the sanctions to be lifted. But together with that, we need other steps to ensure that the governance is going to be inclusive, that
we're not going to have a corrupt government, that the economy is going to work for the people. So, not just sanction for -- you know, lift sanctions
full stop, keep watching, see how this -- that lifting is changing the new system. Use every leverage you have to ensure the emergence of more
democratic, inclusive Syria.
Everyone's forgetting democracy. No one wants to talk about democracy, but I think it's democracy that will protect people. It will make the
minorities feel safe. It will make them feel represented. They will make sure that then no one's going to come to power and stay for another 50
years with no chance of sharing power at all. So, I don't support a full boycott.
I think we should work to lift the sanctions, but as I said, ensure that this is going to work for the people, not for a new elite who are going to
control the resources of the state and ignore everyone. All these young men spread around the country they should be involved in development projects.
They should be building Syria right now. They should not be killing each other. And without the funds flowing, without the economy that functions in
the light and the shadow, as it is the case right now because of the sanctions, we're not going to have such country that involves its people in
a more positive project.
GOLODRYGA: What role specifically should the Trump administration have here as it differed from the Biden administration's approach because Al-
Sharaa also in this interview with Reuters said that Syria has had no direct contact with the Trump administration and then he went on to say
that Syria is unable to restore security with the U.S. sanctions specifically in place?
We know that President Trump had -- even before he came into office, had said that he would like to see U.S. troops withdrawn from the northern part
of that country that had been allied there with the Kurdish fighters. What role should the U.S. play right now?
TURKMANI: I think there's several roles that could be played here, including what you mentioned of the northeast of Syria. So, before
withdrawing the tools, we need to ensure that there is a political agreement in place between the Kurds and all the communities in Northeast
Syria and the new authorities. I don't think they should suddenly withdraw and leave a vacuum before ensuring that people do feel safe. And there is a
reliable process in place.
I think they can also have with the Security Council, ensuring that there will be new resolutions that have the consensus of all -- you know, of
course, any U.N. resolution will have consensus from the P5, but we need, for example, International Investigation Committee for all these crimes
that are being committed. We need to ask people what do they need to feel protected.
And I think we need a new U.N. mission that has a real mandate and that has towards one integrated U.N. mission that can help the new authorities and
assist them, give them all the technical assistance that is needed to reform the financial sector, reform state institutions and build a
nonsectarian army.
GOLODRYGA: Rim Turkmani, thank you so much for your expertise and for joining the program today. Appreciate it.
TURKMANI: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, now, from professional kickboxer to notorious poster boy of the manosphere. Andrew Tate landed in Florida last month. Now, this
despite facing charges of trafficking and sexually exploiting women in Romania alongside his brother Tristan.
[13:25:00]
Tate's online fan base has continued to grow into the millions on social media where he pedals sexist and radical right-wing views. One of his
followers, Kyle Clifford, was convicted of brutally murdering his ex- girlfriend, her sister, and mother using a crossbow in the U.K. Now, prosecutors pointing to the role of Tate's content played in radicalizing
Clifford.
To break down the implications of all of this, I'm joined by Ann Olivarius, a British American lawyer and chair, the senior partner in McAllister
Olivarius. Ann, thank you so much for joining the program.
And we mentioned the hunt murders that took place last year in the U.K. last summer and how prosecutors connected. The murders to what they viewed
as violent misogyny promoted by Andrew Tate. Can you talk about the impact that had on the country as it relates to some of the work and video that
Andrew Tate has become infamous for alongside his brother? And what are some of the lessons that should be taken here in the United States from
that as the brothers had been welcomed, surprisingly, back home?
ANN OLIVARIUS, CHAIR AND SENIOR PARTNER, MCALLISTER OLIVARIUS: Indeed, not by Ron DeSantis, I gather, they're reading the papers. He's not so keen as
the government of Florida to have them.
GOLODRYGA: No.
OLIVARIUS: And it looks like the Tate brothers, he may have gone off to L.A. right now. Anyway, he's trying to land someplace. But there are legal
actions against him now in the United States for rape and trafficking, also in the United Kingdom, and also in Romania, of course. So, people are after
him. But he's become one of MAGA's, you know, great persons. They love this guy. He identifies with them. They've embraced him and his politics.
And, of course, what Tate has done brilliantly is he's been able to take misogyny and hatred towards women, and he's been able to package that onto
the internet, then he's been able to monetize it so he's become extremely wealthy by selling this -- you know, his hate package. And now, it's being
politicized, it's got a political backing.
So, in fact, things are going south for women and, you know, for civil society because now he's got the political, you know, Republican Party
behind him and what he's doing. I mean, Tucker Carlson had a slobbering interview with him last year positioning Tate as a slightly edgy role model
who just wanted men to get respect above all. So, these are not good days ahead of us I fear.
GOLODRYGA: Not good days in what sense? Obviously, very distasteful violent graphic videos that have been posted. We've seen the consequences,
according to U.K. prosecutors of some of their violent antics. But for American women, for women around the world, the fact that you see them
embraced by a political movement here in the United States, though there are some -- and we'll get to it in a minute, some Republicans who have also
been outspoken. You mentioned Ron DeSantis, about their embrace here in MAGA world. What are the consequences of these types of actions and
platforming people like the Tate brothers?
OLIVARIUS: Yes. So, for instance, here in England, they did took a look at Tate and what effect he's having. And they found that eight out of 10 boys
in school, teenagers, who, you know, had seen Tate's videos online. And so, that's a disturbing concept, because let's be clear what he's teaching.
He's teaching -- it's a pyramid scheme. Young boys are lured into this pool content about how men need to find self-discipline. They need to go to the
gym, they need to assert dominance in the game of life. That's the early days, that's the beginning introduction to Tate.
And then, the next step is the idea that women are, and Tate has said this, inherently lazy, worthless, and only good for exchanging sex for money,
either by marriage or by sex work. For Tate, women cannot have none sex related careers outside of the home.
So, think about what that means. If young boys are watching this and what's happening, of course, is that Tate delivered for Trump, a lot of young men
to vote. The women, not so. And there's a divide now among young men and young women. The men are embracing Tate, and the women are not, just like
the Republican Party is increasingly wanting to have a more traditional lifestyle for women, and women are saying, what, no, we disagree with that.
But there is this rise, I think 48 percent of Republicans now want a traditional lifestyle and values in family structures, which means sad news
for women who want to have careers and have a life that's independent autonomous from potentially their partners, their husbands, men.
[13:30:00]
GOLODRYGA: I mentioned the split within the Republican Party over this MAGA world embrace of the Tate brothers. Over the weekend, we saw Dana
White who came embracing them on video, there he sits on the board of Meta at a UFC fight in Las Vegas over the weekend. You also though have
Republican senators like Josh Hawley, who says, I don't think conservatives should be glorifying this guy at all. Ben Shapiro and Megyn Kelly also
denouncing him. You mentioned Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Here's what he said about them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): Florida is not a place where you're welcome with that -- with those -- that type of conduct in the air. And I don't know how
it came to this. We were not involved. We were not notified. I found out through the media that this was something that was happening.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Is this a generational divide even within one party or political base and do you think there's hope for optimism perhaps that
there will be more people that publicly come out with platforms, large platforms denouncing the actions of these men as well?
OLIVARIUS: Well, I mean, you see right now we're in a period where what Trump wants, he's trying to get and, you know, very few people dare speak
up against Trump. So, the fact that Tate is embraced by Trump and Musk, who of course, you know, here Tate has been off of all social media platforms.
He's been back on TikTok a little bit, but Elon Musk has put him back onto Twitter, which says an awful lot. Why would Elon Musk do that? You know, he
was kicked off for, you know, rampant misogyny and hate politics.
You know, it's interesting this -- in this case that just happened here, where this chap is -- this ex-army person came in and killed his
girlfriend, the mother, and also his sister, and brutally. And the ex- girlfriend raped her for many hours and tortured her before he killed her. You know, his -- he admitted to the murders and he admitted to, you know,
entering the house on, you know, the false imprisonment of his ex- girlfriend. And he admitted to two counts of offensive possession of offensive weapons. But he said, no, I was not guilty of rape. And his
defense, a trial, which he would not attend, he made sure her family had to attend, and they had to listen to all the most tragic, sad details, but he
wouldn't go as his, you know, last act of domination. But his defense on the rape was that it was consensual.
And, of course, that somebody, MAGA, could embrace, you know, this ideology of this man, which is what they do, you know, who would rape a -- you know,
a consensual sexual act when she is right there next to her dead mother, who's just been stabbed by this man? What woman would consent to sex? You
know, and it's beyond the pale. Who even thinks this way? How could this even be possible? But he is and people like Tate give these kinds of
defenses and say, this is what happens, these poor men.
And they try this idea out that they're heartbroken because they've been rejected. No, it's -- he couldn't -- it wasn't about, you know, this man
saying, I couldn't -- you know, I was so heartbroken. I missed her. No, he was heartbroken because, Clifford, this man could not tolerate Louise, the
girl, his ex-girlfriend, who he murdered and raped and tortured, he could not accept her autonomy. And that's the thing that's happening with, of
course, Andrew Tate.
He's arguing for men's autonomy, but women's submission, that women have to be subjected to humiliation and servitude. That's what they're to do. So,
of course, in this country, many have called him a normal bloke. You know, he's a normal guy. Is this what a normal guy is?
GOLODRYGA: Well, and you mentioned the case of Kyle Clifford, a middle- aged man. I'm just wondering what impact do these videos and the popularization of people like Andrew and Tristan Tate, what impact does
this have on young boys who have access to these videos, these websites, Twitter accounts, all of these pages that perhaps their parents don't even
know exist at a very vulnerable time in their maturity and puberty process?
OLIVARIUS: Sure. And of course, Tate is an aficionado of porn, hardcore porn, and you know, it's very important to him that young boys actually see
this. So, we have a whole generation of young boys, eight years old and above, who learn about sex by watching porn. That's not exactly a
progressive, happy way to learn about sex, or going to give you necessarily a happy sex life, especially if you're having sex with a woman. What are
they learning about sex that's positive for a woman?
So, I mean, in the sense that these are normal, kids, normal blokes, normal chaps, you know, that this is the male standard, that's dangerous for all
of us.
GOLODRYGA: Is there a masculinity crisis in America, you know, in the Western world at this point?
[13:35:00]
OLIVARIUS: Yes, what a good question. Yes, because for men, it's different. Women have different expectations than they did when even -- you
know, when I first went to school its things have changed a lot. Women have different expectations and fathers and grandfathers had a different life
than these young men have.
And so, they're -- you know, like Trump, they don't really want equality, they liked being the ones in charge. They wanted to be the dominant ones
that wanted to run the families, be the patriarchy. And they're not the patriarchs now in a lot of families. In some, but not -- you know, fewer
families, most women are not prepared to accept that. They don't want that.
GOLODRYGA: You helped the U.K. parliament pass the country's first revenge pornography law in 2015. What if any actions or takeaways can the U.S.
Justice Department take from the work that you've conducted in the past?
OLIVARIUS: Yes. Well, of course, you know, I helped draft that and was instrumental in getting that bill passed. And it's been a very interesting
bill. You know, we had early days for us in that area and we really made new law there. We have been working hard on an online harms bill, of
course, and we had one passed, the original one, we thought was going to be really great because there's a legislation in the United States, as you
know, called the CDA. And that means you cannot go after the platforms, the social media platforms, for the stuff they put on there, the deep fakes,
the porn, the violence against women. They all got some protection on that.
So, we thought if we put on a law here in Britain that would stop that so that there have to be responsibility by the, you know, social media
platforms for what they're putting up there, then we could enforce that. But of course -- and we thought that would be the lead for the rest of the
world or for the West, but of course, you know, Zuckerberg and all sorts of Americans came and said, no, no, that's just really not going to work. And
they're using these bully tactics.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And Elon Musk, I mean, we saw it firsthand when he was in Europe speaking in Munich and really chastising the Europeans for what he
thought was, you know, them blocking freedom of speech. Yes, two diverging paths here, it appears, that the U.S. and Europe are on a number of fronts,
including this one. Ann Olivarius, thank you so much for talking to us about this really important topic.
OLIVARIUS: Thank you. Thank you very much.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we turn now to an issue that's been puzzling governments, investors, and ordinary people alike, the potential benefits of artificial
intelligence weighed against the risks. Our next guest, Reid Hoffman, co- founder of LinkedIn, believes that the list of benefits is long. He joined Walter Isaacson to talk about the new book he co-authored, "Superagency."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Reid Hoffman, welcome to the show.
REID HOFFMAN, CO-FOUNDER, LINKEDIN AND CO-AUTHOR, "SUPERAGENCY": It's great to be here.
ISAACSON: And you've been in the forefront of everything in the digital revolution, you know, from LinkedIn to PayPal. And now, of course,
artificial intelligence. You've got a new book called "Superagency." It's very optimistic about A.I. But let me start with the title and with the
word agency, let's leave aside superagency for a minute, just agency.
When we humans use it, it means we have a free will to make a plan and take an action. Is that what you mean here? And can computers do that?
HOFFMAN: Well, I'm not saying that computers can do that. This is actually a book about human agency, both individual and societal, hence the kind of
superagency and superpowers. But -- by the way, the philosophers might dispute different definitions of whether or not it's agency and free will.
But it is agency is expressions of our fundamental kind of humanity and how we organize our lives and connect with each other. And the thesis around
superagency is that A.I., like other general-purpose technologies in our history, will help us do that.
ISAACSON: Right. And what you talk about in the book is a notion that working with the symbiosis between the machines and ourselves will empower
us more. Explain why you think we get empowered more when our machines are doing more and more things.
HOFFMAN: Well, I mean, for example, take cars as a history, which by the way, they did have a similar discussion about whether or not to destroy
human society, change patterns of human interaction, et cetera. And cars actually give you agency, they give you superpowers, the ability to go
faster, further distances, et cetera. And by the way, you get superagency with cars, because not only do you get that superpower, but other people do
too. A doctor might be able to come visit you versus you having to try to get to the doctor. And computers, I think, and A.I. will do the same thing.
ISAACSON: When you say that it'll be safe and it'll respond to our needs, let me quote a sentence where you say, we're going to pursue a future in
which billions of people around the world get equitable, hands-on access to experiment with these technologies. First of all, let me ask you, why is
that important?
HOFFMAN: Well, it's important in part because part of how we get -- you know, just think about, for example, Tim Cook's iPhone is the same one that
the cab driver and Uber driver is using. And so, it's -- the fact when you get it, technology is designed for hundreds of millions of people, billions
of people, and they're engaged with them, then we're all being elevated and our society itself is getting superagency together. And so, that inclusion
helps us direct it in ways that are better, not just for individuals, but also for society.
[13:40:00]
ISAACSON: You talk about a cognitive industrial revolution. And, you know, I love looking at history of all the various agricultural industrial
revolutions. Compare this one to the previous revolutions we've had driven by technology.
HOFFMAN: Well, part of the reason I call it a cognitive industrial revolution is I want both the -- kind of the upside to be well understood,
which is nothing of our society, the way we exist, middle class, education, medicine, you know, this very technology that you and I are talking on
today, exists without the industrial revolution.
So, the outcome -- the targeted outcome is -- can be amazing and should be amazing. But it's also we have to navigate the transitions, because the
transitions, like the transition into the industrial revolution necessitated a lot of kind of difficult adjustments within human society.
You know, we need to try labor laws. We needed, you know, work weeks. We need a whole bunch of other things in order to make that work. And I
anticipate we're going to have similar transition issues. And so, we need to navigate those, hopefully having learned, with more humanity and more
grace than earlier transitions.
ISAACSON: Well, tell me about some of the transition rules that you think are necessary for A.I.
HOFFMAN: Well, so It is the fact that, look, people say, oh, it's going to be a lot of whole bunch of job replacement, and there will be some job
replacement. Take, for example, customer service where a human is following, is basically trying to be a robot following a script. A.I. will
do that much better.
But even a lot of other jobs will be transformed. So, when you previously needed these like 20 skills, you now need only call it eight of those
skills and then five more in order to do the job, like if you're a graphic designer, your ability to do things fine-tuned with your, you know, graphic
disparity, you know, manual dexterity is very important. Now, visual thinking is still important, but the manual dexterity may be less
important. And that's kind of a job transition. So, we need A.I.s.
What -- the thing I would be asking for from the companies, from government is A.I.s that help people with these transitions? You know, which few
skills they need to pick up? Is there going to still be doing this job, which will be a human with an A.I. replacing a human, being the same human
doing that, or helping you find other jobs, helping you learn other jobs, helping you do other jobs? And we want A.I.s helping us with all of that.
ISAACSON: You know, when you talk about it, the role seems even grander. They're just helping us with our jobs because I'm going to read you a
sentence from the book. You say, every new technology we've invented, from languages, to books, you're talking about the printing press, to the mobile
phone, has defined, redefined, deepened, and expanded what it means to be human.
So, tell me how this will expand what it means to be human.
HOFFMAN: Well, so part of it is we are actually more homo techne than homo sapiens. We evolve through our technology, our genetics are very much
basically the same over the last 4,000 years, which is kind of the recorded history of human civilization. And yet, the way that, you know, I can see
literally through glasses, et cetera
A.I. is going to be doing the same thing. It's going to be saying, hey, you want to learn something, you want to know something, you want to navigate
the world? We call A.I. an informational GPS. And so, just like you use GPS to navigate like a new city that you're going to, all information spaces,
medical, work, education, creative can be amplified with this information GPS, and that's the kind of -- that then becomes a new part of what it is
to be human, because we have that in helping us with our navigation, just as our smartphones and a map does today.
ISAACSON: One of the things you talk about as part of your subtitle is we should talk about what could go right. I know you talk about Madison.
You've been involved with cancer research. Tell me the big things that can go right with this.
HOFFMAN: Well, so, you know, as you were gesturing at, Manas, a company that I co-founded with Siddhartha Mukherjee, you know, we're trying to cure
cancer with A.I. accelerations and drug discovery, but even more immediate, like line of sight, not building new things is a medical assistant, 24 by
seven, that can be in every pocket.
You have a concern about yourself, your child, your sibling, you know, your parent, you can get an answer. A tutor on every subject for every age. A
legal assistant. You're like, well, I can't afford a lawyer. And I'm trying to figure out this rental contract. Well, actually, in fact, A.I.s,
ChatGPT, Copilot, et cetera, can help you with that today.
And so, those are all ways that your life gets kind of magnified. And of course, it'll end up being even more things than these things that we can
see today. Part of new general-purpose technologies is that they create new things that we didn't even imagine was possible. And that's part, of
course, the excitement of, you know, being an inventor and investor in these things.
[13:45:00]
ISAACSON: Give me an example of something where you probably aren't imagining that you think might happen.
HOFFMAN: Well, OK, this might be a little wonkish for our audience, but like, for example, one of the reasons why that all of these frontier labs
are building coding assistance is not just to make engineers more efficient, yes, that is. But like, now you're going to have Copilots that
can be a software engineer for all of us.
So, for example, if I said, hey, I want to create a new kind of, you know, kind of game that I can play with my friends and I have this idea of
something that I could possibly do, I will then go create that game and I can have a soft bite. My A.I. software engineer helped create it for me.
And that's just like one example of lots. It could be doing research, it could be, you know, figuring out how like I want to have a home app to
coordinate with my family. All of those things are -- we are now all going to have a software agent copilot within a relatively small number of years.
ISAACSON: You talk about superagency, and you say that in this book that A.I. will enhance human agency. But so much of what's happened with social
media recently and with digital revolution in general seems to have reduced our agency in some ways. It's made it harder for us to be in control of our
lives. Explain that and what can be done.
HOFFMAN: Part of what we're trying to advocate for in the book and kind of how technologies build things, how -- what are the things we should want or
things that increase our agency, part of it is that to say, well, imagine you had an agent that was on your side and you're reading something that
was for you and was essentially enabling you, and you read something and you say, I'm not sure that's quite right. And then, the agent would say,
well, here are three things that you might consider as interesting sources to figure this out or, hey, you're believing this thing that you're reading
or you're seeing, here's some cross things that check.
Like, for example, one of the things that we're already seeing with A.I. is like cybercriminal fishing. So, you can get a phone call. It's trying to
persuade you that it's your brother, sister, child, partner, et cetera, and it starts saying, hey, send money to here. Well, you also will have an
agent that says, oh, hey, this sounds like this could be something that's not good for you, why don't you ask something about what only the two of
you know in order to make sure and can be part of the protection? And this is what we're essentially building to as we go through these transitions to
the other side.
ISAACSON: And how will A.I. then help us with disinformation in general, the type of disinformation that's gotten very controversial now, but seems
to be undermining our democracy?
HOFFMAN: Well, as you know, this is a deeply political topic. I mean, what counts is misinformation, what counts is disinformation. There's a lot of
different views on and coming to coherent set of views on that as kind of the bulk of America is actually very difficult.
Now, that being said, I think there's a lot of ways that these agents can actually, in fact, kind of be on our side, helping like fact check and do
other kinds of things. And so, take, for example, you know, you're reading some information and some media site or social media site that says, you
know, vaccines are known to be very dangerous and they like plant chips in you and they cause autism and say, well, actually, in fact, here's what a
bunch of different scientific studies show, here's what some of the people who challenged them say, and here's how you can inform yourself in a good
way. And I think that's the kind of thing that we want these agents to be helping us with.
And, you know, part of it is if you have an agent that's kind of saying, hey, look out for me when I'm doing this. And I go, hey, I've seen this
agent look out for me in various ways, like look out for me in terms of my health, look out for me in terms of making like financial decisions or
reading my rental lease, then it's like, oh, and then I trust it in telling me these things too. And that's part of my hope is that we get through the
trip (ph) as we work our way through the transition that we actually have a more of a common based knowledge approach that we can then be finding more
things of, ah, here's how we can get to agreement and realize what this information possibly is.
ISAACSON: Let me ask you about regulation. I just came back from Europe and in Paris, they had the A.I. summit. And the previous A.I. summits, it
had all been how are we going to regulate this now in Europe, they're totally panicked, that Mistral, one of their A.I. companies that does
LeChat, which competes with ChatGPT, is going to be hindered because there'll be too much regulation.
If there's a whole lot of competition and a whole lot of companies and a whole lot of countries, from China to France to the U.S., doing it, how can
we regulate it?
[13:50:00]
HOFFMAN: Well, I think that, first off, we should try to keep the initial regulation very focused. It's like, how do we make sure that, you know,
criminals, terrorists, rogue states aren't doing things? How do we make sure that we don't make some critical large error, right, in terms of how
this stuff works? Not how do we cover every single thing? Not how do we have it not, you know, do something that might be like hallucination or a
misstatement of some kind of fact or other kinds of things, but we can adjust those as it -- as we iterate and develop?
And part of what I think is really good, I think the diversity of multiple things. I actually personally think that actually having the French, the
British, the Germans, the Italians actually in this and helping shape that I think helps it be for more humanity generally.
It's -- any one culture only has its own lens. And as much as, of course, you know, Walter, you and I love, you know, kind of a lot of the deep
American values and American culture, part of the reason is because we learn from others as well. It's one of the things that I think is a -- you
know, our aspirational American values. And I think that's a good thing. And so, I think regulation is possible. It should be on specifically slowly
learning as we're doing.
ISAACSON: You're been a supporter of Democrats. I think you supported Kamala Harris, but so many of the tech bro friends you have from Silicon
Valley have now been flocking to Washington. Elon Musk being very involved with the administration, but so many others. What caused this shift in the
Silicon Valley mentality? And do you worry when you see an inauguration that has all tech bros sitting in front of the cabinet?
HOFFMAN: Well, I think there's two things. So, one is if I said any government, including the American, is deeply talking the technology
industry about how the future is, I would say that's good. And that includes our current administration and so on.
Now, I think one of the reasons why a lot of technologists said, hey, we're going to work with the current administration, is not just, of course,
because it was, you know, completely fairly and democratically elected, but also, it's the, hey, you also believe that the technology industry is
important about how we create the future jobs, the future industry, the future services that help us and become part of what we can export to the
world, and that really matters.
And if you have one party arguing that that's good and one party arguing that that's bad, the industry -- you know, the tech industry will more --
you know, will lean in some percentage to the party that argues that that's good.
ISAACSON: You were also involved in the lawsuit against Trump. I think you helped fund E. Jean Carroll. And he's become very vindictive against even
the law firms that have been involved. Do you worry about that revenge and vindictiveness, the bulliness that we sometimes see coming out of
Washington?
HOFFMAN: Well, of course I do. I think it's only human and natural to do so. I mean, like when he removed Mark Milley's protection detail, you know,
a general who has put his whole life in service of the U.S. and engaged in conflict around the world and who was a target of essentially, you know,
like the opponents of America, like Iran, you know, if he's willing to do that, what else is he willing to do? That's, of course, very deeply
concerning.
ISAACSON: I'm going to read you a sentence that really struck me in your book, which is by maintaining our development lead, we're infusing A.I.
technologies with democratic values and integrating these technologies across society in ways that bolster our economic power, our national
security, and our ability to broadly project our global influence. Explain why you think it's important for the U.S. to maintain the lead while also
infusing it with our values.
HOFFMAN: So, technology shaped the world, and part of the reason why the, you know, kind of Europeans had, you know, global impact for centuries was
they were the first developers and broad adopters of the Industrial Revolution. This is the cognitive Industrial Revolution.
The same kind of thing is going to shape like what are the societies and industries that have power and what are the things that, you know, kind of
effect in terms of the shape of technology, how we navigate the world, you know, this kind of informational GPS.
And so, a system that says, hey, it's really important that individuals have autonomy, have agency, that we make decisions as a collective group
together within kind of democratic processes is, I think, some of the great things that America and other countries have brought to the world, and I
think that's important that we continue to elaborate them. And the way we do that is by being on the forefront of this technology.
And so, you know, sometimes when I'm really trying to push this point home within a, you know, kind of an American context is, we want A.I. to be
American intelligence.
ISAACSON: Reid Hoffman, thank you so much for joining us.
HOFFMAN: Walter. Always a pleasure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, it was a day that shocked America and became a turning point in the fight for civil rights.
[13:55:00]
Sixty years on, thousands of people returned to the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, where, in 1965, law officers brutally attacked peaceful
activists as they marched, an incident that became known as Bloody Sunday.
The Voting Rights Act was signed into law months later, guaranteeing black Americans the right to vote. It's an important reminder today, as many look
to an uncertain future for anti-discrimination policies.
Well, that is it for us for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
