Return to Transcripts main page

Quest Means Business

Trump Praises Carney As They Struggle To Reach Trade Deal; Israel Marks Two Years Since; AMD Shares Pop Following Deal with OpenAI; Critics Pointing Out Circular Nature Of Some A.I. Dealmaking; Inside The Frightening Scam That Cost One Company $25 Million; Nick Fosters On His New Book "Could Should Might Don't." Aired 4-4:45p ET

Aired October 07, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:17]

RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Closing bell ringing on Wall Street. Service Academy Women, 50 years of service and the

market numbers as you take a look. Well, it is one of those days, a bit of green at the top and a lot of red at the end of the day, but not a huge

loss overall. Just down -- oh my word, Madam. That was a very fine gavel. A strong fine gavel bringing trading to a close. Lots for us to talk about.

The markets and the main events: The Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, says his country is holding out for the right deal with the U.S., but he

leaves The White House empty handed.

Two years on, from the October 7th attacks, the ceasefire negotiators are reporting progress.

And after OpenAI's blockbuster deal with AMD, the critics are warning that A.I. appears to be the only thing relying from the U.S. economy, circular

deals.

We are live in New York, October 7th, Tuesday. I am Richard Quest, I mean business.

Good evening.

The Canadian Prime Minister got a warm reception at the Oval Office as Mr. Carney fights for an elusive trade deal above and beyond the USMCA.

Mark Carney was making his second trip to The White House and President Trump called him a great leader and said his Canadian counterpart would

always walk away very happy. But so far, Canada has been unable to reach agreement.

The U.S. President said getting a deal is difficult given their close proximity.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We are competing for the same business. That's the problem. That's why I keep

mentioning one way to solve that problem is a very easy way, but we are competing for the same business.

He wants to make cars. We want to make cars and we are in competition and the advantage we have is we have this massive market. So it is -- you know,

it is quite an advantage.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: Now the meeting came after The White House announced it would acquire a 10 percent stake in a Canadian miner, Trilogy Metals. The

company's shares soared. That's the sort of day you really want, isn't it?

The government will also invest almost $36 million as part of the deal. It is the administration's effort to take equity stakes that the company deems

essential to the National Security.

Kevin Liptak is at The White House, Paula is at the Canadian Embassy in Washington and hopefully can hear me. I am going to start with you, Paula,

if you can hear me, although you seem to be -- hopefully you can.

Paula, Mark Carney came and left, but he didn't leave with any promises?

PAULA NEWTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST AND CORRESPONDENT: Well, you've certainly hit the nail on the head in terms of what Canadians were looking

for. But look, this is going to set a template for future negotiations. It is necessary.

The face time is necessary. Even the President himself admitted that, look, we are not close to a trade deal here, and the sketch that he has provided

so far of what it is going to look like is going to be nothing like the USMCA already negotiated by President Trump in his first term between

Canada, Mexico and the United States. This is a whole new ballgame.

Now, look, I will say, Richard, on two performances, I will say in the Oval Office, Mark Carney has done himself well. Why? Because at first you do no

harm. He clearly has a good rapport with President Trump. They continue to text. They talk on phone calls.

But whether or not that will actually result in any kind of a good deal remains to be seen. Key here though, and key, Richard these tariffs aren't

going away and these contentious trade issues aren't going away.

Keep in mind, with one post on social media, he changes the entire trading landscape, and Canada knows that that continues to be a reality.

QUEST: Let's go to Kevin at The White House.

How is it seen from The White House, particularly with the exception of the barbed comment about potentially a unification of the two countries --

besides that. He doesn't seem willing to give Mark Carney something.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes, and I think the President, you know, he was cordial. He made that passing remark to the

"merger" between the U.S. and Canada, but otherwise didn't bring that up again and he is not calling Mark Carney "governor" which is what he called

Justin Trudeau. That relationship obviously not particularly good.

This is a much better relationship, but as Paula is pointing out, it is not at all clear what it is getting Mark Carney for the President and from his

point of view, these tariffs are necessary to achieve trade balance with Canada and you heard him saying there that it is the closeness between the

U.S. and Canada that is making this deal so much harder to strike than any other deal.

[16:05:07]

You know, Canada at this point is the only G7 country that hasn't been able to strike a trade deal with the U.S. that allows some of these tariffs to

come off. And what you've seen the President do is sort of layer tariff upon tariff upon tariff, whether it is the 35 percent for what he says is a

fentanyl crisis coming off the border, or whether it is the 50 percent sectoral tariffs on the steel, aluminum, autos and lumber, you see them

sort of adding up and adding up.

QUEST: Right.

LIPTAK: The one exemption is the goods that are covered by the USMCA, which have not been tariffed at this point, but the President today was

ambivalent about the future of that deal, saying he doesn't know whether he is going to strike bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico, whether he is

going to continue on the course that we are already on with this multi- country agreement.

So even there, I am not sure he is providing Carney or Canada-at-large any assurances about what this is going to look like going forward.

QUEST: So you've got two distinct issues here. You've got a bilateral trade deal and the USMCA, which Paula, I mean, the USMCA is crucial. And if there

were to be a renegotiation or a review, as there is, then Canada has to ensure a favorable at least or at least not an unfavorable review.

NEWTON: I think look, some shrewd politicians in Canada, not the Prime Minister, have already indicated that the way to go on this may have to be

that Canada goes it alone with the United States, that Mexico goes it alone with the United States, and then another trade agreement can be hashed

between Mexico and Canada. We will see how this transpires.

But as I said, I do not believe that USMCA in any form is coming back here again, and it seems that the President, even in the last few hours, has

again made it clear it will be an issue by issue, country by country and that's the way he wants it.

QUEST: And Kevin, that is a classic divide and rule. I mean, I was at the meeting when the first USMCA was put together many years ago and this was

the nirvana, the single market. It didn't matter where the car was made for productivity benefits and gains.

I am old fashioned. Now it is gone.

LIPTAK: Yes, and I think, you know, when it comes to the USMCA that the President is talking about here, remember, it was negotiated during his

first term in office. This is a product of President Trump's own making, and now he seems to be suggesting that it actually, in fact, has not

benefited the United States.

And, you know, Trump is not alone in thinking that, you know, the old NAFTA was not a good deal for the United States. There are plenty of people who

look at that and think that it sort of gutted out the industrial sector in the U.S., but I think what he is doing here is just lending a lot of

uncertainty about what it is going to look like going forward.

He says what he doesn't like, but he is not necessarily being explicit about what he wants to replace it with, which I don't think is necessarily

going to provide a lot of solace for the people who are watching this in Mexico or watching this in Canada and wondering what the future holds for

their economy and for their trading relationship with the United States.

QUEST: Paula and Kevin, thank you very much.

One of those people watching and wondering what the future will be is Goldy Hyder, the President and CEO of the Business Council of Canada. Goldy is

with me now and you heard that discussion.

Goldy, we learned today that Canada's trade deficit widened in September, a second highest level on record. That's perhaps not surprising. The GDP has

been shrinking at the same time, unemployment at seven. This is a weak economy or a weak-ish economy that cannot withstand a U.S. President

deciding to go against it.

GOLDY HYDER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, BUSINESS COUNCIL OF CANADA: Well, we are not unique in that regard, are we? When you're dealing with the G1,

obviously they have the upper hand, as the President likes to say, he has the cards.

What we need to do and I think what Prime Minister Carney is doing by being in Washington is, first of all, invest in the personal relationship. In

America, there is an audience of one. You need to be there. You're better in the room with the President than you are out of the room with the

President.

Secondly, it is an opportunity to reiterate that yes, President is not wrong. We do compete. We compete for capital. We compete for talent. We

compete around the world for our standing and our brands and so forth, but we also need to collaborate. And your viewers know that they live in a

continent and in North America, having the USMCA with Canada, USA and Mexico has been good. It has helped North America compete.

[16:10:00]

And this is not just a trade agreement, and let me remind you, trade agreements come for businesses to do business. So I really believe that the

Mexican business community, the American business community, need to speak out more with our Canadian business community on the importance of this.

QUEST: Right, but the USMCA ain't going to survive, and it doesn't seem likely that the U.S. President wants to give Mark Carney a bilateral decent

trade agreement at the moment.

So when Carney talks about building new markets, is that to some extent the way forward? New markets elsewhere?

HYDER: Yes. Well, I respectfully disagree with the premise of the question. The USMCA is not dead. The American administration has launched a process

to do a consultation on it. This is standard sort of posturing, if you will, on the part of the Americans to say, you know, do I really need to

deal with Canada or Mexico? Maybe I can do one here and one there. It is a way to extract more.

It is a part of the transactional negotiation nature. I fully believe that until it is actually -- if it ever came to completely demise, then you will

get me to say that. But until then, hope lives that the USMCA can be reviewed and renewed. The processes are underway there.

For Canada, it still is a calling, though, that says we better diversify. We cannot rely on a single customer. It is not good business for anybody to

do that. And in many ways, we thank the President for waking us up because we are going to be able to sell our goods around the world for full price,

which means the American economy will also have to pay full price for our products, and many of which they've enjoyed at a discount for the last

number of years.

QUEST: So we've seen -- I mean, this has got overtures of Brexit in a sense, having to find new markets and the ability to do so. The Canadian

people will only give Mark Carney a certain amount of rope, if you will, because the economy is weakened.

Can you build those new markets? They will never fully be able to replace the size and scale of the U.S., but what progress is being made building

new markets?

HYDER: Now, that's a great question. But let's be clear here, you are right in saying that there is no divorcing the United States of America. We

frankly won the geographic lottery and we are fully aware that there is not a country in the world that wouldn't change places with Canada. So we've

got to play to our strengths of having that.

At the same time, we do need to diversify, and in many ways, it is Canada's own policies that have been in their own way in terms of building the

infrastructure, attracting the capital and to really diversify.

The good news is we have a platform of trade agreements, 15 trade agreements with 51 countries. I am leaving for Asia with the Prime Minister

on a mission to Malaysia, to Japan, potentially and Korea, to help attract capital and help build that infrastructure. But you're not wrong. It is a

longer runway to do that.

So any policy will be America. That's the strategy that Canada needs to deploy.

QUEST: Goldy, I am grateful for you. Thank you very much, sir. Busy days all round. Thank you, sir.

Now, in just a moment. Well, it is two years. Can you believe it? Two years since Hamas' atrocious October 7th attack. There are memorials in Tel Aviv

in Hostage Square and we will have a report about that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:15:47]

QUEST: The President, President Trump, is meeting this afternoon with Edan Alexander, the Israeli-American who was among the hostages taken by Hamas

exactly two years ago today.

Israelis marked the second anniversary by paying respects to the hostages and remembering more than 1,200 people who were killed that day.

Now, in the past two years, 67,000 people at least have been killed in Gaza, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. Some held rallies in

support of the Palestinian cause, drawing criticism for the timing.

So at the moment, 48 hostages are still being held by Hamas and its allies. The Israeli government believes of them 20 are still alive. And so

negotiations are continuing in Egypt for their release and an end to the fighting.

Earlier, CNN spoke to Omar Shem Tov, who Hamas had held hostage for 505 days.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OMAR SHEM TOV, FORMER HAMAS HOSTAGE: I really hope that in, you know in the next few days, we could see the deal signed and the hostages coming back

home. It is all we hope to and, you know, it is all we wish for and we just we -- us. as a society in Israel, we cannot heal until they're all back

home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: Jeremy Diamond is there in Tel Aviv. Two years, Jeremy, it is hard to believe it is two years since this atrocity and a day of remembrance.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Yes, absolutely. And I am right now in Hostage Square, Richard, where thousands of Israelis have

gathered to stand side by side and watch this commemoration ceremony that is also happening in Tel Aviv, where we have heard emotional testimonies,

songs of testimonials from that terrible day, from survivors, from relatives of those who were killed, and also from former hostages and the

families of the 48 hostages who are still being held in Gaza.

And what was clear amid these searing performances was the fact that even though this is a commemoration ceremony, all of this is very much still

ongoing. And we have heard that sentiment that the wounds cannot be healed until all of those hostages are home and this war is brought to a close.

And so, amid the somber moments and the sorrow in the crowd, there is also a slight sense of hope tonight in Israel. We have been hearing from people

here, from the families of hostages, who are all hopeful that this moment will be different, that those negotiations currently happening in the

Egyptian city of Sharm El-Sheikh will bring about a deal to end the war and bring all of the hostages home.

And in fact, tonight, Richard, I spoke with a source involved in those negotiations who told me that there has been progress in the talks over the

first two days and that as a result of that progress, you're seeing high level officials from the United States and Qatar traveling to Egypt

tomorrow in order to try and bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion.

Steve Witkoff, the U.S. Special Envoy, President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, will both meet with the Qatari Prime Minister tomorrow in Egypt in

order to work through those remaining details and to try and establish a mechanism to implement this agreement should they actually reach a deal.

Very consequential days ahead, Richard, in those negotiations.

QUEST: Is there a feeling, although it could all fall apart, but is there a feeling that something definite and positive is going to come from this?

That the process is now too far gone to be abandoned completely or ignored or forgotten about?

DIAMOND: I wish I could say that that was the case, but there are simply no certainties in these negotiations and everything could still collapse. That

is a reality and a caution that we should give to our viewers. It is a caution that the hostage families hold in their hearts as well, it is the

fact that even as things appear close, even as the willpower finally seems to be there, both on the Israeli side and from Hamas' point of view, there

is no deal until all of this is agreed to.

And so these are very delicate, very fragile negotiations. But once again, the closest that things have been in a very, very long time -- Richard.

[16:20:10]

QUEST: Jeremy in Tel Aviv tonight. It is late. I am grateful. Thank you.

As you and I continue, this time on business agenda.

OpenAI has signed deals this year worth an estimated $1 trillion. Yes, that was with a T.

Ruchir Sharma says the United States has now one big bet on A.I. If he is right, what are the implications? QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

QUEST: AMD shares rose another four percent today. It is good news, of course, for A.I., OpenAI which is a right to buy a tenth of the company at

a penny a share, a penny a share. It is part of a multibillion dollar deal between the two companies.

I need you to remember that price at the moment. It is one of the many made by OpenAI to scale up. The company has agreed to sign agreements worth $1

trillion. It will give OpenAI access to more than 20 gigawatt of computing power, which I am told is a lot. But really?

And now some critics say the boom in artificial intelligence is being fueled by circular deals. What do I mean by circular deals?

So let's take these two companies. Let's start with OpenAI and it not gambling per se. These sort of make a certain amount of sense. OpenAI

decides to invest. It has got a lot of money and it invests, say billions of dollars in chips. Not these sort, but you get the idea. OpenAI invests

billions of dollars in AMD chips. AMD, of course, is already worth quite a lot and it gives in return OpenAI a 10 percent stake in the company.

There you have it. That's how we stand.

[16:25:02]

But investors see the beauty of this deal, and they like it, and so investors absolutely plow in and ramp up the value, in a sense, of AMD.

Why? Because they like what is happening with OpenAI.

But remember OpenAI has 10 percent, so what is the effect of that? You don't need me to be too obvious. The effect of that is that OpenAI's 10

percent stake suddenly becomes that much more valuable. And all of this, just because it put this little bit in to start with.

Now, transactions like this, where you see huge amounts of wealth generation, the circular A.I. economy is why my next guest says the United

States has become one big bet on A.I.

Ruchir Sharma is the chair of Rockefeller International. He is there. You can see him now.

I see the logic. I read the article and it is certainly true that whatever economic -- whether it is employment, it is inflation, it is trade, there

is a reason why the U.S. is doing better and it is because of a faith in A.I. What I think we need to understand is, is it wealth well placed or is

it ill-founded?

RUCHIR SHARMA, CHAIR, ROCKEFELLER INTERNATIONAL: Well, Richard, I think that any economy which stands on just one leg makes for a very fragile

foundation and I think that's the point that I was trying to make out here. At one level, it is quite impressive as to how the U.S. economy has been so

resilient in the face of so many headwinds. Those headwinds have included tariff, a massive drop off in immigration. The so-called attack on the

Fed's independence, institutional backsliding.

And in the face of all of that, the U.S. economy is still growing at a pace of possibly above two percent this year. That's pretty impressive.

But the problem is that a lot of that growth now is coming on the back of just A.I. and that's happening at two levels. One is just the amount of

spending, which a lot of the large companies in America are doing, which runs into hundreds of billions of dollars.

And the second is the wealth effect that I think has been not studied well enough, which is that if you look at America today, the 80 percent of the

gains of the stock market this year can be explained by the A.I. plays, and those stock market gains are spending by the rich.

QUEST: Right. Let me jump in because that latter part, the wealth effect has been in a sense -- we've seen that before with dot-com boom and bust.

People felt wealthier because the shares went up. We've seen it in real estate. So I get that bit. But A.I. is providing economic benefits on

productivity, lower cost of production and indeed lower employment.

Is it your fear that those benefits and gains, economic gains are not going to manifest themselves in time to justify the valuations in economic

reality?

SHARMA: No, absolutely. So, you know, my point is that it better pay off because all the other things are stacking up against the U.S. economy at

this point in time.

You know, whether it has got to do with the very overvalued market, but as I said, the negative impact on tariffs or the drop off on immigration,

these are serious headwinds at the beginning of this year, had -- we have been told that the average tariff rate in America is going to be 16 to 17

percent. I think that most people would have said that that's going to lead to an economic recession, and we haven't had that.

But it is not because tariffs have not had a negative effect, but it has been more than offset by what is happening on A.I. and it is not just the

present, even the future. The market is pricing in a very big boost to productivity compared to what we have already seen in the last few years.

QUEST: Right. But you're not an A.I. naysayer. So what is your fear concerning A.I.? Is it simply to over quote Greenspan "overexuberance" to a

point of ridiculous levels, because if that's the case, then yes, there will be a very nasty crash, but A.I. will still come along in the next

five, ten, 15, 20 years.

SHARMA: No. So I think that as far as A.I. is concerned, its transformative effect is I think well appreciated. But I think the point that I am trying

to make here is that the U.S. economy today and the U.S. stock market are being driven solely by A.I. And outside of A.I., the economy is not doing

that well, and it shows up even as far as consumer spending is concerned, that the wealth effect is driving the spending among the top 10 percent or

so.

But outside of that, consumer spending has been rather anemic over the past year or so. So I think it has been cognizant of the risk that it is all

dependent on A.I. Outside of A.I., the economy is virtually at stall speed.

[16:30:34]

QUEST: So let's assume -- well, a man of your great abilities and respect, let's take you -- we agree. So what do you do about it? If your portfolio

is stuck with A.I. in some shape or form, Nvidia, Oracle, it doesn't matter. You are so stuffed and as you're well aware, you know, you start

looking at 401(k)s and they've got more of it and you start looking at ETFs. And every ETF you have somewhere down the line has got even -- and

you suddenly realize that most of one's wealth, 60 percent, 70 percent of it in some shape or form, is tech A.I. related. What do you do?

SHARMA: Yes, I think the main strategy here, Richard, I think it's already been playing out this year, is that if you want to buy into America, you

have to be clear that you are buying A.I. But outside of A.I. plays, the rest of the world looks much more attractive. So in fact, this year, the

other statistic is that the international equity markets, which are much less exposed to A.I., those have been outperforming America's market by the

widest margin in over 15 years this year.

So I think that whether it's even banks in Europe or it's got to do with some emerging markets where political risk seems to be improving, we are

seeing gains take place outside of that. So the portfolio approach here is what I call a barbell portfolio, which is on one hand, if you want to own

A.I. and you want to own America, that's one side of it. But to own everything else in the world, to diversify outside of both America and the

fact that America is overly exposed to A.I.

And, you know, one of the very surprising statistics that I even mentioned in my latest "FT" column is that for this decade, not just this year, for

this decade, the average European stock has in fact been outperforming the average American stock outside of the magnificent seven. I think that that

is a pretty startling statistic that, despite all this hype about A.I. and what's happening there, if you just take out the A.I. plays and the seven

magnificent stocks, as they call them in the U.S., the average European stock has quietly been outperforming.

QUEST: What do you call it, the barber? What did you say you called it?

SHARMA: The barbell portfolio approach.

QUEST: Oh, the barbell.

SHARMA: Which is on one hand --

QUEST: Yes, yes, yes, I get it. Sorry, sorry. I thought you said the barber. I was wondering where the short back and sides was coming from.

Thank you, sir. I'm grateful to you. That's the sort of advice and guidance we need on QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.

Now A.I. has got so good at imitating humans it's difficult to tell if you're speaking to a real person or a digital doppelganger. The technology

has been used for scams that have had cost people and companies serious money.

Clare has used a deepfake of herself to test the benefits and dangers. Clare is with me now. At least I hope she is.

Which is real and which is not?

CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH CORRESPONDENT: This is the real Clare, Richard. But it is remarkably easy, as I learned, to create these very convincing A.I.

deepfakes. So this is something that businesses and really all of us need to be aware of. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wow, that looks a lot like Clare. I can't, it's a little bit creepy.

DUFFY: There's a new type of A.I. scam that's increasingly targeting businesses and eventually maybe anybody. Last year, an exec at Ferrari was

targeted by someone posing as the company's CEO and a finance worker at a multinational company paid out $25 million to scammers that use deepfake

recreations of the company's CFO.

So I'm here in Silicon Valley to meet up with ethical hacker and social proof security CEO Rachel Tobac. She's going to walk me through how these

scams work and how people can protect themselves.

Explain to us what we're going to see today.

RACHEL TOBAC, CEO, SOCIALPROOF SECURITY: So you're going to see a demo of what it looks like when somebody uses a deepfake to try to trick somebody

with your likeness, and it's not too hard to make.

DUFFY (voice-over): Ahead of our meeting, Rachel created a deepfake version of me using software commonly used by hackers, pulling video and audio of

me posted on YouTube. It can be played back on something like a Zoom call, without the person on the other end realizing that it's a recording.

[16:35:06]

DUFFY: We have a colleague of mine in New York who is ready and waiting. She knows this is coming because you are an ethical hacker. We didn't want

to trick anybody here.

TOBAC: Right.

DUFFY: But talk about how this would actually happen in the wild if she were there unsuspecting, what would happen?

TOBAC: She would probably get a text message or an e-mail. Hey, I'm on the road. Can you jump on a call real quick? I need something. So it'll look

like it's coming from you. And when she gets on there, she sees you quickly ask for something like a wire transfer or a password, or a code. And

usually these types of conversations aren't lasting. They're short and they're sweet.

DUFFY: OK. All right. We've sent that e-mail.

TOBAC: You got it cued up.

DUFFY: And we'll see when she answers.

Hey, thanks for jumping on so fast. Can you remind me of our password for our shared drive? I need it for an interview starting in 30 seconds.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wow, that looks a lot like Clare. The movements, though, are a little bit off. Like it definitely doesn't seem human. I've

never seen Clare look this surprised also. She's usually very chill.

DUFFY: Sorry. My connection is bad.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, Clare. This is a little bit creepy.

DUFFY: All right. Misha, can you hear us on your end?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. Yes, I heard you guys laughing a little.

DUFFY: This is real. This is real Clare. Not the fake Clare.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.

DUFFY: What are your thoughts like if this had been our boss Dave calling you really quickly to ask you for something, do you feel like there would

have been red flags going off? Or do you think that you might have been fooled?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There definitely were red flags going off. I feel like your movements were very jerky. But yes, this is so realistic. It sounded

exactly like you.

DUFFY: It does sort of look like I've had 17 cups of coffee, which could happen.

TOBAC: And you're probably seeing that I added in like little phrases for her to say, just to bolster the pretext a little bit, that your connection

is bad, you know, everything is going wrong. We need your help right now.

DUFFY: We need your help right now. Well, and I can imagine that this is only going to get better, right?

TOBAC: Yes. I mean, this is where we're at right now in 2025. Give it a year.

DUFFY: So this is mainly happening in a work setting, right? It's not necessarily like my husband is going to get a Zoom call request from

deepfake me.

TOBAC: Right. I mean, it could, right? If you are well-known enough and your threat model is high enough, then I'm pretty sure that an attacker

would pretend to be you to anybody that trusts you. This is the type of thing that we see it right now in a business context, in a limited way, but

it is pretty much hitting people who have a lot of authority at the company, asking somebody who really is supposed to do that task for that

person of authority.

DUFFY: What can people do to make sure that they don't fall victim to something like this?

TOBAC: You and the people around you have to be politely paranoid. So essentially verify that people are who they say they are before taking

action on their sensitive request. So before sending the wire transfer, giving a code, giving access to a password or a document, if you do that

after the fact because it felt weird, it's already too late.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DUFFY (on-camera): And Richard, I think that's honestly really good advice for everyone in the A.I. era that has really broad applications. Whether

you are answering a Zoom call from your boss or scrolling social media, we all need to slow down a little bit and take that extra minute to verify

that what we're looking at is a real thing and not an A.I. deepfake.

QUEST: I'm grateful to you. Thank you, Clare. Thank you.

Now, this type of technology has the power to transform society, and designers like Nick Foster are going to help decide how it's put to use.

Nick Foster has worked with companies like, well, including Google, Apple, Nokia and Sony. And his new book explores how we should think about the

future. I asked him about the difficult job of navigating.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NICK FOSTER, AUTHOR, "COULD SHOULD MIGHT DON'T": I've spent my career talking to people about the future. And there's a desire to try and

understand and make sense of the future, but people are typically not very good at it. And when I say not very good, what I mean is not very rigorous.

They tend to snatch at little pieces of the future rather than think about it in the round. So that's the reason I've written this book.

QUEST: When you go into those rooms and they say, look, this is our research because it's all research based, and this shows us what people

will be looking at and doing in the future. What is it that they blind themselves to?

FOSTER: Well, the reason the book is called "Could, Should, Might, Don't" is that I feel that people fall into one of those four pockets. They think

about what they could do. They think about what they should do. They think about what they might do, and they think about what they don't do. But they

typically don't do it all in the round. And I think based on the sort of discipline you're in or the job you have or your training, you tend to be

drawn to one of those four corners, which I think leads to stories and ideas and prophecies about the future that feel unbalanced.

QUEST: But you do have to make a decision.

FOSTER: You do.

QUEST: And that's the difficult part.

FOSTER: Absolutely.

QUEST: Because it can only be airy fairy for so long before you've actually got to decide on.

FOSTER: Airy fairy. Nice.

QUEST: But you know what I mean though?

FOSTER: I do.

QUEST: Before you've got to sign on the dotted line and build the bloody thing.

FOSTER: Absolutely. You always have to end with some sort of decision.

QUEST: Right.

[16:40:02]

FOSTER: I also believe that doing the thinking and doing the work can lead to some sort of cultural change in organizations, too, though, can lead to

sort of deeper contemplation and deeper understanding of the sort of space of the future, rather than saying, this is exactly right, and this is where

we're definitely heading.

QUEST: Can it also end up with institutions that the line I always use to describe it is like our parents' disco dancing, wearing an ill-fitting wig,

trying to be something they are not?

FOSTER: Yes.

QUEST: And do you warn them about that?

FOSTER: I do. I think that thinking about the future isn't the central part of very many businesses, and certainly not with the detail and rigor that

I'd like to see. And we do find that people rely quite heavily on things like what I call numeric fiction. This idea of using numbers from the past

to sort of predict the future. And I think that leads to a sort of unbalanced level of certainty about the future, which we all know not to be

true.

QUEST: But as I looked at the book, and I see here, ideologies can act as phenomenally useful social constructs. And you talk about Karl Marx. And

then I suddenly, hang on a second. If he's talking about future, or at least postulating the future, we really are talking about ideology.

FOSTER: I believe so.

QUEST: And I'm not taking you into deep political waters gratuitously. But you know, who would have foreseen MAGA turning into what it's turned into

with everything that's followed on from it? And now, as we -- if you're looking at the future now in Europe and you're talking about populism and

you're talking about immigration, that's as much as real as whether we're going to have the next iPhone or whatever.

FOSTER: Yes, absolutely. I'm a designer. I come from a technology background. But typically --

QUEST: Right. But do you shy away from those (INAUDIBLE)?

FOSTER: Not shy away from. I think it's all part of, again, thinking rigorously about the future, being open to many different stimulants from

different directions. What I would say is that I think we sometimes -- we sort of forget to ask people their ideologies before we start using words

like better. So I've been in meetings with people from lots of different, diverse backgrounds. Computer scientists, physicists, investors, MBA type

people. And we all start talking about this would be better without really going around the room and checking that we all have the same fundamental

version of what better might look like.

And that's an ideological stance. So I think we all need to take that extra step when we're talking about what we want to build in the future, what we

want the future to look like, and just check that we all hold the same North Star because often it's not true.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

QUEST: Fascinating, fascinating. And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. I'm Richard Quest in New York. Whatever you're up to in the hours

ahead, of course I hope it is profitable. "CONNECTING AFRICA" is next.

This is CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:45:52]

(CONNECTING AFRICA)

END