Trump’s Korea Pivot, Chinese AI, Summer of Heat

The Jonas KI Abron side builder sets the idea quickly and just patch it on the app website or digital tool.

The KI Bought it and with only one click on the live. Domain and sichre's hosting of European Surveign Inclusive. Now let's take a look at EuroPromona. Of Jonas.de/at. Jonas, digital on your side.

This is GPS, the global public square. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Farid Zakaria coming to you from New York. Today on the program.

“Why did the United States cut short a military drill with a major Asian ally?”

Apparently, to avoid offending the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-woo, I'll dig into this strange decision with a top expert on Korean affairs. Then we'll stay in Asia and zero in on China to look at that country's competition with the United States for global tech supremacy around AI. The New Yorkers of Ebonosios did a deep dive of reporting and has some important insights to share.

Also, I was climate change related to the heat and the fires we've seen around the world this summer.

Finally, a Nobel Prize-winning economist raised in on American democracies decline.

But first, here's my take. I went to see Christopher Nolan's new movie The Odyssey to watch a summer blockbuster and it more than delivered. I did not intend to comment on the various controversies around the movie, from the attacks that it is woke to the historical inaccuracies in it. For goodness sake, it's nearly 3000-year-old yarn that is filled with gods and goddesses,

one-eyed giants and lots of magic. But as reclients commentary on the movie, we did lead me to think about the broader issues the movie raises,

“which strike me as interesting and important.”

Client argues that the critique of Nolan's Odyssey has woke, because he casts a black actress to play Helen, is trivial and superficial. But the movie is liberal in a more profound sense. Nolan fundamentally inverts the morality of the ancient world in which conquest and victory was celebrated unabashedly and replaces it with the morality that is more nuanced.

While Homer's Odysseus was constantly lauded for his clever, guileful ways, Nolan's Odysseus is haunted by the ravages of the war, and by his own deceit that was at the center of the victory, the Trojan Horse. Beginning with Christianity, the West gradually replaced the pagan ethic of naked conquest and domination, with one centered on universal human dignity, compassion and empathy.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth, says the gospel of Matthew,

“words that no Homeric hero would ever utter.”

Pre-Christian values are having a revival these days. As the populist right often joined in by a new cadre of tech billionaires, look back with admiration to an older world in which strength, domination and victory mattered more than empathy or equality. For Donald Trump, winning is all that matters, justifying all means.

He uses the word incessantly. In a 60-minute interview in 2018, when asked about his demeaning comments about Christine Blasie Ford, the woman who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, Trump said simply, "We won. It doesn't matter. We won." In a best-selling book, Suicidal Empathy,

God-sad, one of Elon Musk's favorites on X, argues that the West is declining because it cares too much about too many outsiders, minorities, even its foes. In fact, the greatest moral achievement of the West over the last two millennia, and especially since the Enlightenment,

has been the expansion of the circle of people who are considered fully human, having equal dignity and equal rights. We've come to recognize the humanity of people once dismissed as slaves,

and second-class citizens, foreigners, women, racial minorities,

people with different sexual orientations. These ideas spread throughout the world, because they are in the words of the Declaration of Independence self-evident.

But there is a serious critique buried beneath the crude maga attacks.

It is one that needs to be leveled, and it's being reprised by some of the tech pros today. Nietzsche worried that Christianity's egalitarian ideas made us less likely to be wildly ambitious, risk-seeking, even reckless.

“Have we become so humane that we've lost the primal urges that made us heroic?”

We should not romanticise civilizations built on blood, going conquest simply because they produced heroes. But they built more than that. The pyramids, the Gothic cathedrals, the voyages of discovery,

the Industrial Revolution, emerged from societies animated by ambition,

confidence and a willingness to sacrifice. They often came with hierarchy and a single-minded focus on greatness. Some of populism is appeal today, lies less in specific policies than a promise to restore national greatness, to build, to achieve, to win.

But must we choose between greatness and goodness?

“After all, Western nations in the 19th and 20th century were the most liberal societies in human history in their day.”

And they were hardly timid. They built railroads across continents, abolished slavery, industrialized the world, rebuilt Europe and Japan, landed men on the moon, built the atomic bomb, and created the internet. Think of America in the mid-20th century that created the modern welfare state,

defeated fascism, built highways and airports, battle communism, and began to dismantle the legacy of slavery. These were civilizations of immense ambition. Liberals should not apologize for believing that every human being possesses equal dignity. The great liberal democracies of the 19th and 20th centuries managed to expand our moral universe

while also expanding our physical universe. The challenges to recover that older liberal tradition. This spirit will surely be needed as we build out what may be the most transformative technology ever, or official intelligence, because we will need to make sure that not only is it awesome in its power, but also that it is rooted in a system of ethics and values that prizes human dignity and equality,

just those values that Christianity pioneered and the West enhanced so powerfully. We don't need to go back to Homer, recovering the spirit of Franklin Roosevelt would be enough. Go to Faridzekaria.com for a link to my Washington Post column this week, and let's get started. Joint military exercises between the United States and South Korea drew to a close-on Friday nearly a week ahead of schedule at the orders of Donald Trump.

In a post on true social last weekend, he wrote that he was scaling back the drills, because they sent a signal that is quote totally inappropriate and hostile, unquote, to North Korea. A country he wrote was quote "unthreatening and respectful," unquote. The exercises which have in the past involve tens of thousands of troops,

are designed to test South Korea's response to a potential North Korean attack. The decision appeared to take South Korea by surprise. Joining me now to discuss all of this is Victor Cha. He was a member of the last Republican president, George W. Bush's National Security Council from 2004 to 2007, where he was involved in negotiations with North Korea.

He's also the co-author of an important book, Korea, a new history of South and North.

Victor, welcome. First give us a sense of how this is being received in South Korea.

They must be startled to say the least. Yes, for either definitely startled by it. But for the South Korean president who does have a good relationship with Trump, if what Trump is doing leads to a meeting between him and the North Korean leader, for the South Korean president, that's a good thing. He wants to see that.

So it's a bit of a mixed bag. And is there, I mean, this is the symbolism, of course, as terrible.

“Is there a actual military price that gets paid here?”

Because my understanding is that these kind of military exercises do serve a useful purpose. Yes, they do. For read, this exercise in August is the single largest annual military maneuver exercise

And if you don't do it, then the military doesn't have the same level of readiness, which affects deterrence on the peninsula. Give us a sense of what has happened in North Korea over the last few years. I mean, is there any softening in North Korea,

“either in terms of external policy, fewer missile tests?”

Internally, I think they have still 150,000, somewhere between those two numbers, political prisoners. So is there any reason to be, is there a thought that you see that, you know, maybe this is directed toward? It's an interesting question.

I would say there are two things that have changed from the general situation with North Korea.

The first and probably the most significant is this relationship that Kim Jong-un has created

with Vladimir Putin. They are basically allies in the war in Ukraine. This is something that started in about 2022, and has really flourished. So that's a major, major development. The second with regard to any sort of softening is that as President Trump mentioned, Kim Jong-un

“has been relatively quiet in terms of nuclear tests and ICBM tests during President Trump's”

time and office in his second term. During the Biden administration, there was no diplomacy, and there were many, many North Korean provocations. And even in the first year of Trump's first term in office, there are many, many provocations. So they have seemed to take their foot off the accelerator, if you will,

when it comes to these weapons demonstrations, at least in the first year and a half or so of the second term.

And Trump seems to be looking for a deal. He mentioned that North Korea has 57 nuclear missiles, a kind of very specific number that I hadn't heard before. And that he's okay with essentially normalizing them as a nuclear weapon state with 57 nuclear missiles. Yeah, so it's very interesting that President Trump takes two different approaches to Iran and North Korea in Iran. He's very absolutist. They cannot have a nuclear weapon.

But in the case of North Korea, he's demonstrated some flexibility. He's referred to North Korea as a nuclear power. He also calls for denuclearization in the end.

“But I think he's taking a much more pragmatic approach, which says,”

"I need to deal with the threat and I can't sort of wait for a denuclearization to happen because that's not going to happen anytime soon." Do you believe having negotiated with the North Koreans that you could imagine a significant deal, whether it were to agree to any kind of path even to denuclearization? It will not be easy for sure to try to negotiate denuclearization with North Korea. Having said that, there are a lot of immediate things that we could try to address,

like trying to get them to stop producing more missile material for nuclear weapons, trying to attenuate the relationship with Russia, and trying to ensure there is no nuclear accident or nuclear first use. In the region, as North Korea grows, as a nuclear power. So there's a lot of homework that could be done in initial negotiations that may not say denuclearization,

but they are very important and tangible for U.S. national security.

Victor Cho, always a pleasure to talk to you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next on GPS, we'll turn to China and it's raised with the U.S. for global AI supremacy. Who will win? Everyone else will tell us in a moment.

The real business idea is there, but it's time to try to find a program. Why? The UNSKI-Apronciate Builder sets their ideas quickly and simply patch up a game on app, website, or digital tools. The KI-Boutes and with more than one click-it-a-slif.

Domain and sicheres hosting on European server inclusive. Now turn up 9-euro promo-natch-starten on the UNSDE/app. The UNS, digital and your site. To have I got news for you ears, the podcast I am your host Michael Ian Blackt. What are we going to talk about? Let's get into it. We're talking about.

We're back at war with Iran. And Trump has the AI-slop videos to prove it. Dan Driscoll quits, right when we learned who he was. Trump's midterm plans involved several unpopular things. himself and data centers.

Have I got news for your ears? Check us out on Apple and as a music. Wherever you can watch, the podcast on Spotify. The struggle for global supremacy between the US and China

And nowhere is this more evident than in the race to lead the world in AI.

While Silicon Valley remains dominant, last month the Chinese start-up moon shot released an AI model that rivals those from anthropic and open AI. AI has also been widely incorporated into everyday life in China from robot cashiers to highly advanced surveillance systems. So how has China managed such feats?

I'm joined by Evan Osno, staff writer, the New Yorker, longtime China watcher who lived there for eight years. Welcome Evan. You went back and shed some light on this question that many people were wondering about, which is, China spends maybe a tenth as much as the US on data centers.

It doesn't have the most advanced computer ships. Yet its best model seemed very close to the best American models.

“Maybe six months away. How is it managed to do this?”

Well, this has caught Americans by surprise a couple of times over the last couple of years. They remember there was of course the deep seek moment. This was the first time a Chinese model was demonstrating that kind of capability and then most recently from a firm called Moonshot. And this is especially striking because they have less capital at their command.

They also, there are export controls, of course, on some of the most powerful chips in the world.

So, look, they have been accused by American AI makers of what's called distillation of essentially unfairly copying American products. And at the same time, there is a recognition now across Silicon Valley and in Washington that China has been able to make much faster gains than we had expected. And I think that's partly because of a kind of focus at the leadership level.

They have been dedicated to this really for 10 years. In this 10-year period for read turns out to be decisive because they have been able to make much faster progress than the United States expected.

“And you know, they have, what are the three things you need for AI?”

You need compute that is chips, you need energy and you need human talent. And seems to me the China has lots of human talent at the very highest levels in computer science. It clearly has much more energy, I think it has 10 times as much installed electricity than the United States or some such number. What it didn't have was the most advanced computer chips.

What did they say about how they got around is that they're managing to get it in because they imported via, you know, Southeast Asian countries. Or is it that the indigenous chips are good enough to get them a long way? It's a combination of both of those, but it is also a larger strategic shift.

In some ways, this is a story that started during the first Trump term.

That was a period when you'll recall the first trade war. It was a real wake-up call in Beijing because they said to themselves, "Look, we are entering a period of greater strategic competition with the United States. We have to become more self-reliant. We don't want to have to rely on them as much as we do now."

At the moment, it was a kind of memorable contrast where the United States under Donald Trump. The first time was setting aside what had been the first federal plan for AI. And at the same time, it had because it had been conceived under the Obama administration. But at the same time, China was adopting its first federal plan for AI. And 10 years later, we see some of the fruits of that.

“So look, I think even if you set aside the hype, and China is very good at hype,”

we have to be clear-eyed about the progress they've made or we're going to be caught flatfooted. Is it also possible that this whole idea of a race is kind of misconceived? Because we're going to have AI, they're going to have AI, the whole world is going to use AI for all kinds of things. I mean, if people often make the electricity analogy, it seems to me nobody really won the electricity race, even though Thomas Edison did start it and he built a company general electric that did well.

But I mean, the Soviet Union electrified, what do you think of the idea of this as a race and do the Chinese think of it as a race? Yeah, in some ways, the conversation in Silicon Valley is very different than the conversation you hear in places like Beijing and Shanghai. In Silicon Valley, there's a lot of talk about achieving artificial general intelligence or a decisive strategic advantage. The idea that there might be someday where we cross the tape and therefore the game is ours. In Beijing, they see it quite differently.

They say what we're doing is trying to get it out into the economy already as diffused as possible. And I saw it on the ground. Look, you can go to a Chinese car factory today and you'll see that they have made this shift towards robots much more decisively than we have in the United States.

That means their unit per production is lower and that means then that they're more competitive around the world. And that in some ways is the ball game is not just in this US China race, as you say, but it's in developing countries. It's in Africa and Latin America and many other places to come.

Evan Osnos, always a pleasure to hear from you. Come back soon.

Thanks for it. Glad to be with you. Next on GPS, this Somosore record heat and raging wildfires in many parts of the world.

“What road did climate change play? What can we do about it?”

I'll discuss with the climate scientist when we come back. Max, the indeed easy. Now of indeed point to A/recruiting. It has been an extraordinarily hot and fiery summer. Spain experienced its largest wildfire on record, while firefighters in France struggled to put out multiple massive fires.

Scourching wildfires across Canada, blanketed American cities and thick smoke, causing air pollution levels to spike. And it wasn't just smoke from the north that affected the US. Around 7.5 million acres have burned here already this fire season. That's more than 50% higher than the 10 year average. And then there is the heat.

20, 26, so the hottest July on record globally since 1850 is this our new normal. Joining me now is the climate scientist Katherine Hayho.

“Katherine, when you hear all these statistics, particularly around fires, how should we think about what is causing this?”

We have always had wildfires.

And most of the wildfires we see in the lower 48 states these days are the result of accidental human ignition. But we have never had as hot dry conditions as frequently before. So as climate change increases the risk of fire weather, drying out our soil and our vegetation. It's the difference between accidentally dropping a match into a pile of green wet wood, when not much would happen. This is accidentally dropping that match into a pile of bone dry kindling that's been baking and record high temperatures for weeks.

That's the reason for the massive wildfires that we're seeing today across North America and Europe. So let me ask you about an influential piece in the Wall Street Journal by Beyond Longberg, who's an economist who has taken it up on himself to in his view debunk a bunch of the sort of myths around climate change. It says that the total global burn that is the number of acres that have burned down has actually decreased globally. And that, for example, Canada had fewer fires this year than its average.

What to make of that? Well, what he was doing there is he was doing something known as cherry picking, which is that you pick out only the numbers and information that justify your preexisting opinion. And you completely ignore the context of those numbers. So for example, in that article that you're referring to, he stated that the Canadian wildfires were not so bad this year. Well, actually we're only in August and it's already a top 10 year.

They're quite bad and we still have a number of months to go. He also cited the global numbers, but when you look at what's happening globally, you see that across North America and Europe. Wildfires are increasing in intensity and frequency driven by climate change. What we are seeing is that in Africa and Southeast Asia, wildfire is decreasing because of changing agricultural practices. So rather than burning grasslands and burning forests to create more agricultural area, more sustainable agricultural practices are actually reducing wildfire in some parts of the world, which is great.

But at the same time, climate change is boosting it up. So one of the points he made that I was sort of surprised by was he said, air pollution deaths are declining.

“He cited a Lancet article on that. Is he is he correct?”

So air pollution deaths occur from two main causes.

The first cause is the burning of fossil fuels and that is responsible for millions of deaths a year and that is not declining.

So as cleaner cook stoves and more sustainable practices become more widespread in low income countries, that is thankfully reducing people's need to burn brush and wood indoors.

So that's a great direction that we're heading in, but at the same time we see the air pollution from wildfire smoke and from burning fossil fuels continues to tick up. So the other kind of argument not just him but lots of people make is that the effort it would take to reduce emissions and therefore have an effect on climate change is so expensive and the payoff would be so small.

“That is really not worth it that there's already so much baked into the atmosphere literally and figuratively and you know the efforts would be you'd be spending so much money decarbonizing the economy that it's not worth it. What do you think?”

Well, those are very common denial arguments there's actually five flavors of climate denial number one it's not real number two it's not human caused number three it's not so bad number four we can't fix it and number five it's too late. So what you've just cited there is number four we can't fix it and that is a myth we absolutely can fix it in fact an Oxford study two years ago found that if the world transition to clean energy we would save at least 12 trillion dollars and the faster we do it the more money we'd say.

That's not even looking at the impacts of climate change which just getting back to wildfire smoke alone total tens of billions of dollars in the US and Canada alone there's no question that we can transition and we must and when you look at countries like China they installed more clean energy last year than the entire rest of the world put together. The transition is happening the question is will it happen fast enough to protect us from the increasingly severe impacts of climate change.

Katherine here you always bring clarity to a complicated subject thank you.

Thank you for having me. Next on GPS the health of America's democracy is declining. What can be done about it a Nobel Prize winning economist offers his ideas when we come back.

“The right ideas are on the right side but it's time and program here. Why?”

The Jonas KI side builder sets the idea quickly and just patch it on the app website or digital tool.

The KI building and with only one click of life. Domain and sichre's hosting of europaixenshörvern in Closive. Now let's start your promo on jeno.de/at Jonas digital on your side. Ask the experts and they will tell you there is a clear trend. America's democracy is in decline. The freedom houses latest report that scores countries on political rights and civil liberties.

Give the US an 81 out of 100 countries low scores since that index began its current scoring system. The VDEM Institute goes further this year downgrading the US from a liberal democracy to merely an electoral democracy.

“So what is America? Nobel Prize winning economist Darn Asimoglu has a diagnosis and a prescription in his new book. What happened to liberal democracy?”

Welcome Darn. So you won your Nobel Prize really for pointing out that the countries that have done the best over the last hundreds of years are countries that found a way to build strong effective legitimate institutions. And liberal democracies are really the kind of poster child for that kind of development. Now you're writing about what went wrong with your poster child. So if you were to sum it up, what fundamentally has happened to liberal democracy that got you worried enough to write a book about it?

Thank you first of all for having me on the program and for asking that question which goes to the heart of it. Indeed, liberal democracy is a worthy subject to study because it has been so important for our achievements, our social achievements are really remarkable. I mean, if you think of where we come from, our ancestors lived, the ability of forming such complex society that are peaceful, provide public services and create the conditions for shared prosperity. That is just amazing and we really owe that to liberal ideas and liberal democracy. And the reason why I'm writing about liberalism's crisis is because I think it is so important for our future as well.

And the crisis, I think it's most visible if you look at people's views, Americans have such low trust in bedrock democratic institutions. They think liberalism's agenda doesn't work and some of its founding principles shared prosperity, public services and providing voice and self-government are all broken. And you argue, I've written a book, I had talked about how this was all the product of these revolutionary changes in technology and globalization, and it feels like your book is very compatible with that theory.

I've been building on the shoulders of giants indeed. No, because you say that to you that the technological changes, the digitization of the economy, they have completely transformed societies and as a result, liberal democracy, to many people seems I get has failed.

“And it's failed with sins of omission and commission. What are the omission and what are the commissions?”

So the sins of omission is that when globalization and especially digital technologies started complicating the building of shared prosperity, center left parties were passive. They did not tackle the questions of the age, which is how can we make digital technologies work for everybody.

They thought that this would just create better efficiency and everybody somehow ultimately through perhaps a trickle-down process benefit from it.

The commission came in the context of cultural politics, something that you have talked a lot about, which is that, you know, the it led to what I call social engineering, it took down agenda to create more homogenous values. There's nothing wrong in a diverse society like the United States or the UK, for cultural issues to be part of politics, they had to be.

“But the way you approached them, I think had to be more inclusive and more bottom up. And in the process, the sins of commission were really problematic because they sideline community.”

So this is an important point because that's a live political issue. Now what you're really saying is that the center left, which became increasingly college-ordinary college graduates, began to, if I may put it this way, look down on the non college educated.

The sort of force there, their cultural values on society that was perhaps not ready for it, perhaps did not agree with it, right?

I mean, that is so much of the tension in the democratic party even today between the so-called progressives and the mainstream. It's often on these cultural issues.

“Although I don't think the progressive versus mainstream divide really covers this because I think a lot of the focus there is about how moderate, how fast, how radical.”

But even the centers are not really reaching to the working classes. They're not really becoming more grounded in community.

You know, it wasn't part of every liberal idea, but if you look at the practice of liberal democracy and liberalism, and if you go back to its founding ideas from several centuries before, you see that community plays a very important role. Why, first of all, self-government is critical for liberal ideas. We cannot talk of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, but without giving people a way to actualize them. And how do you actualize them by making local decisions? So that was a key part of self-government and communities were very important.

There, pleasure, terrific book. It's my pleasure for it. Fantastic to talk to you. Next on GPS. As you just heard, it's hard to get Americans to agree about anything these days, but most seem united in one thing. They hate rid of data centers. Why are people so vehemently opposed to them? I will explore next. On the other hand, there is one issue on which most Americans seem to agree. How much does it have to do with it? Now for the last look. In this year of bruising polarized elections, there is one issue on which most Americans seem to agree. How much they hate data centers?

71% of them, including 63% of Republicans, say they don't want a data center anywhere near them according to Gallup. Everyone from Bernie Sanders to Steve Bannon opposes their unchecked growth. New York State Governor Kathy Hokel just issued the country's first statewide moratorium on building the largest data centers known as hyperscale centers. Governor Greg Abbott of Texas, a state which already has 335 data centers.

Part of the data center backlash is about the sheer scale and speed of the buildout. Artificial intelligence is powering the American economy and data centers power artificial intelligence.

“These facilities housed the servers and advanced chips needed to train AI models and process all the questions thrown at chatbots like Claude and Chad GPT.”

Many of these data centers are enormous. They all consume massive amounts of electricity and they are increasingly planned in rural communities. And because of the exponential growth of AI, we'll need more and more and more of them. As the Wall Street Journal notes projected AI capital spending my meta Amazon Microsoft and Alphabet will be 2.1% of GDP this year. That is more than the total US railroad buildout of the 1850s.

The writer Derek Thompson calls the AI buildout the biggest and fastest growing infrastructure project to offer lifetimes.

But the effort is meeting vehement resistance on the ground. Local officials who back data centers have received death threats, some have faced recall votes.

“On the other side, people voicing their opposition and local planning meetings have been arrested for disorderly conduct.”

Some of this vitro might be explained by the fact data centers are an unsightly physical manifestation of the wealth and power of big American tech companies in communities that often have been left behind. Social media feeds the outcry. People panic about these data centers draining water supply, taxing electricity grids and filling the air with noise pollution.

Some of these concerns are legitimate and others are less so.

And there are also benefits to these projects mainly in the form of local tax revenue. One county in Virginia hosts so many data centers that the area they are clustered around is nicknamed Data Center Ali. The county receives tax revenues from these projects equal to 45% of its entire operating budget. The writer Jasmine Sun traveled to Michigan and Wisconsin where some large data center projects are in the works. She writes that much of the anger she encountered from the residents there was based on mistrust that the local government would not act to protect their interests.

As some reports, the residents of Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, a village of about 27,000 people still feel burned from when the Taiwanese tech giant Foxconn acquired land there in 2017 promising to manufacture flat screen TVs and create 13,000 jobs. Neither the flat screen factory, no most of the jobs materialized. The village ran up huge debt to buy land and build out highways to service the project. Sun reports residents were unaware of the details of the project because the local government kept the Foxconn negotiations shrouded in secrecy.

Now Microsoft has acquired some of Foxconn's land to build a data center and people are worried it will be the same debacle all over again. What's astonishing about this moment is how different it feels from the tech boom of the 1990s, which was typified by a kind of heavy optimism about the future. As Paul Krugman notes, there was a huge amount of tech spending then too. The internet it was thought would democratize the world. For years later, many associate technology with oligopolies polarized discourse and the erosion of democracy. What happened? Well, in the intervening years, tech companies wealth grew unchecked.

They lobbied the government to leave social media unregulated and the conversations on these platforms turned toxic, driving political polarization and paranoia.

“And the truth is artificial intelligence is as scary as it is thrilling. Don't take my word for it. Many of the major tech CEOs themselves have worried about scenarios in which humanity itself is destroyed by AI.”

Perhaps then it's not shocking that Americans have heard those stories too and are in fact scared. When facing fears and problems like these, companies cannot reassure Americans that their larger interests will be taken care of. That is after a wide government exists. Artificial intelligence is too important to hold back. But it is also too important not to monitor and in some way regulate or else a crisis will erupt and then we will get panic and over regulation. Thanks for being part of my program this week. I will see you next week.

In 2024, a man was killed by the FBI. And to this day, the authorities have refused to say why. He was a father, an ex-husband, and a Russian born American citizen.

I'm CNN investigative reporter Isabelle Chapman, host of the new limited series, civilian or spy.

“They've noticed that he was communicating with people that were of concern to the FBI.”

Head over to the CNN presents feed and listen to our three-part series, civilian or spy.

Available wherever you get your podcasts.