Return to Transcripts main page
First Move with Julia Chatterley
U.S. House Set to Vote on Debt Ceiling Bill Today; Purdue Pharma says Court Ruling is a Victory; Tesla CEO in talks with Chinese Foreign Minister; Pathway to Plastic Pollution-Free World; Smith: AI Brings Benefits but we Need Safety; Microsoft President: AI must Remain under Human Control. Aired 9-10a ET
Aired May 31, 2023 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:00:00]
JULIA CHATTERLEY, CNNI HOST: A warm welcome to "First Move" in a whirlwind Wednesday ahead on the program including the debt ceiling bill clearing a
crucial vote test, can U.S. Congress put default fears firmly to rest. Meanwhile, Jamie Dimon sees no decoupling between Beijing and the West.
And in AI and Nvidia rally shows investors remain utterly obsessed. But now we're talking AI Armageddon too, leaving tech leaders and more a little
stressed. Later in the program, Brad Smith, Vice Chair and President of Microsoft will join us. Remember, Microsoft is a big investor in open AI.
That's the firm that unleashed ChatGPT on the world.
Brad also has strong views on how we should regulate this technology. And also does he think we're headed for some kind of human extinction without
that regulation will be asking. Plus, volt typhoon, yes, that's the codename for a Chinese hacking group that Microsoft has said, is working to
disrupt critical communications between the U.S. and its allies.
We'll be discussing that with Brad too, now from hacking malevolence and artificial intelligence to debt ceiling relevance. U.S. futures in European
shares are a touch softer, as you can see there ahead of yet another key vote to raise the debt ceiling, more on the details on that coming up.
In the meantime, a weaker picture too in parts of East Asia Hong Kong, shares are now in bear market territory tied to weaker Chinese data, the
index of factory activity, they're falling to a five month low. No surprise, perhaps that China, in the meantime is courting American
executives this week and making soothing noises about the ease of doing business there.
Jamie Dimon saying today that JP Morgan is in China for the long haul. Elon Musk's Tesla is a China long hauler too. Musk meeting with China's Foreign
Minister and Commerce Minister during his Beijing visit, Musk reportedly saying the U.S. and Chinese economic interests resemble "co joined twins".
More chatter later in the show. But first, in another day of nail biting action in Washington D.C. the U.S. House is set to vote on the bill to
raise the U.S. debt ceiling and avoid a first ever debt default event. The bill picked up key momentum yesterday. But with dissenters on both sides,
those we've long discussed no time for complacency, as Lauren Fox reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REP. STEVE SCALISE (R-LA): I think you're going to continue to see that vote grow. That's what happens with any major bill.
LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Congressional leadership working to lock in enough votes to pass a bill to raise the debt
ceiling negotiated by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and President Joe Biden.
REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): Members from all across the conference shared their support for this important bill, and they shared their support for
Speaker McCarthy's strong and effective leadership.
FOX (voice over): The bill narrowly made it out of the rules committee Tuesday night with seven to six votes with two Republicans from the far
right Freedom Caucus voting against the advancement.
REP. CHIP ROY (R-TX): You're out there watching this. Every one of my colleagues we very clear, not one Republican should vote for this deal. It
is a bad deal.
FOX (voice over): Republican Representative Dan Bishop says he's lost confidence in McCarthy over his handling of the bills negotiation and is
threatening a vote of no confidence.
REP. DAN BISHOP (R-NC): It seems inescapable to me, given what has occurred and the way he was the steward of Republican unity. And he blew it to
smithereens.
FOX (voice over): Many Congressional Democrats also remain undecided.
REP. DEBBIE DINGELL (D-MI): I'm still undecided. I mean, I'm angry that we are being held hostage.
REP. JAMAAL BOWMAN (D-NY): Very disappointed, you know, the mansion pipeline, work requirements undecided still considering.
FOX (voice over): Another factor that could dissuade some members is the Congressional Budget Office's score for the bill. The CBO says the bill
will reduce budget deficits by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. But new food stamps provisions would increase enrollment and increase spending
for that program by more than $2 billion during that period.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The simple answer is the CBO got it wrong.
FOX (voice over): The Rules Committee was the first hurdle in a long process to get this bill through both chambers of Congress with just five
days before the Treasury Department says the nation defaults on its debt. Republican Senate Whip John Thune believes at least nine Republicans will
vote yes. Which of Democrats remain unified would get the bill the 60 vote threshold it needs in the Senate.
REP. CHUCK SCHUMER (R-NY): I hope the House moves quickly. And I'll make sure the Senate moves quickly the moment this bipartisan bill is sent to
us.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHATTERLEY: And a "massive strike" in Russia's Belgorod region. That's what the Regional Governor described saying at least four people were injured by
shelling.
[09:05:00]
The Kremlin spokesman meanwhile is called the situation alarming. Clare Sebastian joins us now, Clare, the war increasingly spilling into Russian
territory. The Ukrainian government still adamant they know nothing about this.
CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Julia, they traditionally have not claimed responsibility for anything that happened across the border into
Russia. That is, I think, partly because of the delicate situation that creates with their allies who continue to donate weapons on the assurance
that they won't be used to strike inside Russia.
That's certainly a red line for the United States. But what we're seeing is an increase in shelling across the border, particularly in the Belgorod
region, an increase in intensity, and in the area that it covers. There were four injuries, as you said, in the early hours of this morning and a
massive strike in the words of the Governor of that region.
We've just heard of another injury in a different part of the region, someone hit by shell fragments while they're in their car and this on top
of a report from the Governor of that region on Tuesday saying that he'd seen more than 200 hits by Ukrainian mortar and artillery fire in the last
24 hours.
So really over the last 24 to 48 hours, a significant uptick in that activity in that region. And we're seeing other elements across the border
as well down south in the Krasnodar region two oil refineries were hit, supposedly by drones, one sort of fire break out.
The Russians have accused Ukraine of shelling over the border in the Bryansk region, which is up in just north of Kyiv so really a wide area
being covered. It does seem like the effects of this war and are spilling further than we've seen before.
CHATTERLEY: It was interesting Clare, to see and Vladimir Putin's comments this week suggesting that Ukraine has chosen the path of intimidation that
Kyiv is provoking them to mirror actions will reiterate that the Ukrainians, as you've said and repeated that are denying any involvement in
this but and one could argue who's mirroring who in this case, the messaging to which audience, I think important here.
SEBASTIAN: Yes, and the Kremlin reiterating today, the Kremlin spokesperson saying that, you know, there's been no outrage from the West, as Ukraine,
he says, has been shelling civilian areas. This is a tactic that we've seen, certainly, rhetorically from Russia all along.
They take the accusations that are leveled against them with good reason, as we've seen them attack civilian areas within Ukraine and level them back
on Ukraine to sort of manufacture the sense certainly within Russia, that they are somehow the victim that they are under siege.
And this is, you know, to play at home to a population that wasn't expecting this war, to go beyond a few weeks, let alone 15 months that
we're now in. So it is part of that to try to keep the population on the side and to create the sense the argument that they've also been sort of
reiterating that this is a war that they're fighting not only with Ukraine, but of course, with NATO and Ukraine's Western allies.
CHATTERLEY: Clare Sebastian great to have you with us. Thank you. And onto a rare admission of failure from North Korea, Pyongyang says an attempt to
launch a military satellite into orbit failed after the rocket crashed into the sea.
These images show what's believed to be debris from that rocket recovered by the South Korean military. The satellite mission based on technology
used in North Korea as long range missiles was the regime's latest violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Paula Hancocks has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Early morning sirens and both solar knock in our warned residents of North Korea's latest launch, a
military satellite launch that failed. Pyongyang said they were engine problems on its second stage.
South Korea's military picked up what it believes is debris from the rocket 200 kilometers off its west coast. North Korea admitting failure is rare,
especially this quickly. But it says it will try again as soon as possible.
HIROKAZU MATSUNO, JAPANESE GOVERNMENT SPOKESMAN: North Korea's continued actions threaten the safety and security of our country, the region and the
international community.
HANCOCKS (voice over): Pyongyang says it has put satellites into space before the most recent in 2016 claimed to be a weather satellite. It's
unclear if the satellite ever worked. Experts say this attempt shows Pyongyang is potentially a long way from having a useful satellite program.
MALCOLM DAVIS, AUSTRALIAN STRATEGIC POLICY INSTITUTE: And we're probably talking 10 or 20 satellites they will need to put up in order to have
continuous surveillance over the Korean peninsula and the surrounding oceans. They're a long way away from that they can't even get one satellite
up.
HANCOCKS (voice over): There was political fallout in Seoul has an air raid siren and an emergency text alert urged residents to evacuate, only to be
told 20 minutes later, it was a mistake. Seoul's Mayor has apologized for any confusion.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I thought it was an urgent situation and soon it turned out to be false. So I was very confused. Such an important issue
must be delivered cautiously. But this time it wasn't.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At the moment the Korean government seems to have a backward system on issues as warnings and disasters.
[09:10:00]
So it needs to be improved but it seems it's not going well.
HANCOCKS (voice over): And erosion in trust for some of the Emergency Alert System in a country still technically at war with its northern neighbor.
North Korea's leader Kim Jong-Un has been clear about his desire for a military satellite, visiting what state run media described as the finished
product earlier this month.
HANCOCKS: North Korea gave an official maritime warning for this launch as well as an expected flight path, something it does not do for its regular
missile launches. But Pyongyang insists that it needs a military satellite in order to be able to track and monitor the "dangerous military acts of
the United States". Paula Hancocks, CNN Seoul.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHATTERLEY: A court in New York has granted the billionaire Sackler family immunity from legal action over the opioid epidemic in exchange for $6
billion to be spent addressing the crisis. The appeals court ruling means the family which owns Purdue Pharma is shielded now from current and future
lawsuits.
Purdue began selling Oxycontin in the 1990s and branded it as a non- addictive painkiller. The company has been accused of fueling an opioid crisis that has killed more than half a million people over the last 20
years. Jean Casarez joins us now on this.
Jean, I think there's probably mixed emotions for the families of those involved sadness in perhaps that there is no future liability, but it also
relief that perhaps it's over and the money now is key to address the crisis.
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's so true, what you're saying. And the justices even reflect that in the opinion that when you have a bankruptcy
action that is so huge, and with so many ramifications, that you cannot cover everything you do the best you can for the whole.
And it's interesting, because if you look at the backstory of all of this, Purdue Pharma was the company Sacklers individuals filed bankruptcy in
2019. And according to this opinion, the Sacklers said, here's what we'll do, we will file bankruptcy of Purdue Pharma.
But we want immunity from all of these actions that are out against us personally. And according to the opinion, there was $40 trillion worth of
civil actions against Purdue Pharma, and the Sacklers. So that's how this case began, the bankruptcy action was filed, the bankruptcy judge agreed
that any individual claims would be folded over into the bankruptcy proceeding.
But all these years have really been negotiating how much the Sacklers would personally pay because they said we will personally pay and give you
billions of dollars to go into the bankruptcy proceedings of our own personal funds, and that amount reached its height.
And that's when the agreement was made of $6 million. And that's going to be for individual claims. It's going to be opioid abatement procedures,
what can be done in communities, and then also medication for opioid emergencies. Now, here's the produce statement they issued at the
conclusion of all of this because it was appealed.
And they were actually victorious in this, they said, our creditors understand that the plan is the best option to help those who need it the
most, the most fair and expeditious way to resolve the litigation and the only way to deliver billions of dollar in value specifically to fund opioid
crisis abatement efforts.
And so that is where we are at this point. Now, there, as you said, many are not happy the attorney general for California, for instance, California
will be getting $500 million. But he believes that individual claimants should still be able to sue. But here's the issue that can be locked up in
litigation for years, and they won't get their money and with this, they will.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, and that's the key, isn't it? It's this balance of timing as well. And for the families involved, you fight for years and perhaps get
less money in the end versus settling for something today. These are tough decisions, when you mentioned that $40 trillion.
So the hair on my arm rows the difference between the level of claims out there and in the end what they've settled for here. I'm just quickly doing
what about for the family themselves. When they gave a lot of money, they donated a lot of money over the years they've got names on buildings, what
happens to things like that?
CASAREZ: This is so interesting, because this is a part of the decision, the names on the buildings or schools or whatever. There is a right for
municipalities or private institutions to remove the Sackler name off of any building at any time but there are two requirements.
Number one, the family has to be given notice before it is done and number two, as part of taking that name off, they cannot defame them or focus on
disparaging things about the Sackler family.
[09:15:00]
It is done really sort of just automatically with no comment.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, the family is involved remove the names and sees how they do. Jean. Thank you so much for that.
CASAREZ: Thank you.
CHATTERLEY: Jean Casarez there, great to have you with us. We're back after this, stay with "First Move".
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to "First Move". Tesla and Twitter boss Elon Musk in Beijing this week for talks with the Chinese Foreign Minister taking a
Tesla, of course for the trip. The government saying China will continue to create a better market oriented law based international business
environment for Tesla and other foreign companies.
Marc Stewart joins us now on this fascinating to me the idea of business, as we well know transcending what can be at times very bitter politics
between these two nations. And the business leaders clearly not shy about it because Elon Musk late to the party, quite frankly, over the past few
months. What they've been promised, Marc, really by Beijing?
MARC STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Beijing is promising fairness. They're saying if you come to China, you will have a fair environment to compete.
As you mentioned, the Foreign Minister gave some remarks he talks about creating a healthy relationship between the U.S. and China.
And the fact remains, both sides really need each other. I mean, there are benefits from both the Chinese economy and the American economy that both
can benefit from. In fact, we heard Elon Musk make some remarks today going as far as saying he's against the decoupling of China.
But let's also face it must really has some strong interest in China. Number one, manufacturing, he recently announced plans to build this mega
battery factory that's going to be important. And despite some of the issues we've had with China and manufacturing in the past, it still has the
capacity, and it still has that valuable access to ports.
And then, Julia, the other thing that Elon Musk needs is market share the EV market in China is extremely competitive. Musk and Tesla are facing some
competition. So he really does need to make his mark there. With all that said, you're talking about how business can often transcend politics.
I mean, it was just an hour ago, Julia, I was live on CNN, talking about how a Chinese Military jet intercepted came very close to a U.S. aircraft
over the South China Sea.
[09:20:00]
That is happening as Elon Musk is on the ground talking about a future and economic future with China. So there is no question. We have economic
relationships. We have political relationships. And that's what we're seeing right here. By the way, Musk not alone, the CEOs of Starbucks and JP
Morgan, as you well know are also with him.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, exactly. But we don't talk about other news on this show like that. When you're a CEO in Beijing, you just move swiftly on and carry
on with those meetings. It's a great point. Marc Stewart, thank you so much for that.
OK, the disgraced Founder of the failed blood testing startups Theranos has now reported to federal prison. We were discussing it on the show
yesterday. Elizabeth Holmes was sentenced to more than 11 years behind bars for defrauding the company's investors. CNN's Brian Todd reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): You know light brown pullover and jeans Elizabeth Holmes reports to the federal prison camp in Bryan,
Texas, a far cry from when Holmes sporting black turtlenecks was compared to Steve Jobs and dazzled at one media event after another.
ELIZABETH HOLMES, THERANOS FOUNDER: I've always believed that the purpose of building a business is to make an impact in the world.
TODD (voice over): Holmes is starting to serve a sentence of more than 11 years after being convicted last year of multiple charges of defrauding
investors. While she ran her Silicon Valley company Theranos.
JEFFREY SONNENFELD, SENIOR ASSOCIATE DEA OF YALE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT: We've seen frenzy is hoaxes throughout American history. This one ranks in
the top 1 percent for the speed of the rise in the speed of the fall.
TODD (voice over): In 2003, Elizabeth Holmes dropped out of Stanford University at only 19 years old to run Theranos, a startup that claimed to
have created new technology that could accurately test for a range of physical conditions using just a few drops of blood.
HOLMES: So this is a little tubes that we collect the samples in we call them the Nanotainer. They're about this big
TODD (voice over): Part of the problem analyst say was that Elizabeth Holmes was never really qualified in the field.
SONNENFELD: She was not a hematologist. She was not a biologist. He was not a biochemist. She was a beginning engineer who dropped out of school at the
very beginning of her career. She had no scientific or engineering background or knows how to do this. So this whole thing was a scam.
TODD (voice over): Yet she still was able to sell the idea to several high profile investors. Theranos was valued at about $9 billion at its peak. It
all began to unravel in 2015 when a Wall Street Journal investigation revealed that Theranos has claimed that it conducted hundreds of tests
using its unique proprietary technology was false.
JOHN CARREYROU, UNCOVERED THERANOS FRAUD FOR WALL STREET JOURNAL: The Theranos proprietary device was only used for 12 tests, 12 finger stick
tests and then all the other 250 or so tests on the Theranos menu were processed on commercial machines. You know off the shelf machines that
anyone can buy that any lab uses.
TODD (voice over): And John Carreyrou's investigation found the few tests that were conducted on Theranos his own unique technology were not
accurate. Investors backed out Theranos dissolved in 2018. Holmes pleaded not guilty to fraud charges, but she and her ex-boyfriend Former Theranos
CEO Ramesh Sunny Balwani were convicted. Carreyrou wants to ascribe Elizabeth Holmes as a chameleon, who got caught up in the heady culture of
Silicon Valley.
CARREYROU: I think the cause of her downfall is that she courted the press too much. She raised her profile too much and she courted publicity too
much.
TODD (on camera): Despite having fallen so far Elizabeth Holmes told The New York Times she plans to work on healthcare related inventions while
she's in prison. She said "I still dream about being able to contribute in that space. Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHATTERLEY: If you want to understand more about that story, Bad Blood by John Carreyrou is the book you need to read. OK, straight ahead industry
players are warning of AI extinction, and I'm not talking about the technology itself becoming extinct. Just to be clear, how can we ensure
humans remain in control?
Microsoft President Brad Smith is the man with a plan. Plus, turning the tide on plastic pollution? Here's a clue more recycling, not the answer.
We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:25:00]
CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to "First Move". We're still in the very early stages of both understanding and harnessing the power of artificial
intelligence. But it's coming and the pace of change is already vast. And along with it, the cries for restraint are growing ever more insistent.
Just in the past two months industry voices have gone from saying we need a six month pause to reevaluate to yesterday's warning that AI could be the
death of us, "among those most alarmed also some of those with most to gain financially". And one of the key beneficiaries is also one of the strongest
voices pushing for smart and swift regulation to ensure we get this right.
At Microsoft Vice Chairman and President Brad Smith is calling for five key steps of government safety framework guardrails, safety brakes for AI
systems tied to critical infrastructure, a broad legal framework.
The need for greater transparency and open access to AI and the private sector working with governments to prevent a worsening of the inequality
society already faces. Not an easy task, but I'm pleased to say Brad Smith joins us now he's also the author of tools and weapons, the promise and
peril of the digital age. Brad, welcome to the show as always.
BRAD SMITH, VICE CHAIR AND PRESIDENT OF MICROSOFT: Thanks Julia.
CHATTERLEY: Welcome. The overarching theme for me in your blog was that humans have to remain in charge and that those who own and operate AI
systems have to remain accountable to everyone else. Would you agree that's the baseline?
SMITH: I think at least as we are thinking about it, absolutely, it is a baseline. I mean, AI has so many benefits it can bring to the world. But we
have to keep it under human control. And we have to advance safety together with innovation that does require a baseline, I think both voluntary steps
by those who create it and deploy it.
And we will need guardrails in the form of new laws and regulations. So we need to move all of this forward together.
CHATTERLEY: I do think the messaging is important though, if I look at some of the AI tools that you're adopting in Microsoft programs, the use of the
word co-pilot sort of resonates with me this isn't shouldn't be about enhancing as humans, our productivity, our efficiency, it's about arming is
better and not sort of spiraling out of control.
SMITH: Absolutely, it's interesting. We actually spent a lot of time talking about what word to use. And it really was this decision to embrace
the word co-pilot that for us describe what we should want AI to do. Help humans do things better. No, not replace humans or take them out of the
loop.
[09:30:00]
SMITH: And so you know when I think about helping a doctor identify a strain of cancer that might be undetectable to the human eye, or something
is straightforward is helping us create a PowerPoint presentation. Let's not check our brains at the door.
CHATTERLEY: Oh, we just lost Brad there, we're going to try and re- establish connection with him. I'm going to take a quick break while we try and fix that the joys of live TV. Stay with us plenty more to come on
"First Move" I hope.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to "First Move" and we're going to move on for now. Plastic waste is everywhere damaging our ecosystems and our bodies.
According to OECD projections global plastic waste will almost triple by 2060 with around half of it ending up in landfill. The question is what's
the fix? Well, this week 193 nations meeting in Paris to discuss some solutions.
And ahead of the talks the UN Environment Programmed released a blueprint for cutting plastic waste by 80 percent by 2040. Now, there's clearly
fierce debate about how best to tackle this problem. But our next guest says we cannot recycle our way out of this mess.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
INGER ANDERSEN, EXCUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED NATION ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME: We are working against the clock; we have to end plastic pollution. This is a
once in a lifetime opportunity. This is a once in a planet opportunity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHATTERLEY: And we only have one planet. Joining us now is Inger Andersen. She's the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme.
Executive Director fantastic to have you on the show I think there are many ways to tackle this. But what's clear, I think also is that we need to
scale and there's still debate why do you think your blueprint is the best way to reduce plastic pollution?
ANDERSEN: Well, I think we need a temporary solution on the table and that begins of course with eliminating the unnecessary plastic. The plastic that
frankly we'll use for five minutes and then we just discarded because think of it this material is quite precious isn't?
[09:35:00]
We take it out of the belly of the Earth as an oil product if you like. And we make it into this marvelous material that yes, we're using and it's very
useful. But to just throw it away, it doesn't make any sense. So first, eliminate the unnecessary and now kids are telling us already, don't take
the straw Mom, I have your bag Mom you don't need to get a plastic bag, et cetera.
And also think about blister packaging to prevent serves, in fact, or think about when you order something from an online company, how too much plastic
comes in the cardboard box? These kinds of things, it's easy to eliminate. But after that, of course, yes, we do need to replace as well.
Does everything have to be plastic? Can it be recycled paper or cardboard? That's another conversation. And then when it comes to plastic, which we
will use, we are not against plastic, let's make sure that it actually does get recycled.
And doesn't end up in the landfill or in the incinerator, or let alone in our oceans and our open environment. And that is what you're going to be
saying about this report. So we need to reduce obviously. And then we need to think about this as a valuable material that we get, we will recycle.
CHATTERLEY: Is this also a message though, to the global plastics and petrochemical industry that will be lobbying for a watering down of this,
that there is a sector has to adapt? They have to shrink, quite frankly.
Because even if we scale up the recycling solutions to the point I think that stands up for me in the report. It's simply not the answer. The
problem is they're quite powerful in lobbying for survival.
ANDERSEN: Well, I think what we're seeing with the global plastics industry is that you know they are also solution providers that seat that you sit in
the metro going to work or they see my steering wheel and my seat in my car, or the light switch that I turned on, et cetera.
Plastic is everywhere. And it's an exceptionally useful material, including for shipping because it's light. But we need to be sure that the kind of
jobs and opportunities that will come with a circular economy will can be captured and including by the plastics industry.
Who will have to step into circularity, as opposed to using virgin plastic today, it is kind of absurd, and that virgin plastic is so much cheaper
than circular plastic. But there's no reason why those companies cannot produce the circular stuff, as opposed to the virgin stuff.
These are the gear levers that governments have at their disposal. These are the gear levers that we are going to be discussing in this negotiation
for a new plastic treaty. And I have every faith that we will arrive.
CHATTERLEY: It's good to hear we exist in the system though was today richer nations pay poorer once to dump their waste on them. You have waste
pickers you have communities that are hurt by dumping by the burning of waste in certain parts of the world.
Is there enough representation of those people and communities at this toxic gain to ensure that we don't see a watering down? I know there has to
be a meet in the middle point somehow. But the planet and people require that tough solutions are found in these talks.
ANDERSEN: Indeed. We had about 900 or so government no 690 or so government representatives registered and we had about 1700 NGOs and observers
registered. Of course, you can never have enough voice.
I was very happy to meet with the waste pickers union those 20 million waste pickers across the world and they are the global sanitation force.
And it's critical that their voice is recognized. Yes, dumping does happen in some locations. It is illegal.
And it is against convention that most countries have signed up to. But a lot of plastic production happens also in the Global South. And there are
lots of jobs in that sector. So it is embracing a new economic opportunity with different jobs and cleaner opportunities.
Now we need to find a just transition for the waste pickers so that when we roll out recycling, and when we roll out elimination, those folks who today
sustain their families from being that global sanitation workforce working in very difficult dangerous circumstances are those that will land the new
jobs.
That's why I'm very happy to have had the way speakers present. I would have liked to have many more. The next round will be in Nairobi, Kenya.
There the distances to travel would be fewer but will be shorter by for many in the African Continent, and we hope to have many more represented.
CHATTERLEY: Good to hear. Last month the G7 nations the U.S. Japan, Germany, among others committed to zero plastic waste by 2040. I know in
particular the United States is not part of this coalition but clearly they're supportive in financial terms. What about nation's big nations?
[09:40:00]
And I'm choosing them out of a hat now, India and China, what role did they play in this? And how would their voices influencing action?
ANDERSEN: I think all of the large nations that are in the G20. Let's take it at that level, are looking at this with great interest and are looking
at this also to see OK, so how will it work for our economy, we have a plastics economy, you mentioned some nations there, that drives jobs and
opportunities right now and growth, et cetera.
But we also cannot drown in a plastic soup, in our environment, in our waterways, in our fish in our oceans. So how will we square that circle and
how will we make that transition? I was very encouraged by a country's in the broader negotiations beyond the G7.
Some 50 odd plus countries have signed up for what they call the high ambition coalition. I was also very encouraged that the U.S. and a number
of Pacific countries have come together to showcase solutions. I think there's a lot of innovation out there.
Yes, everyone will look at jobs because in any country, nearly any country you go there is a plastics industry, north and south, east and west. But
there's the same opportunity for a circular industry and for eliminating and replacing by say recycled paper, cardboard and other ways of enveloping
what we are trading in a safe material that has food hygiene, et cetera.
So in its convenience, so I think that to all the engineers and all the designers and all the brand owners heads up time to get innovative time to
look at what it is that your industry can contribute.
Because we are going to have to deal with this, we're literally drowning in plastic, and no one on any political party wants to see that on their
beaches, in their tourism, or in the food that we buy in the supermarket. So a solution must be found.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, I mean by the amount of plastic waste that I create, and I recycle everything. But we all need to do more as individuals too. I think
that's the "We cannot drown in plastic soup action required". And great to have you Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the United Nations
Environment Program, fantastic to chat to you. We're back after this stay with "First Move".
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to "First Move". And I'm pleased to say I'm going to take you back to our conversation about regulating artificial
intelligence with Microsoft President and Vice Chair Brad Smith. And I'm pleased to say too that the technical gremlins have now been solved.
If I were being cheeky I would say perhaps that was what AI thinks the future of regulation Brad by pulling the plug on us. We were discussing --
I'm joking. We were discussing Microsoft co-pilot and the importance of messaging around this as a support to human activity.
[09:45:00]
SMITH: When we chose the word co-pilot for Microsoft services that use AI for a reason. We really do want it to be something that helps people while
keeping people in control. And if we all want some help going through our email, or creating a PowerPoint presentation or addressing cybersecurity
risks.
We really want technology to make us better. As human beings, we want to keep using our brains and ask better questions, get faster answers, and
express ourselves more clearly. But let's keep ourselves in charge. That's the purpose of all of this.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, as we were discussing before, that has to be the baseline. I think, to a lot of people listening to that it makes perfect sense. But
then we rewind to what we got yesterday, and we have some of those that are the strongest voices, the loudest voices.
Those that investor and have the most understanding, we assume of artificial intelligence, talking about AI extinction. I sort of wonder what
the rest of us should think at this moment. Brad, can you give us the benefit of your context? Are we headed for AI extinction?
SMITH: I don't think that is imminent. And I don't think it's actually the first or most important problem we need to solve. But it's good to be clear
eyed about all of the things that might go wrong. And then let's just step back and think about every technology in the world that we use today, we
even take it for granted, that does great things, but could be dangerous.
An elevator has a safety brake. Electricity has a circuit breaker, the school bus on which we put our children or a high speed train has an
emergency brake, it enables humans to stay in control and slow something down or turn it off.
And we should have that for artificial intelligence as well, especially when it's controlling critical infrastructure, like the electricity grid or
the water supply. And we are to have it at multiple layers, both the application that is controlling something.
And the data center where it's deployed. That is, frankly, what we've been doing as human beings for 150 years for other technologies. Let's take
everything we've learned and apply it to this technology as well.
CHATTERLEY: Are there corporates involved the circuit breaker in this case, or is government the circuit breaker and can AI -- better than the circuit
breaker? I think that's --
SMITH: I think we need, we need both companies and government and frankly, civil society, NGOs to all talk together. And we're going to need multiple
layers. When you really study what works for us every day, what you find is two things that fit together.
One is a technical standard. And the other is government regulation that requires everyone to apply the technical standard. This is true for a
circuit breaker. It's true for the emergency brake in every bus.
So let's bring industry together to help develop technical standards. And let's expect our governments to move quickly so that there is a common
approach and we don't have the kind of divergence or a race to the bottom that would put safety at risk.
CHATTERLEY: So two very important points there. Number one in your framework is government led guardrails. You're having all of these
conversations whether it was speaking in U.S. Congress a week ago.
I believe you've been to the Vatican too and spoken to the Pope about this too. So everybody's taking interest. Are we close enough in terms of the
conversations the urgency to be creating those guardrails quickly enough Brad?
SMITH: I think we are and this is where I think rather than talk about your slowing technology for six months, let's speed up safety conversations and
take real action in the next six months.
And already we're seeing this.
We're seeing even just today government leaders from the European Union and the United States at the trade and Technology Council talk about advancing
a code of conduct that would be applied on a voluntary basis.
I think we should look in the United States to this Congress to do something before the end of this year. Every December the Congress passes
the National Defense Authorization Act put in place some guardrails for this technology, including guardrails to protect the national security of
the United States. So we are close enough to talk to start to take real steps.
CHATTERLEY: Wow, that's huge. I mean, it's particularly for those that have been watching the debt ceiling negotiation debacle the belief that
something could be passed by the end of this year seems fanciful.
[09:50:00]
You're actually confident that something could get done this year, something at least down on paper?
SMITH: If we are focused --
CHATTERLEY: Yes.
SMITH: -- and we prioritize the problems we want to address first. And we're constructive. We absolutely can take steps before the end of this
year. If we try to boil the ocean and address every problem under the sun, then, of course, that becomes mission impossible. But this is technology
that is moving. So let's move with the pace of technology.
And we can solve one set of issues in 2023. Let's put in place the guardrails to protect against, say foreign cyber influence operations in
the 2024 presidential election, we can then take other steps in 2024 and 2025. Look, that's how we innovate in the world of technology. Let's
innovate in the same way, in the world of technology, law and regulation.
CHATTERLEY: I read recently that the OpenAI CEO said that he doesn't -- you don't mind him coming to you with ideas, and you talk about them, and then
you give him 17 better ones. So I do hope people are listening to you. In hindsight, do you think technology like ChatGPT was unleashed too early on
an unsuspecting consumer?
Because to your point, we've sort of gone from a six month pause, which seems nonsensical, particularly in light of the sort of geopolitics of the
situation, to, you know, AI Armageddon, which is the other extreme, we sort of need to keep calm heads about this and act fast. What's it -- ?
SMITH: Look, I do think we should keep our wits about us. Let's prioritize -- when people talk about death by PowerPoint. They don't mean it,
literally. And, you know, I do think that Sam Altman had a lot of good advice when he testified before the United States Senate.
I don't think things have moved too early. The truth is if you want to learn how technology actually works, you need to put it in the hands of
real people and get real feedback. So it's good that we're having this conversation now.
There was always going to be a point in time when suddenly people's eyes would open the way they did when they saw the iPhone from Apple in 2007, or
the browser in the 1990s, and suddenly realized that there was going to be this thing called the internet. But I think this is how we learn. And this
is how we then act on what we're learning.
CHATTERLEY: Brad because I do want to talk about the upsides as well, what happens if we get this right, for society?
SMITH: Well, I think the upside is enormous. And it will impact all of us in positive ways. It will give us access to better healthcare will help us
cure diseases, or let's remember, we live in a world where there are 4 billion people that have a difficult time getting access to any doctor.
So to have AI powered assistance for medical services or for students, you know, we can bring economic development to the world more broadly. We can
create better productivity growth in a world that is short on productivity growth, especially in the industrial world, where populations are starting
to actually decline.
So the benefits are so substantial. And let's keep that in one eye, if you will, and then address the safety issues in the other. And that's how I
think we make the most of the promise and protect against the perils.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, smart advice. We can't limit the future opportunities on this, but we just have to limit the potential downsides. I could talk to
this for another half an hour. But I want to ask about Activision Blizzard, if you don't mind.
Overwhelming global regulatory approval now, but still in a fog with the UK and the United States, some might call it co-conspiracy. What can you tell
us, Brad, if anything, you're going to push ahead?
SMITH: Well, you know, fundamentally, we have an acquisition that we think will bring more competition and more access to games for consumers on a
global basis. And that's why we now have approval from almost 40 countries with more than 2 billion people for this to proceed.
And there are some regulators that have expressed concerns and we get it. We want to address those concerns. I'm encouraged that we were able to have
a solution for the European Union that lets the acquisition go forward, again, with guardrails to ensure that everyone gets access to these games
for all kinds of cloud game streaming services and not Microsoft alone.
Now, obviously, we have not yet succeeded in addressing the concern of every regulator. But look, at the end of the day, you have to decide do you
want to find a solution to every problem? Or do you want to find a problem with every solution?
[09:55:00]
We are focused on find finding a solution to every problem, because I believe solutions are there, and you can count on us to want to be
creative, to want to be constructive and, frankly, to be determined to keep working to find the solutions that will get the good out of this, and then
make those benefits available to everybody.
CHATTERLEY: Watch this space. Brad, you couldn't be clearer on that. Great to chat to you, sir as always, it's always exciting times, but I think this
moment, perhaps more so than ever. We'll speak again soon. Thank you so much.
SMITH: As always, thank you, Julia.
CHATTERLEY: Thank you. OK, that just about wraps up the show. If you've missed any of our interviews, today, there'll be on my Twitter and
Instagram pages you can search for @jchatterleycnn. "Connect the World" is up next. Thank you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:00:00]
END
